Page 60 of 71 FirstFirst ... 1050555657585960616263646570 ... LastLast
Results 1,181 to 1,200 of 1405
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1181  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The problem, KAM, is that nearly everything you post is easily debunked by anyone who truly understands the functioning and financing of healthcare systems.
    Oh please go ahead and debunk them then. Please tell me how money will be created from thin air. Dazzle us with your wisdom and explain how you can magically violate economics 101.

    KAM
  2. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1182  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Still doesn't excuse your hypocrisy.
    Yes, very clever. Why don't you go ahead and explain exactly what I said is hypocritical instead of repeating your false claim.

    Let's pretend to be a grown up and state the two things that I supposedly said that contradict each other and are therefore hypocritical. If you aren't willing to do that then kindly shut your jabbering little mouth.

    Its not that I'm incapable of hypocrisy. If you actually can make a coherent statement, I'll cop to it.

    Of course you can't do that, because you've been caught making an idiotic statement. Since you aren't adult enough to admit that you've just been running your mouth, I'll spell it out for you.

    You said:
    This seems identical to the massive pack of lies about going to war in Iraq and keeping that war going...yet, interestingly, I heard not a peep from you about "incompetent buffoons who run Congress" at that time or about the last Congress.

    Here's the problem--I wasn't a poster here when we went to war with Iraq, nor during the last Congress. I joined here in June of 2009. We don't know each other outside of this forum (to my knowledge), so your making a claim against something that was impossible (not just false) to have happened.

    Are you able to understand this now, or are you insane? You can't compare something I said to something I couldn't possibly have done and call it hypocrisy.

    Now, take your medicine and own up to your nonsensical claim, and your subsequent name-calling (all it can be considering the impossibility of your statement). You are making a fool of yourself. I assure you I will forgive this silliness.

    Do you feel you've accomplished something? You've succeeded in distracting me, so congratulations.

    KAM
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1183  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Funny, very few people "choose" not to buy car insurance, yet, according to you, millions of people "choose" not to buy health insurance.

    The difference? Cost.
    Actually most States require auto-insurance, and before you get all excited about this, it is to protect OTHERS not yourself.

    And I'd also take this opportunity to point out that the COST of auto-insurance is reasonable because it is a legitimate Insurance model, whereas Health Insurance isn't. Its akin to insuring for Gasoline.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Fact: Average healthcare cost for a family of 4 is $17,000. Experts say that when health costs reach over 10% of income, it is difficult to keep health insurance. At $17,000, income would have to be $170,000 to make that 10% cut. That's WAY past middle class.

    Not surprisingly, the income range losing health insurance the fastest is those making $75,000/year--the middle class. It's not a choice--it's simple math and economics.
    Funny, then how MILLIONS of others seem to have health insurance. I happen to know someone--a family member who has only sporatic employment and yet somehow manages to get health insurance. It has a high deductible, but he still has it. So, it is quite possible, and remains a choice.

    KAM
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1184  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    A single payer system, where all this is inevitably headed, is cheaper than the current system and brings better quality and access. It works rather well in the vast majority of the industrialized world.

    There's no need to come up with new money--we're already paying for it; the money's just going to the wrong place.

    If we all just diverted the money we pay now towards a single payer system, everyone could get healthcare--without waits, without lifetime caps on amounts, without having to pay out of pocket, without going bankrupt, without anyone ever being uninsured, etc.

    EVERYONE.

    According to analyses by CBO, Lewin group, etc, we would actually save much more than the system we have now.

    I know at least 30 example countries where it works. Can you name a SINGLE place where your model works?


    DAZZLING COMPLETE
    Where does a direct payer system work? Yes, anywhere there is a free market system. The United States has a direct payer system for many things still.

    Your premise is flawed, because it assumes that the damage done by indirect payer schemes is inherent to the system, and it is not. The destruction of the Free market which inherently controls prices is the cause of these problems. Your solution--make that destruction complete. You argument is akin to stopping the pain of a gunshot wound by killing the victim--pain is gone, problem solved right?

    Your claims that we can do all of this with less money, simply by expanding the problem (indirect payment), is fantasy. But let me just assume for a moment that your claims are possible. Prove it. Construct a test model--the northeast for example and prove that its true. When all your claims come true, then we can implement it for the entire country.

    In fact--let's do a head-to-head comparison. Take half the country (those willing) and let them take part in your plan, and the others can try a Free market plan. I'd LOVE to see this.

    KAM
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1185  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Okay, I'm asking you now: Do you think the last administration was also trying to peddle a pack of lies and the Republican-lead Congress was made up of incompetent buffoons?
    Yes, two Congresses ago (when it was republican, not the last one as you stated) was made up of incompetent buffoons. However, having one opinion about one group and having a differing opinion about another group isn't hypocrisy. They wasted money, which is of course worse now.

    The Bush administration peddling a pack of lies about Iraq? No, I think they were incorrect about Iraq, but that's just my view. Before you get your undies in a bunch, you should realize that having two different opinions about two different administrations isn't hypocrisy. Second, the actual substance of the Bush Administration's position in regards to Iraq wasn't much different from the rest of the world (not the rhetoric, the facts they all shared). What to do about it was the difference.

    I think the relevant question is whether I am unhappy when government spends money stupidly, and the answer is yes--regardless of who is in office.

    KAM
  6. #1186  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Oh please go ahead and debunk them then. Please tell me how money will be created from thin air. Dazzle us with your wisdom and explain how you can magically violate economics 101.

    KAM
    Breaking news: the CBO grades the Senate health care bill.

    WASHINGTON, Nov 18 (Reuters) - The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of a sweeping U.S. Senate healthcare overhaul at $849 billion over 10 years, a senior Senate aide said on Wednesday.
    The CBO said the Senate plan, to be unveiled later in the day by Democratic leader Harry Reid, would reduce the deficit by $127 billion in the same period and extend coverage to 31 million uninsured people, the aide said
    Gee. Reducing the deficit. Covering 31 million uninsured. How awful.
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1187  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Again, I asked if you could name a country that has a healthcare model like the one you support. There isn't one. NOT ONE. So, what you're supporting is an intellectual experiment, not one ever used. Switzerland comes closest, but there are still very strong governmental regulations as to what is covered and drug costs.
    No, it isn't an intellectual experiment, because the idea isn't restricted to healthcare. You are making a discernment where none is appropriate. Secondly, although much has changed, people in the past did in fact just pay for their healthcare. Health insurance and relating it to work was the work of government and insurance companies hand in hand. Of course, no one wants to consider that.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    In fact, in the US, when the market is relied upon, like health insurance for the working population, it has failed--with increasing costs, increased administrative costs (20%) and profits (5%), people being uninsured, familiies becoming bankrupt, etc.
    No, you are not being truthful--the Free market is not and has not been in effect (excepting perhaps tiny bits) for Healthcare in the United STates for a long time and it didn't change because it failed. See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    As for a head-to-head comparison, it's not needed. We've already seen success. Look at the failure of healthcare for the working population in the US and the success of single payer in country after country after country.
    Yes, start being honest about the problems that exist in these systems and then we can talk. Denying that they exist isn't really an argument BTW.

    KAM
  8. #1188  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    I agree, and there is no reason for us to be in Iraq or Afghanistan right now. I thought Obama would have pulled us out by now. Unless he doesn't want to stop that spending?

    I know it was before you were born, but Reagan did not start any wars. He stimulated the economy by lowering taxes. He is the one who told Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall" setting in motion the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. He did spend a lot on the military causing the Russians to spend equally causing the breakup of their control of USSR.

    He was a much loved President (except most hated by socialist). Hopefully someone is out there who can bring back his ideas and right our economy once more. Check out those misery ratings by President.
    Are you kiding me? Reagan was one of the responsables of war in Afghanistan in the 80's! He finnanced wars all over the world to estimulate economy.
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1189  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    So ALL of the industrialized world, except for the US, has the WRONG system--even though it's cheaper and provides better quality than we do?
    I really don't care about the rest of the industrialized world, or what level of denial you engage in to pretend that they don't have their own problems, or that the situations are the same.

    KAM
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1190  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Thanks for confirming. Yup, it's hypocrisy.
    You eat Babies--see now, we've got equivalent arguments.

    KAM
  11. #1191  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Second, the actual substance of the Bush Administration's position in regards to Iraq wasn't much different from the rest of the world (not the rhetoric, the facts they all shared). What to do about it was the difference.
    ?! The non existent mass destruction bombs? Im sorry by that was a fact to US government and not a fact for "the rest of the world"...


    I think the relevant question is whether I am unhappy when government spends money stupidly, and the answer is yes--regardless of who is in office.
    Spend on healthcare? Go ahead! It's an investment.
    It's economy who should be on service of the people and not the opposite.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    So ALL of the industrialized world, except for the US, has the WRONG system--even though it's cheaper and provides better quality than we do?
    YES! Because is (somewhat) socialist! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1192  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    So, when the Bush administration spent an estimated $1 trillion over 10 years to get a minor drug benefit to the elderly was that stupid? How costing $3 trillion over 10 years for 2 wars? How about quadrupling the size of federal government, particularly with the creation of Homeland Security and filling it with all his friends? Stupid?

    Thanks for confirming. Yup, it's hypocrisy.
    Are you totally removed from reality?

    10 Years...it hasn't even been 10 years since Bush became President. Oh I understand--what the Democrat Congress and President are doing is Bushs fault. Right.

    Let me know when you've figured out what you are trying to say and how you think attributing this to me is in any way rational.

    Or don't, I'm tired of dealing with this sort of silliness.

    KAM
  13. #1193  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I really don't care about the rest of the industrialized world, or what level of denial you engage in to pretend that they don't have their own problems, or that the situations are the same.
    That's why nobody should be arguing anything with you.

    You think you live in a private ecosistem caled USA, free from all the economic dangers in the world. Yeahhhh I have guns and im big!!! Sorry to disapoint you... If US doesn't make a total revolution you will be left behind by Europe and even South America. You've seen Euro kick Dollar in the but (imagine how harder it would be if Switzerland and England have adopted it), now sit down my friend and watch Sucre detroy your economy.

    You are in serious trouble and you have to start somewhere: economy and healthcare structure is a priority on this.
    Last edited by glorifiedg; 11/18/2009 at 04:36 PM.
  14. #1194  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Maybe I'm not being clear. You're a great guy, Clem, and I know you're passionate about this. I invite you to take a moment and please review this study. It's not partisan, it has data clearly tabled and methodology defined in detail. It doesn't prove or disprove my position, but I think it's an eye opener for both of us.
    Micael....thanks for the link to the study, and I agree that the number of uninsureds that are discussed are usually way overblown. However, in my job I do run into people who honestly want coverage but simply can't get it. In most of the cases I see it isn't because of expense, but rather due to pre-existing health conditions. I'm not making this up, just real life experiences. Now, I also run into people who simply don't want to spend a dime on coverage and could easily get the coverage. I can't worry about those folks because they had the opportunity to get the coverage but opted out.....but I do worry about those (regardless of their income) that simply can not get coverage or have conditions excluded from coverage. Not easy facing those people.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  15. #1195  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Breaking news: the CBO grades the Senate health care bill.



    Gee. Reducing the deficit. Covering 31 million uninsured. How awful.
    Gee. Tell women to stop going for mammograms if they're under 40.

    How wonderful.

    What does that tell you about how the govt will make decisions once they have CONTROL over healthcare and compensations in the US?


    Leave it to the liberals. Pfft.

    Hundreds of thousands more would die unnecessarily under this type of COST EFFICIENCY obamacaare but hey, at least we're cost cutting, right?
  16. #1196  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214 View Post
    Gee. Tell women to stop going for mammograms if they're under 40.

    How wonderful.

    What does that tell you about how the govt will make decisions once they have CONTROL over healthcare and compensations in the US?


    Leave it to the liberals. Pfft.

    Hundreds of thousands more would die unnecessarily under this type of COST EFFICIENCY obamacaare but hey, at least we're cost cutting, right?
    I've got a suggestion for you. First, learn a little something about screening tests for breast cancer. Second, read my post on the issue earlier in this thread. Third, educate yourself about risk/benefit equations and calculate the costs of useless breast biopsies. Then maybe someone might pay attention to your opinion about this. You know nothing and act as if you do. In fact, except for one of the moderators who expounded on Medicare without even knowing what it was, you have written the most uneducated post in this thread. Congrats! And welcome, you've got company in this thread.
  17. #1197  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214 View Post
    Gee. Tell women to stop going for mammograms if they're under 40.

    How wonderful.

    What does that tell you about how the govt will make decisions once they have CONTROL over healthcare and compensations in the US?


    Leave it to the liberals. Pfft.

    Hundreds of thousands more would die unnecessarily under this type of COST EFFICIENCY obamacaare but hey, at least we're cost cutting, right?
    Tell you what, smart guy....start here. This is from the Cochrane Collaboration, the most respected evidence-based group in the world, composed of respected world authorities in their fields.

    Link

    Screening is likely to reduce breast cancer mortality. As the effect was lowest in the adequately randomised trials, a reasonable estimate is a 15% reduction corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 0.05%. Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. To help ensure that the women are fully informed of both benefits and harms before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on Nordic Cochrane Centre.
    I wish I could apologize, but you are the ultimate example, and only a little more extreme than the rest of these so-called experts discussing what kind of health care system we should have. You don't know, and the worst thing is you don't know that you don't know. Allow me to tell you. You don't know what you're talking about. And by the way...the US Preventive Services Task Force did not recommend not doing mammograms on people under 40, but those between 40 and 50. They have NEVER been recommended for people under 40. If you're going to show your ***, at least get the facts right.
    Last edited by davidra; 11/18/2009 at 05:57 PM.
  18. #1198  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Micael....thanks for the link to the study, and I agree that the number of uninsureds that are discussed are usually way overblown. However, in my job I do run into people who honestly want coverage but simply can't get it. In most of the cases I see it isn't because of expense, but rather due to pre-existing health conditions. I'm not making this up, just real life experiences. Now, I also run into people who simply don't want to spend a dime on coverage and could easily get the coverage. I can't worry about those folks because they had the opportunity to get the coverage but opted out.....but I do worry about those (regardless of their income) that simply can not get coverage or have conditions excluded from coverage. Not easy facing those people.
    Yeah...I notice Micael, or you for that matter, have not addressed the fact that the sponsoring agency for this "study" is a right wing front group. But I am still totally supportive of your opinion on this....because you DO have real-life experiences. It's amazing how that can color your opinions instead of blathering and philosophizing with no frame of reference. Go Tigers. Beat the Cocks.
  19. #1199  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I wish I could apologize, but you are the ultimate example, and only a little more extreme than the rest of these so-called experts discussing what kind of health care system we should have. You don't know, and the worst thing is you don't know that you don't know. Allow me to tell you. You don't know what you're talking about. And by the way...the US Preventive Services Task Force did not recommend not doing mammograms on people under 40, but those between 40 and 50. If you're going to show your ***, at least get the facts right.
    It's worst than that! They don't know, they don't know that they don't know and they don't want to know!!! Here's a crass example of that:

    I really don't care about the rest of the industrialized world, or what level of denial you engage in to pretend that they don't have their own problems, or that the situations are the same.
    On breast cancer, that subject was on the headlines here. The task force concluded that the previous recommendations of mammograms begining on 40 were correct. This issue was clearly raised by insurance companies and this is the proof that this system doesn't work. Private sector is making assumpssions based on false science just to save money. They want women to do mammograms only by their 50s because of profit and nothing more.

    Offtopic: Do you work on the health sector davidra?
  20. #1200  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Now, I also run into people who simply don't want to spend a dime on coverage and could easily get the coverage. I can't worry about those folks because they had the opportunity to get the coverage but opted out.....but I do worry about those (regardless of their income) that simply can not get coverage or have conditions excluded from coverage. Not easy facing those people.
    Very smart of you! What about the kids of this "folks" "who simply don't want to spend a dime on coverage and could easily get the coverage". They have to pay for the parents errors?

Posting Permissions