Bill O'Reilly supports a Public Option for health care

[beforewisdom]

O’REILLY: But you know, I want that, Ms. Owcharenko. I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don’t like their health insurance, if it’s too expensive, they can’t afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U-cysjNT-Q

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/bill-oreilly-backs-public_n_290658.html

[Addai]

I'm not sure who this benefits. I mean, who really likes Bill O'Reilly? The left hates him, and has trashed him so many times over the years that they can't want his endorsement. And although he gets great ratings I don't know any conservatives that are particularly swayed by him. They'll watch his show, but he doesn't wield much power over peoples minds. He's not like Limbaugh to the Republicans. *I'm just saying that objectively; I've seen his show, read a book of his, I'm not a republican or a democrat.*

[CollegeB]

I think that O'Reilly supporting it just makes this healthcare thing even more obvious as a scam. Even less people should be in favor of such a plan or option (or whatever you want to call it) now.

[VeganDrew]

I think that O'Reilly supporting it just makes this healthcare thing even more obvious as a scam. Even less people should be in favor of such a plan or option (or whatever you want to call it) now.

 

 

Are you really going to tell that to someone who currently cannot afford healthcare, who could otherwise get it?

 

I'll be the first to say the government is full of problems, but a lot of paperwork and difficulty to get treatment is better than none at all.

[Vegan Joe]

, but a lot of paperwork and difficulty to get treatment is better than none at all.

 

And this is different from how it is now in what way?

[VeganDrew]

, but a lot of paperwork and difficulty to get treatment is better than none at all.

 

And this is different from how it is now in what way?

 

 

Now the only option for a lot of people is "none at all."

[Vegan Joe]

, but a lot of paperwork and difficulty to get treatment is better than none at all.

 

And this is different from how it is now in what way?

 

 

Now the only option for a lot of people is "none at all."

It is against the law for an Emergency room to deny treatment to anyone.

I know what you're trying to say, but you don't.

[Fallen_Horse]

It is against the law for an Emergency room to deny treatment to anyone.

I know what you're trying to say, but you don't.

This is about as weak of an argument as the anti-healthcare people have come up with.

 

Sure I will go to a hospital, then when I get treatment (surgery, overnight stay, etc.) my bill will be tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars and I will go broke/bankrupt/homeless trying to pay off asshole corporate America.

 

Our system is the shittiest in the industrialized world and if you don't see that then you simply don't have you eyes open.

[beforewisdom]

Fallen Horse, what is interesting about that argument are the objections to the a public option eventually covering illegal immigrants.

 

As you noticed, emergency care is expensive. It is like buying your food at a 7/11 versus buying it at discount supermarket.

 

Being poor and illegal immigrants, those people don't go to the doctor. They do without medical care until they are taken to the emergency room. They often can't pay, so society, one way or another picks up the cost -- but at the most expensive price.

 

Covering illegal aliens would actually save the US money.

[Addai]

Before I get to what I wanted to say I want to address the last thing said. Covering illegal aliens will NOT save the U.S. money. That is as stupid as anything I have ever heard spoken, and you'll rarely ever hear me call anything stupid. Spending money is never saving money. Know what would save money? Denying all care to illegals. Which is not something I'm per say advocating, but stating as logical a+b=c fact. I'm a bit tossed about denying all care. It's inhumane; however, it would be such a great deterrent to illegals thinking about crossing the border that I honestly believe we could lessen the number of illegals crossing to such a number that our border security officers could keep up. Food for thought.

 

The biggest problem with this bill is that the purpose is to provide everyone health insurance. It's not aimed at creating a sensible, sustainable health care system in any sense of the term. It's aimed at giving everyone insurance. I don't personally know anyone who has studied the history of health care who believes that insurance is the savior.

 

Doesn't anyone else see a problem in needing insurance to get a routine checkup, or a prescription for antibiotics (or insurance to purchase said antibiotics)? That's the equivalent of having home owners insurance for if you ever decide to paint your walls. Or care insurance for if a bird poops on your windshield. It's absurd. Insurance is meant for catastrophes.

 

You don't even need to go that far back in our countries history to a time when most people didn't have health insurance, and those who did only carried catastrophic, and yet everyone got treatment. So what happened? Basically, government got involved. We saw the birth of the HMO, and a slew of legislation over a decades time that created a third party payer system of big-business insurance companies. Combine this with changes to tort law that increased medical professionals insurance costs, and voila! You need insurance just to get your sore throat checked out.

 

So I guess we could create this public option, but it's completely besides the point. It doesn't address the point. Now I grant you that other parts of the bill are helpful, but at the end of the day, I'm betting money we won't be any better off. The problems will remain, if only shift slightly as new problems emerge. We're stripping individual liberty for nothing. It's all flash to attract the masses that really don't understand our healthcare system.

 

But Bill O' Reilly supports it.

 

...excuse me if any of that sounded...jackassy...

[Vegan Joe]

Denying all care to illegals. Which is not something I'm per say advocating, but stating as logical a+b=c fact. I'm a bit tossed about denying all care. It's inhumane; however, it would be such a great deterrent to illegals thinking about crossing the border that I honestly believe we could lessen the number of illegals crossing to such a number that our border security officers could keep up. Food for thought.

Addai, be careful what you joke about, some of these people will label you a racist, homophobic, xenophobic, illogical, and uninformed MoFo.

Some of these people think humans have the right to do what ever they want(with the exception of having conservative views). even if it means breaking the law or impinging on others freedoms or pocket books, as long as no animal was harmed. A few of them even have their head so far up their own ass that they think if they fart their muscles will get bigger.

[Addai]

I didn't joke about anything. If we're talking about how to save money when it comes to care for illegals, I gave the one logical way, and also mentioned a widely accepted belief that it would reduce the wave of border crossers.

 

I also said that it's not something I advocate. It was informational and a topic for discussion. My own opinion was completely absent from that paragraph. I still havn't given it.

 

You warned me once before. Now that you've felt the need for a second, I should point out that I'm a big boy. Radicals are everywhere. Ignorance is pervasive. Opinions will always be challenged. But discussion is good. That's probably why this section of the forum exists. I like good discussions, I love being challenged, and I ignore crazies. You don't step into the right if you don't know how to fight, or can't take a punch.

 

 

 

Edit:

I guess I did label that one guys statement as being stupid. But it was. Perhaps you should warn him.

[Vegan Joe]

You're a brave man Charlie Brown!

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R2U5wU8VH20/SiQnlwhnrEI/AAAAAAAAARY/8CnpNnzgOb8/s400/charlie-brown-older.png

[Addai]

Fantastic.

[VeganEssentials]

A few of them even have their head so far up their own ass that they think if they fart their muscles will get bigger.

 

You mean, this won't work? There goes the foundation for my new training program

[VeganDrew]

Before I get to what I wanted to say I want to address the last thing said. Covering illegal aliens will NOT save the U.S. money. That is as stupid as anything I have ever heard spoken, and you'll rarely ever hear me call anything stupid. Spending money is never saving money. Know what would save money? Denying all care to illegals. Which is not something I'm per say advocating, but stating as logical a+b=c fact.

 

The logic seems correct, however in the real world we know that it's not true- waiting until people enter the ER where they cannot be denied care, ultimately costs more money than giving people prevention treatment.

 

I don't want to harp on you about this, but that was the point being made in the first place.

[Vegan Joe]

Before I get to what I wanted to say I want to address the last thing said. Covering illegal aliens will NOT save the U.S. money. That is as stupid as anything I have ever heard spoken, and you'll rarely ever hear me call anything stupid. Spending money is never saving money. Know what would save money? Denying all care to illegals. Which is not something I'm per say advocating, but stating as logical a+b=c fact.

 

The logic seems correct, however in the real world we know that it's not true- waiting until people enter the ER where they cannot be denied care, ultimately costs more money than giving people prevention treatment.

 

I don't want to harp on you about this, but that was the point being made in the first place.

What's the name of the pill that prevents broken legs, the flu, obesity, and pregnancies?

[blabbate]

The logic seems correct, however in the real world we know that it's not true- waiting until people enter the ER where they cannot be denied care, ultimately costs more money than giving people prevention treatment.

 

I don't want to harp on you about this, but that was the point being made in the first place.

What's the name of the pill that prevents broken legs, the flu, obesity, and pregnancies?

You know, there are ways to prevent (or mitigate) two of those, Joe.

[Addai]

Before I get to what I wanted to say I want to address the last thing said. Covering illegal aliens will NOT save the U.S. money. That is as stupid as anything I have ever heard spoken, and you'll rarely ever hear me call anything stupid. Spending money is never saving money. Know what would save money? Denying all care to illegals. Which is not something I'm per say advocating, but stating as logical a+b=c fact.

 

The logic seems correct, however in the real world we know that it's not true- waiting until people enter the ER where they cannot be denied care, ultimately costs more money than giving people prevention treatment.

 

I don't want to harp on you about this, but that was the point being made in the first place.

 

Oh no, you misunderstood. What I said is denying all care. You change the Emergency care law so that it does not apply to illegals. A great many people have argued that this might solve our border security problem if illegals knew they'd be denied all care. Again, not something I'm per say advocating, but just throwing it out there if the concern is saving money. Certainly U.S taxpayer dollars shouldn't be given to provide illegals with insurance. That's quite ludicrous. I don't think it'd be necessary for me to get a list going of fully socialist countries that would never consider such an absurdity.

 

Personally I'd rather legislation be drafted to promote the kind of healthcare system we used to have before it got muddled up by government and turned into the monstrosity that we have today. A sustainable system of doctor-patient relationships where insurance exists only for those who want it, and only for catastrophes. Not for every time you have a tummy ache. Insurance needs to be gotten rid of, not expanded. The fact it's necessary today should really highlight the problem [costs]. And as for illegals, national guard to the border. Actually the problem of illegals crossing is much less today. I can't really push for denying care to illegals, as much as the fiscal conservative in me would love to. It just lacks all sense of humanity not to give care to someone who might be, let's say, bleeding to death.

 

A couple really interesting things have been happening in the last year. First were the doctors who began refusing insurance and instead would give their patients a price list for services offered. These were incredibly cheaper rates, and poor Americans flocked to these sort of places. Similar are the little clinics (not sure what they're called) that have been put up in some malls and stores around the country, where anyone can walk in, spend like $15 on a regular checkup, and the most expensive thing costs like $75. No insurance needed, and the quality of care they're getting rivals what you and I with insurance are getting.

 

Another cool thing I saw that was just on the nightly network news last week were clinics that do not take insurance, but instead charge a monthly fee to belong too, much like a gym membership. Prices range anywhere from 35-75 dollars a month to belong, and this covers all costs, including x-rays and such. Very affordable, fraction of the cost of health insurance, and best yet--the care at these places is significantly better than most of us with insurance get. Significantly. Doctor-patient relationships, no third party, no worrying about the doctor to get all the paperwork right rather than spending time treating the patient. And poor people can easily afford it. These sort of places have actually existed for many years, but used to be only for the wealthy who would have it in lieu of insurance as the quality of care, and availability of care, was so much better.

 

And guess what, these ideas don't cost more money, they cost less. Spending a trillion dollars on some absurd plan that's going to remove peoples options is going to be terrible. If you were going to one of these clinics, you're now going to get fined for not having insurance. Money doesn't solve problems, but anything that requires a lot of it can be sold to an entirely ignorant public.

 

 

/rant

[Addai]

Just thought I'd post this little article Ron Paul wrote that is fairly in sync with what I've said.

I understand many dislike speak of free markets solving problems, and I can sympathize with that. But try to look past that and see the main point of the message.

 

Last Wednesday the nation was riveted to the President's speech on healthcare reform before Congress. While the President's concern for the uninsured is no doubt sincere, his plan amounts to a magnanimous gift to the health insurance industry, despite any implications to the contrary.

 

For decades the insurance industry has been lobbying for mandated coverage for everyone. Imagine if the cell phone industry or the cable TV industry received such a gift from government? If government were to fine individuals simply for not buying a corporation's product, it would be an incredible and completely unfair boon to that industry, at the expense of freedom and the free market. Yet this is what the current healthcare reform plans intend to do for the very powerful health insurance industry.

 

The stipulation that pre-existing conditions would have to be covered seems a small price to pay for increasing their client pool to 100 percent of the American people. A big red flag, however, is that they would also have immunity from lawsuits, should they fail to actually cover what they are supposedly required to cover, so these requirements on them are probably meaningless. Mandates on all citizens to be customers of theirs, however, are enforceable with fines and taxes.

 

Insurance providers seem to have successfully equated health insurance with health care but this is a relatively new concept. There were doctors and medicine long before there was health insurance. Health insurance is not a bad thing, but it is not the only conceivable way to get health care. Instead, we seem to still rely on the creativity and competence of politicians to solve problems, which always somehow seem to be tied in with which lobby is the strongest in Washington.

 

It is sad to think of the many creative, free market solutions that government prohibits with all its interference. What if instead of joining a health insurance plan, you could buy a membership directly from a hospital or doctor? What if a doctor wanted to have a cash-only practice, or make house calls, or determine his or her own patient load, or otherwise practice medicine outside the constraints of the current bureaucratic system? Alternative healthcare delivery models will be at an even stronger competitive disadvantage if families are forced to buy into the insurance model. And yet, the reforms are sold to us as increasing competition.

 

What if just once Washington got out of the way and allowed the ingenuity of the American people to come up with a whole spectrum of alternatives to our broken system? Then the free market, not lobbyists and politicians, would decide which models work and which did not.

 

Unfortunately, the most broken aspect of our system is that Washington sees the need to act on every problem in society, rather than staying out of the way, or getting out of the way. The only tools the government has are force and favors. These are tools that many unscrupulous and lazy corporations would like to wield to their own advantage, rather than simply providing a better product that people will willingly buy. It seems the health insurance industry will get more of those advantages very soon.

[Addai]

Ron Paul has to be one of the dirtiest and smartest crooks in the game. That's why he's had such an economically fruitful political career. Prior to his Presidential bid he just hawked gold and right wing conspiracy theories for cash.

 

That is one of the most ridiculous, ignorant things I've ever heard said. I consider Ron Paul to be something of a personal hero to me. Even if you disagree with the man's politics, the sheer level of his integrity re-inspired my hope in this nation. He is not dirty, he is not a crook. Furthermore, supporting sound money is not "hawking gold." You should check your vocabulary, perhaps read some books on monetary issues. Also, he has not supported "ring wing conspiracies." And for cash? Are you nuts?

 

There are few men alive, and no men in the entirety of our government, who I respect more than Ron Paul. I have read two of his books, listened to speeches from the 1970's through today, studied his voting record, written a research paper on him, and I can tell you right now that you've been listening to some seriously misguided people who did not know what they were talking about. You shouldn't take other peoples word at face value, you should do your own research, because I am certain that nobody who has ever taken the time to really listen to Dr. Paul, to see what he's done over the span of his career, could possibly write such a ingly ignorant remark.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me just give you a little a background:

 

This is a man who grew up in Pittsburgh, and ended up becoming a doctor after graduating from Duke. He went on to enlist in the military during Vietnam and served as a flight surgeon for years. Then, for years following this, he worked in churches and other clinics where he made absolutely peanuts for money. These were the places that took in ANYONE who needed care, often times providing care for free. Then of course he became an OBGYN and delivered over 4,000 babies. Even once he became a congressman, he still wanted to treat patients on the weekend (congress would not allow this, they have some strange rules). This is a man who you can go back three decades and find him giving the EXACT same speeches he is giving today. He's never waivered one inch. You look at his voting record, and it is pure. He has NEVER gone against what he stands for. He holds the HISTORICAL RECORD for being the single no vote more times than anyone, that is to say he's been outvoted 434-1 more times than anyone. He never, ever bends, hence his nickname Dr. No. Can you point to a single politician in the last century who has had a career of his length and not once ever compromised his values?

 

Here's a brief record:

 

Ron has never voted to raise taxes.

Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

Ron has never voted for the Iraq War.

Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay.

Ron has never taken a government-paid junket.

Ron has never voted to spend a single dollar from the social security fund.

Ron voted against the Patriot Act.

Ron votes to end the war on drugs.

 

One could just go ON AND ON. I know, and am friends with people across the political spectrum. Hardcore socialists. And even they respect the man, even if they disagree politically. It's hard not too.

 

 

 

edit:

I apologize for the rant.

[CollegeB]

A law requiring service to others is just a form of slavery. Private hospitals not supported by government dollars shouldn't be required to care for people anymore than restaurants have to serve people.

[Addai]

Yes, a proud John Bircher like Ron Paul has never promoted right wing conspiracy theories.

 

Have you ever seen his old newsletters? How about the way he took all of those millions of dollars he raised for his campaign and funneled them off to a few close friends and family members who were "staffers"?

 

Please read my entire post.

 

I've heard a lot of silly things that people say were in his old newsletters. The fact is simply that his name was used for the title, but he wasn't the one authoring most any of the content. I know, I know! You're thinking BUT HIS NAME WAS ON IT, IT WAS HIS NEWSLETTER! And I understand that. But again, the reality of it is that the vast majority of what was in those newsletters did not come from him, just like the vast majority of all congressional newsletters do not come from the congressmen themselves. But you're thinking BUT EVEN IF THAT'S TRUE, IT WAS STILL HIS RESPONSIBILITY.

 

And you would be absolutely correct. Paul has been apologizing for years about the content of those newsletters, which he did not author, and in fact never even edited. He was rarely involved in them, they printed some dumb stuff, and forevermore it's been a stain on his name. Which is 100% his fault, and he admits to readily. But the only victim here was himself.

 

But are you really going to a man of such high integrity and moral fiber over that? I mean, do we want to get into bad things liberals have done? Let's see: Bill Clinton had sex with other women while married and the President, Ted Kennedy got drunk and went driving which led to a womans death who he abandoned, and more recently John Edwards was having an affair while his wife was fighting cancer and still rallying for his presidential bid, yadda yadda. And those were all things that we know THEY DID, whereas Paul merely let things get printed using his name that he never read. With Paul, the only victim was himself.

 

Now, I'm not making the case the liberals are immoral or evil and conservatives are not. This has nothing whatsoever to do with political ideology. I'm just putting things into perspective. And furthermore, this is a nation that is known for forgiveness. For sexual affairs, for violence, for theft--across the entertainment industry through sports through politicians we've seen everyone from Kobe Bryant to Ted Kennedy to Michael Vick receive forgiveness, and you want to demonize a man because he didn't look at what was being printed under his name?

[Addai]

I'm not a liberal or a conservative.

 

I wouldn't let someone publish a newsletter with my name on it I didn't like the content of, unless, of course I just wanted money.

 

If you think America is a forgiving country you are drunk on lies.

 

Out of curiosity, what are you?

 

Anyways, Paul made a mistake. A mistake he has admitted to and apologized to for years, one in which he was the only victim. Given this guys life, his career, and his record, you have to keep things in perspective. This is something you are clearly failing to do.

 

America is an EXTRAORDINARILY forgiving country. To the extreme. This is the nation of second chances. It's one of the things about our culture that I don't particularly like...too forgiving. Michael Vick is an excellent example. Granted those involved in animal rights, most at least, will likely continue to dislike him (although the ASPCA has publicly "forgiven" Vick and are now supporting the things he's doing!), the majority of people have forgiven this man. Just about anyone you can think of in pop-culture, which includes politics, who has made a big mistake, has been forgiven by the masses.

 

So let's not call me drunk on lies. Given the ignorance you have displayed, and that I have spoken to you respectfully in spite of it...let's keep it civil, we'll both get more out of it.

[Vegan Joe]

i'm an anarchist.

 

america forgives its own celebrities. big deal. turn off the tv.

 

in the real world, was america "forgiving" when it went into iran and installed the shah? has america "forgiven" afghan civilians who are suffering because of the actions of radical extremists trained by the united states? was america "forgiving" when it torched a bunch of iraqi civilians and destroyed historical relics that had been preserved for centuries? even when most intelligence sources said there were no nuclear weapons there?

 

And what, Anarchy isn't full of lawless senseless acts of barbarism?

If you think not, then you really don't understand human nature, or anarchy