Tea Party marchers -- what is their solution to the nation's health care problem?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
You conservatives against UHC need to catch up, your party leaders are sounding conciliatory lately...

I'll bet some more tea parties will change their minds. Get Sara Palin to parade around her dysfunctional family with the best health insurance money can buy to tell you about Death Panels some more.

No one in their right mind thinks UHC=free care or that taxes won't have to be raised to cover it.

How you folk can sleep at night with people dying from lack of health care in your communities is something I just can't wrap my head around. I guess it's easier to demonize your neighbor that lost their health care than to actually give a shit and make a difference.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
I just don't get it. Don't any of these folks find the comparison between Obama and Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Saddam/Mussolini/Pol Pot/et al to be an incredible insult to the people who *actually suffered* under these despots?

"So your grandparents lost their families in Nazi concentration camps? Well, Barack Obama tried to get the government to pay for my health insurance! It's exactly the same!"

I mean really, wtf?

Doesn't the fact that people can go to Obama's events to heckle - and packing heat, no less - invalidate the claim that he has created a police state? Doesn't the continued popularity of Glenn Beck (god help us all) demonstrate that dissidents are not, in fact, being sent to the fields for re-education? These people look like everyday ordinary middle class Americans. But, there they are holding up these utterly wacko and ridiculous signs.

What's happening today is no different from McCarthyism or any other time politicians have used fear as a tool to create frenzy and fear in the most ignorant of society. While I had my issues with Bush jr., I never doubted his citizenship nor his humanity. These people want to dehumanize Obama, and to me, sorry, that smacks of racism, or at least "otherism".

The only reason I can think why anyone who considers themselves fiscally conservative and would still vote for todays Republicans (including Ron Paul) is because they are irrational and not so good with math or history or what economic freedom means for most of the world.

The worst mistake they make is that they think tax cuts are tax cuts. They're not - they're tax deferments, which you will have to pay someday, with interest. It's like saying that the sweater you bought on credit card for $100 is cheaper than the sweater you paid $125 for...except you don't pay the sweater off for 4 years, and it ends up costing you $200 with the interest payments. What are the tea baggers really complaining about? It can't be taxes. We're the least taxed western industrialized nation. Our taxation to GDP ratio is the lowest in the world.

Do they think they get a bad deal for their tax dollars? They should step back and think about it. The average American will pay roughly 300K to 600K in taxes over the course of their entire lifetime. That's just enough to pay one year in salaries for maybe 10 government employees. Over the course of a lifetime, Americans will utilize the work of millions of government employees. They'll travel hundreds of thousands of miles on government roads and bridges. They'll use 911 services provided by government. They'll send their kids to schools and universities built and staffed by the government. Their state will probably have been helped significantly in emergency situations by the government. They'll use libraries built and staffed by the government. Just those things mentioned above cost billions.They paid a fraction of that over the course of their entire lives.

Tell me, what self-respecting "socialist", much less a communist, would have sent hundreds of billions of dollars to billionaire capitalists to bail them out? He has "nationalized" all of 0.21% of the economy since taking office.


:thumbsup: and :beer:
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
I just don't get it. Don't any of these folks find the comparison between Obama and Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Saddam/Mussolini/Pol Pot/et al to be an incredible insult to the people who *actually suffered* under these despots?

"So your grandparents lost their families in Nazi concentration camps? Well, Barack Obama tried to get the government to pay for my health insurance! It's exactly the same!"

I mean really, wtf?

Doesn't the fact that people can go to Obama's events to heckle - and packing heat, no less - invalidate the claim that he has created a police state? Doesn't the continued popularity of Glenn Beck (god help us all) demonstrate that dissidents are not, in fact, being sent to the fields for re-education? These people look like everyday ordinary middle class Americans. But, there they are holding up these utterly wacko and ridiculous signs.

What's happening today is no different from McCarthyism or any other time politicians have used fear as a tool to create frenzy and fear in the most ignorant of society. While I had my issues with Bush jr., I never doubted his citizenship nor his humanity. These people want to dehumanize Obama, and to me, sorry, that smacks of racism, or at least "otherism".

The only reason I can think why anyone who considers themselves fiscally conservative and would still vote for todays Republicans (including Ron Paul) is because they are irrational and not so good with math or history or what economic freedom means for most of the world.

The worst mistake they make is that they think tax cuts are tax cuts. They're not - they're tax deferments, which you will have to pay someday, with interest. It's like saying that the sweater you bought on credit card for $100 is cheaper than the sweater you paid $125 for...except you don't pay the sweater off for 4 years, and it ends up costing you $200 with the interest payments. What are the tea baggers really complaining about? It can't be taxes. We're the least taxed western industrialized nation. Our taxation to GDP ratio is the lowest in the world.

Do they think they get a bad deal for their tax dollars? They should step back and think about it. The average American will pay roughly 300K to 600K in taxes over the course of their entire lifetime. That's just enough to pay one year in salaries for maybe 10 government employees. Over the course of a lifetime, Americans will utilize the work of millions of government employees. They'll travel hundreds of thousands of miles on government roads and bridges. They'll use 911 services provided by government. They'll send their kids to schools and universities built and staffed by the government. Their state will probably have been helped significantly in emergency situations by the government. They'll use libraries built and staffed by the government. Just those things mentioned above cost billions.They paid a fraction of that over the course of their entire lives.

Tell me, what self-respecting "socialist", much less a communist, would have sent hundreds of billions of dollars to billionaire capitalists to bail them out? He has "nationalized" all of 0.21% of the economy since taking office.
Best post I've read here in a long time.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
You conservatives against UHC need to catch up, your party leaders are sounding conciliatory lately...

I'll bet some more tea parties will change their minds. Get Sara Palin to parade around her dysfunctional family with the best health insurance money can buy to tell you about Death Panels some more.

No one in their right mind thinks UHC=free care or that taxes won't have to be raised to cover it.

How you folk can sleep at night with people dying from lack of health care in your communities is something I just can't wrap my head around. I guess it's easier to demonize your neighbor that lost their health care than to actually give a shit and make a difference.

So Obama isnt in his right mind? He clearly said in his speech he will not support a bill that requires new taxes. Twice even.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Originally posted by: blackangst1

So Obama isnt in his right mind? He clearly said in his speech he will not support a bill that requires new taxes. Twice even.

He's a politician, we pay him to lie to us. Of course taxes will go up.

 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
You conservatives against UHC need to catch up, your party leaders are sounding conciliatory lately...

I'll bet some more tea parties will change their minds. Get Sara Palin to parade around her dysfunctional family with the best health insurance money can buy to tell you about Death Panels some more.

No one in their right mind thinks UHC=free care or that taxes won't have to be raised to cover it.

How you folk can sleep at night with people dying from lack of health care in your communities is something I just can't wrap my head around. I guess it's easier to demonize your neighbor that lost their health care than to actually give a shit and make a difference.

So Obama isnt in his right mind? He clearly said in his speech he will not support a bill that requires new taxes. Twice even.

Is UHC on the table in any of these bills?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
You conservatives against UHC need to catch up, your party leaders are sounding conciliatory lately...

I'll bet some more tea parties will change their minds. Get Sara Palin to parade around her dysfunctional family with the best health insurance money can buy to tell you about Death Panels some more.

No one in their right mind thinks UHC=free care or that taxes won't have to be raised to cover it.

How you folk can sleep at night with people dying from lack of health care in your communities is something I just can't wrap my head around. I guess it's easier to demonize your neighbor that lost their health care than to actually give a shit and make a difference.

So Obama isnt in his right mind? He clearly said in his speech he will not support a bill that requires new taxes. Twice even.

Is UHC on the table in any of these bills?

Yes. I would certainly call HB3200 UHC.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
You conservatives against UHC need to catch up, your party leaders are sounding conciliatory lately...

I'll bet some more tea parties will change their minds. Get Sara Palin to parade around her dysfunctional family with the best health insurance money can buy to tell you about Death Panels some more.

No one in their right mind thinks UHC=free care or that taxes won't have to be raised to cover it.

How you folk can sleep at night with people dying from lack of health care in your communities is something I just can't wrap my head around. I guess it's easier to demonize your neighbor that lost their health care than to actually give a shit and make a difference.

So Obama isnt in his right mind? He clearly said in his speech he will not support a bill that requires new taxes. Twice even.

Is UHC on the table in any of these bills?

Yes. I would certainly call HB3200 UHC.

Not even close, IMO. UHC = what Canada and many other countries have. What we are throwing out there might be a precursor to UHC but it certainly isn't UHC.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
You conservatives against UHC need to catch up, your party leaders are sounding conciliatory lately...

I'll bet some more tea parties will change their minds. Get Sara Palin to parade around her dysfunctional family with the best health insurance money can buy to tell you about Death Panels some more.

No one in their right mind thinks UHC=free care or that taxes won't have to be raised to cover it.

How you folk can sleep at night with people dying from lack of health care in your communities is something I just can't wrap my head around. I guess it's easier to demonize your neighbor that lost their health care than to actually give a shit and make a difference.

So Obama isnt in his right mind? He clearly said in his speech he will not support a bill that requires new taxes. Twice even.

Is UHC on the table in any of these bills?

Yes. I would certainly call HB3200 UHC.

Not even close, IMO. UHC = what Canada and many other countries have. What we are throwing out there might be a precursor to UHC but it certainly isn't UHC.

Then we'll agree to disagree. Or are you meaning single payer? Single payer =! UHC.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Then we'll agree to disagree. Or are you meaning single payer? Single payer =! UHC.

Maybe that's where we're crossing, however, I think Pliablemoose is thinking of Single Payer when he's talking of UHC (as maybe I am too).
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Then we'll agree to disagree. Or are you meaning single payer? Single payer =! UHC.

Maybe that's where we're crossing, however, I think Pliablemoose is thinking of Single Payer when he's talking of UHC (as maybe I am too).

From wiki:

Universal health care is health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care. Typically, costs are borne in the majority by government-funded programs.

"Single-payer health insurance" is used to describe the primary systems of health care funding used in Canada and the United Kingdom. Multi-payer systems are used in France and Germany, but like Canada and the United Kingdom, health care in both of these countries is primarily financed by publicly controlled insurers.

I would support limited UHC, but I dont support single payer.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Serious tort reform and allowing insurance to compete across state lines are the most often agreed upon reform ideas.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: spidey07
Serious tort reform and allowing insurance to compete across state lines are the most often agreed upon solutions.

:thumbsup:

Without any more heath care/insruance reform talk, this answers the OPs question.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Then we'll agree to disagree. Or are you meaning single payer? Single payer =! UHC.

Maybe that's where we're crossing, however, I think Pliablemoose is thinking of Single Payer when he's talking of UHC (as maybe I am too).

Yep...

What I'd like to see in the US is a 2 tier system, the first tier federally managed, and if you or your employer wants to, you can get more comprehensive insurance from the private sector.

The bottom line is that health care in the US will eventually be nationalized, I think we ought to do it now, because it's going to get ugly...
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Then we'll agree to disagree. Or are you meaning single payer? Single payer =! UHC.

Maybe that's where we're crossing, however, I think Pliablemoose is thinking of Single Payer when he's talking of UHC (as maybe I am too).

Yep...

What I'd like to see in the US is a 2 tier system, the first tier federally managed, and if you or your employer wants to, you can get more comprehensive insurance from the private sector.

The bottom line is that health care in the US will eventually be nationalized, I think we ought to do it now, because it's going to get ugly...

I used to not agree, but now I do.

Edit: Damn, the timewarps are out of control today.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: piasabird
Health care = more taxes. People do not want to trust the government. If it smells like a tax and it looks like a tax then it is a tax.

You might ask yourself why UPS and Fed-EX does so well. The answer is they are not run by the government.

It's better to pay more in taxes to receive health care if that tax increase is less than the amount of money you would otherwise spend for private health insurance, especially if socialized medicine offers the feature of not having to worry about having your health insurance rescinded and being subject to CEO-appointed Death Panels.

We're spending 17% of our GDP for health care that leaves tens of millions of people uninsured or under-insured with the rest of the populace living in terror. In contrast, people in other nations might pay money in taxes for their health care, but overall they're spending far less on health care. So, Americans are spending more money on health care than the extra amount of taxes they would pay for bona-fide socialized medicine. Thus, a "tax increase" for bona-fide socialized medicine is, in actuality, an expense decrease. Given that, doesn't it make more sense to spend a smaller percentage of the nation's GDP on health care that would cover 100% of the populace while liberating people from their terror and while freeing up businesses?

That's what these Tea Party numbskulls are too thick-headed to understand. If we were to regard private expenditures for health insurance as being taxes, the net result of an actual tax increase to pay for socialized medicine would be a tax decrease--but they are too moronic to understand what people in other first world countries already know.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: Sinsear
If we just tax the rich we should be able to pay for health reform.

If we could just take all of the money (17% of GDP) that's currently being spent on health care and redesigned our system to be more efficient, we could pay for socialized medicine and have a couple percentage points worth of GDP left over for tax breaks or to reduce the budget deficit.

We wouldn't even need to commit the unspeakable evil of taxing the rich. However, since many insurance company and hospital executives would be kicked out of business, those particular rich people would have to suffer the indignity of only being able to afford a mere one new yacht per year and not 5 new yachts per year. Oh, the horror! Your heart really has to bleed for those guys.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: PliablemooseThe bottom line is that health care in the US will eventually be nationalized, I think we ought to do it now, because it's going to get ugly...

It will probably need to get uglier before an overwhelming majority of the populace is ready to clamor for socialized medicine.

However, by the time Americans are at that point, the U.S. itself might be an overpopulated third world nation, in which case it will be difficult to fund a first world medical system. (You can thank foreign outsourcing, foreign work visas such as the H-1B and L-1, and mass immigration for the transformation.)

 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
Some people believe in Freedom. Lately it seems like democrats do not believe in Democracy. Even the Press has its own agenda. The press is involved in indoctrination and brainwashing. How can any message get out from the right? There is absolutely no chance for people to fight against an organized socialist communist fascist press.
fox news, wsj, washington post, etc.

It has been said that freedom flourishes without intervention from the do-gooders in the government. Sometimes when the government does nothing, that is when people flourish. It is government intervention in the real estate business that forced banks to underwrite loans without a 20% down payment. Heaven forbid we admit that some kind of down payment is necessary for a firm foundation in the real estate industry. It is also the Federal Reserve that set the interest rates so low to make it easier to get loans. This also percipitated in the real estate boom and bust. Some serious pain is required for the adjustments to the real estate business to get it back on track. O'Bammah has done nothing about this. He is a spineless idiot wanting America to go further and further into debt to install his communist agenda. Bigger and more government is not the solution to anything but pain and suffering.

No more speding.

Cut current spending.

Start firing federal employees.

the bolded are all provably false, the rest just really stupid. Yes some painful intervention was needed in the housing market, it was called TARP and cost 800 billion.

 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
More spending requires higher taxes. This is how the government works. You need to take economics.

The only guarantee is that if you give the government more tax dollars that they will spend more than they give you and then ask for more.

once again, a technically incorrect post from you
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: PliablemooseThe bottom line is that health care in the US will eventually be nationalized, I think we ought to do it now, because it's going to get ugly...

It will probably need to get uglier before an overwhelming majority of the populace is ready to clamor for socialized medicine.

However, by the time Americans are at that point, the U.S. itself might be an overpopulated third world nation, in which case it will be difficult to fund a first world medical system. (You can thank foreign outsourcing, foreign work visas such as the H-1B and L-1, and mass immigration for the transformation.)

Did Dave hijack your account?
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,785
6,032
136
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: spidey07
Serious tort reform and allowing insurance to compete across state lines are the most often agreed upon solutions.

:thumbsup:

Name one state that has passed tort reform where healthcare costs have declined instead of risen.

 

TheAdvocate

Platinum Member
Mar 7, 2005
2,561
7
81
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
I just don't get it. Don't any of these folks find the comparison between Obama and Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Saddam/Mussolini/Pol Pot/et al to be an incredible insult to the people who *actually suffered* under these despots?

"So your grandparents lost their families in Nazi concentration camps? Well, Barack Obama tried to get the government to pay for my health insurance! It's exactly the same!"

I mean really, wtf?

Doesn't the fact that people can go to Obama's events to heckle - and packing heat, no less - invalidate the claim that he has created a police state? Doesn't the continued popularity of Glenn Beck (god help us all) demonstrate that dissidents are not, in fact, being sent to the fields for re-education? These people look like everyday ordinary middle class Americans. But, there they are holding up these utterly wacko and ridiculous signs.

What's happening today is no different from McCarthyism or any other time politicians have used fear as a tool to create frenzy and fear in the most ignorant of society. While I had my issues with Bush jr., I never doubted his citizenship nor his humanity. These people want to dehumanize Obama, and to me, sorry, that smacks of racism, or at least "otherism".

The only reason I can think why anyone who considers themselves fiscally conservative and would still vote for todays Republicans (including Ron Paul) is because they are irrational and not so good with math or history or what economic freedom means for most of the world.

The worst mistake they make is that they think tax cuts are tax cuts. They're not - they're tax deferments, which you will have to pay someday, with interest. It's like saying that the sweater you bought on credit card for $100 is cheaper than the sweater you paid $125 for...except you don't pay the sweater off for 4 years, and it ends up costing you $200 with the interest payments. What are the tea baggers really complaining about? It can't be taxes. We're the least taxed western industrialized nation. Our taxation to GDP ratio is the lowest in the world.

Do they think they get a bad deal for their tax dollars? They should step back and think about it. The average American will pay roughly 300K to 600K in taxes over the course of their entire lifetime. That's just enough to pay one year in salaries for maybe 10 government employees. Over the course of a lifetime, Americans will utilize the work of millions of government employees. They'll travel hundreds of thousands of miles on government roads and bridges. They'll use 911 services provided by government. They'll send their kids to schools and universities built and staffed by the government. Their state will probably have been helped significantly in emergency situations by the government. They'll use libraries built and staffed by the government. Just those things mentioned above cost billions.They paid a fraction of that over the course of their entire lives.

Tell me, what self-respecting "socialist", much less a communist, would have sent hundreds of billions of dollars to billionaire capitalists to bail them out? He has "nationalized" all of 0.21% of the economy since taking office.

That was phenomenal and deserves yet another bump. Well said man.
 

TheAdvocate

Platinum Member
Mar 7, 2005
2,561
7
81
Originally posted by: spidey07
Serious tort reform and allowing insurance to compete across state lines are the most often agreed upon reform ideas.

This is the deregulation argument that the Banking industry made a couple decades ago. It is a very good idea in theory, until the reality of the M&A feeding frenzy leaves only a few, price fixing, "too big to fail" providers, and you've got the exact problem that you were trying to avoid in a single player govt system, as a handful of too huge companies in collusion functions the same way.

Even more interesting, that strips states of autonomy - currently states are free to set rate caps, etc, as they see fit. Deregulating the industry will remove that ability. It's the free marketers against the states rights crowd.