Um…and I’d say ‘What works in France won’t work here. If you tried to push through a program to get the US to 70% nuclear, you’d have less than a snowballs chance in hell of getting it through’. Which was kind of the point I was making there. I’m either drunker than I think I am, or people are more obtuse than usual.
You are misspelling ‘different’ there. And our system IS different. If it was similar to UHC then we wouldn’t need to change it, ehe? And if our political system were exactly the same then you could just become another state…
Is straw on sale this week or something? Seriously…either you aren’t tracking or I’m not. Or some combination of both. At any rate I think I’ll leave you to it, since I’m tired of explaining the same things over again…and, frankly, tired of people trying to strawman my positions and inserting things like ‘special’ into the discussion because they can’t seem to grasp the concept of ‘different’.
You’re moving the goal posts. You mocked the idea that you could somehow extend coverage and cut costs as magic, and I’m saying it’s obviously not magic since it actually has worked and is working in the real world. I also pointed out specifically how a reduce in non-treatment medical-related spending would massively free up availability and/or cost of coverage.
I don’t see either example as being relevant, especially the firearms one. What does that have to do with anything? It’s a matter of philosophy as much as practical policy. Their cultures don’t want to be armed, and don’t have a history of being armed, so it’s not a big deal there. I can’t see how this in any way supports your point.
As for the nuclear power plants, why not? I mean - we’d run into an infrastructure issue if we ramped it up that fast, but I don’t know what point you’re trying to make here exactly. It would be a big problem if we did the right thing to improve our long term infrastructure?
It proves that it’s workable, that you can get similar health outcomes to what we have currently with greater availability and lesser costs. I’m not saying the currently proposed legislation gets us there, but clearly the status quo is massively flawed and we need to start taking steps in the right direction. The evidence seems to indicate that single payer is the way to go, but it’s politically unpalatable so you do what good you can.
How is my pointing to the real world evidence “blind blather”? What am I blinded by? For most of my life I was very strongly anti-UHC because I bought the lies about how they were all on 2 year waiting lists for heart surgery and their countries were going bankrupt. Then, when I actually saw the truth - that they’ve got a pretty good thing going, better than us, definitely - I changed my mind. You see, I have this really bizarre gift that almost no one else in the world has - when I see evidence that contradicts my views, I change my views to be in line with the evidence. Everyone else seems to change the evidence to be in lien with their views. Weird, I know!
I do think this is a valid concern, as we do have fundamental flaws in the logistics of how our government works. I don’t have an answer to this question because I haven’t read the 1100 page bill.
It absolutely is a rebuttal to the idea that anyone proposing that we could do better for cheaper is believing in magic. No magic involved - you just need a system less broken than ours. There are dozens of examples.
I didn’t imply you didn’t approve of any reform, but you do seem to fail to recognize just how disfunctional our system is. We have a uniquely flawed system that’s way out of whack with the rest of the world, and any analysis will confirm this. And yet at the suggestion that we could become more like the rest of the world in terms of cost and results, you yell “magic!”
I’m not convinced this will happen. If the democrats grow a spine and obstruct to the same degree republicans are now (I don’t like the idea of both parties doing it, but if the democrats don’t, then they are letting the republicans walk all over them) then you’d need both a massive republican advantage in congress (particularly the senate) and total lockstep behind it. I don’t think all republicans actually unanimously oppose the plan, they’re just voting as an unthinking bloc. I remember one as being quoted as saying something like “yeah, the system is broken, and this bill does a lot of good… but not under this president”… so a lot of their current opposition isn’t even real opposition, just obstructionism. So if the plan seems to be doing some good, I’m not sure there will be a universal republican opposition to it.
Besides that - our congress likes to make new and bullshit ways to screw us over, not revisit old ones. Once things are passed they tend to rest as is, and we move on to the next bullshit.
Well, the status quo is unsustainable. We’re looking at 1/5th of our GDP being spent on the medical sector before this decade is out. If the Republicans had some sort of real plan they were pushing, we could debate that. But they don’t, and the only plan in town is this one, and as flawed as it may be, it probably would do a lot of good. Maybe when the sky doesn’t fall, we can revisit round 2 and iron out some of the obvious imperfections.
Employment is a great way to get healthcare. This is news to you?
Well, if you must know, I paid for healthcare for her for about two years, so she had some coverage. Not as good as she has now, but it as something. If I recall correctly, she also qualified to go to some clinic before that.
Huh? Working in an office i not being a productive member of society. What world do you live in?
They budget for it, the same way I have when not working for a company. As I do now. And for the past 11 years I was paying a butt load. So much that I had to sacrifice in lean times.
Why not? Why can I budget for it, and many other people I know, but these other people you point to can’t. Why can’t they?
You make a common mistake hear in the healthcare debate. You assume people who believe as I do think everything is fine the way it is. I don’t. I’m all for a safety net. I’m all for unemployment insurance and food stamps and other things that help those who need it. I’m also for finding ways to provide some level of care for those who can’;t afford it. Do I think they deserve the same level of care as those who have planned for the worst—those who showed foresight and planned for bad times? No, I don’t think they should have that level of care. And I think by having a noticeable gap between the two we incentivize people to be more responsible for themselves. And I think that helps society.
…, like a private room at the Mayo with a big titted nurse. /QUOTE]
I wasn’t asking for the Mayo but damn you go too far in denying me the big tittied nurse!
The death panel question revolves around the elderly. When an 85 yr old lady needs a new hip, do we give it to her unconditionally? Or is someone going to decide whether they think she will live to see 86? Ok so she will see 86 but will she see 89? Is that a long enough life span to invest, yes invest, in whatever a new hip costs?
Now I’m relatively certain you know better than this. Kindly point to any government social program that ever stayed stagnant. Hell, Pelosi herself recently admitted that the current bill is just a foot in the door to larger government health care in the future. To wit:
This bill is only a foot in the door and I’m relatively certain you and everyone else who couches denial of eventual single-payer legislation in language such as “no proposal we’ve seen” or “there’s nothing in the current bill” fully well knows. It’s disingenuous almost to the point of dishonesty to attempt to refute concerns of a single-payer system in the future by claiming that there’s nothing in the “current” bill that says that. You sound like Charles Rangel, trying to deny knowledge of or complicity in having illegally taken gifts from corporations by saying “There’s nothing in the record to support that allegation”. It’s called “plausible denyabilty” and it’s used when people want to deny something they know fully well is true.
Just to clarify: do you mean this as a “foot in the door for further legislation to improve health care.”
Or do you see it as “a foot in the door for further intrusion by the government to steal your money and provide lazy people with things they don’t deserve, oh and we’re going to take your guns.”
I see it as the first case, fixing health care is a long and arduous process that won’t happen overnight with a single bill. So get the framework down and then work to continue cleaning.
Based on your previous posts, I’m going to guess you expect it to mean the second case, and that the next bill is to raise your taxes and take your kidney.
In case you were curious, I’m not aware of any country that both provides UHC and demands kidneys. But you never know how something might get lost in translation when a European system gets adopted into the US.
It is news that it’s great. Why is it great? What makes employment a great way to provide health care? Keep in mind that “employment” is defined now as “working for a company that provides health care.” As opposed to any other meaning. You know I actually looked up to the meaning just to be sure. Oddly enough, “providing health insurance” didn’t get mentioned.
A free and happy society where people choose jobs for reasons other than “to get health care.” If a person is not making the most of their skill set because they choose an office job in order to get health insurance, I don’t consider that productive.
The US is now divided into two categories: jobs that provide health care, and jobs that don’t. People are forced to stop what they are good at (what would make them productive members of society) and choose a job that provides health insurance. If you are good at being an office worker (what ever that means), you choose between an office that has health insurance, and an office that doesn’t. Where you are productive doesn’t factor into it. Like (I think you) said, go work a job that earns less money if it means you get health insurance. Is that productive?
Because this isn’t about the people that can’t budget, I don’t give a shit about them. I’m actually concerned for the people like you that DO budget, that do things right, that skimp and save, eat right and exercise. The problem is that they get shit on with equal abandon as the people that don’t budget. Why? Because health care expenses can so easily and so vastly out pace anything you could budget for. At that point, it doesn’t matter if you saved $100, or saved $100,000. If a week in an ICU and a couple of operations could run you $500,000. You are still fucked whether you were responsible or not. Your insurance company cares about you as much as they care about the lazy fuckwit with $100 in the bank. Ditto for the collection agency, and the bankruptcy court. The potential downfall has become too high for a reasonable person to budget for.
Well, this is an example of where we differ on philosophical beliefs. I think it’s actually hurting your society, and creating a disincentive. Why bother saving and being responsible if I’m fucked either way? It seems like luck-of-the-draw who an insurance company will choose to drop, or what procedure they’ll refuse to cover. Where does responsibility fit into the current system?
I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and I find it fascinating. Why did you choose to ask that question? What is it about a private room at the Mayo?
In the most simplistic sense, I said, “hey check it out, there is another way of providing health care.” And you said, “oh ya, does it get me a private room at the Mayo?”
I find it fascinating because the questions I would expect people to ask are more along these lines:
Does my coverage get dropped when I lose my job? {no}
Is coverage attached to a specific job? {no} Can I earn money in other ways and still get coverage? {yes}
Is there a risk I’ll suffer financial ruin? {no}
Can I get coverage if I have a pre-existing condition {yes}
Are you going to kill my grandmother or mentally challenged child {no}
So why did you choose those two questions? Was that really your main concern when considering US style vs UHC? Were you expecting it to be included?
I see it as neither. And the fact that you think option number two would be typical of me shows that you don’t have the vaguest idea either of my posting history or what you’re talking about.
But I digress. What I mean by “foot in the door” is that more legislation will follow, followed by more legislation and then more legislation, perhaps over a period of some years if not decades, until we finally arrive at total government control of this country’s health care.
And just to liven up the discussion, that is when cut backs in services and treatments will begin; when government begins to deny treatment based on lifestyle, such as smoking, eating the wrong foods, being overweight, driving the wrong kind of car, etc.; and finally, making spreadsheet decisions as to who lives and who dies, with the oldest and those needing the most expensive care being the first to go. Yep, it’ll be wonderful: death by government fiat. It’s a brave new world you schmucks are creating for us. One can only hope you’ll be brave enough to endure it once your family members or you yourselves wind up on the chopping block of government largess denied.
HA, I actually felt bad, and thought about sifting through your posting history to get a better understanding. Then you dropped a heaping load of bat-shit-crazy.
Total government control. That has an interesting ring to it. “You are now under total government control Mr Bond, and you will give us that kidney voluntarily whooaaahhhahhhaaaa”
Out of curiosity, who is in control now? (please say it’s me, please say it’s me)
Okay, this cracks me up. What are you talking about? Did you mean to say “when government” or “when insurance companies?”
From what I can tell, your crazy scary hypothetical scenario currently exists, but it’s done by health insurance companies. Do you disagree? Am I incorrect to say that if you try to get private health insurance they are going to ask you about smoking and obesity?
Basically, the system I am trying to promote, and to encourage, and to debate the merits of, is EXACTLY opposite of what you describe. And I am trying to promote a new system because the current system is EXACTLY what you are describing, except it’s death by insurance company.
That’s why I find your posts so funny. The things you fear most are occurring around you right now, and I’m trying to tell you about a system where they don’t occur.
While reading through my pocket version of the constitution, I came upon a passage of interest:
“…you have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you.”
You are entitled to free legal counsel, even if you’ve done nothing to earn it. The tax payer must provide for your defense.
So, does that entitle me to Johnny Cochran? No, it provides a public defender, admitted to the bar. Someone who has to adhere to the standards set out by the state bar association. They don’t have to do anything special, they don’t have to jump through hoops, but they do have to conduct themselves in a professional manner, where failing to do so is grounds for appeal.
There is universal legal care. That’s how the line gets drawn.
Can you perhaps point me directly to the place in the Constitution where that appears?
And is it really your intention to equate our future health care to the kind of representation people tend to get from court-appointed attorneys?
If so, thank you very much for making my point about the quality of the government health care that we’re in for in such a clear and succinct way. Makes me embarrassed about the tons of verbiage I’ve devoted in trying to get the same point across. Had I only your way with words…
It should also be noted that you do not have a right to an attorney simply because you happen to want or need one. So unless you’re talking about a case where the government beats you up or injures you accidently through its own fault, you have no right to health care that is analogous to the right to an attorney.
And you might notice as well that the right to a court-appointed attorney only applies when the defendent can’t afford one on his own. So the anology breaks down there as well.
The fact remains that many, most, people obtain insurance via their job.
Well, what if they’re not good at something that we value. It is incumbent upon all of us to put ourselves in a position where we can do well. We have to find that area in the Venn diagram where our skill set overlaps with the market. It’s that simple.
Well, on this we agree. I commented elsewhere that I I’d strongly advocate the government backing some low-cost catastrophic health insurance program. It would be really cheap, given that it would only kick in during one of the scenarios you outline above. That way we give the people you describe a very affordable way to hedge against some disease or accident causing them to go bankrupt.
I think responsibility plays a huge role. You have to plan for bad shit to happen. You’re right that even the super responsible can get surprised by a sudden diagnosis, but I think the plan I outlined above would fix that. and I also favor other elements of HCR, like no lifetime cap and not being able to be dropped if you get sick becuase SUDDENLY they found that you transposed the numbers on your address on the application a year ago.
So it’s always been done that way, might as well continue doing it that way.
There was a point 70 years ago when this wasn’t the case, but to be honest I don’t know what people did for health care/insurance back then. It was a very specific event that led to the current situation: government caps on salaries. Well, the caps are gone, insurance doesn’t need to be a job perk any more.
And I’m not directing this at you as if it’s your fault or your desire. It just seems a lot of people by-pass the obvious aspects of what’s going on and leap to step 2.
It was that simple. My argument is that the two circles are gone, and you’re left with just one, “job that offers health insurance” surrounded by the null space of “jobs that do not offer health insurance.” Skills, market demands, and inherent value are gone.
I remember a couple of years ago when gas prices were up at $4 a gallon. There were dozens of threads about what to do. The notion of increasing the tax on gasoline kept coming up as a way to reduce demand, and fund alternative programs. The story that kept getting used as a counter example was of people that had to commute 2 hours a day to a low paying job because they needed the health insurance.
There are some pretty serious long term consequences from health insurance being fixed to employment.
While you make a good point that just because we’ve come to associate HC with work, that in no way means that it is the best formula. I’m absolutely open to ideas that delink them. But what I quoted above is just flat-out wrong. Or maybe you didn’t understand me. There is the one circle (you describe above). The other circle is what you have to offer. If you are a great painter, your circle may not overlap with the circle for jobs at IBM, but it may overlap with the circle for The Gap, designing fabrics. Everyone has various skills. It’s up to each of us to find where the market places value on what we offer.
Correction, ALL of my post was spot on. And this is true for all of my posts. Try to remember that.
Wow…you found THAT passage in the Constitution? I think you are remembering the last time you were arrested
At any rate, the right to an attorney is not all encompassing. If I decide to sue you the government does not have to provide me with an attorney. Furthermore, if the government doesn’t want to give you an attorney then they can drop the charges.
