huffingtonpost.com — Bombastic Fox News host Bill O'Reilly made a rather notable policy pronouncement on Wednesday's show: he supports the creation of a government-managed health care plan if it provides working Americans with an affordable option to other private insurance plans. In other words, he supports the public option now being....
Sep 17, 2009 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountSep 18, 2009
Why stop there? full on implementation, it's what we want right?
doubledownSep 18, 2009
See, the problem with this post is that the private sector could have done all those things, while letting the American Public profit from it while supplying it at the same time.1. FCC regulations not needed... change the station to something you care to watch2. Federal Reserve, well... first off they are not part of the government. they are an independent bank.3. Department of Agriculture/USDA/FDA is a joke... if they did not exist, individual companies would be testing their foods/drugs to ensure safety. Because if no one buys the food, they go out of business4. The concept of time was not derived by government, so they have no need to keep it.5. DOT/National Highway and Traffic safety... if I want to buy a less safe car to save money, I should have a right to. And don't get me started on seat-belt laws... what a joke...I could go on, but I think everyone gets the point that we do not need expansive governmentTo top it off, there is not one society that does not run on greed. The question is who is going to be greedy, the people or the government?
Closed AccountSep 19, 2009
POST OF THE CENTURY!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!111!!!!111!!!
orlandogeekSep 19, 2009
As for health care, why is it that so many are up in arms about single payer? Every other developed country in the world has it and the majority of their citizens like it. Does it make a profit? No, but then again a program like should not be designed to. It should be built around providing the best quality of service it can and financially it should break even at best.In this country every politician that is coming out against the Public Option is already on a government run health plan. One that is quite efficient and keeping costs low, I might add. Why are they fighting to deny the citizens the chance at the same benefits they get?Our soldiers are on a government run health care plan. Our senior citizens love theirs. Our veterans are on one as well, and the majority of them also love it. All of these programs are highly rated by the people on them.Why are we denying this to all who want it and instead continuing to insist that people pay ungodly sums of their incomes for the chance at coverage?
piieerrrreeSep 20, 2009
As far as economics go, you're doing it wrong.
piieerrrreeSep 20, 2009
>Also, exactly how does it prevent the continued upward spiral of health care costs that we're told will bankrupt the country?and>... and will be more affordable to you?The government has no incentive for profit with a health-care program. As such, it doesn't need to maximize its profit. Private health-insurance companies must maximize their profits for their share-holders. Not to mention the multi-million dollar salaries some of the higher-ups like to give themselves; that's taken out of the equation completely.>Why do you think... you are going to see out of the public option that will improve the care provided by your physician,..?If you're under public health-care, you pretty much only need to present your insurance card (much like with insurance companies) and you're good to go. With insurance companies, hospitals first need to figure out what is and isn't covered, if you are insured at all, what level your plan is, etc. Billing departments in hospitals are also very costly to staff, and that space/money can be diverted to either increased wages (more people would be willing to work as nurses etc) or better equipment, etc. Having both a public program and a private program PROBABLY (this is speculation) that most people will elect for the public program. As such, hospitals will be able to divert wages etc from their billing departments, as less people will have to go through that process.sorry if this is a little incoherent, kinda tired right now ._.; reply if you get a chance or something.
Closed AccountSep 23, 2009
If you suck at life that much I think trolling the comments section of a site dominated by 15-28 year old geeks is a bad way to improve your situation.Also, you live in West LA and subsist on non-store bought food? Where is it grown on top of building or up in Hollywood Hills?
linuxpenguinSep 23, 2009
A better option IMO is to make it illegal to do the sort of lobbying that these big companies do.Nothing's wrong with having lobbyists. We need them to convince our politicians to make the right decisions.We don't need them issuing huge payouts and such to essentially buy out our politicians who are supposed to be working for US.
jhonkaSep 25, 2009
So he just waited until HE THOUGHT the public option was pretty much off the table before saying anything?
jaxxbatSep 25, 2009
Why is OReilly's opinion worth so much ?
ceeayyOct 12, 2009
We don't have to pretend...This is not about keeping insurance companies honest, regulation alone can do that. You haven't been paying attention. At the end of the day this is really about bringing prices down FOR EVERYONE. If you want to protect the profits of insurance companies then that's your business. Just don't pretend that they actually benefit anyone. The only people who are happy with their health insurance are the people who don't need to use it and the people who don't pay for it.Ironically you state that it's the gov't that makes monopolies possible while at the same time complaining that the gov't is trying to rectify that. Pick a side.
Closed AccountDec 16, 2009
<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqhfvK52aaQ" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqhfvK52aaQ</a>