Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]


BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

McGrath of Harlow 07 Aug 09 - 02:28 PM
CarolC 07 Aug 09 - 02:23 PM
CarolC 07 Aug 09 - 02:17 PM
CarolC 07 Aug 09 - 02:15 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 07 Aug 09 - 01:54 PM
DougR 07 Aug 09 - 01:35 PM
CarolC 07 Aug 09 - 01:16 PM
CarolC 07 Aug 09 - 01:01 PM
DougR 07 Aug 09 - 11:59 AM
CarolC 07 Aug 09 - 01:17 AM
CarolC 06 Aug 09 - 11:56 PM
Riginslinger 06 Aug 09 - 09:43 PM
Greg F. 06 Aug 09 - 09:43 PM
Alice 06 Aug 09 - 09:41 PM
pdq 06 Aug 09 - 08:25 PM
Don Firth 06 Aug 09 - 06:34 PM
Little Hawk 06 Aug 09 - 06:28 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Aug 09 - 05:45 PM
Greg F. 06 Aug 09 - 05:22 PM
CarolC 06 Aug 09 - 05:08 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Aug 09 - 04:47 PM
Greg F. 06 Aug 09 - 04:31 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Aug 09 - 04:23 PM
Greg F. 06 Aug 09 - 03:16 PM
Don Firth 06 Aug 09 - 02:32 PM
GUEST,mg 06 Aug 09 - 02:26 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Aug 09 - 01:52 PM
Greg F. 06 Aug 09 - 01:34 PM
DougR 06 Aug 09 - 01:13 PM
CarolC 06 Aug 09 - 12:23 PM
DougR 06 Aug 09 - 11:50 AM
CarolC 06 Aug 09 - 10:53 AM
Greg F. 06 Aug 09 - 08:22 AM
artbrooks 06 Aug 09 - 08:13 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 06 Aug 09 - 06:19 AM
CarolC 06 Aug 09 - 01:33 AM
CarolC 06 Aug 09 - 12:35 AM
GUEST,TIA 05 Aug 09 - 11:41 PM
Greg F. 05 Aug 09 - 11:29 PM
Alice 05 Aug 09 - 09:14 PM
McGrath of Harlow 05 Aug 09 - 07:38 PM
Rowan 05 Aug 09 - 07:08 PM
Greg F. 05 Aug 09 - 07:06 PM
DougR 05 Aug 09 - 06:12 PM
McGrath of Harlow 05 Aug 09 - 04:35 PM
Greg F. 05 Aug 09 - 03:44 PM
Alice 05 Aug 09 - 02:48 PM
Alice 05 Aug 09 - 02:29 PM
CarolC 05 Aug 09 - 02:20 PM
CarolC 05 Aug 09 - 01:47 PM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 02:28 PM

Charles Krauthammer's column in today's edition of the Washington Post suggests a plan to correct the current ills of our health care program. It won't be considered, of course, because he suggests it.

So why didn't the last administration sort things out during all the long years in which it was in control? Could it possibly be that they didn't it to be done? And in opposition they still don't want it to be done?

Sixty years since the NHS was set up. Plenty of time to work out and introduce a more acceptable way of achieving the same goal in an American way, if that had been what was actually wanted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 02:23 PM

Forgot to address the one about not accepting money from the government to purchase a plan of my choice.

The answer is that because of my age and pre-existing conditions, there are no insurance companies that are willing to insure me for a price that I can afford... even if the government gives me a tax deduction.

What's so goddamned difficult to understand about what I have been repeatedly saying about how I can't get insurance because of pre-existing conditions? Tell me that! How many times does something have to be repeated until it will penetrate into such a brainwashed mind?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 02:17 PM

...and no, I am not pushing for single payer, and I would like to see what posts of mine would lead anyone to believe that. I would be very happy with the plan that Obama is proposing, which is not single payer. I do want there to be a public option, but even the public option is not single payer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 02:15 PM

This is the one I read. If there's another one, I would appreciate a link to it...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080602933.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 01:54 PM

""For example, why would object, as one who is not insured, to the government giving you a grant to purchase a policy from the insurance company of your choice?""

Great Doug. The government gives you a grant to buy insurance from one of the many rip off merchants who will sell you a policy which denies you treatment in the event you get sick.

That'll help.....NOT!

The whole point, in case it hasn't penetrated yet, is that everybody GETS health care, rather than a long list of reasons why they are INELIGIBLE.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 01:35 PM

Carol C: I think you must have read a Krauthammer column that is different from the one I read. I believe his proposed program addresses all of the concerns you believe are ignored. For example, why would object, as one who is not insured, to the government giving you a grant to purchase a policy from the insurance company of your choice?

It appears to me that you will not be satisfied with any plan other than a single payer one. Is that correct?

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 01:16 PM

People aren't going to reject his ideas because he's Krauthammer (although I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, myself). They're going to reject them because he advocates taxing people for the money their employers contribute towards their health insurance. That one will never be accepted by the majority of people who get their health insurance through their employer.

His proposal also doesn't do a thing to solve the problem of people not being able to get insurance because of pre-existing conditions (which includes age, by the way), and it also does absolutely nothing about insurance companies denying their customers needed care in order to maximize their profits. So those who don't have access to health care or who are being ripped off by their insurance carriers will never accept his proposal eiher. Those two groups represent the majority of people in this country.

Krauthammer's proposal doesn't do a thing to help the uninsured and the underinsured get access to health care, and for this reason, his proposal would not do a thing to correct the increase in the deficit that is caused by the inefficient method of health care delivery we have in this country now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 01:01 PM

It was never intended for the draft sent to the CBO to be the final version. That's the whole point of sending things to the CBO. Their function is to go over the mumbers of various ideas and give their feedback so the lawmakers can shape law that will make economic sense. Those who are using the CBO report as proof that Obama's health care proposals are too expensive are being very dishonest, since the CBO report was in reference to an imcomplete bill. There were aspects of the overall approach that Congress is taking and that Obama advocates that were not included in the draft bill that the committee in question sent to the CBO that, when included, produce very different results.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 11:59 AM

Carol C: Thanks for the blue clickies, particularly the one to the Kaiser Fund. It seems there has been a great deal of friction between Peter Orzsag, former director of the CBO, and Douglas Elmendorf, the current director. Elmendorf, it seems, is taking a much more conservative position on the results of the CBO evaluation of the draft plan submitted by the Senate committee than Orzsag is. It was this evaluation that sent the senators back to the drawing board.

Don Firth: Mudcatters, at times, confuse "evidence" with opinion.

McGrath: yes, you are correct. I left "not" out of the sentence.

Greg F.: you have no idea whether or not I shave every day. I might have a beard that reaches down to my waist.

Charles Krauthammer's column in today's edition of the Washington Post suggests a plan to correct the current ills of our health care program. It won't be considered, of course, because he suggests it.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 01:17 AM

Here's some background on the CBO estimate...

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/June/18/CBO.aspx


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 11:56 PM

The people who gave out the figure of a trillion dollars were talking about an incomplete early draft of a proposed bill. It did not include quite a lot of very important and relevant information and features that, when included in their calculations, will produce a very different figure. The whole point of sending that early draft was to get a projection from that government agency of how some of the features of the early draft would impact the cost. It was not a final version and it didn't look anything like what either Obama, or the Democrats in the House and Senate have been proposing.

Here is one expert who says that health care reform as proposed by Obama will reduce the deficit, whereas not taking care of the problems that Obama's proposal addresses will cause the deficit to increase. I've seen others and I'll post them as I get time...

David Cutler is Otto Eckstein Professor of Applied Economics at Harvard University.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/05/health_modernization.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 09:43 PM

It looks to me like it's really up in the air as to whether is would cost more or less. The age old issue of "who pays," seems to be at the bottom of the resistance. If nothing is done, however, American firms will have to compete against other players around the globe who's government pays the freight.
               They won't survive!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 09:43 PM

And there's also the point that while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they're not entitled to their own facts.

Doug should have that tattooed in reverse on his forehead, so as to be able to read it in the mirror as he shaves every morning.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 09:41 PM

There is no such thing as "Obamacare". What the heck are you talking about? More Fox News/Limbaugh BS.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 08:25 PM

Carol C,

The people who analyzed ObamaCare and said that it would cost trillions of dallars more, not less, was the Congressional Budget Office. They are supposed to be independent although top members were appointed by Obama.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 06:34 PM

I think that falling into "playing the man" occurs most often when one has repeatedly presented overwhelming evidence for one particular position, and a person who has taken the opposite position either fails, or stubbornly refuses, to acknowledge the evidence and persists in even more aggressively advocating their own position, which has been shown time and again to be completely untenable. It's often a bit hard to keep from becoming exasperated, and expressing that exasperation by calling the person's intelligence or integrity into question.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 06:28 PM

Excellent idea!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 05:45 PM

My point is that the basic point of a discussion is to discusss the issues. PLay the ball not the man.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 05:22 PM

I don't get your point, McGrath- we should let Doug's preposterous & pernicious spew go unchallenged in the spirit if conviviality?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 05:08 PM

I don't have time to dig up the experts I mentioned just now. I'll do it when I get more time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 04:47 PM

So? "I think we fall into a trap when we treat discussions about real issues on the Mudcat as arguments to be won or lost, or as attempts to convince particular people."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 04:31 PM

Well, lets try that'un agin:

Doug's initial post here seemed to indicate... trying to reach some common understanding of where the truth lies...was what he was after.

I should think his subsequent posts quickly & definitively put the lie to that idea. As ever.

That's not what Doug is about at all, not how he operates. Nor has it ever been, as a review of his posting history ever since he first appeared on this forum amply demonstrates.

But for some reason, he's able to keep suckering people in again & again & again...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 04:23 PM

Quite a catalogue from mg - but a lot of those things are also true of countries where successful universal health provision has been set up and maintained by governments of all political colours, so I wouldn't depair.   

As Don Firth's anecdotal evidence indicates, by now there is nothing left-wing about universal health cover. In fact, as that Conservative Party website I quoted pointed out, it can be seen as an expression of fundamental conservative values - "The NHS is an institution which binds our nation together.

Things move on, and yesterday's crazy extremist ideas become bedrock conservative principles. After all, it isn't so long since universal suffrage was seen as a dangerous left-wing policy. Or the notion of having a republican form of government.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 03:16 PM

Doug's initial post here seemed to indicate... trying to reach some common understanding of where the truth lies...was what he was after.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 02:32 PM

This country is able to bail out terminally ill banks and businesses to the tune of trillions of dollars—which the executives of those banks and companies (who screwed them into the ground in the first place) then use to vote themselves raises and bonuses. This country is able to spend trillions of dollars on military expenditures, such as the F-22 fighter program, which the Pentagon says it neither needs nor wants (not to mention a couple of totally needless wars). And if I wanted to take the time, I could list a whole page full of similar boondoggles,, but I leave that to anyone interested as a valuable exercise. If the bribe-takers in Congress were to grow some honesty and integrity (not to mention a few brain cells) and reallocate some of this wasted taxpayer money to where it is needed and will actually do some good, this country might just join the rest of the civilized world.

I just heard part of a radio interview this morning, but I missed the guy's name. He said he was recently in Denmark and talking to a group of conservatives there (opposed to much of the Danish political system and their tax-funded social programs). He asked them if they would prefer a health care system which is funded by private insurance companies, like the United States has.

They all answered in horrified voices, "Are you crazy!???"

There you have it.

Don Firth

P. S. Of course, that traveler's comment can be totally dismissed on two counts:   first, it's anecdotal; and second, I didn't hear it on Fox News, I heard in on my local NPR affiliate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 02:26 PM

Well, I shall try to explain some of the obstacles...

And I am all for universal health care..hopefully without destroying what already exists and instead of 40 million uninsured we have 300 million in a great big mess...but that seems to not be the way they are going and hopefully they will work on the 40 million people plus first and leave what is working somewhat in place while they fix what is not working. But I like the magic wand option the best still.

We are a country almost strangled by laws and legalities and lawsuits.

We are a country that talks about education a lot but for the most part does not prepare students for practical careers, and that is where the health care people should be mostly coming from.

We are e pluribus unum...which means we are not a more or less homogenized society..quite the opposite. Universal anything is easier if people are more or less on the same page.

We have a history of government inefficiencies and if you look to the VA as a guide..boy, have there been some horror stories.

The very foods that are killing us -- transfats, stuff made out of corn oil -- are often the ones that are subsidized. We also are financially addicted -- due to generations of poverty -- to wheat, which many many people of Northern European extraction are very sensitive to..less so for people of Mediterranean extraction. We don't have really a history across the board of good nutrition but instead..especially in the last say 3 generations..of shelf-life foods and junk foods.

We have a lot of violence to contend with which adds to emergency room costs etc. Adds to stress of life, adds to not getting outside for exercise and sunlight. Makes it harder to shop for healthy foods as grocers do not want to be in high-crime neighborhoods.

We are way way overmedicated -- if you saw the lists of what medications people are on you would faint -- at the cost to them or society and to the costs in health terms -- and now they are getting into the water supply etc. I think this mostly happened around WWII --when massive doses of some medications saved many many lives from war injuries, infectiosn etc...but we never really got the dosing down.

We are giving people very bad medical advice, particularly diabetics...they have been told for generations to eat huge amounts of carbohydrates when their bodies do not handle carbohydrates in large amounts. This leads to a lot of the heart problems that really increase medical costs.

We are religious about food and dairy products and meat etc. and instead of getting nutritional advice and information, people are given philosophies of food, which are important but separate from the nutrition of food.

We do not want to spend enough money on food, especially animal products and dairy. We need much better animal husbandry, as almost anyone would agree, and we need to shift some of the unemployed population into working with animals that feed us. There are so many animal lovers who could be working with dairy goats, rabbits, ducks etc., who would rather work at a little dairy than at a desk..

We are a sedentary population sitting under flourescent lights.

We are a stressed out population -- generations of war, fairly high unemployment in some areas, residuals from the horrors of slavery.

We have our native population in reservations and in poverty situations quite often. That does not seem to be the case in France or other places. There are very huge health problems sometimes, with alcohol being a major problem, changing from native diet to SAD (standard or substandard American diet).

We have a couple of generations of people who have perfected the art of obstacling things instead of building things and fixing things. Someone interviewed some men from the WWII generation and one thing the said about us boomers, who were younger then, was that we didn't really know how to build anything, but were good at putting up obstacles. Lots of red tape. Lots of endangered species stuff. Lots of rules for people to sort out. All of it good, but it is hard to get stuff done.

We do not let people at the ends of their lives die naturally but keep them going and this accounts for a lot of health care costs.

Multiple births -- huge medical expenses for premature births. There should be laws regulating the number of implanted embroyos..like 2 max and if someone is infertile, that is their cross to bear..and we should not be paying for ocuplets etc.

Breakdown of family. Single parent homes. More stress, less money, poor housing and food options.

Loss of family farms is probably in their somewhere.

Well, that is all for now. mg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 01:52 PM

I think Doug missed a "not" out of the second line of his last post, which made nonsense out of the sentence. Surely "and is eligible for a government health care plan that I, because I am not yet 65, am not eligible for.
...........

I think we fall into a trap when we treat discussions about real issues on the Mudcat as arguments to be won or lost, or as attempts to convince particular people, or efforts to demonstrate that we are not convinced.

We would do better to use them as opportunities to collaborate with others, including people who start with very different views from our own, in sorting out what we as individuals do actually think, and in trying to reach some common understanding of where the truth lies, or where the actual differences lie.

Doug's initial post here seemed to indicate that that was what he was after here.   But it isn't really how later posts have achieved.
...................................

I'm still hoping that someone who thinks that America is uniquely incapable of doing what everyone else has done, providing universal health care, will explain why that is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 01:34 PM

Experts have predicted for years that Medicare and Medicaid themselves will not exist in just a few short years!

No, idiots, liars and right-wing propagandists have for more than 20 years predicted their imminent demise and continue to do so despite conclusive evidence to the contrary.

There are any number of ways to extend both in perpetuity- the most obvious of which is raising the income cap on contributions wch should have been done to keep pace with inflation decades ago.

Who are the experts that project that the Obama health care proposal will REDUCE costs?

Who are the experts, no, strike that, the idiots that predict it won't?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 01:13 PM

Who are the experts that project that the Obama health care proposal will REDUCE costs?

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 12:23 PM

Quite the contrary, in fact. Experts say that Obama's proposals will drastically reduce the amount of money the government spends currently, and without health care reform, the deficit will continue to grow. Since we are paying about twice as much for health care in this country than in other developed countries, it is penny wise and pound foolish not to adopt a system that ensures health care for everyone. One of the reasons for this is that with the almost fifty million people in this country who don't have access to regular health care, the uninsured don't get preventive health care, and they don't seek medical attention until their problems become far more serious and far more expensive than they would be if they had been able to get medical attention much sooner. And they end up in hospital emergency rooms and unable to pay their bills.

Another reason this is costing everyone a lot of money is because the majority of bankruptcies and home foreclosures are because of people not having access to health care and not being able to pay their medical bills. This has a seriously negative effect on the housing market and on the property values of everyone who owns property, and it drives the whole economy down for everyone.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 11:50 AM

Carol C: Your 12:35 AM post, I think, is a very good one. Greg F., obviously, read it, and it is conceivable that he learned something. Emphasis on "conceivable"!

I find little to quarrel with what you wrote. Essentially you are saying, Doug is over 65 and is eligible for a government health care plan that I, because I am not yet 65,am eligible for. The inference is because I am a participant of Medicare, I should favor the government the government providing similar health care coverage for everyone regardless of age. I could argue that the primary reason that the government cannot, is because the government cannot afford to.

Experts have predicted for years that Medicare and Medicaid themselves will not exist in just a few short years! If that is
so, how can the government expect to pay health care coverage for everyone?

Obama's plan would cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office, over a Trillion dollars within the first ten years.

Democrats in Congress have been burning the midnight oil for the past few months seeking answers to how such a program can be financed. So far, they have not come up with a solution that could result in acceptable legislation.

I guess I could voluntarily withdraw from Medicare so that the cost of paying for my health care could be used to pay health care costs for those not yet eligible for Medicare (I'm certain Greg F. would approve of that)but I'm afraid that would make even less impact on health care costs than the "Dollars for Clunkers" program is going to benefit the environment.

I suppose Artbrooks is correct. Perhaps we have reached an impass.

I started this thread hoping it would be an opportunity for the "fors" and the "aginers" to express their views. I think it has done that.

DougR

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 10:53 AM

He provides us with an opportunity to put the counter-arguments out there where others can see them. One never knows if someone who has been persuaded by the propaganda but who has retained their capacity for critical thinking, and who is less brainwashed than he is might read it and change their perspective. It's worth making the counter-arguments for that reason alone, regardless of whether or not it ever makes a difference in how he thinks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 08:22 AM

Yeah, I know, TIA- I'm violating the prime directive of never engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Calling him a "Faux News Parrot" though is being too kind; his spew exceeds even their lies and disinformation.

I've never been able to figure out if he really is stupid and ignorant enough to actually believe the crap he posts, or if he simply does it to wind people up. I think the preponderance of evidence points to the former.

At least I only engage him occasionally - there are some real masochists here that interact with him all the time as if he were a rational being!

All best,

Greg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 08:13 AM

This thread began with the title "Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?". What is good is that DougR got his answer within the first five or ten responses. What's bad is that we have gone on for almost a month, and nearly 450 posts, as he (and perhaps one or two others) fails to accept the positive responses from people who live under systems of nationalized healthcare, albeit unlike anything that has been proposed in the US, and as he argues with those who are (politely or otherwise) trying to convince him that his ideas are wrong.   I think it's time to end this, and I'm out of here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 06:19 AM

""Carol C: Your definition of health care "rationing" is a bit off base. "Rationing" is withholding needed health care because of cost and age.""

NO Doug, IT'S NOT!

I can see how you would like that definition to be true, fitting in, as it does with your "I've got mine, and I don't really give a damn who hasn't" attitude.

Rationing, as anyone who spent WW2 on the Eastern side of the Atlantic will tell you, is the gathering of total resources, and the distribution of same so EVERYBODY gets the same share.

Ditto with the National Health Service. Every citizen of the UK, rich or poor, gets the treatment he/she needs, without having to present a platinum credit card at the door.

Those who wish can, and DO, opt for private treatment within the thriving Private Medical Insurance market, or indeed, if they are able, pay from their own funds.

Why, in the face of so much proven evidence of success, do you adhere to the laughable misconception that what works in so many other countries would inevitably fail, or cause failure in the private sector, if applied to US citizens.

Could it simply be that you are adamant that no portion, however small, of your tax dollar should be spent to the benefit of those you consider either losers, or wasters?

Do you REALLY care about the welfare of anyone outside your family circle?

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 01:33 AM

I think it's also worth pointing out that the company, HealthNet, has paid out many millions of dollars in fines to the government for fraudulent behavior. They terminated many peoples' policies because those people got sick. They couldn't do that to the people who are covered under their Medicare Advantage, because that is paid for by the government, and because it is regulated by Medicare. This is why the market is not the most efficient means of providing people with health care.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Aug 09 - 12:35 AM

The form of private insurance that is being referred to as HealthNet above is not, strictly speaking, the same as private insurance. The kind that is paired with Medicare is called, HealthNet Medicare Advantage and although it is provided by a private company, it is regulated by Medicare. So our friend above whose medical care is administered HeathNet (and paid for by me and the millions of other people who pay taxes but don't have access to health care ourselves) is benefiting from a structure that is pretty much exactly the same thing as what Obama is proposing. It is a structure that provides a public option (Medicare), and well regulated private options (like HealthNet Medicare Advantage). The only difference is that Obama is trying to apply this structure to everyone rather than just to those over 65 years of age. After all, if it's not the government's job to provide health care to those under 65, it's also not the government's job to provide health care to those over 65 either. So I'm sure, being convinced as he is that it's not the government's job to provide health care, that the poster above who is benefiting from government funded health care will be the first in line to give up that coverage entirely. (Or maybe that person only cares about himself, and just doesn't care about anyone else.)

If it works for those over 65, there's absolutely no reason why it can't work for everyone, and I take the enthusiastic endorsement of the person above who has this coverage as an enthusiastic endorsement of Obama's health care proposals.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 11:41 PM

Greg F. -
You are debating a Fox News parrot. Every word comes straight from thier talking points. But you knew that already....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 11:29 PM

I currently have Medicare administered by a private company (Health Net)

Nonsense. No private company "administers" Medicare. The private company may be a secondary provider to Medicare as a primary provider.

Either more deception, or simply more of the same old ignorance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 09:14 PM

Yes, Rowan, we have antiques here from the days when you had to buy insurance in order to have the firemen put a fire out at your house. I once saw the leather buckets on Antiques Roadshow... if your neighbor's house was not covered, it would burn. Toll roads, schooling only for the wealthy... it is amazing that people can't recognize that public health care to help people who are sick is even more important than having public schools.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 07:38 PM

The National Health Service is a pretty good way of ensuring universal health care but it's not the only one.

Here's one political website's coment on this "socialized medicine" : "The NHS is an institution which binds our nation together. In cities, towns and villages up and down the country, the family doctor surgeries and local hospitals are part of the fabric of our community.   And the doctors, nurses and support staff who work so hard to keep them going are known and trusted." That's from a Conservative Party campaigning site.

But other countries do it in a range of different ways, to reflect the way their society works. I'd assume that when (and sadly if) America finally joins the rest of the world in this matter it will have its own system. Probably some combination of private and public.

But the essential thing is to do it. And the scandal is that it hasn't been done.

It's over sixty years since the NHS was set up. At the time it was unique, but since then every other economically advanced country in the world has come up with its own way of doing it. Apart from the United States.

You've had Democratic administrations, and you've had Republican administrations. And none of them have managed to ensure an American health system that is worthy of America, one which ensures that everyone in American can go to sleep at night knowing that, if and when ill-health strikes, the medical care they need will be available without breaking them financially.

No doubt there are disagreements about the best way to do things - but to allow those differences to block the coming of universal health care would be shameful. It might be as well for both sides to remember the saying "The best is enemy of the good".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Rowan
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 07:08 PM

"Pre-existing conditions" - as genetic science and medica; technoogy progresses its probably going to become evident that most of the ills that affect us are down to "pre-existing conditions".

This is going to be a real nightmare. Although it could be possible to argue that "susceptibility to or vulnerability to" developing any particular condition is not the same as "having the pre-existing condition", attempts by companies to argue that they have ownership and copyright over our genes that they've mapped (an argument that has been successful so far) may mean that every disease can be attributable to a "pre-existing condition.

What would the right-wingers want us to do? Abolish government fire departments, schools, universities, water systems, highways systems, sewer systems, garbage collection, disease control, and make everyone who can afford it buy insurance to cover these services and damn the population who can't?

My understanding of the history of the development of almost all these institutions is that, originally, fire departments, schools, universities, water systems, highways systems were established as privately owned. [Perhaps the Roman roads are an exception but tollways do have a long history.] Most of the major (privately owned) buildings in the older cities on both sides of the Atlantic pond (and a few in Oz) had insurance companies' badges on their exteriors to denote their membership of the insurance policies that paid for the (privately-run) fire fighting agencies and entitled them to have fire protection provided. It was public irritation at the inequities exposed by such systems that got firefighting run as a govt responsibility.

The oldest schools (and even the oldest universities) in the same countries were run either privately; the fact that they were run under patronage of churches and the royal courts might lead the gullible into thinking they were run by what we now understand to be "the govt" but we'll let that slide. The govt run Medibank (later reinstate as Medicare) in Oz are way ahead of what they replaced, similar to what I experienced of the US system.

Ah well...

Cheers, Rowan


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 07:06 PM

That's as may be McGrath, but reasoned dialog, facts and proof beyond a reasonable doubt have been even LESS successful in "moving things forward". How would you characterise someone who continually refuses to accept that which has been conclusively proven to be a fact?? But perhaps "idiot" IS to harsh. How about "moron"?

1. polls show that the majority of Americans do not want the kind of health care program you have in [Britain].

Absolutely false. More disinformation.

2. . I believe, however, if you are correct, we would have had a single payer program like GB and Canada and many other countries have, many, many years ago.

Also, absolutely false. Nothing to do with Constitutionality. The reason we don't have decent health care like the rest of the world is the shibboleth of "Socialized Medicine" scaring the crap out of the ignorant and lobbying by the AMA and Insurance interests that has gone on non-stop since the 1930's.

How believe that nonsense in the face of conclusive proof to the contrary is a source of perpetual wonderment to me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 06:12 PM

McGrath: I thought I addressed your question in my last post. I'll try again, and use myself as an example: I currently have Medicare administered by a private company (Health Net). Medicare provides the money, Health Net and my private doctor make medical decisions regarding my health care needs. If I am not satisfied with the way Health Net treats me, I can enroll with another private company, like CIGNA, or any other Medicare provider approved by Medicare. And I can assure you, Kevin, I am not a voice in the wilderness. Latest polls show that the majority of Americans do not want the kind of health care program you have in your country.

Alice: Since I am not a lawyer specializing in Constitutional law, I won't argue your point. I believe, however, if you are correct, we would have had a single payer program like GB and Canada and many other countries have, many, many years ago.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 04:35 PM

I know it gets frustrating when the weight of evidence and argument seems so overwhelming, but throwingup hands in horror and labelling people who are still unconvinced "idiots" doesn't really move things forward.

It's not really that different from crying out "socialized medicine" instead of arguing the case.

I'm sure there are arguments for the present health system in America, just as there were arguments for the slave system. Not sound arguments perhaps, but arguments that are evidently seen as convoncing by a good many Americans, and deserve to be addressed and unwrapped and dismantled.

Obviously there is a very rational argument from the point of view of the insurance companies who recognise that they would be faced by real pressures to behave better if they are to survive in a new system.   

Evidently there are medical professionals who believe that they will lose out - in the same way as their fellow professionals had similar fears in Britain in 1948, for exampel, and found that these were completely unfounded, turning them into some of the strongest defenders of the NHS.

But the ordinary punters who are against change are harder to understand, and yet they are the ones who matter. Doug is satisfied with his own medical care, provided by the government, but is fearful that if everyone else were able to opt for something analogous things would spiral down to disaster.

It seems to me that the only way to put the puzzle together is to take it that American society is seen by such people as uniquely disqualified from following the example of all other advanced countries in this matter.

Any administration in the USA, it appears, is bound to drive down standards to the lowest possible level, and voters are never going to insist that this does not happen, since public services are necessarily seen as a target for economies to keep taxes as low as possible, which will allow at least some hope of paying for escalating payments for private health insurance...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 03:44 PM

Single Payer may not be in the existing Bills in Congress, but it sure is lurking in the shadows.

Yup, and Commies are lurking under the bed.

I never said thyat the administration of Medicare or the VA was perfect.

But the insurance companies are.

check out the Constitution

Which, as with most other documents he cites, he's never read. No need to.

...absurdities in the current system that could be corrected...

The main absurdity of the current system is that it purpose is solely to make money at the expense of providing adequate health care.

Jesus, its worse than trying to debate a Flat-Earther or a Holocaust Denier. Their perception is NOT reality. All it does is legitimize their idiocy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 02:48 PM

Some people argue that the general welfare applies to only the state, not the citizens, but I think it is clear it applies to both, as the founding fathers went on to write "ourselves and our posterity".

What would the right-wingers want us to do? Abolish government fire departments, schools, universities, water systems, highways systems, sewer systems, garbage collection, disease control, and make everyone who can afford it buy insurance to cover these services and damn the population who can't?

It still amazes me that people who think the government can administer wars but they don't want government administering anything else... sounds like they'd rather pay more to someone who is taking a profit. There is a role for government and a role for business and I believe that protecting the health of our citizens is a basic role for government.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 02:29 PM

quote

The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America....


Promotion of the general welfare (health, which is a life and death issue) IS in the constitution. It IS the job of our government.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 02:20 PM

And by the way, I take the suggestion that JtS and I and the millions of other people in the US who face the same problems in getting access to adequate health care can only be helped in countries that have single payer health care systems, to be an admission that single payer health care systems are superior to all other health care systems.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Aug 09 - 01:47 PM

And that, by the way, is the whole point of the public option.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 24 October 3:05 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.