http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
There is no way they’ll settle for listening to the people. This will probably turn out worse than the original one, because a couple of RINOs will sign on to the new disaster.
The camel’s nose will go under the tent in five… four… three… two… one…
M_P
My calculus for government shenanigans is extremely simple:
Does (insert piece of legislation here) give the government more or less control over my own self-determination?
If more, I’m against it.
If less, I’m in.
Needless to say, the Insurance Lobby’s Wet Dream Bill is not on my “let’s do it” list…
The parties are both run by career politicians who would rather work for more funding than for the people they represent. They’ll say what we want to hear, and pass some legislation to keep our favor. Washington is in a bubble and we, the people, are outside of it.
The healthcare industry is for those who can pay for their health, not for those who cannot. It is morally wrong for someone to be turned down from a life saving surgery just because they don’t make enough money. America is the strongest and wealthiest nation on earth, we have awesome doctors, nurses, and health practitioners, yet we fail in providing their services to those who need it the most. This is outrageous. And this has been going on for 50+ years, we’ve tolerated the Fat-Cats for this long. Too long has our moral compass been guided by profiteers and industry giants. (No I’m not a communist or a socialist, I’ll be the first one to shoot down any deuchbag wanting communism or socialism, I’ve lived through such oppression personally)
This talk of a pared down legislation is a win for the healthcare industry, and I’m sensing that they’ve been manipulating most of Washington for the past year now, then having cocktails at the end of the night while working class Americans die everyday from treatable and curable health problems.
Universal Healthcare coverage is a moral issue and we are failing at addressing this. :mad:
But hey, as our elected leaders would say, “This is what the American people want.”
Bull-shit!
No offense, but go screw yourself.
Religous hospitals can provide all the “free” healthcare and give as much alms to the poor as they wish.
Just keep you hand off my wallet and my tax dollars trying to provide it to the public.
I see no reason to think that taking my money by force and spending it on others is an any way moral. And certainly no more so because it is for their health.
M_P
Does (insert piece of legislation here) give the government more or less control over my own self-determination?
If more, I’m against it.
If less, I’m in.
Excellent.
So, in your opinion, your bank account should determine what kind of treatment you can and can’t get, even if the treatment that you can’t get would save your life?
So you’re saying that given the state of thing right now if I had say an acute medical condition and went to an ER for life saving surgery I would be denied? I’m sorry but this is false and I have a relative who proves it.
Enter my Aunt J. A true “entitlement theory” hippy from the 60s this woman epitomizes the very worst sort of progressive. She has never done anything for herself in her life as far as getting a career or an education and believes everyone, and especially the country “owes her”. She believes in socialism and redistribution of wealth. Also she is in her 60s, is a chain smoker, and a pot addict. She does not take care of herself.
A few years ago (when she was in her 50s) she had a minor stroke and no healthcare. What do you think happened? Well I’ll tell you, she spent 10 weeks in the hospital in intensive care and rehab and was billed a whopping $500 for the whole thing (which included a very risky and expensive surgery). The state and the federal government paid for the whole whole thing which totaled over $300,000.
Fast forward 5 years, my Aunt collapses at a grocery store, still smoking 3 packs a day, still with no health insurance. What happens? An ambulance takes her to the hospital. They find she has the flu, emphysema, and breast cancer. Do they kick her out on her ass for not having insurance? Nope, 6 weeks later, 3 surgeries, radiation and chemo, and oxygen therapy she is released. She gets ongoing therapy for the next year from the hospital. Her bill? $900 which she bitched and moaned to no end about. The real bill? About $250,000 which the taxpayers burdened.
We already have public healthcare. I agree on a moral level that people should not be refused life saving care for lack of being able to pay. What we don’t want is the government running a very important aspect of our lives.
Yes I do. It determines the car I drive, the house I live in, the food I eat, etc. etc. Why should buying a doctor’s service be different?
even if the treatment that you can’t get would save your life?
Why do you have to tug the heart strings? What does that have to do with whether or not people are treated?
I am sick of people taking my money and then wasting it on genetic flotsam.
M_P
Atg336, you’re damn right this is a moral issue. The morality of picking my pocket to give money to someone I don’t even know certainly needs to be addressed.
Perceived good is not a good at all basic ethics since Aristotle 4th Century BC. So, yes it is immoral to impose “charity,” as you perceive it, onto the masses since ends do not justify means.
Or to modernize the situation: Moochers, Looters, and Producers . . . moochers are pawns of the government (looters) that rob from the producers. Eventually the looters will have nothing left but to consume itself, one of the points of Atlas Shrugged.
decodeddiesel: I see your point, and understand your concern over your earnings and the government reaching into it. I am too, I’ve always viewed the Govt. with suspicion and I advocate for lesser is better.
Your aunt’s case is fortunate, but not the rule, not even remotely. I have a friend who went to the Emergency room for a nasty hand injury and after a few hours he walked out with a $2500 bill, and no, he doesn’t make that much to begin with. Just one example out of thousands within my state (which has the Insurance capitol of the world).
I do believe the Federal Govt. is meant to serve us, one way of doing this is by making sure every American is afforded the same level of care at a price that fits their income level.
How this happens should be different, state to state, and I think States should have the final say in what kind of plan works for their population.
All your pockets are already being picked by your town and state for public services like:
Zoning,
Social Services,
Fire Chief,
Fire Departments,
State certifications for Ambulance Corporations,
Town and City Police departments,
State Troopers,
DOT,
Health Department,
many different Community Services,
Free Public Schools,
State Teacher Certification Testing,
Universities get state funding,
Community Colleges get funding,
etc, etc.
All these services for which we all pay for are invaluable and make life easier in direct and indirect ways you may not be aware of. An easier life means you can make more money with less worry - the more money we make the more extra cash we all have. All of this is interconnected.
A government plan (state) for healthcare in some measure would be in the hands of all of us. As it stands, multibillion dollar conglomerates do not answer to anyone, and public scrutiny of their practices do not hold sway on them. A plan that is in part-way insured by the government can be controlled by us, the taxpayers. We can do this with petitions, thru grass-roots organizations and such, and with elections every 2 - 4 years. This is called the Democratic process - Companies are not beholden to this process, they are beholden to shareholders and profit margins, save for the few brave souls that try to do the right thing amidst the greed and negligence.
In the end we’re all in the same boat folks.
It’s easier to view the government (federal) with suspicion and contempt, and then not lift a finger to change it. .
This is our Republic, and we have a say in it even when it looks like we don’t.
So the mere fact that medicine advances, great doctors and treatments exist, and things can be treated and cured that couldn’t be years ago, means that anyone and everyone is entitled to it just by showing up?
I would also note that non-communist “countries,” including ours, cannot be wealthy or poor. This notion of yours that our “country” is so wealthy so we have no excuse not to provide expensive care to everyone belies the fact that you are, in fact, a socialist. Individuals (people and legal entities like corporations) own and control wealth. Countries do not. Lets get that part straight.
You can bleat all you want about how you’re not a socialist, but you are. You basically either want these highly trained professionals to work for free, or you want money confiscated from the rest of us to pay for these people. Either scenario is unacceptable.
Yes, that’s how the world works. Economics 101 - there are limited goods and services available, they’re distributed based on who is willing to pay for them. Sort of like who gets the best lawyer, or the biggest house, the nicest steak at dinner, and everything else you can think of.
The world has tried other, more “egalitarian” ways of rationing goods and services, and they have invariably crashed and burned.
Apparently you weren’t told that “life isn’t fair” enough as a child.
Whats so funny is the left bought onto the idea that insurance companies are evil yet their own politicians come up with a plan to get people covered is to simply mandate they buy insurance or go to jail. I can’t think of a better way to boost the insurance companies coffers by mandating Americans buy insurance or face prison time.
Then the politicians claim that insurance routinely turns down claims, and come to find out the government programs are the biggest deniers of people’s medical claims, and beats the insurance average by almost double.
Allow us to buy insurance over state lines, tort reform which in the states that have enacted it have helped quite a bit, make the government plans pay the same for services as cash or insurance has to pay (and then make people on government plans pick up the increased cost), and the list could go on.
Yet people have somehow been led to believe the only way to lower costs and get more people covered is a huge take over, mandates or jail, spending a trillion fucking dollars, over 500 BILLION in new taxes, fines, etc.
But oh well. Maybe in 20 years when our health care sucks as bad as Europe’s does people will have the brain power to look back at this time and realize it was the democrats fault. But they’ll probably be too stupid to realize what happened, and blame republicans like Obama blames Bush over a year after taking office. The excuse will be that the plan they came out with due to the Brown election caused the problems, and there would be no problems if Brown (a republican) had not been elected and the original bill would have been passed. A new generation of idiotic democrats will lap it up, and the cycle will continue.
For those people who think health care is some sort of right where you don’t have to pay for it if you’re poor then you can go donate all your money to the charity hospitals out there. That is the way we are supposed to take care of the poor. Not by holding a gun to someones head, and raping their paycheck. That is not compassion. There is no compassion when you are holding a gun to someones head. I wonder how much money democrats donate to charity hospitals? If your conscience bothers you so much someone can’t afford their life saving surgery go cash out your savings and buy it for them. Don’t tell me I have to pay it for them because I worked hard in my life to earn a paycheck and work somewhere where they provide insurance. You can go drive through the ghetto and toss your paycheck out the window. The more government involvement in anything means the cost goes up. Government mandated health care providers provide care for people regardless of their ability to pay, and then we wonder why the cost goes up. Then that regulation and results means we need more government regulation because the costs have gone up. Now with the 500b+ in new taxes the costs to everyone are going to go up. Then when its even more expensive the answer will be more government take over and regulation. Its just a cycle progressives have been using to inch their way to their agenda, and playing on emotion to drag people along. Long gone are the days of freedom and individual responsibility that are what allowed this country to become the best and wealthiest in such a short period of time. This 10% unemployment? That is normal in Europe’s history. So if you want socialistic policies in here because of your bleeding heart get used to having a hard time finding a job, and your paycheck cut in half so your conscience can be whole again just thinking about all the ghetto rats popping babies out on your dime.
You beat me to it.
Jay
I don’t like quoting Wikipedia, but for starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
There are much better statistics out there, and scholarly studies of the detailed effects of universal health coverage on people, communities, and entire economies. I encourage those willing to check out online University data bases for peer reviewed studies.
True, some of the countries still have bad health service, but this most often is contingent on lack of good schooling/training and overly corrupt governments (worse than ours), and not on the fact that they have the capacity for universal health coverage.
Better comparison are the developed countries, and 1st world countries, i.e.: Europe, Netherlands.
Universal Healthcare does work, and once the infrastructure is set up, it rewards everyone.
If federal and state funded public works and services work, so will healthcare.
I personally and philosophically do not agree that money has to determine someones access to good healthcare, especially in countries that can afford it 10x over.
Can you debate like a grown up, please?
What is your definition of Socialist?
How do you get around the rationing problem? Once you introduce the inefficiency of government into the equation, you once again raise costs. As there are limits to supply in all things, that leads to rationing. Instead of a few poor people being denied treatment, everyone suffers. Which is more efficient? The market or Nancy Pelosi?
M_P
Well, this is the great challenge we have to solve. Germany, England, Sweeden, France all have found ways to cope with this and are still in the process of fine tuning their health systems. Nothing is perfect, but it will not get better if we just let it be.
Many of the leading minds in the field (much smarter than us) have stated that healthcare is the next great challenge for America.