Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Republican Debate  
User currently offlineatlturbine From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 158 posts, RR: 14
Posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3024 times:

I do not wish to open a can of worms but would enjoy hearing from those of you following the Republican candidates for President. I thought the debate on CNN tonight was done very well and have changed my mind on one of the candidates.

What say you?

[Edited 2011-09-12 22:25:28]


To the World you might be One Person but to One Person you might be the World
149 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZentraedi From Japan, joined Jun 2007, 660 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2973 times:

Seems like the Republicans are a bunch of nutters.

When asked if a coma patient without health insurance should be allowed to die, they yell "YES!!!"

That's really bizarre and raises a lot of interesting questions...

Where were these Republicans during the Terry Schiavo case? Seems like a case of cognitive dissonance.

What if you were in an accident and the emergency response team couldn't find your insurance card?

Why so pro-death in this case, but not for abortions?


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8869 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2954 times:

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 1):
When asked if a coma patient without health insurance should be allowed to die, they yell "YES!!!"

Funny - I watched that segment and I heard no such thing. I did hear Ron Paul (a doctor) say that before there was Medicaid, there were plenty of hospitals that used charitable funds to treat such people. "Nobody was turned away", he said, of the hospital where he worked.

Isn't it interesting that Obama has been trying to eliminate the tax deductability of donations to charity ever since he came to DC. My guess is that he sees charitable organizations as competition - without them, the poor would have nobody to turn to but the government for help. If there is one thing a Progressive government cannot abide, it's competition.

Connected to that, isn't it also interesting, when Warren "Raise My Taxes" Buffet decided where his money would go after he died, he decided to leave it to various charities rather than to the Federal government, saying that "Charities are more efficient at helping the poor than government."

Back to the matter at hand. i think Perry stumbled badly on a few questions. While Romney might not be as conservative as i would like, he is starting to look like the one who has the best chance of beating Obama. Cain got in some very good points, but I think he's just a little bit too much - no political experience whatsoever, and while that does hold some appeal, we need someone who knows how to get things done in a political setting. Santorum and Bachmann are too centered on social conservatism - issues that are way down the list of priorities. Gingrich is by far the best qualified person on the stage, and will make an excellent VP in charge of ramrodding legislation, but he will never overcome the fact that he does not engender that 'warm fuzzy feeling' needed to win (although I would vote for him in a New York minute). Huntsman said some good things, but simply lacks charisma.

At this point, I think the ideal ticket is Romney with Gingrich as VP (if he's willing). Not overly conservative socially, and with real experience at balancing the budget, reforming entitlements and grasping problems by the horns. Gingrich I think is the key - the secret weapon. Give him an agenda of fixing things, and let him spend all his time on Capital Hill pushing it through.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2930 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Isn't it interesting that Obama has been trying to eliminate the tax deductability of donations to charity ever since he came to DC. My guess is that he sees charitable organizations as competition - without them, the poor would have nobody to turn to but the government for help. If there is one thing a Progressive government cannot abide, it's competition.



   That is exactly the purpose of attacking religion and charities by the left. Its competition to big "G".

Pretty simple answer for the patient in my opinion.... treat them , save them and if it all works out bill them.

I don't know who won , I Like Newt , I like Cain , Bachman ... I don't get Perry yet and Romney looks smooth and polished.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21730 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2918 times:

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 1):
When asked if a coma patient without health insurance should be allowed to die, they yell "YES!!!"

Yeah, that's pretty sick. I don't think they represent the majority of Republican voters, but someone needs to smack some sense into them.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4703 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2917 times:

I didn't watch too much of it, but the GOP and Tea Party need to get their act together, I watched a bit of the "What would you do to attract Latino Voters" portion, and I have to aay, they just about destroyed their chances with that demographic by talking about illegal immigration and border security. they should have focused on unemployment and education in their response.
I actually agreed with Perry's stance on the Border, and their school program in Texas. Bachmann came off as a nasty you know what with her responses. Ron Paul's responses about foreign policy once again shows why he is not a serious candidate for the Republican party. Huntsman..... he just doesn't seem like leadership material the more I watch him.

Other than that i missed the rest to watch the dolphins and patriots. Looking forward to other's comments, but I was shocked by the decidedly Tea Party friendly crowd at the auditorium, I would have thought theire would be more GOP establishment present.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8869 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2914 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 1):
When asked if a coma patient without health insurance should be allowed to die, they yell "YES!!!"

Yeah, that's pretty sick.

Except that it did not happen.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 5):
Other than that i missed the rest to watch the dolphins and patriots. Looking forward to other's comments, but I was shocked by the decidedly Tea Party friendly crowd at the auditorium

Well, it WAS organized by a Tea Party group (I forget which one). There will be plenty of other events for other groups (including the GOP itself) to stage a debate. I think it was pretty well done - Blitzer's questions were far better than the jokers at NBC last week.

[Edited 2011-09-13 07:45:04]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2914 times:

Sad to say I didn't bother watching it. Much as the President has over done it with what seems like a speech-a-day, having a debate-a-week makes them stale. If they had broken the debates down in to a topic a week with the full debate centered on just one topic they would have held much more interest as well as depth. Instead, we get the same questions asked in the flavor of the network hosting it, week after week. Done as a topic of the week each candidate would have had to go in depth on their position instead of just offering up the same regurgitated sound bite. Just my 2 cents.

User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4703 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2901 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
Well, it WAS organized by a Tea Party group (I forget which one).

I wasn't meaning that. I was meaning their reactions to certain questions and responses. It was really kind of scary.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineZentraedi From Japan, joined Jun 2007, 660 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2893 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
Yeah, that's pretty sick. I don't think they represent the majority of Republican voters, but someone needs to smack some sense into them.

To me the most striking thing was the inconsistency.
Think back to the Terry Schiavo case.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
Except that it did not happen.

Except it did.

http://www.businessinsider.com/party...rs-for-death-of-sick-people-2011-9


User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1276 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2878 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):

Funny - I watched that segment and I heard no such thing.

Then you should have your hearing checked, because we all heard it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
I did hear Ron Paul (a doctor) say that before there was Medicaid, there were plenty of hospitals that used charitable funds to treat such people

Indeed, there were once Victorian era sanitariums where people were warehoused until they died on places like Blackwell's island.

The idea that private charities could ever come up with the money necessary to replace systems like Medicare and Medicaid is a non-starter. For one thing, we have very good historical data on what that does to life expectancies and the availability of care, because that's exactly the system we had in the United States in the 19th century. While other countries enact systems that give their citizens access to care and take the yolk of having to provide these benefits off of their businesses, American Conservatives are yammering on incoherently about how awesome healthcare was during the presidency of Grover Cleveland. Amazing but unsurprising.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
"Nobody was turned away", he said, of the hospital where he worked.

Unless Ron Paul is a time traveler, I'm pretty sure that he's been working in a system with Medicare and Medicaid for nearly all of his adult life, particularly given the fact that he only became a licensed practitioner after 1965.

The fact remains, Ron Paul thinks that somebody who doesn't have health insurance and gets sick and can't pay for treatment should die. And the Tea Party agrees.

Unlike Kenyan birth certificates, imagined socialism, and Obama being responsible for the Lindbergh kidnapping, that is very real and very, very shocking for many Americans. And rightly so.

That's the overwhelming takeaway from last night. Caveat Emptor.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Isn't it interesting that Obama has been trying to eliminate the tax deductability of donations to charity ever since he came to DC.

Totally false. Totally false. Totally false.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
"Charities are more efficient at helping the poor than government."

In some cases they are - in others they are not. Systems like Medicare and Medicaid - how much money do you think individual Americans would be willing to openly and voluntarily contribute to these systems via private donations if they were administered by Private charities? The volume of service provided could not be replicated on a private, non-profit charity level even if individual services might be administered, in some cases, in more efficient ways.

[Edited 2011-09-13 08:35:38]

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8869 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2863 times:

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 9):

Except it did.

The cheering was for the idea of people taking responsibility. When asked about "letting them die", I heard two (2) voices say 'yes' and some noise from the crowd - obviously that's a tough question that should not be answered yes or no. Notice that this edit instantly cut away after you heard the 2 voices.

But remember, they were not talking about someone who was poor and could not afford insurance. You conveniently leave out that bit of context. They were talking about somebody well off - who chose to make car payments on his new Mercedes rather than buy health insurance. In that case, I think the resistance to the idea of giving him the same sort of compassionate treatment one would give to a poor person is understandable, don't you think?

Helping the poor, those who are genuinely unable to pay for something they need is something everyone is behind, whether you believe in the government doing it or, as Ron Paul explained, through private charities. This particular example was about someone who freely chose to abuse the generosity of others.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1276 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2852 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
They were talking about somebody well off - who chose to make car payments on his new Mercedes rather than buy health insurance. In that case, I think the resistance to the idea of giving him the same sort of compassionate treatment one would give to a poor person is understandable, don't you think?

They were talking about an average young person who has a decent job and makes a decent living.

Nowhere was a Mercedes or "this person is well off" mentioned. Again with the hearing.

Many young americans can't afford health insurance and because they are relatively healthy with a low risk of serious illness, they choose to go without because of the spectacular costs. As more and more young workers are hired as "contract" employees and with far lower benefits than older workers, this trend will continue.

The Tea Party members in the audience essentially cheered YES! at the idea that a person in these circumstances should die rather than have any sort of safety net of medical treatment available to them.

Barbarians.


User currently offlineMCOGVADCA From China, joined Oct 2006, 446 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2848 times:

Quoting dxing (Reply 7):
. If they had broken the debates down in to a topic a week with the full debate centered on just one topic they would have held much more interest as well as depth. Instead, we get the same questions asked in the flavor of the network hosting it, week after week. Done as a topic of the week each candidate would have had to go in depth on their position instead of just offering up the same regurgitated sound bite. Just my 2 cents.

A much better idea. However, such a format would not bode particularly well for certain Tea Party candidates whose ideas are easily dismissed after peeling back a few layers of the argument, even though they sound pleasant on a superficial level.

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 9):
To me the most striking thing was the inconsistency.
Think back to the Terry Schiavo case.

"Inconsistency"....you nailed it. The majority far right platform reeks of hypocrisy in the nexus of health care, security and religion. It's less an ideological platform and more of an amalgamation of one-liners designed to fire-up voters, with little heed to consistency. I do respect Ron Paul in this manner, though; I may disagree with many of his ideas (the hypothetical 30-year old question made me feel sick) but he IS ideologically consistent.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Funny - I watched that segment and I heard no such thing. I did hear Ron Paul (a doctor) say that before there was Medicaid, there were plenty of hospitals that used charitable funds to treat such people. "Nobody was turned away", he said, of the hospital where he worked.

The notion that small religious hospitals could take care of trauma patients is laughable. There are a limited number of Trauma-1 centers in this country and they still struggle to take care of the influx of patients, many of whom (unsurprisingly) are in uninsured. The level of expertise required and equipment necessary to perform high-risk trauma surgery renders the "oh, the community/churches will help out!" solution, barring MASSIVE sources of funding, worthy of derision.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
At this point, I think the ideal ticket is Romney with Gingrich as VP (if he's willing
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Back to the matter at hand. i think Perry stumbled badly on a few questions.

Gingrich has impressed at these debates. Intellectually, he's on a whole different level. I think that's the reason he's still in the race: He would make a great foil to a Romney presidency, he's quite conservative (and thus popular with the other side of the party), he's an expert at passing legislation....and, he's unelectable on his own (for a plethora of reasons that don't need to be rehashed). That ticket is the one with the best chance. Because...

Perry is proving himself to be more and more unelectable with each debate (and I'm getting the feeling more of America is catching on). He stumbles through answers (and this makes him come off as not particularly bright); his actions in office/before he was in office and the lack of congruence with his current message miffs some; and the accusations of crony capitalism are just the beginning (I've heard, and this is unsubstantiated so take it with a grain of salt, that the Dems have so much dirt on him if he were to win the primary, the presidential race would essentially be over before it started).

Quoting casinterest (Reply 5):
I didn't watch too much of it, but the GOP and Tea Party need to get their act together, I watched a bit of the "What would you do to attract Latino Voters" portion, and I have to aay, they just about destroyed their chances with that demographic by talking about illegal immigration and border security. they should have focused on unemployment and education in their response.

Yeah, you can see the reductionist linear thinking involved (Mexican---->ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT!) when the vast majority of Latinos in the country are legal, voting citizens who just preemptively checked the Obama box. Furthermore, at this time, illegal immigration is hardly an issue: Illegals have been leaving the country in droves as a result of the economic downturn (this is what happens during economic downturns worldwide, illegal immigrants return to their home country because they can't find work in their new country). BUT, this issue fires up the TP base like few other, and even though it's hardly appropriate at this time, they continue to discuss it, much to the detriment of their future prospects to be president.

And, personally, I like Huntsman, but this was never going to be his debate. The few attempts at humor were misdirected (this crowd was ready to burn someone at the stake, not chuckle at off-hand remarks). I would've preferred if he'd stuck to his guns instead of mild attempts to pander. He's never going to do well in Iowa, but his ideas could garner support in moderate New Hampshire and Florida if he plays it right.

[Edited 2011-09-13 09:08:09]


12 months:pvg hkg bkk doh mxp nce zrh iah lhr gva iad clt lax nrt sin mnl ceb del jai gay vns szx zuh mfm icn can
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2815 times:

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 10):
The fact remains, Ron Paul thinks that somebody who doesn't have health insurance and gets sick and can't pay for treatment should die.

That's flat out untrue and you know it. I am very well aware of Paul's ideas and he has said numerous times before exactly what Dreadnought mentioned in this thread.

And Paul isn't even in favor of getting rid of Medicare/Medicaid/SS outright because he knows people are addicted to it and doing so means people would be left in the streets.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1276 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2804 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 14):
That's flat out untrue and you know it.

Were you listening to his response to the question? Because I certainly was. His response was that this hypothetical individual had made a choice - not to have insurance - and the ramifications of that, in the case of the worst-case-scenario, would be entirely on the individual. In other words, if you don't buy insurance and you might have been able to, and then you get sick, Paul felt the individual was not entitled to any help from the state.

I think Paul's response speaks volumes about what he actually believes, just as his son's did when asked whether or not business owners should be allowed to deny services to persons based on race.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 14):
he has said numerous times before exactly what Dreadnought mentioned in this thread.

Paul's point of view - that private churches and charities can possibly supplant something like Medicare or the VA system - is both extremely naive and deeply dangerous, and if politicians were to act on these ideas the result would be:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 14):
people would be left in the streets.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2791 times:

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 15):
Were you listening to his response to the question? Because I certainly was. His response was that this hypothetical individual had made a choice - not to have insurance - and the ramifications of that, in the case of the worst-case-scenario, would be entirely on the individual. In other words, if you don't buy insurance and you might have been able to, and then you get sick, Paul felt the individual was not entitled to any help from the state.

Research Paul's positions. You clearly are relying on a few seconds TV snap shot.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 15):
Paul's point of view - that private churches and charities can possibly supplant something like Medicare or the VA system - is both extremely naive and deeply dangerous, and if politicians were to act on these ideas the result would be:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 14):
people would be left in the streets.

Private charity can absolutely supplant medicare and the VA system. We are not there today thanks to government's obliteration of the health care market with its thousands upon thousands of regulatory pages, bureaucracy, and ambulance chaser laws.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8869 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2784 times:

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 12):
They were talking about an average young person who has a decent job and makes a decent living.

Nowhere was a Mercedes or "this person is well off" mentioned. Again with the hearing.

Many young americans can't afford health insurance and because they are relatively healthy with a low risk of serious illness, they choose to go without because of the spectacular costs. As more and more young workers are hired as "contract" employees and with far lower benefits than older workers, this trend will continue.

Once again, We are NOT talking about people who can't afford it. Maybe my Mercedes quip was not fitting, but Blitzer's hypothetical clearly described a person who COULD afford insurance, but CHOSE not to buy it.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 10):

The idea that private charities could ever come up with the money necessary to replace systems like Medicare and Medicaid is a non-starter.
Quoting MCOGVADCA (Reply 13):

The notion that small religious hospitals could take care of trauma patients is laughable.

Maybe not to the same level as a fully funded hospital. Maybe, by not buying insurance while not qualifying for medicaid, you SHOULD run a greater risk that your leg that got run over by a truck amputated for $5,000 rather than meticulously rebuilt for $50,000.

Remember, we are talking here about people who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it. If something goes wrong, sorry, I have zero sympathy. And I think any sympathy on your part is misplaced.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1276 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2776 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 16):
Research Paul's positions.

This isn't exactly Ron Paul's first rodeo. I'm familiar with his positions.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 16):
Private charity can absolutely supplant medicare and the VA system.

No, it cannot. There is simply no way that private charities could organize enough money to provide any kind of equivalent standard of care.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 16):
We are not there today thanks to government's obliteration of the health care market with its thousands upon thousands of regulatory pages, bureaucracy, and ambulance chaser laws.

We are where we are today because of Market forces. The government did not design the earliest health insurance plans. The government did not invent medical care. The government had nothing to do with the coupling of health benefits with employment. The government gave the health insurance industry anti-trust immunity for eighty years.

Yes, there are regulations. And I'm glad for them. I like to know that there is some oversight over people who are performing operations and treating people for ailments. We could go back to a time when there were no regulations of course, and then we'd be back in 1899 again.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Maybe not to the same level as a fully funded hospital.

Maybe not at all.

What is being proposed here is essentially throwing away social safety nets and replacing them with Telethons the kind we saw after the Haiti Earthquake.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Maybe not to the same level as a fully funded hospital. Maybe, by not buying insurance while not qualifying for medicaid, you SHOULD run a greater risk that your leg that got run over by a truck amputated for $5,000 rather than meticulously rebuilt for $50,000.

So you're even admitting that the standard of care would be nowhere near the same?

Maybe instead of anesthesia, they could just have a guy club people on the side of the head before operations. Or we could give patients bullets to chew on and lots of brandy.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2766 times:

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 18):
We are where we are today because of Market forces.

Laughable. Government has been manipulating the health care market for decades. The current system is government-dictated, operated by private organizations on its behalf. That's not even close to a free market.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 18):
The government had nothing to do with the coupling of health benefits with employment.

Is this a joke?

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 18):
Yes, there are regulations. And I'm glad for them. I like to know that there is some oversight over people who are performing operations and treating people for ailments. We could go back to a time when there were no regulations of course, and then we'd be back in 1899 again.

I'm talking regulations like insurance mandates. Oversight of people performing surgeries is not gonna have a major impact on costs.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1276 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2759 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 19):
Laughable. Government has been manipulating the health care market for decades. The current system is government-dictated, operated by private organizations on its behalf. That's not even close to a free market.

Simply not true. Just not factually correct at all. The Government does regulate healthcare - but a company like, say, United Healthcare - that's not run by the government and it doesn't report to the government.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 19):
Is this a joke?

Nope, it's not. At least, not in the United States. Healthcare benefits are a result of employers adding benefits in the 1940's when they could not raise wages but could add benefits. Alot of this has to do with WW2 and it's immediate economic aftermath.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 19):
I'm talking regulations like insurance mandates

As it stands today, there is no mandate on anyone outside of Massachusetts. That legislation will take effect in 2014. Guess who's responsible for the individual mandate in Massachusetts? None other than Mitt Romney. As for mandating that insurance companies cover certain individuals, most insurance companies have been free to drop customers they don't want for ages - excepting children in some cases. Once dropped, they're not forced to let you back in either. Which is how somebody once treated for acne can be denied insurance by all major providers whether they can afford to pay or not. How's that for "government control?"

The system you are describing simply does not exist in the United States. Maybe it does in Brazil, I'm not an expert on Brazil's healthcare system. There are countries where the government closely regulates private insurance companies - including mandating price controls. See Belgium. Where they have a better and more egalitarian system than in the United States and the health insurers are profitable. But in the USA, this just doesn't exist.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2756 times:

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 18):
No, it cannot. There is simply no way that private charities could organize enough money to provide any kind of equivalent standard of care.

With the way costs are going, including overseas in places you would like to mimic, even governments won't be able to afford it.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2748 times:

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 20):
Simply not true. Just not factually correct at all. The Government does regulate healthcare - but a company like, say, United Healthcare - that's not run by the government and it doesn't report to the government.

So? It operates in an environment controleld by the government, and this environment influences the company's decisions.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 20):
Nope, it's not. At least, not in the United States. Healthcare benefits are a result of employers adding benefits in the 1940's when they could not raise wages but could add benefits. Alot of this has to do with WW2 and it's immediate economic aftermath.

Firsty of all, that would be an effect of government policy, isn't it?

Secondly, coupling of health insurance and employment was mandated by the HMO Act of 1973.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 20):
As it stands today, there is no mandate on anyone outside of Massachusetts. That legislation will take effect in 2014. Guess who's responsible for the individual mandate in Massachusetts? None other than Mitt Romney. As for mandating that insurance companies cover certain individuals, most insurance companies have been free to drop customers they don't want for ages - excepting children in some cases. Once dropped, they're not forced to let you back in either. Which is how somebody once treated for acne can be denied insurance by all major providers whether they can afford to pay or not. How's that for "government control?"

States have hundreds of health insurance coverage mandates.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 20):
The system you are describing simply does not exist in the United States. Maybe it does in Brazil, I'm not an expert on Brazil's healthcare system. There are countries where the government closely regulates private insurance companies - including mandating price controls. See Belgium. Where they have a better and more egalitarian system than in the United States and the health insurers are profitable. But in the USA, this just doesn't exist.

You do not understand what insurance means like most people. That's the crux of the matter. As for price controls, these nasty things have adverse effects, like destroying Europe's drug R&D. . .

http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v6/n4/full/nrd2293.html


As is often repeated, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Europe is going to pay for its decisions in one way or another.

[Edited 2011-09-13 11:32:31]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12752 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2743 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Gingrich is by far the best qualified person on the stage, and will make an excellent VP in charge of ramrodding legislation

I don't think I'd put 'Gingrich' and 'ramrod' in a sentance together!

Quoting casinterest (Reply 5):
I watched a bit of the "What would you do to attract Latino Voters" portion, and I have to aay, they just about destroyed their chances with that demographic by talking about illegal immigration and border security. they should have focused on unemployment and education in their response.

If they did, they'd be acused of thinking Latinos are unemployed dropouts.

Quoting MCOGVADCA (Reply 13):
Yeah, you can see the reductionist linear thinking involved (Mexican---->ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT!)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 16):
Private charity can absolutely supplant medicare and the VA system. We are not there today thanks to government's obliteration of the health care market with its thousands upon thousands of regulatory pages, bureaucracy, and ambulance chaser laws.

If you think private charity works so well, I suggest you go to a place that is almost free of red tape, namely your local soup kitchen, and see how well it's doing at meeting the public's needs. Go ahead, pretty much every town has one these days. I've volunteered at the one in my relatively affluent suburban town, and after spending a few shifts there, I guarantee you that you'd never type in such nonsense as you've done above.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8869 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2740 times:

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 18):
What is being proposed here is essentially throwing away social safety nets and replacing them with Telethons the kind we saw after the Haiti Earthquake.

Safety nets are for people who need it. We are talking here about people who don't want to pay for it even though they can afford it. This is the whole means-testing argument - the government (i.e. the taxpayers) should not pay for something that you are capable of providing on your own, but are too selfish to do so.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 18):

So you're even admitting that the standard of care would be nowhere near the same?

Maybe instead of anesthesia, they could just have a guy club people on the side of the head before operations. Or we could give patients bullets to chew on and lots of brandy.

Nah, do it the old fashioned way - a bottle of whiskey.

Tell me, why are you personally willing to pay for the same level of care for your neighbor, who otherwise has a nice home and plenty of money, vs someone who is genuinely in need? Certainly, nobody is going to let these people die in the streets, but don't people who choose not to insure themselves for purely selfish reasons not suffer some sort of penalty for that decision? I'm open to suggestions - how do you enforce such responsibility, if not by reducing the quantity/quality of the health care you receive?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
25 PPVRA : I've done volunteering, including in Brazil, where the situation is worse than in the US any day you choose. Charity can absolutely replace welfare a
26 CargoLex : As do city buses, airplanes, police officers, the monetary system - the government provides the fundamental organization of society, including uphold
27 Post contains links PPVRA : That's what I've been trying to say all along. Here's an interesting piece: Europe and the US: Whose Health Care is More Socialist? You provide a num
28 Post contains images Superfly : Gary Johnson should be in these debates! It's a conspiracy to exclude him so Obama can get 4 more years!
29 PPVRA : When you have an industrial revolution, rise of massive cities, in short, a complete reordering of society, you are bound to run into trouble while y
30 Post contains images aloges : So who are the conspirators? The other GOP hopefuls?
31 Post contains links dfwrevolution : You might want to sneak a peek at the poll numbers. Sit down first. Perry is taking-off like a rocket ship. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo..._p
32 CargoLex : Uh, I don't think I actually said that, at least not in this thread. You quoted me, but I didn't mention perry in post 12. As for polls, well, not on
33 dxing : The only polls that count right now are the onse dealing with the early primaries in Iowa, NH and SC. No, it was a complete gotcha question as it is
34 CargoLex : Indeed. That's why you have to work hard and fend for yourself. But if circumstances conspire to leave you in serious trouble, or maybe you just neve
35 jpetekyxmd80 : Hmm... the same thing Rick Perry himself said he was "taken aback" by... "I was a bit taken aback by that myself," Perry told NBC News and the Miami
36 Superfly : The press that is so in love with Obama. There is no reason for Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain to be receiving the amo
37 Post contains links aloges : As we know, you are not a real member or supporter of anything unless you stand behind every single aspect of it: Libya & Sharia (by Dreadnought
38 Dreadnought : I heard 2 people say yes. If there were more, I'm sure they would have included that section in the clip. And once again, we are talking about a hypo
39 Post contains images aloges : because you value the life of another human more than the certainty that the bill will be paid in full shortly after saving that life - Nobody in the
40 Dreadnought : No I do not. There is no scarcity of human life - we have too many people on this earth as it is. I have no problem whatsoever letting Darwin take a
41 Post contains images aloges : Marvellous! I do however wonder why it is, then, unacceptable to allow would-be parents the choice to not have a child they conceived by mistake or a
42 Post contains links PPVRA : You have to bring the tax code back into the picture. There are big tax advantages to employer-sponsored health insurance, and whether these are inte
43 Post contains links and images Dreadnought : Look at my past posts. I am pro-choice. Ah, I see - All this outrage is over the implied question rather than the question actually asked... The heav
44 NoUFO : The article expressively states, that the "Clinical Trials Directive, adopted in 2001 to harmonize safety regulations across Europe" is a another dri
45 MCOGVADCA : In defense of CargoLex, it was I who said that. Obviously, I'm well aware of how the candidates are polling; however, these polls do not reflect a po
46 Revelation : Put our faith in unbridled capitalism? LOL! All evidence shows that this will just make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Great news for t
47 CargoLex : Hah! I think I might start calling him that all the time now. How many times have you and other conservatives voiced concerns about the "new Black Pa
48 gigneil : ALL evidence. Not to mention, worker standards will plummet and we won't have parks or trees and we'll all have to dress as if we're in the desert ye
49 casinterest : Well at least they would have been talking about the US Citizen Latino's instead of immediatly drawing them to all be illegal immigrants trying to ju
50 PPVRA : The article is also very clear about the main cause. Doesn't mean anything. What's the point of this? So US companies spend more on PR, AND still man
51 PPVRA : More paranoia from those who don't understand economics. Nope, it actually happens every day. The problem is when government destroys this mechanism
52 CargoLex : From an outsider's perspective, it looks like the Government is, in your view, in a kind of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position. If it d
53 NoUFO : Perhaps. And how do you (or your favorite candidate) want to make health care affordable to more people, pray tell?
54 Post contains links aloges : It is, but only as long as you do not put money before lives: When you look at it this way, it makes perfect sense. The Triangle Waist Company had a
55 Post contains links Revelation : Ok, I'll bite. Since "every major crisis out there has the fingers of government intervention", what role did government intervention play in creatin
56 Post contains links aloges : Let's go back a bit further in history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania Surely the main reason for the creation of that bubble and its subse
57 seb146 : Not only that, but the audience applauded! What kind of sick people would do such a thing? Just goes to show they hate life after birth. What really
58 Dreadnought : Dude, don't even pretend to say that that is remotely what I am advocating.
59 aloges : Well, you did say this: I'm just applying the basic principle to another example. The workers that were killed in that fire were as important to thei
60 Dreadnought : So to take your end of the argument, if you put lives before money then you would have no trouble with Germany emptying its treasury in order to ship
61 aloges : I knew this was coming, so please read again: Sadly, there are far too many instances where help for the needy is impossible because the resources ar
62 tugger : The key problem with this viewpoint (if I am interpreting what you say correctly) is that those that desire health insurance are often not able to af
63 gigneil : Every statement Bachmann makes is inaccurate and misleading. NS
64 NoUFO : Why not provide medical help to those without health insurance first and *then* try to get as much money as possible/justifiable back from him? Or wh
65 gigneil : That's what we're doing. The CURRENT health care legislation fixes all of this. NS
66 tugger : Well actually it doesn't. Due the Republican's not properly participating and working toward a proper comprehensive fix, a bill that was thoroughly l
67 gigneil : So, what you're saying is you're not a Republican? NS
68 Dreadnought : That's what Medicaid is for, and I am fine with that. I suggested that a few days ago, and was accused of wanting people to die in the streets. I am
69 gigneil : What disturbs/disgusts me is that you actually believe that anyone, including the President of the United States, would plan that. NS
70 tugger : I hold almost no hope in a constitutional amendment being possible or even desirable in today's political circus environment. I prefer simply a tax o
71 wn700driver : As long as the GOP has anything to say about it, this will always be true. I'm not inside Warren's head, so I don't know, but it may simply be that h
72 Post contains links PPVRA : 1. Creating a tax-neutral environment that doesn't distort the price of health care options and couple it with employment. 2. Removing regulations th
73 CargoLex : In an organized society where war equates to industrial production yes. And by the way, this has nothing to do with "the leftist philosophy." The peo
74 WarRI1 : I watched in amazement as they all backtracked on SS. The only sensible thing said, until I turned it off was, Newt Gingrich, saying that if we had fu
75 Post contains links Dreadnought : The funny thing is that Social Security has been called a Ponzi scheme before, and it was NOT a conservative: http://www.bostonreview.net/BR21.6/krug
76 WarRI1 : I said, they all backtracked. They did. I am not a Newt fan, but he said that about SS in the debate, and that I believe also. If the (good) paying j
77 Revelation : Bad policy? The US was on the gold standard, so there wasn't room for the kind of policies we see in the current era, so what are you on about? I hea
78 seb146 : It is because the insurance companies would not be making huge profits and would have to pay to treat everyone instead of denying people and making s
79 Dreadnought : Name a single Republican who has said he is against universal access to healthcare. Name just one.
80 Post contains links tugger : Most charities are not religiously based. However to beg the question, I do have to ask why should charity be tax deductible? If it is that worthy an
81 Dreadnought : I see nowhere that they don't want everyone to have universal access to healthcare. Everyone in the country has equal access to healthcare today - pr
82 ER757 : I have to give Romney some credit here.He called out Perry about Social Security asking him if he still thinks it should be abolished. Perry danced a
83 tugger : Nothing is free. Everything has to be paid for. And EVERYONE must pay for, contribute to, it (gee, wasn't the Republican's that originally offered an
84 PPVRA : Keynes is the one who said this, and the left still follows this guy. And no, production of bombs and tanks does not help the economy. It is a drag o
85 PPVRA : When most American graduate high school with the idea that Hoover believed in the market correcting itself, which is factually incorrect, I think I k
86 PPVRA : God? Is that you? Must be, since you appear to be all knowing. I didn't know you were a member of this board! Unfortunately for you, I am an atheist.
87 aloges : Is that not the theory where everyone in the whole world can do whatever he wants, and because no people are inherently evil or even just overly prot
88 PPVRA : No it's not. It's the theory that laws apply to everyone equally, even if you are wearing a government badge. It's the theory that says violence is n
89 WarRI1 : Absolutely, they are the Villians. Now they point the finger everywhere, but not at themselves. It is deception on a grand scale. I agree, he did. Pe
90 CargoLex : ...And without governments, it would be Somalia. So we're right back to where we started. Still wrong. Industrial production of complex goods is good
91 seb146 : No one is against that. What we are against is health care corporations raking in huge profits AND THEN denying those people they are taking money fr
92 Post contains images Dreadnought : Can you quote him saying anything meaning that some people should not have access to healthcare, if they can pay for it? Anyone in this country has a
93 seb146 : I actually would have listed six or seven candidates, but you only asked for one. Sure, people have *access* to Wal-Mart. But, some of us can not *af
94 Dreadnought : You (and others) talk about "access" to healthcare, as if everyone does not have access to healthcare. It makes it sound more like some sort of unfai
95 Baroque : One of a number of excellent posts may I say, What is astonishing is that you need to rehearse the 19th century to show why social services are neede
96 Post contains images tugger : Que? You do not understand what universal access to healthcare is do you? It doesn't mean "free". And if you cannot pay for it? And I mean you. Can y
97 casinterest : This is rather wrong. and this really deserves a new thread. Everyone deserves access to Healthcare, and should have it. Not everyone has access to b
98 PPVRA : False. Production of products that do not improve people's lives does not help the economy, just like digging useless ditches and filling them back u
99 CargoLex : True. Production of material goods creates industry and that creates jobs. Whether they are consumer goods or not. Wrong again, and deeply hypocritic
100 PPVRA : Your assumption in that sentence is incorrect. In terms of freedom, every American has the right to access health care. In terms of affordability, or
101 PPVRA : If it does not add value to people's lives, so it does not benefit the economy. Security is a cost, a drag on the economy, not a boosting factor. Onl
102 tugger : Actually it is not an assumption. It solid economics and is proven in the current markets for healthcare and in many other markets. Tugg
103 CargoLex : Define value? If it aids the personal security of the population, then it definitely adds value to people's lives. In fact, one could argue that a fi
104 seb146 : Actually, the Tea party mind set is "once you get sick, you are on your own!" Not free. Never free. No one ever said free except the far right wing (
105 wn700driver : I found these points to be intellectually dishonest, to say the least. You do NOT have access to being CEO of apple. And the level of hardness to whi
106 Post contains links dxing : As with another poster that tried this tact, it has been shown time and again that health insurance compaines do not "rake in" huge profits and that
107 CargoLex : That's true. But the debate was over whether or not war adds to industrial production and therefore economic growth. A war implies a need for war mat
108 seb146 : One would think so, but no. It took a catastrophic illness and quitting my job before I could get state assistance. Even after that, I have to watch
109 windy95 : Sorry but all the figures are the same. The profit margins used are the same by all. And health insurance companies are way down the list.
110 casinterest : Take the constitution and shove it. Everyone deserves access to healthcare and gets it under the Doctors oath. You act as if those are cheap numbers.
111 dxing : Which is as it should be. The safety net should be just that, a safety net, not a freebie. No they do not and the basis for those figures are the sam
112 casinterest : It only stands in the way of those that fail to look past it for solutions to problems not addressed by it. The President can do what he wants as lon
113 casinterest : You make it sound so racist. But the true answer is that some folks trying to make ends meet , just can't afford healthcare, and do not see the need
114 windy95 : So I do not have to pay my taxes then. No rule of law? Why follow any laws then? No the Feds need to get out of the way. it is over regulation that i
115 seb146 : So you are fine with executives raking in millions of dollars in pay and bonuses while people making less than $50,000 a year die from preventable il
116 PPVRA : It is *impossible* to make the assertion you made, unless you are omniscient. Value is subjective. I don't think you understood me: security is neces
117 Baroque : You seem to be forgetting that growing yr own vegetables and fruit adds nowt to the GDP but crashing yr car and ending up in hospital does wonders fo
118 PPVRA : I am not sure what you are trying to say, but do not take any of what I said above as excusing companies getting in bed with politicians. That's cron
119 casinterest : Nope, you failed the reading Comprehension test again. Go back to College, and pay fiull private tuition. No we have to have regulation otherwise we
120 dxing : It is the law of the land. It can be changed. It cannot be ignored. No he can't. There are plenty of laws passed by Congress that limit what a Presid
121 Superfly : What "culture" do you speak of?
122 seb146 : No. It is not the government that wants to let people with cancer and alzheimers and ALS and all manner of diseases just die. It is the right wing. I
123 wn700driver : You'll certainly get no argument from me there. It's actually the biggest problem I had with this whole issue, in fact. The notion that we were someh
124 casinterest : The President is the executive branch of Government. He can do whatever he wants as long as the Supreme court upholds it, and this would fall from th
125 seb146 : So, this means we can all cancel insurance on our cars. That will save some money each month. It's called "Executive Order." All presidents in moder
126 windy95 : What does religion have to with it? And yes I have no problem with CEO's of profitable companies making their money and bonuses. It is pure jealousy
127 tugger : The "assertion" I made is a fact. Nothing to do with omniscience: I said "many" not "most" nor "all". With delayed benefit systems paid into voluntar
128 casinterest : I forgot I have to spell it out for you folks that don't understand the EXECUTIVE Branch of Governemnt . The President Executes the law of the land a
129 CargoLex : I understood you perfectly well. No Government or extremely limited government, convenient excuses when that philosophy proves ineffective or outrigh
130 N867DA : This is the attitude that is killing America, piece by piece. I think Mitt Romney has the greatest chance of winning the race. The other ones are sim
131 windy95 : So you where wrong.You agree hecannot do what he wants. he can do what is limited to him through the Constitution and the laws created by congress an
132 casinterest : NEWS FLASH. Every Thing In Government is Political, even the constitution . Just thought I'd cover that for you, I insult the tea party because it is
133 Post contains images dxing : Then you have selective hearing because the question posed involved a healthy, well to do, 30 year old that suffered a brain injury from which he was
134 casinterest : You can choose not to drive, own a car,or own a boat. You can not choose to become disembodied from the set of Genes and random factors that affect y
135 seb146 : It was a right-wing debate. The right wing decided long ago that they are the annointed and chosen party of Christ. You have selective hearing becaus
136 dxing : You agreed with me. Insurance is to protect against random chance whether it is a boat, car, home, or your body. You can choose to not purchase insur
137 Post contains links dxing : I am a member of the GOP, I don't attend any Church. I know plenty of GOP members just like me. Now exactly who is generalizing? Let's take a look at
138 PPVRA : Government should be a neutral institution, it should not give aid to anybody. I'd commend you for helping out, including organizations like the Red
139 CargoLex : You did. But that's incompatible with "Let's totally defund every means of having a government." We were comparing the value of one product to anothe
140 PPVRA : I didn't really say that but I wasn't explicit on alternatives. There are ways to fund courts, police, etc, and the use of volunteer work that have b
141 WarRI1 : You accused me of the same thing. Anyone who defends these obscene wages, while they work for average wages is a tad naive. My goodness, Texas will b
142 WarRI1 : Wow, what a simple solution, if the people value it, regulate it. I would not hold my breath for business to act responsible without regulation, we v
143 Post contains images Dreadnought : Hellooo! State vs Federal, anyone? There are no federal mandates for auto insurance.
144 wn700driver : Cannot agree more. There is nothing anywhere that can generate the assumption that one can just "work" their way out of such a crisis. I'm always amu
145 Post contains links WarRI1 : All to be interpreted by the USSC eventually. We have Federally imposed insurance now, have had for many years. I do not see a difference. http://en.
146 Post contains links jpetekyxmd80 : And now in the latest chapter, another debate crowd boos a gay soldier who sent in a question for the debate. What a classy, classy bunch of folks the
147 Post contains images Mir : So we've gone from cheering executions, to wanting the uninsured to be left to die, to booing gay soldiers. I really hope there's just a handful of p
148 jpetekyxmd80 : And guess how many had the balls or the conscience to condemn that during the debate? Yup.
149 Dreadnought : Plenty. I was against the repeal of DADT. But now that it's gone, its' done - You can't shove people back into the closet.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Republican Debate Thread posted Fri May 4 2007 02:09:40 by TedTAce
The Debate From A Republican's Take posted Fri Oct 1 2004 04:21:11 by Sleekjet
Republican... God Will Save Us From Climate Change posted Wed Nov 10 2010 08:39:30 by photopilot
Finland: Gay Debate Sparks Church Exodus posted Wed Oct 20 2010 00:03:23 by Andaman
Republican Candidate As SS Re-enactor posted Mon Oct 11 2010 20:12:38 by avent
Tea Party Taking Over The Republican Party? posted Tue Sep 14 2010 21:38:30 by Ken777
Financial Reform Package - A Debate posted Mon Apr 26 2010 19:29:31 by Dreadnought
Election Debate Lie? posted Fri Apr 16 2010 01:54:00 by fca767
Republican Attacks On Medicare And Social Security posted Sun Feb 21 2010 20:47:36 by ken777
Republican Response From Richmond, Virginia? posted Wed Jan 27 2010 19:33:06 by CometII