Republicans’ Ex-Spokesman Calls For Armed Rebellion Over Obamacare

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
No I didn't avoid your question,

Yes you did.

You stated that you do care about the consequences of the private healthcare industry, I asked you whether you'd support public healthcare if those consequences were inevitable in the healthcare industry. You refused to answer.

I reject your assertion that a free market system would fail.

Therefore, you'll ignore the consequences as the result of that very private system. If we were to completely privatize the halthcare system, including medicare, and leave the elderly to the private market, you wouldn't care about the consequences, because you'd refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem with the system.

You say "tough", I say "tough" back, because we aren't going back to a completely private healthcare system. There's a reason why Reagan never successfully privatized medicare.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Ignoramuses come in all forms, shapes and sizes, but the absurd ignoramus is the most perplexing. Are you talking about the "system" that all of you have declared broken and demanded Congress create an Affordable Health Care Act? That system? What are you doing, defending a broken system?

No. Not anywhere in anything I posted have I defended the current healthcare system. What are you reading?

Just how many bandages do you think you put on this broken system before you finally accept it is broken? This monstrosity of a heavily regulated health care industry is the system you speak of and it is broken, but the only answer your sect can come up with is: "Oh, it needs to be even more regulated" and no matter how many regulations are placed upon it it is always the same cry: "Oh we need even more regulations."

You are arguing with something you made up in your head so responding to it seems silly.

Do not assume stuff and then rant about your assumption for an hour. It is a huge waste of time when you turn out to be wrong...again. I am not sure why you think I am defending the current system so help me out.

reply to post by habitforming

No. Not anywhere in anything I posted have I defended the current healthcare system. What are you reading?

Your reply to my assertion that the free market would produce a better healthcare industry. What did you think I was reading?

You can backpedal all you want, but surely you don't think I've made up the fact that the health care industry is heavily regulated, do you? Surely you are not so ignorant as to honestly believe such a heavily regulated industry represents the free market, do you?

Pout all you want, you were the one who amusingly insisted I don't understand the health care "system", but you're also the one who declines to explain this "system" you claim I don't understand.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

You stated that you do care about the consequences of the private healthcare industry, I asked you whether you'd support public healthcare if those consequences were inevitable in the healthcare industry. You refused to answer.

Uh-huh. This is exactly what you asked:

So if a completely privatized healthcare system didn't work, you'd support socialized healthcare, is this correct?

I did not refuse to answer, unless you want to claim I was compelled to answer either "correct" or incorrect", of which I am under no compulsion to do so. Far from refusing to answer, this is what I answered:

A completely free and unregulated market will work. Governments do not regulate markets because they don't work unregulated, they regulate markets for power. What we have now is a partially socialized system in health care and that doesn't appear to be working at all. We don't have a partial free and unregulated market, because their can only be a free and unregulated market and the moment you tinker with that it no longer is a free and unregulated market, but here we are where people want to lecture on the "failures of free markets" and explain why we need a completely socialized health care system. Sigh.

How can you call this answer a refusal to answer? Please.

You're not the teacher and this is not a true or false test.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

If we were to completely privatize the halthcare system, including medicare, and leave the elderly to the private market, you wouldn't care about the consequences, because you'd refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem with the system.

Let's create two distinctly different scenarios and see which one you would prefer.

You are retired and on medicare. Your medical insurance premiums are taken directly from your social security income, but you also must carry a supplemental plan to cover drugs and other expenses. You must choose a PCP from a list that is provided to you by medicare and all your care (other than ER visits) must be approved by that PCP. Right so far? Now, if you need a specialist, your PCP will refer you to the one he prefers for reasons you are ignorant about and your co-pay will be anywhere from $50 on up depending on who you're sent to. If your insurance carrier denies your claim for the specialist's exam or recommendations, you will be sent a bill for the amount owed. You can appeal, but your chances of winning are nil.
.....

You are retired in a totally free market system. You pay no premiums (unless you so choose) and are free to set up a savings account devoted to your medical needs with the same funds. Or not. But one day you realize you need to see a doctor for a specific problem, or even just a check up, so you ask around to see what your neighbors think about the doctors in your area. You can choose a general practitioner, or you can go straight to a specialist because no one is standing between you and your choices. There is no middle man. You can question the doctor directly regarding his training and experience as well as his charges per service. And because he is competing for your "business", he will probably do his best to keep the prices reasonable and provide top notch care or he'll be out of business very soon. So you make your choice and lo and behold you discover your out of pocket costs are much less than your co-pays under a government system would have been. That's because there are no hidden taxes and charges built into his service that must be passed along to the patient.



Would you choose the former scenario?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I did not refuse to answer,

Yes you did. I asked you that if private healthcare didn't work, would you then support socialized/universal healthcare. You didn't answer, instead you insisted the system will not fail. A simple yes or not would have been an answer.

This goes back to my point, you insist this country must revert back to a completely private healthcare system "just because that's the way it outta be". Whether Americans suffer more through such a system will not change your support for it. Whether you claim you "personally" care about the consequences will not change your position on it.

reply to post by Southern Guardian



You know, I am not going to go round and round on this S.G., if you cannot understand that I reject your "correct" or "incorrect" answer you attempt to solicit out of me and I gave you an honest answer, then what makes you think you can understand something much more complex like economy? A free market advocate does not advocate socialism. Socialism has been given plenty of chances in this nation. The free market has not, unless that free marketeer is operating in a "black market'.

Take your hypothetical and use it on someone else.

Originally posted by frazzle
You are retired in a totally free market system. You pay no premiums (unless you so choose) and are free to set up a savings account devoted to your medical needs with the same funds.

Why would this option only be available to me in a "free market system"? I can simply walk to the local bank and open a savings account right now, under our current system. Why would this option only be available to me under your hypothetical "free market"?

In anycase hypothetically I am retired, I don't have the time to "save" for anything. Because of my age and because I have a history of high blood pressure since childhood, I have a very hard time finding an insurance firm that will cover me. Simply saving money at the age of 69 isn't really a viable option, especially if I find myself falling ill.

You can choose a general practitioner, or you can go straight to a specialist because no one is standing between you and your choices.

I could freely choose a general practitioner, at a cost. You see, money makes the world go around, money gives you choices, not the system. We can't all afford to throw money around, especially those who are retired. Do you have any idea how much it costs to get a simple check up done at a private general practitioner if you are not insured? And this is just a check up we're talking about mind you. If they find a medical problem, that's another story.

Would you choose the former scenario?

If I was a fairly wealthy individual, I'd choose the second scenario. But hey, we're not just talking about wealthy americans here are we?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
A free market advocate does not advocate socialism.

You don't advocate for a system that works best either Jean. You insist that we should revert back to a completely private healthcare system regardless of the consequences, regardless of whether or not it's in our best interests. This is just the way it outta be to you Jean. Debating this further with you is pointless, I agree.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

You don't advocate for a system that works best either Jean. You insist that we should revert back to a completely private healthcare system regardless of the consequences, regardless of whether or not it's in our best interests.

What do you mean "revert back to"? You reify and reify but you have no credible evidence what so ever to prove that the consequences of a free market would harm the people. Cancer therapies that cost an individual more than $75,000 today, which would be no where near that amount under a free market, in the meantime under the heavily regulated health care industry where every doctor and surgeon is licensed to operate doctors, as it turns out, are the third leading cause of death for Americans! Not that you give a damn about those consequences. Those proven consequences, not hypothetical ones, but proven.

My experience with what you people call "socialist" healthcare was 10x better than the corporate one.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
My experience with what you people call "socialist" healthcare was 10x better than the corporate one.

My experience is that there is no such thing as a free market corporation. It is an impossibility to be a government chartered corporation and also be a free marketeer.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Well free market or not it wouldn't have changed the situation. If there is a potential for profit people are always trying to rip you off.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Well free market or not it wouldn't have changed the situation. If there is a potential for profit people are always trying to rip you off.

Profit is not theft, my friend. It is a bizarre situation where plunder is praised as "socialism" and earning a profit off of the fruits of ones own labor is theft. Up is down, right is wrong and left is right.

Can someone tell me what the hell happened to the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower? When did their brains collectively dribble out of their ears?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Your reply to my assertion that the free market would produce a better healthcare industry. What did you think I was reading?

What did I think you were reading? The same thing I still think you are reading...something other than my post. I never defended our current health care system.
You see why I am confused, right? I never said what you claim I said so it is a little hard to figure out what you are reading when I never wrote what you say I did.

You can backpedal all you want, but surely you don't think I've made up the fact that the health care industry is heavily regulated, do you?

What the # are you talking about? What am I backpedaling from? I know it is heavily regulated. What are you responding to??????????

Surely you are not so ignorant as to honestly believe such a heavily regulated industry represents the free market, do you?

I think you are having an argument in your head and writing half of it down here to me. I never said any of what you are railing against me for.
So again, WHAT ARE YOU READING???????????

Pout all you want, you were the one who amusingly insisted I don't understand the health care "system", but you're also the one who declines to explain this "system" you claim I don't understand.

You obviously do not understand our current health care system nor are you able to read what I write.
You are going to have to go through my posts and pull some quotes because I am pretty sure you are just responding to imaginary friends.

reply to post by XeroOne


See that's the lie, the majority of people are actually opposed to the 1,000 plus page bill and were from day 1.
But continue misleading people, I know it's worked for you lot up until now.

P.S. Enjoy being forced at gun point by the criminal IRS and Federal Reserve to pay even more of your hard earned money to the bankers, through their insurance companies, which they own.

I finally realize what Jefferson was talking about all those years ago!
“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”
- Thomas Jefferson

Latest pools show split in American population - 46% for and against supreme court ruling, and 8 percent undecided according to NPR this morning.

Republicans need to get over it...

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Why would this option only be available to me in a "free market system"? I can simply walk to the local bank and open a savings account right now, under our current system. Why would this option only be available to me under your hypothetical "free market"?

In anycase hypothetically I am retired, I don't have the time to "save" for anything. Because of my age and because I have a history of high blood pressure since childhood, I have a very hard time finding an insurance firm that will cover me. Simply saving money at the age of 69 isn't really a viable option, especially if I find myself falling ill.

Sure, you can open an account, but you can't deposit the money that has already been taken out of your social security benefits. That's the difference. They have your money on lockdown and therefore they control your choices and the use of YOUR OWN BENEFITS.

Dunno, but if I was the one with high blood pressure (or any other medical issue) I'd be pulling an online search to find out what NATURAL products might be available to help with the problem. A few clicks of the mouse is all it takes. And the added benefit of these products is that they're inexpensive and they come with no side effects that will cause you to require even more medical services.

I could freely choose a general practitioner, at a cost. You see, money makes the world go around, money gives you choices, not the system. We can't all afford to throw money around, especially those who are retired. Do you have any idea how much it costs to get a simple check up done at a private general practitioner if you are not insured? And this is just a check up we're talking about mind you. If they find a medical problem, that's another story.

As explained above, if they gave you the full amount of your benefits and didn't withhold so much for your medical needs, you could use that money as YOU see fit, not as MEDICARE bureaucrats and insurance agents see fit. When you allow others to determine your needs, your needs will never be met.

theory proves free markets work, reality proves that they don't. the very nature of the corporation is to improve the "bottom line". thus, the corporation ALWAYS tries to game the system, whether its through legislation, supply and demand, or corruption.