Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
supervike

Four more years

201 posts in this topic

But you don't see either. Unless something can be done to restore some yearly monies back to the people, they don't give a rats ass about the national debt. They really don't. They're buried in personal debt, with medical being a huge chunk of that in many cases. As the president you have to do what the people are demanding in some way. If people are sick, and buried in personal debt, nothing can be done about the national debt anyway. In order to have a functioning society, people have to be able to make a living (jobs) they have to be healthy (affordable health care). Pin those things down and people once again start to become interested in the national debt and feel they can do something about it.

Something can be done. The government can get the hell out of the way, keep existing reasonable regulations enforced and simplify the tax code all of which would be a far better "start" towards a business friendly America which would mean more jobs. More jobs means more economic prosperity. More economic prosperity means more businesses can afford to provide benefits.

Like I said before, we generally have it pretty damn good in America. A multi-trillion dollar healthcare program is not going to help the longevity of a nation already 16 trillion in debt. The irresponsible actions of government officials are the sole reason America has the problems it does and yet you ask that they come to your rescue. All the doom and gloom you speak of is purely the fault of those you go to for help. And I know things could be better as things always could be but what you describe is a depression era black and white photograph of sickly people roaming the streets everywhere. As if its a rampant plague. The world isn't fair and never will be. There will be sick and out of luck people with or without obamacare. You call me heartless and I say I'm realistic.

You're right, the people have spoken... they re-elected Obama.

But, this seems to be all you really care about. I curious to hear what the people have to say in the next few years when the first couple rounds of penalties are enacted and innocent people who didn't buy insurance are hit with a couple thousand dollar fine. Then they won't be able to afford insurance next year because they have to pay that fine and then they get fined again and eventually they end up under a federally sponsored insurance plan that'll be more Chevette than Cadillac and Chevettes weren't known for there quality as much as they were just a cheap means to get by. But that's ok. It won't effect the rich too much. They'll afford fines or insurance no problem and if a super expensive medical procedure is needed they'll just buy insurance then because they can't be denied. That doesn't sound ok for insurance companies though. Once that happens several times that insurance company will be out of business and so on and so on until the government is the last insurance provider left. But that's ok, because either way the poor still wont have to buy anything or get fined and the government will provide. Nothing's different there. So it seems the ones likely to get hit the hardest are the middle class. Buy insurance and you lose a considerable portion of otherwise useful income. Don't buy insurance and you get fined into oblivion until the government is the only insurance option left even if insurance companies are still around. The thousands in penalties that your middle class ass has to pay off leaves any decent insurance package unaffordable. So the end game is single payer. Not by our choice but by their design. And when the government is in charge of something what do they do? Ah yes, they decide who gets what and how it's done. And in a democrat led, liberal PC future of special interests groups, reparations and affirmative action that doesn't bode too well for my white asss. I try and keep as much distance as I can from myself and the government but ultimately I feel they have written the perfect legislation to eventually get me in their shackles either through healthcare or imprisonment for dodging IRS penalties.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, here is the truth...Obama was chosen (and not by the people) for one reason...to get ObamaCare passed.

The election last week says otherwise.

As for national health care you should give it a try. Much better than the American system in my view, and the view of the vast majority of people living with national health care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The election last week says otherwise.

As for national health care you should give it a try. Much better than the American system in my view, and the view of the vast majority of people living with national health care.

Yes, but one of the major underlying issues here is that our constitutional freedoms have been twisted and trampled on as a result of our NHS. That's what makes obamacare horrid from the start. That is something other countries can't understand and understandably so because other countries have never known the freedoms that the US consitution provides, or rather protects. It's a fairly straight forward document that has been twisted and conformed by "interpretations" that a team of hot dog lawyers had to take all the way to the Supreme Court.

The rest of the mess has yet to unfold. But I must say that American obamacare supporters are adamant that this is not nationalized healthcare. I am adamant that it is designed to end up that way. I am also adamant that a truly universal healthcare system would be far more reasonable. But our current leaders are not fiscally responsible enough to handle any healthcare system ATM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snapback.pngjoc, on 15 November 2012 - 05:45 AM, said:

Look, here is the truth...Obama was chosen (and not by the people) for one reason...to get ObamaCare passed.

The election last week says otherwise.

As for national health care you should give it a try. Much better than the American system in my view, and the view of the vast majority of people living with national health care.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say...I'm talking about the FIRST election...yeah he was chosen by the people in the voting booths...but before that, he was chosen to be nominated when Hillary was the obvious favorite...so why did the Dem Higher Ups throw her under the bus so to speak? Because...they wanted this massive legislation pack that they had sitting in their files already to become law. For reasons I previously stated. It might be a good idea in Europe...but you do not understand, and you won't open your mind even a little to view the real game being played here in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question... If you consider your life not to be a luxury then how do you feel about abortion? I feel any abortion not relatated to major health concerns, rape and incest is a life treated as a luxury item cut off as a matter of convenience to the bearer. That's not a religious view at all. It's a matter of morality that came to fruition on my own will.

MissMels? Why do you refuse to acknowledge this question that I've repeatedly asked you to reply to? I keep answering you. You either agree with me or you feel that is is your life which is not a luxury while others are expendable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MissMels? Why do you refuse to acknowledge this question that I've repeatedly asked you to reply to? I keep answering you. You either agree with me or you feel that is is your life which is not a luxury while others are expendable.

I'll answer it... I don't think 12 week old tissue is a life. It can't be sustained outside the womb. I however am a life with other lives which are directly dependent on my life as well.

Oh and i didn't answer your question because it's totally irrelevant. But if you want to play the abortion game. FIne. But you'll play it alone. Oh, and the fact that I had my first and only child as a teenager, with no father in the picture rather indicates that while I believe in the constitutional right to choose, my choice was life.

Edited by MissMelsWell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People in the UK don't go broke getting Medical Treatment on the NHS,which is an issue in the US ( I know this happens i have family in the US ) So you pay more Taxes,big deal. My Mother back in the UK has to take medication every day for the rest of her life and she never has to worry where the cost for her next month of medication comes from.Where's the suffering in that.

\

I don't know how effective such a system as the NHS will be in the US. You need to remember that you guys have been working with that system for decades - we have a totally different and yes..broken...system here in the US. Changes have to happen but my problem is with how the president is going about his plan. He wanted and still wants a government run system and I think he fully expects the current ACA to fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but one of the major underlying issues here is that our constitutional freedoms have been twisted and trampled on as a result of our NHS. That's what makes obamacare horrid from the start. That is something other countries can't understand and understandably so because other countries have never known the freedoms that the US consitution provides, or rather protects. It's a fairly straight forward document that has been twisted and conformed by "interpretations" that a team of hot dog lawyers had to take all the way to the Supreme Court.

The rest of the mess has yet to unfold. But I must say that American obamacare supporters are adamant that this is not nationalized healthcare. I am adamant that it is designed to end up that way. I am also adamant that a truly universal healthcare system would be far more reasonable. But our current leaders are not fiscally responsible enough to handle any healthcare system ATM.

Well I believe the current attempt at healthcare reform came out as a result to try and make those who are all about freedom and such less opposed to it. If a fully universal healthcare system was attempted I'm sure there would be howls of communism. Thing is much of the rest of the world tends to see the current American as a largely negative so seeing such a huge backlash to reform it strikes us as odd.

As for the issue of freedom America might have a wider definition but the concept is far from foreign to other countries. Most have their own constitutions and bill of rights and are largely just as free as the US. And to be honest to suggest that other countries don't have the same freedom as the US is mildly insulting. I don't like in the US but I still have just about the same freedoms as the US. Live up here isn't that much different from down there.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say...I'm talking about the FIRST election...yeah he was chosen by the people in the voting booths...but before that, he was chosen to be nominated when Hillary was the obvious favorite...so why did the Dem Higher Ups throw her under the bus so to speak? Because...they wanted this massive legislation pack that they had sitting in their files already to become law. For reasons I previously stated. It might be a good idea in Europe...but you do not understand, and you won't open your mind even a little to view the real game being played here in America.

If the goal was to win the election to put in Dem laws they could have picked either Obama or Hillary. With how the GOP ran things and the Bush backlash either could have won. And I believe Obama was selected just like every other political leader in the US is selected. Heck the public had a greater say then they would have in other countries. Up here the Liberals are picking a new leader and aside from public opinion it's completely internal.

So Obama was legally picked as the leader of the Dems just like McCain was picked as the leader of the GOP. The public voted and they picked Obama. Then Romney was picked as the leader of the GOP and the public voted and picked Obama. That's how the American elections works. Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean there's a conspiracy involved.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how effective such a system as the NHS will be in the US. You need to remember that you guys have been working with that system for decades - we have a totally different and yes..broken...system here in the US. Changes have to happen but my problem is with how the president is going about his plan. He wanted and still wants a government run system and I think he fully expects the current ACA to fail.

Quite frankly i don't know how it will work in the USA,I admit that to implement this system across 50 US states will be a Nightmare and wether it will be run Federally or at a local sytem,who knows quite frankly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, this seems to be all you really care about. I curious to hear what the people have to say in the next few years when the first couple rounds of penalties are enacted and innocent people who didn't buy insurance are hit with a couple thousand dollar fine. Then they won't be able to afford insurance next year because they have to pay that fine and then they get fined again and eventually they end up under a federally sponsored insurance plan that'll be more Chevette than Cadillac and Chevettes weren't known for there quality as much as they were just a cheap means to get by. But that's ok. It won't effect the rich too much. They'll afford fines or insurance no problem and if a super expensive medical procedure is needed they'll just buy insurance then because they can't be denied. That doesn't sound ok for insurance companies though. Once that happens several times that insurance company will be out of business and so on and so on until the government is the last insurance provider left. But that's ok, because either way the poor still wont have to buy anything or get fined and the government will provide. Nothing's different there. So it seems the ones likely to get hit the hardest are the middle class. Buy insurance and you lose a considerable portion of otherwise useful income. Don't buy insurance and you get fined into oblivion until the government is the only insurance option left even if insurance companies are still around. The thousands in penalties that your middle class ass has to pay off leaves any decent insurance package unaffordable. So the end game is single payer. Not by our choice but by their design. And when the government is in charge of something what do they do? Ah yes, they decide who gets what and how it's done. And in a democrat led, liberal PC future of special interests groups, reparations and affirmative action that doesn't bode too well for my white asss. I try and keep as much distance as I can from myself and the government but ultimately I feel they have written the perfect legislation to eventually get me in their shackles either through healthcare or imprisonment for dodging IRS penalties.

It's no wonder republicans are misguided. you have no idea what's in the law. The fines are small. When they grow larger, the cheaper alternative will be to BUY INSURANCE. There is no federally funded plan, the public option was removed. There is no plan to make medicare for all. The act was not built during the Clinton years but made up of Republican ideas. You can't wait and get insurance "when you need it" and have it cover anything. Insurance companies aren't stupid. The major insurance companies are a long way from being out of business. In fact they are now required to turn some of that largess into something that helps people. You're just making stuff up here. I suggest you dump all the outright falsehoods you've heard from the conservamedia and actually learn what's in the law.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll answer it... I don't think 12 week old tissue is a life. It can't be sustained outside the womb. I however am a life with other lives which are directly dependent on my life as well.

Oh and i didn't answer your question because it's totally irrelevant. But if you want to play the abortion game. FIne. But you'll play it alone. Oh, and the fact that I had my first and only child as a teenager, with no father in the picture rather indicates that while I believe in the constitutional right to choose, my choice was life.

Irrelevant? You stated your life was not a luxury so I asked what you thought about other lives. This isn't a solid topic thread plus that happens during the course of these threads sometimes and I was kind enough to answer your questions so I figured you owed me. Isn't that what new America is all about? Owing eachother? Btw, you and your child used to be twelve week old tissue.

Well I believe the current attempt at healthcare reform came out as a result to try and make those who are all about freedom and such less opposed to it. If a fully universal healthcare system was attempted I'm sure there would be howls of communism. Thing is much of the rest of the world tends to see the current American as a largely negative so seeing such a huge backlash to reform it strikes us as odd.

As for the issue of freedom America might have a wider definition but the concept is far from foreign to other countries. Most have their own constitutions and bill of rights and are largely just as free as the US. And to be honest to suggest that other countries don't have the same freedom as the US is mildly insulting. I don't like in the US but I still have just about the same freedoms as the US. Live up here isn't that much different from down there.

Your first sentence says a mouthful. You plainly insinuate that it's a tough sell to those who are all about freedom. They are trying to sell a little security for a little freedom and we all know what Ben Franklin thought about that and he was right.

I will only advocate universal healthcare when the government have proved themselves responsible enough to sustain such a system which likely wont be in our lifetime.

Other countries don't have the same freedoms as we do. It's not insulting its the truth. Our freedoms are what made us such a big freaking deal all these years. The world hasn't been flooding our gates for our good looks.

It's no wonder republicans are misguided. you have no idea what's in the law. The fines are small. When they grow larger, the cheaper alternative will be to BUY INSURANCE. There is no federally funded plan, the public option was removed. There is no plan to make medicare for all. The act was not built during the Clinton years but made up of Republican ideas. You can't wait and get insurance "when you need it" and have it cover anything. Insurance companies aren't stupid. The major insurance companies are a long way from being out of business. In fact they are now required to turn some of that largess into something that helps people. You're just making stuff up here. I suggest you dump all the outright falsehoods you've heard from the conservamedia and actually learn what's in the law.

So it's no big deal then? Thanks for clearing it all up for me.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrelevant? You stated your life was not a luxury so I asked what you thought about other lives. This isn't a solid topic thread plus that happens during the course of these threads sometimes and I was kind enough to answer your questions so I figured you owed me. Isn't that what new America is all about? Owing eachother? Btw, you and your child used to be twelve week old tissue.

Right and without health care, she might not have made it past that now would she have? Of course, she doesn't have health care NOW and she works well more than full time. That concerns me 1000 times more than when she was 12 week in-utero tissue. That might be hard to hear, but it's the truth.

Edited by MissMelsWell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right and without health care, she might not have made it past that now would she have? Of course, she doesn't have health care NOW and she works well more than full time. That concerns me 1000 times more than when she was 12 week in-utero tissue. That might be hard to hear, but it's the truth.

Without healthcare, babies have been born for millennia. That's kind of hard to argue.

It's not hard to hear. I'm not passionate about this subject. I just have a view. Unlike how you think of me for not agreeing with you, I do not think you're a horrible person. Sure you accuse me over and over of being heartless and wanting people to die because I don't like the be all end all obamacare solution but don't worry I won't turn it around on you and accuse you of wanting babies to die just because the mother "doesn't feel like" having it. It's your nonchalant demeanor about it that piques my interest. So long as it hasn't gained consciousness yet it ok to kill it, ok. Barack Obama used to be twelve week old tissue too. What if he was aborted? Then where would you be? You'd be living in my evil world called traditional America. Mwahahahaha hahahhaha!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, I think there is a higher probability that we would be living under President Hillary Clinton and with her crowning achievement, "The Hillary Clinton Socialized Medicine Act". Which is modeled after the European model's of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without healthcare, babies have been born for millennia. That's kind of hard to argue.

It's not hard to hear. I'm not passionate about this subject. I just have a view. Unlike how you think of me for not agreeing with you, I do not think you're a horrible person. Sure you accuse me over and over of being heartless and wanting people to die because I don't like the be all end all obamacare solution but don't worry I won't turn it around on you and accuse you of wanting babies to die just because the mother "doesn't feel like" having it. It's your nonchalant demeanor about it that piques my interest. So long as it hasn't gained consciousness yet it ok to kill it, ok. Barack Obama used to be twelve week old tissue too. What if he was aborted? Then where would you be? You'd be living in my evil world called traditional America. Mwahahahaha hahahhaha!!!

How did manage to convince yourself I was some kind of star crossed crazed Obama supporter? The nonchalance you're finally able to spot is because I'm NOT a rabid supporter. Im just LESS of a supporter of the party he ran against. The republicans have been a wreck for a couple of decades. They weren't always though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did manage to convince yourself I was some kind of star crossed crazed Obama supporter? The nonchalance you're finally able to spot is because I'm NOT a rabid supporter. Im just LESS of a supporter of the party he ran against. The republicans have been a wreck for a couple of decades. They weren't always though.

Didn't I see you carving a statue of Obama out of mashed potatoes? Oh wait, I'm having close encounters of the 3rd kind flashbacks. I'll vouch for her she's not a political extremist or a nut (not about politics anyway)
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your first sentence says a mouthful. You plainly insinuate that it's a tough sell to those who are all about freedom. They are trying to sell a little security for a little freedom and we all know what Ben Franklin thought about that and he was right.

I will only advocate universal healthcare when the government have proved themselves responsible enough to sustain such a system which likely wont be in our lifetime.

Other countries don't have the same freedoms as we do. It's not insulting its the truth. Our freedoms are what made us such a big freaking deal all these years. The world hasn't been flooding our gates for our good looks.

No the world has been flooding your gates because of your economy, avalible land and resources, climate, and comparitive freedoms. You'll note that there's not as much immigration coming from Europe and other parts of the Western world these days. That's because those people are more than happy with the freedoms they have at home. After all if I moved to the US the freedoms I would have would barely change, and those changes wouldn't be that big of a deal to me. If you think America has plenty of important freedoms, hey that's fine, but don't pretend that other nations don't have access to most of those same freedoms.

As for the healthcare thing let me clarify what I meant in my first statement. There are those who will resist any type of government reform with screams of "freedom", regardless of how much impact it actually has on people's personal freedoms. It's the people who would have been screaming "communism" at the top of their lungs that the current reforms were watered down. And really Franklin's quote has nothing to do with the debate since security isn't the issue. It's access to healthcare, something the US does need to improve on. And since universal healthcare is in place throughout the Western world I see no reason why it couldn't be put into place in the US. It would be a hard and difficult process but America isn't so messed up that it can't be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No the world has been flooding your gates because of your economy, avalible land and resources, climate, and comparitive freedoms. You'll note that there's not as much immigration coming from Europe and other parts of the Western world these days. That's because those people are more than happy with the freedoms they have at home. After all if I moved to the US the freedoms I would have would barely change, and those changes wouldn't be that big of a deal to me. If you think America has plenty of important freedoms, hey that's fine, but don't pretend that other nations don't have access to most of those same freedoms.

As for the healthcare thing let me clarify what I meant in my first statement. There are those who will resist any type of government reform with screams of "freedom", regardless of how much impact it actually has on people's personal freedoms. It's the people who would have been screaming "communism" at the top of their lungs that the current reforms were watered down. And really Franklin's quote has nothing to do with the debate since security isn't the issue. It's access to healthcare, something the US does need to improve on. And since universal healthcare is in place throughout the Western world I see no reason why it couldn't be put into place in the US. It would be a hard and difficult process but America isn't so messed up that it can't be done.

I would like a universal healthcare but obviously that is not what the ACA is. I'd have rather seen that put into place than the ACA, and im sure it could be done, but either way our leaders aren't responsible enough to manage such programs nor do I think they care to be.

And Franklins quote is relevant. Is the promise of healthcare not a promise of personal security? Security doesn't have to mean cops and robbers and all things war related.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Obamacare is just a means to an end. It will fail miserably - as it was intended to IMO.

It isn't being set up to fail, except by those who are actively trying to torpedo it--a handful of Republican governors and Congressional Republicans. But I doubt they have the "end" in mind that you suggest and I don't think they'll be successful at blowing up the law.

We've got some big problems that need to be solved and now we've got a whole slew of new tools to tackle them. It's time for folks at all levels to put their noses to the grindstone and make it work.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we please stop blaming Bush for every little thing?

Here is something for you to chew on as well...Your Insurance Premium is, to a large degree, determined by your CREDIT SCORE!

That's right! So two people, same age, same gender, same health risks, (let's say none) may pay drastically different premiums for the same exact policy because person #1 has excellent credit and person #2 has really bad credit. Did you know that?

What is “insurance scoring”? How is your insurance score related to your credit history and your ability to obtain insurance?

Insurance scoring is a method of rating an individual's risk for making claims for certain types of insurance based on selected aspects of their credit history. The insurance industry cites statistical evidence showing a strong correlation between good credit and fewer claims and poor credit and more frequent/more costly claims. Based on this correlation, an insurance score may be used both as a screening factor for an insurance applicant's acceptability and as a rating factor for placing a consumer in a particular risk classification, which has a bearing on the cost of premiums and insurance benefits.

The vast majority of insurers use insurance credit scoring in underwriting and rating auto insurance. Many insurers also use insurance scoring related to homeowner's property-casualty insurance.

LINK

Every state is different in that respect my state bases it on gross income. I can't afford H insurance for my wife only myself through work. If I were to add my wife my monthly take home pay would be about $900 for the entire MONTH! My gross puts me above the threshold for FREE Obamacare. I blame Obama for driving me into POVERTY!

Edited by cerberusxp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every state is different in that respect my state bases it on gross income. I can't afford H insurance for my wife only myself through work. If I were to add my wife my monthly take home pay would be about $900 for the entire MONTH! My gross puts me above the threshold for FREE Obamacare. I blame Obama for driving me into POVERTY!

A perfect example of how this is going to hurt the middle class. Rich can afford it, poor still don't pay. Oh but this'll ensure your wife to be a healthy productive member of society... Sorry to hear how this' gonna hurt you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I believe the current attempt at healthcare reform came out as a result to try and make those who are all about freedom and such less opposed to it. If a fully universal healthcare system was attempted I'm sure there would be howls of communism. Thing is much of the rest of the world tends to see the current American as a largely negative so seeing such a huge backlash to reform it strikes us as odd.

As for the issue of freedom America might have a wider definition but the concept is far from foreign to other countries. Most have their own constitutions and bill of rights and are largely just as free as the US. And to be honest to suggest that other countries don't have the same freedom as the US is mildly insulting. I don't like in the US but I still have just about the same freedoms as the US. Live up here isn't that much different from down there.

If the goal was to win the election to put in Dem laws they could have picked either Obama or Hillary. With how the GOP ran things and the Bush backlash either could have won. And I believe Obama was selected just like every other political leader in the US is selected. Heck the public had a greater say then they would have in other countries. Up here the Liberals are picking a new leader and aside from public opinion it's completely internal.

So Obama was legally picked as the leader of the Dems just like McCain was picked as the leader of the GOP. The public voted and they picked Obama. Then Romney was picked as the leader of the GOP and the public voted and picked Obama. That's how the American elections works. Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean there's a conspiracy involved.

Corp,

There IS a conspiracy involved. What we are seeing happening before our very eyes, is the end of the game. ObamaCare...or whatever name it would have been called...is the CheckMate in a very long and well played game by ... Russia. I know you are rolling your eyes, but this is what you are all missing. For decades the Russians have been revamping, replanning, they never gave up their dreams of world domination...but many people like you don't believe they wanted to dominate the world to begin with, so, I am sure this is a moot point with you. But..the reality is that they most certainly did and do and only one country is stopping them (china doesn't figure in here because they aren't involved and haven't been involved in stopping Soviet Aggression.)

Here is what you are missing: Not that America is a Socialist Country (make no mistake...that is what Obamacare is about) Once it is implemented fully and has its teeth deep into American Culture there will never be any turning back. And Capitalism will die a significant death...THAT IS THE WHOLE PLAN CORP! Reagan knew, and the Soviets knew that what beat them was Capitalism. Reagan created a well oiled Capitalist Machine that ran circles around the Soviets...they were bankrupt and so were their satellite countries.

So...it doesn't take a genius Corp, to realize that if you know what beat you, then you have to figure out a way around it. When America is totally Socialist, we will not be able to stop Soviet Aggression. Check Mate. And if we can't...we are screwed...and so are you my friend!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reagan knew, and the Soviets knew that what beat them was Capitalism.

Reagan "Sovietized" aspects of our health care system in ways Obama could never dream of.

Medicare’s Soviet Label:

“Medicare, Where Soviet Economic Thinking Lives On,” was the headline on a recent blog offering commentary on an article about Medicare pricing in The Wall Street Journal, accompanied by a videotaped, highly critical interview on The Journal’s “Online Opinion.”

The article and the video are focused on Medicare pricing of physician services. But the Soviet label can also be affixed to Medicare’s pricing for hospital care.

Joseph Antos, the widely respected Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and Retirement Policy at the American Enterprise Institute, agrees with the Soviet label. “Medicare ignores the market, setting prices for physician services based on an academic theory with its roots in the Soviet Union,” he wrote in his “Confessions of a Price Controller.”

So naturally one is led to ask: Who imported this fiendish Soviet pricing theory to the United States and imposed it on Medicare?

It was the administration of President Ronald Reagan, with the concurrence of a Congress controlled by the Democrats.

The Reagan administration acted after it became alarmed at the inflationary force inherent in a payment mechanism adopted by Medicare at its inception, at the behest of the hospital industry: retrospective, full-cost reimbursement of each hospital for its reported costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SAME LINK

From the article:

It’s hardly likely that the Reagan administration or Congress thought themselves inspired by Soviet theory, a notion that has been advanced more recently. These policy makers just thought the new system made more economic sense.

Most health economists — including me — saluted the switch, believing it would lead to more efficient hospital management. Hospital executives took a less kindly view, because it signaled the end of the Golden Era of hospital management.

Sorry, you don't get to sidetrack the issue with irrelevant crap. Nice try though.

The Soviets have been planting the seeds of their ideology within the fabric of American Society for decades...now...the garden is full of weeds and people like you just yum it up. You don't realize your gobbling down poison my friend. But...you know...horse to water...can't make it drink....it's over anyway...CHECK MATE! YOU LOSE! I LOSE! WE ALL LOSE! Unless you are just longing in your heart of hearts to be controlled by a Communist Hierarchy...well then I guess you win.

Edited by joc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the article:

It’s hardly likely that the Reagan administration or Congress thought themselves inspired by Soviet theory, a notion that has been advanced more recently. These policy makers just thought the new system made more economic sense.

Most health economists — including me — saluted the switch, believing it would lead to more efficient hospital management. Hospital executives took a less kindly view, because it signaled the end of the Golden Era of hospital management.

I think you're missing my point. It's not that Medicare's reimbursement payment system shouldn't have been overhauled in the '80s or that this approach was a bad one. On the contrary, letting the federal government dictate those prices was one of the smartest moves that administration made, precisely because it did lead to more efficient hospital management, at least for a time.

No, my point is about your alarmism and demand for ideological purity. You cited Reagan, yet he's a perfect example of someone who let pragmatism win over ideology, instituting a successful system that would be denounced as communist if someone like Obama had been around to implement it at the time. What matters is what works, not what satisfies your litmus test.

In the narrative you're putting together here, Reagan would be an unwitting pawn of the socialist Russian conspiracy that's infiltrating our society. But in the real world, he's the guy who was able to, ah, "Sovietize" Medicare reimbursements to help ensure that it persisted to the present day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.