100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: a sure way to profit from Obamacare (article) | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
heavenlyboy34
on
Sun 09/13/09 11:15 AM
|
|
Health care reform is needed badly in this country. My mom has insurance and is making life or death choices right now concerning her health because her insurance does not pay enough for her to be able to afford the tests to determine if she has a cardio blockage building. Well we should say how bad it is because they already know her circulation is compromised. She says she will just have to die because she cannot pay for the tests. Why should she be making this choice? She cannot change insurance now because of a preexisting health condition. I understand all the anti government folks concerns out there but this issue outweighs those concerns. We need universal healthcare so people will stop having to make these choices. Sorry about your Moms condition. It's a hard, cold world out there. The sacrifice of a few outweighs the burden BHO wants to place on the majority. Keep Gov. control to a bare minimum. How dare you say my mom is expendable or any human is expendable. See this why I will work harder to make damn sure the healthcare bill gets passed so people with your ideals cannot govern others because you have deemed yourself unworthy at that level.  But you are doing the same thing, in a "softer" way. Obamacare inevitably rations medical resources and will prevent some people from getting treatment they need to survive. The only difference is that Obamacare puts on a "caring" facade while killing people (much like the "War On Terror"). That is a propaganda lie told to scare people. So no I did not say that at all. I am so pissed off right now. It is not a lie-it is economic fact. Health care is a service subject to economic forces like all other services. Any competent economist in the last 200 years could tell you this. Only a person blinded by politics could ignore historical and economic reality and justify (not to mention logic-I suspect Socrates is rolling in his grave right now) Obamacare. On top of all THAT, we already pay more and get less for our medical care than any other industrialized country. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Health care reform is needed badly in this country. My mom has insurance and is making life or death choices right now concerning her health because her insurance does not pay enough for her to be able to afford the tests to determine if she has a cardio blockage building. Well we should say how bad it is because they already know her circulation is compromised. She says she will just have to die because she cannot pay for the tests. Why should she be making this choice? She cannot change insurance now because of a preexisting health condition. I understand all the anti government folks concerns out there but this issue outweighs those concerns. We need universal healthcare so people will stop having to make these choices. Sorry about your Moms condition. It's a hard, cold world out there. The sacrifice of a few outweighs the burden BHO wants to place on the majority. Keep Gov. control to a bare minimum. How dare you say my mom is expendable or any human is expendable. See this why I will work harder to make damn sure the healthcare bill gets passed so people with your ideals cannot govern others because you have deemed yourself unworthy at that level. But you are doing the same thing, in a "softer" way. Obamacare inevitably rations medical resources and will prevent some people from getting treatment they need to survive. The only difference is that Obamacare puts on a "caring" facade while killing people (much like the "War On Terror"). That is a propaganda lie told to scare people. So no I did not say that at all. I am so pissed off right now. It is not a lie-it is economic fact. Health care is a service subject to economic forces like all other services. Any competent economist in the last 200 years could tell you this. Only a person blinded by politics could ignore historical and economic reality and justify (not to mention logic-I suspect Socrates is rolling in his grave right now) Obamacare. On top of all THAT, we already pay more and get less for our medical care than any other industrialized country. It is a lie because they cannot know all this crap already anyway. It hasn't been done to be assessed like that yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
molot
on
Thu 09/17/09 01:41 AM
|
|
to heavenlyboy34:
Forget Aristotle and Socrates, centuries have passed since their time, and while their ideas may have laid the foundation for western thought, the progress of civilization has built a skyscraper on that foundation, adding more and more caissons and pillars to support the weight. Aristotle and Socrates are in the center of the bottom, they are BASE, far from any edge/boundary, which is where contemporary thought resides. You proclaim radicalism with he call to disband the government, but rely on western-centered conservatism to back up your rhetoric. You're a paradox. We live in a global economy, where global corporations, NOT REGULAR INDIVIDUALS, rule the market. To claim that supply and demand in strictly economic terms can apply on a micro-political level, such as the exchange between a doctor (or a team of health professionals) and a patient is absurd. The demand for medicine is not set by a 'consumer', it is set by the number of people ailing from a particular disease. It is not a demand out of want, but that of necessity. Since no private enterprise provides the citizens of a state with essential goods and services that address basic human necessities (of which health is one), it is the government's job to sub-contract a private enterprise or simply take on the role of the provider in such instances. That's why we have welfare, which simply can't be administered through private operation. You claim to have provided factual proof that the government is a detrimental player in the economic field, but I see nothing but two very general claims - 1. one economist among others agree with you 2. the decline of the dollar in the course of the last century is tied to 'govmnt intervention'. I don't really need to give you counter-examples for the first, or point out the flaws of relying on outside sources as sole support for an argument (TRY using this REASON and LOGIC you keep thanking dead greeks for). As far as the second goes, the shifting geopolitical landscape, worldwide dependence on increasingly scarce oil, and most importantly the emergence of a global market, ALL have more to do with the decline of the dollar than 'govmnt intervention'. Oh, you still haven't answered a direct and simple question! Why do you prefer a private business (health insurance company) to act as an arbiter in the case of life/death decisions, among others, when you go to seek medical attention? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to heavenlyboy34: Forget Aristotle and Socrates, centuries have passed since their time, and while their ideas may have laid the foundation for western thought, the progress of civilization has built a skyscraper on that foundation, adding more and more caissons and pillars to support the weight. Aristotle and Socrates are in the center of the bottom, they are BASE, far from any edge/boundary, which is where contemporary thought resides. You proclaim radicalism with he call to disband the government, but rely on western-centered conservatism to back up your rhetoric. You're a paradox. We live in a global economy, where global corporations, NOT REGULAR INDIVIDUALS, rule the market. To claim that supply and demand in strictly economic terms can apply on a micro-political level, such as the exchange between a doctor (or a team of health professionals) and a patient is absurd. The demand for medicine is not set by a 'consumer', it is set by the number of people ailing from a particular disease. It is not a demand out of want, but that of necessity. Since no private enterprise provides the citizens of a state with essential goods and services that address basic human necessities (of which health is one), it is the government's job to sub-contract a private enterprise or simply take on the role of the provider in such instances. That's why we have welfare, which simply can't be administered through private operation. You claim to have provided factual proof that the government is a detrimental player in the economic field, but I see nothing but two very general claims - 1. one economist among others agree with you 2. the decline of the dollar in the course of the last century is tied to 'govmnt intervention'. I don't really need to give you counter-examples for the first, or point out the flaws of relying on outside sources as sole support for an argument (TRY using this REASON and LOGIC you keep thanking dead greeks for). As far as the second goes, the shifting geopolitical landscape, worldwide dependence on increasingly scarce oil, and most importantly the emergence of a global market, ALL have more to do with the decline of the dollar than 'govmnt intervention'. Oh, you still haven't answered a direct and simple question! Why do you prefer a private business (health insurance company) to act as an arbiter in the case of life/death decisions, among others, when you go to seek medical attention? 1) the reason that the free market is superior is that only the free market can rationally distribute scarce resources based on pricing. Government interventions like inflation and stimulus distort prices and causes shortages. (See Friedman, Bastiat, Mises, and Rothbard) Further, since government does not care about being competitive (it has a monopoly on taxation and inflation), prices do not go down in accordance with the laws of supply and demand. 2) I didn't mean to say "government intervention" is the only reason for the decline of the dollar, but it is an important factor. The most important include Federal Reserve intervention (inflation/deflation), government spending, and overspending by consumers (due to overextended credit). For a detailed explanation, see "Meltdown" by Thomas Woods, and for historical context, see "America's Great Depression" by Rothbard. (note that the dollar has lost 90% of its value since 1913, when the FED was introduced) 3) To be more specific about why the free market provides better medical care-the free market operates on capital and distributes scarce resources according to need and willingness to pay. It's incentives are both customer satisfaction and profit. The state doesn't care about profit or customer satisfaction. It only cares about paying back political cronies/donors and creating dependence on the political system. (dependence gives them power and continuous income for minimal work) For more, see "Economics in One Lesson" by Hazlitt, "The Case For Capitalism" by Withers, and "Man, Economy, and State" by Rothbard. You falsely accuse me of not using reason and logic, but, as you can see, I have. You falsely claim that "We live in a global economy, where global corporations, NOT REGULAR INDIVIDUALS, rule the market. To claim that supply and demand in strictly economic terms can apply on a micro-political level, such as the exchange between a doctor (or a team of health professionals) and a patient is absurd" 1) corporations are dependent on individuals to purchase their products, so they do not by nature "rule" anything. (if they do, it is because they are propped up by central banks). Your economic education here is sorely lacking. I suggest you start with Adam Smith and then read every book on economics in the Mises Institute's library. (mises.org) |
|
|
|
|
