<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/90EypGgrJzI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/90EypGgrJzI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Only a bleeding heart liberal would try and 'fix' something with more government that has already been broken by government...
Hillary Care is a nightmare from hell!
********************************************************
<hr noshade="noshade" size="1"> <!-- end option --> [FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,][SIZE=+2]Socialized medicine is not the solution[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
Despite the claims of socialists, Democrats and many others, there is no "right" to adequate health care. Rights are endowed by the Creator and are limited to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All other so-called rights are manufactured by governments. Governments are not empowered to grant rights; governments can only limit or extinguish rights. Governments can, however, bestow gifts upon its citizens. But to do so, governments must first take resources from those who have earned them and redistribute those resources to others.
HillaryCare, ObamaCare, EdwardsCare and every other form of socialized medicine is inherently fraught with fraud, abuse and corruption. What's more, these systems are necessarily designed to reduce the level of service while driving up the costs.
Medicare should be a sufficient example to send all voters running away from any suggestion of getting the federal government any deeper into the health care business. Economists and politicians alike predict the collapse of the current government-run health care program. It makes no sense at all even to think about expanding government's roll in the medical business. There is simply no way government can run a health care program that will not end in disaster.
Why? Consider a small, simple real-life example. Patient A has a breathing problem. To qualify for oxygen, his blood-oxygen saturation had to register below a certain level. An oxygen service provider chose a third-party contractor to perform the saturation test. The test consisted of placing a clothespin-type device on the end of the index finger and recording the number that registered on a small hand-held machine. This was called the pre-stress test. Then the contractor asked the patient to walk back and forth across the room twice, and re-attached the clothespin to the index finger and recorded a post-stress number. This test was repeated the next day, a Medicare requirement, according to the contractor.
When the bill for this service arrived, the amount was $245 for each reading. It may have taken five minutes. Medicare paid $110 of the amount, a secondary insurance company was billed for the balance. The insurance company paid $88, and the patient was billed for the remaining $47.
The $47 amount should have been more than sufficient to cover the actual cost of the test, including the time of the tester and the cost of the equipment, and still provide profit for the contractor. Since Medicare has stated in advance that it will pay $110 for this service, the provider is naturally going to get the maximum it can get for the service. Since there is a secondary insurance company involved, the pricing is driven upward to get however much the insurance company is willing to pay.
Whether the patient pays the remaining $47 is of little concern to the contractor; he has already made far more money than the service was worth. Magnify this process up through the range of medical services that are provided, and then multiply it by the millions of people who need medical services each day, and it is easy to see why the Medicare system is destined for collapse and why no further expansion of government's involvement should be tolerated.
But everyone is happy. The patient got the service for a cost of $47. The third-party contractor made a day's pay. The oxygen service provider got a new customer, and dozens of people employed to push paper from one end of the country to the other all kept their jobs.
The system is designed to encourage people to take advantage of the government, the insurance companies and the patient. This problem is inherent in all socialized medical programs. Presidential candidates and Congress hopefuls should be thinking in a completely different direction. The goal should be to strengthen free-market principles throughout the health care system, rather than to ignore them.
Competition among the various medical service providers should be the first goal toward strengthening free-market principles. When government guarantees a minimum price, it will be the starting point for pricing. In a free market, the starting point would be whatever the patient can afford. It will outrage the socialists to think that providers might gravitate toward the rich while the poor might be left to fend for themselves and, therefore, get left without service. This is what led to government's involvement in the first place.
When the nation set out to help those without adequate health care, it took the wrong road; it took the socialist road rather than the free-market road. Now the nation is in a mess, but it's not too late to back up and do it right.
In an ideal world, neighbors would help less fortunate citizens meet their health needs, but why should they if government insists on doing it. There are a few good examples of good neighbor health care. St. Jude's Childrens' Hospital in Memphis is supported by private donations and serves many patients who cannot afford the care they receive. This example is replicated, in various scales, in communities throughout the country.
If the federal government is to be involved in health care, it should be looking toward encouraging and providing incentives for private medical care that is determined between the patient and provider. The problem is complex and cannot be solved by any government program. Health care is certainly one of the primary areas where the principles of freedom should be observed and advanced. Any candidate or politician who thinks government can solve the problem better than a free market should be rejected.
Hillary Care is a nightmare from hell!
********************************************************
<hr noshade="noshade" size="1"> <!-- end option --> [FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,][SIZE=+2]Socialized medicine is not the solution[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
Despite the claims of socialists, Democrats and many others, there is no "right" to adequate health care. Rights are endowed by the Creator and are limited to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All other so-called rights are manufactured by governments. Governments are not empowered to grant rights; governments can only limit or extinguish rights. Governments can, however, bestow gifts upon its citizens. But to do so, governments must first take resources from those who have earned them and redistribute those resources to others.
HillaryCare, ObamaCare, EdwardsCare and every other form of socialized medicine is inherently fraught with fraud, abuse and corruption. What's more, these systems are necessarily designed to reduce the level of service while driving up the costs.
Medicare should be a sufficient example to send all voters running away from any suggestion of getting the federal government any deeper into the health care business. Economists and politicians alike predict the collapse of the current government-run health care program. It makes no sense at all even to think about expanding government's roll in the medical business. There is simply no way government can run a health care program that will not end in disaster.
Why? Consider a small, simple real-life example. Patient A has a breathing problem. To qualify for oxygen, his blood-oxygen saturation had to register below a certain level. An oxygen service provider chose a third-party contractor to perform the saturation test. The test consisted of placing a clothespin-type device on the end of the index finger and recording the number that registered on a small hand-held machine. This was called the pre-stress test. Then the contractor asked the patient to walk back and forth across the room twice, and re-attached the clothespin to the index finger and recorded a post-stress number. This test was repeated the next day, a Medicare requirement, according to the contractor.
When the bill for this service arrived, the amount was $245 for each reading. It may have taken five minutes. Medicare paid $110 of the amount, a secondary insurance company was billed for the balance. The insurance company paid $88, and the patient was billed for the remaining $47.
The $47 amount should have been more than sufficient to cover the actual cost of the test, including the time of the tester and the cost of the equipment, and still provide profit for the contractor. Since Medicare has stated in advance that it will pay $110 for this service, the provider is naturally going to get the maximum it can get for the service. Since there is a secondary insurance company involved, the pricing is driven upward to get however much the insurance company is willing to pay.
Whether the patient pays the remaining $47 is of little concern to the contractor; he has already made far more money than the service was worth. Magnify this process up through the range of medical services that are provided, and then multiply it by the millions of people who need medical services each day, and it is easy to see why the Medicare system is destined for collapse and why no further expansion of government's involvement should be tolerated.
But everyone is happy. The patient got the service for a cost of $47. The third-party contractor made a day's pay. The oxygen service provider got a new customer, and dozens of people employed to push paper from one end of the country to the other all kept their jobs.
The system is designed to encourage people to take advantage of the government, the insurance companies and the patient. This problem is inherent in all socialized medical programs. Presidential candidates and Congress hopefuls should be thinking in a completely different direction. The goal should be to strengthen free-market principles throughout the health care system, rather than to ignore them.
Competition among the various medical service providers should be the first goal toward strengthening free-market principles. When government guarantees a minimum price, it will be the starting point for pricing. In a free market, the starting point would be whatever the patient can afford. It will outrage the socialists to think that providers might gravitate toward the rich while the poor might be left to fend for themselves and, therefore, get left without service. This is what led to government's involvement in the first place.
When the nation set out to help those without adequate health care, it took the wrong road; it took the socialist road rather than the free-market road. Now the nation is in a mess, but it's not too late to back up and do it right.
In an ideal world, neighbors would help less fortunate citizens meet their health needs, but why should they if government insists on doing it. There are a few good examples of good neighbor health care. St. Jude's Childrens' Hospital in Memphis is supported by private donations and serves many patients who cannot afford the care they receive. This example is replicated, in various scales, in communities throughout the country.
If the federal government is to be involved in health care, it should be looking toward encouraging and providing incentives for private medical care that is determined between the patient and provider. The problem is complex and cannot be solved by any government program. Health care is certainly one of the primary areas where the principles of freedom should be observed and advanced. Any candidate or politician who thinks government can solve the problem better than a free market should be rejected.
Can we expect Fredrick of Hollywood to privatize VA hospitals and Medicare? I mean, obviously these socialist entities would be better served by private business wouldn't they? Emails to his campaign asking have gone unanswered.
The clown can't even tell the truth about when he goes to church - that "garsh folks" thing might play in the sticks - but with Dobson giving him the snub and many previous supporters totally dissapointed in his recent turnouts, it's an uphill climb for the former Klan actor.
The clown can't even tell the truth about when he goes to church - that "garsh folks" thing might play in the sticks - but with Dobson giving him the snub and many previous supporters totally dissapointed in his recent turnouts, it's an uphill climb for the former Klan actor.
:lolBIG:
I don't have the ego you do trying to 'cure' every social ill. My 'solution' is.. nothing.
How is it my problem if you can't afford to feed and house yourself? Besides, there is something called 'charity' for individuals who happen to be down on their luck.
Contrary to your socialist brainwashing, government was never intended to be parent, teacher, doctor and clergyman -- and the unholy fiscal mess we're in proves it!
Republicans will continue to lose elections if they keep trying to "out-socialize" the Marxist party. We need to return to our roots and principles -- the ones espounded by the framers...
"Fred-eralism."
Its cheaper in the long run to provide those kinda things for the masses Joe.
If you don't, they eventually turn around and bite you in the ass.
We all have the absolute right to survive, including the use of deadly force to ensure our personal safety.
No law supercedes this right, ever.
This is the absolute law of genetic survival.
The right to survive includes destroying or killing anything or anyone that can hinder your own survival or the survival of members of your family.
That "anything" includes Governments, private health cabals, the Republican ruling classes...and irritating neocon pundits.
If you don't, they eventually turn around and bite you in the ass.
Rights are limited to the right to survive Joe, everything else is horseshit.
We all have the absolute right to survive, including the use of deadly force to ensure our personal safety.
No law supercedes this right, ever.
This is the absolute law of genetic survival.
The right to survive includes destroying or killing anything or anyone that can hinder your own survival or the survival of members of your family.
That "anything" includes Governments, private health cabals, the Republican ruling classes...and irritating neocon pundits.
Sometimes people accept their fate, for whatever reason:
A majority of Jewish people let themselves be sent off without a fight during WW2.
A majority of Americans allow themselves to be at the mercy and the beck and call of a gigantic private healthcare lottery.
Not everyone accepts their fate in this way though Joe, sometimes people fight back and get themselves increased rights.
It just depends how much sack ya got.
A majority of Jewish people let themselves be sent off without a fight during WW2.
A majority of Americans allow themselves to be at the mercy and the beck and call of a gigantic private healthcare lottery.
Not everyone accepts their fate in this way though Joe, sometimes people fight back and get themselves increased rights.
It just depends how much sack ya got.
Its cheaper in the long run to provide those kinda things for the masses Joe.
If you don't, they eventually turn around and bite you in the ass.
Rights are limited to the right to survive Joe, everything else is horseshit.
We all have the absolute right to survive, including the use of deadly force to ensure our personal safety.
No law supercedes this right, ever.
This is the absolute law of genetic survival.
The right to survive includes destroying or killing anything or anyone that can hinder your own survival or the survival of members of your family.
That "anything" includes Governments, private health cabals, the Republican ruling classes...and irritating neocon pundits.
Absolutely ridiculous.
eek, a positive right imposes a moral obligation on a person to do something for someone, while a negative right merely obliges others to refrain from interfering with someone's attempt to do something.
Do you understand the difference?
Choose one. You can't have both because the former violates the later. It's a slippery slope for the positive rights fetishists because the ends always justify the means. That's how Karl Marx invented communism.
eek goes and robs Preussen's home because he believes Joe C. should be 'entitled' to xyz. Why, thank you, eek, you shouldn't have. How is it the Lord blessed you with such a generous heart? :nopityA:
The modern socialist liberal is engaged in an exercise moral and economic futility; that is to redefine Jesus' genuine, personal, volitional love for the poor as the same as their impersonal, coercive, compassionless, statist welfare machinery.
No surprise then these half-baked Keynesian theories violate every fundamental economic principle in the book. That is why sooner or later, the socialist nanny welfare state will end up on the same ash heap as it's communist counterpart.
In the end, liberty always triumphs over tyranny -- always. The framers were right...and Hillary and the rest of the moonbats could not be more misguided and wrong.
:lolBIG:
I don't have the ego you do trying to 'cure' every social ill. My 'solution' is.. nothing.
How is it my problem if you can't afford to feed and house yourself? Besides, there is something called 'charity' for individuals who happen to be down on their luck.
Contrary to your socialist brainwashing, government was never intended to be parent, teacher, doctor and clergyman -- and the unholy fiscal mess we're in proves it!
Republicans will continue to lose elections if they keep trying to "out-socialize" the Marxist party. We need to return to our roots and principles -- the ones espounded by the framers...
"Fred-eralism."
I gotta admit, Republicans like this have a great racket. You argue that government is bad and can't get anything done. Then you get elected and prove your point. Brilliant, really.
It is your porblem because otherwise you have heaps of hopeless people that will commit crimes against those that can afford these things. Then you can jail these people, I suppose, at even great cost. Or I suppose you could kill em all, but would that mesh with the "sanctity of life" stuff that you surely talk about? Meanswhile, you want to have even more have-nots by not allowing them access to birth control and abortion.
It's in soeciety's best interests to have safety net and to try to provide a minimum life for all citizenry. How wealthy and prosperous is soceity truly if there is a huge population that is hungry, homeless, without education, without healthcare, etc? In reality, the really smart welathy people understand this and have no problem with government keeping the masses as protected as possible. It's in their overall best interests to keep the current system in place under which they've been able to prosper. More important than having a few extra dollars in the bank.
I think you have a disconnect with the natural world.
Maybe its time for people to learn how to plant a garden instead of eating the 1$ menu at Mcdonalds. then going to the doctor and taking a pill
Maybe the rich approve because they own the healthcare, drug companies, and McDonalds
You are 100% wrong. And im not saying the current healthcare system is better but socialized medicine is for sheep
