You show an unreasonable faith in politicians, if you get 100 politicians in a room you get no ideas they are all lobbying each other to see who will be the leader
![]() |
Hahahahaha, Maybe I was still clinging to that last thread of hope on that one mate :)
I disagree on several points.
First of all, with the Democrats in control of both houses of Congress (with a supermajority) and the Presidency, the fact is that the insurance companies don't have all that much power right now within government. They don't have the power to stop a full-court press by the Democrats in Congress right now.
Second of all, in Canada there is no private insurance permitted (they are in the process of opening that up a bit, but it is still true as a general rule). For a long time in the UK, there was no private insurance. What makes you so sure that private insurance would continue to exist in the USA... especially when the people at the highest levels of government are telling us that their goal is to eliminate private insurance? As they have said, it may not happen immediately, but it is their goal to use the idea of a government-run "public option" to create a single-payer system. Given enough time and effort, that is exactly what will happen... unless it is stopped dead right here and now.
Elliot
I did read something along those lines before, but I put that down to some politicians trying to get something so far out of their reach that a compromise would be the way forward and therefore the goal would be reached
You have to understand, some of my comments are based on very limited information, and I have no problem being corrected where I am wrong, that is why I talk to people like yourself Elliot who give an honest (although strange) opinion on how america works,so yep you are represneting 300m americans right now :)
I didn't know that about canada either, I thought they had private doctor practices, but not hospitals, cheers for that as well
I really think the only thing that Bill Clinton and Obama was and are hoping for is a health care that allows or enforces health insurance for all americans, and as usual, you get all the different dynamics of politics coming out with Fear and Hope tactics
Thanks for the correction
Steve - I'd be curious to hear your perspective on your own country's health care system (you're from England, right?). What is your experience like in England as a consumer of health care?
Just curious to hear about it since I've not really heard a perspective from someone across the pond.
Salvo Jake
From my personel point of view the service has been first notch
I have had broken arms, a leg, and ankle, stiches to both knees, and right leg, dislocated shoulder, two broken ribs, concussion and skin cancer
All totally self inflicted, except the skin cancer :)
The service I have received has been first notch, When I have been to A&E (ER) I have been seen within an hour, and xrayed and patched up within a couple more
Check ups and appointments are casual for an am or pm which is annoying but the waiting is always a max of 45 minutes, I have sat in traffic jams for more time than at the hospital
When I had skin cancer, I saw my local doctor which again is under the NHS scheme, I made the appointed late one afternoon and was seen the next day
He referred me to an appointment 4 days later at the Hospital, of which they removed the lump from above my skin, and booked me in a few days later to have the entire lump removed
All in all I have no complaints about the British Health Service
The Nurses were great, doctors were professional, and the hopsital was clean and welcoming
Now, don't get me wrong, I have seen the stories of miscare, and total shambles when it comes to the running and how clean some places are
We have had a system whereby there has been no competition and some poor investment due to poor areas of employment
This has now changed or is changing and you can nominate where you wish to go, you can choose which doctor, instead of being your local, and which hospital even though it is 100 miles away
This will now mean we as nation can pick which is the best hospital for us to have treatment in
This will improve the system by introducing a level of competition
Members of my family have all had treatment, some serious, and friends of mine have suffered some serious forms of cancer, of which the treatment I have witnessed has been first class
Our stats though do show one problem we have as a nation.
We do not go to the doctors until we really have to, so catching cancer early is not always possible and people die when it is too late to do anything about
I can talk forever, especially as I have been to the hospital quite a few times
The thing is for us, (majority) we do take the health system for granted, because it has always been there when we needed it.
It is one of the few places that you can work in and get service, with a smile most of the time, and can walk, (hobble) out without having to pay for it, fill in insurance forms or any hassle
Now I know some will say you do pay for it through taxes which is of course correct, but if I am going to be taxed anyway, I am more than happy to be taxed for something I think is an amzing service
Especially when we see, whether correctly or not through the different media forms, people in the US having been denied treatment due to no insurance, or people with insurance but with a dodgy insurance company that doesn't provide cover when it is needed
Or the stories of people who work all their lives, pay taxes, are good people, diagnosed with an illness that their insurance doesn't cover and they spend their entire life savings on treatment
I think it is the responsibility of a civilised nation to look after their weak, poor, or misfortunate
Even to those that make stupid mistakes, to those that take from the system and not give back, it is a small price to pay for what we have
Finally, Stephen Hawking, who is arguably one of the most intelligent people on the planet, praises the NHS as he declares he would not be alive today if it wasn't for the way the NHS provided care and assitance for a very difficult condition
We could have lost a brilliant mind if it wasn't for a simple thing as paying a few extra pounds in tax per week
Hope this answers your question
Elliot what needs to be stopped dead right now is this laissez faire attitude to medical care. There is nothing wrong with a single payer option so long as choice of doctor remains, but in any case there is no reason why a private insurance option shouldn't remain. Even though it is not in your constitution every human being should have a basic right to health care, just as they should have a right to food and shelter. If you founding fathers didn't consider such rights important they were dolts, but I think they covered it in a right to welfare. As I understand it what is wrong with your current system is denial of coverage under certain circumstances and a very legalistic interpretation of what is covered. As I read this debate I come to the conclusion that those in the US for some reason don't want health care to be cheaper through competition with insurance companies by a public option. This is inexplicable in a market place that prides itsself on competition.
I don't know how we could have been more plain, everyone believes we need some reform, everyone would like to see it cheaper and we all believe everyone needs access to health care. But when the government - the one that makes the rules and doesn't have to make a profit - becomes part of the marketplace, it's no longer a free market. As has been stated numerous times our federal government has specifically enumerated powers and being in the health care/health insurance business is not one of them.
Clete you are not that naiive . If it was a matter of competition the gvt. Would ease rules regulating the market place including allowing across state purchase of insurance and easing anti-trust exemptions the insurance companies currently have.
But this is not about competition . It is about direct government control of a growing segment of the GDP.
I see it no different than seizing of almost all the domestic auto industry ,or allocating money for the purchase of bad mortgages and instead using the money to gain an equity share of the banking industry.
Do you really think that a government option will compete with private insurance?
That's sort of like saying that the referees will compete with the regular teams... it won't happen, because the referees control the rules, make the calls and decide who gets the point. And they AREN'T going to make the playing field even.
The proposals that conservatives have put forward WOULD increase competition. They would increase competition in each state from 2 or 3 or even 12 insurers to 1300 immediately. 1300 privately-run organizations competing against each other under the same rules and regulations.
THAT'S competition.
Elliot
Hello:
If one assumes that the bill, as proposed, DOESN'T mean what it says, because the real intent of the authors is to do something entirely DIFFERENT than the bill SPELLS OUT, then you'd make the assumptions the Wolverine does...
But, if you believe the WORDS in the bill, instead of the loony right wing conspiracy theories being thrown about, a public option WOULD compete with private insurance. Why wouldn't it?? It's an insurance policy too, after all. It just doesn't have to make a profit. Sure it's going to be cheaper than the private plans. THAT'S the idea - so they LOWER their costs.
Is it going to bother the American taxpayer that the insurance company CEO can't send their children to private school anymore?? I don't think so.
excon
Hello Steve:
I'm able to distinguish between political rhetoric, and the WORDS in the law.. If the words we write in our laws mean NOTHING, then we're in bigger trouble than just needing health care reform.
I can't tell you what's IN the bill exactly because there isn't a final bill. But, I can tell you what's NOT in there. What's NOT in there is language saying that we're just kidding, and we can scrap this LAW anytime we want and go commie on you.
excon
Good, then maybe you can finally explain CFR 49 for me. I always have trouble interpreting that one. And trust me, you need to actually view the links to get my point.
Hello again, Steve:
It means you can't carry bad crap in your truck... Look. I didn't say you could understand everything they write... But, I think you COULD discern a plot to DO exactly the opposite of what a bill purports... After all, you guys discerned plenty of those.
excon
Why should we "believe the words of the bill" when the people who wrote the bill admit they are lying in the bill?
Do you make it a habbit of believing liars?
Apparently you do, but only when it serves your political point of view. Otherwise you get all upset about it and spend your time ranting and raving about it.
Elliot
Not exactly, it tells you what bad crap you can't carry on your truck and HOW you can carry other bad crap but that's just a small fraction of the code. That's how the health care reform bill will end up once it becomes law, about as easily understood as CFR 49.
Mostly we've argued against what's being proposed, which the news today is about the Democrat's push for the 'public option' to 'compete' (terms which are intentionally deceptive) with private insurers. When the issue is one you favor you guys think we're supposed to ignore the rhetoric, focus on how innocuous the 'specifics' are and get behind it while representing us as moonbat wackos if we don't. You'd like that because then it'll be too late once the bill is passed and signed. Sorry ex, but the time to object is BEFORE Congress does their dirty little deed.Quote:
Look. I didn't say you could understand everything they write... But, I think you COULD discern a plot to DO exactly the opposite of what a bill purports... After all, you guys discerned plenty of those.
So... let me get this straight.
You claim that you have the ability to discern a plot to make a bill do something OTHER than what it is perported to do.
You have the magical ability to do this just by reading the bill, even though you have now admitted that you cannot understand everything they write.
And yet when government officials (not just one or two, but SEVERAL of them, including the President, and the Secretary of HHS, who will be in charge of implementing the bill if it gets passed) TELL US that they are planning to make the bill do something other than what it purports to do, you can't discern a plot to do exactly that.
Uh huh...
Elliot
Again speaking of government insanity, I give you Alan "Republicans want you to die/Holocaust in America" Grayson's latest charade... Names of the Dead.com
Hello Steve:
Yeah, he behaves just like your guys behaved... His schtick is essentially no different than those Republicans who accused the Democrats of wanting to kill Granny. There's more than a couple of those whackos.
excon
So I guess you see no difference between being able to point to specific legislation and say "this is what the effect will be" and making stuff up out of whole cloth. Figures. When it's in your favor you see nothing wrong with it, and completely miss the double-standard.
Elliot
Coming next for US government insanity?
Parents banned from watching their children in playgrounds
So now in the UK you have to approved to watch your own children?
Salvo Speech,
This is where a system that is in place to protect people from peados is failing
We allow these people to walk the streets, and all the best intentions in the world we cannot stop them from being around kids, so now we alienate innocent people for the failure
So we are creating further problems by not solving the original problem
I think a convicted peado should be exculded from society, their crimes are such that most of us would burn them at the stake to make sure it never happens
As we cannot do that, the system has yet again gone too far and the checks and balances from the media should draw this situtaion back to normality
Planx,
This is EXACTLY what I meant when I said that government intervention, even for the best of intentions, tends to result in more problems due to the Law of Unintended Consequences.
That's why it should be avoided to whatever degree possible.
And what happens when the media is no longer acting as a check & balance to bad behavior because they are in lockstep with the government?
Sorry, but the media is not a protection from government intervention extremism. It is simply an outlet for whatever information IT DECIDES to pass on to the public (and whatever information the government chooses to make public through them). It's a business, not a police or government watchdog organization. It should not be seen as some sort of protector of freedom and democracy. The media cannot survive without access to government sources. It is therefore beholden to the government. Because this results in a conflict of interests, they cannot be the government's watchdog.
Elliot
Hello p:
I couldn't agree with my right wing friend more...
Take Iraq, for example. It was an intervention done with the BEST of intentions, yet it turned out very badly. Afghanistan is another one. The drug war would be a yet a third example of how government action can go terribly wrong. Torture, too was taken on with good intentions, but with very BAD results. Don't forget that keeping gays from marrying, ostensibly, was taken on for good reasons, but the unintended consequences are dastardly. There's more, of course.
That's why it should be avoided to whatever degree possible.
excon
Salvo Chaps
Okay we all agree that government intervention usually has some bad results
But what is the alternative?
A democratic government has to set out rules and regulations as part of its make up - when something happens that effects peoples lives, the people hold the government accountable for that action
I cannot see any alternative but to allow givernments to continue with making such regulations
It is then up to the people to decide if these rules should, stay, go, or amend
Isn't that what makes democracy work for all people, a chance to have your say, to change policy and effect peoples lives peacefully?
Hello again, p:
Reagan said it best, and I'm paraphrasing here, when he said that the government that governs BEST, governs LEAST.
The problem was, he didn't follow his own advice. He used government force to mess around with all kinds countries and start all kinds of wars. Let me see, we got Granada, we got Panama, we got Nicaragua, we got Honduras, we got Iran... There's more, of course.
He, like some of his cohorts on this board, don't get that messing around in other nations affairs and starting wars, isn't even CLOSE to governing LEAST.
In terms of our rules, thank heavens it's NOT the government who sets them up. They're already set up in the Constitution, and it's government's job to follow them.
excon
Seeing as how we've now been warned our dogs contribute as much to global warming as an SUV I think they'd like nothing better than to do just that. But you know it's hard to take away a 'right' someone never had in the first place as is the case in most states.
But here's a deal for you, I'll agree the government needs to get out of the marriage business if you'll agree they need to get out of the "social justice" business.
Hello again, Steve:
No can do.. The Bill of Rights is all ABOUT about social justice. And, I ain't NEVER going to give up my right to own a gun. You?
Oh yeah, there's a few other rights that the Bill of Rights mentions, so if I want to keep my gun, I guess I have to support the others too. I know. I know. Social justice, with the exception of guns, just don't turn you folks on too much. But, you can't be cherry picking your rights, you know, or you're liable to lose the one you like.
excon
Hello again, Steve:
I'm just trying to get you to understand what it's like NOT to have a right that other people have? Maybe I was being to subtle. Or you know exactly what I'm talking about, and you know I'm right, but your right wing credentials won't allow you to say it.
excon
No I'm not that dense and you know it. I made an offer but I knew you wouldn't accept because you DO think our constitution is all about social justice. You think the constitution supports coercing me into paying for someone else's health care, housing, food and children. You think the constitution is all about progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth and property. See you're OK with taking my stuff to give to someone else regardless of whether they're deserving or not but you're not OK with taking away a right someone never had. And you think we've drunk the koolaid.
I don't understand one thing, as a veteran yourself, as I have have never served, I need an explanation
If the armed forces are trained to fight, it isn't it right to send them into combat to fight for what the country sees are its interests?
I seem to rememeber the uproar caused when our maggie let your man, send in the bombers from the UK to take out gadaffi, I also seem to remember that gadaffi has been very quiet ever since and is today trying to make paths to join the rest of the world
Who decides a war is in the peoples best interest if it isn't the government - I ask, as I accept whether they are right or wrong, a government has to go to war at times to protect its interests and citizens, and I am intrigued how you and your consititution sees it
You know speech, chances are if we all got together and had a beer, we would all enjoy each others company
However, when you make statements like that, it is stereotypical of what the rest of the world sees America for
You probably are not heartless, but when you concern yourself with self interest without any care for your neighbour let alone a foreigner, are you then surprised that the US had become targets to extreme Islam
Salvo Elliot
There is some confliction at the moment between freedom of speech an dreporting in the media, and the freedom of parliament to discuss matters in private
I think we all have to agree that politicians have the right to freedomof speech and as such they have the right to discuss matters in private to understand a view point, which can lead to a politician making some strnage comments.
This I believe should not be reported, as it the reporting of which would not be a true reflection of the subject or beliefs of a politician
However, the reporting of official meetings, documentation should all be transparent, and where depending on one body is obviously not ideal, the transparency should be available for all to see and view for themselves
So if the system isn't transparent then it can be argued that it should be more so - again an improvement of the system rather than abandament
The part that Excon repeatedly seems to miss is that the War in Iraq falls under the Constitutional mandate for government to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic.
Again, for his benefit, the Constitution gives the government 3 responsibilities.
1) Protect the nation from enemies foreign and domestic.
2) Maintain the infrastructure of the country (roads, tunnels, highways, bridges, mail, etc.)
3) Maintain an economic environment that is good for conducting business, producing goods and services, and accumulating wealth.l
The war in Iraq falls under #1.
Thus, where nationalizing health care reform is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and a bad form of intervention, the war in Iraq was CONSTITUTIONAL and a case of the government living up to its responsibilities.
Excon would prefer to ignore this because of his personal dislike of Bush and his general dislike for war. Unfortunately, ignoring it doesn't make the truth go away.
Elliot
The alternative is what I have been talking about for the past several weeks with you... limiting the power of government, and making sure that the only things they do are the things enumerated as their responsibilities in the Constitution.
That's an assumption. Because government has always made the rules, we assume that that is the way it is supposed to be. I question that assumption. I CERTAINLY question whether the FEDERAL government has that power, as opposed to the state and local governments, given the 10th Amendment.Quote:
A democratic government has to set out rules and regulations as part of its make up -
Only because we have been trained to do so. There was a time that people took responsibility for their own lives instead of relying on government to fix their problems. My suggestion is that we go back to that way of handling our personal affairs.Quote:
when something happens that effects peoples lives, the people hold the government accountable for that action
What makes democracy work is not having the government limit your rights and then force you to try to change it after the fact. Democracy works best when the elected representatives protect our freedoms BEFORE they are taken away from us. I reject this "reactive" concept of Democracy. True Democracy is PROACTIVE in protecting our freedoms and our rights. That is the very reason that the Founders sought to limit government power.Quote:
I cannot see any alternative but to allow givernments to continue with making such regulations
It is then up to the people to decide if these rules should, stay, go, or amend
Isn't that what makes democracy work for all people, a chance to have your say, to change policy and effect peoples lives peacefully?
Elliot
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:25 PM. |