Swiss to vote on $2,800 monthly income for all adults - DUmmies drool

[lastparker]

On that, we will never agree.  The "free market" has had plenty of time to insure that all Americans have adequate and reasonable free access to health care, and it has failed.  I am not interested in giving it more time.  Government needed to do something, and it did.  Not sure what government intrusion you think was preventing the free market from solving this problem, but Congress ran out of patience in 2010 and decided to do something.  Thus the ACA FCA.
Perhaps.  We'll see after the ACA FCA vhas been operational for a few years exactly whom it serves and how well it does so.  We won't know until we try it. (Pelosism: we have to pass it to see what's in it....)
Spot on.  I am on record saying that nobody needs health insurance.  What people need is free health care, and, as you rightly note, those are very different things.  Sadly, it appears we can't guarantee free health care[/b] to all Americans.  Instead, as a compromise, Democrats decided to try the Heritage Foundation's plan from the 1990s to guarantee health insurance for all Americans.  I think that was a stupid move, and I have said so.  I'd much rather we guaranteed and insured mandated taxpayer funding so that all Americans have access to free health care.

-Laelth

You libs keep confusing the concept of "adequate" with "free".  I have fixed your statement to reflect what you REALLY meant to say.  Because, in my experience, hospitals typically treat anyone who rolls through the door and writes off the unpaid bills later (of course all write offs are recouped in the form of higher costs billed to those of us who DO pay our bills).

[Laelth]

You libs keep confusing the concept of "adequate" with "free".  I have fixed your statement to reflect what you REALLY meant to say.  Because, in my experience, hospitals typically treat anyone who rolls through the door and writes off the unpaid bills later (of course all write offs are recouped in the form of higher costs billed to those of us who DO pay our bills).

Nothing is "free" in this society, as you well know.  Not sure what you're driving at.

-Laelth

[txradioguy]

You libs keep confusing the concept of "adequate" with "free".  I have fixed your statement to reflect what you REALLY meant to say.  Because, in my experience, hospitals typically treat anyone who rolls through the door and writes off the unpaid bills later (of course all write offs are recouped in the form of higher costs billed to those of us who DO pay our bills).

It's actually federal law that if you show up at the emergency room they have to treat you whether you can pay or not. It's the reason. That so many of the ER's have closed in CA. The illegals were bankrupting the hospitals by flooding their ER's to get treated

This notion that the professional leftists like Laelth put up about people beimg denied healthcare in the US is just a flat out lie.  So is the actial number if uninsured

[txradioguy]

Nothing is "free" in this society, as you well know.  Not sure what you're driving at.

-Laelth

Then why push for free health insurance? Would YOU work for free in DC if they suddenly declared that anyone working on The Hill wouldn't get paid?

Go back to Georgia start your own law firm and take nothing but pro Bono cases.

I mean after all that's what you're advocating the health insurance industry and doctors do.

[Freeper]

If the free market and the private sector had already solved these problems, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  As a liberal, when I see a problem (like a large percentage of the American people uninsured and lacking adequate access to health care--just as an example) that neither the free market, nor charity, nor anything else has been able to fix, I think it's prudent to ask what the government could do to solve these problems.  In my mind, that's what the government is for.

LOL.  No, you're right.  I don't want you to answer that one.

 

-Laelth

Well government has been trying to fix poverty since the 1960s we still have lots of poverty and record numbers of people on government assistance today. Obviously even the almighty government that you love so much has failed. So what's your solution? Even more of the same that has failed.

You said that people not having health insurance is a problem. So the government steps in and makes it even more expensive with the added bonus of fines for not having it. Sounds like a piss poor solution to me.

[wasp69]

The "free market" has had plenty of time to insure that all Americans have adequate and reasonable access to health care, and it has failed.  I am not interested in giving it more time.  Government needed to do something, and it did.  Not sure what government intrusion you think was preventing the free market from solving this problem, but Congress ran out of patience in 2010 and decided to do something.  Thus the ACA.

Oh, this is just rich!

Insurance, especially health insurance, is one of the most highly regulated industries in the country.  For anyone to suggest what we have had over the past several decades (especially after the government HMO "fix") is somehow or another a "free market" solution is a very special kind of stupid.

To also suggest democrats (there were zero republican votes) swung into action to save the day is also hilarious.  You don't call the guy who set the fire to come put it out, troll.

Free market insurance....   

[Carl]

Oh, this is just rich!

Insurance, especially health insurance, is one of the most highly regulated industries in the country.  For anyone to suggest what we have had over the past several decades (especially after the government HMO "fix") is somehow or another a "free market" solution is a very special kind of stupid.

To also suggest democrats (there were zero republican votes) swung into action to save the day is also hilarious.  You don't call the guy who set the fire to come put it out, troll.

Free market insurance....   

Just to help the DUmbass out a little...

https://www.google.com/search?q=selling+health+insurance+across+state+lines+bad+idea&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Seems leftists have been hell bent to kill free market competition.
What say you Laelth?

[USA4ME]

I've been away from here so long, that I have to ask what is probably common knowledge:  Lealth -are you currently employed?

I see he didn't answer.

He claims to be a lawyer in Macon, GA.

.

[Laelth]

Just to help the DUmbass out a little...

https://www.google.com/search?q=selling+health+insurance+across+state+lines+bad+idea&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Seems leftists have been hell bent to kill free market competition.
What say you Laelth?

That's a very bad idea.  It'll be just like the banks (that moved to Delaware and South Dakota to get the most business-friendly laws that they could then impose on all 50 states and thereby circumvent the laws, the people, and the regulations of each of those states through a federal fiat).  If you actually believe in a limited federal government that can't easily impose its will on the states, you should oppose a "national" insurance scheme that would allow Delaware law to supplant Georgia law on the complicated issues that arise from insurance policies.

-Laelth

[Carl]

That's a very bad idea.  It'll be just like the banks (that moved to Delaware and South Dakota to get the most business-friendly laws that they could then impose on all 50 states and thereby circumvent the laws, the people, and the regulations of each of those states through a federal fiat).  If you actually believe in a limited federal government that can't easily impose its will on the states, you should oppose a "national" insurance scheme that would allow Delaware law to supplant Georgia law on the complicated issues that arise from insurance policies.

-Laelth

Not surprisingly your answer is more government and regulations on all levels.
TRG was 100% correct in his assessment.

[Freeper]

Not surprisingly your answer is more government and regulations on all levels.
TRG was 100% correct in his assessment.

That is the leftist answer to everything, more government with more power and less and less power for the people.

Leftists view us all as children in need of some government agency to hold our hands all through life. They have no desire for freedom and no desire for us to be free either.

[98ZJUSMC]

And le ME say it again.  Government isn't the answer, it's the problem.

You sit there knowing that tax rates...out of control regulation and Obamacare are killing the free market right now and declare "the free market is dead".

You Liberals have created the ultimate self licking ice cream cone and then claim innocence and deny your own complicity when the free market struggles under the weight of what you've wrought...all to promote Big Government as the only way.

 

He claims to be a lawyer in Macon, GA.

Thank you for this thoughtful response.
Hmm ... schools are locally controlled (or state controlled, as is the case with Texas).  (......)

-Laelth

Uh, huh.....back to deliberately obtuse.

[JohnnyReb]

I see he didn't answer.

He claims to be a lawyer in Macon, GA.

.

Well that explains his infant wisdom.

[wasp69]

Uh, huh.....back to deliberately obtuse.

It's what disruptive trash does best.

[wasp69]

Just to help the DUmbass out a little...

https://www.google.com/search?q=selling+health+insurance+across+state+lines+bad+idea&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Seems leftists have been hell bent to kill free market competition.
What say you Laelth?

Thanks for quoting me, Carl.  At least the disruptive pant load gets to see what he so badly wants to ignore.   

[NHSparky]

Nothing is "free" in this society, as you well know.  Not sure what you're driving at.

-Laelth

But damned if Obama didn't try to paint it as a freebie.  Right up to the last second.

[Ptarmigan]

Switzerland is going to be broke.

[wasp69]

I know the disruptive troll has plonked me to the iggy list, but I wonder if it has seen this latest about the victorious Venezuelan socialist "revolution"?  (I'm leaving this out of the normal "quote" function for poster quoting ease).


As socialist dream crumbles, Venezuelans find Nicolas Maduro 'a bad copy' of Chavez

The army has been sent into toilet paper factories, fights for basic foodstuffs have resulted in several deaths and new, multi-million dollar oil tankers are sitting idle in dock. And, despite sitting on the world’s largest oil reserves, Venezuela’s socialist government can’t quite manage to keep the lights on.

Now many in Venezuela are wondering how much longer President Nicolas Maduro, the anointed successor of the country’s firebrand Leftist leader Hugo Chavez, can keep hold of the reins of its crumbling socialist revolution.

Last week Mr Maduro was forced to turn to a well-worn answer for his country’s woes, blaming a US plot to “sabotage the electrical system and the Venezuelan economy” and kicking out Washington’s envoy to the South American country. “Out of Venezuela!” he railed on state television, adding in English: “Yankees go home!”

By the time of Chavez’s death, economic mismanagement and corruption - Venezuela is the most corrupt country in the Americas, according to Transparency International - had already crippled the socialist project he dreamed of. Under Mr Maduro, it has entered an advanced state of decay.

Official inflation has soared above 45 per cent - 55 per cent for groceries - basic product shortages leave entire families without food and widespread power outages are commonplace. Meanwhile the South American country is witnessing an average of 71 homicides every day, one of the highest murder rates in the world.

“This country is a thousand times worse than it was six months ago”, said Pedro Sosa, a Chavez supporter who voted for Mr Maduro but now regrets having done so.

...his excuses - he has in six months alleged 13 conspiracies against his government and four assassination plots against himself - are starting to ring hollow.

“Maduro uses the idea of economic war to blame others for his own shortcomings,” said Jesus Perez, the head of the Caracas School of Economics. “Actually, the war on Venezuela is being waged by our own government.”

“The government expropriates Venezuelan businesses which then don’t produce because the socialist state doesn’t run them effectively,” he added.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/10359267/As-socialist-dream-crumbles-Venezuelans-find-Nicolas-Maduro-a-bad-copy-of-Chavez.html


There you have it, the inevitable outcome of collectivist doctrine every single time it is enacted:  Corruption, stagnation, suffering, debauching of the currency, misery, runaway inflation...  All of this should sound real familiar, if you're not some paid hack for a democrat leech.


I would hate to be in the shoes of any "Chavista" when the shit finally hits the fan.  I would equally hate being in the shoes of any mind numbed American leftist when the same happens here...

[Wineslob]

Nothing is "free" in this society, as you well know.  Not sure what you're driving at.

-Laelth

On that, we will never agree.  The "free market" has had plenty of time to insure that all Americans have adequate and reasonable access to health care, and it has failed.  I am not interested in giving it more time.  Government needed to do something, and it did.  Not sure what government intrusion you think was preventing the free market from solving this problem, but Congress ran out of patience in 2010 and decided to do something.  Thus the ACA.

                                        ^
                                    You land squarely here, Dumbass                       

[Laelth]

Not surprisingly your answer is more government and regulations on all levels.
TRG was 100% correct in his assessment.

I am not surprised to see that the standard, conservative "state sovereignty" argument is pure B.S.

When it comes to enriching corporations (like the insurance companies that want to force Delaware law on all 50 states, thereby circumventing the will of the people in those states and forcing some national, pro-business laws on all the people), yes, under those circumstances state sovereignty is meaningless.

I do understand where you're coming from.  I just don't like it.

-Laelth

[Carl]

I am not surprised to see that the standard, conservative "state sovereignty" argument is pure B.S.

When it comes to enriching corporations (like the insurance companies that want to force Delaware law on all 50 states, thereby circumventing the will of the people in those states and forcing some national, pro-business laws on all the people), yes, under those circumstances state sovereignty is meaningless.

I do understand where you're coming from.  I just don't like it.

-Laelth

No dipshit,you have no idea what the will of the people is in the situation.

[txradioguy]

On that, we will never agree.  The "free market" has had plenty of time to insure that all Americans have adequate and reasonable access to health care, and it has failed.  I am not interested in giving it more time.  Government needed to do something, and it did.  Not sure what government intrusion you think was preventing the free market from solving this problem,

The ONLY thing Government "needed" to do was get the hell out of the way.  But you Liberal masterminds can never EVER do that.

but Congress ran out of patience in 2010 and decided to do something.  Thus the ACA.

Congress didn't run out of patience...Liberals seized on the opportunity to ram this down the collective American throat during a brief two year period when they controlled the House...the Senate and the White House.  A temporary Congress passed a bad bill that wasn't even completely written when it was passed that will have permanent long term detrimental ramifications on this country if it's allowed to stand.

Perhaps.  We'll see after the ACA has been operational for a few years exactly whom it serves and how well it does so.  We won't know until we try it.

That sounds like "we have to pass it to know what's in it" and it's equally as dangerous.

Spot on.  I am on record saying that nobody needs health insurance.  What people need is health care, and, as you rightly note, those are very different things.  Sadly, it appears we can't guarantee health care to all Americans.  Instead, as a compromise, Democrats decided to try the Heritage Foundation's plan from the 1990s to guarantee health insurance for all Americans.  I think that was a stupid move, and I have said so.  I'd much rather we guaranteed and insured that all Americans have access to health care.

We already DO guarantee healthcare to all Americans whether they are insured or not.  It's Federal law.

[freedumb2003b]

We'll see after the ACA FCA vhas been operational for a few years exactly whom it serves and how well it does so.  We won't know until we try it.

That kind of thinking got us the Ponzi schemes of social security and medicaid (may FDR burn in hell: "Freedom from want" is communism).

There is nothing so permanent as a really bad government program.  The "war on poverty" has drained trillions of American treasure and has resulted in... MORE POVERTY.  Systemic poverty.  Permanent poverty.

Had we used our money wisely instead of subsidizing sloth, we would have a much more robust economy with MANY MORE productive participants.

You liberals are so stupid in so many ways.

Now you want everyone to be stupid AGAIN -- in the FACE of liberal failure!

[Skul]

I am not surprised to see that the standard, conservative "state sovereignty" argument is pure B.S.

When it comes to enriching corporations (like the insurance companies that want to force Delaware law on all 50 states, thereby circumventing the will of the people in those states and forcing some national, pro-business laws on all the people), yes, under those circumstances state sovereignty is meaningless.

I do understand where you're coming from.  I just don't like it.

-Laelth

You solution is exactly what. Answer that, I have more questions.

[Big Dog]

If the free market and the private sector had already solved these problems, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 

The United States has not had a free market for 100 years.

"It [the State] has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities; it has spread out its
powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret; it has begun to throw
around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a State religion; its agents become a
separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot. But it
still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and
decent men."
  -HL Mencken, 1926.