Why would anyone be upset by that? Surely you don't think the government would hire fewer people to do the same job, do you? That would make the government more efficient than private enterprise, and of course we know that can't be true. So nationalizing health care will create jobs. barfo
Barfo, Barfo, Barfo . . . The government is not a money-making operation; it creates nothing, it produces nothing. Anybody working for the government will be getting their pay from our tax dollars, not from the revenues produced by a private health insurance company. Second, if the government can't hire fewer people to manage a centralized health care system than the thousands of people who presently work for all the private health insurers who compete against each other, something is seriously wrong.
Oh no I've thought about it and I'm extremely worried by Obama's behavior. Obama is as reckless fiscally as Bush was with foreign policy and civil rights. Both of these behaviors destroy our country it's just the one two punch of Republican and Democratic pandering to their elite friends.
That's a wonderful idea. They sort of are doing that for those people who have fixed debt. The coming wave of Hyperinflation, which will follow the next round of "Quantitative Easing" as surely as spring follows winter, will wipe out all fixed debts. Now adjustable debts...thats a different story. Strange times and stranger to come!
So, you agree the current system is inefficient, and could be run more efficiently by the government. Good, that's progress. What is it that the private health insurance companies create? What do they produce? barfo
No, the current system is highly efficient. At present you can shop around for health insurance at many different places, and pick the one with the best rates and coverages. NOTHING is ever run "more efficiently" by the government, even you should know that. A private health insurance company is a business like any other. It has to make money or it fails. This means that it must run itself efficiently in order to compete in the marketplace. So . . . what it produces is health insurance that is competitive, and a product that people want to buy. The government, on the other hand, won't have to compete with anybody if it controls the whole system. This will lead to huge inefficiencies and waste, as every government program always does.
No it wouldn't. It'd place tens, maybe hundreds of thousands out of work. In fact, it might cause this recession to fall into a full blown depression. Heck, at our parent company (health care insurer) we have well over 3,000 employees and we're probably the 100th smallest health insurer in the country.
The private health care companies contribute over 80% of all monies to research & development. We have, as a small example, mamogram machines, MRI's... all due to monies provided by health insurance companies. The Canadian system produces zero dollars for R & D. In fact, the health care company I work for provides over $3,000,000 in free dental care for children and $10,000,000 in free medical care for chi9ldren per year and over $40,000,000 to various other charities thru both employee giving as well as corporate giving. And we're about the 100th largest health care company in the USA. We are non profit (as are most health care companies) and although I work for a small subsiderary, we take truns continually volunteering for various free health care programs. And this is just us. If we go to a national health care system, this all goes down to zero. There's something Obama can be proud of.
80% of all what monies? 80% of their revenue? profits? 80% of the money spent on R&D? I'm not following here. Contribute in what sense? I'm a little unclear on this too. Are you saying that insurance companies funded the research the led to these machines? Or that insurance payouts allowed hospitals to buy the machines? So if you worked for the government, you wouldn't be willing to volunteer your time anymore? Why is that? barfo
There are federal reports that I've seen our VP reads and the stats are overwhelming. About 80% of monies used in research and development of new technology comes from insurance companies. Both. I know our parent company gives a ton of money to various research places as well as helps various medical entities purchase them- Shriners, free health care clinics... Ya know, I have to admit I'm a little disappointed that you'd take pot shots at companies that do a hell of a lot of good for underprivilaged... all for the sake of defending a defenseless liberal position. That's why I'm happy mto be a moderate independent- I'm not obligated to support my party's point of view when it's clearly wrong. In fact, that's probably the worst thing about liberals and conservatives- they have to be sheep and go with their party platform no matter what.
I'd be interested to see those statistics. It sounds quite implausible unless it just means that since essentially all health care costs flow through insurance companies, the money that hospitals spend on research can be said to come from the insurance companies. But even so, I'm skeptical. Seems to me a great deal of medical research is federally funded. But I'd be happy to look at the data. I'd have a much higher opinion of insurance companies if this is correct. Whatever you say, man. I think most people don't have a very high opinion of insurance companies, whether they be conservative or liberal. You rank right up there with politicians and lawyers and Lakers. Let me add that while the above line is indeed a potshot, I don't think there were any potshots in my initial response. I asked for clarification, and I asked why you wouldn't volunteer if you were a federal employee. None of that qualifies as a potshot, much less for your anti-liberal rant. barfo
That's right. The libs have painted insurance companies so black that the biggoted resentment is like tar. It's false and a fraud. And so are the people who promulgate such things. But I'm never going to argue that insurance companies are perfect- or any other business. Do you own a house? Did you pay cash for it? Or, did you have sufficient collateral to fully cover the loan? So how did you get the house? One reason only. An insurance company was willing, for a nominal fee, to guarantee payment in the event of most disasters that could befall you. No insurance, no home loan. I's the same for cars. Most people don't or can't pay cash. Without an insurance company guarenteeing payment in the event of most incidents, no loan. Period. Health technology is vastly due to insurance monies. Literally millions of people woud not have lived with a host of maladies witrhout the inovations funded so heavily by insurance dollars- children who would have no parents, parents who would no longer have children, husbands & wives who wouldn't have each other were it not for those monies to tehnology. But I guess they just don't mattrer as all insurance companies are pure evil. But all we get from liberals is how dark & evil they are. Over and over and over and over and over... while the unions they sleep with continuously steal money and drive business from our soil. Compare the amount of insurance people in prison with union reps. It's probably 1000 to 1 in favor of the insurance execs- and yet it's the unions that are are pure as newly fallen snow. It's a skewed world you live in barfo. One where we are supposed to applaud a doctor when they deliver a live baby up to it's shoulders and then drill holes in it's skull until the baby dies (I think the term is abortion) and yet if I kick a dog I go to jail. This is what your world is like. It's a type of hell. I choose a much better and humane path in life. It's also honest.
You're a funny guy, barfo, but your shtick gets a little old. Your favorite mode of response seems to be to find something in a post that you can poke fun at, and use to make the poster look silly, while ignoring the real point he was trying to make.
Well, you can ignore me if you are bored with me. We've been together for quite a few years now, it's not surprising that the honeymoon is over. I know about you and Roger, by the way. And if you want a divorce it is going to cost you. Big time. barfo
