Typical GOP response to Obamacare

Originally posted by bill718
I'm STILL waiting for the GOP's plan!

What is wrong with simply returning to the market based standard we've been using. No, it isn't perfect but no plan is. Free markets have changed the world in making more things affordable to more people. Do we really want to reverse direction, and go back to the good old days when the benevolence of a king determined our welfare? Most of the good things we enjoy are due to one thing. Liberty! People being free to excel and prosper.

Your attitude is the problem. There can't be a PLAN for everything. The Soviets had 5 year and 10 year plans for everything, and nothing got done.

The answer is really quite simple. We need a massive increase in health care professionals, all all types. Costs are related to supply and demand. Scarcity, creates high demand. It also creates high prices for those in demand. More doctors, nurses and other practitioners will reduce costs, and of course incomes for those people.

I'm still waiting for a viable plan from anyone. It seems everyone wants progress, but nobody wants to make the changes necessary for it to happen. Most of the proposals, including government running the show, will make things worse. State governments have trouble handling the issuance of license plates. You want them running hospitals?

Originally posted by normbenign
What is wrong with simply returning to the market based standard we've been using. No, it isn't perfect but no plan is. Free markets have changed the world in making more things affordable to more people. Do we really want to reverse direction, and go back to the good old days when the benevolence of a king determined our welfare? Most of the good thi ...[text shortened]... ernments have trouble handling the issuance of license plates. You want them running hospitals?

People dead from preventable diseases and treatable conditions aren't very free to "excel and prosper".

Going backwards is EXACTLY what you are proposing. The health care system was broken and cannot be fixed by rigid adherence to a laissez faire religion that does not work in that market because of structural conditions which make the operation of the market economically inefficient.

Originally posted by no1marauder
People dead from preventable diseases and treatable conditions aren't very free to "excel and prosper".

Going backwards is EXACTLY what you are proposing. The health care system was broken and cannot be fixed by rigid adherence to a laissez faire religion that does not work in that market because of structural conditions which make the operation of the market economically inefficient.

Tell us, what was wrong with Romneycare?

Originally posted by whodey
Tell us, what was wrong with Romneycare?

Go back to the nth number of "discussions" we've had on this.

A local solution to a national problem (one that involves an industry that comprises somewhere between a 1/6 and 1/5 of the US' GNP) is inadequate.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Go back to the nth number of "discussions" we've had on this.

A local solution to a national problem (one that involves an industry that comprises somewhere between a 1/6 and 1/5 of the US' GNP) is inadequate.

Are you saying that states are incapable of taking care of their own health care?

Why could MA?

Originally posted by whodey
Are you saying that states are incapable of taking care of their own health care?

Why could MA?

Close to half the States won't even expand Medicaid when the Feds were willing to pay 100% of the costs for the first few years.

Stop the BS. IF States had addressed the problem, a national solution wouldn't have been required. But they didn't, so it was.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Close to half the States won't even expand Medicaid when the Feds were willing to pay 100% of the costs for the first few years.

Stop the BS. IF States had addressed the problem, a national solution wouldn't have been required. But they didn't, so it was.

I see, so the Feds will keep those other states afloat for a couple of years and then just throw them to the dogs.

Gotcha!

So what if people vote in a particular state not to address health care? Should their democratic vote be ignored?

Originally posted by whodey
I see, so the Feds will keep those other states afloat for a couple of years and then just throw them to the dogs.

Gotcha!

So what if people vote in a particular state not to address health care? Should their democratic vote be ignored?

The individual States don't run the country. See the US Constitution, Article I, section 8.

As usual, you haven't bothered to learn the details of the Medicaid expansion. Go Google it; I'm sick of teaching right wingers things they won't listen to anyway.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The individual States don't run the country. See the US Constitution, Article I, section 8.

As usual, you haven't bothered to learn the details of the Medicaid expansion. Go Google it; I'm sick of teaching right wingers things they won't listen to anyway.

So essentially it is unconstitutional not to have the US government run health care?

Was Obama your Constitutional professor in college?

Originally posted by whodey
So essentially it is unconstitutional not to have the US government run health care?

Was Obama your Constitutional professor in college?

An idiotic non sequitur. In case you forgot the conversation from a few posts ago:

whodey: So what if people vote in a particular state not to address health care? Should their democratic vote be ignored?

no1: The individual States don't run the country. See the US Constitution, Article I, section 8.

The "democratic vote" in a single State does not override the Constitutional powers granted to Congress.

Who was your Constitutional professor in college, whodey? Jefferson Davis?

Originally posted by no1marauder
An idiotic non sequitur. In case you forgot the conversation from a few posts ago:

whodey: So what if people vote in a particular state not to address health care? Should their democratic vote be ignored?

no1: The individual States don't run the country. See the US Constitution, Article I, section 8.

The "democratic vote" in a single State does ...[text shortened]... nted to Congress.

Who was your Constitutional professor in college, whodey? Jefferson Davis?

I think his Constitutional professor was Chicken Little.

Originally posted by normbenign
What is wrong with simply returning to the market based standard we've been using. No, it isn't perfect but no plan is. Free markets have changed the world in making more things affordable to more people. Do we really want to reverse direction, and go back to the good old days when the benevolence of a king determined our welfare? Most of the good thi ...[text shortened]... ernments have trouble handling the issuance of license plates. You want them running hospitals?

What's wrong with returning to the market based standard??? Because it's basically a "pay or die" plan Norm, Don't you get that? We've been hearing for 50 years that free enterprise and market based competition will "bring prices down"...are prices down Norm? What's the cost for treating a heart condition? A gallstone operation? An appendectomy? Has market based competition made these things affordable for consumers Norm? Insurance only covers a small part of these. So, what are people to do? Pay or Die? Is medical bankruptcy really the answer Norm?

...and I'm STILL waiting to hear the GOP's plan.

Originally posted by bill718
What's wrong with returning to the market based standard??? Because it's basically a "pay or die" plan Norm, Don't you get that? We've been hearing for 50 years that free enterprise and market based competition will "bring prices down"...are prices down Norm? What's the cost for treating a heart condition? A gallstone operation? An appendectomy? Has market b ...[text shortened]... s medical bankruptcy really the answer Norm?

...and I'm STILL waiting to hear the GOP's plan.

You are arguing that the free market is responsible for rapidly escalating prices, when exactly the opposite is true. Cost are out of control because of government regulations of health care. That and also regulated by medical professional associations which do nothing to contain costs.

Pay or die? What has changed? Nothing! If you think that Obama care comprehensively covers everything, you are a delude soul. Most treatments and drugs have continued to escalate in cost, and some have accelerated.

If you are looking for "the answer" I don't have it. Clearly Statist solutions offer some temporary benefits, but long term no system treats everyone, or everything without personal costs.

The only thing that brings costs down is a plentiful supply.
How to accomplish that is the question.

Originally posted by normbenign
You are arguing that the free market is responsible for rapidly escalating prices, when exactly the opposite is true. Cost are out of control because of government regulations of health care. That and also regulated by medical professional associations which do nothing to contain costs.

Pay or die? What has changed? Nothing! If you think that Obam ...[text shortened]... nly thing that brings costs down is a plentiful supply.
How to accomplish that is the question.

Government has been bought off by the medical industry. They love to tout how a new drug costs billions to manufacture but there are real issues, for instance, my wife has situational diabetes (from being on steroids long term). So needs insulin. There is tactic by pharms where they do a trick called evergreen patents. They keep up reassigning patents on drugs like insulin and so, one batch costs us $230 and would be $700 without insurance. We have Medicare and AARP supplimental but none of that gets us cheap insulin and that is 100% due to Pharms screwing the public just as long as they can.

Where are the government regulations about evergreen patents, eh?

Government is a joke, bought off by big oil, by big business, by pharm.

Your version of less and less government just means more of the same.

I call it abrogation of responsibility.

Government is responsible for the welfare of the people not the other way round.

But republicans don't want it that way, all being bought and paid for by all those I mentioned. Also the military.

Nasa wants a few billion to go to Mars, a government directive.

All they get is cuts.

The military wants a trillion dollar fighter jet, great news. Seattle gets more jobs created. That makes it all OK.