Jordanian pilot burned alive by terrorist

[tpunx99GSX]

Just gonna throw this out here...
If you average out the sun days this battery may make solar power a viable option.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/11/8023443/tesla-home-consumer-battery-elon-musk

[1ViciousGSX]

How about that Jordanian pilot that was burned alive?

[Goat Blower]

Christians killed Muslims hundreds of years ago so anything goes.

[jeremy1375]

Sure, I post what is relevant to my point, just as you or anybody else does.

Unfortunately that is not how a "free market system" is working for the great USoA. NAFTA made sure of that.
http://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2013/10/trade-experts-reveal-costs-north-american-free-trade-agreement

http://economyincrisis.org/nafta



If a person quotes someone, it is generally assumed they are showing agreement with that persons general position. If I used a quote from Hitler to prove a point because I agreed with that point, wouldn't the fact that I did that imply some respect for Hitlers ideals even if the quote had nothing to do with the monstrous things he did?

Anyhow, quotes express an opinion, not fact. Studies are done to find the facts.

The first link explains how NAFTA caused a bunch of carbon to be released into the atmosphere. So you believe in climate change?

The second link is propaganda.

And lets not forget that China has such a huge one-way street on China/US imports and exports, all the while big brother is picking winners and loosers.

So being able to buy stuff super cheap is a huge burden on our country? I keep hearing about the sky falling with China and it never does. It's a communist country. Maybe we can stop trade and start a cold war with China - because the one with the USSR was so great. Meanwhile I get to buy a $50 oscilloscope to troubleshoot my dsm.

And big brother picking winners and losers? It was Bush who began bailing out banks after the crash. Obama continued the path of keynesian economics. Bush started it Obama got blamed and it didn't even fail.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26987291/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/bush-signs-billion-financial-bailout-bill/#.VN03LVPF9kB



And yet people come here to get treatments they can't get anywhere else, or have to wait years to get because of universal healthcare, which in many cases is too late,...



In that "free market system" there would be competition which always drives cost down and quality up. But now that Obamacare is in place, none of that matters anymore.

The cost was the highest in the world before Obamacare and rising faster than inflation. Other countries make it work.

The data in this story doesn't support your claim about long wait times. What data do you have about the rest of your claim?

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/universal-healthcare-doesnt-mean-waiting-longer-to-see-a-doctor/281614/

If your points are as patently true as you seem to believe they are, there should be facts to show it, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/budget-office-slashes-estimated-cost-of-health-coverage.html

[jeremy1375]

How about that Jordanian pilot that was burned alive?

Oh, right. Everyone can get back to talking about how great the King of Jordan is.

[jeremy1375]

Oops.. unintended reply

[1ViciousGSX]

My point about China (you can throw Mexico in there too) had to do with your bringing up free market systems. We don't have one like you think we do. America was once a great industrialized nation until we sold out our own labor forces with NAFTA. Dig a little and find out what's happening to the wealth of this country (not talking individual)), it's turning into a house of cards.

Obamacare is not a product of a free market system. It's crony capitalism. Picking winners and losers along the way. Take a look into how many in congress and the senate have invested heavily into certain medical companies since before and after Obamacare passed. Now you think those same politicians are to pass bills or give contracts out to the competition?

Open markets across state lines with competing companies was the answer.

[jeremy1375]

As I was reading your reply and researching the details of the subject matter in it, I had a realization. While we don't see eye to eye on the subject matter, I definitely sensed your concern and worry about the direction this country is heading in. If you strip away the content, that is certainly an experience we share. We find ourselves on different teams with different visions for our country, however.

I am open to shift my views based on evidence I find. When we were arguing the 2nd amendment and I was researching the laws and history, I had no idea where the rabbit hole I fell into was going to take me. That shit is hard and uncomfortable to do because for all I know, the end result I might find is exactly the opposite of what I believed. Then I would have no choice, but to admit defeat and accept reality. I am trying to do the same here. If you have supporting facts, historical precedent, and logical reasoning to support your claims in a honest open discission, I would love to hear them. I don't want to hear rehashed rhetoric from a talking head that knows fear and anger are the easiest way to get people fired up.

I've begun familiarizing myself with the concept of opening health markets across state lines. To put things in proper perspective, we could begin by discussing how the system currently works as a starting point. Then we'll have a framework to build on and understand how opening markets across state lines would change things. Thoughts?

[1ViciousGSX]

As I was reading your reply and researching the details of the subject matter in it, I had a realization. While we don't see eye to eye on the subject matter, I definitely sensed your concern and worry about the direction this country is heading in. If you strip away the content, that is certainly an experience we share. We find ourselves on different teams with different visions for our country, however.

I am open to shift my views based on evidence I find. When we were arguing the 2nd amendment and I was researching the laws and history, I had no idea where the rabbit hole I fell into was going to take me. That shit is hard and uncomfortable to do because for all I know, the end result I might find is exactly the opposite of what I believed. Then I would have no choice, but to admit defeat and accept reality. I am trying to do the same here. If you have supporting facts, historical precedent, and logical reasoning to support your claims in a honest open discission, I would love to hear them. I don't want to hear rehashed rhetoric from a talking head that knows fear and anger are the easiest way to get people fired up.

I've begun familiarizing myself with the concept of opening health markets across state lines. To put things in proper perspective, we could begin by discussing how the system currently works as a starting point. Then we'll have a framework to build on and understand how opening markets across state lines would change things. Thoughts?

We're all friends here and open discussion is key.

The whole premise behind Obamacare was two things, plus one that goes undiscussed.
1) reduce cost for the working middle class as cost were going up
2) insure the uninsured
3) the "other" agenda

For 1)
Cost are going up, not down. In the very beginning cost did seem lower, but if you follow election cycles vs implementation of key aspects of Obamacare it has risen as elections have passed. Same ol' dog and pony show as usual.
The simplest way to bring cost down is by opening up the insurance markets to allow competition across state lines and implement TORT Reform to do away with frivolous law suits that drive the cost up. This was the conservative plan that was put forward in senate, but good ol' boy Harry Reid blocked it from debate, basically keeping it out of the public eye.
See article and proposed bills at the bottom.

"Comprehensive Republican health reform plans introduced in Congress

Let’s start with 5 comprehensive health reform proposals that have actually been introduced in Congress—some well before President Obama even was nominated for president, and all months before the House (11/7/09 (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/17/politics/health-care-timeline)) or Senate (12/24/09 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396)) voted on what eventually became Obamacare.

Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act (http://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/10-steps-to-transform-health-care?p=10StepstoTransformHealthCare) (S. 1783) introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) July 12, 2007.
Every American Insured Health Act (http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=044cf2d2-802a-23ad-4edb-ca1777cebe6d&ContentType_id=d741b7a7-7863-4223-9904-8cb9378aa03a&Group_id=7a55cb96-4639-4dac-8c0c-99a4a227bd3a) introduced by Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Bob Corker (R-TN) with co-sponsors Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mel Martinez (formerly R-FL) and Elizabeth Dole (formerly R-NC) on July 26, 2007.
Senators Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the Healthy Americans Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_Americans_Act) on January 18, 2007 and re-introduced the same bill on February 5, 2009.
Patients’ Choice Act of 2009 (http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=d2f94455-368c-45b5-8d56-fc195a833884) introduced by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) on May 20, 2009. [See Update #1 for why this bill was of particular significance]
H.R. 2300, Empowering Patients First Act (http://tomprice.house.gov/sites/tomprice.house.gov/files/HR%202300%20Section%20by%20Section.pdf) introduced July 30, 2009 by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/28/seriously-the-republicans-have-no-health-plan/

The old system was basically a monoploy because the insurance companies positioned themselves to have no real competition. They controlled their own markets with no worries from competitors. Think back to the days of "Ma Bell" if you're old enough to remember, unfortunately I am. "Ma Bell" was the nation wide phone company that was divided into basically compass based positions in America, BellSouth, Northern Bell, Western Bell, etc. But they were under the same umbrella of Bell Telephones. At that time the cost of having a phone was very high, until they were deemed a monopoly somewhere in the late 70's if I remember correctly. At that point they were forced to sell off the branches and allow other companies to access the networks. Once that happened there was a dramatic increase in quality or services while the cost dropped. Same thing would happen with healthcare if the Republican plans were allowed to move forward. If you never heard about the Republican ideas I'm not surprised, Harry Reid and the Dems never spoke of it and kept it locked down.

So now you'll have a government controlled monopoly, how do think that will go?

For 2)
There was never technically anybody in this country that couldn't get healthcare, including illegals (don't get me started). For the most part, the poor had easier access to healthcare than the middle class. Those who couldn't afford it got it for free. Those who couldn't pay didn't.

For 3)
It's two folded. First off those in charge think people are living too long and they are looking for ways to reduce the population numbers. By complicating the healthcare system they are "backdoor" causing a reduction in healthcare for the aging class. If it's too complex or too burdomsone you may tough it out instead of running to the doctor everytime you feel ill. In the long run, going unchecked, many people could get sick enough to say it's too late for you, you should have come in sooner. Welcome to the DMV of healthcare.
Secondly,the longer you do live, the longer they have to pay for your healthcare and your social security payments after you retire. This is huge because the "baby boomers" are now hitting retirement age. So, the largest group of tax payers who've been paying into the system are now becoming the biggest burden of it. By causing you to die off sooner they save on both healthcare cost and social security payments. There will be "formulas" to determine if you qualify for a treatment or if you should just go home to die. Can you say death panels?

Ever really thought about why Congress, the Senate, all of their aids and anybody at a higher status in the government got an excemption? Because they saw the writing on the wall and would have never voted themselves out of quality healthcare. Exempting them was the only way to get it passed.

Know this for sure, the whole thing is designed to fail in the long term so we'll all be forced into "single payer".

[jeremy1375]

I’m not quite old enough to remember whether ma bell still existed when I was a kid, but I did grow up with a rotary phone and the Apple II didn’t make it to my elementary school until I was in 5th grade, so probably not too far off. Lol

I read through the summaries of those Republican sponsored health care bills from the Forbes article to see what they were about. To be completely honest with you, none of them seem radically different from Obamacare to me. More than one mentioned implementing health insurance exchanges, subsidized policies, focusing on preventative care, improving record keeping through IT, and one even had what amounted to an individual mandate. The selling insurance across state lines was in there too..

It seems Obamacare only allocated $50 million towards tort reform, which apparently isn’t much. When it comes to selling health insurance across state lines, I’m not sure it’s quite the monopoly ma bell was. From what I’ve gathered, there is no federal guideline making it illegal to sell health insurance across state lines. It’s state regulations that prevent it, but only because each state currently regulates its own insurance requirements. Any health insurance company can sell insurance in any state it wants to, provided it is licensed to do so in that state and the policy meets the states criteria. If there is an overpriced and uncompetitive market, there’s nothing stopping an insurance company from getting licensed and selling policies there. To make it an option for interstate policies however, Obamacare actually lays a framework out for any state to enter into a compact with any other states to sell insurance policies across state lines.

“Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), Section 1333 permits states to form health care choice inter-state compacts and allow insurers to sell policies in any state participating in the compact. Two or more states may enter into compacts under which one or more insurance plans may be offered in the such states, subject to the laws and regulations of the state in which it was written. “

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/out-of-state-health-insurance-purchases.aspx

Does that seem like a ma bell type monopoly to you? It might not be perfect, but it does it seem government controlled monopoly bad?

I’m not arguing that Obamacare is perfect. But, I can’t see how it’s so significantly different from the Republican proposals.