BF2S Forums Typical liberal hypocrisy

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

and based on my post, you really really think fuckin' GOVT. is the answer?

I think if I based my conclusions solely on your posts, I'd be in the Constitution Party.

and I think you are avoiding the question.

Lowing, it's pretty obvious that if I believed the government was incompetent at everything it does, I would be against socialized medicine.  While it is true that I question the competency of our government compared to many others, I don't quite believe it is incompetent enough for effective socialized medicine to be an impossibility.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I think if I based my conclusions solely on your posts, I'd be in the Constitution Party.

and I think you are avoiding the question.

Lowing, it's pretty obvious that if I believed the government was incompetent at everything it does, I would be against socialized medicine.  While it is true that I question the competency of our government compared to many others, I don't quite believe it is incompetent enough for effective socialized medicine to be an impossibility.

really? Baed on WHAT successful govt. program history?

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-30 09:38:52)

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Narupug wrote:

lowing seems to like to ignore the fact that you have to pay for the uninsured one way or another.

Nope I do not ignore that fact at all. I just do not think govt. is the BEST way to go about healthcare reform. I already offered examples as to why.


by the way, if you are going to give me a "motto", that you claim I maintain as an opinion, could you make it more accurate as to what I have said.

Here is what I would like my motto to be:


"Help thy neighbor, but only if they are willing to help themselves"-Lowing's moto


Thanks in advance for fixing it to reflect my opinion accurately.

You do realize you pay more for the uninsured via the market than through socialization.  Hospitals have to raise prices faster and higher when no socialized system is in place, in order to handle unexpected costs.

I am aware of this, and I acknowledge some sort of reform is needed. I do balk at the solution being found within the federal govt. I offer the federal govt. as my evidence

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Lowing, it's pretty obvious that if I believed the government was incompetent at everything it does, I would be against socialized medicine.  While it is true that I question the competency of our government compared to many others, I don't quite believe it is incompetent enough for effective socialized medicine to be an impossibility.

really? Baed on WHAT successful govt. programs?

I'd say the military is successful.  I'd say the interstate highway system is successful.  We have one of the less corrupt law enforcement structures of the world (on a federal level).

This is infrastructure and guess what, PRIVATE companies built the interstate NOT govt. The FBI and the CIA are not social programs they are agencies.

FatherTed wrote:

Your national parks are really quite nice too. And some of your inner city transport programs.

any chance you want to name a social program. Ya know to kinda compare apples to apples here.

The second I wnat a new national park I will letthe feds do it.

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-30 09:44:36)

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'd say the military is successful.  I'd say the interstate highway system is successful.  We have one of the less corrupt law enforcement structures of the world (on a federal level).

This is infrastructure and guess what, PRIVATE companies built the interstate NOT govt. The FBI and the CIA are not social programs they are agencies.

So would you support socialized health insurance with private care?

Not sure how you can make socialized health care from private companies.

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'd say the military is successful.  I'd say the interstate highway system is successful.  We have one of the less corrupt law enforcement structures of the world (on a federal level).

This is infrastructure and guess what, PRIVATE companies built the interstate NOT govt. The FBI and the CIA are not social programs they are agencies.

Private comps on Government contract. Either way it's taxpayers money.

Tax money is SUPPOSED to support infrastructure, not dependency on govt.

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Your national parks are really quite nice too. And some of your inner city transport programs.

any chance you want to name a social program. Ya know to kinda compare apples to apples here.

The second I wnat a new national park I will letthe feds do it.

National parks you idiot.

re-read and I I said national park. A national park is infrstructure and what taxes are supposed to cover. This is different than govt dependency

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not sure how you can make socialized health care from private companies.

If you socialize the insurance funds, but keep the actual hospitals private, you get rid of most of the corruption and costs of our current system.

A lot of the reason why we're experiencing skyrocketing costs is because a doctor will perform an operation that an insurance company at first approves but then denies funds for after the treatment is already done.

If we socialized insurance, this wouldn't happen anymore.

Ummm how about making or changing laws requiring the change in behavior insurance companies currently possess?

The problem with private insurance is that they have a vested interest in either not covering something or paying as little as possible of the cost.  This is true as long as insurance is based on profit.  This is why entire departments of insurance companies are aimed at figuring out ways to deny coverage -- they call it fraud investigations, but more often than not, it's about finding legal loopholes.

If insurance becomes a government service, helping its consumers becomes the motivation, because profit isn't an issue.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ummm how about making or changing laws requiring the change in behavior insurance companies currently possess?

The problem with private insurance is that they have a vested interest in either not covering something or paying as little as possible of the cost.  This is true as long as insurance is based on profit.  This is why entire departments of insurance companies are aimed at figuring out ways to deny coverage -- they call it fraud investigations, but more often than not, it's about finding legal loopholes.

If insurance becomes a government service, helping its consumers becomes the motivation, because profit isn't an issue.

Of course it is based on profit. It will cost the govt. money as well. Are you really suggestinbg they operate health care at a loss? do you not see the ramifications of this?

Yes, I see that the costs of bureaucracy via the government running insurance versus an array of private bureaucracies is considerably lower.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Of course it is based on profit. It will cost the govt. money as well. Are you really suggestinbg they operate health care at a loss? do you not see the ramifications of this?

Yes, I see that the costs of bureaucracy via the government running insurance versus an array of private bureaucracies is considerably lower.

while denying the fact that GOVT. involment invented the fuckin word "bureaucracy"

Still waiting to find out on what you base your condidence in govt. social programs on? Or are you using state parks like fatherted as your shining example?

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.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Yes, I see that the costs of bureaucracy via the government running insurance versus an array of private bureaucracies is considerably lower.

while denying the fact that GOVT. involment invented the fuckin word "bureaucracy"

Still waiting to find out on what you base your condidence in govt. social programs on? Or are you using state parks like fatherted as your shining example?

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.