I'm just throwing this out there...
What would your collective opinions be (on both sides) of a "best of both worlds" approach?
I believe that corporations are far less trustworthy than the government. A for-profit company immediately has goals in conflict with the mission: making a profit vs. providing the best possible care.And in a corporation, have no doubt about which of those priorities will win out.
It is the same way I feel about our government relying increasingly on mercenaries rather than US soldiers. Mercenaries like Blackwater stand to profit from extending a conflict and are beholden to their employers, not to uphold our constitution. In general, I believe the members of our military would rather get the job done and come home.
|
Our public schools are a disaster,
False. City school districts are chronically underfunded. Suburban and rural school districts still do very well when their funding is not being slashed.
the post office is broke,
False and irrelevant; Nixon privatized the postal system. Congress only gets to name branches now.
and social security is in serious trouble.
Also false. SS still takes in more money than it disburses.
Where are you getting your so-called "facts", Rush Limbaugh? Fox Noise?
Mark, may I direct you to what James Madison had to say about the "general welfare clause?"
What Mr. Madison had to say is perfectly valid and completely applicable. Though I would point out two things.
First, in the day of the development of the constitution, it never would have crossed their minds to include healthcare as a right; the miracles of modern medicine and the tremendous expenses that go with them couldn't have been imagined at the time.
Second, the price of liberty is vigilance. History has numerous examples where the well meaning have rolled into tyranny. That's why so many on the left decried the so-called Patriot Act and so many of the left are pushing against government stepping further into an industry currently dominated by the free market. Both sides see these efforts as erroding the foundation of our country. Both may be right or wrong, but people fighting on both sides for and against are a mechanism against that tyranny.
I don't want to see hundreds of thousands of Americans dying in the streets when basic healthcare could prevent it any more than I want to see hundreds of thousands of Americans dying int he streets from a foreign invasion. I know others would say that the two aren't comparable, and I would agree; at this time in history, a foreign invasion is the far less likely of the two.
Our public schools are a disaster,False. City school districts are chronically underfunded. Suburban and rural school districts still do very well when their funding is not being slashed.
the post office is broke,False and irrelevant; Nixon privatized the postal system. Congress only gets to name branches now.
and social security is in serious trouble.Also false. SS still takes in more money than it disburses.
Where are you getting your so-called "facts", Rush Limbaugh? Fox Noise?
Aren't you the guy who thought that the Texas Republicans were revising history in the school books? How about you take off your tinfoil hat and rewrite what you just wrote in a more polite fashion and I'll answer your questions.
|
Mark, may I direct you to what James Madison had to say about the "general welfare clause?"What Mr. Madison had to say is perfectly valid and completely applicable. Though I would point out two things.
First, in the day of the development of the constitution, it never would have crossed their minds to include healthcare as a right; the miracles of modern medicine and the tremendous expenses that go with them couldn't have been imagined at the time.
Second, the price of liberty is vigilance. History has numerous examples where the well meaning have rolled into tyranny. That's why so many on the left decried the so-called Patriot Act and so many of the left are pushing against government stepping further into an industry currently dominated by the free market. Both sides see these efforts as erroding the foundation of our country. Both may be right or wrong, but people fighting on both sides for and against are a mechanism against that tyranny.
I don't want to see hundreds of thousands of Americans dying in the streets when basic healthcare could prevent it any more than I want to see hundreds of thousands of Americans dying int he streets from a foreign invasion. I know others would say that the two aren't comparable, and I would agree; at this time in history, a foreign invasion is the far less likely of the two.
I appreciate what you are saying, however, I have not seen people dying in the streets as a result of a lack of access to health care. Ihave seen them dying in the street because of lack of access to basic shelter, jobs, or psychiatric care, but by law everyone already gets treatment regardless of thir ability to pay if they go to the emergency room.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I can see how my statement could have been worded more clearly, and I apologize for that. I do believe that in many cases insurance companies interfere with health care decisions and as an industry strive to increase their control over the field. As an example of that, I'd cite the Bush administration trying to move private health insurance providers for Medicare recipients. That is by no means a comprehensive abolishment of public influence in health care. But I would cite it as an step in that direction much as others say Obama's public option would have been a step toward abolishing private health care.
As far as mandating how someone uses their skills, our current public healthcare programs don't necessarily work that way. In the case of the VA and military, it does except in some rural situations. However, doctors can accept or refuse Medicare patients. Those serving Medicare patients still own their own practice or are employed by a private or non-profit hospital.
No problem. It's why I try (note try I don't always succeed) to keep a rational tone in my thoughts, because we can misread each other.
Doctors can refuse medicare patients, for now. But the number of doctors go down every year, due in large part to Medicare payments being below the cost of doing the procedure. With a solo payer, or even the illusion of multiple payors of a fixed government rate, that will skyrocket.
aside:
Even with insurance companies not covering services/denying claims (sometimes by general provisions, sometimes by plan specific exclusions) it doesn't prevent the member to spend their own capital to pay for the service. I understand there are situations where someone can't pay for it themselves, and yes, it does suck when that happens for essential services. At the same time, some people are upset when a plan doesn't cover non-life threating abortion (because the employer was a pro-adoption advocate and paid extra to have the policy read that way) or when it doesn't cover replacing the AC in their car, because the doctor wrote an Rx for it (true story).
As to Medicare Advantage plans... *puts teacher's hat on* For the private companies adminsitering it, they're required by law to process the claims faster than Original Medicare, which the doctor's enjoy. Most plans offer benefits above and beyond Original Medicare, and are (usually) more efficient.
For Private Fee For Service plans, they actually have the ultimate market choice for the providers of service. They can choose to see the Medicare recpient or not, and can see patient A but not see patient B. When I worked customer service, I got more than a few providers that were rock set against it to accept it by "You're not under any obligation to see all the members. You can try it once, and if we don't meet your expectiations, you don't need to take it again."
For Medicare Advantage PPO plans (at least the ones I know) if the member sees a provider who participates with the insurance company, they get paid the (usually higher) rate for being a par provider. But if they see a non-par provider, then that non-par provider gets paid the Medicare rate.
Is private insurance perfect? Oh hells no, but we are better than the Government at providing services
In both cases, the private insurance companies adminster better than the government.
Now from a cost/benefit analysis POV, I'd be curious to see how much the money paid in medicare taxes in the person's working life (plus medicare premiums) vs. the amount in premiums would be for the same person having private or small group insurance from 65-death.
Disclaimer (again):
|
|
If I might point out something regarding the health care debate. NPR did a study several monthes ago and found that of the uninsured in this country 88% fell into two groups. One was illegal immagrants and the other was individuals who would be already covered by other government programs if they knew how to access them. The remaining 12% were primarly people who were uninsured because they felt that they had better things to spend money on then health care insurance, and would likely pay out of pocket if they needed a medical procedure.
This leads me to believe that there is a need to change the focus of the efforts to reform the sysem. I think we can all agree that people who are ill or have pre-existing conditions should have the ability to purchase insurance, even if it is at a higher rate. We also need a bigger push to educate people about the options like Medicare, Medicade, and SCHIP that already exist and cover those who qualify that way. Once we get to that point then we can see where we are and take the next step after that.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm just throwing this out there...
What would your collective opinions be (on both sides) of a "best of both worlds" approach?
I believe that corporations are far less trustworthy than the government. A for-profit company immediately has goals in conflict with the mission: making a profit vs. providing the best possible care.And in a corporation, have no doubt about which of those priorities will win out.
It is the same way I feel about our government relying increasingly on mercenaries rather than US soldiers. Mercenaries like Blackwater stand to profit from extending a conflict and are beholden to their employers, not to uphold our constitution. In general, I believe the members of our military would rather get the job done and come home.
Interesting... Ron Paul, who is normally far far to the right, was the one arguing that we should use the Government's Letters of Marquis power to essentially outsourse hunting down Al Q. I disagreed with him, but I do find it, interesting, that his far out position is opposed to yours.
I'd also point out your concerns on quality vs profits are where I do feel are where the courts should intervene. If (say, Merrek) released a drug that, 10 years later, was found to have a funky interaction with a previously unknown aspect of neurochemestry, the company shouldn't be held liable. If the company knew that it would frak with biochemestry on some people, and concealed/hid/denied the effect, then yes, sue the crap out of them. But to win, I think intent should be a larger factor. (for those old enough, think of the Ford Pinto debacle vs the Firestone tires bit).
If I might point out something regarding the health care debate. NPR did a study several monthes ago and found that of the uninsured in this country 88% fell into two groups. One was illegal immagrants and the other was individuals who would be already covered by other government programs if they knew how to access them. The remaining 12% were primarly people who were uninsured because they felt that they had better things to spend money on then health care insurance, and would likely pay out of pocket if they needed a medical procedure.
This leads me to believe that there is a need to change the focus of the efforts to reform the sysem. I think we can all agree that people who are ill or have pre-existing conditions should have the ability to purchase insurance, even if it is at a higher rate. We also need a bigger push to educate people about the options like Medicare, Medicade, and SCHIP that already exist and cover those who qualify that way. Once we get to that point then we can see where we are and take the next step after that.
I like where your train of thought leads, but I would suggest that the very first step that should be taken in the process would be the amendment or outright repealing of the McCarran–Ferguson Act, and then see where things stand after the inevitable price war that will ensue.
Unfortunately people who stand to profit greatly under the McCarran–Ferguson Act as it is have a great deal of money that goes towards lining the campaign funds and private accounts of many Democrats and Republicans, which is largely why you never really hear any member of Congress suggest this route as a fix when they're stomping their feet and shouting on camera about reforms.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Mark, may I direct you to what James Madison had to say about the "general welfare clause?"What Mr. Madison had to say is perfectly valid and completely applicable. Though I would point out two things.
First, in the day of the development of the constitution, it never would have crossed their minds to include healthcare as a right; the miracles of modern medicine and the tremendous expenses that go with them couldn't have been imagined at the time.
Ok, this is amusing, only because my dad and I had the exact same discussion on Sunday.
I disagree with your premise, and the current resolution. They did have medicine in 1789. It may have been primitive, barbaric and in general suck compared to modern technology. I think to assume the founders would not have thought a 'right' to healthcare because they didn't have HMOs is a bit off.
Second, as to 'discovery' of rights in the Constitution. We always had a method of 'discovering' rights in the Constitution. It wasn't a matter of living vs original, or even interpreting the founders intent. It was/is the ammendment process. Someone wants a federal guarentee to Healthcare, hold a convention and ammend the thing. Don't twist the Commerse clause, or the due process clause to make up something. Again, this isn't a Liberal vs. Conservative issue with me, look at where I am on the Chicago gun case.
Second, the price of liberty is vigilance. History has numerous examples where the well meaning have rolled into tyranny. That's why so many on the left decried the so-called Patriot Act and so many of the left are pushing against government stepping further into an industry currently dominated by the free market. Both sides see these efforts as erroding the foundation of our country. Both may be right or wrong, but people fighting on both sides for and against are a mechanism against that tyranny.
I was/am for the patriot act, but only with the sunset provisions. I do see us as being at war, and security provisions often do come into place in such a situation. But they must not be permanent. We've not always been at war with Oceana, nor shall we be.
Now, if the NHS started mandating that people should eat less fatty foods, smoke less and the like, I'd protest that, as I do have the right to stick whatever I want in my body. The NHS doesn't do that though. It certainly advertises and encourages people to exercise, to quit smoking and reduce alcohol intake, all of which are good things to encourage. I think that'd be the same over in the US. Heck, you don't have Seatbelt Laws in all your states yet, right?
Interesting, your government, like ours already regulates what you do with your body in terms of recreational drugs and what drugs and treatments are approved by the state. How different is that from regulating diet and exercise? If you make life style choices that push your weight up to 500 lbs and smoke you are imposing a burden on your fellow subjects are you not? Some would argue the the state has a vested interest, even a responsibility, to regulate such things for the greater good. Aren't you trying to have it both ways? You want the state to provide your health care, but you don't want them to have a say in how you manage your own health? Is that just? Where should the line be drawn?
If you need a life saving treatment that isn't approved or provided by NHS what are your options?
Interesting... Ron Paul, who is normally far far to the right... I disagreed with him, but I do find it, interesting, that his far out position is opposed to yours.
I'd also point out your concerns on quality vs profits are where I do feel are where the courts should intervene. If (say, Merrek) released a drug that, 10 years later, was found to have a funky interaction with a previously unknown aspect of neurochemestry, the company shouldn't be held liable. If the company knew that it would frak with biochemestry on some people, and concealed/hid/denied the effect, then yes, sue the crap out of them. But to win, I think intent should be a larger factor. (for those old enough, think of the Ford Pinto debacle vs the Firestone tires bit).
I disagree vehemently with Ron Paul on many things, and don't find it so out of line that we disagree on this as well.
Courts can be useful and I'm sure they have in some cases. I still believe, however, that the growing influence of corporations in general, and insurance companies in particular, mitigates that value. I also see it as treating a symptom, not the disease in this case.
I'm sorry that I've done a lot to contribute to the wandering of this particular thread. Regarding the original topic, Senator Bunning's stand on unemployment benefits... I can't see anything in his stance that is not grandstanding, hypocritical and spiteful to the lower and middle classes of America, including his own constituents. Where was this grandstanding when Bush was pushing through hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans without paying for it? Or the Iraq war spending extensions that also weren't paid for? This is the worst kind of politics from the worst kind of politician.
Former Congressman Tom DeLay has stepped into this arguement.Well, we've all been schooled in what the "proper answer" to that is:
Some politicians said it, so it has to be true. Staggering intellectual achievement there. Give me a damn break.
:)
Maybe helmet laws would be more appropriate to compare.Now, if the NHS started mandating that people should eat less fatty foods, smoke less and the like, I'd protest that, as I do have the right to stick whatever I want in my body. The NHS doesn't do that though. It certainly advertises and encourages people to exercise, to quit smoking and reduce alcohol intake, all of which are good things to encourage. I think that'd be the same over in the US. Heck, you don't have Seatbelt Laws in all your states yet, right?The only state that doesn't have seat belt laws is New Hampshire.
All but 3 states have some kind of helmet according to this.
Perhaps, but my point is that there's a strong libertarian streak in the US regarding laws about what you can and cannot do with your body.
I presume we are unlikely to agree on what constitutes "a strong libertarian streak", but I'm going to have to disagree. There is an huge amount of regulation regarding everything from barber shops to tattoo and piercing shops. We also have the mega bureaucracies of the FDA, DEA and so forth. I won't even go into the absurd morass of state and local sodomy laws.
I simply have to disagree.
For those with a lot of faith in the system, this story should probably make you think twice.
Classic bureaucracy:
"Though the law has expanded the age of debts that can be recovered, it hasn't addressed the sometimes–Kafkaesque process debtors can face when challenging the validity of a claim.
Consider the predicament of Dr. Robert Steinberg, the founder of Scharffen Berger chocolates, who spent more than six years and thousands of dollars in legal fees appealing the Social Security Administration's claim that he owed it more than $28,000.
Dr. Steinberg received disability benefits in the early 1990s while undergoing chemotherapy for lymphoma, a condition that ultimately claimed his life. Dr. Steinberg returned to work sporadically at a free clinic before co–founding the chocolate company.
Year later, the Social Security Administration notified Dr. Steinberg he was overpaid in the 1990s. In May 2002, with the matter still unresolved, the agency turned the debt over to the Treasury for collection.
In Oct. 2002, administrative law judge Gary Lee found that the Social Security Administration had never established the amount of the overpayment; had dismissed an earlier appeal "for spurious reasons"; had misinformed Dr. Steinberg and mishandled his later appeals; and had lost his file. He noted that Dr. Steinberg was "without fault," and told the agency to stop its collections efforts.
Dr. Steinberg died in 2008, at 61. His lawyer, Peter Young, a former staff attorney for the Social Security Administration, has handled more than 100 overpayment cases, "very few of which were accurate," he says. "Most people can't find or afford help, and give up very quickly and end up with painful offsets on a fixed budget."
An agency spokeswoman says mistakes can happen, but "over all, the process works."
A Treasury spokesman says the new regulations require agencies seeking to recover debts more than a decade old to give debtors the right to review and copy their files, make payment arrangements, and apply for disability and hardship waivers.
But a recent dispute about a student loan shows that even with these rights, a person challenging an old debt can face hurdles similar to homeowners in foreclosure trying to modify a loan that has been resold.
In 2003, the U.S. began withholding $173 a month in Social Security benefits from Annie Brown, a paralyzed 75–year–old widow living in a nursing home to repay a defaulted $8,823 student loan the Education Department says she took out in 1989. The offset reduced Mrs. Brown's benefit to about $980 a month.
Mrs. Brown said a granddaughter had forged her signature on a loan application. Her daughter and a lawyer spent more than four years disputing the debt with the owner of the loan, United Student Aid Funds, a student–loan guarantor that also was acting as one of the Education Department's 21 debt collectors. USA Funds itself farms out various debt–collection activities to others, which it did in Mrs. Brown's case.
Between 2003 and 2008, Mrs. Brown's daughter and Lynn Drysdale, a legal–aid lawyer in Jacksonville, Fla., corresponded numerous times with USA Funds and two other debt–collection companies it hired. One letter from USA Funds warned that unless documents were received "within 30 days from the date this letter was generated...your case will be closed." The letter was undated. Another letter required Mrs. Brown to refer to an attached document. There was no attachment. "I don't know how a lay person could maneuver through this process," says Ms. Drysdale. "Nobody seemed to know what was needed."
In 2007, USA Funds denied Mrs. Brown's claim, citing a recently passed federal rule requiring people claiming identity theft on student loans to obtain a criminal court verdict of the crime. That was impossible for Mrs. Brown; a statute of limitations for bringing a case had passed years earlier. In any case, she wasn't alleging identity theft, but forgery.
Robert Murray, a spokesman for USA Funds, agrees that Mrs. Brown's signature was forged. "It's absolutely a forgery," he says, "It \[the loan\] should never have been made."
But he says that USA Funds couldn't discharge the loan as a forgery because Mrs. Brown didn't return a required form in 2005, and that USA Funds must rigorously defend claims. "There are borrowers who want to get out of a legitimate debt," he says. "By the same token, we want to work with individuals who have a legitimate issue."
Ms. Drysdale, the legal–aid lawyer, finally sought to obtain a disability waiver for her client. That process took more than a year, and was achieved only after Ms. Drysdale asked for help from the Social Security Administration's ombudsman, who declined to comment.
In August 2009, the Education Department agreed that Mrs. Brown is permanently disabled, and discharged her obligation to repay the loan she never took out. The Treasury returned her withheld benefits in December."
Hey folks. I realize this is not formatted properly for the site, but I just had to respond to some interesting comments made while I was away from the thread. This also isn’t up to date with respect to some of the comments made within the past couple of hours, so forgive me if I’m a little behind the current conversation.
----
Digmarx wrote:
I can't speak for anyone else, nor do I hold the viewpoint I'm about to describe, but to my mind the most defensible, intellectual, nonreactionary response I've heard presented (certainly not on this forum :)) is that one of the aspects of American cultural "exceptionalism" is that a person is free (in theory) to sink or swim according to his merits. Giving a so-called helping hand to the less fortunate is to deprive them of the moral victory of self-actualized "achievement".
Garydee wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
It's simple, really. The US is the bestest country in the history of the world ever, ever, ever at everything. Therefore, if evidence shows another country does something better, it is clearly a fraud.
I will admit we Americans have a bad habit of that. However, you Europeans have a bad habit of every time a healthcare debate comes up, you guys have the attitude, "try our system, it's so much better than yours". It goes both ways you know.
----
I’d say both of these comments key into something that started off as an annoying stereotype and has blossomed into something that could be a real problem: The Ugly American. I’m not talking about annoying people who take pictures of international landmarks and demand that everyone speaks English SLOWLY AND LOUDLY. I’m talking about the ugly parts of American culture that sometimes get exported. There is a domestic side as well, but I’ll get into that later.
With respect to what Digimarx wrote, well, that’s true. That’s not the ugly part, in fact, it’s something that in times past got America on the map and recognized as a national power. The ugly part is (and this is going to be an unpopular/leftist/liberal/evil [sorry to horn in on your territory, evil twin] statement) that those days are over now. Ones merits tend to take a back seat to how well they take advantage of the situation they, more often than not, are born into. I’m not talking about the class war that’s going on in this country currently (I’ll get into that later as well), but more that networking has, in a way, replaced the trades and entrepreneurship that made this country what it is currently. It’s hard for me to define right now, as I’m at work and my mind is muddled. I’m not saying that one does not necessarily need to be skilled in order to “make it big”, just that who one knows is becoming increasingly important, whereas the importance of what one knows is diminishing.
The later statement is the uglier one. Not because of the braggadocio on the part of the person(s) who cleave to the argument, but because the people who made it possible for that statement to be uttered are not the ones shouting it. Unfortunately, those people are long gone. The loud ones are the generations following, the ones who have been born into a great country without really seeing how it got from point A to point B. To them, this country has always been great, and always will be great, and other countries get things right primarily due to the Stopped Clock Principle, otherwise why would there be so many immigrants here? Furthermore, with so many of these new arrivals(legal and illegal), flooding the classes all the way from lower class to lower-middle only solidifies their point of view, leading to class warfare- the domestic side of the Ugly American stereotype.
And with respect to what Garydee wrote, yes, it does indeed go both ways. However, just as Paul can’t walk around with real physical proof of what his country has accomplished in socio political areas, nor can Garydee drop his current insurance for Paul’s to discover what its really like. It’s a catch 22.
---
Doug’s Workshop wrote:
And if you don't believe that your taxes are being taken from you at gunpoint, try not paying them. You will find out relatively quickly that government can do things that normal people cannot. A bank cannot put you in jail for being a deadbeat and not paying a loan. I couldn't imprison you if you owe me $20. But your beloved government can and does.
----
I worked at a bank for several years and have had credit issues in the past- believe me, there were times jail may have been a pleasant alternative. Banks want their money too, and they will do everything and anything to get it from you. You may not like the way the government goes about it, but they have a nine iron in their golf bag, just like the rest of us.
---
Bitter Thorn wrote:
You minarchist, you.
[And some other stuff]
I make this analogy. If your toddler shoves a peanut butter and jelly sandwich into the VCR you don't give them a hammer and ask them to fix it.
----
It’s interesting to note that when I cut and pasted your political stance onto the word document I was working with, it turned it into MONARCHIST. Which is interesting. From what you’ve said about minarchy, it seems to blend the best and worst of an almost neo-feudal philosophy into government. But that’s just from my point of view, and I have yet to research this like I’m supposed to if we’re going to have an adult conversation on it. With respect to your analogy, why would you use a hammer in that situation in the first place? I don’t mean that in a humorous way, actually- a hammer given to anyone in that situation would only lead to a broken VCR and perhaps a bashed finger.
Matthew Morris wrote:
A lot of stuff on how the federal and local governments are supposed to work.
Again, I know we disagree on many, many political topics (as much as we agree on comics), but I do thank you very much for this- it’s something that a lot of people who profess to be conservative and are truly giving the position a bad name forget.
One thing that I think many people are forgetting is the role that portability plays in this country. We can indeed move if we do not like the local laws, and that is something that I think gets lost in translation when we talk with our friends across the border to the north or the pond to the east. I think(I may need you or David to back me up here) that with respect to local laws, America is one of the most stringent countries on the planet, which may be what is causing so much strife at this particular point in time. However, just up and moving isn’t an option for everyone- an astonishing amount of people living in NY don’t own a car themselves(although they all know someone who does). Also, as much as I like to avoid sounding high handed or rude, I simply don’t buy your “I wish the banks would have just failed” statement. This isn’t you as in just you, but anyone who says it- the current class war we’re having right now is milkwater in comparison to what could have happened. I’m not saying that it would have been Mme. Guillotine meeting with the necks of the wealthy, but I think it would have been a spike in organized crime akin to what was seen around the great depression. What would you be willing to see as acceptable “hurt” when you acknowledge that this would have hurt you? What would be your worse case scenario in such a situation?
Another problem that we seem to be running into in this and other political threads is that we don’t have a little flag next to our names denoting what country we’re posting from. I think that might be a good idea and defuse a lot of arguments before they start. Not everyone here is American or from Brooklyn, poor non-real-pizza-having souls.
-----
Digitalelf wrote:
GregH wrote:
So I take it you are for the complete abolishment of Medicare?
Greg
...And the award for best quote taken totally out of context goes too...
;-p
I do have a problem with Medicare...
It is bloated far beyond what it needs to be, and many that do actually NEED it, are denied...
------
Actually, don’t take what he said too personally, Digitalelf- there was, somewhere out there I’m sure there is at least one organization that holds up Medicaid over Medicare. Many people feel that the Federal government should only be taking care of veterans and its other direct employees.
And that’s it. I hope it made some sense. If not, well…:-P
|
|
Aren't you the guy who thought that the Texas Republicans were revising history in the school books? How about you take off your tinfoil hat and rewrite what you just wrote in a more polite fashion and I'll answer your questions.
How much more polite can I be? You are entitled to your own opinions, sir, but not your own facts.
Aren't you the guy who thought that the Texas Republicans were revising history in the school books? How about you take off your tinfoil hat and rewrite what you just wrote in a more polite fashion and I'll answer your questions.How much more polite can I be? You are entitled to your own opinions, sir, but not your own facts.
So are US schools doing a good job or a poor job. I'm confused now.
Perhaps, but my point is that there's a strong libertarian streak in the US regarding laws about what you can and cannot do with your body.I presume we are unlikely to agree on what constitutes "a strong libertarian streak", but I'm going to have to disagree. There is an huge amount of regulation regarding everything from barber shops to tattoo and piercing shops. We also have the mega bureaucracies of the FDA, DEA and so forth. I won't even go into the absurd morass of state and local sodomy laws.
I simply have to disagree.
I would add:
So are US schools doing a good job or a poor job. I'm confused now.Aren't you the guy who thought that the Texas Republicans were revising history in the school books? How about you take off your tinfoil hat and rewrite what you just wrote in a more polite fashion and I'll answer your questions.How much more polite can I be? You are entitled to your own opinions, sir, but not your own facts.
|
Given that DigitalElf previously supported Veterans Care, I'm quite surprised to see that he thinks the Government has no business running healthcare. Cause they clearly do, for veterans, the elderly and all federal employees.
As I've said before, the men and women who join our armed services, do so freely and willing...
So given that, I think that it is the responsibility of the government to help take care of them, for while they indeed volunteered, it was the government that put them in harm’s way...
And again, as I've said before, I have a problem with Medicare as it is bloated far more than need be, and many, whom actually NEED it, are denied...
Aren't you the guy who thought that the Texas Republicans were revising history in the school books? How about you take off your tinfoil hat and rewrite what you just wrote in a more polite fashion and I'll answer your questions.How much more polite can I be? You are entitled to your own opinions, sir, but not your own facts.
There's a little more to it than that.
|
|
Now, if the NHS started mandating that people should eat less fatty foods, smoke less and the like, I'd protest that, as I do have the right to stick whatever I want in my body. The NHS doesn't do that though. It certainly advertises and encourages people to exercise, to quit smoking and reduce alcohol intake, all of which are good things to encourage. I think that'd be the same over in the US. Heck, you don't have Seatbelt Laws in all your states yet, right?Interesting, your government, like ours already regulates what you do with your body in terms of recreational drugs and what drugs and treatments are approved by the state. How different is that from regulating diet and exercise? If you make life style choices that push your weight up to 500 lbs and smoke you are imposing a burden on your fellow subjects are you not? Some would argue the the state has a vested interest, even a responsibility, to regulate such things for the greater good. Aren't you trying to have it both ways? You want the state to provide your health care, but you don't want them to have a say in how you manage your own health? Is that just? Where should the line be drawn?
If you need a life saving treatment that isn't approved or provided by NHS what are your options?
To answer your first set of questions, I see nothing wrong with the first thing. Sure, the state provides healthcare to all, and it would be much easier if the state could enforce what we eat, how much exercise we do and ban us from taking in dangerous substances. But that would be wrong. The state provides healthcare for all because that's what's best for the country, as a whole.
To answer your second question, you've got several options in the extremely unlikely event of that occurring. You can go private, with BUPA, or appeal the decision. The only thing that's even close to what you're saying is how NICE handles some drugs over here. They are usually things like new and experimental drugs for Alzheimers which only prolong life for a few months. If they are exceedingly expensive, which they often are, NICE might say that it's not cost effective to have them on the NHS. If that happens, then the patient can buy them privately, or appeal the decision. But a true life saving treatment? Those wouldn't be blocked, only perhaps put back due to waiting times. Heck, the NHS has paid for Stephen Hawking's life time care.
|
Aren't you the guy who thought that the Texas Republicans were revising history in the school books? How about you take off your tinfoil hat and rewrite what you just wrote in a more polite fashion and I'll answer your questions.How much more polite can I be? You are entitled to your own opinions, sir, but not your own facts.
There's a little more to it than that.
Looks like they were revising it to me. I'm surprised they didn't try to have the civil rights movement thrown out with the gay rights movement.
People tend to forget that american history isn't always that great. We slaughtered the Indians, made black people slaves (and treated them as second class citizens for a century + after that), interred the japanese, etc. How are our children to learn from history if they are being taught a cleaned up version of history? Censorship is a slippery slope that Texas should be very careful continuing down.
|
|
That to me is what being a part of country is all about. It's part of my responsibility.My question for those who think this way is always "And what part of your responsibility gives you the right to force me into thinking it is my responsibility as well?"My answer is that you're selfish. It's not as though you are working for free and the "gubmint" is providing you with the necessities and nothing else.
As of now i could greatly use the tax money that is taken out of my check every two weeks. OTOH, i have been in a worse situation and have received assistance from the gov't that, had i not had it, I would have probably lost my home.
I hope there is never a time that you are in a situation where you need government assistance, but I also hope that, if you do, it's not after 4-8 years of fiscal conservatives slashing all government assistance programs...because then you would be on the receiving end of the repercussions of not "forcing" people to help others and you would have nobody to whine to but yourself.
See my edit...and I will add that after you have forced your sense of social justice upon me, and then your morality, will being forced to adopt your religion be next?
See where I'm going with this?
Why is it that people think that social activisim and religion are inextricably tied? You can be a moral person who cares for your fellow man and not adhere to a religion. I'm an atheist...haven't been to church since my parents stopped forcing me when i was 13, but I still care about the poor and the downtrodden. I just feel that the government (and us citizens) have a responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. The government is in the best position to provide this assistance free from discrimination (faith based charities have a tendency to take care of "their own" first in my experience). Have they screwed this up in the past? yes. That doesn't mean that they can't or won't get it right.
My answer is that you're selfish. It's not as though you are working for free and the "gubmint" is providing you with the necessities and nothing else.What would be wrong with that? Are you selfish? You think you deserve more than what you absolutely need while there others that have less than you?
I never said that...i just believe we can and should help if we can. Look at Bill and Melinda Gates. They're filthy rich, yet at the same time they spend more on childhood immunizations than the US government does (I could be wrong on that...i know that they spend a ridiculous amount though).
You should be allowed to keep most of the fruits of you labor, but the government provides services to you...they maintain roads, have a military for our national defense, ensure that no one company develops a monopoly and begins charging outrageous rates, provides an education for our children, etc. Why is it such a leap to see them providing healthcare, etc?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
People tend to forget that american history isn't always that great. We slaughtered the Indians, made black people slaves (and treated them as second class citizens for a century + after that), interred the japanese, etc. How are our children to learn from history if they are being taught a cleaned up version of history? Censorship is a slippery slope that Texas should be very careful continuing down.
Problem is, history isn't chronology.
I got my sister really mad once when we were watching Dances with Wolves and they showed the tragic scene where the tribe is in the mountains in winter and freezing. I explained to her that this was the mercy of the white man. She got all upset and asked how I could call it mercy.
"We left some of them alive, so we could have tales like this."
My point was, that the world wasn't a nice peaceful place until those pesky Europeans came in and trashed it. You could ask the Moundbuilders, if they weren't all wiped out by the Hopewell, or the Hopewell if they weren't wiped out by subsequent tribes.
Chronology is just a study of facts. History is explaining those facts. History is subjective.
Chronology: We dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945.
History: We dropped those bombs to try to save lives that would be lost in an invastion. We dropped them to shock and awe the Russians. We dropped them because we could. We dropped them as a bluff (we just had the three, Trinity, Fat Man and Little Boy). All of that is history, taking the facts and trying to interpret them.
To say that it's revisionism to highlight one point or the other may not always be the truth. There are things in American history that we shouldn't be triumphantly yelling from the rooftops, such as arbrogating our treaties with the First Peoples, or the length of time it took for us to abolish slavery. At the same time, when talking about the civil rights movement, it often doesn't include the states that had embraced more 'enlightned' ways of thinking prior to the dogs, hoses, and 'we shall overcome' marches.
Heck, more people hear of the Tuskeege experiment than the Tuskeege Airmen. Is that 'revisionism' or 'deleting to show bias'?
|
|
Stuff
Please, do try and rationalize slavery with this argument...What is its "Chronology vs. History"? It was a common practice for African tribes to take their defeated enemies as slaves. Does that make it OK by way of "the indians were killing each other first" arugment? Ditto for the japanese internment...i would love to see these little gems of american history rationalized away.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I never said that...i just believe we can and should help if we can. Look at Bill and Melinda Gates. They're filthy rich, yet at the same time they spend more on childhood immunizations than the US government does (I could be wrong on that...i know that they spend a ridiculous amount though).
You should be allowed to keep most of the fruits of you labor, but the government provides services to you...they maintain roads, have a military for our national defense, ensure that no one company develops a monopoly and begins charging outrageous rates, provides an education for our children, etc. Why is it such a leap to see them providing healthcare, etc?
Um, in the US at least, because Roads and Military are clearly enumerated in the Constitution, Healthcare isn't.
I appriciate what Bill and Melinda Gates do. They do it with their own money. I don't think they should be forced to do it. If I want to blow my excess money on Paizo products and Asian porn, that's my choice. If I want to blow it on setting up a third phone line and sending the phone to a friend who is down on her luck and between jobs, that's my choice too. I don't want, or expect, to have the government provide cradle to grave care for me.
|
|
StuffPlease, do try and rationalize slavery with this argument...What is its "Chronology vs. History"? It was a common practice for African tribes to take their defeated enemies as slaves. Does that make it OK by way of "the indians were killing each other first" arugment? Ditto for the japanese internment...i would love to see these little gems of american history rationalized away.
As a history teacher, I would like to chime in here. The idea is not to rationalize or dismiss such events. In fact, in my classes we talked about them a lot. However, the idea is to give the students the perspective to understand that these are not uniquely American sins. When I started teaching I had the school throw out the textbook the previous teacher was using because it actually came out and said that slavery did not exist until the settlement of the American continent, a fact that is just not true.
One of the most important skills that a history teacher can teach is the ability to look at events through the prism of the time. I use a lot of primary sources in my class, particularly journals and letters, principally because they tell us what the people who lived at the time thought about what was happening. For example, when we study slavery, I have my students not only study the plantation system, but also the ownership of African slaves by the Cheerokee tribes and the 1500 freed blacks in this country that also owned African slaves. History is not just about dates and stats but it is about understanding why things happened the way they did.
|
|
Um, in the US at least, because Roads and Military are clearly enumerated in the Constitution, Healthcare isn't.
I appriciate what Bill and Melinda Gates do. They do it with their own money. I don't think they should be forced to do it. If I want to blow my excess money on Paizo products and Asian porn, that's my choice. If I want to blow it on setting up a third phone line and sending the phone to a friend who is down on her luck and between jobs, that's my choice too. I don't want, or expect, to have the government provide cradle to grave care for me.
I'm not advocating for cradle to grave care, but what's so wrong about the government providing a "safety net" when people are down on their luck (welfare, food stamps, medicaid)? As to healthcare, we gave capitalism it's shot, and it's abusing its power and denying coverage to its customers by finding "pre-existing condition" loopholes etc. Let the government have its chance at healthcare...I was in the military for over 8 years and received some of the best, hassle free care I have ever had. There's no reason this couldn't work in the civilian world.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
StuffPlease, do try and rationalize slavery with this argument...What is its "Chronology vs. History"? It was a common practice for African tribes to take their defeated enemies as slaves. Does that make it OK by way of "the indians were killing each other first" arugment? Ditto for the japanese internment...i would love to see these little gems of american history rationalized away.
Look, there's a point, and you missed it...
The point is Chronology is facts. Like I said, teh fact is that we dropped two bombs. The fact is that JFK was shot. The fact is the shuttle blew up.
History is more subjective. Again, it is the why the bomb was dropped, it is the who shot JFK, it is why the shuttle blew up.
I'm not trying to 'rationalize' anything. Yes, the African tribes had a long history of slavery. Yes, the Arab Penesula took more slaves. Yes Saudi Arabia didn't outlaw slavery until the 20th century. Yes slaves are still being taken in Sudan, when they aren't killed outright. How is this relevent to your point? The fact is that by saying "We're going to mention X, but not go into a 2 week explination of it" you're not denying anything.
Is it horrible to point out that several states had full sufferage prior to the 19th ammendment? Or is it 'revisionism' to leave out that fact? Is it racist to point out that there were free blacks fighting for the confederacy? Is it racist to point out that the standard of living in the black 'community' declined since the civil rights laws were passed? Is it less racist when these things come from Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams?
I didn't learn about the efforts of Pappy Boyington and rest of the Flying Tigers in my education of WW II in Highschool, was that 'revisionism'? I didn't learn about internment until much later, and then primarily through Korematsu v. United States. Is it racist that we hear about internment, paid reperations to just the Japanese when Italian and German decended citizens were also interred?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I was in the military for over 8 years and received some of the best, hassle free care I have ever had. There's no reason this couldn't work in the civilian world.
We military folks receive good health care because the government has an interest in us being fit to fight. They have to fix us to keep us ready for war. The government has no such interest in civilians, so you can be sure there's going to be a lower standard of care. For a preview of what that care might look like, take a look at the VA medical system: how the government cares for those service members who it knows are never getting back in the fight.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm not advocating for cradle to grave care, but what's so wrong about the government providing a "safety net" when people are down on their luck (welfare, food stamps, medicaid)? As to healthcare, we gave capitalism it's shot, and it's abusing its power and denying coverage to its customers by finding "pre-existing condition" loopholes etc. Let the government have its chance at healthcare...I was in the military for over 8 years and received some of the best, hassle free care I have ever had. There's no reason this couldn't work in the civilian world.
I have a safety net. Family, friends, my church etc. I am a safety net to my friends and family as well. It's a nice thought, but it's not the (US) government's place to enact one. Look at the Fannie/Freddie mess to see what happens when the Government tries to put a 'net'.
I'd also point out (again!) that I'm talking the Federal Government, not the state governments. If California wants to have that safety net, let them knock themselves out. But they shouldn't be going to the Federal Government and saying "Save us from our stupidity!"
|
|
I have a safety net. Family, friends, my church etc. I am a safety net to my friends and family as well. It's a nice thought, but it's not the (US) government's place to enact one. Look at the Fannie/Freddie mess to see what happens when the Government tries to put a 'net'.
I'd also point out (again!) that I'm talking the Federal Government, not the state governments. If California wants to have that safety net, let them knock themselves out. But they shouldn't be going to the Federal Government and saying "Save us from our stupidity!"
It's not always stupidity. Look at all the people that have been laid off... The economy fell out due to underregulation (IMO, i know this is a contested explanation) by the federal government. Shouldn't they have a responsibility to help these people out since they were, at some level, responsible for putting them in that situation? They helped the banks, but can't help the people the banks hurt?
I'd also point out (again!) that I'm talking the Federal Government, not the state governments. If California wants to have that safety net, let them knock themselves out.
For an "outsider" like me, the level of mistrust in the Federal government in the US seems quite staggering. I guess I just don't understand why that same level of mistrust doesn't exist at all levels of government.
BTW, it probably won't change anyone's attitude to anything I've said previously in this thread, but public health care in Canada is adminisitered on the provincial level, not the federal. The article I linked to earlier on was how universal health care was initially enacted in Saskatchewan not all of Canada. It does exist everywhere here, but each province is responsible for the citizen's health care.
Greg
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It's not always stupidity. Look at all the people that have been laid off... The economy fell out due to underregulation (IMO, i know this is a contested explanation) by the federal government. Shouldn't they have a responsibility to help these people out since they were, at some level, responsible for putting them in that situation? They helped the banks, but can't help the people the banks hurt?I have a safety net. Family, friends, my church etc. I am a safety net to my friends and family as well. It's a nice thought, but it's not the (US) government's place to enact one. Look at the Fannie/Freddie mess to see what happens when the Government tries to put a 'net'.
I'd also point out (again!) that I'm talking the Federal Government, not the state governments. If California wants to have that safety net, let them knock themselves out. But they shouldn't be going to the Federal Government and saying "Save us from our stupidity!"
I was referring to the stupidity of the state of California, not the guy who lost his job because the company relocated out of the state.
As to the banks, yes this goes back to my feeling of let them fail. If there's no risk, then there's no reward.
Now, if the NHS started mandating that people should eat less fatty foods, smoke less and the like, I'd protest that, as I do have the right to stick whatever I want in my body. The NHS doesn't do that though. It certainly advertises and encourages people to exercise, to quit smoking and reduce alcohol intake, all of which are good things to encourage. I think that'd be the same over in the US. Heck, you don't have Seatbelt Laws in all your states yet, right?Interesting, your government, like ours already regulates what you do with your body in terms of recreational drugs and what drugs and treatments are approved by the state. How different is that from regulating diet and exercise? If you make life style choices that push your weight up to 500 lbs and smoke you are imposing a burden on your fellow subjects are you not? Some would argue the the state has a vested interest, even a responsibility, to regulate such things for the greater good. Aren't you trying to have it both ways? You want the state to provide your health care, but you don't want them to have a say in how you manage your own health? Is that just? Where should the line be drawn?
If you need a life saving treatment that isn't approved or provided by NHS what are your options?
To answer your first set of questions, I see nothing wrong with the first thing. Sure, the state provides healthcare to all, and it would be much easier if the state could enforce what we eat, how much exercise we do and ban us from taking in dangerous substances. But that would be wrong. The state provides healthcare for all because that's what's best for the country, as a whole.
To answer your second question, you've got several options in the extremely unlikely event of that occurring. You can go private, with BUPA, or appeal the decision. The only thing that's even close to what you're saying is how NICE handles some drugs over here. They are usually things like new and experimental drugs for Alzheimers...
Thanks for the information on the second question. BTW how long do these appeals tend to take?
As for the first question your position seems cognitively dissonant. Please help me to understand how you resolve these apparent contradictions.
regarding banning/regulation of recreational drugs:
"I see nothing wrong with the first thing. "
regarding banning/regulation of recreational/unhealthy foods:
"But that would be wrong."
Help me out here please.
Also if it would save hundreds of billions would you support state regulation of food and exercise?
Aren't some European countries banning trans fats and such already like some US states?
Americans (WASP americans anyways) just seem so hard-wired to hate...ever since they landed, they've worked to subjugate those who were different from them. (I fall into this category except for the protestant part BTW before soembody freaks out on this statement) We need to be teaching our children about these horrible events to prevent them from happening again.
[Emphasis mine]
Wow, someone has a chip on their shoulder. A big chip.
Here, have a pardon.
As a mixed race American Protestant descendant of slaves, I approve this message.
:)
For an "outsider" like me, the level of mistrust in the Federal government in the US seems quite staggering. I guess I just don't understand why that same level of mistrust doesn't exist at all levels of government.
This insider thinks the paranoia is ludicrous too. Furthermore it's totally hypocritical and always has been. And the origins of the paranoia involve one of the two ugliest episodes in the history of the nation.
I removed some posts. Is it really necessary to debate who hates more than who?
If I might point out something regarding the health care debate. NPR did a study several monthes ago and found that of the uninsured in this country 88% fell into two groups. One was illegal immagrants and the other was individuals who would be already covered by other government programs if they knew how to access them. ...We also need a bigger push to educate people about the options like Medicare, Medicade, and SCHIP that already exist and cover those who qualify that way. Once we get to that point then we can see where we are and take the next step after that.
One could argue that this just is evidence that we should just go to a one-payer system. If the system is currently too complicated, we should probably find a way to simplify it. If someone could just walk into the doctor hand over their national health card, that they got from either filing a tax return or being the dependent of someone that filed a tax return, and have it paid for without the mess and fuss, that might be a way to go.
And the origins of the paranoia involve one of the two ugliest episodes in the history of the nation.
Which one is that?