and you want these clowns to manage health care??

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Public option and personal freedom in the same post. That's some funny shit!

I know, almost as funny as Compassionate Conservatism.

Talk about your major sense of oxymoron.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

>Sarcasm instead of substance.

Sorry you could not understand my post. To state it a little more simply:

There are clowns in both the public and private sectors. The public sector clowns, by and large, are able to create much larger disasters. Not a great argument for putting them 100% in charge.

But a perfect argument for the smallest risk for disaster, the individual, to be in charge.

[Ion01 1]

Quote

>what if nobody "managed" healthcare?

An excellent idea! We could let people choose their own healthcare, and have a completely optional public option for people who cannot afford other healthcare.

Sadly, I doubt any option that includes such a degree of personal freedom will fly with the republicans. It might succeed, and that would hand Obama a win.

Oh, you mean like the option to get fined hundreds of dollars if you choose not to have healthcare.......such great freedom! Or like the option that puts private healthcare under such strain and regulation they can't possibly compete with the government so they disappear (the house always wins). Freedom again????

[billvon 2,396]

>But a perfect argument for the smallest risk for disaster, the individual, to
>be in charge.

I agree. It should always be up to the individual as to how to manage their own health care.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Here's a revolutionary idea--what if nobody "managed" healthcare?

We could just let each individual person manage their own health, and their own care, perhaps in consultation with an expert like a doctor, if they wished.

Ok, that's a pretty far out idea, I know.

Hell yeah.. That worked really well for humans for millenia in antiquity.... with the help of the tribal shaman or witch doctor. Now there is a good solid "conservative" idea you can really get behind.

[TomAiello 25]

The idea that people might actually know what's best for themselves is antiquated, and somehow equates with shamanism?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Yes, the governement borrowed future demand for new cars and artificialy incentivized people to use it now.

The governement also distorted the market for used cars by taking many functional vehicles out of circumlation.

All in the attempt to voost up failed auto-makers after throwing money at them instead of allowing them to go through the normal course of bankruptcy that any other failed company goes through.

All of those things are true. The question is whether those things are or are not worse than the alternative. If you stand aside and do nothing to prevent the auto manufacturers to go under, you run the risk that they will take down with them (at least in some states) so much of the economy that it would take decades at a minimum for those parts of the country to recover. Along with GM etc, most of the parts manufacturers would likely go under, along with much of the service industry (restaurants, retail stores, etc) who would no longer have a sufficient customer base (people with jobs who can buy your products) to sustain them. Between houses going into foreclosure and businesses going bankrupt, there would no longer be a tax base to maintain essential services. Once the industry, police, firefighters, and schools are gone, what is left to rebuild from? That's the risk on one side. On the other hand, propping up the auto industry runs the risk of encouraging them to keep on with a business model with a track record of failure. Which is the worse risk? It's easy for us here in Speakers Corner to pontificate, because ultimately nothing we say will have any real-world consequences. If you're the guy who has to make real decisions that turn those risks into reality, with real consequences for real people, I bet it looks a lot different. It's hard for me to imagine that doing nothing is a viable political option. Didn't we have an election over just that issue?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Didn't we have an election over just that issue?

Not that I'm aware of.

In my opinion, the last presidential election was really about sending American kids (and dollars) off to die in various third world morasses. I had thought that the "nays" pretty clearly carried the day, but apparently I was wrong, as the new folks seem pretty intent on following right along with the failed policies of the old guys.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Didn't we have an election over just that issue?

Not that I'm aware of.

In my opinion, the last presidential election was really about sending American kids (and dollars) off to die in various third world morasses. I had thought that the "nays" pretty clearly carried the day, but apparently I was wrong, as the new folks seem pretty intent on following right along with the failed policies of the old guys.

Nah, Obama wants out, mark my words that after HC, win or lose, taxes will be raised and we will get out of the ME or at least considerably start the process. It would be suicide to to anything at all until after HC, it could alienate some members of congress.

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

>and you want these clowns to manage health care?

Exactly! We need Enron to do it.

You guys always mention the few (% wise) company's that went bankrupt (or screw the public over) instead of the successful company's. Please show me all of the govt. program's that comes in under buget and is efficient. I can show you plenty of company's that work great

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[billvon 2,396]

>You guys always mention the few (% wise) company's that went
>bankrupt (or screw the public over) instead of the successful company's.

Just like you guys always mention the governmental organizations that suck.

>Please show me all of the govt. program's that comes in under
>buget and is efficient.


The US postal service
NASA
The US military
The FAA
The NTSB
The CDC

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

The US postal service

Didn't I hear the Postmaster General on NPR a few weeks ago complaining about excessive regulation from Congress? And how his agency was facing massive layoffs and thinking of downsizing service and eliminating mail delivery on Tuesdays?

Quote

The US military

Yeah, how are those wars going just now? Under budget and ahead of schedule, right?

Quote

The CDC

Yep. Everyone I know already got their H1N1 shots. Nothing behind schedule there.


It's easy to post a list of government agencies. Harder to show that they are actually "efficient" and "under budget" (well, unless their budget is spiraling out of control year after year).

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Ion01 1]

Quote

Quote

Here's a revolutionary idea--what if nobody "managed" healthcare?

We could just let each individual person manage their own health, and their own care, perhaps in consultation with an expert like a doctor, if they wished.

Ok, that's a pretty far out idea, I know.

Hell yeah.. That worked really well for humans for millenia in antiquity.... with the help of the tribal shaman or witch doctor. Now there is a good solid "conservative" idea you can really get behind.

So our current doctors are witch doctors? That is not even a real comparison. To imply that freedom means going back to witch doctors is rediculous.....as if the knowledge or technology would suddenly disappear?

[billvon 2,396]

> And how his agency was facing massive layoffs and thinking of
>downsizing service and eliminating mail delivery on Tuesdays?

Yep. Let's compare that to GM and Ford.

>Yep. Everyone I know already got their H1N1 shots. Nothing
>behind schedule there.

What was the schedule they didn't meet?

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

>Public option and personal freedom in the same post. That's some funny shit!

Ah yes. The republicans who want to promote "personal freedom" by limiting people's choices.

You must mean like my "choices" on Social Security... What started out as a safety net has morphed into a huge beast. Only took 70 years. Take a good look at the future of the "public option".

Well... public health insurance will end up being a little different than social security... I think... the devil will be in the details of the health care bill.

Today, if you think you're going to retire on Social Security alone... you're an idiot. According to my most recent SS statement, I'm estimated to get back around 75 cents on the dollar for all my and my employers' contributions that I have made and will make in my career. (the statement isn't clear if my estimated payments are in TY$ so I may do substantially worse.)

But I'll get something back, perhaps enough such that I'll entertain arguments that while I may be getting screwed, if I looked hard enough, I might find one person out there that isn't. The upside is that this horrible return I have to look forward to will directly augment payouts from other retirement investments because they all pay dollars... and dollars from different piles can be stacked neatly into a single pile equal to the sum of its parts.

Now... public health insurance...

Heath insurance doesn't provide dollars... it provides coverage. If we parallel social security, we can expect it to provide a level of coverage that only an idiot would rely on completely. The question is, will what emerges from all this fuss be a public option that can be augmented by private insurance up to whatever level is desired? Or will people forfeit any benefit from the public option if they decide it is insufficient?

I expect coverage not to have the nice stackable quality that money does, and I imagine this will exacerbate an ROI already roughly as terrible as SS, but I'd be a lot more amicable to this whole thing if someone could tell me with a straight face that I have any chance at all of not being 100% screwed by this.

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

>Sarcasm instead of substance.

Sorry you could not understand my post. To state it a little more simply:

There are clowns in both the public and private sectors. The public sector clowns, by and large, are able to create much larger disasters. Not a great argument for putting them 100% in charge.

On that we agree.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Let's compare that to GM and Ford.

Hang on. You're picking out GM as an example of a well run private company?

Ah...now I understand where you're coming from.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,396]

>Hang on. You're picking out GM as an example of a well run private
>company?

Nope. They were a miserable failure. Fortunately, no one was depending on them for lifesaving medical procedures.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Hang on. You're picking out GM as an example of a well run private
>company?

Nope. They were a miserable failure. Fortunately, no one was depending on them for lifesaving medical procedures.

they are however a good example of letting a union run over them

Good example for all of us

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,396]

>they are however a good example of letting a union run over them.

Among other things, yes.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Here's a revolutionary idea--what if nobody "managed" healthcare?

We could just let each individual person manage their own health, and their own care, perhaps in consultation with an expert like a doctor, if they wished.

Ok, that's a pretty far out idea, I know.

A common misnomer. The proper term for what most people are debating is health care financing. Truth is though that the financing part is pretty basic; especially in a guarantee issue market. What really needs addressed to make a significant difference is cost of care. Last figures I saw were for 2007 (might have been 2008) and cost of care was slightly over $7000 per year per person.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

In total, the car-shopping Web site said about 690,000 vehicles were sold during the program. Edmunds.com said that based on the actual sales gained from the program, the Cash for Clunkers program cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold.

original Edmunds article
What I see is basically they speculated that the car sales would be only slightly less. However the data they publish does not support it. Predicting 2009 numbers using 2008 base in recession does not look reliable to me.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

>Hang on. You're picking out GM as an example of a well run private
>company?

Nope. They were a miserable failure. Fortunately, no one was depending on them for lifesaving medical procedures.

they are however a good example of letting a union run over them

Good example for all of us

Yep. Another example of management failure in the private sector.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

The idea that people might actually know what's best for themselves is antiquated, and somehow equates with shamanism?

If people knew what is best for them we wouldn't need financial planners, tax consultants, lawyers or family doctors at all. No need for prescriptions, we could just decide for ourselves.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Hang on. You're picking out GM as an example of a well run private
>company?

Nope. They were a miserable failure. Fortunately, no one was depending on them for lifesaving medical procedures.

they are however a good example of letting a union run over them

Good example for all of us

Yep. Another example of management failure in the private sector.

Yes. for letting a union run all over them

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln