Going Rogue

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Is it not a similar sentiment to that in Denmark when they voted No in the European Referundum? Wariness of a federal Europe.

It's not quite the same situation. In Europe you have a number of soverign countries, many who have a hundreds of years long history of wars between them - and alliances with other countries as well. And some countries are younger federations, while other are thousand years old. It's really mixed. It's not like a number of states as in USA - and I know some states are older than others etc.
(edit: ) I would be very surprised if Europe could unite to be like USA in the next, say 50 years. We are too unlike, we share wars as well as brothership. EU is mostly about trade and production and how to make this work between countries.

On the other hand, you are right, a federal Europe are relatively widely distrusted - it is by some seen as detriment to rule on country level - personally I'm not completely in disagreement in all cases. But for USA couldn't health care be taken care of at state level? Why isn't it? To me, it seems such a bonus to everyone, individual and state/country level alike.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Do you mind if I (tongue planted firmly in cheek) horsepucky you too?
...
We simply need more doctors, ....

Sure why not. The more the merrier, right?

You may very well have touched on an aspect of the health care crises that needs fixing. I don't know that more doctors necessarily are the answer, but perhaps we need a way for people to get the services that are required (not just because they want them or think they deserve them) in a different manner, walk-in clinics, medical technicians, etc. etc. Not everyone needs the most prestigious doctor in town, nor should they be seeing a doctor for every sniffle they get.

And don't get me going on anti-biotics

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

..
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 this is the aforementioned problem with BIG government I think I mentioned a few pages back.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Spartacus2112

Bottom line....they are overhauling a system that works for 85% of American citizens to adress a problem that exists for probably 7% or 8%.

That's a mighty big assumption -- that the current system works for 85% of citizens. I have insurance but I think healthcare needs a desperate overhaul. The current system doesn't really work for me. I'm self-employed and if my business dries up, I will no longer be able to afford the insurance (which runs as much as my mortgage payment), which I need because of both medical condition and age.

Of course, once I lose my insurance, I become uninsurable because of preexisting conditions -- a real Catch-22.

So at least for this part of the 85% the current system doesn't work well.

[kazbates]

[QUOTE=93terp;662406]

Originally Posted by kazbates

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

I did not make up my own facts. It was done to shore up the economy with idea that the banks would lend the money. This would have a by product of stimulating the economy. From your own quoted website:

The goal of the Act is to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system of the United States. However, the broad authority granted to the Secretary under the Act must be exercised in a manner that protects home values, college funds, retirement accounts and life savings; preserves homeownership; promotes jobs and economic growth; maximizes overall returns to the taxpayers of the United States and provides public accountability for the exercise of such authority.

As for my statement about the lenders being reluctant to lend, that is not my opinion. It is from experience and research while helping my daughter who is looking to buy a house and from my neighbor who is trying to sell her house. Perhaps it is different in other areas, but that is how it is here in my neck of the woods.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Ea

What I also don't get, is the impression that one who is recieveing government financial help, such as health care or housing, is reciveing this complacantly, without any feeling of need to reprocicate and pay back. I am personally quite aware of why I pay my taxes. I have gotten a free education, including a stipend to live on, I can get the health care I need - but I am also quite aware I am paying for it.

I couldn't tell you, I've never gotten anything for free. I don't understand welfare mentality, welfare families or anything remotely resembling that status.
And I'm paying for it because it allows me a freedom of life that I would not have had, have I had to save up to pay for all the things that is provided. I fell safe that whatever happens it is extremely unlikely I should end up on the street. I have a relatively short work week and can afford to pursue my hobbies and spend time with my family, as well as take a one to two week vacation every year. I'm not 'rich' but I have never been in 'need'. Compared to much of the world I feel quite pampered - but I am also paying for it, and I am engaged in politics because I want influence of this process.

I lived in Germany for 8 years and had many close German friends. I understand the system and pretty much envy it (except maybe the radio and tv taxes)

*An example: While the 'wounds' are pretty much quite healed, 1864 is still a significant year in Danish history - a year that most Danes are still aware of in some capacity.

Originally Posted by rhadin

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. what part of "I'm not making excuses for Jefferson" did you totally not get? he struggled with it. a lot. he wrote about it. he wasn't happy about it. when I was in california (the salad bowl) I HATED seeing the migrant workers in the fields and knowing that most of my produce was coming from there. outside of growing my own (which I do when I am at home) what are my choices? go without... pretty much that's it. I believe he had a similarly unrealistic option
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.

Originally Posted by rhadin

If our reason for going to war is to free the oppressed, then let's be upfront about it and let's be consistent. Personally, I opposed invading Iraq and Afghanistan but supported going to Darfur and Rwanda. What we Americans do not accept readily is that we cannot be the morals arbiter for the world. We need to insist that others step up to the plate.

oh but there is hell to pay when we don't step up to the plate! where are the Americans? why aren't they doing something about it!?

Originally Posted by Spartacus2112

Bottom line....they are overhauling a system that works for 85% of American citizens to adress a problem that exists for probably 7% or 8%.

wow! are those really the numbers? I didn't realize! I REALLY resent that the system that works for me may be completely screwed up because of a few

Originally Posted by Ea

It's not quite the same situation. In Europe you have a number of soverign countries, many who have a hundreds of years long history of wars between them - and alliances with other countries as well. And some countries are younger federations, while other are thousand years old. It's really mixed. It's not like a number of states as in USA - and I know some states are older than others etc. a lot of these different states have a lot of different traditions, customs and needs. I can guaranfriggingtee you that what works in New Mexico damn sure won't work in New York
(edit: ) I would be very surprised if Europe could unite to be like USA in the next, say 50 years. We are too unlike, we share wars as well as brothership. EU is mostly about trade and production and how to make this work between countries.

On the other hand, you are right, a federal Europe are relatively widely distrusted - it is by some seen as detriment to rule on country level - personally I'm not completely in disagreement in all cases. But for USA couldn't health care be taken care of at state level? Why isn't it? To me, it seems such a bonus to everyone, individual and state/country level alike.

make no mistake! I think most of us believe that health care reform is needed! we just don't want it shoved down our throats!

Originally Posted by kennyc

Sure why not. The more the merrier, right?

You may very well have touched on an aspect of the health care crises that needs fixing. I don't know that more doctors necessarily are the answer, but perhaps we need a way for people to get the services that are required (not just because they want them or think they deserve them) in a different manner, walk-in clinics, medical technicians, etc. etc. Not everyone needs the most prestigious doctor in town, nor should they be seeing a doctor for every sniffle they get.

And don't get me going on anti-biotics

I WANT THE FRENCH SYSTEM!!!!

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Ea

I'm sorry, but apart from people not being homogenous I donøt quite seem to understand your point? Of course thye might have a different idea of government than I - but why exactly FEAR the idea? That's what I still don't get. It is not sensible.

As for your examples, they seem arbitrary and "spread" (I can't find the right expression in english - sorry) - I'm not really sure what they are meant to show.

Ea, I don't think we have enough common concepts to communicate the view effectively. Neither your fault or mine. (The term you were seeking in English is "scattershot", at least that is one term for it. There are many, many, similar words in English.) I guess I'll have to ask some Socratic questions.

Have you every seen a person deliberately hurt another person?

Have you ever seen another person deliberately take advantage of another person?

If the answer is no, I'm stumped. I have to both. More than once.

If yes, can you imagine that a group could do either of those things?

If yes again, could this group not be government? Who, then, would stop it? How?

Many Americans can say yes to all three of those questions. And they know that the How? ends up having to come from the outside. And there's no outside to American that would spend blood and treasure to liberate us.

So, if we don't want an oppressive government, it's our job as citizens to see to it that government never gets enough power over it's citizens for bad things to happen. And we have the historical reminders of The Cultural Revolution (China), Stalin's purges of the 1930's, Pol Pot in Cambodia, and others, to remind us just how bad it could get.

Of course, we pay for that vigilance by not having the "goodies" of a redistributive government. TANSTAAFL.

But more and more US citizens want the "goodies" and are certain that bad things can't happen here. And they're smarter than everybody else, just ask them. So they build a stronger and stronger government, to help the people less fortunate than them (in their minds), completely certain that a power mad person could never take control of the government. After all, , it's never happened before in history right?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

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.

You're right - rushing through legislation for an attempt at a quick fix is never a good idea. Here's a rough timetable of the NHS:

The UK NHS has been in place for a little over 60 years. there was broad cross-party support for some kind of national health service, first announcement of intent happening in late 1941, with reports following in 1942 from medical bodies and especially the Beveridge Report in last 1942. There was opposition from the British Medical Association, but the proposed legislation (White Paper) was put forward in 1944. The final legislation was passed in 1946, and the NHS coming into being on 5th July 1948.

So yes, it took several years. And there has been change and reforms in the subsequent years, but the essentials are still there:

• services are provided free at the point of use
• services are financed from central taxation
• everyone is eligible for care

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

...

So, if we don't want an oppressive government, it's our job as citizens to see to it that government never gets enough power over it's citizens for bad things to happen. And we have the historical reminders of The Cultural Revolution (China), Stalin's purges of the 1930's, Pol Pot in Cambodia, and others, to remind us just how bad it could get.

...

Which is pretty much the main purpose of the 2nd amendment! A last resort.

[desertgrandma]

"TANSTAAFL"

Some may not get this reference.

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"

From Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

"TANSTAAFL"

Some may not get this reference.

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"

From Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"

It actually pre-dates that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_a...s_a_free_lunch

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Which is pretty much the main purpose of the 2nd amendment! A last resort.

What if the government pitches the bill of rights out of the window. Don't say impossible. The 10th amendment is basically dead letter....

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It actually pre-dates that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_a...s_a_free_lunch

oh come on now... quit being so picky! Heinlein popularized it in literature

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Sure why not. The more the merrier, right?

You may very well have touched on an aspect of the health care crises that needs fixing. I don't know that more doctors necessarily are the answer, but perhaps we need a way for people to get the services that are required (not just because they want them or think they deserve them) in a different manner, walk-in clinics, medical technicians, etc. etc. Not everyone needs the most prestigious doctor in town, nor should they be seeing a doctor for every sniffle they get.

That is actually a good point... and I think it would be one way to bring costs down... and actually allow Drs to make more money. We should get used to seeing health car professionals that are less trained or perhaps Drs in training. Sort of how the hospital has Interns, which are taught and supervised by Residents which are taught and supervised by Attendings, which are taught and supervised by chiefs and or peers.

Why does that only happen in the hospital. A Drs practice could perhaps have two or three Nurse Practitioners supervised by Physicians assistants, supervised by a single Dr. It would cost less money to see a Nurse, then a bit more to see the Assistant, then more to see the Dr. Generally there would be a reporting hierarcy just like you have in any other business. The CEO doesn't do all the work. He has VPs, which have managers. Etc.

This would be a good way to:

1. Keep costs down because you don't have to see the Dr every time.

2. Allow for a bigger pool of health care professionals. I think more people would get into health care if they didn't see the long Pre-Med, Med School, Residency ahead of them.

Bottom line, there are lots of ideas I think. We just do it the way we do it because of tradition.

BOb

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

That is actually a good point... and I think it would be one way to bring costs down... and actually allow Drs to make more money. We should get used to seeing health car professionals that are less trained or perhaps Drs in training. Sort of how the hospital has Interns, which are taught and supervised by Residents which are taught and supervised by Attendings, which are taught and supervised by chiefs and or peers.

Why does that only happen in the hospital. A Drs practice could perhaps have two or three Nurse Practitioners supervised by Physicians assistants, supervised by a single Dr. It would cost less money to see a Nurse, then a bit more to see the Assistant, then more to see the Dr. Generally there would be a reporting hierarcy just like you have in any other business. The CEO doesn't do all the work. He has VPs, which have managers. Etc.

This would be a good way to:

1. Keep costs down because you don't have to see the Dr every time.

2. Allow for a bigger pool of health care professionals. I think more people would get into health care if they didn't see the long Pre-Med, Med School, Residency ahead of them.

Bottom line, there are lots of ideas I think. We just do it the way we do it because of tradition.

BOb

the need is HUGE Right now! OBGYNs and regular GPs are fleeing private practice due to huge malpractice costs! they cannot afford to stay in practice which is so sad! in my case my Doc(s) are a married couple, he is the DOCTOR, and she is the ARNP. works very well!