patrick.net

Ironman says

I like to rape goats.

Well, at least you admit your problem.

marcus says

One would think that corporations would support this. Why don't they ?

I suspect that most small businesses would welcome not having to provide health benefits and just paying a flat up salary or wage. The headache alone isn't worth dealing with health insurance.

I don't know about large businesses.

YesYNot says

While they are on a roll, Republicans should get rid of Bush's Medicare expansion. Why should we pay for the geezer's to load up on pills?

Contrary to popular belief, the Republicans do have a health care plan, at least for the elderly. Put old people on icebergs and set them to sea, and then let global warming take care of the problem. Two birds, one stone.

FortWayne says

I feel that I'm not responsible for your care if you brought it on by bad choices such as alcoholism, obesity, etc...

And for once, you have a point, although it's inarticulately stated. If health care costs are socialized, then unhealthy behavior like eating fast food or drinking soda costs taxpayer dollars.

However, this point is greatly mitigated by four important facts. First, the cost savings of socialized medicine far outweigh the incurred costs of unhealthy behavior. Second, the unhealthy behavior already costs taxpayer dollars in terms of decrease productivity and increase demand for health care in the private sector. Demand drives up costs for everyone. Third, socializing medical care would greatly reduce such costs by incentivizing preventative care. Right now every time someone gets cancer, profits go up. With socialized medicine the financial incentives would be to prevent the problems, and that's much cheaper than long-term care or surgery. Fourth, the vast majority of health care needs is not caused by "bad behavior", but by things a person cannot control. For example, Most Cancer Cases Arise from "Bad Luck".

In a study published on Thursday in Science, they double down on their original finding but also labor mightily to correct widespread misinterpretations of it. This time, using health records from 69 countries, they conclude that 66 percent of cancer-causing genetic mutations arise from the “bad luck” of a healthy, dividing cell making a random mistake when it copies its DNA.

The scientists go to great pains to explain that this doesn’t mean that two-thirds of cancers are beyond the reach of prevention. But understanding the role of these unforced errors “could provide comfort to the millions of patients who developed cancer but led near-perfect [healthy] lifestyles,” said cancer biologist Dr. Bert Vogelstein of Johns Hopkins University, senior author of both the original study and the new one. “This is particularly true for parents of children who have cancer” and might blame the tragedy on the genes they passed on to their child or the environment they provided, he said.

So, FortWayne, do you feel that you are responsible for the care of others brought on by bad luck? This is not a rhetorical question.

Blurtman says

To be fair, the so-called Blue Dog Democrats would also have blocked any efforts at single payer.

Which is why they need to be kicked out and replaced by people like Bernie Sanders.

Ironman says

15 year old pimply immature asshole

I may be an asshole, but I'm more mature than you and not nearly as ugly. And I'm sure as hell not 15.

Ironman says

mis-quoting people

Yes, I deliberately misquoted you to demonstrate how asinine you are for repeatedly misquoting me. And yes, taking a sentence fragment out of context to imply it says the exact opposite of what it actually does is misquoting. So you are a complete hypocrite.

Ironman says

Dan8267 says

Hardly. Quoting another baseless assertion

Contrast that to what Dan actually said

Hardly. Quoting another baseless assertion is not proof. And if big government is inherently so wasteful and ineffective, then slash the military budget by 90%. If you aren't calling for that, then you are for big government.

The world has never witness such great hypocrisy as piggy to express moral outrage at misquotes that demonstrate he is deliberately misquoting people. He is a morally bankrupt person, and a stupid one at that for thinking his lies could not be easily exposed, like he exposes himself to the animals at the petting zoo.

Dan8267 says

So, FortWayne, do you feel that you are responsible for the care of others brought on by bad luck? This is not a rhetorical question.

I believe that only bad choices that could have been avoided should not be socialized such as alcoholism, obesity, etc. Reward responsibility, punish irresponsibility. Bad luck isn't irresponsible, it's just shitty so hence it is ok. What does government do? Generally they reward irresponsible behavior, which is why I don't trust our government to get it right.

NO that's silly those that work in the Federal Heathcare system should be responsible for health. It shouldn't be anyone's business but theirs and yours.

Ironman says

Except Obamacare put 3/4 of new enrollees on Medicaid, significantly EXPANDING the number of people on FREE, unlimited healthcare (that YOU'RE paying for).

You don't get it.
You are paying for them, one way or an other.

Ironman says

Why should OTHER people have to contribute to the healthcare of people who VOLUNTARILY destroyed their bodies by stuffing their pie holes and NOT taking care of themselves??

That average people have limited will power is obvious and unchangeable.
Of course there are PhDs studying every ways to make food addictive and how to trick idiots into consuming gallons of sodas.
But of course you don't have a problem with that: it drives profit.
So you can't complain about the consequences.

Dan8267 says

Put old people on icebergs and set them to sea, and then let global warming take care of the problem.

APCOLYPSEFUCKCARE!!!

Ironman says

Well, finally a truthful statement

You really are incapable of being clever. Aren't you?

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

So, FortWayne, do you feel that you are responsible for the care of others brought on by bad luck? This is not a rhetorical question.

I believe that only bad choices that could have been avoided should not be socialized such as alcoholism, obesity, etc. Reward responsibility, punish irresponsibility. Bad luck isn't irresponsible, it's just shitty so hence it is ok. What does government do? Generally they reward irresponsible behavior, which is why I don't trust our government to get it right.

That's not what I asked you. I asked you, "do you feel that you are responsible for the care of others brought on by bad luck?". It's a valid question.

Unlike you, if I were gay I'd have no problem with it. And frankly, you'd be happier if you just came out of the closet.

Dan8267 says

That's not what I asked you. I asked you, "do you feel that you are responsible for the care of others brought on by bad luck?". It's a valid question.

I see. Well since you asked. I don't feel that it's a must, however I would not be opposed to the idea if it brings benefit to everyone (lowers costs for everyone through pooling). If it makes it cost more for me than I'll be selfish and oppose the idea naturally.

FortWayne says

If it makes it cost more for me than I'll be selfish and oppose the idea naturally.

And that's why you vote Republican. They embody that philosophy.

Funny how the Jesus lovers turn out to be the least compassionate, the most cruel, unforgiving and selfish.

FP says

Funny how the Jesus lovers turn out to be the least compassionate, the most cruel, unforgiving and selfish.

Subjecting people to government run health care(ie single payer) is the most cruel punishment of all.

joeyjojojunior says

FortWayne says

If it makes it cost more for me than I'll be selfish and oppose the idea naturally.

And that's why you vote Republican. They embody that philosophy.

It's because I'm honest about it. You liberals aren't, you want a handout and you want someone else to pay for you. The typical case of have nots wanting the haves to share with them. Not my problem. Try North Korea, where everyone "shares" in sacrifice, if that's the bondage you are looking for.

FortWayne says

If it makes it cost more for me than I'll be selfish and oppose the idea naturally.

Exactly. You are basically a selfish person that does not have any compassion for other people. However, you want to be viewed as a morally outstanding person. This is an internal conflict of interest. You don't actually believe in the teachings of your false god, that you are your brother's keeper and responsible for his well-being, but you want to be perceived as charitable because your god and religion demands it. This is Christian hypocrisy. If your religion actually promoted real morality, you would gladly sacrifice your own wealth for your neighbor.

Not only do you fail to live up to the morality your religion claims to hold dearly, but you lack the wisdom to realize that the practical benefits of socialized medicine far outweigh the costs to you. Because of economies of scale, reduced waste and needless competition, better coordination, and elimination of redundancies, socialized medicine would provide better health care for you at a lower cost. However, because you view economics as a religion with dogma that is unanswerable to empirical testing, you cannot accept this fact.

Your combination of false virtual signally, failure to grasp the mathematical and engineering properties of socialized versus capitalized medicine, and disregard for empirical evidence is why you consistently make foolish and incorrect conclusions. And you will continue to make these mistakes for as long as you treat politics and economics like a religion instead of like a science. You base your entire world view on your emotions rather than on frontal lobe thinking, and that is a failing strategy.

Dan8267 says

You are basically a selfish person that does not have any compassion for other people. However, you want to be viewed as a morally outstanding person. This is an internal conflict of interest. You don't actually believe in the teachings of your false god, that you are your brother's keeper and responsible for his well-being, but you want to be perceived as charitable because your god and religion demands it. This is Christian hypocrisy. If your religion actually promoted real morality, you would gladly sacrifice your own wealth for your neighbor.

Selfish, hardly... I do charitable work. That's not selfish Dan, it's just not being naive like most liberals, about how the world works. God does not require one to blindly sacrifice, god teaches love. Sacrifice isn't the only solution, nor it's always the right one.

Every government imposed "shared sacrifice" society is complete crap hole (North Korea), or already fell apart and rebuilding Capitalism (USSR).

As I said Dan, I'm just honest with myself. You liberals pretend that you have "Virtue" on your side, but you don't.

FortWayne says

I do charitable work.

Hahaha. Yeah, I know.

www.youtube.com/embed/mcdtVD8X1-A

I shouldn't have to be responsible for taking care of any body else's skeevy piss poor DNA, but they should all be responsible for taking care of mine.

Ironman says

Actually Obama did do that in the device industry, my past career, and destroyed the industry. O'Bozo decided to go after the low hanging fruit that was maybe 5% of the Medicare budget because we didn't have a powerful lobby like the physicians and hospitals.

So O'Bozo allowed the hospitals and physicians to bill Medicare like drunken soldiers, but was able to say, "see I reduced costs on necessary medical equipment". What a fucking piker..

You are confused. An excise tax is to raise revenue plain and simple. There isn't any cost reduction involved. Maybe the industry shouldn't have spent $40 million a year lobbying against the tax if they were concerned about profits. So how many medical equipment makers went out of business? I haven't seen that number. How much have sales fallen?

#2, only because this will draw in sick illegal immigrants to the hospital emergency wards, where ICE can set up vetting stations and intercept to deport. ( after treatment, of course)

Single payer which should provide basic medical care with catastrophic cost coverage.
Ability to "buy up" in quality and scheduling of care for those that can afford it. It is a bonus for those in society that produce vs those that don't do shit.
Do away with insurance companies and cap drug prices to pay for the whole goddamn thing.

Dan8267 says

cost savings of socialized medicine

The only reason this is a less than laughable point, is because we have destroyed our healthcare system w intervention already. We need far more free market spice in this soup, not less.

The free market fails miserably in markets with highly inelastic demand, such as health care.

Dan8267 says

Because of economies of scale, reduced waste and needless competition, better coordination, and elimination of redundancies, socialized

This is the promise of every socialized program. Its an evil lie.

joeyjojojunior says

The free market fails miserably in markets with highly inelastic demand, such as health care.

You can't blame free markets for healthcare destruction, given how there isn't anything close to a free market in healthcare.

"You can't blame free markets for healthcare destruction, given how there isn't anything close to a free market in healthcare."

I didn't. I said the free market does horribly in markets with highly inelastic demand, such as health care. So, it seems dubious to think that the free market will help things.

FortWayne says

Selfish, hardly... I do charitable work.

Use carrots to spread religious propaganda doesn't qualify as morality. Deep down in your heart, you hate people. Until you learn to empathize with other people, no virtue signally activity is going to change who you really are.

FortWayne says

You liberals pretend that you have "Virtue" on your side

True virtue comes from what you do, not what others think of you. What matter is what is virtuous, not who is virtuous. That's one point you keep missing.

FortWayne says

Sacrifice isn't the only solution, nor it's always the right one.

And the other point you are missing is that socialized medicine is not a sacrifice on your part. All empirical evidence demonstrates that socialized medicine is a cost savings to you while being more effective. It is in your own selfish interests and the interest of your family that health care is socialized. You just aren't wise enough to accept this despite all the evidence.

WOMEN CONSUME 30% MORE HEALTHCARE SERVICES THAN MEN

CBOEtrader says

The only reason this is a less than laughable point, is because we have destroyed our healthcare system w intervention already. We need far more free market spice in this soup, not less.

The military has fucked up many times. Does that mean we should disband the military?

The police have fucked up many times. Does that mean we should have no police?

This is a complete non-sequitur. The government implements some good polices and some bad policies; therefore, all polices that could possibly be enacted by the government must be bad. This is conservative right logic in a nutshell, and it's obviously wrong.

Instead of looking at whether or not a policy is implement by group A or group B, how about looking at the policy itself? The policy of socialized medicine has worked in other countries much better than the U.S. system. You statement that government policies must fail is empirically false. It is religious dogma, not engineering.

joeyjojojunior says

The free market fails miserably in markets with highly inelastic demand, such as health care.

Correct. The free market works in and only in situations where the following constraints are met.
1. Demand is highly elastic.
2. Substitute goods are readily available.
3. There are few barriers to entry.
4. There are many competitors.

Infrastructure and necessities never meet these constraints, and so free markets utterly fail at them. Free markets are best for luxury goods, electronics, software, low-skill services, restaurants, and similar things that the customer can simply walk away from if unpleased.

CBOEtrader says

You can't blame free markets for healthcare destruction, given how there isn't anything close to a free market in healthcare.

This is also true. We cannot blame free markets for the terrible healthcare system. We have to blame capitalism. The current health care system and the pre-ACA version are both the direct result of capitalism preventing free markets. Capitalists will always undermine free markets because rigged markets are more profitable and profit means everything. Capitalism and free markets are utterly mutually exclusive.

joeyjojojunior says

"You can't blame free markets for healthcare destruction, given how there isn't anything close to a free market in healthcare."

I didn't.

This is also true. Joey didn't make the claim that free markets caused this mess, but rather that free markets won't solve it, and he is correct.

There are huge costs to free markets, which is why we don't use them for sewers, the police, highways, traffic lights, the military, and lots of other things that fall into the categories of infrastructure or necessity. Hell, we don't even use free markets for agriculture. If you wanted more free markets, you should start there by revoking the farm bill and ending all farm subsidies. It's funny how republicans love to subsidize farms.

That's true. Jojo did...

Dan8267 says

This is also true. Joey didn't make the claim that free markets caused this mess,

BlueSardine says

That's true. Jojo did...

You cannot simply assert that. You must show it because it's quite clear to the rest of us that he did not say or even imply that. As such, you are making a straw man.

I said she said it.
You need to read the fine print...

Dan8267 says

You cannot simply assert that. You must show it because it's quite clear to the rest of us that he did not say or even imply that.