Take the Poll Feb 27th.

Faust · Feb 29, 2008

Any way you slice it (and i'm an independent, I like all 3 - Obama, Clinton, and McCain to various levels), any of those candidates will be a vast improvement health care wise (and other ways as well). I believe in a paid into "universal health care". There should be no reason why if I pay my 50-100 bucks a month for my care (NOT FREE), I shouldn't get 100% of the care I need and don't have to dance around with my insurance company, or medicare. Both of those suck now, because they are profit driven, and the companies have to answer to share holders, so their drive is to maintain profitability, which inevitably comes down to you as a patient being micro-analyzed in every possible way, with them looking for some way to deny you something you and more importantly your doctor says you need. I hate to rant, but I have personally been kicked out of the hospital against my doctors wishes by my old insurance company, because I turned up on their radar when I had been in the hospital too many times within a period of time (in their opinion).

I'm not a pinko commie, and I don't absolutely hate capitalism, I just feel there should be a system that everyone has to pay a responsible amount into and it covers EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME, and is not based on profit, rather it is based on self sustainability.

All the other candidates stances aside, I would go with Clinton for the health care aspect. Obama second, and McCain third.

Faust · Feb 29, 2008

Any way you slice it (and i'm an independent, I like all 3 - Obama, Clinton, and McCain to various levels), any of those candidates will be a vast improvement health care wise (and other ways as well). I believe in a paid into "universal health care". There should be no reason why if I pay my 50-100 bucks a month for my care (NOT FREE), I shouldn't get 100% of the care I need and don't have to dance around with my insurance company, or medicare. Both of those suck now, because they are profit driven, and the companies have to answer to share holders, so their drive is to maintain profitability, which inevitably comes down to you as a patient being micro-analyzed in every possible way, with them looking for some way to deny you something you and more importantly your doctor says you need. I hate to rant, but I have personally been kicked out of the hospital against my doctors wishes by my old insurance company, because I turned up on their radar when I had been in the hospital too many times within a period of time (in their opinion).

I'm not a pinko commie, and I don't absolutely hate capitalism, I just feel there should be a system that everyone has to pay a responsible amount into and it covers EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME, and is not based on profit, rather it is based on self sustainability.

All the other candidates stances aside, I would go with Clinton for the health care aspect. Obama second, and McCain third.

Faust · Feb 29, 2008

Any way you slice it (and i'm an independent, I like all 3 - Obama, Clinton, and McCain to various levels), any of those candidates will be a vast improvement health care wise (and other ways as well). I believe in a paid into "universal health care". There should be no reason why if I pay my 50-100 bucks a month for my care (NOT FREE), I shouldn't get 100% of the care I need and don't have to dance around with my insurance company, or medicare. Both of those suck now, because they are profit driven, and the companies have to answer to share holders, so their drive is to maintain profitability, which inevitably comes down to you as a patient being micro-analyzed in every possible way, with them looking for some way to deny you something you and more importantly your doctor says you need. I hate to rant, but I have personally been kicked out of the hospital against my doctors wishes by my old insurance company, because I turned up on their radar when I had been in the hospital too many times within a period of time (in their opinion).

I'm not a pinko commie, and I don't absolutely hate capitalism, I just feel there should be a system that everyone has to pay a responsible amount into and it covers EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME, and is not based on profit, rather it is based on self sustainability.

All the other candidates stances aside, I would go with Clinton for the health care aspect. Obama second, and McCain third.

Faust · Feb 29, 2008

Any way you slice it (and i'm an independent, I like all 3 - Obama, Clinton, and McCain to various levels), any of those candidates will be a vast improvement health care wise (and other ways as well). I believe in a paid into "universal health care". There should be no reason why if I pay my 50-100 bucks a month for my care (NOT FREE), I shouldn't get 100% of the care I need and don't have to dance around with my insurance company, or medicare. Both of those suck now, because they are profit driven, and the companies have to answer to share holders, so their drive is to maintain profitability, which inevitably comes down to you as a patient being micro-analyzed in every possible way, with them looking for some way to deny you something you and more importantly your doctor says you need. I hate to rant, but I have personally been kicked out of the hospital against my doctors wishes by my old insurance company, because I turned up on their radar when I had been in the hospital too many times within a period of time (in their opinion).

I'm not a pinko commie, and I don't absolutely hate capitalism, I just feel there should be a system that everyone has to pay a responsible amount into and it covers EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME, and is not based on profit, rather it is based on self sustainability.

All the other candidates stances aside, I would go with Clinton for the health care aspect. Obama second, and McCain third.

Faust · Feb 29, 2008

Any way you slice it (and i'm an independent, I like all 3 - Obama, Clinton, and McCain to various levels), any of those candidates will be a vast improvement health care wise (and other ways as well). I believe in a paid into "universal health care". There should be no reason why if I pay my 50-100 bucks a month for my care (NOT FREE), I shouldn't get 100% of the care I need and don't have to dance around with my insurance company, or medicare. Both of those suck now, because they are profit driven, and the companies have to answer to share holders, so their drive is to maintain profitability, which inevitably comes down to you as a patient being micro-analyzed in every possible way, with them looking for some way to deny you something you and more importantly your doctor says you need. I hate to rant, but I have personally been kicked out of the hospital against my doctors wishes by my old insurance company, because I turned up on their radar when I had been in the hospital too many times within a period of time (in their opinion).
<br />
<br />
<br />I'm not a pinko commie, and I don't absolutely hate capitalism, I just feel there should be a system that everyone has to pay a responsible amount into and it covers EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME, and is not based on profit, rather it is based on self sustainability.
<br />
<br />
<br />All the other candidates stances aside, I would go with Clinton for the health care aspect. Obama second, and McCain third.
<br />

NoExcuses · Mar 1, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Faust</b></i>
I shouldn't get 100% of the care I need and don't have to dance around with my insurance company, or medicare. Both of those suck now, because they are profit driven,

</end quote></div>

Medicare isn't for profit......

if running things not based on profit is a better idea, why don't we run every sector of our business that way? why doesn't the government run airlines? or computer manufacturers? or your favorite clothing store?

i'll tell you why - because running any sector based on profit encourages those who run the business to allocate scarce resources best. when there isn't the incentive of profit, there is room for inefficient uses of resources (post office, DMV, all the pork we see in government spending) because there is no accountability. profit creates accountability.

don't get me wrong - i would love to live in rainbow land where the government could run things well and everyone would be happy with excellent healthcare, etc. but the reality is that that's now how the world works. you can't change the rules of economics.... it's like changing gravity. can't do it.

NoExcuses · Mar 1, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Faust</b></i>
I shouldn't get 100% of the care I need and don't have to dance around with my insurance company, or medicare. Both of those suck now, because they are profit driven,

</end quote></div>

Medicare isn't for profit......

if running things not based on profit is a better idea, why don't we run every sector of our business that way? why doesn't the government run airlines? or computer manufacturers? or your favorite clothing store?

i'll tell you why - because running any sector based on profit encourages those who run the business to allocate scarce resources best. when there isn't the incentive of profit, there is room for inefficient uses of resources (post office, DMV, all the pork we see in government spending) because there is no accountability. profit creates accountability.

don't get me wrong - i would love to live in rainbow land where the government could run things well and everyone would be happy with excellent healthcare, etc. but the reality is that that's now how the world works. you can't change the rules of economics.... it's like changing gravity. can't do it.

NoExcuses · Mar 1, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Faust</b></i>
I shouldn't get 100% of the care I need and don't have to dance around with my insurance company, or medicare. Both of those suck now, because they are profit driven,

</end quote></div>

Medicare isn't for profit......

if running things not based on profit is a better idea, why don't we run every sector of our business that way? why doesn't the government run airlines? or computer manufacturers? or your favorite clothing store?

i'll tell you why - because running any sector based on profit encourages those who run the business to allocate scarce resources best. when there isn't the incentive of profit, there is room for inefficient uses of resources (post office, DMV, all the pork we see in government spending) because there is no accountability. profit creates accountability.

don't get me wrong - i would love to live in rainbow land where the government could run things well and everyone would be happy with excellent healthcare, etc. but the reality is that that's now how the world works. you can't change the rules of economics.... it's like changing gravity. can't do it.

NoExcuses · Mar 1, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Faust</b></i>
I shouldn't get 100% of the care I need and don't have to dance around with my insurance company, or medicare. Both of those suck now, because they are profit driven,

</end quote>

Medicare isn't for profit......

if running things not based on profit is a better idea, why don't we run every sector of our business that way? why doesn't the government run airlines? or computer manufacturers? or your favorite clothing store?

i'll tell you why - because running any sector based on profit encourages those who run the business to allocate scarce resources best. when there isn't the incentive of profit, there is room for inefficient uses of resources (post office, DMV, all the pork we see in government spending) because there is no accountability. profit creates accountability.

don't get me wrong - i would love to live in rainbow land where the government could run things well and everyone would be happy with excellent healthcare, etc. but the reality is that that's now how the world works. you can't change the rules of economics.... it's like changing gravity. can't do it.

NoExcuses · Mar 1, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Faust</b></i>
<br />I shouldn't get 100% of the care I need and don't have to dance around with my insurance company, or medicare. Both of those suck now, because they are profit driven,
<br />
<br /></end quote>
<br />
<br />Medicare isn't for profit......
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />if running things not based on profit is a better idea, why don't we run every sector of our business that way? why doesn't the government run airlines? or computer manufacturers? or your favorite clothing store?
<br />
<br />i'll tell you why - because running any sector based on profit encourages those who run the business to allocate scarce resources best. when there isn't the incentive of profit, there is room for inefficient uses of resources (post office, DMV, all the pork we see in government spending) because there is no accountability. profit creates accountability.
<br />
<br />don't get me wrong - i would love to live in rainbow land where the government could run things well and everyone would be happy with excellent healthcare, etc. but the reality is that that's now how the world works. you can't change the rules of economics.... it's like changing gravity. can't do it.

cfsucks · Mar 2, 2008