Page 113 of 143 FirstFirst ... 1363103108109110111112113114115116117118123 ... LastLast
Results 2,241 to 2,260 of 2855
  1. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2241  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Read through this thread, there are many on here claiming that there is nothing wrong (or they will say "we all agree that there must be health reform but don't agree on how it should be done" and offer no alternative to what's being proposed).

    If you can't provide any alternate solutions and, instead, resort to name-calling like Nazi, socialist, fascist, death panels, etc., you really don't want the system to change.
    Not true. There have been other alternatives offered. They are usually dismissed outright if they are even responded to at all. The people who support the President's type of reform are just as willing/unwilling to see the benefit of other alternatives as those opposed.
  2. #2242  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Since this is a thread about healthcare, it seems that KAM is referring to his understanding about healthcare.

    There is a whole thread of people on here who understand healthcare quite well--yet KAM claims many of his fellow citizens don't have the same understanding that he/she does. Who could KAM be referring to....the baker down the street?
    The who is irrelevant. The point is that if he's saying that others don't have the "same understanding (or don't care) about certain things [he] do[es]", that does not mean that he understands anything better. It's an acknowledgement that others have different views, not that his are in any way better. Just because your computer is based on binary, it doesn't mean _you_ have to think that way.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #2243  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    When I called you a megalomaniac, I was kidding--I don't know you. It was just how that line you wrote came across.
    I think this is where someone is supposed to bring up projection.
    I'm not sure why anyone would have a second name on TC.
    A reason that comes to mind is that one may have been banned previously for engaging in counterproductive or disruptive behavior.
    Are those people such losers that TC is their life?
    I wouldn't even pretend to know what drives such behavior, but then again, I stopped using screen names in the 90s.
    It's not like this debate is involving the whole world--about 10 people are squabbling here.

    10 people whose employers have no idea how much time they spend on TC instead of doing work...
    Make that 9 or less. Some of us are capable of keeping track of multiple windows (and tabs for that matter).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. phlegm's Avatar
    Posts
    73 Posts
    Global Posts
    76 Global Posts
    #2244  
    I have another question, from a Canadian perspective...

    Recently, the US gov't paid billions to bail out AIG et al. Maybe I'm out of touch, but I don't recall seeing a ton of debate over this. Certainly some concern, but definitely no protests, and no town hall screaming. (We get a lot of US television.)

    Meanwhile, a public healthcare system is another government-proposed expenditure. (I'm thinking billions less than AIG et al, but in any event, let's call it equal.) Town hall screaming. Even yelling in Congress.

    We could argue that both strategies are equally hard on the oft-quoted "future generation".

    I'm curious why gov't involvement in economics seems to generate far less dissention than involvement in healthcare.
  5. #2245  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    um, whatever. It's time to move on from semantics.
    LOL...perfect.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2246  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The problem is that most of the alternatives seem to keep alot of what we already have.

    I believe both the right's ideas (free market solutions) and left's ideas (Single payor) can work. The real problem is which side is easier to get to from where we are now.

    Free market solutions require the participation of the elderly to function (which means ending Medicare). That's nearly impossible.

    How free market solutions would work from the current system would be a fantastic discussion. Sadly, starting from the inflammatory title of this thread, most of the conservative side seems to mud-sling and deny healthcare facts rather than present well-thoughout reforms.
    I think those are over-simplifications of both sides. Sure, there are some who want purely free-market and some who want purely state-run. But there are a huge variety of options in between. Forcing each camp into such a small box makes it easy to dismiss the arguments from the other side but it doesn't get you any closer to finding a real solution. I think this is where are politicians are now.

    By the way, you have to admit the mud-slinging is coming from all sides.
  7. haydur's Avatar
    Posts
    447 Posts
    Global Posts
    452 Global Posts
    #2247  
    You know something, nothing that Obama does or will do in the next 3 years will please the conservatives. Nothing. I just find it funny how they despise his administration so much...

    I guess that's how I was feeling when Bush won the election for the first time in 2004.
  8. #2248  
    Quote Originally Posted by haydur View Post
    You know something, nothing that Obama does or will do in the next 3 years will please the conservatives. Nothing. I just find it funny how they despise his administration so much...

    I guess that's how I was feeling when Bush won the election for the first time in 2004.
    Obama called Kanye West a jack a s s. I was pleased as punch that he did that. Maybe it's because I am more of a moderate?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  9. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2249  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I don't. Read through the thread, the mud is coming from one side--as symbolized by the title of this entire thread.
    I don't have the time or interest to try to prove this to you so I guess we agree to disagree. I can't comprehend how a person could not see the mudslinging coming from all sides on this thread.
  10. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2250  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Press Release:

    [B]
    Lack of health insurance now more lethal
    ...
    I'll have to read up on this one. But I hope the scholarship is better than that same couple's flawed analysis of medical bankruptcies.

    Author's Woolhandler and her husband Himmelstein are staunch advocates are of a single-payer approach, by the way.
  11. #2251  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I'll have to read up on this one. But I hope the scholarship is better than that same couple's flawed analysis of medical bankruptcies.

    Author's Woolhandler and her husband Himmelstein are staunch advocates are of a single-payer approach, by the way.
    Yes, they are, and have been for many years. But this is the American Journal of Public Health we're talking about here, not The Nation or the National Review. That particular journal has extremely critical reviewers and lax methodology will not be published there.
  12. #2252  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Press Release:

    Harvard study finds nearly 45,000 excess deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

    Lack of health insurance now more lethal

    ...snip...It estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually.
    If a lack of health insurance caused death we'd then have to assume that anyone who didnt have health insurance would die almost immediately or at least in short order. Using that logic our 47 million uninsured would already be dead and we would not need to be having this discussion.

    ...snip... The uninsured are more likely to go without needed care.
    Sounds to me like those who can't pay go without care. Doesn't that sound like those who provide care are refusing to do so without payment? Who is the evil for profit capitalist now?

    ...snip...

    Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard and a primary care physician in Cambridge, Mass., noted: "Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives."

    She added: "Even the most liberal version of the House bill would have left 17 million uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The whittled down Senate bill will be worse - leaving tens of millions uninsured, and tens of thousands dying because of lack of care. Without the administrative savings only attainable through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer reform - real universal coverage will remain unaffordable. Politicians are protecting insurance industry profits by sacrificing American lives."
    Steffie, as my math teacher used to say, Show Your Work. saying Medicare for all is the only financially viable answer is an opinion without some math to back it up. This is nothing more than an opinion worded to stir emotions. Mainly fear that one doesnt have insurance will cause one to die. Perfect if youre trying to get people to ask someone (government) to save them.
    ...snip..."The Institute of Medicine, using older studies, estimated that one American dies every 30 minutes from lack of health insurance. Even this grim figure is an underestimate - now one dies every 12 minutes."...snip...
    Again, lack of insurance doesnt kill people or we wouldnt be here. It may contribute to their situation but it is not the cause of death. As I have mentioned before, I'll need to see just one verifiable death certificate showing "lack of insurance" as the COD to change my mind. I won't be holding my breath.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  13. #2253  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    If a lack of health insurance caused death we'd then have to assume that anyone who didnt have health insurance would die almost immediately or at least in short order. Using that logic our 47 million uninsured would already be dead and we would not need to be having this discussion.

    Sounds to me like those who can't pay go without care. Doesn't that sound like those who provide care are refusing to do so without payment? Who is the evil for profit capitalist now?

    Steffie, as my math teacher used to say, Show Your Work. saying Medicare for all is the only financially viable answer is an opinion without some math to back it up. This is nothing more than an opinion worded to stir emotions. Mainly fear that one doesnt have insurance will cause one to die. Perfect if youre trying to get people to ask someone (government) to save them.
    Again, lack of insurance doesnt kill people or we wouldnt be here. It may contribute to their situation but it is not the cause of death. As I have mentioned before, I'll need to see just one verifiable death certificate showing "lack of insurance" as the COD to change my mind. I won't be holding my breath.
    Please continue to show your ignorance. There is an association between not having insurance and an increased risk of death. I realize this concept is way way over your head, but let's use cigarettes as an example. Cigarettes increase your risk for lung cancer, but that doesn't mean that everybody who smokes will get lung cancer. There is a strong statistical association. The statement is: if you do not have health insurance, you have a greater risk of dying than someone who does not. Is that really so hard to grasp? Try doing a search and reading about the terms relative risk, absolute risk, and causality. Then come back and make some more cogent comments. And as far as her opinion, my guess is that it's much more based in reality than yours, since she's been studying this academically for many years as a Harvard faculty member. Not that she's any better a person than someone with no direct knowledge of health care on a phone forum...it's just that she knows more than you do about it. Of course, from your statements, that would really not be very difficult.
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2254  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    No industrialized country has a successful direct payer system. In fact, the whole concept of insurance came about because direct payer didnt work for healthcare (as well as any other area with insurance).

    To try to go back to direct payor is to pretend it didn't fail in the first place.
    Actually, direct payer worked until just fine. Insurance became popularized because of wage controls (government manipulation in the economy) in the FDR administration. Additionally, Direct payer works for many other economic transactions, so to claim it "failed" is really off base I think.

    Direct payer went away, in exchange for indirect payer systems that promised great things and instead led to skyrocketing prices. I hear everyone talking about how we need to change the current system. Well, the current system that led to this "crisis" is an indirect payer system. Ignoring the damage caused by that will get us nowhere.

    One other thing--just as a point--I don't believe that changing the current medicare plans of seniors (other than general reform) is going to work, and wasn't included in my direct payer plans...if you had asked.

    KAM
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2255  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Healthcare is a large money-making business. When companies are threatening economically by what is happening, protests are engineered.

    Look at all the people complaining about the nearly $1 trillion it might cost for this reform. There wasn't a peep out of them when the Medicare Drug Benefit was passed at the same $1 trillion cost.

    Follow the money.
    Well, you are wrong about that--conservatives who oppose excessive Federal spending (like now) because many of them also opposed the Medicare drug expansion. People who have beliefs based on principles generally don't shift gears like that. Now politicians...well, that says something about their principles I guess.

    KAM
  16. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2256  
    Hello Everyone,

    Well, other than some loose ends, I think I'm pretty much done here. Zelgo pointed out the back and forth in a small pool here isn't going to accomplish much of anything.

    So, thanks to the majority of folks here who I was able to have good discussions with (even those I disagree with).

    KAM
  17. #2257  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hello Everyone,

    Well, other than some loose ends, I think I'm pretty much done here. Zelgo pointed out the back and forth in a small pool here isn't going to accomplish much of anything.

    So, thanks to the majority of folks here who I was able to have good discussions with (even those I disagree with).

    KAM
    Thanks for trying to raise the level. We all get very contentious about things we are passionate about. The challenge is to avoid acting like Kanye West or Joe Wilson. Of course, you have more in common with Michelle Bachman....
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2258  
    Quote Originally Posted by haydur View Post
    You know something, nothing that Obama does or will do in the next 3 years will please the conservatives. Nothing. I just find it funny how they despise his administration so much...

    I guess that's how I was feeling when Bush won the election for the first time in 2004.
    You felt that way about Bush. But don't project yourself off on the conservatives with blanket statements like that, just because that's what you'd do. If Obama reduces spending, reduces the size of government, takes proactive steps to insure the security and military capabilities of the United States, many conservatives will support him and his administration.

    Just because the left acted like unruly children throughout the Bush administration, does not mean the right will follow suit.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. #2259  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Just because the left acted like unruly children throughout the Bush administration, does not mean the right will follow suit.
    You're kidding, right? That horse has left the barn.
  20. dustysa4's Avatar
    Posts
    25 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #2260  
    Quote Originally Posted by mdmogren View Post
    Eliminate the FDA and the AMA and allow private institutions to fill their roles both cheaper and more effectively, that'd be a great start.
    FDA isn't necessarily all that bad. People only hear about the 1 thing that slips through every year or so and judge only on failures. The FDA has taken a near impossible job and made short-work of it. My hat goes off to them. Extreme testing is a good thing, and unfortunately when testing meds the time aspect comes into play (long-term effects). I just don't see how the private sector could have the same incentive for our safety, when these companies are actually in place to keep the private sector in check.

    Bottom line, drugs are expensive, but the biggest cost to pharmaceutical companies comes from r&d. I don't think streamlining our safety net is the solution to our healthcare issue.

    But then again, I don't think we have a healthcare issue. We've got the best healthcare in the world. Generally the best of anything costs more.

Posting Permissions