*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, August 25th, 2009 5:09pm PDT - promote requested by littledragon_79.

The world needs more angry Weiners.

Well - you may like him but this video gives no cause to do so. 1. He makes a generic claim ('everyone is going to pay less'). 2. He supplies only shoddy assertions and unfounded opinions to justify his claim (we're magically going to save 10%). 3. He ignores the CBO report that says the plan is will not save even 0.001% (let alone 10%). 4. He ignores the fact that Medicare & Medicaid are two of the most colossal failures in the annals of US social policy, both continually teetering on the edge of insolvency and routinely costing tens of billions more than they are budgeted for. 5. Then he goes and says private insurance doesn't help anyone to get health care.

At best, he's a tool. More likely, he's a neolib useful idiot.

>> ^TheFreak:
The world needs more angry Weiners.


Exacly, just like the ones on the town hall meetings

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Well - you may like him but this video gives no cause to do so. 1. He makes a generic claim ('everyone is going to pay less'). 2. He supplies only shoddy assertions and unfounded opinions to justify his claim (we're magically going to save 10%). 3. He ignores the CBO report that says the plan is will not save even 0.001% (let alone 10%). 4. He ignores the fact that Medicare & Medicaid are two of the most colossal failures in the annals of US social policy, both continually teetering on the edge of insolvency and routinely costing tens of billions more than they are budgeted for. 5. Then he goes and says private insurance doesn't help anyone to get health care.
At best, he's a tool. More likely, he's a neolib useful idiot.


You're right too!!!
just like the ones that I remember

1- We're going to win the war in Iraq
2- Yes we're 100% he has WMD

politicians always telling the truth!!!
and the stupid dumb asses cock sucker that always think their "side" is the correct one, isint that right " Winstonfield_littlepacker"

Bush was an idiot too. You see, unlike some, I am not constrained by a slavish, unthinking, zombie-like loyalty to a political party. When a Democrat like Weiner says something stupid, wrong, and idiotic I have no problem identifying it as such. When a Republican like Bush says/does something stupid, wrong, and idiotic then I will also happily point it out.

That's what it means to be honest, fair, and just in judgement. If you can't bring yourself to admit it when 'your team' is a bunch of lying screw-ups, then you are in fetters. I am unfettered. Bush did a ton of stupid, bad things in his term - Iraq being one of his most costly bad decisions.

You want to save the Obama presidency from doing something equally terrible? Then stop supporting idiots like Weiner when they say stupid things like he says in this video. Stop being a slave to party politics.

Weiner makes me proud to live in this great state of New York.

Meanwhile, at Fox, the headline will read, "Angry Socialist Tirade Lacks Cartoony Graphs."

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by lucky760.

wooooooooooooow.

Very tidy Mr Wiener.

Very well spoken fallacies. That's a successful politician right there.

For the love of... Drop the WMD thing ffs. Anyone with any knowledge of the state of the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia, prior to the beginning of the second Gulf War knows that Saddam's original possession of WMDs had absolutely nothing to do with our decision to invade Iraq. It was offered as possible cover (they figured maybe he hadn't managed to sell them all to Syria quite yet), because the true motivation for the invasion was not the kind of thing you talk about in public. Reading enough to connect the dots between the first Gulf War, Ab Qaiq, and why we were attacked by Saudis on 9/11 should help you to develop a better understanding of what we're really doing in the Middle East.

PLEASE NOTE: I am not defending Bush or the decision to invade Iraq.

Health spending as a share of GDP

US 16%

UK 8.4%

Public spending on healthcare (% of total spending on healthcare)

US 45%

UK 82%

Health spending per head

US $7,290

UK $2,992

Practising physicians (per 1,000 people)

US 2.4

UK 2.5

Nurses (per 1,000 people)

US 10.6

UK 10.0

Acute care hospital beds (per 1,000 people)

US 2.7

UK 2.6

Life expectancy:

US 78

UK 80

Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)

US 6.7

UK 4.8

Source: WHO/OECD Health Data 2009

If you look at this data, you can see that the US government spends MORE than the British government on healthcare, right now. in actual taxpayers money. 45% of the 16% is 7.2% of GDP, while the britsh government pays 82% of the 8.4%= 6.9% of the GDP

And yet, somehow, the british have FREE, UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE. infact, for you Americans, its cheaper than free, because you are already paying MORE, just to be uninsured. If you actually, on top of that want any actual healthcare, you have to pay an insurance company as well.

I just dont get you, here, why wouldnt you rather spend LESS money for BETTER healthcare?

I just dont get you, here, why wouldnt you rather spend LESS money for BETTER healthcare?

1. Less money? Who says? Not the CBO...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/cbo-sees-no-federal-cost-savings-in-dem-health-plans.html

How can it be any plainer? The DEMOCRAT run CBO office did the analysis, and concluded that the plan would result in no savings. Your perception that public helath care will be cheaper with a public option is therefore factually incorrect.

2. Better health care? Who says? Not people in the UK...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209034/The-babies-born-hospital-corridors-Bed-shortage-forces-4-000-mothers-birth-lifts-offices-hospital-toil
ets.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208970/Man-collapses-ruptured-appendix--weeks-NHS-doctors-took-out.html
http://yedda.com/questions/British_Dental_Patients_Face_3507421310153/
http://yedda.com/questions/Cancer_Pateitns_Beterayed_British_7355631675129/
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukaudit4.html
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukheartdelay2.html
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukinequality.html


My response to your question? Why should we pay MORE money for WORSE health care by adopting a public option?

Oh lordy. Winstonfield is in danger of becoming a republican tool.

Ok, let's agree on something pertinent Mr. Pennypacker; all the congresspeople/senators who vote for these bills should have to take the healthcare provided by them if it passes. If they vote against the bill they should have to give up their current healthcare in favor of what they can get in the marketplace.

Once they actually have a horse in the race there might be meaningful reforms.

*quality rant

This video has already declared quality - ignoring quality request by JiggaJonson.

WP, if you already have health-care, you're not even eligible for the public option. You're perpetuating the same lies as the rest of the Obamacare DeathPanel nutbags, by saying that suddenly you're going to be paying more money for worse health-care. Your health-care won't change.

The public option is only for the small % of the populace that is currently uninsured, and will only be one of the many choices that they will have. Even being eligible for the public option doesn't mean you HAVE to choose the public option. Hence the word "option".

This guy is clearly a communist and should be thrown out the USA

A doctor's commentary on Obama's proposed health care reforms.

>> ^Morganth:
A doctor's commentary on Obama's proposed health care reforms.


So does this doctor think that all of us are suddenly going to be on Medicare? That's what it sounds like. If that's the case, then he's also woefully misinformed. I wouldn't want this guy near my eyes.

>> ^Morganth:
A doctor's commentary on Obama's proposed health care reforms.
I won't even accept the opinion of a single doctor when it comes to medical advice for a seriou conditions. Why, then, should I accept the opinion of a single doctor on a matter that affects his profits? Particularly when it conflicts with the opinions of EVERY MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL I PERSONALLY KNOW.

Of course there are medical Doctors who are extrememly profitable under the current system. Many surgeons in particular. The fact that the anti-reform movement can find a handful of Doctors that oppose change does not move me at all.

While I do admire Mr. Wierner's passion for a health care system, he does need numbers. It could be possible he does have these numbers. Make sure, before you pass judgement, you understand the rules the group uses for speaking. I know from both the Senate and House at the federal level, each person is allocated a box of time. They can use some or all of it, or give some or all to another member of the Senate/House. In this case, that could be true. If Mr. Wierner had more time, he may have explained his position with data and evidence. Maybe have a look on this guy's site for more information.

I myself, have Mass Health (being a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts). It has its problems, but, it works pretty damn well for health care. If I have questions, I call up Mass Health and get answers quickly. I had to go through a pretty serious illness. If I didnt have Mass Health I would not be here. So I am quite justified in saying, we should get our fellow Americans who dont have health coverage, something more then nothing. If for nothing else, but to reduce suffering in the world.

I challenge Mr. Pennypacker to forgo health insurance (or as he would say...'hand out') until Republicans get someone in the White House. I know its a challenge he cant accept, because his arguement is unwise from a health perspective. Mr. Pennypacker is more concerned for himself, then those around him.

I could argue that Mass Health has been a tremedous success from a accounting perspective. Next year's health cost in Massachuseets is 1/3rd of 1% of the total budget. That's right folks, 2010 for MA, is $27 BILLION. The Cost for Mass Health: $88 Million. In fact, looking at residents in the other New England states, actually pay more for their health insurance, then the supposive Taxachuseets. So it begs the question: Why do we allow this system that is not working for us as Americans to do what it does?


In addition, it should be noted that the health care industry does not have to worry about antitrust laws. Thats right boys and girls, those insurance companies Mr. Pennypacker is defending, can conspire with your health and more profit for them, and there's NOTHING you can do about it. Since what is the object of a FOR PROFIT company? I think Mr. Weiner explained that one...

The cost of all of America's current and future entitlement obligations is already 50 TRILLION DOLLARS.

"If present trends continue, by 2040 the entire federal budget will be consumed by Social Security and Medicare alone. The only options for balancing the budget would be cutting total federal spending by about 60%, or doubling federal taxes."

There is no free lunch. And even if this communist fantasy health care were 'affordable', it would still do all the things the 'crats claim it wouldn't:

* destroys private insurance
* continues "free" care for illegals
* pays for abortions
* rationing

Oh, and the liars and thieves pushing this rubbish won't include themselves in the Plan; they'll be keeping their Anointed Ones-level health care.

The Emperor wears no clothes. And the Weiner wears no bun.

WP, if you already have health-care, you're not even eligible for the public option.

At this point no one knows who is elligible or not because there isn't a final version of the bill. All we know for sure is that there is language in the current bill HR 3200 that mandates compulsory participation in an insurance plan, as well as the creation of a public insurance based on Medicare. There are also numerous provisions that rig the game so roughly 83 million people would be forced off private insurance by 2015.

Your health-care won't change.

Not according to the lewin group’s analysis.

http://www.lewin.com/content/publications/LewinAnalysisHouseBill2009.pdf

Based on their analysis, the private insurance plan I’m on would ‘change’ in 1 to 2 years, and I would be enrolled in the government’s public option. Sounds like a change to me.

Even being eligible for the public option doesn't mean you HAVE to choose the public option. Hence the word "option".

The public option will be 30% cheaper thanks to federal subsudization. I currently pay about $40 a month in insurance premiums for a yearly total of 500 bucks in insurance costs. That's because my employer offers a benefit, otherwise I'd be paying full cost myself of $600 or so a month. It's a good deal.

In 1 or 2 years that plan would be annihilated under the current bill. I'd have no choice but to enter the government's rigged 'market' where the public option is going to undercut every private insurer by at least 30% via taxation. Now I'll be paying about $400 a month in taxes for my so-called 'free' health care service.

Hmm - pay $600 a month or $400 a month? That's some 'choice' - especially when I'm curently paying only $40 a month for my current, fantastic health care. I fail to see anything compelling about this little racket the government is trying to set up for itself. Even the most basic examination very clearly shows it is a government scheme to get the federal thumb in the health care market pie.

Right now, companies are paying health care benefits to give employees cheaper insurance. The government doesn't get a penny of that money. Under HR3200, ALL that money would be funnelled through the government. As far as I'm concerned, like Social Security, this is just another government ponzai scheme where they insert themselves into the process for the purpose of skimming themselves a nice tidy little 30% to 40% for doing absolutely nothing.

2. Better health care? Who says? Not people in the UK...

No system is perfect, and sure there's probably more than enough to complain about in the British system, nobody says different, but I'm willing to bet that even those people with unfortunate run-ins with the NHS wouldnt DREAM of replacing the NHS with the American system. In countries with socialized (boo!, scared you with that naughty word) medicine, Universal healthcare is one of the backbones of society, it provides a security not unlike the fire department or the police. We wouldnt dream of privatizing it and have an insurance company deciding what to pay and not pay for (after having spent years paying insurance) and watching them do everything they can to avoid a payout (as any well-run private company should) and as it turns out: it costs LESS MONEY.

the DEMOCRAT run CBO office did the analysis, and concluded that the plan would result in no savings. Your perception that public helath care will be cheaper with a public option is therefore factually incorrect.

I said the BRITISH system was cheaper both for the taxpayer and the patient, and as the numbers indicate, it is also better at actually doing healthcare. I never mentioned the proposed public option. My point was that you could establish an American equivalent of the NHS, and provide Free, universal, government-sponsored healthcare for EVERYONE, stop paying insurances, and STILL SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY. And no, you wouldn't have doctors fleeing the low salaries, and no, you wouldnt have to wait for days and days, and no, there wouldnt be deathpanels or a new holocaust, and Yes people would be LESS sick and LESS worried and with a better sense of security. And did I mention you would spend less taxes? (that really seems to be all the right cares about, yet they somehow become blind to it when there's actually a GOOD way to save some taxes, like not starting wars or providing universal healthcare)

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
2. Better health care? Who says? Not people in the UK...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209034/The-babies-born-hospital-corridors-Bed-shortage-forces-4-000-mothers-birth-lifts-offic
es-hospital-toilets.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new
s/article-1208970/Man-collapses-ruptured-appendix--weeks-NHS-doctors-took-out.html

Let's see what wikipedia has to say about this tabloid trash that is the Daily Mail : "The Mail takes an anti-EU, anti-abortion view, based upon "traditional values", and is pro-capitalism and pro-monarchy, as well as, in some cases, advocating stricter punishments for crime. It also often calls for lower levels of taxation."

Wow... That's like using Fox News as a "non-biased" source to show that every American thinks healthcare is fine as it is in the U.S. Of course the British, like everyone else, call for better everything. After all, the government is FOR THE FUCKING PEOPLE. Do you not get that? It is your right to be critical of the government. And given the choice, people will complain more than they will send flowers. After all, when all goes well "they're just doing their jobs".

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Not according to the lewin group’s analysis.
http://www.lewin.com/content/publications/LewinAnalysisHouseBill2009.p
df
Based on their analysis, the private insurance plan I’m on would ‘change’ in 1 to 2 years, and I would be enrolled in the government’s public option. Sounds like a change to me.


The Lewin Group is an Ingenix company. Ingenix, a wholly-owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, was founded in 1996 to develop, acquire and integrate the world's best-in-class health care information technology capabilities. For more information, visit www.ingenix.com. The Lewin Group operates with editorial independence and provides its clients with the very best expert and impartial health care and human services policy research and consulting services.

http://www.lewin.com/WhyLewin/AboutUs/

What a douche bag.

It's shameful that idiots like this get elected.

Its even worse when ignorant people elect and believe is this thought.

Educate yourselves and Read the constitution and read the bill of rights. Its not the Federal Governments' job to take care of anyone.

Let the free market decide the price of health care and let the individuals / Government punish /fine / jail/ those insurers who willfully F@#k over people.

>> ^bobknight33:
What a douche bag.
It's shameful that idiots like this get elected.
Its even worse when ignorant people elect and believe is this thought.
Educate yourselves and Read the constitution and read the bill of rights. Its not the Federal Governments' job to take care of anyone.


You are one of the most ignorant person
what's the TSA for, ohh but that's your dady "bushi" idea, so that's ok, it dosnt mater that they do a crapy job, still ok, what are we doing in Afghanistan, isnt that taking care of the people?

how many freaks from your "party" want me to name that are not very sane (or what people may say "Stupid Crazy")


Let the free market decide the price of health care and let the individuals / Government punish /fine / jail/ those insurers who willfully F@#k over people.


What would be different?

why shouldnt the government take care of its citizens??

>> ^bobknight33:
Let the free market decide the price of health care and let the individuals / Government punish /fine / jail/ those insurers who willfully F@#k over people.


Didn't your 'free market' recently, sans lube, fuck the asshole out of the world economy? Sink the US further in debt? Tank the mortgage market? Force the taxpayer bailout of dozens of companies? Oh the free market works wonderfully when times are good but when corporate greed finally butchers the cow rather than milking it and revenue dries up, guess who comes cap in hand for free money? The 'not so free anymore' market. Surprise sur-fucking-prise.

The free market is incapable of providing quality, affordable health care. It's been proven over and over again. And if there is a push for more oversight to punish the exploiters, the same people shouting down a public option will be shouting that government oversight = socialist interference with the free market.

As for Pennypacker, seriously pal, every piece of "evidence" you provide is either corporate sponsered or right-wing capitalist propaganda. There is not a single piece of objective non-partisan, non conflict of interest information in there... And you use that claptrap to argue with World Health Organisation and OCED stats? Or ignoring the point made by Mr. Weiner, voters would have a choice. If voters flock to the public option, it's a blatant fact that private health cover has failed...

Fair and balanced? Lol, does it even hurt anymore when the right wing nuts shove their megaphone up your butt so the appropriate sounds come out of your mouth?

You'll still be hard pressed to find someone in a country with public health care trade it, for the American system, and/or be able to afford living on the American system. It's a system built to make money, not take care of it's citizens, Medicare and Medicaid aside.

I could argue that Mass Health has been a tremedous success from a accounting perspective. Next year's health cost in Massachuseets is 1/3rd of 1% of the total budget. That's right folks, 2010 for MA, is $27 BILLION. The Cost for Mass Health: $88 Million.

I’ll have to see your sourcing on this, because I haven’t found a single source that can verify your claim about health care in MA only costing 88 million in 2010. Regardless, that’s quite a change from 2009 when the MassHealth budget alone was 1.3 billion…

http://www.pnhp.org/mass_report/mass_report_Final.pdf

Now, considering that MA is running a 1.4 billion deficit, that’s a pretty high ticket item. If your health care costs with MassHealth are so cheap, then why this?

“Among the areas particularly hard hit by cuts are public health programs, education grants, MassHealth coverage, and unrestricted local aid…”

http://www.massbudget.org/documentsearch/findDocument?doc_id=681

Those insurance companies Mr. Pennypacker is defending…

I am not so much defending insurance companies as I am dismissing misinformation about public health care being ‘superior’ or ‘necessary’. There is no evidence that moving to a public option will be cheaper, or provide better health care. There is no evidence that it would provide more care for more people either in volume or population. HR3200 is a shell game that funnels money and power into Washington. Frankly, I’ll take a private system – warts and all – any day over a public system that gives the government power over my health care decisions.

conspire with your health and more profit for them, and there's NOTHING you can do about it

The exact same statement can be made about public health care coverage, and with far deeper and wider scope.

We wouldnt dream of privatizing it and have an insurance company deciding what to pay and not pay for (after having spent years paying insurance) and watching them do everything they can to avoid a payout

You let your government do the exact same thing and you have no way to redress your wrongs. As Massachusett’s proves – the government quite often will decide to cut cut cut cut your care in order to balance it’s budget. Then you have an unelected government bureaucrat deciding what to pay for and you get to watch them do everything they can to avoid a payout. I'll keep my personal and financial freedom any day, thank you kindly.

provide Free, universal, government-sponsored healthcare for EVERYONE, stop paying insurances, and STILL SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY

You, Weiner, and Obama have yet to supply a single shred of factual evidence to support this fantastical, imaginary claim. Your words are opinions, and nothing more. While your opinions are passionate sir, they do not convince. I’m not prepared to sacrifice my personal and financial freedoms based on your unsupported opinions.

why shouldnt the government take care of its citizens??

Because this is America, and the Constitution does not state that it is the government’s job to ‘take care’ of citizens. In fact, we fought a few wars to make sure that government DOESN’T ever intrude into our personal lives. Our Bill of Rights is designed to stop the government cannot interfere in our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You'll still be hard pressed to find someone in a country with public health care trade it, for the American system

Tired of hearing this logical fallacy. SO !FREAKING! WHAT? We aren't asking other countries to trade up. This statement is irrelevant and annoying. What is actually happening is that you people in OTHER COUNTRIES are asking us to trade our system for yours. You'll pardon me if I don't give a rat's @$$ whether someone from another country would trade his system for ours or not. That isn't the issue.

But let's play the game, shall we? When polled, the American people overwhelmingly state that they are happy with thier current health care insurance and coverage.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24/obama-pushes-national-health-care-americans-happy-coverage/

89% of the insured are satisfied. 70% of the UNINSURED are satisfied. 93% with recent illness - satisfied. 95% with chronic illness - satisfied. Sounds like we're pretty happy with our system. Now - using your idiotic logic - that means YOU should abandon your public health care system for our private one right? No? Well WHY not? After all - you guys keep saying that 'we wouldn't trade our system for yours' as if you're justifying why we should change our system. Therefore I'm going to use that same line of reasoning on you. Since we're happy with our private system, you should switch to our system.

Don't like that kind of logic? Then PLEASE stop making equally stupid statements about 'we wouldn't trade ours for yours'. It's moronic.

WPP, QM - It's pretty simple. America spends more per capita on healthcare than pretty much any other industrialized nation.

Either A. Americans citizens are significantly more sickly than those from other countries, B. American doctors are significantly more inept than those from other countries, or C. The system is flawed.

Do you have a conceptual counter-argument for Weiner's point, that a private insurance company's first priority is profitability, not the health and wellbeing of its customers? If you do, I'd love to hear it.

Or...maybe when your primary care physician and consulting surgeon both agree that a particular surgery will CURE your illness but the insurance company insist that you spend 3 months of tests, checkups and consultations with 2 other specialists before they'll pay despite the fact that you've spent 5 years actively trying to manage that particular illness....maybe, the insurance companies attempts to avoid paying to cure your illness has actually added to the cost of healthcare.

Oh, and the part where the insurance company exists to profit off your health. My intuition tells me that might contribute to the high cost of healthcare also.

>> ^bobknight33:
Educate yourselves and Read the constitution and read the bill of rights. Its not the Federal Governments' job to take care of anyone.

You might want to try following your own advice and read the ninth amendment. Here's a handy reminder:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

They authors are telling you that it shouldn't be assumed that the people have no right to anything they do not explicitly grant in constitution. Therefore, the constitution does not prohibit the government from granting universal health care coverage by virtue of not specifically allowing it. This has got to be the single most retarded thing repeated by death panel conspiracy theorists.

How does it feel to reference a document as an argument that deletes the premise of that argument?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^Very good point Mr. Blowfish - this is a concept that is repeatedly missed by most people.

Again WP saves his argument by quoting *Fox News* who bases their article on a paper written by Kaiser, a healthcare company. We are expected to believe that the people with no healthcare coverage who pay out of their own pockets are happy to do so. They don't even mention the people who don't get healthcare because they can't afford it.

How absurd.

Roughly 60% of our current healthcare is already provided by government, which mostly explains why costs in the healthcare industry are so high.

People complain about what we have and blame the free market, which makes absolutely no sense. We don't have a free market in healthcare.

If you guys don't like the costs of our current healthcare, IT'S BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT. If you want Washington handling healthcare insurance, you'll get more of what you don't like, it'll get worse and cost more.

Canadians can afford their costly public healthcare. We can't, specially in a recession.

Public healthcare in the US as of 2008

People covered with Medicaid:
52 million

People covered with Medicare:
44.8 million

Combined people covered with Medicaid/Medicare:
96.8 million

Cost of Medicaid
$209 billion

Cost of Medicare:
$386 billion

Combined cost of Medicaid/Medicare:
$595 billion

Health cost per person with public health coverage in the US in 2008:
$595 billion / 96.8 million = $6,140 per person

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_federal_budget
http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/FAQ_QuickStats.htm
http://www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/key%20Medicare%20and%20Medicaid%20Statistics.pdf

Private healthcare in the US as of 2008

A nationwide sample of over 316,000 individual and family (IFP) major medical policies found that:

Average monthly premium for individual (private) insurance policies:
$191

Health cost per person with private health coverage in the US in 2008:
$2292 per person

Sources:
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Ehealth-Inc-NASDAQ-EHTH-1035828.html

WPP, QM - It's pretty simple. America spends more per capita on healthcare than pretty much any other industrialized nation.

So what? When do liberals care what anything COSTS? If our health care costs were less, the difference would be wasted elsewhere in other ways, probably on gold-plated schools.

Almost 90% of Americans are happy with their health care even with the problems it has now.

Do you have a conceptual counter-argument for Weiner's point, that a private insurance company's first priority is profitability, not the health and well being of its customers? If you do, I'd love to hear it.

Yeah. Karl Marx was wrong. No matter the business, you cannot remove the profit motive from the equation and expect excellent or even adequate results. The soviets tried it...end result: with massive natural resources they lived in poverty. The profit motive is what makes a company value its customers' satisfaction. Even a heavily-regulated company is NOTHING like the nightmare of inefficiency in a government organization. FEMA, Amtrak, Post Office...

The Constitution is a "negative document", mostly dedicated to telling the federal government what it CANNOT do. If the feds were supposed to have a blank check and give the people whatever they demanded, the Founders would not have 'wasted time' being very specific about the limited powers granted.

That shyster, Lord Obama, is on record as saying the Constitution didn't go far enough in spreading the wealth around. He cannot be trusted.

This liberal sophistry about what the Constitution means, why not just go all the way and claim you have a "right" to a free home, car, high-paying job and a life free from struggle and pain? There's always another Ted Kennedy ready to spend someone else's money to make your dreams come true.

Again: WE'RE GOING BANKRUPT on all the entitlements (aka fake "rights") we've got now. We can't afford any more Christmases on the backs of yet-to-be-born generations. The tit's run dry.

I saw this guy get smacked down by Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe. Weiner is clueless on anything outside of his district.

provide Free, universal, government-sponsored healthcare for EVERYONE, stop paying insurances, and STILL SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY

You, Weiner, and Obama have yet to supply a single shred of factual evidence to support this fantastical, imaginary claim. Your words are opinions, and nothing more.

I just DID provie you with all the numbers, all thats left is for you to read them. The US spends about twice as much total on healthcare, and even if you take into account that the government only pays about 45% of this total spending , it is still more than Britain is spending, for example

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH

This is the source of my previous comment, as you can see, every single country spends LESS on healthcare in total, and probably less (havent checked them all) in government money as well. They also have universal healthcare, and trust me, I am from such a country it is nothing, NOTHING like the nonsense you see on FOX and insurance-affiliated propaganda sites on the net. I challenge you to dig up some real data on how healthcare is WORSE in ANY government funded, universal healthcare system than it is in the US and real data on exactly how much more expensive it is. I'm sorry, anecdotes will not do. I could sit here all night describing horror stories from US healthcare, but I will leave you with a single, heartbreaking story http://scienceblogs.com/thusspakezuska/2009/08/who_needs_health_insurance_whe.php

Such stories can be found in all systems, unfortunately, but ultimately it is the actual data that lasts, and the US is consistently on the wrong side. I wish you and all Americans the best, and I hope you will see reason when it stares you so blankly in the face.

Again WP saves his argument by quoting *Fox News*

Nice try. Maybe you could READ the article instead of just having a mental spasm when you see 'foxnews' in the link. Perhaps if you had, you'd have realized that the poll they cite was conducted by the Kaiser Foundation, ABC News, and USA Today. Spend a little more time reading, thinking, and actually pondering this issue instead of just being an emotional reactionary and perhaps you can become something a little more than a neolib zombie.

America spends more per capita on healthcare than pretty much any other industrialized nation

I've already addressed this point. The our spending total on health care is a factor of American macro-economics - nothing more. It is not sinister. We spend more on soap. We spend more on drywall. We spend more on light bulbs. We spend more on toilets. Of course we're going to spend more on health care than anyone else, because our market is the biggest freaking economic market on the planet. The relative cost of our health care has nothing to do with it being public or private. It's just how it is. You could make it public tomorrow and that dynamic would not change. This point is dead and buried.

ninth ammendment

The 9th is not interpreted as meaning "government has the right to take over anything it wants if government thinks it would be a good idea". It is a generic comment that does nothing more except to tell the government that just because a right is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does not imply that the Federal government has power to infringe on those rights. So in reality, this ammendment in NO WAY implies that government 'should' be involved in health care. If anything, it is a catch-all telling government that it SHOULDN'T mess around with our health care rights. You neolibs really need to take a few classes in reading comprehension. The 9th is not a neolib wet-dream ammendment that gives government the right to usurp power over our freedoms for whatever it interprets as the public good.

Simply put, just because you get sick does NOT mean that the 9th ammendment should be interpreted to mean that the federal government should take over the health care industry. :eyeroll:

Just as a response to: imstellar28

While your statistics are correct in pointing out that medicare medicaid cost more per person when compared to private insurance you have to take in to account what populations each insurance program is covering. Medicare and Medicaid cover the elderly, the poor, and the young. These populations are usually in worse health and require more medical attention than compared to the healthy population of the private insurance.

Boy, you're either mentally challenged or you think everybody else is. Either that or you're being deliberately deceitful.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
America spends more per capita on healthcare than pretty much any other industrialized nation
I've already addressed this point. The our spending total on health care is a factor of American macro-economics - nothing more. Of course we're going to spend more on health care than anyone else, because our market is the biggest freaking economic market on the planet.

No, you did not address this point previously and you didn't address it just then either. Instead you slyly tried to talk about the TOTAL amount spent on health care, while your opposition referenced PER CAPITA figures. The difference between the two might be so colossal as to confuse Bill O'Reilly and his average viewer, as was evidenced earlier this month, but I don't think it will work here.


Simply put, just because you get sick does NOT mean that the 9th ammendment should be interpreted to mean that the federal government should take over the health care industry. :eyeroll:

So which is it - are you daft or are you spouting lies on purpose? There is no plan for the US government to take over the health care industry and there never has been. And I've got a feeling you know that well.

Winstonfield, QM - dining room table. Nuff' said.

US per capita spending...

You're not quite getting what I'm talking about. It is not logical that American per capita spending equates price or quality. And yet that's what you're assuming with health care... "The US spends more - ergo it should be cheaper and better." But PCS is nothing more than a measurement of how much spending is taking place normalized in a specific way. Economically speaking, that doesn't mean anything except that the US market is bigger.

Now - stick with me... The American health care market is half-publicized already...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

Since over 44% of our PCS is publicly financed then following your logic we should observe that public health care PCS has been stable while private health care PCS has skyrockted, right? After all - if your assumptions are correct then the government will have controlled PCS better than the private market.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8758/MainText.3.1.shtml
http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20090714_HPPv7n07_0709.pdf

Well, clearly that hasn't happened... Some actually say Medicare/Medicaid have gone up faster than private PCS. Others say it is about the same. Regardless, even the CBO does not by any stretch suggest that public PCS in the US is decreasing while private is increasing...

"Spending on Medicare and Medicaid is projected to grow as a share of total spending on health care—as the assumed rates of excess cost growth for those programs under current federal law slow less quickly than does the rate for other spending on health care"

"The assumed rates of EXCESS COST GROWTH slow less quickly..." That's a very 'government' way of saying that their excessive costs here to stay. One could spend days discussing just exactly how the intrusion of the government public-funded health care has been the driving agent that has forced PCS higher and higher. But I digress.

There is no plan for the US government to take over the health care industry and there never has been

Getting angry at the facts doesn't help you make your case. HR3200 very clearly creates a public health care option, forces citizens to buy it, and systematically dismantles the ability of privately offered insurance to compete. That's the only plan being discussed here. Obama is the one that is lying through his teeth. He knows quite well that his plan will force over 70% of people currently on private insurance into his public option by 2015. At that point, the government will have a monopsony. Every plan, public or private, will be a mirror image of the government's public option, which will be controlled by government dictating price controls for medical goods and services. You can jibber-jabber all you want about that not being socialism, but painting the short yellow bus white doesn't make it an ambulance.