R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => R/E/P Saloon => Topic started by: Berolzheimer on July 29, 2009, 10:28:29 PM

Title: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Berolzheimer on July 29, 2009, 10:28:29 PM

From Credo:

Have you heard about the six senators who are out to kill health care reform? Of course, that's not how they'd phrase it. Sens. Baucus, Bingaman, Conrad, Enzi, Grassley and Snowe say they're striving for "bi-partisan compromise." But what they're actually doing is working to make sure reform won't include a public option or mandatory employer-based insurance - two key policies needed for effective reform.

There are 100 members of the Senate, but these six, inexplicably, seem to be holding all the cards when it comes to health care. So you probably won't be surprised to learn that all six have taken a huge amount of money from the health insurance industry and pharma - more than $3 million between them.

These six senators -- who, by the way, represent only 2.74% of Americans between them -- are writing bad policy, and they're doing it while they take money from the very companies who stand to benefit the most.

I just signed a petition to tell the "Gang of 6" to give back every dime of their dirty insurance money. I hope you will, too. Please have a look and take action.

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/gang_of_6/?r_by=5227-183 2068-2niuVyx&rc=confemail

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 29, 2009, 11:46:56 PM

I've signed as well.

Barry

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Skullsessions on July 30, 2009, 08:05:17 AM

It sounds to me like we still need campaign finance reform. I'd love to see them give the money back....and they should.

But them giving back the money won't change their stance on this issue, will it?

Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose the government would mandate an employer purchase health insurance for an employee?

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 30, 2009, 08:35:35 AM

They're not going to give the money back. It's just a tactic to embarrass them. It's a "we caught you with your hand in the cookie jar" statement. Hopefully it would shame them into doing the right thing, but it won't. Still, making this statement let's everyone know that no one is being fooled by the real motives at work.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Kris on July 30, 2009, 09:32:08 AM

Berolzheimer wrote on Wed, 29 July 2009 22:28

From Credo:

But what they're actually doing is working to make sure reform won't include a public option or mandatory employer-based insurance - two key policies needed for effective reform.

Why are those 'two key policies' needed?

I can imagine the only folks who really think those are NEEDED are those who are interested in something for nothing...

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: el duderino on July 30, 2009, 10:56:17 AM

Kris wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 09:32

Berolzheimer wrote on Wed, 29 July 2009 22:28

From Credo:

But what they're actually doing is working to make sure reform won't include a public option or mandatory employer-based insurance - two key policies needed for effective reform.

Why are those 'two key policies' needed?

I can imagine the only folks who really think those are NEEDED are those who are interested in something for nothing...

they are needed because costs are insane. I recently left my job that had healthcare benefits and my option to continue them under cobra would have cost me $1800 a month. thats nearly what my mortgage is. completely impossible for me.

I'm getting a different plan for $400 a month that covers basics, but god forbid something really bad happens because only up to $2500 per year is covered at a hospital.

an affordable public option would be great and would help me. I know plenty of people who's employer does not offer health insurance and they have the same problem i do. Paying nearly $5k a year and rarely using it (thankfully) is ridiculous. whats more ridiculous is that if i needed a major operation it would NOT be covered.

no one here is looking for something for nothing, other than the insurance companies. i mean how is paying 5k a year, not using insurance, and getting nothing back fair?

how can it be a law that all motor vehicles musty have insurance but not humans?

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PookyNMR on July 30, 2009, 11:36:11 AM

Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 06:05

It sounds to me like we still need campaign finance reform.

Absolutely. In Canada, corporate donations are not allowed. Personal donations have a cap of $5000.

Campaign finance reform is seriously needed. Currently our government is the whore to various lobby groups. This needs to stop. It's corrupt.

Tightened conflict of interest rules are also necessary. Legislators should not be able to change the law to benefit their own stock holdings.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Kris on July 30, 2009, 12:14:59 PM

el duderino wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 10:56an

affordable public option would be great and would help me. I know plenty of people who's employer does not offer health insurance and they have the same problem i do. Paying nearly $5k a year and rarely using it (thankfully) is ridiculous. whats more ridiculous is that if i needed a major operation it would NOT be covered.

no one here is looking for something for nothing, other than the insurance companies. i mean how is paying 5k a year, not using insurance, and getting nothing back fair?

how can it be a law that all motor vehicles musty have insurance but not humans?

It's the people that pay into insurance and don't use it that make it somewhat available/affordable for the people that get out of it much more than they pay into it. That's the trick...

Have you ever been in a hospital overnight and seen the bill?!?!?!? Someone's paying for it... That's where the costs need to come down IMO... Fix the problem at the source... don't just shuffle the money around! There's GOT to be a better way to fix this problem than gov't run health insurance.

One thing a gov't run health insurance plan will do is bring up costs for everyone else (taxpayers) to subsidize the losses... Exactly what a private health insurance company does, but on a much grander scale...

.......

People are required to have car insurance to because of the possiblity of damage and injuries inflicted upon OTHERS... I'm pretty sure the gov't doesn't give a crap if you destroy your own car.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: bblackwood on July 30, 2009, 12:26:43 PM

Kris wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 11:14

People are required to have car insurance to because of the possiblity of damage and injuries inflicted upon OTHERS... I'm pretty sure the gov't doesn't give a crap if you destroy your own car.

Indeed - liability is almost always all that is required. Comprehensive coverage is optional.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Jay Kadis on July 30, 2009, 12:33:37 PM

As long as health care is a for-profit enterprise the costs will never be as low as they could be. There is no perfect system, as long as people get sick costs will be there. The Kaiser hospital system is as close as we get to a reasonable system and that is partly because they stress preventive care and health education and are not-for-profit. You may not get cutting-edge experimental treatments but they've managed to provide both of my parents with bypass operations at no additional cost.

The situation is analogous to the truism "we'll never get a better prison system until we get a better grade of prisoner." Perhaps this discussion should be aimed more at the people who create their own health problems and then expect some else to fix them up.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: bblackwood on July 30, 2009, 12:35:37 PM

Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 11:33

he situation is analogous to the truism "we'll never get a better prison system until we get a better grade of prisoner." Perhaps this discussion should be aimed more at the people who create their own health problems and then expect some else to fix them up.

Excellent point. I wish this were being discussed more.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Graham Jordan on July 30, 2009, 01:08:40 PM

Kris wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 09:14

el duderino wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 10:56an

It's not just the people 'underutilizing' their heath insurance that are paying for the others, it's also the uninsured! The health insurance companies are out to make profit - not to keep you healthy (except as far as needed to get customers in the first place). They negotiate contract rates for things with the providers. The providers' 'listed' rates are higher still, and this is what would get charged to those who are uninsured. The insurance companies never pay 'list' price.

Also, if you're getting too 'expensive' for the insurer, they're going to find anyway they can to dump you, or not cover things.

Bottom line, if we do have health insurance companies, they should be nonprofit! Allowing for-profit health care was the big mistake. Simply making existing health insurance more 'affordable' doesn't fix a thing.
It also needs to be a complete system - not separate smaller systems. although that still would allow separate companies.

And to those who worry about 'government bureaucrats' deciding what doctors they can see, what procedures they can get... I see it as being better than the existing system where a private for-profit company's accountants/actuaries decide (i.e. the people writing the insurance policy terms/coverages). You would still have to remove the 'for-profit' element from government (i.e. corporate contributions). Anyone who thinks they can go see whatever doctor they like, and that their doctor has free range over what can and should be done for you, is either deluding themselves, or has lots and lots of money (or maybe they're employed by Microsoft).

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Skullsessions on July 30, 2009, 01:39:44 PM

The only way an insurance scheme can work is if it inherently involves some (usually many) people paying for services they don't use. And people don't like to be told that they have to throw their money down a hole.

And that's why a government-run insurance plan which forces people to opt in is a problem.

But please, forget insurance for a moment.

When I need a product or service, I shop at the cheapest place if I can get the same thing for a better price. Don't we all? And don't those places seem to stay open for business?

If health care is too expensive, then were are the doctors who are willing to charge less for the same excellent product?

Is it possible that healthcare itself is not the thing that is overpriced....but the cost of the malpractice insurance?

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Jay Kadis on July 30, 2009, 01:50:58 PM

Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 10:39

When I need a product or service, I shop at the cheapest place if I can get the same thing for a better price. Don't we all?

No, we don't or Walmart and Guitar Center would be the only places to shop. You pay more for expertise and quality. I don't want the lowest common denominator health care.

The idea of insurance only works if the entire population pays equally and everyone has the same opportunity to use the service. The money doesn't go down a hole: it helps prevent epidemics from spreading for example - public health benefits everyone. Malpractice insurance is part of the problem, as are the costs of a medical education. That all needs to be factored into the system.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Skullsessions on July 30, 2009, 02:12:22 PM

You didn't read, yet you quote.

I said..."I shop at the cheapest place if I can get the same thing for a better price"

And like you said, to get a good quality product, you need expertise. Does that come cheaply? That was sort of my point....that it's usually not.

If everyone is on the Government dole, does everyone get API preamps, or does everyone get Behringer preamps because that's all the system can afford?

It's finite. The money and benefits only go so far. And when everyone expects his "fair share"...that's what he gets. Fair. Behringer for everyone.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Berolzheimer on July 30, 2009, 02:12:39 PM

Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 05:05

It sounds to me like we still need campaign finance reform. I'd love to see them give the money back....and they should.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 05:05

But them giving back the money won't change their stance on this issue, will it?

As Barry said, I think it's really a way of calling them out & pointing out to the public what's really going on here.

Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 05:05

Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose the government would mandate an employer purchase health insurance for an employee?

I don't think they should. I think they would because the insurance companies have lobbied them to, for obvious reasons. I personally think we need to just shut down the for profit healthcare sector altogether, it keeps incentives completely at odds to what's good for the public at large. This is not a new position for me, It's what I've been advocating for over 30 years, as I became vegetarian, largely disengaged myself from allopathic medicine & began to seriously look after my own health.

A public option is a step in the right direction but keeping in place an employer-based, corporate insurance system will keep in place the extremely convoluted & costly payment system and all the extra administrative costs that go with it. Only single payer will obviate that & get rid of all that waste.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Berolzheimer on July 30, 2009, 02:27:57 PM

Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 11:12

It's finite. The money and benefits only go so far.

Right. And currently the insurance companies are taking 30% of the top. So by switching to single payer we'd instantly have 30% more resources available to pay for actual care, or get the same care we're now getting for 30% less money.

Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 11:33

I agree that folks should take more responsibility for their own well being, and learning about what's good for them & what isn't.
But the so called "conservatives" love to frame these arguments in terms of responsibility, that people somehow always get what they deserve or have earned. But that's BS. Things happen to people that are not their fault. My wife & I have both led very healthy lifestyles for most of our lives- & yet one of our kids was born with a chromosomal defect & will ned full time care for his entire life. People have accidents, cars crash, earthquakes happen, in order to have a civil & healthy & productive society we need to be taking care of everyone on some basic equal level without judgement. And yes, along with that goes education on being healthy, eating well, etc.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: JDNelson on July 30, 2009, 03:26:17 PM

It's all Nixon's fault.

jk

If you want to reduce the cost for health insurance, you've got to look at all the mandated items that insurers are forced to include. A stripped down policy that only covers major catastrophic illnesses or accidents, or even coverage over a certain threshold, would be more cost effective for 90% of folks. E.g., a visit to my dentist for a cleaning is $120 which I can afford with or without insurance.

Using the auto insurance analogy... we don't have insurance to pay for our tune ups, oil changes, and basically periodic expected maintenance. That's paid out of pocket. The insurance is only supposed to cover accidental liabilities that would otherwise wipe us out financially.

The debate will inevitably flounder on the point of whether or not one chooses to believe that the government is capable of doing a better job of something than private enterprise. Most folks' minds are set one way or the other, and not likely to change from debate.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Berolzheimer on July 30, 2009, 08:10:29 PM

JDNelson wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 12:26

Our bodies (and minds) aren't cars. When maintenance - basic healthcare- isn't covered, people who are stretched financially forgo it- and then it turns into expensive catastrophic illness. A child's simple ear infection, left untreated, if the child happens to have a weakened or stressed immune system, can turn into meningitis which can cripple that child for life. That's MUCH more expensive in so many ways.

The whole argument about whether the gov't can or can't do things better is BS. It's just Reagan's propaganda meme's having worked their way into the discussion. The government is us. Insurance companies have as their prime directive making, and saving, as much money as possible. A government agency has as it's prime directive whatever it's created for, in this case it would be providing healthcare.
The post office, Medicare, the VA up until Bush gutted it, all work or worked extremely well & efficiently. There's no CEO's getting paid 30 million dollars, no shareholders that want to see their dividends, so they can just do whet they're there to do.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: el duderino on July 30, 2009, 09:32:49 PM

Kris wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 12:14

el duderino wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 10:56an

actually i have, and yes someone paid for it. that person is me. i rarely ever used my insurance, but i paid into it tons. when i needed it that whopping cost was more than covered by the enormous amounts of money ive paid them over the years.

Kris wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 12:14

That's where the costs need to come down IMO... Fix the problem at the source... don't just shuffle the money around! There's GOT to be a better way to fix this problem than gov't run health insurance.

as mentioned malpractice insurance is a big one. i've heard doctors talk about all sorts of reasons for high fees....the price electricity went up, some machine they use had to be replaced and cost a million dollars, etc.

The bottom line is that many doctors will gladly see you without insurance (not hospitals usually) and it would be a small amount more than most co-pays. that is all because of the bueracracy in getting paid by the health insurance companies.

Kris wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 12:14

One thing a gov't run health insurance plan will do is bring up costs for everyone else (taxpayers) to subsidize the losses... Exactly what a private health insurance company does, but on a much grander scale...

only if set up to do so, and it doesn't have to be. If those who want it fund it, it is in no way different from private insurance (aside from tax breaks). the customers pay for it. if the gov't can charge less they should. its no different than if a new health insurer sprung up with much better rates and included coverage.

but really, if the health insurance industry went non profit it would then level the field in all likelyhood. however, i think gov't healthcare has more of a chance than blue cross and the like going non-profit.

.......

Kris wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 12:14

People are required to have car insurance to because of the possiblity of damage and injuries inflicted upon OTHERS... I'm pretty sure the gov't doesn't give a crap if you destroy your own car.

right, if someone hits my car their insurance covers it. but if someone hits me and breaks my nose i get the bill and the only way they pay for it is through court assuming that its possible and I'd win.

hey its cool man, we disagree a bit. but it seems you and everyone here knows the healthcare situation in this country is pretty fucked up and THAT is what its important.

anyone who can lower rates so everyone is covered, stop people from getting dropped or denied coverage, and maintain a quality level of healthcare will be a hero for it.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Berolzheimer on July 31, 2009, 12:52:13 AM

Here's something else that we 're not hearing much about:

Folks are worried about paying more taxes for a public insurance system, but that ignores that most of us are already paying what amounts to a levy for insurance- if you're employer id buying you insurance, that's money they're not paying you in your salary. If we had a single payer nationalized system companies would save a huge amount of money, at least some of which would go to higher salaries for their employees.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PookyNMR on July 31, 2009, 01:45:35 AM

Health care in the USA costs 2.5 times more per capita than any other industrialized nation.

You may pay a bit more in tax, but you'll pay over all less.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: compasspnt on July 31, 2009, 10:04:02 AM

Alexis de Tocqueville warned of this.

The future is elsewhere.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: JDNelson on July 31, 2009, 12:12:37 PM

compasspnt wrote on Fri, 31 July 2009 07:04

Alexis de Tocqueville warned of this.

The future is elsewhere.

Alexis and his contemporaries didn't have health insurance. How -did- they survive?

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: the greek on July 31, 2009, 12:15:52 PM

Berolzheimer wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 23:52

I'd say the chances of the employer returning those 'savings' onto the consumer or even the employee is not a logical argument. It costs something like $2 to make a pair of $150 sneakers these days. Do the people in China or the consumer get a break from it? Hell no.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: seriousfun on July 31, 2009, 03:21:45 PM

Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 05:05

... why do you suppose the government would mandate an employer purchase health insurance for an employee?

Every kind of insurance works in a simple fashion: the majority who don't get anything back pay for those that do. We seem to be forgetting this.

In today's system, employers are culturally expected to provide coverage for employees. This stems from WWII and the post-war period, when providing sickness insurance was actually cheaper to the employer than actual monetary compensation. Now, it's more expensive than money - things change, deal with it - but we're stuck with a system where employers provide group coverage, get a tax deduction for this, the coverage doesn't stay with the employee if he or she leaves, the coverage gets expensive for all if one employee gets sick, people die when insurance company bureucrats deny coverage or cancel policies, insurance companies exist to enrich their C-Level execs, board members, institutional investors, etc. leaving nothing for the sick who need the coverage, etc., etc., etc.

I agree, employers shouldn't bear the burdon. The majority of us are employed by small employers, and healthcare costs are rising astronomically. The insurance companies provide no added value to the employer or the insured, they just add to the cost. Employers these days are having to choose between keeping the doors open, keeping people employed, or keeping employees insured.

And, no, malpractice insurance does not significantly raise costs - this is simply hysteria, do your own research.

But, an insurance plan can only work if the maximum number of peopole are covered. There is a linear relationship - as more people pay in, care and better care can be given to all. The car insurance mandates are actually a good example - auto insurance rates are down, across the board more than 40% since the introduction in the '50s of mandatory auto insurance (and yes, most of us pay for a few knucklheads and uninsured there). If employers are mandated to provide coverage, more people means lower rates.

The only plan that can really work to lower rates and improve service is single payer. Since that doesn't appear to be on the horizon, and the market isn't going to make this happen, the public opetion with strict regulation, portability, no-cut clauses, high public participation, etc. might work.

Doing nothing doesn't, and can't, work.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: JDNelson on July 31, 2009, 04:32:21 PM

Terry, can you maybe elaborate on Toqueville's warning as my knowledge of his observations is ambiguous on what you might be referring to?

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: JDNelson on July 31, 2009, 06:33:35 PM

Berolzheimer wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 11:27

Unless I'm missing something, it looks like profits as % of revenues are nowhere near that high:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/indus tries/Health_Care_Insurance_Managed_Care/2.html

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Skullsessions on July 31, 2009, 06:55:16 PM

el duderino wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 09:56

I recently left my job that had healthcare benefits and my option to continue them under cobra would have cost me $1800 a month. thats nearly what my mortgage is. completely impossible for me.

I'm getting a different plan for $400 a month that covers basics, but god forbid something really bad happens because only up to $2500 per year is covered at a hospital.

I'm curious. What was it costing you personally - per month - to have this healthcare insurance when you were employed?

Your COBRA payment should have been equal to the same premium payment made while you were employed. Say you were paying $800 a month, and your employer was paying $1,000 a month. Your COBRA would have been $1800 a month. That's an awfully expensive premium.

Your employer is allowed to charge a maximum of 2% on top of that as an admin fee, since they deal with all the paperwork and are responsible for keeping you in the plan and turning in your COBRA payment for you.

One other thing you should have been told....if your employment was terminated in 2009, as a part of the economic recovery act the fed govt will pay 75% of your COBRA for you. So, you could have kept your plan for $450 a month.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: el duderino on August 01, 2009, 12:50:26 PM

Skullsessions wrote on Fri, 31 July 2009 18:55

el duderino wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 09:56

My employment wasn't terminated, I left on my own, and am glad i did, don't get me wrong, but i had no idea insurance was that much at the time as they don't tell you how much the employer puts in for it.

I paid about $500 for me and my wife, the company paid about $1300. It was a very good plan, well for $500 a month it was anyway! now, not so much. im paying less now, but i have nowhere near the coverage i used to. plus that $500 included dental. I currently do not have dental.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Skullsessions on August 01, 2009, 05:20:32 PM

I don't mean to quibble...but if you no longer work there, your employment has been terminated.

I didn't mean to assume you got fired.

I do think it's important for anyone who works for a living and has an employer-based group plan to understand what the employer is paying.

If you worked an average of 160 hrs in a month, that $1300 was just like your employer paid you an additional $8.13 an hour - untaxed. Plus the $500 you paid was untaxed.

There has been talk in congress of taxing that money. They'd tax your employer on the money (as income) before he gave it to you. Then, they'd tax you on the money as income.

Obama says he's not going to do that....but do you believe him? I don't.

I ask you...people who employ others. Are you ready for a MANDATE that you provide that for your employees? Studio owners...are you ready for that? Won't that effect your pricing? Won't that effect the number of people you can employ?

I would hazard a quess that a very large percentage of studios don't provide help for health insurance.

People...get ready...change is coming.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: el duderino on August 03, 2009, 12:40:33 PM

Skullsessions wrote on Sat, 01 August 2009 17:20

I don't mean to quibble...but if you no longer work there, your employment has been terminated.

I didn't mean to assume you got fired.

yes, I terminated it, which under law means I'm not entitled to any sort of unemployment benefits.

if there was a law passed saying you can quit your job and get benefits for it, please show me the legal language so i can follow through.

Skullsessions wrote on Sat, 01 August 2009 17:20

I do think it's important for anyone who works for a living and has an employer-based group plan to understand what the employer is paying.

absolutely

Skullsessions wrote on Sat, 01 August 2009 17:20

If you worked an average of 160 hrs in a month, that $1300 was just like your employer paid you an additional $8.13 an hour - untaxed. Plus the $500 you paid was untaxed.

sort of, since i barely used it and did not know what they put in, it was more like it got given away to someone else. i certainly did not use over $15,000 on medical expenses (which is what they paid (roughly) for the year.

The employer spent 15k on something that doesn't get used unless you need it. To me, that is unacceptable. nevermind what i paid as well. costs are just too much and must go down. like i said, whoever gets that done while maintaining quality, and getting everyone covered will be a hero. no one really cares how as long as it works.

Skullsessions wrote on Sat, 01 August 2009 17:20

There has been talk in congress of taxing that money. They'd tax your employer on the money (as income) before he gave it to you. Then, they'd tax you on the money as income.

Obama says he's not going to do that....but do you believe him? I don't.

a better question might be, which politician is it that YOU are believing?

Skullsessions wrote on Sat, 01 August 2009 17:20

I ask you...people who employ others. Are you ready for a MANDATE that you provide that for your employees? Studio owners...are you ready for that? Won't that effect your pricing? Won't that effect the number of people you can employ?

i am by no means a know it all on studio employment, but in my experience the vast majority of people there are 1099'd and not really an employee.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Berolzheimer on August 03, 2009, 07:51:13 PM

A good column on the subject from a Canadian author:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rachlis3-2009aug03 ,0,538126.story

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Berolzheimer on August 07, 2009, 03:01:46 PM

Who's behind the "Grass roots" groups rallying against reform?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl91YF1d3Kg

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PRobb on August 07, 2009, 03:17:18 PM

Berolzheimer wrote on Mon, 03 August 2009 19:51

A good column on the subject from a Canadian author:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rachlis3-2009aug03 ,0,538126.story

Very interesting.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PookyNMR on August 07, 2009, 05:18:09 PM

A lot more balanced than what we see coming from a lot of US "news".

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Skullsessions on August 07, 2009, 06:45:17 PM

I'm not sure I'd ever call an opinion piece "blanced" OR "news".

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Berolzheimer on August 07, 2009, 08:05:51 PM

Skullsessions wrote on Fri, 07 August 2009 15:45

I'm not sure I'd ever call an opinion piece "blanced" OR "news".

Can't someone have a balanced opinion?

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: JDNelson on August 09, 2009, 01:06:34 PM

Is this what we want?: http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/healthcare_ove rview_obama_072909.pdf

Real-time access to my financial information? Account numbers for electronic transfer to the government? Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Berolzheimer on August 09, 2009, 02:40:15 PM

JDNelson wrote on Sun, 09 August 2009 10:06

You might notice on that piece of propoganda that there are no actual quotes from the actual legislation.

You should take more care who you get your "information" from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Counsel

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-locorl-mike-th omas-gay-adoption080209aug02,0,1068230.column

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/groups/liberty-counse l

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Jon Hodgson on August 09, 2009, 02:57:12 PM

Berolzheimer wrote on Sun, 09 August 2009 19:40

JDNelson wrote on Sun, 09 August 2009 10:06

You might notice on that piece of propoganda that there are no actual quotes from the actual legislation.

A brief comparison of the actual legislation with their interpretation of it (just the first few points) and I'd have to say they appear to be presenting things as fact which are a real stretch of conjecture and assumption.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: seriousfun on August 09, 2009, 08:01:31 PM

JDNelson wrote on Sun, 09 August 2009 10:06

Tell a lie often enough, and there will be some people who start to believe it.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Tom L on August 11, 2009, 12:52:42 PM

"Reviewed, revised and adapted on July 29, 2009, by Liberty Counsel from the original authored by Peter Fleckenstein and posted on FreeRepublic.com and his blog, http://blog.flecksoflife.com."

so it's somebody's interpretation of a blog. EXCELLENT source.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: JDNelson on August 11, 2009, 01:06:58 PM

You guys are missing the point. You're focusing on the messenger and ignoring the message. My post is not about the Liberty.edu group. This (House bill) is not about health care... it's about power, Chucko.

See here for another POV on the depth of emotions on this issue. This is from WSJ... maybe you consider them a subversive right wing publication, I dunno: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124993227709320287.html#arti cleTabs%3Dcomments

Do you want to --have to carry-- a National Health Care ID card? That's right there in the bill, look it up. it's very clear, no embellishment required.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Jay Kadis on August 11, 2009, 01:45:17 PM

JDNelson wrote on Tue, 11 August 2009 10:06

Do you want to --have to carry-- a National Health Care ID card? That's right there in the bill, look it up. it's very clear, no embellishment required.

I already carry a Kaiser health care ID and a Social Security card. What's the difference?

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Jon Hodgson on August 11, 2009, 02:00:16 PM

JDNelson wrote on Tue, 11 August 2009 18:06

If no embellishment is required, why does the Liberty Counsel feel the need to embellish it?

What they say is

"Sec. 163, Pg. 58-59 beginning at line 5 - Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID health care card will be issued!"

But if you actually bother to read that section, you find that what it actually says is they want real time access to what an individuals rights and responsibilities are... what services do they get for free? What do they have to pay for? And that this may be done by having a machine readable ID card (which in itself is no different from having a machine readable library card). It doesn't say anything about having real time access to an individual's finances, just their financial responsibilities, which in the context of the bill as a whole and that section in particular, can be reasonably taken as meaning their financial responsibilities with regards to medical services.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: JDNelson on August 11, 2009, 02:01:29 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020425140457434 2653428074782.html

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: JDNelson on August 11, 2009, 02:13:18 PM

Jay Kadis wrote on Tue, 11 August 2009 10:45

JDNelson wrote on Tue, 11 August 2009 10:06

Do you want to --have to carry-- a National Health Care ID card? That's right there in the bill, look it up. it's very clear, no embellishment required.

I already carry a Kaiser health care ID and a Social Security card. What's the difference?

The law doesn't require me to carry a Kaiser ID card. I have a SSN but I don't carry a card... can't remember the last time I was ever asked to produce it. This is a direct step towards an Orwellian "Your papers please!" future.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Jon Hodgson on August 11, 2009, 02:29:43 PM

JDNelson wrote on Tue, 11 August 2009 19:13

Jay Kadis wrote on Tue, 11 August 2009 10:45

JDNelson wrote on Tue, 11 August 2009 10:06

Do you want to --have to carry-- a National Health Care ID card? That's right there in the bill, look it up. it's very clear, no embellishment required.

I already carry a Kaiser health care ID and a Social Security card. What's the difference?

The Bill doesn't say that it will be a legal requirement to carry the card, it doesn't even say that the card is going to be used at all.

The word "card" appears ONCE in the whole bill, in the sentence

"which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identi1fication card"

Now I don't put it past governments to try to sneak in another level of control given half a chance, so by all means keep an eye out for them trying to do that, but as written the bill is completely compatible with having a card that you can carry if you choose to which allows the hospital to quickly see what your medical aid covers, there's no reason to have to carry it all the time (Emergency care should always be covered).

The system should also allow you to sort your bill with other forms of ID, but don't moan if it takes them longer to look up your information that way.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: JDNelson on August 11, 2009, 03:27:27 PM

So you guys aren't even a little bit worried about any of this stuff?

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Tom L on August 11, 2009, 05:30:59 PM

I've been fortunate to have health insurance for most (not all) of my adult life. Over the years this has been with several (probably now close to 10) different insurance companies. Everytime I go to the doctor or hospital, I am asked to show my insurance card.

I wouldn't say I'm totally unconcerned about the bill but what is so troublesome about having an insurance card?

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: jimlongo on August 11, 2009, 07:07:23 PM

Berolzheimer wrote on Mon, 03 August 2009 19:51

A good column on the subject from a Canadian author:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rachlis3-2009aug03 ,0,538126.story

I've been thinking of responding, but this article pretty much sums it up. The sadness I feel when I watch this non-debate. I can't see how you'll ever get anything done.

------from the article-----
As a Canadian with lots of American friends and relatives, I am saddened that Americans seem incapable of learning them.

Compounding the confusion is traditional American ignorance of what happens north of the border, which makes it easy to mislead people. Boilerplate anti-government rhetoric does the same. The U.S. media, legislators and even presidents have claimed that our "socialized" system doesn't let us choose our own doctors. In fact, Canadians have free choice of physicians. It's Americans these days who are restricted to "in-plan" doctors.

Unfortunately, many Americans won't get to hear the straight goods because vested interests are promoting a caricature of the Canadian experience.
-------end of quote------

The opponents of change drag one Canadian out of the closet (who knows what motivates someone like this) to tell how terrible our system is. There's always one in every crowd isn't there?

As for the health ID, in Ontario to get any service you need to show your OHIP card. The doctor or hospital needs to record it on the file so that they get paid.

Responding to the stupidness that is out there . . . death panels, nazis, etc., it really isn't even worth the time . . . as Bill Maher said the other night, Americans really are a stupid people.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: bblackwood on August 11, 2009, 08:31:58 PM

There are more than a few of us who don't see health care as a 'right', so we really don't want the government in our business in order to offer this 'entitlement' that's not outlined as a Federal power in the US Constitution.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Strummer on August 11, 2009, 08:48:16 PM

If you've ever been to the doctor or been in the hospital you're already in a database shared by insurance companies.

A long time ago the insurance business, not just medical insurance companies learned that sharing information through a third party organization would save them money in fraudulent claims.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: jimlongo on August 11, 2009, 11:38:38 PM

So strange that guns are seen as a "right" but health isn't.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Strummer on August 11, 2009, 11:59:21 PM

Actually, I think the preamble says something about promoting the general welfare?

I heard something in Sunday School about doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

I would hope that if hard times came upon me and mine, as they are to millions of people, I could ask you all for help and you would.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Jon Hodgson on August 12, 2009, 05:44:29 AM

bblackwood wrote on Wed, 12 August 2009 01:31

I don't think it's a right, I think it's a responsibility.

IMHO the question shouldn't be, "do these people have a right to healthcare", it should be "Why is it that people who are willing to give a full day's work cannot afford healthcare, and what are we as a society going to do about it?"

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: bblackwood on August 12, 2009, 09:52:17 AM

jimlongo wrote on Tue, 11 August 2009 22:38

So strange that guns are seen as a "right" but health isn't.

Well, odd as it may seem, 'arms' are in the US Constitution but health care is not.

Of course an easy argument is that health insurance didn't exist in 1787 - perhaps an amendment is in order. As it stands, this isn't a Federal power, imo.

Strummer wrote on Tue, 11 August 2009 22:59

Indeed, it does, and that clause has been abused for decades to allow growth of the Federal Government beyond the original intent. The general welfare clause is actually quite limited in scope in the US Constitution - it's not about the Federal Government becoming the all-encompassing safety net that some think it is.

And I'm glad you bring up Sunday School here - I dared not do it myself, for fear of being railed against for making this a 'religious issue'. But paying taxes so some inefficient government office can anonymously give money to the needy isn't what 'giving to others' is about - true giving is about blessing someone in need. I'd suggest that the general decline of society (which has been studied over and over - how we as a nation are becoming more withdrawn from one another, even our neighbors, it's widespread) is due, in part, to the fact that we (generally speaking) aren't helping each other face to face, but rather relying more and more each day for some 'entity' to do so, whether that be a church or a government office.

Real charity is done face to face where both parties are blessed.

And I know many here know this personally - I'm not suggesting that anyone here falls into the ever increasingly 'reclusive norm'.

Jon Hodgson wrote on Wed, 12 August 2009 04:44

I would agree that the government should function to promote the welfare of it's people (within reason). That being said, I don't think this particular approach falls in line with the US Constitution at all.

And like some, I feel that the Constitution is the difference maker. It doesn't really matter to me if something 'seems like a good idea' or was beyond the scope of what the founding fathers could have ever envisioned - unless we change the Constitution (and there are provisions to do so, it's been amended twenty-seven times so far) we have to respect the law. That's what makes us a Representative Republic and not a pure Democracy.

IMO, if we ignore what the Constitution says we may as well throw it out. The previous administration did enough damage to it (as have several in the last 150 years) to last a lifetime.

I've said this over and over, but liberty - true liberty - is dangerous and can be quite ugly if the people are greedy and completely self-absorbed. The US has shown over and over again that we are a giving people - I'd suggest that if the government got out of the way, we the people would do a far better job of helping and equipping folks to improve their lives. I guarantee the almost 20% of my taxes that are spent on entitlement programs would go further if I were the one helping my neighbors.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: seedyunderbelly.com on August 12, 2009, 09:54:09 AM

jimlongo wrote on Tue, 11 August 2009 22:38

So strange that guns are seen as a "right" but health isn't.

Care to point out the fundamental difference? They Both relate to "Property" Rights I believe.

j

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: JDNelson on August 12, 2009, 11:57:34 AM

seedyunderbelly.com wrote on Wed, 12 August 2009 06:54

jimlongo wrote on Tue, 11 August 2009 22:38

So strange that guns are seen as a "right" but health isn't.

Care to point out the fundamental difference? They Both relate to "Property" Rights I believe.

j

To assert a "right" to health care implies that you can force another person, whether that be doctor, nurse, medical researcher, whomever, to toil on your behalf without their assent, which plainly is called slavery under common understanding. "Health care" is a service performed and not a tangible resource. There's not some pile of "health care" sitting in a lot somewhere waiting to be divided up and shipped out.

WRT guns, the right asserted is the right to bear them. This means the government may not prevent the citizen (within limits) from exercising their right. To correlate the two, you could say one has every right to seek and obtain the halth care (services) that one desires or requires, but one doesn't have a right to compel service from others without mutual consent.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PookyNMR on August 12, 2009, 01:35:34 PM

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 11 August 2009 18:31

Health care may not be a 'right', but along with education, it is foundational for having a just society.

Why on earth should the richest nation in the world have such an unjust system?

Aside from that, why spend 2.5 times more per capita than any other industrialized nation on a system and health paradigm that at best gets you #37 on the World Health list?

Is defending the profits of private insurance companies really worth that much to you that you'd spend that much more? Especially when they screw you so bad?

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: JDNelson on August 12, 2009, 01:46:26 PM

Nathan, polling shows 80% of Americans are happy with the health insurance they've got and the care they receive.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: bblackwood on August 12, 2009, 01:51:12 PM

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 12 August 2009 12:35

Health care may not be a 'right', but along with education, it is foundational for having a just society.

Why on earth should the richest nation in the world have such an unjust system?

Justice is in the eye of the beholder.

From a governmental standpoint, I'm for individual liberties.

Quote:

Aside from that, why spend 2.5 times more per capita than any other industrialized nation on a system and health paradigm that at best gets you #37 on the World Health list?

Is defending the profits of private insurance companies really worth that much to you that you'd spend that much more? Especially when they screw you so bad?

Because from where I sit, social services (aka, entitlement programs aka socialism) aren't inherently 'right'. If the Federal Government wants to get involved, then legislate to fix the issues that our health care system has. We aren't a free market, never have been, so use the rule of law to address these issues if we must. Bigger government utilizing taxes to fund health care systems is NOT the answer, not for the US. In other countries with different Constitutions, that's fine, but here the individual liberties are (supposed to be) the most sacred thing.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: JDNelson on August 12, 2009, 01:58:11 PM

Here are some reasonable alternatives to the HR3200 approach:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020425140457434 2170072865070.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PookyNMR on August 12, 2009, 02:19:17 PM

bblackwood wrote on Wed, 12 August 2009 11:51

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 12 August 2009 12:35

Health care may not be a 'right', but along with education, it is foundational for having a just society.

Why on earth should the richest nation in the world have such an unjust system?

Justice is in the eye of the beholder.

From a governmental standpoint, I'm for individual liberties.

Like you're 'free' do die because your insurance issues prevent you from getting treatment that you need?

Or like being 'free' to become poor because medical bills- even if you're insured -destroy you?

50% of American personal bankruptcies are due to medical bills, with 75% of those people having full insurance coverage.

I'd say those are a few justice issues.

If you're going to bill this as a 'liberties' issue, then what's the difference between a private insurance company dictating your health choices verses a single payer not for profit insurance system?

The difference is that one of these entities has the protection of corporate profits as job #1 and the other is fulfilling a mandate for providing all citizens with adequate care.

Personally, I feel more free when I'm able to get whatever medical care I need rather than remain untreated.

bblackwood wrote on Wed, 12 August 2009 11:51

Quote:

This isn't about 'rights'. It's not about individual liberties. Those are smoke screens, straw man arguments. You have more restrictions with a private for profit insurance system.

This is about having a health system that is both effective for everyone of every socio-economic class AND more cost effective.

Are you saying that the modern liberal philosophical worldviews of the 18th century are preventing you from having an efficient and effective system? Do you think that the founding fathers desired for America to be locked into a system of thought that imprisons Americans for all time? Isn't this what they fought against?

Were not the founding fathers against the take over of corporate interests over the needs of the people? Wasn't that part of their understanding of freedom? Why then protect corporate profit interests and enslave them to such a system?

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: bblackwood on August 12, 2009, 02:28:46 PM

Nathan, I suspect you've only read one of my posts in this thread. Go back and read my multi-reply earlier - it answers your questions regarding where I stand and I'd rather not retype it all.

In summation - the government should do it's job if reform is needed. Taking on roles it wasn't created to deal with is not the answer.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Berolzheimer on August 13, 2009, 12:17:41 AM

JDNelson wrote on Wed, 12 August 2009 10:46

Nathan, polling shows 80% of Americans are happy with the health insurance they've got and the care they receive.

If you believe that I've got a nice bridge I'd like to sell you.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Berolzheimer on August 13, 2009, 12:24:45 AM

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 12 August 2009 10:35

Health care may not be a 'right', but along with education, it is foundational for having a just society.

those 2 things are also foundational for having a functional, efficient, sustainable society. There's a huge amount of waste in our current system that would just instantly go away if we went to single- payer, like for instance making Medicare available to all. A society works better for everyone when it's people are well educated, learn how to think, and are healthy. All the worrying about who deserves what & who should pay for whom just makes it more costly for everyone.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PookyNMR on August 13, 2009, 02:50:15 AM

bblackwood wrote on Wed, 12 August 2009 12:28

No, I did read all your posts.

The constitution / founding fathers did not look this far ahead to things they could not have possibly foreseen. But from what I do know of them (particularly Jackson and Franklin), I believe they would have been strongly opposed to the slavery to the corporate for profit insurance system currently in place.

A single payer system is not a socialist take over. It is a public not for profit insurance system that rids citizens of all the crap we experience with private for profit insurance companies.

If we're talking about life, liberty and justice for all, I can't think of anything better for America to move toward this direction than a single payer health system.

I think the 'constitutional' angle on this is weak. I'm a bigger fan than most for following the constitution. But there are areas of social good that could not be foreseen that do need to be addressed. Health and education are basic necessities for a prosperous nation.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: bblackwood on August 13, 2009, 09:00:13 AM

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 01:50

I think the 'constitutional' angle on this is weak. I'm a bigger fan than most for following the constitution. But there are areas of social good that could not be foreseen that do need to be addressed. Health and education are basic necessities for a prosperous nation.

It's how we read the constitution that separates us here.

You're talking to someone who thinks the Dept. of Education is unconstitutional and that education (along with healthcare, etc) are State's rights / responsibilities under the 9th and 10th Amendments. I don't believe it's the Federal Government's business to do anything other than legislation to deal with the actual issues causing our healthcare costs to be so high (and it's not purely due to profit, as the media is cramming down our throats).

I think some fair points are made in this article.

On a foundational level, it appears you have a more modern view of the US - a country with 'provinces' like many others who are weak compared to the centralized government. I contend that the genius of the founding fathers is that we are indeed a collection of 'states' - much like 5o individual countries held together in a union with a centralized government that handles the defense of the country as well as interstate commerce (not completely unlike the European Union in design). This design allows people of each state to determine what they need without those from across the country determining otherwise. We've gotten a long way from that, I understand, but don't expect those of us who appreciate the beauty of the original plan to support things that push us further from the original design.

So you can call the argument 'weak' if you wish - I'll just have to disagree.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PookyNMR on August 13, 2009, 10:28:13 AM

bblackwood wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 07:00

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 01:50

So do you also not believe in paying income tax? That's not in the constitution? Is the IRS illegal?

While that article had a few notable ideas that might help, it further propagated propaganda about Canada that is not true.

For one, bureaucrats do not cal the shots on what's insured and what's not. The ministry of health controls the list of insured services. Doctors make the call as to whether or not a procedure is done based on whether or not it will help the patient. It's care driven, not dollar driven.

As for 'waiting lines' they skewed the statistics by not mentioning the wait times for various procedures. Sure, I may wait one or two days for my XYZ operation to be booked. Or maybe a week or two for an appointment to the specialist. What the article doesn't mention is that there are waiting lines in America too.

And yes, Canadians do want supplemental health dollars (like HSA's, we have HSP's which are a little more progressive) to cover things that the public insurance plan does not. If I want dental care, eye care, massage therapy, acupuncture, alternative therapies, etc, we still have the option to do so.

I understand how the union of states works. Our provinces are not that different in relation to the federal government.

In fact, even though we have some national health mandates, it's the provinces who do all the administration and delivery of the services. I am under the Alberta health care plan. It just so happens that my Alberta health care plan covers me anywhere in Canada.

Where our health system is federal is consolidating the ability to be single payer (via taxation) and helping negotiate with providers for fair prices on services.

Your federal government also collects tax. In a single payer system, they would need to collect and distribute health dollars to the individual states. They would also set a minimum standard of care that each state needs to give it's citizens. They could also help in negotiating fair prices with providers.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: bblackwood on August 13, 2009, 10:47:46 AM

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 09:28

So do you also not believe in paying income tax? That's not in the constitution? Is the IRS illegal?

The 16th Amendment is there for exactly that purpose. Income tax is perfectly constitutional, in my opinion.

The rest of your post is about stuff that only matters if the Federal Government should be in the health care business here in the US, which they should not.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PookyNMR on August 13, 2009, 11:02:17 AM

bblackwood wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 08:47

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 09:28

So do you also not believe in paying income tax? That's not in the constitution? Is the IRS illegal?

Should we then get rid of the FAA? They're not in the constitution. What about the FCC? Or the FDA?

We already have national bodies that run national programs that are not specifically expressed by the constitution.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Samc on August 13, 2009, 11:05:29 AM

Brad, do you believe that the US healthcare system is okay as is? If no, what do you think should be done, and who should do it?

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: bblackwood on August 13, 2009, 11:25:12 AM

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 10:02

Those are all administrations that deal with interstate issues, which is what the Federal government is for. Health and education are individual issues better handled by the different peoples of the individual states.

Samc wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 10:05

Brad, do you believe that the US healthcare system is okay as is? If no, what do you think should be done, and who should do it?

I'm fine with it as is, but I understand many aren't. If it needs change, then congress should enact laws to fix the issues that exist - frivolous lawsuits, denial of coverage, etc. I'm not some free market capitalist that thinks regulations are all bad, but I also know allowing the government (particularly the Federal Government) to get involved in things it's not made to do is a bad idea, as the track record shows. Heck, even the things it is supposed to do it does more inefficiently than private business more often than not.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Jay Kadis on August 13, 2009, 11:44:13 AM

bblackwood wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 08:25

Health and education are individual issues better handled by the different peoples of the individual states.

That leads to Balkanization of services with the wealthier districts doing better and the poorer districts going without. If we are going to have a nation, it should provide some minimum standards for education and health care to avoid becoming a nation of haves and have-nots.

It is not an all-or-none proposition, but the Federal government can provide some sort of leveling without necessarily running the whole show.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: JDNelson on August 13, 2009, 11:52:25 AM

It could be pointed out that police and fire fighting duties are as impoortant to our well being as health care and these are carried out on a local level.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Skullsessions on August 13, 2009, 12:02:42 PM

Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 10:44

bblackwood wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 08:25

Health and education are individual issues better handled by the different peoples of the individual states.

Jesus. Our Government DOES provide a minimum of education and health care to our citizens.

But MOST of us are not satisfied with the minimum. That's why our parents had jobs. That's why they sent us to school. That's why they tried to send us to College if they could afford it. And that's why MOST of us work for a living.

Life and the pursuit of happiness is not something that you can "level".

No one ever said that you would have identical results...but the opportunity to succeed belongs to everyone in this Country.

When you chose your neighborhood to live in, did you try to pick an area that had good schools and good home value retention? ORRR...did you pick an urban slum and think to yourself..."My Gosh...I could do some good here by putting my money into this neighborhood so that everyone else in the slum can have it just a little bit better than they do now!"

SURELY you did the latter? I mean...I'd hate to see you contribute to the wealthy places doing better than the poor.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Jay Kadis on August 13, 2009, 12:03:51 PM

JDNelson wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 08:52

It could be pointed out that police and fire fighting duties are as impoortant to our well being as health care and these are carried out on a local level.

The Federal government has laws detailing minimum-standards for police training, so it's not entirely a local affair. It is a balance between local, state and national control with predominant control at the local level.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Skullsessions on August 13, 2009, 12:04:46 PM

JDNelson wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 10:52

It could be pointed out that police and fire fighting duties are as impoortant to our well being as health care and these are carried out on a local level.

I wonder how much they are subsidized by the Federal.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Jay Kadis on August 13, 2009, 12:06:17 PM

Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 09:02

No one ever said that you would have identical results...but the opportunity to succeed belongs to everyone in this Country.

That opportunity is not equal if you have excellent schools and others have inadequate ones. How is that equal opportunity?

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Skullsessions on August 13, 2009, 12:13:30 PM

Have you ever heard of someone flunking out at an excellent school?

Happens all the time.

Some people work harder than others.

Don't those "bad schools" have the same Government requirements as the "good schools"?

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: JDNelson on August 13, 2009, 12:32:13 PM

Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 09:04

JDNelson wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 10:52

It could be pointed out that police and fire fighting duties are as impoortant to our well being as health care and these are carried out on a local level.

I wonder how much they are subsidized by the Federal.

Dunno. I haven't heard this being a factor, myself. Interstingly enough, here in L.A. County, some communities run their own police departments (e.g., Long Beach) while others contract with the county sheriff's department (e.g., Lakewood). I've seen communities that had their own police dept. (e.g., Hawaiian Gardens) disband their own department and contract with the sheriffs, either due to labor disputes or other reasons. So there actually is a free-market component to the equation... Here in Long Beach the issue gets bandied about whenever the local PD agitates for higher pensions and pay, etc. and the option to use sheriffs instead is trotted out.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Jay Kadis on August 13, 2009, 01:13:27 PM

Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 09:13

Lousy schools fail to meet the minimum standards for a lot of reasons, but lack of adequate funding means larger classes, less skilled teachers, poor access to teaching materials, ancient textbooks and a generally depressing atmosphere that makes learning harder and discourages students.

Far fewer students fail or drop out from good schools. Of course students occasionally fail at good schools, but that does not mean poor schools are just as good. Government requirements without adequate means of funding are meaningless.

Some of this goes along with community feelings about education in general. In depressed neighborhoods students tend not to value education because they don't see anyone benefitting from their education. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. That is certainly not going to change until the schools change.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PookyNMR on August 13, 2009, 02:14:46 PM

Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 11:13

Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 09:13

I believe the same could be said for health care as well.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PookyNMR on August 13, 2009, 02:20:53 PM

bblackwood wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 09:25

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 10:02

Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 09:44

Exactly.

Health is a national issue that needs national attention.

California is moments away from declaring bankruptcy. What would happen to their care? Should we just let them all burn? Is that what the "union" is about?

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: JDNelson on August 13, 2009, 03:37:12 PM

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 11:20

Health is a national issue that needs national attention.

No, I think what Brad, and others (myself included) are saying is that health is entirely a personal issue.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Jon Hodgson on August 13, 2009, 03:55:23 PM

Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 18:13

Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 09:13

If anything the schools in the worse aread need to be better, just to level things out, because the children often don't get the support or opportunities outside of school.

As an example my mother, who was a teacher until her retirement a few years ago, once commented that one of the things that made it very hard to teach the children in her school to read, was that they simply had no books in the house, a very different situation from our household as we were growing up or that of pretty much everyone I knew.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PookyNMR on August 14, 2009, 12:43:16 AM

JDNelson wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 13:37

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 11:20

Health is a national issue that needs national attention.

No, I think what Brad, and others (myself included) are saying is that health is entirely a personal issue.

Should, God forbid, the unfortunate happen and you need massive amounts of care that your insurance company will not pay for nor could you afford, you may think differently.

I've seen things like this happen to family members living in different states.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: bblackwood on August 14, 2009, 08:09:42 AM

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 23:43

That's entirely the point you seem to be missing - I want as little government involvement in our lives as possible and am quite happy living with these perceived 'risks' for he balance of liberty that comes with that decision.

It's a fundamental difference in thinking, I suppose - I don't think the government exists to be our 'daddy', taking care of any problem that may arise in our lives.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Jon Hodgson on August 14, 2009, 08:35:40 AM

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 13:09

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 23:43

Why does it have to be your "daddy"? Why can't it be your implementor?

Americans are so proud of having a government "of the people, by the people and for the people", so what is wrong in the people deciding that through simple decency they want everyone to have decent healthcare, and getting their government to implement it for them?

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: bblackwood on August 14, 2009, 08:54:31 AM

Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 07:35

Why does it have to be your "daddy"? Why can't it be your implementor?

Because many of us believe there is a finite balance of liberty/government - the more government, by necessity the less liberty. I prefer having as little government intervention as possible as that gives me the freedom to live as I see fit - that's true liberty.

Quote:

Americans are so proud of having a government "of the people, by the people and for the people", so what is wrong in the people deciding that through simple decency they want everyone to have decent healthcare, and getting their government to implement it for them?

Nothing is wrong with that if it is what the people want (doesn't seem to be the case) and it is handled as it's supposed to be (on a state/local level). Everything is wrong with it if the Federal Government steps in.

We may have changed in many ways since 1787, but we're still an individualistic bunch that generally prefers individual liberty.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PRobb on August 14, 2009, 09:43:08 AM

I want to be clear on this. Is it being suggested that if people without insurance get sick, they've made their choice and they should just go home and die?

I'm sorry if that sounds cold, but that's what I'm hearing.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: T. Mueller on August 14, 2009, 09:55:59 AM

*cough* Strawman argument! *cough*

And just in case no one's read this yet today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html ?_r=1&hp

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: bblackwood on August 14, 2009, 11:13:35 AM

PRobb wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 08:43

You need to get your 'ears' checked, my friend.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PRobb on August 14, 2009, 12:55:32 PM

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 08:09

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 23:43

JDNelson wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 15:37

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 11:20

Health is a national issue that needs national attention.

No, I think what Brad, and others (myself included) are saying is that health is entirely a personal issue.

These are the posts I was primarily responding to.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: bblackwood on August 14, 2009, 01:10:30 PM

Are people currently told to go home and die?

I spent quite a few years without insurance and always got the medical help I needed. Without fail every doctor/clinic/hospital i went to worked with my and reduced the overall out of pocket costs I incurred with the treatment, then went so far as to allow me to make tiny payments for years with no interest or late fees in order to let me pay it off. I was never once turned away due to 'lack of insurance'. I'm sure people fall through the cracks - that happens in any system - but are you suggesting that people are told to go home and die now?

More to the point - how many times do I have to say it's a state, not federal issue. The people of each state should decide what, if any coverage they want to extend to otherwise uninsured folks. I've said over and over that reform may well be needed, but we should do so within the guidelines of how the government is supposed to work, not by giving the Federal Government powers it shouldn't have.

I've also stated over and over that legislation may well be needed if the people demand reform - that's fine. Make laws that say hospitals cannot turn away the uninsured (US citizens) due to lack of insurance. Limit the sort of superfluous lawsuits that have driven costs up. Be proactive about the issues that are causing health costs to rise.

How you leapt from ALL of my posts here to 'they should go home and die' is beyond me.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Skullsessions on August 14, 2009, 01:47:36 PM

Brad, the problem you've got here is that you understand what it means to be a free man.

The world if full of do-overs and mulligans now. There is no such thing as personal responsibility, and you are seen as "petty" and "selfish" when you suggest that people are able to take care of themselves.

Some people can't conceive of a reality where they are on their own, to do as they wish....to run a government instead of a government running them.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Samc on August 14, 2009, 02:18:52 PM

bblackwood wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 16:25

Samc wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 10:05

Brad, do you believe that the US healthcare system is okay as is? If no, what do you think should be done, and who should do it?

I'm fine with it as is, but I understand many aren't.

Are you fine with it because you're satisfied with your condition, or because you think it's good as is in general?

Quote:

I'm not some free market capitalist that thinks regulations are all bad, but I also know allowing the government (particularly the Federal Government) to get involved in things it's not made to do is a bad idea, as the track record shows.

But don't you think that the nation's health is of the highest importance, so important in fact that it should be regulated at the federal level?

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: JDNelson on August 14, 2009, 02:24:12 PM

Samc wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 11:18

But don't you think that the nation's health is of the highest importance, so important in fact that it should be regulated at the federal level?

Sam, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PRobb on August 14, 2009, 03:33:12 PM

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 13:10

Then you were the beneficiary of government mandated, subsidized care. Hospitals a required by law (government) to take emergency patients. And whatever they did for you was averaged into what they charge everybody else (subsidy)

Quote:

More to the point - how many times do I have to say it's a state, not federal issue. The people of each state should decide what, if any coverage they want to extend to otherwise uninsured folks. I've said over and over that reform may well be needed, but we should do so within the guidelines of how the government is supposed to work, not by giving the Federal Government powers it shouldn't have.

The problem with that is there would be a race to the bottom. WHat would be the advantage to a state of having the most comprehensive system?

Quote:

I've also stated over and over that legislation may well be needed if the people demand reform - that's fine. Make laws that say hospitals cannot turn away the uninsured (US citizens) due to lack of insurance. Limit the sort of superfluous lawsuits that have driven costs up. Be proactive about the issues that are causing health costs to rise.

The people elected Obama, and he absolutely campaigned on health care. What's disappointing his supporters is that he's not going far enough.

Quote:

How you leapt from ALL of my posts here to 'they should go home and die' is beyond me.

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 08:09

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Samc on August 14, 2009, 07:47:36 PM

Skullsessions wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 18:47

Brad, the problem you've got here is that you understand what it means to be a free man.

does having universal healthcare equate to loss of freedom?

Quote:

The world if full of do-overs and mulligans now. There is no such thing as personal responsibility, and you are seen as "petty" and "selfish" when you suggest that people are able to take care of themselves.

I thought the people on the other side were just talking about good, affordable healthcare for everyone, or am I missing something?

Quote:

Some people can't conceive of a reality where they are on their own, to do as they wish....to run a government instead of a government running them.

Isn't it great to have all the answers. Isn't it always great to know that every other opinion but your own is stupid...

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Samc on August 14, 2009, 07:49:24 PM

JDNelson wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 19:24

Samc wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 11:18

But don't you think that the nation's health is of the highest importance, so important in fact that it should be regulated at the federal level?

Sam, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

With that said, what do we do now, throw up our hands and continue as usual?

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: bblackwood on August 14, 2009, 09:30:32 PM

Samc wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 13:18

bblackwood wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 16:25

Samc wrote on Thu, 13 August 2009 10:05

Brad, do you believe that the US healthcare system is okay as is? If no, what do you think should be done, and who should do it?

I'm fine with it as is, but I understand many aren't.

Are you fine with it because you're satisfied with your condition, or because you think it's good as is in general?

Both.

Quote:

But don't you think that the nation's health is of the highest importance, so important in fact that it should be regulated at the federal level?

No, I consider liberty to be of greater value.

We've not had nationalized healthcare in this country in 230+ years and it hasn't seemed to hurt us too badly.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: bblackwood on August 14, 2009, 09:34:44 PM

Samc wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 18:49

JDNelson wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 19:24

Samc wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 11:18

But don't you think that the nation's health is of the highest importance, so important in fact that it should be regulated at the federal level?

Sam, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

With that said, what do we do now, throw up our hands and continue as usual?

Why does it seem everything is black or white with you guys? I've mentioned several things the Federal Government can do - within their given powers - to reform healthcare. I've not seen anyone here saying that nothing needs to change or that the poor should be rounded up and executed, or left to die if they can't afford healthcare, etc.

Over and over I've talked of solutions to make healthcare more affordable without the Federal Government stepping outside the bounds of its given powers, yet you guys keep throwing up straw-man arguments as if we're saying the status quo is perfect.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: bblackwood on August 14, 2009, 09:42:25 PM

PRobb wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 14:33

None of my visits were emergency visits, but yah, I've said over and over that government legislation is ok. I've even offered it as an alternative to Obamacare (or any other Federal Health Care service).

Quote:

The problem with that is there would be a race to the bottom. WHat would be the advantage to a state of having the most comprehensive system?

So where's the line? Health care isn't enough? Now those who cannot afford health care should be granted 'Cadillac' policies that even heavy tax payers like myself don't have?

Quote:

The people elected Obama, and he absolutely campaigned on health care. What's disappointing his supporters is that he's not going far enough.

Interesting, I'd like to see data that supports this. Every poll I've seen shows dissatisfaction with how over-encompassing Obama's plan is.

But that doesn't matter, it's a state issue, not a Federal one. Remember, we're a Republic, not a Democracy.

Quote:

How you leapt from ALL of my posts here to 'they should go home and die' is beyond me.

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 08:09

Still seems like quite a leap to me. I'd go so far as to suggest that if leaping to conclusions were an Olympic event, you'd be a shoe-in for the Gold.

My point is that I'm more than happy to live knowing the Nanny-state isn't there to catch me if I fall rather than trade liberty for security.

Wait, that sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it? Oh yes!
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: seedyunderbelly.com on August 15, 2009, 12:02:30 AM

And deserving "safety" aside they will not find it for long.

If you tried to throw all the life there was after death who would be the victor?

And for those who do not understand Brad and JD - This decision is at gun point For example, If things do not go as you wish and you elect not to pay for it follow the trail at some point you will be visited by police/courts with guns to take you for Tax evasion-

Lets say that these "Health Care" decisions draw the line at the point where they are causing more death than saving life- As many government examples are out there $40 hammer etc.

ie: Dad has to work an extra job(expending his life and energy) and could not afford whatever thing may have prolonged his life ie:creating a surplus or whatever other value he thought himself free to seek.. Maybe it was being home the hour his daughter drowned (OR no reason given) -whatever the point is for whom can decide what another man does with his time and energy EXCEPT stopping men from using force against each other?

His energy is redirected towards others by gunpoint at his expense= to his guess of benefit and detriment ....

It is sad death, It is coming either way, how quickly and for whom these are what the pistols decide. If someone Cheats death don't forget from what bank they borrow- It can only be the bank of life. And while The debt of death in unlimited The bank of life certainly has tangible limits.

Of course advancements and intelligence could constantly improve things -Unless leeches feed- *setting up a system not moved by the market could impede those things- or help momentarily stave of some cannibalistic parasites- A method of production it is not -it is a siphon that by definition will decrease or reallocate production of an increasing population(sustained artificially) -fed by force- If it is meant to be a continual "solution" this version of slavery to undo death will find an end worse than the one people are currently trying to avoid-

We ALREADY have this sort of Socialism in place- Just not to the extent they are proposing - The principal means so much more than the amount -

In fairness the deal with the devil had already been made.

If we are going to spend this much anyway perhaps it should be more effiecient and better organized- It just may be BETTER to abolish it - It seems that the issue here is How and not If- as we are here already- And Nobody is talking about losing it - they only argue about methods and amounts--Really halting progress to find a real sustainable and non-forced way to feed and heal people - their hand will only be of help until they have to sacrifice their baby before yours.. Then the mirage will have disappeared along with the farm. Perhaps that is the most damaging part is that it reroutes energy that could have been used to save lives- Instead of Legaslating this they should be helping organize it voluntarily

To those up in arms about it? They are already too late... The if was if'd already.

If there were any REAL FREE system in anything -health care or in business in general- I bet most things would get cheaper- We may continue to see the type of growth that the turn of the century brought- The net is a good example as it was in part more "free" for a minute.

For example I will not start a business because I do not want to ask the douche bags for a permit. Stifled simply- fwiw I also will not provide health care for that reason as well as you need to get your lunch ticket from the clowns in chief-

The amount of production loss from this sort of bullying I am sure would be Staggering.

There are other VOLUNTARY ways of organizing and Measuring things-

We are not there at the moment- I wish no harm to the benefits of our current organization.

However, If we sell the principal it is founded on it will eventually crumble...

* Unless it is artifically supported.

How you may ask? There is only two ways i see:

1. Total Consensus - This is not what is on the table now - In fact what is being talked about directly relates to the specific Lack of total consensus - A bridge of ideas enforced on all.

Total consensus would be everyone in agreement SUCH AS the initial basis for our government that we take the use of force out of civilian hands and monopolize it to make all interactions of free and voluntary consent-

-or-

2. By force. See Dictatorship/Communism/Fascism/SOCIALISM/etc.
Which undermines and destroys the mechanics of our greatness.

Now in 2009 you can create you enforcer as you ask for the thug and prop him up when he is looking after you don't forget what happens when control is had and your help is no longer help.. Any Kindergarten Class operates in the same way-

US/UN/EU/NMU/NWO/FEMA any or all and of course a new one. Force will be applied- Lets hope it is not against your wishes.. that can change easily ether way once you lose an order that protects the individual.

If you do not know about this already you will make a perfect citizen in the new arrangement- Just remember that after this is realized we are no longer dealing with the USA or the Constitution- It will be disolved willingly by the majority who did not understand that the beauty of our/their strength lied in protecting the Individual from the majority.

Soon as you cut the rope so hard won and well planned - a slippery slope ensues-- that lets hope YOU control-- and there is only one way to do it- By ones force over another's- The Opposite of what made America temporarily unique and great. If people trade their freedom for anything

The problem is we already have too much of this sort of "care"-
People act as if the issue is this philosophy or that one - We crossed that line in parts over the last century-

Now we have 3 options-
1. A reversal(not likely)
2. A mode shift(likely) =more/different Society control
3. a plateau(possible) until a new consensus or "system" is reached

One thing is for sure freedom is won with Blood so we should be making it of paramount importance that non of it is lost NO MATTER WHAT THE COST---Simply because the cost is greater otherwise - Hard to see when you see hurt people but they are better off this way than losing freedom-

There is a reason "Give me liberty or give me death" was once said they are inextricably connected for the time being

The Revolution in Health Care should be a voluntary one- Losing the restrictions imposed upon those practicing--UNLESS they Voluntarily get involved with the group-

This would free many people whom could work learn etc. it would allow two sets of standards and choices - A permanent unregulated Black Market as the ultimate alternative - If it is true let people come together share the knowledge and ability - Not only at universities with degrees in every way - let people be judges accordingly - By their work not their US/SOVIET work "papers"

It should be a voluntary organization. Not by coersion. I would probably join as I want to help other people- They ARE a value of mine ALTHOUGH they certainly become LESS of a VALUE to me when they are increasing their dangerousness by "FORCING ME WITH A GUN" to do anything at all.

** giving is low after the people are already robbed.. There is a sentiment that you already gave enough even though you had little to no control HOW you did.. It really Kills true brotherhood.

If the health of its citizens is a high priority of the "Country" This should be classified as the fallacy of the stolen concept as if we do away with the country with the "priority" and the "prioroty" could not exist without the country.
- throwing life after death. Death will claim life regardless of its expense.

DEATH IS A HUNGRY HOLE YOU COULD THROW A THOUSAND EARTHS INTO IT AND IT WOULD NEVER BE SATISFIED AS WE CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND IT -

The beneficiaries of this (as in the BF quote) "Temporary" safety will long back to the time when their was no chaos/controls/communism/socialism when they were free to die.

As:
There will be no country if it is pieced out by its subjects by some to some by force.
Thus undermining and reversing the source of the abundance that produced such a surplus to begin with.

I know I have an old world look at this - You watch though First the EU/ETC. and Next "The big farm"

They can go to hell- Our great grandfathers would puke if they saw this happening-(speaking of USA here)

They are Undoing our Constitution piece by piece - run to the Mountains boys or get your number and watch them fondle your seed

Perhaps Jim Jones had it right.

fwiw- If they do it more and more I hope for the best and the longestest lasting version until we can reorganize things- I am a coward and will watch from the sides.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) on August 15, 2009, 09:32:48 AM

Wow, John.
Excellent.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Jay Kadis on August 15, 2009, 10:57:34 AM

seedyunderbelly.com wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 21:02

Perhaps Jim Jones had it right.

Jim Jones had nothing right. That has got to be one of the most outrageous things I have ever seen posted here.

I see this as an issue of whether we act as a society or we act as every man for himself. I do not see the point of a gun, I see doing what is best for everyone. Unfortunately not all of our citizens want to be part of something bigger than themselves.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Eric H. on August 15, 2009, 11:57:51 AM

bblackwood wrote on Sat, 15 August 2009 02:30

We've not had nationalized healthcare in this country in 230+ years and it hasn't seemed to hurt us too badly.

How come i see a benefit concert for every known musician that has health problem? That wouldn't happen if bills weren't insanely high, don't you think? Or if you could trust to be cured and help, within reasonnable timing, by a public health service/hospital/clinic.
I really think everyone should look around, look at the past, analyse the numbers and start to compare datas, both in time and geographically.

I firmly believe that some areas of business should be ALL regulated and VERY much controlled by the state (health, education, transportation and communication to a certain extent).

Centuries ago, people started to believe in their own laws and course of action instead of god's (i.e. jungle/nature laws). We're in a advanced and dangerous regression.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: seedyunderbelly.com on August 15, 2009, 02:25:50 PM

Jay Kadis wrote on Sat, 15 August 2009 09:57

seedyunderbelly.com wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 21:02

Perhaps Jim Jones had it right.

Jay,

With all due respect, if you do not see the point of a gun, Why would you be thinking of using the Government/Legislation to achieve this Rule?

If someone does not cooperate, Without the gunpoint how do you propose you ENFORCE the LAW you are talking about creating? If you are not talking about LAW and rather about voluntary involvement I am all in. If you are talking about LAW follow the line of actions/events in your head you will see both sides can not be true.

You can define "Bigger than themselves" in several ways both Securing liberty and Helping others could qualify. Only one is primary, the other depends on it. Which do you think is first? Only one can protect your right to follow such notions freely. There is no need to force others to put their energy where you mind is - Organize it without the use of force and you will have truly achieved something greater than myself. If you did it that way it would not destroy the foundation you are standing on.

Sorry my Jones embellishment was not to your liking. I was merely flourishing on what Patrick Henry has said. It was in the spirit of an imaginary substitution of Slow self Immolation for a faster variety to demonstrate the similar destination. I guess I won't make it as a poet, Who is John Galt?

Best Wishes,

j

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Strummer on August 19, 2009, 11:23:47 PM

From the dean of the Stanford University School of Medicine:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-pizzo18 -2009aug18,0,6235286.story

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Berolzheimer on August 20, 2009, 12:10:40 AM

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 18:30

We've not had nationalized healthcare in this country in 230+ years and it hasn't seemed to hurt us too badly.

Quite the contrary, Brad, it has hurt us terribly. Huge amounts of resources have gone into the coffers of insurance companies that otherwise could have gone into medical care & research. We could be far more advanced than we currently are if we hadn't thrown so much away. Each child that has died or become disabled because of denial of care might have been an Einstein, Salk, Mozart or Leonardo. We'll never know. These aren't just losses for the families, they're losses for all of us.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PRobb on August 20, 2009, 01:12:33 AM

This is not looking good. Once again, the insurance companies and big pharma will win. They will again succeed in getting people all worked up to act against their own best interest.

Their tens of billions of annual profits will be safe, and the American people will be stuck with the world's worst healthcare system for he foreseeable future.

Woo-hoo.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Strummer on September 06, 2009, 10:08:36 PM

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/09/airfoil.h tml

Do we need health care reform? Read this and tell me that the only people who will benefit are dead beats riding on the tail of your hard work.

"investigating to see if any laws were broken"

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: i dig music on September 07, 2009, 02:08:06 AM

Quote

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 18:30

We've not had nationalized healthcare in this country in 230+ years and it hasn't seemed to hurt us too badly.

That's some fuzzy logic there..............

Otherwise, I posted in the "Bill Maher nails it" thread and it seems more appropriate her.

Who needs communism, socialism and government death panels to deny you when you can just pay insurance companies to do so.

HEALTH CARE- HMO claims-rejection rates trigger state investigation:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure4-2009sep04,0,45 03502.storyr

Wheelchair-Bound Woman Shouted Down At New Jersey Health Care Town Hall

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/02/wheelchair-bound-wo man-sh_n_275472.html

The people in New Jersey yelling at the lady in the wheel chair believe all of it.

Where does the lady fit into the scheme....

Didn't make it in a business...wasn't personally responsible.....should have planned better for a rainy day..shouldn't have gotten sick?

What should she do?

I know someone who has a great small biz. His wife got sick and her illness requires 4k a month for prescriptions. Had insurance the whole time until they drooped him and his wife because she become "ill".

Its called health "insurance".

Insurance companies cover everything when your apart of a big corporate group, but they will tell the individuals or small business to take a hike when it cost them, when they actually have to pay a claim.......or you had a "previous condition".

What should people who can pay for health insurance, but can't get it.......do?

Somebody I know who said the plan "sucks". I asked them what someone who can't afford insurance or can't any should do. The response was they could go to the emergency room and get on Medicade, yet their against government being involved in health care? Very intelligent. Yes, this person gets their insurance from a very big group plan and it always works for them. That's the main issue, having another "OPTION". Maybe another OPTION would create an environment of better service and pricing.

That's the way things should work in a free market........ right?

NO....fu*k competition where death and illness are concerned because, "I've been told by Fox news that it will mess up my situation....and they always tell it like it is".

Read the bill.......cross check for your self...meaning find out the real truth.

Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-32 00/

Get the Bill here:

Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-32 00/

I know, people will say they "feel" for the unfortunate. "Feelings" don't pay for the medical bills. "Feelings" don't do shit when lives and life savings are on the line.

And, I won't even mention the real elephant sitting in the room.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: i dig music on September 07, 2009, 02:34:24 AM

Strummer wrote on Sun, 06 September 2009 21:08

Brilliant.

I wonder what all the town hall screamers would do if this happened to them?

Most likely, they will complain about it to the government and ask, "what are you going to do about this"? This will only keep happening more and more.

And, once the shoe is on the other foot, when it happens to a town hall screamers....they will be singing to the representatives of the Republic like there is no tomorrow.

Also..... FYI......this issue was originally created by the federal government, and the ironic thing is those who don't want there "freedom to choose" to "change", "benefited" from this government involvement.

Look here for a long history of government involvement in healthcare:

http://www.ebri.org/publications/facts/index.cfm?fa=0302fact

P.S. and whats all this shit about comparing our freedom and liberties to fuc*ing healthcare. shit, when compared to the military commissions act passed by Bush and the GOP????????? Give me a break.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Edvaard on September 08, 2009, 07:09:24 AM

"And, once the shoe is on the other foot, when it happens to a town hall screamers....they will be singing to the representatives of the Republic like there is no tomorrow."

Oh, you mean like that Republican voting guy in North Carolina (where I used to live) who said he always voted for Republicans because they didn't interfere in people's lives, except that now that a tree-felling paper company opened up a hellaciously loud tree grinder in his Republican developer zoned backyard 24 hours a day and made him and his family miserable, so now he whined to the government to keep the tree-paper folks from interfering with his family's life?

Like that, you mean?

Yups.

Pass or repeal enough laws to keep the government off your back, but good luck keeping others from taking advantage of such laws to be on your back even worse.

Don't expect people to understand any of this, just expect the gauranteed whining when it happens to -them-, all after yelling and yahooing for it when it only affected others.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PRobb on September 08, 2009, 11:01:53 AM

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 14 August 2009 18:30

We've not had nationalized healthcare in this country in 230+ years and it hasn't seemed to hurt us too badly.

The fact remains that every other first world nation, every single one, provides comparable health care to every citizen for 1/2 to 1/3 of our cost. If you don't mind paying for an API and taking home a Mackie, then I guess I agree with you.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Bill_Urick on September 08, 2009, 09:08:20 PM

Just for what it's worth, probably not much.
I've discussed this issue with two of my customers.

The first, a trauma surgeon at an Atlanta hospital.
I brought it up since it was on CNN while I was at his house.
Obviously, I was curious as to what he thought.

Today the second customer, a Haitian emigrant who grew up under the "Docs" started the conversation.

They both thought the government administering healthcare was a really bad idea.

The surgeon thought it would negatively impact the quality of care and the quality of people entering the field.

The gentleman from Haiti is just against anything that smacks of increased government control of our lives or any form of socialism. FWIW, he has always been well informed and thoughtful in his opinions. And very vocal about being politically conservative.

Having lived under an oppressive regime he is very appreciative of the freedoms and opportunities available in the US.

I don't think his opinions are racially motivated.

Personally while I feel there are problems that need to be addressed in our healthcare system, nationalization will create more problems than it solves.

But that is the trend, and it will happen eventually.

Perhaps we can just put it off a while longer.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: i dig music on September 08, 2009, 10:13:40 PM

Bill_Urick wrote on Tue, 08 September 2009 20:08

Bill, I can understand where your 2 friends are coming from and both have valid points.

But, I believe we are talking about a bill that creates a public option, which in turn creates a more competitive market place where health care costs and administration are concerned. Yes, the idea is to provide universal coverage, but no where in the bill does it talk about government control over the actual care and service's. Doctors will not be government employees and hospitals not be government shops. They will only be dealing with a new insurance provider with a very large group to provide for with buying power. Private insurance providers will then have to become more competitive with coverage. I believe this competition could straiten out a lot of what's wrong as a direct result of a new competitive market place, and we may even find some new private providers can do it better then the government.

If I have something wrong or missed something in the bill about goverment control over the actual care, please let me know.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PRobb on September 09, 2009, 11:41:55 PM

Very strong speech from Obama tonight. I'm happy to see him back in campaign mode.

And I was very happy to hear him use the word "lie" to describe the death panel bullshit.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Kris on September 10, 2009, 10:40:21 AM

Drop the public option and add some tort reform. DONE DEAL.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PRobb on September 10, 2009, 10:48:00 AM

Kris wrote on Thu, 10 September 2009 10:40

Drop the public option and add some tort reform. DONE DEAL.

The compromise offered is keep the public option and add tort reform.

The Republicans can participate in the process or get the hell out of the way.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Kris on September 10, 2009, 11:20:48 AM

Understood... just doesn't seem like the 'American' way to me. This country is not like any other. We are unique. My opinion is my own and is completely unrelated to 'Republicans'.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: PRobb on September 10, 2009, 04:46:39 PM

Kris wrote on Thu, 10 September 2009 11:20

Understood... just doesn't seem like the 'American' way to me. This country is not like any other. We are unique. My opinion is my own and is completely unrelated to 'Republicans'.

It's very American. If they want to participate in the process, great. That's as it should be. They are a voice that deserves to be heard. But they lost the election. So if all they want to do is stand in the corner yelling no! no! no! no! no!, then screw 'em. If they are acting on the political calculation they are going to kill any real reform because it will hurt Obama and help them, then screw 'em.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Les Ismore on September 11, 2009, 02:06:02 AM

American politics are almost embarrassing to watch. I thought Obama gave a truly great speech and then some duffus goon from the republican side of the hall yells "Liar Liar pants on fire". The dumbing down of America is almost complete. And then the media all wants to interview the goon. Who cares what the stupid f--- says? He's obviously a moron or he wouldn't be trying to shout down the President during a speech.
It was like a scene from the movie "Idiocracy". Great flick BTW. Funny as hell but a little too close to reality for comfort.
Anyway, we've had public health care here in Canada for a long long time, and you guys should be so lucky.......
I went to an emergency room once in Texas when I was there and for 15 minutes to get a prescription and the bill was like $1200. Just think if you got really sick.......

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Berolzheimer on September 11, 2009, 02:52:22 AM

Idiocracy, yes, great stuff. And yes, uncomfortably close to reality.

To quote my friend Ronny Crawford, from his FB page:

"How about health care by how you vote? Dem's get single payer. Repubs get private health care. If you don't vote you don't get either!"

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Skullsessions on September 11, 2009, 07:37:14 AM

There is no way anyone went to an emergency room in Texas and waited only 15 minutes.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Skullsessions on September 11, 2009, 07:43:08 AM

Berolzheimer wrote on Fri, 11 September 2009 01:52

Have fun with that....taxing all of those democrat-voter-run businesses.

Now...back to my "bate-in'"..... I'm BATEIN'!!

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Kris on September 11, 2009, 08:22:06 AM

PRobb wrote on Thu, 10 September 2009 16:46

Kris wrote on Thu, 10 September 2009 11:20

Understood... just doesn't seem like the 'American' way to me. This country is not like any other. We are unique. My opinion is my own and is completely unrelated to 'Republicans'.

Sorry, I wasn't more clear.

I was referring to the insistence of the 'public option' as not seeming to be aligned IMO with the 'American' way.

p.s. Believing that the gov't should NOT be in the Health Insurance business has NOTHING to do with being or not being a Republican.

Title: Re: Healthcare Reform Obstructionist 6
Post by: Les Ismore on September 11, 2009, 12:24:38 PM

Skullsessions wrote on Fri, 11 September 2009 04:37

There is no way anyone went to an emergency room in Texas and waited only 15 minutes.

I was wondering why there was almost nobody there. no-one could afford it.