Republicans reveal their health care plan

[Old Timer]

Ok,
Are you serious? Social security is a loser! If social security is so great, why are you forced to have it drawn out of your check. So are you telling me if you had a choice you would rather invest in social security than a private investment?

You are serious. This is a floor so people are not out on the streets begging. You just lived through a stock market crash. What do you think would happen if there was no social security?

The reason I brought up the point about Ted Keenedy and chris dodd is because they are two of the biggest advocates on univerisal health care. If they're plan is so good, why won't they participate in it? Yes, I understand the rich will have means to escape the system, but don't you think it's hypocritical for those that are pushing this plan, not participate in it?

Politicians ar hypocrites. News flash. Again so what.

The reason Medicare is going broke is the funding is not keeping up with the income. So what makes you think the funding is going to be kept up with univerisal health care?

We will have to alter the way we deliver care. Remember 30% of private insurance goes to admin costs You plow that right back in.

The guy who won the last election promised action on health care. Where in United States Constitution does it say the President or federal government has a right to provide health care?

Well I do agree. It is not a right. It's just good social policy.

You're ad hominem arguments indicate that you're not seeing the big picture or reality of the situation.

These are not attacks, well one was, but they are attempts to point out that you lack perspective. Our current system is totally broken. Let me give you an analogy. Everybody on your block loves their house and they want to keep living there. It's the right size, it's a good location it's cool. The trouble is the foundation is crumbling. And if your block falls it well effect the other houses around you. It's the same with health care. The system is crumbling underneath us. We can take a step back and fix it now or wait for it fall down around us. We cannot continue to spend the % of GDP on healthcare that we presently spend. It is unsustainable.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tbone444]

You are serious. This is a floor so people are not out on the streets begging. You just lived through a stock market crash. What do you think would happen if there was no social security?

You didn't answer my question. If social security was voluntary, would you invest in it, or use the money to invest in gold, mutual funds, etc?

Politicians ar hypocrites. News flash. Again so what.
So you want these hypocrites to be in charge of your health care, better yet, deciding rather or not your aging mother or father should continue to be treated.

These are not attacks, well one was, but they are attempts to point out that you lack perspective. Our current system is totally broken. Let me give you an analogy. Everybody on your block loves their house and they want to keep living there. It's the right size, it's a good location it's cool. The trouble is the foundation is crumbling. And if your block falls it well effect the other houses around you. It's the same with health care. The system is crumbling underneath us. We can take a step back and fix it now or wait for it fall down around us. We cannot continue to spend the % of GDP on healthcare that we presently spend. It is unsustainable.

Look, I understand that a lot is spent on healthcare in this country. One of the main problems with our system is accountability. America has become fat and lazy. Despite being well informed about health and nutrition, our obesity rates are skyrocketing. We could have the best health care system in the world, but it wouldn't do any good if we don't change our lifestyle. But you don't hear that in the media. All you hear about is how our current health care sucks and that univerisal health care is the answer.

 

[Old Timer]

You didn't answer my question. If social security was voluntary, would you invest in it, or use the money to invest in gold, mutual funds, etc?

Yes I would. Since I benefited from it. My father passed away when I was 13 and it was SS and veterans benefits was the only thing that kept my family out of the poor house. I gladly contribute to SS and I also put the max in my 401K. I have an IRA from before I was at CVS.

Look, I understand that a lot is spent on healthcare in this country. One of the main problems with our system is accountability. America has become fat and lazy. Despite being well informed about health and nutrition, our obesity rates are skyrocketing. We could have the best health care system in the world, but it wouldn't do any good if we don't change our lifestyle. But you don't hear that in the media. All you hear about is how our current health care sucks and that univerisal health care is the answer.

First of all, what we are speaking about is Health Care Reform. The universal coverage is just part of it. Do you understand who complicated this is. Do you understand that the decision to use ethanol has contribute to our obesity?

Politicians are hypocrites. News flash. Again so what. So you want these hypocrites to be in charge of your health care, better yet, deciding rather or not your aging mother or father should continue to be treated.

Not really, but since I'm not the dictator or king. This is the system we have.

Personally I would abolish all insurance and mandate that all people carry a million dollar major medical policy for catastrophic coverage. The starting point is open to the patient's choice. The rest should be in HSA. Employer contribution should be in HSA as well. This of course will put all of us out of jobs. But I think that is the best system. The main reason why costs are out of control is not tort reform nor poor choices. The main reason costs are out of control is that the consumer of the service does not pay for the service. Change that and you change everything.... If the patient is low income, the government will contribute to the HSA and pay for the major med policy...

 

[tbone444]

Yes I would. Since I benefited from it. My father passed away when I was 13 and it was SS and veterans benefits was the only thing that kept my family out of the poor house. I gladly contribute to SS and I also put the max in my 401K. I have an IRA from before I was at CVS.

What do you mean you gladly contribute to SS? You contribute to SS whether you like it or not. Like I said earlier, if SS is so great, then let the people decide if they want it or not.

First of all, what we are speaking about is Health Care Reform. The universal coverage is just part of it. Do you understand who complicated this is.
Yes, I understand how complicated it is. So why is Obama in such a hurry
to get it passed? No one has read the 1000+ pages of this health care reform bill.

Do you understand that the decision to use ethanol has contribute to our obesity?

Ok, thanks for pointing that out. My point of that was that we must change our lifestyles and habits, which includes alcholol, smoking, fattening foods and lack of exercise.

Personally I would abolish all insurance and mandate that all people carry a million dollar major medical policy for catastrophic coverage. The starting point is open to the patient's choice. The rest should be in HSA. Employer contribution should be in HSA as well. This of course will put all of us out of jobs. But I think that is the best system. The main reason why costs are out of control is not tort reform nor poor choices. The main reason costs are out of control is that the consumer of the service does not pay for the service. Change that and you change everything.... If the patient is low income, the government will contribute to the HSA and pay for the major med policy...

The problem with most people that say they can't afford health insurance is that they actually can. You see these people in somewhere like
Best Buy getting the most up to date electronic device or a buying cadillac instead of a pontiac. Just turn on the TV and look at all these reality shows with the huge houses, nice cars and designer clothes. People watch this and think they can live just like this. Getting a health care plan is certaintly not glamourous, but we must start prioritizing what is important.

 

[Omegadramon]

Nah, we just need to give up. This **** isn't ever going to get solved. All of the politicians with power make decisions based upon ideology rather than any sort of interpretation of reality. It's what happens when people start with the conclusion, then make interpretations of how **** is based upon how well said **** fits the conclusion they already came up with.

I've conceded defeat. We're all ****ed as long as the Democrats or Republicans have power. And if they didn't have the power, we had the even more stupid Libertarians or Marxists take over...gee, that'd sure go over well.

Now let's do something constructive. Let's invade Saudi Arabia, take back all of our t-bills, and hit the reset button on our debt.

Who's with me!

IIRC, Japan & China hold a majority of US debt.

 

[Passion4Sci]

IIRC, Japan & China hold a majority of US debt.

You're recalling correctly.

Major Foreign Holders of treasury securities
As of May 2009
(In Billions)
China, Mainland 801.5
Japan 677.2

Saudi Arabia doesn't make it onto the list. They're somewhere in the "All Other" category. Maybe in "Oil Exporters" also. Still lumped in with everyone else... Hard to tell.

Hong Kong is in there (China) also with 93.2B, so I guess if you add Mainland China to Hong Kong it's like, "zomg."

 

[IrishHammer]

We're all ****ed as long as the Democrats or Republicans have power. And if they didn't have the power, we had the even more stupid Libertarians or Marxists take over...gee, that'd sure go over well.

A little bit of Libertarian influence probably wouldn't be so bad right about now. Mind you, not a total vacuum Libertarian state...but the rate at which the government has grown over recent years is absurd. It's hard to efficiently use money to fix the country when a lot of the money is going into a giant firepit.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

A little bit of Libertarian influence probably wouldn't be so bad right about now. Mind you, not a total vacuum Libertarian state...but the rate at which the government has grown over recent years is absurd. It's hard to efficiently use money to fix the country when a lot of the money is going into a giant firepit.

No, a libertarian bent right now would be disastrous. Gov't programs are misguided...that's the problem. Wealth stratification has been getting greater and greater since the 70s and, frankly, needs to be curtailed.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

IIRC, Japan & China hold a majority of US debt.

Yeah, but why do they willingly hold onto those treasury bills...the alpha and the omega...we control the alpha...just need to figure out how to control that pesky omega part, too...then we'd see the world ***** themselves out to us. It's also why we shouldn't ever drill in Alaska...think long term...

 

[Pharmavixen]

Rather than arguing with all the people who believe in small government, I'd like to take all of them and send them to live in a place that has no effective government; say, Somalia, and see how they fare in a country that has no infrastructure.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Rather than arguing with all the people who believe in small government, I'd like to take all of them and send them to live in a place that has no effective government; say, Somalia, and see how they fare in a country that has no infrastructure.

Hey, Somalia has the world's only pure free market economy.

 

[Old Timer]

What do you mean you gladly contribute to SS? You contribute to SS whether you like it or not. Like I said earlier, if SS is so great, then let the people decide if they want it or not.

Do you understand anything I said. It doesn't have to be one or the other. You need both. What would you do with the number of people who are invested in the stock market who lose everything or mostly everything. Where would you put them? On the street? What would you do with the 13 year old who has nothing? Put him on the street?

Yes, I understand how complicated it is. So why is Obama in such a hurry
to get it passed? No one has read the 1000+ pages of this health care reform bill.

First of all the staff and lawyers have read it. That's their job. The individual legislator needs to understand the law and it's resultant effects. This is a straw man argument you are making. I agree the law as presently constituted would not be what I want and I personally oppose it. It's up to the opposition to come up with a reasonable alternative.

Do you understand that the decision to use ethanol has contribute to our obesity?

Ok, thanks for pointing that out. My point of that was that we must change our lifestyles and habits, which includes alcholol, smoking, fattening foods and lack of exercise.

Your response clearly shows you do not understand. People have been drinking soda and eating crap forever. Why are we getting fat now? Maybe the food is different. Maybe our food is so processed and we are too far away from our food. Maybe things are way moire complicated than you think they are.

The problem with most people that say they can't afford health insurance is that they actually can. You see these people in somewhere like
Best Buy getting the most up to date electronic device or a buying cadillac instead of a pontiac. Just turn on the TV and look at all these reality shows with the huge houses, nice cars and designer clothes. People watch this and think they can live just like this. Getting a health care plan is certaintly not glamourous, but we must start prioritizing what is important.

In a free society, people are free to make choices. It's not up to you to criticize other peoples choices. Maybe they gave up other things and saved enough to buy a nice car. Do you know their personal circumstances? Anytime you want to trade places some of these people and live their lives, give it a shot. It's easy to criticize people when you have no idea what it's like to be poor. Also, with insurance subsidy, you do it by income, not by personal declaration. If someone makes X they get full subsidy. If someone makes Y they get none. In between they get partial. This is not hard. It's also easy to force people to have insurance. It's done with cars all of the time.

 

[Pharmavixen]

Hey, Somalia has the world's only pure free market economy.

Remember Spy Magazine?

[paraphrasing from memory:]

In a totally free society without government, of the sort that he espouses, such as the old west, Rush Limbaugh would be the fat boy who dances while you shoot at his feet.

 

[IrishHammer]

Rather than arguing with all the people who believe in small government, I'd like to take all of them and send them to live in a place that has no effective government; say, Somalia, and see how they fare in a country that has no infrastructure.

Personally, I don't really care about government size so much as I care about government efficiency. Government size has no real bearing on how well the government works. It comes down to how well the people in government can do their jobs. To that end, I don't find Somalia to have an efficient government either.

The fact that the US government continues to grow and has an MO of "Throw money at the problem until it goes away" isn't working. Then again, in my case, the entire situation is amplified by the fact that I live in Western New York, and we've been getting our balls squeezed hard for a long time now since we're in the same state as New York City. So I'm getting ****ed by both an incompetent state government and an incompetent federal government. (Bush's administration sucked major ass too, just to kill off the kneejerk response).

Universal Healthcare in this country, at this current point in time, will be a disaster because the people in Washington are rushing to find a quick fix without addressing all the problems. For all the imperfections in Canada's system, it is light years ahead of what the states could ever hope of piecing together.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

To that end, I don't find Somalia to have an efficient government either.

Well, being as though they pretty much haven't had a government since the early 90s, I don't suspect you do.

 

[tbone444]

Do you understand anything I said. It doesn't have to be one or the other. You need both. What would you do with the number of people who are invested in the stock market who lose everything or mostly everything. Where would you put them? On the street? What would you do with the 13 year old who has nothing? Put him on the street?

Who decides if you need both? You may need both, but I may want to invest in 401(k) and a roth (IRA). We should be able to decide for ourselves in what we need. Why would I want to invest in SS for 30 or 40 years and get less in return? Just because you invest in the stock market doesn't mean you could lose everything. There are low, mid and high risk investments. It all depends on what you want or need, that's the American way.

First of all the staff and lawyers have read it. That's their job. The individual legislator needs to understand the law and it's resultant effects. This is a straw man argument you are making. I agree the law as presently constituted would not be what I want and I personally oppose it. It's up to the opposition to come up with a reasonable alternative.

No, it's not up to the opposition to come up with an alternative, no more than it's up to those who are pushing it. Like I stated in the previous post, The federal government has no right to provide health care. That power is reserved for the states, check out the 10th amendment of the constitution.


Your response clearly shows you do not understand. People have been drinking soda and eating crap forever. Why are we getting fat now? Maybe the food is different. Maybe our food is so processed and we are too far away from our food. Maybe things are way moire complicated than you think they are.

Yes, it is complicated, but that's still no excuse.











In a free society, people are free to make choices. It's not up to you to criticize other peoples choices. Maybe they gave up other things and saved enough to buy a nice car. Do you know their personal circumstances? Anytime you want to trade places some of these people and live their lives, give it a shot. It's easy to criticize people when you have no idea what it's like to be poor. Also, with insurance subsidy, you do it by income, not by personal declaration. If someone makes X they get full subsidy. If someone makes Y they get none. In between they get partial. This is not hard. It's also easy to force people to have insurance. It's done with cars all of the time.

Yes, it is a free society and people are free to make choices, but with that comes responsibility. So, if someone saves up for a nice car and don't have money left to buy health care, why should I be responsible for their their irresponsible spending? You're really getting off topic by bringing up that I do not know what it's like to be poor. That argument is not relevant to this discussion. If poor people really don't have the means for health insurance, then what the heck is medicaid for?

 

[rphello]

[/I]Yes, it is a free society and people are free to make choices, but with that comes responsibility. So, if someone saves up for a nice car and don't have money left to buy health care, why should I be responsible for their their irresponsible spending?

Your argument for personal responsibility is like trying to halt a tsunami with your bare hands. This is not a Utopia. We are all responsible for the irresponsibility of others, and we are happy to do so because that means we still live in a free society.

The air up on that giant pedestal is incredibly thin. Step down and breathe the thicker air with the rest of us. I'm glad I took my own advice, because I'm much happier now.

 

[tbone444]

Your argument for personal responsibility is like trying to halt a tsunami with your bare hands. This is not a Utopia. We are all responsible for the irresponsibility of others, and we are happy to do so because that means we still live in a free society

.

You clearly have no idea of what you're talking about. So if someone contacts a STD and I'm responsible for their treatment, how is that freedom? I realize that this is the case most of the time, but don't act like we're happy being responsible for other people's carelessness.

 

[type b pharmD]

Your argument for personal responsibility is like trying to halt a tsunami with your bare hands. This is not a Utopia. We are all responsible for the irresponsibility of others, and we are happy to do so because that means we still live in a free society.

The air up on that giant pedestal is incredibly thin. Step down and breathe the thicker air with the rest of us. I'm glad I took my own advice, because I'm much happier now.

what advice are you referring to? i'm unclear.

also, yes. this is the real world. there are always people who are going to **** up, one way or another, in addition to people who may be successfully "earning" their lot in life. by saying that people who act irresponsibly with their money, talent, or employment, in addition to people who simply got dealt a bad hand in life, dont deserve to live the same length of lifetime, or the same quality of life as people with healthcare. People who view healthcare as a privilege and who advocate having HSAs or keeping the current model (which given costs will inevitably cut out more and more of the population) should perhaps consider the viewpoint that they are basically deciding that a certain percentage of the population are less deserving of living a good life than others.

 

[rphello]

You clearly have no idea of what you're talking about. So if someone contacts a STD and I'm responsible for their treatment, how is that freedom? I realize that this is the case most of the time, but don't act like we're happy being responsible for other people's carelessness.

You don't live in a vacuum, so everything that occurs around you affects you. We choose to allow people the freedom to screw up, and then we choose to deal with the consequences. These are the consequences of a free society. The alternative is a society controlled by the government, or some other ruling class which dictates behavior.

Most people are happy being responsible for other's carelessness, because they aren't on the internet whining about it. Old Timer has attempted to talk sense into you for pages now. It hasn't worked, so I'll stop now. Have a good one.

 

[rphello]

what advice are you referring to? i'm unclear.

...that they are basically deciding that a certain percentage of the population are less deserving of living a good life than others.

That's the advice I was referring to. Thanks for stating it so well.

 

[tbone444]

You don't live in a vacuum, so everything that occurs around you affects you. We choose to allow people the freedom to screw up, and then we choose to deal with the consequences. These are the consequences of a free society. The alternative is a society controlled by the government, or some other ruling class which dictates behavior.

Most people are happy being responsible for other's carelessness, because they aren't on the internet whining about it. Old Timer has attempted to talk sense into you for pages now. It hasn't worked, so I'll stop now. Have a good one.

Typical liberal response. Attack the person rather than the issues.

 

[Maxpwer222]

We should have listened to George Washington.

 

[Kirbypuff]

We should have a poll. I'm getting curious about how many SDNers are Democrats, Republicans, or Others. Although, I'm not actually curious enough to go make a poll.

 

[Garfield3d]

[/I]

Typical liberal response. Attack the person rather than the issues.

If you think that was an ad hominem attack, I would have liked to have seen you in action on the "When to get pregnant?" thread. In any case, the stereotyping in your response above is... not going to do any favors for you or your understanding of things around you.

--Garfield3d

 

[Maxpwer222]

Most people are happy being responsible for other's carelessness.

I really doubt this. I do not want to be penalized because some idiot cannot get his **** together. I do not mind helping people that have a legit needs, but more times than not it is abused.

I agree with WVU, this country will never get its **** together as long as the two-party system is in place. There is too much corruption at the top for anything worthwhile to be done.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

[/I]

Typical liberal response. Attack the person rather than the issues.

So do you consider yourself a conservative? Because if you do, you're a ****ing *****. Not that being "liberal" is any better. But any person whose entire sociopolitical philosophy can be described by a single word...well...that show exactly how complex said philosophy is...

Personally, I find it offensive to label a person like that. And because I'm an offensive person, I label people "conservative" or "liberal" all the time. And that's meant as an insult to illustrate how predictable, ******ed, and annoying they are. But people are typically too damn stupid to realize it...which you'd think I'd anticipate given that I think they are so damned stupid...but, I digress...

 

[MountainPharmD]

We should have listened to George Washington.

What did George Washinton say that we should have listened to?

 

[goodjuju]

Check this out. This may help to dispel some of the apparent confusion concerning the REPUBLIC which was established by the founding Fathers.

The American Form of Government

 

[Pharmavixen]

Check this out. This may help to dispel some of the apparent confusion concerning the REPUBLIC which was established by the founding Fathers.

The American Form of Government

Bit of an oversimplification of hx.

I wasn't able to hear the last minute - is there something related to health care in there?

 

[Maxpwer222]

What did George Washinton say that we should have listened to?

He felt political parties would be the downfall of the US. I know it is lame to just link a Wiki article, but I just woke up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington's_Farewell_Address

20-25

 

[rphello]

I really doubt this. I do not want to be penalized because some idiot cannot get his **** together.

"Happy" isn't the most appropriate word, but I meant we must accept the bad to enjoy the good.

I agree with WVU, this country will never get its **** together as long as the two-party system is in place. There is too much corruption at the top for anything worthwhile to be done.

Now that's something I can agree with completely.

 

[rphello]

So do you consider yourself a conservative? Because if you do, you're a ****ing *****. Not that being "liberal" is any better. But any person whose entire sociopolitical philosophy can be described by a single word...well...that show exactly how complex said philosophy is...

Personally, I find it offensive to label a person like that. And because I'm an offensive person, I label people "conservative" or "liberal" all the time. And that's meant as an insult to illustrate how predictable, ******ed, and annoying they are. But people are typically too damn stupid to realize it...which you'd think I'd anticipate given that I think they are so damned stupid...but, I digress...

Yeah, that was cold blooded. Much worse than anything I said. If I ever find myself perfectly aligned with any political party or school of thought, I'll schedule a lobotomy.

 

[tbone444]

So do you consider yourself a conservative? Because if you do, you're a ****ing *****. Not that being "liberal" is any better. But any person whose entire sociopolitical philosophy can be described by a single word...well...that show exactly how complex said philosophy is...

Personally, I find it offensive to label a person like that. And because I'm an offensive person, I label people "conservative" or "liberal" all the time. And that's meant as an insult to illustrate how predictable, ******ed, and annoying they are. But people are typically too damn stupid to realize it...which you'd think I'd anticipate given that I think they are so damned stupid...but, I digress...

Don't know what that rant is about, but thanks for trying.

 

[tbone444]

Yeah, that was cold blooded. Much worse than anything I said. If I ever find myself perfectly aligned with any political party or school of thought, I'll schedule a lobotomy.

Your appointment is Thursday at 10 AM, have a good one drone.

 

[goodjuju]

Bit of an oversimplification of hx.

I wasn't able to hear the last minute - is there something related to health care in there?

Not an oversimplification. Acoms razor. The reality of the health care dispute is that it has nothing to do with health care. If it did then it would make sense, it would work, and all the money being spent to research it would bring something useful to the table. It has not because it was not intended to. The health care debate is a smokescreen issue. The political powers that be are using this issue to move forward one of the largest power grabs in the history of our country. The video, explains quite well (easily understood), the differences between the government the founding fathers established and the one wich we have allowed to replace it.

Bottom line - Obama and his ilk care nothing for this nations health care except for inasmuch as it can promote their own political ideals.

 

[Pharmavixen]

Not an oversimplification. Acoms razor. The reality of the health care dispute is that it has nothing to do with health care. If it did then it would make sense, it would work, and all the money being spent to research it would bring something useful to the table. It has not because it was not intended to. The health care debate is a smokescreen issue. The political powers that be are using this issue to move forward one of the largest power grabs in the history of our country. The video, explains quite well (easily understood), the differences between the government the founding fathers established and the one wich we have allowed to replace it.

Bottom line - Obama and his ilk care nothing for this nations health care except for inasmuch as it can promote their own political ideals.

Most people here would probably agree that politicians of all stripes will never overlook opportunities for self-promotion.

The intent of your founding fathers aside, the experience of many other countries shows that single-payer health care (which Obamacare isn't), does not negatively impact on a country, and makes good economic sense. Not to get into a whole long thing (I'm procrastinating again; should be studying non-STE ACS), but just a couple of brief points: by providing all citizens (personally, I prefer to be called a "citizen" rather than a "taxpayer"), with health care, people can get problems taken care of before they become emergent (ie, more expensive). Another point: in the midst of this recession, it's an incentive to companies to hire people if they don't have to pay for health insurance - one of the reasons why southern Ontario (where I live) has so many American car factories.

The best health care system would be based on reality rather than ideology. Instead of looking to the Founding Fathers for direction, you ought to look to other countries and see what's worked and hasn't worked.

Surely modern-day realities are more pertinent than those of a bunch of 18th century slave-owners.

 

[Passion4Sci]

...you ought to look to other countries and see what's worked and hasn't worked.
.

I agree with this to a point. The big issue then becomes finding a country of equal size and history, culture, and heterogeneity that we enjoy in America.

What works for Sweden and their whopping 9 million people will likely not work in America with our 300 million+ people. It's a matter of scale... Even Canada has only 33 million people... Still orders of magnitude less than we've got in America. Not to mention the heterogeneity of America trumps that of Canada by far.

 

[type b pharmD]

Bottom line - Obama and his ilk care nothing for this nations health care except for inasmuch as it can promote their own political ideals.

So you're saying politicians are in power for the purposes of advancing their agendas?? Wow!

Obama and the democrats are no different from the republicans.

 

[fenderbiz]

an interesting watch for anyone interested in health care:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI
Wendell Potter (ex-CIGNA exec.) on Bill Moyers PBS

 

[WVUPharm2007]

an interesting watch for anyone interested in health care:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI
Wendell Potter (ex-CIGNA exec.) on Bill Moyers PBS

Haha...rich people going to Appalachia. It never ceases to amuse me. "It was like going to another country."

That was a pretty decent video. The Republicans are pretty damned ******ed. I don't mean in a right or wrong sense, I mean in the sense of framing a strong opinion for debate. I wish I was in congress, I'd absolutely demolish all of them in an argument. Each and every one of them uses arguments with holes in logic the size of Alaska.

 

[goodjuju]

I did not use the D or the R word because they have become irrelevant. "Ilk" applies across the spectrum thank you.

Most people here would probably agree that politicians of all stripes will never overlook opportunities for self-promotion.

The intent of your founding fathers aside, the experience of many other countries shows that single-payer health care (which Obamacare isn't), does not negatively impact on a country, and makes good economic sense...

The best health care system would be based on reality rather than ideology. Instead of looking to the Founding Fathers for direction, you ought to look to other countries and see what's worked and hasn't worked.

Surely modern-day realities are more pertinent than those of a bunch of 18th century slave-owners.

Surely you have more class than to complicate this with a distasteful accusation that because early Americans owned slaves then clearly every benefit of our society is flawed.

The government the founders gave us was one based on the rule of law not the rule of lawmakers. Our system is one that should allow the sovereign citizen to govern themselves within the bounds set by the law. When the law begins to reflect the moods and ambitions of a rising generation rather than the founding documents then the law becomes irrelevant. All of this due to activist liberals and puritan conservatives who have taken this mess from one extreme to the other.The problems we are facing now is that of lawmakers seeking to make a legacy for themselves.

In this country the only right we have to health care is the right to obtain and maintain it. Even that right is under attack because we will be required to receive what the government decides we need and our ability to obtain what we desire will be hindered. There is no such thing as entitlement within the founding documents of this country. You work for what you can get and you make do without that which you cannot provide for yourself. Any disparity of health care that occurs should be handled at the local level by community, religious, or private organizations. These actions are motivated by the good nature of the citizens to improve their community. Each community competing with the other to promote themselves in an effort to attract growth. i.e. I like that place I will move and take my business there vs. I don't like this place I will fix it or move on. That is the concept behind states.

It is not the Federal government's responsibility or right to even attempt to manage health care.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Tenth Amendment

Unfortunately the rule of law is not in effect.

 

[cjhrph]

The intent of your founding fathers aside, the experience of many other countries shows that single-payer health care (which Obamacare isn't), does not negatively impact on a country, and makes good economic sense.

I see very little difference between Obamacare and the Canadien mess. Under Obamacare, the US government will work through private insurance companies and the government sponsored plans to deliver the product. The differences end there. In the end, just like in Canada, the government has the ultimate control and will decide what those those insurance plans will and will not cover. Eventually, more and more americans will be forced on the government plan. It will take time, but it's going to happen.

 

[Pharmavixen]

I agree with this to a point. The big issue then becomes finding a country of equal size and history, culture, and heterogeneity that we enjoy in America.

What works for Sweden and their whopping 9 million people will likely not work in America with our 300 million+ people. It's a matter of scale... Even Canada has only 33 million people...

The pop of western Europe is ~ 250,000. Might do what we do and not have one system, but a system that is administered by each state.

Not to mention the heterogeneity of America trumps that of Canada by far.

Um....have you ever been to Canada?

Surely you have more class than to complicate this with a distasteful accusation that because early Americans owned slaves then clearly every benefit of our society is flawed.

Well, we got rid of slavery about a hundred years before you did. Based on that precedent, you should get single-payer health care by about 2170.

It is not the Federal government's responsibility or right to even attempt to manage health care.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Tenth Amendment

I agree that the federal government should not manage health care. The state governments should do it.

 

[Pharmavixen]

I see very little difference between Obamacare and the Canadien mess.

You understand that you are being systematically lied to, and my country systematically slandered, by ad campaigns funded by insurance companies, and there is no "Canadian mess," right?

 

[Old Timer]

I did not use the D or the R word because they have become irrelevant. "Ilk" applies across the spectrum thank you.



Surely you have more class than to complicate this with a distasteful accusation that because early Americans owned slaves then clearly every benefit of our society is flawed.

The government the founders gave us was one based on the rule of law not the rule of lawmakers. Our system is one that should allow the sovereign citizen to govern themselves within the bounds set by the law. When the law begins to reflect the moods and ambitions of a rising generation rather than the founding documents then the law becomes irrelevant. All of this due to activist liberals and puritan conservatives who have taken this mess from one extreme to the other.The problems we are facing now is that of lawmakers seeking to make a legacy for themselves.

In this country the only right we have to health care is the right to obtain and maintain it. Even that right is under attack because we will be required to receive what the government decides we need and our ability to obtain what we desire will be hindered. There is no such thing as entitlement within the founding documents of this country. You work for what you can get and you make do without that which you cannot provide for yourself. Any disparity of health care that occurs should be handled at the local level by community, religious, or private organizations. These actions are motivated by the good nature of the citizens to improve their community. Each community competing with the other to promote themselves in an effort to attract growth. i.e. I like that place I will move and take my business there vs. I don't like this place I will fix it or move on. That is the concept behind states.

It is not the Federal government's responsibility or right to even attempt to manage health care.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Tenth Amendment

Unfortunately the rule of law is not in effect.

Unfortunately, you are nuts. The founding fathers also valued a negro as 3/5 a person. So while I have read all of the founding documents and then some including some Paine and the Federalist papers, I don't allow the founders a veto. A vote maybe, but not a veto.

Secondly, we voted for the nitwits. Vote for people that support your views. Otherwise move somewhere else where it's better. Are you actually saying Medicare is unconstitutional?

 

[Passion4Sci]

The pop of western Europe is ~ 250,000. Might do what we do and not have one system, but a system that is administered by each state.

Yeah, 250,000 compares really well to 300,000,000. Individual states might stack up better I guess... But like, how many people do you think live in L.A.?

Um....have you ever been to Canada?

Umm.... yes.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

In the end, just like in Canada, the government has the ultimate control and will decide what those those insurance plans will and will not cover.

WTF is the difference between that and what we have in the US now where capitalists are the ones that have ultimate control and decide what insurances will and will not cover? This is one of the biggest flaw in the conservative (and remember, that's an insult) logic out there today. It's total and utter bull****.

 

[Passion4Sci]

WTF is the difference between that and what we have in the US now where capitalists are the ones that have ultimate control and decide what insurances will and will not cover? This is one of the biggest flaw in the conservative (and remember, that's an insult) logic out there today. It's total and utter bull****.

Both sides suck, you're right. I don't think gov't issued health insurance (note: not universal healthcare) would necessarily be ANY better than the greedy capitalist controllers now.

I've been on the receiving end of gov't sponsored insurance - The Army. CHAMPUS and all that crap is so terrible... If you don't have a sucking chest wound, it's back to work for you. Drink water, get over it. You don't have a torn ACL, you're just sore from humping that ruck 10KM with a full combat load and your buddy's gear because she went down.

I don't even pretend to know what the hell would be better or how anything in a nation our size could ever be efficient and, somehow, not laced with greed and corruption. It seems... so un-American.

 

[goodjuju]

What was it, the 1860's that Canada actually became a nation and yet you are still beholden to her majesty? Don't talk to me about issues that you can't even take credit for. Besides, if the USA had not been here her majesty would have never thought twice about ALLOWING Canada to have their own "nation". God Bless Canada. I have to admit I am not an authority on Canadian history, hey, I am not a Canook. Regardless, Canadian policies are not American policies so I could care less what Canada does, until Canadians become a burden on American health care due to their lack of ability to provide lifesaving procedures.

As far as slavery is concerned, it was, at the time, a social and economical norm. Furthermore, although a shameful practice, it has proven that when the system operates appropriately the founding document has the ability to adjust and survive. Notice that slavery no longer persists in this great nation yet the nation survives. The amendment process is the only way in which such changes are to be affected.

Unfortunately, you are nuts. The founding fathers also valued a negro as 3/5 a person. So while I have read all of the founding documents and then some including some Paine and the Federalist papers, I don't allow the founders a veto. A vote maybe, but not a veto.

Secondly, we voted for the nitwits. Vote for people that support your views. Otherwise move somewhere else where it's better. Are you actually saying Medicare is unconstitutional?

Since name calling is the order of the day I would suggest you support your claims of my being nuts.

I am glad that you can read. Unfortunately you are unable to learn. If the founders as a whole had no concern for the welfare of the black man then there would have been no value. Some valued them as men and others valued them as property. Some wanted them to be considered for a vote because it benefited them and others wanted to refuse them their vote because they were not considered full citizens. 3/5 shows that there was a process, a consideration, a compromise. Had that compromise not been made the nation would not have been created. The congress would have been disbanded and we would be Brits still today. Apart from this being entirely off topic I wish you would explain first why you think it is relevant to keep bringing slavery into this and secondly how the fact that slavery ever existed discredits the Constitution for the USA.

Finally, I vote for nitwits that most closely associate themselves with my views and have an understanding of the law. Medicaid is an entitlement and therefore unconstitutional!

Next.