What Makes People Vote Republican?

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Darkness,

So, in the equation we have some drugs restricted under public insurance plans and some drugs restricted under private insurance plans (my family's private insurance will not pay for allergy treatment medication that allows me to eat without feeling like vomiting). The difference is that under a single-payer system everyone would have some basic insurance, whereas under the private system 40 million Americans are without insurance.

First of all the 40 million is way too misleading because it includes those eligible for various government-run insurance programs, many that make over 50k and illegals. It is a hugely inflated number used for effect.

Second, the point I'm making is that government-run healthcare programs withhold all kinds of resources from people that are technically covered.

Is not Lieberman an Independent?

Yes, only after the Democratic Party didn't include him in their "in-group."

 

[Darkness]

Second, the point I'm making is that government-run healthcare programs withhold all kinds of resources from people that are technically covered.

You are side-stepping the issue. How is this different from the practices of private-run insurance programs?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Darkness,

You are side-stepping the issue. How is this different from the practices of private-run insurance programs?

I'm not side-stepping anything. In a free-market if you don't like what an insurance company covers then you find another one. Of course with health insurance we don't have a free market. Since most of us have employer-provided health insurance most of us don't even shop around for the best health insurance plan for us. And you cannot purchase health insurance across state lines which limit competition. And states regulate the heck out of insurance companies with idiotic policies like guaranteed issue and community rating.

So, yes, for many, they are a slave to either a heavy regulated private insurance plan or highly selective public plan.

And all Democrats want to do is strengthen these perverse incentives.

 

[Darkness]

In a free-market if you don't like what an insurance company covers then you find another one.

Assuming you do not have a pre-condition when you decide to switch.

Argueing for neoliberal policies is always so easy and basic, because all you have to say is let the free-market handle it. It is like argueing for Communism. Instead of coming up with a system that works, let's just abolish money and class altogether. Life and politics are infinitely more complex.

 

[Valjean]

Hi GC,



I believe that older form would be serfdom.

The present trend is toward a rebirth of Dikensian England. An older form might be the humanistic utopia envisioned by our founding fathers

 

[Smoke]

Is not Lieberman an Independent?

He won the last election as the candidate of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, a fact that everyone seems all too eager to forget. He's a registered Democrat and is officially listed as an Independent Democrat.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Darkness,

Assuming you do not have a pre-condition when you decide to switch.

Why is this so hard to figure out? When you already have a chronic pre-existing condition you are not buying health insurance you are buying healthcare. At that point you have left the insurance business.

Argueing for neoliberal policies is always so easy and basic, because all you have to say is let the free-market handle it. It is like argueing for Communism. Instead of coming up with a system that works, let's just abolish money and class altogether. Life and politics are infinitely more complex.

Talk about a lazy analysis. I am not simply saying 'let the market take care of it.' I am arguing specifics; remove the tax deductible status from employer provided health insurance (or make insurance bought outside an employer also tax deductible), repeal the law that prohibits the purchasing of health insurance across state lines. States should repeal guaranteed issue and community rating regulations of health insurance. Acknowledge as Dick Durbin does that Medicare is going bankrupt.

These are all specifics that will improve our current system, not some utopian ideal.

 

[Smoke]

What a tepid reaction, where is the liberal outrage? If a private insurance company did this you would be screaming bloody murder

No, I wouldn't. I really don't think a last-ditch attempt at an 8% chance of living on chemo for a couple extra months is a very good decision. Obviously, there are people who disagree, but I think there are limits. Few of us get to live as long as we'd like, and a person with end-stage cancer probably needs to face up to that fact.

And I cannot believe you are missing the larger point here; the government gives Barbara a menu of choices.

I'm sure you're not foolish enough to think that private insurers don't do the same thing.

Barbara herself cannot make these decisions, she must hope the government is nice enough to let her live.

It wasn't a question of "letting her live." No Oregon agents were lurking in the hospital corridor with a handgun. It was a question of authorizing a very expensive plan of care that was known to be futile.

But spare me your crocodile tears for the late Ms. Wagner. Your blessed free market would undoubtedly have denied her Tarceva. She could never have afforded an insurance plan that would have allowed it; that's why she was eligible for the OHP in the first place. In fact, it's likely that in your ideal world she wouldn't even have had the three years of care she did have. The Barbara Wagners of the world will not live longer if you get your way; they'll die sooner and in greater misery. And unless you're a fool, you know that very well.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

No, I wouldn't. I really don't think a last-ditch attempt at an 8% chance of living on chemo for a couple extra months is a very good decision. Obviously, there are people who disagree, but I think there are limits. Few of us get to live as long as we'd like, and a person with end-stage cancer probably needs to face up to that fact.

And who should get the make that decision? That is my point; in the system you favor the government makes those decisions. In my system the individual and family would be making those decisions.

I'm sure you're not foolish enough to think that private insurers don't do the same thing.

Of course they do. Barbara wouldn't be purchasing health insurance, she would be buying healthcare. Of course she could look for an insurance company that could cover the cost of the drug or simply purchase it herself if she had the resources.

But spare me your crocodile tears for the late Ms. Wagner. Your blessed free market would undoubtedly have denied her Tarceva. She could never have afforded an insurance plan that would have allowed it; that's why she was eligible for the OHP in the first place. In fact, it's likely that in your ideal world she wouldn't even have had the three years of care she did have. The Barbara Wagners of the world will not live longer if you get your way; they'll die sooner and in greater misery. And unless you're a fool, you know that very well.

What are you talking about? In Europe and Canada Tarceva wouldn't have ever made it to the market for people to use. The government would have deemed the drug too expensive.

 

[Smoke]

Of course they do. Barbara wouldn't be purchasing health insurance, she would be buying healthcare. Of course she could look for an insurance company that could cover the cost of the drug

Good idea. Maybe you could supply a list of insurers who will write policies for patients with end-stage cancer.

or simply purchase it herself if she had the resources.

An option she had under the OHP as well.

What are you talking about? In Europe and Canada Tarceva wouldn't have ever made it to the market for people to use. The government would have deemed the drug too expensive.

Tarceva is approved for use in Canada and throughout the EU, though coverage for it varies. In England, the NHS won't pay for it, but you can get it for free in Scotland.

But that's a red herring, anyway. I compared Ms. Wagner's chances of coverage under the OHP versus the free market. You completely dodged my point by making a weak (and false) accusation against Canadian and European health care systems. Such rank dishonesty wouldn't be necessary if you had a decent argument for the system you favor.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

But that's a red herring, anyway. I compared Ms. Wagner's chances of coverage under the OHP versus the free market. You completely dodged my point by making a weak (and false) accusation against Canadian and European health care systems. Such rank dishonesty wouldn't be necessary if you had a decent argument for the system you favor.

How silly of me. We sure have a free market for health insurance where you can't buy health insurance across state lines, states force insurance companies to cover things they otherwise wouldn't cover, states also regulate with guaranteed issue and community rating. Most of us have our health insurance via our employers based on an antiquated WWII cost control provision. Not to mention about 100 million people consume their healthcare on the government's dime. But yeah, we got a free market here.

Seriously, get a clue.

 

[Smoke]

How silly of me. We sure have a free market for health insurance where you can't buy health insurance across state lines, states force insurance companies to cover things they otherwise wouldn't cover, states also regulate with guaranteed issue and community rating. Most of us have our health insurance via our employers based on an antiquated WWII cost control provision. Not to mention about 100 million people consume their healthcare on the government's dime. But yeah, we got a free market here.

Seriously, get a clue.

Seriously, Joe, man up. I didn't say we have a free market. I said you advocated a free market. But that was another good try at deflecting attention from your contemptible position.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

Seriously, Joe, man up. I didn't say we have a free market. I said you advocated a free market. But that was another good try at deflecting attention from your contemptible position.

Good, so you know we don't have a free market for either health insurance or healthcare in our country.

In a free market the cost of insurance would be dramatically reduced from what it is now. Barbara could shop outside of the state for plans that could possibly cover her in her condition. And you ignore the fact that in our current system the people in the U.S. have far greater access to life-saving and sustaining drugs than Canada or European government-run healthcare systems.

And then you call my position contemptible. Governments withhold life-saving drugs to people and that is the system you defend.

Talk about a bizarro world of liberals.

 

[Smoke]

In a free market the cost of insurance would be dramatically reduced from what it is now. Barbara could shop outside of the state for plans that could possibly cover her in her condition.

Great. We finally have an argument in favor of your position: Barbara could shop around for coverage and care she couldn't possibly afford. She would have had far less care, and would have died sooner and in worse circumstances than she did. The truth is, you don't give a tiny rat's *** about Barbara Wagner. You're just attempting -- not very successfully, I might add -- to exploit her for your own cynical purposes.

And then you call my position contemptible. Governments withhold life-saving drugs to people and that is the system you defend.

We can't have a perfect world, but we can manage a far better world than the one you advocate. Barbara had far better care under the OHP than she could ever have had under your system. You know it, and everybody reading this knows it.

But it's wonderful how you Christians can feign compassion when it suits your ends.

 

[Sunstone]

I wonder what all this trite, cliche, propaganda about free market ideals has to do with the article cited in the OP on why people vote Republican? Would it be possible to get a Republican to read that article and comment on it?

 

[Smoke]

I wonder what all this trite, cliche, propaganda about free market ideals has to do with the article cited in the OP on why people vote Republican?

Well, a lot of people fall for that kind of thing. It's calculated to appeal to their fears, their hatreds, their greed, and their insanity.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

But it's wonderful how you Christians can feign compassion when it suits your ends.

What planet are you on?

Governments with socialized healthcare withhold drugs from people because they deem them too expensive. Americans had greater access to life-saving and sustaining drugs than in countries with socialized healthcare. This is fact.

Can the silly 'you know it' argument, it is beneath you.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

Well, a lot of people fall for that kind of thing. It's calculated to appeal to their fears, their hatreds, their greed, and their insanity.

The sad thing is you believe these absurd caricatures. I respect that you came to your beliefs in a rational way. Too bad that decorum is not a two-way street.

 

[Smoke]

Governments with socialized healthcare withhold drugs from people because they deem them too expensive. Americans had greater access to life-saving and sustaining drugs than in countries with socialized healthcare. This is fact.

Not Americans like Barbara Wagner. That is a fact.

Can the silly 'you know it' argument, it is beneath you.

You do know it, or I hope you do, because I don't like to waste my time arguing with utter morons. But maybe this whole argument ought to be beneath me, because arguing with the dishonest isn't much better.

 

[Smoke]

I respect that you came to your beliefs in a rational way. Too bad that decorum is not a two-way street.

If you want me to respect your beliefs as having been rationally arrived at, you need to have rational beliefs and present them without such blatantly dishonest tactics. I don't give out respect willy-nilly to every ideology I encounter, no matter how cruel or foolish. If I did, my respect would have no value.