Conquer Club

Snorri1234 wrote:

Titanic wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:You know Player, that entire post was unnecessary. I was simply pointing out that the bill that was being circulated had in it a public option that, as I indicated before, would turn into public-only (people kept their insurance until they left their jobs, etc., etc). Therefore, it was socialized healthcare. That's all I was referring to; not whether socialized healthcare was bad (I think it is, at least for the US), not whether you hated corporations, not whether other countries succeeded in providing healthcare universally. Simply that the public option in the current bill would turn it into a public-only plan.

Is that actually true? I've only heard of that on here. I thought the bill said after your current plan expires your new insurance will have to meet the conditions set out in the bill, not that you have to join the public plan.

It's not actually true.

That's, in fact, propaganda.

socialism is never called socialism. It is always called something else....something that feels good.....something thats good for everybody........something for the common good.........people with money have to pay a little more........some people dont have enough money.........SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND!

SSSOOOCCCIIIAAALLLIIISSSMMM

Ta!

Phatscotty wrote:socialism is never called socialism. It is always called something else....something that feels good.....something thats good for everybody........something for the common good.........people with money have to pay a little more........some people dont have enough money.........SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND!

SSSOOOCCCIIIAAALLLIIISSSMMM

Ta!

Most people don't piss themselves in fear when a socialistish type policy is mentioned. I prefer not to use the word because (in America, at least) people will label a socialist idea as bad before they've considered it. It's just a nono word. You might as well call your idea Satanist for all the popularity it will bring you.

Titanic wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Simply that the public option in the current bill would turn it into a public-only plan.

Is that actually true? I've only heard of that on here. I thought the bill said after your current plan expires your new insurance will have to meet the conditions set out in the bill, not that you have to join the public plan.

It's as true as having socialized (public plan) education has eliminated private educational institutions. In other words.. not. A public plan would, however, require insurance companies to provide more BANG for each BUCK rather than monopolize the industry with their "good ol' boys, we'll scratch each others' backs and we'll all get rich setting prices" current trend. Similarly, a private school or university that does not provide adequate educational formats for the price does not stay viable because there are public options.

The idea that "socialized health care" would put private insurance out of business is a scare tactic insurance companies are feeding so that they can continue their current price gouging trends. As proof, Medicare is a current system of public-plan health insurance which most seniors choose to participate in, yet even Medicare has spun off an entire industry for private insurance companies to provide "supplemental insurance" to those who can afford a supplemental plan. Meanwhile, Medicare also guarantees each senior citizen some MINIMUM level of health care.

But you know, I think kids are as important as grandparents; I think parents are as important as grandparents; I think aunts or could-be-aunts and uncles are as important as grandparents. In short, I'd like to see our country provide some minimum level of healthcare to everyone. Those who want more than the minimum should still be able to purchase it, just as those seniors who want a supplemental plan, and can afford it, purchase one.

One way to fund it would be the reduction of the need to process bankruptcies; most bankruptcies by private citizens are due to health care costs. If each citizen had some insurance, less bankruptcies to process; more docs get paid for their services; less costs to insure themselves against nonpayment losses; less need to hire collection agencies. That's probably why few physicians are against the idea of a public option. They'd like to make sure they get paid for what they do.

It is actually true. It's not propoganda. I read it in the bill. I quoted the part of the bill in other threads. I'm not going to do it again because it is probably a moot issue at this point. I'm a little disappointed that people still think it's propoganda. I'm especially disappointed because no conservative news radio talk show host or news station even discussed the portion of the bill that I'm talking about; probably because they did not read the bill.

thegreekdog wrote:It is actually true. It's not propoganda. I read it in the bill. I quoted the part of the bill in other threads.

And numerous people pointed out exactly how you were misunderstanding the bill.

We explained to Nobunaga, like, three times.

Neoteny wrote:We explained to Nobunaga, like, three times.

... Explained what?

...

Timminz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:It is actually true. It's not propoganda. I read it in the bill. I quoted the part of the bill in other threads.

And numerous people pointed out exactly how you were misunderstanding the bill.

In fairness, while Nobunga and jay have outright misunderstood/ misquoted the bill, greekdog just disagrees on the outcome.

He does (if I misunderstood, correct me greek) not believe the bill directly creates socialism. He believes that socialism will be the result because it will not be possible for private companies to compete with the government.

Yes, that's right Player. I think the result of the bill, in 10 years or so, would have been completely government-run health insurance.

thegreekdog wrote:Yes, that's right Player. I think the result of the bill, in 10 years or so, would have been completely government-run health insurance.

But, isn't that based on the idea that once someone's private plan runs out (they lose their job, or what have you) they would not be able to get another private plan?

Timminz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Yes, that's right Player. I think the result of the bill, in 10 years or so, would have been completely government-run health insurance.

But, isn't that based on the idea that once someone's private plan runs out (they lose their job, or what have you) they would not be able to get another private plan?

Partially. It's based on the idea that the government, because it has virtually limitless resources because of taxation, can offer cheaper (and maybe better) plans than private insurance.

thegreekdog wrote:

Timminz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Yes, that's right Player. I think the result of the bill, in 10 years or so, would have been completely government-run health insurance.

But, isn't that based on the idea that once someone's private plan runs out (they lose their job, or what have you) they would not be able to get another private plan?

Partially. It's based on the idea that the government, because it has virtually limitless resources because of taxation, can offer cheaper (and maybe better) plans than private insurance.

But what about the countries that have a successful dual system?

Frigidus wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Timminz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Yes, that's right Player. I think the result of the bill, in 10 years or so, would have been completely government-run health insurance.

But, isn't that based on the idea that once someone's private plan runs out (they lose their job, or what have you) they would not be able to get another private plan?

Partially. It's based on the idea that the government, because it has virtually limitless resources because of taxation, can offer cheaper (and maybe better) plans than private insurance.

But what about the countries that have a successful dual system?

And what about people who rather pay money for awesome care than take the terrible government-run care?

Frigidus wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Timminz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Yes, that's right Player. I think the result of the bill, in 10 years or so, would have been completely government-run health insurance.

But, isn't that based on the idea that once someone's private plan runs out (they lose their job, or what have you) they would not be able to get another private plan?

Partially. It's based on the idea that the government, because it has virtually limitless resources because of taxation, can offer cheaper (and maybe better) plans than private insurance.

But what about the countries that have a successful dual system?

That's actually my idea (I think). I admittedly don't know much about any other systems, but I think someone mentioned Germany. I want a plan where the government takes care of the people that can't afford health insurance, imposes regulations making companies that do offer health insurance cover things like pre-existing conditions and long hospital stays, and some reform of the medical malpractice system. If that's what Germany has, do as the Germans do.

Heres what Obama-lovers don't understand. We know exactly what we are opposing. We also know for a fact, that MANY if not MOST supporters have a "general" idea of what they are supporting.

I trust the Government completely. They could never be wrong.

Some highlights from a recent article I read.....

"In the summer of 1965 President Lyndon Johnson went to Independence, Missouri to be with former president Truman while he signed the bill that created Medicare. The previous year, his administration had projected that Medicare would cost about $12 billion in 26 years, (including an allowance for inflation). Confident that this was an affordable plan, the nation was proud to make this entitlement available to its senior citizens.

By 1990, twenty six years after Johnson projected costs, Medicare’s actual tab was $110 billion, or almost 10 times the original projection. Now, Medicare costs U.S. taxpayers more than $400 billion, every year and, going forward, Medicare is expected to be insolvent by the year 2017."

Yes we can
Yes we can
Yes we can

PopeBenXVI wrote:I trust the Government completely. They could never be wrong.

Some highlights from a recent article I read.....

"In the summer of 1965 President Lyndon Johnson went to Independence, Missouri to be with former president Truman while he signed the bill that created Medicare. The previous year, his administration had projected that Medicare would cost about $12 billion in 26 years, (including an allowance for inflation). Confident that this was an affordable plan, the nation was proud to make this entitlement available to its senior citizens.

By 1990, twenty six years after Johnson projected costs, Medicare’s actual tab was $110 billion, or almost 10 times the original projection. Now, Medicare costs U.S. taxpayers more than $400 billion, every year and, going forward, Medicare is expected to be insolvent by the year 2017."

Yes we can
Yes we can
Yes we can

Si Se Puede!

thegreekdog wrote:That's actually my idea (I think). I admittedly don't know much about any other systems, but I think someone mentioned Germany. I want a plan where the government takes care of the people that can't afford health insurance, imposes regulations making companies that do offer health insurance cover things like pre-existing conditions and long hospital stays, and some reform of the medical malpractice system. If that's what Germany has, do as the Germans do.

Isnt that the exact plan Obama and the Democrats originally put forward?

Titanic wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:That's actually my idea (I think). I admittedly don't know much about any other systems, but I think someone mentioned Germany. I want a plan where the government takes care of the people that can't afford health insurance, imposes regulations making companies that do offer health insurance cover things like pre-existing conditions and long hospital stays, and some reform of the medical malpractice system. If that's what Germany has, do as the Germans do.

Isnt that the exact plan Obama and the Democrats originally put forward?

I don't know what you mean by "originally" since the bill that is "THE BILL" isn't that plan at all. Maybe that's what we're moving to and I wouldn't doubt it since President Obama is a very deft politician. He can play the conciliator and get a healthcare bill passed and say that he helped out all the poor and working class Americans who can't afford health insurance, which I think would be a good thing for him.

One point that keeps getting missed.. the largest cost for medicine today is not malpractice lawsuits or insurance. The biggest cost is plain filling out the paperword for all the various insurance company programs.

Titanic wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:That's actually my idea (I think). I admittedly don't know much about any other systems, but I think someone mentioned Germany. I want a plan where the government takes care of the people that can't afford health insurance, imposes regulations making companies that do offer health insurance cover things like pre-existing conditions and long hospital stays, and some reform of the medical malpractice system. If that's what Germany has, do as the Germans do.

Isnt that the exact plan Obama and the Democrats originally put forward?

No - no - our plan is all about telling seniors to die.

spurgistan wrote:

Titanic wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:That's actually my idea (I think). I admittedly don't know much about any other systems, but I think someone mentioned Germany. I want a plan where the government takes care of the people that can't afford health insurance, imposes regulations making companies that do offer health insurance cover things like pre-existing conditions and long hospital stays, and some reform of the medical malpractice system. If that's what Germany has, do as the Germans do.

Isnt that the exact plan Obama and the Democrats originally put forward?

No - no - our plan is all about telling seniors to die.

And anyone who is critical of President Obama is racist.