- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
09 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeySo you want the figure for government insured health care. Could you tell us the government department that insures people? Even my Medicare, which pre-dates the ACA, is with Kaiser, a private non-profit corporation.
I still have had no answer as to what price people are willing to pay for government insured medical care. I can only conclude that we are willing to pay pretty much any price for it.
Scary stuff.
You are scared of ghosts.
10 Oct 13
Originally posted by JS357What the ACA does, is just a big jump all at once in the regulatory maize that the insurance business has to jump through. My idea is that this is intended to drive costs so high, that people will beg for total government control to contain the costs. Enter single third party payer socialized medicine to the rescue.
So you want the figure for government insured health care. Could you tell us the government department that insures people? Even my Medicare, which pre-dates the ACA, is with Kaiser, a private non-profit corporation.
You are scared of ghosts.
Will anyone consider that the failures of the health care system all have been in the previously socialized sectors, and not the free market?
Very doubtful.
11 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by joe beyserjoe, as long as abortion is legal, would you be willing to pay women to not have abortions, or instead just let the babies die?
70 million dead babies says it already has.
What if you could put the payment in a trust fund that went to baby at age 18? Or, again, no payment and just let the babies die while abortion is legal (and will likely be legal forever).
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
11 Oct 13
Originally posted by normbenign"My idea is that this is intended to drive costs so high, that people will beg for total government control..."
What the ACA does, is just a big jump all at once in the regulatory maize that the insurance business has to jump through. My idea is that this is intended to drive costs so high, that people will beg for total government control to contain the costs. Enter single third party payer socialized medicine to the rescue.
Will anyone consider that the fail ...[text shortened]... m all have been in the previously socialized sectors, and not the free market?
Very doubtful.
Yes, that would be your idea.
11 Oct 13
Originally posted by moon1969Are you serious?
joe, as long as abortion is legal, would you be willing to pay women to not have abortions, or instead just let the babies die?
What if you could put the payment in a trust fund that went to baby at age 18? Or, again, no payment and just let the babies die while abortion is legal (and will likely be legal forever).
"...would you be willing to pay women to not have abortions, or instead just let the babies die?
You propose subsidizing reproduction outside marriage? We already pay women by increasing their welfare for each bastard they produce. There are other alternatives, such as sterilization of repeat out of wedlock mothers, and the same for the sperm donors. How about removing the children from the obviously bad parent. Promiscuous girls and criminal boys most often come from families were they learned those things.
Your choices of alternatives are lousy.
11 Oct 13
Originally posted by JS357You and I both know that the ACA was far from Obama or most Democrat's first choice, hastily thrown together when their original plan was shot down.
"My idea is that this is intended to drive costs so high, that people will beg for total government control..."
Yes, that would be your idea.
It is not meant to succeed, but to fail so badly as to leave everyone begging for the real thing.
11 Oct 13
3 edits
Originally posted by normbenignI was just wondering as long as abortion is legal, does joe beyer think it would be better to pay to stop abortions or instead to just let the babies die.
Are you serious?
"...would you be willing to pay women to not have abortions, or instead just let the babies die?
You propose subsidizing reproduction outside marriage? We already pay women by increasing their welfare for each bastard they produce. There are other alternatives, such as sterilization of repeat out of wedlock mothers, and the same f ...[text shortened]... en come from families were they learned those things.
Your choices of alternatives are lousy.
11 Oct 13
Originally posted by normbenignI do NOT think we should pay to stop abortions. But I was wondering what joe thought.
Are you serious?
"...would you be willing to pay women to not have abortions, or instead just let the babies die?
You propose subsidizing reproduction outside marriage? We already pay women by increasing their welfare for each bastard they produce. There are other alternatives, such as sterilization of repeat out of wedlock mothers, and the same f ...[text shortened]... en come from families were they learned those things.
Your choices of alternatives are lousy.
joe beyer: As long as abortion is legal, should we pay to stop abortions where we can or should we just let the babies die?
I do think that paying to fund birth control and birth control education to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the number of babies killed in abortions is not a bad idea.