Huckabee opposes health insurance for people with pre existing conditions...

[Bigblue1]

Pure capitalism is just as bad and unwieldy as pure communism. They are theoretical constructs which fail when the human element is added.

He said Better not Perfect...... I believe he also said he's down for mixing it up to whatever works. Which would mean not "pure" capitalism.......

[texastorm]

I m self employed healthy and have no insurance. I am pissed I am going to be forced into buying it, and will be more pissed if my pre existing conditions, however minor they are, might be excluded for some reason.

If we are going to all be forced to participate, it has to work both ways. I am forced to buy, and I should be given the same product everyone else is no matter what I have in they way of illness. The way I read the bill, at some point it will become impossible for insurance companies to keep up with the cost, or alternatively the public can no longer afford premiums and then we end up with a public health care system, and no more health insurance companies. Either option seems grim and seems to lead to universal health care and long lines, but people want to change what we have, so be it. The chips will fall where they fall at this point, there is no way in hell that bill ever gets repealed.

Maybe we should add the premiums to the bill you get at McDonalds? " Ok Big Mac Combo... that will be 40 dollars, enjoy your free health care and have a nice day!" Eating improperly seems to me to be much of what is wrong with our health care system.

[Joe234]

MSNBC's Ed Schultz - "Psycho Talk": Mike Huckabee - 09/17/10

[Simplysnus]

Is no one reading my full sentences? I said i support capitalism because its been proven to work better than communism. For the same reasons, i see single payer has been proven to work better than our current or proposed obama system.


Guys, quit purposely misreading my shit. Im saying that we dont have enough money to cover the uninsured and pre-existing conditions group in the current or proposed systems, which is why we need single payer. Im down for capitalism for most industries, but thats because it works. In regards to health care, it does not work, and we know what does: single payer. Not sure what part of this concept contradicts anything. I am for capitalism but i am also for the police dept and the military, does that mean im down for socialism? No, it means shit is not that black and white. We need a mixture of the two.

Dude, I'm not purposely misreading anything, I simply can't understand wtf you are saying. I mean seriously, you talk about how capitalism is great, and then pick a non-capitalism implementation, and then get shocked when people don't automatically draw whatever correlations you think you see?

Single payer just magically fixes the costs of having uninsured and pre-existing conditions covered? How is that exactly? You still pass on the cost to the mass of people.

The reason they want insurance required is so that the healthy young folks who may go without insurance now, have to get it and pay in. Same concept with single payer, all the taxpayers pay in and voila.

The problem is if you remove profits, you remove a lot of motivation. Pharmaceutical patents have been shifting away from Europe and happening in the U.S. Why? Because this is where the money is made, basically helping subsidize the R&D for the world. Get rid of the profit, what happens? No private investment so bam, government has to do this to. And then it's all politicized even more. "more aids drugs, etc".

[Simplysnus]

What's funny is Huckabee would be horrified at you taking what he said here, and saying it shows single payer is the answer, lol. Rather than have private insurers eat the cost, we'll have the govt!

[Ainkor]

Not to fling the Word into this but here is something to reflect upon:

Mathew 25:31

//

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say to them on his right hand, Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungered, and you gave me meat: I was thirsty, and you gave me drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in: 36 Naked, and you clothed me: I was sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we you an hungered, and fed you? or thirsty, and gave you drink? 38 When saw we you a stranger, and took you in? or naked, and clothed you? 39 Or when saw we you sick, or in prison, and came to you? 40 And the King shall answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me.

41 Then shall he say also to them on the left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungered, and you gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and you visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we you an hungered, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to you? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

//

Now for the rant..........

I am sick and tired of ANY political group saying they are the "Values" group. It's a bunch of bullshit. Worse than that, is republicans (conservative) implying they are the "Christian" party. What ever the religion they are a part of has NOTHING to do with the teachings of Christ. I dare any republican to read the above passage and then come back and defend not providing universal healthcare or a social fall back for our fellow man.

I'll watch this thread while I work today and gladly reply to every point listed.

[raptor]

I do believe in UHC. I do believe our healthcare system can be among the best in the world; right now a lot of European countries with socialist healthcare rank above ours. I believe we can cut costs by forcing pharmaceuticals to focus on drug creation not brand marketing, and by lowering doctors' salaries (even then they'll still live comfortably). But as long as people are sensitive to people possibly exploiting a system (which is a very selfish complaint to make), or expound fearmongering rhetoric promoted by braindead politicians like Sarah Palin, it won't garner full support.

[sgreger1]

Dude, I'm not purposely misreading anything, I simply can't understand wtf you are saying. I mean seriously, you talk about how capitalism is great, and then pick a non-capitalism implementation, and then get shocked when people don't automatically draw whatever correlations you think you see?

Single payer just magically fixes the costs of having uninsured and pre-existing conditions covered? How is that exactly? You still pass on the cost to the mass of people.

The reason they want insurance required is so that the healthy young folks who may go without insurance now, have to get it and pay in. Same concept with single payer, all the taxpayers pay in and voila.

The problem is if you remove profits, you remove a lot of motivation. Pharmaceutical patents have been shifting away from Europe and happening in the U.S. Why? Because this is where the money is made, basically helping subsidize the R&D for the world. Get rid of the profit, what happens? No private investment so bam, government has to do this to. And then it's all politicized even more. "more aids drugs, etc".

I am saying that overall, most of our country is relitavely capitalist. We have a blend of capitalism for private industry, and some socialized programs such as social security, medicare, welfare, police, fire dept, military etc. We have a blend already. I am saying that health insurance may not belong in the capitalism portion of our system. Normally i would agree that capitalism will lead to better drug research etc, but the facts are that european systems rank higher than ours. No point in having the best drugs if you cant afford them when your sick.

I am saying that if we are going to have a huge change, lets at least go with what works, instead of just forcing everyone to buy insurance for whatever the insurance companies feel like charging. The current bill as i see it creates a climate that is unsustainable for insurance companies. It is undoubtedly based on hopes that it will destroy the insurance industry and people will beg for single payer.

[CoderGuy]

I am saying that overall, most of our country is relitavely capitalist. We have a blend of capitalism for private industry, and some socialized programs such as social security, medicare, welfare, police, fire dept, military etc. We have a blend already. I am saying that health insurance may not belong in the capitalism portion of our system. Normally i would agree that capitalism will lead to better drug research etc, but the facts are that european systems rank higher than ours. No point in having the best drugs if you cant afford them when your sick.

I am saying that if we are going to have a huge change, lets at least go with what works, instead of just forcing everyone to buy insurance for whatever the insurance companies feel like charging. The current bill as i see it creates a climate that is unsustainable for insurance companies. It is undoubtedly based on hopes that it will destroy the insurance industry and people will beg for single payer.

One that works eh...

http://www.freemarketcure.com/singlepayermyths.php

http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...rs/blog-87863/

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/ne...3-f88e8aeafe24

Now I do agree it would still be better than having nothing. But the real issue is neither single payer OR Obamacare is the answer to solving our health care crisis, but no one has a "good" answer.

[sgreger1]

One that works eh...

http://www.freemarketcure.com/singlepayermyths.php

http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...rs/blog-87863/

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/ne...3-f88e8aeafe24

Look, first of all, i am fine with the current system. But if we are going to change it, we need to look at what our options are. What have others tried? Has it been successfull? Etc.

I was way against single payer for a long time, and i too would respond by posting every article i could about how it costs so much, and how there is rationing, and how the wait lines are long etc. But even with all those factors combined, it still works better. They cover more people, and provide at least adequate service to nearly everyone. It is not perfect, and there are many problems with it, the biggest one being cost. But at the end of the day, it still performs better than ours does and benefits the most people.


It is not perfect, but it is a step above our system. If we have to change something lets change to something we already know will work. And if you dont like having to wait in longer lines etc, than buy supplimental insurance, then you can choose a private doctor and have the first class treatment. This way everyone gets adequate coverage, and if your wealthy and want to buy better than you can. Too easy.

[raptor]

Possible lines and rationing works better than "you have preexisting acne, so we're dropping you" "your medical bill is 100k for angioplasty" "pay 25k to save your thumb or 50k to save your ring finger"

^^^ I agree with sgreger!

[CoderGuy]

Look, first of all, i am fine with the current system. But if we are going to change it, we need to look at what our options are. What have others tried? Has it been successfull? Etc.

I was way against single payer for a long time, and i too would respond by posting every article i could about how it costs so much, and how there is rationing, and how the wait lines are long etc. But even with all those factors combined, it still works better. They cover more people, and provide at least adequate service to nearly everyone. It is not perfect, and there are many problems with it, the biggest one being cost. But at the end of the day, it still performs better than ours does and benefits the most people.


It is not perfect, but it is a step above our system. If we have to change something lets change to something we already know will work. And if you dont like having to wait in longer lines etc, than buy supplimental insurance, then you can choose a private doctor and have the first class treatment. This way everyone gets adequate coverage, and if your wealthy and want to buy better than you can. Too easy.

Fair enough. "Some" system is better than "No" system. Just not sure based on other's experiences that single payer is the answer but you're right, it IS better than what we have. At least the uninsured would have coverage. It just seems that in this day and age someone could come up with a solution that would actually work.

[CoderGuy]

Fair enough. "Some" system is better than "No" system. Just not sure based on other's experiences that single payer is the answer but you're right, it IS better than what we have. At least the uninsured would have coverage. It just seems that in this day and age someone could come up with a solution that would actually work.

OK, maybe someone has, and maybe we "are" on the right track (sort of)...

http://open.salon.com/blog/steve_ble...th_care_system

[Simplysnus]

I am saying that overall, most of our country is relitavely capitalist. We have a blend of capitalism for private industry, and some socialized programs such as social security, medicare, welfare, police, fire dept, military etc. We have a blend already. I am saying that health insurance may not belong in the capitalism portion of our system. Normally i would agree that capitalism will lead to better drug research etc, but the facts are that european systems rank higher than ours. No point in having the best drugs if you cant afford them when your sick.

I am saying that if we are going to have a huge change, lets at least go with what works, instead of just forcing everyone to buy insurance for whatever the insurance companies feel like charging. The current bill as i see it creates a climate that is unsustainable for insurance companies. It is undoubtedly based on hopes that it will destroy the insurance industry and people will beg for single payer.

See, there's the core problem, you are suggesting we reduce everyone. Ratings are arbitrary, they'd rate you badly for snus use. I went to the Mayo Clinic for something, and I'd hate for that to be taken away from me because it's too tall on the scale of excellence. Seriously, just chop off the top 100 hospitals and call it good on cost reduction, because that's the "solution" you're offering.

Also the euros would fall behind if we could cut off selling discount meeds to them, pay what we pay or you don't get it. But we can't do that, right, because it's inhumane.

And you can't use the analogy of burning houses on one hand, and then pretend it doesn't apply to single payer.

[sgreger1]

See, there's the core problem, you are suggesting we reduce everyone. Ratings are arbitrary, they'd rate you badly for snus use. I went to the Mayo Clinic for something, and I'd hate for that to be taken away from me because it's too tall on the scale of excellence. Seriously, just chop off the top 100 hospitals and call it good on cost reduction, because that's the "solution" you're offering.

Also the euros would fall behind if we could cut off selling discount meeds to them, pay what we pay or you don't get it. But we can't do that, right, because it's inhumane.

And you can't use the analogy of burning houses on one hand, and then pretend it doesn't apply to single payer.

I am not saying we reduce everyone. Read my lips:

Single payer system: everyone gets adequate coverage. You get what you need when you need it. <---- great for most people and all poor people.

For those with money (like for example those who pay more for cadillac plans today): buy supplimental insurance. This allows you to go see a private doctor and get the higher level of care that comes with paying more.


In this proposed scenario, we have the gov system for the majority, and for those who would like more, you can buy supplimental coverage. Like with medicare. Medicare provides the basics for old people, so that no one goes without any medical coverage, but if you have more money and would like to buy better, than you may buy supplimental insurance and get superior coverage.



It gives adequate coverage to everyone, and allows those who wish to have superior coverage to purchase that. I dont see where the problem is here.