:shrug: In terms of responding to me, you responded to an argument I did not make.
As I said before, I don’t know what the cost will be. I would need to think about it.
Ours is a lot bigger.
Irresponsible, improvident, and self-destructive behaviour.
Again, I don’t understand what point you are trying to make.
I’m not sure what the problem is, but it doesn’t really matter. I don’t debate with people who are consistently incoherent or who misrepresent my position. If you continue to make points which I cannot understand or respond to points I did not make, I will stop engaging with you.
Your “position”, such as it is, is based on a “correlation” which you made up out of whole cloth and have continuously defended by waving off fact-based argument. I don’t think it’s really anyone else’s fault if you cannot understand their points.
Yes, it is all of the allegations. It even includes cases involving administrative errors (i.e., a discrepancy not caused by the person on welfare).
And yet, that number still dwindles quickly (as you saw). So, of the ones they were “fairly sure they could prove”, it turned out that they still couldn’t. What a crazy thing, that evidence.
The state of California. The statistics for LA County are listed alongside the statistics I cited (the cite which, I’m guessing, you didn’t even bother reading). You are free to look at the LA county statistics, though, since they are in the same document.
“Some” were probably innocent? From the looks of it, “most” were innocent. There’s a reason why our courts require a set standard of evidence to convict someone of a crime. It’s to filter out these false allegations.
Right. I should have known better than to try and bring facts to the table in a Pit thread. Instead, I should have simply refuted your post with a “nuh-uh”.
No. That’s generally true. However, only a complete idiot would attempt to use that as evidence of the size of the underclass except as part of a broad range of factors.
As previously noted, standardization and nationalization dramatically reduces costs. In any case, I would never think it a bad idea to treat cancer patients. Why would you?
For the most part there hasn’t really been any mention at all as to whether or not there would be opt out or not, but there have been posts that say that an opt out system wouldn’t work in the original thread in GD that spawned this one.
I said **more ** choices. It is really hard to take you seriously when you either cannot be bothered to read what I write, or you are just ignoring it and believing what you want to.
Since I have no idea what you are talking about - those dopers in those threads? - I can’t comment.
I have already responded to this, many times.
It is actually probably in the GD thread.
Are you an idiot? Sales taxes applies to everything and no, I don’t have a choice as to whether or not I pay it.
And this is different to the person that pays it how? We have things here that go into particular “pots” and we call them taxes. You can dress it up all you want, if you have no choice as to whether or not you have to pay it, it’s a tax. I think you are just trying to muddy the waters here so you don’t have to admit that you have to pay for this.
Welfare is what I am already paying for over here.
Again, you are trying to muddy waters. My question was with regards to your unemployment benefits.
My distortions? Oh, that’s rich.
Did I say that a) such figures even exist, or b) they are pertinent to the subject?
OK, then, you post the cites. Prove to me that it is at all possible to provide figures of all the people that abuse the system - not just those that get caught.
I didn’t say that either. Perhaps your English isn’t all that good?
That site doesn’t seem to have anything to do with “less government programs means also less assistance for the Middle class”. Also, did you read the small print in point #1 there??
My assertion is based on past history of the country in question here. Yours is based on a crystal ball.
OK, right here I’ve just had enough of you. You call me a troll and all of that, yet you say something as “mind-boggling stupid” as “because a program, blah blah etc”. It isn’t a program, it is a national program set to cover millions of people and adminstered by a body that has proven in the past it cannot manage as well as private companies can, and it will be paid for by tax dollars. If it fails at all, if it is at all less efficient than what we already have, it won’t be you that will be paying to clean up the mess. Such as we already are with Social Security and Medicare in this country.
So, unless you have something new and intelligent to say, that’s it for you.
Uh, asshole? Did you read my response to that previously?
I’d also like to know what this means —> “the fact that she has apparently convinced an insurance company that she is incapable of working and paying taxes”.
And, you are aware that the disabled can usually type?
Uh, no. The first number is the amount of cases that they thought had some abuse involved. After that they figure out if there is any evidence, then after that they figure out if they have enough evidence in order to prove it in a court of law.
I’m beginning to think you don’t read your own posts. You said “some details on welfare fraud in the state of California (mostly LA county) in the year 2002” - I take it now that you didn’t mean that? The document you cited didn’t say anything about percentage of LA county to the state at all.
It also filters out those that are guilty but that there isn’t enough evidence to convict in court, particularly in the case of the state or county - they are only going to spend the money to go to court if they are fairly sure they are going to win.
Here is an example. A friend of mine’s daughter had a baby at 15. She (the daughter) told the state that she was living by herself when she was actually living at home with her parents, and her mother was mostly the one who took care of the baby. The daughter got benefits until her mother caught her, which IIRC was almost a year later, and she only did that by accident. Since the parents were poor they couldn’t afford to pay the state back, so nothing was said, they just told the state the daughter had “moved back home”. Now, if I or someone else had known of this prior to the mother finding out, and reported it to the state, all they could do would be to go visit the parents’ home to see if the daughter was there, right? And if she was, how would they know if she was living there or just visiting? I’m not up on the welfare laws - can they just show up on the doorstep unannounced and force their way in to check to see if she lives there? I rather doubt it. So, a report has been made that this girl is getting benefits even tho she is being supported by her parents, but there is no evidence they can use to do anything about it. I imagine if they contacted her, it would scare her into saying “she’d moved home” but that’s about it.
I see. Your interpretation of statistics must be the correct one, eh?
To the patient, not necessarily to the government. I really cannot believe that the cost of treating cancer patients would go down that much.
My point was how many cancer patients will we be able to afford before the whole country just implodes on itself. We are already going deeper and deeper into debt as it is, and now you want us to go even further in to treat everyone to all of the medicine available in this country?
Cool. Then if I go with your example of ~%6 of salary contributed to the health care fund I’d pay roughy $290.00 more a month than I do now for my insurance. I’d say it’s more expensive for me. If the employer contributes 1/2 of the 12%, it’s going to be more expensive for them too. My insurance covers my family of four and includes dental and vision, for those keeping score.
Try Google. (It’s easy!)
So a lot of small businessmen would go out of business - aren’t these the guys UHC is supposed to help?*
I never said it was easy, and have had problems myself. I also have a recourse to use should I have too many problems - either a complaint to the insurance commision or a lawsuit. I don’t know that UHC will obviate those courses, but that would depend on how the program is run.
I did read your post in fact, and also stated that I hadn’t read up on the issue and was trying to get a little education via the Doper network, hence my questions. Is the plan proposed for US consumption identical to that of Germany? I honestly don’t know. I don’t think you do either, but that’s okay, because I was asking questions to gain information. You’re just spouting off at the mouth in a futile attempt to sound like you know what you’re talking about.
This is stupid on so many levels I don’t know where to begin. In fact, I’m gonna go take a deep breath and try to stop laughing.
There. All done, let’s try and do this with a straight face:
The love it or leave it argument is great! Golly I learned my lesson there! Or maybe not.
You’re a fucking idiot to try and pull that shit in response to an honest question, posed in a reasonable manner. Do you really beleive you’ve just contributed to the cause with that one? Honestly? I think that you’re probably just too fucking stupid to go beyond parroting what you think is “right” because thinking hurts so much.
So here’s a response in kind: If you don’t like having a private health care system “go the fuck out of an existing country” blah blah blah. I win, right?
And here’s the actual response:
The “existing government bureaucracy” isn’t going to go away with UHC, and I think that the inefficiency of the government is a valid concern. Even if you don’t agree, here in the real world we don’t let you have the argument both ways.
On the one hand, you imply that one of the major problems with the US health care system is that it’s privatized and bureaucratic and that can’t be fixed unless the government steps in.
On the other hand you claim that the bureaucracy of government will step in and fix the problem. How replacing one poorly managed bureaucracy with another is going to help doesn’t seem to appear in your posts. Care to elaborate?
It’s not? Really? Well there goes the whole debate! Costanze wins! Shit, I wish someone had told me the world wasn’t perfect before today, it would have made my life a lot simpler. I never said that UHC should be abolished, I simply question its ability to be run efficiently. Plus, it would have to exist before it could be abolished, but that’s a minor point.
You multiquoted my post, but did you bother to read it?
Which almost brings the stupid to a close. If you honestly believe that GW and his cronies are the only liars, theives, and incompetents in government you need to put down the keyboard and report to the nearest place you can find to deprogram yourself. If your insurance won’t cover the deprogramming, you can simply repeatedly slam your head into the nearest wall with similar results. Either way I think we can expect a rise in IQ afterwards.
I’d also point out that the pubbies are only out of office for the time being. They could gasp actually regain control one day. Then those same liars and horse theives WILL have control of that branch’s money. Did you really think you’d get away with that argument? If so, how fucking stupid can you get? Honestly, I’ve got some really good land in Florida for sale cheap, wanna buy it?
Where did I say that any government is incapable of doing any good? I simply questioned the logistics of emplacing UHC in America and expressed a concern that it would be mired in bureaucracy and inefficiency. I’m not sure how that translates into your statement, but given the quality of your post I don’t find it surprising. It’s one thing to argue the point, it’s another thing to make up my argument and then wash it down in buckets of stupid.
*Yep. Strawman. I know, but still thought it was funny given the vehemence of your response. I’d be willing to bet your pulse jumped a few beats when you read that line.
Well, the first number is the amount of cases that someone thought involved some kind of abuse. Other than that, you’re correct. I don’t believe this is different from what I said earlier, though.
My cite focused mainly on LA County, but it contained some statistics for the entire state of California (numbers which were relevant to my point). Therefore, the meat of the cite was “mostly LA County”.
I don’t know what document you were reading, because it most certainly does. From the cite:
Also, right above the quoted text, there’s a handy-dandy table there that shows some additional statistics between LA County and the state of California.
Exactly. And of the ones that they were “fairly sure” they could win, they still weren’t able to win 100% of them. It is certainly possible that they were missing something in some of those cases. But it is also possible that those other cases didn’t actually involve any kind of abuse.
I’m not not under the impression that there isn’t any abuse inherent in the system. I just don’t think it’s nearly as widespread as you appear to believe.
