Are we approaching another revolution?

[utcowboy]

And how is incentive-driven altruism any better than a government system that guarantees health care for people who can't afford it? You're basically telling poor Americans "I'm sorry that too few people care enough to give to charities". The government cares enough about our children to (poorly) fund public education, even though many parents forgo this option. It cares enough about our health to regulate the food we eat. Why shouldn't it care enough to provide health care for citizens who can't come by it through private providers?

From the picture you have to the statements you post, I'd say you lean way, way to the left. If you want and enjoy the government in your life so much why do you live here in the US? There are plenty of dictactorships and socialized country where you could lay your head happlily at night. Why here? We as Americans have always opposed massive government, why do you insist on trying to force us that way?

And if your not from the US or your not a registered voter, why do you even take the time to voice your opinion? You should know as well as the rest of us, it doesn't count.

So back to the orginal topic, Government run Health Care, the majority of us don't want it and if I am still in the USA, that means that those who rep us in Congress and the Senate better sit up a take notice.

I've rambled enough, time for someone else to voice their humble opinion, as now you all know mine. :)

[Guest Godless]

From the picture you have to the statements you post, I'd say you lean way, way to the left. If you want and enjoy the government in your life so much why do you live here in the US? There are plenty of dictactorships and socialized country where you could lay your head happlily at night. Why here? We as Americans have always opposed massive government, why do you insist on trying to force us that way?

And if your not from the US or your not a registered voter, why do you even take the time to voice your opinion? You should know as well as the rest of us, it doesn't count.

I am an American citizen and a registered voter. I don't want the government running any aspect of my life, nor would I enjoy it (I'm in the Army, so I have some experience with that). However, IF I were ever to be in a situation where I couldn't afford decent medical attention despite working 40 hours a week, it would be nice to have a public option. Not ideal, but nice. As I said, I am currently insured by my employer. I have no gripes about that coverage and I'm glad that it won't be going anywhere under Obama's reform plan.

[utcowboy]

Incentives and tax breaks won't keep private companies from competing for our money. Health care shouldn't be sold as a commodity in an economy where many Americans can't afford it. I'd much rather be "bound by the government" than be faced with medical bills that I can't afford, not because I like handouts, but because I don't make enough money to pay for both food and doctor's visits. BTW, I'm speaking as one of the American workers fortunate enough to receive coverage from my employer. I personally don't have to worry about medical coverage, but many hard-working Americans aren't so lucky.

Ever heard of a little organization called the FDA?

Them competing for our business is the point... the more they compete the cheaper it is for everyone. And remember you have the right at this time to go and talk with your personal care physician and negociate what price you want to pay, if you doctor will negotiate. The problem really boils down to that if someone does like the care that they recieved from a doctor the nthey seem quick to jump on the "lets sue" band wagon. THats what the government need to regulate. They need to throw out the stupid law suits that cost all of us way to much!!!

They need to tell the person that spills hot coffee on themselves, "tough" instead of giving them millions of dollars.

I understand that bad things happen, and I understand that there are people who practice medicine that shouldn't be allowed to cross the street alone. Thats where the government needs to regulate. They need better testing for all doctors, not give a pass because of color, or language or anything else. When a Doctor graduates from medical school s/he should be able to pass all qualifying tests without any help from any sector.

And I have heard of the FDA and the USDA... they are another governmental waste of money. If people knew more about their food and what was in it we wouldn't need those organization. But hey lets face it, most of us want to live in big cities, with easy to get to grocery stores and fast food restaurants. Enjoy yor dinner... :)

[Guest Believer_1829]

Incentives and tax breaks won't keep private companies from competing for our money. Health care shouldn't be sold as a commodity in an economy where many Americans can't afford it. I'd much rather be "bound by the government" than be faced with medical bills that I can't afford, not because I like handouts, but because I don't make enough money to pay for both food and doctor's visits. BTW, I'm speaking as one of the American workers fortunate enough to receive coverage from my employer. I personally don't have to worry about medical coverage, but many hard-working Americans aren't so lucky.

Ever heard of a little organization called the FDA?

We WANT them to compete for our money. Do you not understand the free market system?

You WANT to be bound to the government? Scary.

[Guest Godless]

The problem really boils down to that if someone does like the care that they recieved from a doctor the nthey seem quick to jump on the "lets sue" band wagon. THats what the government need to regulate. They need to throw out the stupid law suits that cost all of us way to much!!!

They need to tell the person that spills hot coffee on themselves, "tough" instead of giving them millions of dollars.

Well, at least there's one thing we agree on.

And I have heard of the FDA and the USDA... they are another governmental waste of money. If people knew more about their food and what was in it we wouldn't need those organization. But hey lets face it, most of us want to live in big cities, with easy to get to grocery stores and fast food restaurants. Enjoy yor dinner... :)

Short of returning to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle, how exactly could the public ever have any control over the way food is processed and manufactured? Aside from the FDA, the only other major agent of control is the food service industry, and they only started giving a darn after Jack in the Box killed a kid in Seattle. Yes, most Americans get their food from the restaurant industry and grocery stores. And as such, we're completely at the mercy of the companies who produce the food. The public has no way of influencing what they do (aside from dying of e.coli contamination), which is why we have government agencies to act as a watchdog.

Wow, that last part was WAY off topic. Sorry.

[Guest Godless]

We WANT them to compete for our money. Do you not understand the free market system?

Yes. But what happens when millions of Americans don't have money to spend on health care? The insurance companies are competing for money that many working Americans simply don't have.

You WANT to be bound to the government? Scary.

If the only other option is to allow a huge gash on my chin to heal on its own because I can't afford to get it stitched up (purely hypothetical situation, mind you ), then yes. Let's face it, government intervention sucks, but it's a necessary evil sometimes.

[Jbs2763]

if you walk into an ER with a huge gash on your chin..it'll get stiched up, you'll get a bill in the mail, and you can negotiate with the hospital on payment, and if you are as broke as the hypothecital person..most hosptials will cut the bill drasticly or write off

As to the "lets sue" comment..that is part of why this crap is so expensive to begin with, a majortiy of the office fee goes to malpractice insurance...dirtbag lawyers are part of the problem...espeically the 535 dirtbag lawyers that reside in DC

[utcowboy]

Jbs2763,

Exactly.... too many lawyers and not enough people with common sense anymore.

The government, judges need to throw most of the cases that come before them out! Too many peopel are allow to sue over really stupid, stupid stuff! If the judge would actually do their jobs instead of trying to punish "big business" we wouldn't have sky rocketing costs in a lot of fields, including health care.

[Guest]

My brother graduated Med School in the Philippines. He came to America back in... 1994 or so? to apply for residency. He got interviewed at Memorial Hospital. He was given a case file and was asked his diagnosis and what he proposed to do next. My brother answered with his analysis, diagnosis, and proposed treatment. I can't remember anymore what the case was - well, it was mainly medical mumbu-jumbo. Anyway, the interviewer said, no, you need to send this to the lab first. My brother says, no, he is confident with his diagnosis and the lab is an unnecessary expense. He said that if his treatment does not make the expected improvements to the patient's health, then he will request for a ... something or other that I understood to be a more extensive lab work than the initial lab work the interviewer pointed out as necessary... The interviewer said, no, you will need to draw the initial lab work because you need proof in case it goes to court. My brother said, I am a doctor, I can testify in court with my diagnosis. The interviewer said, unfortunately, that is not enough. My brother stared at the guy incredulously and said, My word as an MD is not enough? Man, that really hurt my brother's pride (he is one heck of a doctor, that one!) so he went back to the Philippines and finished his residency and fellowship there. He's a neurologist now - the BEST neurologist within 5 provinces. Sure, he sometimes gets paid with bananas - LITERALLY - but he is doing alright!

You know what he told me right before he flew back home? He said - "America does not want good doctors. They want good lawyers. Good luck with that."

And that's just one example of why it costs you so much money for a simple bronchitis.

[Maxel]

You know what he told me right before he flew back home? He said - "America does not want good doctors. They want good lawyers. Good luck with that."

In the Book of Mormon, it is revealed that the wickedness of the lawyers paved the way for the destruction of Ammonihah. I can't help but thinking an overdpendence on legal authorities also leads to destruction by way of greedy entitlement attitudes. Also, the more lawyers there are, the more work (i.e. lawsuits) needs to exist to sustain all those lawyers. So, what's the solution? The lawyers stir up the people to anger one with another (like the lawyers of Ammonihah did).

And all this gives a bad rep to the good lawyers out there who want to defend the rights and liberties of the people.

[Just_A_Guy]

With regard to lawyers: There are constitutional issues to simply barring certain types of lawsuits (most state constitutions guarantee access to their courts for all citizens, and I believe the US Supreme Court has read a similar guarantee into the US Constitution though I may be mistaken).

Some things that could alleviate the flood of spurious lawsuits are, in fact, already being done (defendants who win in such lawsuits now can frequently demand attorney's fees from frivolous plaintiffs). There are other things we might think about--for example, limiting the lawyer's cut of any payouts, or regulating contingency fees more strictly--but those probably can't be done by federal legislation (or state legislation, really, since state legislatures usually have no jurisdiction over the practice of law in their states).

The trouble is, those things may also deter legitimate lawsuits. And, as I've pointed out elsewhere - when a doctor messes up, it costs somebody an awful lot of money (medical bills to get the problem fixed, lost wages, etc). Why shouldn't it be the doctor (or the company that had the chutzpah to insure him) who pays?

[talisyn]

I am an American citizen and a registered voter. I don't want the government running any aspect of my life, nor would I enjoy it (I'm in the Army, so I have some experience with that). However, IF I were ever to be in a situation where I couldn't afford decent medical attention despite working 40 hours a week, it would be nice to have a public option. Not ideal, but nice. As I said, I am currently insured by my employer. I have no gripes about that coverage and I'm glad that it won't be going anywhere under Obama's reform plan.

Now the Army has good insurance. I have sibs that are in/were in the Army and I was impressed. I don't understand why it would be so hard to get that kind of care to every American who doesn't have insurance.

[Maxel]

I don't understand why it would be so hard to get that kind of care to every American who doesn't have insurance.

Because money is limited...? And every American hasn't put his/her life on the line for the country the way that soldiers are routinely asked to do?

Two good reasons that popped right out at me.

[Guest]

With regard to lawyers: There are constitutional issues to simply barring certain types of lawsuits (most state constitutions guarantee access to their courts for all citizens, and I believe the US Supreme Court has read a similar guarantee into the US Constitution though I may be mistaken).

Some things that could alleviate the flood of spurious lawsuits are, in fact, already being done (defendants who win in such lawsuits now can frequently demand attorney's fees from frivolous plaintiffs). There are other things we might think about--for example, limiting the lawyer's cut of any payouts, or regulating contingency fees more strictly--but those probably can't be done by federal legislation (or state legislation, really, since state legislatures usually have no jurisdiction over the practice of law in their states).

The trouble is, those things may also deter legitimate lawsuits. And, as I've pointed out elsewhere - when a doctor messes up, it costs somebody an awful lot of money (medical bills to get the problem fixed, lost wages, etc). Why shouldn't it be the doctor (or the company that had the chutzpah to insure him) who pays?

Actually, Florida just passed a ballot measure in 2004 to limit lawyer's cut of medical liability. So, the lawyer can get a maximum of 30% of the claim for the first $250,000 and a maximum of 10% for anything above that. This was a good law. This protects the citizenship from bad doctors, but limits the incentive for lawyers to chase ambulances.

Unfortunately, the lawyers put 2 other ballot measures in 2004 to insure they still get to chase ambulances - more so than before. And the people didn't study them carefully, so they all passed too!

So yeah, that's the problem with democracy! I wish people would pay better attention!

[Guest]

Because money is limited...? And every American hasn't put his/her life on the line for the country the way that soldiers are routinely asked to do?

Two good reasons that popped right out at me.

Hey, I got an idea on how to provide healthcare for the poor (in addition to healthcare reform, the private-sector way)... Okay, I don't know the constitutionality of this... maybe somebody can say. So, those who are so poor they can't afford health insurance, they can be made eligible for a military draft (is that the word?) so then they can join the ranks of the military or military reserve and then they can have military healthcare insurance coverage!

Okay, it's just an idea. You can shoot it down now...

[Just_A_Guy]

I like it in principle, but 1) we're flirting with involuntary servitude here, in violation of the 13th Amendment; 2) you may be raising equal protection concerns under the 14th Amendment (what about those who are physically unqualified for military service?); and 3) there would still be a group that point-blank refused to serve and would thus be ineligible for coverage--and, inevitably, a political faction that will demand we cover that group anyways.

[Maxel]

I agree with JAG, I think the principle is sound- offering people a good incentive for public service. I don't know if serving in the armed forces is the best way to go, but there are plenty of other options available.

I'd prefer to see something like this done at the state level, which might disclude military service. Perhaps some sort of 'draft' to work in the prison system...

Edited August 21, 2009 by Maxel

[Elphaba]

Perhaps encourage other such charities to do similar work through grants and tax incentives.

Well, if government had proper incentives and tax breaks for the existing entities . . . .

Incentives and tax relief to provide easy access, more extensive, better coverage would open up the free market which would work itself out to the benefit of everyone.

And every American hasn't put his/her life on the line for the country the way that soldiers are routinely asked to do?

I think the principle is sound- offering people a good incentive for public service.

. . . so then they can join the ranks of the military or military reserve and then they can have military healthcare insurance coverage!

Apparently a few you believe the government is, indeed, capable of effecting successful healthcare policies, whether it is discovering and implementing new incentives and regulations, or providing comprehensive, quality health insurance to large factions of the government, such as the military.

If the government is capable of successfully developing this quality health insurance for those in the military, and other government entities such as Congress itself, then it is also capable of developing quality health insurance for those Americans who cannot, for whatever reason, purchase it from a private company.

Elphaba

Edited August 21, 2009 by Elphaba

[bytor2112]

If the government is capable of successfully developing this quality health insurance for those in the military, and other government entities such as Congress itself, then it is also capable of developing quality health insurance for those Americans who cannot, for whatever reason, purchase it from a private company.

Medicaid?? Maybe let the states handle it. Couldn't Medicaid be opened up to allow more people to qualify? Do we need to reinvent the wheel here or can we build on the foundation we already have in place?

[Maxel]

If the government is capable of successfully developing this quality health insurance for those in the military, and other government entities such as Congress itself, then it is also capable of developing quality health insurance for those Americans who cannot, for whatever reason, purchase it from a private company.

That's like saying a child capable of lifting a 1-pound rock is capable of hefting a 1-ton boulder. And there's a difference in principle- offering healthcare insurance to an enlisted soldier (who is working a dangerous job and healthcare acts as a benefit of the job) will be different from offering healthcare to the unemployed welfare cases (who aren't offering any work in return for the healthcare insurance).

I understand there's more than just the chronic welfare cases who would benefit from nationalized healthcare, but the hyperbolic nature of my distinction has a point: those who receive healthcare insurance for free are offering nothing in return for the receipt of said healthcare insurance.

Nice to see you posting again, Elphaba- missed you.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Maxel

[Guest]

Apparently a few you believe the government is, indeed, capable of effecting successful healthcare policies, whether it is discovering and implementing new incentives and regulations, or providing comprehensive, quality health insurance to large factions of the government, such as the military.

If the government is capable of successfully developing this quality health insurance for those in the military, and other government entities such as Congress itself, then it is also capable of developing quality health insurance for those Americans who cannot, for whatever reason, purchase it from a private company.

Elphaba

Elphaba, we all agree in this site that healthcare reform is needed. We just don't agree that H.R. 676, or any form of nationalized healthcare coverage is the way to go. There have been quite a lot of posts in different threads outlining how some of us believe the government can effect reform without needing to work towards a single-payer system.

[talisyn]

Hey, I got an idea on how to provide healthcare for the poor (in addition to healthcare reform, the private-sector way)... Okay, I don't know the constitutionality of this... maybe somebody can say. So, those who are so poor they can't afford health insurance, they can be made eligible for a military draft (is that the word?) so then they can join the ranks of the military or military reserve and then they can have military healthcare insurance coverage!

Okay, it's just an idea. You can shoot it down now...

Lol it is a good idea, and one that many of the poor already use. It's how 2 brothers and 1 sister are putting themselves through college. Do you remember when the Iraq war started years ago, one of the debates used by the liberal side against the war was that a disproportionate amount of the soldiers were from poor families/communities? It was big in the beginning but somehow it got to the point where an overabundance of poor people in the military was justice because it was one of the few ways they could repay the American people for the decades of welfare their families for lo these many generations used.

I think military service is a great idea for anyone who is physically and mentally able (liberal me saying this ). We need more people to go into the military before college. I think our country would be the better for it.

[Jbs2763]

I really like the Israelli system..2 years of army or civil service required

[Guest Believer_1829]

I really like the Israelli system..2 years of army or civil service required

I think I have proven my conservative credentials, so I feel safe in saying this...

I agree. As long as one is not required to serve in the Military. Conscientious Objection is an acceptable practice within the teachings of the Book of Mormon. (see Ammonites)

[Elphaba]

Dick Morris (former Clinton adviser) is reporting that Obummer and Senate Demoncrats are looking to overturn a Senate rule and make it possible to pass bills with only 50 votes. If that happens I guarantee there will be problems.

Dick Morris, a staunch Republican, is referring to the “nuclear option,” which allows the Senate majority to end a filibuster by majority vote, rather than the usual 60 votes required. At least fifty-one votes are needed, which would be fifty votes from the majority’s senators, and one vote from the vice president.

The nuclear option is not something the Democrats have just come up with to manipulate a Senate vote. In the past, both sides of the aisle have threatened to use it.

From Wiki:

In U.S. politics, the "nuclear option" is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005.[1]

The most well-known instance occurred in 2005 when Republican Senator Bill Frist threatened it to end Democratic-led filibusters of Bush’s judicial nominees.

Again, from Wiki:

The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush.

. . . .

In the 2005 Senate, Republicans held 55 seats and the Democrats held 45 including Jim Jeffords, an independent from Vermont who caucused with the Democrats. Confirmation requires a plurality of votes, and the Republicans could easily confirm their nominees if brought to the floor.

Earlier in 2005, Democrats had blocked the nomination of 10 of George W. Bush's nominees, saying they were too conservative and that Republicans had blocked many of their nominees back in the 1990s. Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) then threatened to use the nuclear option in response. Democrats warned that if Frist used the nuclear option they would shut down the Senate so that no business of any sort could be transacted.

Invoking the nuclear option is a strategic move, which is allowed by Senate procedures. This time it is the Democrats threatening to use it, but the Republicans have also strategically used it in the past to threaten the Democrats. People may get upset if the Democrats do invoke it, but given they are the majority, it should not be surprising they would do so.

Elphaba