Printable View
You mean the same government that owns a failing Amtrak and a self-destructing Social Security fund? I have absolutely no faith in the US government to do anything of the sort. Maybe European governments have that kind of self control, and thats why they are far more accepted over there, but I haven't seen anything that will get us less painfully out of this hole we're digging. Soon enough there won't be a way to get out without major issues at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Lobbyists (6 for every legislator). Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and Big Business. And senior citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Insurance premiums will rise. Funny I don't recall Obama and company stating, "Hey everyone we are going to get uninsured covered. But all of you will be paying more on your premiums." Nah they said, "Oh wow this saves you money! Your premiums will be lowered, we will make health care affordable AND cover the uninsured." Anyone with any amount of common sense would understand that can't all happen.Quote:
You don't like uninsured "free loaders" showing up in ERs for their care, jacking up delivery costs that everyone has to absorb. Now you don't like more people in the insurance pools, jacking up your premiums? I thought you were Mr. Insurance--the more the merrier--shouldn't you be glad your industry practically guarantees your job now? Besides, if you want to lower your premium, raise your deductible. Or convert it to a CAT only plan, and pay OOP for anything but complicated care. Simple.
Some honesty would be nice. (HAH like that will happen from Democrats)
I recall the Dems saying everyone would have to sacrifice and work together. That if everyone is in the insurance pool, eventually the costs of routine care via emergency rooms would be reduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Anyone with common sense knows they haven't been paying anywhere near the "real cost" of care, when there are so many millions without care showing up at the wrong spot in the delivery system, or waiting too long and being much sicker. :donkey:
The big question is how much do you care about fellow citizens, and the overall health of our nation?
So do you consider health to be more important then freedom? Not that this bill will make people healthier... but even if we assume this bill will make people healthier. Do you consider that more important then the loss of certain freedoms?Quote:
The big question is how much do you care about fellow citizens, and the overall health of our nation?
Did you know that freedom isn't some magic win-word you can evoke? You have to define what you mean by freedom, and let me tell you, your definition won't be met with universal acceptance
THAN
I consider access to medical care as basic as an education, and part of life and liberty. I think if you DENY that to certain people based on income alone (or ability to pay) then only certain people are really FREE. Everyone else may as well be an indentured slave to circumstance.
So how do you define Freedom, Lewk? The freedom to be so tight with your own money that you'd just as soon see barefooted kids in the gutter selling Chiclets?
You claim administration and Congress are not in charge of the budget?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Well, yeah like I said, you can still keep voting politicians in who won't do the right thing, but the gaping black hole in their work can't be hidden from view any longer. The exact same thing the some people are affraid of (costs running out of control) is going to force the government to set things in order. And the easiest way (least painful for voters) is going to cut in the 50 cents to the dollar that is wasted in US healtcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by coinich
And for those who believe it won't work that way; check out what happened/happens in Mass.
Lets see, do I consider my health more important thAn freedom? Um, what freedom are we exchanging for the health care bill again? I'm not sure. Is it tax dollars? You think I'm losing some freedom because my taxes are certainly going up? I'm fine with that. Not worried about it at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
And it sure seems like once its up and running a LOT of people will have MORE freedom. Like they won't be so afraid to lose their job, or leave their job, and do something entrapeneurial now since they won't lose health coverage. Seems like the ability to get treatment for injuries and illnesses without being bankrupted might be very liberating, don't you agree?
You apparently do. I don't have the freedom to murder you, steal from you, or any number of horrible things, without penalty thanks to the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Perhaps you can list the freedoms we're losing so we can debate them. The most obvious one I can see is the requirement to purchase healthcare, and I've already listed my grievance with that, but perhaps you can enlighten us. Be prepared to cite where in the Healthcare bill we're losing these freedoms so we'll know what to cite when writing/complaining to our state representatives...
Practically no one has really read the bill, that's the problem. It was rushed from the oven to the dinner table. And no, I haven't read all of it. But I have a good idea of what's in it from extensive summaries. And all of it doesn't point to any real cost controls. It's a backwards way of incentivising anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Why do you keep insisting I'm a Republican? Or that anything that's created by a Republican is something I endorse? If there's any reason I wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney in 2010 it's because of the disaster of a health care plan he set up. Which is now the model for the federal system.Quote:
And mandated by Mitt Romney, a Republican. You still didn't answer the question---know of any states who are taking the bull by the horns?
Yes, competition from the government is anathema. Look what happened when the government meddled in the mortgage market.Quote:
It was part of the Dems wanting a public option too, but (R)s couldn't stand to remove tax structures that benefit Big Business, let alone cut Medicare spending. Competition from the guv'ment is anathema to conservatives, but they also won't cut the strings of corporate welfare. And everyone caves to lobbyists. :bored:
Once again, this is the Fannie Mae model of doing things. "If we nationalize the costs, the government will bring costs down."Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Unfortunately, the government thinks it has bottomless pockets. And, like Fannie Mae, the likely results don't look too good.
Who summarized it for you? The Heritage Foundation? A Wallstreet Journal editorial? :o
Dude. You lose the freedom to pull the plug on grandma. The death panels are going to decide now. DAMN! :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
And yet we still have people make money by selling food...Quote:
I consider access to medical care as basic as an education, and part of life and liberty. I think if you DENY that to certain people based on income alone (or ability to pay) then only certain people are really FREE. Everyone else may as well be an indentured slave to circumstance.
Just because something is a necessity doesn't mean that it should be taken from people at the point of the gun.
If most people support having a social safety net then they can pay for it voluntarily. There are churches, charities, food banks and tons of organizations that feed people.
Speaking of health care there are tons of charities and programs for people who can't pay for treatment.
When you deny freedom you deny the very thing that gives strength to this nation.
If the goal is "healthy people" where do you stop? Do you outlaw smoking? Do you outlaw fatty foods? Do you force people to exercise?
Fortunately, the government will be reminded that it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
If there was a situation where ~15% of the people had no access to food because they were priced out of the market, you can bet your ass the government would start distributing food.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Congratulations, you've just made an argument for the complete abolition of government and the state.Quote:
Just because something is a necessity doesn't mean that it should be taken from people at the point of the gun.
What if they support having a more effective safety net?Quote:
If most people support having a social safety net then they can pay for it voluntarily. There are churches, charities, food banks and tons of organizations that feed people.
Obviously, there aren't enough given the number of Americans who are unable to get access to the treatment they need.Quote:
Speaking of health care there are tons of charities and programs for people who can't pay for treatment.
Meaningless platitudes are not and never have been the strength of America.Quote:
When you deny freedom you deny the very thing that gives strength to this nation.
Wherever you want?Quote:
If the goal is "healthy people" where do you stop? Do you outlaw smoking? Do you outlaw fatty foods? Do you force people to exercise?
Charity begging and hunting is exactly what someone with advanced colon cancer wants to be doing. Instead of, I don't know, not worrying about dieing. Talk about freedom. :down: Freedom must be really awesome, that you can ignore how its used to stop someone in their 50s from getting hired to a job they've been doing for the past 20+ years because his age alone would send the company's health insurance premium through the roof, or how freedom is used by an insurance company to force a business to fire an employee thats actually using the health insurance his/her work provides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Lewkowski, you are a dumbass.
I still can't believe people even defend the practice of health insurance. We shouldn't have to jump through hoops for health insurance, we should expect health care.
Dread--you still didn't answer my question--are any states taking the bull by the horn, to provide access to care for all their residents, manage efficiency, and cut costs? MA tried a Republican's idea and that hasn't worked well either. States didn't have to wait for a federal mandate. Maybe this bill will light a fire under our collective asses, but complaining about it without giving alternatives is tiresome sour grapes.
We already know how fannie and freddie fucked things up for every tax payer (even tho not everyone owns a home). But everyone IS reliant on our medical system, even the healthy people. Our gov'ment is not always efficient, but that doesn't mean we throw up our hands and resign all things to privatization. After all, our military works fairly well....
Lewk--do you really think the US should rely on Free Clinics to set up basic care in sports arenas? Have you read about the thousands lining up for those? A broken hip or cancer can't be treated that way, using the ED is "free" but expensive. Voluntary safety nets aren't enough for a country with 300 million people, 80 million seniors, 15 million unemployed or underemployed.
Do you really want to see bread lines and soup kitchens of the Depression Era? Read the news, all the churches and charities are short on funds and depleting inventory, they can't keep up with demand. But since you think voluntary contributions to charity are the way to go....send your tax refund and 10% of your income to FreeClinics.org or Salvation Army.
That's the ticket, a two-tier system, haves and have nots, what a wonderful world that will be. :donkey:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_stamps ...:bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
...or the subsidies the government gives farmers to grow food. :bored:
Again...what freedoms? How are they being limited? Show us how they are...show us where in the Healthcare Bill and how they do so...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
:up:Quote:
So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio.
Healthcare system before the reform made it so hard to receive affordable medical attention that the only freedom you may have was freedom to die.
MA's system was the only attempt at the scale you're talking about and it was an utter fiscal failure. I (and the Republican party, which I am not a member of) have given tons of alternative suggestions that have been roundly ignored. It's kinda hilarious that you keep pretending there were no alternatives. That people didn't oppose this bill for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
How many years ago did the Clintons try (and fail) to pass healthcare reform? For how many years aftewards did the Republicans control Congress and/or the Presidency?
Even if I don't agree with the Dems, its a bit much complaining about being ignored just a year after the Democrats won a sweeping victory at the election. The public chose the Democrats, the Republicans lost - comprehensively and across the board. This is the Dems opportunity to pass healthcare reform, if Republican alternatives were so great they had plenty of time in recent years that they could have passed them.
We have less than 40 days to go for this awful British government to be consigned to the dustbin of history and while I hate much of what Labour have done in recent years - to the core - I don't whine about being ignored. It puts fire in the belly to win the next election. And if we do, then let Labour feel the chance of being ignored. Because that's Democracy - it may not be the best system of government in the world, but it beats all the others.
Hilarious. :bored:
The federal opt-out is there; it comes when states make their own plans. State's rights folks should like that, limited federal gov'ment folks should like that, Republicans should like that. So....where are all the governors and state legislators and business leaders, besides paying expensive lawyers to draft law suits, or Repeal and Replace? They can 'replace' the federal mandate soon enough, but they'd better be working together in their states right now.
The alternative the Republicans came up with at the exact time the Clinton plan was destroyed, more or less by default, is what we have now. Managed Care via For Profit Insurance - all that competition's in this big fat market's gotta save some money, right? Well it failed utterly and completely and beyond anyone's wildest expectations. Just like Medicare Advantage - the proof of concept to show how privatizing Medicare will save all kinda Money. Well, it didn't - its roundly more expensive than the SOCIALIZED program it was being tested to replace. And for you to say the Republicans wanted anything BUT to kill any chance of Obama receiving a big legislative victory is either dishonest or plain dumb. :down: Sorry for the name-calling but your arguments are ridiculous in the face of reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
You know as well as I do that the political agendas shift. Bush made a big political bet on one side of our massive entitlement dilemma (Social Security) and he was beaten down. But let's not pretend that these issues of federal entitlements were totally ignored under the Democrats came to power.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The states are being told to either take a fiscal bullet or the federal government will make them. :confused: What if a state just doesn't want to kill its budget with these types of benefits programs?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
So because Bush didn't prioritise healthcare when he was President and his party controlled Congress, the Obama can't prioritise it (nearly 2 full decades after the Clintons first tried) when his party controls Congress?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The Democrats came to power pledging healthcare reform. Right or wrong, they're now implementing it. That's democracy in action - the Republicans will win in a few years time and if they controlled 60 senators they would implement the "third rail" policies that the Democrats wouldn't want.
The problem is that these kind of programs are virtually impossible to remove. And this means that our deficit will continue to spiral out of control, which will be even worse when we'll have to pay a higher interest rate to service that debt, as Wraith's article showed. It's like when governments increase the size of the public sector. Are people in the public sector going to vote for anyone who promises to axe their job?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I didn't say they couldn't prioritize this. :confused: I'm saying that the bill itself is pretty terrible and it was rammed through on the barest of majorities. Democracy is not just about bare-knuckled majorities, but about consensus and building around the social contract between a government and the people.
Yes, the Republicans would do the same. But as much as I hate to sound like a conspiratorial wingnut, the media let the Democrats off much easier on the -- achem -- procedural and structural issues behind this bill.
That's parliamentary democracy. It's not how our system is supposed to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That would be fair enough, except for how you haven't limited your commentary to the Congress-critters and party apparatchiks.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I was close to saying that when I read Rand's comment. But on the other hand; the American system gives the minority so much access to the brakes on the legislative process that you can't be really surprised that the majority will use whatever trick on the book is needed to get legislation through.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I think the Republicans are making a huge mistake by acting like the Great Obstructionist Party, it may please their fringes that they aren't willing to compromise, but it also puts the axe to the system you guys used to have. I can't imagine swing voters not only not liking what they do, but also coming to the conclusion that the system as it is really doesn't work with a party like that in opposition.
Really? A party with the Presidency and 60 senators isn't supposed to get a bill through?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Yes obviously the founding fathers didn't believe in parties etc, etc, etc but seriously? The public elected the Democrats, not the Republicans.
Yeah, What If? Like it or not, it took a bill like this to suddenly call everyone to action. We've been kicking the can forward for decades. State budgets are a mess, we're all going to be forced to swallow bitter pills---what to cut, what to keep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
States like mine (PA) with high numbers of elderly, crumbling infrastructure and failing schools, high corporate and property tax rates, have it smack in the face. IMO we should have means-testing for SS and Medicare, but neither party will touch that. Senior voting blocs are strangling us from the neck down.
That consensus building, bipartisan efforts, and social contract with the people is what Obama was criticized for. Make up your mind. It could have been 'rammed through' much earlier, if it weren't for all that time spent negotiating with Republicans who, in the end, didn't really want to negotiate. And now the Republicans are saying they will purposely obstruct. Where's your umbrage toward bare-knuckled minority dirty tricks, using the process to impede?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Lately you do sound like a conspiratorial wingnut. Glad you can admit that now.Quote:
Yes, the Republicans would do the same. But as much as I hate to sound like a conspiratorial wingnut, the media let the Democrats off much easier on the -- achem -- procedural and structural issues behind this bill.
You mean the media that is pwned by Fox news? Yeah, the media is giving the Dems a free ride al right. They are not betrayed as tyranny of the left at all. They are not called the cancer that destroys the foundation of America at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Can you show me left wing media rallying it's viewers to attend anti-bush protests as blatantly openly as Fox has done?
Appearantly in the American system 50+1 in the Senate effective does not constitute a majority big enough to pass legislation. The Democrats didn't have 60 Senators at the time of the vote, that's why the reconcilliation route was taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Actually, I see a slight hold-over there from the not-so-federal past of the US, sort of what we have in the EU when a country calls in the clause for core national interests to effectively veto a proposal even where they have formally lost the veto.
Are you talking about Republican voters vs. the party and the congressmen? I wasn't talking about voters, I was talking about the party strategy. How to beat the Democrats = don't let them pass anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
They have a lot of people convinced they were willing to compromise (Dread = Exhibit #1) but the left just ignored them and passed their own extremist agenda.... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
And yet I fail to see the juggernaut public option that the leftist dictators wanted to force upon the nation against its will. (Does nation have a gender? )Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I think nations are like boats----feminine gender. Mother Land. Lady Liberty. Justice holds her scales blindfolded. The bosom of plenty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Come to think of it, do dying soldiers ever cry out for their fathers, or it always their mothers?
Exactly. And no, nation in English - and in US culture - has no gender. Ships do though. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Lady liberty is the statue of liberty. And afaik nobody refers to the use as the Mother Land. That's a Euro thing, I believe. Hazir?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Well, generally mother is the person a kid in a "normal" household would turn to for comfort, right? Mommy fixed your booboos, mommy made you chicken soup when you were sick. I think a dying soldier has a pretty big booboo, but mommy can fix anything.