Hawaii learns what happens when you start giving out universal health care

Then someone ought to fix his web site for him.

Did I say "completely tax-funded"? No, I said "government bureaucracy," and that level of oversight and "incentive-ising" will require one bitch of a bureaucracy.

Now, are you about done playing games?

Apparently you didn't understand what you were reading. Can't help you with that.

It makes sense once you stop distorting reality to suit you.

Like nobody here is gonna catch onto that.

My company provides health insurance, but half the monthly premium is paid by the employee. Health care costs have risen so steeply the past few years that the employees voted to forgo raises in order to keep their health insurance.

My money is on "it will be different this time."

Heh.

One more time, then I give up on your silly ass. Directly from BarackObama.com:

Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.

Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors.

Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care.

How do you track compliance? Bureaucracy.

Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees.

Ensure everyone who needs it will receive a tax credit for their premiums.

How do we administer a tax credit? By further expanding an existing bureaucracy.

Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.

Do I even have to fucking say it? Seriously?

When the NHS was first introduced, there was a lot of trouble with people claiming free prescriptions for liquid paraffin as a laxative and then using it for heating and lighting...

Doesn't mean that the basic idea was wrong, just that it has to be acknowledged that there are always some who will seek to circumvent the system. Frankly, I'd rather see some old dear heat her home for a few days for free than some already overpaid wanker continue to trouser large amounts of cash while the state 'saves' the banking system...
Remind me again... why is it only wrong for poor people to get what they can out of the system...?

Do you even have to say that, pro forma, you're all bent out of shape over this thing, even though it will not raise your taxes, may actually cut your healthcare costs, does not require any effort or even notice on your part and, in short, has no impact on your life whatsoever?

No.

Maybe now you can go back to bitching about people who decorate THEIR OWN HOUSES with sports memorabilia, hmm?

Um, because that kind of system's a proven failure?

Oh. And water is wet, and the sun will rise from the east tomorrow morning.

As opposed to the system that sees rich people trouser loads of wonga...?

Better a system that generates $46,000 per head, than a per capita GDP of $15,000. [The failed system you would apparently ebrace, Russia]

Or $25,000. Or even $35,000. [the system you've got]

For me, relative equality of the spoils is nowhere near as important as access to opportunity. You have a foolish end as your objective. It's foolish because it's been proven a failure, and yet people like obama and you keep trying to replicate it.

A bigger pizza is the goal, not slices that are more evenly distributed. Dimwit.

You can take the peasant out of Europe and allow him to relocate to the States, but he's still a peasant at heart. He despises the King, but he adores his local aristo, and hopes to be like him someday.

Just say the words "tax the rich," and watch him

He'll tug his forelock and check the guns in his bunker and pray every night to Mammon, firmly believing that someday he, too, can be in that upper 2%.

Oh, no. You're not weaseling out of this. You claimed Obama's health plan had nothing to do with government bureaucracy, and that my comment about the quality of screening that takes place for existing government programs has nothing to do with the subject. You were just proven wrong.

Now, in case it has already escaped your memory, you were about to answer a question.

Nope.

Well, I wouldn't have actually called you and Linda peasants.

Not to your faces, that would be rude.

I have neither the expectation nor the desire to be in that upper 2%, thank you.

Yeah... I've come to the conclusion that so many Americans vote for policies that will benefit the super-rich because they honestly believe they'll be there one day... Logic dictates that that's ridiculous, but they still have that optimism. Not being funny, but I honestly can't decide if it's touching or ridiculous... I mean, over here, we have JK Rowling, one of the richest people on the planet, still voting for policies that benefit the poor because she can remember when she was one of them. In the US, people who will never be better than reasonably well off vote to benefit the rich...

Hell, I was born poor, am reasonably well off and vote to benefit the poor. At least my conscious is clear...

.

Acutally, that's an entirely new definition of "peasant." Top 2%. Wow.

You rock. Black is white, too.

This was interesting. Right idea, wrong solution. The answer isn't limiting how much insurance companies can charge for malpractice insurance. The answer is limiting the amount of payouts that can be given for malpractice suits.

I did *not* say the upper 2% were peasants.

I said the peasants WANTED TO BE IN THE UPPER 2%.

I guess that was a good time for garamet to disappear.

For the record: Yes, Obama's plan undeniably does require both expanding and creating government bureaucracies. He comes right out and says as much.

You'd think an avid supporter would know that about her candidate's proposal, but she must not, because the only other explanation is that she resorts to outright lying to bolster her arguments, and that couldn't possibly be the case.

I haven't gone anywhere.

Then I guess you're just too busy to explain your errors, distortions and falsehoods.


That's alright. It's not like the facts require your confirmation. And you bear the shame with such grace and dignity.

For one thing, the impact of malpractice claims is greatly exaggerated. The outrageous cases get a lot of media attention, and the insurers use the climate of fear to hold docs hostage.

And, really, malpractice is only one aspect of the problem.

The real issue is the closed loop between the docs, the insurers and the pharma companies that developed as soon as for-profit insurers entered the market.

Our "poor" people are about your lower-middle class. And would be solid middle-income in Russia.

The system does make a difference.


We don't favor policies for "benefit of super-rich" - you must be a fool or blind to see it as such - we favor policies that create opportunities for success, and that reward people for their efforts. The super-rich is just a side-effect.

Then the super-rich often give away to charities. Even if they don't, jobs are created, and businesses run more efficiently if the people who earned the money decide how to spend it. Not government bureaucrats, with lifetime sinecures.

What sort of closed loop do you mean?