Let's play nice, now.

Discussion in 'The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr' started by armedandsafe, Oct 12, 2009.

  1. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    It just isn't fair to be using the truth against the Dems, ya know. Notice all the reasoned and logical answers to this.

  2. walien

    walien Former Guest

    May 5, 2009
    The study magically came out after the CBO noted that the healthcare plan would actually reduce the deficit over the next 10 years. Please remember that the insurance industry has a vested interest in any reform legislation passing. In this case, as with most other industries, the industry studies are rather tilted towards the industry point of view.

    It's not as if anyone didn't know that the insurance industry was going to be standing up against this....


    That's a nice little snippet of the article. Picture what a gun study would look like if it were paid for by anti-gun groups. They'd shop it around to find people who would tilt the study to their point of view and in the end, it would probably say that guns were the cause of kittens getting stuck in trees and cavities in children's teeth. Be very wary of studies that come from people who have a vested interest in their results.

  3. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Feb 17, 2005
    South Carolina
    That's funny. After careful examination in July by the head of the CBO, the concensus was that so-called 'health reform' (aka: radical socialization of health care) would actually cost the deficit trillions. That's when the (p)resident invited the head of the CBO, who is a professional economist when outside of this Administration's tether, to the White House for a sit down. Do I smell coercion?... Hmmm?... :confused:

    It's pretty amazing that they've changed their story now don't ya think, especially when they're counting on cuts in Medicare the size of which we've never made and cannot make without rationing of care?... :confused::rolleyes:

    It's probably a good thing that my grandmother did get her double knee replacement 2 weeks ago, before a 'public option' was available. :rolleyes:
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2009
  4. Airdale

    Airdale Active Member

    Mar 31, 2009
    N.W. Arkansas
    Oh sure it's those evil insurance companies with a hatchet job (anyone care to check their profit margins). They had been cooperating until the Senate changed the rules in they last two minutes of the game. You think it's bad now wait 'til the bill gets cobbled together with other Senate wish lists and then goes to conference with Nancy and her gang of wild eyed socialists (the nicest thing I could call them) we will have care that will make Canada's health care waits look like child's play .

    If, by any chance, you are forced to be on Medicare and this passes you are about to be screwed royally. Of course you won't be aware of it because the changes won't take effect for three years (after BO's next election). Of course the tax increases will go into effect immediatly to make future deficits look better. It's kinda like they are turning up the heat slowly on us fat and happy frogs.

    I'm getting tired of this administration painting legitimate industries as the enemy and evil Bogey Men. It's the laws and demands that state and federal governments have forced the insurance industry to operate under that are the the problem (much like the sub prime loans the banks were forced to make for mortgages).

    This next Tuesday I will be having my Prostate removed because of cancer and while I'me not looking forward to it I am damn well glad it's being done now and not five years from now. As the system exists now I had three choices of proceedures. I sincerely doubt that in five years I would have any choice, I would be offered the choice the government deemed appropriate (for my age and value to society)

    So go ahead and bad mouth the insurance companies but while I had private policies before being forced into Medicare I had few, if any, real complaints. Sure I had to deal with some pretty bad voice recognition systems and had trouble getting to the right person to take care of a problem. Somehow I think those problems will be multiplied a hundredfold when the gubment takes over...but that's just me remembering days at the DMV and such.

    I know some will look forward to the workers paradise be created for us slubs as for me I'd pass if I could. While some of you are bemoaning those evil profit mongering companies it might behoove you to ask a couple of questions.

    Why is the Senate and House exempting themselves from the rules that will be imposed on the great unwashed????

    Why won't this great takeover that has to be finished now because of some crisis take effect until after the next Presidential election???

    Why are they voting a bill out of committee that isn't even written yet and before anyone can read it???

    Many more questions exist but who cares as long as we get even with those dastardly insurers and all those unscrupulous Dr.s that are ripping out tonsils or amputating legs for bigger profits.

    Please excuse the rant. Needless to say I have very little patience with those that think the government will improve the healthcare system with their present plans. Somewhere not far away I can faintly here the chant "workers of the world unite" and it gets a little louder every day!
  5. You forgot the single most important question of all...Where, exactly, is the section of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do this?
  6. walien

    walien Former Guest

    May 5, 2009
    It's not the administration here. It's me. The insurance industry, like every other industry, exists to make profits for shareholders. They do not exist to further the health of the country. They don't exist to help people in need. They don't exist to ensure that everyone has coverage. They exist to make profits, so that their shareholders get return and their officers get paid. The insurance industry makes billions. They do quite well. You seem to think that they don't. They make a ton of money.

    In terms of the finance crisis, what exactly do you think a credit default swap is. The insurance industry has plenty of blame to bear in the financial crisis. You might want to look at how much the tax payers gave this insurance company. By the way, this was done under GWB just in case you want to blindly throw that at Obama too.

    I certainly feel bad about anyone's illness. Prostate problems will happen to every guy you know at some point. I certainly hope that you don't face issues like this couple.


    People with expensive health issues tend to get pushed out of insurance policies where insurance companies can. After all, they're a private company in business for profit and if you're not profitable, there's no business reason for them to keep you. At least if you qualify for Medicare, you will get taken care of. Otherwise, you might end up like the couple above.

    As for the government deciding care, I've lived in Canada and got Canadian coverage for quite a while. Doctors still decide care. Think what you want about the Healthcare debate, just remember that private companies that will always hire people to to make sure that legislation protects their profits. In doing so, they use PR firms that find the things that get the biggest emotional impact from people. Fear is one of those.

    By the way, I have private coverage. I have to get pre-approval for any major care. As such, someone who works for a company that loses profit by providing me benefits decides my care to a good degree. I'm not sure how anyone would have no fear of the insurance industry.
  7. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Feb 17, 2005
    South Carolina
    The problem everyone who supports a so-called public option is failing to realize is that you cannot usurp economic realities. If a public option is created, we'll rapidly see a system created like France has in place. In France, waiting times for procedures are long... VERY long. That was done to ration care. Also, the public system in France only pays 70% on average of the procedure's cost in an attempt to cover everyone. The 'have-nots' cannot always pay the remaining 30%. That fact has led to an emergence in supplemental insurance companies which are more rapidly accepted for treatment and pay the remaining balance of a procedure's cost.

    What you also cannot escape in any system, private or public, is that there will be a group of 'haves' and 'have nots' if blanket coverage is applied. You cannot escape the economic principle of scarcity which drives supply and demand pricing trends. If everyone is covered under some form of 'insurance' then I don't think you can call that 'insurance' at all. That's blanket 'socialization' of health care and the disparagement between classes will re-form by attempts at rationing of care and/or market force price level increases.

    Look at Medicare of today. Right now Medicare procedures pay $0.93 on every $1.00 that medical facilities charge to cover their expenses. The cost to treat those patients is made up by the non-insured and insured. We have one county where the unemployment has skyrocketed to nearly 25%. It's an old Textile town and jobs have vanished. Most patients at the local hospital are now on some form of government assistance. The hospital is about to go under because it cannot get by on 93% of its expenses being covered. This is a simple 'have' and 'have not' example. This supports my theory even further that a higher two-tier pricing structure will develop from the creation of a government option that will be an advantage to no one in the long term. With higher taxes, that consequently discourage economic growth, along with a higher level two-tier pricing structure for the have and have-nots we will stagnate economic activity and cause inflation of the medical industry's pricing. That's a reality... Look at France as only one example.

    If you're referring to AIG, I totally agree that they should not have been bailed out by the government. Look to where the AIG money went and maybe we can see some rationale behind why they were bailed out. I believe that AIG was a conduit to bail out offshore banks. I don't truly know the strategic advantage to doing this but one has to wonder if the recent Swiss security transparency changes at UBS were influenced by American bailout money?...

    See http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=65734 for a thread I cite to discuss the UBS transparency and Swiss banking bailouts via the AIG conduit. ;)
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Let's be honest to ourselves... Jun 16, 2016
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Let's let RUSSIA deal with the Muslim refugees from the Middle East - Feb 5, 2016
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Let's change the gun control laws to this....... Dec 6, 2015
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Let's Not Get Totally Hysterical Feb 27, 2015
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr ISIS tired of cutting heads off, let's try something new. Feb 3, 2015