Healthcare Reform What Would You Do

[DreamStalker]

I've been saying, there should be an amendment to the US Constitution that separates corporations and state. It should basically ban all corporate lobbying, direct or indirect, of any congressional or regulatory body at federal and state levels. In fact it should ban all industry and group lobbying in general too. Only individuals and individual non-corporate private-individual owned businesses should be allowed to lobby and only on behalf of themselves and for themselves. Limit campaign contributions only from individuals to max of say $500 and let the government take over the public air waves (ie. require that all TV/radio stations stop normal programming for 1 or 2 weeks prior to an annual election day and give equal time to all candidates as part of their licensing agreements) for getting the campaign messages out to voters. Make one day a year a national election holiday for all voting at all levels of government. That should give the government back from corporate greed and back to the public the way it was intended to be.

[LinkC]

Communism and Socialism are political systems

Learn the difference between Socialism and socialism, if it's within your ability to do so... Then get back to me.

Or not.

[Autopapdude]

Learn the difference between Socialism and socialism, if it's within your ability to do so... Then get back to me.

Or not.

See, I have been extremely polite to you as of recent, and have avoided attack statements such as this. I will continue to do so, even though you don't accept a truce. The difference is obvious, Comrade Trotsky...LOL

[el_zorro]

I agree that there is a difference between socialism and social programs / social insurance. We already have a medical social program (its called Medicaid), we already have medical social insurance for senior citizens (its called Medicare). If the bill was simply to reform these two existing programs and add some more regulation for insurance companies (like mentioned here) then more people may support it.

The line is crossed into socialism when a political system (party) mandates a social program and uses wealth redistribution principles (under penalty of jail time and severe financial penalty via the IRS) to fund it with little or no input from the other parties or majority of the people.

[cotech50]

Now that we know this will be no easy task there are serious questions that I am not sure have been addressed by these reform proposals. A man I know 2 weeks ago presented himself to the er with chest pain. Within 3 hrs he had been stabilized and flown 70 mi to a major hospital and received 2 stents and the realization a third location was involved that would have to be dealt with and discharged the next day. Could a quickly crafted and passed reform becoming law result in a slow degradation to healthcare delivery so that the same situation would be tied up in government regulation, bureaucracy, and slow decision making leading to a less than desirable outcome. If things like this happen will they come so slowly that we forgot what we used to have and now accept what we have as that is the way it is. Will innovations in treatments become less and less because they are now coming from government run research facilities. Reforms are needed but I for one see too many deals being made behind closed doors and language that causes confusion. What I see is not reform but the quest for a goal under the guise of reform. I have been trouble shooting technical issues in my job for almost 40 years. There is one thing I learned you have to use a logical approach and identify the specific problems by breaking it down and then applying sound methods to solve the issue. I see in this reform nothing but confusion and the American people deserve better than what is coming out of Washington. Good positive changes will come slow and not in some hastily crafted legislation that makes promises that many want to hear but in the long run may be delivered and fall short as to what the American people feel they supported and were promised. By the time that occurs we could be in deep in a healthcare delivery system that is slow, without innovation and run by generally incompetent people. We already have plenty of that now and do not need anymore.

[DreamStalker]

Now that we know this will be no easy task there are serious questions that I am not sure have been addressed by these reform proposals. A man I know 2 weeks ago presented himself to the er with chest pain. Within 3 hrs he had been stabilized and flown 70 mi to a major hospital and received 2 stents and the realization a third location was involved that would have to be dealt with and discharged the next day. Could a quickly crafted and passed reform becoming law result in a slow degradation to healthcare delivery so that the same situation would be tied up in government regulation, bureaucracy, and slow decision making leading to a less than desirable outcome. If things like this happen will they come so slowly that we forgot what we used to have and now accept what we have as that is the way it is. Will innovations in treatments become less and less because they are now coming from government run research facilities. Reforms are needed but I for one see too many deals being made behind closed doors and language that causes confusion. What I see is not reform but the quest for a goal under the guise of reform. I have been trouble shooting technical issues in my job for almost 40 years. There is one thing I learned you have to use a logical approach and identify the specific problems by breaking it down and then applying sound methods to solve the issue. I see in this reform nothing but confusion and the American people deserve better than what is coming out of Washington. Good positive changes will come slow and not in some hastily crafted legislation that makes promises that many want to hear but in the long run may be delivered and fall short as to what the American people feel they supported and were promised. By the time that occurs we could be in deep in a healthcare delivery system that is slow, without innovation and run by generally incompetent people. We already have plenty of that now and do not need anymore.

There we go again. Bashing government workers as "generally incompetent people" ... even before these people exist and will likely never exist.

Good thing no other country has tried to invade us recently because by your generalization, our government military is well ... how was that you phrased it?

Good thing this country has yet to go into a mad max state of anarchy cuz those law enforcement people are .... how was that you phrased it?

Good thing you haven't had a trauma emergency of your own cuz those fire department ER people are ... how was that you phrased it?

[LinkC]

"attack statements"?????

You think that was an attack statement? lol You obviously haven't read some of your recent posts...those to others BEFORE I joined this discussion. The ones with your typical childish name-calling. Would you like me to provide quotes??

OK, I guess I underestimated your inabilities. Sorry. Remain ignorant of the terms being used and DON'T get back to me. Is that better?

You may assume all further posts here and elsewhere from me are NOT directed to you unless specified. I prefer thoughtful and reasoned dialog anyway. Not your self-proclaimed "expertise".

[TWW]

First thing I would do: limit punitive damage awards. This is because it's not just rich insurance companies that are greedy. There is plenty of greed to go around, including (but not limited to) ambulance-chaser attorneys, plaintiffs that hire them, politicians, Rich Americans, Middle Class Americans, and of course the largest demographic greedy group: the poor.

Wow. That was more insensitive than the Evil Pat Robertson, wasn't it?

But if you strip away the BS, you find that liberals get elected by promising the poor that they will take money from the non-poor and give it to them; and that conservatives get elected by promising to take less money from the non-poor for (communist) unfettered income redistribution. In both cases, the politicians are appealing to the greed of their constituents.

So let's get past the "You're greedy" fertilizer, and try to determine what would make good health care available to as many citizens as possible.

P.S. to those who use the word combination "free health care": TANSTAAFL.

[Autopapdude]

First thing I would do: limit punitive damage awards. This is because it's not just rich insurance companies that are greedy. There is plenty of greed to go around, including (but not limited to) ambulance-chaser attorneys, plaintiffs that hire them, politicians, Rich Americans, Middle Class Americans, and of course the largest demographic greedy group: the poor.

Wow. That was more insensitive than the Evil Pat Robertson, wasn't it?

But if you strip away the BS, you find that liberals get elected by promising the poor that they will take money from the non-poor and give it to them; and that conservatives get elected by promising to take less money from the non-poor for (communist) unfettered income redistribution. In both cases, the politicians are appealing to the greed of their constituents.

So let's get past the "You're greedy" fertilizer, and try to determine what would make good health care available to as many citizens as possible.

P.S. to those who use the word combination "free health care": TANSTAAFL.

This generic conservative rhetoric is surely getting tired, boring, and stale. Problem is conservatives can't come up with any new ideas on health care, so they blame liberals for everything--including the death of Elvis.

[el_zorro]

A more successful rebuttal on this topic would include more facts and constructive arguments and perhaps a witty quote or two from a respected world leader. Instead we get the tactics of portraying the other persons argument as extreme and name calling. I think the idea is to get the other person to degrade to the same level or to just give up in frustration.

For instance, we are discussion a new social program proposed by these bills, I argue against it. Therefore I am portrayed as an extremist against ALL government, social programs and in favor of anarchy and called mad-max. If I quote a respected world leader who commented on socialism then I am labelling someone else as a socialist and in turn labelled a conservative with some other degrading comments included. These are typical polarizing tactics, devoid of facts or sound arguments. I saw much better arguments in grad school in the 90s when the professors were still trying to sell communism to nieve students.

It would be nice to see more facts here on what the real reforms in the bills are and how they are going to lower health care costs. A full disclosure of the proposed taxes and budget for the plan would be nice too. If the whole argument comes down to the plan being an additional safety net that is funded by the middle and upper class, then so be it, don't try to hide it. I think simply arguing the case to the American people that a better safety net (with lots of reform and cost savings in the existing programs) is not a bad thing and that they should willingly pay for it. This would be a more genuine and non confrontational argument.

[LinkC]

So let's get past the "You're greedy" fertilizer, and try to determine what would make good health care available to as many citizens as possible.

P.S. to those who use the word combination "free health care": TANSTAAFL.

Amen! Unfortunately, that "fertilizer" is pretty much all some libs have.

To a liberal, "free" means "paid for with someone else's money"!

[cotech50]

Well doss Hugo have the answer we are looking for? Reform can be accomplishes but not in a sweeping magic wand 9 mos solution no one yet understands the full implications. There are some things the government has done well and there are some that are at times dismal failures and I don't see any fixes by these elected officials. Vote all the SOB's out and start over we would not be ant worse. Looks like some are realizing their worth and jumping ship rather than risk embarrassing re-election attempts.

[DreamStalker]

First thing I would do: limit punitive damage awards. This is because it's not just rich insurance companies that are greedy. There is plenty of greed to go around, including (but not limited to) ambulance-chaser attorneys, plaintiffs that hire them, politicians, Rich Americans, Middle Class Americans, and of course the largest demographic greedy group: the poor.

Agreed. Greed is a fundamental characteristic of the human species ... it is the degree that makes a difference. The weird thing seems to be the correlation between the degree of greed and the amount of wealth ... in general of course, certainly there are anomalies here and there.

Wow. That was more insensitive than the Evil Pat Robertson, wasn't it?

Not really! That Roberto dude I hear is into voodoo, witchcraft, and devil pacts ... hard to get more evil than that. You are angelic relatively speaking.

But if you strip away the BS, you find that liberals get elected by promising the poor that they will take money from the non-poor and give it to them; and that conservatives get elected by promising to take less money from the non-poor for (communist) unfettered income redistribution. In both cases, the politicians are appealing to the greed of their constituents.

So let's get past the "You're greedy" fertilizer, and try to determine what would make good health care available to as many citizens as possible.

I'll just pretend you don't know what you are talking about here.

P.S. to those who use the word combination "free health care": TANSTAAFL.

Ack! I must'a missed that combination. Could you point me to the thread where it was used so I can see who stated it?

[DreamStalker]

A more successful rebuttal on this topic would include more facts and constructive arguments and perhaps a witty quote or two from a respected world leader. Instead we get the tactics of portraying the other persons argument as extreme and name calling. I think the idea is to get the other person to degrade to the same level or to just give up in frustration.

For instance, we are discussion a new social program proposed by these bills, I argue against it. Therefore I am portrayed as an extremist against ALL government, social programs and in favor of anarchy and called mad-max. If I quote a respected world leader who commented on socialism then I am labelling someone else as a socialist and in turn labelled a conservative with some other degrading comments included. These are typical polarizing tactics, devoid of facts or sound arguments. I saw much better arguments in grad school in the 90s when the professors were still trying to sell communism to nieve students.

It would be nice to see more facts here on what the real reforms in the bills are and how they are going to lower health care costs. A full disclosure of the proposed taxes and budget for the plan would be nice too. If the whole argument comes down to the plan being an additional safety net that is funded by the middle and upper class, then so be it, don't try to hide it. I think simply arguing the case to the American people that a better safety net (with lots of reform and cost savings in the existing programs) is not a bad thing and that they should willingly pay for it. This would be a more genuine and non confrontational argument.

I think we are in agreement on this particular bill being considered. I am very much against it. I don't have a whole lot of facts to back up my reason for being against it other than what I see, hear, and read ... mostly from the news media ... admittedly not always the best source of factual information. I don't have time to go to the source because I have other information research priorities at the moment. But I for one have noticed that PST seems to be up on the real FACTS ... at least I have been convinced that he is. Is that not nice enough? genuine enough?

My wacky mad max and anarchy sarcasm is in response to wacky over-generalizations that government is bad, evil, and incompetent and unable to provide a public service within the healthcare debate or any other public service sector. That simply is NOT FACT.

I do respect your attempts to keep the discussion ... uh well respectful and serious. I'll admit it is difficult for me to do the same.

[DreamStalker]

Well doss Hugo have the answer we are looking for? Reform can be accomplishes but not in a sweeping magic wand 9 mos solution no one yet understands the full implications. There are some things the government has done well and there are some that are at times dismal failures and I don't see any fixes by these elected officials. Vote all the SOB's out and start over we would not be ant worse. Looks like some are realizing their worth and jumping ship rather than risk embarrassing re-election attempts.

Yea! We agree. I would just add one more thing to your post though.

There are some things private industry does well and there are some that are at times dismal failures too ... made only worse by the fact that they profited by their failures.