Gingrich on the health care mandate

[a777pilot]

This is just so incredibly stupid.

Please, just one of you tell me what health insurance has to do with health care?

Unbelievable! I mean, I just can't believe this ****.

 

[Dr.Who]

I am less against it then I am telling the poor to die if they can't afford health care.

This is sooo tiresome.

The ONLY ones telling people to die are those that propose socialistic type of health care and blow hards. If you cant realize that the blowhards need to be ignored and stop spouting off baseless rhetoric then you will lose respect.

 

[Dr.Who]

The rest of us should be forced to pay for, or at the very least subsidize, people who can't afford HC... That is your position. Of course your rationale is that we're forced to pay anyway, so we may as well make it official policy...

People who earn an income are subject to the Income Tax... That's official policy. However, 47% avoid contributing to the Income Tax, leaving the other 53% responsible for covering 100% of the Income Tax bill.

Your "plan" to make "everyone" pay for HC would just be more of the same, a larger and larger % of people would be exempted from having to contribute while a smaller and smaller % of the population would face ever increasing taxes in an attempt to cover the difference.
.

We can see how well that is working in Europe. A few years ago (and people sometimes still say it) Europe was the model we were to emulate. Today they are about to implode. And we are bailing them out! I believe that too is unconstitutional to use US tax money for the charity of people in other countries - it is certainly not authorized by any clause of the constitution nor is it in any way for the general welfare of US citizense or states.

 

[Dr.Who]

Inefficient? Why is it then that every nation that has UHC pays less than we do? Inefficient is the description of the patchwork system we have in the US.

Thy only pay less on the books and only according to biased sources. But they do pay in so many other ways. Let me count the ways: constant unemployment, riots, loss of freedoms, stagnating creativity, long lines for health care, rationing, lack of medical equipment, lack of privacy in health care,...

 

[Dr.Who]

Rationing? Oh, no, not rationing!

As opposed to the unlimited health care that we currently enjoy, who would want rationing?

The health care options we have are limited just like every other resource on the planet. But the limits we do have are far far better and fairer than rationing.

 

[Dr.Who]

perhaps a closer look is in order

[] Why is Lipitor 43 cents in France and considerably more elsewhere ?
.

When I take a train downtown it cost me $7 for the ticket. It also cost the rest of you $35 in subsidies. So is the cost of the trainride $7 or $42? Obviously the true cost is $42.

So when a patient in France pays 43 cents for lipitor but the gov subsidized the cost by who knows how much the true cost is certainly higher than 43 cents.

The better system is the one in which people actually know how much an item costs so that market forces can work. A consumer cannot make a rational choice if he does not even know how much he is paying for a thing.

Additionally the cost of lipitor in the US should include that it is free if you can't afford it.

http://www.freemedicine.com/medlist/Lipitor.shtml

 

[Gipper]

Thy only pay less on the books and only according to biased sources. But they do pay in so many other ways. Let me count the ways: constant unemployment, riots, loss of freedoms, stagnating creativity, long lines for health care, rationing, lack of medical equipment, lack of privacy in health care,...

Those are very good points.

The consequences of government controlled HC like all things controlled by central governments, always causes much greater harm than the private sector.

How come many Americans are incapable of understanding this when it is so apparent to anyone capable of thinking?

 

[Dr.Who]

Those are very good points.

The consequences of government controlled HC like all things controlled by central governments, always causes much greater harm than the private sector.

How come many Americans are incapable of understanding this when it is so apparent to anyone capable of thinking?

They want their Obama money and it doesn't matter as long as they get it. It is very easy to be short sighted and want the one candy bar today rather than the two tomorrow.

This is equally true of the crazy lady famous for the phrase "Obama money" as it is for an insurance company that wants new customers today but accepts increasing regulation tomorrow.

 

[Dr.Who]

You're a pragmatist, you believe in doing "whatever works"... Why not force everyone to eat a healthy balanced diet, force everyone to perform a daily exercise regimen, force everyone to have regular checkups to catch problems early, ban any activity that poses a threat to ones health, etc.?
.

I believe every one of those is in the works, e.g.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10007-fda-proposes-regulating-salt-in-food

The only saving grace is that american ingenuity can often overcome, e.g.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/econo...asy-way-to-evade-san-francisco-happy-meal-ban

Regular people on the other hand suffer greatly, e.g.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/the_casualties_of_the_governments_war_on_obesity.html

 

[dogtowner]

When I take a train downtown it cost me $7 for the ticket. It also cost the rest of you $35 in subsidies. So is the cost of the trainride $7 or $42? Obviously the true cost is $42.

So when a patient in France pays 43 cents for lipitor but the gov subsidized the cost by who knows how much the true cost is certainly higher than 43 cents.

The better system is the one in which people actually know how much an item costs so that market forces can work. A consumer cannot make a rational choice if he does not even know how much he is paying for a thing.

Additionally the cost of lipitor in the US should include that it is free if you can't afford it.

http://www.freemedicine.com/medlist/Lipitor.shtml

well yes, subsides certainly apply but I believe it goes well past that fairly simple application. who educates the medical people and how ? are the medical people educated and to what extent ? how does this vary by location ? liability... is there any ? some ? limited ? and of course does the care cease when the budget is met for socialized medicine ? meanin g that there is 4300 francs budgeted for Lipitor in France so the first 10,000 get it and the rest don't ? whats the quality of that Lipitor ? is it really Lipitor ?

the list goes on and on...

 

[PLC1]

well yes, subsides certainly apply but I believe it goes well past that fairly simple application. who educates the medical people and how ? are the medical people educated and to what extent ? how does this vary by location ? liability... is there any ? some ? limited ? and of course does the care cease when the budget is met for socialized medicine ? meanin g that there is 4300 francs budgeted for Lipitor in France so the first 10,000 get it and the rest don't ? whats the quality of that Lipitor ? is it really Lipitor ?

the list goes on and on...

I really don't think it works that way. The WHO would not have rated France's health care system #1. The outcomes would not be as good as they are there.

Did you know that France pays about as much for their entire health care system as the US pays for Medicare for seniors?

as a percent of GDP, that is.

Interesting little bit of data.

 

[dogtowner]

I really don't think it works that way. The WHO would not have rated France's health care system #1. The outcomes would not be as good as they are there.

Did you know that France pays about as much for their entire health care system as the US pays for Medicare for seniors?

as a percent of GDP, that is.

Interesting little bit of data.

well there is no magic that makes Lipitor cost a fraction of what it does even relative to neighboring countries.

I'm not so sure they are as inexpensive as they appear, jus don't kow why. Outcomes are not a sure indicator given the poor lifestyle choices of all too many Americans relative to foreigners. I kind of liked the comparitive pricing as thats a pretty foolproof metric. Now just sorting out the why.

 

[PLC1]

well there is no magic that makes Lipitor cost a fraction of what it does even relative to neighboring countries.

I'm not so sure they are as inexpensive as they appear, jus don't kow why. Outcomes are not a sure indicator given the poor lifestyle choices of all too many Americans relative to foreigners. I kind of liked the comparitive pricing as thats a pretty foolproof metric. Now just sorting out the why.

I'm not sure if the French make better lifestyle choices than Americans do, but maybe. Have you ever heard of the French paradox?

 

[a777pilot]

Why all the talk about the French? This is America.

 

[dogtowner]

I'm not sure if the French make better lifestyle choices than Americans do, but maybe. Have you ever heard of the French paradox?

well its mainly tradition but recently I'm reading that these traditions are fading and health issues we have that are lifestyle related are on the rise there straining their healthcare systems unlike years past.

no never have. looked into it, saw this...

The French Paradox is the observation that French people suffer a relatively low incidence of coronary heart disease, despite having a diet relatively rich in saturated fats.[1] The term French Paradox was coined by Serge Renaud, a scientist from Bordeaux University in France.[2]


When a description of this paradox was aired in the United States on 60 Minutes in 1991 with the speculation that red wine decreases the incidence of cardiac diseases, the consumption of red wine increased 44% and some wineries began lobbying for the right to label their products "health food."[3]


The authors of a review of dietary studies concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between consumption of saturated fats and coronary heart disease risk,[4] and statistics collected by the WHO from 1990–2000 show that the incidence of heart disease in France may have been underestimated, and may in fact be similar to that of neighboring countries.[3]

more instances of our incomplete understanding of science it seems : )

if I were to guess I'd bet that they have become more sedentary over time changing the paradigm with a little more detection thrown in along the way. Americans used to eat high fat diets with little (apparent) trouble til we moved away from an agrarian country. trouble is we LIKED those eggs, butter, pork etc and just kept consuming mass quantities.