The Furious Angels
FA Discussion => Off Topic => Topic started by: Fuse on August 18, 2009, 09:46:29 am
-
There's enough rumblings in the randomness thread, so I figure we'd pull it out and keep it as it's own thread. I'll start it off by just coping a few of my notes from that discussion.
Ask anyone in the healthcare system who works with patient if its a good idea-youll get the same answer. NO! I have a friend who has been an MD for 10 year. He grew up in Canada but moved here right after college and began his residency. He knows better than I what a clusterfuck gov run healthcare is. He ran away from it. Everyone at my wifes hospital is afraid. Its not about fearing change-the HC system needs change, but not this. Look at the DMV, medicare/medicade, social security, amtrak, the postal service, or simply our budget for an example of how great the gov can fuckup a system. Why would you put your trust in them with a record like thiers? Would you invest in someone like that?
Rights vs. Goods (http://lostlocalhost.com/?view=plink&id=240)
I just ran into an article by Ron Paul about something my wife an I have had a long discussion about... Is health care a right? I don't think so. I beleive healthcare is something we pay for different level of service and because some people decide to become health care professionals, they deserve to be paid the same way that any provider of other goods are. I agree that all children should receive some sort of care, because if their parents are a waste of space it's not the kids fault, but the second they hit 18 they're paying for it like the rest of us. Also forget healthcare for the deadbeat mother of 5 who pops them out to keep receiving free care. (yes, it happens often)
"Political philosopher Richard Weaver famously and correctly stated that ideas have consequences. Take for example ideas about rights versus goods. Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more “goods” seem to be becoming “rights” in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas."
Healthcare Is a Good, Not a Right. (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=144) - Ron Paul
...
I do not think the healthcare and insurance system is perfect - it is vastly flawed and does indeed need an overhaul. But it needs an overhaul that doesn't involve one person paying for another persons healthcare. Healthcare reform should be more focused on lowering costs, while maintaining or improving level of care. Competition does this. Capitalism does this. Socialism and Fascism does not.
I agree. What we seem to disagree on is how we should help. I don't think people should be FORCED into helping. I.e.taxes. Here in Illinois we already give free healthcare to people with low income all the time, and it's sad because those people for the most part abuse the system. The local hospital also offers complete bill writeoffs if an application is completed and it is deemed appropriate that they really can not afford the care. That's just one example of a private organization helping. Keep government, and more importantly, my money, out of "your" medical bill.
EDIT: Another item of interest. A private org giving free healthcare in Chicago: http://tamethebear.tv/informative/2009/05/free-health-care-part-deux/
I have a quote of my own too.
“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” – Ben Franklin
From my observation, the opinions on many new policies seems to be split by age. So many younger people think this is a great idea. That Canadian doctor I mentioned earlier says unless you've payed into the system enough to see where the money goes, you have no sense of loss or responsibility. Maybe it's just the egotistical, "I deserve this", selfish mentality that has been being plauging our youth for the last few decades. Here's a note: You don't deserve shit. You are not owed anything. You earn it. You work for it. Hard work is so hard to come by these days by people in my own generation and younger. Corners are always being cut, and it's embarassing.
Going back to the Rights vs. Good notes I made, my opinion is that if you can not afford great HC, then that means you earn too little. That sucks - get a better job and work towards it. That goes back to the Ben Franklin quote I mentioned earlier. If you make people comfortable in poverty by, say, giving them free healthcare, then why should they even WANT to work harder? (Read the last part of my "Let's say" (http://lostlocalhost.com/?view=plink&id=229) post for some elaboration on that)
My healthcare is pretty good, but I pay for it and would never ask any of you for a penny. My wife and I have gone through broken bones, pnumonia, and other issues which have caused us to cut back and have to extend thousands and thousands of dollars over a period of time and it sucks, but at least our health services, doctors, and plans were my choice.
You get what you pay for. If you're not able or willing to pay, you don't get it. Simple concept. Sucks for some people, but I can't pay for the "best" healthcare either, but that's because I can't afford it and I won't ask for any handouts.
Everyone also avoids discussing the complicated concept of how this will affect businesses. Most (about 70%) of businesses are small companies. I beleive about 37% of companies in this country have less than 100 people in them. When they can't afford to pay the healthcare of members and new taxes it will have two devastating effects. 1)Unemployment will go up. 2)It will cause reliance on this new "free" government healthcare.
I really hate talking political parties, because I beleive the concept has lost it's meaning over the last century, but this was an amusing joke: http://lostlocalhost.com/?view=plink&id=206
-
BTW, someone please let me know if I start sounding like Boombye. =)
-
The healthcare debate reminds me of the two basic types of liberals. The first is the naive liberal who believes everybody can and should be saved. The second is the cynical view that one can vote themselves to a better life.
I believe in social Darwinism, but in that belief there becomes a necessity and stronger meaning in the act of compassion and empathy.
-
Social darwinism sounds like "free and open market" where only the sucessful survive.
-
Much of healthcare is already goverment funded. The lowest class already gets free healthcare. Medicare / Medicade, here in Arizona it's called "ahcccs". Just to put this in perspective, in Pima county 18% of the population or nearly 1 in 5 people are under this low income, government healthcare. How does it work? Go to the doctor and flash a card. Boom, everything is free. No waiting, no bull crap, no stress.
How is it fair that millions of illegal immigrants, drug addicts, homeless, jobless or lazy people get this amazing healthcare while what 47 million middle class hard working Americans suffer without? If Obama's plan isn't the solution, what is? What is something fair for everyone?
Something that put it into perspective for me was the movie "Sicko". I really recommend watching to see the other side of healthcare. Something has to be done.
-
Much of healthcare is already goverment funded. The lowest class already gets free healthcare. Medicare / Medicade, here in Arizona it's called "ahcccs". Just to put this in perspective, in Pima county 18% of the population or nearly 1 in 5 people are under this low income, government healthcare. How does it work? Go to the doctor and flash a card. Boom, everything is free. No waiting, no bull crap, no stress.
Illinois = IDPA (Illinois Department of Public Aid) card. The people on IDPA abuse the system. They CHOOSE TO STAY ON THE SYSTEM! These are the same people who come into prompt care and demand to have thier 2 kids seen for the sniffles, and then claim they can't pay the $10 co-pay, despite having an iPhone, rings, and a nice purse while thier kids both eat McDonalds in the waiting room. Can't afford $10, but you can afford that other shit? This happens at least once a day at my wife's work and I imagine it's very similar in AZ.
-
You say that giving free healthcare is like taking care of people because they are lazy? Canada has Universal Health Care and their unemployment rate is 8.6%. England has UHC and their unemployment rate is 7.8%.
America doesn't, but we don't need it! We have a Free Market system where only the red-blooded wife and kids and a corporate job with a a suit and tie motherfuckers can afford it right down to their little fucking picketed fence.
America's unemployment rate is 9.7% on the average. Some states like Michigan have a 15.4% unemployment rate. You know people who've lost their jobs not because they were lazy, or weren't good at what they did. The economy is tanked right now. People are losing their jobs right and left through no fault of their own. Now how are they going to tell their 10 year old who just broke his arm that if they go to the doctor they'll be evicted next month?
People who sit in their comfortable houses in their comfortable jobs and think "cutting back" is less movies or eating out truly make me sick. Have they no emotion towards the weaker? Have they ever even spoken to a homeless person?
Don't you feel a civic duty.... a duty to the whole fucking species... to take care of each other?
-
Really? The whole point of talking politics in the randomness thread is so that it quickly gets buried by random shit before things get heated...lol. Now there's no telling what will happen. The thread title even says "Politics". You're just asking for it...
Anyway, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Wait, "life". Everyone's entitled to it? There's so much needless shit our tax money goes toward. Health care should be one of those few things that everyone agrees is necessary and worth it for the entire population.
We have public schools and private schools and those private schools still do extremely well while the public schools provide, at the very least, a basic education that everyone deserves. Did that turn our country socialist or run private schools out of business? Was it the beginning of the end? Why does everyone agree that education was worth it but making sure your nice old grandmother who doesn't have the money to pay all her medical bills is not worth it?
A public option has failed to destroy private competition in any field that I can think of. I don't think every service should have a public option, but there are certain rights that every human should have - the right to health should be one of them.
-
Tbone in 2012!
-
Don't you feel a civic duty.... a duty to the whole fucking species... to take care of each other?
I sure do. But I don't think anyone who doesn't should be forced to. If they earn money they should have the choice to donate it, or keep it. They did, after all, work it themselves. Public vs. private schools are a great example of how private entities can far surpass anything run by the government.
As far as free healthcare only taking care of lazy people... I was giving the example of the gross abuse in the system that is seen daily. I beleive the current free healthcare systems in place already by private companies and state programs would be sufficient if there were measures to avoid this fraud. (as I had mentioned, there are many issues with HC that need reform, just not this direction) If I lost my job I would never be evisted because I would sell my house asap and keep paying for cobra insurance if I felt I couldnt get a job in time. And no, I don't have any money saved away. I'd find a way, and still wouldn't ask you for a penny.
T, if you feel political debates are too mature or serious to discuss here, feel free to delete the thread. I assume we can disagree and argue/discuss many political opinions without taking it personally or letting it affect gaming.
-
I'm just going to point to T's argument from now on.
On a side note, however, I think its funny that only those WITH insurance are arguing against UHC.
-
Because we seem to be so caught up in the theoretical idea of healthcare itself, rather than debating what exactly is in the 1017 page health care bill, I figured I'd try to bring it down to what the House and Senate are actually trying to pass. Most of what I am about to post comes from an evaluation done by a Duke University Classics Professor, who is neither a doctor nor a lawyer. I do not claim to have written any of it.
The website also provides all of the legal language in the bill. To conserve space, I decided not to post the direct portions of the Health Care Bill. Of course, you can read the entire piece in full here (http://www.classicalideals.com/HR3200.htm).
1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?
(284-288, SEC. 1151.)
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. This section amends the Social Security Act
2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”
3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.
4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.
5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.
6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.
7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.
-------------
2. WILL THE PLAN TRY TO PUNISH AMERICANS WHO TRY TO OPT OUT?
(Pages 167-168, section 401)
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:
1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.
2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.
3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.
--------------------
3. WHAT CONSTITUTES "ACCEPTABLE" COVERAGE?
(Pages 26-30, SEC. 122)
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.
2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal. (In other words, paying for your own routine day-to-day services but only having insurance for catastrophic events will be illegal.)
------------
4. WILL THE PLAN DESTROY PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE?
Pages 149-150, SEC. 313
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.
2. Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”
3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.
4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.
5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.
6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.
-------------------------
5. DOES THE PLAN TAX SUCCESSFUL AMERICANS MORE THAN OTHERS?
(pages 197-198, SEC. 441.)
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:
1. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.
2. Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes.
3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.
4. Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.
---------
6. DOES THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO SET FEES FOR SERVICES?
(page 124, Sec. 223)
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
2. The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.
-----------------
7. WILL THE PLAN INCREASE THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO SCRUTINIZE OUR PRIVATE AFFAIRS?
(pages 195-196, SEC. 431.)
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:
1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code
2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.
3. Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.
4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan.
-------------------
8. DOES THE PLAN AUTOMATICALLY ENROLL AMERICANS IN THE GOVERNMENT PLAN?
(page 102, Section 205)
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. Do nothing and you are in.
2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.
-------------------
9. DOES THE PLAN EXEMPT FEDERAL OFFICIALS FROM COURT REVIEW?
(page 124, Section 223) and (page 256, SEC. 1123)
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan “based on per capita spending.”
2. Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.
-
Its not the people who have healthcare who don't like it, its people who are against gov control, excessive taxes, and removal of personal choice. When you don't have much its always easier to have someone else do it, or pay, for you. Doesn't make it right though.
IMHO, of course. :)
-
I just had an epiphany, taxes should be a la carte. Pick what you want to spend your paycheck on. If you feel strongly enough, you should be able to put $30 of everyone $100 you earn toward a national health care plan.
What a novel concept, people choosing what they put their money toward instead of a senator/rep telling them how to spend it. Our founding fathers had faith in the American people to govern themselves, so should we.
We can't vote ourselves hard work and money, we have to work hard to earn money.
Charity is one of the cornerstones of many religions/cultures. Helping just one other person in a tangible way (building them a home (like habitat for humanity), helping to run/organize a food pantry/soup kitchen, donating time/money to or working at a free clinic, etc) goes a lot further toward making America a better place than holding up a sign in protest.
-
Government control - Private options are still available. You still have freedom of choice. You just have more options. Most likely your private options will be better because they will have a lot more variety to both compete with public option and provide more custom plans to those with the $$ (as opposed to not having the $$ and still having your options limited due to lack of competition and standards).
Excessive taxes - If you want to argue that there shouldn't be taxes, you're a little late. Death and taxes. The key is to spend our tax money on something worthwhile. As I stated earlier, health should be one of those issues, like education. Much better than spending taxes on a bridge to nowhere ;)
Removal of personal choice - As stated earlier, you still have personal choice. You just have more choices.
Public vs. private schools are a great example of how private entities can far surpass anything run by the government. - Look up the military's health care and tell me they don't receive the best health care in the world. Who do you think runs that?
Ana's Bill Analysis thingy - I could do the same thing with bible verses and interpret them to mean what I want them to mean. Actually listing the passages would be more beneficial. In terms of business being forced to remove private health care b/c of government standards... the idea is that private health care will up their standards to not be fucking everybody in the ass while their down in the dirt, not that private companies will give up and say "screw the federal standards I'll just let me company burn".
Everyone seems worried about the government controlling a part of this. The real fear is that private corporations and CEOs currently control it. They have absolutely NO motivation to make it reasonable because 1. It's necessary - everyone has to have it and 2. There's not enough competition to force quality of the coverage. You have to have balance between people and a governing body. In my small lifetime I've seen enough of people to know that alone, they can't be trusted to be left to their own devices. Hell, Bernie Madoff and the whole fucking economy - the system was left in the hands of greedy greedy people. Why? People don't want government regulation. Why? Because sometimes they have to sacrifice a bit of profit for some fucking humanity. So you balance it. Let's call it a system of checks and balances, if you will. The government is still run by the people...we still have our freedoms. Someone has to protect the weak, the minority, those without a voice or the means to get one. This is why I think Batman should run health care.
-
This is why I think Batman should run health care.
/agree
Though there would be more grunting.
-
You say that giving free healthcare is like taking care of people because they are lazy? Canada has Universal Health Care and their unemployment rate is 8.6%. England has UHC and their unemployment rate is 7.8%.
America's unemployment rate is 9.7% on the average.
Alright, I cannot believe I missed this ridiculous argument.
Here has been America's unemployment rate over the past 20 years.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&q=unemployment+rate+US
Let us make it more fun and view California (very liberal state) and Texas (very conservative state)
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&idim=state:ST060000:ST480000&tstart=631152000000&tunit=M&tlen=236
Wow, a graph says a million words.
Average unemployment in this country was probably about 5.5% until the last few months. And was above 7% periodically for 3 or 4 years. No where near Canada and England's unemployment rates.
Is the argument that we should accept healthcare, handouts, free rent checks from the government and accept higher unemployment because we are lazy bastards?
Obama claims a few days ago that the government created thousands of jobs. 640K to be exact.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_650824.html
Days later, unemployment jumps 'astronomically' 0.4 percent to 10.2% after the expectations of only a 0.2% increase or less.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
None of that really matters though. Because it is somehow 'proven' that healthcare is more important to push through (despite being broke, mind you) Maybe it will create jobs and spark the economy?
Get real, look at the facts, it will create fraud and more unemployment. And the economy is recovering! The DOW is back up near and was over 10K again a few days ago. Corporations are cutting costs and cutting employees and I don't blame them. How many corporate psychologists do they really need?!? Is anyone really surprised that America produces more psychologists and art majors than all types of engineers? And people are finding out their degrees are worthless. Big surprise.
Medicare Fraud: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/23/60minutes/main5414390.shtml
In closing Obama wants congress to vote for healthcare not because of any proven benefits but for a liberal legacy.
[Obama] reminded [democrats] of the legacy they can build.
"This is their moment," he said. "This is our moment to live up to the trust that the American people have placed in us. Even when it's hard. Especially when its hard. This is our moment to deliver."
He closed by saying: "I urge members of Congress to rise up to this moment, answer the call of history and vote yes for health insurance reform for America."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/07/AR2009110702551.html?hpid=topnews
-
Healthcare as a for profit model works when you want to prevent abuse on the part of the individual.
Healthcare as a catch-all plan with mandatory pay-in system for people earning 40k and up (most Americans) works when you want to prevent abuse on the part of private insurance companies.
Ideally a healthcare system that prevented both people and insurance companies (current plan up for vote) from abusing the system would be best. However, Lithium is probably right in that it would just increase the abuse on both sides.
So then the question becomes, would you rather be screwed by your insurance company or screwed by your government.
The argument of "well I can pick and choose my insurance provider/elected officials" doesn't seem to hold weight considering both are oligopolies.
-
Health Care bill passed in the House.
-
I am REALLY trying to bite my tounge and hold back on this for a little while longer until I read more of the bill myself, but this line pissed me off...
From: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091108/D9BREBKG1.html
"A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi compared the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later."
Right... Two of the most bankrupt, corruption ridden, and financially under-estimated government programs created are your examples?
-
http://www.lostlocalhost.com/?view=plink&id=272
...and all through the House, they were bitching at the Senate calling them un-American and lazy (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30651.html). WTF? For or against, thier job is to question and I still doubt any one of them have read the 2,000+ page bill.
And outside...
On the edge of the healthcare vote in the Senate, people on both sides are speaking up. Regaurdless of what your political beleifs are, you can't argue that recent times are getting people more interested in what goes on in government. I don't think anyone can say that's a bad thing.
http://www.politico.com/largevideobox.html?bcpid=15202024001&bclid=1201016315&bctid=57512244001
Sidenote: I think this sign was halarious: "If I wanted to be ignored I'd marry you, not elect you!"
-
This is enough information for me.
But Democratic Sen. Max Baucus said it would be impossible for the Senate to certify that all its members understand the bill.
-
Sitting Senator threatened by a sitting President to support a specific bill or risk having a key military installation shut down in your state.
Now imagine that Bush is in office and not Obama and what do you think people would be saying.... I'll give you a hint. It is a one word response that starts with IM and ends with PEACH
-
Broins in my head.
Three out of Five Citizens Agree! (http://www.lostlocalhost.com/?view=plink&id=273)
60-40. That ratio represents two things. First, it is the ratio of votes that helped move the new healthcare plan throught he senate. Second, it is the approximate ratio of people who oppose the bill to those who support.
Here's some stats from Rusmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform) to back that up... (Week of Dec19th)
-55% opposed, 41% favor (Just 19% Strongly Favor the plan while 45% are Strongly Opposed)
-Senior citizens: 60% opposed, 33% favor
-32% of dems, 80% of rep, and 64% not affiliated with any party oppose the health care plan
-57% say passing nothing would be better than passing this, with 54% saying they will be worse off if it passes.
-53% say it will most likely lead to lower quality of care
-58% say it will drive the cost of care up
-66% say free market principals would reduce healthcare costs more than government
-Most adults under 30 approve of this plan, while a majority of every other age group oppose
Representatives have accepted what essentially equates to bribes in order to pass this. The public does not want this by a wide margin. It is unconstitutional to require someone to buy something just for living. These representatives purposely hide the bill, spend less time discussing it than most other bills, and fail to even read and understand everything that is in it. The goals outlined are either not met with this new legislation, or can be achieved with far less cost in the free-market system. This does not address tort reform, inter-state sales of insurance products, or massive fraud and financial shortfalls in the current government run medical systems. We are going to start paying immediately for this, but won't see results for 4 years. Ten years of payment will support six years of this healthcare. The majority of healthcare professionals fear this reform. Lawyers love this reform.
So, assuming representatives truly represent the American people, why and how did this pass?