ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[GreecePwns]

Not the first time. Nothing to say here either?

[Night Strike]

The increase in taxes would be less than what you would pay to an insurance company because the government isn't in it for the $11 billion in profits. Less overhead = less costs passed on to the consumer. Simply put, a government run system means lower costs. This effect is even more pronounced when you consider that other nations don't have a huge chunk of their economy being put toward two wars.

You think the government would have less overhead costs? This legislation created like 400 new boards and bureaucracies (I think Phatscotty has posted the actual amount somewhere), so how on earth does that mean lower costs? What is the need for all those boards other than to increase the size of government and the time it takes someone to get approval for treatment?

Also, have you actually done the math on what the $11 billion in profits actually come out to be per person? I've done them for you. If all 310 million people had health insurance, that's an average profit of $35 per person. If you factor in the claim that 40 million people are uninsured, then it increases to $40 per person. And those are numbers per year, not per month or week or day. Sure, I'd like to have the extra $40 per year, but that's a drop in the bucket to the amount of profit we pay companies every year for everything else we purchase. I can guarantee you that even if the government weren't in the market for a profit, they'd still find a way to waste that $40 per person per year.

[GreecePwns]

You think the government would have less overhead costs? This legislation created like 400 new boards and bureaucracies (I think Phatscotty has posted the actual amount somewhere), so how on earth does that mean lower costs?

Like 400? Until I see an actual list, then I'll find that hard to believe. If you're counting state ones as 50 each (plus territories in certain cases) then maybe that becomes more believable.

What is the need for all those boards other than to increase the size of government and the time it takes someone to get approval for treatment?

The boards being created aren't for determining whether someone is approved or not. They're being made to determine which practices are best for treating certain illnesses in order to get rid of wasteful practices in medicine.

Also, have you actually done the math on what the $11 billion in profits actually come out to be per person? I've done them for you. If all 310 million people had health insurance, that's an average profit of $35 per person. If you factor in the claim that 40 million people are uninsured, then it increases to $40 per person. And those are numbers per year, not per month or week or day.

The more recent HHS Dept report states that the number is actually $12.2 billion (my mistake, sorry) and there are 50.7 million uninsured. So it's an average of $40 per person to begin with, which increases to $47 taking out uninsured people. This also doesn't take into account the skyrocketing CEO salaries. The top 5 companies paid an average of $24 million to their CEO's.

The fact is that profits are going up - 250 percent in 10 years, in fact - while the percentage of the population covered is going down. Less people are being charged more for less coverage. Tell me where the good comes from that.

Sure, I'd like to have the extra $40 per year, but that's a drop in the bucket to the amount of profit we pay companies every year for everything else we purchase.

Now what if that extra $40 came with full coverage of all non purely cosmetic surgeries, drugs, etc.?

I can guarantee you that even if the government weren't in the market for a profit, they'd still find a way to waste that $40 per person per year.

Pure speculation/conspiracy. I won't even address this, as I have already shown in my other post that putting medicine in the governments hand's is proven to be more efficient.

[PLAYER57832]

You think the government would have less overhead costs? This legislation created like 400 new boards and bureaucracies (I think Phatscotty has posted the actual amount somewhere), so how on earth does that mean lower costs? .

Nader goes into why a single payor system would be cheaper better than I. He quoted figures saying that the avereage office now has 8 out of 10 people employed just to fill out insurance paperwork. This is because each insurance company has its own coverage ideas, its own forms, its own coding, etc.. etc... etc..

However, per the second... ever take the time to think about the number of insurance companies, agents, etc?

See, you want to act as if just because its not government, we can ignore it. In a real comparison, you cannot do that.

I did a quick search and got an incomplete Wikki article that listed about 47 US companies. BUT you have to understand that this includes groups like Kaiser, Highmark, Aetna, etc, which are all HUGE companies. So, if we eliminate even a few, then 400 "bureaucracies" (even assuming your figures are correct) suddenly is NOT such a huge number.

a more realistic idea can be garnered from a

[Phatscotty]

You think the government would have less overhead costs? This legislation created like 400 new boards and bureaucracies (I think Phatscotty has posted the actual amount somewhere), so how on earth does that mean lower costs?

Like 400? Until I see an actual list, then I'll find that hard to believe. If you're counting state ones as 50 each (plus territories in certain cases) then maybe that becomes more believable.

Dude, 400 is an understatement. I find it funny you can take such a strong position and not have a clue what is really going on with it.

Sorry broham, but the Federal government will add 16,500 new IRS agents at a cost of 10 Billion dollars to enforce the new health insurance mandate. That is just the IRS side of it.



You can support socialized medicine, just not on that premise

[Timminz]

Cool. Which ones were created because of the recent healthcare bill?

[PLAYER57832]

Like I said, you throw out numbers into a vacume, without any comparison to what exists right now.

How about how many employees insurance companies have added in the past 5 years?

OR, did you even consider the fact that NO insurance company even offered health insurance until the 1940's?

No, all you care about is government and, you decided, without any data to back up your claims that it is bad. To show these additions are bad, you have to do more than simply throw out numbers, youi have to show comparisons. REAL comparisons, not illusionary "we'll count every last government job, but utterly ignore any private company impacts"

[Juan_Bottom]

Seriously, my family hails from Norway.... Why can't we just be more like them? What is so poisonous about that?
They have socialized health care, and the average wage is like $28 American. My cousin Einer works about 35 hours a week, and gets five weeks of vacation a year on top of all that. There are very few uber-rich people there, and even fewer poor.
Part of their good lifestyle is because their state owned oil company shares profits with the people, but on that matter, America has oil too. And coal, and copper, and gold, ect ect.

[john9blue]

Juan is a Norwegian name??

Next time I see someone named Juan, I'm asking them if they like skiing.

[Phatscotty]

Cool. Which ones were created because of the recent healthcare bill?

I'm not even sure. I think this was jut a rough draft of the house version. It only serves to give an idea of what we are talking about here.

Some have been created, some have not. Perhaps we need a new thread...

[Phatscotty]

Seriously, my family hails from Norway.... Why can't we just be more like them? What is so poisonous about that?
They have socialized health care, and the average wage is like $28 American. My cousin Einer works about 35 hours a week, and gets five weeks of vacation a year on top of all that. There are very few uber-rich people there, and even fewer poor.
Part of their good lifestyle is because their state owned oil company shares profits with the people, but on that matter, America has oil too. And coal, and copper, and gold, ect ect.

It would be the same question to "why can't they be just like us?" Because we want to be who we already are, and remain free in thought and choice and principle

[PLAYER57832]

Seriously, my family hails from Norway.... Why can't we just be more like them? What is so poisonous about that?
They have socialized health care, and the average wage is like $28 American. My cousin Einer works about 35 hours a week, and gets five weeks of vacation a year on top of all that. There are very few uber-rich people there, and even fewer poor.
Part of their good lifestyle is because their state owned oil company shares profits with the people, but on that matter, America has oil too. And coal, and copper, and gold, ect ect.

It would be the same question to "why can't they be just like us?" Because we want to be who we already are, and remain free in thought and choice and principle

LOL
Denmark happens to be among the freest thinking countries on Earth, sir. AND it is one of the most socialized, PLUS noted as one with the happiest population according to a recent survey.

[Phatscotty]

Seriously, my family hails from Norway.... Why can't we just be more like them? What is so poisonous about that?
They have socialized health care, and the average wage is like $28 American. My cousin Einer works about 35 hours a week, and gets five weeks of vacation a year on top of all that. There are very few uber-rich people there, and even fewer poor.
Part of their good lifestyle is because their state owned oil company shares profits with the people, but on that matter, America has oil too. And coal, and copper, and gold, ect ect.

It would be the same question to "why can't they be just like us?" Because we want to be who we already are, and remain free in thought and choice and principle

LOL
Denmark happens to be among the freest thinking countries on Earth....

prove it

and Player, my comment was not against Denmark, you dolt! It was for America, to be free in our thoughts.....DOLT!

DOH!

[PLAYER57832]

Seriously, my family hails from Norway.... Why can't we just be more like them? What is so poisonous about that?
They have socialized health care, and the average wage is like $28 American. My cousin Einer works about 35 hours a week, and gets five weeks of vacation a year on top of all that. There are very few uber-rich people there, and even fewer poor.
Part of their good lifestyle is because their state owned oil company shares profits with the people, but on that matter, America has oil too. And coal, and copper, and gold, ect ect.

It would be the same question to "why can't they be just like us?" Because we want to be who we already are, and remain free in thought and choice and principle

LOL
Denmark happens to be among the freest thinking countries on Earth....

prove it

Hmm... well, how about the artist that came under fire for his paintings recently?
How about their history with Jews during WWII
How about ... I know you won't trust my word, so just ask anyone who is familiar with the country.

and Player, my comment was not against Denmark, you dolt! It was for America, to be free in our thoughts.....DOLT!

DOH!

LOL.. no, your comment referred, again, to the evils of socialism. And Denmark happens to be among the most socialistic countries on Earth.

Now, don't get me wrong, no country is absolute paradise. Frankly, I prefer the weather over here. However, if you are going to go on this all out attack against anything that smacks to you of socialism, it would be nice if you compared your thinking to real countries that actually have the systems you claim "won't work", etc, etc, etc, instead of these fictitious ideas you have about what it means. Because, as I already mentioned, DK happens to not be such a bad place to live.

[Phatscotty]

Denmark happens to be among the freest thinking countries on Earth....

prove it

Hmm... well, how about the artist that came under fire for his paintings recently?
How about their history with Jews during WWII
How about ... I know you won't trust my word, so just ask anyone who is familiar with the country.

Indeed, no other artist has came under fire. Denmark 1, everyone else in the world, 0.
Indeed, No people can possibly compare histories with the Jews to Denmark. Denmark 2, everyone else in the world, 0.
Indeed, just ask anyone from Denmark, and they will tell you. Denmark 3, everyone else in the world, 0.

Very nice

[Timminz]

Cool. Which ones were created because of the recent healthcare bill?

I'm not even sure. I think this was jut a rough draft of the house version. It only serves to give an idea of what we are talking about here.

Some have been created, some have not. Perhaps we need a new thread...

The vast majority of stuff on that chart would exist (and does exist for reasons far beyond this), regardless of anything to do with health care. Yes. The org charts involved in any large organization are going to be very confusing to most people. That's not an actual reason that it's bad, it's just a way to confuse people. You are very good at it.

[PLAYER57832]

Denmark happens to be among the freest thinking countries on Earth....

prove it

Hmm... well, how about the artist that came under fire for his paintings recently?
How about their history with Jews during WWII
How about ... I know you won't trust my word, so just ask anyone who is familiar with the country.

Indeed, no other artist has came under fire. Denmark 1, everyone else in the world, 0.
Indeed, No people can possibly compare histories with the Jews to Denmark. Denmark 2, everyone else in the world, 0.
Indeed, just ask anyone from Denmark, and they will tell you. Denmark 3, everyone else in the world, 0.

Very nice

How about not taking everything so far out of context for once.

This is not about me or any one country. You have heard from quite a few people in this thread who actually have lived in other countries, who live in them now and THEY ALL tell you that your ideas of how destructive socialized medicine is are just wrong.

But, rather than even halfway checking out anything anybody says, you prefer to insult and offer up statistics that don't even back what you claim they say.

You don't have to believe me.. but you ought to check out at least half of what you say on this.

[Phatscotty]

Cool. Which ones were created because of the recent healthcare bill?

I'm not even sure. I think this was jut a rough draft of the house version. It only serves to give an idea of what we are talking about here.

Some have been created, some have not. Perhaps we need a new thread...

The vast majority of stuff on that chart would exist (and does exist for reasons far beyond this), regardless of anything to do with health care. Yes. The org charts involved in any large organization are going to be very confusing to most people. That's not an actual reason that it's bad, it's just a way to confuse people. You are very good at it.

What it was, was a reminder of how the growth of gov't actually works. it's always more than they said it would be. I was just trying to prove 400 new beuracracies is no stretch, and I chose to show a picture rather than reply "Actaully, it's over 1,800".

[PLAYER57832]

Cool. Which ones were created because of the recent healthcare bill?

I'm not even sure. I think this was jut a rough draft of the house version. It only serves to give an idea of what we are talking about here.

Some have been created, some have not. Perhaps we need a new thread...

The vast majority of stuff on that chart would exist (and does exist for reasons far beyond this), regardless of anything to do with health care. Yes. The org charts involved in any large organization are going to be very confusing to most people. That's not an actual reason that it's bad, it's just a way to confuse people. You are very good at it.

What it was, was a reminder of how the growth of gov't actually works. it's always more than they said it would be. I was just trying to prove 400 new beuracracies is no stretch, and I chose to show a picture rather than reply "Actaully, it's over 1,800".

Except the entire medical insurance industry has grown several millionfold in just the past 50 years. I don't believe the entire Federal Government has grown anywhere near that much.

Or, to put it another way:

The insurance industry went from one, very small and extremely limited company to being among the most profitable industries in the world (though it takes almost all of its money from our country). And yet, you see a few more federal agencies as "the real threat".

[Timminz]

Cool. Which ones were created because of the recent healthcare bill?

I'm not even sure. I think this was jut a rough draft of the house version. It only serves to give an idea of what we are talking about here.

Some have been created, some have not. Perhaps we need a new thread...

The vast majority of stuff on that chart would exist (and does exist for reasons far beyond this), regardless of anything to do with health care. Yes. The org charts involved in any large organization are going to be very confusing to most people. That's not an actual reason that it's bad, it's just a way to confuse people. You are very good at it.

What it was, was a reminder of how the growth of gov't actually works. it's always more than they said it would be. I was just trying to prove 400 new beuracracies is no stretch, and I chose to show a picture rather than reply "Actaully, it's over 1,800".

You're confusing topics again. What's over 1800?

[Phatscotty]

Cool. Which ones were created because of the recent healthcare bill?

I'm not even sure. I think this was jut a rough draft of the house version. It only serves to give an idea of what we are talking about here.

Some have been created, some have not. Perhaps we need a new thread...

The vast majority of stuff on that chart would exist (and does exist for reasons far beyond this), regardless of anything to do with health care. Yes. The org charts involved in any large organization are going to be very confusing to most people. That's not an actual reason that it's bad, it's just a way to confuse people. You are very good at it.

What it was, was a reminder of how the growth of gov't actually works. it's always more than they said it would be. I was just trying to prove 400 new beuracracies is no stretch, and I chose to show a picture rather than reply "Actaully, it's over 1,800".

You're confusing topics again. What's over 1800?

I quadrupled the 400, you know, the original content matter I thought we were discussing. night strike and now I forget was going on about 400 new agencies for health care, and the other dude scoffed at such large growth. I stepped in to inform him in a way that opens the mind to the tangled web and why we should just choose to stay the hell out of it

[PLAYER57832]

I quadrupled the 400, you know, the original content matter

Uh... 4 * 400 = 1600

[saxitoxin]

LOL
Denmark happens to be among the freest thinking countries on Earth, sir. AND it is one of the most socialized, PLUS noted as one with the happiest population according to a recent survey.

Each family of 4 also owes a $500,000 share of government debt (see: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 8&t=129547). In a matter of time the ceiling is going to come crashing down and their so-called wonderful lifestyle will be 1 doctor for every 1,000 people, ether for anesthesia, food rations, etc.

A nation either needs to be Marxist-Leninist or Capitalist. There is no middle ground that is workable; social-democracy is a fiction. (I choose Marxism-Leninism, but I at least respect capitalists for not being dolts living in the land of unicorns and fairy dust that democratic-socialists occupy).

PLUS noted as one with the happiest population according to a recent survey.

This is a straight-up lie. They're #105 out of 143. (http://www.happyplanetindex.org/public- ... ex-2-0.pdf) According to the survey you lied about, the Danish are among the most utterly miserable people on the planet, with a sky-high suicide rate. They're less happy than Ghana.

Seriously, you either need to start providing a source for every single word you use, including "and" and "the", or just stop writing. Every single un-sourced comment out of your mouth is demonstrably false anytime someone takes 2 seconds to look into it. Unfortunately I seem to be the only one carrying that cross.

I'm sorry for saying "lie" but your modus operandi is to clutter up and junk-up threads with so much made-up and patently false information you just pull out of the air that it has the effect of derailing every single conversation in which you participate. This isn't simply a question of differences of opinion or different interpretations of data, or arguments of the validity of studies. Those are all fair game. You, however, simply make up whatever it takes to support your position and a lot of people are pretty f**king sick of it.

(You also need to work on your spelling and grammar.)

[DangerBoy]

Seriously, you either need to start providing a source for every single word you use, including "and" and "the", or just stop writing. Every single un-sourced comment out of your mouth is demonstrably false anytime someone takes 2 seconds to look into it. Unfortunately I seem to be the only one carrying that cross.

I'm sorry for saying "lie" but your modus operandi is to clutter up and junk-up threads with so much made-up and patently false information you just pull out of the air that it has the effect of derailing every single conversation in which you participate. This isn't simply a question of differences of opinion or different interpretations of data, or arguments of the validity of studies. Those are all fair game. You, however, simply make up whatever it takes to support your position and a lot of people are pretty f**king sick of it.

(You also need to work on your spelling and grammar.)

You're not the only one who notices it. It's just that she's such an ideological zealot that it's useless to try to have a meaningful conversation with her. She thinks that anyone who doesn't crown her as some type of authoritative source must be totally immersed in Fox News or listening to Rush Limbaugh. They have their ears plugged and won't listen to reason, while she happens to know what the REAL issue is. Perhaps if she writes a 15 paragraph post with ALL CAPS in some parts even she'll believe it. Whatever NPR is paying her, it isn't enough.

[PLAYER57832]

She thinks that anyone who doesn't crown her as some type of authoritative source must be totally immersed in Fox News or listening to Rush Limbaugh. They have their ears plugged and won't listen to reason, while she happens to know what the REAL issue is.

And, again, you have not disputed even a single data point I presented, and those of us "on the other side" have well disputed what you put forward.

So, once again, you descend to personnal attacks instead of countering ideas. Yes, I do sometimes call people idiots, for believing certain things and refusing to verify information.