BOGUS HEALTHCARE SCARE EMAILS

[TimC]

Why can't we just copy other countries? Give health insurance and stay out of wars. Seems simple.

 

Sure, we can be like Canada...as soon as Mexico decides to spend trillions on our National Defense so we get off free and clear and we can be the hypocrites for a change.

 

Commie.

[westvirginia]

Why can't we just copy other countries? Give health insurance and stay out of wars. Seems simple.

 

I'm sure everything seems simple to you. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[TimC]

WV...when Hitler and the Japs are marching in to take us over, at least removing the bullets will be free. Get with the program. Hell, you might even be reimbursed 55 cents a mile by the Feds if you're driving a Honda or BMW.

[Azazello1313]

ok, this is pretty damn dry (and long), but it's worth paying attention to and thinking about: CBO director doug elmendorf testifying before the senate bugget committee

[Square]

Sure, we can be like Canada...as soon as Mexico decides to spend trillions on our National Defense so we get off free and clear and we can be the hypocrites for a change.

 

Commie.

I don't always agree with tim, but that chits funny.

[westvirginia]

That's not what is being proposed. Even inclusion of a public option doesn't "socializ(e) the entirety of HC." That is a lie.

 

Go write an email chain, you seem well qualified.

 

One thing? Keeping the country afloat for over 220 years through multiple wars and social unrest. That counts.

 

Yeah, and that's not what the obamessiah and his toadies in congress want.

 

ETA: A good description of the "competition" angle from boortz.com:

 

The Democrats and looters want you to believe that they're just going to set up a "public option," a government health care plan that will "compete" with the private insurance plans and keep them honest.

 

OK .. let's build a little scenario here. You're in business for yourself. You own a restaurant. You find out the government is going to open a restaurant right next door to you. The government says that they're not trying to run you out of business .. they just want to give you a little competition so that you will improve your product. You find out, though, that while your restaurant will have to operate at a profit to survive, the government restaurant can operate at a loss ... for ever. If the government restaurant needs money all it has to do is go out into the community and seize it. If you tried to do that you would be arrested and charged with robbery. You also learn that the government restaurant is going to be able to set all the rules about how you operate: How you cook and serve your food, what kind of menu you will have, the hours you will be open ... everything. Those same rules will not necessarily apply to the government restaurant.

 

Yeah .. that's some fair competition, isn't it? Can you tell me how you are possibly going to stay in business? The answer is, you won't. Sooner or later you close your doors, and if your customers want to eat ... they head to the government restaurant.

 

That's the story of the "public option" health insurance Obama and the looters want. The goal is to run private insurance out of business. That way, by default, the government becomes the single payer. Absolute government control, the dream of every Democrat politician.

Edited August 5, 2009 by westvirginia

[Duchess Jack]

ETA: A good description of the "competition" angle from boortz.com:

 

The Democrats and looters

 

nice to see this guy does not have an agenda here.

[caddyman]

nice to see this guy does not have an agenda here.

Everyone has an agenda. So I guess when Obama says something he has an agenda? Just because Boortz has an agenda, does not mean what he says is not true. You know there is a reason conservative talk radio and TV dwarfs liberal talk radio. Maybe what they say is true on occasion. Just maybe. Or is it only Kieth Olberman and Rachel Madoof that tell the truth?

[Duchess Jack]

Everyone has an agenda. So I guess when Obama says something he has an agenda? Just because Boortz has an agenda, does not mean what he says is not true. You know there is a reason conservative talk radio and TV dwarfs liberal talk radio. Maybe what they say is true on occasion. Just maybe. Or is it only Kieth Olberman and Rachel Madoof that tell the truth?

the reason is because liberal talking heads come off whiney and nobody likes whiney not even whiney people. conservatives talking heads come as angry and angry people are good with angry people because it makes them feel right and gives them a focal point.

 

I rather listen to Rush and Hannity than I would Air America

 

...and while I would agree to a point that everybody has an agenda... somebody who starts something off with "...and his looters" ruins his own credibility

Edited August 5, 2009 by Duchess Jack

[Azazello1313]

nice to see this guy does not have an agenda here.

 

maybe this guy's tone is more palatable to you:

 

An important question about any public provider of health insurance is whether it would have access to taxpayer funds. If not, the public plan would have to stand on its own financially, as private plans do, covering all expenses with premiums from those who signed up for it.

 

But if such a plan were desirable and feasible, nothing would stop someone from setting it up right now. In essence, a public plan without taxpayer support would be yet another nonprofit company offering health insurance. The fundamental viability of the enterprise does not depend on whether the employees are called “nonprofit administrators” or “civil servants.”

 

In practice, however, if a public option is available, it will probably enjoy taxpayer subsidies. Indeed, even if the initial legislation rejected them, such subsidies would be hard to avoid in the long run. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants created by federal law, were once private companies. Yet many investors believed — correctly, as it turned out — that the federal government would stand behind Fannie’s and Freddie’s debts, and this perception gave these companies access to cheap credit. Similarly, a public health insurance plan would enjoy the presumption of a government backstop.

 

Such explicit or implicit subsidies would prevent a public plan from providing honest competition for private suppliers of health insurance. Instead, the public plan would likely undercut private firms and get an undue share of the market.

 

President Obama might not be disappointed if that turned out to be the case. During the presidential campaign, he said, “If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system.”

 

Of course, we are not starting from scratch. Because many Americans are happy with their current health care, moving immediately to a single-payer system is too radical a change to be politically tenable. But for those who see single-payer as the ideal, a public option that uses taxpayer funds to tilt the playing field may be an attractive second best. If the subsidies are big enough, over time more and more consumers will be induced to switch.

 

Which raises the question: Would the existence of a dominant government provider of health insurance be good or bad?

 

It is natural to be skeptical. The largest existing public health programs — Medicare and Medicaid — are the main reason that the government’s long-term finances are in shambles. True, Medicare’s administrative costs are low, but it is easy to keep those costs contained when a system merely writes checks without expending the resources to control wasteful medical spending.

 

A dominant government insurer, however, could potentially keep costs down by squeezing the suppliers of health care. This cost control works not by fostering honest competition but by thwarting it.

 

Recall a basic lesson of economics: A market participant with a dominant position can influence prices in a way that a small, competitive player cannot. A monopoly — a seller without competitors — can profitably raise the price of its product above the competitive level by reducing the quantity it supplies to the market. Similarly, a monopsony — a buyer without competitors — can reduce the price it pays below the competitive level by reducing the quantity it demands.

 

This lesson applies directly to the market for health care. If the government has a dominant role in buying the services of doctors and other health care providers, it can force prices down. Once the government is virtually the only game in town, health care providers will have little choice but to take whatever they can get. It is no wonder that the American Medical Association opposes the public option.

 

To be sure, squeezing suppliers would have unpleasant side effects. Over time, society would end up with fewer doctors and other health care workers. The reduced quantity of services would somehow need to be rationed among competing demands. Such rationing is unlikely to work well.

[westvirginia]

nice to see this guy does not have an agenda here.

 

Neal is a libertarian. He's attacked many a republican, sex scandal hypocrisy, the abortion issue, and free spending idiocy are some of his many issues with them.

 

But I see your point, DJ. If you can't attack the substance then discount it because of an "agenda". The fact that it's the truth (that democrats and others who would loot those who produce for the votes of those who don't are the ones behind the current HC bill on the table) should'nt get in the way of it being discounted because of the source, eh?

[Duchess Jack]

Neal is a libertarian. He's attacked many a republican, sex scandal hypocrisy, the abortion issue, and free spending idiocy are some of his many issues with them.

 

But I see your point, DJ. If you can't attack the substance then discount it because of an "agenda". The fact that it's the truth (that democrats and others who would loot those who produce for the votes of those who don't are the ones behind the current HC bill on the table) should'nt get in the way of it being discounted because of the source, eh?

there were no facts to challange. its a hypothetical argument.

 

...and to be completely honest, I don't pretend to understand all the facts - I don't think any of us do - but if the government plan is going to be so horrible wouldn't people be willing to pay more for the public plans? if so, aren't we are compairing apples to oranges. (response to Az's post as well) Its kind of like saying how can the Outback Steakhouse compete with McDonalds prices.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Duchess Jack

[westvirginia]

there were no facts to challange. its a hypothetical argument.

 

...and to be completely honest, I don't pretend to understand all the facts - I don't think any of us do - but if the government plan is going to be so horrible wouldn't people be willing to pay more for the public plans? if so, aren't we are compairing apples to oranges. (response to Az's post as well) Its kind of like saying how can the Outback Steakhouse compete with McDonalds prices.

 

1) It is a fact that the only people supporting what is currently being floated are dems and "independents" that think it's OK to rob Peter (the producer) to buy Paul's vote (i.e. looters).

 

2) You're missing the point. The "public option" will be a way for people to get the Outback (horrible food btw) at McD's prices. Precisely because it's being subsidized by the "evil rich".