U.S. debate on health care is a warning to Canadians

[andywend]

Canadians like BetPlom certainly deserve the mediocre medical care their socialized system provides.

If you live in Canada and find yourself in need of specialized medical care for a condition that the government does NOT consider to be life-threatening, you better be prepared to wait for massive chunks of time. I'll certainly take our current system where if you find yourself in need of orthoscopic knee surgery, you can call a Doctor on Monday, be seen on Tuesday or Wednesday, schedule the surgery for Friday and be back to work by the following Monday. In Canada, you're simply told to wait between 6-18 months and deal with the problem the best you can.

As far as cutting edge/new drugs are concerned, you can forget about Canada ever coming up with anything on their own. The only thing Canada knows how to do is to wait for the patents on U.S. drugs to expire and then mass market generic versions.

As bad as the medical care delivery system is in Canada, any socialized plan would be FAR WORSE in the U.S. due to the abuse that would surely take place by illegal immigrants and those on government assistance who are more than willing to wait hours upon hours (since they have the available time) clogging up medical offices.

Go to any Doctors office in poorer areas and you'll see stuffed waiting rooms morning, noon and night 7 days a week since they are all on Medicaid. The WORST POSSIBLE THING our country can do is come up with a system where nobody has to pay for medical care.

Canadians like BetPlom along with left-wing lunatics like RenoCool, bettillimbroke, 20four7, pokerjoe, thor, etc, chant on and on how the poor should RECEIVE free unlimited medical care, RECEIVE wages far more than they are worth, RECEIVE any and all financial assistance they desire with the list going on and on.

WHAT EXACTLY DO THE POOR GIVE BACK TO THE COUNTRY THAT ENTITLES THEM TO FREE UNLIMITED MEDICAL CARE AT THE DIRECT EXPENSE OF THE OTHER 85%++ WHO WILL EXPERIENCE A MASSIVE DROP IN THE QUALITY OF MEDICAL CARE THEY ARE CURRENTLY RECEIVING AND HAVE EARNED THROUGH HARD WORK?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the medical care being disbursed in the U.S. and its by far and away the best on the planet. The problems have to do with cost and access.

I challenge any liberal to name one thing under the government's control that can't be replaced by the private sector at a substantially lower cost. As far as accessing our superior medical care system, I do agree some changes need to be made but a complete overhaul of the system is certainly NOT the answer.

Linda McQuaig, the author of that article at the top of this thread is ABSOLUTELY INSANE.

There has been no violence whatsover at these anti-Obama protests as compared with protests started by liberal democrats that are always FILLED WITH VIOLENCE.

Compare the protests by democrats at the republican national convention as opposed to protests by republicans at the democratic national convention.

BetPlom, keep your nose out of our politics and don't come running to the U.S. when your beloved socialized medical care system is found WANTING when the time comes. Heres hoping you see the end of a shotgun if you try and enter our country. YOUR KIND IS NOT WANTED.

BetPlom=SBR Cunt (Definitely the one and only thing we agree on)

[Pokerjoe]

Andywend, YOUR kind is not wanted ANYWHERE. Go away. You lost the civil war. You lost the election. You lost WWII. Get over it already.

[jon101]

The middle class want health reform so they can stop going broke at the hands of big government insurance backed lobbyists, who are spending 1,000,000 a day to stop healthcare reform.
Big Surprise? Corporate owned government fighting itself to stop the rich from getting richer in the blood and bankruptcy of dying americans. I have government run healthcare and it works, and pays for my doctors and prescriptions. I think a single payer system is the way to go, Insurance CEOs who earn 20 million for doing nothing for the health of americans should be hung for treason.

[andywend]

PokerJoe, YOUR kind can't survive without my kind.

YOUR kind consumes far more than they produce.
MY kind produces far more than we consume.

YOUR kind is a huge drain on our country's resources.

As bad as government controlled medicine is in other countries, it will be far worse in the U.S. due to my country's huge density of illegal immigrants and people like PokerJoe.

All of these liberal politicians who are pushing socialized health care are NOT going to expose themselves and their families to the horror. Just like social security, there will be a SEPARATE and FAR BETTER plan put in place for government employees.

Regardless of what Obama winds up doing, the medical care my family receives isn't going to change. However, its going to cost a whole lot more and I am fortunate I can afford to pay for it. However, the middle class who is the backbone of this country is going to get hurt the most as they can't afford to opt out and will see a MASSIVE reduction in the quality of medical care they are going to receive.

Changes certainly need to be made with our medical care system but the actual medical care being delivered should NOT be touched.

[losturmarbles]

You like a game in which you got buried? Are you a masochist? By quoting the samples you did, you prove my point: to blindly think private enterprise is better than the government, is childish.

Besides, show me evidence that any of the three government agencies you cited would be better performed by private enterprise? Tell me seriously you'd rather have corporations given their power? You're mistaking the wisdom of the consumption of services (low in the examples you cited) with the wisdom of preferring the government provide them rather than corporations (high in the examples you provided).

To even think there is a massive difference is ignorant. "Government" is something we spend money on. So is "private enterprise."

If you know anything about government, you know how greatly they can mismanage. But if you know anything about private enterprise, you know how greatly THEY can mismanage.

The questions before us always is, do we want "ability to profit" involved in the provision-of-services decision, and do we want "ability to pay" involved in the consumption-of-services decision (two sides to the same coin, admittedly).

Sane people agree that "the ability to pay" should not be involved, for example, in the question "should that child get police protection from murderers."

Sane people agree that the "ability to profit" should be involved, for example, in the question "should an Italian restaurant be opened on that street corner."

The question about health care is, how do we weight our concerns?

Because the health care industry has proven itself corrupt http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep...ss/fi-revoke17

AND because most of us are good enough humans to agree that "ability to pay" should not be in the health care equation,

we conclude that health care is best provided by the government.

And that includes all the morons on this forum who A) hate governent health care!!! but B) will be grateful for it later (Medicare).

Not that many of those who "hate government health care" even know what they're talking about
(cue Maria Bartiromo clip wherein she shows her unbelievable and typical ignorance on the issue, smugly asking a young congressmen "if medicare is so great, why don't you use it now?"; or cue the clip of the redneck screaming at a Town Hall meeting, "keep the gubmint's hands off my medicare!")

way to advance the argument with incoherent rambling. so government is something we spend money on?, and based on what sane people agree on the ability to pay and the ability to profit. or something like that. i dunno.

you're still in high school aren't you?

[losturmarbles]

Not sure Id be using Walmart as a positive, put all the little guys out of business while paying their employees shit not exactly a feather in the cap of capitalism more like its inevitable end result of consolidation of wealth and abuse of the poor

oh here we go. damn i should've known better than to mention walmart when all you left wing anti-capitalists have been brainwashed to hate walmart, and any other successful private company.
walmart didn't put any "little guys" out of business. the market makes the rules. the little guys may have lost their market share to walmart. but their failure is their fault, not walmart's.

wait now isnt this what obama wants to do, create competition with a government option, so the other guys have to lower their prices to compete? different strokes different folks i guess huh.

I'm curious as to how walmart is the "inevitable end result of consolidation of wealth and abuse of the poor"? but i guess i shouldn't be surprised that a closet socialist would think something like that.

[losturmarbles]

the intent is to provide medicine for everyone who needs it. So that people don't need to live in fear. And allow people to not have to wait till the last second to see a doctor.
I know it's some popular notion to think govt is always corrupt. But, the problem is the influence private wealth, corporations and the like have in govt.
Also, it's nonsense to think govt programs never helped those intended. Medicare, medicaid, aid to families with dependent children (yes welfare), ssi disability, social security, are all programs that help countless people... and many more.
Sure it would be better if we had a society that didn't need all these things but that is irrelevant here.

sorry reno, you've bought a bill of goods with that one. the real intentions of government run health care is control.
what better way to control someone than to control their health care?
isn't government entitlements a conflict of interest anyway since entitlement granters and entitlement receivers are mutually dependent on each other?
why does government give employers tax credits for providing insurance to the employees, but not to individuals who independently buy health insurance? is it because they care about those that need insurance. no, it's control. the employer and/or the government owns the insurance policy, not the individual. the individual is dependent on the employer or government. when people make life decisions, they shouldnt have to be scared to leave a job because they will lose their insurance, and then won't be covered for a preexisting condition if they get insurance at another job.

the influence of private wealth and corporations wouldn't exist if government wasn't always looking for ways to do "things" that it doesn't have any business doing to begin with.

private companies seek refuge from the market in government regulation. it's a lot easier to use political influence to win in a market, than it is to actually compete.
you can't hold private companies in contempt and then give government a free pass. just like you can't sit there and criticize insurance companies and ignore the government and insurance alliance for the last 50 years.

and you can't create competition through government manipulation. setting artificial prices and subsidizing costs that will only influence the bigger market, tanking the economy (even more) by punishing business and taxing growth.

[betplom]

Loving the anger fellas!

Nothing like a good healthcare thread to liven things up around here.

Carry on.

[losturmarbles]

Loving the anger fellas!

Nothing like a good healthcare thread to liven things up around here.

Carry on.

did i come off as angry? oh well.

[betplom]

did i come off as angry? oh well.

Keep up pal, just because I post after you doesn't mean I'm talking about you specifically, usually when I refer to someone specifically I quote them.

Now you know. You're welcome.

[losturmarbles]

thanks for the PSA guy.

no, not you. yeah, no, yeah, you.

[Shafted69]

hey lostumarbles, would it be safe assume that, in your point of view, the democrats were responsible for the housing collapse?

[Pokerjoe]

PokerJoe, YOUR kind can't survive without my kind.

YOUR kind consumes far more than they produce.
MY kind produces far more than we consume.

YOUR kind is a huge drain on our country's resources.

As bad as government controlled medicine is in other countries, it will be far worse in the U.S. due to my country's huge density of illegal immigrants and people like PokerJoe.

All of these liberal politicians who are pushing socialized health care are NOT going to expose themselves and their families to the horror. Just like social security, there will be a SEPARATE and FAR BETTER plan put in place for government employees.

Regardless of what Obama winds up doing, the medical care my family receives isn't going to change. However, its going to cost a whole lot more and I am fortunate I can afford to pay for it. However, the middle class who is the backbone of this country is going to get hurt the most as they can't afford to opt out and will see a MASSIVE reduction in the quality of medical care they are going to receive.

Changes certainly need to be made with our medical care system but the actual medical care being delivered should NOT be touched.

Andy, far better post than before, in style. This post contains reasoning and not insults; the earlier one contained insults and not reasoning.

I still disagree with you, but when I said your kind wasn't wanted anywhere, I meant, not "the kind who oppose health care reform," but "the kind who yell at and insult their political opponents."

[Pokerjoe]

way to advance the argument with incoherent rambling. so government is something we spend money on?, and based on what sane people agree on the ability to pay and the ability to profit. or something like that. i dunno.

you're still in high school aren't you?

My post was neither incoherent nor rambling. You've labelled it such, but not shown it to be such.

Yes, government is something we spend money on. They get taxes from me, anyway. It's a form of consumption. I buy food and housing and such with my earnings. I also buy government services.

If you don't understand what "ability to pay" means, I can't help you. Probably no one can.

No, I'm not in high school. But I think that probably, when reading these threads, people are thinking, "Don't mess with losturmarbles, he'll insult you! And wittily, too!"

[Pokerjoe]

sorry reno, you've bought a bill of goods with that one. the real intentions of government run health care is control.
what better way to control someone than to control their health care?
isn't government entitlements a conflict of interest anyway since entitlement granters and entitlement receivers are mutually dependent on each other?
why does government give employers tax credits for providing insurance to the employees, but not to individuals who independently buy health insurance? is it because they care about those that need insurance. no, it's control. the employer and/or the government owns the insurance policy, not the individual. the individual is dependent on the employer or government. when people make life decisions, they shouldnt have to be scared to leave a job because they will lose their insurance, and then won't be covered for a preexisting condition if they get insurance at another job.

the influence of private wealth and corporations wouldn't exist if government wasn't always looking for ways to do "things" that it doesn't have any business doing to begin with.

private companies seek refuge from the market in government regulation. it's a lot easier to use political influence to win in a market, than it is to actually compete.
you can't hold private companies in contempt and then give government a free pass. just like you can't sit there and criticize insurance companies and ignore the government and insurance alliance for the last 50 years.

and you can't create competition through government manipulation. setting artificial prices and subsidizing costs that will only influence the bigger market, tanking the economy (even more) by punishing business and taxing growth.

The phrase "rambling and incoherent" comes to mind for some reason. But at least your grammar and punctuation are first rate.

Show us some proof that the government's intent is "control." Really. Show us some proof.

And as far as "what better way to control someone than to control their health care," what does that mean? Control them for what? Health care is a terrible way to "control" someone. In providing it, they control you at least as much, especially in systems where they get to pick their own doctors and avoid having corporate bureaucrats getting in the way.

The people are the consumers and, in government-provided health care, the government has to provide what the people want. That's why so many are so happy with Medicare. They like the control.

So you have it backward: right now, the corporations control health care, and they abuse the privilege. With some reform, the people can control it.

Obama is not Bush. You can stop fearing your government now.

[bettilimbroke999]

oh here we go. damn i should've known better than to mention walmart when all you left wing anti-capitalists have been brainwashed to hate walmart, and any other successful private company.
walmart didn't put any "little guys" out of business. the market makes the rules. the little guys may have lost their market share to walmart. but their failure is their fault, not walmart's.

wait now isnt this what obama wants to do, create competition with a government option, so the other guys have to lower their prices to compete? different strokes different folks i guess huh.

I'm curious as to how walmart is the "inevitable end result of consolidation of wealth and abuse of the poor"? but i guess i shouldn't be surprised that a closet socialist would think something like that.

Two things lost, first WalMart succeeds by being the low price leader, they lower prices in a multitude of undesirable ways, first of which is paying employees nearly nothing with no benefits, #2 is by having such a mass purchasing entity you can manipulate prices that a family business etc could never do, when Joe down the street needs 3 Sony TVs he takes whatever price they give him, when WalMart needs 3 million they can dictate what price they're willing to pay and undercut Joe, now what moron would buy the same TV from Joe for a higher price thus competition is all but eliminated same way with all the products they sell WalMart is the market and if they dont buy from you your out of business very much the same effect that the unions you hate so much have on business except you congratulate Walmart for dictating what price they'll accept to companies.

I really am not sure how that is the little guys fault, it is just the mathematics of capitalism that bigger is better, economies of scale creates a huge competitive advantage which only gets bigger when your talking about businesses which rely simply on marking up products to turn a profit, how could they have succeeded when Walmart is buying the products for a cheaper price? They couldnt have paid their employees any less than Walmart does bc they already pay their employees next to nothing

ALSO when it comes to healthcare the problem lies in price gouging rather than Walmart's undercutting the competition strategy, prices have been set by the insurers and the health care industry that are gouging the customers and making 20% of Americans unable to even afford a basic need. You cant just go to a mom and pop hospital you pretty much go to the only hospital in the town or perhaps you have a choice of a few major hospitals if you live in a bigger city so there is no competition or market determination of price hell you dont even get your bill until after the fact bc your in no position to worry about price anyway if you're dying or in agony. The government is forced to step in to secure a basic need for its citizens since the insurance companies arent going to voluntarily forfeit the billions a year in profit they ciphen out of your premiums and lower the prices to a level where all Americans have access to medical care, in fact having you over a barrel by controlling access to a basic need they could jack up prices even further where even more than the 50 million that cant currently afford it would be left uninsured.

Capitalism has to be tempered by reason, you cant just let monopolies completely takeover the control of basic needs and then come up with whatever price they like.

[SilversunPickups]

I'm not opposed to a change in the U.S. healthcare system but I'm opposed to the Obama plan.

If our government can come up with one that actually works, I'm all for it. But the one we are hearing about with penalties up to $900 a year for an individual who doesn't get insurance is ludicrous.

Have any of you ever been to a county run hospital? I have and it was disgusting. There was one doctor for about 50 patients. There was no paper on the beds and no one wiped down the beds between patients. Equipment wasn't being cleaned between patients. The equipment looked old. It didn't smell like a hospital. This was a county hospital in Chicago.

The best doctors come to this country because they get PAID big bucks to be great doctors. The not-so-good doctors end up working on salary for county and state hospitals. With a government run healthcare plan, I have a feeling our hospitals and health care would take a nosedive.

Our government is inefficient at running everything and is always in the red. Please don't think that would change with healthcare. There will be many hoops to jump through to get things done. And taxes would be raised to pay our new healthcare system (which I'm not opposed to as long as they get it right).

And this penalty for people who don't get insurance won't be implemented on people who can't afford insurance (what??). So that leads us back to the same problem of who is going to pay for the medical care of the uninsured? The taxpayer again.

Unless our government can come up with a truly UNIVERSAL plan (not a plan that covers MOST of us but with penalties) then I will oppose it.

Plus, our deficit hit a record at $1.3 trillion last month. We have more important issues right now than wasting time and money trying to get this healthcare bill passed. We have soldiers dying and fighting who need answers to their future. Obama needs to spend less time on Letterman (which he seems to be on these talk shows every other week) and start worrying about the bigger world issues that we are involved in. Healthcare can wait.

[bettilimbroke999]

I would eliminate the military that hasnt had a success in the last 60+ years before I would deny a person in agonizing pain access to a doctor

[SilversunPickups]

I would eliminate the military that hasnt had a success in the last 60+ years before I would deny a person in agonizing pain access to a doctor

There are plenty of free clinics and county hospitals to go to for care. It's not like the uninsured have no where to go in this country.

Every big city has free clinics for illegal immigrants and the uninsured. They just have to pay for the medications.

And don't disgrace our soldiers fighting for your freedom ever again

[SilversunPickups]

I would eliminate the military that hasnt had a success in the last 60+ years before I would deny a person in agonizing pain access to a doctor

And again, I'm not opposed to healthcare but it needs to be UNIVERSAL not one that covers "most". Otherwise, we are still going to pay for the uninsured in taxes and get taxed for the health plan. I don't want to pay for the same thing twice.

[reno cool]

And again, I'm not opposed to healthcare but it needs to be UNIVERSAL not one that covers "most". Otherwise, we are still going to pay for the uninsured in taxes and get taxed for the health plan. I don't want to pay for the same thing twice.

yes. That's what the public has to demand. That would go against a lot of powerful interests.

[reno cool]

Two things lost, first WalMart succeeds by being the low price leader, they lower prices in a multitude of undesirable ways, first of which is paying employees nearly nothing with no benefits, #2 is by having such a mass purchasing entity you can manipulate prices that a family business etc could never do, when Joe down the street needs 3 Sony TVs he takes whatever price they give him, when WalMart needs 3 million they can dictate what price they're willing to pay and undercut Joe, now what moron would buy the same TV from Joe for a higher price thus competition is all but eliminated same way with all the products they sell WalMart is the market and if they dont buy from you your out of business very much the same effect that the unions you hate so much have on business except you congratulate Walmart for dictating what price they'll accept to companies.

I really am not sure how that is the little guys fault, it is just the mathematics of capitalism that bigger is better, economies of scale creates a huge competitive advantage which only gets bigger when your talking about businesses which rely simply on marking up products to turn a profit, how could they have succeeded when Walmart is buying the products for a cheaper price? They couldnt have paid their employees any less than Walmart does bc they already pay their employees next to nothing

ALSO when it comes to healthcare the problem lies in price gouging rather than Walmart's undercutting the competition strategy, prices have been set by the insurers and the health care industry that are gouging the customers and making 20% of Americans unable to even afford a basic need. You cant just go to a mom and pop hospital you pretty much go to the only hospital in the town or perhaps you have a choice of a few major hospitals if you live in a bigger city so there is no competition or market determination of price hell you dont even get your bill until after the fact bc your in no position to worry about price anyway if you're dying or in agony. The government is forced to step in to secure a basic need for its citizens since the insurance companies arent going to voluntarily forfeit the billions a year in profit they ciphen out of your premiums and lower the prices to a level where all Americans have access to medical care, in fact having you over a barrel by controlling access to a basic need they could jack up prices even further where even more than the 50 million that cant currently afford it would be left uninsured.

Capitalism has to be tempered by reason, you cant just let monopolies completely takeover the control of basic needs and then come up with whatever price they like.

B, don't confuse Marbles with facts or reality. He's got a theory going here.

[DwightShrute]

hey lostumarbles, would it be safe assume that, in your point of view, the democrats were responsible for the housing collapse?

Everyone knows they were! You doubt that still? Even the dems admit they were.


Democrats caused this crisis because of there love for risky subprime loans at fannie may and freddie mac
watch the videos below to learn more

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4qyNiueqKY

watch this video and listen to bill clinton say that its the democrats fault

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfGWxqsKFmY

Fact-Jimmy Carter signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act (1977), authorizing loans be made available to low-income households especially minorities!!!
Fact-Bill Clinton repeals Glass-Stegall and reduces reserve requirements with Fed bank!!!
Fact- Obama the lawyer threatens lawsuits against institutions for not making suspect loans!!!
Fact- Obama (Democrat) receives 2nd most PAC money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!!!
Fact-Chris Dodd (Democrat) receives the most PAC money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!!!
Fact-The Democrats thwarted any and all legislation to put controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, though Republicans were initiating it!!!
Fact-Barney Frank (Democrat) was the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee during this time and has been on the committee for ten years…oh, and Frank received the 3rd most money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!!!
You just can’t hide from the facts Democrats-!!!

[Shafted69]

Everyone knows they were! You doubt that still? Even the dems admit they were.


Democrats caused this crisis because of there love for risky subprime loans at fannie may and freddie mac
watch the videos below to learn more

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4qyNiueqKY

watch this video and listen to bill clinton say that its the democrats fault

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfGWxqsKFmY

Fact-Jimmy Carter signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act (1977), authorizing loans be made available to low-income households especially minorities!!!
Fact-Bill Clinton repeals Glass-Stegall and reduces reserve requirements with Fed bank!!!
Fact- Obama the lawyer threatens lawsuits against institutions for not making suspect loans!!!
Fact- Obama (Democrat) receives 2nd most PAC money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!!!
Fact-Chris Dodd (Democrat) receives the most PAC money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!!!
Fact-The Democrats thwarted any and all legislation to put controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, though Republicans were initiating it!!!
Fact-Barney Frank (Democrat) was the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee during this time and has been on the committee for ten years…oh, and Frank received the 3rd most money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!!!
You just can’t hide from the facts Democrats-!!!

Greenspan (R)- Federal Reserve(set interest rates), Donaldson (R) & Cox (R) - SEC Chairmen (Regelate Wall Street), O" Neil (R) & Paulson (R) - Treasury Sec's(Regulate Money Flow) and Jackson (R) - SECretary of HOUSING, BUSH (R), the promoter of " THE OWNERSHIP SOCIETY " and the leader of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of Government who oversees all Watchdog Agencies & enforces the law; and finally the MAJORITY REPUBLICAN CONGRESS from 1994-2006, who by nature are in favor of De-Regulation(aka less regulations) have zero blame?

Also, FANNIE & FREDDIE had ties to both parties. Many McCain Campaign Staffers were former Fannie & Freddie executives & lobbyists.

Aquiles Suarez, listed as an economic adviser to the McCain campaign in a July 2007 McCain press release, was formerly the director of government and industry relations for Fannie Mae. The Senate Lobbying Database says Suarez oversaw the lending giant's $47,510,000 lobbying campaign from 2003 to 2006.
And other current McCain campaign staffers were the lobbyists receiving shares of that money. According to the Senate Lobbying Database, the lobbying firm of Charlie Black, one of McCain's top aides, made at least $820,000 working for Freddie Mac from 1999 to 2004. The McCain campaign's vice-chair Wayne Berman and its congressional liaison John Green made $1.14 million working on behalf of Fannie Mae for lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations. Green made an additional $180,000 from Freddie Mac. Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., the VP vetter who helped John McCain select Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Fannie Mae in 2003 and 2004, while working for lobbying and law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP. In addition, Politico reports that at least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pocketing at least $12.3 million over the last nine years.
For years McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was head of the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbying association that included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, real estate agents, homebuilders, and non-profits. According to Politico, the organization opposed congressional attempts at regulation of Fannie and Freddie, along the lines of what John McCain is currently proposing. In his capacity of president of the group, Davis went on record in 2003 and insisted that no further reform of the lenders was necessary, in contradiction to his current boss's sentiments. "[Fannie and Freddie] are subject to an innovative and stringent risk-based capital stress test," Davis wrote. "The toughest in the financial services industry."

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/09/mccains-fannie-and-freddie-connections

[losturmarbles]

hey lostumarbles, would it be safe assume that, in your point of view, the democrats were responsible for the housing collapse?

hey shafted, would it be safe to assume that if we took your brain and shoved it up an ant's ass, that it would rattle around like a BB in a boxcar?


(that was for you pokerjoe )

[losturmarbles]

My post was neither incoherent nor rambling. You've labelled it such, but not shown it to be such.

Yes, government is something we spend money on. They get taxes from me, anyway. It's a form of consumption. I buy food and housing and such with my earnings. I also buy government services.

If you don't understand what "ability to pay" means, I can't help you. Probably no one can.

No, I'm not in high school. But I think that probably, when reading these threads, people are thinking, "Don't mess with losturmarbles, he'll insult you! And wittily, too!"

no, it was incoherent. but even if you fixed the cohesion, your reasoning is naive and callow. and your ignorance about government would rival the intellect of the dumbest girl at a sweet sixteen party.

so go pay your taxes, and be the good little government subject that you are.

[losturmarbles]

The phrase "rambling and incoherent" comes to mind for some reason. But at least your grammar and punctuation are first rate.

Show us some proof that the government's intent is "control." Really. Show us some proof.

And as far as "what better way to control someone than to control their health care," what does that mean? Control them for what? Health care is a terrible way to "control" someone. In providing it, they control you at least as much, especially in systems where they get to pick their own doctors and avoid having corporate bureaucrats getting in the way.

The people are the consumers and, in government-provided health care, the government has to provide what the people want. That's why so many are so happy with Medicare. They like the control.

So you have it backward: right now, the corporations control health care, and they abuse the privilege. With some reform, the people can control it.

Obama is not Bush. You can stop fearing your government now.

i'm not here to prove that there's light to a blind man.

first you question the motive of control, and then you say that the people like being controlled. whatever.

i dont fear my government. i fear imbeciles like yourself that will whore out every ounce of freedom you possess to have the security of being nestled in the bosom of a nanny state.

[losturmarbles]

Two things lost, first WalMart succeeds by being the low price leader, they lower prices in a multitude of undesirable ways, first of which is paying employees nearly nothing with no benefits, #2 is by having such a mass purchasing entity you can manipulate prices that a family business etc could never do, when Joe down the street needs 3 Sony TVs he takes whatever price they give him, when WalMart needs 3 million they can dictate what price they're willing to pay and undercut Joe, now what moron would buy the same TV from Joe for a higher price thus competition is all but eliminated same way with all the products they sell WalMart is the market and if they dont buy from you your out of business very much the same effect that the unions you hate so much have on business except you congratulate Walmart for dictating what price they'll accept to companies.

I really am not sure how that is the little guys fault, it is just the mathematics of capitalism that bigger is better, economies of scale creates a huge competitive advantage which only gets bigger when your talking about businesses which rely simply on marking up products to turn a profit, how could they have succeeded when Walmart is buying the products for a cheaper price? They couldnt have paid their employees any less than Walmart does bc they already pay their employees next to nothing

ALSO when it comes to healthcare the problem lies in price gouging rather than Walmart's undercutting the competition strategy, prices have been set by the insurers and the health care industry that are gouging the customers and making 20% of Americans unable to even afford a basic need. You cant just go to a mom and pop hospital you pretty much go to the only hospital in the town or perhaps you have a choice of a few major hospitals if you live in a bigger city so there is no competition or market determination of price hell you dont even get your bill until after the fact bc your in no position to worry about price anyway if you're dying or in agony. The government is forced to step in to secure a basic need for its citizens since the insurance companies arent going to voluntarily forfeit the billions a year in profit they ciphen out of your premiums and lower the prices to a level where all Americans have access to medical care, in fact having you over a barrel by controlling access to a basic need they could jack up prices even further where even more than the 50 million that cant currently afford it would be left uninsured.

Capitalism has to be tempered by reason, you cant just let monopolies completely takeover the control of basic needs and then come up with whatever price they like.

thanks for the eco 101 class, bet. using your logic, walmart possess 100% of the market on consumer goods. so i guess they don't even have to lower price if they're the only price huh.

i agree that health care prices are being gouged. the problem with your analogy is that when someone buys a tv, they are spending their money to buy a product from someone who wants to sell it. two parties are mutually benefiting from the exchange. walmart is able to dictate lower prices from suppliers because they understand this concept. they understand that they can get more people to agree to the retail exchange, if they offer lower prices.
when you accept an offer on matchbook, are you going to accept anything but the lowest offer possible? of course not. but let's say a different book offers 20 cent lines, but they offer a reload bonus of 50%. they're not offering the lowest direct price, but they are appealing to a share of consumers. if joe can't find a way to do that, like maybe have free delivery or free installation. then that's joe's fault for failing.
but in health care, the price problem is multi-fold. first, there is little to no competition in health care. there is no walmart in the insurance world. why? because government won't allow it with state regulations and mandates, and they would lose big insurance political contributions. secondly, market forces are nullified when people are allowed to spend other people's money on products for themselves. robbing peter to pay for paul's health care. paul is not spending his own money. and nothing will inflate the price more than when the consumer doesn't value the money he is spending. a child given a $20 bill at a candy shop will spend every penny of it. and when there is a million children with a million $20 bills, the candy shop owner learns real fast that he can start charging a lot more and get away with it.

[Shafted69]

hey shafted, would it be safe to assume that if we took your brain and shoved it up an ant's ass, that it would rattle around like a BB in a boxcar?


(that was for you pokerjoe )

We Have A Village Idiot In This Thread:His Name Is losturmarbles.

[BadNina]

Just cause I love to poke Bettilimbroke with a stick....

Hun, my sister use to work for WalMart. She had insurance and a 401K plan. What other benefits are they suppose to offer? Shuttle service from the parking lot?

[andywend]

bettillimbroke said, "I would eliminate the military that hasnt had a success in the last 60+ years before I would deny a person in agonizing pain access to a doctor"

You are quite the POS and its important you know that. Is there anything about the U.S. you don't hate?

Its certainly no wonder you can't get a job that pays more than $8 per hour. While you delude yourself into thinking your employer is taking advantage of you, the truth is you would be vastly overpaid making $1/hour.

Shafted69, Dwight provided detailed videos of democrats in their own words causing the housing collapse. Since you are trying to imply it was the republicans who caused it, please provide videos to state your case as Dwight did to state his.

[topcat]

for what its worth i believe the way you do .when i was 18 to 26 i had farm bureu insurance.i never used it but it didnt stop my premiums to double.i did what i thought was right so i droped it.well when i got 33 i wrecked my back in a freak accident.i put off having back surgery because i didnt have insurance.i didnt know my rights.i spent over 12,000 in nerve blocks,chiropractor[big damn rip off that was]had decompresions. that straightend my back out,but because i waited so long to get somethingdone i tore the tendons in my left knee.iam lucky i didnt have nerve damage.my mom is a nurse at the hospital,and she found out about revocational rehab.this is when i had to have surgery again.on my back.what has pissed me off the most in this ordeal is when i go to the er they demand money every time.i paid the one time.the next time i saw some black guys jumping up,and down.pretending to be hurt,and they didnt pay shit.i told my dad that was the last ****ing time i will ever pay the er.when i go to the family doctor i have to pay 60 dollars while people on medicade pay nothing.i pay around 300 for my meds.i take cymbalto.protonix,pain meds,and soma.people on medicade pay nothing.they have the free health.something needs to happen good for the middle class,because in few years we wont exsist.

[topcat]

you are a ****ing fool.

[bettilimbroke999]

Just cause I love to poke Bettilimbroke with a stick....

Hun, my sister use to work for WalMart. She had insurance and a 401K plan. What other benefits are they suppose to offer? Shuttle service from the parking lot?

WalMart has close to a 100% turnover bc its benefits are fukin awful, first off you start off with almost no pay, lets say 50 cents over min wage comparable to what a 16 yr old makes for entertainment money at the local McDs and their health insurance benefits are the worst anywhere they offer literally such limited health benefits its basically only useful in the event of catastrophic illness like cancer, routine visits etc are not covered such as child vaccinations, flu shots etc and of course its still a 1/3 paid by the employee for junk health insurance that 40% of its employees opt out of its so bad on top of that overtime is almost impossible at Walmart its considered grounds for firing if a manager has workers getting overtime in consecutive weeks, so you've got a 40 hr/wk 8 dollar an hour job lifting TVs for WalMart for 280 wk take home - the 1/3 premium for the shit health benefits that half the workers opt out of and you are informed you can put away some of that 250 a week you have left into a 401k?

Are you serious Nina, you are a woman so I understand that sex is generally all thats required in order to get your bills paid but for the men in the audience that pay their own bills I can assure you 250 a week aint gonna leave you with much cash to contribute to a retirement plan

[topcat]

I would eliminate the military that hasnt had a success in the last 60+ years before I would deny a person in agonizing pain access to a doctor