Ike and Crying Wolf

[HowardRoark]

a) Will Government take over the whole system?
b) Will we force uninsured people to get insurance in the private sector?
c) Will we let the uninsured die in the streets because they were too dumb to take care of themselves?

For the record, I would answer no, no, and no to your a, b, and c. Could you possibly answer those questions any differently?

Who exactly will pay for the medical care needed for those dying in the streets?

[Scott Campbell]

Who exactly will pay for the medical care needed for those dying in the streets?

Libs.

[texaspackerbacker]

a) Will Government take over the whole system?
b) Will we force uninsured people to get insurance in the private sector?
c) Will we let the uninsured die in the streets because they were too dumb to take care of themselves?

For the record, I would answer no, no, and no to your a, b, and c. Could you possibly answer those questions any differently?

Who exactly will pay for the medical care needed for those dying in the streets?

Is that a relevant consideration? Does it really make any difference? I mean, if the answer is not what you want to hear, does that mean you want to let them die?

[HowardRoark]

a) Will Government take over the whole system?
b) Will we force uninsured people to get insurance in the private sector?
c) Will we let the uninsured die in the streets because they were too dumb to take care of themselves?

For the record, I would answer no, no, and no to your a, b, and c. Could you possibly answer those questions any differently?

Who exactly will pay for the medical care needed for those dying in the streets?

Is that a relevant consideration? Does it really make any difference? I mean, if the answer is not what you want to hear, does that mean you want to let them die?

Of course I don’t want to see them die. But what you seem to fail to see is that someone has to pay for these people. You are willing to let them go uninsured and let the “system” pick up the slack. Tex, I am the system. I really don’t appreciate having to pay for irresponsible people.

Here’s the deal. You cut and paste your rant “god damned assholes, etc, blah blah blah” and think that you say something. It’s nothing. When you actually write a coherent response on an issue, you always sound as though you would rather be living in a Scandinavian country. Your beliefs are of the Left. You want me and everyone else who actually pay for insurance to pay higher premiums or whatever (don’t know) so that those who would be dying in the streets are taken care of. When something goes wrong, such as a hurricane, you want the Government to come in and save our asses. What would have happened to Harry Truman on Mt. St. Helens in your world? Would he have been hauled off the volcano at gunpoint?

I am sure you will flame me with a rant, but I don’t care. You are a Liberal. I am going to make you a project, kind of like Pygmalion…….the rain in N’Orleans stays mainly on the Gulf………I want to harness your passion and focus it with actual thought.

Turn off your radio and T.V. for a month. Don’t worry, nothing will change, all the characters and all the stories will be the same. Pick up a few books. Start with Ideas Have Consequences and The Road to Serfdom.

Anybody else have any other books, put them on the list. I don't consider myself the brightest bulb in the drawer, so go ahead and add to the list. Maxie and Rand were having a good discussion the other day about Mises and Jaki. I have not read them yet, but ordered them.

[mraynrand]

Turn off your radio and T.V. for a month. Don’t worry, nothing will change, all the characters and all the stories will be the same. Pick up a few books. Start with Ideas Have Consequences and The Road to Serfdom..

Two book similar in theme to Ideas are Robert Bork's Slouching towards Gomorrah and Thomas Sowell's Knowledge and Decisions

The Road to Serfdom is pretty thick, but worthwhile. The 'contemporary equivalent', a little lighter and easier to manage is Goldberg's Liberal Fascism

Can I still watch TV?

[HowardRoark]

Can I still watch TV?

Yes you may.

[MJZiggy]

Who exactly will pay for the medical care needed for those dying in the streets?

Libs.

Rich people.

[Scott Campbell]

Who exactly will pay for the medical care needed for those dying in the streets?

Libs.

Rich people.

I'll concede the point, as you're probably right.

[BallHawk]

Ike intensified from 80 mph to 135 mph in only 6 hours. Damn. +55.

[texaspackerbacker]

a) Will Government take over the whole system?
b) Will we force uninsured people to get insurance in the private sector?
c) Will we let the uninsured die in the streets because they were too dumb to take care of themselves?

For the record, I would answer no, no, and no to your a, b, and c. Could you possibly answer those questions any differently?

Who exactly will pay for the medical care needed for those dying in the streets?

Is that a relevant consideration? Does it really make any difference? I mean, if the answer is not what you want to hear, does that mean you want to let them die?

Of course I don’t want to see them die. But what you seem to fail to see is that someone has to pay for these people. You are willing to let them go uninsured and let the “system” pick up the slack. Tex, I am the system. I really don’t appreciate having to pay for irresponsible people.

Here’s the deal. You cut and paste your rant “god damned assholes, etc, blah blah blah” and think that you say something. It’s nothing. When you actually write a coherent response on an issue, you always sound as though you would rather be living in a Scandinavian country. Your beliefs are of the Left. You want me and everyone else who actually pay for insurance to pay higher premiums or whatever (don’t know) so that those who would be dying in the streets are taken care of. When something goes wrong, such as a hurricane, you want the Government to come in and save our asses. What would have happened to Harry Truman on Mt. St. Helens in your world? Would he have been hauled off the volcano at gunpoint?

I am sure you will flame me with a rant, but I don’t care. You are a Liberal. I am going to make you a project, kind of like Pygmalion…….the rain in N’Orleans stays mainly on the Gulf………I want to harness your passion and focus it with actual thought.

Turn off your radio and T.V. for a month. Don’t worry, nothing will change, all the characters and all the stories will be the same. Pick up a few books. Start with Ideas Have Consequences and The Road to Serfdom.

Anybody else have any other books, put them on the list. I don't consider myself the brightest bulb in the drawer, so go ahead and add to the list. Maxie and Rand were having a good discussion the other day about Mises and Jaki. I have not read them yet, but ordered them.

I wonder how many leftists are having a good laugh the thought of ME being called a liberal. Actually, although I respect the great majority of consevative ideas and views, I seldom refer to myself as a conservative. Rather, I think of myself as an America-loving American--part of the true vast majority in this country who put COUNTRY FIRST--the theme of the evening, so it seems.

I respect the fact that you ARE the system--in your own view--and even italicize it. I don't even know how to use italics. One of my many character flaws is that I, on the other hand, have empathy for those who scam or beat THE SYSTEM.

The BOTTOM LINE, however, in the health care discussion is that the whole deal is kind of a barely relevant fringe issue in the grand scheme of things. Who's gonna pay for the miniscule number of intentionally uninsured who actually need to be paid for? Who cares! It's such a tiny pittance in the context of the entire economy that it isn't worth discussing.

Yet you--and possibly others insist on dwelling on silly little crap like that which you seem to prioritize over REAL issues like national security, tax cutting with resultant economic success, and the overall concept of keeping America the most prosperous and most powerful country in the world.

Howard, you seem to have an elitist streak almost as wide as the God damned leftist assholes with your penchant for ignoring or trampling the right of good normal Americans to do as they damn well please with THEIR money--including deciding NOT to blow it on insurance.

[HowardRoark]

Yet you--and possibly others insist on dwelling on silly little crap like that which you seem to prioritize over REAL issues like national security, tax cutting with resultant economic success, and the overall concept of keeping America the most prosperous and most powerful country in the world.

Howard, you seem to have an elitist streak almost as wide as the God damned leftist assholes with your penchant for ignoring or trampling the right of good normal Americans to do as they damn well please with THEIR money--including deciding NOT to blow it on insurance.

Tex, how can we be the most powerful country in the world if our citizens are quivering in the corner waiting for the nanny state to come around and save them from everything? The citizens are what make up the country after all.

You miss my "elitist" point; I DO want to do anything I PLEASE WITH MY MONEY!!!! What I DON'T want to do with my money is pay for those who "beat the system" (once again proving your Leftist views) by not paying for their own healthcare. Or for those other famous "system beaters" who you seemingly champion; the Welfare Mothers.

It all adds up. All these little things add up.

BTW Tex, just highlight the words you want to make bold etc, and then click the little box above....B, i, u, etc.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yet you--and possibly others insist on dwelling on silly little crap like that which you seem to prioritize over REAL issues like national security, tax cutting with resultant economic success, and the overall concept of keeping America the most prosperous and most powerful country in the world.

Howard, you seem to have an elitist streak almost as wide as the God damned leftist assholes with your penchant for ignoring or trampling the right of good normal Americans to do as they damn well please with THEIR money--including deciding NOT to blow it on insurance.

Tex, how can we be the most powerful country in the world if our citizens are quivering in the corner waiting for the nanny state to come around and save them from everything? The citizens are what make up the country after all.

You miss my "elitist" point; I DO want to do anything I PLEASE WITH MY MONEY!!!! What I DON'T want to do with my money is pay for those who "beat the system" (once again proving your Leftist views) by not paying for their own healthcare. Or for those other famous "system beaters" who you seemingly champion; the Welfare Mothers.

It all adds up. All these little things add up.

BTW Tex, just highlight the words you want to make bold etc, and then click the little box above....B, i, u, etc.

Thank you for enlightening me on the B, i, u, etc.

No offense to you, but you might want to give the old edit function a work out once in a while. " I PLEASE WITH MY MONEY!!!!" I'd like to respond to this line but I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean you are pleased with your money, and don't want to spread it around for whatever, then more power to you. Nobody is more for lower taxes than I am.

As I've said, many times, though, knowing you and some others may not believe it, but there is NOT automatically a direct correlation between government spending for whatever, and YOUR money which you may be so pleased with being grabbed. On the other hand, there IS a very direct correlation between tax cutting and your pleasing money stash--not only in the obvious way, being taxed less, but also in the Keynesian way--having the economy stimulated by tax cutting--which benefits EVERYBODY, perhaps you even more than others, depending on what business you are in.

As for your "quivering in the corner" line, is that REALLY the way you see good normal American people? I hope not.

Being "elitist" is NOT about being "pleased" about or jealously guarding your money. It is about having a condescending attitude and thinking there is some need to tell others--the vast majority of others, for some elitists--not necessarily you--what to do with THEIR money and how to live THEIR lives. That is what you're doing with this mandatory health insurance thing. MANY of us see insurance--just about any insurance--as flushing money down the toilet. Just because you may disagree with that doesn't give you--or the government which would necessarily need to be your enforcement tool--the right to inflict your views on others.

[mraynrand]

MANY of us see insurance--just about any insurance--as flushing money down the toilet. Just because you may disagree with that doesn't give you--or the government which would necessarily need to be your enforcement tool--the right to inflict your views on others.

And that is at the heart of the major misconception about healthcare. Of the 47-50 million without insurance (NOT without healthcare), the largest group are those who can easily afford to pay for insurance (and for healthcare). Next are those WHO ARE ALREADY COVERED BUT DON'T KNOW IT. All children are covered, and most adults are covered by some type of medicare or medicaid. When they come in they are enrolled. The biggest and really ONLY class of people who are uninsured are illegal immigrants. These are the folks not covered that will be the overwhelming beneficiaries of Obama's healthcare plan.

I think what Howard is asking is what to do with uninsured who come in and need tons of care. If they aren't covered, do they get punted out the hospital door? The answer is NO. They don't get punted now and they won't in the future. What does happen is that they are expected to pay what they can, and hospitals are getting more aggressive about collecting - even to the point of conducting a sort of fiscal triage. Folks coming into the ER who don't need the ER are signed up for regular appointments and ability to pay is assessed. People are all treated, but they are either signed up for coverage or are set up for some sort of payment schedule.

The key to saving money in healthcare is to reduce costs. That happens by making the consumer more responsible for his spending choices, and making physicians more accountable for the treatment decisions they make (In both cases, patients need to be informed about lower cost alternatives, and docs have to be told by administrators NOT to use more expensive methods when cheaper methods are available. In some cases that means docs can't go for company sponsored week long 'seminars' in Vail).

Returning some free market controls (especially in government provided coverages), stressing sane price reduction procedures, providing incentives for individuals to get coverage (but not mandating it), and allowing pooling
of individuals to reduce indurance costs will all help the system, and no one will be left on the streets to die - not even illegals.

[texaspackerbacker]

MANY of us see insurance--just about any insurance--as flushing money down the toilet. Just because you may disagree with that doesn't give you--or the government which would necessarily need to be your enforcement tool--the right to inflict your views on others.

And that is at the heart of the major misconception about healthcare. Of the 47-50 million without insurance (NOT without healthcare), the largest group are those who can easily afford to pay for insurance (and for healthcare). Next are those WHO ARE ALREADY COVERED BUT DON'T KNOW IT. All children are covered, and most adults are covered by some type of medicare or medicaid. When they come in they are enrolled. The biggest and really ONLY class of people who are uninsured are illegal immigrants. These are the folks not covered that will be the overwhelming beneficiaries of Obama's healthcare plan.

I think what Howard is asking is what to do with uninsured who come in and need tons of care. If they aren't covered, do they get punted out the hospital door? The answer is NO. They don't get punted now and they won't in the future. What does happen is that they are expected to pay what they can, and hospitals are getting more aggressive about collecting - even to the point of conducting a sort of fiscal triage. Folks coming into the ER who don't need the ER are signed up for regular appointments and ability to pay is assessed. People are all treated, but they are either signed up for coverage or are set up for some sort of payment schedule.

The key to saving money in healthcare is to reduce costs. That happens by making the consumer more responsible for his spending choices, and making physicians more accountable for the treatment decisions they make (In both cases, patients need to be informed about lower cost alternatives, and docs have to be told by administrators NOT to use more expensive methods when cheaper methods are available. In some cases that means docs can't go for company sponsored week long 'seminars' in Vail).

Returning some free market controls (especially in government provided coverages), stressing sane price reduction procedures, providing incentives for individuals to get coverage (but not mandating it), and allowing pooling
of individuals to reduce indurance costs will all help the system, and no one will be left on the streets to die - not even illegals.

You undoubtedly are right. I have no quarrel with any of what you said.

My response consists of only two points:

First, the costs you alluded to that Howard may have meant, are INSIGNIFICANT in the grand scheme of things.

Secondly, the whole issue of health care is INSIGNIFICANT in the grand scheme of things. Have you listened to Obama today? He's talking about this same kind of crap! Why aren't Republicans talking about health care and a bunch of other silly shit about what can government do and what regulations can it inflict on us?--the kind of stuff Howard salivates for like FORCING good normal people to dip into their pleasing money supply and blow some of it on insurance.

Why are Republicans NOT talking about crap like that? BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES TO BE DEALT WITH: security--preventing the mass murder of Americans and destruction of our way of life at the top of the list; maintaining American strength, dominance, and prosperity being right there near the top too; Cutting taxes--rather than idiotically raising taxes--stimulating our economy rather than dampening it; Maintaining traditional American values and morality which has been damaged significantly by leftist judicial decisions--directly contrary to the wishes of the people, etc. etc.etc.

I see some fairly good conservatives in this forum who just don't seem to understand the meaning of PRIORITIZING ISSUES, and thereby end up playing right into the hands of like-minded liberals--with respect to what issues to dwell on.

[mraynrand]

Tex,

I'm pretty close to the health care issue, so i comment on it because there is so much disinformation out there, especially the continual LIE that 50 million 'cannot get healthcare.'

In essence, it can be included with everything else that government tries to intrude on and enforce their vision. Like with education, more government involvement results in higher prices and reduced quality. Other than that, it's not significant. This country has OUTSTANDING healthcare, and it will only get better if government doesn't screw it up more than they already have.

I agree that the other issues you list are more important, but we have to be on the alert for increased government interference in every aspect of American life.