"Obama Care" versus wishful thinking

[homingmissile]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Veneficus]

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

Or Rastafari...

 

[bstone]

Medicare/Medicaid/Medi-cal

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

 

[Shishkabob]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I call BS

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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

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

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]

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 .

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.