Evangelicals least likely to support politicians & policies that reflect Jesus' msg.

By the way...if you were thinking "from each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need" was the part of the Constitution you use to justify single payer, I have news for you.

It's not in the US Constitution.

It's in the Communist Manifesto.

 

To liberals, anything the government tells you to do, or does for you at someone elses expense, is constitutional.

 

Yeah...and I was thinking: since "unwanted babies" cost money, and often times are a drain on society....and since medical expenses for them and moms are economic transactions (vis a vis "commerce"), then aborting babies is perfectly fine, according to the "commerce clause" and "promote the general welfare" clause.

See what happens when you drift from an originalist perspective? You can kill babies, and have the Constitution justify it.


It's not just a slippery slope.

It's a 60-degree precipice, coated with Olive Oil, WD-40, and two inches of Murphy's Oil Soap.
And you're wearing shoes with no tread.
And it's raining.
And you've been pushed.
And your shoes have marbles on the bottom.
And you've been dipped in floor wax.

 

Someone's personal stories are anecdotal evidence. You're not addressing the inefficiencies of the private health care system, just casting aspersions on the existing government run ones.

The overhead on Medicare is estimated to be 3%; the overhead in private insurance companies is much more.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_myths_singlepayer_facts.php

Anyway, it is estimated that streamlining payments through a single payer system would save $300 - $400 Billion a year. Saving from paperwork reduction would be $150 Billion a year.

http://www.pnhp.org/


http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_myths_singlepayer_facts.php



Estimates by right-wingers put Obamacare to cost $200 billion a year.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-would-cost-over-2-trillion

Now you are projecting into the future on something that doesn't even exist.

If you would have read my post you would have seen that it is impossible for me to "find a better package" because all three insurance companies licensed in Minnesota have identical coverages and rates within a percentage point or two of one another. There is no choice.

Yes, but they are not competing. There isn't a dimes worth of difference between them. Remember there is no shortage of demand. People do get sick, people do need to go to doctors. There is no opting out of it. So the insurance companies just keep raising rates. Take another look at my rate increases over the past three years.

Under a single payer system health care providers are given a global budget for the year. It's up to the hospitals and clinics to allocate the budget the most efficiently.

I think all government agencies are concerned with keeping their costs down. But since you asked I'll say NASA. Apparently you are asserting that all government agencies can run roughshod over their budget and there will be more next year?

Never heard of it. Is it relevant?

I didn't say demand for "health insurance" I said demand for "health care". People without health insurance are a part of the population that go to ER's for treatment, which drives up the cost for all of us.

Non sequitur. I never argued that all people should be forced to purchase a product.

 

The polling is primarily addressed to carpro when he elicited some “pure democracy” by addressing American opinion or objections. Evidently you need to talk to him about that.

In fact more and more people have the intelligence and common sense to understand that it is a matter of priorities. Instead of 700 billion dollar tax cuts to the very rich, 700 billion dollar misguided wars, mishandling of the economy that led to hundreds of billions in monumental losses across the board and overfunding a military that can destroy the world umpteen times people are beginning to understand and support keeping and funding the healthcare law in hopes that useless wastes of tax payers dollars can be avoided in the future and revenues better utilized by wiser leadership that believes in the purpose of government.

One thing is for sure, we cannot sustain the healthcare system as it is now.

 

What I'm asking is, if what you're saying is true, then why does the evidence point to the contrary?

And I've addressed this already.

You're the one saying how it's going to save money in the future.

OK. So how does that make taking away my family's insurance right?

Actually, there is a great deal of difference. As an employer who has to search different plans to cover my employees, I can tell you first hand that there is a huge difference.

Then how do you explain the millions of people who choose to opt out of it?

Yeah...and?

Then it shouldn't be any problem for you to answer the question.

OK. How so?

Really??? So then you're ignorant of what the plan entails and yet, you're going to preach to me how great it is and how my family and I should abandon our coverage for it?

Which includes insurance.

How so?

But the plan you're promoting does, Einstein.

 

But the program you're telling us all we should abandon our insurance coverage for, does.

I think the individual mandate in ObamaCare is probably unconstitutional.

OK. Here is Article I, Section 8:

As you can see, nothing in there about giving the government such authority. You have been caught in a lie.

Then why are you promoting a system that is consistent with Marxism?

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I'm not a Marxist. For example, Marxism is against religion, and I'm a Southern Baptist. Marxism also supports the establishment of Communism by revolution, and I oppose the violent overthrow of the government. I want to use the legislative process to establish social democracy.

 

So which part of this do you believe gives the government the right to mandate that citizens purchase a product or service under threat of fine or imprisonment?

Then why are you promoting nationalizing a private industry in a way that is consistent with Marxism?

For those who are not familiar, social democracy is "a socialist movement supporting gradualism; the belief that gradual democratic reforms to capitalist economies will eventually succeed in creating a socialist economy" (Robertson. A dictionary of Modern Politics. 3rd edition. London, England, UK: Europa Publications, 2004. Pp. 212.)

 

I'll answer after you address the things I've listed as obvious areas where I disagree with Marxism.

 

I don't really care what you disagree with Marxism about. We're talking about the nationalization of health care and your support of it.

Now could you please tell us where in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution we're told that the government has the right to mandate that citizens purchase a product or service under threat of fine or imprisonment?

 

Revolution does not have to mean such. And in fact it can be as peaceful as anything else. I am sure some want to avoid such labels but if you are going to speak clearly on this issue you need to be willing to admit to facts. Someone can be a Marxist without agreeing to every single thought taught by Marx. Simply wanting government to control America's wealth places one in such a category. That is the key objective of Marxism.

 

Reality is, that's what Obamacare does. So if you argue for a system such as this, that's the result.

This is a joke, right? Government has no motivation to keep costs down. They get their money no matter what. In fact, they usually get built-in increases...and when the rate of increase is brought down, they call it a "cut." (only in government...)

Not to mention...when someone from govnerment is wasteful, they are much less likely to be reprimanded, fired, or demoted--particularly if they have connections, or are a part of a protected group/group likely to sue for "discrimination."

Certainly, you wrote the above sentence with a smile on your face. I couldn't type it with a straight face.

This is absolute hogwash.

First of all, remember: "We had to pass this bill to know what's in it." It's a hopelessly complex jumble of bureacratic snafus and unmanageable red tape. It will cost our country billions in lawyers and consultants just to figure out if Company A is even in compliance. (Not to mention, Obama's thousands of waivers will allow SOME groups to simply ignore the law, leaving us unconnected people to foot the bill.

Secondly...remind me of ONE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM that cost less than projected, and ended up being simpler than first proposed.

*crickets*

This is a train wreck, plain and simple--and only those who are hyper-partisan, blind to facts, or intentionally ignorant of history will not see it.

 

Obamacare and a single payer system are two different animals.

Have you ever worked on a government contract? I worked under government contracts for 9 years back in the 1980's. There were cost controls in place.

 

>Now could you please tell us where in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution we're told that the government has the right to mandate that citizens purchase a product or service under threat of fine or imprisonment?

Question demonstrates ignorance of the Constitution. It is mostly (except for maybe post office, navy, and roads) written as negative statements about what the government CAN'T do. So where does the Constitution deny a governmental interest in health care?

 

Asking these guys for info about Obamacare is like...

• Putting Hugh Heffner in PR director of "Focus on the Family."
• Asking Mo-Ammar Qaddafi to chair the next Franklin Graham Crusade Publicity Team.
• Having Cher to talk to your pre-teen girls about body image, and the silliness of silicone implants.

That is to say...any information you get from the source is not worth the free paper it's printed on.

 

Here is 18 year old data from testimony before the Congressional Budget Office:

Under a single-payer system with copayment requirements (SPI), total
administrative costs would be about half of what they are under the current
system, reducing NHEIA by about 4.6 percent, or $34 billion in 1991. The
savings on insurance administration would be nearly as large as under SP2.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10383/1993_05_25reischauertestimony.pdf


Here is 12 year old data from the New England Journal of Medicine:

The U.S. wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured. Administrative expenses will consume at least $399.4 billion out of total health expenditures of $1,660.5 billion in 2003. Streamlining administrative overhead to Canadian levels would save approximately $286.0 billion in 2003, $6,940 for each of the 41.2 million Americans who were uninsured as of 2001. This is substantially more than would be needed to provide full insurance coverage

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033

 

For the third time, I don't.

Single payer would still have private delivery of healthcare, only public funding. There are other ways to being about socialism than government ownership of industry. For some things, that's fine. For the most part, I don't want the government to own industry. I think credit unions are a good way to look at democratizing industry. In my credit union, each member gets one vote at our annual meeting, without regard for wealth or fame. Credit unions are cooperative institutions and are not owned by the government.

:thumbs:

 

It is called the 10th amendment