Silly boy, all you had to do to look at the average lifespan and infant mortality stats was to follow the links I posted back to the WHO. Now I don’t know if you are deliberately being intellectually dishonest or you just plain too stupid to follow the links to the data, but either way, you are simply wasting electrons with your vacuous posts.
I love how you keep saying this as I discuss every fact you bring up and you fail to understrand the points I’m making. Do you click your heels together when you say that?
Yes, if the businesses are allowed to compete in a free market. People should be free to choose the service providers they like best. If those service providers have high administration costs, then it doesn’t matter, they are doing the best job anyway. But reducing the government’s administration costs is different because people don’t have the choicew to not use UHC.
In Canada we are free to choose the service providers we like best. Too bad that you are so wrapped up in your ideology that you will not let truth and honesty stand in your way.
Oops, looks like I missed a “not” in that post. I meant to say that average lifespan and infant mortality would NOT pick up the situation I posted. Sorry about that.
…
I didn’t say or intimate that people in Cana were not free to choose the service providers they like best. I just said that “high” administration costs for services provided by the private sector are not automatically a bad thing when people are free to choose the service provider they like best.
To paraphrase something I heard on the radio this morning by a conservative commentator (local to DC area, you guys won’t know him), at least Bunning is standing up for something that the SenateJUST PASSED, the paygo measure. He wants it paid for. Yes it’s only $10b. Yes, it’s a good idea that the aid to the downtrodden be passed. Yes, most of America (and the Senate, I suspect) wants it passed.
But if the Democratic leadership (and it’s Reid driving this train, trying to distract from the coming trainwreck in Nov) won’t come up with the 10 large that Bunning demands to pay for something that pretty much everyone is in favor of and costs so little (relatively speaking), then what’s the chances of them following their own paygo rules for *any *spending programs? And if they won’t do that, then why pass PayGo in the first place?
It’s Bunning’s attempt at nuance, to hoist the Dems on their own petard. It won’t work, because most of America sees the simplistic story of the OP, and whenever you have to explain your vote, you’ve lost the argument. But the guy isn’t exactly crazy, per se.
Your so called belief system is nothing more than Social Darwinism. Figuratively speaking, and exaggerating to make a point, the strong (those with wealth and power) eat the weak (those without).
I thought we civilized people already rejected that. In “your” world, you would be chewed up and spit out just as quick as the rest of us.
Added on edit: But this thread was supposed to be a pitting of Bunning, not all about you (as everything you touch seems to be),
I guess subtlety isn’t one of his strong points. Personally, I see it as political grandstanding. And complaining about some not so important basketball game didn’t make many points with me. I’ve missed a lot of stuff on account of work. So what.
I have no idea how you got all of this out of my very simple theory of government. I just want the government’s activities to be very restricted, and protecting the rights of the weak are most definitely on the RR-approved list of government activities.
I just have no idea what you think you mean here.
I realize my post above was somewhat off-topic, but I just had to call Muffin on her bullshit (fighting ignorance, don’tcha know).
EP has apparently given up. He’s probably asking the home office for better talking points.
No one is forcing me to go with Alberta Health for insurance, and I can see any doctor who’ll agree to see me. AHC does not have a say. I’ve never had comprehensive private insurance, so I don’t know if they’d try to dictate which doctor I’d see here. I have private supplementary insurance, though, and Sun Life doesn’t seem to care who I see so long as they cover the service and I provide receipts.
Sorry, I don’t follow you.
Bunning wants it paid for. The Dems evidently refuse to do so. He is calling them on their own rule, which they passed 60-40 on a party line vote not two months ago.
Again, stupid politics, but I understand his point. Grandstanding? Perhaps.
Edit to add: Bunning’s backed down
Did your commentator happen to mention that Mr Bunning and every last one of his fellow Republicans voted against Paygo? Did he mention that the Paygo measure applies to the 2011 budget, rather than emergency spending in the current year?
Mr Bunning is cynically using the legislation as an excuse to hold up the wheels of government. Every Republican in the senate agrees with him that fucking over Obama and the Democrats is more important than healthcare for the old, help for the unemployed, and safe roads for everyone.
If Bunning didn’t have full backing of the GOP, his little filibuster would have died last week.
It’s like curlcoat without the pleasure of the napkin sandwiches.
Aside: the filibuster’s over.
Bunning will come out of this greatly admired by many conservatives. Then again, who knows what that’ll get him. As previously mentioned, it may’ve been bad for him politically in general because it required more nuance than usual.
I think we have ample evidence that just about no one does that.
Bunning is a hypocrite of the highest order. He voted in favor of running up deficits for things we don’t need like the war on Iraq. Now he’s a deficit whore when it comes to the stuff we really do need like infrastructure and health care.
In other words he’s the usual vacuous Republican pol with only an idiotic ideology and no real point other than obstructionism and extremist views.
Backed down? That’s good news. I wonder what will happen next, after all this is the show that never ends. I can understand it being politics. I can see the underlying point - don’t writing checks you can’t cash, but I didn’t especially like the way it was done.
So… inefficiency due to high administration costs are A-OK with you, as long as it’s the “free market” being inefficient. As long as people have a choice of which inefficient private company to use, it’s just peachy.
The fact that under a UHC system, these administrative inefficiencies are greatly reduced just passes right by you eh?
eta: sorry for not replying sooner RR old buddy. I have an actual job and life.
78 to 19, wow. So even after Bunning surrenders, over half of the senate’s Republicans still want to continue screwing over doctors, old folks, and the unemployed.
I already directly answered this exact question from you upthread. The answer is yes, absolutely, affirmative, YES. If consumers choose a particular service provider (e.g., a hair stylist, doctor, health insurer, etc.) then that’s the one they think is the best. It doesn’t matter what that service provider’s overhead is, and it doesn’t matter what the aggregate overhead of all such service providers is.
It doesn’t pass me by–I reject it as a benefit of UHC.
Meaning that it took you this long to think of a reply, which ended up being to repeat a point you attempted to make earlier. Nice job.