Going Rogue

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Your thoughts are logical and well said, but you have way more faith in what the roll of government will be.

The simple fact that our legislators haven't read the bill, that no one knows what it will cost, and that no one can explain what it will or won't cover, is just too much for me to accept.

And to have a sitting president tell me that it will be passed regardless of what the country may want, is incredibly arrogant.

Sort of like invading a foreign country on trumped up evidence of wrong-doing, eh?

[Ea]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Our form of government is not out-dated. It is still viable. The problem is the corruption of the original tennents by those who have come into power since the Constitution was written. Government of the people, by the people and for the people is still a solid form of government. Unfortunately, many of those in charge have forgotten this.

I was originally referring to King George's (V?) government - not the USA one. Perhaps I should have mentioned it.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

The hospitals are required by law, that to participate in Medicare they have to have the no turn away policy. It stemmed from one point where corporate hospital systems were sending uninsured people to a county or charity hospital and keeping those with insurance or lots of money.

It was sort of like the insurance companies who turn away those with expensive illnesses or dump someone when they get an expensive illness. Health Care reform should, in my opinion, have at it's core the rquirement that insurance companies cannot do that, so that they are on the same playing field as the hospitals.

It should also have the public option. And please read this sentence very carefully: NOT to "dictate healthcare" but to have an affordable insurance ption for those who are unable to get insurance from an employer or on their own.

My reason for this is: Right now, Medical facilities have high prices because they must compensate for Medicare and Medicaid and uninsured patients. The insurance companies do not pay full fare, either. If everyone in the US had coverage to pay for medical care, everyone would, over time be paying basically the same price. Economics assures us of that. The lack of insurance for 45 million (or whatever) unisured patients going to ER's to get primary care is a huge driver for medical costs.

You will please note that I have not at any time said that the government should tell me how to practice, or where, or for whom, or in any capacity. The role of government in this approach to care is strictly financial. Will they bung it up? Probably. They keep stealing from teh Medicare and Soc Sec trust funds to pay for trinkets. But it would work better than what we got.

Ummm.....Pshrynk, does the amount you get paid not affect the treatments you are able to provide? This is not a dig at your personal integrity, but an observation that if "the system" won't pay for an expensive, but in your professional opinion, necessary treatment for your patient, doesn't that limit what you can do for your patient?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Ea

I was originally referring to King George's (V?) government - not the USA one. Perhaps I should have mentioned it.

There was nothing wrong with being governed by George III!

[Ea]

Originally Posted by kazbates

As you are an insider , your insight is very helpful. I worry that the new system would be open to all but ultimately paid for by the working class who are already baring the burden for so many other things. Having said that, if they could come up with a system that did not over burden the working class, gave everyone equal footing in the healthcare arena, and did not reduce the coverage that I (and my family) have in the current scheme, I would be all for it.

There is something fundamentally wrong with your system if it would allow this. Costs are meant to be spread - equally and with an eye to who can afford it. Why would you think this would end up in economic oppression of the lower classes?

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Sort of like invading a foreign country on trumped up evidence of wrong-doing, eh?

Since you brought it up (and since we're so far off topic anyway), would it have been better to leave Saddam Hussein in power even though his regime had so many human rights violations?

I don't know the answer to that. I was against invading Iraq but struggle with that issue. It reminds me of all the out cry about Darfur. When do you draw the line?

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Sort of like invading a foreign country on trumped up evidence of wrong-doing, eh?

'sigh. And I was having such fun.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

There was nothing wrong with being governed by George III!

LOL - it's hard enough keeping track of my own kings and queens

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Sort of like invading a foreign country on trumped up evidence of wrong-doing, eh?

This trumped up evidence?

Or this?

Yep, that Clinton guy sure made up a lot of stuff about Saddam. Too bad he left the dirty work to his successor.

[desertgrandma]

People, lets understand something.

No one here is saying health care shouldn't be affordable to all.

What I'm saying, and this is just me, is that allowing the federal government to handle health care, and make no mistake, they will be handling it, will be a huge mistake, resulting in a bloated beaurocracy, much higher taxes, and, as usual where the government is concerned, a huge cluster frack.

For those of you 'over across the pond', who have universal health care, your system has been in place for how long?

Surely it didn't happen within a few months, like this president is trying accomplish.

Does no one understand that? No, "just do something" will not work.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Another example, California just passed a law limiting the screen size of the television that you can buy because it can be an energy hog. Talk about government abusing power. . .Be afraid. . .Be VERY afraid.

Got that wrong. California hasn't legislated screen size, simply energy consumption and for the time being, it applies only to 52-inch or smaller screen TVs. The 72-inchers still have a free pass.

Strikingly, the largest manufacturer of the screens affected has said it already meest the standards and has no problem with the law.

[93terp]

[QUOTE=kazbates;662205]The government gave these banks billions of dollars, hoping that they would stimulate the economy by lending it out. /QUOTE]

Your certainly entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Your statement above is simply, patently NOT TRUE. The TARP $$ given to the banks was not done to stimulate the economy; it was done to protect the entire financial system from collapsing & taking the entire global finanancial system down with it. At it's core it was intended to allow the US Treasury to buy toxic assets from the banks, thereby propping up balance sheets of financial institutions.

http://www.thompsonhine.com/publicat...1543.html#3888

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Does no one understand that? No, "just do something" will not work.

I totally agree with that. I also agree that doing NOTHING will not work. The status quo isn't working.

We certainly shouldn't rush it. No one understands the tax code either. That is why I am so high on the FairTax. We need a simpler solution... we need to phase in ideas one at a time. See how it works and adjust where needed. I think eliminating pre-existing conditions and lifetime maximum is a great idea of a first step. But, I also think this would raise insurance rates, it will do nothing to reduce health care costs at all.

BOb

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Ea

Yes, I think I would like some more examples. Isn't the government supposed to be representative of the people? Would it then not be the people who sanctioned these things you mention?

OK, some more examples...

From the late 1800's through the 1980's, Sunday closing laws, banning retail stores from being open both days of a weekend.

Involuntary military conscription from 1940 through 1974.

Federal laws limiting the ability to donate money to a candidate since the early 1980's.

No-knock search and seizure, despite explicit banning of it in the constitution. From the 1970's.

Seizure of property in criminal investigations prior to conviction. According to our constitution - No person shall have his life, liberty, or property abridged without due process of law. Pretty clear. But laws have been passed in the 1980's seizing property so the accused can't use it to pay for a legal defense, even while any person charged with a crime is guaranteed a counsel. (Just not a good one...)

Requiring paper trails on economic activity about $10,000 US.

Need more?


Ea, the "people" here are not homogeneous. There are many small groups, each with their own view of how the government should be run. Most of them disagree with each other. There is no clear "majority" on how things should be done on most issues. Logically, one should do nothing in such circumstances, because as you help one group, you hurt another group. Unfortunately, whenever one of these small groups get into power, they then try to legislate their preferences no matter what anyone else thinks. Because of that tendency, people fear and distrust government. We in Texas had a novel way of solving this problem, which still works nicely at state level. We don't let the legislature meet more the 140 days every two years. if they can't meet, they can't pass laws....

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

large property owners could not succeed without utilizing slave labor. I am in no way excusing the practice, simply sharing the reality check of the day

That's essentially the same rationale Henry Ford and other anti-unionists used in attempt to prevent unionization.

It is the same rationale that was used to oppose child labor laws and the laws mandating the 8-hour workday. In fact, it was used in the defense of the owners of the clothing factory whose employees had been locked in the factory to insure they worked and who died when it caught fire.

And it was part of the rationale for the labor camps used by Stalin and Hitler.

And many slave holders were repeating that rationale as they fired on Fort Sumter and voted to seced from the union.

Just because others believed it to be true, one would think that a man of Jefferson's intelligence would have been able to see through the facade and would have freed his slaves (and opposed slavery) as many other plantation owners did. Jefferson and crew deserve a lot of respect for what they did, but it needs to be tempered with their view that women and nonwhites were chattel. When he wrote "All men are created equal," he literally meant white males.