Destroying Healthcare in America

[1thing2add]

Originally Posted by davidra

Sixty-three percent of doctors favor a public option.

Both articles were published in this week's New England Journal of Medicine.

In these study articles, I read with great interest about morality being a primary cornerstone of physicians' belief systems where care for the uninsured and under-insured are concerned. Even among those defining themselves as "conservative", there is the clear indication of consensus that it is morally objectionable to allow the existing system to remain as is. This might fly in the face of some of the bravado I see on a day to day basis, but it certainly affirms what healthcare is and was intended to be.

I'm even further glad to see that of the obvious choices available regarding an overhaul of the system, that the same mix of public and private coverage plans that the president has outlined are clearly what physicians support.

Thanks very much for the articles!

[KAM1138]

Originally Posted by davidra

Not that I claim to know much about this, and it's way off-topic for this thread, but what makes you think they don't pay taxes? They do pay sales tax and property tax in many states. And some pay a lot more.....

Tax-paying illegals

Sales tax--certainly. Property tax? Possible I'm sure with lax or no enforcement, but there is generally all sorts of paperwork associated with owning property let's say.

So, the government is aware that they are collecting money linked to improper or fake social security numbers, and aren't bothering to check that out?

I'm referring to this line: Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers — that the Social Security administration stashes in the "earnings suspense file" — added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus.

In other words--there is a paper trail pointing directly to employers who have employees with false social security numbers (a likely indication they not legal workers, although it could be an error), and are doing nothing about it.

That's interesting.

I followed your link and noticed another article by that same author--in regards to the health care issue.
Opening Paragraph: For several months now, the American people--as if exhorted by the ghost of William F. Buckley (no particular hero of mine)--have been standing athwart the Democratic agenda of socialized medicine, yelling, "Stop!" But President Barack Obama showed them the policy equivalent of the middle finger Wednesday night.

http://reason.org/news/show/presiden...-will-con.html

And the final Paragraph: Obama lambasted the critics who claim his reform plan amounts to a government takeover of the health care system. But the plan he laid out Wednesday night will control every aspect of the medical transaction. It will tell patients when, what and how much coverage they must buy; it will tell sellers when, what and how much coverage they must sell. This is not a government takeover of health care? Then Tony Soprano is just a decent, hard-working businessman.

KAM

[davidra]

If nothing else, it demonstrates that the author wasn't blowing smoke in the article about MD support, since she appears to be on the negative side toward the White House's reform program. I have to admit that I didn't get that "total control" message from what I heard from Obama...and she never really clarifies that. But as you have pointed out, there have to be some requirements for coverage to keep people from gaming the system. Right?

[KAM1138]

Hello Everyone,

Wow, that Reason.org website has all sorts of interesting articles. Here another regarding the health care debate.

Opening Paragraph:
Those who claim that President Barack Obama's speech on health care this week wasn't a glorious success are fooling themselves. A Washington takeover of health care never sounded so enticing or fun.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/136032.html

Last Paragraph: Because when the president tells us that this is "the season for action" and that we no longer can waste time debating, he means that legislation won't be initiated until 2013, that this is all about politics and his very own entrenched ideology—not yours.

Naturally, all credit for this content is to the original Authors.

KAM

[KAM1138]

Originally Posted by davidra

If nothing else, it demonstrates that the author wasn't blowing smoke in the article about MD support, since she appears to be on the negative side toward the White House's reform program. I have to admit that I didn't get that "total control" message from what I heard from Obama...and she never really clarifies that. But as you have pointed out, there have to be some requirements for coverage to keep people from gaming the system. Right?

Did I make a point regarding requirements for coverage? I'm not sure what statement of mine you might be referring to (not denying it, but I don't recall that specifically). In general, I would agree that allowing people to "game the system" is a bad idea.

KAM

[davidra]

Originally Posted by KAM1138

Did I make a point regarding requirements for coverage? I'm not sure what statement of mine you might be referring to (not denying it, but I don't recall that specifically). In general, I would agree that allowing people to "game the system" is a bad idea.

KAM

Might not have been you, but it has been frequently pointed out that if left to their own devices, some might not choose to sign up...until they needed to. As Obama stated, that isn't fair to everyone else, especially when those folks get sick without coverage.

[1thing2add]

If it weren't so sad, it would be downright side-splitting laughable that the same who are so vehemently Tea-bagging against healthcare reform stood by as silent sheep (really? where were the protesters and presidential hecklers then?) when the banking and auto industry were bailed out under the previous administration. And those were industries that we couldn't afford to allow fail??

online.wsj.com/article/SB122969367595121563.html

boston.com/business/markets/articles/2008/09/25/bush_urges_bailout_unity/

[KAM1138]

Originally Posted by davidra

Might not have been you, but it has been frequently pointed out that if left to their own devices, some might not choose to sign up...until they needed to. As Obama stated, that isn't fair to everyone else, especially when those folks get sick without coverage.

Some people have mentioned (not sure it if was here or in some article) that eliminating pre-existing condition requirements would enable people to simply sign up when they find out something is wrong with them, get treatment paid for, and then drop off again.

Requiring everyone to carry insurance would eliminate that possibility, but I'm not too keen on government telling me how I have to spend my own money (outside of them doing what they want with tax money I pay).

As you may recall, my concept for dealing with pre-existing conditions was to eliminate barriers to getting insurance due to a pre-existing condition, but applying a narrow (only to the specific pre-existing condition) additional co-pay (it has to be reasonable and fair to both sides) for subsequent treatment of that condition--if it ever comes up. That's just one idea of course, but the goal I had in mind was to alleviate the customer from the burden of higher premiums--forever, because of something that may or may not ever happen again. It would also eliminate the problem of disqualifying someone just because they've had a medical problem at some point in their life.

KAM

[davidra]

Originally Posted by 1thing2add

If it weren't so sad, it would be downright side-splitting laughable that the same who are so vehemently Tea-bagging against healthcare reform stood by as silent sheep (really? where were the protesters and presidential hecklers then?) when the banking and auto industry were bailed out under the previous administration. And those were industries that we couldn't afford to allow fail??

online.wsj.com/article/SB122969367595121563.html

boston.com/business/markets/articles/2008/09/25/bush_urges_bailout_unity/

You mean these spelling-bee winners?

[groovy]

Originally Posted by 1thing2add

If it weren't so sad, it would be downright side-splitting laughable that the same who are so vehemently Tea-bagging against healthcare reform stood by as silent sheep (really? where were the protesters and presidential hecklers then?) when the banking and auto industry were bailed out under the previous administration. And those were industries that we couldn't afford to allow fail??

online.wsj.com/article/SB122969367595121563.html

boston.com/business/markets/articles/2008/09/25/bush_urges_bailout_unity/

You should listen to the protesters. This isn't just about health care.

[davidra]

Originally Posted by groovy

You should listen to the protesters. This isn't just about health care.

It's not? Then where were they back then? You remember, when we had a white president? Where were the socialism signs then? Who are you kidding, yourself?

Tell you what....take a guess as to what percent of these raucous obstructionists voted for Obama and have changed their minds based on his policies, and are now out there mudslinging? Any bets on whether it's more than single digits?

[groovy]

Originally Posted by davidra

It's not? Then where were they back then? You remember, when we had a white president? Where were the socialism signs then? Who are you kidding, yourself?

I was at home stitching up my white hood. Is that all you guys have? Really?

[davidra]

Originally Posted by groovy

I was at home stitching up my white hood. Is that all you guys have? Really?

Nope...but I noticed you didn't address the question. Where were they?

[KAM1138]

Originally Posted by 1thing2add

If it weren't so sad, it would be downright side-splitting laughable that the same who are so vehemently Tea-bagging against healthcare reform stood by as silent sheep (really? where were the protesters and presidential hecklers then?) when the banking and auto industry were bailed out under the previous administration. And those were industries that we couldn't afford to allow fail??

online.wsj.com/article/SB122969367595121563.html

boston.com/business/markets/articles/2008/09/25/bush_urges_bailout_unity/

Apparently you are unaware that those bailouts are very unpopular amongst a wide range of folks--specifically conservatives. I'd also bet that many of the TEA party folks are not in support of that sort of bailout.

President Obama (then Senator) voted for those bailouts as I recall, and continued those programs as President. He was in agreement with President Bush.

In short--you are incorrect. Conservatives in general were opposed to that--sometimes referring to these bailouts as 'crony capitalism.' Your premise is deeply flawed.

Perhaps your memory is deficient, but that all took place over a relatively short period of time--it was rushed through. The Healthcare debate has been going on for months, and people have had an opportunity to organize, whereas before there wasn't nearly that amount of time. Additionally, these people who you refer to as "tea-baggers" (a crude term, that moderators should take note of) don't tend to be ready-made protesters, and many of them have not participated in this sort of activity.

So, you are just plain wrong. Conservatives as a whole look unfavorably on those bailouts, and many of these TEA party protesters are opposed to reckless government spending in general, and are not just protesting healthcare "reform." Anyone wishing to make a reasonable attempt to learn about the goals of these people would be able to understand this.

I did a search just now and found this:
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: GOP rep who voted for TARP booed mercilessly at tea party

That's one example demonstrating the view these TEA party folks have in regards to those bailouts.

Apparently you didn't make even a cursory attempt to verify the validity of the accusations you were making.

KAM

[davidra]

Originally Posted by groovy

I was at home stitching up my white hood. Is that all you guys have? Really?

And yes, in fact, I admit to having suspicions that many of the most vocal protestors who have clogged up discourse and held ****** signs and claims about the president lying have racist tendencies. Just a guess. I have no real data to confirm that, but apparently none is needed to sound profound in this thread.

[1thing2add]

Originally Posted by davidra

It's not? Then where were they back then? You remember, when we had a white president? Where were the socialism signs then? Who are you kidding, yourself?

Of course it's not about healthcare! It's about the continuation of the same self-serving, us-VS-them politics that only now serves obstructionists to progress. How does one form a more perfect Union without progressive change? Yesterday's dogma had more than its fair share of opportunity. By its very definition, a more perfect Union cannot exist without progress.

Tell you what....take a guess as to what percent of these raucous obstructionists voted for Obama and have changed their minds based on his policies, and are now out there mudslinging? Any bets on whether it's more than single digits?

Do you really think these people ever go on the record? For anything? They clearly lack that unique "skill-set".

[KAM1138]

Originally Posted by davidra

It's not? Then where were they back then? You remember, when we had a white president? Where were the socialism signs then? Who are you kidding, yourself?

Tell you what....take a guess as to what percent of these raucous obstructionists voted for Obama and have changed their minds based on his policies, and are now out there mudslinging? Any bets on whether it's more than single digits?

Are you really unaware of how unpopular President Bush (and Congressional Republicans) are amongst Conservatives in regards to government spending? You may not be aware of this, but a number of Republicans lost their seats in the house in conservatives districts, because of Republican dissatisfaction with their lack of fiscal discipline.

Perhaps this isn't an issue you've delved into much, but as I said--there is wide discontent with Republicans failing to live up to their fiscal conservatism, and that's a major reason that Democrats have retaken the Congress. Of course that's a frying pan into the fire proposal, as we are seeing, but to pretend that this is due to President Bush being white is really an inaccurate accusation I think.

KAM

[1thing2add]

Originally Posted by KAM1138

Apparently you are unaware that those bailouts are very unpopular amongst a wide range of folks--specifically conservatives. I'd also bet that many of the TEA party folks are not in support of that sort of bailout.

Apparently you didn't make even a cursory attempt to verify the validity of the accusations you were making.

KAM

Thanks for your cursory, anecdotal attempt. Unfortunately, for the thinking amongst us, your assumptions are unfounded, where you "bet" this and, without evidence, state that "bailouts are very unpopular amongst ... conservatives". Where was their disapproval 1 year ago when it mattered?

To find a proportional representation of today's Tea-baggers against healthcare reform to the bailouts of 1 year ago is obviously too tall an order for Google or Lexis/Nexis. But, thanks for whistling past the graveyard, for what it was worth.

[KAM1138]

Hello Everyone,

What I see here is Davidra (someone I've been trying very hard to rebuild a constructive conversation with) and 1thing2add making a lot of accusations. I don't think they are based in fact.

The argument is taking the form of accusing people of being hypocrites and/or racists because they are speaking out against policies being forwarded now by the President and Congress. Let's take a step back for a moment. Do we or do we not respect the right of citizens to protest and attempt to make their voices heard?

Are these two people making substantive arguments against people or making accusations against them which are at a minimum broad-brush, and in many if not most cases inaccurate. Is there any evidence of fact to back these accusations up or are they simply here smearing people that disagree with their goals?

If we want to look at hypocrisy, we might ask if these people denigrating TEA party protestors (including calling them names based on a sexual act), had similar accusations to throw at the host of protesters that regularly protest at G8 Summits, wherever President Bush went, the war in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan (yes there are those too). Did these people so upset about accusations of socialism protest the name-calling (**** was a popular one, as well as facist, and war criminal) thrown at President Bush.

Let me be very clear however. I don't believe that anyone has any obligation to justify their protesting by proving support of past protesters. That however is the basis of these accusations--that these protesters are dishonest, because of PRESUMED lack of former activity.

The Truth is that what is happening here is that these posters are attacking people who they don't know much (if anything) about, painting them with a broad brush and a variety of accusations, without really having anything more than opinion to back them up. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but let's not pretend it is anything else.

I'll just say that I am disappointed to see this sort of blatant smearing of people, based on false assumptions, accusations and in my view, rather childish denigration.

I've done my best here to avoid making personal attacks on the posters who are posting things I think are unfair and inaccurate.

KAM

[davidra]

Originally Posted by KAM1138

Are you really unaware of how unpopular President Bush (and Congressional Republicans) are amongst Conservatives in regards to government spending? You may not be aware of this, but a number of Republicans lost their seats in the house in conservatives districts, because of Republican dissatisfaction with their lack of fiscal discipline.

Perhaps this isn't an issue you've delved into much, but as I said--there is wide discontent with Republicans failing to live up to their fiscal conservatism, and that's a major reason that Democrats have retaken the Congress. Of course that's a frying pan into the fire proposal, as we are seeing, but to pretend that this is due to President Bush being white is really an inaccurate accusation I think.

KAM

Actually I don't disagree with what you wrote at all. I am sure that conservatives were appalled at what Bush has done. In fact, I suspect true conservatives, the few that are left, were appalled at the takeover of the party by the Christian Right and the nation-building excesses of the party, since since both are at odds with the basic tenets of conservatism. What I'm talking about are not thoughtful conservatives, but the people who have jammed up the town hall meetings with blatant disregard for people that actually wanted to learn something by having discussions. Sorry. I don't consider those thoughtful conservatives, I consider them obstructionist fearmongers.

Oh....and no, I don't support protestors who obstuct intelligent discussion and learning, regardless of what side they are on. If someone wants to hold a sign, more power to them. When they want to interfere with the natural order of things, regardless of what banner they are carrying, I think they hurt their own cause.