Longest rant competition: sgreger1 vs. snuppy. Do not enter

[Ainkor]

Give me a Ron Paul / Alan Keyes ticket. We need some strong Constitutionalists to repair the damage.

Hell yah.

[VBSnus]

Big government big government big government...there's one thing bigger than government: big business.

A business-run nation screws us over. A balance must be found because supply/demand and consumer behavior just doesn't cut it.

I'm not saying there should be big government...but we need some way to regulate other than "the market will balance itself".

[sgreger1]

Big government big government big government...there's one thing bigger than government: big business.

A business-run nation screws us over. A balance must be found because supply/demand and consumer behavior just doesn't cut it.

I'm not saying there should be big government...but we need some way to regulate other than "the market will balance itself".

Although im not saying we shouldnt ever regulate anything, but a free'er market is better than a highly regulated one. By regulating things all you do is drive up costs and inadvertently cause partial monopolies to form, especially when corps get in bed with the gov and they regulate in a way which allows said corporation to obtain a higher market share.


It would work better if the government didn't touch it as much. High regulation sounds good but it kills jobs, creates monopolies, and raises prices on everything. If it wasn't for regulation a lot of the biggest corporations screwing us today would not be profiting the way they are.

Look at oil? Carter and co tried to make heavy regulations for oil industry to drive down price and had opposite effect. Reagan undid that and prices went down extremely for a while, untill more recently where the regulation is happening again.

[VBSnus]

Remove subsidies for some products and tax increases for others (like corn vs. sugar). Make it easier for Americans to enter the market as entrepreneurs. Use scientific evidence and independent studies over lobbyist requests.

However, there's still going to be issues. Here's a post I made in another topic:

But I don't believe in "just letting go" too much in government, because companies won't give any more than they have to. Look at American snus vs. Swedish. Why does Camel's suck? Don't know, don't know what's in it. Why does it make my gums burn? Don't know, don't know what's in it. What's in our food? Additives, chemicals, natural or artificial ingredients. What's in our drugs? Don't know.

Non-disclosure from companies and no regulations from government would be bad news. You know companies would start using lead paint and calling it "Special Paint". Just like dentists used to call fillings "Mercury fillings" then "amalgam fillings" and now just "silver fillings".

[sgreger1]

@ VB SNUS



The private sectors that collapsed and led us into this recession were the ones most heavily regulated by the government. What does that tell you about the future of a nationalized and heavily regulated healthcare system?

[sgreger1]

@VB SNUS

QUOTE: "Use scientific evidence and independent studies over lobbyist requests. "


lol, now there is a novel idea. Lobbyests are who needs to be taken out of the picture. That is step one. Then going line by line and eliminating waste, which is something BO promised but never intends on doing

[VBSnus]

@ VB SNUS



The private sectors that collapsed and led us into this recession were the ones most heavily regulated by the government. What does that tell you about the future of a nationalized and heavily regulated healthcare system?

Absolutely nothing. The correlations are way too vague...it's like the logic joke with the weed wacker.

Two rednecks, Jimbo and Bubba, are sitting at their favorite bar, drinking beer. Jimbo turns to Bubba and says, 'You know, I'm tired of going through life without an education. Tomorrow I think I'll go to the Community College and sign up for some classes.'

Bubba thinks it's a good idea, and the two leave.

The next day, Jimbo goes down to the college and meets Dean of Admissions, who signs him up for the four basic classes: Math, English, History, and Logic.

'Logic?' Jimbo says. 'What's that?'

The dean says, 'I'll give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?'

'Yeah.'

'Then logically speaking, because you own a weed eater, I think that you would have a yard.'

'That's true, I do have a yard.'

'I'm not done,' the dean says. 'Because you have a yard, I think logically that you would have a house.'

'Yes, I do have a house.'

'And because you have a house, I think that you might logically have a family.'

'Yes, I have a family.'

'I'm not done yet. Because you have a family, then logically you must have a wife. And because you have a wife, then logic tells me you must be a heterosexual.'

'I am a heterosexual. That's amazing, you were able to find out all of that because I have a weed eater.'

Excited to take the class now, Jimbo shakes the Dean's hand and leaves to go meet Bubba at the bar. He tells Bubba about his classes, how he is signed up for Math, English, History, and Logic.

'Logic?' Bubba says, 'What's that?'

Jimbo says, 'I'll give you an example. Do you have a weed eater?'

'No.'

'Then you're a queer.'

If anything, it tells me that companies need to get better at being innovative and productive without being able to screw over the people. American tobacco makers need to offer better products with less chemicals if they want to do well. Banks which cannot do well without screwing people over with horrible loans need to fall. Companies who can't make toy products without lead paint need to fail. Drugs companies which make drugs that kill people should fail.

If you can't make products that are safe for the people both individually as a whole, then it's your problem.

sgreger1, I know what you're getting at. You don't need government regulation because you're smart enough to make your own decisions, right? I agree, I am as well. I know where to get the good stuff. I know how to read consumer reports and find out what's good and what's not. Most people, individually, are very smart and capable.

But people as a whole, a society of people, are not smart. And if there were no regulations on companies, they would not hesitate to hurt us, bankrupt us, or even kill us for an extra point on the stock ticker.

[sgreger1]

But VB, it was the government that regulated the loan companies to make them give homes to people who could not afford them that caused the recession. It is this same government which will now regulate healthcare to make sure people who cannot afford healthcare get healthcare. Do you not see a giant bubble in the making here?

[sgreger1]

@ VB

QUOTE: "Banks which cannot do well without screwing people over with horrible loans need to fall. Companies who can't make toy products without lead paint need to fail. Drugs companies which make drugs that kill people should fail. "


This is exactly what republicans are saying. No such thing as too big to fail, if you suck, than you deserve to die. Democrats are the ones who want to prop up these companies and bail them out. They were too weak to stand in a free market and couldn't survive so the gov had to give them life support atthe tax payers expense.

Now drug addicts, alcoholics, illegals who didnt enter the right way etc who have failed (health wise) will be given life support at the tax payers expense.

Do you see my general theme here?

EDIT: Also, I am not for NO regulation.The FDA or entities that decide if something is safe to sell is one thing... but things like saying "I am going to regulate the loan companies to make sure they give houses to people who can't afford them and it somehow wont cost us anything in the long run" is retarded. Now they are trying to push the same scheme for healthcare.

[VBSnus]

Government: You need to give loans to people who can't afford to own a home
Government: You need to give health insurance to people who can't get it or afford it

One does not equal the other. The first, I agree, was done out of sheer greed and speculation, the hope that they could artificially inflate a bubble and that it wouldn't pop.

The first is an example of a regulation which is horrible. The second says "Look, I understand you're a for profit company, but you're making money off of people's ability to live. If you want to do that, fine, but you need to accept everyone."

And yes, that "Look," at the beginning was vintage Barack, like a finely ground Kenyan loose.

[sgreger1]

I can't believe you see this as different, honestly.

I am not saying we dont need to change the system, but im saying that they are trying to implement a failed idea to fix it, and we already know where that road leads us.

Gov says: "hey, evil banks, your making too much money and some cant afford houses, give them houses and keep doing so untill you collapse (since it's an unsustainable practice), when the bubble collapses, we will bail you out."

Gov Says" Hey, evil HC insurance, your making too much money off people's ability to get fixed, fix them all (even though it is unsustainable) and when the bubble collapses it won't matter because it's already on the government which means it can jsut increase revenue through taxes/ denying care/ rationing.


The point is that we cannot give everyone a free ride and not expect it to cost us a bundle. Right now the individuals are paying for the services a Dr gives them, that is capitalism. The proposed system is that government provides them with health care and other will pay for it, that is socialism.

[VBSnus]

I can't believe that you're failing to see that the problem is deeper than the government or a simple concept of capitalism/socialism.

Health insurance is not part of capitalism. Capitalism is when companies can provide goods or services to consumers and their rates and use is determined by their performance in the market. Health insurance is not a service, it's a scam. They add nothing to the medical industry except for overhead. They're medical ticket scalpers.

It is THEIR FAULT that it's unsustainable. Their very presence has increased the overall cost of medical care to exorbitant rates. In capitalism, rates adjust based on supply and demand. In ForProfitHealthInsurancism, medical rates adjust based on the whim of these companies.

You say that saying "fix them all" is unsustainable. The only reason it is unsustainable is because for profit health insurance companies have artificially inflated the market. These companies answer to shareholders and their own pockets, not to the people. You have no control over them because you need them, not the other way around. You can turn your "taxes/denying care/rationing" into "premiums/denying care/rationing". They are more apt to deny care than a government which is just trying to save (not earn), whose existence relies upon your vote.

Right now the individuals are paying for the services a Dr gives them, that is capitalism

No. People are not paying for the services a Dr. gives them based on supply and demand from the consumer, but by the interjection of an artificial third party whose existence can only inflate prices.

The proposed system where people will have plans available to them and people at 133% of the poverty line will get extreme help, people under 300% of the poverty line will get a little help. Not a free ride, but some subsidy. The bulk of people will be unsubsidized. I understand that doesn't make it alright, but oversimplifying it and calling it all a "free ride" is wrong.

Let's look at it this way. You like going to concerts. Every once in a while, you'll buy a ticket for a concert and go enjoy yourself. Then one day, a company comes in which buys up all the good tickets before anyone else can. You have no more access to tickets unless you go through this company. And because they have to pay their employees, advertise, and still make money, you end up paying 30% more for those tickets. Then the concert people realize hey, these guys are going to buy up all our tickets anyways. Let's ramp up the prices per ticket by 150%. They do so, the ticket brokers buy all the tickets, and add their 30% overhead. And so on and so forth.

Now imagine that your life depended on going to that concert. Imagine that ticket is a double bypass surgery.

I believe in a company's right to make money. I believe that if you have an idea, you have a right to make billions off of it. I don't believe that any company should profit by inflating a market which is required to live.

EDIT: We're down to that breaking point, by the way. You and I agree on many aspects of politics...it all comes down to our respective beliefs on needs vs. wants, rights vs. privileges, etc.

[sgreger1]

Re concert tickets:

Your analogy is wrong, it's not like the medical insurance companies are buying up all the health care and then re-selling it. It is more like if a tickets costs 500$ and I want the assurance that I can go to a concert whenever I want to, I pay the insurance company a flat rate of 100$ per month and then attend as I wish for a 20$ co-pay on the ticket. This is mutually beneficial, and the free market at it's finest.

A person paying a dr for services IS capitalism. A company comes in and realizes dr's are charging to much, so gets lots of people needing care and negotiates lower rates with the Dr in return for more business, ie an HMO. that is capitalism, everyone has mutually benefitted from it, either monitarily or by having affordable health care.


I agree that their existance does raise the cost inevitably for those without insurance. Like I said, im not saying we don't need change, just that we don't need the government mandating it because they always mandate ideas that result in loss of jobs and profit, which results in crappier healthcare.


Breaking point has been reached I agree. I just don't think gov should take over the system, and you do. Two different means means to a same end. Or will be outcome actually be the same? By looking at all other things the gov has touched, I would argue that if we take the government path, the end will mean yet another ponzi scheme subsidized by the US taxpayer.

[VBSnus]

Your analogy is wrong, it's not like the medical insurance companies are buying up all the health care and then re-selling it. It is more like if a tickets costs 500$ and I want the assurance that I can go to a concert whenever I want to, I pay the insurance company a flat rate of 100$ per month and then attend as I wish for a 20$ co-pay on the ticket. This is mutually beneficial, and the free market at it's finest.

Then when the concert you really wanted to see comes up, you're denied. Or you lose your coverage. All that money has gone to waste.

A person paying a dr for services IS capitalism. A company comes in and realizes dr's are charging to much, so gets lots of people needing care and negotiates lower rates with the Dr in return for more business, ie an HMO. that is capitalism, everyone has mutually benefitted from it, either monitarily or by having affordable health care.

People who cannot get coverage have not benefited from it. They are far worse for it.

I just don't think gov should take over the system, and you do.

I don't know that they should either. If you believe health insurance is not a necessity, then you can easily let the companies handle it like they always have. If you believe health insurance is a necessity and the market will not bear fruit, then some other entity has to make the necessity available. I believe health insurance has become a necessity. The healthcare industry has seen to that.

[sgreger1]

"Then when the concert you really wanted to see comes up, you're denied. Or you lose your coverage. All that money has gone to waste. "




-Cummon man you know that's not true. Ive been to the ER so many times since i've been with blue shield. Car accidents, especially. I had one bill that was over $40k, and i've never been denied anything and my premium has never gone up. I have never been denied anything, and I use the Dr whenever I need to. Infact I am surrounded by older people who I work with that are at the dr all the time for whatever their problem is so I dont see how you figure insurance companies are going around saying "nah, not gonna pay for that, canceled", because I have yet to see it happen yet, even for some very sick people.



"People who cannot get coverage have not benefited from it. They are far worse for it. "


- It's just like the concert tickets. If you can't afford it, than no concert for you. In the curent system, medicare will allow you to see the concert but from crappyer seats because you could not afford front row. Sounds fair to me.