Thursday, August 6, 2009

The 2 Dr. Pauls

16 comments:

Christopher said...

What a liar. He meant to say that "rich Americans and Americans without predatory insurance will lose their choice". Moreover, they are only proposing a COMPETITIVE system in Congress, which makes him even more a disingenuous pile of shit. If certain procedures and drugs are too expensive for the government run system, and if private insurance is legal, then it follows that a niche insurance market will arise for procedures that the public health care system does not cover. It also follows that the rich will probably keep their own coverage for just this reason.

Christopher said...

Nor does he say anything about jobs. He doesn't say anything about China. Both Ron and Rand are lifeless, talking heads to scared or too disingenuous to look at the issue beyond their usual talking points.

Josh said...

I'm not sure what you qualify as competitive, but I do know neither one of us has read the 1100 page bill they're trying to pass, nor do we know what the finished product will be, so I'm not going to get into an argument over the substance of the bill.

"If certain procedures and drugs are too expensive for the government run system, and if private insurance is legal, then it follows that a niche insurance market will arise for procedures that the public health care system does not cover. It also follows that the rich will probably keep their own coverage for just this reason."

Right, and then the costs of these procedures and drugs will be run up because they will only be marketed towards the rich and the middle class and poor will have no ability to access them. That seems fair.

Just finished watching a rather lengthy interview with Rand Paul where he talks about the price he has to charge for different eye surgeries and how these costs are already fixed across the country by government, and they are every increasing. He compared this against the cost of contact lenses. Contact lenses exist within a free market and if Paul is to sell them, he has to compete against WalMart, so the price for contact lenses has been ever decreasing (just like everything else that exists within a free market).

What is your obsession with people not talking about china? Are they supposed to mention china everytime they get 5 mins on cable tv just to satisfy you?

Christopher said...

"I'm not sure what you qualify as competitive, but I do know neither one of us has read the 1100 page bill they're trying to pass, nor do we know what the finished product will be, so I'm not going to get into an argument over the substance of the bill."

Then maybe you should stop talking about it altogether?

LOL.

The democrats claiming they want to setup a competitive environment where the government competes with the private insurance companies.

"Right, and then the costs of these procedures and drugs will be run up because they will only be marketed towards the rich and the middle class and poor will have no ability to access them. That seems fair."

Depends on what procedures are not covered. I'm all for covering all the surgeries and treatments for the big killers and for most deadly rare diseases.

"Just finished watching a rather lengthy interview with Rand Paul where he talks about the price he has to charge for different eye surgeries and how these costs are already fixed across the country by government, and they are every increasing. He compared this against the cost of contact lenses. Contact lenses exist within a free market and if Paul is to sell them, he has to compete against WalMart, so the price for contact lenses has been ever decreasing (just like everything else that exists within a free market)."

Good, then the government will be like Walmart.

"What is your obsession with people not talking about china? Are they supposed to mention china everytime they get 5 mins on cable tv just to satisfy you?"

It is not a fascination with the Chinese, but instead with the working class. If you had done any independent thinking or had at least read some other authors than what you read now you'd know why I always stress "the Chinese".

Josh said...

"The democrats claiming they want to setup a competitive environment where the government competes with the private insurance companies."

How can insurance companies compete with a subsidized public insurance program the can afford to lose money on the backs of tax payers? Unfortunately, insurance companies exist within a market and would be driven out of business. Of course, this isn't what all the democrats want to do anyway, some want to force individual to buy insurance through insurance companies. Which is just as bad.

"Depends on what procedures are not covered. I'm all for covering all the surgeries and treatments for the big killers and for most deadly rare diseases."

WELL HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY! Lets all be happy that politicians will get to decide which treatments and which rare diseases will be covered.

"Good, then the government will be like Walmart. "

How so? Walmart exists within an competitive environment. The government does not.

"It is not a fascination with the Chinese, but instead with the working class. If you had done any independent thinking or had at least read some other authors than what you read now you'd know why I always stress "the Chinese"."

Just read a very interesting article from the NYTimes about an exodus of educated young people to China from the US. The influx of americans going to China right now is greater than ever. People know where the wealth is shifting. They know where the jobs are. And they know the standard of living in China is ever increasing, and the standard of living in the US is on the brink of collapse.

Christopher said...

"How can insurance companies compete with a subsidized public insurance program the can afford to lose money on the backs of tax payers?"

1. Fed Ex does it against the Post Office.
2. Congress keeps the Post Office lean. Since Congress doesn't want big government, you know... Oh yeah, that's right, you don't. You live in a world of "THE GOVERNMENT".

"Unfortunately, insurance companies exist within a market and would be driven out of business."

Nope, you are wrong.

"Of course, this isn't what all the democrats want to do anyway, some want to force individual to buy insurance through insurance companies. Which is just as bad."

Sorry, you are wrong again. They are proposing a system that would compete with the corporate death panels.

"WELL HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY! Lets all be happy that politicians will get to decide which treatments and which rare diseases will be covered."

WELL HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY! Lets all jump and down with joy that corporate CEOS and executives pay large bonuses to their doctor led death panels to reject as many of their paying customers as possible! Happy HAPPY JOY! JOY! Let's all rejoice that private health insurance DOES NOT cover millions of people and is HENCE immoral. Yay, immoral!

Christopher said...

"How so? Walmart exists within an competitive environment. The government does not."

More of that libertard ideology, Josh. The gov is controlled by a competitive body known as Congress.

"Just read a very interesting article from the NYTimes about an exodus of educated young people to China from the US. The influx of americans going to China right now is greater than ever. People know where the wealth is shifting. They know where the jobs are. And they know the standard of living in China is ever increasing, and the standard of living in the US is on the brink of collapse."

Bullshit. They are engineering professionals and other professional who know they can be paid the same high wages or salaries in China if they are willing to move. I know many of them here in Korea. They are paid very well, while the Koreans are paid, relatively speaking, much less. Again, you need to drop the libertard shit. The entire American and Canadian working class is not moving to China. NOT. DONT MAKE STUPID ARGUMENTS>

Josh said...

"Fed Ex does it against the Post Office."

Yes, and the post office is running a $9 billion deficit this year.

"Congress keeps the Post Office lean."

Yes, so lean, its running a $9 billion deficit this year.

"Let's all rejoice that private health insurance DOES NOT cover millions of people and is HENCE immoral"

That millions are without health insurance does not therefore conclude private health insurance is immoral. Private health insurance companies are typically immoral for a whole host of other reasons, but they can afford to thanks to the managed health care system the Nixon gave the US which subsidizes health insurance companies.

"They are engineering professionals and other professional who know they can be paid the same high wages or salaries in China if they are willing to move."

The article's focus was more focused on individuals moving to China to start their own businesses, as it is very cheap to do so and less regulated.

Christopher said...

"Yes, and the post office is running a $9 billion deficit this year."

You just changed the subject. Please don't do that.

The deficit is a separate issue related to the body politic allowing corporations to hire slave labor in China.

"Yes, so lean, its running a $9 billion deficit this year."

Stop changing the subject. You have been beaten. Fed Ex competes against the Post Office successfully.

"That millions are without health insurance does not therefore conclude private health insurance is immoral."

Yes, because those same insurance companies oppose socialized medicine, which is immoral. Not wanting to help your fellow person in time of dire need is IMMORAL. It is greed pure and simple. However, in Canada, people who profit are not necessarily immoral, because there is a system that covers everyone. Morality is based on what is univerlizable to everyone.

Private health insurance companies are typically immoral for a whole host of other reasons, but they can afford to thanks to the managed health care system the Nixon gave the US which subsidizes health insurance companies."

Again, the nature of health insurance will always lead to bigger companies. That there is subsidization is irrelevant. The only way to make the system efficient and moral is to socialize it.

"That millions are without health insurance does not therefore conclude private health insurance is immoral. Private health insurance companies are typically immoral for a whole host of other reasons, but they can afford to thanks to the managed health care system the Nixon gave the US which subsidizes health insurance companies."

Yes, I know, which is why your retort was a dickish of just how immoral, against liberrty, and stupid your position is.

Josh said...

"Stop changing the subject. You have been beaten. Fed Ex competes against the Post Office successfully."

I'm not changing the subject. Its inter-related. Fedex does compete, but only for premium services. We'll end up with private insurers for the rich which allow the elite to still get premium health care while the middle class will be stuck with a health care system that's going to cost multiples of its projected $1 trillion while providing poor service. And thats if the public option even gets passed.

"Yes, because those same insurance companies oppose socialized medicine, which is immoral."

No, stealing money from individuals is immoral.

"It is greed pure and simple."

Politicians and bureaucrats are not greedy?

"That there is subsidization is irrelevant."

Redistributing money and power through the use of force is never irrelevant.

"Yes, I know, which is why your retort was a dickish of just how immoral, against liberrty, and stupid your position is."

I do not understand why I'm being immoral or how you can say I'm against liberty.

Christopher said...

"I'm not changing the subject. Its inter-related. Fedex does compete, but only for premium services. We'll end up with private insurers for the rich which allow the elite to still get premium health care while the middle class will be stuck with a health care system that's going to cost multiples of its projected $1 trillion while providing poor service. And thats if the public option even gets passed."

That is definitely not necessarily true. A public health care system will only provide inferior services if it is underfunded. The liberals cut the system and Harper sits on his hands when the system in Canada needs more money and a processes reform to make it more efficient. No, Josh, you don't know what you are talking about.

Christopher said...

"No, stealing money from individuals is immoral.'

Stealing and morality are not equal, Josh. Morality is not simply stealing. Morality is how and individual or system treats other people. A system that pays slave wages or provides health care only to those who can pay is IMMORAL.

"Politicians and bureaucrats are not greedy?"

Depends on whom you vote into office. I don't believe Obama is greedy. I believe he is too weak-willed.

"Redistributing money and power through the use of force is never irrelevant."

Redistributing wealth is the only road to a moral society. Your road leads to ultra-rich and ultra-poor.

That millions are without health insurance does not therefore conclude private health insurance is immoral.

"Yes, I know, which is why your retort was a dickish of just how immoral, against liberrty, and stupid your position is."

Josh said...

"The liberals cut the system"

I liberals cut health care?

"Morality is how and individual or system treats other people."

Yes. And if a system or individual steals from other individuals, its immoral; it is unjust.

"A system that pays slave wages"

Wrong. A system that forces individuals to accept slave wages is immoral.

"Redistributing wealth is the only road to a moral society. Your road leads to ultra-rich and ultra-poor."

Please support this with a historical reference.

"Depends on whom you vote into office. I don't believe Obama is greedy. I believe he is too weak-willed."

You can be greedy and weak-willed, and Obama certainly is greedy. He's a greedy liar. He's a puppet of the banks.

Christopher said...

"I liberals cut health care?"

Yes, they made cuts.

"Yes. And if a system or individual steals from other individuals, its immoral; it is unjust."

Yes, and if that very same system creates dire poverty for the profit of a few the "stealing" becomes moral, because those who work to create profit deserve a moral share. Therefore, taxes are not stealing. BUT THAT IS OKAY, HEY JOSH! AS LONG AS THEY CHOOSE TO WORK FOR THE MAN WHEN THERE ARE NO OTHER BETTER JOBS MEANS IT IS MORAL DIRE POVERTY. Lol, what a dumb argument that is!

"Please support this with a historical reference."

Post WWII North America and Europe.

Josh said...

"Yes, they made cuts."

LOL

"those who work to create profit deserve a moral share."

Their moral share is that which is agree upon with those who provide the work.

"Therefore, taxes are not stealing."

Yes it is. I agree with my employer to work for $2000/week. I work the week and then the employer hands me my $2000 and against my will the government physically removes $750 from my hands. The only thing they're missing is a mask.

Pre World War II America had the richest middle class in the world. Of course they had been hit hard by a depression. Why not say pre 1913 America? Still the richest middle class in the world.

Christopher said...

"LOL"

Clinton did as well. Good thing I'm not a democrat!

"Their moral share is that which is agree upon with those who provide the work."

Not at all, because the agreement of employment is a power relationship in which the worker is the weaker actor individually. The capitalists, as we have seen, do want to profit any way they can. If that means taking the worker's moral share, then they will do it and hence pay slave wages.

"Yes it is. I agree with my employer to work for $2000/week. I work the week and then the employer hands me my $2000 and against my will the government physically removes $750 from my hands. The only thing they're missing is a mask.'

If the capitalist can get away with paying you a low, next to basic living wage, he or she will. That's because capitalism is a power relationship, not an ethical, principle-based construct. In other words, if there is a huge supply of workers, then it follows that the capitalist can take worker's fair share of the profits without any fear of retribution. The worker is the weak party, not the capitalist.

"Pre World War II America had the richest middle class in the world."

And? Are you really going to say that capitalism is good because it is marginally better than slave societies? C'mon, we both know that argument is retarded.

Also, the middle class at that point DID NOT include the workers. Yes, I'm sure the doctors, lawyers, managers, and small business owners were doing good. And I am sure by the 1920s they were having a "roaring" time, but that doesn't mean the majority was enjoying those benefits.

"Of course they had been hit hard by a depression. Why not say pre 1913 America? Still the richest middle class in the world."

So, capitalism is better because it pays just-above-poverty wages and that is better than slave society. LOL> I'd love to see you guys make that stick when profits demand poverty level wages to make a profit for their shareholders. Christ, the very first form of private, non-personal property was the slave. What makes you think private property can't return to that form of society, Josh?