Politics

[Irish Houstonian]

...Social medicine is a disaster okay; how is it a disaster?

-delayed access to care, since free care = patient visits for any/all ailments, some of which are trivial

-less innovation

-less use of technological procedures

-less incentive to develop new and better methods of care

-less incentive to control costs

-more governmental control/cronyism over who recieves care

-more wasteful spending on lobbying (insurance lobbying spending for Obamacare exceeded $1 billion)

-less incentive to provide good customer service (it's not like your customers can go to a competitor)

For example, U.K. physicians invented the CAT scan, but the U.K. now has less than 1/2 the CAT scanners the U.S. has per capita. Do you think that's just a conincidence?

 

[DSully1995]

Well I cant really contrast well since i havent expereinced in US medicine, but here in canada there are wait times for specialists/procedures (especially if they not vital) hip replacements take forever and such...

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Now where will the Canadians go when they get delayed months for procedures in Canada?

ey?

 

[RallySonsOfND]

HA! that timing was perfect.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Fees on employers in Obamacare.


Employers Blast Fees From New Health Law - Yahoo! Finance

 

[DSully1995]

Healthcare shouldnt be trough your employer, you should purhase it on your own, then if you lose your job you dont also lose medical coverage

 

[GoIrish41]

Healthcare shouldnt be trough your employer, you should purhase it on your own, then if you lose your job you dont also lose medical coverage

healthcare in the US is so expensive that if you lose your job you probably won't be able to afford it anyway. The cost of healthcare is the issue more than the vehicle by which gain access to it. That said, I do not believe that employers should be responsibile for health insurance either. In my opinion Canada (and most of the rest of the Western world) has it right with government-provided, universal healthcare for all citizens.

 

[DSully1995]

healthcare in the US is so expensive that if you lose your job you probably won't be able to afford it anyway. The cost of healthcare is the issue more than the vehicle by which gain access to it. That said, I do not believe that employers should be responsibile for health insurance either. In my opinion Canada (and most of the rest of the Western world) has it right with government-provided, universal healthcare for all citizens.

Id be down for incentive based insurance costs, like everytime you do a physical or something your doctor and give you a rough score on your health that would alter your premiums for better or worse, either that or less preferably BMI or something.

 

[ACamp1900]

This is as genuine and literal as I can be… nothing makes me shake my head more than people trusting this government to effectively run all of our health care. Honestly, where does this blind trust come…? Maybe the fact that the gov did turn around the national park service when they took over?? Because that is the only instance I can think of where things got better when they stepped in/took something over. Maybe we don't connect because those that advocate uni. health care actually think the gov. gives two shits whether you live or die? In all honesty nothing makes me worry about my family’s well-being and my own well-being more than the idea of the federal government having total control over my health care decisions. It’s a truly frightening thought.

 

[chicago51]

-delayed access to care, since free care = patient visits for any/all ailments, some of which are trivial

-less innovation

Valid to an extent although it is not like innovation won't be rewarded. The payout might be less.

-less use of technological procedures

Valid but it is more from a shortage of equipment and personel (see response below)

-less incentive to develop new and better methods of care

Not if you start paying on value basis as opposed to a volume basis. ACA is doing this starting in 2015

-less incentive to control costs

There is more control, strength in numbers allows the price to be bidded down.

-more governmental control/cronyism over who recieves care

That would be true if you make all the hospitals public. If the hospitals themselves stay privatized they still have control over who recieves what services.

-more wasteful spending on lobbying (insurance lobbying spending for Obamacare exceeded $1 billion)

How much of that was spent to stop Obamacare?

-less incentive to provide good customer service (it's not like your customers can go to a competitor)

Why not have supplemental insurance like Medicare patient's sometimes buy if they can afford it. I don't see why people can't buy premium packages.

For example, U.K. physicians invented the CAT scan, but the U.K. now has less than 1/2 the CAT scanners the U.S. has per capita. Do you think that's just a conincidence?

Well I cant really contrast well since i havent expereinced in US medicine, but here in canada there are wait times for specialists/procedures (especially if they not vital) hip replacements take forever and such...

It sounds like there may be a shortage of supply versus demand. If everybody in the US had access to health care there is just not enough doctors, nurses, therapist, medical equipment, etc to meet the demand. So basically here in the United States having a large portion of the country uninsured makes things better for the people that are insured. So in other words we got ours forget everyone else because it would make things worse for us.

 

[chicago51]

This is as genuine and literal as I can be… nothing makes me shake my head more than people trusting this government to effectively run all of our health care. Honestly, where does this blind trust come…? Maybe the fact that the gov did turn around the national park service when they took over?? Because that is the only instance I can think of where things got better when they stepped in/took something over. Maybe we don't connect because those that advocate uni. health care actually think the gov. gives two shits whether you live or die? In all honesty nothing makes me worry about my family’s well-being and my own well-being more than the idea of the federal government having total control over my health care decisions. It’s a truly frightening thought.

The hospitals are still going to be privatized unless we do what the UK does which I don't recommend.

What are your options if you don't like your health insurance? Get another provider right.

My question is why can't have bare minimum coverage through a single payer and if you chose purchase supplemental insurance through private companies. In other words if you want more choices and options you can go out and get them. I would to look at this more but I believe Japan does something like this. Essentially 70% of Japan's health cost are publicly paid through the government and the other 30% are pivately paid.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I don't disagree about all the lifestyle issues you mentioned. It is a shame that the House and Senate can't agree on a Farm Bill. I though the Farm Bill the Senate passed last time around was a step in the right direction. Must agriculture subsidies are a huge waste that we don't need, and as you mentioned we subsidized the wrong things.

Basically, it went from a 99% win for corporations to a 97% win. Only with the US government are we happy with "steps in the right direction."

Let me ask if the US government is too big will single payer work at the state level? I'm curious because Vermont is going to try it I believe. There is a provision in Obamacare that allows states to opt out of Obamacare if they can guarantee all their citizens health insurance. From what I understand Obamacare lets you do this in 2016 but Vermont I believe on tract to have this implemented around that time.

The Vermont governor campaigned on this and won. I believe they are going to use Blue Cross or someone else to do the adminstrative work but it will be a single payer, and I think you can pay extra if you wanted more options in your plan. Vermont be will a test subject for the nation. I expect more blue states to consider this it goes well, if it doesn't well a lot of people I know will be telling me I told you so.

Vermont could be first in line for single payer - Joanne Kenen - POLITICO.com

Obamacare is radical? Vermont thinks even bigger, with single-payer plan. - CSMonitor.com

I'm in total support of that. Constitutionally, that's how it should be done. States should develop plans that fit their needs. The plan for Vermont won't be anything like the plan that Texas would need. Laboratories for Democracy, look it up.

It's a similar reason for why I am in full agreement with Michael Bloomberg in New York trying to ban large soft drinks. Cities can do that, the federal government cannot. There's a huge difference and it's beyond annoying how Fox News and the right just say "government doing ____" instead of having the discussion we all should be having about the roles of local, state, and federal governments.

The federal government's role in health care is 1) to provide the safety net for people who need it and 2) to make sure that competition is as fair as possible and optimal for the consumer. That's what has brought about the highest amount of innovation and lowered prices the most. The proof is in the pudding.

 

[GoIrish41]

This is as genuine and literal as I can be… nothing makes me shake my head more than people trusting this government to effectively run all of our health care. Honestly, where does this blind trust come…? Maybe the fact that the gov did turn around the national park service when they took over?? Because that is the only instance I can think of where things got better when they stepped in/took something over. Maybe we don't connect because those that advocate uni. health care actually think the gov. gives two shits whether you live or die? In all honesty nothing makes me worry about my family’s well-being and my own well-being more than the idea of the federal government having total control over my health care decisions. It’s a truly frightening thought.

Do you think the private market cares about anyone's well being? They have priced millions of people out of health insurance and their is no end in sight for how expensive it might be. At what point will it be just too expensive for me to afford? Private health care providers' and insurers' concern is for their own bottom line. I'm not a big fan of Obamacare. I support it only because I feel that it is a step in the right direction. But, it still relies on private insurance companies that care far more for turning a profit than they do for people. Why does the cost of health insurance rises much, much faster than inflation in this country? I find it laughable that people blame Obamacare for rising prices. Long before anyone ever even knew who Barrack Obama was insurance companies, pharms and for-profit hospitals were sticking it to consumers to maximize their own profits. The fact that the GOP has so demonized Obamacare gave insurance companies a handly excuse for hiking prices ahead of its implementation in 2014. I am far more worried that someone in my family will be denied the best care available because it is not profitable for some corporation.

 

[ACamp1900]

Do you think the private market cares about anyone's well being?

Let's not pretend we currently have a truely free private market here...

In the end this will go nowhere, as has nothing in nearly 200 plus pages of this thread, I will say the gov. has had it's hand in the health care market in one ever increasing form or another for 80 plus years and I would put that as the single greatest reason (Among many granted.. it is not a simple equaation, but yeah the single biggest factor nonetheless) for the current costs... I am sure you disagree somehow so...

agree to disagree.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Do you think the private market cares about anyone's well being? They have priced millions of people out of health insurance and their is no end in sight for how expensive it might be.

So the government's solution should have been to open up competition and fight to end the monopolies/oligopolies. Quite literally, the plan not is to make everyone buy their product. Boy, it almost sounds like the damn corporations wrote the bill! ...oh wait.

And if you don't think that prices for medication and whatnot aren't negotiated in backroom deals with government controlling agencies, you're crazy. They're all in bed with each other.

Why does the cost of health insurance rises much, much faster than inflation in this country? I find it laughable that people blame Obamacare for rising prices. Long before anyone ever even knew who Barrack Obama was insurance companies, pharms and for-profit hospitals were sticking it to consumers to maximize their own profits.

No, the reason is government-mandated monopolies and a total lack of competition. People on this board have been very open about this.

I took a class with Stanford last year, and the professor had a great point: do you know what the difference between for-profit and nonprofit is? 7%. That's it. The average profit margin for companies on the S&P is 7%, for nonprofits it's obviously 0%. In my opinion, it's equally insane to excoriate the for-profit hospitals. That isn't the problem, at all. Markets should have a profit incentive. But while you're innovating, your opponent is too and the price of the goods/services plummets as a result. The proof is everywhere every time you buy a piece of technology.

We have a marketplace problem; it's not a "more government/less government" deal. The government needs to be destroying copyrights on generic drugs and open up the damn markets.

The fact that the GOP has so demonized Obamacare gave insurance companies a handly excuse for hiking prices ahead of its implementation in 2014. I am far more worried that someone in my family will be denied the best care available because it is not profitable for some corporation.

If there is competition they can't hike the price arbitrarily.

 

[RDU Irish]

This came out pretty recently.

Health care spending is transferred out of ICU

Gems from the article

"Medicaid, which pays the least, covers 56 million poor people, up 10 million from five years ago. It will add nearly 20 million enrollees next year."

How exactly do you increase demand by 35% overnight while paying even less for that work than you did in years past? Providers are running away from this work as fast as they can, and can you blame them?

"Competition. Health care exchanges, which start next year, may keep insurance prices down while limiting consumer choice. In early deals, hospitals and doctors are agreeing to lower rates than traditional private insurance in exchange for more volume."

volume is a positive thing in this arguement but a few lines later:

"The government wants to pay a lump sum for a patient or diagnosis........ the refusal to pay more is designed to encourage hospitals to give top-notch care the first time."

So insurers are asked to save on volume while the government pay-for-performance model is lauded as the the money saver. Do people writing these articles even understand the contradictions they spew so readily?

 

[GoIrish41]

Let's not pretend we currently have a truely free private market here...

In the end this will go nowhere, as has nothing in nearly 200 plus pages of this thread, I will say the gov. has had it's hand in the health care market in one ever increasing form or another for 80 plus years and I would put that as the single greatest reason (Among many granted.. it is not a simple equaation, but yeah the single biggest factor nonetheless) for the current costs... I am sure you disagree somehow as gov=god and people donig things for themselves is somehow shamelss and heartless.

agree to disagree.

I think it would be more accurate to say that I do not trust corporations to make decisions that are for the benefit of our society and I believe it is the government's role (and should be) to keep those corporations from imposing themselves on this country. It seems as though Republicans are against all of the gains that were made to defend against the unchecked power they had over people during the industrial revolution -- minimum wage, regulation, pollution standards, etc.. The suggestion that I and like minded people believe that people doing things for themselves is distastful is smoke and mirrors. Preaching distain for the government to me is a way of clearing a path to the past. I don't think I've said anything that would lead a reasonable person to the conclusion that I think gov=god, but I think one could conclude from your statements that you somehow believe government=evil, which I find to be a very curious position.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

..."Competition. Health care exchanges, which start next year, may keep insurance prices down while limiting consumer choice. In early deals, hospitals and doctors are agreeing to lower rates than traditional private insurance in exchange for more volume."

...

The state exchanges are going to have cheaper plans, and subsidized with tax dollars. So you will have more insured. But the reimbursement to providers will be much lower, and you're basically getting an HMO-light. If you thought old HMO's were bad, you ain't seen nothin yet.

Part of the main complaints about the American healthcare system is that the poor don't have access to the best care, and these state-run exchanges just perpetuate that phenomenon.

 

[ACamp1900]

I think it would be more accurate to say that I do not trust corporations to make decisions that are for the benefit of our society and I believe it is the government's role (and should be) to keep those corporations from imposing themselves on this country. It seems as though Republicans are against all of the gains that were made to defend against the unchecked power they had over people during the industrial revolution -- minimum wage, regulation, pollution standards, etc.. The suggestion that I and like minded people believe that people doing things for themselves is distastful is smoke and mirrors. Preaching distain for the government to me is a way of clearing a path to the past. I don't think I've said anything that would lead a reasonable person to the conclusion that I think gov=god, but I think one could conclude from your statements that you somehow believe government=evil, which I find to be a very curious position.

Show me an example where the health care pounders have any solution other than gov and I’ll step back from the god comment that I deleted some 30 minutes before you responded to it… and what equals smoke and mirrors is a person being attacked as heartless, racist or biggoted if they don't trust the gov. to run their lives... THAT'S smoke and mirrors. I’m reasonable enough to have voted for and campaigned for people from both sides of the isle within the last 15 years and that’s the impression I tend to get with those that advocates your side on this issue, gov is the solution to all. Also, DC as evil is sure as hell closer to the truth than it being a path to righteousness... you have to not pay any attention at all to think otherwise imo.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I think it would be more accurate to say that I do not trust corporations to make decisions that are for the benefit of our society and I believe it is the government's role (and should be) to keep those corporations from imposing themselves on this country. It seems as though Republicans are against all of the gains that were made to defend against the unchecked power they had over people during the industrial revolution -- minimum wage, regulation, pollution standards, etc.. The suggestion that I and like minded people believe that people doing things for themselves is distastful is smoke and mirrors. Preaching distain for the government to me is a way of clearing a path to the past. I don't think I've said anything that would lead a reasonable person to the conclusion that I think gov=god, but I think one could conclude from your statements that you somehow believe government=evil, which I find to be a very curious position.

You know a liberal has lost the argument when he goes back to "well in the industrial revolution...."

You should probably consider that corporations are often "imposing themselves on this country" via the government.

 

[Cackalacky]

Gems from the article



How exactly do you increase demand by 35% overnight while paying even less for that work than you did in years past? Providers are running away from this work as fast as they can, and can you blame them?

"Competition. Health care exchanges, which start next year, may keep insurance prices down while limiting consumer choice. In early deals, hospitals and doctors are agreeing to lower rates than traditional private insurance in exchange for more volume."

volume is a positive thing in this arguement but a few lines later:

"The government wants to pay a lump sum for a patient or diagnosis........ the refusal to pay more is designed to encourage hospitals to give top-notch care the first time."

So insurers are asked to save on volume while the government pay-for-performance model is lauded as the the money saver. Do people writing these articles even understand the contradictions they spew so readily?

As an example.... my company, an engineering firm has banded together with other engineering firms who have similar medical expenses and job related injuries etc... Together the group of companies were able to purchase employer/employee based insurance at lower rates than we would have alone. Purchasing power through volume. It does work to lower insurance premiums, not hospital costs that I know of because our "group" consists of engineering firms across the country. How the insurance negotiates its fees with the hospitals and doctor's... I have no idea. My benefit statement's make no sense and why an Insurance company negotiates prices with hospitals and doctors in the first place after the service is performed is stupid IMO. I have even seen the outright denial of service because the two could not come to a negotiated fee. That's a big flaw for me.

 

[chicago51]

So the government's solution should have been to open up competition and fight to end the monopolies/oligopolies. Quite literally, the plan not is to make everyone buy their product. Boy, it almost sounds like the damn corporations wrote the bill! ...oh wait.

And if you don't think that prices for medication and whatnot aren't negotiated in backroom deals with government controlling agencies, you're crazy. They're all in bed with each other.



No, the reason is government-mandated monopolies and a total lack of competition. People on this board have been very open about this.

I took a class with Stanford last year, and the professor had a great point: do you know what the difference between for-profit and nonprofit is? 7%. That's it. The average profit margin for companies on the S&P is 7%, for nonprofits it's obviously 0%. In my opinion, it's equally insane to excoriate the for-profit hospitals. That isn't the problem, at all. Markets should have a profit incentive. But while you're innovating, your opponent is too and the price of the goods/services plummets as a result. The proof is everywhere every time you buy a piece of technology.

We have a marketplace problem; it's not a "more government/less government" deal. The government needs to be destroying copyrights on generic drugs and open up the damn markets.



If there is competition they can't hike the price arbitrarily.

I think the point on monopolies is a good one not just in health care. Although we don't agree on certain things, I believe we both support what Teddy Roosevelt did using the Sherman Anti-trust Act which is still a law today. I would suggest that breaking big companies would open competition and lead to better prices everywhere.

A good example of this is internet service providers in Europe. Broadband internet in Europe (and Japan/SK for that matter) is much cheeper than in the US. They fiberoptic broadband network is not restricted like it is hear, so basically any ISP can use it. So there is more competition and as a result they get better prices.

Every modern president from Reagan to Obama has not enforced the Sherman AT Act, which to me is a big failure as the whole constitutional function of the executive was to enforce the law. Also if you went into a federal court with an antitrust law suite they would laugh in your face and throw you out. One of things that nobody pays attention to but is really important is the appointment of judges. Virtually no judges today take anti-trust suites with any seriousness what so ever.

 

[chicago51]

You know a liberal has lost the argument when he goes back to "well in the industrial revolution...."

You should probably consider that corporations are often "imposing themselves on this country" via the government.

That really doesn't nullify the point he made. It basically says that corporate America brought democracy.

How you feel about Citizens United? This going to give the corporations even more influence.

This really goes beyond a polictical party thing as well. Many corporations sponsor members in both parties.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

As an example.... my company, an engineering firm has banded together with other engineering firms who have similar medical expenses and job related injuries etc... Together the group of companies were able to purchase employer/employee based insurance at lower rates than we would have alone. Purchasing power through volume. It does work to lower insurance premiums, not hospital costs that I know of because our "group" consists of engineering firms across the country. How the insurance negotiates its fees with the hospitals and doctor's... I have no idea. My benefit statement's make no sense and why an Insurance company negotiates prices with hospitals and doctors in the first place after the service is performed is stupid IMO. I have even seen the outright denial of service because the two could not come to a negotiated fee. That's a big flaw for me.

What usually happens in a Plan is that your insurer agrees to include a provider in their network in exchange for reduced reimbursement relative to what the provider normally would charge for the procedure or what's "usual and customary". (This is why, to plan participants (patients) in-network is always cheaper than out-of-network).

The providers agree because they get more patients by signing up for the network. (Most people check to see if a provider is in or out of network before they go see the provider, because of co-pays and other participant costs).

Now, if you're at the very top of the provider food-chain, meaning you're one of the best, you don't need these networks at all and sometimes don't even join them. Or, the networks put you in at pretty good reimbursement, because they don't that their employer plans will all want you as a participant.

But even then, most plan only pay usual and customary medical charges, which is too low for some providers who are able to charge more. This is why some of the very, very, best and most advanced surgeons, etc., don't even accept insurance period, and require only cash.

 

[GoIrish41]

Show me an example where the health care pounders have any solution other than gov and I’ll step back from the god comment that I deleted some 30 minutes before you responded to it… and what equals smoke and mirrors is a person being attacked as heartless, racist or biggoted if they don't trust the gov. to run their lives... THAT'S smoke and mirrors. I’m reasonable enough to have voted for and campaigned for people from both sides of the isle within the last 15 years and that’s the impression I tend to get with those that advocates your side on this issue, gov is the solution to all. Also, DC as evil is sure as hell closer to the truth than it being a path to righteousness... you have to not pay any attention at all to think otherwise imo.

the healthcare system before Obamacare became an issue did nothing for millions of Americans who could not afford it. What was the private sector doing to help those people? Tell me what their plan is right now for those people and I won't say another word about why it was government's responsibility to step in. It's easy to condem someone who IS doing something. Those who aren't have nothing to condemn other then their apathy and the absences of enough concern about a real problem to do anything about it. Government is not the solution to everything, but it is not the cause of all of this country's ills either. The free market economy that the GOP seems to hold in higher regard than the citizens of this country would take advantage of the the citizens of this country if the government wasn't there to keep them in check. You may think that is evil because they are keeping corporations from getting even richer, but I think it is the government doing what it designed to do. I too have voted for both parties, but since the GOP has taken a sharp turn to the right and has taken the attitude that doing nothing is better than giving an inch to solve real problems I wouldn't consider voting for anyone from that party today. Perhaps when they return to the sane center I will give them another look.

 

[Cackalacky]

You know a liberal has lost the argument when he goes back to "well in the industrial revolution...."

You should probably consider that corporations are often "imposing themselves on this country" via the government.

Not quite...after the industrial revolution corporations imposed themselves on the people directly.

Liberals fought and won legal battles for tougher regulations for worker safety, safer work environments, rivers that don't catch on fire from industrial pollution.... etc.. As of today, your second point is valid and I agree with it. The corporations want it the way it was before liberals made all those darn changes we take for granted today.

 

[ACamp1900]

the healthcare system before Obamacare became an issue did nothing for millions of Americans who could not afford it. What was the private sector doing to help those people? Tell me what their plan is right now for those people and I won't say another word about why it was government's responsibility to step in. It's easy to condem someone who IS doing something. Those who aren't have nothing to condemn other then their apathy and the absences of enough concern about a real problem to do anything about it. Government is not the solution to everything, but it is not the cause of all of this country's ills either. The free market economy that the GOP seems to hold in higher regard than the citizens of this country would take advantage of the the citizens of this country if the government wasn't there to keep them in check. You may think that is evil because they are keeping corporations from getting even richer, but I think it is the government doing what it designed to do. I too have voted for both parties, but since the GOP has taken a sharp turn to the right and has taken the attitude that doing nothing is better than giving an inch to solve real problems I wouldn't consider voting for anyone from that party today. Perhaps when they return to the sane center I will give them another look.

I can just laugh at this... talk about smoke and mirrors... someone please think of the children!?!?!? How many millions are still uninsured under Obamacare?? I honestly think your emotions cloud your logic here...

The plan is to get the gov. the hell out of the way and open the market to real competition, thus lowering prices for all... it's gov. that is keeping that from happening. This was already established many times here... so yeah you can stop now with the GOP is extreme and not responsible adults now... and on that note, i find it curious that people should not be responsible for themselves, but the GOP should be.

 

[Cackalacky]

What usually happens in a Plan is that your insurer agrees to include a provider in their network in exchange for reduced reimbursement relative to what the provider normally would charge for the procedure or what's "usual and customary". (This is why, to plan participants (patients) in-network is always cheaper than out-of-network).

The providers agree because they get more patients by signing up for the network. (Most people check to see if a provider is in or out of network before they go see the provider, because of co-pays and other participant costs).

Now, if you're at the very top of the provider food-chain, meaning you're one of the best, you don't need these networks at all and sometimes don't even join them. Or, the networks put you in at pretty good reimbursement, because they don't that their employer plans will all want you as a participant.

But even then, most plan only pay usual and customary medical charges, which is too low for some providers who are able to charge more. This is why some of the very, very, best and most advanced surgeons, etc., don't even accept insurance period, and require only cash.

I understand this and you did clarify some points but why negotiate prices? I am not saying medical procedures should be a McDonald's menus, but a Cat scan is a Cat scan.

I luckily don't have limited choices in doctors but I do have limited choices in hospitals to go to. The negotiating for fees is a bureaucratic waste of time and effort IMO.

I also have the luxury of being in a town with a teaching hospital/university that is primarily government run and is one of the top hospitals in the Nation (MUSC). Anyone can go to it. Though they still have to negotiate with insurers......bah

 

[Irish Houstonian]

You know a liberal has lost the argument when he goes back to "well in the industrial revolution...."

You should probably consider that corporations are often "imposing themselves on this country" via the government.

If you're referring to the fact that for first time in American history the federal gov't is forcing private citizens -- simply because they're alive -- to purchase a product from a select group private corporations, then I would tend to agree.

 

[Cackalacky]

If you're referring to the fact that for first time in American history the federal gov't is forcing private citizens -- simply because they're alive -- to purchase a product from a select group private corporations, then I would tend to agree.

No he means that our elected representatives serve at the pleasure of their corporate sponsors, not us the people.