'Obamacare' to the rescue

[Pepsi]

So you're going to hire and train employees to tell Doctors how to practice medicine? 

OH!  That's RIGHT!  You're serious about that...

Obamacare kind of reminds me of your description of your feelings about Newt.  It almost effortlessly makes the case against itself...

I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm not proposing nationalizing health care, only the health insurance part.

[Pepsi]

Why should anyone but you be responsible for your health care?

why should anyone but you be responsible for protecting you from criminals?

why should anyone but you be responsible for putting a fire out at your house?

if you get in a car accident why should anyone but you be responsible to transport you to the hospital?

why should anyone but you be responsible to ensure the safety of the food you eat?

etc, etc.. it's an ideological question which society has answered that there are some things government does which help the general welfare of its citizens, either through direct services or regulatory framework designed to protect us all.   

[vel]

why should anyone but you be responsible for protecting you from criminals?

why should anyone but you be responsible for putting a fire out at your house?

if you get in a car accident why should anyone but you be responsible to transport you to the hospital?

why should anyone but you be responsible to ensure the safety of the food you eat?

etc, etc.. it's an ideological question which society has answered that there are some things government does which help the general welfare of its citizens, either through direct services or regulatory framework designed to protect us all.   

You have to understand that Observer is afflicted by Ayn Rand's "objectivism", which is an ideology inspired by a lady who idolized a serial killer. As Michael Gerson of the Washington Post noted, if "objectivism" seems familiar it is because most people know it under the name adolescence, which was an experience of a few years of "invincible self-involvement, testing moral boundaries and prone to stormy egotism and hero worship. Usually one grows out of it, eventually discovering that the quality of our lives is tied to the benefit of others. Rand’s achievement was to turn a phase into a philosophy, as attractive as an outbreak of acne."

"The appeal of Ayn Rand to conservatives is both considerable and inexplicable. Modern conservatism was largely defined by Ronald Reagan’s faith in the people instead of elites. Rand regarded the people as “looters” and “parasites.” She was a strenuous advocate for class warfare, except that she took the side of a mythical class of capitalist supermen. Rand, in fact, pronounced herself “profoundly opposed” to Reagan’s presidential candidacy, since he did not meet her exacting ideological standards."

Inexplicable indeed.

[johnhp]

Since the only "they" I refer to are you, IM2 and dagon I would answer that by saying you all have enslaved yourselves years ago.  You are now attempting to share your enslavement with others...

Look at you drop those horseapples

[foodserver]

I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm not proposing nationalizing health care, only the health insurance part.

You mean the part where someone decides what tests are ordered for what condition or list of symptoms and what treatments will be employed?

That part?

[foodserver]

Look at you drop those horseapples

John, you needn't ask permission each and every time you are compelled to look at me.  I've already granted blanket permission.  You're welcome...

[foodserver]

why should anyone but you be responsible for protecting you from criminals?

why should anyone but you be responsible for putting a fire out at your house?

if you get in a car accident why should anyone but you be responsible to transport you to the hospital?

why should anyone but you be responsible to ensure the safety of the food you eat?

etc, etc.. it's an ideological question which society has answered that there are some things government does which help the general welfare of its citizens, either through direct services or regulatory framework designed to protect us all.  

Although both of us have done this a few times, I hope Observer answers this question (again) Here's a shot of Bill O'Reilly on his very best behavior (rare) posing your questions from the other side

Bill O'Reilly PWNS two hippie liberals	Small | Large

[ivanm]

why should anyone but you be responsible for protecting you from criminals?

why should anyone but you be responsible for putting a fire out at your house?

if you get in a car accident why should anyone but you be responsible to transport you to the hospital?

why should anyone but you be responsible to ensure the safety of the food you eat?

etc, etc.. it's an ideological question which society has answered that there are some things government does which help the general welfare of its citizens, either through direct services or regulatory framework designed to protect us all.  

I don't think  that is what Observer is talking about it and you may know fully well that it is not the case.  He is saying  that people should be the ones to decide what to do about their healthcare, given the options and the available skills of the industry, and not the bureaucrats.

If you were using Medicare you would understand what he is talking about. Doctors are essentially limited in what they can do by what procedures the Medicare bureaucrats will alow them to provide. As an example, certain lab tests are authorized only once a year by the system, and if a patient needs the tests done more frequently than that then he has to foot the bill.  This is a very common headache for senior patients like me.

[Case_Closed]

If you were using Medicare you would understand what he is talking about. Doctors are essentially limited in what they can do by what procedures the Medicare bureaucrats will alow them to provide. As an example, certain lab tests are authorized only once a year by the system, and if a patient needs the tests done more frequentlyu than that then he has to foot the bill.  This is a very common headache for senior patients like me.

I have heard from Medicare recipients that approximately 90% of ALL doctors are absolutely refusing to accept new Medicare patients.

Have you heard anything like that?

[johnhp]

I don't think  that is what Observer is talking about it and you may know fully well that it is not the case.  He is saying  that people should be the ones to decide what to do about their healthcare, given the options and the available skills of the industry, and not the bureaucrats.

If you were using Medicare you would understand what he is talking about. Doctors are essentially limited in what they can do by what procedures the Medicare bureaucrats will alow them to provide. As an example, certain lab tests are authorized only once a year by the system, and if a patient needs the tests done more frequently than that then he has to foot the bill.  This is a very common headache for senior patients like me.

And insurance companies allowed the insured the widest latitude?

[ivanm]

I have heard from Medicare recipients that approximately 90% of ALL doctors are absolutely refusing to accept new Medicare patients.

Have you heard anything like that?

No, not specifically, but the red tape just drives up the cost of healthcare and limits what a doc can do.  And the Medigap providers have also gotten on the bandwqagon as they will not cover a claim that Medicare won't cover. I do remember denstists refusing to do charity dental work way back in the 80s. They were losing their shirts on the deal, but that shouldn't matter to a liberal as money grows on trees. That is why dental offices have little trees in the waiting room, just pick a handful when you need it.

The government is now dictating what coverage a private insuror can offer, and all policies must be the same for a given type of policy. It is all in preparation for Obamacare IMO. If you can afford a more comprehensive insurance policy than the average one then you are looked down on by the liberals as some thief.  
It is a class envy thing and those jerks don't stop to learn that such policies have higher premiums than the average policies do.  In othe words you get what you pay for, but a useful idiot thinks that it should all be the same price, free.

It is no wonder these mongrels use credit cards, they don't have brains enough to balance a checkbook.

[Case_Closed]

[ivanm]

I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm not proposing nationalizing health care, only the health insurance part.

Obviously you are not covered by Medicare and don't know the effect this government insurance has on the providers.

[Observer]

why should anyone but you be responsible for protecting you from criminals?

No one is.

why should anyone but you be responsible for putting a fire out at your house?

No one is.

if you get in a car accident why should anyone but you be responsible to transport you to the hospital?

No one is.

why should anyone but you be responsible to ensure the safety of the food you eat?

No one is.

etc, etc.. it's an ideological question which society has answered that there are some things government does which help the general welfare of its citizens, either through direct services or regulatory framework designed to protect us all.   

The problem is that with the possible exception of the FDA, there is no actual responsibility on the part of the agencies to which you alluded to provide the services you specified.