Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

You want more, cause I got more.

Your laws that allow your buddies in the insurance industry to grab a chunk of our health care dollars - where they have no business anymore, KEEPS health care costs unbelievably HIGH. Your laws that opened the cash window to your friends in the pharmaceutical industry with your Medicare drug benefit, KEEPS health care costs sky HIGH. Your laws that prevent us from negotiating prices with the drug industry KEEPS health care costs extremely HIGH.

---

This makes no sense at all, excon.

We have already established above that poor folks aren't paying for healthcare. It's being paid for by you and me in the form of higher medical bills by hospitals and by higher taxes. Poor people are going to ERs or clinics and getting their care for free. So how is the high ost of medical care keeping poor people down?

Quote:

---

ALL of these things would END under a libertarian administration. And it they did, then the kids, ALL OF 'EM, could afford to see any doctor they wanted.

---

You really think that a libertarian would end the existence of insurance companies?

I think just the opposite. Libertarians, REAL libertarians tend to be of the opinion that the government shouldn't get involved in business at all, and that companies should be free to charge whatever the market can bare for their services. Under a real libertarian, insurance companies would have more freedom to operate as they wish, not less. The REAL difference between how libertarians operate now and how they would under a libertarian is that regulation on business and on individuals would be less.

But it would take more than a libertarian administration to do it. It would also take a libertarian Congress to change the laws and a libertarian Supreme Court to uphold them during the inevitable constitutionality lawsuits that will ensue as the laws are changed.

Quote:

---

I could go on, and you can believe I will.

---

Ya don't say... :rolleyes:

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

You really think that a libertarian would end the existance of insurance companies? .....But it would take more than a libertarian administration to do it.

---

Hello again, Elliot:

I didn't say that they would end insurance companies. I said they would end the laws that allow insurance companies to get a chunk of your dough.

Indeed, if you had the choice, would you write the check to your doctor directly, or would you pay extra to have the insurance company do it for you? Nope, you're right. If given the choice, nobody would have insurance companies in-between themselves and their doctors.

Ok, maybe YOU would.

I'm not holding my breath for change. It's ain't going to happen. But, like I said before, if you're going to fetter at one end - in order to be fair, it's going to require some fettering at the other end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

So how is the high cost of medical care keeping poor people down?

---

I'll bet you had a straight face when you asked that question, didn't you?

It gave me a laugh, though.

excon

Like I said, excon, if as we established poor folks aren't paying for their health care, then what difference does it make to them how much it costs?

The high cost of medical care doesn't affect the poor nearly as much as it affects the middle class... those who have to pay for their health care but can't get ahead in life because of those health care costs.

Elliot

Quote:

---

excon agrees: Yeah. It IS my money. That's why I'm yelling about gettin ripped off!

---

I don't disagree about getting ripped off. It's your solution to that that I disagree with. Getting the government more involved isn't going to put more money back in your pockets. Quite the contrary. There has never been a government-run program that has put more wealth into the hands of the people. As the old saying goes "Government cannot make a man rich, but it can make a man poor."

Elliot

Quote:

---

excon agrees: Yeah??? There are an awful lot of fat cat Republicans feeding at the public trough. They're gettin rich on MY dime.

---

Again, I don't disagree with that assessment. But how is getting the government more involved going to fix that problem? It won't. It CAN'T.

Elliot

Hello ex,

I'm a little late to this debate, but I have my doubts about children going without health care. I know if they go without care where I live it's nobody's fault but the parents. If you're concerned that the care given by your family physician is better than that at an ER or clinic, well yeah. That's what happens with government run health care.

Our city sold its municipal hospital a number of years ago and part of the deal was the new owner had to provide care for those that couldn't afford it. They operate a huge clinic in the less fortunate part of town and have a separate system at the hospital so they don't muck up the ER. It seems to work fine even if it is a little inconvenient (and I know first hand). But no one need go without care.

Congressman John Shadegg pointed out some interesting things about the proposed expansion:

Quote:

---

• The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) report says that under the Democrats' new SCHIP bill, one out of every two newly eligible children who enroll will drop their current private insurance.


• Studies show 61 percent of children who initially became eligible for SCHIP already had insurance.


• The Democrats' bill allows states (e.g. New York) to enroll children whose families make $82,600 per year or more; neither poor nor near poor by any standard.


• Wisconsin spends 75 percent of its SCHIP money on adults, Minnesota, 61 percent. Adults remain eligible.


• While Arizona has now stopped doing so, it previously paid for 110,000 adults with SCHIP, 85,000 of whom were childless.

Thus, the Democrats' SCHIP expansion is not limited to uninsured poor nor near poor children. In fact, it's not even limited to children.

---

As for their poster child family, did you also know that reportedly they drive a new Volvo SUV, a Suburban and an F250 - and that their property is reportedly worth around $400,000? If that's true, then they don't deserve any of my money. In fact, I think they could be helping me with MY medical bills.