Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Daniel

Half Devils/Half Politics Poll

   48 votes

  1. 1. What do you care more about?

    • Devils re-signing Parise
      33
    • Supreme Court Health Care Decision
      15

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

77 posts in this topic

That's in theory. We all know nice theories often lead to bad execution, especially when the government is involved.

Also go ask how Greece, France and Spain with their entitlement systems that include universal health care.

Ok I'm done now. This really belongs now in the politics forum as Daniel pointed out before.

You can't cherrypick the bad and leave out the good here. Greece and Spain were fvcked not because of healthcare, but rather the ridiculous austerity measures put in place. Spain, if anything, is proof that the right's idea to cut, cut, cut, will not work. France, has an excellent healthcare system and I'm pretty sure they spend at best 60% what we do on healthcare as a % of GDP, something like 9-10%, when we spend like 17% of GDP.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't cherrypick the bad and leave out the good here. Greece and Spain were fvcked not because of healthcare, but rather the ridiculous austerity measures put in place. Spain, if anything, is proof that the right's idea to cut, cut, cut, will not work. France, has an excellent healthcare system and I'm pretty sure they spend at best 60% what we do on healthcare as a % of GDP, something like 9-10%, when we spend like 17% of GDP.

The "ridiculous" austerity measures is what has been keeping Greece and Spain on life-support. Their system of entitlements are perks to everyone no matter what the cost is the main reason for their mess and they are now all depending on Germany to bail them out.

Sorry but to constantly be taxing and spending with no end in sight, you are bound to pump the well dry and that is what is happening. There will not always be someone or a nation willing to bail you out every time.

Also if you follow those silly rankings the WHO puts out ranking the nation's healthcare system (and I guess that is where you get the "excellent" part about France) then IDK what to tell you. All I do know is when a list says Cuba has better healthcare than the US, then I would highly doubt the legitimacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any idea how it works here in France ?

Even the most Right Side here will not change the Health Care system... Let's be honest, nobody wanna the same (soon to be old) system as it is in US.

And it's working really well since years... and years... and years.

There is a legit fight against "people that try to take benefit of this system"...

Oh... and

Zach Parise is a really good player.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "ridiculous" austerity measures is what has been keeping Greece and Spain on life-support. Their system of entitlements are perks to everyone no matter what the cost is the main reason for their mess and they are now all depending on Germany to bail them out.

Sorry but to constantly be taxing and spending with no end in sight, you are bound to pump the well dry and that is what is happening. There will not always be someone or a nation willing to bail you out every time.

Also if you follow those silly rankings the WHO puts out ranking the nation's healthcare system (and I guess that is where you get the "excellent" part about France) then IDK what to tell you. All I do know is when a list says Cuba has better healthcare than the US, then I would highly doubt the legitimacy.

The austerity measures are not what's keeping them on life support, it's WHY they're on life support. Read what a real economist has to say on the matter: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/opinion/krugman-europes-economic-suicide.html

Ok, well, you may not care that a well respected group like the WHO says about healthcare, then I don't know what to tell you. I mean, I'm sorry, but it's fact that Cuba outperforms the US. Do you not believe the statistics on things like infant mortality rates that the WHO puts out? And you can bet a million dollars that if people could, they would buy prescription pills from Cuba just like they do from Mexico and Canada.

The issue in the US has never been that it's lacking in skilled doctors or that it can't perform cutting edge procedures, it's that the cost of that care is prohibitively expensive and when people don't have the insurance, they are forced to use the most expensive avenue of care, ERs. The argument for universal healthcare is nearly IDENTICAL to the right's argument for lowering taxes. Flatten the rates and broaden the base. That is EXACTLY what this bill does, except for healthcare coverage, not taxes. More people paying, a more even rate over the whole of the country.

While it is not the best bill, it's a step in the right direction. What really needs to be controlled is the cost of prescriptions, i.e. pills that are $5 here and $1 in the rest of the world, and providing a reasonable fee schedule for procedures performed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The austerity measures are not what's keeping them on life support, it's WHY they're on life support. Read what a real economist has to say on the matter: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/opinion/krugman-europes-economic-suicide.html

Ok, well, you may not care that a well respected group like the WHO says about healthcare, then I don't know what to tell you. I mean, I'm sorry, but it's fact that Cuba outperforms the US. Do you not believe the statistics on things like infant mortality rates that the WHO puts out? And you can bet a million dollars that if people could, they would buy prescription pills from Cuba just like they do from Mexico and Canada.

The issue in the US has never been that it's lacking in skilled doctors or that it can't perform cutting edge procedures, it's that the cost of that care is prohibitively expensive and when people don't have the insurance, they are forced to use the most expensive avenue of care, ERs. The argument for universal healthcare is nearly IDENTICAL to the right's argument for lowering taxes. Flatten the rates and broaden the base. That is EXACTLY what this bill does, except for healthcare coverage, not taxes. More people paying, a more even rate over the whole of the country.

While it is not the best bill, it's a step in the right direction. What really needs to be controlled is the cost of prescriptions, i.e. pills that are $5 here and $1 in the rest of the world, and providing a reasonable fee schedule for procedures performed.

Lol NY times is to the liberals what the NY post is to conservatives so take what you want from that.

WHO and any organization connected to the UN is suspect to me mostly because they are part of the UN. But that is another topic that def belongs in the politics forum.

Also if you had some deadly illness you would really rather take your chances in a Cuban hospital over one in the US? Those rankings also count access to healthcare and cost of healthcare, so of course Cuba would be ranked higher and the US would be killed in that. I'll take US hospitals any day.

I hope Zach re-signs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per Congress's right to regulate interstate commerce:

The Franchise Player Act shall impose an 80% tax on all goods between the ages of 25 and 30, valued at an excess of $40million, and shipping from the great state of New Jersey.

Germany says "You're Welcome"

Doesn't Germany have universal healthcare too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the moral arguments from both sides of this issue. I really do. However, 70+% of all Americans already heave health insurance through an employer provided program. That doesn't count the large numbers of Medicare and Medicaid, as well as those with individual policies.

I am sick and tired of the governement telling me what I can and cannot do, especially with my money. I mean, where does it end? The long term effects of this ruling can be rather scary when taken to the extreme. Pretty soon, the government will mandate that everyone in America must buy a car made by an American owned company and mfg'd in the US or face a penalty at the time of purchase of a foreign car of $x because it is in America's interests to keep manufacturing jobs in the US. This ruling basically says the government can mandate anything they want against individual citizens if the penalty they attach to non-compliance can be considered a tax and there is a legitimate government concern as a basis for the legislation.

I have health insurance through my employer. But if they were smart (and cared only about the bottom line), they would force all 1000+ employees to go and get their health insurance through the public exchanges as the company would save money by paying the penalty rather than the premiums for each employee (I work for a good company with a very good health insurance plan). Ironically, it would then be cheaper for me to pay the 1% of salary max. penalty for individuals provided in the law than it would be for me to buy comparable insurance to what I have now. So, therefore, in theory, this law could burden the system even further by making people like me go without insurance when I already have it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be all happy watching Zach play for the Devils when I'm on my death bed from a cold that turned to Pneumonia because I can't afford Health Insurance. Thank You, Right Wingers! :)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The austerity measures are not what's keeping them on life support, it's WHY they're on life support. Read what a real economist has to say on the matter: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/opinion/krugman-europes-economic-suicide.html

Paul Krugman is THE leading liberal econmist in this country. Not exactly an unbiased look at the matter. That said, I am happy with today's decision.

Go Devs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per Congress's right to regulate interstate commerce:

The Franchise Player Act shall impose an 80% tax on all goods between the ages of 25 and 30, valued at an excess of $40million, and shipping from the great state of New Jersey.

Doesn't Germany have universal healthcare too?

Yes but Germany is bailing out a lot of these countries out

I understand the moral arguments from both sides of this issue. I really do. However, 70+% of all Americans already heave health insurance through an employer provided program. That doesn't count the large numbers of Medicare and Medicaid, as well as those with individual policies.

I am sick and tired of the governement telling me what I can and cannot do, especially with my money. I mean, where does it end? The long term effects of this ruling can be rather scary when taken to the extreme. Pretty soon, the government will mandate that everyone in America must buy a car made by an American owned company and mfg'd in the US or face a penalty at the time of purchase of a foreign car of $x because it is in America's interests to keep manufacturing jobs in the US. This ruling basically says the government can mandate anything they want against individual citizens if the penalty they attach to non-compliance can be considered a tax and there is a legitimate government concern as a basis for the legislation.

I have health insurance through my employer. But if they were smart (and cared only about the bottom line), they would force all 1000+ employees to go and get their health insurance through the public exchanges as the company would save money by paying the penalty rather than the premiums for each employee (I work for a good company with a very good health insurance plan). Ironically, it would then be cheaper for me to pay the 1% of salary max. penalty for individuals provided in the law than it would be for me to buy comparable insurance to what I have now. So, therefore, in theory, this law could burden the system even further by making people like me go without insurance when I already have it.

This +10000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol NY times is to the liberals what the NY post is to conservatives so take what you want from that.

WHO and any organization connected to the UN is suspect to me mostly because they are part of the UN. But that is another topic that def belongs in the politics forum.

Also if you had some deadly illness you would really rather take your chances in a Cuban hospital over one in the US? Those rankings also count access to healthcare and cost of healthcare, so of course Cuba would be ranked higher and the US would be killed in that. I'll take US hospitals any day.

I hope Zach re-signs.

LOL. That is truly laughable. The NY Times will be to liberals what the NY Post is to the right when the Post has 108 Pulitzers.

And like I said, the issue in the US has NEVER been quality of care(for the most part). The problem is the prohibitive cost of care and the inability for poorer people to find affordable care. When someone has no insurance and not enough money to pay out of pocket for healthcare, these people fall through the cracks. Emergency care is the only care provided no matter whether the person can pay or not. All other care you can be denied to get if you cannot pay. This is the big issue in the US. People who, if they had gotten quality care early, could have been prevented from becoming disabled or having to use very expensive ER visits to treat their illness. Finding a tumor early and treating it is far less expensive than having a patient in the ER/ICU for months on end with end stage cancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Krugman is THE leading liberal econmist in this country. Not exactly an unbiased look at the matter. That said, I am happy with today's decision.

Go Devs.

Bingo. That is like someone here citing Kosman for sporting financial news.

LOL. That is truly laughable. The NY Times will be to liberals what the NY Post is to the right when the Post has 108 Pulitzers.

And like I said, the issue in the US has NEVER been quality of care(for the most part). The problem is the prohibitive cost of care and the inability for poorer people to find affordable care. When someone has no insurance and not enough money to pay out of pocket for healthcare, these people fall through the cracks. Emergency care is the only care provided no matter whether the person can pay or not. All other care you can be denied to get if you cannot pay. This is the big issue in the US. People who, if they had gotten quality care early, could have been prevented from becoming disabled or having to use very expensive ER visits to treat their illness. Finding a tumor early and treating it is far less expensive than having a patient in the ER/ICU for months on end with end stage cancer.

Look who gives out the Pulitzer prizes and you can see why. NY Post is not great either but the NY Times is as far left as the Post is as far right. Neither are great for un-biased reporting and opinions and that was my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. That is truly laughable. The NY Times will be to liberals what the NY Post is to the right when the Post has 108 Pulitzers.

And like I said, the issue in the US has NEVER been quality of care(for the most part). The problem is the prohibitive cost of care and the inability for poorer people to find affordable care. When someone has no insurance and not enough money to pay out of pocket for healthcare, these people fall through the cracks. Emergency care is the only care provided no matter whether the person can pay or not. All other care you can be denied to get if you cannot pay. This is the big issue in the US. People who, if they had gotten quality care early, could have been prevented from becoming disabled or having to use very expensive ER visits to treat their illness. Finding a tumor early and treating it is far less expensive than having a patient in the ER/ICU for months on end with end stage cancer.

I doubt Obama-care will actually accomplish that goal. And even if it does, it will be the result of relatively poorer people paying more taxes, like they do in Europe where consumption taxes (regressive taxes) are much higher.

And to someone's earlier point about how premiums could go up if everyone's forced to pay for health insurance. . . Obamacare requires insurance companies to offer more coverage. The issue is whether expanding the pool of people who pay for insurance will make up for that. The jury is still out on that, but if Vegas were taking odds, they would bet on it not working out that way. The government is probably hedging its bets there too since regulators will be monitoring whether health insurers are charging "fair" premiums.

Bottom line, it's a clear sign that Zach wants to stay with the Devils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the analogy Chuck brought up about the government being too involved in saying what we do with our money. What a slippery slope! Yeah, that pesky government with their roads, and safe drinking water regulations and meat inspections. If I wanna drink ecoli tainted water that's my right as an Amurican! The free market will sort it out. Chuck, your idea of the government eventually saying what car you can but is ludicrous and totally knee-jerk reactionary! The idea that the government would make you buy a certain car is much more in favor of right wing ideals than left wing. As a matter of fact it's exactly the idea that right wingers like, letting private interests influence public policy. It's pretty much the standard definition of the dreaded "F" word that the right wing is often associated with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it that Obamacare will make insurance more expensive for you? The idea is that by expanding the pool of people buying insurance, especially since you're forcing younger, more healthy people to buy insurance, that it will bring the average cost of insurance down. This is based on a wealth of information gathered from other country's universal healthcare policies.

No, devaman is right about the premium part.

The young are healthy, and have a low premium. The old are not, and have a higher premium. When you expand and virtually put everyone in the same pool, there is a premium average. So with this new pool, you have to see that premiums are higher for the youth and lower for the old, generally.

Do you see what I'm saying?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the analogy Chuck brought up about the government being too involved in saying what we do with our money. What a slippery slope! Yeah, that pesky government with their roads, and safe drinking water regulations and meat inspections. If I wanna drink ecoli tainted water that's my right as an Amurican! The free market will sort it out. Chuck, your idea of the government eventually saying what car you can but is ludicrous and totally knee-jerk reactionary! The idea that the government would make you buy a certain car is much more in favor of right wing ideals than left wing. As a matter of fact it's exactly the idea that right wingers like, letting private interests influence public policy. It's pretty much the standard definition of the dreaded "F" word that the right wing is often associated with.

Plus, a car is not a necessity. Those things that(I think) the government should be involved with are all basic necessities that ,dare I say it, every American should be entitled to like for instance a free appropriate public education, fair wages, and oooh access to affordable, decent healthcare.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be all happy watching Zach play for the Devils when I'm on my death bed from a cold that turned to Pneumonia because I can't afford Health Insurance. Thank You, Right Wingers! :)

:rofl:

Yes but Germany is bailing out a lot of these countries out

I'm just saying that lots of countries have it or don't have it and are doing well, ok, or badly. So we can't make it out to be a socioeconomic killer or elixir since so much else matters too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty soon, the government will mandate that everyone in America must buy a car made by an American owned company and mfg'd in the US or face a penalty at the time of purchase of a foreign car of $x because it is in America's interests to keep manufacturing jobs in the US.

Well you don't have to worry about this happening because there isn't one manufacturer that is truly American anymore. Especially since the Toyota Camry is the most manufactured car here in America. :doh1:

Edited by Satans Hockey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, devaman is right about the premium part.

The young are healthy, and have a low premium. The old are not, and have a higher premium. When you expand and virtually put everyone in the same pool, there is a premium average. So with this new pool, you have to see that premiums are higher for the youth and lower for the old, generally.

Do you see what I'm saying?

I totally understand that. For some it will go up, some down. Although, the idea with the younger people not currently buying insurance, $1 is an increase from $0, right? Older people value health insurance more than the young and healthy, for obvious reasons. My point was that, on the whole, the cost of healthcare SHOULD go down. This, however, is contingent on the insurance companies not gouging us people and simultaneously bringing down their administrative costs. The research shows that country's with a universal healthcare policy, pay less as a % of GDP for healthcare, and that's just a FACT, not opinion.

I am sick and tired of the governement telling me what I can and cannot do, especially with my money. I mean, where does it end? The long term effects of this ruling can be rather scary when taken to the extreme. Pretty soon, the government will mandate that everyone in America must buy a car made by an American owned company and mfg'd in the US or face a penalty at the time of purchase of a foreign car of $x because it is in America's interests to keep manufacturing jobs in the US. This ruling basically says the government can mandate anything they want against individual citizens if the penalty they attach to non-compliance can be considered a tax and there is a legitimate government concern as a basis for the legislation.

You realize these things are called tariffs, right? It's not at all odd to have a tax on foreign goods to give an advantage to domestic products.

Edited by ATLL765
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally understand that. For some it will go up, some down. Although, the idea with the younger people not currently buying insurance, $1 is an increase from $0, right? Older people value health insurance more than the young and healthy, for obvious reasons. My point was that, on the whole, the cost of healthcare SHOULD go down. This, however, is contingent on the insurance companies not gouging us people and simultaneously bringing down their administrative costs. The research shows that country's with a universal healthcare policy, pay less as a % of GDP for healthcare, and that's just a FACT, not opinion.

I have my health insurance through my company and we got a notice late last year that if Obamacare is enacted, expect our premiums to go up approx 30%. Yup, thats more an $1 increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck, your idea of the government eventually saying what car you can but is ludicrous and totally knee-jerk reactionary! The idea that the government would make you buy a certain car is much more in favor of right wing ideals than left wing. As a matter of fact it's exactly the idea that right wingers like, letting private interests influence public policy. It's pretty much the standard definition of the dreaded "F" word that the right wing is often associated with.

Actually, the federal government already tells you what kind of car you can buy. Sure, they don't say, you must buy GM (although the bail out of the UAW -- ahem, I mean GM -- was a roundabout way of taking my money to allow other people to buy cars from people who happen to be favored by the party that controlled the government at the time), but they say, all new cars must have a rear view camera (at an extra cost of a few hundred dollars to the purchaser), that they must meet certain fuel efficiency requirements, etc.

I also have no idea what you're talking about "private interests influencing public policy". That's what voting is. For example, public employee union members don't seem to get it, but it's the private sector taxpayers that pay the salaries of public employees, not just the Koch brothers or the monopoly man. I have decided that I want to get the best price possible for their services and not pay for superfluous positions like guidance counselors for elementary school students. Should I find that education is worse off for it, then maybe I'll change my mind later. Either way, I'm voting in accordance with my own private interests. But I don't know, maybe you've found group of all wise, all knowing central planners that have the answer to all those questions.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my health insurance through my company and we got a notice late last year that if Obamacare is enacted, expect our premiums to go up approx 30%. Yup, thats more an $1 increase.

I was obviously using the $1 to make a point, not to say that's what one should expect realistically. I can't speak to your specific case, but on the whole, most increases in costs would have to be coming from what I would have to assume are results of continuing to use private insurers, allowing big Pharma to run this country and any other provisions that were not agreeable to right wingers to bring down administrative costs in the industry.

My main point is that if you took every person in the US, like all 330M of em and averaged their cost of healthcare per year pre Obamacare, including all the people for which it is $0, then the average cost after it is in effect, the average cost will be less than what it was previously.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the federal government already tells you what kind of car you can buy. Sure, they don't say, you must buy GM (although the bail out of the UAW -- ahem, I mean GM -- was a roundabout way of taking my money to allow other people to buy cars from people who happen to be favored by the party that controlled the government at the time), but they say, all new cars must have a rear view camera (at an extra cost of a few hundred dollars to the purchaser), that they must meet certain fuel efficiency requirements, etc.

I also have no idea what you're talking about "private interests influencing public policy". That's what voting is. For example, public employee union members don't seem to get it, but it's the private sector taxpayers that pay the salaries of public employees, not just the Koch brothers or the monopoly man. I have decided that I want to get the best price possible for their services and not pay for superfluous positions like guidance counselors for elementary school students. Should I find that education is worse off for it, then maybe I'll change my mind later. Either way, I'm voting in accordance with my own private interests. But I don't know, maybe you've found group of all wise, all knowing central planners that have the answer to all those questions.

+1000000000000000000000000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was obviously using the $1 to make a point, not to say that's what one should expect realistically. I can't speak to your specific case, but on the whole, most increases in costs would have to be coming from what I would have to assume are results of continuing to use private insurers, allowing big Pharma to run this country and any other provisions that were not agreeable to right wingers to bring down administrative costs in the industry.

My main point is that if you took every person in the US, like all 330M of em and averaged their cost of healthcare per year pre Obamacare, including all the people for which it is $0, then the average cost after it is in effect, the average cost will be less than what it was previously.

Wrong on all accounts. Prices are not going up because of evil pharmaceutical companies and evil insurers. You have high demand for an expensive and scarce service. Prices will most assuredly go up. There is also no way you can bring down administrative costs in any significant way if there is a third party paying. Let me put it this way, if I had to personally had to pay for your necessary medical care, I damn well want to know what your doctor visits were for, why you needed that operation, why it cost so much. That will require a lot of paper work whether that third party is me personally, an insurance company or Uncle Sam.

Rather, what will bring prices down are governmental price controls. What do you think cutting Medicaid/Medicare reimbursements to doctors is designed to do? And what happens when you put a price ceiling on something? You get less supply of that something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0