Originally posted by Capitalizt
Things are fine guys.
And PBS is influenced by communists.
i think we get so worked up in here sometimes we forget to share a giggle. well played Posted by Capitalizt on Aug-12-2009 06:07:
I was being serious.
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Aug-12-2009 06:11:
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
I was being serious.
Yeah, I thought you might be but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. You�re a smart guy and I couldn�t really believe you�re that retarded.
Posted by Capitalizt on Aug-12-2009 06:11:
Posted by Krypton on Aug-12-2009 06:25:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Yeah, I thought you might be but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. You�re a smart guy and I couldn�t really believe you�re that retarded.
Posted by Shakka on Aug-12-2009 12:58:
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
What's the alternative, the current shit privatized, monopoly system that we have today? You have a better option, let's hear it. Personally the option that I hear regarding the public OPTION isn't too scary to me.
It's not a monopoly. The only institution with a monopoly on anything is the government (and maybe Apple a close second with the iPod). Oligopolistic, maybe, but at least be honest about it if we're going to have a real debate about it.
quote:
I fail to see how adding an option covered by the government is going to somehow make us pay more, especially in lieu of this fact that our costs are rising with the current system due in large part to the uninsured already.
And apparently very few congressman have a decent comprehension of how economics and competition work as well. Government's drastically lower costs will drive down the margins for the industry to the point they will not be able to compete, provide the best standard of care, etc. And yes, care will be rationed as there will only be so many available resources to go around. There is no free lunch.
quote:
Yes, because Conservatives were really up in arms over prior Republican Presidents like the douchebag we just had who took massive deficit spending to new heights (I know, some like you were upset, but you have to admit many others in the GOP turned a blind eye). It's funny how every Republican president comes along for the past 30 years, their supporters tout "small government at last!�, only to ignore the realities that their heroes put us into the red far worse than any of their Democratic counterparts, but I digress.
No objection here (and thanks for at least acknowledging my distaste for fiscal liberalism that we ended up with). In the same breath, we're talking about exponentially higher figures now than we were 4-8 years ago. I hope we haven't simply greased the skids for government to make whatever excuse it wants to go on unlimited spending sprees on whatever pet projects it tells us are necessary because we all know the path is unsustainable.
quote:
And again not to be in lock-step with the President or anything, but he re-emphasized the point today in his town hall that the cost of his plan will be covered in large part to rolling back the tax cuts on those earning $250,000 and higher. IOW, the vast majority of Americans will not be given the burden of paying for this.
Is it rude for me to point out that $250K is not that much money? Maybe it depends on demographics but we throw that number out there as if it signifies someone who has not a care in the world because he goes home and swims in a money vault every night. I hate class warfare.
quote:
I really don�t think that excuse is gonna fly here, especially when we see clear, outright lies and distortions by idiot �deathers� in your party in reading things on page 424 or whatever page that line is on. If this bill was being voted on tomorrow and Congress was handed this stuff 2 days ago, which was the approximate timeline of events that occurred when Bush�s Patriot Act was dropped in their laps, then you�d have a reasonable argument. But there�s plenty of time to dissect, and obviously obfuscate (as we�ve already seen by leaders in the GOP) what�s in the bill.
Firstly, I must be in the dark here--I don't know what you're referring to with the "deathers" thing. I'm sure I missed some of the talking points.
Secondly, thankfully congress has at least tabled this discussion until after the August recess, but I doubt many of them will spend their last weeks of summer vacation reading 1000 pages of legalese--hoping their aides will do it. I honestly don't know how long the Patriot Act was, but given how much resultant controversy there was over it, I'd guess it is a great example of why major legislation that is crammed through quickly is rarely, if ever, a good thing. I'm more likely to believe that Obama is trying to spend his political capital while he has it, and sensing that momentum is stalling and seeing his poll numbers steadily decline like most other presidents before him, he is getting anxious to get something done ASAP.
quote:
And who says anything about making insurance more expensive for those who choose to pay for their own insurance if the public option even goes through? If, according to your party�s Capitalistic Bible, we go forth with another competitor in the mix (i.e. government), shouldn�t those other privatized companies ideally compete by LOWERING costs against their competitors? And if they don�t, they would simply be outcompeted and run out of business, right?
You're getting it. Whatever savings I see on my premium will surely be offset by the huge tax increase I will pay in order to subsidize health insurance for everyone else that isn't paying for it. Here's the question: In basic economics, what happens if you bring in a business that has an absolute competitive advantage and is not subject to the same rules of the game? What happens when that business is a price maker, not a price taker? What happens to the structure of the business when everyone else cannot possibly compete on the same level of price? They must lower the quality of their product to compete, or make other undesireable adjustments in order to stay in business.
quote:
Yeah, leave it to the WSJ to give you reliable, unbiased statistics.
Well I'm sure it chaps your hide that Rupert runs the WSJ now, but it's still one of the more objective papers out there. Fwiw, I actually read the NY Times first with the WSJ as my secondary paper during the day. In any event, they're both better sources of reliable information that most of the blogosphere.
quote:
Again I find it funny how the pot of Republicans calling the Democratic kettle black (no racist pun intended at all) when it comes to deficit spending, considering your Presidential record dating back since at least Reagan.
Amazing what happened when we left the Gold standard in the 70s. Amazing how Greenspan manages to get no mention in any of this!
quote:
Okay, great, I�ll be happy to consider this point WHEN WE ACTUALLY START TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE PAYOR SYSTEM. Because if memory serves, no single-payor system is in this bill, is it? If so, can you point it out?
Which version? There have been splinters in the Democratic party as some have said they absolutely would not sign any bill without a single payor system while the Blue Dogs have been more pragmatic. I honestly don't know if anyone knows what version of the bill we'll have on the president's desk at the end of the day.
quote:
I�m sorry, Shakka, but the Deathers and the people at these town halls yelling and disrupting the meetings are nothing but stupid fucks, period. They are not interested whatsoever in rational discourse, nor do they care. They have been worked up by CORPORATE INSURANCE LOBBYISTS and Astroturf shitmongers and haven�t a feeble fucking neuron in their brains to stop and think for themselves before they paint fucking swastikas on Congressional buildings
Again, not sure who Deathers is, but I'll take your word for it. In any event, with regard to the Astroturf defense, I thought Peggy Noonan (of that despicable WSJ) made some fair points.
quote:
What has been most unsettling is not the congressmen�s surprise but a hard new tone that emerged this week. The leftosphere and the liberal commentariat charged that the town hall meetings weren�t authentic, the crowds were ginned up by insurance companies, lobbyists and the Republican National Committee. But you can�t get people to leave their homes and go to a meeting with a congressman (of all people) unless they are engaged to the point of passion. And what tends to agitate people most is the idea of loss�loss of money hard earned, loss of autonomy, loss of the few things that work in a great sweeping away of those that don�t.
People are not automatons. They show up only if they care.
What the town-hall meetings represent is a feeling of rebellion, an uprising against change they do not believe in. And the Democratic response has been stunningly crude and aggressive. It has been to attack. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, accused the people at the meetings of �carrying swastikas and symbols like that.� (Apparently one protester held a hand-lettered sign with a �no� slash over a swastika.) But they are not Nazis, they�re Americans. Some of them looked like they�d actually spent some time fighting Nazis.
So do we address things like obesity? Is it Un-American for the government to raise taxes on soft-drinks? I don't like the idea, but this is just one example of the dilemma we face. I've heard plenty of horror stories about Canadian, British, etc. healthcare (No offense to our Canadian posters). Why do so many of them choose to come to the U.S. for a major procedure when they can't get an appointment for 2 years? I just can't imagine why...
Plenty of uninsured, but what's the real number? How many are transient between jobs and temporarily lack coverage? How many are invincible 25 year olds that willingly choose to forego insurance? How many are illegal immigrants? What's the real number that we should be worried about?
quote:
18,000 folks die each year as a result of a lack of healthcare, about 50/day: http://hc-dw.org/
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. I clearly don't put as much stock in these figures as you do. They do tell a nice story though, depending how you weave it.
quote:
Given these facts, Jesus if this isn�t a broken system to you, what the hell is? This is certainly one of the most inefficient (and outright corrupt) systems I�ve ever seen.
And I readily admit there is room to improve the system. I give Obama credit for pushing the idea of portable health records (but isn't HIPPA something that Bush put into effect?) I think it is just one way to help streamline the current system and make it more efficient. There are plenty of other things we can do that stop short of tearing down the whole system in a few short months and replacing it with something completely new (wow, I sounded very conservative with that statement:O)
I'm off to Vermont for the rest of the week. Enjoy yours.Posted by The17sss on Aug-12-2009 22:39:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Affordable healthcare is this nation's primary concern and the right wingers all out attempt to stop healthcare reform at all costs will be the down fall of this country. Fucking Bush whackjobs.
Nobody wants to stop true reform. When you define "reform" as a government takeover, that's what people want to stop.
Posted by The17sss on Aug-13-2009 01:11:
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
And again not to be in lock-step with the President or anything, but he re-emphasized the point today in his town hall that the cost of his plan will be covered in large part to rolling back the tax cuts on those earning $250,000 and higher. IOW, the vast majority of Americans will not be given the burden of paying for this.
You seriously believe that? First of all, the CBO $1 trillion cost mark is horribly incomplete. Here is the CBO stating that they see no cost savings in the house bill---> http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/20...alth-plans.html
Here is the Politico doing a story on a conveniently excluded CBO report that the "only" $239 billion in deficit spending needed is actually closer to $800 billion----> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25520.html
Secondly, the true cost is probably closer to $4 trillion... of course there are attempts at burying this information too. This is from testimony given by Dr. Stephen Parente of the University of Minnesota and Johns Hopkins, in testimony given to a House subcommitte on health care reform at the end of June. BTW, he is a health economist who's expertise are in health insurance, health information technology and medical technology evaluation:
quote:
There are two things people most want to know from these proposals. One, how many uninsured will be covered? Two, what will it cost the nation in one year and in ten years?
HSI estimates, like CBO�s recent results, find there is no free lunch to expand health insurance coverage. Our early assessment of the Senate Finance committee proposal shows a 74% reduction in the uninsured with a 10 year cost of $2.7 trillion using public option plan modeled after the Massachusetts Connector. We also modeled an FEHBP version of the public plan and got a cost of over $1.3 trillion, but with a 30% reduction in the uninsured.
Read the whole thing... it gets better. Here's the final snippit worth mentioning:
quote:
CBO scored the Kennedy Bill last week at approximately a 30% reduction for 1 trillion over ten years. Using the ARCOLA model, we found nearly everyone would be covered if all elements of the Kennedy bill were enacted at a ten year cost of 4 trillion. That 4 trillion estimate over 10 years assumes a public option plan with Bronze, Silver and Gold levels in the proposed insurance exchange with a subsidy for premium support that is income-adjusted and calibrated for assistance at the Silver level. The Silver level is equivalent of PPO plan with medium levels of generosity, something with 15% coinsurance rate, manageable copays and average level of access to physicians and hospitals. We accounted for the public plan being reimbursed at 10% above Medicare reimbursement, which is also 10% below commercial insurance premiums.
So, we'd get a medium level plan with moderate access to physicians... and doctors getting underpaid by 10%. Sweet!
quote:
I really don�t think that excuse is gonna fly here, especially when we see clear, outright lies and distortions by idiot �deathers� in your party in reading things on page 424 or whatever page that line is on.
But there�s plenty of time to dissect, and obviously obfuscate (as we�ve already seen by leaders in the GOP) what�s in the bill.
Outright lies and distortions... I don't know man. You should read this Washington Post article from yesterday explaining exactly how it's not too far off base to see how doctors will be incentivised to nudge along people near the end of their life to consider that option. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...l?nav=emailpage
And, from bigtime liberal Lee Siegel in an article called "Obama's Euthanasia Mistake", he makes this point:
quote:
For those of us who believe that the absence of universal health care is America's burning shame, the spectacle of opposition to Obama's health-care plan is Alice-in-Wonderland bewildering and also enraging -- but on one point the plan's critics are absolutely correct. One of the key ideas under consideration -- which can be read as expressing sympathy for limitations on end-of-life care -- is morally revolting. And it's helping to kill the plan itself. Make no mistake about it. Determining which treatments are 'cost effective' at the end of a person's life and which are not is one of Obama�s priorities. It�s one of the principal ways he counts on saving money and making universal healthcare affordable.
This reeks of the Big Brother nightmare of oppressive government that the shrewd propagandists on the right are always blathering on about. Except that this time, they could not be more right.
You must also be forgetting what Obama said in his June infomercial on ABC to a woman in response to her mother getting a pacemaker at an elderly age. He literally said this: I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's spirit... End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uhhh, not having the surgery but taking, uh, the painkiller.
quote:
The problem, Shakka, is that �sticking with the tactics� hasn�t done shit in the past, and given the giant oiled lobbyist insurance and Pharma machine that we�re up against today, the likelihood of little �tweaks� here and there in the current system simply won�t do shit now or ever.
Are you aware that Obama accepted $150 million from pharmaceutical companies in exchange to go easy on them with drug pricing? Are you also aware he executed a back room deal in private (where are those promises to show all health care negotiations on C-SPAN?)where Pharma would committ to $80 billion in savings if Obama agreed to not let Medicare set drug prices? Sounds like a mix of extortion and our president getting in bed with big business to shape legislation.... another broken promise. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...9081102810.html
quote:
If, according to your party�s Capitalistic Bible, we go forth with another competitor in the mix (i.e. government), shouldn�t those other privatized companies ideally compete by LOWERING costs against their competitors? And if they don�t, they would simply be outcompeted and run out of business, right?
You know, that whole free market, laizzes faire stuff, right?
Man... come on. For real. Don't you get it? The bill itself is a trojan horse for a singal payer option to destroy private insurers. Companies will not be able to afford to provide coverage and to save themselves, they'll have to offload their coverage to the government. When one entity does not have to show a profit to stay in business, there IS NO free market competition. Barney Frank was just bragging about it last week, how the bill will force us into Single Payer.
If our health care system is so horrible, why does Obama keep saying we can keep the plan we have if we like it? It's obviously a lie, but think about it... if we need an overhaul so badly, why would he say that people can keep their current plan if they like it?
quote:
Okay, great, I�ll be happy to consider this point WHEN WE ACTUALLY START TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE PAYOR SYSTEM. Because if memory serves, no single-payor system is in this bill, is it? If so, can you point it out?
If Shakka can't point it out... I gladly will. First of all, there is a provision on page 16 of the bill that clearly outlaws private insurance. Once your current plan is up, peace out. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArt...332548165656854
But there's a lot more. Obama in 2003 speaking at an AFL-CIO conference:
quote:
I happen to be a proponent of single payer universal health care... And that's what Jim's talking about when he says, "Everybody in, nobody out," a single payer health care plan, universal health care plan. That's what I'd like to see but as all of you know, we may not get there immediately because first we've got to take back the White House and we gotta take back the Senate and we gotta take back the House.
Obama in 2007:
quote:
My commitment is to make sure that we've got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president. I would hope that we can set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort, but I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.
And if that's not good enough, watch the video clip of him saying all this, PLUS several other Democrats admitting to the trojan horse:
quote:
I�m sorry, Shakka, but the Deathers and the people at these town halls yelling and disrupting the meetings are nothing but stupid fucks, period. They are not interested whatsoever in rational discourse, nor do they care. They have been worked up by CORPORATE INSURANCE LOBBYISTS and Astroturf shitmongers and haven�t a feeble fucking neuron in their brains to stop and think for themselves before they paint fucking swastikas on Congressional buildings (http://www.11alive.com/news/local/s...?storyid=133691) and putting Hitler mustaches on Obama�s picture.
Oh boy... talk about being stuck in an ideology and letting it influence your thought. You're dead wrong about the hitler mustache bullshit, but I'll get to that in a minute.
It amazes me how Democrats love to drum up protests, and in the most crass and destructive manner, but when people oppose their policies those same people are labled as unstable mobs full of vitriol and hate. It is the Democrat party who has astroturfing to a science, and has all the rent-a-mobs bussed in... so when something legitimate bubbles up, those people can't believe that it's real. David Axelrod himself has made millions of dollars running a firm that specializes in astroturfing. Obama's entire town hall in New Hampshire yesterday was STAGED; the 13 year old girl who asked a question was identified as the daughter of a major Obama supporter (link--> http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news...ostPop_Emailed2) ; Obama had his own rent-a-mob group Organizing For America bussed in; NONE of the town halls got violent until our Agitator-In-Chief put out a call to the SEIU and made sure the Democrat representatives filled half the room and (his words) "hit back twice as hard". Take a look at 1825 K Street in D.C. dude.... the HCAN (Health Care for America Now), AFL-CIO, ACORN, MoveON.org, SEIU, and other unions/organized groups who exist to protest for Democrat causes are set up right by the White House. Funny though, I didn't see Obama come down on the SEIU when a black conservative man got beaten up at a meeting in St. Louis like he did on the Cambridge police guy.
Anyway, shit yeah people are up in arms, and they should be. And it's not just Republicans that are pissed off in those town halls. For too long they have been treated like stupid peasants who aren't smart enough to make deicisions for themselves... that even if a majority of people disagree, the political class knows better. People are genuinely sick and tired of being ignored, and treated as if they work for the elected official and not the other way around. Why are Democrat protesters allowed to go berzerk because "dissent is patriotic"? But people are now expected to sit down and politely accept the bill of goods being sold to them? They should just accept a largely unread bill and have it rammed through wit breakneck speed?
They are mad because they are coming with legitimate questions, and realizing that they are more informed than their representatives. People are tired of being polite... if you were on an airplane with a madman flying it towards a mountain, would you sit politely and say, "excuse me sir... excuse me... uhhh... would you mind please steering the plane to the left a little bit?"
So what do you suggest. Maybe the people up in arms right now should protest like Democrats?
1) Left wing Minutemen storming the stage during a speech at Columbia Univ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuNXmy0e5fc
Now, as for the Swastika business.... the guy carrying the sign with Obama having the Hitler mustache was identified as a supporter of the Democrat John Dingel who was holding the town hall meeting... after the meeting was over he was even passing out literature to people for Dingel!! http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/200...poster-was.html
The fact of the matter is Pelosi started the swastika bullshit when she lied on TV last week saying she saw them all over the place, while the only shread of evidence was someone holding a sign with a swastika that had a circle and line through it saying "no socialism". Then, by coincidence, swastikas start popping up... one guy gets busted as being a Dingel plant, and the spray painted swastika over the sign from your link is too politically convenient to be real now.
How many BusHitler signs did we see flailing around the place anyway? There are plent of visible swastikas in this Bush protest from 2005 (but it's cool... they're Democrats): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Ur...player_embedded
quote:
Most Americans still want a public option, despite these stupid fucks deliberately disrupting a rational conversation. But you�re welcome to believe anything you want.
You're probably sick of reading by this point... but if you want some good clarity you should read this article by a Duke University professor who breaks down controversial parts of the Healthcare Bill into plain english, and you can see how much Obama and the others are blatantly lying to you when out on the stump. Link here: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/...l-actually-saysPosted by Krypton on Aug-13-2009 03:04:
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Nobody wants to stop true reform. When you define "reform" as a government takeover, that's what people want to stop.
If they don't want to stop reform, then why is their sole focus on...stopping reform. If they have any alternatives, by all means, let's hear them. Unfortunately, I don't expect anything new to come from conservatives or Fox News, because we all know, conservatives by the definition seek to keep everything the same.
Posted by The17sss on Aug-13-2009 15:28:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
If they don't want to stop reform, then why is their sole focus on...stopping reform. If they have any alternatives, by all means, let's hear them. Unfortunately, I don't expect anything new to come from conservatives or Fox News, because we all know, conservatives by the definition seek to keep everything the same.
Because reform, as being promoted in this bill isn't seen as "reform" by the public... it is seen as a mix bag of government takeover of 1/6 of the private sector economy with no guarantee that anything will actually improve or cost less... it includes provisions that will make private insurance history (page 16 of the bill), it includes taxpayer funding for abortion, and it even includes government coming into homes and usurping parental rights in child care development (womb to tomb government intrusion buddy)!
Section 440 and Section 1904 of the House bill (page 838) under the heading: "Home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children," which would provide (via grants to states) for home visitation programs to educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills. ... The bill says that the government agents, the "well-trained and competent staff," will "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive language, social, emotional and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices, skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."
Well trained government experts as defined by who? What field of child development theory? Is there one theory that fits all parenting skills? This is absurd... they shouldn't even be allowed to come into your home and make those judgements in the first place. So you see, this bill isn't really about just "health care", and the people know it and they don't want it. Reform as defined by this bill is a hell of a lot more than just "reform".
Posted by NeoPhono on Aug-13-2009 22:42:
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Section 440 and Section 1904 of the House bill (page 838) under the heading: "Home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children," which would provide (via grants to states) for home visitation programs to educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills. ... The bill says that the government agents, the "well-trained and competent staff," will "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive language, social, emotional and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices, skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."
Well trained government experts as defined by who? What field of child development theory? Is there one theory that fits all parenting skills? This is absurd... they shouldn't even be allowed to come into your home and make those judgements in the first place. So you see, this bill isn't really about just "health care", and the people know it and they don't want it. Reform as defined by this bill is a hell of a lot more than just "reform".
You're missing a key word from the very first line of that section...(440)
quote:
Purpose- The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.
The section goes on to state that the latest evidence-based techniques should be taught and that the effectiveness of the program should be independently monitored. You can argue about the qualifications of the personnel all you want, but that's pretty standard lingo.
More importantly, there are over 4 million births in the US each year. Can you imagine the resources that would be required to have some sort of government-mandated parent education on even a fraction of those? This is simply another home health program, of which Medicare/Medicaid already has multiple, expanded to a different population. Selectively cherry picking sections of the bill and leaving out key facts are a good reason why there is so much disinformation floating around.
Posted by Krypton on Aug-14-2009 00:36:
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Because reform, as being promoted in this bill isn't seen as "reform" by the public... it is seen as a mix bag of government takeover of 1/6 of the private sector economy with no guarantee that anything will actually improve or cost less...
Delete public. Insert GOP. Healthcare is on par with utilities, infrastructure, etc and should be regulated heavily by the government, just like every other first world country. You seem content in America's continuing stumble down the standard of living list. You are content in a healthcare system that is an obvious failure, and blindly rejecting a serious attempt to reform it. Republicans aren't providing their own proposals. Nooooo. Their only focus is making sure Obama/Democrats fail. Perhaps revenge for Bush's stupidity?
quote:
it includes provisions that will make private insurance history (page 16 of the bill), it includes taxpayer funding for abortion, and it even includes government coming into homes and usurping parental rights in child care development (womb to tomb government intrusion buddy)!
Private insurance should be as private as the electricity grid. In my personal opinion, health insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to make a profit.
As for the abortion lie you just posted, keep reading...None of the reform bills "even mentioned the word abortion until this latest version took on this issue last week," Farley said, referring to an amendment introduced by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif. The amendment would segregate "the money that would be used to cover abortions. It would specifically prohibit federal dollars from being used to subsidize abortions."
As for "government coming into homes usurping parental rights." As neophono made clear, the program is VOLUNTARY.
quote:
Section 440 and Section 1904 of the House bill (page 838) under the heading: "Home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children," which would provide (via grants to states) for home visitation programs to educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills. ... The bill says that the government agents, the "well-trained and competent staff," will "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive language, social, emotional and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices, skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."
Well trained government experts as defined by who? What field of child development theory? Is there one theory that fits all parenting skills? This is absurd...
It's only absurd to you because you mistakenly (willingly or otherwise) believe the program is mandatory. It is not...
quote:
So you see, this bill isn't really about just "health care", and the people know it and they don't want it. Reform as defined by this bill is a hell of a lot more than just "reform".
What I see is someone whose fallen head over heels the rhetoric coming from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other idiots. A little advice. When you see Glenn Beck on tv, turn it off!!
Posted by Lilith on Aug-14-2009 07:50:
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
18,000 folks die each year as a result of a lack of healthcare, about 50/day: http://hc-dw.org/
I did some digging around on that one and its statistically based on the 25-64yr old age group, which is essentially people in their prime working years. The loss of them is compounded into a greater economic loss for the country overall than the 15million saved by private companies they didn't pay money.
By my figures the net economic 'dent' caused by their removal is around 1 billion if they're gainfully employed and earning the average wage.
Thats 1billion dollars which they will not earn or spend, more importantly, that's 22,000 people, not numbers.
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
Luckily I don't care what the rest of the world thinks.
You aren't an island, not by location and certainly not financially, us 'foreigners' own a fairly huge chunk of your fat arse in securities alone. Needless to say if you're going to behave like a bunch of inbred hicks in the marketplace any time soon, we'd like to put our money somewhere else.
Posted by occrider on Aug-14-2009 08:37:
Coming late to this thread, are people here still advocating maintaining the status quo when it comes to health care? Not to suggest we need to adopt Obama's approach ... personally I think it's a flawed compromise, we need to adopt a more Switzerland approach, however, I thought that it was universally recognized that spending the most as a percentage of gpd per capita on health care out of all industrialized nations with the POOREST health results is indicative of a fucked up health care system? Bear in mind, I have excellent health care provided by my employer so I'm perfectly content in maintaining the status quo.
Have republicans come up with an alternative health bill option? I'm very critical of the democrats' health bill on a number of issues (there's a lot to disagree with on a 1000 page peice of legislation) but I'm even more critical of an alternative option that doesn't exist.
Posted by jerZ07002 on Aug-14-2009 13:47:
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
I thought that it was universally recognized that spending the most as a percentage of gpd per capita on health care out of all industrialized nations with the POOREST health results is indicative of a fucked up health care system?
just curious, does anyone know the breakdown of the costs of our healthcare? I'm curious because I have a feeling it includes a ton of research costs that other nations may not incur, but nevertheless from which they benefit. Just a hunch, and i could be wrong. I just don't see how we spend the most and get the least.
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Bear in mind, I have excellent health care provided by my employer so I'm perfectly content in maintaining the status quo.
ha - that's exactly how I feel.
Posted by occrider on Aug-14-2009 15:23:
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
just curious, does anyone know the breakdown of the costs of our healthcare? I'm curious because I have a feeling it includes a ton of research costs that other nations may not incur, but nevertheless from which they benefit. Just a hunch, and i could be wrong. I just don't see how we spend the most and get the least.
i didn't read the entire thing (i skimmed most of it), but it appears that report just focused on the components of the growth in costs, not the total costs.
Posted by Az on Aug-14-2009 22:08:
Up until a year or so ago, I had no idea that the US didn't have free health care. Being British and having grown up with the NHS, the thought of the American system turns my stomach, in the 21st century, in supposedly the most developed country in the world, free health care isn't accessible to it's poorest sections of society? absolutely mental
it's almost as mental as some of the arguments against "socialised" medicine (not counting )
the doctors in the NHS don't get paid enough argument also, is absolute shit, I personally know 2 recently qualified doctors, and a surgeon. All earn upwards of $90k, the surgeon has paid his student loan debts within 2 years, and is opening a restaurant as side project with his spare cash.
Posted by Krypton on Aug-14-2009 22:54:
quote:
Originally posted by Az
the doctors in the NHS don't get paid enough argument also, is absolute shit, I personally know 2 recently qualified doctors, and a surgeon. All earn upwards of $90k, the surgeon has paid his student loan debts within 2 years, and is opening a restaurant as side project with his spare cash.
Nurses get paid $90k. Being a doctor here is synonymous with six figure incomes.
Posted by NeoPhono on Aug-14-2009 22:58:
quote:
Originally posted by Az
the doctors in the NHS don't get paid enough argument also, is absolute shit, I personally know 2 recently qualified doctors, and a surgeon. All earn upwards of $90k, the surgeon has paid his student loan debts within 2 years, and is opening a restaurant as side project with his spare cash.
The only argument I'd add to that is that in the UK, the average debt out of med school is around 50k, in the US it's 250k. If the US could somehow lower the cost of med school student debt I think making sub-six-figures would be doable, but as of now even low six-figures can be tough when looking at payback time limitations and interest. The US already has a substantial doctor shortage and lowering pay here would price many future doctors out of the profession. I'd also add that the "average" American doctor works 10-15 hours more a week than their UK counterpart and a US intern/resident is capped at 80 hours a week vs. the 48 hour weekly cap of a junior doctor in Britain.
Posted by Az on Aug-14-2009 23:05:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Nurses get paid $90k. Being a doctor here is synonymous with six figure incomes.
brilliant
I'm sure within a few years, the 2 doctors will be earning that, the surgeon is earning well in excess of that.
They're earning well above the breadline, paying their loans back at a much quicker rate than the average graduate, and generally living to a much higher standard than say 70% of the UK populus.
I'd be fucking amazed if you spoke to a UK doctor and told them they could earn loads more if it meant the poorest sections of society were no longer eligible for treatment. The fact of the matter, in relation to the doctors I know, they're already earning more than they can realistically spend, things may change in terms of personal circumstances and family etc... but they will always be in a much better position than the average joe
There comes a time when the greater good outweighs personal greed, despite what fox news reports, it works pretty fucking well here, and in france.
A situation in the developed world where people are exempt from free healthcare in inhumane.
Posted by Az on Aug-14-2009 23:06:
quote:
Originally posted by NeoPhono
I'd also add that the "average" American doctor works 10-15 hours more a week than their UK counterpart and a US intern/resident is capped at 80 hours a week vs. the 48 hour weekly cap of a junior doctor in Britain.
bullshit, doctors opt out of the EU working time regulation, all the doctors I know work 80 hour weeks.
fox news is full of shit
Posted by NeoPhono on Aug-14-2009 23:20:
quote:
Originally posted by Az
bullshit, doctors opt out of the EU working time regulation, all the doctors I know work 80 hour weeks.
fox news is full of shit
