No I stated that more people are living longer because of free market solutions. That means all countries are getting a free lunch to our market demands for a better product in healthcare.
I would argue the government is as effective on both. Notice that 'effective' does not equal to 'efficient'.
You are... "to justify healthcare reforms to be run by the federal government"
I don't ignore it. I think Medicare is quite effective, just not necessarily efficient. Obviously, Republicans are just as much guilty as Democrats for it's lack of efficiency. But it's not something that couldn't be fixed if we really wanted to.
How are they getting a free lunch when they don't have a free market system and they have a BETTER outcome than our free market healthcare system?
Every other country has a better outcome than our free market healthcare system?
Did I claim EVERY country? No.
However, as much as it hurts you, there's plenty of socialized healthcare countries that do.
Last edited by ElNono; 11-09-2009 at 01:54 PM.
You would argue it, and you would be wrong. The post office is a disaster, medicare is a disaster, social security is a disaster, the budget is a disaster. Most of what the federal government runs turns out to be a disaster.
Huh? How does me thinking that the government can't run a healthcare system equate to me not thinking that they can do one thing right?You are... "to justify healthcare reforms to be run by the federal government"
I don't ignore it. I think Medicare is quite effective, just not necessarily efficient. Obviously, Republicans are just as much guilty as Democrats for it's lack of efficiency. But it's not something that couldn't be fixed if we really wanted to.
How reassuring to know that we could fix a program that's got $80 trillion dollars worth of unfunded liabilities if we wanted to, but we're just not in the mood right now.
You would LOVE to actually have evidence of that, wouldn't you? But I bet you do not. Other than isolated incidents, you really have nothing on them.
You're making my point with every post:
"Most of what the federal government runs turns out to be a disaster"
Well, it doesn't help when you pass something like Medicare Part D and you don't say how it's going to be paid for.
As far as the mood to pass things, it has everything to do with lobbying and partisanship than anything else. Both parties were suddenly in the mood to bailout Wall Street. Both parties were suddenly in the mood of passing stimulus packages.
Medicare will have to be addressed at some point, just like Social Security, or the Defense budget.
I love the US Post Office. They provide affordable services in comparison to FedEx and UPS. For instance, when I was 20, I owned a small business which involved sending media like DVD's, books, etc to customers around the country.
Guess what service I used? The US Post Office. They never let me down, and it was FAR cheaper than FedEx/UPS counterparts.
When I couldn't afford to pay FedEx's 50 dollars to mail a box, I'd pay the US Post Office's 20 bucks to mail the same box.
I'd say the government can do some things very well.
If the $100+ trillion dollar hole those things add up to isn't proof enough then you've got your head too deep in the sand for me to reach you.
I suggest you grab a dictionary and look up the difference between "most" and "all". You also might want to read back earlier in the thread where I explained the differences betweeen "runs" and "regulates". I said most of what the federal government runs turns out to be a disaster.You're making my point with every post:
"Most of what the federal government runs turns out to be a disaster"
I agree.Well, it doesn't help when you pass something like Medicare Part D and you don't say how it's going to be paid for.
How are we paying for this BTW? Certainly somebody told us...........As far as the mood to pass things, it has everything to do with lobbying and partisanship than anything else. Both parties were suddenly in the mood to bailout Wall Street. Both parties were suddenly in the mood of passing stimulus packages.
But not before we create a new multi-trillion dollar en lement program huh?Medicare will have to be addressed at some point, just like Social Security, or the Defense budget.
Affordable service and they're only losing billions in the process.
That's because of DIFFERENT REASONS other than 'because the government is running it'
For instance, the rise in popularity of the internet has caused thousands of advertisers to tone down their mail advertisements and just go online.
Many customers no longer ask for information booklets, or write letters to friends and family, or write letters to companies, or pay their bills through the mail.
They just use websites, e-mails, and the internet.
Did you know this already or were you really ignorant of this? I'd like to know if you are trolling or not
These are the biggest reasons why the US Post Office is suffering now. The US Post Office ran for a LONG time before the rise of the internet, and did it quite well
Is this a question or a statement dummy?
So instead of finding ways to cut costs, be more efficient or increase revenues they just let the taxpayers cut them a check to cover whatever money they lose. There is only one reason why this option is available to them. It's "because the government is running it".
He is most certainly trolling.
The USPS is mandated to be profit-neutral by Congress. They've actually started to incur in loses only recently, and for a number of reasons, including an amazing decrease in mail volume as you mention, and the recession that hit everyone (don't look now, but Fedex lost money too).
Who told you they aren't cutting costs?
Post Offices in my area are proposing to stop delivering mail on Saturdays for this very reason.
They are also looking into other methods....
Imagine health care in this country combined with the words "profit neutral"
Ah, sweet.
I didn't vote for Obama, but I support him on this issue. Having citizens who cannot afford to be ALIVE in the USA is de able.
Making a PROFIT on another man's life and death situation is also de able.
Health care and free market is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST as far as I am concerned
We can thank one of the biggest s bags in the presidency, ol nixon
Not only that, I find it hysterical that these same guys that have no problem giving this same government a blank check to spend on the military in order to 'save American lives', and moan to no end when it comes to healthcare... even though it's also to save American lives.
How is this not stealing?The House bill also extends generous taxpayer-funded subsidies to individuals and families with incomes up to 400 percent FPL (roughly $90,000 for a family of four) for coverage purchased through the new health exchange...individuals and families with incomes below 350 percent FPL (roughly $80,000) could also receive cost-sharing subsidies to cover a portion of their out-of-pocket costs... for the first two years, those receiving a subsidy could only purchase the basic plan, regardless of their desire to pay for additional services...CBO estimates an average premium of $15,000 for a "basic" family plan with cost-sharing of about $5,500. Based on the CBO analysis, a family just under 300 percent FPL (roughly $70,000) could receive up to $10,500 in federal subsidies... with the exception of a hardship exemption of 12 percent of income, the bill would exclude those individuals with access to employer coverage from receiving a subsidy. Therefore, a similarly situated family at 300 percent FPL (roughly $70,000) struggling to pay for their current employer-sponsored plan would generally not receive assistance at all. Neither would a family at 200 percent FPL (roughly $45,000) with employer-based coverage...The bill also excludes individuals from receiving the subsidies if they are eligible for Medicaid. Incidentally, the bill would freeze existing Medicaid eligibility levels at the state level to prevent states from lowering their Medicaid programs in favor of the federal subsidy. Without financial assistance, the only rational option for these low-income Americans is to join Medicaid, a substandard health care program.
How is it stealing?
I thin in order to pay for the healthcare bill I propose we cut down our 500+ billion dollar defense budget.
People IE democrats/republicans about the government..but both want big government..just in different ways..democrats want the government for healthcare/welfare state and republicans want a huge defense budget/regulate society.
Anyone who pretends otherwise is a fool.
He doesn't get the fact that he has to be able to prove it is stealing..
he's not very bright.. he's your classic talk radio warrior..
Our defense is in our cons ution. Free healthcare is not.
That's right. Cherry pick your data. If you look under HALE, the data for the USA is much better.
We live in more urbanized areas than most places in the world. Don't you think auto accidents, killings, etc. have an effect to the numbers you picked?
WHich country is best for cancer survival after treatment? - USA
http://www.emaxhealth.com/51/23285.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
