Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

You can't rebut with an argument though that solely looks at initial economic savings. You have to consider how behavior would be affected by those changes and result in a collapse of the system. Using a highly flawed argument for the sole purpose of challenging a specific point of another invalid argument is pointless andcproves nothing

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

So, you are admitting that the argument of "But health care costs too much! We need to do X as a result" is an inherently flawed and stupid argument?

If so, I agree. The public health care counter is meant solely to demonstrate just how bad of an argument that is. The arguments about health care costs have nothing to do purely with costs, but with a great deal more - but all people argue about is the costs, and not what their actual motive or goal is.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Execpt they aren't dumb enough to fall for that.

(posted as I watch the TSA make a woman use her breast pump in front of meto prove it's not a bomb)



See, at least blaen has come clean in this thread, this is exactly why i dont argue with him. hell say a bunch of stupid flawes ---- that you cannot actually rebute, call you a troll, pretend to play devil's advocate, and then say he's agreed with you the entire time and to vote for ron paul, in the meantime he's off getting arrested with Clooney for protesting the sudanese embassy like a filthy hippie.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

And why wouldn't they be too dumb to fall for that, Brainy?

We could reduce healthcare costs by 40% or more overnight (Well, overyear) with the change.

If being fiscally conservative was the only concern in the debate, it would be wildly popular. Or are you trying to say that there are other goals and motives trying to be argued? I mean, from a pure fiscal standpoint, it's obviously a winner.

Lulz.

(Edit) Oh ----, you were serious. .... and

Come clean with what, Brainy?

I've donated to Paul's campaign, and would vote for him in our primary.

Or are you refusing to answer my question?

What part of opposing public health care is fiscally conservative?

There's no trolling. It's a genuine question. You don't seem to want to answer it at all, however.

I've posted a great deal of facts and figures in the past demonstrating a minimum of a 40% savings within a year of public health care's implementation. It's not something that is questionable or doubtful - even the GOP's figures agree with this.

Where does the opposition from a public health care system stem if fiscal conservatism is the only concern in the health care system?

Seefo

iTrader: (5)

not sure if this was said, but They will all be just like senior Obama.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

we could also reduce costs today by allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines and to abolish HMOs other thrid-party payers.

but it's not. so this is higly flawed.

I already voted for him in my primary on March 6th.

If gov't involvment is the reason that healthcare costs so much now, why would it alos be the solution.

I will only answer that if you can tell me why, from the standpoint of a cocaine addict, would it not be better if the sky was pink instead of blue?

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

I did not say brain's arguments were invalid. I only said that your stated approach to challenging a presumably invalid argument was invalid in it of itself. I made no reference to what arguments may or may not be invalid. I personally think healthcare costs are way too high and yes the reasons why are complex and there is no silver bullet approach to it

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

so youre not a fiscal conservative?!!?!?! wtf.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Untrue. Approximately 30% of the costs, according to insurance companies themselves, come from the very multi-payer system that they created. This is something I've posted in the past - as an example, the co-pay system actually ends up costing insurance companies more than what they save by using it looking at pure numbers. The theory of co-pay is that it limits insuree's visits by discouraging them from visiting due to the co-pay cost, theoretically reducing costs to the insurance company.

Great. And that's what I've been getting at. People should be arguing all facets of this debate, not just one specific one that is easily countered with something that they don't want.

Our presidential primary was fucked by our wonderful governer this year, and it went to the good ole boy system for delegates.

The primary reason for healthcare costs being so high now is the high demand relevative to supply, Brainy.

Hate to break it to you, but we ration health care right now - via cost. The demand is extremely high, gov't involvement may be a factor, but it's minimal compared to the costs related to demand vs. supply.

One of the best arguments I've heard towards fixing our current system involves creating competing organizations to the AMA and similar, actually. (edit) But this would require government involvement and government regulation to fix. Something that is supposedly opposed as well.

Sure.

Because pink is the color of sunrise and sunset, and every cocaine addict knows sunrise and sunset are the best times of the day.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

What? I am but merely cutting government from the equation is not the end all solution. Private insurance does drive down costs but it id those that do not obtain private insurance and then do not pay for emergency medical treatment that aid in driving up health care costs. I have said nothing that implies I am not fiscally conservative, however, I am not as far right as some

jeff_man

iTrader: (7)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

so you are arguing against Ron Paul?

I took that straight from his writings.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

Although that was not really on topic..... I completely agree

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

In that case? Vaguely.

I pointed out that the insurance companies created a large amount of overhead for both hospitals and themselves as a counter-example to your (Ron Paul's) argument that they are inherently efficient.

I've said before there are points I disagree with with Ron Paul. Health care is one.

You want cheap health care? We need to alleviate the supply side of the chain, or we need to address how it's rationed.

Universal health care addresses the latter. Adding competing organizations to something such as the AMA addresses the former. Obamacare is just a ------- bandaid on a wound that needs stitches and possibly surgery, and is just going to make it fester.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

What if I want "good" health care?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Then you are going to pay for it.

Demand for medical services is only going up and up as our median population age increases. There's no way around it.

You either increase the amount of supply, or affect how it is rationed. There's no other options.

Insurance companies and Obamacare are largely a symptom of the actual problem. They just deal with the rationing end ultimately, and are a poor solution (Disclaimer: I think Obamacare is the best Obama could have done, and as it's largely a copy of Romneycare, well, it can't be all that bad.) This is why I end up getting involved in stupid arguments about universal health care to make people realize what the actual problem is.

You can't have monopolies or oligopolies dictating how and when people are graduated based on a scale they determine. Seriously, if you want a laugh, go check out how bar exam results are determined and how people pass. It's operated similarly to how medical needs are determined.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

Lol. Well played

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

I find it interesting that your healthcare argument and some of your previous views are so far left yet you claim to support Ron Paul. Not saying you are lying. I just find it very interesting.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Check my political quiz chart, it explains a lot.

I have extremist left and right views which cancel each other out to a moderate right stance. My only consistently extremist view is libertarian (Really, classical liberal, but that doesn't exist in this political climate since liberal and conservative have been made dirty words.)

As for healthcare: My argument is just based on the realities of the situation. We can affect the supply/demand, or rationing. Or both, I suppose. People are only trying to affect the rationing end of the spectrum, and are completely ignoring the supply end. I know why (Big buck campaign donors), but still. Additionally, people are trying to put in religious beliefs/personal biases/etc into the debate which have no ------- reason to even be in the debate. It's why I say romneycare is to the left of obamacare and romney is to the left of obama - romneycare required everyone to provide contraceptive coverage, obamacare gave an opt-out option. It's also why I trot out the universal coverage argument to counter "But I'm only looking at this as a fiscal conservative!" BS when they really want something else. I'm not saying wanting something else is bad, mind you, I'm just saying that if what you want is something other than what you are arguing, you should argue that.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

There are only three people invited to the party, we weren't on the list.