Where will we be when all incentive to better ourselves is gone? How long will it take for people to say enough is enough, I'm not going to even try anymore, why should I, the government will pounce on me and take from me all that I have strived for, instead I'll just take and take and cry out for more. Likely the only thing stopping that is that we are Americans and that sort of giving up attitude is not in our dna, God Bless America and everything she stands for. Dont let the bastards win!
I swear, FOX News commentators are the stupidest people on earth. They have no clue as to how the public option plan works.
Isn't that what America is all about...having options? Competition is the key to our success, so why are Conservatives going against their very own priniciples?
Because most likely they dont trust the government, they realize that the public option will undercut all other options and will soon be the only option...hardly fair competition. The private sector is what makes America wonderful, not government intervention.
You have options already as a free man. Once the government takes control, the options become a private plan or a public plan. You lost your freedom to have no plan. Your copays do not decrease. You will have to choose from a small group of mediocre doctors. And, the government as the healthcare insurer will have to precertify all treatments. They will then tell you your premiums will go up unless you stop smoking, go on a diet and exercise. Its all about control of YOU!
public option will be paid for by the 3% tax increase given to the rich. Clinton had a 3% tax hike for the rich, and Bush changed it stating that he thinks everyone should get a tax cut. Obama is just reversing Bush's tax cut back to when Clinton had it. Not a big deal, folks. I mean really!
Let us refresh the brain cells of you ignorant pathetic conservatives, if you have any left.
1994-2006, Conservatives were in power in both chambers of Congress. 12 years of deregulation, tax cuts for billionares and reckless government spending, has left this country in a pile of donkey shit. Then we had Bush from 2001-2008 adding $1.5 trillion to the national debt.
And you people have the nerve to bitch and complain about every little move Obama makes? LMAO
I am a conservative so I guess I will respond. I am mystified that the left cant see that the public option is contrary to our form of government. Our constitution does not provide for government takeover of private business nor is it allowed to place it's citizens into indentured servitude.
The capitalistic form of government is the most successful and all other types are historically failures. why would you want to follow a man that pursues failure?
I will agree that Bush did not follow the fiscal conservative policy that conservatives in general support. However, Obama has already spent well over 1.5 trillion, within his first year. In fact, he is currently at just under 2 trillion in spending, with another trillion should the current health care plan pass. Lastly, the tax cut applied for all. I got a tax cut, you got a tax cut, everyone got a tax cut. The rich pay more, they get more back. That is just plain fair.
republicans havent been fiscally conservative for 30 years.. Reagan, Bush I.. Every time republicans bring up this argument I stop listening because it makes no sense
@ IFloridaMotocrossI .... you really do not understand how th efreemarket works. when competition comes in it lowers prices. you do know obama and most of the government are bought out by the new world order. so if you want the government to come in and take care for you, you make sure and get all the vaccines and go the the closest FEMA camp.. : )
Who paid for the bailouts? Fairies? Well I agree tpmtv. Whatever mythical creatures conjured the trillions out of thin air, will probably be on hand for health care too. Fucking retarded socialists pretending not to be socialist by backdoor taxing. Jesus Christ.
Well, the bailouts are paying for themselves actually. The bailouts were emergency LOANS, after all. The taxpayers are getting their money back, plus interest. Read the news.
LOL damn you do know that Obama had to borrow the bailout money and all stimulus money from China. And they interest is much higher then what Obama's buddies are paying back. Then after $50 to GM they are now saying they didn't make crap off their crappy cars and trucks and need more or they are going to go under, AGAIN.
every time governemnts comes in something bad heppens. let the freemarket put costs on health. and take care of your selves and start eating healthy yo fat fucks!
i say no governent between your doc and the patient. Competition drives cost down. i say no socialized health care and let the freemarked do the job. people are startind to sound like they want the new world order.
both republican and the democrat parties are all bought out by the New World Order. Obama is Fraud and socialising health care is a bad idea. we should listen to Ron Paul's ideas and should not go to war!
The only reason fox's ratings are high is because people like to see the ridiculous things they say. People like controversy. That's why the Jerry Springer Show ratings were so high in the 90's. People loved that they didnt know whether it was real or fake. Same with Fox. People love the fact that they're so biased.
When did a fox news anchor agree with a guest that Bush was sort of god... when did a fox news anchor say that a speech given by bush was akin to a surmon given by jesus christ on the mound.... when did a fox news anchor say bush gave them a thrill up their leg.
well guess you dont get it either ... been watching too much Fox ... the Public Option is NOT Government funded .. it is paid by the premiums it sells. It has to be self reliant.
if it's not goverment funded, then the government won't mandate any healthcare at all.and you'll not pay through a payroll tax as it stated in the bill you will. On be fined and or put in prison for tax fraud.
Which is in the bill as well. They won't be no voting in congress on public option.
Any put in place by the government is for the government, of the governmnet, to be pay into the government.
sorry if I'm asking an ignorant question, but could someone tell me if the public option isn't funded by the tax payers, who is funding it? Like how is the news anchor incorrect? Thanks!
Australia and New Zealand have a public option. Their private insurance companies still make millions in profit every year. I can't understand scare-mongering *uckers who can't see that this is a good thing, especially for the millions in the US who DONT get any converage. Selfish *unts.
I could almost excuse FOX for their opinion based stuff if they could at least get the facts straight. Just closed my brokerage account with TD Ameritrade because they advertise on Glenn Beck. I don't want a single penny of my money going to that Anti-American asshole.
What else would it be? If you pay to go to a public university, taxpayers underwrite some of the actual costs. If you pay to stay at a park, taxpayers underwrite some of the actual costs. Why would "public option" medical treatment be any different?
considering the government is run on taxes how isn't this government program isn't going to be run by taxes? Is providing healthcare free? wtf is the point of this video
The point is that the "public option" would be a government run health insurance which was funded by subscriber premiums the same way as private health insurance companies are funded.
@jhamaker Oh really? You mean those subscriber premiums which we will all have to subscribe to once private insurance is put to death? Those subscriber premiums we will each pay because they TAX us if we don't have some health insurance, although they call it a fine. BS, they are taxing us to run it.
So what exactly is the better alternative. We've had private run health insurance for decades and it continues to get worse every year.
To be perfectly honest, I'm all for universal health care - or socialized medicine. I actually see the "public option" as a cop-out for doing what really needs to be done.
And for what it's worth, the Canadians don't pay significantly higher taxes in exchange for free health care - neither do the French or British.
Your stats are wrong. Great Britain pays 8% of their taxes for Universal Healthcare, while we pay 16%. The arguement is over. The system needs an overhaul.
I'm sorry, but that's a flat out lie. If you "want" something like an MRI, CAT Scan, etc, you might have to wait a little longer. If you need something, you get it right away.
I think the story you heard was ridiculously over-exaggerated.
Lets get back on the topic and stop engaging in ad hominid attacks against my person. Were not in the first grade. Market intervention always (by law) leads to dead-weight loss to inefficiency. This is a fact of economics. If frictions to perfectly competitive dynamics are induced by the government, they need to be eliminated.
Government intervention and regulation was a result of the market not working though. When bubbles burst and crash the economy, the government steps in to kickstart it. Regulations are put into place as a result of the Free Market getting out of control.
I understand where you're coming from, but the logic is backwards. There was never "perfect competition", and the government regulates to keep the big fish from eating the little fish.
I am not an Anarcho-Capitalist. Look at history. The airline & health insurance industry were(are) heavily regulated. The government produces massive frictions to the entrance of new firms.
Equivalent to the percentage of exist species, 99% of medium to large companies no longer exist. If a company has a significantly superior product, it will destroy the competition. Given time, another firm will improve on said innovation. It will destroy the past firms abnormal profits
Yes, I understand; however, those "frictions" are needed for the safety of the consumers. There cannot be faulty airlines lacking safety precautions, and such risks cannot be unregulated in Healthcare especially.
The F.D.A. probably makes it harder for a number of perscription drugs to compete on the market, but what would be the result of removing the F.D.A.? Are cheaper drugs worth that risk?
These problems were all adressed in the early 1900's for good reason.
The FDA provides information to consumers. I am not against that. I am against the extremely low time given to maintain a patent. It forces drug companies to push up their prices because their 900 million dollar R&D project will have to turn a profit before generics hit the market.... It actually pushes these things into mass use far faster than they would be otherwise & pushes the price up substantially. Are you implying that the airline industry became less safe after regulation was removed?
I'm un-aware of the patent process you are talking about, but if it's the way you describe it, then I would probably be against it. I do understand that there are frivelous regulations in the market that corporatize shit even more than it is. I'm not in favor of those regulations.
Also, are you talking about when Reagan deregulated the airlines? Honestly, I didn't know you were implying certain specifics of Airlines in your comment. I assumed you used it as a general example.
Let me tell you my position. If a firm obtains an abnormal profit for process or product innovation, I'm all for it. If a firm obtains an abnormal profit by being a monopoly, I am against it. Why? Because it is destroying the market in the short run through an inefficient allocation of resources and in the long run through a reductive innovation process. There are temporary trade-offs between active regulation and passive regulation. This is always inferior to mechanism in a functioning market
I agree with that. The reason I so strongly support regulation is because of the situation here in America. Everything is monopolized to a dangerous extent. That is not a "cause" of government intervention, either. We have Wal-Mart, Exxon, and Chase alone. These guys should have been regulated and broken apart long ago, but due to a lack of "Corporation and State" in the Constitution, we know why much government regulation is a farce.
Before Walmart was dominated, there was Kmart before that Sears...... all without intervention. Walmart will eventually fall. The governments only function is to break up monopolies if the mechanisms in the free market cannot do the job. Now please comment on why interstate competition and insurance securitization is not a sufficient mechanism to achieve efficiency?
One of the interesting things that it tends to lead to is child prostitution and the drug trade, among similar possibilities (such as slavery and occupation economies a hundred or so years back).
When people get sick of it they turn toward a more socialist, civilized approached. When people get bored with that they revert backward toward anarcho-capitalism.
"Market intervention always (by law) leads to dead-weight loss to inefficiency."
Are you familiar with antitrust laws?
And also - a public option, funded entirely by voluntary premiums from the people it covers, isn't any more a "market intervention" than the introduction of another corporation into the market of health insurance. The only difference is that the public option would be non-profit, like health care SHOULD be. If the health insurance companies can't compete, that's their problem!
Here's the part your not keeping up with. Even if you live in a state that opts out, everyone still has to pay into it, through either a payroll tax or through your taxs at the end of the year.
Unlike a private fund where you have an "OPTION" to take part of or not.
As long as it goes through a government dept it's a tax.
health insurance companies are just middle men, you pay them the equivalent of $200 for an office visit so they can turn around, and pay me $35 [I'm a doctor], the other $165 goes to the $15 million CEO salary, and the corporate planes, etc, etc. I wouldn't have said this 15 years ago, but right now, medicaire is a way better run system then private insurance. The private insurance companies are just stealing your money, they add absolutely nothing but more cost. Tear them down and do better.
everything in this entire country has become rife with fraud, and it is certainly no different for private insurance. One of the differences is medicaire doesn't commit fraud on me, while private insurance companies do it all the time, denying payment for legitimate claims, purposefully losing claims [I heard that one from an insider who was my patient], and playing games with me that they know I don't have the time and resources to win.
I am not seeing the point of the title of this video. Of course the public option if ever passed is going to be funded by taxes. Why the hell do you think they want americans to pay the huge taxes in this bill for 3-5 years before the services EVEN START? Seriously, you people need to wake up, this bill may have a few good things in it, but it is far outweighed by the bad things. Like taxes on any medical device you could think of, taxes on payrolls, taxes taxes taxes....makes me sick.
@danconia3873 why the hell would a doctor quit being a doctor? i mean sure if it goes wrong they might get paid less but will they just say f u i quit? think plz think
actually my dads a dentist and alot of his dentist friends are going to get the hell out of the US or quit. i think you should think. we need more doctors. doctors will quit and why would anyone in school want to become a doctor if this bill is passed? this competition idea is fading away bc everyone can free load off the gov't
aiGo is absolutely correct. Many foreign born doctors who are currently practicing here that I know are planning on getting out of the US because their income will decrease, yet they will continue to have to pay outrageous premiums for malpractice insurance.
What do you think the opt out clause is, moron ? You knuckle dragger Republicans don't want it, you don't have to get it . See if the rest of the civilized country cares that you red states want to keep paying outrages private insurance cost ? Yes, I read the reform bill . It's online, read it your self . In PDF form it's no bigger then Palin's fantasy tell all .
Haha, I love the Grayson analogy and references! It's such a perfect description of the Republicans. They are Neanderthals who refuse to evolve for the sake of the country!
Grayson's truthful analogy was like holy water to the blood sucking Republican vampires, ha..? What was funny was their bad acting . The fake outrage, like they didn't in fact know they choose ideology over people's lives . Grayson's one of my progressive hero's . CA, where I live could take some lessons from him, since they've lost their liberal ways lately .
Government run health care system? Huh, what's that? Oh wait, are we talking about that system that every other industrialized nation in the world has.
Anyone making below 250,000 will not be taxed you idiots .Also, states have an opt out option. The truth is the average person is already taxed through the private sector on average of $1,100 a year for the under insured and uninsured . Health care reform would be cheaper via the CBO report .
can you opy out of paying,can you opt out of buy insurance.cheaper?yeah when you tax for ten years and deliver service for six years.truth is you spread half truths and out right deceptions.a2000 page bill and you have no idea what is in it and you have the nerve to call anybody an idiot?you want to see a real idiot,look in the mirror
LOL, I thought the CBO was a non partisan budget committee, huh ? To hell with the CBO, if Coulter said it, it must be true . After all Coulter isn't partisan or crazy, lol . Also, Fox has her on regularly and Fox is a credible news source . I couldn't say that on Camera IFlorida with a straight face : )
They are going to raise the taxes period. They are just going to use another excuse like the a WAR TAX! They can end both wars by removing our soldiers out of both countrys and NUKE THE BASTARDS! Those people are all fucking crazy anyways.
Yes its tax payer funded. I knew liberals were stupid but is there any one of them that thinks goverment health care is not going to bring new taxes. Tax and spend, thats all liberals do. Hell its bred into them. There the reason this country is going to hell in a handbacket.
If it's not a tax what to you call taking 5-10% of my paycheck each week? If I didn't voluntarily pay that each week, the IRS would have meet put in prison but it's not a tax. BULLSHIT! Liberals love to play word games. I think they actually get off on it in some sick way.
I assumed it was tax payer funded because young people who choose not to have insurance will be taxed, and that money goes towards evening out costs for the elderly.
You can remove their Anti-trust exemption, remove interstate restrictions, limit trial lawyers in tort reform, mandate pe-existing condition limits and mandate insurance requirement across the board problem solved.
but this bill running through washington isn't a healthcare bill, but a tax bill.
Really! Take out everything to do with healthcare in the bill you still have 1700 pages sitting on the table. The rest is taxing and taxing and even more taxing. Oh and $300 million to the state of louisiana for a senate vote that has to get payed back in federal taxs.
That's not counting the other $100's of million's for other votes in the house just to get it to the senate.
Holy S**t! of course it's taxpayer funded! Fox would be better off hiring the chimp that can dance with a tutu, it takes more intelligence than they can put on the air now..
Actually, the Public Option will be mainly funded by premiums from the people who buy into it. It will largely be cheaper because there are no administrative costs, and it is non-profit.
You're the one who isn't "getting it". It's laughable that you will make jabs at Democrats from the "knuckle-dragging" perspective. The only better idea I can come up with than the P.O. is Single Payer. (Which I'm in favor of)
Like most people, you're against the inefficiencies caused by monopolies and yet youre for the most powerful quasi-monopolistic entity, the government.
Is bureaucrats the only arguement you have against the Public Option, or is it the best one? Doesn't matter, considering there are bureaucrats in Private Insurance as well. You fucking moron....
Ever hear of Recision? That's the real bureaucratic mess.
Yeah right. Imperfect? Anti-Trust laws are not the driving issue behind Insurance Companies making our Healthcare system unsustainable. That can be attributed to greed.
It is a problem, yes; however, I don't believe it's reminiscent of the bigger picture. Even without the Anti-Trust laws, there would be a substantial lack of competition. The government needs to inject a real form of competition that can drive private insurance costs down. That would be the P.O.
Oh yes.... I see the anti-capitalists are coming out ;) You have zero understanding of economics. Ill prove it to you. In a perfectly competitive industry, the long run economic profit is zero. There is factor equalization. There is no one possible way to obtain a more efficient usage of scarce resources. If the govt reduced interstate/international frictions, the industry would converge towards ( not completely) a perfectly competitive status
I don't know how you got that assumption, but it's wrong. I just feel certain resources should be allocated by government and subsidized. Healthcare, Police, Military, etc.
You are putting words into my mouth.
Also, factor equalization is unteniable in a reality based world. Obviously Capitalism is the most efficient way to allocate resources, but some resources are too important though, to be left in the mix of profit goals.
" but some resources are too important though, to be left in the mix of profit goals."
I love how you phrased that... spoken like a true Marxian. The government should be in control of the "controlling heights." It is no longer in physical production but in the management of the most precise form of capital in any advanced economy, human capital.
Well, unlike you, I don't have the stereotype, American mindset of demonizing economic models other than Capitalism.
It's true, also. A person's well-being should not be left in the hands of an employee who gets bonuses for recision. If you are on that side of the spectrum, then I don't know what to say to you. I must assume you don't give a shit about others, and that's what it boils down to. If that's the case, this conversation is over..
Ill give you a solution. Open up all competition between states and international firms.... And securitize the insurance... The firms would have to compete on a global scale with an untold number of investors......
You over-emphasize the positive effect removing the Anti-Trust Laws will have, IMO. It's not going to completely solve the cost issue, by any means...
Yes, it will. Securitizing the insurance will allow for millions of investors to invest in your "security". Given individuals are risk averse, they will diversify their holdings. The idiosyncratic component will be diversified away. Only systematic risk factors will be priced into the "security." That is the most epic case of perfectly competitive entities.
I still disagree. Similar to Austrian Economists, you are leaving factors out of the equation. I just don't see that happening honestly. Europe went in the other direction for a reason.
This "equilibrium" you keep bringing up just won't happen. I don't like to be a cynic, but it's kinda far-fetched, especially in the modern economy.
I dont understand why you still disagree on my position on insurance securitization. It would in effect create a homogeneous good. There may be instance where imperfections do not allow for equilibrium but it is not the case here. Problem solved.
There is nothing that can be more efficient. Its mathematically impossible. You would have to steal wealth from someone else to be able to get more out.
I dont demonize other "economic" models just for the lolz. Im not a pure Neo-Classical theorist. I utilize models which are empirically verified. I have taken a mini-doctoral degree(4 doctoral level courses) on macroeconomic modeling in addition to my masters in mathematical finance degree. I am far from criticizing models based on political ideology.
The government has plans of opening over 100 new depatments to over see the nations healthcare and cost of treatments payed out.
That alnoe is 1/2 the budge of the so called cost.
Being they can't control the cost they now have to cut life saving treatments so it could pay for itself. Which with Obama's numbers will fall way short.
Not ONLY tax payer funded (you idiots) but run by the same idiots who run such bankrupt programs such as: The Post Office Amtrack Social Security Freddie & Frannie Medicare Wow you guys should be lucky there isn't an IQ requirement to vote. I'll throw one more out to you: 47% of the workers in the US PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX or put another way... 47% of the people VOTE for a living, 53% WORK for a living. What % are you?
i love when fox news covers stories with such integrity and accuracy. It sort of reminds me of the first time i read a comic depicted from the bizzaro universe. I was like, "no superman, not you. oh wait this is bizzaro superman. ok, whew."
@MooseOfReason The way I understand it is that most of that money which is about 82 billion a year for the next decade would go to subsidize insurance for people that can't afford it rather it be public or private insurance since there is a mandate in the bill. The public option is supposed to be run on premiums just like any other insurance plan but the public option isn't designed to make a profit which means people shouldn't get as many claims denied like the private health care system does.
The public option isn't taxpayer-funded, per se. It's funded by the policyholders, who happen to be taxpayers. Taxpayers who are not enrolled in the public option will not pay for it.
How old are you, 5? Of course taxpayers will fund the public option. Are you in an union plan, then your premiums will be taxed as income. Do you have a good plan? Then the same thing. Do you work for a small business, then your owner will be taxed...any layoffs in the future?
I currently don't have insurance because I'm a for-hire contractor, and I'm tired of paying outrageous amounts for Cobra (or even $200 - 300 per month for catastrophic coverage).
Let's assume you're right. Wouldn't you rather be covered by a plan that doesn't have advertising or some CEO's huge salary and bonuses to pay out?
In fact, we taxpayers are ALREADY subsidizing private insurance companies -- whether we like it or not -- so you've got it even worse now than with a non-profit plan.
@mrbhave I understand your plight mrbrave, however if you really think about it, insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws. Yep, they can have monopolies due to state restrictions of selling. If they repealed these exemptions, and let them sell across the country, there would be REAL competition. When was the last time you heard"car insurance reform now!" You dont of course, because they compete for business ACROSS the US. I wish more people would figure this out.
It's funny that you should bring up auto insurance. As a resident of Florida, I have been witnessing the exodus of insurance companies who are leaving my state because homeowner's insurance has become a losing proposition; the exception is the lucrative auto insurance business, for which many companies continue to provide coverage. Soon, lawmakers will force the companies who remain to provide BOTH auto and homeowner's insurance. Otherwise, every homeowner will end up on Citizen's insurance.
In addition, not all states recognize the same definition of "insurance." Some states regulate certain things that others don't. We would have to get every company on the same page to offer across state lines. However, with a non-profit, state option, states could retain their own definitions of "insurance" and still provide a non-profit alternative to the expensive, for-profit model.
Well, every state does have minimum requirements for car insurance. It would be nothing but the insurance company knowing the state requirements to apply policies across state lines.
While I agree with your idea, I don't think it's that simple. If it were, then our politicians have been scamming us all along. And that's not all too hard to believe nowadays.
wrong the federal government has set the guidlines of what healthcare will be provided.
States can make they stronger but not weaker. such as, if the fed says they everyone must have $250k a year "minimum" coverage. The state can make it $300k, but not $200k a year.
You have just proved my point. States can decide different guidelines from the federal government. Go ahead and tell me that private insurance companies wouldn't exploit this fact to their advantage when it came time to pay out on a claim.
Oh, I see. Tell me then, Mr. Professor, what exactly would you call our federal system of government?
I'm a libertarian, so communism isn't my cup of tea. However, I am also an ardent supporter of capitalism. Unfortunately, we have nothing of the sort in the U.S. And since we already pay subsidies to private health care companies, I thought I'd like to get something for the taxes for which I'm already paying. A non-profit health care system would cost MUCH less than a for-profit system.
.. why aren't the commentators on FOX concerned about funding the Afgan war?
milkgodnl 2 years ago
FOX seems to just banter and promote idiocy
Eldrad235 2 years ago
Where will we be when all incentive to better ourselves is gone? How long will it take for people to say enough is enough, I'm not going to even try anymore, why should I, the government will pounce on me and take from me all that I have strived for, instead I'll just take and take and cry out for more. Likely the only thing stopping that is that we are Americans and that sort of giving up attitude is not in our dna, God Bless America and everything she stands for. Dont let the bastards win!
SteveSeabee 2 years ago
I swear, FOX News commentators are the stupidest people on earth. They have no clue as to how the public option plan works.
Isn't that what America is all about...having options? Competition is the key to our success, so why are Conservatives going against their very own priniciples?
dfwtexxaas 2 years ago
Because most likely they dont trust the government, they realize that the public option will undercut all other options and will soon be the only option...hardly fair competition. The private sector is what makes America wonderful, not government intervention.
SteveSeabee 2 years ago
You have options already as a free man. Once the government takes control, the options become a private plan or a public plan. You lost your freedom to have no plan. Your copays do not decrease. You will have to choose from a small group of mediocre doctors. And, the government as the healthcare insurer will have to precertify all treatments. They will then tell you your premiums will go up unless you stop smoking, go on a diet and exercise. Its all about control of YOU!
bosco604 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice! Hey if you have a moment to check out our band's music (Living Syndication), I think you'd like it... It's kinda like APC or TOOL.
livingsyndication 2 years ago
public option will be paid for by the 3% tax increase given to the rich. Clinton had a 3% tax hike for the rich, and Bush changed it stating that he thinks everyone should get a tax cut. Obama is just reversing Bush's tax cut back to when Clinton had it. Not a big deal, folks. I mean really!
pnollen 2 years ago
Let us refresh the brain cells of you ignorant pathetic conservatives, if you have any left.
1994-2006, Conservatives were in power in both chambers of Congress. 12 years of deregulation, tax cuts for billionares and reckless government spending, has left this country in a pile of donkey shit. Then we had Bush from 2001-2008 adding $1.5 trillion to the national debt.
And you people have the nerve to bitch and complain about every little move Obama makes? LMAO
GOP= Grumpy Old Pricks
renijohn012270 2 years ago
I am a conservative so I guess I will respond. I am mystified that the left cant see that the public option is contrary to our form of government. Our constitution does not provide for government takeover of private business nor is it allowed to place it's citizens into indentured servitude.
The capitalistic form of government is the most successful and all other types are historically failures. why would you want to follow a man that pursues failure?
mrcarter2007 2 years ago 2
All bushes fault right? you have no idea what you are talking about. so all Im gonna say is you're retarded! Happy Thanksgiving!
scalp340 2 years ago
Happy Thanksgiving, retard!
hellfireyoutoob 2 years ago
I will agree that Bush did not follow the fiscal conservative policy that conservatives in general support. However, Obama has already spent well over 1.5 trillion, within his first year. In fact, he is currently at just under 2 trillion in spending, with another trillion should the current health care plan pass. Lastly, the tax cut applied for all. I got a tax cut, you got a tax cut, everyone got a tax cut. The rich pay more, they get more back. That is just plain fair.
MrManberries 2 years ago
republicans havent been fiscally conservative for 30 years.. Reagan, Bush I.. Every time republicans bring up this argument I stop listening because it makes no sense
ebertsaxman 2 years ago
they didn`t have control they had control by two or three votes as you know you need 220 in the house and 60 in the senate numb nuts
darrelllance1 2 years ago
@ObambaYouDumbNigger
I am a hard-core Liberal, but even I have to admit, that is a funny username. LMAO!
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
@ IFloridaMotocrossI .... you really do not understand how th efreemarket works. when competition comes in it lowers prices. you do know obama and most of the government are bought out by the new world order. so if you want the government to come in and take care for you, you make sure and get all the vaccines and go the the closest FEMA camp.. : )
RonPaulIsiah 2 years ago
isnt it being paid for by the tax payers? if not i wanna know where they are getting their money and why should we keep playing taxes.
heartless2219 2 years ago
Fox News is un-American. They are all LIARS (except Shep Smith who I adore)
NotsoNutso 2 years ago
Who paid for the bailouts? Fairies? Well I agree tpmtv. Whatever mythical creatures conjured the trillions out of thin air, will probably be on hand for health care too. Fucking retarded socialists pretending not to be socialist by backdoor taxing. Jesus Christ.
promontorium 2 years ago
"Who paid for the bailouts? Fairies?"
Well, the bailouts are paying for themselves actually. The bailouts were emergency LOANS, after all. The taxpayers are getting their money back, plus interest. Read the news.
AboveAllNations 2 years ago
LOL damn you do know that Obama had to borrow the bailout money and all stimulus money from China. And they interest is much higher then what Obama's buddies are paying back. Then after $50 to GM they are now saying they didn't make crap off their crappy cars and trucks and need more or they are going to go under, AGAIN.
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 2 years ago
every time governemnts comes in something bad heppens. let the freemarket put costs on health. and take care of your selves and start eating healthy yo fat fucks!
RonPaulIsiah 2 years ago
i say no governent between your doc and the patient. Competition drives cost down. i say no socialized health care and let the freemarked do the job. people are startind to sound like they want the new world order.
RonPaulIsiah 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have you seen the dance off sweeping youtube!? You gotta check this out!
Search:
"dad and son dance off (vote)"
Playa4reelSON 2 years ago
both republican and the democrat parties are all bought out by the New World Order. Obama is Fraud and socialising health care is a bad idea. we should listen to Ron Paul's ideas and should not go to war!
RonPaulIsiah 2 years ago
I don't know anything about the health care bill so my question is...
If taxpayers aren't paying for it, who is?
thechrisj 2 years ago
Holy shit Fox SHUT THE FUCK UP and just tell the GOD DAMN NEWS....
Supernova310 2 years ago
they cant. there too good at just blabbin on about shit
2BowlsIn 2 years ago
Tort reform
No antitrust exemption
No pre existing condition clauses
Very Limited public option to fill gaps. (State's Choice)
No Lifetime Cap.
The goal really should be to first make people's existing insurance actually work without the insured person fearing bankruptcy if they get sick.
Then worry about the uninsured since why insure them if the insurance does not work anyway.
Fix the problems first then bring the uninsured into the fold....
Zantor135 2 years ago 2
The sad thing about this particular anchor is that I would genuinely love to fuck her, but she's ON FOX NEWS!
That really, really upsets me ...
earflakes 2 years ago
Quoted from a Palin supporter in one of her youtube videos: "I know my facts, I watch FOX NEWS ALOT!"
MrTompho 2 years ago
The only reason fox's ratings are high is because people like to see the ridiculous things they say. People like controversy. That's why the Jerry Springer Show ratings were so high in the 90's. People loved that they didnt know whether it was real or fake. Same with Fox. People love the fact that they're so biased.
abcliqor 2 years ago
When did a fox news anchor agree with a guest that Bush was sort of god... when did a fox news anchor say that a speech given by bush was akin to a surmon given by jesus christ on the mound.... when did a fox news anchor say bush gave them a thrill up their leg.
axe863 2 years ago
This video is purely stating the obvious.. whats the point of even putting in on here? i dont get it.. is it for or against fox news?
EscuchelaLaCiudad 2 years ago
well guess you dont get it either ... been watching too much Fox ... the Public Option is NOT Government funded .. it is paid by the premiums it sells. It has to be self reliant.
Fettemotte2 2 years ago
if it's not goverment funded, then the government won't mandate any healthcare at all.and you'll not pay through a payroll tax as it stated in the bill you will. On be fined and or put in prison for tax fraud.
Which is in the bill as well. They won't be no voting in congress on public option.
Any put in place by the government is for the government, of the governmnet, to be pay into the government.
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 2 years ago
sorry if I'm asking an ignorant question, but could someone tell me if the public option isn't funded by the tax payers, who is funding it? Like how is the news anchor incorrect? Thanks!
moocowsforever 2 years ago
Australia and New Zealand have a public option. Their private insurance companies still make millions in profit every year. I can't understand scare-mongering *uckers who can't see that this is a good thing, especially for the millions in the US who DONT get any converage. Selfish *unts.
zitis 2 years ago
Are you gonna buy me dinner before you do sex to me?
Nickelodeon2002 2 years ago
I could almost excuse FOX for their opinion based stuff if they could at least get the facts straight. Just closed my brokerage account with TD Ameritrade because they advertise on Glenn Beck. I don't want a single penny of my money going to that Anti-American asshole.
codediporpal 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hey YouTubers! beer bongs anyone?? we have a new say parody and 10 other hilarious beer bong videos :) help the channel explode
TheBeerBongChannel 2 years ago
yay now we have to pay taxes to kill babies.
aiG0oChamNa 2 years ago
Lol, what a stupid thing to say.
JoshtoGermany 2 years ago
What else would it be? If you pay to go to a public university, taxpayers underwrite some of the actual costs. If you pay to stay at a park, taxpayers underwrite some of the actual costs. Why would "public option" medical treatment be any different?
gmartinz01 2 years ago
It's MAGIC!
hullolife 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Call this number for a good time ;D
224 522 5792
IxEATxLIGHTBULBS 2 years ago
Claims? How else does the government have money to "do" anything?
hullolife 2 years ago
considering the government is run on taxes how isn't this government program isn't going to be run by taxes? Is providing healthcare free? wtf is the point of this video
Ru5k1 2 years ago
The point is that the "public option" would be a government run health insurance which was funded by subscriber premiums the same way as private health insurance companies are funded.
The key point is "subscriber premiums" not taxes.
jhamaker 2 years ago
@jhamaker Oh really? You mean those subscriber premiums which we will all have to subscribe to once private insurance is put to death? Those subscriber premiums we will each pay because they TAX us if we don't have some health insurance, although they call it a fine. BS, they are taxing us to run it.
MrManberries 2 years ago
So what exactly is the better alternative. We've had private run health insurance for decades and it continues to get worse every year.
To be perfectly honest, I'm all for universal health care - or socialized medicine. I actually see the "public option" as a cop-out for doing what really needs to be done.
And for what it's worth, the Canadians don't pay significantly higher taxes in exchange for free health care - neither do the French or British.
jhamaker 2 years ago
if there's a problem with private health insurance system, we fix it.
but never allow the government to take it over and have the nation depend on a system the world knows doesn't work. it never has and never will.
And yes compared in pay they pay almost 47% of their pay in taxs.
So do you think you can live of just 1/2 your pay. why ask for $20.00 an hour just to give $10.00 an hour to the government.
lean to ues your own money to take care of yourself.
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 2 years ago
@MrSTANDFORAMERICA
Your stats are wrong. Great Britain pays 8% of their taxes for Universal Healthcare, while we pay 16%. The arguement is over. The system needs an overhaul.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
My best friends uncle lives there. He had to wait 2 months to get his aching tooth pulled. He said he was one of the lucky ones.
axe863 2 years ago
@axe863
I'm sorry, but that's a flat out lie. If you "want" something like an MRI, CAT Scan, etc, you might have to wait a little longer. If you need something, you get it right away.
I think the story you heard was ridiculously over-exaggerated.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
So first Im retarded and now Im a liar. Youre a beautiful human being.
axe863 2 years ago
@axe863
I am pretty sexy.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
I dont swing that way. Btw, I meant on the inside.
axe863 2 years ago
yes you do liar
ryoliciousrules 2 years ago
Lets get back on the topic and stop engaging in ad hominid attacks against my person. Were not in the first grade. Market intervention always (by law) leads to dead-weight loss to inefficiency. This is a fact of economics. If frictions to perfectly competitive dynamics are induced by the government, they need to be eliminated.
axe863 2 years ago
@axe863
Government intervention and regulation was a result of the market not working though. When bubbles burst and crash the economy, the government steps in to kickstart it. Regulations are put into place as a result of the Free Market getting out of control.
I understand where you're coming from, but the logic is backwards. There was never "perfect competition", and the government regulates to keep the big fish from eating the little fish.
Anarcho-Capitalism just isn't teniable.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
I am not an Anarcho-Capitalist. Look at history. The airline & health insurance industry were(are) heavily regulated. The government produces massive frictions to the entrance of new firms.
Equivalent to the percentage of exist species, 99% of medium to large companies no longer exist. If a company has a significantly superior product, it will destroy the competition. Given time, another firm will improve on said innovation. It will destroy the past firms abnormal profits
axe863 2 years ago
@axe863
Yes, I understand; however, those "frictions" are needed for the safety of the consumers. There cannot be faulty airlines lacking safety precautions, and such risks cannot be unregulated in Healthcare especially.
The F.D.A. probably makes it harder for a number of perscription drugs to compete on the market, but what would be the result of removing the F.D.A.? Are cheaper drugs worth that risk?
These problems were all adressed in the early 1900's for good reason.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
The FDA provides information to consumers. I am not against that. I am against the extremely low time given to maintain a patent. It forces drug companies to push up their prices because their 900 million dollar R&D project will have to turn a profit before generics hit the market.... It actually pushes these things into mass use far faster than they would be otherwise & pushes the price up substantially. Are you implying that the airline industry became less safe after regulation was removed?
axe863 2 years ago
@axe863
I'm un-aware of the patent process you are talking about, but if it's the way you describe it, then I would probably be against it. I do understand that there are frivelous regulations in the market that corporatize shit even more than it is. I'm not in favor of those regulations.
Also, are you talking about when Reagan deregulated the airlines? Honestly, I didn't know you were implying certain specifics of Airlines in your comment. I assumed you used it as a general example.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
Let me tell you my position. If a firm obtains an abnormal profit for process or product innovation, I'm all for it. If a firm obtains an abnormal profit by being a monopoly, I am against it. Why? Because it is destroying the market in the short run through an inefficient allocation of resources and in the long run through a reductive innovation process. There are temporary trade-offs between active regulation and passive regulation. This is always inferior to mechanism in a functioning market
axe863 2 years ago
@axe863
I agree with that. The reason I so strongly support regulation is because of the situation here in America. Everything is monopolized to a dangerous extent. That is not a "cause" of government intervention, either. We have Wal-Mart, Exxon, and Chase alone. These guys should have been regulated and broken apart long ago, but due to a lack of "Corporation and State" in the Constitution, we know why much government regulation is a farce.
Like a mandate without the Public Option!
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
Before Walmart was dominated, there was Kmart before that Sears...... all without intervention. Walmart will eventually fall. The governments only function is to break up monopolies if the mechanisms in the free market cannot do the job. Now please comment on why interstate competition and insurance securitization is not a sufficient mechanism to achieve efficiency?
axe863 2 years ago
One of the interesting things that it tends to lead to is child prostitution and the drug trade, among similar possibilities (such as slavery and occupation economies a hundred or so years back).
When people get sick of it they turn toward a more socialist, civilized approached. When people get bored with that they revert backward toward anarcho-capitalism.
earflakes 2 years ago
This will continue into perpetuity. Innovation - differentiated goods then perfectly competitive goods then innovation.....
The firm only obtains profits for a limited time but the benefit to humanity is forever
axe863 2 years ago
"Market intervention always (by law) leads to dead-weight loss to inefficiency."
Are you familiar with antitrust laws?
And also - a public option, funded entirely by voluntary premiums from the people it covers, isn't any more a "market intervention" than the introduction of another corporation into the market of health insurance. The only difference is that the public option would be non-profit, like health care SHOULD be. If the health insurance companies can't compete, that's their problem!
AboveAllNations 2 years ago
@AboveAllNations
Agreed.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
LOL. That stat covers all the tax taken from payroll.
On a 40 hr check my taxs are 22.25%, now add the 8% now you have 30.25%.
The tax base in many euro countries is already in the 30% range. Then ad the healthcare tax.
Now with what I pay now for healthcare I get major medical.
With Obamacare I'll pay the same amount but only get basic care.
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 2 years ago
Here's the part your not keeping up with. Even if you live in a state that opts out, everyone still has to pay into it, through either a payroll tax or through your taxs at the end of the year.
Unlike a private fund where you have an "OPTION" to take part of or not.
As long as it goes through a government dept it's a tax.
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 2 years ago
health insurance companies are just middle men, you pay them the equivalent of $200 for an office visit so they can turn around, and pay me $35 [I'm a doctor], the other $165 goes to the $15 million CEO salary, and the corporate planes, etc, etc. I wouldn't have said this 15 years ago, but right now, medicaire is a way better run system then private insurance. The private insurance companies are just stealing your money, they add absolutely nothing but more cost. Tear them down and do better.
jackebner 2 years ago
No, insurance is supposed to be for unexpected extreme risk ( catastrophic magnitude loss).
Medicare is rife with fraud costing billions of dollars every year.
axe863 2 years ago
everything in this entire country has become rife with fraud, and it is certainly no different for private insurance. One of the differences is medicaire doesn't commit fraud on me, while private insurance companies do it all the time, denying payment for legitimate claims, purposefully losing claims [I heard that one from an insider who was my patient], and playing games with me that they know I don't have the time and resources to win.
jackebner 2 years ago
Is this like a newsflash, who honestly didn't know this already.
rngd311 2 years ago
I am not seeing the point of the title of this video. Of course the public option if ever passed is going to be funded by taxes. Why the hell do you think they want americans to pay the huge taxes in this bill for 3-5 years before the services EVEN START? Seriously, you people need to wake up, this bill may have a few good things in it, but it is far outweighed by the bad things. Like taxes on any medical device you could think of, taxes on payrolls, taxes taxes taxes....makes me sick.
Zoklor 2 years ago
Shes right
PegsEP 2 years ago
lots of idiots on youtube~
Imakenerdscry 2 years ago
ulogoff=1<
sowerwines 2 years ago
ulogoff=100<
Imakenerdscry 2 years ago
got news for you the vietnam war was funded by social security i can hardly believe how many ignorant idiots there are on you tube.
tomanyasses 2 years ago
Go to ebay
copy and paste this:
120496281485
FRESHEST JOINTS EVER!
antalopes 2 years ago
Just leave me alone!!! I can be prosperous and happy all on my own.
MeloShow11 2 years ago
It won't necessarily increase taxes on any Americans but it COULD if it doesn't go right. So, yeah, slip up by the anchor, but who gives a shit
porkramen21 2 years ago
Oh come on, it won't go right... it never does.
I hope everyone here likes doctor shortages!
danconia3873 2 years ago
@danconia3873 why the hell would a doctor quit being a doctor? i mean sure if it goes wrong they might get paid less but will they just say f u i quit? think plz think
alexgillespie1 2 years ago
actually my dads a dentist and alot of his dentist friends are going to get the hell out of the US or quit. i think you should think. we need more doctors. doctors will quit and why would anyone in school want to become a doctor if this bill is passed? this competition idea is fading away bc everyone can free load off the gov't
aiG0oChamNa 2 years ago
*freeload off from those who work hard to make a living
hullolife 2 years ago
@danconia3873
It won't go correctly because of the knuckle-dragging Repulicunts watering down the bill to the point it's useless.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
aiGo is absolutely correct. Many foreign born doctors who are currently practicing here that I know are planning on getting out of the US because their income will decrease, yet they will continue to have to pay outrageous premiums for malpractice insurance.
Guliver8 2 years ago 2
What do you think the opt out clause is, moron ? You knuckle dragger Republicans don't want it, you don't have to get it . See if the rest of the civilized country cares that you red states want to keep paying outrages private insurance cost ? Yes, I read the reform bill . It's online, read it your self . In PDF form it's no bigger then Palin's fantasy tell all .
thevirtueallliberal 2 years ago
@thevirtueallliberal
Haha, I love the Grayson analogy and references! It's such a perfect description of the Republicans. They are Neanderthals who refuse to evolve for the sake of the country!
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago 3
Grayson's truthful analogy was like holy water to the blood sucking Republican vampires, ha..? What was funny was their bad acting . The fake outrage, like they didn't in fact know they choose ideology over people's lives . Grayson's one of my progressive hero's . CA, where I live could take some lessons from him, since they've lost their liberal ways lately .
thevirtueallliberal 2 years ago
Government run health care system? Huh, what's that? Oh wait, are we talking about that system that every other industrialized nation in the world has.
Gatorzzz09 2 years ago 3
Anyone making below 250,000 will not be taxed you idiots .Also, states have an opt out option. The truth is the average person is already taxed through the private sector on average of $1,100 a year for the under insured and uninsured . Health care reform would be cheaper via the CBO report .
thevirtueallliberal 2 years ago
can you opy out of paying,can you opt out of buy insurance.cheaper?yeah when you tax for ten years and deliver service for six years.truth is you spread half truths and out right deceptions.a2000 page bill and you have no idea what is in it and you have the nerve to call anybody an idiot?you want to see a real idiot,look in the mirror
exweez 2 years ago
@thevirtueallliberal
No, the CBO is bought out by special interest Liberals. Ann Coulter said so on Larry King. The CBO is a fraud.
(I'm being sarcastic btw)
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
LOL, I thought the CBO was a non partisan budget committee, huh ? To hell with the CBO, if Coulter said it, it must be true . After all Coulter isn't partisan or crazy, lol . Also, Fox has her on regularly and Fox is a credible news source . I couldn't say that on Camera IFlorida with a straight face : )
thevirtueallliberal 2 years ago
who is the idiot that post this?"claims"it will be taxpayer funded?where else does the government get money other than printing it
exweez 2 years ago
They are going to raise the taxes period. They are just going to use another excuse like the a WAR TAX! They can end both wars by removing our soldiers out of both countrys and NUKE THE BASTARDS! Those people are all fucking crazy anyways.
whiskeygurl70 2 years ago
Yes its tax payer funded. I knew liberals were stupid but is there any one of them that thinks goverment health care is not going to bring new taxes. Tax and spend, thats all liberals do. Hell its bred into them. There the reason this country is going to hell in a handbacket.
KMAObama 2 years ago 2
If it's not a tax what to you call taking 5-10% of my paycheck each week? If I didn't voluntarily pay that each week, the IRS would have meet put in prison but it's not a tax. BULLSHIT! Liberals love to play word games. I think they actually get off on it in some sick way.
maximusdecimus888 2 years ago
I assumed it was tax payer funded because young people who choose not to have insurance will be taxed, and that money goes towards evening out costs for the elderly.
MtnXfreeride 2 years ago
take public option off the table and you have NOTHING. INSURANCE CO. WILL HAVE YOUR BALLS AGAIN.
deegeyx3 2 years ago
You can remove their Anti-trust exemption, remove interstate restrictions, limit trial lawyers in tort reform, mandate pe-existing condition limits and mandate insurance requirement across the board problem solved.
quickboat22 2 years ago
but this bill running through washington isn't a healthcare bill, but a tax bill.
Really! Take out everything to do with healthcare in the bill you still have 1700 pages sitting on the table. The rest is taxing and taxing and even more taxing. Oh and $300 million to the state of louisiana for a senate vote that has to get payed back in federal taxs.
That's not counting the other $100's of million's for other votes in the house just to get it to the senate.
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 2 years ago
But you dinks that compare car insurance to healthcare insurance(Obama's a dink because he did also).
Mandatory car insurance only coverers a wreak you cause. but not yourself.
Healthcare insurance coveres only you not anyone you have got into a fight with and broke their arm.
So forced healthcare on people is no more thatke taking away right of that person to make a choice of themself.
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 2 years ago
Holy S**t! of course it's taxpayer funded! Fox would be better off hiring the chimp that can dance with a tutu, it takes more intelligence than they can put on the air now..
marcot64 2 years ago 3
OMG, I get it now! You think because it's called the "public" option it WON'T be tax payer subsidized? Are you a child or a moron?
Let me break it down so even a Hope & Change Voter can figure it out.
Anyone can buy health insurance now, but it may be more expensive than they would like.
WHY would anyone buy into the "public option" unless it was CHEAPER than insurance now available?
The Only way to make it cheaper is to subsidize (with tax payer funds) insurance to make it more affordable
AssHatSockPuppet 2 years ago
@AssHatSockPuppet
Actually, the Public Option will be mainly funded by premiums from the people who buy into it. It will largely be cheaper because there are no administrative costs, and it is non-profit.
You're the one who isn't "getting it". It's laughable that you will make jabs at Democrats from the "knuckle-dragging" perspective. The only better idea I can come up with than the P.O. is Single Payer. (Which I'm in favor of)
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
Democrats are fairly hilarious.
Like most people, you're against the inefficiencies caused by monopolies and yet youre for the most powerful quasi-monopolistic entity, the government.
axe863 2 years ago
@axe863
That is a remarkably stupid comment. Do you have brain damage?
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
Do not speak in generalities! Be specific. Btw, you dont win logic points by insulting the poster of an argument ;)
axe863 2 years ago
"It will largely be cheaper because there are no administrative costs, and it is non-profit."
So.....The government with its massive bureaucracy will be more efficient than the market. LOL
axe863 2 years ago
@axe863
Is bureaucrats the only arguement you have against the Public Option, or is it the best one? Doesn't matter, considering there are bureaucrats in Private Insurance as well. You fucking moron....
Ever hear of Recision? That's the real bureaucratic mess.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
The imperfect competition was created by governments effective limit on interstate/international competition.
axe863 2 years ago
@axe863
Yeah right. Imperfect? Anti-Trust laws are not the driving issue behind Insurance Companies making our Healthcare system unsustainable. That can be attributed to greed.
It is a problem, yes; however, I don't believe it's reminiscent of the bigger picture. Even without the Anti-Trust laws, there would be a substantial lack of competition. The government needs to inject a real form of competition that can drive private insurance costs down. That would be the P.O.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
Oh yes.... I see the anti-capitalists are coming out ;) You have zero understanding of economics. Ill prove it to you. In a perfectly competitive industry, the long run economic profit is zero. There is factor equalization. There is no one possible way to obtain a more efficient usage of scarce resources. If the govt reduced interstate/international frictions, the industry would converge towards ( not completely) a perfectly competitive status
You have been so epically owned.
axe863 2 years ago
@axe863
I don't know how you got that assumption, but it's wrong. I just feel certain resources should be allocated by government and subsidized. Healthcare, Police, Military, etc.
You are putting words into my mouth.
Also, factor equalization is unteniable in a reality based world. Obviously Capitalism is the most efficient way to allocate resources, but some resources are too important though, to be left in the mix of profit goals.
You owned yourself.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
" but some resources are too important though, to be left in the mix of profit goals."
I love how you phrased that... spoken like a true Marxian. The government should be in control of the "controlling heights." It is no longer in physical production but in the management of the most precise form of capital in any advanced economy, human capital.
axe863 2 years ago
@axe863
Well, unlike you, I don't have the stereotype, American mindset of demonizing economic models other than Capitalism.
It's true, also. A person's well-being should not be left in the hands of an employee who gets bonuses for recision. If you are on that side of the spectrum, then I don't know what to say to you. I must assume you don't give a shit about others, and that's what it boils down to. If that's the case, this conversation is over..
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
Ill give you a solution. Open up all competition between states and international firms.... And securitize the insurance... The firms would have to compete on a global scale with an untold number of investors......
axe863 2 years ago
@axe863
I partially agree with that.
You over-emphasize the positive effect removing the Anti-Trust Laws will have, IMO. It's not going to completely solve the cost issue, by any means...
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
Yes, it will. Securitizing the insurance will allow for millions of investors to invest in your "security". Given individuals are risk averse, they will diversify their holdings. The idiosyncratic component will be diversified away. Only systematic risk factors will be priced into the "security." That is the most epic case of perfectly competitive entities.
axe863 2 years ago
@axe863
I still disagree. Similar to Austrian Economists, you are leaving factors out of the equation. I just don't see that happening honestly. Europe went in the other direction for a reason.
This "equilibrium" you keep bringing up just won't happen. I don't like to be a cynic, but it's kinda far-fetched, especially in the modern economy.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
I dont understand why you still disagree on my position on insurance securitization. It would in effect create a homogeneous good. There may be instance where imperfections do not allow for equilibrium but it is not the case here. Problem solved.
axe863 2 years ago
@axe863
Well, I inadvertently agree with you. I agree with that being a policy. All I disagree with is the extent of the problem that it will solve.
I just don't feel it will go far enough. But then again, I personally have lost quite a bit of faith in the Free Market over the last few years.
Not to mention, I don't think a Public Option could hurt. (As long as the Republicans don't water it down too much)
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
@axe863
Btw, I'm gonna go to bed. I'm really tired...
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
Haha me too its extremely late
axe863 2 years ago
There is nothing that can be more efficient. Its mathematically impossible. You would have to steal wealth from someone else to be able to get more out.
axe863 2 years ago
There is a way of making things more efficient: cutting out the middle man.
That's what the public option does.
The most economic course of action is: "If you want something done right, do it yourself." But this is not feasible in regards to medical procedures.
earflakes 2 years ago
I dont demonize other "economic" models just for the lolz. Im not a pure Neo-Classical theorist. I utilize models which are empirically verified. I have taken a mini-doctoral degree(4 doctoral level courses) on macroeconomic modeling in addition to my masters in mathematical finance degree. I am far from criticizing models based on political ideology.
axe863 2 years ago
@axe863
Well, then why criticize my comment, which was pretty obvious? You related my comment to a Marxist ideology with an apparent negative connotation...
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
I used to be a Marxist I should know
axe863 2 years ago
@axe863
Haha, okay then.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
where does it stop? at wiping your ass, clening you room, picking up your dirty clothes off the floor, buy and cook your food for you.
You kids need to learn to do for yourself. The government isn't your mommies.
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 2 years ago
good idea lets have anarchy.
barneygrumble 2 years ago
Again they are not keeping.
The government has plans of opening over 100 new depatments to over see the nations healthcare and cost of treatments payed out.
That alnoe is 1/2 the budge of the so called cost.
Being they can't control the cost they now have to cut life saving treatments so it could pay for itself. Which with Obama's numbers will fall way short.
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 2 years ago
ChimpBama 2 years ago
@ChimpBama
Ha, where did you get those stats?
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
Fox News tells people what to think that don't.
MendingMedia 2 years ago
i love when fox news covers stories with such integrity and accuracy. It sort of reminds me of the first time i read a comic depicted from the bizzaro universe. I was like, "no superman, not you. oh wait this is bizzaro superman. ok, whew."
xxxxxxxwwxxxxxxx 2 years ago
if it doesn't come from taxpayers, where does it come from? God, libs are ignorant.
slurppypurr 2 years ago
more lies
lhooq21 2 years ago
this woman anchor is evil.
mbaguer 2 years ago 2
So, who would be funding it, then?
Who's paying the $820-billion/$1.2 trillion cost? Where is the money coming from?
MooseOfReason 2 years ago
@MooseOfReason The way I understand it is that most of that money which is about 82 billion a year for the next decade would go to subsidize insurance for people that can't afford it rather it be public or private insurance since there is a mandate in the bill. The public option is supposed to be run on premiums just like any other insurance plan but the public option isn't designed to make a profit which means people shouldn't get as many claims denied like the private health care system does.
terrence0258 2 years ago 2
China.
trynite 2 years ago
the Government is paying for troops health care,homes, schooling, and other stuff our Army is so Socialist
DemonicGemini 2 years ago 2
Fox News: When the truth fails us, we make shit up!
frostwolf1 2 years ago
What she said is absolute truth.
JonRichards1960 2 years ago
FOX LIES!! wait why am I surprised??
kurtdawolf 2 years ago
What is the lie?
JonRichards1960 2 years ago
Well assuming the uninsured pay taxes she's right.
Thinking4You 2 years ago
The public option isn't taxpayer-funded, per se. It's funded by the policyholders, who happen to be taxpayers. Taxpayers who are not enrolled in the public option will not pay for it.
mrbhave 2 years ago 3
How old are you, 5? Of course taxpayers will fund the public option. Are you in an union plan, then your premiums will be taxed as income. Do you have a good plan? Then the same thing. Do you work for a small business, then your owner will be taxed...any layoffs in the future?
JonRichards1960 2 years ago
I currently don't have insurance because I'm a for-hire contractor, and I'm tired of paying outrageous amounts for Cobra (or even $200 - 300 per month for catastrophic coverage).
Let's assume you're right. Wouldn't you rather be covered by a plan that doesn't have advertising or some CEO's huge salary and bonuses to pay out?
In fact, we taxpayers are ALREADY subsidizing private insurance companies -- whether we like it or not -- so you've got it even worse now than with a non-profit plan.
mrbhave 2 years ago 5
@mrbhave I understand your plight mrbrave, however if you really think about it, insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws. Yep, they can have monopolies due to state restrictions of selling. If they repealed these exemptions, and let them sell across the country, there would be REAL competition. When was the last time you heard"car insurance reform now!" You dont of course, because they compete for business ACROSS the US. I wish more people would figure this out.
Zoklor 2 years ago
It's funny that you should bring up auto insurance. As a resident of Florida, I have been witnessing the exodus of insurance companies who are leaving my state because homeowner's insurance has become a losing proposition; the exception is the lucrative auto insurance business, for which many companies continue to provide coverage. Soon, lawmakers will force the companies who remain to provide BOTH auto and homeowner's insurance. Otherwise, every homeowner will end up on Citizen's insurance.
mrbhave 2 years ago
In addition, not all states recognize the same definition of "insurance." Some states regulate certain things that others don't. We would have to get every company on the same page to offer across state lines. However, with a non-profit, state option, states could retain their own definitions of "insurance" and still provide a non-profit alternative to the expensive, for-profit model.
mrbhave 2 years ago
Well, every state does have minimum requirements for car insurance. It would be nothing but the insurance company knowing the state requirements to apply policies across state lines.
Zoklor 2 years ago
While I agree with your idea, I don't think it's that simple. If it were, then our politicians have been scamming us all along. And that's not all too hard to believe nowadays.
mrbhave 2 years ago
wrong the federal government has set the guidlines of what healthcare will be provided.
States can make they stronger but not weaker. such as, if the fed says they everyone must have $250k a year "minimum" coverage. The state can make it $300k, but not $200k a year.
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 2 years ago
You have just proved my point. States can decide different guidelines from the federal government. Go ahead and tell me that private insurance companies wouldn't exploit this fact to their advantage when it came time to pay out on a claim.
mrbhave 2 years ago
That's right, states do get to decide different guidelines. As it should be. Other wise it would be called communism.
oh my bad, I now see that you are all for communism.
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 2 years ago
Oh, I see. Tell me then, Mr. Professor, what exactly would you call our federal system of government?
I'm a libertarian, so communism isn't my cup of tea. However, I am also an ardent supporter of capitalism. Unfortunately, we have nothing of the sort in the U.S. And since we already pay subsidies to private health care companies, I thought I'd like to get something for the taxes for which I'm already paying. A non-profit health care system would cost MUCH less than a for-profit system.
mrbhave 2 years ago
do you even know what communism is?
takkyu101 2 years ago
Yep I sure do, and let tell you. it's nothing like want they are putting in the books you are reading at school.
What they are glorifying and not teaching in schools across the nation now days is not communism.
They stopped teaching what true Communism is back in the 80's.
Hell you are just part of the indoctrination that has taken hold of our school systems sometime back.
Now it's in our nations highest office.
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 2 years ago
thinking4you,
Replaced tapayer with working citizen.
Working citizens and employers offered a plan to replace their current or they may choose to stay with their current, but there must be A PLAN.
ALL qualify for this plan even if they have a preexisting condition.
-freeloaders PAY via employer (less stress on emergs, no I'm invincible at 23yrs)
-even uninsurables offered option, again they'd PAY into the system where before might have been nothing.
Where bad, even for Repub minded?
TerryEFV2 2 years ago