[speechlesstx]

To quote one woman at a town hall meeting held by Senator McCain on Monday, "If the plan isn't good enough for Congress, Senator, it isn't good enough for us."

That's ironic, because didn't Kennedy himself say if it's good enough for Congress it's good enough for the rest of us?

The President, the Vice President, the members of Congress have a medical plan that meets their needs in full, and whenever senators and representatives catch a little cold, the Capitol physician will see them immediately, treat them promptly, fill a prescription on the spot. We do not get a bill even if we ask for it, and when do you think was the last time a member of Congress asked for a bill from the Federal Government? And I say again, as I have before, if health insurance is good enough for the President, the Vice President, the Congress of the United States, then it's good enough for you and every family in America.

But what's "good enough" for us isn't good enough or Congress now?

[Synnen]

I've really been thinking about this, and come up with a way that I could approve government run health care:

Your government health care card would be completely and totally based on how much money you paid in on income taxes.

Each tier would enjoy better benefits--say, a longer hospital stay, or brand name medications instead of the generic, or quicker access to needed tests, or whatever.

People in the lowest tiers could still get basic health care--but that's IT. They get BASIC health care. Think HMO health care---the kind where they do outpatient surgery for appendicitis or something. With one notable exception: If you are in the absolute lowest tiers of the health plan, ALL birth control and ANY counseling needed due to choosing adoption over raising your child would be FREE. Completely and totally free.

Otherwise---is this "Atlas Shrugged"? Each pays according to their ability, but is treated according to their need?

Count me out of THAT sort of plan. You can call me John Galt if you want to.

[tomder55]

One of my favorite characters in literature is John Galt . Another one from the same book was Francisco d'Anconia . He was willing to destroy his family fortune rather than to have it seized.

[excon]

Otherwise---is this "Atlas Shrugged"? Each pays according to their ability, but is treated according to their need?

Count me out of THAT sort of plan. You can call me John Galt if you want to.

Hello again, Synn:

Ayn Rand was a proponent of acting in one's self interest. She DID, however, distinguish self interest from selfishness. It's a distinction our friends on the right are unable to make. I think they should read her again, and maybe Robert Ringer too, and maybe Harry Browne. Those folks didn't' miss it.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Universal health care success story of the day...

After weeks of excruciating pain, Mark Wattson was understandably relieved to have his appendix taken out.

Doctors told him the operation was a success and he was sent home.

But only a month later the 35-year-old collapsed in agony and had to be taken back to Great Western Hospital in Swindon by ambulance.

To his shock, surgeons from the same team told him that not only was his appendix still inside him, but it had ruptured - a potentially fatal complication.

In a second operation it was finally removed, leaving Mr Wattson fearing another organ might have been taken out during the first procedure.

The blunder has left Mr Wattson jobless, as bosses at the shop where he worked did not believe his story and sacked him.

Mr Wattson told of the moment he realised there had been a serious mistake.

'I was lying on a stretcher in terrible pain and a doctor came up to me and said that my appendix had burst,' he said.

'I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I told these people I had my appendix out just four weeks earlier but there it was on the scanner screen for all to see.

'I thought, "What the hell did they slice me open for in the first place?"

'I feel that if the surgery had been done correctly in the first place I wouldn't be in the mess I am today. I'm disgusted by the whole experience.'

Mr Wattson first went under the knife on July 7 after experiencing severe abdominal pain for several weeks. He was discharged but exactly a month later he had to dial 999 after collapsing in agony.

Following the second operation his incision became infected and he was admitted to hospital for a third time for treatment.

He said: 'I had a temporary job at a sports shop but when I took in two medical certificates saying I had my appendix out twice they didn't believe me.

'Now I'm helpless. I can't go out and find a job, I can't go to interviews, I can barely walk and am in constant pain. Before the first operation they told me I had to have my appendix removed and when I woke up afterwards they said it had been a complete success.

'But then I keeled over in agony one month later and when they did some tests at the hospital we could see the appendix was still there on the scans.

'As far as I was aware they took my appendix out and no one told me any different.

'I have no idea what they did take out, but I want to find out what went wrong.'

A spokesman for Great Western Hospital confirmed that a representative had met Mr Wattson and that an investigation had been started.

He was unable to confirm what, if anything, was removed in the first operation.

Paul Gearing, deputy general manager for general surgery at Great Western Hospital NHS Trust, said: 'We are unable to comment on individual cases.

'However, we would like to apologise if Mr Wattson felt dissatisfied with the care he received at Great Western Hospital.'

[inthebox]

I've really been thinking about this, and come up with a way that I could approve government run health care:

Your government health care card would be completely and totally based on how much money you paid in on income taxes.

Each tier would enjoy better benefits--say, a longer hospital stay, or brand name medications instead of the generic, or quicker access to needed tests, or whatever.

People in the lowest tiers could still get basic health care--but that's IT. They get BASIC health care. Think HMO health care---the kind where they do outpatient surgery for appendicitis or something. With one notable exception: If you are in the absolute lowest tiers of the health plan, ALL birth control and ANY counseling needed due to choosing adoption over raising your child would be FREE. Completely and totally free.

Otherwise---is this "Atlas Shrugged"? Each pays according to their ability, but is treated according to their need?

Count me out of THAT sort of plan. You can call me John Galt if you want to.

I agree, but what about the wife or husband that stays at home raising the kids?




G&P

[Synnen]

How is it selfish to NOT pay according to my ability so that others can pay less and get the same thing I am? Or, because they have more need (and/or more kids), they get MORE than I do, even though they pay less?

I GET that for schools. I understand it completely for highways/roads/whatever. I even understand it for things like a police force, a fire department, etc. I get those things because they affect ME, too. Those things are a benefit to society as a whole.

Better educated people make more responsible decisions than undereducated or uneducated people do.
Using highways/roads/etc---well, of course I want them in good repair--I use them too--and it seems to me that it's a benefit to society to have well constructed, easily used roads--for example, in an emergency, good roads allow medical personel, fire fighters, and police better and quicker access to combat the emergency.

A police force and fire department are there to protect us--ALL of us.

I fail to see how universal health care affect ALL of us positively.

Are they going to make LAWS on who is covered and who isn't under this? What will the rules be? "No Income? NO Problem! (as long as you don't smoke and are not obese)"

Does the government get to tell me I can't have certain kinds of treatment because of my lifestyle? You KNOW they will. If I go in with lung cancer, KNOWING that cigarettes cause lung cancer, and still smoke--will I have to pay that out of pocket? Or will this just be another nail in the coffin of legal tobacco in the US? What about fast food, then? Everyone KNOWS obesity is bad--can we deny people health care if they eat at a fast food place more than once a week? Or will we just have to work on banning those places too?

I don't want the government in health care, because I don't want them making the RULES of health care. I don't want the government to decide based on MORAL issues whether treatment should happen.

Let's put it this way: How many people would bounce away from this entire idea if even a single abortion were covered under a universal plan? But how can you DENY abortions under the plan? They're LEGAL (to a certain point, anyway). Yet people would be up in arms about their tax dollars being used to "kill innocent babies".

Maybe it IS selfish, in a way. But tell me this: how is it in my self interest to approve this? I'm part of society, and others in society feel the same way I do--what's a DIRECT benefit I'm going to get that I don't have now? How is a healthier populace (at the expense of tax dollars that could go to say... better education on how to be healthier via personal responsibility) going to make life better for anyone besides the people who currently don't have insurance?

Edited for italicized area because I KNEW my phrasing was off.

[Synnen]

I agree, but what about the wife or husband that stays at home raising the kids?




G&P

It costs an extra $1.37 per paycheck to have my husband on my insurance, with the same coverage I have. I think that kids are $3.00 each or so, but I don't have them so I'm not positive.

Can the government match that kind of pricing?

[speechlesstx]

We have a double header success story in the UK today. Not only did doctors remove a man's appendix twice, but Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets.

'While some will be unavoidable emergencies, it is extremely distressing for them and their families to be denied a labour bed because their maternity unit is full.

'It shows the incredible waste that has taken place that mothers are getting this sort of sub-standard treatment despite Gordon Brown's tripling of spending on the NHS.

[galveston]

In the midst of all the debate, let us not forget that the REAL danger in the proposed health care bill(s) is government control over virtually every aspect of our lives.

I'll bet none of you arguing for govt health care want the control that comes with it, as it is now written.

If you do, tell us why.

[ETWolverine]

How is it selfish to NOT pay according to my ability so that others can pay less and get the same thing I am? Or, because they have more need (and/or more kids), they get MORE than I do, even though they pay less?

I GET that for schools. I understand it completely for highways/roads/whatever. I even understand it for things like a police force, a fire department, etc. I get those things because they affect ME, too. Those things are a benefit to society as a whole.

Better educated people make more responsible decisions than undereducated or uneducated people do.
Using highways/roads/etc---well, of course I want them in good repair--I use them too--and it seems to me that it's a benefit to society to have well constructed, easily used roads--for example, in an emergency, good roads allow medical personel, fire fighters, and police better and quicker access to combat the emergency.

A police force and fire department are there to protect us--ALL of us.

I fail to see how universal health care affect ALL of us positively.

Are they going to make LAWS on who is covered and who isn't under this? What will the rules be? "No Income? NO Problem! (as long as you don't smoke and are not obese)"

Does the government get to tell me I can't have certain kinds of treatment because of my lifestyle? You KNOW they will. If I go in with lung cancer, KNOWING that cigarettes cause lung cancer, and still smoke--will I have to pay that out of pocket? Or will this just be another nail in the coffin of legal tobacco in the US? What about fast food, then? Everyone KNOWS obesity is bad--can we deny people health care if they eat at a fast food place more than once a week? Or will we just have to work on banning those places too?

I don't want the government in health care, because I don't want them making the RULES of health care. I don't want the government to decide based on MORAL issues whether or not treatment should happen.

Let's put it this way: How many people would bounce away from this entire idea if even a single abortion were covered under a universal plan? But how can you DENY abortions under the plan? they're LEGAL (to a certain point, anyway). Yet people would be up in arms about their tax dollars being used to "kill innocent babies".

Maybe it IS selfish, in a way. But tell me this: how is it in my self interest to approve this? I'm part of society, and others in society feel the same way I do--what's a DIRECT benefit I'm going to get that I don't have now? How is a healthier populace (at the expense of tax dollars that could go to say...better education on how to be healthier via personal responsibility) going to make life better for anyone besides the people who currently don't have insurance?

Edited for italicized area because I KNEW my phrasing was off.

My, my, Synnen. This post looks positively CONSERVATIVE in it's content. You talk about "best interests of the individual" (which is just another way of talking about the "Invisible Hand" theory), personal responsibility, government overstepping it's bounds...

I do believe there's a hidden conservative (or at least a Rand-style Libertarian) buried in there somewhere.

Good post, great thoughts.

Elliot

[Synnen]

My, my, Synnen. This post looks positively CONSERVATIVE in it's content. You talk about "best interests of the individual" (which is just another way of talking about the "Invisible Hand" theory), personal responsibility, government overstepping it's bounds...

I do believe there's a hidden conservative (or at least a Rand-style Libertarian) burried in there somewhere.

Good post, great thoughts.

Elliot

I've been called a Centrist.

It's funny--I'm ALL about individual rights and the Federal government backing the heck off on personal decisions---including, but not limited to: health care, religion, marriage, abortion, and family planning.

And I don't care what people do with their lives, as long as they take responsibility for it--which too often means that they LITERALLY pay for it, with money, rather than making good on their debts to society and the community.

There's a joke out there where the punch line is "Welcome to the Republican Party" about a girl who considers herself liberal but will not go to the Dean and split her hard earned grades to share with her friend who didn't work so hard. I read that joke and realized that I was more conservative than I really thought.

The whole thing comes down to this, for me: I'm tired of paying for other people to not work as hard as I do, and still have more than I do. I'm tired of handouts, of government "fixes" and tax money spent on things like football stadiums. I'm tired of working my butt off, and OTHER people getting the rewards of it.

[inthebox]

How is it selfish to NOT pay according to my ability so that others can pay less and get the same thing I am? Or, because they have more need (and/or more kids), they get MORE than I do, even though they pay less?

I GET that for schools. I understand it completely for highways/roads/whatever. I even understand it for things like a police force, a fire department, etc. I get those things because they affect ME, too. Those things are a benefit to society as a whole.

Better educated people make more responsible decisions than undereducated or uneducated people do.
Using highways/roads/etc---well, of course I want them in good repair--I use them too--and it seems to me that it's a benefit to society to have well constructed, easily used roads--for example, in an emergency, good roads allow medical personel, fire fighters, and police better and quicker access to combat the emergency.

A police force and fire department are there to protect us--ALL of us.

I fail to see how universal health care affect ALL of us positively.

Are they going to make LAWS on who is covered and who isn't under this? What will the rules be? "No Income? NO Problem! (as long as you don't smoke and are not obese)"

Does the government get to tell me I can't have certain kinds of treatment because of my lifestyle? You KNOW they will. If I go in with lung cancer, KNOWING that cigarettes cause lung cancer, and still smoke--will I have to pay that out of pocket? Or will this just be another nail in the coffin of legal tobacco in the US? What about fast food, then? Everyone KNOWS obesity is bad--can we deny people health care if they eat at a fast food place more than once a week? Or will we just have to work on banning those places too?

I don't want the government in health care, because I don't want them making the RULES of health care. I don't want the government to decide based on MORAL issues whether or not treatment should happen.

Let's put it this way: How many people would bounce away from this entire idea if even a single abortion were covered under a universal plan? But how can you DENY abortions under the plan? they're LEGAL (to a certain point, anyway). Yet people would be up in arms about their tax dollars being used to "kill innocent babies".

Maybe it IS selfish, in a way. But tell me this: how is it in my self interest to approve this? I'm part of society, and others in society feel the same way I do--what's a DIRECT benefit I'm going to get that I don't have now? How is a healthier populace (at the expense of tax dollars that could go to say...better education on how to be healthier via personal responsibility) going to make life better for anyone besides the people who currently don't have insurance?

Edited for italicized area because I KNEW my phrasing was off.

I agree, but just to play the other card this time:

I am in favor of "free" preventative, evidence [ both fiscally and medically ] based measures, like vaccinations, or mamograms and colonoscopy, cholesterol checks, nutritional counseling. Prevention lowers cost for the whole system and thus for you and I.


I don't want the government deciding that a single 20 year old with cancer deserves cancer treatment because they have potentially longer to live; while a 35 yo married individual with children deserves it less because they are older.




G&P

[excon]

I don't want the government deciding that a single 20 year old with cancer deserves cancer treatment because they have potentially longer to live; while a 35 yo married individual with children deserves it less beacuse they are older.

Hello again, in:

I don't want that either. But, our heath care is already rationed, in that it's rationed FROM those who can't afford it. So, private health insurers make life and death decisions about who lives and who dies every day in the name profit.

Which obscenity do you like best?

excon

[inthebox]

And why can't they afford it?

Maybe government/state regulations that mandate certain coverages that the consumer does not want?

How Not to Reform Health Care | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary



New regulation and bureaucracy are limiting consumer choice and adding to costs. A new mandate for prescription-drug coverage was added, and high-deductible policies were restricted.

What of allowing pretax dollars going to a health savings account?

[Synnen]

Or... can they not afford it because they choose to have OTHER things in their lives?

How many people that say that they can't afford health insurance still have a TV, computer, cable, internet, and a cell phone? How many of them have video games instead of a library card?

Again--no sympathy.

People can afford anything they work to afford---and SACRIFICE to afford.

Are there accidents that can change a life in a second? Absolutely. Can ANYONE plan for something that ends up costing $2.5 million dollars? Of COURSE not! But that doesn't mean they can't scrape together the money for a preventative screening once a year, and afford the OTHER things that come up that aren't quite so drastic. Yes, that's one more payment they need to make every month (I don't know a health care facility that accepts only cash up front--most have some sort of payment plan), but seriously---how many of the people REALLY are working two jobs, use birth control responsibly, have no internet or cable or cell phone and STILL can't make ends meet?

It's all about taking personal responsibility for your actions. If you can't afford health care for your infant because you're 15 and don't have a job or high school diploma, well... that's what adoption is about.

I have NO problem helping people out from random accidents and hard spots. I have SERIOUS issues bailing people out of their bad choices.

[ETWolverine]

I have NO problem helping people out from random accidents and hard spots. I have SERIOUS issues bailing people out of their bad choices.

And that, from my perspective, is the key point on most domestic policy issues, but especially health care.

Well said.

Elliot

[madarab405]

But wasn't it george w that started us on all bailouts? Seems like all this craziness was well established when obama took office.

[tomder55]

But wasn't it george w that started us on all bailouts?

Actually various gvt bailouts have occurred since at least the 1970 Penn Central bailout. That one resulted in the creation the next year of AMTRACK and it's tax soaking sponge.

These have included bailouts to banks, Chrysler twice , Lockheed ,the airline industry ,and even NY City (1975) .NYC received $2.3 billion even though the headlines said that President Ford told NYC to drop dead. In this case NYC paid back every dollar .

Yes it's true President Bush did TARP ,but President Obama has continued bailout nation on steroids,and had in effect almost completely nationalized the American auto-industry and is attempting a similar take over of the national healthcare industry .

[ETWolverine]

but wasn't it george w that started us on all bailouts? seems like all this craziness was well established when obama took office.

First of all, under Bush, all the "bailouts" were in the form of loans. And while those were BAD DECISIONS in my opinion, there was a HUGE difference between lending these companies money and actually TAKING OWNERSHIP OF THEM. Bush lent the auto industry money. Obama took them over, fired people he didn't like, and installed his own leadership in those companies.

Under TARP, Bush proposed that "toxic assets" be purchased from companies that were in trouble. That was changed by Bernanke, Geithner & co. from the purchase of toxic assets to the lending of money to various financial firms. BOTH of these were bad decisions, in my opinion. However, once Obama took office, he changed the plan again, and instead of making TARP a program for lending money or buying up toxic assets, he instead used it as a program to CONTROL COMPANIES. He used the loans to AIG as an excuse to control executive pay within that company. He refused to allow banks to pay back TARP money even when they offered to pay it back because he weanted to maintain ccontrol of those companies.

There's a huge difference between what Bush did... government interference, which was bad enough... and what Obama did, which was an ACTIVE TAKEOVER OR PRIVATE INDUSTRY BY THE GOVERNMENT.

So yes, it may have started under Bush... maybe. But what Bush did wasn't THIS.

It's time for the left to stop their cry of "It's all Bush's fault." Obama is President. The buck stops with him. Bush is no longer President. Anything that happens under Obama's watch is Obama's decision. If he can't handle that, he should never have run for the office.

Elliot