Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Here is an interesting theory that I just read on Forbes.com.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... rue-costs/

"The answer is that Obamacare wasn’t designed to help healthy people with average incomes get health insurance. It was designed to force those people to pay more for coverage, in order to subsidize insurance for people with incomes near the poverty line, and those with chronic or costly medical conditions."

The general public is so deluded by all this it is just amazing. I keep telling people to remember two quotes.

1. "What are not legitimate concerns are those being put forward claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. … So, when you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this – they are not telling the truth." (BHO - 6/15/09, when asked if this would lead to a single-payer system.)

2. "Because we don’t have the votes for it. I wish we did. I think that if we get a good public option it could lead to single payer and that is the best way to reach single payer. Saying you’ll do nothing till you get single payer is a sure way never to get it. … I think the best way we’re going to get single payer, the only way, is to have a public option and demonstrate the strength of its power." (Barney Frank - 7/21/09, when asked why not just try and get single-payer passed right away.)

Point 2 reminded me of Palpatine: "the full power of the Dark Side..."

Of course, everything is working as they planned. First they will destroy the private-sector health insurance industry, then they will force all healthcare providers to work for the government. And then it gets worse.

No doubt in my mind that all of this is a stepping stone towards a single payer system.

Avik Roy is one smart cookie when it comes to healthcare. He has a lot of great articles on Forbes and good television clips of interviews he's done on his YouTube page.

http://www.youtube.com/user/aviksaroy/videos

I don't think there has been hidden agenda here. Mao was quite plain that he wanted to pass it as "a first step" upon which to grow. He even pointed to the growth of other bills from their original point.

That said, I personally am not against single payer, yet. How come every other country can do it and do it for less than we do it? How come the other countries have overall lower rates of morbidity, even for countries with high fat and high smoking population?

I read the data from the various countries government reports, and they may be lying for all I know, but its all I have to go on.

If anyone can explain to me the reasons everything I read points to the ability to do it better and cheaper is completely wrong, I am willing to listen (my experience is that the libtards are usually wrong), but right now i am still thinking there is a better way than free market insurance.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Touchy subject for sure. As a civilized society i feel there has to be a way to show some compassion for the healthcare of the populace but at what cost and paid by whom? I am sure you could find plenty of waste in the current spending to offset some if not all the cost but nobody in washington will do that.

Remek wrote:I don't think there has been hidden agenda here. Mao was quite plain that he wanted to pass it as "a first step" upon which to grow. He even pointed to the growth of other bills from their original point.

That said, I personally am not against single payer, yet. How come every other country can do it and do it for less than we do it? How come the other countries have overall lower rates of morbidity, even for countries with high fat and high smoking population?

I read the data from the various countries government reports, and they may be lying for all I know, but its all I have to go on.

If anyone can explain to me the reasons everything I read points to the ability to do it better and cheaper is completely wrong, I am willing to listen (my experience is that the libtards are usually wrong), but right now i am still thinking there is a better way than free market insurance.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I guess it comes down to if you want the government involved in this aspect of your life or not. I personally don't. Prior to the 1930s, the government has pretty much stayed out of the lives of American citizens. After that, with the implementation of welfare program after welfare program, citizens now turn to the government first when something bad happens.

Also keep in mind that government-sponsored healthcare is not infallible. Sweden experienced this in the 90s when they had economic problems and have been cutting services to balance the books. The Greeks and Spaniards currently riot in the streets because their government made too many promises. What the government gives, the government can also take away, and I'm not sure a government that is currently $17T in debt with no plan to dig its way out of that hole can take on another welfare program.

If you're going to look at government-sponsored healthcare programs as a way to keep costs low, what are the unintended consequences? One is price fixing, in our government telling our doctors what they're going to be paid. This leads to the best doctors going to private practices on a cash-only basis for wealthy people or leaving the field altogether, leaving the population with a shortage of less than stellar physicians. Do we want a government that employs strong-arm tactics like this? Another way to keep prices low is to award contracts to medical device suppliers and buy in bulk. A contract for example that says anyone who needs crutches in 2014 will get their crutches from XYZ Corp and no one else. This is a great bulk purchase, but how much cronyism do you think will take place to get those contracts?

The founders really did get it right by keeping it short and sweet. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Anything else and the government really has no business getting involved.

DryBones wrote:Touchy subject for sure. As a civilized society i feel there has to be a way to show some compassion for the healthcare of the populace but at what cost and paid by whom? I am sure you could find plenty of waste in the current spending to offset some if not all the cost but nobody in washington will do that.

This lady has already gone line-by-line on the budget.

Good points above. And, at this point in history, you're right. Our government has no business expanding at this time. And, as we all know, the currently-being-implemented system WILL lead to civil unrest. I am definitely for dropping it in the can.

I do pray every night for our officials to come to their senses and start using their noggins instead of riding on our fears. I dount that will happen until we start electing people like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and normal people, instead of money hungry grubs like we currently do.

My kids are the ones I fear for. Their future is completely screwed at this point.

Makes me think seriously about 'stedding in AK, or even in MT. somewhere with space and privacy.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Those other countries do not do single-payer for less than we do. You just don't see the full cost, because it is buried under layers of .gov accounting. But there are two key points:

1. The overall tax burden is much higher in those countries.

2. Pharmaceuticals are often cheaper in those countries because the governments force the makers to cut their prices in order to get approval. This leaves the drug companies having to recoup their development costs from the US market. It's sort of a reverse-tariff scam.

3. The quality of medical care in those other countries is much lower.

4. For many cultural reasons that long pre-date the advent of socialized medicine (and socialism in general), people in those countries have healthier lifestyles than the modern TV-stupified, sugar-inhaling, non-ambulatory, obese Americans.

The intention of Obamacare is to push the public towards a single-payer system. The dems have outspokenly said it. Not only that, but anyone who has any decent understanding of the healthcare system can see that the new laws not only drive up prices, but they cause tremendous problems for employers with miles of red tape and trip wires that expose them to being sued for just about any reason.

The ACA law was written with the sole intent of making the private market such a mess that the ignorant masses will go begging Obama for a single-payer system.

That being said, I don't think the crashes were a part of "the plan". I think it's simply due to Chicago politics. The job was likely given to the top donator instead of the most competent techs.

Are Healthcare.gov website crashes intentional?
Are Healthcare.gov website crashes the result of cronyism and incompetence?

Either way, we're screwed.

dorminWS wrote:Are Healthcare.gov website crashes intentional?
Are Healthcare.gov website crashes the result of cronyism and incompetence?

Either way, we're screwed.

In short, yes.

"As a civilized society i feel there has to be a way to show some compassion for the healthcare of the populace but at what cost and paid by whom?"

They had that already, it didn't give the government enough CONTROL over you!

This has NOTHING to do with healthcare, and everything to do with power, and control.

Learn the difference.

Remek wrote:I read the data from the various countries government reports, and they may be lying for all I know, but its all I have to go on.

If anyone can explain to me the reasons everything I read points to the ability to do it better and cheaper is completely wrong, I am willing to listen (my experience is that the libtards are usually wrong), but right now i am still thinking there is a better way than free market insurance.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Government data is heavily manipulated and various accounting tricks are used to hide the true cost. Our own government won't report unemployment in any meaningful way. Also, just look at how they lied about Oct. 17th to get the shutdown ended. There was enough money to keep running until the 1st of November and with a little work till the end of the year. Arguably given how Social Security was stolen from, you could continue to finance it even longer.

Government accounting is designed to protect the government from inquiry and change. Those other systems you're quoting are no different. While some people in this country are able to get care based on their ability to pay and others do not, those single payer systems routinely deny everyone care.

All due respect, but what youre saying is everything is a lie. I am willing to buy this, but then why the heck arent we seriously on the track to replenish the tree of liberty?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

On the flip side, i am well aware of the underreporting of unemployed, but nothing specific but allegations on every govt medical service around.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

The President held a presser today in the Rose Garden and assured everyone that the best and brightest software developers would be hard at work to re-fix the 404Care website. Those of us who have worked with software development projects know just how well this is going to work out.

The best analogy I've heard is that they will attempt to get nine women together in hopes that they can create a baby in one month.

But don't worry, they are totally going to get it right this time.

All brougt to you by the folks who thought a single ad forest for the agency was a good idea.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

The ship for single payer sailed long ago. It could have worked when everyone was an American, but now it would just be like Medicaid where everyone tries to get their own piece of the pie and fck everyone else. Plus "flipping the switch" now would in all likelihood destroy the economy if funded (we're talking over a trillion per year in new taxes) or finally cause a run on bonds if unfinanced (like most of our programs).

Single payer systems work best in a homogenous setting where people can put their community ahead of themselves. See the NHS of diverse Britain vs the NHS of homogenous Japan. Neither is perfect but Japan has far fewer problems in terms of quality and outcome compared to Britain, and that's with a very old population.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]