From: Jim Yanik on
Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everything(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote in
news:4C4B9A42.4050005(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com:

>
>> In article <g9rm461o1fv6jtc3rf643bhac0271gmlof(a)4ax.com>,
>> Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> Health care has always been rationed. The question is how it is
>>> rationed. Right now, in this country, it is rationed by insurance
>>> companies and affordability.
>
> Don't we ration food and water and clothes? Should the government hand
> out those little *Mao suits* to each and every American rather than
> allowing us to buy expensive designer clothes while the poor have to
> wear K-mart clothes?
>
>

I suspect the insurance companies have lower overhead costs(less waste of
premium dollars) than the US government group that will manage Obamacare.
And it's probably far easier to deal with them than that USGov't group.

In every other nation that has socialist healthcare,the rationing is more
severe,sophisticated diagnostic machines much fewer in number,meaning long
wait times for scans,and much longer wait times for needed surgeries.
also,those other countries don't develop as many new drugs as the US,so
patients have to make do with older,less effective drugs.

It's no wonder some of their officials choose to come to the US for their
surgeries and treatment.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
From: bugo on


"Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destroy-Everything(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote in
message news:4C4B9C2E.3010107(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com...
>
>> In article <g9rm461o1fv6jtc3rf643bhac0271gmlof(a)4ax.com>,
>> Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> Health care has always been rationed. The question is how it is
>>> rationed. Right now, in this country, it is rationed by insurance
>>> companies and affordability.
>
>
> If we followed the rest of life with your logic on HEALTH CARE then we
> would all drive Mercedes Benz and the NATION would be bankrupted buying
> Mercedes and keeping them all running.

Health care is a basic human right, and a necessity. Nobody "needs" a M-B.
You're full of logical fallacies today, aren't you?

From: Free Lunch on
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 01:31:29 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew
Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road:

>In article <g9rm461o1fv6jtc3rf643bhac0271gmlof(a)4ax.com>,
>Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>Health care has always been rationed. The question is how it is
>>rationed. Right now, in this country, it is rationed by insurance
>>companies and affordability.
>
>Equivocation: misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense.
>
>Yes, as a technical economic term, "rationing" can cover the situation where a
>resource is dispensed according to no criteria other than who is
>willing and able to pay for it. However, the common use of the term,
>and the meaning intended by those objecting to rationing of health
>care, does not include that case.

Oh, I agree that they like to cherry-pick about this and that they
misrepresent how coverage is handled by both Medicare and by private
insurers. Still, health insurers ration far more severely than Medicare
does. Economic constraints are the most important rationing effect in
the United States for people who cannot get or cannot afford insurance,
but intentional limitation of services are also done today and have been
done for many years by insurance companies.

From: Odo Ital on
>
> Your notes are entertaining, but they won't change reality.
>

Mr Piehl lives in his own reality, anway.
From: Larry G on
On Jul 24, 2:37 pm, Rich Piehl
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> On 7/24/2010 10:04 AM, Otto Yamamoto wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rich Piehl wrote:
> >> On 7/23/2010 8:53 PM, Otto Yamamoto wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:00:43 -0500, Rich Piehl wrote:
>
> >>>> I think you like everything that Europe does so much, their power plants
> >>>> their governments, their cars, their rails, their transit system their
> >>>> socialistic governments (that some in this group have denied are
> >>>> socialistic)
>
> >> I'm not the one that called socialistic.   Larry did.
>
> >> BTW, who is the sourcing on that.  It's just a chart - I'm probably
> >> missing it but no data that I see.  No explanation of how the chart was
> >> arrived at and by what/whose yardstick.
>
> >> But for proof about European socialism just google it.  There's all
> >> kinds of sources from all over the world. Some right, some left.
>
> > Where are the majority Socialist Governments, then? I hate to break
> > this to ya, but Socism has been irrelevant for years. Just a buncha
> > impotent guilt-ridden yuppies. And you quake in fear.
>
> Because, as the European countries are finding out, eventually you run
> out of other people's money.  And that's the direction we're heading in
> here.  I'm not quaking in fear.  But why go down that road when we know
> what awaits us at the end of it?

running out of money from Socialism? How about running out of money
like we have?

Ya'll don't have a clue what the problem is. Most of what is causing
our structural deficit is not "govt spending". It's entitlements -
social security and Medicare which are funded from FICA taxes not
income taxes.

You guys that say "cut taxes" to head off disaster would cut what kind
of taxes. FICA taxes?

Cutting the Income Tax which is what primary funds non-Medicare and
non-SS would do what?

Do you think cutting the Dept of Education or the EPA is going to fix
the structural deficit that is due to SS and Medicare?

The only way to fix Medicare and SS is to either raise FICA taxes or
cut benefits, extend retirement age, etc or BOTH.

Cutting income taxes and cutting other Govt will not touch the
structural deficit.

European "socialism" is having the same issues - the costs of health
care have gone up faster than what they collect in taxes to pay for
it.

The solution is the same. You either have to increase the taxes to pay
for it or you have to cut the benefits or both.

The Conservatives have offered NOTHING to actually deal with the
causes of the structural deficit other than be opposed to stimulus and
generic "govt spending" - which won't deal with the real causes of
the structural deficit.

It's not socialism that's the issue. Both Europe and US have the same
basic problem and that is the costs of health care - in part because
of an aging demographic is rising... and our current taxing to pay for
it is not enough.

It has little to do with "socialism" which is just another idiotic
canard used by those who have a sound-bite mentality

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: The Stupidity of Racism
Next: European Socialsm