Is the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" Constitutional?

425 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote Art:

That caught my eye. I agree with this, but the Supreme Court seems to feel that the First Amendment does guarantee the right to he heard. (Citizens United).

How so?

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:

Your a fucking idiot.

And, that 'explains' how you espouse 'free market initiatives' as, somehow, being 'the answer' to the application of medical care in America--but you still don't explain how having government pay for EMTALA fits into that. Are you being reimbursed to make such distracting 'propositions' that, of course, you never really correlate to the real world? 'Free markets' are without 'government intervention'--but, then, even your proposals as to how this 'medical market' is to work is with 'government interventions'.....and you call that an honest proposal? You're still a liar, Capital.....

Quote DRC:

Yeah, I see how it (dialectic questioning) works, particularly when we agree about the sins of for profit Corporate Medicine.

While we may agree to some aspects of the same results, after talking with you on a number of subjects for now going on five years, I doubt we actually see the problem the same way. As I remember, you still advocate Obamacare. I don't. In fact, I see that as just making the matter worse--and corporations setting up right now to take advantage of it.

I'm not quite old enough to remember what it was like before Medicare and Medicaid established this corporate-government collusion, however, I have talked with physicians that did remember. In those days, physicians in a certain community practiced knowing that each was to take their part in taking care of the non-paying patients. If there came a greedy physician that did not want to do his or her part, that community of physicians would eventually squeeze that physician out of that community by doing such things as not covering for that physician, not referring patients to that physician, not inviting that physician to their meetings, etc. Also, if there were a deadbeat, non-compliant, patient that made inordinate demands on the physician's time (like only showing up at 2 AM making demands to be seen then or with complications of their illnesses that worsened due to them not taking their part in handling their illness), that physician group would eventually squeeze those patients out of their practicing community by removing that patient from their practice which, in effect, had that patient be passed around from physician to physician until, finally, there was no physician to take that patient. However, nowadays the corporate money-manager is the surrogate for the greedy physician and the ruthless malpractice lawyer is the surrogate for the deadbeat patient. So, while physicians who practiced at a time when they were willing to do their part in supporting the community, the greedy physician and the deadbeat patients were squeezed out of that practice--but, today, thanks to their surrogates, the greedy physician and the deadbeat patients run it....and the government stepping up to 'play favorites' with the piecemealed application of 'rights to health care' doesn't help that, either....it does, however, endorse the corporate-government collusion that makes that possible....

Perhaps there is now too much expensive technical advancements and interventions in medicine for us to go back to those days and effectively apply medicine as it exists today. However, that does NOT mean that what is offered now is done so with the very medical prudence and efficiency that might occur if the community-minded physicians still ran it.....and neither the present corporate-government collusion have solved--nor its extension into Obamacare will solve--the 'greedy doctor/deadbeat patient' mismanagement that American medicine has become....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Capital:

How so?

Money talks and bullshit walks. Is that how you think that democracies should operate? And, the application of medical care in such a 'democracy'? Oh, that's right, our country isn't a 'democracy'--it's a 'market'--right, lying Capital?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

And, that 'explains' how you espouse 'free market initiatives' as, somehow, being 'the answer' to the application of medical care in America--but you still don't explain how having government pay for EMTALA fits into that. Are you being reimbursed to make such distracting 'propositions' that, of course, you never really correlate to the real world? 'Free markets' are without 'government intervention'--but, then, even your proposals as to how this 'medical market' is to work is with 'government interventions'.....and you call that an honest proposal? You're still a liar, Capital.....

Project there much Kerry? All things considered I'd rather be a Liar than a Idiot, I at least have the option to tell the truth

So I'm guess you Choose to be stupid, Because I have reference my plan at least a dozen times and provide direct links to it figuring your at least smarter than a monkey to press buttons on a keyboard. O I it's think it cute how you belligerently cling to a dogmatic word and drive it in the ground, thinking you will win the day… Perhaps life will give you your participation trophy for just trying. You clearly don't give a shit about Healthcare or how to fix it Your just hoping someone else will do all your thinking for you.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Kerry:

Money talks and bullshit walks. Is that how you think that democracies should operate? And, the application of medical care in such a 'democracy'? Oh, that's right, our country isn't a 'democracy'--it's a 'market'--right, lying Capital?

There really is just no end to your stupidity is there?

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Art wrote:

That caught my eye. I agree with this, but the Supreme Court seems to feel that the First Amendment does guarantee the right to he heard. (Citizens United).

How so?

You don't get this? Corporations need a constitutional amendment to be able to talk all they want? This isn't enough for them? Now. they need the Constitutional right to make me hear them? You really don't get this?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:

You don't get this? Corporations need a constitutional amendment to be able to talk all they want? This isn't enough for them? Now. they need the Constitutional right to make me hear them? You really don't get this?

I don't get the "guarantee the right to he heard" portion. But I guess i'll take it a Hyperbole.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:

.....All things considered I'd rather be a Liar than a Idiot, I at least have the option to tell the truth

But, you don't tell the truth. That's the point. You come in here, make some claim on how the 'free market is the answer to American medicine', you add that your 'free market' as being 'without government intervention', and, then, you add to your 'medical market' the very intervention of 'government paying for EMTALA'. With respect to your original thesis on the 'free market', that's a lie....

Quote Capital:

O I it's think it cute how you belligerently cling to a dogmatic word and drive it in the ground, thinking you will win the day…

You're the one that came in here claiming that the 'free market' is American medicine's answer--and that definition specifically includes 'no government intervention'. How does 'government paying for EMTALA' translate into 'no government intervention'? I don't want your link 'answering it'--I want you answering it. You are the one that stated it. But, that's 'too direct' a question for you, isn't it? You would rather lie....

Quote Capital:

You clearly don't give a shit about Healthcare or how to fix it

I know what we have now--and how corporations are setting up to 'address' Obamacare--isn't the answer....and I've already suggested how a real answer is to be approached by starting with answering the question: Is medicine to be offered to all--or to be approached like a privileged product that only those that pay the price are to receive it?--and go from there....you, and the corporate-government collusion that we have now (and Obamacare will extend) lie about that answer by not straightforwardly stating it....of course, you have said that 'health care is not a right'--but, then, you add 'government should pay for EMTALA'.....just like the corporate-government colluded 'answer' that doesn't answer it....

Quote Capital:

Your just hoping someone else will do all your thinking for you.

I have thought about it and I know that your answer is a lie. Or, explain how your 'free market answer' works with 'government paying for EMTALA'.....

Quote Capital:

There really is just no end to your stupidity is there?

I'm not as stupid enough to think that I can come in here, claim to be for the 'free market' and, then, offer as part of this 'free market' solution 'government paying for EMTALA'...and, I know a lie when I see it....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Capital:

I don't get the "guarantee the right to he heard" portion.

....and, then, when all else fails, claim ignorance about what other people mean....so, now, if you aren't stupid, you're surely playing like you are.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

But, you don't tell the truth. That's the point. You come in here, make some claim on how the 'free market is the answer to American medicine', you add that your 'free market' as being 'without government intervention', and, then, you add to your 'medical market' the very intervention of 'government paying for EMTALA'. With respect to your original thesis on the 'free market', that's a lie....

Ah world according to Kerry's mind where Kerry is King and gets to fabricate anything he wants for his amusement. I'd ask you when I said these things, But I know they don't exist and it would just damage your little zeolot mind even further.

I'm not answering a single one of your question until you bring forth what I actually said about fixing the Healthcare market and address them. Until then you are just a joke that I'm going to mock until you either finally addres the issue I raised or just go away.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Kerry:

....and, then, when all else fails, claim ignorance about what other people mean....so, now, if you aren't stupid, you're surely playing like you are.....

You’re like a clapping monkey. Why don't you just let Art address the topic and you run along and find another brain cell to collide with.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

I've said it, Capital. You claim 'free market' is the answer to American medicine, I'll even add that you said that 'health care is not a right', yet, in your own propositions as to how this is to work, you added that 'government should pay for EMTALA' (and who is EMTALA to reject, Capital?). If that's not what you said (and I know it has been my response to you), then why don't you say so--and correct it. How you add 'government to pay for EMTALA' to your 'answer' to American medicine being the 'free market' is still something that you evade--and lie about since you don't explain the rather blatant discrepancy between your 'ideal solution' as the 'free market' (that doesn't exist) and even what YOU offer as a 'solution'....inclusive of 'government paying for EMTALA' in your so-called 'free market solution'....

Art can speak for Art's self--your feining ignorance to Art's point was fairly obvious....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

I've said it, Capital. You claim 'free market' is the answer to American medicine, I'll even add that you said that 'health care is not a right', yet, in your own propositions as to how this is to work, you added that 'government should pay for EMTALA' (and who is EMTALA to reject, Capital?). If that's not what you said (and I know it has been my response to you), then why don't you say so--and correct it. How you add 'government to pay for EMTALA' to your 'answer' to American medicine being the 'free market' is still something that you evade--and lie about since you don't explain the rather blatant discrepancy between your 'ideal solution' as the 'free market' (that doesn't exist) and even what YOU offer as a 'solution'....inclusive of 'government paying for EMTALA' in your so-called 'free market solution'....

You do not know what I claimed, This discussion you are having in your head isn't doing you any favors. Why don't you tell the other voices the STFU.

What I just can't fathom is why you wont do what I asked you to do multiple time. It would make you look less of a dumbass building strawmen army then burning them down...

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

I'm very glad to see that this discussion is still going on but I see that it has strayed away from the original topic which was whether or not "Obamacare" is Constitutional. I really don't know why anyone would carry on an argument with Capital as he is a hopeless ideologue.

I paid my way through college by working as a nursing assistant in a convalescent home and I know from first hand experience that healthcare is very often too much of a burden for a typical family to handle either on the practical or financial level. And so regarding the controversy over whether a single payer system or the private healthcare market is more advantageous to us I am more than qualified to express an opinion. I have no doubt in my mind that a single payer, Medicare for all system would be the very best way to provide health care to Americans, the private health insurance industry be damned. The next best option would be to regulate the market so vigorously that it would be essentially the same thing as single payer. As someone who has seen pain, suffering and death and interacted with, adored and cared for the elderly and disabled I am appalled that anyone would have them fend for themselves in a cold, calculating marketplace where a profit motive is given precedence over human life. Some may be able to sleep at night secure in the belief that capitalism is a good and virtuous thing that will save them or their loved ones in time of need but I know better than to place my faith in the business ethic when benevolence is what is required.

Government exists just so that it can do those things which we can not individually do and ensuring that healthcare will be available to any of us when we need it without causing financial devastation is a thing that only government can do for us. So if some of you prefer to just roll the dice and hope that its always someone else and not you just so that your taxes don't go up at all then I'm sorry for your poor judgement but that is exactly what it is, poor judgement.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 11:43 pm

Capital isn't an ideologue. Capital is a shill. Notice that Capital, while saying that I am wrong, isn't correcting me. Instead, Capital is directing me to some previous post or some site that supposedly 'explains it'. I've been down that road before here in thomland. To discuss whatever it is that Capital says is on the other post or other site, I will still have to interpret what I read to make any comment on it--which Capital will still say that I am wrong. A technique that is not there to clarify the discussion--but to distract from any real discourse, or any real point on Capital's part as far as that is concerned--just like a shill....

The assessment that I am making--and the questions that I am asking Capital--are actually quite straightforward--which is why Capital is neither addressing nor answering them. Capital claims that the free market is the answer to American medicine, claims there is 'no right to health care', claims that government getting involved just makes any free market system worse; but, then, Capital turns around and, in Capital's version of a 'solution to health care in America,' includes 'government paying for EMTALA'--which looks just like government getting involved to me. But, Capital isn't here to offer or look for solutions. Capital is here to make excuses--canned excuses (they have been used before in the housing loan debacle)--for the industry. The present set-up will fail--and the industry is already predicting that (and I do believe that the Republicans that claim that they are 'against Obamacare' when many of them were involved in passing, or being for, similar legislation, elsewhere, is part of the scam to such canned excuses 'for industry and against government' that is being planned when this does cripple the economy even further). But, the canned excuse that the industry is offering--and Capital is offering now--is that it is 'government getting involved in the free market's fault'--never ever acknowledging once how the industry, itself, used government for its own purposes in those applications.

More to the point is the fact that government is the main payer for most of what gets paid for the most expensive patients--giving the private industry the bulk of the less expensive patients from which to profit. But, you have to read between Capital's lines to understand that even the industry understands that point because Capital hasn't been cleared to (and will not) claim that outright. But, in reading between the lines, that is exactly why Capital is still offering 'government paying for EMTALA' as part of Capital's so-called 'free market solution'--to both act as a damper for the hardline condition of 'medicine only for profit' and as a cover, as it has always been for government in this industry, for government to pay the most of what is paid for the most expensive patients (so industry can profit more off the rest). However, the problem with this 'two-sided approach' to medicine is that it burdens the same entity, the taxpaying consumer, to have to pay for both parts of this application of American medicine--and doing what my mother always described as 'putting two halves against the middle'--the main reason I believe that medicine in America costs about twice as much per capita than any other organized, civilized, country in the world (and it's not because our technology has us living longer, has given us better births, or improved our 'wellness factor' as part of our health issues, either).

I don't think that Obamacare is constitutional. I don't think that government can universally require payment to a private system as a 'mandated product' (you don't have to buy car insurance if you don't have a car--so, there still is a choice to opt out even with that 'private industry mandate'). Government can require us to universally pay to government as taxes, however. But, instead of using taxes to cover as a single payer, Obamacare uses taxes as a punishment for not buying into the private health care insurance system as the private industry's form of 'single payer'. But, despite what claims are being made as to how government will 'streamline payments' in a way to 'save money', Obamacare in essence is offering up 40 million more customers to the health insurance industry--and those 40 million are from the sector of the population that least needs extensive and expensive medical care (most of those are already paid for by government--there are a few that fall through the cracks and can go bankrupt over a treatment that some can get for free or they better have the right insurance program to pay for it--but, then, most insurance programs have 'maximum benefits' in their contracts--and, of those that could go bankrupt over this, they maybe even have their taxes paying for someone else to get it for free as they could go bankrupt over the same service--but, all in all, most of these 'new customers' need such medical applications the least that are now required to pay into a health insurance program or pay a 'penalty tax'--which, all in all, is more likely to increase insurance profits than it will increase their costs).

It is a government-imposed boon for the industry--and that's why I don't think that this Supreme Court is going to judge against it......but, just like the home loan debacle, it will end up taxing the economy to the brink of collapse as the health industry sucks more and more out of the economy for those newly endorsed profits in 'the market'--and, as Capital shows, the industry is all set to blame government for that since it will be the fault of government 'meddling in the free market'....but, you see, none of this is a 'free market' (even as Capital describes it).....and nothing in the financial application of American medicine has been a 'free market' for quite some time now.... it has been a corporate-government collusion that Obamacare will just make worse...

As I've said, we need to decide what we want as citizens and a people--medicine available to all or a product that only those who can pay the price should get--and quit 'playing two halves against the middle' because that will end up costing us (the taxpaying consumers) more than either other choice alone....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You guys are so adorable. Poor Kerry doesn’t know what he’s talking about because he refuses to address the actual comments made and instead fights a losing battle with his imagination. Since Kerry is effectively retarded and refuses to deal with reality. But let’s see you guys are at defending your Ideas.

Quote mdhess:I have no doubt in my mind that a single payer, Medicare for all system would be the very best way to provide health care to Americans, the private health insurance industry be damned.

So Medicare for all. Can you start by answering a couple questions?

How much would it cost? (If you like I can help you with the numbers)

Who has the higher denial rate?

Would Medicare for all address the rising Healthcare cost?

How do you feel about the current political uncertainty surrounding Medicare? (ie DocFix) Do you think Medicare for all would insulate Medicare from Political manipulation? Would you want George Bush Running Medicare for All?

Do you really believe Government runs programs effectively and efficiently?

How do you address the concerns that Medicare for All is unsustainable?

That should be good for starters..

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Note, once again, that Capital doesn't correct my assessment. Why not? Because 'I'm' stupid? Or, because Capital can't honestly address it? Especially that part about the free market answering America's health care problems--but, then, adding 'government paying for EMTALA' as part of such a so-called 'free market solution'. And, as I've said, Capital and the industry need that as a little damper to their 'medicine only for profit' approach (and not look like, what did Capital call it, the 'heartless bastards' that they are)--and have government pay for most of the most expensive patients, anyway (as 'the industry' claims that 'government doesn't pay enough'....Is 'the industry' taking over paying for those patients? Even under Obamacare? How 'stupid' does Capital think everyone is?).

Don't let Capital's so-called figures distract from this point. Capital is a shill. And, what is really 'rising' in the Healthcare costs--and how is that really determined? And, really, how is the industry's 'costs' confirmed? By the industry? And, if it is too expensive for everyone to have, why would we have anything like 'government paying for EMTALA', anyway? Why would we have EMTALA?

And, if 'Medicare for all' is unsustainable, how is an industry that splits the most expensive patients at government's expense as it capitalizes on the least expensive patients for profit 'sustainable'? Especially with anything like EMTALA or medical malpractice litigation potentials assuming that everyone has the right to the same treatment when it is needed to sustain life or limb (or effect a good delivery of a baby) as we have today? Why does Capital add 'government paying for EMTALA' to this so-called 'free market solution' to American medicine?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

To discuss whatever it is that Capital says is on the other post or other site, I will still have to interpret what I read to make any comment on it--which Capital will still say that I am wrong.

You are so mindnumbingly stupid. But since clearly you can't be trusted to do even the most minimum of reading to justify your utter stupidity. I'll bring it forward so I know that you have seen it and that you are purposely ignoring it.

If I were King:

Eliminate the McCarran-Ferguson Act. (Cost: 0)

Regulate a single Base Health insurance policy that covers catastrophic medical care ($5000 out of pocket) and has whatever base mandates that are deemed appropriate. (Cost: 0)

Allow for supplemental policies to be sold on top of every Base policy, Base policy pool would consist of every insured person in the country, thereby vastly lowering the cost of the base policy, thereby making it vastly more affordable. (Cost: 0)

Mandate that Medicare and Medicaid pay for the services they use, I would accomplish this by making the FICO tax a variable rate, based on the previous year’s surplus of deficit. Eliminates cost shifting. Makes health insurance cheaper and more affordable, less people would need to use Medicare and Medicaid. (Cost: revenue neutral)

Make EMTALA covered by Medicaid

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Kerry:

Note, once again,

Note... once again that Kerry is no longer worthy to have someone respond to him.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Again, how does 'government paying for EMTALA' represent a 'free market solution' that, supposedly, is to have government 'stay out of it'--even as Capital has described it?

Your 'answer' doesn't address that part of your proposed 'free market solution'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Capital:

Note... once again that Kerry is no longer worthy to have someone respond to him.

Of course, that's how a lying shill would 'answer' the questions put forth to that shill.....

And, if the industry isn't taking over paying for the patients that government does pay for, how does this follow your 'free market solution' to American health care? Really.....how stupid do you think everyone is?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Look mom, He did ignore it.

Quote Kerry:Can you tell me what an 'open market' in Healthcare would look like? And, can you tell me when we had this supposed 'open market'?

<evil laugh>.... your such a disengenious A-hole.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

How is government paying for some of it as corporations capitalize on the rest an 'open market'--or a 'free market solution'--Capital? And, how does EMTALA and medical malpractice fit into a 'medicine for profit' solution that still includes government paying for some of it--in fact, most of what is paid for the most expensive patients?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

How is government paying for some of it as corporations capitalize on the rest an 'open market'--or a 'free market solution'--Capital? And, how does EMTALA and medical malpractice fit into a 'medicine for profit' solution that still includes government paying for some of it--in fact, most of what is paid for the most expensive patients?

Please rephrase it into a question related to something I posted.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:

Quote mdhess:I have no doubt in my mind that a single payer, Medicare for all system would be the very best way to provide health care to Americans, the private health insurance industry be damned.

So Medicare for all. Can you start by answering a couple questions?

How much would it cost? (If you like I can help you with the numbers)

Who has the higher denial rate?

Would Medicare for all address the rising Healthcare cost?

How do you feel about the current political uncertainty surrounding Medicare? (ie DocFix) Do you think Medicare for all would insulate Medicare from Political manipulation? Would you want George Bush Running Medicare for All?

Do you really believe Government runs programs effectively and efficiently?

How do you address the concerns that Medicare for All is unsustainable?

That should be good for starters..

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

You posted that the free market is the solution to the application of American medicine, Capital. You posted that government interfering with such a free market has been what is hindering the application of American medicine. You can stop and correct me at any point in this assessment. You claim that the free market is offered best when insurance companies are given a 'national market' supposedly to 'compete with each other' that you say will end up 'covering more for less'. But, you never actually say who's 'the more'--and how much 'less'.

Then, you add your lying schemes to your 'free market solution' by allowing government--that you claim 'isn't paying the industry enough' for what it does pay for and, by your own definition, isn't part of a 'free market solution'--to stay in. You can stop and correct me at any point. You allow government to stay in under the guises of the already involved Medicare and Medicaid systems (that pay most of what is paid for the most expensive patients)--and claim that Medicaid should even be added to the payment for EMTALA. And, as you say that medicine is not a 'right', you never say who EMTALA is to reject under its claim to have life, limb, and pregnancy-related, issues addressed upon request. You can stop and correct me at any point.

So, by such descriptions, I have asked several questions and made several assertions--of which, all you have said is how stupid I am or how I don't deserve to be responded to. Are you going to do any different now? You don't even have to go searching very far--you can start with any of the posts on this very page....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

You posted that the free market is the solution to the application of American medicine, Capital.

Where?

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote Kerry:

You posted that the free market is the solution to the application of American medicine, Capital.

Where?

You've been saying that all along, Capital. Are you saying that you didn't say that? Are you saying, now, that the free market isn't the solution to the application of American medicine? What about government intervention ruining that free market (that, supposedly, is to run American medicine)? Are you saying that you didn't say that? Or, is your claim that government just isn't 'covering the costs' that the industry claims to have? Is the industry willing to have those costs covered without government? And, just how is industry going to do that AND 'cover more for less' AND continue to have those CEO's make millions--if not hundreds of millions--of dollars in the meantime? Huh, Capital? Or, are all those questions 'too stupid' for you to answer them?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

You've been saying that all along, Capital.

So YOU CAN'T Point to it. I suggest you find something else to talk about

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Kerry:

Are you saying, now, that the free market isn't the solution to the application of American medicine?

I wonder what your ABOVE qoutes references. OOOOOOoooo I can read. "OPEN Market." Your such a Dill Hole.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Why are you being so evasive now, Capital? What's your distinction between an 'open market' and a 'free market', anyway? And, how does government involvement factor into that?

Are you claiming now that, all along, all you meant an 'open market' to mean was to 'open insurance companies up to the national market' instead of confining them to the states? So, what else was it you supposedly meant with government intervention into such a market? Is a government paying for any part of that market's 'product' an intervention? Now, an 'open market' and not a 'free market' according to your evasive bullshit now?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I hate having to look this shit up to prove what you said but here's your post #36, Capital (and I'll emphasize certain words):

Quote Capital:
Quote DRC:

Forget the pony, but do tell me why "no value added" has your support? Tell me why having these entitlements drive up our costs is fine with you? We are not even talking about socialism here, only the use of basic cost/benefit analysis for our public investments.

Keeping in mind you were attempting to make a private venture unconstitutional. Which is ridiculous by most standards in the real world.

Who exactly says they "no value added" . I apply value to free choice, Value to competitive free market, Value to my freedom. I would gladly pay more to keep the Jackboot off my neck. I apply value to competence. I apply a higher value to business than I do Politics. I apply higher value to Local than I do Federal.

Clearly I Valve free market solutions over Bureaucratic solutions.

The cost of your system does completely outweighs the Benefits.

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

And, here's post #67 of yours, Capital (some words emphasized):

Quote Capital:
Quote DRC:

Those who believe so earnestly in the "free market" as the way to affordable and humane society do so in utter disregard for the evidence on the ground of what these theories do.

OR

The healthcare industry hasn't been under freemarket in 60 years, and what you are really seeing "on the Ground" is the folly of Government intervention.

Need I go on, Capital? You have used the term 'free market' as a solution--against 'Government intervention'.

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote Capital:

Keeping in mind you were attempting to make a private venture unconstitutional. Which is ridiculous by most standards in the real world.

Who exactly says they "no value added" . I apply value to free choice, Value to competitive free market, Value to my freedom. I would gladly pay more to keep the Jackboot off my neck. I apply value to competence. I apply a higher value to business than I do Politics. I apply higher value to Local than I do Federal.

Clearly I Valve free market solutions over Bureaucratic solutions.

The cost of your system does completely outweighs the Benefits.

And you think after reading that statement, that justifies your belligerence for 6 pages. When clearly it says "Free Market solutionS" and NOT "Free Market".

After reading this are you still convinced I meant to turn the entire system to "Free Market" or by using the pural. I meant there are multiple, smaller things that could be done inside the current system that rely on free Market principles and less on Government management.

Which one do you think better reflects what I have said, Huh Sunshine...

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Post #127:

Quote Capital:

.............

Although I have sent my Free Market ideas to all my congressman. No indication they ever got them or would use them. Although.... I have a new title now.

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Why are you being so evasive now, Capital?

Becuase I am tired of your stupid bullshit. Either get into the game or bugger off. I can mock you till the cows come home if that is what you really want.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Kerry:

Post #127:

Quote Capital:

.............

Although I have sent my Free Market ideas to all my congressman. No indication they ever got them or would use them. Although.... I have a new title now.

Again... Pural.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

You didn't say 'open markets' there, Capital, you said 'free markets'. You're really mocking no one but yourself by trying to make such 'distinctions' now.

And, look what else you said, you said 'GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION'--even THE FOLLY OF IT. And, are you saying that government paying for any of this 'product' of medicine is an intervention--or not? A folly--or not?

And, what does the government paying for any of this 'product' of medicine to any of the 'free marketS' that you so espoused, Capital? Other than pay for most of what is paid for the most expensive patients in order to 'open' the market up for corporations to capitalize on the rest for profits, I know of nothing government does in paying for any of this 'product' of medicine--and I certainly don't understand how you do and still call it a 'free market' (of any type that you have previously proposed). I do know that you do the industry's bidding by claiming that 'government doesn't pay enough to cover the costs'--but, in any 'free market' scenario that you have so far offered, I don't see you having private industry come in and cover those costs, otherwise....but, then, that's because you're a lying shill....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

You didn't say 'open markets' there, Capital, you said 'free markets'. You're really mocking no one but yourself by trying to make such 'distinctions' now.

You have to see that is just hilarious. You desperately comb over my posts looking for the out of context phrase, one you never even noted at the time... And you think for second that you don't come off as a disingenuous, Dishonest, lying dirt bag. You are beneath contempt. Is that where you really want to be?

See, I know what I said, I know what I meant. Your pathetic rambling do nothing to change that. If you wish to desperately cling to a lie, you created, so you don’t drown in a sea of your rhetorical bullshit. Be my guest. Affects me in no way.

Even now you refuse to address What I actually said. probably becasue you know I am right an that conflicts with your dogma.

And, look what else you said, you said 'GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION'--even THE FOLLY OF IT.

As I have proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You... not so reasonable.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
You guys are so adorable
You are both quite adorable. Unfortunately, I'm quite overloaded on all this adorableness. I don't read a lot of it anymore. But, by all means . . . carry on.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Capital:

You desperately comb over my posts looking for the out of context phrase, one you never even noted at the time..

You claimed to have said 'open' instead of 'free' markets. I proved you wrong by your own posts--thus, how you mock yourself (it's hard to keep your lies straight, isn't it, Capital?). You also said that 'government intervention' was the problem--a 'folly'. Yet, you still offer 'government paying for EMTALA' as part of your, again, so-called 'free market solution' (ANY 'free market solution').

Now, once again, as I predicted, you are going to say that I am wrong in that assessment without you, at any point, clarifying what you meant as being 'right'. Make me go search for your words and, then, when I find them, still say that I am wrong.....yeah, I know the tactic, Capital....

And, the rest of your clamoring accusations in that post, of course, do nothing to clarify what you said. You come in here, make some unsubstantiated claim on how 'the free market' is the solution to 'American health care', make some unsubstantiated accusation that 'government intervention is what has caused the problem', make some unsubstantiated assessment that 'the industry is loosing millions and millions on what government doesn't pay', and, then, you propose to keep government in making payments, you propose that some in the industry have 'dropped Medicare and EMTALA' (when they haven't), you propose that 'it takes paying CEO millions--to hundreds of milloins--of dollars because they are doing such a good job' (when how they are able to do that and 'loose so much money from government payments', you haven't really substantiated), and, then, you call me the liar......all along making an unsubstantiated claim on how insurance companies (with those CEO's making millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars) would, somehow, be able to 'cover more for less' in a system that, once you look close enough, has insurance companies being tied directly into government programs (such as Medicare paying 80% and insurance companies paying only the other 20%, minus deductibles, of Medicare's allowable charge) and, if not being tied directly into government programs, operating just like them (with covering each diagnosis by their own allowable charges--not what the hospital may bill and certainly not what the hospital may claim are its 'costs')--and, then, once again, calling me the liar. And, not one time, clarifying this proposal of a 'free market approach with government intervention being the problem' including a 'solution' that has 'government paying for EMTALA'.

But, Capital doesn't really have to make sense with what Capital says. That's not Capital's purpose here. Capital is here to distract and misinform as 'the industry' shill that Capital is.....setting up 'the canned excuse' (that 'it's government's fault')--just like what 'the industry' will use when this whole system fails financially and medically.....but, you know, in a sense, Capital is right...it is government's fault that places its interests in collusion with corporate interest--at the added costs to the taxpaying consumer.....there's no lie about that.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

You claimed to have said 'open' instead of 'free' markets. I proved you wrong by your own posts

You are beyond a cosmic joke. You still can't address what was actually said so you fabercate this entire exercise in futility. If you want to take words out of context for your own ego... be my guest. You are not hurting me in the slightest. You have now wasted almost an entire page trying to prove something that doesn't exist.

Now, once again, as I predicted, you are going to say that I am wrong in that assessment without you, at any point, clarifying what you meant as being 'right'. Make me go search for your words and, then, when I find them, still say that I am wrong.....yeah, I know the tactic, Capital....

Wrong implies accident, Your a fucking idiot.

If I were King:

Eliminate the McCarran-Ferguson Act. (Cost: 0)

Regulate a single Base Health insurance policy that covers catastrophic medical care ($5000 out of pocket) and has whatever base mandates that are deemed appropriate. (Cost: 0)

Allow for supplemental policies to be sold on top of every Base policy, Base policy pool would consist of every insured person in the country, thereby vastly lowering the cost of the base policy, thereby making it vastly more affordable. (Cost: 0)

Mandate that Medicare and Medicaid pay for the services they use, I would accomplish this by making the FICO tax a variable rate, based on the previous year’s surplus of deficit. Eliminates cost shifting. Makes health insurance cheaper and more affordable, less people would need to use Medicare and Medicaid. (Cost: revenue neutral)

Make EMTALA covered by Medicaid

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Just adorable.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:

Just adorable.

Do you think he will ever address the topic or continue down this path?

I reposted my plan and someone made the Medicare for all Pitch. Wade in an distract me from Kerry.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Do you think he will ever address the topic or continue down this path?

Don't care.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:

Don't care.

and the second half of the question. Clearly you care about something.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

I am staying on the topic as you have promoted it, Capital. Read your own statements. You offer the 'free market' as the 'solution', do you not? You offer 'government intervention' as part of the problem, do you not? Now, explain how you can say your 'solution' has any semblance to the very 'free market' that you originally offered by having government stay in and pay for any of it? That you have consistently ignored--is it because you really have no explanation of why you blame government--and, then, turn around and rely on government for part of your so-called 'solution'? Can you address that part, Capital? Calling me names doesn't address it, either.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
or continue down this path?
Don't care.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

I am staying on the topic as you have promoted it, Capital. Read your own statements.

I already know my own statements, I already know what I meant, I know the context in which I said them. The only problem I currently having is your dumbass. Browsing other threads, this seems to be a common theme with you.

Now, explain how you can say your 'solution' has any semblance to the very 'free market' that you originally offered by having government stay in and pay for any of it?

Nice qualification "VERY" free market.

In my list how did I address the adverse effects of Government interaction with Healthcare?

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Art:

Don't care.

And here you are NOT CARING. Excellent.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Currently Chatting

Why the Web of Life is Dying...

Could you survive with just half of your organs? Think about it. What if you had just half your brain, one kidney, half of your heart, one lung, half a liver and only half of your skin? It would be pretty hard to survive right? Sure, you could survive losing just one kidney or half of your liver, but at some point, losing pieces from all of your organs would be too much and you would die.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system