Goodbye to US HealthCare?

[MulaMan]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

I support an opt-out for Republicans in Congress to decline thier existing government health care plans.

All Republicans can then purchase health care insurance from the thriving, private, free-market health insurance system they think currently exists.

E-mail this link to all of your Republican representatives:

http://www.washington-dc-health-insurance.org


P.S. I recommend Republicans opt-out first prior to applying for new health insurance.

[Raz]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

Healthcare is the most basic of all human rights. Medicare in the U.S. should be expanded to cover everyone in the country, regardless of who they are, regardless of where they came from, regardless of their age, and regardless of their pre-existing condition.

The fact that Democrats could not agree on one simple healthcare bill written in one short paragraph (just as I have written above) tells me that the Democratic Party in Congress is paid-off by the private health insurance lobby, just as the Republicans are.

One short paragraph written in short simple sentences is all that is required for a bill, not the 1050 page monstrosity now offerred by the Democratic Party to-day. And there should be zero negotiation with the Republicans about this..... Yes, or no to the bill, and that should be it; that should have been it from the start.

The fact that a simple bill such as this would not get out of House or Senate Committee in the Congress just speaks volumes to me about the fact that the U.S. Constitution to-day has to be re-written, top-to-bottom, to be relevant to the times we live in now. The Congress is operating in the 18th Century, not the 21st Century. So the Congress is corrupt.

Raz, you should not call yourself a Democrat. Very few in the Democratic Party are real FDR New Deal Democrats, and very few of the Democrats around to-day are liberals or progressives on much of anything, including the key issue of providing Medicare to all the people.

You and all the other socialists can call healthcare a right at the top of your lungs, ten-thousand times a day, and it still is NOT a right. It is not a human right, a God given right, or an assumed right, no matter what you believe. It is a benefit made possible by the intelligence, initiative, hard work, invested capital, risk-taking and perseverance of medical students, physicians, biologists, chemists, nurses, researchers, manufacturers and investors. It costs a LOT of money, it is not a free proposition, and someone must pay for it. THAT's the real problem.

Now I'm all for every American citizen having access to basic healthcare, and I do believe it should be a high priority in our government. But at the same time I do not believe (1) the number of those citizens who simply cannot afford some level of insurance coverage exceeds 20,000,000, and (2) the answer lies with another massive government entitlement program piled onto the balance sheet of an already bankrupt nation.

Major changes in the laws regulating private insurance should be tried first, together with a subsidy for those means-tested and shown to be unable to pay for even the most basic policy. After a period of several years we should be able to determine the effectiveness of that approach.

I've been accused of being a Libertarian who wants no government involvement in anything; that's not true, it's just that I see the government in any case and at any level as the last resort, where you Leftist/Socialist types always look to the government as the first resort.

And where did I ever say or infer that I was a Democrat? (Are you off your meds again?)
I'm too Conservative to be a Republican, and although I am a realist, I have a worldview that prevents me from being a Democrat.

[Raz]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

The very same conservatives who would mandate that women give birth to those with Down Syndrome would also do away with federal oversight of education, even though education spending is only a few percent of the federal budget (most federal education mandates are unfunded).

You may count me among those Conservatives who recognize and strongly believe that the inconvenience of the mother for a period of nine months or more does NOT justify the cold-blooded murder of the helpless, defenceless and totally innocent human being growing inside her womb.
That, lurker, is the manifest reality of our human condition and the reality of the reproductive process of humankind. It's just a fact of life.
I have been a regular contributor of both time and money to a crisis pregnancy center in my metropolitan area, as well as the largest adoption center in my state. I truly sympathize with women who find themselves pregnant out-of-wedlock, but my primary sympathy is with the only completely innocent party to this three-way saga: the preborn child.

You may also count me as a Conservative who would TOTALLY ABOLISH the Federal department of Education. Congress passed I.D.E.A. before Jimmy Carter proposed the Dept. of Education, so I fail to see your connection of the two. And Congress is famous for passing laws that present states and municipalities with unfunded mandates, a process that I would abolish if it were within my power to do so since it is another manifestation of Federal tyranny. (If you say I must drive your kids across the country then at least come up with the gas money!)

We do not need a Federal bureaucracy to micromanage, regulate and oversee public education in the United States.
My wife is a schoolteacher with a Masters Degree in Special Ed and over twenty-six years experience both as a Special Ed teacher, a Regular Ed teacher, and as an Administrator in our State Dept. of Education. She is also a regular volunteer at a group home for retarded adults and has given of her time in that regard for almost fifteen years.
She agrees with me.

However it is only due to IDEA, a federal act, that Downs syndrome children now have a shot at a decent education, and are not simply institutionalized. I know because I'm raising a child who would have been institutionalized if she had been born 50 yrs ago.

As with all laws there comes forth good and bad. I.D.E.A. has produced far more good than bad, but there are a host of lawyers and nearly insane judges who force the ridiculous upon some school districts.
There are NO EXCEPTIONS to I.D.E.A, meaning that even if a child is in a permanent vegetative state he or she must have an IEP and the district must provide "educational services" to such a child even if he or she doesn't know their own name or recognize their own parents.
I submit to you that when the governmental premise of Subsidiarity is rejected and Federal bureaucrats are allowed to draft all manner of regulations and mandates for the entire country this type of insanity not only grows, but flourishes. And it wastes limited resources (all resources are limited) that could be put to far better use, as with a disabled child who at least has cognitive function.

My point is that we should support people to do the right thing, not simply coerce them if they happen to be low income.

I'm not sure I understand your point at all.

If it pertains to the first paragraph you wrote then I do not agree at all.
I support assisiting people to do the right thing, but I also favor laws that use threat of punishment to protect the innocent and helpless. It should by now be crystal clear that I support the criminalization of procured abortion.

I read from your posts (please correct me if I'm wrong) the implication that somehow the world would be a much better place if the federal government was extracted from healthcare and education, but in reality I think it would just be a different place ... maybe better, but also quite possibly much worse, because these complex decisions and tradeoffs would still be there to be made.

You did not read that from my posts; you assumed it from your own sociopolitical viewpoint because I didn't write what you wanted to hear. Even I fall prey to that from time to time, and I'm exceptionally brilliant, objective, and humble.

Do you let poor people die in the gutter from easily (and inexpensively) treatable diseases ? At what cost do you draw the line ?

I'm certainly not in the camp who would let people "die from easily and inexpensively treatable disease". Who is?
You're posing loaded and preposterous questions in order to paint a dark picture of those who might not agree with you.
(By the way, lurker: when did you stop doing drugs? When did you stop beating your wife? :p)

Do you spend extra money to educate those will learning disabilities ? How much and where do you draw the line ? To what extent do you do it to make their lives more fulfilling, and to what extent does it pay for itself by reducing their future burden on society ? Or do we let non-dependant people with mental illness or developmental disabilities die in the gutter also.

These are extremely complex questions. I sense that libertarians would prefer these questions simply didn't exist because of their complexity and intractibility.

I'm not a Libertarian, lurker, but I'll tell you what I would like to see:
I'd like to see Liberals, Leftists and all "government first" types face up to the facts that are the basis for all economics - we have far more needs and wants than we do resources, and everyone who makes more money than you should not be seen as a chicken to be plucked "for the greater good".
I'd also like to see Liberals give even half the money to charitable causes that Conservatives do. People like Al Gore and his $353.00 charitable contribution on an AGI of over $300,000.00 make me want to puke when he lectures others about how "unfeeling" and "uncaring" Conservatives are.
It's always easy to be charitable and generous with someone else's money.
That to me defines the most disgusting and hypocritical face of the American Left.

My greatest sadness is that we don't seem to be able to even have adult discussions about these issues at the governmental level. Everything has been reduced to partisan point scoring, and divisiveness. Apart from patriotism. We're all true patriots :rolleyes: whatever that means.

Well it would help if we stopped reading something into these posts that the person did not say. And I wish I could say that we are all true patriots, but I think most of those in our present government put themselves first, not our country or its citizens.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

I am all in favour of a federal sales tax in the U.S.A. to pay for expanding Medicare to cover everyone, regardless of age, regardless of pre-existing conditions, regardless of immigration status, regardless of language-spoken, and regardless of employment, unemployment, or work-history.

Paying a federal sales tax to pay for Medicare would be much cheaper than paying $600+ per month for private for-profit health insurance. And if the Republicans and libertarians would want to argue this point, then let them.... The Democrats would win this debate, without even trying.

Therefore, the second paragraph of the bill to expand Medicare would be a paragraph in how to pay for the bill: a federal Medicare-earmarked sales tax. A federal sales tax in the U.S. of 5% might solve the problem of Medicare-spending as well as the problem of all federal deficit-spending.

Let the 2010 Congressional election in America be fought on the healthcare issue properly framed: universal-Medicare and a new federal sales tax in order to pay for it.

[cjppjc]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

Let the 2010 Congressional election in America be fought on the healthcare issue properly framed: universal-Medicare and a new federal sales tax in order to pay for it.

Federal Sales Tax? :eek:

[Starving Steve]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

Federal Sales Tax? :eek:

A new federal sales tax of 5% on your new Hummer or Land-Rover, or maybe your Chevy Suburban just might cost you $1500--- about the equivalent of two one-month healthcare premiums to your friendly for-profit private health insurance company. Even so, for the next ten months, you would not have to pay one dime for healthcare in America --- that is, unless you go out and buy another $30,000 vehicle, etc.... In other words, a new federal sales tax wouldn't hurt you very much, and you would save a fortune in monthly healthcare premiums that you now pay to the health insurance leeches.

Small business needs to think of the fortune it could save by getting rid of the private for-profit health insurance leeches.... This is really a no-brainer: no more $600 or $700 cheques each month to your insurance company. Game-over for them.

Democrats in Congress: This is your issue. The time has come for a New Deal again for the American people.

[cjppjc]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

A new federal sales tax of 5% on your new Hummer or Land-Rover, or maybe your Chevy Suburban just might cost you $1500--- about the equivalent of two one-month healthcare premiums to your friendly for-profit private health insurance company. Even so, for the next ten months, you would not have to pay one dime for healthcare in America --- that is, unless you go out and buy another $30,000 vehicle, etc.... In other words, a new federal sales tax wouldn't hurt you very much, and you would save a fortune in monthly healthcare premiums that you now pay to the health insurance leeches.

Small business needs to think of the fortune it could save by getting rid of the private for-profit health insurance leeches.... This is really a no-brainer: no more $600 or $700 cheques each month to your insurance company. Game-over for them.

Democrats in Congress: This is your issue. The time has come for a New Deal again for the American people.

Steve wouldn't it be easier to just tax the dividends of GE? Or maybe all that cheap electricty you keep writting about. But seriously the last thing this country needs right now is a national sales tax.

[lurker]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

Congress passed I.D.E.A. before Jimmy Carter proposed the Dept. of Education, so I fail to see your connection of the two.

Thanks for the correction. I didn't realize the federal Dept of Education was such a recent development.

We do not need a Federal bureaucracy to micromanage, regulate and oversee public education in the United States.

I'm somewhat in agreement. Since I live in a state (MA) with a pretty strong school system I don't particularly want the Feds messing with it. Ideally the Feds could simply select best practises from each state, but in practise academics seem unable to do this. "Not invented here" must always intervene.

As with all laws there comes forth good and bad. I.D.E.A. has produced far more good than bad, but there are a host of lawyers and nearly insane judges who force the ridiculous upon some school districts.
There are NO EXCEPTIONS to I.D.E.A, meaning that even if a child is in a permanent vegetative state he or she must have an IEP and the district must provide "educational services" to such a child even if he or she doesn't know their own name or recognize their own parents.

Having a child on an IEP and being involved in the local parent support group I find the most vocal and over-lawyered parents are usually those with children with such mild problems as to be borderline IEP worthy, but who are not able to achieve the clear sweep of A-grades that their parents believe due and so require private placement at once.

The parents of children with more severe disabilities usually seem to be happier with the schools' performance. A bit of a generalization, but I've lived in two towns and seen the same behavior in both.

this type of insanity not only grows, but flourishes.

IMO the problems of IDEA stem from a feeding frenzy in SPED lawyers, private schools and medical establishments (no child without a neuropsych. evaluation) far more than in the language of IDEA. I'm not sure how you solve this. If you word the law to adequately protect the weak, then there will be those who attempt to abuse it.

You did not read that from my posts; you assumed it from your own sociopolitical viewpoint because I didn't write what you wanted to hear. Even I fall prey to that from time to time, and I'm exceptionally brilliant, objective, and humble.

I have a lot of time for your posts, and perhaps you are correct that I read into them that which you did not intend.

I'm certainly not in the camp who would let people "die from easily and inexpensively treatable disease". Who is?

That is the conclusion of not having a universal healthcare system, and it happens in the US more frequently than it does in other developed nations precisely because access to care is a lottery based upon employment and wealth.

I'm not a Libertarian, lurker, but I'll tell you what I would like to see:
I'd like to see Liberals, Leftists and all "government first" types face up to the facts that are the basis for all economics - we have far more needs and wants than we do resources, and everyone who makes more money than you should not be seen as a chicken to be plucked "for the greater good".
I'd also like to see Liberals give even half the money to charitable causes that Conservatives do. People like Al Gore and his $353.00 charitable contribution on an AGI of over $300,000.00 make me want to puke when he lectures others about how "unfeeling" and "uncaring" Conservatives are.
It's always easy to be charitable and generous with someone else's money.

That to me defines the most disgusting and hypocritical face of the American Left.

Bit of a generalization there, extrapolating from a single example. It would be similarly ridiculous for me to judge all conservatives by the actions of Tom DeLay. Politicians on both side of the aisle are proponents of "Do as I say not as I do".

I don't begrudge paying taxes, and but for family keeping me in the US I'd happily move to a country in which I'd pay higher taxes if I felt that those taxes provided common services that enrich the society to a level justifying their cost.

That would include a universal free at the point of service basic healthcare system (that could be supplemented with private insurance for those wishing to have private rooms or to be able to jump the queues on elective procedures). I grew up in the UK, and it's a wonderful feeling being able to go to any ER at any time when you're truly sick or injured (and believe me I didn't go in for anything minor) and not worry about whether it will leave you with a catastrophic bill. It's liberating. You get a bad diagnosis and your only worry is getting better, not being bankrupted by the cost because your insurer had some sneaky fine print that allows them to dump you.

And I wish I could say that we are all true patriots, but I think most of those in our present government put themselves first, not our country or its citizens.

It's nice to be able to end with a resounding agreement, or "Hear, hear" as they say in my country of birth.

I also apologize that my prior post was unnecessarily disagreeable. I've had a terrible head cold this past week. That's what you get for having kids in elementary school.

[Raz]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

[/color]
Bit of a generalization there, extrapolating from a single example. It would be similarly ridiculous for me to judge all conservatives by the actions of Tom DeLay. Politicians on both side of the aisle are proponents of "Do as I say not as I do".

No, it's not. Both anecdotal and statistical studies show that Conservatives give significantly more to charity than do Liberals.
Even Conservatives in lower income brackets.

Read these: http://philanthropy.com/free/article...4/04001101.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=...&page=1&page=1

So I stand by everything I said concerning the nauseating hypocrisy of Liberals
accusing Conservatives of being "selfish" and "uncaring". It's a damn lie.

I don't begrudge paying taxes, and but for family keeping me in the US I'd happily move to a country in which I'd pay higher taxes if I felt that those taxes provided common services that enrich the society to a level justifying their cost.

I grew up in the UK, and it's a wonderful feeling being able to go to any ER at any time when you're truly sick or injured (and believe me I didn't go in for anything minor) and not worry about whether it will leave you with a catastrophic bill. It's liberating. You get a bad diagnosis and your only worry is getting better, not being bankrupted by the cost because your insurer had some sneaky fine print that allows them to dump you.

I don't like paying taxes to any government such as the present government of the United States. The corruption is beyond anything I ever imagined it could be. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve system have become two of the greatest criminal enterprises in American history.

Be that as it may, I'm not opposed to our government providing a level of basic care to everyone; I'm just not sure how it can be done by a Federal agency without making the system even worse.
I have no love for the Insurance Industry in America, particularly the Health Insurance Cartel. MAJOR changes need to be made in the regulation thereof. But I'm just a "government as the last resort" kind of guy.

And I understand having a respiratory infection.
My wife missed four days of school this past week - she had sinusitis, bronchitis, and conjuctivitis!
Grammar school children seem to have every germ known to mankind.
(And I had a bad cold before she came home sick!)

[reallife]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

With the Republicans winning Virginia and NJ tonight don't expect progress on Healthcare. Dollar boost as a $1.2 Trillion shelved until 2010? .... blah...blah...blah....

You have seriously underestimated the momentum for health care reform. Alas, as a physician myself, I must admit that the professional orginazations that represent my specialty have made the same mistake. They supported the Republicans in the last election and continued to support the Republicans all year. Now, they are shut out of the nitty gritty negotiations that will determine the ultimate form of the health care legislation. Likewise, the Republicans will have NO input into the legislation. Too bad they didn't reform the system, including malpractice reform, when they had a majority grip on the Congress and White House in the early 2000's; but then that would have required real governance, something the Republicans are no longer capable of.

BTW, isn't it interesting how the Republicans have adopted Social Security and Medicare during the recent debates, despite having fought tooth and nail to block Social Security and Medicare for generations? The public LIKES these programs and the public will like the results of the current efforts to reform health care delivery. For the record, I used to vote Republican until they nominated the idiot savant, George Bush, Junior.Since then I've been a moderate independent voter.

[Sapiens]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

Unalienable, not inalienable.

“Unalienable” vs. “Inalienable”

[lurker]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

No, it's not. Both anecdotal and statistical studies show that Conservatives give significantly more to charity than do Liberals.
Even Conservatives in lower income brackets.

Read these: http://philanthropy.com/free/article...4/04001101.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=...&page=1&page=1

So I stand by everything I said concerning the nauseating hypocrisy of Liberals
accusing Conservatives of being "selfish" and "uncaring". It's a damn lie.

The philanthropy report has been shown to be extremely misleading.

You can show anything to be the case with bogus statistics. So by way of reply here is my rebuttal to your bogus generalization with some bogus statistics of my own

http://www.tbf.org/uploadedFiles/Gen...t_10-30-05.pdf

To illustrate its shortcomings, the Generosity Index
ranked the residents of Massachusetts 49th out of the
50 states in charitable giving in 2004. However, if the
incomes and charitable contributions of everyone in
the country remained unchanged, except that every
resident of Massachusetts gave twice as much to charity,
the ranking of Massachusetts would rise only to
23rd on the Generosity Index. Moreover, if the incomes
and charitable contributions of everyone else in the
country remained unchanged, except that every
resident of Massachusetts gave 100 times as much to
charity, the residents of Massachusetts would still be
ranked no higher than position 23. In fact, the Generosity
Index would rank the residents of Massachusetts in
position 23 even if they gave 1,000 times as much or
even 100,000 times as much as they contributed in 2002
(the base year for the 2004 index).

A similar example
based on data from the Generosity Index in 2002 shows
that Massachusetts could not rise above rank 23 in that
year as well. As long as Massachusetts is a highincome
state, it can never attain rank 1 in the Generosity
Index. The index is similarly biased against the
residents of all relatively high-income states.


The mirror image also holds: the Generosity Index is
biased in favor of low-income states. The 2004
Generosity Index ranks Mississippi first in charitable
giving among the 50 states. Even if the residents of
Mississippi had given nothing to charity, their ranking
would not have fallen below position 26, assuming the
incomes and charitable donations of the residents of all

other states remained unchanged.

[Raz]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

The philanthropy report has been shown to be extremely misleading.

You can show anything to be the case with bogus statistics. So by way of reply here is my rebuttal to your bogus generalization with some bogus statistics of my own

http://www.tbf.org/uploadedFiles/Gen...t_10-30-05.pdf

I just finished reading 22 pages of the 48 page document you cited.

It is a tortured attempt to refute the methodology surrounding a Generosity Index that paints an unfavorable picture of personal giving in the Commonwealth of Massachusets. Havens and Schervish actually want to make a partial case that since the cost of housing and the tax burden is higher in Massachusets than in Mississippi the findings can't be accurate!

I don't see how you read one single page of the 5 page article I hyperlinked because the paper by Mr. Havens and professor Schervish focuses on a Generosity Index not mentioned in the book "Who Really Cares" by Arthur C. Brooks, nor did they mention or reference the work of Professor Byron Johnson who was also cited in the article I hyperlinked for you.

And it's hard to believe that ABC News would posit a similar conclusion even anecdotaly if they thought it to be untrue since they are hardly biased toward the political Right.

I stand by every word I wrote on the subject - until clearly refuted.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

I am very conservative, in the real sense of the term - not the NeoCon mutation.

And all I have to say is: if the Republicans think that this means they can sit back and do nothing about the health insurance cartel, then they are truly stupid, and will overplay their hand just as Obama and that idiot Pelosi have overplayed theirs.

Hi Raz:

About the only issue you, as a fiscal conservative, and I, as a socialist both would agree upon is the need for the government to pay its bills and offer an honest accounting to the public, especially an honest accounting to our children who will have to pay the bills for deficit-spending.... On other issues such as the need for national healthcare, you and I are at dipoles politically.

So I might call your attention to Roger Wiegand's article at www.kitco.com dated October 30th, 2009: "Zombie Government Reality Check".
The article is both hilarious and sad, yet true. The article is an eye-opener.

The URL to Rober Wiegand's Oct 30th blog is: http://www.kitco.com/ind/Wieg_cor/roger_oct302009.html

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Goodbye to US HealthCare?

The main problems with this bill is that I see no provisions for people to have to pay for their treatment. As opposed to having the wealthy pay more for their insurance they simply tax them at a rate of 5.4 % so the rest of the population does not have to pay for it. I do agree with the fact that everyone has to enroll although I have a big problem with people going to jail for not paying into the system. I do agree that insurance companies should not prevent coverage for pre-existing conditions. But overall as opposed to being a smart reform that we can actually benefit from we are getting a government controlled (throught the redistribution of tax dollars) and enforced (major civil and criminal penalties if you do not enroll) that will eventually morph into a government entitlement (because people to not give up free stuff see Medicare, Social Security, Housing subsidies, cash for clunkers etc). Also I am not a Republican.

Nice work, though a bit long for my personal taste being typical American with "sound-bite mentality." I don't understand your last phrase.

I suppose you meant to write "do not" vs. "to not," but it still doesn't make good sense. Are you saying "see" to give examples of "free stuff."