BF2S Forums Typical liberal hypocrisy

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Lowing, I'm basing the difference in costs of bureaucracy on this.

"Proponents of health care reform argue that moving to a single-payer system would reallocate the money currently spent on the administrative overhead required to run the hundreds of insurance companies in the US to provide universal care. An often-cited study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information determined that some 31 percent of US health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs. Other estimates are lower. One study of the billing and insurance-related (BIR) costs borne not only by insurers but also by physicians and hospitals found that BIR among insurers, physicians, and hospitals in California represented 20-22% of privately insured spending in California acute care settings."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_car … ted_States

When even conservative estimates put private bureaucracy at 20% of the total cost of healthcare here, that shows how much room for savings there is in government run health insurance with regard to bureaucracy.

So socializing insurance would reduce costs considerably without even having to socialize care itself.

and you do not expect govt. overruns? What would this assumption be based on? i ask since there are no examples of govt. projects that come in under budget and on schedule.

And when it comes to healthcare, the private sector rarely ever does this either.

Still, even if the government goes over budget, it handles these problems better than the private sector does in terms of affordability in pricing.

Did you know, the private sector in the US pay up to 7x more for the same medical supplies compared to the public sector in Europe?

That's why it costs more in the US.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

and you do not expect govt. overruns? What would this assumption be based on? i ask since there are no examples of govt. projects that come in under budget and on schedule.

And when it comes to healthcare, the private sector rarely ever does this either.

Still, even if the government goes over budget, it handles these problems better than the private sector does in terms of affordability in pricing.

Well no shit, when there solution is to just take more money in taxes. Private companies must compete against a stacked deck favoring govt. and the govt. WILL STILL fuck it up.. I offer the US postal service as an example

I don't think that the private sector is worth paying 7x as much for.  The quality difference isn't that much.

lowing wrote:

The govt. has not proven itself capable of running any social program effeciently without fraud waste and abuse, so no I do not true them to run health care for an entire nation. They can not even run health care for senior citizens.

You could say the same about Iraq and Afghanistan.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Well no shit, when there solution is to just take more money in taxes. Private companies must compete against a stacked deck favoring govt. and the govt. WILL STILL fuck it up.. I offer the US postal service as an example

I don't think that the private sector is worth paying 7x as much for.  The quality difference isn't that much.

Hence reforms to bring the insurance companies back in line, NOT govt. take over.

Sorry, but no reforms possible could lower costs sevenfold without socialization.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

BN wrote:

You could say the same about Iraq and Afghanistan.

That is an argument for nationalization?

No, it's more an argument that shows how hypocritical lowing is about where he favors government spending.

Another point to make is that if you have a social program (any program for that matter) and one party favors it and the other party hates it, when the party that hates the program gets into power, guess what? they are going to cut the legs out from under that program as fast as possible.

Its ridiculous for party members to claim that the govt can't run anything when its their funding decision that ultimately decides the success of the program. Then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.. "ha ha ha look the govt can't run anything." No, politicans are the ones that decide to fund programs properly or to fund programs.

Politicians either try to turn the program into a cash cow for their friends making it inefficient (like the prescription drug program) or they cut the money out and then the prgram can't function properly (no kid left behind), or they borrow all of the trust fund money out for pork barrelling and then claim that the program will soon be bankrupt (like social security which should be flush with cash if the govt paid up its IOUs)

IMO if a party decides to run a program into the ground, the party should be the one to pick up the tab to replenish the money in the program, even it it bankrupts the party. That would introduce some sort of consequences for the retarded actions for political parties.



Since Lowing is so hyped up on the "govt can't run anything" let's be honest here and say "the Republican'ts won't let a social program be run sucessfully" because I have no doubt that govt bureaucracies have no problem running programs afterall we have the pentagon, CIA, FBI, ATF, military etc etc etc If you fund it, it will be a success, its only a matter of will on the part of the party in power.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That is an argument for nationalization?

No, it's more an argument that shows how hypocritical lowing is about where he favors government spending.

Another point to make is that if you have a social program (any program for that matter) and one party favors it and the other party hates it, when the party that hates the program gets into power, guess what? they are going to cut the legs out from under that program as fast as possible.

Its ridiculous for party members to claim that the govt can't run anything when its their funding decision that ultimately decides the success of the program. Then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.. "ha ha ha look the govt can't run anything." No, politicans are the ones that decide to fund programs properly or to fund programs.

Politicians either try to turn the program into a cash cow for their friends making it inefficient (like the prescription drug program) or they cut the money out and then the prgram can't function properly (no kid left behind), or they borrow all of the trust fund money out for pork barrelling and then claim that the program will soon be bankrupt (like social security which should be flush with cash if the govt paid up its IOUs)

IMO if a party decides to run a program into the ground, the party should be the one to pick up the tab to replenish the money in the program, even it it bankrupts the party. That would introduce some sort of consequences for the retarded actions for political parties.



Since Lowing is so hyped up on the "govt can't run anything" let's be honest here and say "the Republican'ts won't let a social program be run sucessfully" because I have no doubt that govt bureaucracies have no problem running programs afterall we have the pentagon, CIA, FBI, ATF, military etc etc etc If you fund it, it will be a success, its only a matter of will on the part of the party in power.

You are correct in everything you say.

The thing is, simply taxing the people harder is not the way to FUND a govt. program. The program, medicare, SS, etc has already been funded. The govt. CAN NOT manage those funds, or enforce laws that prevent its abuse. This is a management problem. and the govt, Can not manage shit, except to run us into the ground.

Spark wrote:

So instead of an elected, representative government running things you would rather inherently the inherently self-centered and unelected private sector running your country? Mind-boggling.

The private sector does not run the country, the govt. does. and health care, is not a function of govt.

The private sector operates within the laws established by the govt. when those laws are broken their should be consequences, enter lobbiests.

enforce the laws, expel the lobbiests and the govt. can go back to ensuring our freedoms, while the private sector remains the engine that drives the economy.

Here is the thing, It is not govt. that makes America great. It is the people. Govt. needs a wake up call to that fact.

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

So instead of an elected, representative government running things you would rather inherently the inherently self-centered and unelected private sector running your country? Mind-boggling.

The private sector does not run the country, the govt. does. and health care, is not a function of govt.

The private sector operates within the laws established by the govt. when those laws are broken their should be consequences, enter lobbiests.

enforce the laws, expel the lobbiests and the govt. can go back to ensuring our freedoms, while the private sector remains the engine that drives the economy.

Here is the thing, It is not govt. that makes America great. It is the people. Govt. needs a wake up call to that fact.

The market isn't so great either.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

So instead of an elected, representative government running things you would rather inherently the inherently self-centered and unelected private sector running your country? Mind-boggling.

The private sector does not run the country, the govt. does. and health care, is not a function of govt.

The private sector operates within the laws established by the govt. when those laws are broken their should be consequences, enter lobbiests.

enforce the laws, expel the lobbiests and the govt. can go back to ensuring our freedoms, while the private sector remains the engine that drives the economy.

Here is the thing, It is not govt. that makes America great. It is the people. Govt. needs a wake up call to that fact.

The market isn't so great either.

A properly regulated market is a great thing.  A government controlled financial market, manufacturing, and health care/insurance are a very dangerous thing.  Do you really think there is an end to how much the government will control?

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

So instead of an elected, representative government running things you would rather inherently the inherently self-centered and unelected private sector running your country? Mind-boggling.

The private sector does not run the country, the govt. does. and health care, is not a function of govt.

The private sector operates within the laws established by the govt. when those laws are broken their should be consequences, enter lobbiests.

enforce the laws, expel the lobbiests and the govt. can go back to ensuring our freedoms, while the private sector remains the engine that drives the economy.

Here is the thing, It is not govt. that makes America great. It is the people. Govt. needs a wake up call to that fact.

What, so your entire healthcare system is privately run? Geez.

Nope, it is just the part that is run by the govt. is mis-managed, so untilo they prove themselves with that small percentage, I see no need to turn over the entire program

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

What, so your entire healthcare system is privately run? Geez.

Nope, it is just the part that is run by the govt. is mis-managed, so untilo they prove themselves with that small percentage, I see no need to turn over the entire program

I should have made myself clearer.

What portion of the healthcare system in America is run by the private sector i.e. how many privately run vs. public hospitals are there? Because unless your government is astronomically incompetent (which I doubt) the public health system really shouldn't be that bad.

In any case one of the problems I see with the system you have now is that it does put undue stress on the public health system (assuming you have one) - flooded emergency departments.

We're seeing it here (in this city) - as bulk billing rates fall (as the local government can "no longer afford" (cough) to subsidise it), the number of people going to emergency for GP treatment is spiking. Not good.

and do you think it is going to get any better when health care is *cough* "free".


Most hospitals are for profit operations.

Last edited by lowing (2009-09-01 11:19:52)

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

I should have made myself clearer.

What portion of the healthcare system in America is run by the private sector i.e. how many privately run vs. public hospitals are there? Because unless your government is astronomically incompetent (which I doubt) the public health system really shouldn't be that bad.

In any case one of the problems I see with the system you have now is that it does put undue stress on the public health system (assuming you have one) - flooded emergency departments.

We're seeing it here (in this city) - as bulk billing rates fall (as the local government can "no longer afford" (cough) to subsidise it), the number of people going to emergency for GP treatment is spiking. Not good.

and do you think it is going to get any better when health care is *cough* "free".


Most hospitals are for profit operations.

It has been for me *shrugs* (by that I mean me and my parents)

No Spark, it is not free, someone is paying for it for you.

lowing wrote:

Yer right, and it goes through periods of ups and downs, what is your point? Does this somehow dismiss mypost?

Reread my post about special interests raiding funds of government programs, and you'll have my answer.