A private, for-profit insurance company that’s beholden only to the voracious profit-appetites of its stockholders *could perhaps *avoid bankruptcy, but it probably wouldn’t be able to boost profit margins by more than 2-3% a year (beyond inflation) which isn’t nearly enough gravy for greedy stockholders, so I can see your point. I think that is part of the reason that many folks see the need for a public entity (e.g. the Federal government) to manage the health-care system.
Yeah. And kidney transplants. I know that I would run out and get one today–just for shits and grins–if I knew that it was on Uncle Sugar’s tab!
How about the uptick in clients that would come from increasing the coverage pool to 100-200 million Americans? Would that do the trick? I think I know a way to accomplish that, but you would probably need to get the government involved to deal with such a large pool of contributors. Hmmmm… I wonder if there just might be something to that? I’ve heard whispers of other countries having success which such a scheme…
I want the same free ride I get from the United States military. In exchange for the taxes I pay, I want to know that I am protected from unforeseen enemies that could harm me. At the same time, I accept that I may never get one ounce of return from my investment. I know that the taxes I pay for that protection might go toward sending U.S military personnel to save other Americans from rising floodwaters in in the Gulf States, or perhaps evacuate other U.S. nationals from a life-threatening situation in some foreign nation. Great. Should I be pissed because they saved someone else’s ass but never did a thing for mine? Man, that’s just not the way shit works. And many of you all need to wake up to this.
I know that however unwisely our military force has been activated in the recent past, it is a necessary investment to protect all American citizens and our infrastructure. So I suck it up, pay my taxes, and don’t bitch about it. I am not so shortsighted that I don’t realize that someday I may directly need the protection of a force that only the government can provide.
My private Blackwater Mercenary Insurance just ain’t gonna get it done.
But isn’t the entire VA system actually “owned and operated” by the Feds while the healthcare plan being debated right now would only involve government involvement with health insurance? I may be wrong about that, but if it is the case, aren’t those very different things? As I understand it, under the proposed plan all the doctors, hospitals, etc. would remain (mostly) private entities under any government insurance plan–just as they are mostly private entities now, The difference would be in the administration and availability of health insurance–not in who is employing the doctors, nurses, etc.
oh but I see O’Reilly already responded with a video of his own saying his quotes were taken out of context. I think O’Reilly has a point here and this may hurt Stewarts image of an honest guy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHThC6UM4Xo
Hmmm…there was thread around here recently where more than a few posters expressed outrage at Fox for omitting some of Obama’s comments during an interview with one of Fox’s reporters. I wonder if they’ll be equally outraged at this?
I especially like the part where O’Reilly is responding to TDS portrayal of Foxites as whiners (in need of a waaaaambulance). TDS clip basically boils down to someone complaining about attacks on Christians! Bill-O shows the rest of the clip, where she’s saying no one attacks Jews or Muslims, they’re only attacking Christians!.
OooooooKay. Bildo wants us to believe that she wasn’t really whining, she was saying that nobody should be attacked for their religion. Great Billocks, but she was still whining that Christians were the only ones being attacked. Kind of what Stewart was just saying.
I imagine that most of the O’CockKnocker audience lacks the critical thinking skills to discern his bullshit, so of course it will affect their impression that Johnny’s an honest guy. Of course, Bill could have simply put up an image of himself fellating a donkey with a caption or two saying “John Stewart BAD” and they’d support that as a perfectly valid reasoning.
SA, are you suggesting that during the interminable protests against Bush Billy et al weren’t portraying the protesters in the opposite light they are portraying the teabaggers? You do get that there’s a joke (made by a comedian) in comparing word-to-word (um, loon), but that the apparent flip is just as real and the point just as valid? You do get that even with the entire Osmazm’s context it’s an after-the-fact parsing that he was only (oh my, oh my the vapors!) talking about those arrested?
Look, you can support, understand, and agree all you want with Billy, great. But on a purely rhetorical and analytic basis it’s a lost battle to compare him to Stewart. Drawing a parallel between that Hannity shenanigan and Stewart’s clip compilation is just pathetic.
ETA: I have no idea what an “Osmazm” is. It must have been a couple pieces of a pre-post edit that got smooshed together. But it sounds vaguely insulting, so in keeping with the Pit I’m leaving it.
I think O’Reilly had a point on that first clip, shame on the writers (or at least the interns who picked that clip) for that one. The second one was rather weak, imo, but it does blunt the comment he made somewhat in context, not much though so I don’t care either way.
You don’t watch him . He has been very critical of dems and creamed Obama a few times. Turn off Fox and watch him, then come back .In honor of our soldiers, quit making stuff up.
To me it sounded like he said that many protesters were arrested and then claimed that most of the protesters were loons for calling for retreat in the face of terrorism. He never said that only the arrested protesters were loons. He specifically referred to the liberal ideas that people were protesting when he characterized them as loons.
