Page 28 of 71 FirstFirst ... 18232425262728293031323338 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 560 of 1405
  1. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #541  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Because delaying tactics are the currency of the day for some. This is an opportunity to do something, to avoid the Washington gridlock that may return with the next congressional election. The time is now, or we will suffer for many years....especially those without insurance.
    So, without doing something about fraud how much more money will be wasted by expanding the current fraud-prone system? Are you saying the massive expansion of fraud that we fully expect in the new system is an acceptable risk?
  2. #542  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    So, without doing something about fraud how much more money will be wasted by expanding the current fraud-prone system? Are you saying the massive expansion of fraud that we fully expect in the new system is an acceptable risk?
    Not at all. I think that the weaknesses pointed out in the 60 Minutes piece really demonstrate how easy it will be to close a lot of doors to fraud. It is so blatantly stupid that minimal safeguards will save millions of dollars. Why haven't they done it if it will be so easy? That I can't answer, except to say that CMS has been left to police it themselves. It would not take much investment to recover whatever costs were needed.
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #543  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Well, I think we do clearly have a different perspective. Summarizing, you are proposing trickle down economics, which has failed miserably. I say that because the best way to a robust economy is tax cuts, right? It just hasn't worked. And it won't work, because capitalism and profits trump corporate concerns about increasing the capacity of employees.
    Well, I disagree--tax cuts (let's start with Reagan) not only have boosted the overall economy(steadily for about 25 years), which provides a multitude of opportunities, but also increases government revenues. That's right Lower tax rates lead to increased government income--the same happened with the so-called Bush Tax cuts--revenue increased.

    With increased revenues, there is additional money to fund healthcare for the poor. As you know--we are already spending 300 billion on Medicaid, which is more than enough money to provide health insurance as good or better than I have for all 47 million uninsured. This doesn't address the cost issue, and flaw in indirect payer systems, which also need to be addressed.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    There are so many examples of companies that, while making great profits, cut their workforce to dramatically increase their profitability. Regardless of what you think of Michael Moore, that has been his defining message since his first movie. What it boils down to is that you trust a for-profit company, beholding to shareholders, to determine the future (and quality) of your own medical care.
    If you are referring to insurance companies, no I do not. As I've said many times, I've got as many problems with insurance companies as I do with government. I want them both in reduced roles.

    If a company cuts its workforce and remains profitable, that is bad short term, but good long term--a viable company making profit is an ASSET to this nation, not a detriment. If a company can do well with less workers, it isn't a bad thing...except of course if you are that worker, but it speaks to larger progress and likely broader benefits for everyone (cheaper goods for example).

    I trust a for-profit company, because I know what their goals are--they want to make money, and they do not have the power to hold a gun to my head to make me live my life like they want me to, because the government is there to protect me from that (their proper role). When that "company" and the government are the same...who protects the citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I trust the government more. Mostly, I trust providers more than either, and there are strong arguments for direct pay plans. But we are too late in doing that. That will not have any effect at this point without direct price controls, or by making all providers employees, and that will never be acceptable to the AMA or any other professional organization. Given the disasterous economy we have currently, isn't it clear that if we don't control health care costs things will just get worse? Why would you think otherwise?
    You are trusting people who today and for years have mismanaged the money that people NEED to get healthcare--PREVENTING them from getting that care. Government is wasting money that should be used to help people in need. Why would you want to expand that and trust they will somehow completely reverse course--they never do.

    Why are we too late? We are creating an artificial crisis mentality that is likely to drive us deeper into problems. This is a mistake, and we won't be able to extract ourselves from it. You say the goal is to delay, but I see it as taking advantage of a "crisis."

    Again--today we can transform the entire Medicaid system and provide insurance for ALL 47 million people--all of them, as a temporary measure to bridge us to a direct payer system (I recommend looking at HSAs/Catastrophic insurance as that bridge--as we've discussed).

    I think our disaster economy is due to rejection of free markets and capitalism. We've controlled ourselves into a ditch and more of the same isn't a solution in my view. We need actual REFORM, not rehashing failed ideas.

    We keep hearing about how we can save 500 billion with the snap of our fingers--no problem, found money, but these same corrupt dirt-bags have sat there WASTING 500 billion for how long? This is blackmail--"Yeah, we're wasting your money, and we will only stop wasting it if you agree to do whatever we say."

    We DO need to control prices, and the best way to do that (proven time and time again) is via the free market. Paying for medical services is still an economic system and still bound by economic rules, so it will work--only if it were tried.

    Massive additional spending will not rescue our economy--it will burden it. Without policies that GROW the economy, we cannot sustain additional spending--they money isn't there. If the overall economy doesn't rise, everything fails, and printing money and pretending it will all work out insures disaster. We'd have to have some other massive economic boon in order to offset these costs, and while it is possible, it isn't likely.

    In short--we can pay for charity and safety nets and such when we've got a economy that is chugging ahead. If you throw extra weight on an economy that is about ready to break, you won't be able to pay for anything.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 10/26/2009 at 03:19 PM. Reason: Additional point.
  4. #544  
    If free market is the answer, and we've had 8 years of "free market" philosophy, why are we in such miserable shape right now? Too much control, put in place by a republican administration and 8 out of 10 years of a republican controlled congress? If things got worse under that scenario, just who do you think is going to fix things? Reagan's economic policies, far from being a positive influence, did nothing but increase wealth among the wealthy....and that is one of the major reasons there are millions of uninsured. That money never did trickle down, did it? Oh, it worked for some...but not for those that needed it the most. Yep, we disagree on the most basic of issues. Capitalism and profit have no space for the needy...and yet they exist.
  5. #545  
    Pre & Beard Society - President
    link
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #546  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    If free market is the answer, and we've had 8 years of "free market" philosophy, why are we in such miserable shape right now? Too much control, put in place by a republican administration and 8 out of 10 years of a republican controlled congress? If things got worse under that scenario, just who do you think is going to fix things? Reagan's economic policies, far from being a positive influence, did nothing but increase wealth among the wealthy....and that is one of the major reasons there are millions of uninsured. That money never did trickle down, did it? Oh, it worked for some...but not for those that needed it the most. Yep, we disagree on the most basic of issues. Capitalism and profit have no space for the needy...and yet they exist.
    We haven't had 8 years of free market philosophy. We are far removed from a free market system--even under Republicans. Let's not pretend that the crony capitalism that we've seen going on with this bailout stuff is Capitalism--its a rejection of capitalism, and makes those of us who believe in free markets sick.

    You are wrong about Reagan's economic policies--the economy grew massively following his tax cuts and essentially continued until this latest bust (with a few ups and downs). "The rich get richer" argument doesn't hold water (although that is true), because the non-rich got richer as well. Even the Clinton Tax increases were relatively low compared to the New-Deal level.

    Yes, the money DID trickle down in fact. Those who didn't benefit...they were the ones that were dependent on government, and remained that way, because that is what these programs are designed to do--to MAINTAIN people as dependent. "Those who needed it most" are trapped by politicians who don't give a damn about them other than keeping them where they can control them and insure their votes.

    I think the error in your thinking is one of volume. A person with 100 dollars to invest had as much potential to make profit by percentage as someone with 100,000. Obviously the absolute value is larger for the later case.

    You talk about the needy--yes they exist, and what happened to the needy at the height of socialistic practices in this country and progressive programs? They didn't disappear did they? After spending TRILLIONS of dollars on government programs, supposedly to help the needy they are still here aren't they?

    Let's not pretend that one path eliminates the needy while another creates it--that simply isn't true. The Statist path insures everyone fails, whereas the capitalist path provides OPPORTUNITY for everyone to succeed.

    For all the promises of helping the poor--the government has failed to end poverty or even make significant progress--no matter how much they've spent. Why? Because they aren't trying to end it--they're just trying to maintain the status quo, because someone who doesn't need them isn't of much value.

    KAM
  7. #547  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Yes, the money DID trickle down in fact. Those who didn't benefit...they were the ones that were dependent on government, and remained that way, because that is what these programs are designed to do--to MAINTAIN people as dependent. "Those who needed it most" are trapped by politicians who don't give a damn about them other than keeping them where they can control them and insure their votes.

    I think the error in your thinking is one of volume. A person with 100 dollars to invest had as much potential to make profit by percentage as someone with 100,000. Obviously the absolute value is larger for the later case.

    You talk about the needy--yes they exist, and what happened to the needy at the height of socialistic practices in this country and progressive programs? They didn't disappear did they? After spending TRILLIONS of dollars on government programs, supposedly to help the needy they are still here aren't they?

    Let's not pretend that one path eliminates the needy while another creates it--that simply isn't true. The Statist path insures everyone fails, whereas the capitalist path provides OPPORTUNITY for everyone to succeed.

    For all the promises of helping the poor--the government has failed to end poverty or even make significant progress--no matter how much they've spent. Why? Because they aren't trying to end it--they're just trying to maintain the status quo, because someone who doesn't need them isn't of much value.

    KAM
    So those millions of people who are working, some of them two jobs, and can't afford health insurance, those are the people dependent on government in the past? Please try and remember that the vast majority of those who are uninsured WORK. The fact is that those who don't work and have no money are covered by Medicaid. We have indeed taken care of the needy with Medicaid. The economic forces of years of trickle down policies have just created a much greater population in need. It is the working people of the country that need assistance at this point in time. They are the new needy.

    Nearly 70 percent of the uninsured come from families with at least one full-time worker.

    "The uninsured aren't people who are disconnected from employment, but they are disconnected from affordable health insurance -- either because it's not offered by their employer or because the share they're asked to pay is more than they can afford," said Hoffman.

    Part-time workers, who are less likely to be offered health insurance, are even more vulnerable. They make up only 19 percent of the population, but 28 percent of the uninsured.

    Workers who work for small companies are also more at risk, because those companies are less likely to be able to offer insurance to their employees. Only 52 percent of companies with less than 10 workers offer their employees health insurance, while 99 percent of firms with more than 200 employees do, according to a 2004 Kaiser Foundation study of employer health benefits.

    "The profile of the uninsured has not really changed much since we've been studying it," said Paul Fronstin, a senior research associate at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, who's been examining data on the uninsured for more than 15 years. "It's low income workers, it's people in the labor force or associated with someone in the labor force, and it's disproportionately tied to people who work in small businesses."
    Additionally, you imply that that corporations and individuals have no responsibility for the needy, and that that is the job of the government. Do you really think the needy could be cared for without the government? I suspect you probably do care about the needy, but relying on some vague opportunity for people who lack the education they need to advance, who lack the opportunity to get employed by corporations that feel no obligation to anything other than the bottom line, is no way to run an airline. Yes, the government is responsible for the needy because nobody else is.

    It's amazing how someone who has a total of $100 might have to use it to buy food for his or her family as opposed to investing it. A lot easier to invest when your basic needs are being met.

    And to say the government doesn't want to do away with the needy in this country is truly remarkable. Those that work with the poor have enough problems without being accused of trying to prolong the agony of those they work with. You could not be more wrong. And if anyone is to be accused of wanting to maintain the status quo, you need to take a look in the mirror, along with finding a picture of every congressional republican. It's unclear to me how you can have a reasonable amount of insight, which you demonstrate, and then make that statement.
    Last edited by davidra; 10/26/2009 at 06:32 PM.
  8. #548  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    You are wrong about Reagan's economic policies--the economy grew massively following his tax cuts and essentially continued until this latest bust (with a few ups and downs). "The rich get richer" argument doesn't hold water (although that is true), because the non-rich got richer as well. Even the Clinton Tax increases were relatively low compared to the New-Deal level.
    Not true, actually - the growth has been primarily with the top 10%, and the rest of us have not had a similar growth. That's a con to get you to believe that you may someday become one of the rich:

    Last edited by Bujin; 10/26/2009 at 06:50 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  9. #549  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Not true, actually - the growth has been primarily with the top 10%, and the rest of us have not had a similar growth. That's a con to get you to believe that you may someday become one of the rich:

    Can you put some numbers on those quintiles? Do you honestly expect one to believe that someone who is at the central office level in New England is not in that top quintile nevertheless the top 10% or higher? "The rest of us"? Really? Like you're in the 'bottom' 90%?
    ‎"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...
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #550  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    So those millions of people who are working, some of them two jobs, and can't afford health insurance, those are the people dependent on government in the past? Please try and remember that the vast majority of those who are uninsured WORK. The fact is that those who don't work and have no money are covered by Medicaid. We have indeed taken care of the needy with Medicaid. The economic forces of years of trickle down policies have just created a much greater population in need. It is the working people of the country that need assistance at this point in time. They are the new needy.
    Millions of people choose not to buy health insurance, and that is their choice and responsibility. Obviously, there are some people so poor they can't afford much of anything.

    Let's be clear--being uninsured doesn't mean that you CANNOT be insured..

    How exactly has an economy that boomed for years and years and years, turned into a bad thing? I think you are totally separating people's own choices from their situation. How many of these people with no insurance instead have a fancy car, big screen tv, a house that is 2-3 times larger than homes were 25 or 30 years ago.

    NEED is a phrase you are using here, and I'd say there are a significant number of people who can fulfill their own NEEDS, but choose their WANTS instead.

    Again, 300 Billion for Medicaid comes out to $6400 Per person (47 million) of uninsured--not just the poor. That is money that is not being well spent. How many are being covered with Medicaid and what does that work out per person--I'm guessing a lot more than it costs to cover me (for example).

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Additionally, you imply that that corporations and individuals have no responsibility for the needy, and that that is the job of the government. Do you really think the needy could be cared for without the government?
    Actually it is not the responsibility of anyone to care for an individual other than the individual. That's a fact, but not a moral position I agree with necessarily. Can the needy be cared for without the government. Sure they can. But of course, I haven't advocated eliminating all government assistance. I don't favor greatly expanding government dependence however.


    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I suspect you probably do care about the needy, but relying on some vague opportunity for people who lack the education they need to advance, who lack the opportunity to get employed by corporations that feel no obligation to anything other than the bottom line, is no way to run an airline. Yes, the government is responsible for the needy because nobody else is.
    Again, we disagree about the government--where does it define that our government is responsible for providing for the poor--that provision does not exist in our Constitution.
    My personal morality makes me want to assist the truly needy (not those who prefer to play first). Government isn't there to fulfill my individual moral desires, nor anyone else's.
    To be clear--I don't object to temporary safety nets provided they are focused on returning people into productive positions, and to do that, we REQUIRE a robust economy.

    This tangents off, but in regards to education--that's another area we spent massive amounts of money and get poor results, but everyone gets that for free too. We've devalued our secondary education so much that its ridiculous--but that's another issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    It's amazing how someone who has a total of $100 might have to use it to buy food for his or her family as opposed to investing it. A lot easier to invest when your basic needs are being met.
    Obviously that is true, but welfare isn't providing them investment funds either. These bottom-level poor are subsisting--even with massive welfare systems.


    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And to say the government doesn't want to do away with the needy in this country is truly remarkable. Those that work with the poor have enough problems without being accused of trying to prolong the agony of those they work with. You could not be more wrong. And if anyone is to be accused of wanting to maintain the status quo, you need to take a look in the mirror, along with finding a picture of every congressional republican. It's unclear to me how you can have a reasonable amount of insight, which you demonstrate, and then make that statement.
    Those that work with the poor aren't the ones I'm talking about.
    Government IS failing to eliminate the needy--that is not in dispute I trust. The question is why. My view is that having people dependent on you insures their loyalty. Its very simple--you don't burn your meal card.

    Democrats have positioned themselves as the Champions of the little guy (true or not), but the truly poor are dependent on the government for their basic needs--food, housing, healthcare. Who takes credit for that? Democrats--even though they give next to nothing--the TAXPAYER does (those taxes I might add are paid in vastly greater quantities by the rich).

    The poor vote for who? Democrats right? When someone is less poor, they become less likely to vote democrat (traditionally at least). It isn't a big leap of reasoning to understand that having as many people poor adds up to move votes for Democrats. If you believe that politicians are beneath using people to their advantage, then you might disagree.

    Dependence is a powerful influence, and the poor are dependent on government (read democrats).

    KAM
  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #551  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Not true, actually - the growth has been primarily with the top 10%, and the rest of us have not had a similar growth. That's a con to get you to believe that you may someday become one of the rich:
    You do need money to make money, but what your graph demonstrates is that 'trickle down' in fact does work--even the lowest levels have improvements. I assume this is adjusted for inflation.

    It might be bothersome to those dedicated to redistribution of other people's money, but I don't share that view. I'm not dedicated to envy that other people are much richer than I am.

    Capitalism truly allows for the poor to become rich--it isn't easy, but it can be done.

    Its funny how the worlds greatest economy (still) which is a product of capitalism (even with various government burdens) is being portrayed as a failure. CAPITALISM resulted in the worlds richest nation, yet we've got people dedicated to obscuring this fact, and demanding we abandon this for economic systems that have failed to the great detriment of billions of people.

    Capitalism is a proven success, and we've got folks here in total denial of that fact. I'm amazed by this.

    KAM
  12. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #552  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Not at all. I think that the weaknesses pointed out in the 60 Minutes piece really demonstrate how easy it will be to close a lot of doors to fraud. It is so blatantly stupid that minimal safeguards will save millions of dollars. Why haven't they done it if it will be so easy? That I can't answer, except to say that CMS has been left to police it themselves. It would not take much investment to recover whatever costs were needed.
    Well, we could go around and around about this but I think it's enough to say that such controls should be part of any reform package. The fact that it hasn't been done tells me either its not so easy or its not politically expedient. Either reason is troubling and I don't get any warm fuzzies about it being done any time soon.
  13. #553  
    I'm sure we all are aware that Harry states his bill will have the public option and may have an opt-out clause for the states. That last part is just plain impossible to believe.
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #554  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    I'm sure we all are aware that Harry states his bill will have the public option and may have an opt-out clause for the states. That last part is just plain impossible to believe.
    I haven't been able to get into the details yet, but from what I hear it goes something like this:

    Opt In: Pay and get something
    Opt out: Pay and get nothing.

    In other words--you pay no matter what--which is of course a ridiculous statement to claim that as an "option."

    I'm a bit confused by all of this however. What is Reid pulling here? He has been told by Democrat Senators that they cannot pass the Public Option. Does he think this gives them an "out" to technically not vote for the Government Option?

    KAM
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #555  
    Hello Everyone,

    I'm afraid some of my posts have drifted off topic to related areas, but not those specific to Fixing Healthcare (the topic of this thread). So, I'll just say that it is a wonderful goal to try and make sure everyone has healthcare.

    The problem is that, just saying "everyone should have healthcare" and hoping somehow it works out economically, or depending on "savings" that government NEVER delivers isn't a sustainable plan. ALL of these plans include massive new spending and without paying for that, we aren't just going to lose healthcare, but possibly much more.

    We can only pay for the needy if we have a Robust Economy, and printing money, or increasing taxes is likely to have the opposite effect.

    KAM
  16. #556  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hello Everyone,

    I'm afraid some of my posts have drifted off topic to related areas, but not those specific to Fixing Healthcare (the topic of this thread). So, I'll just say that it is a wonderful goal to try and make sure everyone has healthcare.

    The problem is that, just saying "everyone should have healthcare" and hoping somehow it works out economically, or depending on "savings" that government NEVER delivers isn't a sustainable plan. ALL of these plans include massive new spending and without paying for that, we aren't just going to lose healthcare, but possibly much more.

    We can only pay for the needy if we have a Robust Economy, and printing money, or increasing taxes is likely to have the opposite effect.

    KAM
    And this is exactly why we differ. It is all a matter of priorities. You would not worry about exactly how much it would cost to protect the US against foreign invaders, I suspect. I also figure that you supported Bush's excursions into Iraq and argued for the financial support to do the job well....even though the expenditures put us in a financial hole we are still in. Providing good affordable health care to all is a much greater priority to me than nation-building exercises with a byproduct of oil supplies, or some theoretical way to shoot down ballistic missiles. It just is. I am perfectly willing to get the plan in place, and then figure out the details....because it is my priority, and because there are many more people dying every day from lack of good health care in this country than are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we don't seem to care....or keep count.
  17. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #557  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And this is exactly why we differ. It is all a matter of priorities. You would not worry about exactly how much it would cost to protect the US against foreign invaders, I suspect. I also figure that you supported Bush's excursions into Iraq and argued for the financial support to do the job well....even though the expenditures put us in a financial hole we are still in. Providing good affordable health care to all is a much greater priority to me than nation-building exercises with a byproduct of oil supplies, or some theoretical way to shoot down ballistic missiles. It just is. I am perfectly willing to get the plan in place, and then figure out the details....because it is my priority, and because there are many more people dying every day from lack of good health care in this country than are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we don't seem to care....or keep count.
    Well, that's fair enough for you to state your priorities. However, I'd argue that the National government is required to provide for National Security, but are not required to provide individuals' with healthcare. It isn't about what I want, but the proper role of government as well. My priority is also to have our government live within the Constitution.

    An individual cannot provide their own National Defense, but they can provide for their own healthcare. Unfortunately, indirect payer schemes and lack of free market controls have led to ridiculously skyrocketing prices making that increasingly unattainable. The difference is that I want to undo the causes of the problem instead of leaving them in place, and trying to work around them. I believe a problem is best solved (perhaps only solved) if the problem is properly identified, and that's how I see it.

    I think you are (honestly) approaching this based on your perspective as a healthcare provider--meaning, just treat the sick, but I don't think that deals with WHY, and the why is what will determine ultimately if people can get care or not long term.

    Additionally, there is an inherent financial difference--paying for even a very expensive, but limited (even wars are limited) cost is different from creating a program that has continued costs. Despite the Massive amount of money we've spent on Defense and wars, it still doesn't surpass what we spend on Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention Social Security.

    I don't want to see the 250 million people who are getting healthcare harmed in an unsustainable attempt to get the other 47 million covered. That doesn't mean I don't want to help them, but I think the government's approach is all wrong, and very harmful, not only to heathcare but to the nation as a whole.

    That's what it comes down to--I do not believe that this "solution" is a solution at all. The government hasn't proven or even given a reasonable indication that what they propose will work--even with these plans millions are not covered. We are looking at a massive financial burden (with many other consequences outside of healthcare) for a marginal improvement for some, and a potential reduction in quality for others, and still leaving others with nothing--that's a losing argument in my view.

    If we are going to fix this, we need to fix it right. These plans aren't even scheduled to start until 2013, so there is time--IF we had a President who was being honest about bipartisanship, but he isn't. There is no rush, EXCEPT for political reasons, and those reasons are based on pandering to his base, not doing what's best for this nation or the needy.

    I'm not for the Status Quo--I'm for REAL solutions, but they aren't being considered, and we DO have time. There is no reason we cannot address Medicare/Medicaid Fraud/waste today to get an indication of what savings we have. There is no NEED to force us into a political solution, other than for political reasons, and that's a big fat lie. I'm not going to have my moral desire to help the needy used against me to satisfy someone's Statist goals. We cannot afford tunnel vision on this.

    KAM
  18. #558  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Can you put some numbers on those quintiles? Do you honestly expect one to believe that someone who is at the central office level in New England is not in that top quintile nevertheless the top 10% or higher? "The rest of us"? Really? Like you're in the 'bottom' 90%?
    The top 10% is at approximately $113,000 - you can do a simple search to find that. I do indeed fall under the top 10% at the moment. Of course, that's all beside the point. The question was whether the massive benefits to the upper 10% has been equally reflected in the other 90%. It clearly doesn't. The argument is not about me.

    I should, judging by your accusation though, be arguing strongly against the upper 10% paying more; however, I'm willing to pay my share if it benefits the larger community. As has been said before, some folks think "me", while others thing "we".
    Last edited by Bujin; 10/27/2009 at 11:27 AM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  19. #559  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Well, that's fair enough for you to state your priorities. However, I'd argue that the National government is required to provide for National Security, but are not required to provide individuals' with healthcare. It isn't about what I want, but the proper role of government as well. My priority is also to have our government live within the Constitution.

    An individual cannot provide their own National Defense, but they can provide for their own healthcare. Unfortunately, indirect payer schemes and lack of free market controls have led to ridiculously skyrocketing prices making that increasingly unattainable. The difference is that I want to undo the causes of the problem instead of leaving them in place, and trying to work around them. I believe a problem is best solved (perhaps only solved) if the problem is properly identified, and that's how I see it.

    I think you are (honestly) approaching this based on your perspective as a healthcare provider--meaning, just treat the sick, but I don't think that deals with WHY, and the why is what will determine ultimately if people can get care or not long term.

    Additionally, there is an inherent financial difference--paying for even a very expensive, but limited (even wars are limited) cost is different from creating a program that has continued costs. Despite the Massive amount of money we've spent on Defense and wars, it still doesn't surpass what we spend on Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention Social Security.

    I don't want to see the 250 million people who are getting healthcare harmed in an unsustainable attempt to get the other 47 million covered. That doesn't mean I don't want to help them, but I think the government's approach is all wrong, and very harmful, not only to heathcare but to the nation as a whole.

    That's what it comes down to--I do not believe that this "solution" is a solution at all. The government hasn't proven or even given a reasonable indication that what they propose will work--even with these plans millions are not covered. We are looking at a massive financial burden (with many other consequences outside of healthcare) for a marginal improvement for some, and a potential reduction in quality for others, and still leaving others with nothing--that's a losing argument in my view.

    If we are going to fix this, we need to fix it right. These plans aren't even scheduled to start until 2013, so there is time--IF we had a President who was being honest about bipartisanship, but he isn't. There is no rush, EXCEPT for political reasons, and those reasons are based on pandering to his base, not doing what's best for this nation or the needy.

    I'm not for the Status Quo--I'm for REAL solutions, but they aren't being considered, and we DO have time. There is no reason we cannot address Medicare/Medicaid Fraud/waste today to get an indication of what savings we have. There is no NEED to force us into a political solution, other than for political reasons, and that's a big fat lie. I'm not going to have my moral desire to help the needy used against me to satisfy someone's Statist goals. We cannot afford tunnel vision on this.

    KAM
    I think there is a plan, and I think the plan will deal with the causes. I think they are identified. It is not a mystery why health care costs are where they are. Not only that, but it will deal with the causes using market forces....competition. That is the only way to control costs.

    And although there are rarely things that I say that make people madder than this, I really don't care that the constitution doesn't mention health care specifically. You can parse words and try and justify a right to health care, but it doesn't mention nuclear weapons or regime change or education either, for that matter, but we've had to make significant decisions about all three without guidance from people who wrote a document that was a great start...for the time they lived in. The constitution is a nice document, but it cannot be expected to be the determining factor regarding issues that never even existed when it was written. We were treating patients with leeches at that point in time. There was no anesthesia, essentially no surgery, no antibiotics. In 1900 the life expectancy was 47 years. The crude mortality rate was cut in half between 1900 and 2000. Health care was not very effective at saving lives. It is now. Do you think they might consider it differently now? I do. According to the Declaration of Independence, everyone is entitled to "life", correct? One of the unalienable right? But that's all parsing. I refuse to accept the fact that a document written that long ago will have all the answers 200 years later. And I bet the writers didn't think that either.
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #560  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I think there is a plan, and I think the plan will deal with the causes. I think they are identified. It is not a mystery why health care costs are where they are. Not only that, but it will deal with the causes using market forces....competition. That is the only way to control costs.
    There is a plan. I think it is a bad plan, which of course is trying to discern what the tangled web of 5 plans will end up as. As far as competition...I am highly skeptical of this, and it seems to me that this plan is designed to eliminate competition by enforcing an uneven playing field (insurance companies cannot tax people to be viable). This should come as no surprise, as we have many who advocate a single payer (no competition) system, and have stated this is a step towards this.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And although there are rarely things that I say that make people madder than this, I really don't care that the constitution doesn't mention health care specifically. You can parse words and try and justify a right to health care, but it doesn't mention nuclear weapons or regime change or education either, for that matter, but we've had to make significant decisions about all three without guidance from people who wrote a document that was a great start...for the time they lived in. The constitution is a nice document, but it cannot be expected to be the determining factor regarding issues that never even existed when it was written. We were treating patients with leeches at that point in time. There was no anesthesia, essentially no surgery, no antibiotics. In 1900 the life expectancy was 47 years. The crude mortality rate was cut in half between 1900 and 2000. Health care was not very effective at saving lives. It is now. Do you think they might consider it differently now? I do. According to the Declaration of Independence, everyone is entitled to "life", correct? One of the unalienable right? But that's all parsing. I refuse to accept the fact that a document written that long ago will have all the answers 200 years later. And I bet the writers didn't think that either.
    Obviously I disagree with your take on the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, not a curiosity to be molded to whatever desire we have--even if it is a good one.

    The means of healthcare (or national defense) doesn't come into play at all. It isn't about what medical or military science has come up with--it doesn't change the principle at all. This is very clear to me--The Constitution did not establish (excepting if there is a specific reference) a government that is empowered to provide individual needs to individual people. That's not parsing anything--that's supported by the text and also history.

    I'm not going to get angry at you for having that view, but I think you are wrong, and that your viewpoint is very dangerous, because it essentially requires the Constitution to be meaningless--or mean whatever you want it to mean, and that's not what a law is or is intended to be.

    If you want to get into whether we absolutely respect "life" or not (we do not)--we can, but that's not the same as "the government shall provide everyone with healthcare."

    I'm very clear on your position, but I'm afraid I cannot agree with it. History tells me that this isn't going to work, and will create yet another massive economic liability on top of the other 3 major ones (and many others) that is set to bankrupt us and bring us to economic ruin. We should be trying to undo the crisis coming from those, not making it worse.

    If politicians succeed in destroying this economy, healthcare won't be on the top of our list of worries. The utter irresponsibility of this continued spending spree (many to blame) is staggering.

    KAM

Posting Permissions