Yay, health care..

[willsellout]

That's where we differ - IMO, it's stupid to place such importance on a VP candidate when the opposing Presidential candidate was already spelling out this healthcare disaster, cap and trade, etc... - georgestrings

Both candidates were spelling out a lot of things I didn't like and I'm sure a lot of people felt the same way. In an election like the last one you have to start taking into account the little things, like VP candidates. To not take a VP into account when you casting your vote would be the stupid thing IMO.

Like I said I was going to vote McCain but his inability to manage a campaign, the fact that he was obviously being puppeted, and his exceptionally poor choice in Palin sealed it for me.

Just because Zach posts on here about voting for Obama to spite Palin doesn't actually mean that was the deciding factor, but you assume so because you like to "take people to task" over it.

[georgestrings]

Both candidates were spelling out a lot of things I didn't like and I'm sure a lot of people felt the same way. In an election like the last one you have to start taking into account the little things, like VP candidates. To not take a VP into account when you casting your vote would be the stupid thing IMO. Like I said I was going to vote McCain but his inability to manage a campaign, the fact that he was obviously being puppeted, and his exceptionally poor choice in Palin sealed it for me. Just because Zach posts on here about voting for Obama to spite Palin doesn't actually mean that was the deciding factor, but you assume so because you like to "take people to task" over it.

Actually, he has come out and said that he voted against Palin - nice try at spin, though... and it IS stupid to place more importance on a VP candidate than it is on the Presidential candidate...

While we're being frank with one another - I don't believe that you ever had any intention of voting for anyone but Obama, despite your claims to the contrary...



- georgestrings

[georgestrings]

I'm outta here for now - time to get ready for Christmas dinner...



- georgestrings

[willsellout]

Actually, he has come out and said that he voted against Palin - nice try at spin, though... and it IS stupid to place more importance on a VP candidate than it is on the Presidential candidate...

 

 

I know he's come out and said that. What I'm saying is that you assume that was the deciding factor and go about with the "taking him to task" over it as if you know for a fact that he cast his vote simply based on voting against Palin. You don't know that.

 

 

While we're being frank with one another - I don't believe that you ever had any intention of voting for anyone but Obama, despite your claims to the contrary... - georgestrings

 

 

What's your point? You can think what you want George, it doesn't matter to me.

 

You are under the impression that you can get insight into a person through their post on this board. If you've met anyone on here you would know that simply isn't true. There is only one person I've met IRL that I thought "wow, that dude is exactly like his online persona". You really only get a snapshot of people on here. You know, for a guy so quick to call everyone else stupid, you'd think you would have figured this out by now:idk:

 

 

 

Dan

[Brother Mango]

 

I'm outta here for now - time to get ready for Christmas dinner... - georgestrings

 

 

What's for dinner??

What time will it be ready?

[Defender001]

Hey, I know it ain't my country, so feel free to tell me to feck off but where from this side of the Atlantic it seems the bottom line is: It's going to save lives. People who would die otherwise can get life saving treatment they couldn't afford. And folk are saying this is a bad thing? Yes they are layabout, people who ride the system. But we have them here too. There are a lot of people who really need it, and for the most part - it works.

It is doubtful that the U.S. will be able to create a nationalized health care system which will work as well at that of the European countries. People are assuming that the legislation they are passing here will bring that about. I really don't think so. The U.S. is good with certain things and bad with certain things. I'd say nationalized health care is something the U.S. will be bad at, although the current system is also highly flawed. To make things worse, the current congress is probably the worst one I have ever seen. God help us all.

[lonerstoenr]

Don't undersell yourself so easily.

 

Nationalised health care is going to have problems, perhaps major ones in its first inception. I struggle to think of any national scheme that doesn't have major issues when it is first introduced.

 

The important thing is that the government can recognise these issues and are clever, interested and caring enough to change them for the better.

 

It is impossible to predict how a large scheme is going to run, what the pitfalls will be, what the success will be and how that will play out socially, economically and politically.

 

Can the government in the USA respond to concerns to create a useful Universal Health Care?

 

I don't know.

[georgestrings]

What's for dinner?? What time will it be ready?

 

 

 

We had a nice 9lb spiral cut ham, scalloped potatos, asparagus, rolls, etc... with a few drinks, around 6pm - it wasn't bad... We went over to the GF's folk's house - they have a GSD also, and our dog always has fun over there...

 

I'd love to have you over sometime, bud - if you're ever in the Syracuse area, I'll be mad if you don't stop by...

 

 

 

- georgestrings

[jasper383]

The important thing is that the government can recognise these issues and are clever, interested and caring enough to change them for the better.

Not familiar with the US, are you?

[Defender001]

In theory, I like the idea of nationalized health care very much. And despite the critics, it seems to me that other industrialized countries do it pretty well. However, I predict the American attempt will be about as successful as soccer has been here. Actually, it's kind of depressing, especially in light of the fact that there are people out there who think we are making some kind of great accomplishment by passing health care legislation. The only consolation is that the system we already have sucks, too. As far as I'm concerned, all of this is a no-win situation.

[lonerstoenr]

Not familiar with the US, are you?

It's a challenge for any goverment.

Sorry, let me change that:

It's a challenge for any politician.......

[Perfessor]

Day old bread, raisins and milk kept Ben Franklin healthy for a long time without government health care.

Just sayin'...

[whiteop]

Our government is too corrupt to do what is best for it's citizens. The liberals are fooled once again, will be disappointed here in a few years and will whine and complain the most. End of story.

[J.]

Don't undersell yourself so easily. Nationalised health care is going to have problems, perhaps major ones in its first inception. I struggle to think of any national scheme that doesn't have major issues when it is first introduced. The important thing is that the government can recognise these issues and are clever, interested and caring enough to change them for the better. It is impossible to predict how a large scheme is going to run, what the pitfalls will be, what the success will be and how that will play out socially, economically and politically. Can the government in the USA respond to concerns to create a useful Universal Health Care?

 

Government is not compassion, and it is not virtue. It is most certainly not a charity. Government is force. We as citizens give the government a monopoly on force so it can protect liberty from illegitimate users of force (foreign armies, criminals, etc). Since gov't has the monopoly on force, it must be limited as to what it can do. That's why the federal government was given a few specific duties in the Constitution. Unfortunately, that's been blown out of the water, especially in the last century or so.

 

It is possible to predict how things will turn out - just look at the above example of Medicare and Medicaid. I think they're very good indicators of what will probably happen.

 

Furthermore, the US is a collection of states with a federal government, not a central national government. This healthcare bill is simply not within the proper purview of the federal government. If we had a supreme court with any fidelity to the original document, such a bill if signed into law would be struck down if challenged. Unfortunately, the court's bad precedent from New Deal onward leave me little hope of that.

[Brother Mango]

One thing that's missing, for me, is commentary from someone who is in favor of the new legislation and understands it all. If someone like that is lurking in this thread, I invite you to speak up. The Cassandras are sufficiently represented.

 

My concern is that I highly doubt that the government would be so diabolical, self-serving and/or ignorant to push this reform so vigorously.

 

So, where's some real discussion?

 

As much as I despised Geroge Bush, I could see that he was driven by what he really thought was good for the country. And I see that the country didn't devolve into 3rd World status as a result of 8 years of GWB.

 

 

Here's an invitation to the Cassandras: Present Obama's strongest case for the legislation and then address the elements of that case.

 

 

How 'bout it?

[zachoff]

 

Actually, he has come out and said that he voted against Palin - nice try at spin, though... and it IS stupid to place more importance on a VP candidate than it is on the Presidential candidate... While we're being frank with one another - I don't believe that you ever had any intention of voting for anyone but Obama, despite your claims to the contrary... - georgestrings

 

 

Bottom line, dude... I voted for Obama because I didn't want 4 more years of Bush politics. I voted for Kerry for the same reason. I'm not a Democrat and both times I left the voting booth feeling dirty. Obama ran under the guise that it wouldn't be 4 more years of Bush politics, but so far he's 0 for 1 (other than the tax thing).

 

Yes it's true... Palin put the nail in the coffin for McCain. Pretty much all but two Republicans I know that are close friends and family and not Internet personas voted for Obama because of Palin. You think it's silly. I, and a lot of others, don't.

 

You also say I've been media spun, but whatever. I watch TV news nonce a week. What news I do read comes over the AP wire and I also get a lot from the BBC and The Guardian to get an outside perspective. Everyone except Faux News thought Palin was a train wreck... Everyone. Your constant support of her says more about your intelligence than my dislike.

 

As far as politics are concerned Obama is failing at not being Bush. The health care thing is just another lop of {censored} on top of the pile.

 

Edit..

Sorry, meant to say all but two Independents I know voted for Obama because of Palin... Only two Republicans I know voted for Obama because of Palin.

[lug]

 

It's a challenge for any goverment. Sorry, let me change that: It's a challenge for any politician.......

 

 

You understand that we already spend a larger percentage of our federal budget to cover approximately 35% to 40% of our people than most other countries spend to cover 100% of theirs? And that these federal payments to doctors and hospitals from these fall short of breaking even, causing private insurance companies to foot the difference with higher rates? Adding 60% more people and expecting the government costs to stay the same or go down is living in fantasy land....a place most of out current politicians seem very familiar with. This "fix" is equivalent to putting out a fire by throwing gasoline on it.

[jasper383]

You understand that we already spend a larger percentage of our federal budget to cover approximately 35% to 40% of our people than most other countries spend to cover 100% of theirs?

 

 

Isn't this because who is covered now are the most expensive ones; the elderly?

 

Health insurance, whether public or private, runs because the healthy subsidize the sick. You have a lot of young people paying in lots and lots, and not using much of it.

 

That said, I have great doubts that this bill will deliver anything other than lots of new spending and waste. National health care works great in lots of small, homogeneous countries. Not sure it will work well here in the US, especially since there is no attempt at tort reform.

[Kindness]

Not sure it will work well here in the US, especially since there is no attempt at tort reform.

 

 

I'm pro tort reform. I learned tort law from Jefferey O'Connell. If you think tort reform will impact health care costs in a meaningful way, you haven't done your homework.

[georgestrings]

You also say I've been media spun, but whatever. I watch TV news nonce a week. What news I do read comes over the AP wire and I also get a lot from the BBC and The Guardian to get an outside perspective. Everyone except Faux News thought Palin was a train wreck... Everyone. Your constant support of her says more about your intelligence than my dislike.

 

 

 

 

Getting "alot from the BBC and The Guardian" explains the positions you so often take - although why anyone would want to gather info on THEIR country from foreign liberal news outlets is beyond me - other than the possibility that they're being fed what they want to hear that way...

 

Also, I haven't provided "constant support" of Palin - merely pointed out how unfairly she was treated by the media, and how rediculous the hate for her that people like you spew on a regular basis is...

 

 

- georgestrings

[lonerstoenr]

You understand that we already spend a larger percentage of our federal budget to cover approximately 35% to 40% of our people than most other countries spend to cover 100% of theirs? And that these federal payments to doctors and hospitals from these fall short of breaking even, causing private insurance companies to foot the difference with higher rates? Adding 60% more people and expecting the government costs to stay the same or go down is living in fantasy land....a place most of out current politicians seem very familiar with. This "fix" is equivalent to putting out a fire by throwing gasoline on it.

 

 

No, I don't understand it, and never claimed to. I just think someone claiming that Health Care could NEVER work in the USA is stupid.

 

Whether this particular inception of Health Care will work I don't know. But a system could be changed and altered to work, I'm sure.

[Crescent Seven]

Here's an invitation to the Cassandras: Present Obama's strongest case for the legislation and then address the elements of that case.

I looked around for some quotes with things in them to refute, but all I could find were quotes filled with platitudes, and others filled with lies that have already been disputed in this thread.

Seriously, obama is educated, he knows he's lying. He has to know that the math doesn't add up, that the end results he's selling just can't happen.

[jasper383]

I'm pro tort reform. I learned tort law from Jefferey O'Connell. If you think tort reform will impact health care costs in a meaningful way, you haven't done your homework.

Enlighten me.

Perhaps I am putting something into tort reform that isn't there. Does "defensive medicine" fall into a realm where tort reform would apply?

For example, here's a study of doctors in high risk medical fields (ER, Ob/Gyn, etc.) 93% of doctors reported to the study that they practiced defensive medicine, especially using imaging technology in "clinically unnecessary circumstances." This kind of behavior must have an effect on medical costs as a whole.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/21/2609

Here's another article, this time from orthopedic surgeons:
http://www.aaos.org/news/bulletin/janfeb07/clinical2.asp

[Kindness]

Enlighten me. Perhaps I am putting something into tort reform that isn't there. Does "defensive medicine" fall into a realm where tort reform would apply? For example, here's a study of doctors in high risk medical fields (ER, Ob/Gyn, etc.) 93% of doctors reported to the study that they practiced defensive medicine, especially using imaging technology in "clinically unnecessary circumstances." This kind of behavior must have an effect on medical costs as a whole. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/21/2609 Here's another article, this time from orthopedic surgeons: http://www.aaos.org/news/bulletin/janfeb07/clinical2.asp

If you use google, you'll find the last time this came up here. I talked about it with Lanevo and venturawest. Google defensive medicine and tort and one or more of our names and use site:acapella.harmony-central.com to limit the results to our forum.

[Oddsock]

One thing that doesn't get enough discussion is ways to move the medical cost structure away from pay for services to some other model.

 

If an asprin costs $100, something is wrong there. Pay the doctors a salary, and maybe charge a flat rate for a particular kind of illness. I'm regurgitating a half remembered story I heard on the radio, I think the Mayo clinic does something like this.