John, why is it that you equate 'caring about people' with making them dependent on the state for their healthcare needs? Republican politicians are pretty bad about being statists but that party has nothing on the Left -- the party that would enslave us all, presumably for our own good, while the super smart decision-makers live off the largess. Apparently you never had to read Animal Farm while in school. Suggest that you read it...there's still time to undo your ideological course.
People are currently dependent on a vile and corrupt private health insurance industry. We need to fix this for the benefit of our infrastructure. People who can't get healthcare become unproductive, many go bankrupt trying. The solution we have now benefits insurance executives and very few others. I have read Animal farm and the pigs run the health insurance industry.
thanks for keeping the hope of communism alive John!!
that way no one has to work and government will take good care of us tell us how to live where to go. where and what to eat. if you can pass the food lines. kind of house we should live in! would you love living in a in a commune with 100 other family's like your self and one bathe room. and have only one doctor per million. this is your Socialist paradise!
Communism has never worked on a large scale. A classless society can't exist beyond a certain (very small) scale. Both socialism and capitalism run into problems when scaled to large societies. That is why we need (and HAVE) a combination of both.
It's sad that the Green Party is right about this. You can't get any real work done in Washington DC without removing lobbyists and installing some kind of public funds for campaigns.
There were no cost controls in the bill to begin with. If you notice the actual polls people did not EVER want these reforms proposed by the Democrats. You say Republicans are in the back pocket of corprates, what do you call this/these bills? GAP insurance anyone? Twisting actual cost data? Even Howard Dean said the Dems were in the back pocket of bigger scum than big Business...trial lawyers! Trying to force a bill that deals NOTHING with costs and it NEVER DID.
Democrats lied about the support via the polls on this. A non specific question about a public option was used as "official support" for Obama care, thing is any poll that brought up specifics in the bills the support dropped. So for as bad as you say Republicans are or centrist Democrats at least they were not dishonest in the polling data they used! Same pollsters (NBC/WSJ) who got the 70% support of nothing specific fell to 37% support when the details were known!
The same things that make the bill as it stands now bad still existed in the full blown liberal/progressive bill. Public option would be more direct as it drove up costs the SAME WAY and would have made private insurance crumble faster. If the Democrats wish to attack actual costs they need to DROP the "social justice" and "economic justice" BULLSHIT. These Democrats want to destroy our standard of living so we can compete "fairly" with the rest of the world. Punish success!
Real Liberals wanted single payer because we expect the lobbyists to try and gut reform on a regular basis like all these scumbag lobbyists do. Insurance is about sharing risk, and the Insurance lobby wants none of that, they want to treat the business like a casino and deal only with individuals so they can push out the losers.
If you hate lobbyists and special intrest groups you should really be pissed off at Obama's administration with all the hand jobs they give banks, insurance companies and unions. Oh what about big pharma?
The people who were against the public option were the far right and the crazy tea partiers. The right distorted the public option has a government takeover of healthcare, which a as big a LIE as any I have ever heard.
How isn't this a government take over of "health care"? It is falsely advertised as health care when in fact it is health insurance. Forcing people to buy something they don't want isn't taking over someone's life choice? It effects us all DIRECTLY VIA GOVERNMENT. Our choices in what we can be checked for wouldn't be effected by bureaucrats placed in power by the government? Breast cancer exams anyone? How about the raise in taxes so the government gets even more of our money to misuse?
Are you fucking stupid that you can't understand the difference between TAKING OVER Health care and introducing a government agency to COMPETE with private health insurance? Keep on defending this position to completely rule yourself out as someone I should take seriously.
Wow. Just because the Public Option doesn't officially take over the health care sector does not mean that in the end it won't.
If you understood even a little economics you would get it.
Besides, Tubaboy71 was obviously referring to the immoral and unconstitutional individual mandate.
And don't spout the nonsense on how the uninsured push up premiums. Premium costs due to unpaid medical bills account for less than 5% of premium costs.
No way. Tea Partiers like Beck and Palin are marginalized. They are caught in an mythical model of reality. They have been fed misinformation and an obsolete cognitive frame.
WSJ poll, are you kidding me? The more exposure they get, the worse they are going to do in the polls. Think of them as an army of Palins. Stupid to the core.
Until the Health Insurance Industry faces competition, nothing will drive down the costs. The public option introduced competition. Eliminating the exception from anti trust introduced competition. Passing these problems off to the taxpayer is exactly what the Insurance Industry had in mind.
Damn now you are a competition denier as well? There is only one insurance company in the USA? LOL If you want more competition drop the regional regulations on insurance providers. It costs far less than 2.5 trillion dollars.
The regional regulations serve to ensure that if an insurance company wants to do business in a state they would be subject to its laws and the people can seek redress from them in court without having to deal with a company that would insist that the case be heard 1000 miles away from the poor mistreated ill individual that is trying to seek justice.
So how much does Medicare get sued for every year? As the number 1 denier of healthcare services I bet that number would be astronomical if what you say is true.
You have to show that they've broken the agreement and/or the law. So what is your point here? It is no different than for private insurers. There is a policy that applies.
Simply removing the regional regulations would only make health insurance like the credit card companies. Check the history on that (PBS Frontline has a good history of it, check the PBS site) The Ins. Companies would only find a state the was willing for them to write the laws. Laws like they can drop you whenever they want, raise the rates whenever they want ect... and then they would base all the companies there. That is what the CCs did. And then they have even more political leverage
Government regulations is the very reason health care costs more. There were times when people could buy a years full of healthcare on a days wages and the progressives decided that was too cheap!
Your intellectual development is severely retarded if you think the government is to blame for escalating medical costs, except in the cases where the lobbyists are writing bills specifically to stifle competition.
I can't comment on that as my search has turned up empty. If you have info I am all for seeing it. However, there are a preponderance of group plans. Trying to inject some irrelevancy into the discussion?
Comparing costs that are a century apart are futile.
Medical care has been altered too much to isolate government intervention as the cause of price variations from the time of friendly societies. Although if you think co-ops are a great idea go ahead and join one.
To say that "the government" has one collective motive is to fail to understand what government is and how it operates.
But I guess they leave that out of the books you don't read? Is that the appropriate insult I'm supposed to fire back or was I supposed to call you a redneck or something?
Name calling contests on Youtube are a waste of time. If you want to actually discuss something feel free, but I won't be responding to any more juvenile comments.
If it's everybody who supports the state then there are many people who are statists opposing the bill, and if it's limited to just people who support expanding the current state then it seems like you would automatically be classifying anybody who supports the bill as statist because they support an expansion of government into health insurance coverage, and those that oppose would be "anti-statist" because they oppose the expansion.
The Statist in charge wants this. They will bastardize the process to bring it back to the public option that pays for abortions with tax dollars. Poll numbers on this should be really low now, but for some reason I'd expect this to be spun into that the house bill was actually popular which it wasn't!
You are very good at leveling charges without any evidence to back them up. You are trying to solve problems with the same mindset that created problems in the first place. As for my roller skating, nice attempt at ridicule. It only demonstrates how petty your attacks are. What did you think your were actually going to damage my self esteem with an insult like that?
Dropping regulations can be a good idea if the regulations are not working.
Unfortunately I haven't heard specific criticisms of regulations, just a general cry for deregulation.
I don't know about other people, but I like some regulations. Like "Doctors need to have a medical degree to practice medicine" or "insurance companies can't drop people as soon as they are sick".
Reasonable people point out specific problems with regulations, unreasonable people just say "DEREGULATE!".
I was specific, and allowing more companies to compete answers your allow more competition banter without costing 2.5 trillion dollars. Nice try though.
Allowing interstate competition isn't a specific criticism, it's basically saying you want NO regulation.
Insurance companies CAN sell across state lines, they just have to obey the regulations of the state they're selling in. If they only have to obey the rules of where they sell from they will all migrate to one state that completely deregulates in order to gain the jobs and tax revenue of basing the operation there.
A solution that would involve increased competition would be to encourage states to establish compacts in which they work out a common set of regulations which apply to both states (or more if they want a larger compact).
The current bill sets up a blueprint for states that want to follow this procedure, thus avoiding total deregulation without having to maintain the status quo of inadequate competition.
I have yet to encounter anybody that opposes this idea.
Ahh I get it, you assume means you are right and you get insulted because my assumptions strike a nerve. If you are going to increase competition country wide and allow more companies to compete you would have to have basic and fundamental regulation reform. Just like with banking lefties claim everything was "deregulated" when it still was regulated then failed to see it falling apart . They blocked any attempt to stop the crissis and had a regulator fired because they were protecting Raines.
Course it isn't clear to you because you do not know how to deal with facts, just left wing talking points. That same deregulation BS doesn't fly anymore. Either come up with a health isurance system fix that reduces cost or get the fuck out of the way. Every credible source says any of these democrap bills RAISE COSTS which is not what it was advertised to do. That gets ignored and replaced with "it covers more people"...That is a bait and switch and an attempt to control more citizens.
What does the fact that you think the bill is bad have to do with your own support of allowing interstate sales which would result in gutting all state regulations?
If one party has a bad idea it does not follow that the idea of the opposing party is good.
So you are saying the public option would not supercede state laws already? I mean seriously HC would be regulated in more ways than one via bureaucrats. Would there be deregulation or new regulations? LMAO.
Nice bait and switch but these bills were to actually deal in COSTS and the dems bills do not do that AT ALL.
The bill would also require everybody to purchase insurance or face a penalty.
This would reduce costs by forcing more healthy people to buy insurance.
It is not disputed that regulations carry an enforcement cost. The question is "would the enforcement cost be worth the benefit the regulation would provide?"
This is why you should mention SPECIFIC regulations, not just "regulation" or "deregulation".
And yet everything you have stated here has been shot to hell be every CREDIBLE source as FLAWS in the bill you preach and seemingly know nothing about! All this bill does is RAISE taxes and costs! It also will limit freedoms of choice when you have bureaucrats saying they wont cover a procedure, but you can pay for it out of your own pocket. Rationing? Funny thing is you will be paying MORE for less.
Bureaucrats in control of what? Which bureaucrats? Which part of the bill says anything about preventing people from paying out of pocket for anything? Who will be paying more for less? The currently uninsured will be getting less after they're covered?
How can everything I've said have been shot to hell? I agreed with you on one point, are you seriously saying your own statements have been disproved?
Have you looked at any projections on any of the bills outside of the incomplete CBO data that counts for a bill that charges for 10 years for 6 years of use? The total costs of these bills runs deficits within 15 years or 11 of actual use of the coverage. The bills drive up costs at least 289 billion dollars (some say much higher) over current inflation. If anyone pays for health care if its doctor direct or via insurance they will pay more to cover subsidies.
If I told you that a proposed bill would "drive up the cost of pizzas at least 38 billion dollars over current inflation." would that have any actual meaning?
Does that mean 38 billion additional dollars would be spent on pizza? Does in mean 38 billion would be spent on the same amount of pizza? Does it say anything about per pizza cost? Does it say anything about how much pizza would be produced? The data you gave seems worthless for any purpose.
Ahh so then you are saying that the reason for needing health insurance reform then is false due to the ammount of GDP we spend on health care? The bill promised to LOWER costs NOT drive them up.
Yes i know you dont have any meaningful information. You do what you accuse me of 3 times already and you have provided 0 facts. I would expect more from a 26 year old education guru who watched Colbert.
I would expect more than insults from somebody who is 8 years older than a "26 year old education guru who watched Colbert.", unfortunately my expectations wouldn't be met.
I can see you aren't capable of rational discourse, so I'll just cut this off now.
Good luck with life. Try not to let some random phantom bureaucrat kill grandma or whatever it is you think is happening.
Thanks for no facts and the liberal talking points that do not add up in the real world! Must be why you are a teacher...Yanno the saying "those who can not do teach" My guess is that you are more than likely union.
I know I said I'd cut if off, but one last comment.
There's no shame in joining a labor union or trying to educate young people. It's a sad day when an accusation of membership in a union is considered an insult, and an equally sad day when devoting one's life to helping young people is considered a character flaw.
You have no shame and ought to feel bad for having said something like that.
I do not feel sorry for what I have said. The educational system in this country is an epic failure. The unions make getting rid of bad teachers like getting rid of a bad case of hemroids.Unions allow many teachers to dodge accountability for the teachers own performance.
@comradepinko Unions are no longer what they once were. Once apon a time they were organizations whose main raison de terre were wages and working conditions. . .now they are dues collecting agents who use dues extracted against the political interest of the worker.. .been there done that. . .email me anytime. . .you could get a clue
What? How can I dodge something when you haven't told me who you're talking about?
If I say "They will eat your food" and then you respond "Who will eat my food?" that doesn't mean the issue is being dodged, it means you haven't clarified what the issue is.
I will be following the bill that seeks to change the rules for filibuster. The current political climate makes it all too easy to torpedo bills and grind the senate to a halt. It's clear the republicans don't give a flying fuck and they play right into the hands of dirtbags like Lieberman. The insurance corporations set the price and we have to pay. They haven't even taken away their exemption from anti trust. Sheesh.
The stuff left in is mostly entitlements. Band-aids for a system that is structurally broken. The insurance companies are not against entitlements because they don't pay for any of it.
So you would blindly vote for a democrat even if a Republican fit your views more? That's irresponsible. I got a better idea, if that's how you're gonna vote, do the real voters a favor and stay home. Don't go to the polls.
The only solution is to start supporting the real left, like the SPUSA. Only by pushing back toward the left can reform occur. The right-wingers have been fighting the class was for over 30 years while denying it exists. It's time to quit ignoring its existence and fight back, and to start using the time tested tools that are at our disposal. Check us out, we've been fighting for the common person right along while most of the dems have been bought and paid for.
then i guess we disagree in that i still think it's much better than the status quo, and killing what we have now will probably kill any effort for many more years. reading health care wonks help.
The one provision that is still in the bill makes the insurance companies pay out a minimal percentage of their premiums. Holy shit now they will be trying to get doctors to spend MORE.
John, why is it that you equate 'caring about people' with making them dependent on the state for their healthcare needs? Republican politicians are pretty bad about being statists but that party has nothing on the Left -- the party that would enslave us all, presumably for our own good, while the super smart decision-makers live off the largess. Apparently you never had to read Animal Farm while in school. Suggest that you read it...there's still time to undo your ideological course.
LowcountryJoe2 2 years ago
Animal Farm? You mean the book written by a socialist?
Methinks you missed the message.
comradepinko 2 years ago
People are currently dependent on a vile and corrupt private health insurance industry. We need to fix this for the benefit of our infrastructure. People who can't get healthcare become unproductive, many go bankrupt trying. The solution we have now benefits insurance executives and very few others. I have read Animal farm and the pigs run the health insurance industry.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
By the way Progressive party was started by
American Communism in the early 1920's
Rangersarrow 2 years ago
thanks for keeping the hope of communism alive John!!
that way no one has to work and government will take good care of us tell us how to live where to go. where and what to eat. if you can pass the food lines. kind of house we should live in! would you love living in a in a commune with 100 other family's like your self and one bathe room. and have only one doctor per million. this is your Socialist paradise!
Rangersarrow 2 years ago
Communism has never worked on a large scale. A classless society can't exist beyond a certain (very small) scale. Both socialism and capitalism run into problems when scaled to large societies. That is why we need (and HAVE) a combination of both.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Yes, because anyone who disagrees with the Health Care Legislation is in the pocket of Big Business.
And everyone will be in an uproar? lol, less than half the nation supports the current push for 'health care reform' that's in the House and Senate.
rockandrock44 2 years ago
It's sad that the Green Party is right about this. You can't get any real work done in Washington DC without removing lobbyists and installing some kind of public funds for campaigns.
FloppyFormatFrenzy 2 years ago
There were no cost controls in the bill to begin with. If you notice the actual polls people did not EVER want these reforms proposed by the Democrats. You say Republicans are in the back pocket of corprates, what do you call this/these bills? GAP insurance anyone? Twisting actual cost data? Even Howard Dean said the Dems were in the back pocket of bigger scum than big Business...trial lawyers! Trying to force a bill that deals NOTHING with costs and it NEVER DID.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Democrats lied about the support via the polls on this. A non specific question about a public option was used as "official support" for Obama care, thing is any poll that brought up specifics in the bills the support dropped. So for as bad as you say Republicans are or centrist Democrats at least they were not dishonest in the polling data they used! Same pollsters (NBC/WSJ) who got the 70% support of nothing specific fell to 37% support when the details were known!
tubaboy71 2 years ago
The same things that make the bill as it stands now bad still existed in the full blown liberal/progressive bill. Public option would be more direct as it drove up costs the SAME WAY and would have made private insurance crumble faster. If the Democrats wish to attack actual costs they need to DROP the "social justice" and "economic justice" BULLSHIT. These Democrats want to destroy our standard of living so we can compete "fairly" with the rest of the world. Punish success!
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Real Liberals wanted single payer because we expect the lobbyists to try and gut reform on a regular basis like all these scumbag lobbyists do. Insurance is about sharing risk, and the Insurance lobby wants none of that, they want to treat the business like a casino and deal only with individuals so they can push out the losers.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
If you hate lobbyists and special intrest groups you should really be pissed off at Obama's administration with all the hand jobs they give banks, insurance companies and unions. Oh what about big pharma?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
The people who were against the public option were the far right and the crazy tea partiers. The right distorted the public option has a government takeover of healthcare, which a as big a LIE as any I have ever heard.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
How isn't this a government take over of "health care"? It is falsely advertised as health care when in fact it is health insurance. Forcing people to buy something they don't want isn't taking over someone's life choice? It effects us all DIRECTLY VIA GOVERNMENT. Our choices in what we can be checked for wouldn't be effected by bureaucrats placed in power by the government? Breast cancer exams anyone? How about the raise in taxes so the government gets even more of our money to misuse?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Are you fucking stupid that you can't understand the difference between TAKING OVER Health care and introducing a government agency to COMPETE with private health insurance? Keep on defending this position to completely rule yourself out as someone I should take seriously.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Judging by the poll numbers I have a funny feeling the majority would take me more seriously than you!
tubaboy71 2 years ago
I was specifically asking you if you understood the difference, not how many people may be as stupid as you are.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
The only idiots are the people you teach and the "teachers" like you who indoctrinate kids and young people.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
I am here debating you so I guess that kind of refutes the main assertion that I am indoctrinating anyone.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
No you just defend yourself to hide the fact that you do indoctrinate.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Wow. Just because the Public Option doesn't officially take over the health care sector does not mean that in the end it won't.
If you understood even a little economics you would get it.
Besides, Tubaboy71 was obviously referring to the immoral and unconstitutional individual mandate.
And don't spout the nonsense on how the uninsured push up premiums. Premium costs due to unpaid medical bills account for less than 5% of premium costs.
rockandrock44 2 years ago
Are tea partiers more favorible in polls now than liberal progressives? LOL
tubaboy71 2 years ago
No way. Tea Partiers like Beck and Palin are marginalized. They are caught in an mythical model of reality. They have been fed misinformation and an obsolete cognitive frame.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Man you do not look at anything. Tea Partiers are +13% to +18% more favorible as the democrats now LOL
tubaboy71 2 years ago
WSJ poll, are you kidding me? The more exposure they get, the worse they are going to do in the polls. Think of them as an army of Palins. Stupid to the core.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
More than one poll asshat! Btw how does it feel to be stupid to the core?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
I would have to ask tea partiers and their mentors Palin and Beck.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
To you chase your tail a lot?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Until the Health Insurance Industry faces competition, nothing will drive down the costs. The public option introduced competition. Eliminating the exception from anti trust introduced competition. Passing these problems off to the taxpayer is exactly what the Insurance Industry had in mind.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Damn now you are a competition denier as well? There is only one insurance company in the USA? LOL If you want more competition drop the regional regulations on insurance providers. It costs far less than 2.5 trillion dollars.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
The regional regulations serve to ensure that if an insurance company wants to do business in a state they would be subject to its laws and the people can seek redress from them in court without having to deal with a company that would insist that the case be heard 1000 miles away from the poor mistreated ill individual that is trying to seek justice.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago
OHHHH nice excuse except for the fact of WHO WOULD OR COULD SUE THE SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM? Answer NO ONE!
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Can you say "first amendment"? I knew you could.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
So how much does Medicare get sued for every year? As the number 1 denier of healthcare services I bet that number would be astronomical if what you say is true.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
There is a process for disputing denied claims.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
But can you win pain and suffering?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
You have to show that they've broken the agreement and/or the law. So what is your point here? It is no different than for private insurers. There is a policy that applies.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
point is when people go after insurance companies you can collect damages, when you go after medicare you can't.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Medicare has a process for disputing denied claims. It's there, go see it for yourself.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Not the samething!
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Simply removing the regional regulations would only make health insurance like the credit card companies. Check the history on that (PBS Frontline has a good history of it, check the PBS site) The Ins. Companies would only find a state the was willing for them to write the laws. Laws like they can drop you whenever they want, raise the rates whenever they want ect... and then they would base all the companies there. That is what the CCs did. And then they have even more political leverage
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 2
Government regulations is the very reason health care costs more. There were times when people could buy a years full of healthcare on a days wages and the progressives decided that was too cheap!
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Your intellectual development is severely retarded if you think the government is to blame for escalating medical costs, except in the cases where the lobbyists are writing bills specifically to stifle competition.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Really so it wasn't the government who broke up the group health care plans of doctors like the Shriners and Freemasons?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
I can't comment on that as my search has turned up empty. If you have info I am all for seeing it. However, there are a preponderance of group plans. Trying to inject some irrelevancy into the discussion?
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Comparing costs that are a century apart are futile.
Medical care has been altered too much to isolate government intervention as the cause of price variations from the time of friendly societies. Although if you think co-ops are a great idea go ahead and join one.
comradepinko 2 years ago 2
*is futile
comradepinko 2 years ago
Are you denying the fact government got involved here on the distinct purpose to RAISE costs? They tend to leave alot out of PC books dont they?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
"the government" is a collection of individuals.
To say that "the government" has one collective motive is to fail to understand what government is and how it operates.
But I guess they leave that out of the books you don't read? Is that the appropriate insult I'm supposed to fire back or was I supposed to call you a redneck or something?
comradepinko 2 years ago 2
For some reason I really doubt you read more than IMore people would call you an idiot than call myself a redneck....
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Name calling contests on Youtube are a waste of time. If you want to actually discuss something feel free, but I won't be responding to any more juvenile comments.
comradepinko 2 years ago
Checkmate!
I can totally rip apart your prior statment. Just watch the news and follow how bad the statists want this bill.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Who do you classify as "the statists"?
If it's everybody who supports the state then there are many people who are statists opposing the bill, and if it's limited to just people who support expanding the current state then it seems like you would automatically be classifying anybody who supports the bill as statist because they support an expansion of government into health insurance coverage, and those that oppose would be "anti-statist" because they oppose the expansion.
Clarify please.
comradepinko 2 years ago 2
The Statist in charge wants this. They will bastardize the process to bring it back to the public option that pays for abortions with tax dollars. Poll numbers on this should be really low now, but for some reason I'd expect this to be spun into that the house bill was actually popular which it wasn't!
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Oh, dropping regulations you think is a good idea. Sheesh, you are an idiot.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Hey the Community Reinvestment Act was a good deal to get ACORN money and to get people into homes they couldn't afford!
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Off topic. Typical denier bullshit. magnify the insignificant to hide the problems your intellectual retardation won't allow you to see.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Seems to me you are a denier of many things.....hit your head one too many times roller skating without your helmet?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
You are very good at leveling charges without any evidence to back them up. You are trying to solve problems with the same mindset that created problems in the first place. As for my roller skating, nice attempt at ridicule. It only demonstrates how petty your attacks are. What did you think your were actually going to damage my self esteem with an insult like that?
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Comment removed
tubaboy71 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sure Commy preach it!
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Dropping regulations can be a good idea if the regulations are not working.
Unfortunately I haven't heard specific criticisms of regulations, just a general cry for deregulation.
I don't know about other people, but I like some regulations. Like "Doctors need to have a medical degree to practice medicine" or "insurance companies can't drop people as soon as they are sick".
Reasonable people point out specific problems with regulations, unreasonable people just say "DEREGULATE!".
comradepinko 2 years ago 2
I was specific, and allowing more companies to compete answers your allow more competition banter without costing 2.5 trillion dollars. Nice try though.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
(1/2)
Allowing interstate competition isn't a specific criticism, it's basically saying you want NO regulation.
Insurance companies CAN sell across state lines, they just have to obey the regulations of the state they're selling in. If they only have to obey the rules of where they sell from they will all migrate to one state that completely deregulates in order to gain the jobs and tax revenue of basing the operation there.
comradepinko 2 years ago 2
OMG so the fed version under your explanation would be unregulated...So you are saying you are for total deregulation then?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
I'm clarifying that there already is interstate competition, the companies just have to obey the rules of who they're selling to.
The calls for "interstate competition" mean that they want the location of the seller to determine which rules are followed.
As far as I am aware the public option would still have to follow all local regulations, if I understand your question correctly.
comradepinko 2 years ago 2
As far as you understand? The very same people who make the rules run the public option with our tax dollars....premiums we are forced to pay.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
(2/2)
A solution that would involve increased competition would be to encourage states to establish compacts in which they work out a common set of regulations which apply to both states (or more if they want a larger compact).
The current bill sets up a blueprint for states that want to follow this procedure, thus avoiding total deregulation without having to maintain the status quo of inadequate competition.
I have yet to encounter anybody that opposes this idea.
comradepinko 2 years ago
All you did was assert that I wanted total deregulation then you gave a piss poor way to solve what I never asserted! Thanks for being a troll!
tubaboy71 2 years ago
You claimed you support "allowing interstate competition".
This means that you support allowing the location in which an insurance company is based determine the rules they follow.
This means all insurance companies will go to the state with the least regulation.
This means states will compete to reduce regulations to draw insurance companies into their states.
This means massive deregulation.
If this isn't what you support then tell me what you do support, don't just whine about it.
comradepinko 2 years ago
Ahh I get it, you assume means you are right and you get insulted because my assumptions strike a nerve. If you are going to increase competition country wide and allow more companies to compete you would have to have basic and fundamental regulation reform. Just like with banking lefties claim everything was "deregulated" when it still was regulated then failed to see it falling apart . They blocked any attempt to stop the crissis and had a regulator fired because they were protecting Raines.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Why are you comparing federal banking regulations to local regulations for health insurance?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say by "you assume means you are right and you get insulted because my assumptions strike a nerve."
Are you saying that I assumed correctly and you think I'm upset? Are you saying that I think I assumed correctly?
Your meaning isn't clear to me.
comradepinko 2 years ago
Course it isn't clear to you because you do not know how to deal with facts, just left wing talking points. That same deregulation BS doesn't fly anymore. Either come up with a health isurance system fix that reduces cost or get the fuck out of the way. Every credible source says any of these democrap bills RAISE COSTS which is not what it was advertised to do. That gets ignored and replaced with "it covers more people"...That is a bait and switch and an attempt to control more citizens.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
What does the fact that you think the bill is bad have to do with your own support of allowing interstate sales which would result in gutting all state regulations?
If one party has a bad idea it does not follow that the idea of the opposing party is good.
comradepinko 2 years ago
So you are saying the public option would not supercede state laws already? I mean seriously HC would be regulated in more ways than one via bureaucrats. Would there be deregulation or new regulations? LMAO.
Nice bait and switch but these bills were to actually deal in COSTS and the dems bills do not do that AT ALL.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
There would be more regulations.
This would be one factor in increasing costs.
The bill would also require everybody to purchase insurance or face a penalty.
This would reduce costs by forcing more healthy people to buy insurance.
It is not disputed that regulations carry an enforcement cost. The question is "would the enforcement cost be worth the benefit the regulation would provide?"
This is why you should mention SPECIFIC regulations, not just "regulation" or "deregulation".
comradepinko 2 years ago
And yet everything you have stated here has been shot to hell be every CREDIBLE source as FLAWS in the bill you preach and seemingly know nothing about! All this bill does is RAISE taxes and costs! It also will limit freedoms of choice when you have bureaucrats saying they wont cover a procedure, but you can pay for it out of your own pocket. Rationing? Funny thing is you will be paying MORE for less.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Bureaucrats in control of what? Which bureaucrats? Which part of the bill says anything about preventing people from paying out of pocket for anything? Who will be paying more for less? The currently uninsured will be getting less after they're covered?
How can everything I've said have been shot to hell? I agreed with you on one point, are you seriously saying your own statements have been disproved?
comradepinko 2 years ago
Everything you can say about this bill can be said for the house bill.....Raises costs, adds bureaucrats into the equation...
tubaboy71 2 years ago
That in no way answered any of my questions.
comradepinko 2 years ago
Have you looked at any projections on any of the bills outside of the incomplete CBO data that counts for a bill that charges for 10 years for 6 years of use? The total costs of these bills runs deficits within 15 years or 11 of actual use of the coverage. The bills drive up costs at least 289 billion dollars (some say much higher) over current inflation. If anyone pays for health care if its doctor direct or via insurance they will pay more to cover subsidies.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Stop and think for a few seconds.
If I told you that a proposed bill would "drive up the cost of pizzas at least 38 billion dollars over current inflation." would that have any actual meaning?
Does that mean 38 billion additional dollars would be spent on pizza? Does in mean 38 billion would be spent on the same amount of pizza? Does it say anything about per pizza cost? Does it say anything about how much pizza would be produced? The data you gave seems worthless for any purpose.
comradepinko 2 years ago
Ahh so then you are saying that the reason for needing health insurance reform then is false due to the ammount of GDP we spend on health care? The bill promised to LOWER costs NOT drive them up.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
What? I'm saying you didn't provide any useful data.
It is difficult for me to respond with declarative statements to somebody who doesn't actually present any meaningful information.
comradepinko 2 years ago
Yes i know you dont have any meaningful information. You do what you accuse me of 3 times already and you have provided 0 facts. I would expect more from a 26 year old education guru who watched Colbert.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
I would expect more than insults from somebody who is 8 years older than a "26 year old education guru who watched Colbert.", unfortunately my expectations wouldn't be met.
I can see you aren't capable of rational discourse, so I'll just cut this off now.
Good luck with life. Try not to let some random phantom bureaucrat kill grandma or whatever it is you think is happening.
comradepinko 2 years ago 2
Thanks for no facts and the liberal talking points that do not add up in the real world! Must be why you are a teacher...Yanno the saying "those who can not do teach" My guess is that you are more than likely union.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
I know I said I'd cut if off, but one last comment.
There's no shame in joining a labor union or trying to educate young people. It's a sad day when an accusation of membership in a union is considered an insult, and an equally sad day when devoting one's life to helping young people is considered a character flaw.
You have no shame and ought to feel bad for having said something like that.
comradepinko 2 years ago
I do not feel sorry for what I have said. The educational system in this country is an epic failure. The unions make getting rid of bad teachers like getting rid of a bad case of hemroids.Unions allow many teachers to dodge accountability for the teachers own performance.
Did you read your copy of "Rules for Radicals"?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@comradepinko Unions are no longer what they once were. Once apon a time they were organizations whose main raison de terre were wages and working conditions. . .now they are dues collecting agents who use dues extracted against the political interest of the worker.. .been there done that. . .email me anytime. . .you could get a clue
GriffinElliot 2 years ago
How would you know the details of somebody's union specifically?
You're confident enough to say that 100% of unions are bad for their membership?
comradepinko 2 years ago
The fact that they WOULD have to pay out of pocket for services that are covered now.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Who would be paying out of pocket for which services which are now covered?
Please refrain from using pronouns when answering.
comradepinko 2 years ago
Please refrain from dodging what the bureaucrats will do.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
What? How can I dodge something when you haven't told me who you're talking about?
If I say "They will eat your food" and then you respond "Who will eat my food?" that doesn't mean the issue is being dodged, it means you haven't clarified what the issue is.
comradepinko 2 years ago
So you really do not understand the bill and what suggestions have already been made once the bureaucrats go into power?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
"suggestions have already been made once the bureaucrats go into power"?
You have to be kidding me. I complain that you're not specific enough and you respond with that?
comradepinko 2 years ago
Ahh you don't know about that either? Damn
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Does the term "smart rationing" mean anything to you?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Are USA trying to commit suiced, its political system seem so damn rotten and corrupt.
Gripen1974 2 years ago
as a fan of your vids, i have to definitely disagree with you on this one. you can check out ezra klein's page for my reasons..
sisforshayla 2 years ago
I will be following the bill that seeks to change the rules for filibuster. The current political climate makes it all too easy to torpedo bills and grind the senate to a halt. It's clear the republicans don't give a flying fuck and they play right into the hands of dirtbags like Lieberman. The insurance corporations set the price and we have to pay. They haven't even taken away their exemption from anti trust. Sheesh.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
The stuff left in is mostly entitlements. Band-aids for a system that is structurally broken. The insurance companies are not against entitlements because they don't pay for any of it.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
never vote the the democrat next time.
theracemixer 2 years ago
I'm as mad as you are, but I'll never vote for a Republican
Fringe111 2 years ago
If you not going to vote for the Republican you might as well not vote at all. unless you are thought a lesson they'll never learn (democrat)
theracemixer 2 years ago
I had a momentary lapse.
Fringe111 2 years ago
So you would blindly vote for a democrat even if a Republican fit your views more? That's irresponsible. I got a better idea, if that's how you're gonna vote, do the real voters a favor and stay home. Don't go to the polls.
Christianrocker1990 2 years ago
The thing to do is get involved in the primary process.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
The only solution is to start supporting the real left, like the SPUSA. Only by pushing back toward the left can reform occur. The right-wingers have been fighting the class was for over 30 years while denying it exists. It's time to quit ignoring its existence and fight back, and to start using the time tested tools that are at our disposal. Check us out, we've been fighting for the common person right along while most of the dems have been bought and paid for.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 2
The problem with this bill is that they ripped out the structural changes necessary for reform and left in all the bandaids.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
"Class warfare is wrong" out of one side of the mouth.
"The poor are all lazy and unions are evil" out of the other side.
People are so blind that it can say it in the same speech and nobody will even bat an eyelash.
comradepinko 2 years ago
SPUSA - where the left really starts.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago
Rundstedt1
You might just as well start by say communism, communism , communism and settle for socialism
theracemixer 2 years ago
LOL - I'd go for that
But if it were the democrats running it, they'd start by saying capitalism, capitalism, capitalism... in order to try and settle for socialism.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago
I knew this was going to happen.
Are you ready yet to join the real left yet? :)
Rundstedt1 2 years ago
the exchanges are still in the bill john- the most important piece. that is a whole new structure that can improve & expand. please read ezra..
sisforshayla 2 years ago
I read ezra and am still concerned that the bill is structurally unsound.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
then i guess we disagree in that i still think it's much better than the status quo, and killing what we have now will probably kill any effort for many more years. reading health care wonks help.
sisforshayla 2 years ago
The one provision that is still in the bill makes the insurance companies pay out a minimal percentage of their premiums. Holy shit now they will be trying to get doctors to spend MORE.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago