# "Obama Care" versus wishful thinking



## mycrofft (Mar 23, 2012)

I notice the opponents to Obama care tend to be rich, well-insured already, healthy, young, and-or just against Obama's presidency.

I notice supporters tend to be older, less well-off, less-insured, and sicker or handicapped. 

Nowadays the cost of healthcare is ruinous if you have a chronic condition or have a catastrophic occurrence. Should we let these people just rot, or is it a measure of our society how well we take car of our weakest members (as someone famous once said)?

As prehospital providers, don't we see the people (other than the alcoholics and drug addicts and intentional leeches) who are living marginally because they can't work, and can';t afford to either get well or get decent housing/food/home assistance?

And didn't we go through all these conniptions (forced participation) when Social Security was invented in the early 20th Century? How many Obama-haters collect SocSec, Medicare or Medicaid?


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 23, 2012)

mycrofft,

Stupid is a disease, it has a vector and creates pathology.

The whole argument about universal healthcare is often perpetuated by the grossly misinformed, irgnorant, and people with the most to gain.

The political tactic is very smart, convince poor people that the government will take what little they have.

Most Americans are educated by TV. They watch what they want to see. 

They will vote to suffer with pride.

I gave up trying to educate them for free. May they receive all that they wish for in abundance.


----------



## SSwain (Mar 23, 2012)

Look at what has happened to every program the Gov has tried to run....Not saying private health care is perfect...far from it.
I am more concerned with the parabolic curve of escalated costs that typically happen with Gov run programs...and the people who fleece the system shamelessly.

Look more at the insurance industries (and the lawyers that run them),,,that is where the costs have been driven from.

Just my $0.02


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 23, 2012)

res ipsa loquitur


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 23, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> How many Obama-haters collect SocSec, Medicare or Medicaid?



Not me, yet I pay more in to it then most of the people who receive it ever did, and it probably won't be around when I'm old enough to need it.  Fair?



My 2 issues with Obamacare:

1) It was forced on a country where most of the people didn't want it... and 2 years later, STILL most of the people don't want it.  That's not a Congress doing it's job to represent their constituents, that's a Congress forcing their will as they see fit.


2)  It is NOT the federal governments responsibility to provide healthcare.  It's not in the Constitution as a federal ability, and as such, is not the feds job.  

My view has always been if a state wants to institute socialized medicine, it's their right, as delineated in the Constitution.  


Until the fed fixes Medicare and does it right, they don't need to be trying to step even further in to healthcare.


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 23, 2012)

"Look at what has happened to every program the Gov has tried to run"  
Cite which programs are bad. Better take a seat, there have been easily hundreds of thousands, starting with the Continental Congress and establishment of the US military, to the creation of EMT's, and passage pf the amendment banning alcohol....Rural Electrification Authorty. CCC, WPA, the post office...a wide brush.  The Interstate Highway system.

I pay more in to it then most of the people who receive it ever did
Prove it. There are many wage earners with 20, 30 or more years paying in  who are participants. Also, adjust your dollars for inflation. Your $1,000 today was $500 not that long ago.
It was forced on a country where most of the people didn't want it... and 2 years later, STILL most of the people don't want it
Cite the election results for this, or Roper poll or such. GOP or Fox News sources do not count.

It is NOT the federal governments responsibility to provide healthcare.

So we need to disassemble the VA, get rid of medical care in the military other than that making the force fighting ready, and severely pare back NIH and CDCP ? Plus others...
My view has always been if a state wants to institute socialized medicine, it's their right, as delineated in the Constitution
What chapter of the Constitution mentions socialized medicine being a state's right? Also, then each state has to sue their neighboring states with lesser health care to recover treatments for medical refugees?

Until the fed fixes Medicare and does it right, they don't need to be trying to step even further in to healthcare.
Wouldn't universal health coverage replace Medicare?

Now, all that said, Britain's medical situation is the model to tell us what to look out for.  They socialized medicine; people can still buy what care they want above and beyond the basics, but the "socialized" part has been underfunded and stripped down so much that it no longer really fulfills its mission as it should. The system was sound, but it was gutted and abused more by its caretakers (Parliament) than its beneficiaries.

The real danger to universal health coverage, as it had been for the VA, Medicare, Indian health services through BIA, is that opponents can cripple and drag it down, and shortsighted proponents can gut it by lending its money to other founds (as Social Security had and has done). Then once the damage has been done, the detractors attribute this to intrinsic system failure, when in fact it was mugged.

Two points before I head out to do the shopping and etc:
1. WHEN does "ObamaCare" kick in? Are we seeing reactions to it, or to the reputation that has been generated by pundits?
2. Insurance, despite what we all wishfully think, is based upon getting a large pool of people who don't need it and won't use it, then invest/grow assets to offset inflation and prepare for massive draws on reserves such as financial debacle or disasters. It isn't this magic box you put your penny into and a five dollar bill magically pops out. (Althoug Bernie Madoff did that for a while).


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 23, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> Prove it. There are many wage earners with 20, 30 or more years paying in  who are participants. Also, adjust your dollars for inflation. Your $1,000 today was $500 not that long ago.



You mean BESIDES the untold number of people in section 8 housing collecting food stamps for themselves just to sell them, have their kids on Medicaid, and yet pay very little if ANY in taxes?  Not to mention those that drive cars worth more than some peoples 401ks?  (And if you've been in EMS long enough, you've seen a luxury car parked in the ghetto...)





> Cite the election results for this, or Roper poll or such. GOP or Fox News sources do not count.


  So polls from the right side don't count but the left do?  Double standard much?

Fine.

Rasmussens most recent poll states 56% want it repealed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law 


And in a Washington Post/ ABC news poll, 52% oppose the law, and 67% want the mandate struck down.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ches-two-thirds-say-ditch-individual-mandate/


And the RCP average is 50.5% oppose while just 38.5% favor the law.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html









> So we need to disassemble the VA, get rid of medical care in the military other than that making the force fighting ready, and severely pare back NIH and CDCP ? Plus others...


  Like I said, it's not the feds responsibility.    Can they provide it for federal employees?  Sure, that's their prerogative.  However, not their right nor prerogative to do it for the general populace.  




> What chapter of the Constitution mentions socialized medicine being a state's right?


  You mean the 10th admenedment which is written in quite clear and easily understandable English, which states

"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."


It is quite clear with it's meaning.  If it's not the federal governments responsibility, it is the states right to decide on the matter.


If you can point to me ANY time in the US Constitution or its amendments about the utterance of "Health", "healthcare" or any variation that is given to the US Federal Government, please do so.


----------



## homingmissile (Mar 23, 2012)

Obamacare has its share of flaws but I don't expect the first attempt at universal healthcare to be perfect. 

Personally, the thing that makes me support it the most is actually looking at the people who are foaming at the mouth to tear it down: the wealthy, the white, the already privately insured, and people who readily find ways to think everything Obama does is wrong.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 23, 2012)

> Personally, the thing that makes me support it the most is actually looking at the people who are foaming at the mouth to tear it down: the wealthy, the white, the already privately insured, and people who readily find ways to think everything Obama does is wrong.



52% of the country are rich, white, and insured?  Oh wait...no... they aren't.   Plus, some 30% of democrats that voted for Obama oppose this law too... clearly it's NOT just the people who always try to find ways to think he's wrong.

Ignorant rhetoric, buddy. 



You'd rather support something just to make people angry than for any other reason at all, such as 'what is good and right', or what benefits people.  Yeah... I really want someone like you voting for our leaders.


----------



## homingmissile (Mar 23, 2012)

Linuss said:


> 52% of the country are rich, white, and insured?
> 
> 
> You'd rather support something just to make people angry than for any other reason at all, such as 'what is good and right', or what benefits people.  Yeah... I really want someone like you voting for our leaders.



It took me a moment to get where you got the 52% figure. I see the statistics too but I don't have a lot of confidence in how much they actually represent reality. Voter apathy hasn't gone away and the loudest faction isn't always the biggest.

I'm not supporting it out of spite. The right-wing has never needed _provocation_ to harumph about anything, they do that fine to and by themselves.

Do you not consider universal healthcare, even if it's just a flawed attempt at it, something that at least _tries_ to benefit the people? You think the voucher option is the way to go? Is that really plan for the future?

It might make you feel ill to think someone like me is voting, but at least I'm taking part in the democratic process, instead of calling for birth certificates and such.


----------



## epipusher (Mar 23, 2012)

Is this a troll post, or is the ts truly blind in the ways of the world? How many of the uninsured choose to be uninsured? How many of the "less fortunate" choose to be so by choosing to not further their education and in doing so open up more opportunities for a better paying job?


----------



## bigbaldguy (Mar 23, 2012)

Linuss said:


> If you can point to me ANY time in the US Constitution or its amendments about the utterance of "Health", "healthcare" or any variation that is given to the US Federal Government, please do so.



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,  *promote the general Welfare*, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 23, 2012)

bigbaldguy said:


> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,  *promote the general Welfare*, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



The preamble was never intended to indicate the powers of the government, just the purpose of the document.  





homingmissile said:


> I'm not supporting it out of spite.



That is PRECISELY what you're doing, and in your own words:




homingmissile said:


> Personally, the thing that makes me support it *the most* is actually looking at the people who are foaming at the mouth to tear it down


----------



## akflightmedic (Mar 23, 2012)

I may be wrong but I recall stories about a man named JC who went around and healed people for free...these people were beggars, women, children, criminals, poor...you name it. Some even called his healthcare plan a "miracle".

Now if only those who follow the book in every regard when it  benefits them personally would also heed the lessons which are more altruistic in nature...especially when it is your savior who set the example.

(Please refrain from he helps those who help themselves rhetoric as that is an excuse for those who need an excuse to avoid helping their fellow man).


----------



## Vetitas86 (Mar 23, 2012)

Call me crazy, but the ideals of American society are more in line with the ability to pull yourself up than accept handouts, which is what government healthcare is.

There's a reason its called socialized healthcare in some circles, due to the fact that its based off a government run and regulated system, which is, in turn socialist.

There was a time in our history that people were too proud to accept handouts, even those in need. Pride is a flaw yes, but its also a motivator. People wanted to improve their situation and the ability to do so. That's where the capitalist system came from.

Free market medicine has its problems. Lots of them. But it does encourage competition and innovation that comes from that. 

Do I think the Fed should intervene in insuring everyone? Hell no. From a states rights standpoint to a financial standpoint to an academic and medical standpoint, it doesn't make sense to do so when an admittedly marginally better system is currently in place. 

I believe that more focus should be given to preventative care and using midlevel practitioners and the like to make healthcare more affordable while still remaining well within a free market system.


----------



## akflightmedic (Mar 23, 2012)

Vetitas86 said:


> I believe that more focus should be given to preventative care and using midlevel practitioners and the like to make healthcare more affordable while still remaining well within a free market system.



Agreed. However, the first part of your statement is counter to the latter.

How do your propose affordable, open access to healthcare while keeping it in the free market system?


----------



## Vetitas86 (Mar 23, 2012)

Midlevel vs physician lowers costs. There's still a need for physicians to supervise and perform advanced procedure, etc. So it remains free market. Allow midlevels to practice with less oversight while still remaining tethered to a physician, especially in rural and underserved areas, and it becomes more feasible.

It would be more affordable than it is, and I think that would be a start if nothing else. Like I said, its a flawed system. It's my opinion that a completely open and free system would add to the shortage of primary care specialists, among other things.


----------



## akflightmedic (Mar 23, 2012)

Vetitas86 said:


> Midlevel vs physician lowers costs. There's still a need for physicians to supervise and perform advanced procedure, etc. So it remains free market. Allow midlevels to practice with less oversight while still remaining tethered to a physician, especially in rural and underserved areas, and it becomes more feasible.
> 
> It would be more affordable than it is, and I think that would be a start if nothing else. Like I said, its a flawed system. It's my opinion that a completely open and free system would add to the shortage of primary care specialists, among other things.



The midlevel scenario is already being used and has been for many years. Do you know who pays for it and regulates it? The Federal Govt.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Mar 23, 2012)

Linuss said:


> The preamble was never intended to indicate the powers of the government, just the purpose of the document.



Some would argue that its design was to offer both the purpose and the underlying philosophy. Of course there are those that would argue that the original document was actually a letter to the King of England asking if he had prince Albert in a can but that document was eaten by Ben franklins dog and the whole thing had to be re written at the last minute by William Whipple who was the only one there who wasn't too drunk to hold a quill. After everyone sobered up they realized they had signed the wrong document but figured "what the hell let's go with it".


----------



## EpiEMS (Mar 23, 2012)

akflightmedic said:


> The midlevel scenario is already being used and has been for many years. Do you know who pays for it and regulates it? The Federal Govt.



Isn't the regulation of medical practice a quasi-private function, with licensure provided by the states?
To be fair, though, training (especially for physicians) is heavily federally subsidized.


----------



## ExpatMedic0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Whats really on my mind is how will it effect us and EMS? It seems like is a good thing for our profession correct?


----------



## Vetitas86 (Mar 23, 2012)

My vote would go toward more paperwork and bureaucracy vs being a good thing. Granted, I could be wrong.


----------



## homingmissile (Mar 23, 2012)

Linuss said:


> That is PRECISELY what you're doing, and in your own words:



Just looking at my words, I'm inclined to agree with you, but if I only do it for spite then I'd automatically take an opposing stance on every issue wouldn't I?

Granted, I just so happen to end up throwing up my hands at almost everything the GOP does these days but I don't deliberately find my way to disagreeing with every single platform they have.


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 24, 2012)

Vetitas86 said:


> Midlevel vs physician lowers costs. There's still a need for physicians to supervise and perform advanced procedure, etc. So it remains free market. Allow midlevels to practice with less oversight while still remaining tethered to a physician, especially in rural and underserved areas, and it becomes more feasible.
> 
> It would be more affordable than it is, and I think that would be a start if nothing else. Like I said, its a flawed system. It's my opinion that a completely open and free system would add to the shortage of primary care specialists, among other things.



Hate to break it to you, but midlevel providers actually add to the cost.

It doesn't eliminate the need for a doctor and then you end up paying 2 people.

If you look around the world, places without "mid-level" providers actually have lower healthcare costs than anyone who does.

On top of that you get a lesser level of care from a mid-level provider.

Then you must look at the reality of how those providers are utilized.

They are not operating where there are no physicians. They are operating in established facilities and adding an extra level of expense that can be billed for. 

The solution to the whole problem is to add more physicians, not by trying to make up for the lack of them.

The good folks over at the AMA and residency directors don't like that idea because the more doctors you have, the lower the earnings for doctors.

See where the problem really is now?


----------



## Martyn (Mar 24, 2012)

Lets face it, it's all about money. Something HAS to be done regarding health care provision in the USA. 'Sorry but this doctor won't see you because he/she doesn't accept your insurance' or 'Yes, don't worry, your insurance covers everything' followed by a bill for $XXX a few weeks later. The whole system as it stands is corrupt, unfair, complicated...you name it. Why are US citizens against reform? Personally I don't think they are, it's the medical companies, insurance companies and possibly the doctors. Why? Because they will be losing out on their million dollar salaries etc. A vision: a low fee is taken directly out of each wage check, and this means EVERYONE'S wage check. In return you will be able to go to ANY emergency room, see ANY doctor, get dental treatment, hell, even get cheaper medications on prescription. Wouldn't that be great? Just think, no more losing $XXX per pay check, or having to do at least 1-2 days extra overtime a month to make sure you can cover the insurance cost. Just think!!!

Hey, guess what? That sounds just like the UK version.


> *How much National Insurance you pay*
> 
> The amount and type of National Insurance contributions you pay depend on whether you're employed or self-employed and how much you earn. The rates shown below are for the 2011-12 tax year.
> *If you're employed*
> ...


 
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ni/intro/basics.htm

So lets play with some figures here: lets say you earn £500 a week. Based on the above that works out £43.32 contribution per week. Wow, this is amazing, and that covers medical, dental and also part goes toward a pension, fantastic. Now lets convert to dollars and see: £500 is $793.50 per week, hmm, not bad I guess. which means the NI equivalent (remember £43.32) is $68.75 A WEEK!!! Holy moly, that means I personally would be saving at least $100 a month and I get to go to the doctor, any doctor, when I need to. I can get those bad teath pulled and some o' them fancy dentures. I can get cheaper meds on prescriptions, oh wow!!!

WAKE UP AMERICA
IT'S TIME FOR CHANGE!!!


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 24, 2012)

You may save $100 a month but it would cost me over $300 more a month then I pay now for my insurance. 

No thanks.   I'd rather have that $3600 more a year.



No one i know is against some type of reform... But let's do reform the majority agree on, shall we?


----------



## BeachMedic (Mar 24, 2012)

"No one i know is against some type of reform... But let's do reform the majority agree on, shall we?"

Good look getting the majority to agree on anything.

If Obama made a statement like, "Killing puppies for sport is bad!"; the GOP would immediately start complaining about constitutional rights being taken away by the evil President. 

Anyhoo, I highly doubt that the majority of Americans have read the 2000+ page Health Care Reform Bill. No one even knows what they are arguing about. They are arguing about tag lines from the media/politicians.

"Death Panels"? lol

We all know that change needs to happen. Will it in any significant manner that is beneficial to *everyone*? Guess you can say that my glass is half empty in regards to things like that. It's all up to the people with a lot of money to decide; and typically, they don't have a lot of money because they genuinely cared about the general populace.


----------



## homingmissile (Mar 24, 2012)

Linuss said:


> No one i know is against some type of reform... But let's do reform the majority agree on, shall we?



What kind of reform might that be? You've given us your problems with Obama's plan, what are your *suggestions?*

As it is we have millions of uninsured people, 16.3% of Americans according to the 2010 census. What do we do about them?

Someone here made an observation about pimped out cars in the ghetto. That's a legitimate gripe. <_< Some of these people really need to make better decisions on how they spend their money. That's a problem at the bottom of the issue. 
The problem at the top is that having a completely for-profit healthcare system *can't* cover everyone. What about the ones deemed 'un-insurable' by the companies? That's another way of saying that person is a "bad investment".

Americans recoil and grip their wallets when they see the words 'socialism' and 'communism' because they don't want *their* money going to *someone else*. And, honestly, I have to admit that's a Right we have. :unsure: 

But the problem is that we all imagine ourselves making piles and achieving the Dream when it's just not realistically possible for everyone to do so. A 100% capitalist society can't work forever and more people are realizing this, American founding ideals be damned.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 24, 2012)

BeachMedic said:


> Good look getting the majority to agree on anyth



The majority agree that they don't want this law in its current form...


----------



## BeachMedic (Mar 24, 2012)

Linuss said:


> The majority agree that they don't want this law in its current form...



I'd still argue that the majority have no idea what this law in it's current form is. Oh other than calling it, "Obama Care".


----------



## homingmissile (Mar 24, 2012)

Don't forget "SOCIALISM!"


----------



## Vetitas86 (Mar 24, 2012)

Politics is a dirty game. I have a feeling we can all agree on that.


----------



## Chan (Mar 25, 2012)

It's going to the SCOTUS next week. Well, initial arguments are being heard next week. 

Problem is that we need a shift in society to make the mandate work. Lower cost? You have to lower medical school costs. Doctors charge so much because of the pain and suffering of 300k of debt they get when they obtain their license. 

Ontop of that, the administration needs to admit that this is a tax increase already.


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 25, 2012)

Chan said:


> You have to lower medical school costs. Doctors charge so much because of the pain and suffering of 300k of debt they get when they obtain their license.



I find the simple solution is not to go to a school that costs that much.

Then when nobody shows up at the institution that does charge the outrageous tuition prices of $50k plus per year, that school will either lower prices or go out of business.

Simple really.


----------



## Chan (Mar 25, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> I find the simple solution is not to go to a school that costs that much.
> 
> Then when nobody shows up at the institution that does charge the outrageous tuition prices of $50k plus per year, that school will either lower prices or go out of business.
> 
> Simple really.



Yeah and what happens when you have a wait list of years to attend a public school? Have even less medical personelle and increase cost of care even more?

The whole system is a mess really.


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 25, 2012)

Chan said:


> Yeah and what happens when you have a wait list of years to attend a public school? Have even less medical personelle and increase cost of care even more?
> 
> The whole system is a mess really.



Or go outside the US, you might find the education is better and cheaper.


----------



## phideux (Mar 25, 2012)

If you read the Obama healthcare monstrosity, you really see how little it has to do with healthcare, and is just another monster bill with tons and tons of pork thrown in it. 
Why does a healthcare bill authorize the hiring of thousands of additional IRS agents?
Why does a healthcare bill authorize the purchase of thousands of shotguns for the IRS?
Why does a healthcare bill make any and every  transaction over $599.00, business or personal, generate a 1099???

I just bought a new living room set, the first new furniture I have ever bought, according to Obamacare, even though I paid tax on it when I bought it, I need to send a 1099 to the furniture guy, and he now owes the IRS their cut.
I sold a used car, an old beater, but it was for over $599.00. Now the guy I sold it to is supposed to send me a 1099 on it. I paid sales tax on this car when I bought it, property taxes every year, the guy I sold it to paid sales tax and property taxes on it, but we still gotta pay the Obamacare tax.

Obamacare is a joke.

We have healthcare in this country. If you call for an ambulance, even if you don't have insurance, we will come pick you up, no matter what the complaint, and take you to the hospital. We will give you treatment along the way. If you can't or don't pay, it will get written off, you get your free ambulance ride. Once we get you to the ER, they will treat you and take care of you. If you don't have insurance they will still treat you, if you can't or won't pay, they will cover it with a MIAP program, or eventually write it off down the line. You will get seen and treated, even if you are in this country illegally. they will treat you, care for you, and they aren't allowed to turn you in.

Our Government is broken, we don't need this monstrous bill.


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 25, 2012)

OK someone post the "OBAMA CARE MANIFESTO" link.

I was a street EMT for three years, took care of inmates for eighteen, and was one case manager for a county's medically indigent care system for over two and a half years.

What prompted me to start this was an interview on public radio with two residents of a rural town decrying "Obamacare". The interviewer asked one about it, he was hale and healthy, and his point wasn't affecting health care but neutralizing any measure from Obama, the duly elected president, his cabinet (all approved by Congress), and enough Congressional members, at least quietly, to avoid an easy repeal.
The second, being reminded she no longer had insurance due to divorce and etc., quietly decided national health care was a good idea.

There's the divide for you. People LIKE it if they need it. People HATE it (even though it hasn't even really started yet) because they are healthy own have insurance, don't want to fund it, and they hate the idea of Barack Obama in the White House.

Eventually, every one of us will need this sort of help unless we all die young and suddenly. Trust me, that won't happen to the vast majority. 
THEN what will YOU do? (I suppose then our kids and grandkids will refer to us as Lefties when we want and need a slice of what we are paying so-called "Big Medicine"", as well as the renamed successors of Halliburton and Blackwater and other hogs at the trough of _*government*_ largesse).

What Hitler and Stalin and Senator Joseph McCarthy did is being done now, but it will hurt even one of us: stigmatize groups without sufficient power (children, poor, sick, handicapped) with stereotypes, even between each other, then shove each into an oubliette and forget about them. Or worse.

Here's a challenge: ask the next ten low income or poor patients you meet if they want government medicine, or would they prefer to have private medical care/insurance if they could get it.

PS: as for right versus left news sources, just look at the fact-checking sites as regards many claims being made against it. And remember: Gingrich, despite his "rehabilitation", was shamed out of office for his naked power grab tactics and  shameful personal conduct. GOP attack dog "Ditto" Rush Limbaugh, a known drug addict and finally defrocked racist and misogynist, is once again in hot water. Santorum had literally said his religious views will guide his decisions in office. And the "in-touch" alternative hash't needed health insurance for decades, if ever, and does't know anyone needing health insurance.


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 25, 2012)

*Here is a quote and analysis by a reasonable neutral source*

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

Note there is a means for states to get exemptions, and the vote was pretty strictly on party lines....which means Democratic and Republican members were in the politics, not the reality that you and I have heed been knee deep in for years. (If this was done on the basis of science and individual conscience we would have seen more crossover votes, but there were none except some Democrats).

Still looking for the IRS Army recruitment thingee...


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 25, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> There's the divide for you. People LIKE it if they need it. People HATE it (even though it hasn't even really started yet) because they are healthy own have insurance,



That is true for EVERY SINGLE THING in existence, and is not a valid argument for anything.  "Well, how would you feel if you were in that situation?"

I'm not.   And they aren't in mine.  Of course EVERYONE wants stuff that benefits them.  That doesn't mean it's right nor true.



Healthcare isn't as important as food, water and shelter, yet most of us have to pay money for those things instead of getting them for free.   Where is the outcry at food costing money?  Why aren't laws being passed so that EVERYONE gets food whenever they want, regardless of cost?


----------



## EpiEMS (Mar 25, 2012)

Like food and shelter, healthcare has quite a bit of subsidies involved (think medical education being subsidized, plus the obvious, like Medicaid/Medicare). Wrongly, in my opinion.

Food is subsidized or freely available to those who need it: think WIC and food stamps. Or, heck, agricultural subsidies.

Shelter is subsidized or freely available: think Section 8 and mortgage tax deductions.

All this does is distort markets, which is unfair to everyone.


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 25, 2012)

But HOW MUCH do these distort the market? Excessive costs and profits to and from landlords plus gentrification and overproduction of the bedrm/2 bath mcmansions have hurt the market much worse, as well as foreign property owners with the only thought being optimization of profit. 

OK, insurance companies depend upon a large pool of well individuals paying in plus investment and other stuff to offset inflation, overhead, and executive compensation. Without the pool of non-claiming individuals any honest insurance fund dries up. 

The stereotypes of hordes of hidden Cheetoh-munchin', Cable TV-stealin', welfare-cheatin', unlicensed single mothers driving Cadillacs (or whatever, Altimas maybe?) and people using workman's comp as a paid holiday may have a few toes on the edge of reality, but these are not present in the numbers you  may think, given the speeches we hear.  (If they were, Congress would look a lot different than it does today and there would be no trouble passing pork bills besides those to monolithic food companies, war-related contractors, and OPEC allies). 

It is little wonder that the strongest critics do the poorest in more-educated states. 

All right, I give up. We'll get your's and mine then pull up the ladder, and if you weaken, I'll get yours too and toss you overboard.

What a country!


----------



## Kevinf (Mar 25, 2012)

Food doesn't generally have the potential to rack up a $300,000 bill or run you 5+ grand a month if you aren't insured through your employer. On the same side of the coin, if you change employers or become unemployed you don't lose your food benefits. Your grocery store won't ban you for having a pre-existing condition. Besides food does have subisidies if you can't afford it.

A PROPERLY run and funded National Health Care system is exactly what the government was formed to do. The trick is that PROPERLY part... can we get it done with the level of graft and back room wheeling and dealing that is part and parcel of Capitol Hill?


----------



## Chan (Mar 25, 2012)

I'm not against universal healthcare, I'm just not understanding how this country can afford to do so. Although on that note, the federal government does provide health insurance for about 2/3 of the population already. 

A single payer system is CHEAPER than our current system. But that requires everyone to pay up in taxes. Increasing taxes on an already overburdened population just doesn't make sense at the moment.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Mar 25, 2012)

phideux said:


> If you read the Obama healthcare monstrosity, you really see how little it has to do with healthcare, and is just another monster bill with tons and tons of pork thrown in it.
> Why does a healthcare bill authorize the hiring of thousands of additional IRS agents?
> Why does a healthcare bill authorize the purchase of thousands of shotguns for the IRS?
> Why does a healthcare bill make any and every  transaction over $599.00, business or personal, generate a 1099???



Could you post the source for this info? I'm having a hard time finding it in any of the bill summaries.


----------



## EpiEMS (Mar 26, 2012)

I could've sworn the 1099 component was repealed...?


----------



## EpiEMS (Mar 26, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> But HOW MUCH do these distort the market? Excessive costs and profits to and from landlords plus gentrification and overproduction of the bedrm/2 bath mcmansions have hurt the market much worse, as well as foreign property owners with the only thought being optimization of profit.



The McMansions are subsidized as well, that is, if the people buying them with a mortgage are competent at filing their taxes. If anything, the McMansions receive a larger subsidy than low-income folks who receive assistance. Subsidies for housing, namely support for large homes and the tax deduction for mortgages, is a distortion — and usually a harmful one. 

I'd be ok with housing subsidies of the Section 8 type, but I'd 100% support removal of the mortgage tax deduction and similar types of subsidies for individuals who will already be purchasing all the housing they need (and more than they need) without the government getting involved to help them out. It's social engineering, plain and simple — it's crazy.


----------



## Luno (Mar 26, 2012)

Mycrofft, really?  The people who want it are the people who need it most?   Tell us more... But the people who don't want it are the people who don't need it... c'mon you're trying a little too hard to troll now...


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 26, 2012)

The people who need it need it badly. No one doesn't want it, eventually. 

I'm speaking as an old coot (paying $2000 a month for basic health insurance with a $500 basic deductible), and from two years being one of the gatekeepers for government dollars going to real patients. I caught cheaters and cut them off, and I had to explain to people why their care was delayed so long that it made their ultimate condition worse. Telling me about how our country doesn't need a medical safety net that works would be like me telling current active street PEMS people that bandages and oxygen are overrated and all bleeding stops eventually, haha wink wink.

Holding up the "bloody shirt" of "cheaters" to scuttle the whole deal is like Syria calling peaceful demonstrators armed gangs trained in Libya then using tanks on them.

If anything, the people with the most to gain gaming the systems are providers, especially the smaller providers who become welfare mills (just as they bilk workman's comp now). It's demonizing the people who truly need it by supporting a popular stereotype people can blame and throw slurs at.

If this is just about cheating recipients, then why are big medical companies and lobbying interests the ones fighting it so hard, when this sort of payment would get them more cents on the dollar for emergency and indigent care cases? 

Sidetrack: I'm retired directly from Guard without combat time, so I have to wait until age 60 to collect TRICARE or use VA unless they have combat related issues, as of 1995 or so. Pres Obama said to TRICARE "Open up to retired Guard". TRICARE said "No, we don't think so". Thanks, America.


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 26, 2012)

In fact, any reply including characterizations of cheating, lying, don't deserve it, Godless heathens gets this well-earned reply:






"LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA"


----------



## systemet (Mar 27, 2012)

I don't live in the US, so I'm not sure if my comments are welcome here.  So tell me to go away, if you want.

As an outsider, I see something that surprises me:

* As a nation, you are paying more per capita, and as a percentage of your GDP for health care than any other.

* Yet a large percentage of your population is uninsured, and many of you are paying very high insurance premiums.

It seems like there's a problem there.  If the Swedes, or the Germans, or whoever, can deliver a better health care system, for less money, and universally insure their populations, at a lower cost --- why can't the US do the same?

This isn't even simply a question of taxation, it's not like your system has less money to work with -- it has more, much more, in some cases -- than many universal systems, and yet it performs poorer.

I'm not sure I understand the full details of the health care reforms that the Democrats tried to introduce, but I can't imagine how anyone can be happy with the status quo.


----------



## akflightmedic (Mar 27, 2012)

If you read the story of Jesus backwards, it's about a guy who takes away healthcare and food for the needy, while allowing the money-changers to keep running the Temple. Only by implementing it backwards can you arrive at American Right thinking. --Johnny O'Coileain, Crackpot Chronicle Staff


----------



## Bullets (Mar 27, 2012)

systemet said:


> I don't live in the US, so I'm not sure if my comments are welcome here.  So tell me to go away, if you want.
> 
> As an outsider, I see something that surprises me:
> 
> ...



The tax system is different in Europe, the brackets are different and the govt takes in more money depending on pay.

My issue with obamacare is that I should not be forced to carry insurance if I dont feel I need it. If I just want to carry major medical or catastrophic insurance, thats my choice not the govt. If I'm in a position to afford or need more coverage then I can do so


----------



## systemet (Mar 27, 2012)

Bullets said:


> The tax system is different in Europe, the brackets are different and the govt takes in more money depending on pay.



It's even different within Europe, given that it includes over 40 different countries! 

But, you guys are still paying more per capita, and perhaps even more astonishingly (as you have the world's largest economy) more per unit GDP.

You already have the more expensive option!  You're paying more for a system that doesn't cover your entire population, and is very expensive for many of the people it does cover, and costs more than countries like Germany or Sweden pay for theirs.  




> My issue with obamacare is that I should not be forced to carry insurance if I dont feel I need it. If I just want to carry major medical or catastrophic insurance, thats my choice not the govt. If I'm in a position to afford or need more coverage then I can do so



I can't understand that way of thinking.  Obviously you're entitled to your personal beliefs, but I just don't get it.

We give money to the government so that we have roads, often in places we'll never go.  We pay to have a public school system, even if we don't have kids, or choose to send our children to private schools.  We pay for armed forces, even if we don't necessarily agree with our nation's foreign policy.  We pay into welfare programs that we hope we'll never have to use.  Or to bail out big business after an economic crisis.  

We accept all these things, but healthcare is where we draw a line?

I've been very lucky to always live somewhere where health care hasn't been an issue.  Sure, if I decide I want to go see a chiro or physiotherapist, and it falls outside of whatever number of visits the state system allows me, I have to go to a family doctor and get a prescription, so that it's covered.  I might pay a nominal fee for prescription medication, if my employer benefits don't cover it, or maybe to rent a wheelchair if I break a leg.  But no one is ever going to give me a bill for getting cancer, and say, "Too bad, sell your house".

To me, that's just part of a stable society.  It's just a basic safety net.


----------



## akflightmedic (Mar 27, 2012)

systemet said:


> We give money to the government so that we have roads, often in places we'll never go.  We pay to have a public school system, even if we don't have kids, or choose to send our children to private schools.  We pay for armed forces, even if we don't necessarily agree with our nation's foreign policy.  We pay into welfare programs that we hope we'll never have to use.  Or to bail out big business after an economic crisis.
> 
> We accept all these things, but healthcare is where we draw a line?



Well said and amazing/depressing that is how it is.


----------



## homingmissile (Mar 27, 2012)

Bullets said:


> My issue with obamacare is that I should not be forced to carry insurance if I dont feel I need it. If I just want to carry major medical or catastrophic insurance, thats my choice not the govt. If I'm in a position to afford or need more coverage then I can do so



Most people don't feel like they need it until they do, do you follow me? And then it's too late because they have "pre-existing conditions". (Something the reform will ban insurance companies from doing.)

I'm a careful driver, I shouldn't be forced to buy auto insurance, right? I shouldn't be penalized for not wearing a seatbelt, right? In the latter case, it only hurts *me* if I get in an accident so why should the government have any say on whether I strap in or not?

Public safety, that's why.





systemet said:


> We give money to the government so that we have roads, often in places we'll never go.  We pay to have a public school system, even if we don't have kids, or choose to send our children to private schools.  We pay for armed forces, even if we don't necessarily agree with our nation's foreign policy.  We pay into welfare programs that we hope we'll never have to use.  Or to bail out big business after an economic crisis.
> 
> We accept all these things, but healthcare is where we draw a line?
> 
> To me, that's just part of a stable society.  It's just a basic safety net.



Well said.


----------



## johnrsemt (Mar 27, 2012)

The Universal healtcare that I have seen is from Canada:  
  A friend was living there He was getting severe headaches that were so bad he couldn't work, and he finally went blind in one eye.  He had to go on government welfare due to not being able to work.

  He went in to see his doctor, and was sent to see an eye specialist:  that took 4 months.  The eye specialist suspected a tumor and scheduled him for a CT.   That took 7 months.
  CT confirmed a tumor so they scheduled him for surgery;  it wasn't emergent because it wasn't going to kill him.  (Pain was so severe he was on narcotics for it, and couldn't even leave the house):  so surgery took another 6 months to do. 
   he was back to work 2 weeks after the surgery:  from 1st appt to surgery was 17 months.    But it was free.


  In the US if you have this;  you go to your doctor,  see eye specialist in 1-2 days at worse, have CT same day, have surgery in  a few days;   all before you lose your job or have to have narcotics:  but you have to pay for part of it.


----------



## Scott33 (Mar 27, 2012)

systemet said:


> We give money to the government so that we have roads, often in places we'll never go.  We pay to have a public school system, even if we don't have kids, or choose to send our children to private schools.  We pay for armed forces, even if we don't necessarily agree with our nation's foreign policy.  We pay into welfare programs that we hope we'll never have to use.  Or to bail out big business after an economic crisis.



Well said.


----------



## bstone (Mar 27, 2012)

The Western European countries provide universal health care for less than the US spends on health care.

The model is obvious. The benefits are obvious. Some people simply hate Europe and thus hate this idea of providing for people.


----------



## akflightmedic (Mar 27, 2012)

johnrsemt said:


> In the US if you have this;  you go to your doctor,  see eye specialist in 1-2 days at worse, have CT same day, have surgery in  a few days;   all before you lose your job or have to have narcotics:  but you have to pay for part of it.



Or if you live in the US and cannot afford insurance to begin with, you get none of the above. You just suffer...


----------



## Bullets (Mar 27, 2012)

homingmissile said:


> Most people don't feel like they need it until they do, do you follow me? And then it's too late because they have "pre-existing conditions". (Something the reform will ban insurance companies from doing.)
> 
> I'm a careful driver, I shouldn't be forced to buy auto insurance, right? I shouldn't be penalized for not wearing a seatbelt, right?



Oh i follow you, and if you choose not to carry insurance and something happens and now you want insurance, you should have to pay a high rate then someone who has held insurance since a younger age...or you know that you are risking a possible uninsurable condition and you accept the consequences of not carrying.

What state do you live in? Im not aware of a state that requires a resident to purchase auto insurance


I agree you shouldnt be penalized for not wearing your seatbelt



bstone said:


> The Western European countries provide universal health care for less than the US spends on health care.
> 
> The model is obvious. The benefits are obvious. Some people simply hate Europe and thus hate this idea of providing for people.



I dont hate Europe, i found Germany, Austria, and the UK countries to be extremely pleasant places when i visited. However they have their own issues. 

The idea of providing medical coverage for everyone has nothing to do with my feeling about our brothers across the Atlantic



akflightmedic said:


> Or if you live in the US and cannot afford insurance to begin with, you get none of the above. You just suffer...



So...life isnt fair and it isnt the governments job to make it fair. All men are created equal, what you do from there is your buisness


----------



## Pavehawk (Mar 27, 2012)

Bullets said:


> What state do you live in? Im not aware of a state that requires a resident to purchase auto insurance



No, all states do not require car insurance but they do require financial responsibility to operate a vehicle on the roadway. While not all states require drivers to buy Liability insurance to show financial responsibility, 49 states (plus the District of Columbia) do. New Hampshire is the only state that does not have compulsory auto insurance liability laws, as of June 2010.

All 50 states have different requirements when it comes to auto insurance and the minimum insurance requirements. Almost every state requires you to have Bodily Injury Liability insurance and every state has financial responsibility laws that require you be able to have sufficient assets to pay for any liability you cause in an incident.


----------



## akflightmedic (Mar 27, 2012)

Bullets said:


> So...life isnt fair and it isnt the governments job to make it fair. All men are created equal, what you do from there is your buisness



And you took this out of context as it was written directly in response to a prior statement of someone else...nice try.


----------



## Bullets (Mar 27, 2012)

akflightmedic said:


> And you took this out of context as it was written directly in response to a prior statement of someone else...nice try.



Ok, sorry



			
				akflightmedic said:
			
		

> Or if you live in the US and cannot afford insurance to begin with, you get none of the above. You just suffer...


...and then die


----------



## bstone (Mar 27, 2012)

If a person chooses not to have insurance they are taking a risk, but this risk doesn't end with them. It is extended to the EMTs who care for them in an emergency, to the ER staff that saves their life and stabilizes them, to the ICU and surgical staff that operates and cares for them, to the rehab center that fixes them up. None of them will ever be paid if a person does not have insurance and isn't fortunate enough to be independently wealthy. Who will end up paying for this care? We do, in the form of our taxes and higher insurance premiums. 

I am entirely in favor of forcing people to have insurance. We did it here in MA and it works beautifully.


----------



## homingmissile (Mar 28, 2012)

Bullets said:


> I agree you shouldnt be penalized for not wearing your seatbelt



I think you missed my sarcasm with the not wearing a seatbelt thing...
SPOILER: It saves lives.



bstone said:


> None of them will ever be paid if a person does not have insurance and isn't fortunate enough to be independently wealthy. Who will end up paying for this care? We do, in the form of our taxes and higher insurance premiums.
> 
> I am entirely in favor of forcing people to have insurance. We did it here in MA and it works beautifully.



Yes. Exactly. We're already paying a price, it's just not as visible as what we have coming, and that's where the problem lies.

Earlier in this thread someone said that the hospitals just "write off" the expenses that aren't paid, putting me in mind of that one Seinfeld episode. I don't think that person knows what "writing off" an expense means. It doesn't magically disappear.


----------



## Bullets (Mar 28, 2012)

homingmissile said:


> I think you missed my sarcasm with the not wearing a seatbelt thing...
> SPOILER: It saves lives.



and if i want to risk my life thats my prerogative


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 28, 2012)

systemet said:


> You already have the more expensive option!  You're paying more for a system that doesn't cover your entire population, and is very expensive for many of the people it does cover, and costs more than countries like Germany or Sweden pay for theirs.


  And THAT is why many of us don't want the government run option.  The government has already proven throughout the decades that it sucks at being efficient.  Why give them more money to suck with, and less options for us to decide on?


That's what we value in the US. Decisions.  OUR own decisions.  Not relying on someone elses.




> I can't understand that way of thinking.  Obviously you're entitled to your personal beliefs, but I just don't get it.


  And I don't understand your way of thinking when you're uneducated and unexperienced on the ways of the US as you admitted yourself, yet here you are.



> We give money to the government so that we have roads, often in places we'll never go.  We pay to have a public school system, even if we don't have kids, or choose to send our children to private schools.  We pay for armed forces, even if we don't necessarily agree with our nation's foreign policy.  We pay into welfare programs that we hope we'll never have to use.  Or to bail out big business after an economic crisis.
> 
> We accept all these things, but healthcare is where we draw a line?


And it's because you don't live in the US, you don't understand it.  Not everyone supports being taxed out the wazoo to pay a crap load of money for all those government run things, and MANY of us advocate for a smaller government.


The line isn't drawn at healthcare, that's just where the current battle is.


----------



## systemet (Mar 28, 2012)

Linuss said:


> And THAT is why many of us don't want the government run option.  The government has already proven throughout the decades that it sucks at being efficient.  Why give them more money to suck with, and less options for us to decide on?



But your system is already more expensive than any other country's publicly funded system! You've chosen the more expensive option.  Every other industrialised country (bar, maybe South Africa, which to my understanding doesn't really have universal health care), manages to run a public health system at a lower cost.

How is your current system more efficient?



> That's what we value in the US. Decisions.  OUR own decisions.  Not relying on someone elses.



Really?  6 billion people on the planet, and 300 million of them are in the US.  Do you truly believe that autonomy and self-reliance are virtues restricted to the USA?  

Do you think that French people, or the English, or Canadians, or New Zealanders are running around just waiting for someone to tell them what to do?



> And I don't understand your way of thinking when you're uneducated and unexperienced on the ways of the US as you admitted yourself, yet here you are.



Like I said earlier man, if this discussion is restricted to people living in the US, and I'm not welcome here, I'll cease to be involved.  That's OK.  I certainly don't claim to be a polsci or economics major, or have a vast understanding of American society.  I'm not posting on this thread just to irritate people.

My experience with the US is confined to the few Americans I personally know, who are largely as nice a group of people as people from anywhere else in the world I've met, and about 11 days spent driving through the country, mostly spent in Arizona, which was beautiful.  People were very kind to me, and I came to the conclusion that American television is extremely bad advertising for your country, and that while I still don't agree with many of the things your government does, the average American is a pretty decent person.

But I am a relatively intelligent person, and have lived in a few countries, and traveled a little.  I think I probably have something to contribute here, and I'm not on some sort of eurocommie "TrashtheUSA" rant.  I just have a different perspective shaped by my personal experiences.




> And it's because you don't live in the US, you don't understand it.



Granted, maybe.  Perhaps it is necessary to live in the US to understand the mentality there.  But this is pretty close to an ad hominem, you know, attacking a person, instead of the argument that they present.

I could present a similar argument that you might not be able to understand the benefits of a publicly funded universal health care system if you've never lived in one.  But I don't believe that.  I chose to believe that you're probably a reasonably intelligent person who's capable of considering things that are outside of your direct experience.  Besides, it would just be intellectually lazy.



> Not everyone supports being taxed out the wazoo to pay a crap load of money for all those government run things, and MANY of us advocate for a smaller government.



I understand that a lot of people in the US want reduced taxation, and reduced government spending, and want many services to be provided by private enterprise.  I'm just not sure that restricting access to something as important as healthcare to those that can pay is that great an idea.  Especially when almost every other industrialised nation on the planet has answered this question in a different way, and most of them report better numbers.

I also don't understand why people in the US feel that they're overtaxed?  You guys pay one of the lowest rates of taxation of the major industrial nations, and perhaps the lowest.  Isn't it possible that maybe the reason you haven't got decent government funded services been that you've never paid to fund these programs properly?

And is the money being saved by having lower taxation being used by individual families to meet their basic needs (and I accept that for a percentage of people in extreme poverty, it may be), or is it just being used to buy a bigger car, or more consumer goods?  



> The line isn't drawn at healthcare, that's just where the current battle is.



Are you sure?  Because I haven't heard the same outrage about military spending, or even something that should have been as controversial as subsidising private banks.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 28, 2012)

systemet said:


> But your system is already more expensive than any other country's publicly funded system! You've chosen the more expensive option.  Every other industrialised country (bar, maybe South Africa, which to my understanding doesn't really have universal health care), manages to run a public health system at a lower cost.
> 
> How is your current system more efficient?



Never said it was. Infact, I said it wasn't, and considering the US government is the single biggest spender in healthcare... what does that tell you?  That the federal government is NOT efficient at healthcare.  


So again, I ask, why would we want to give them MORE money to waste on inefficiency? 




> Really?  6 billion people on the planet, and 300 million of them are in the US.  Do you truly believe that autonomy and self-reliance are virtues restricted to the USA?



Restricted?  No, not at all.  But I WOULD argue that, the US being the 3rd most populous country in the world, that individual rights and choices and the fighting for them, ARE more bound in to our history and ingrained in our individual persona than any other country.



> Do you think that French people... are running around?



Yes, yes I do 



> Like I said earlier man, if this discussion is restricted to people living in the US, and I'm not welcome here, I'll cease to be involved.


  Never said you weren't allowed, but you yourself admitted your knowledge on the typical American mindset is lacking. 






> I could present a similar argument that you might not be able to understand the benefits of a publicly funded universal health care system if you've never lived in one.  But I don't believe that.  I chose to believe that you're probably a reasonably intelligent person who's capable of considering things that are outside of your direct experience.  Besides, it would just be intellectually lazy.



You're arguing something totally different from I. You're arguing the abolishment of private healthcare for a public healthcare.

I'm arguing against a federally run and funded healthcare that is unconstitutional.    Unlike the typical European and their founding documents, the Constitution IS one of our biggest focal points in the US.



I'm not, at my deepest point, against publicly provided healthcare.  I AM against the federal government doing it.





> I also don't understand why people in the US feel that they're overtaxed?  You guys pay one of the lowest rates of taxation of the major industrial nations, and perhaps the lowest.  Isn't it possible that maybe the reason you haven't got decent government funded services been that you've never paid to fund these programs properly?



Nope, not at all.  Overtaxed because programs we don't want funded are being funded, funded inefficiently, and as such, more taxes are taken to fund the unwanted programs.  Perpetual cycle.  


The reason why they aren't being funded properly is too many hands in the pot.  Too many programs begging for money.




> And is the money being saved by having lower taxation being used by individual families to meet their basic needs (and I accept that for a percentage of people in extreme poverty, it may be), or is it just being used to buy a bigger car, or more consumer goods?



Greece ring a bell?  Yeah, they're handling finances so well, and as such, have dragged the rest of Europe with them dangerously close to another meltdown, which in turn will bring down the rest of the world.

I'm against people in poverty having a sport scar then begging for food stamps and government assistance.  That needs to be fixed.


However, myself, being a person who pays more than my fair share of taxes, having no debt, saving money, paying my expenses on my own, working and contributing to society... I and only I get to choose where the rest of my money goes.  No one is subsidizing my life.  Same cannot be said for many.







> Are you sure?  Because I haven't heard the same outrage about military spending, or even something that should have been as controversial as subsidising private banks.



Yes, I am sure.  Because you don't live in the US to partake in such debates.  The bank bailout debate was not only a daily occurrence back 4 years ago, but still happens to this day.  Guess what?  I refuse to bank with any company that took part in the bailout.


----------



## systemet (Mar 29, 2012)

Linuss said:


> Never said it was. Infact, I said it wasn't, and considering the US government is the single biggest spender in healthcare... what does that tell you?  That the federal government is NOT efficient at healthcare.



I would argue that this means that a private health care sytem is inherently inefficient, as evidenced by the much lower costs in all other countries using public health care systems.

I'd also argue that health care in the US is far poorer on a population level.  See: infant mortality rate, for example.




> So again, I ask, why would we want to give them MORE money to waste on inefficiency?



I guess my counterpoint would be, why defend the status quo, and continue a system that's wasteful, inefficient and performs poorly, if you're concerned about fiscal responsibility?



> Restricted?  No, not at all.  But I WOULD argue that, the US being the 3rd most populous country in the world, that individual rights and choices and the fighting for them, ARE more bound in to our history and ingrained in our individual persona than any other country.



Your argument is "The US is populous, therefore individualism and fighting for personal liberty is more engrained in the popular culture than in other less populous countries?".

Are you suggesting that countries with a larger population are ultimately more individualistic?  Because China would seem to be a glaring exception to that idea.  Why would you think that population size and tendency towards invidualism would be linked?




> Never said you weren't allowed, but you yourself admitted your knowledge on the typical American mindset is lacking.



Sure.  But my point, I guess, is that I don't think I need to have lived in the US, to have an opinion about the relative merits of public versus private healthcare, any more than you have to have lived in a country with a public system to have a valid opinion about the same question.

I would suggest that both our arguments should stand or fall on the basis of the logic and reasoning they contain, rather than where the two of us happen to have lived.

If your point is that, through living in the states, you feel you have a better idea on what the average American believes, I'll happily concede that point.  I don't think I was ever arguing it.

If you have some insights into why people don't want a cheaper public delivery system similar to that of virtually any other industrial nation, I'd love to hear it.  But I can't buy simplistic jingoistic explanations like "American's love freedom more than anywhere else in the world", because I don't believe that's true.



> You're arguing something totally different from I. You're arguing the abolishment of private healthcare for a public healthcare.



I would suggest that this is the superior model, based on how it performs in other countries.  



> I'm arguing against a federally run and funded healthcare that is unconstitutional.    Unlike the typical European and their founding documents, the Constitution IS one of our biggest focal points in the US.



My understanding, simplistic though it may be, is that the constitution is a living, breathing document, that is ammended and reinterpreted and changes over time with society.  There were times when segregation was considered acceptable, or the denial of universal suffrage.  

It seems like whether proposed changes are constitutional is being hotly debated in the supreme court right now.  I'm not sure that I understand enough about constitutional law or the US constitution in particular to make an intelligent argument about whether or not the proposed legislation is constitutional.  




> I'm not, at my deepest point, against publicly provided healthcare.  I AM against the federal government doing it.



Would you be happier if each individual state provided a universal system?  Just wondering.




> Nope, not at all.  Overtaxed because programs we don't want funded are being funded, funded inefficiently, and as such, more taxes are taken to fund the unwanted programs.  Perpetual cycle.



But you understand that the rate of taxation in the US is very low in comparison to other countries, right?  I'm not making that up, there's a factual basis to it.

If your argument is "Sure, but that's irrelevant, what's important is that we don't want to pay the level of taxation we currently do", then I can't argue against that.  

Which programs do you feel are being funded inefficiently and why?  



> The reason why they aren't being funded properly is too many hands in the pot.  Too many programs begging for money.



But to continue the pot analogy, if you used a bigger pot, do you think that more of these programs would be working functionally?  

It's just something I've noticed, that living in some places with higher tax rates, people are more satisfied with the programs offered, and they seem to work better.  If you starve a program of funding, it gets to a point where it can't fulfill its role any more.  Have you considered that this might be happening here?

Isn't there a particular problem when you take a function that's normally federally run, and "outsource" it to a large mass of private companies?  If you compare the cost expenditure in the US and elsewhere, it seems that you're able to provide good care for the very wealthy, but not for a lot of people with lower incomes.  You also have a problem where people with previous medical problems either pay very high rates, or can't receive insurance if there's a lapse in their coverage.

These problems don't exist in a public system.  In a public system, if you're sick, you get treatment allocated.  No one would say, "Well, sorry, you're a minimum wage worker,  and you haven't paid into a corporate insurance scheme, we're going to have to bankrupt you to do this surgery".  This seems like a much more efficient use of resources --- instead of focusing on a wealthy elite, and very providing a second tier of care for people with middle incomes, and no care for lower income folks, it just gets spread around evenly.



> Greece ring a bell?  Yeah, they're handling finances so well, and as such, have dragged the rest of Europe with them dangerously close to another meltdown, which in turn will bring down the rest of the world.



I'm not going to argue that the Greeks aren't in a lot of trouble.  They are.  They've had a lot of corruption, they're overleveraged, and their economy has tanked.  And now the rest of the EU is forcing them into much-needed austerity measures to try and preserve the Euro.  And these are further crushing any hope of economic recovery.  Obviously there's a lot of concern about whether other countries are going to end up needing economic support, because while the Eurozone can bail out Greece, it's not going to be able to provide the same support to a large country like Italy.

But that's not an issue that's caused by health spending, or the prevalence of public health systems in Europe.  That's what happens when you have a common currency, and individual member states can't deflate a regional currency to make their exports more competitive, and allow them to better manage their debts.  It's also a problem that stems from a comparatively weak and risky country like Greece receiving a near-endless supply of money at lower interest rates because the risk of it's default was judged (incorrectly) as minimal for a long period of time based on the strength of the other Eurozone member states's economies.

A collapse of the Eurozone would be a disaster, but just because the Greek economy has imploded, I don't think it should be assumed that other Eurozone member states such as France or Germany are particularly weak.   
I'm against people in poverty having a sport scar then begging for food stamps and government assistance.  That needs to be fixed.

While a Eurozone collapse would be catastropic for everyone, the healthcare costs in Europe are much lower than in the US.  That's not the specific problem here.  Not to mention there's other European states that aren't part of the Eurozone, e.g. Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, that are doing very well.

I think you can also look at the strength of the Canadian economy right now.  There's another country, very similar to the US, with universal health care that seems to be surviving the current crises very well.


However, myself, being a person who pays more than my fair share of taxes, having no debt, saving money, paying my expenses on my own, working and contributing to society... I and only I get to choose where the rest of my money goes.  No one is subsidizing my life.  Same cannot be said for many.



> Yes, I am sure.  Because you don't live in the US to partake in such debates.  The bank bailout debate was not only a daily occurrence back 4 years ago, but still happens to this day.  Guess what?  I refuse to bank with any company that took part in the bailout.



I respect your consistency.

This is going off on a complete tangent, but as someone who's fairly socialist, and obviously comes from a different philosophy than you, I'm still really concerned about that.  I have some good friends in the UK, and I've watched their government pay out huge amounts of corporate welfare, and then turn around, institute massive tuition hikes, cut all sorts of social programs, restructure the healthcare system again, devalue the crap out of their currency, and even consider privatising the road system to pay for it.  It seems like many on the right aren't as angry when common resources are directed towards finance or military projects.  The average person there has got a lot poorer, has to deal with rising costs, and is receiving a lot less social services, and yet the banking industry seems to be turning a healthy profit again.


----------



## akflightmedic (Mar 29, 2012)

I am only interjecting to say "well done, your logic and reasoning is sound and your knowledge of American policies is far superior to the average American"...

I have spent the better part of the past decade traveling overseas and I am often amazed at how well any random taxi driver of Pakistani or Indian decent can discuss American policies and understand them and debate them better than any high school student or average American whose path I cross in my daily life in the States. (Amazed and depressed)


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 29, 2012)

akflightmedic said:


> I have spent the better part of the past decade traveling overseas and I am often amazed at how well any random taxi driver of Pakistani or Indian decent can discuss American policies and understand them and debate them better than any high school student or average American whose path I cross in my daily life in the States. (Amazed and depressed)



That is because America is the only nation I have visited that doesn't value education as a culture and from being physically and informationally isolated from the rest of the world doesn't understand how things happening elsewhere affect them.

Case in point, the common American in the US didn't know or care when the taliban became the dominant military and subsequently political ruling force in Afghanistan. Nobody cared they were financially supporting and physically harboring terrorist organizations until somebody flew a couple of jets into a couple of buildings.

Even when they were demanding military response, they did not know what that would mean or how it would affect the economy. 

Even in Iraq they were more concerned with "getting Saddam" and "winning" then they were about the implications of doing that. 

Nobody cared how the cheap crap at Wal Mart was made until kids started getting lead and heavy metal poisoning.

The world, just like medicine, exists in a complex interaction. Single, seemingly simple topics, are not isolated to themselves.

When rallying against government inefficency and demanding slashing government spending, a lot of Ohio public service employees including teachers, firefighters, ems providers, and police officers discovered the hard way that meant them.


----------



## systemet (Mar 29, 2012)

Sorry, I screwed up the quote tags on my last post, and it looks like I said these things, that were originally said by Linuss.  My apologies.



> _I'm against people in poverty having a sport scar then begging for food stamps and government assistance._





> _However, myself, being a person who pays more than my fair share of taxes, having no debt, saving money, paying my expenses on my own, working and contributing to society... I and only I get to choose where the rest of my money goes.  No one is subsidizing my life.  Same cannot be said for many._


----------



## bstone (Mar 29, 2012)

Bullets said:


> and if i want to risk my life thats my prerogative



No it's not. If you get injured then you will likely receive the care that I detailed above. If you want to go into a very secluded area and off yourself then you have that right, but you don't have the right to be reckless and then endanger others (both physically and financially).


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 30, 2012)

"In the US if you have this; you go to your doctor, see eye specialist in 1-2 days at worse, have CT same day, have surgery in a few days; all before you lose your job or have to have narcotics: but you have to pay for part of it."

Not in the real world. If you don't have insurance, or your insurance runs out, you get sent home and ignored. If you have insurance but your job has to let you go and you then lose the insurance, many companies will fight the global coverage which should continuie care until that illness/injury is made right. With their money and lawyers, who's going to win, you or them?
-----
Ad hominem attacks don't mean the other commentors are wrong, it means you are short of your own replies. Take a minute and come up with a reasoned one, calling people names and implying they are stupid (especially when their reply has merit) is a waste of bandwidth. 

Risk taking with health care resulting in taxpayers and other tax payers taking up the slack: ok. Sign a waiver like organ donation certificates. "If I crash my motorcycle without my helmet and wind up a vegetable, drop me at home and do not require my family to spend itself broke taking care of me the relatively short time until I die. In fact, I forbid them to treat me. And if I go rappelling in Yosemite and fall into a remote canyon and lie there calling for help with my cell phone, instead of risking rsecurers and spending tax dollars, tell me 'Too bad'. This I demand so I don't have to pay for universal health coverage".


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 30, 2012)

*
Hoggle: Oh don't act so smart. You don't even know what an oubliette is. 
Sarah: Do you? 
Hoggle:  Yes. It's a place you put people... to forget about 'em! *


----------



## bstone (Mar 30, 2012)

In the US if you get too sick to work then you lose your insurance. I know many folks who that has happened to.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 30, 2012)

systemet said:


> I would argue that this means that a private health care sytem is inherently inefficient, as evidenced by the much lower costs in all other countries using public health care systems.



Forced maximum rates = / = more efficient.

Medicare/Medicaid/Medi-cal, w/e, force maximums that they will pay, on the equilivant of $400 for Medicare and $100 for Medicaid for an ambulance.

Just becuase they won't pay what's due, doesn't mean they are efficient.  I'd argue that's a racket.  I can't go in to a grocery store, pay $10 and walk out with $200 worth of food.





> I guess my counterpoint would be, why defend the status quo, and continue a system that's wasteful, inefficient and performs poorly, if you're concerned about fiscal responsibility?


  I'm not defending status quo, but you're defending a wasteful, inefficient and poorly performing style...

I never once said the current way is the correct or best way, however you are saying that current welfare programs we have set up are?



> Are you suggesting that countries with a larger population are ultimately more individualistic?  Because China would seem to be a glaring exception to that idea.  Why would you think that population size and tendency towards invidualism would be linked?



Never argued size mattered at all, just a poor way to phrase numbers.

AM arguing, however, that US history is based in individual rights more so than any other country.






> I would suggest that this is the superior model, based on how it performs in other countries.


  Slowly and not contributing to the enhancement and advancement of medicine to the same extent as US medicine and US research? 




> Would you be happier if each individual state provided a universal system?  Just wondering.


  That is now and has always been my view, as per the Constitution, it is a states right.  If a state decides they want to give insurance to all occupants, that is their prerogative.  

My view is it is not the federal governments right or responsibility. 



> But you understand that the rate of taxation in the US is very low in comparison to other countries, right?  I'm not making that up, there's a factual basis to it.



Point? Just because someone gets punched in the face more than me, doesn't mean I don't want to be hit less myself.



> Which programs do you feel are being funded inefficiently and why?



Funded efficiently vs run inefficiently and as such, need no more funding till the issues are fixed.

Just to name the biggest 4, Medicare, Social Security, general Welfare, and Congress.



> But to continue the pot analogy, if you used a bigger pot, do you think that more of these programs would be working functionally?


  Nope, that's just throwing money at the problem as opposed to fixing the problem.


----------



## homingmissile (Mar 30, 2012)

Linuss said:


> That's what we value in the US. Decisions.  OUR own decisions.  Not relying on someone elses.



Oh? Seems to me like having two entrenched political parties directly contradicts that statement. Option A with all its choices or Option B. Just ask the average American what he feels about voting for a third party. It's considered "throwing away your vote". You think that's the attitude of a people that value making their own decisions?



> And I don't understand your way of thinking when you're uneducated and unexperienced on the ways of the US as you admitted yourself, yet here you are. And it's because you don't live in the US, you don't understand it.



systemet is too polite. That was ad hominem. But hey, I'm American-born and I live in the U.S. so maybe you'll admit that I _might_ be qualified to speak on these mysterious ways of the U.S.? Hmm? Maybe? Well, systemet had some salient points. Or maybe you want to come at me and say I'm too young to know what I'm talking about? Or maybe you'll just dispense with the pretense and call me uneducated and inexperienced, too.



> The line isn't drawn at healthcare, that's just where the current battle is.



You know why it can be said the line is drawn at healthcare? Because the people who supported big business and military spending turned around said this was going too far. The marked change in attitude from that faction is the reason people say a line has been drawn.




> Unlike the typical European and their founding documents, the Constitution IS one of our biggest focal points in the US.



You know what's written in the Constitution? Separation of church and state. I seem to recall a big hooplah going up when a statue of the 10 Commandments was removed from a courthouse in Florida. I seem to recall a certain Christian phrase being implanted into the Pledge of Allegiance. I seem to recall a certain anti-gay presidential hopeful saying he would let his personal religious beliefs guide his policy-making.

Why is it that *some people* have such a penchant for pointing to specific parts of ancient documents written long ago, in a different time and different era, and saying, "See! That's why I'm right." but ignoring other parts when it suits them?



> I'm against people in poverty having a sports car then begging for food stamps and government assistance.  That needs to be fixed.



I think the mandate to buy some form of healthcare insurance, much like the requirement to have some form of auto liability insurance, will do something to curb that.



			
				systemet said:
			
		

> I would suggest that both our arguments should stand or fall on the basis of the logic and reasoning they contain, rather than where the two of us happen to have lived.



This is the essence of intellectual debate.



> If your point is that, through living in the states, you feel you have a better idea on what the average American believes, I'll happily concede that point.



He doesn't. Unless he'd like to say that I'm not an "average American".




> I think you can also look at the strength of the Canadian economy right now.  There's another country, very similar to the US, with universal health care that seems to be surviving the current crises very well.



And guess what? The Americans have a mild contempt for our northern neighbors. NOT me personally, but as a person born and living in America, I can tell you that sentiment exists here. You won't hear it in PC circles but it's there.


----------



## homingmissile (Mar 30, 2012)

systemet said:


> ...as evidenced by the much lower costs in all other countries using public health care systems.





Linuss said:


> I'm not defending status quo, but you're defending a wasteful, inefficient and poorly performing style...



Doesn't sound so inefficient and poorly performing to me.




> AM arguing, however, that US history is based in individual rights more so than any other country.



I thought you didn't like ignorant rhetoric? 

Let's see... abolished slavery but only decades after many other European and South American countries and only after its economic advantages began to wain. And then another 5 years before _allowing_ them to vote. And that's not even mentioning discrimination afterward. The U.S. isn't quite the pioneer and stalwart defender of individual rights, is it?

Why are you basing a portion of your argument on "This is America and we do it the American way. In America." How is this a valid commentary on whether or not we should emulate the way other countries do things, especially if there's evidence that it WORKS.



> Slowly and not contributing to the enhancement and advancement of medicine to the same extent as US medicine and US research?



Who would rather have the best healthcare in the world for a few who can afford it as opposed to at least basic healthcare for all? The answer: The few who can afford it.




> That is now and has always been my view, as per the Constitution, it is a states right.  If a state decides they want to give insurance to all occupants, that is their prerogative.
> My view is it is not the federal governments right or responsibility.



This is the most intellectual, valid, and reasonable point you have in your argument.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 30, 2012)

homingmissile said:


> Doesn't sound so inefficient and poorly performing to me.


  Again, you're confusing 'efficiency' (oxy-moronic when you combine it with 'government') with "cheaper" running costs.

Soon to be student, yes?  For all I know, you have decades in the hospital or some other healthcare related field.  How much abuse, misuse, and fraud have you seen so far?





You're telling me it's more efficient to send some 80% of people by ambulance, who don't need an ambulance, and pay the ambulance cost (albeit at an often deeply discounted rate) then by taxi?

You're telling me it's more efficient to incentivize transport over treatment?

You're telling me it's more efficient to pay less than something costs, and as such drive the cost up on others?

You're telling me it's more efficient to throw money at a sink than plug the leak?


Then I'm telling you, it's not.




You want efficient?  Incentivize treat and release.  It's smarter to pay $100 for a patient to be treated, educated and left at home.

It's smarter to educate a person at a house, pay $30 for a taxi, and send them to a primary care physician.

It's smarter to pay $400 for an ambulance and $300 for an urgent care visit.

Hell, it can be argued that it's smarter to just buy some people a car and pay for their gas so they can drive themselves to the hospital when they feel the urge to waste money.


It is NOT smart or efficient to pay $400 for an ambulance and $1000 for an ER visit for a minor ailment that can be treated different.  But that is NOT what the government is pushing for.




And that's just where EMS is relevant... not many of the other places where costs can be curtailed and fixed.


----------



## Bullets (Mar 30, 2012)

homingmissile said:


> You know what's written in the Constitution? Separation of church and state. I seem to recall a big hooplah going up when a statue of the 10 Commandments was removed from a courthouse in Florida. I seem to recall a certain Christian phrase being implanted into the Pledge of Allegiance. I seem to recall a certain anti-gay presidential hopeful saying he would let his personal religious beliefs guide his policy-making.



Show me where in the United States Constitution it says "a separation of Church and State"...

Ill wait, and i got snacks

Ill save you the trouble, THERE IS NO SUCH PHRASE IN THE CONSTITUTION!

That phrase originated in a personal letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury (CT) Baptists in 1804!

The First Amendment addresses religion in two ways: 1.) That Congress will make no law establishing an official religion (The Establishment Clause) and 2.) That they will not restrict the free exercise of any religion (The Free Exercise Law)

This only applies to the FEDERAL government! So a state could technically establish an official religion, and some did so well into the 19th CENTURY. Now most state constitutions reflect and borrow heavily from the US Constitution

This is one of my pet peeves, because people cite "separation of Church and State" all the time, and it is simply not a constitutional right. When people use it to argue against the document, they are showing their ignorance and outing themselves as an idiot


----------



## firecoins (Mar 30, 2012)

Bullets said:


> Show me where in the United States Constitution it says "a separation of Church and State"...
> 
> Ill wait, and i got snacks
> 
> ...



So lets make the state religion Islam in all 50 states and allow shira law.


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 30, 2012)

firecoins said:


> So lets make the state religion Islam in all 50 states and allow shira law.



Or Rastafari...


----------



## bstone (Mar 30, 2012)

Linuss said:


> Medicare/Medicaid/Medi-cal



Medicare ≠ Medicaid. There are millions of people on Medicare who do not quality for Medicaid.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 30, 2012)

bstone said:


> Medicare ≠ Medicaid. There are millions of people on Medicare who do not quality for Medicaid.



Never said it was, never purported it was, never insinuated it was, hence the separation by the slash (/) and not a description with parentheses (like this)


----------



## bstone (Mar 30, 2012)

Linuss said:


> Never said it was, never purported it was, never insinuated it was, hence the separation by the slash (/) and not a description with parentheses (like this)



Please see the meaning of slash: 
http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/slashterm.htm

I think you meant to use a comma, not a slash.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 30, 2012)

bstone said:


> Please see the meaning of slash:
> http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/slashterm.htm
> 
> I think you meant to use a comma, not a slash.



Nope, meant what I said and said what I meant.  A virgule is commonly used to separate choices.  He/She.  And/or.  Yes/No.    You have the choice to choose which one of the 3 (actually, 4) I listed.


Medicare or Medicaid or Medical or whatever force maximums. Same meaning.


----------



## Bullets (Mar 30, 2012)

firecoins said:


> So lets make the state religion Islam in all 50 states and allow shira law.



And if all 50 states separately passed laws making Islam the religion of the state and then all either amended or redrafted their state constitutions to reflect sharia law, they could technically do so, which is the beauty of the US Constitution.

I think Linuss is trying to illustrate that the social programs that currently exist in this county are failing. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, all are in serious trouble. Social Security is a dumpster fire, Medicare/Medicaid are bloated inefficient and abused. 

I think this is partially a result of what he (and i) claim is a different thinking regarding individual responsibility in this country. While other nations, specifically the ones in Europe have "grown up"  under a monarchical governance for most of their respective histories   the concept of individual independence is not as ingrained in their psyche as in the US. 

While the UK royalty now merely serves as a figurehead and does not exercise the same power it once did, raising a country under the heavily overseen system of feudalism, lords and nobility creates a society that is used to being provided for. 

The US was developed by two groups, political and social outcasts (North ad Gerogia) and businessmen (south). From the time of Roanoke (1584 or 1607 depending on how you view it) to around 1765 the American colonist were able to settle and run their own groups, colonies, and governments with little interference from the English Crown. Thats 160 years of self-governance! before we were even a country! This is the crucible in which the founding documents were formed and is why this country placed such a stress on individual rights. This is why there is still a large segment of US society that finds the idea of social programs reprehensible. 


Its not the gov'ts JOB to provide healthcare to everyone, it is the individuals job to provide it for themselves or develop a means to provide it. This is why the small government crowd is such a large voice in this country, we feel that the duties of the government are clearly defined by the Constitution


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 30, 2012)

*I call BS*



Bullets said:


> This is why the small government crowd is such a large voice in this country, we feel that the duties of the government are clearly defined by the Constitution



I would actually buy this if the small government crowd was small government about everything.

You can't be individual on personal expenses and make laws limiting abortions or stem cell research, asking women why they are on birthcontrol before you hire them, or denying gay (takai) people the same rights as everyone else.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 30, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> I would actually buy this if the small government crowd was small government about everything.
> 
> You can't be individual on personal expenses and make laws limiting abortions or stem cell research, asking women why they are on birthcontrol before you hire them, or denying gay (takai) people the same rights as everyone else.



Socially Liberal or Conservative vs fiscally Liberal or Conservative.


You can be liberal in some views and conservative in others...


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 30, 2012)

"Sharia law" is redundant.

The Constitution affects and directs ALL laws, not just Federal ones. Otherwise we would conceivably still have black people enslaved in many states (and indentured servitude elsewhere), the electoral system would be dissolved, there would be no national military forces, just state militias, etc.

The concept of "separation of church and state" has long been recognized as the way to carry our the Constitution's freedom of religion clauses, just as "separate but equal" was found NOT to allow equality in education and other opportunities.

The subject was making a medical safety net for Americans, drawing from all, to help the vast majority of us when the time comes. It's called "The Social Contract", another phrase not found in the Consitution, but without which we would have the Law of the Jungle...or the equivalent of Russian oligarchism.


----------



## bstone (Mar 30, 2012)

Linuss said:


> Nope, meant what I said and said what I meant.  A virgule is commonly used to separate choices.  He/She.  And/or.  Yes/No.    You have the choice to choose which one of the 3 (actually, 4) I listed.
> 
> 
> Medicare or Medicaid or Medical or whatever force maximums. Same meaning.



OK, I'll keep in mind that you use non-standard grammar.


----------



## Bullets (Mar 30, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> I would actually buy this if the small government crowd was small government about everything.
> 
> You can't be individual on personal expenses and make laws limiting abortions or stem cell research, asking women why they are on birthcontrol before you hire them, or denying gay (takai) people the same rights as everyone else.



Who says i am? I think the government has far to much involvement in my life as it currently exists. 

Abortion is a life issue as we are at some point during the pregnancy dealing with a independently viable life
stem cells is research issue based on effectiveness of the treatment
the birth control thing is a non-issue, unless the medications taken directly affect your ability to perform a job, its none of your employers business
Unless your sexual orientation directly affects your ability to perform a job, who or what adult you copulate with is none of anyone's business 

My general theory is unless it affects my job or infringes upon the rights of another person, its no ones business 



mycrofft said:


> The Constitution affects and directs ALL laws, not just Federal ones. Otherwise we would conceivably still have black people enslaved in many states (and indentured servitude elsewhere), the electoral system would be dissolved, there would be no national military forces, just state militias, etc.



I agree that it affects all laws, but it is not THE law everywhere, it was never meant to be



mycrofft said:


> The subject was making a medical safety net for Americans, drawing from all, to help the vast majority of us when the time comes. It's called "The Social Contract", another phrase not found in the Consitution, but without which we would have the Law of the Jungle...or the equivalent of Russian oligarchism.



And i disagree, as i would say those who are not currently covered are not the vast majority

 The Social Contract written by Rousseau? In which he claims that everyone will be free because all forfeit the same amount of freedom and impose the same duties on all? We disagree on what constitutes imposition of duties

Or just the social contract as an abstract ideal? Then we disagree on what the governments role in that contract should be. While i agree that the Lockean philosophy provides for natural rights of all humans, what individuals should be REQUIRED BY LAW to contribute is where i disagree. The social contract that exists between humans does so outside the boundaries of government, and is a naturally occurring phenomena that we as decent humans should adhere to. 

And that is where i disagree with Obamacare, i should not be required by law to carry health insurance, nor should i be required by law to provide someone else health insurance. If I CHOOSE to donate my paycheck to a charity, or say, volunteer with a local EMS organization providing medical coverage then that is my choice and that is how i help people in need.


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 30, 2012)

Bullets said:


> Who says i am? I think the government has far to much involvement in my life as it currently exists.
> 
> Abortion is a life issue as we are at some point during the pregnancy dealing with a independently viable life
> stem cells is research issue based on effectiveness of the treatment
> ...



But when in order to further your political agenda you bolster support for your position by allying yourself with people who do make such things their business, then you bear equal responsibility for the problems they create.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Many of your friends that rally against government mandated healthcare also support inflicting their social views upon minorities.

They support you, you support them, you infringe on the rights of others when your vote is counted with theirs.

So let me ask you?

If you had to choose between being forced to buy insurance by the government or supporting the rights of minority individuals from government control, which do you choose?


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 30, 2012)

Find me a political anti-womens' choice spokesman and we will not be looking at a scientist foremost, but a religiously guided crowd pleaser. The only segment of American society now firmly backing the governement's right to tell you to bear a child (you going to put women in prison to make sure they carry to term?) is the Christian Right. The rest have aesthetic qualms, but if past history educates, while they will vote or allow votes to forbid birth control and abortion, when their daughters or sons are about to become unwitting/unwed parents, or an adult married couple find they are going to have another mouth to feed which they cannot afford and no one is available to adopt, then they will find illicit ways to end the pregnancy, usually by going to another country or using illegally operating services at ruinous prices, (or now using internet medicine to do it yourself). This was the norm before Roe v. Wade, not the wishful thinking; if you buy it, be prepared to castigate then discard your incautious offspring, friends, spouses.

Once you claim God is telling you what to do (or The Bible, the Quaran, or one rebi's slant on the Talmud, etc) then dialogue becomes impossible since God never seems to deign to stoop down and participate in the discussion...except through the "enlightened ones'" mouths. Or through their lawyers or "brown shirts".

How many stereotypes are we seeing forwarded this year: sexually incontinent women using abortion as their birth control of choice, "welfare mothers" having babies to boost their income, people who prefer spending days waiting in ER's for primary care,  top income bracket people just waiting for taxes to be lifted so they can race out and employ everyone and lift us out of this recession, American labor which doesn't deign to work for minimum wage as a start, people crossing the Mexican border  to conduct terror campaigns in America and displace American workers...and the unreasoned criticism and scorn for "ObamaCare" is just one more example.

Quit quibbling. The *only* way to pay for American medicine is through the insurance model, and when the insurers start auditing the providers (battle of the gigantic lobbying groups) then the costs must come down and government will need to mandate that care be provided. Maybe re-open all the county hospitals they sold to private companies over the last four decades. As providers we need to look to the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath and provide care, not yield to stereotypes and allow this disgrace to continue.


The social contract (_no caps_) is that *we* bury our dead, succor _*our*_ sick and injured, protect and raise *our* children, and provide for the *common* welfare. The only people not _*ultimately*_ needing help to live are multimillionaires, and even some of them will fall. Forcing people to be covered by insurance (and if you already have it you don't need to buy more, and if you want to be self-insured you can just pay the fine so you take up your share of the load) is like makingn them eat their spinach.
Hey, wait twenty years then repeal it, all us gomers will be gone then anyway.


----------



## looker (Mar 31, 2012)

Lets make it simple, Obamacare is gone on 5-4 decision. It simply was way too much and didn't pass the smell test. The rest of the law will be gone as well. The Obamacare was a bad law, as it would cause health insurance company to bankrupt. The penalty that were in the law were so small that most people and company would pay penalty being it would been cheaper.


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 31, 2012)

looker said:


> The Obamacare was a bad law, as it would cause health insurance company to bankrupt.



Life is not simple.

But the health insurance companies going bankrupt would be the single best thing to ever happen to healthcare in America.


----------



## akflightmedic (Mar 31, 2012)

Bullets said:


> The US was developed by two groups, political and social outcasts (North ad Gerogia) and businessmen (south). From the time of Roanoke (1584 or 1607 depending on how you view it) to around 1765 the American colonist were able to settle and run their own groups, colonies, and governments with little interference from the English Crown. Thats 160 years of self-governance! before we were even a country! This is the crucible in which the founding documents were formed and is why this country placed such a stress on individual rights. This is why there is still a large segment of US society that finds the idea of social programs reprehensible.



We must not forget our religious heritage! The Puritans did not come to America to avoid religious persecution. They came here because they were no longer tolerated in England because of their extremist views. It is not that they wanted to practice their religion freely, but rather they wanted to oppress other religions further than England permitted them to. And that is the Christian legacy, to oppress other religions in order to maintain their status quo, their false sense of superiority, to attempt to convert all non-believers in this world, by any means necessary.


----------



## Bullets (Mar 31, 2012)

akflightmedic said:


> We must not forget our religious heritage! The Puritans did not come to America to avoid religious persecution. They came here because they were no longer tolerated in England because of their extremist views. It is not that they wanted to practice their religion freely, but rather they wanted to oppress other religions further than England permitted them to. And that is the Christian legacy, to oppress other religions in order to maintain their status quo, their false sense of superiority, to attempt to convert all non-believers in this world, by any means necessary.


 Right, social outcasts, there were not welcome in English society so the left




mycrofft said:


> The social contract (_no caps_) is that *we* bury our dead, succor _*our*_ sick and injured, protect and raise *our* children, and provide for the *common* welfare. The only people not _*ultimately*_ needing help to live are multimillionaires, and even some of them will fall. Forcing people to be covered by insurance (and if you already have it you don't need to buy more, and if you want to be self-insured you can just pay the fine so you take up your share of the load) is like makingn them eat their spinach.
> Hey, wait twenty years then repeal it, all us gomers will be gone then anyway.



However the social contract philosophy also requires universal acceptance by all of its participants. And the social contract does not assume that the GOVERNMENT buries our dead, succors our sick, and protect and raise our children. Those are jobs designed for the populous as individuals to take up  through the community, charities, or family groups.

Its not an issue of providing universal care, i agree that the people should be provided for, the issue lies with the government involvement in this issue


----------



## mycrofft (Apr 1, 2012)

I agree, but the way people are driven out of one place with bad care to a place with good care (like Mexican citizens fleeing to America for employment versus starving at home) puts an undeserved burden upon states with better benefits. African Americans not only fled the deep South for decades to escape racism, but often fled the country, to Europe. WHen federal marshals said enough of this, and racially motivated violence was deemed a federal civil right issue, that stopped.

The larger the pool of participants, the more self-sufficient the pool is. (See Social Security...until now, it has done so well other programs have raided it for money!).

The government aspect worries me because politicians will see it as a place to start cutting back, as they have with MediCare/MedicAid, and has happened in Great Britain. WE don't see that happening with SocSec here because it has become a political third rail.


----------



## Bullets (Apr 1, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> The larger the pool of participants, the more self-sufficient the pool is. (See Social Security...until now, it has done so well other programs have raided it for money!).



This is really my major concern with the concept of a government funded system. It either becomes a successful program for a period of time, and is actually profitable or breaking even, which will then lead it it being raided for its "surplus" and left in a mess

Or

It fails miserably due to divisive interests and become a rotting hulk that never quite goes away and sucks from the profitable or functional programs, always lingering around but never quite being beneficial. But no one wants to mess with it for fear of "Taking healthcare from THE CHILDREN/SENIORS/POOR"

Is see the timeline of SS all over this thing


----------



## akflightmedic (Apr 3, 2012)

http://www.lohud.com/usatoday/article/38941163?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|News|s

This young, active couple did not have insurance either...


----------



## Bullets (Apr 3, 2012)

akflightmedic said:


> http://www.lohud.com/usatoday/article/38941163?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|News|s
> 
> This young, active couple did not have insurance either...



So whats your point here? I think this perfectly illustrates what I have been saying. private entities paid for the needed treatment


----------



## akflightmedic (Apr 3, 2012)

"and Rep. William Pascrell's office helped arrange a $9,100 federal emergency loan."

Think we are not going to pay for this?

They are also currently sitting in a hospital where they are receiving care courtesy of the government....the private money raised only got them to their home state so they could reap the benefits of a "free hospital".

Would of been nice to have had them and the millions of other spaying into a plan all this time instead of using the services at will with no cost. If only they were forced to buy insurance....


----------



## FlightMedicHunter (Apr 3, 2012)

Greed has destroyed America.  

Most, if not all, politicians, political scientists, and public health administrators know that universal health care will be inevitable in America.  They just don't know when.  

ObamaCare is simply a last-ditch effort to make a private health insurance system 'work'.  ObamaCare is also a stepping stone to a single-payer system.  One way or another it will happen.  

A national health care system that relies on companies and organizations that require a profit to survive, will, um, not survive.


----------

