Massachusetts Senate Election

Crohn's Disease Forum

Help Support Crohn's Disease Forum:

Kuwabara

Kuwabara

Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
228
I wondered what our American cousins thought of the election of Scott Brown in MA?

Obama strikes me as a good man whose ideals have simply being contrived by the system. Liberals and Conservatives attack him for not going far enough or conversley going too far with healthcare. He cannot win in Afghanistan,but if he cuts and runs he''s a coward. He inherited a crippled economy too.Then he has the lunatic fringe of the tea parties of Faux News. I feel sorry for the guy
 
I am not at all surprised by the results of the election of Scott Brown, and I really don't think that it is a Democrat/Republican issue at heart here. The main problem in my mind is that the American people want "change", which was sold to them by the Obama campaign, but they really don't know what it is they want. I don't think anyone in this country would argue that there is a dire need for health care reform, but to come in with a 3000 page bill packed full of sweetheart deals is not change, it's more of the same in the eyes of the American people...elected officials pushing their own agenda without regard for what is best for this country. And this can easily be said about Dems or Republicans. As a consequence, I think we are going to see a lot of incumbents lose their Congressional seats in November.
 
There is a growing disgust with both parties concerning the huge debt we are accumulating, and the health care bill is adding an unsustainable debt to the already critical problem.

It really does not matter if we have health care for all, if our country is pushed into bankruptcy. We are only ten or at the most twenty years away from economic collapse at the present rate of spending.

Obama promised transparent government, and we got secret back room negotiations. He promised to work for the people and has been doing the work of special interest groups such as labor unions and pharmaceutical companies.

He portrayed himself as a centrist and is governing from the far left, with progressive ideas that are better suited for a European model of government.

Republicans have been shut out of the health care debate altogether. He was supposed to reach beyond party lines according to his campaign. That has not happened either.

Forcing everyone to buy health insurance is not supported by the constitution, and it will be challenged in the Supreme Court if implemented.

People want change, but this is not what most people had in mind.

You are going to see many from both parties thrown out of office in the next election. You saw a hint of this in the last election with the surprising showing of an unknown like Ron Paul. Most people here want less government intervention in their lives, not more. Neither party is offering that option.

I was surprised by the election, because I did not think most people were paying much attention to these things. I was wrong.

Dan
 
Kuwabara said:
I wondered what our American cousins thought of the election of Scott Brown in MA?

Obama strikes me as a good man whose ideals have simply being contrived by the system. Liberals and Conservatives attack him for not going far enough or conversley going too far with healthcare. He cannot win in Afghanistan,but if he cuts and runs he''s a coward. He inherited a crippled economy too.Then he has the lunatic fringe of the tea parties of Faux News. I feel sorry for the guy
Click to expand...

People are no longer voting along party lines, and that is a good thing. There is a lot of arrogance in the far left progressives and socialists that Americans are fed up with. I can see this arrogance locally as Michael Moore, our local House rep Rosa Dalouro and some blogger lady with close relations to Andy Stern started a campaign to have Joe Lieberman recalled for not being liberal enough by objecting to the public option of the health care plan. They even went after his wife's job at the Susan J Korman foundation. I wish Rosa, our local law maker, knew the law... there is no process or law for recalling a Senator.

As the other Dan said, Americans are fed up with big government and the massive debt. In a recent Washington Post/ABC News Poll 58% of Americans want a smaller government with fewer services. A lot of career politicians will be voted out this office. The arrogance of Harry Ried (who only has a 38% approval in his district), House Speaper Pelosi and the bunch will be screwed this fall.

"That government is best which governs least" -Henry David Thoreau

Dan

Oh, and regarding your comments about the Tea Party movement and the "lunatic fringe". When over 250,000 people go out to protest high taxes, runaway government growth, it says alot about the opinions of the nation. I find it extremely immature when people like Jenine Gerafalo respond by saying that those who protest are stupid, hate Obama for being a black man and that they are a bunch of "Tea Bagging Rednecks".

And regarding Fox(sic) News. Yeah, they tend to lean to the right, but represent both sides. If you actually watch them, they bring in lawmakers from both sides to discuss issues. Their ratings are growing, unlike the other news networks. Their shows now have the top 10 shows in the cable news ratings. The White House needs to grow up and understand that the Bill of Rights guarantees the freedom of the press. The other networks see this and have pushed back in Fox New's defense. Last fall the White House set up an interview with the Pay Czar and invited the bureau chiefs of four of the five major networks. They saw Fox was not invited and refused to participate unless Fox was there. You might not agree with them, but that does not mean you have to belittle them.

Dan
 
Last edited:
<---- This American is fiercely liberal and cannot stand Scott Brown's repressive policies. Granted I don't like that the healthcare bill is lacking a government option and has too many sugary deals for certain senators but we need to pass some kind of reform and must view this as a stepping stone. We still have many more stones to skip to get real reform.
 
Most people are moderates, and will accept a middle of the road solution. They do not want a far Left or Right agenda. It is up to the politicians to work together and provide something acceptable to the majority of people, and not cater to either side of the extremes.

This is not rocket science.

Dan
 
From a MA resident, born and raised, all I have to say is that Josh and I have been laughing since last night when it was announced. This is an obvious Democratic state, so when a Republican came in and took <<gasp>> a Kennedy's seat, it caused an uproar.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I personally don't care either way. I hate this state.
 
Kuwabara said:
I wondered what our American cousins thought of the election of Scott Brown in MA?

Obama strikes me as a good man whose ideals have simply being contrived by the system. Liberals and Conservatives attack him for not going far enough or conversley going too far with healthcare. He cannot win in Afghanistan,but if he cuts and runs he''s a coward. He inherited a crippled economy too.Then he has the lunatic fringe of the tea parties of Faux News. I feel sorry for the guy
Click to expand...

Obama just can't win, either he is being blamed for the economy (which is total BS and every last moron saying so should know that, that's like blaming him for the Haiti quake), or said to not be doing anything, whilst the same people are PREVENTING him from doing anything. He's trying to bring change but the tiresome ideals of yore are so adhesive it's revolting, the half of the nation who doesn't like him insists on keeping crap the way it's been and then complaining about a lack of "change" that was promised. Well no sh*t, if you blockade change, if you stifle improvement, you're GOING to have a void of it!!

The two Dan's speak for themselves, not "Americans" (no offense to them, difference of opinion). I'm disgusted with this, these conservative MA people and Republican power mongers seem content with the downward spiral of the healthcare in this nation-- as good people with diseases accumulate debt just to have a bad day instead of outright hospitalization--at the expense of national short term debt. The national debt is already screwed, it's time we give health to the people who will pick this nation back up in the long run, the sh*t has already hit the fan, complaining about the fan blades getting dirtier in the short term so the whole bathroom can be cleaned later in the long term is a moot point now. That is shortsightedness, that is how you think about tomorrow and not next week.

I'm tired of the narrowminded Rush Limbaugh BS, the myopic attitude that got us in this mess in the first place. We are arguing over a circle being round or not while the rest of the world stares on in disbelief, on why we are debating such an obvious element as this. We might as well be a third world country sometimes, as we are behind the times with healthcare. I am about ready to effing go to Europe and let these archaic, destructive people have this country.

I'm speaking as another American here.

/rant
 
Last edited:
Interesting stuff guys.

I agree with BWS really.All these negative things that are associated to the current Government already existed with G.Bush - these billions of dollars of debt did not spring up overnight,sweetheart deals with large corporations has been part of Government for decades too.

I think the American idea of what a socialist is quite absurd, it seems to be basically anthing slightly left of centre. Socialism as I know it means extraordinarily high taxation of the rich - we used to have an 83% tax rate in this country, and the nationalisation of all government services and industries. Socialism is not trying to get a few more million people covered by healthcare. I think by American standards Europeans are practically communists.

I reserve the right to call Faux News a lunatic fringe.I don't care how many idiots tune in for their daily dose of conservative vitriol/fear or attend these idiots protests.There's a famous line from a British comedy called Peep Show where a guy is worried what people think of him, and his friend turns to him and says
'F*** people, what do people know? People voted for the Nazi's and listen to Coldplay, you can't trust people'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y


I love how many so called Christians resist healthcare plans. Do that they not understand how Jesus gave everything to the poor,and shunned material wealth?

'Does anyone care what Americans think? They’re the worst-educated people in the First World. They don’t have any thoughts, they have emotional responses, which good advertisers know how to provoke.” -Gore Vidal

I love Americans its just a shame that its usually the fervently religious and idiotic who drown out the vast majority of of respectable people.In fact I'm falling in love with an American girl I met a couple of weeks ago as we speak. God dammit!
 
Last edited:
I was not in love with George Bush either. I did not vote for him, nor did I vote for Obama. I do always hope the elected president is better than I have estimated they are, but so far that has not been the case.

Bush pushed us into a war that was unjustified, and by not minding the store, led us into the current recession. All the while plunging us into further debt.

So now we are still in an unjustified war, and doing our best to rack up more debt, still in recession, and the government is still serving special interest groups as it always has in recent history. Granted that they are somewhat different special interest groups, but that does not make it any better.

Religious people and the idiotic only get one vote like everyone else.

I do not even know what being a Christian has to do with health care. That is a tenuous connection at best. Charity is a Christian act and voluntary. The IRS taking your money to give it to someone else under duress is not related to Christianity as I understand it. If it is not given freely, it is not Charity. No one mugged Jesus to give what he had to the poor.

33% of Americans who are Independents, identify themselves as aligned with the ideals of the "Lunatic Tea Party". Do you seriously believe that 33% of Independent voters are lunatics?

Dan
 
Last edited:
Listen guys...Enough already. This is a forum for people with Crohn's disease.
Unless you tell me Bush or Obama is responsible for me having this disease, I don't think we should have political debates here. I'm sure there is bound to be another forum where political debate is standard.

We all have our opinions on what should and shouldn't happen in the USA...Let's just end it here. I am personally offended by some of the comments being made. I would hate for a new person to stumble upon this thread and be frightened away.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough guys,I'll respect you're wishes. I just care about those who don't have health insurance who could have our disease and those who can't afford a decent level of care.

Sorry
 
Please don't be offended. It is just differing opinions, which is what we are supposed to have.

That is what is great about the U.S. and many other countries. We can disagree and shape the country through votes instead of using the barrel of a gun.

Some people do get emotionally invested in their positions and that is normal.

We are all in this together regardless of the outcome. One country, one people, different ideas. It is the diversity that makes us great.

I do agree that this forum is mostly for support, and this may not be the place to discuss the two taboo subjects, which have already been touched on. Politics and Religion.

I apologize if anyone was offended by my comments, and will refrain form future political discussions. I do not get too riled up by this sort of thing, as I always like a good debate, and feel it is a healthy exercise. Sometimes I will even debate something I do not even believe in just for the sake of debating, but I do understand that everyone is not like me.

I would like to thank everyone for contributing their opinions, but if people are getting upset, it may be time to quit. It all makes you think, and that is not a bad thing.

Dan
 
Personally, I love a good debate and can usually keep my emotion out of it, but two things I steer away from are politics and religion (with friends/family). It just leaves a bitter taste way after.
 
Hey, if you have a beef with your own state, I will stay out of it. I do hope to visit there some day, as I have never been East. I will keep my expectations low, in case you are right.

Minnesota sucks sometimes too, but I have not moved yet, so I must like it for some reason.

Maybe it is the sub zero weather, or the Mosquitoes. Possibly the high taxes turn my crank. And all that salt on the road that rusts my cars out is really nice.

The people are pretty good though.

Dan
 
I was going to touch this with my pole but it's only nine feet long. I enjoy healthy debate too but I guess I'll keep my mouth shut.
 
D Bergy said:
Hey, if you have a beef with your own state, I will stay out of it. I do hope to visit there some day, as I have never been East. I will keep my expectations low, in case you are right.

Minnesota sucks sometimes too, but I have not moved yet, so I must like it for some reason.

Maybe it is the sub zero weather, or the Mosquitoes. Possibly the high taxes turn my crank. And all that salt on the road that rusts my cars out is really nice.

The people are pretty good though.

Dan
Click to expand...

I grew up in Minnesota and remember those mosquitoes. Those things barely got nudged out by the loon as the state bird. And the blueberry muffin is the state muffin.

Dan
 
Rereading my own post, I acknowledge it was infused with said emotion, but then again the healthcare issue --to me, mind you-- is intertwined with my life so much because of the IBD and the thousands owed. I look on to other nations that say "huh, well over here those 3 years wouldn't have cost you dime, and you'd have been getting more paid time off work too...$1000 colonoscopy AFTER insurance? Not here."...I can't help but feel jaded and screwed over at that point. I sometimes get the impression (Limbaugh) many are 110% for the status quo and have no idea that the very fabric of people's lives could be patched and sewn with just the simple alteration of a different mentality. Sorry if my own post was inflammatory, it comes from desperation, fatigue and a loss of patience.

What we all have to keep in mind is that no matter how fouled up or asinine we THINK a decision or movement or stance is, the people doing or supporting it, in their own minds, usually feel it's in the best interest of humanity. Right or left, they are convinced they are driving forward "what's best"....

I say usually because sometimes people are just greedy b*stards and have no compassion, and would rather profit off of the demise or agony of another (Enron, Cigna, etc..)...

On the note of the state of IL, I'm enthralled it's the "Land of Lincoln" (even though there is still bitterness about "that war" and I've heard friends getting cars keyed out of state down south because of "Land of Lincoln" license plates).........BUT, Rod Blagojevich is someone I want nothing to do with. I don't mind IL, but I won't claim it's the best state. Good and bad...
 
Last edited:
I'll speak as a person living in America with no health insurance because I lost my job due to this disease. It truly sucks! The only thing I had going for me back home (Washington state, which I love btw) was my doctor. A good Christian family doctor who understands there are problems out there and he helps where he and his family can. They have waived so many dr visits fees for me. No job, sick as a dog, and scared to death about dealing with a new disease that could potentially kill me if I'm not careful and have good medical care. My GI (that found me, I might add) while in the hospital treated me because I was sick. He even continued to treat me afterwards. No charge. He is doing his part. He even said to me one day "what if my kid was sick? And someone else could choose to help or not. I would want them to help." He is an immigrant to this country from Vietnam. But seems to understand the basic principle of what makes this country great. We can all come together to help each other. Its just like what happened after 9/11. We were all patriots then. Loved our neighbor like they were family. I live in Maryland now because I don't have a job currently and can't afford to live without assistance. That's what family and friends are for. They help each other.

It really isn't up to the gov't to help me. It isn't what this great country was founded on. Its was founded on freedom. Free to do what you want. If what you want to do is be a dr. Be a dr. If you want to be a scientist and cure this horrible disease. You can. No one needs to tell them to do it. If I could do it I would. The reason we succeed is because of the drive Americans have to DO SOMETHING about it,.

I will tell you this, this is the first time in my adult life I have not had health insurance. It is not by my choice. It happened. When things happen we do need to come together and help our neighbors.

I will have insurance again. That isn't a question. Its just a matter of when. Hopefully it won't be because I'm forced to pay for it with the money I'm not earning from my job I do not have. And if I don't buy it, I could end up in prison because I'm sick and can't afford it. Where is the constitutional rights i have that limits gov't control over what I have to have to be an American citizen. Just because I'm now sick and the meds cost an arm and a leg, dr bills pile up and I can't get better? How is that gonna help me? It won't I can't get approved for Medicaid or Medicare anyway.

To sum it all up, yes I'm happy that Scott Brown was elected to the senate and the democrats lost their 60th vote, to launch that insane 3000 page, earmarked, political suicide that the progressives are saying Americans want because the "healthcare reform" that "needs to happen right away or we will fall into oblivion" (the people trying to shove this down our throats will lose power, as in what happened in Mass with Kennedy's former seat being lost to a republican in a clearly democratic state) because Americans are waking up to this gov't needing all the power to tell us what we need to do for ourselves.

Sorry for the political rant on a medical forum dealing wit a crappy (no pun intended) disease, but I needed to get that out there as it as been stressing me out. I love this country and I do not want to see it being owned by China or any other country or just flat out disbanned.

Btw Minnesota has a pretty good football team right now. Go Farve! And I like blueberry muffins too. :)
 
I agree with the sentiments you seek for the nation Mike, but I am feeling it's a lost cause at this point, to come to the middle in this nation, on this topic, the whole thing. There is just too much disagreement, no one seems to be willing to meet in the middle or even define where "middle" is, and there is a lot of misinformation (going both ways I suppose) that is obfuscating the reality. We all want what is righteous and good (presumably), but no one can agree on how to get there. There's so much at stake and so much passion involved, but I really feel it's hopeless sometimes, and we have that in common, Mike. The difference is what we feel about why it's hopeless and how to fix it.

I'm in oblivion, I'm in hell, many of us are, there is only a way up, I can't see it getting worse, that is why I personally want a change. Any change, something. I'm tired of worrying about pre-existing coverage. I'm tired of the profit-driven industry that should be one of human welfare, not a bottom line. $200 for a blood draw WITH insurance IN NETWORK? $1000 for a scope, AFTER insurance? I'd rather put the power in the government than the insurance companies, similar to virtually every other industrialized nation, the rest of the world isn't complaining nearly as much as us, they all feel sorry for us. What does that say? At least we can vote for the government, and if they profit, that's actually a GOOD thing. That's my own view, and I just wish for people to accept that it was conjured from my own experience, encounters and anguish with this life.

Btw, you actually wouldn't go to prison for not having insurance, and you're not expected to pay for it while unemployed. I honestly believe whatever happens, it won't please everyone, and there will always be contention.
 
Last edited:
Benson I do believe you would be a very good debater. That would be nice to start a thread somewhere. Maybe here, maybe not. Some of us are definitely passionate about our feelings. So much more could be said here on this topic, however I do agree with IMP and gang that this should most definitely either in the lounge on a thread marked debates where good clean debate can happen and not get personal. What do you think? Should there be one?
 
Now I have a small bit of extended family that lives in the US but I had no idea healthcare was like this whew. Does it litterally cost $1000 for a scope with insurance? and $200 for blood tests!?!?
 
Wow I'm really really sorry you guys I don't want to rub anything in anyones face but I don't pay anything for a scope or blood test and I can't imagine what'd I'd do no wonder so many of you have high stress levels. I'm very very sorry guys and I really hope that changes very very soon for you guys. It's tough to get a good idea of whats going on with your politics and healthcare systems there because they are litteraly two worlds apart.
 
I am always debating things, even when I shouldn't, I have since I was a kid, it's a failing of mine. I have to think about it Mike, it's such a touchy subject for me, and I've had a bad week, a horrid few months (nigh, years?) and I should cool off before I partake in any friendly verbal sparring much further. I regret posting when I did this afternoon as it is-- it was genuine thought and was unadulterated, but frankly, it spewed out from sheer rage at my own situation via my views and the MA news story put a straw on a camels back for me. For that again, I apologize.

One thing I want to say --that's been lingering in my mind since I posted-- to the folks here who are wiser and older than I:

I am usually too young to shut my decadent, wise-ass mouth on touchy topics when I should, but I'm old enough to recognize I should and thus type this sentence (this is aimed at D Bergy and IMissPopcorn and others who I hold in high esteem despite having a difference of opinion with on this matter).
 
crazycanuck said:
Wow I'm really really sorry you guys I don't want to rub anything in anyones face but I don't pay anything for a scope or blood test and I can't imagine what'd I'd do no wonder so many of you have high stress levels. I'm very very sorry guys and I really hope that changes very very soon for you guys. It's tough to get a good idea of whats going on with your politics and healthcare systems there because they are litteraly two worlds apart.
Click to expand...

You're right. The stress it causes is extreme. Three days before I was supposed to be given a colonoscopy, I got billed for the remaining $850 (insurance covers 80%) and the office said it needed to be paid BEFORE the procedure.

A lot of us are punished for being middle class. I asked if I had any options and they said because we made too much money and I had insurance, no.
 
mwb3779 said:
Benson I do believe you would be a very good debater. That would be nice to start a thread somewhere. Maybe here, maybe not. Some of us are definitely passionate about our feelings. So much more could be said here on this topic, however I do agree with IMP and gang that this should most definitely either in the lounge on a thread marked debates where good clean debate can happen and not get personal. What do you think? Should there be one?
Click to expand...


I really like this idea because I enjoy hearing everyone's opinions and voicing my own. And, I certainly don't want to offend the purpose of the forum. I'll add my 2 cents once this topic is moved. Maybe we'll actually solve the healthcare problem and can send a link to the thread to Congress so they can write it up in a bill.
 
I agree with Fen. I have a lot to say on this topic, but I always try to be careful on here because I don't want to offend anyone or the purpose of the forum.

And, Benson, I don't believe that you owe anyone an apology. You obviously have some very strong opinions on the subject and I think you made some very valid points and I can appreciate that. I think that if we can refrain from the categorical "name-calling", we are all mature enough to handle a healthy "conversation" on the subject.
 
One thing to remember about debates is not take anything personal. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. It is what makes debates great. I would love to solve the debate, send the link to congress. With the addition at the end of it saying.... Now that we've solved this, can you come up with a little more funding to cure Crohn's?
 
My insurance covers scopes and blood tests 100% Scopes and about 25 other major precedures are covered as preventative procedures. While our healthcare system is expensive, it is one of the best in the world. The 10 year survival rate for prostate cancer in the US is 90%. In the UK it is 60%

Going back to Scott Brown. Can anyone point to a specific act or comment he made during his political career that makes him a bad politician other than his objection to this health care bill and that he is a conservative?

Just remember, there is more than 1 way to skin a cat. The CEO of Whole Foods wrote a great op ed for the Wall Street Journal regarding health care reform and things that can be done to improve the system. http://www2.wholefoodsmarket.com/blogs/jmackey/2009/08/14/health-care-reform-full-article/

Oh, and don't believe everything you read. We all heard the stupid ass comments made by that asshat Pat Robertson regarding the earthquake in Haiti. It was even denounced by the White House. Now go to BBC News, CNN, ABC News, and MSNBC and search for Danny Glover Haiti or Danny Glover Earthquake... You will find noting about how this asshat made a similarly stupid head up ass comment that the earthquake was caused by global warming and was a response for the failure in Copenhagen. Why isn't the media covering this?? And since when did he start to speak with a Caribbean accent?

Dan
 
Last edited:
I don't believe that there is any reason why this thread can't be on this forum. Maybe it should be moved to lounge, but we should be able to remain civil. We have discussed marijuana, the presidential election, and many more hot topics, this one is no different, and may actually apply more.
 
How does it get moved to the lounge MBH? You seem to be a super poster like Benson! Except isn't he a mod?
 
mwb3779 said:
How does it get moved to the lounge MBH? You seem to be a super poster like Benson! Except isn't he a mod?
Click to expand...
I think that anyone can request that it be moved, it doesn't have to be the original poster.
Not sure if Benson can even move it. I think mods have limited privileges when they first start out.
Instead of us just talking about it, I will PM Ding and ask her to move it if she thinks it needs to be moved.
 
Why does this thread have to move to the lounge? Then I'll have to go to all the bother of getting a password.

I've just read the whole thing from the start and there is nothing that strikes me as particularly vitiolic or offensive... and it does touch on subjects which are pertinent to us. It's all part of a healthy debate, even though it does touch on the subject of politics (always avoid politics, religion and sport... that's what I understood)
 
:whistleinnocently: I say go for it and leave it here if that is what everyone wants. I just remember how passionate some people can get....and something tells me - this thread won't be any different. Whether we say we can keep it "friendly" or not - when you talk politics, people still form opinions of one another, and some can be lasting.
 
i don't think there is anything within this thread so far that warrants it moving to the Lounge. however, i have only skimmed through it, so if i've missed anything which any of you feel is 18+ please let me know.

discussions about topics other than Crohn's and IBD are always welcome, similarly debates as long as participants always remember to debate the topic and posts, not the poster. meaning, we may not agree with another person's opinion, but we can still be respectful and amicable.
 
Ok...what the heck...I'll jump in.

My 2 cents on healthcare is that our current system is broken. But, Congress and the administration are proposing solutions that won't help - and may only make matters worse. I also don't buy the notion that "something is better than nothing".

So, here's the Fen Healthcare Reform package:

1. Implement real tort reform. Limit the amount of punitive damages on doctors and hospitals. People should take responsibility for their own decisions and their own health. By limiting the punishment, the cost of malpractice insurance will fall which will only reduce the costs of delivering care. And, docs won't have to order all kinds of unnecessary tests that they know are unnecessary but have to anyways just to cover themselves from being sued. Unfortunately, the scumbag ambulance chasing lawyer lobby is a huge supporter of the democratic party so this isn't in any current bill (my apologies if I'm offending any lawyers on this forum). Before long, we'll be suing barbers because we got a bad haircut.

2. Repeal certain healthcare privacy laws. We fill out so many freakin' forms every time we visit a doctor or hospital. It's silly that we can't keep it all on a central database and we waste so much money on taking repetitive tests and faxing shit all over the place. And...this is my big theory...the easier it is to access data, the more likely science would benefit and be able to find cures because the info would be available for research. We all would win. Instead, we have a system that tries to protect our privacy and in the process only bogs down innovation. I thought Taiwan has a cool system where everyone carries smart cards. Any Taiwanese on this forum? Maybe a compromise is at least allowing individuals to decide whether they want their info public or private rather than forcing everyone to keep it private.

3. Solve the transportability problem. Make it a mandate that if you lose your job, the insurer must offer you an individual health insurance policy at equivalent rates for a certain period of time. Then we wouldn't freak out when we lose our jobs - particularly in these times.


If my ideas are oddball, I welcome the debate.
 
Fen I like your ideas. I'm not sure what we might accomplish if we could come up with something. Send it to our Senators or Reps. I'm willing to look at all options. I looked at Obamacare. No thank you. I'm looking at yours. Let's expand on it. What could we do? How can we the people get what we want?
 
Can anyone point to a specific act or comment he made during his political career that makes him a bad politician other than his objection to this health care bill and that he is a conservative?
Click to expand...

That is more than sufficient reason, Dan M, to make him an "ineffective" politician, but I would not deem him "bad"...

The system is busted. It's in pieces. I can't take all the IBD medicines I am being told to because I can't afford them. I often push appointments out because the $30 copays add up so fast with all the specialists and appointments I have. I stopped seeing my therapist because I can't afford him. I stopped some of my mood stablizers, because I can't afford them. I didn't DO ANYTHING to deserve this, and I am seeing people tell me Americans should take responsibility for their health, for their decisions. I'd really like to know what those decisions were. Were did I go astray? Was it left and I should have gone right? I was raised in a conservative household, and I didn't find a fault with that line of thinking until I grew up and realized we are all dealt a hand of cards, and if you had a shitty hand and no money, the people with the better hands like to place blame on your lap for the cards in front of you. Should have known better, they say. Your fault, they say. If you'd been more careful, they say. More often than not (but not always) the "democratic" person/mindset gives me a card of theirs. They tell me, it'll work out. Things will be better, take my card, I see you've fallen on hard times, I will give you, my fellow human being, a hand. You didn't do anything wrong.

This may not be "factual", and this may be "subjective" but this is my life, this is my experience, this is what has been said to me, done to me, after I have been knocked to my knees. At that point, I know who "my ally" is and who is looking the other way. One segment focuses on the betterment of humanity, while it seems the other one is reveling in their self-made container of luck and prosperity. So, you see, I have my reasons. To me, that is the purest distinction between a conservative and liberal. My own parents, conservatives, charged me $300 rent while I wasn't working, debilitated from IBD, on disability pay, with a bucket in my room near my bed for emergency bowel movements. The conservative likes to conserve. It is so clear.

"Obamacare"

This topic is to close to me, I will probably regret putting forth any more cents than the two I already have, even though I have hundreds of dollars worth in my palm, readied. I am seeing things that are already upsetting me, and I don't want to hold that against anybody, as it's not fair to them. I have to remember you each have your own views for your own reasons, just as the same applies to me. I don't believe any good can come of this, because there is gasoline on the floor and we're all holding lit matches.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I will agree, things are broken. But do you really think letting the gov't take charge of healthcare (1/6th of our economy) is the right way to do that? Think about. When was the last time you went to a POst Office ad enjoyed that visit. Gov't restricts everything they do. A while back a private company did an audit on the postal system to see how it could save money. Suggested closing down a lot of rural post offices with very little service. But because some Senator or House member had a constituents there, they said no. Our postal system makes no money at all. When it could have turned things around. Private systems work. Let the people do what makes this country a fantastic place to live and get the job done. Whatever that may be. The gov't is not the answer to everything. They aren't here to do everything. That's not a free system.

Benson I am willing to debate with you on why Obamacare will ruin this country. I'm terrified that if I'm caught in it, I will not live my full life.

Edit: People will always be people. Some care, some do not. I am in no way a liberal, but I will help those that I can. I will give them a card if I can. I do not want to be forced to give anyone my cards. They are mine. If I choose to give them away, I will. If not its my choice. Seriously, look at what happened after 9/11. They day after the greatest terrorist attack on American soil ever. Look at how we came together. Don't you remember how you felt that day? I will never forget it. My friends and I wanted to go help. I'm sure a lot of us did. In fact a lot did. We came together as a nation. Shared cards if you will.
 
Last edited:
I had put "Obamacare" in quotes for a reason. I'm sticking by my stance, Mike. I like you, I don't think you're a bad person at all, I just don't see further investigation into this here being a wise idea. If push comes to shove, I will abandon this country I love, though, and miss what it could have been dearly. My fiancee and I have already talked about it. I will move away to where there are more cards to go around-- not because I want to, but because to live, I will need to.

Edit: And make no mistake about it, this is no concession, no admission of defeat or white flag. I have plenty to say on this, and for a couple years now on this forum I've voiced it. The issue I have is that I see the relationship I have with the folks here as having a protective coating, a skin to it. I picture what I want to say and I start conjuring up the words, and I read what has been said by others, and I see that coating chip away, and degrade. I want to keep that coating- I don't want get out the chisel and hammer over something like this.

We're all good people in here, we want what's best for everyone else (I hope), but no one's going to change anyone else's mind over a topic like this. For thousands of years, there have been volatile arenas where topics like this were "discussed" with the intention of productive outcomes and a resolute atmosphere. Many of those ended in bitterness, some in death. I don't think we on this forum can change the fate of an entire concept with mere "good intentions" even though we have them. I want to keep what I have as is with you guys and hope for the best with how "they" fix what you admit is "broken", otherwise, I'll find somewhere where, in my view, it's been fixed all along and it's not debated anymore.
 
Last edited:
Benson.

I have friends in Ontario who are about as middle class as they get. Sean and Lori pay 41% of their income as taxes and there is 15% (correct me if I am wrong) sales tax on most items as well. I cannot give an exact number on how much of that is spent on "free" healthcare. Lets say 8-10% of his income tax.

My question to you Benson is this. Would you rather pay 8-10% of your income to the government with the expectation that they will provide you with healthcare, or would you rather spend that money in the open market on an insurance plan that works best for you?

Are you also going to trust that the government will fund the program properly. Did you know that the US currently has $74,310,000,000,000 and growing in unfunded liabilities for Medicare? We also have $18,688,000,000,000 in unfunded liabilities for prescription drug benefits. At what point are these programs going to become insolvent?

Dan
 
Benson I am every bit a fired up about this issue as you are and definitely feel your pain. My contention is that the insurance companies are the reason you can't get adequate health care. People just can't get past the idea of insurance companies. The idea that something that exists with the sole intention of generating wealth for some Rush Limbaugh type and is looking out for your best interest is ludicrous. The only thing they are looking out for is the bottom line. I would gladly forego paying for another nuclear missile and pay for a public healthcare system. For some reason I'm just not that afraid of the "Ruskies" nuking me into submission. The citizens of the U.S. already pay enough in taxes to pay for a Universal health care system it's just that we let the elected officials rob us blind with one hand and take payoffs from the insurance companies with the other hand.
 
Last edited:
BWS1982 said:
I don't believe any good can come of this, because there is gasoline on the floor and we're all holding lit matches.
Click to expand...
Very eloquently spoken (as usual). Sometimes when you let the horses out of the barn - it is quite difficult to get them back in again.
 
Benson,
I know we've debated this topic in the past. We may both always agree to disagree but I respect you and your opinions. Frankly, I honestly think we share the same underlying beliefs.

I'd love to see our country have a safety net for those of us who can't afford the care, meds, etc. that we need. I agree with your position that some of us are dealt an unfair hand and we shouldn't be punished for that. However, I am a fiscal conservative...no denying that. Though socially liberal, I get angry when our govt spends money it doesn't have. I also get angry when debates become a black v white as opposed to finding that middle ground.

A country like ours should prioritize how we spend $$. If our leaders had the balls to cut other spending - and I don't mean nickels and dimes here and there - but cut out complete departments, etc. then I’d endorse our spending money on something. But, because I know we will spend what we don’t have (we’re just borrowing from the Chinese and elsewhere) then I’d rather see the government pass laws that enable costs to go down to help us better afford care (like lawsuit awards, etc. as I posted above).

I thought the following graphic was interesting. It may shock you how our tax dollars are being spent. I’d wholly endorse replacing circles with a national healthcare safety net. Some of the circles seem far less important to me.
http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

Maybe this debate should be which of the circles in the attached graphic are less important than paying for some sort of healthcare safety net for our citizens?
 
Dan M, I pay much more than 8-10% of my income to medical expenses. Last year it was around 20%, and I'm still paying it off via a contract with the hospital. I also do not understand what "an insurance plan that works best for you" is supposed to mean, seeing as how none of them do.

Fenway, I am practically 100% aligned with you there. I openly acknowledge what is being spent is not always prudent or fruitful, or even wise. I don't contend to keep all other spending as is and tack on an additional expense. It has to come from somewhere, and I've always thought a reallocation is necessary. My issue is with the notion that everything is hunky dory and the system is working just fine, the people who are pushing with tooth and nail to maintain a destructive status quo that is laughable to countries poorer than us. We're already on at least one page together if we can agree on a broken status. I can't click to see all those circles, Fen, but I am already convinced I'd eliminate some of them, despite not knowing what all of them are. One of the biggest circles should be something like healthcare. I don't demand that my bad luck gets paid for by strangers, but I think those strangers would rather pay for my bad luck than where much of their money is already going.
 
milesrlv said:
Benson I am every bit a fired up about this issue as you are and definitely feel your pain. My contention is that the insurance companies are the reason you can't get adequate health care. People just can't get past the idea of insurance companies. The idea that something that exists with the sole intention of generating wealth for some Rush Limbaugh type and is looking out for your best interest is ludicrous. The only thing they are looking out for is the bottom line. I would gladly forego paying for another nuclear missile and pay for a public healthcare system. For some reason I'm just not that afraid of the "Ruskies" nuking me into submission. The citizens of the U.S. already pay enough in taxes to pay for a Universal health care system it's just that we let the elected officials rob us blind with one hand and take payoffs from the insurance companies with the other hand.
Click to expand...

First off... Rush Limbaugh does not represent main stream conservatives. It is like saying that Ariana Huffington and Michael Moore represent all Democrats. They are all on the extreme fringes of both sides.

Regarding the concept of "greedy insurance companies" that is the cause of our health insurance problems.... Let me clear the air with some facts. I went through the publicly published income statements for several insurance companies to see what their profit margins are (Net Income/Total Revenue) for the past few years.


Aetna 2006 6%, 2007 7%, 2008 4%
Cigna 2006 7% ,2007 6%, 2008 2%
United Healthcare 2006 6%, 2007 6%, 2008 4%
Wellpoint 2006 5%, 2007 5%, 2008 5%
Humana 2006 2%, 2007 4%, 2008 2%

For comparison, I took several companies from the Fortune 20 list, excluding energy, finance, and automotive (volitile markets right now) for comparison

Wal-Mart 2007 3%, 2008 3%
GE 2006 13%, 2007, 13%, 2008 10%
AT&T 2006 12%, 2007 10%, 2008 10%
HP 2006 7%, 2007 7%, 2008 7%
IBM 2006 10%, 2007 11%, 2008 12%
Coca Cola 2006 21%, 2007 21%, 2008 18%

As you can see, the health insurance industry does not rake in massive profits. By comparison to some of the largest companies out there, they are actually making modest profits.

Dan
 
Jesus! I didn't realize this thread was still going. I thought it was dead. I think people know how I feel on the subject. I'd consider moving to the States if it wasn't for the Medical Care and the Gun Laws(I'm just a wimp around firearms).Round our way a Bobby is meant to disarm youths with just his baton and quick thinking!

Anyway I'd just leave you with this quote from my boy Fydor-its the way I see the whole welfare issue

'All men are responsible for each other but we do not know it. If we did, we'd have paradise tomorrow.'- Dostoevsky
 
As I've said before, Dan M, I wholeheartedly and respectfully disagree with everything yet again. I thought I'd make an exception and post my post above to you, Mike and Fenway the best way I know how so as to satisfy your curiosity and put something else on the table to show there is another studious methodology to consider. I doubt it did any good. Like I've said, there will not be absolution for this dilemma, and there won't be an end to the disagreement, only resentment or cold shoulders. I don't want that. I'm just going to hope for the best, myself, but I can see that some of you genuinely believe there is nothing broken to fix, and that is why I can't fathom a solution on this debate. There's so much left unsaid for me, and at this point, it shall remain as such.

Profound and erudite quote, James, btw.
 
Last edited:
Look, I think we're all good folks here...

Much of all these concerns were alluded to or addressed in Obama's speech tonight (though I'm sure those who don't like him in the first place will think it's 'more rhetoric' etc per usual) but I want to turn this around and be productive:

What would YOU fellow Americans want to change, sort of like what Fenway did, name it, what do you want different about the healthcare system. Anything at all. Dan M, I'm sure with a growing family, you've encountered SOME imperfection along the lines. Something had to be present, nothing's perfect, and there is always a fault, a crack, in anything in this world. I think thinking of it more in that way will help us understand each other.

I want the idea of "pre-existing conditions" to be obliterated, especially for something out of the control of a patient, like a genetic or "random" characteristic like IBD. I don't want to have a panic attack at the mere thought of losing my job/insurance and needing $500 a month for Cobra coverage, only to never get insurance again. I don't want other IBD sufferers, who've never had insurance, to be unable to get it, fair and square, and thus be lethally penalized for "fate" because of a bad dice roll and a financial barrier.

I want insurance to have competition, I want more competition, so that premiums are not perpetually rising, but falling, like nearly every other industry. There is too much proprietorship at hand, too much monopolization. It should be more of a market driven to gain customers, like the car insurance industry is (just that aspect), so that "rates being lower" is a selling point.

I want there to be an additional reason for companies to increase coverage of stuff, routine exams, etc...and decrease deductibles, by making them compete with something massive. It's profit driven now, they try to find out "how" to deny someone, to get out of it (see Kim and Mike), and if some motivation or deterrent was in place, that would change. This is why a national system, a public option, would help IMO, because it would force them to keep "customers". Maybe even give the insurance companies incentive for their offerings, like with lower deductibles and lower premiums, they get subsidies or tax breaks. SOMETHING has to propel them into helping US out, and stop them from worrying about their bottom line (the percentages Dan M posted do not include actual dollar amounts, leading me to believe that "4% profit margin" is a half truth, but whatever, we all know they are doing well). Getting more customers would net them more money anyways, how is it the auto insurance industry is rampantly seeking growing consumer bases and seeing it pay off, but the health insurance giants don't seem fazed by the wallet raping they do? They need to work like every other business and try to gain customers by good service and competitive pricing. It works for the most profitable companies and banks in the world, it should work for them. It's effed up as it is, and they need to feel a threat for us to shop elsewhere. Right now, they don't so they wallet rape.

I want better prescription coverage. I shouldn't have to pay several hundred SEPARATE dollars to cover a few meds EVERY month, EVEN WITH PRESCRIPTION INSURANCE. That's ridiculous. Motivate the insurance tyrants via incentive or penalty to help people in certain brackets of income so that they can BUY the medicine that will heal them. The system is broke when people can't buy their medicine WITH coverage.

---This was just to start, and I'm groggy, so I'll leave it here for now, there is more, but I wanted to get a different colored ball rolling here.

BTW, Obama mentioned that there would be a 2-decade realization/result with his proposal to cut the deficit by $1 trillion, and not add to it. That's according to the Congressional Budget Office (unbiased), not any Democratic proponents, either.
 
There are so many problems to address it is hard to know where to start.

Number one is to break the monopoly that pharmaceutical companies have on treatment of disease. This is number one, because this industry alone siphons off the single largest amount of money from the economy and virtually controls treatment of disease. Insurers are amateurs at making money compares to Pharmaceutical companies. No industry in the world makes more in profits, for no better reason than they have a stranglehold on the system. If the drug or patented treatment is superior than common, cheap non drug treatments, it should be able to compete with the latter on its own merits.

Most pharmaceutical products are isolates from natural substances that do much the same thing for disease, but your doctor is discouraged and even risks their license if he says, "take Fish Oil for your cholesterol imbalance".

This is a ridiculous situation that is perpetuated in most of the developed world, and there is no basis in science for this monopoly other than profits for pharmaceutical companies. Billions in savings would be realized by this one change. What is spent on this area, cannot be used for other areas of health care now. This change would free up the largest amount of money by far.

In Europe, many supplements are slowly being eliminated from the shelves to further the monopoly of drugs for the treatment of disease, and it is trying to be done in the U.S. also. There is no other reason for this other than to lock in profits for drug companies. People need to know why this is being done. It is not for your safety, as supplement use has an enviable record of safety, far better than pharmaceutical products.

That is all for now, but it is the most important change to reduce health care costs, but there are many others also. Current health care reform plans do not even touch this most important area, and that is not by accident.

Dan
 
Totally agree, Bergy. I am well aware of it too, as both my real parents are pharmacists and speak on this too, so I'm familiar with that industry through that and the disease. They have too much sway in Washington, sadly, at this time it would seem...
 
To add to what Dan Bergy already said about pharmaceutical companies...

Can somebody please give me one good reason why it is legal for drug companies to advertise prescription drugs through public channels (e.g. TV, magazine, radio)? Who can possibly benefit from this other than the drug companies?? In my eyes, this multi-billion dollar ad industry has resulted in a society of over-medicated, hypochondriacs who are needlessly cramming doctor's offices and causing my insurance premiums to sky rocket.
 
BWS1982 said:
Look, I think we're all good folks here...

Much of all these concerns were alluded to or addressed in Obama's speech tonight (though I'm sure those who don't like him in the first place will think it's 'more rhetoric' etc per usual) but I want to turn this around and be productive:

What would YOU fellow Americans want to change, sort of like what Fenway did, name it, what do you want different about the healthcare system. Anything at all. Dan M, I'm sure with a growing family, you've encountered SOME imperfection along the lines. Something had to be present, nothing's perfect, and there is always a fault, a crack, in anything in this world. I think thinking of it more in that way will help us understand each other.

I want the idea of "pre-existing conditions" to be obliterated, especially for something out of the control of a patient, like a genetic or "random" characteristic like IBD. I don't want to have a panic attack at the mere thought of losing my job/insurance and needing $500 a month for Cobra coverage, only to never get insurance again. I don't want other IBD sufferers, who've never had insurance, to be unable to get it, fair and square, and thus be lethally penalized for "fate" because of a bad dice roll and a financial barrier.

I want insurance to have competition, I want more competition, so that premiums are not perpetually rising, but falling, like nearly every other industry. There is too much proprietorship at hand, too much monopolization. It should be more of a market driven to gain customers, like the car insurance industry is (just that aspect), so that "rates being lower" is a selling point.

I want there to be an additional reason for companies to increase coverage of stuff, routine exams, etc...and decrease deductibles, by making them compete with something massive. It's profit driven now, they try to find out "how" to deny someone, to get out of it (see Kim and Mike), and if some motivation or deterrent was in place, that would change. This is why a national system, a public option, would help IMO, because it would force them to keep "customers". Maybe even give the insurance companies incentive for their offerings, like with lower deductibles and lower premiums, they get subsidies or tax breaks. SOMETHING has to propel them into helping US out, and stop them from worrying about their bottom line (the percentages Dan M posted do not include actual dollar amounts, leading me to believe that "4% profit margin" is a half truth, but whatever, we all know they are doing well). Getting more customers would net them more money anyways, how is it the auto insurance industry is rampantly seeking growing consumer bases and seeing it pay off, but the health insurance giants don't seem fazed by the wallet raping they do? They need to work like every other business and try to gain customers by good service and competitive pricing. It works for the most profitable companies and banks in the world, it should work for them. It's effed up as it is, and they need to feel a threat for us to shop elsewhere. Right now, they don't so they wallet rape.

I want better prescription coverage. I shouldn't have to pay several hundred SEPARATE dollars to cover a few meds EVERY month, EVEN WITH PRESCRIPTION INSURANCE. That's ridiculous. Motivate the insurance tyrants via incentive or penalty to help people in certain brackets of income so that they can BUY the medicine that will heal them. The system is broke when people can't buy their medicine WITH coverage.

---This was just to start, and I'm groggy, so I'll leave it here for now, there is more, but I wanted to get a different colored ball rolling here.

BTW, Obama mentioned that there would be a 2-decade realization/result with his proposal to cut the deficit by $1 trillion, and not add to it. That's according to the Congressional Budget Office (unbiased), not any Democratic proponents, either.
Click to expand...


You touched on a lot of stuff that I would like to see done, but there are some more.

I want to see laws preventing the sale of health insurance over state lines revoked. This will increase competition and hopefully reduce costs.

I want to see pre-existing conditions to be ignored.

I want doctors, not bureaucrats deciding what treatments should be made.

I want to see tort reform restricting punitive damages in law suits. This will drive down malpractice insurance costs and reduce the number of unnecessary tests doctors do to cover their ass.

I want to see health savings accounts available to everyone, not just high deductible plans. I would like to opportunity to invest in my health just like I invest in my IRA. This way I can have a nest egg in case something really bad happens.

Regarding having the baby... I want to see greater coverage, or coverage period, being offered on more conditions. My wife has PCOS and we probably spent around 10k out of pocket for her drugs that were not covered by insurance. Luckily we got a lot of free meds from the doctor's office, which probably saved us 5-10k easily. I would like to think that the baked goods (I'm classically trained in pastry and baking) I sent with my wife helped us get those free meds.

I am quite happy that pre-natal care is covered 100% as preventative medicine. We need more emphasis on preventative care and get insurance companies to cover them completely.

Now the biggie.....

The biggest drain on our healthcare system is obesity. The CDC estimates that the cost of overweight and obesity related healthcare is $147,000,000,000. 2/3 of Americans are either overweight or obese. We need a national effort to get our lazy fat asses into better shape. We as a country need to eat healthier and smarter and we need to exercise more.

There are more things, but I have a crap load to do, so part II will come later.

Dan

PS, I attached the spreadsheet with the income numbers for the health insurance companies. As much as we would love for them to all be not-for-profit, it will never happen. They need to maintain a profit to grow their companies and to give them a cushion in case they swing to a loss.
 

Attachments

  • Health Insuance Profit Margins.zip
    7.3 KB
Last edited:
DanM said:
You touched on a lot of stuff that I would like to see done, but there are some more.

I want to see laws preventing the sale of health insurance over state lines revoked. This will increase competition and hopefully reduce costs.

I want to see pre-existing conditions to be ignored.

I want doctors, not bureaucrats deciding what treatments should be made.

I want to see tort reform restricting punitive damages in law suits. This will drive down malpractice insurance costs and reduce the number of unnecessary tests doctors do to cover their ass.

I want to see health savings accounts available to everyone, not just high deductible plans. I would like to opportunity to invest in my health just like I invest in my IRA. This way I can have a nest egg in case something really bad happens.

Regarding having the baby... I want to see greater coverage, or coverage period, being offered on more conditions. My wife has PCOS and we probably spent around 10k out of pocket for her drugs that were not covered by insurance. Luckily we got a lot of free meds from the doctor's office, which probably saved us 5-10k easily. I would like to think that the baked goods (I'm classically trained in pastry and baking) I sent with my wife helped us get those free meds.

I am quite happy that pre-natal care is covered 100% as preventative medicine. We need more emphasis on preventative care and get insurance companies to cover them completely.

Now the biggie.....

The biggest drain on our healthcare system is obesity. The CDC estimates that the cost of overweight and obesity related healthcare is $147,000,000,000. 2/3 of Americans are either overweight or obese. We need a national effort to get our lazy fat asses into better shape. We as a country need to eat healthier and smarter and we need to exercise more.

There are more things, but I have a crap load to do, so part II will come later.

Dan

PS, I attached the spreadsheet with the income numbers for the health insurance companies. As much as we would love for them to all be not-for-profit, it will never happen. They need to maintain a profit to grow their companies and to give them a cushion in case they swing to a loss.
Click to expand...
I like a lot these ideas too. Having an HSA would be fantastic. Investing in our own healthcare makes so much sense. Those who aren't sick, just keep investing in your own protection in case something major happens. Or in the case of me and the rest of the sickies, have a way to manage expenses with tax breaks for us.

If the gov't wants to help with the prescriptions.... Help out with the pre-work. Give tax breaks or something while the research is being done for meds. Bring the cost of research down, the cost of drugs go down.

Having pre-existing conditions suck. Especially since no one wants to help because they know the cost goes up for them. I like that idea very much.

Insurance competition across state lines would help out for sure. It will force the companies to start looking out for us with the money being used.

There is still a lot of things that can be done. I hope it all happens.
 
Same here, Call it what you will.... I want something better just not what the gov't tells me I have to have
 
Well at this point, the insurance tyrants and pharma companies have a stronghold and are well fortified. One sentiment I have is that the gov is the only one to take them down and do these things we're listing, I see "them" as the good guys in this only because they're the only ones powerful enough, and out of personal choices (which are just mine) I am with the man behind that strike force and I believe in his ideals. I understand not all agree with his approach however, but otherwise we're all on the same page here, we all see the broken ways that aren't working. All these center around cost, it seems, as well...which also tells me we agree on that too.
 
lol.

That's a whole other can of tape worms...abortion, religion, the mother of Jesus.

How about this for those who aren't religiously sensitive (warning): Jesus didn't rise from the dead, Chuck Norris went back in time, moved the boulder and let Jesus out of the cave on the third day. Just so there would be a Bible Belt full of faithful viewers for Walker: Texas Ranger.

(My brother watched that show all the time when it was new)
 
All in good taste. I have plenty of moments of self deprecating humor myself, so I spread it pretty well. I'm Christian as well, just one who's very troubled and lost a lot of faith...

Here's a lighter couple I'll write: Chuck Norris didn't want the cure for cancer. Cancer heard about him and cured itself.

Chuck Norris did have Crohn's for a total of 30 minutes. His immune system found out it had to attack his body inside, and decided against it. Norris no longer has Crohn's.

lol
 
BWS1982 said:
lol.

That's a whole other can of tape worms...abortion, religion, the mother of Jesus.

How about this for those who aren't religiously sensitive (warning): Jesus didn't rise from the dead, Chuck Norris went back in time, moved the boulder and let Jesus out of the cave on the third day. Just so there would be a Bible Belt full of faithful viewers for Walker: Texas Ranger.

(My brother watched that show all the time when it was new)
Click to expand...
O..M..G..that is funny Benz. I'm sending that to my religious aunt and Mom...they will love it.


@Dan....you are killing me!! I read your part about being a classically trained pastry chef (which raised my eye brow - never would have guessed it!) and I (or should I say my sweet tooth) was imagining all the great stuff you must make - THEN you drop the obesity bomb!! I immediately felt bad for all the wonderful imaginings I was having and decided I needed to get my fat ass on the treadmill LOL!!!
 
Last edited:
Competition between insurers across state lines is a good idea, that can be done in an instant.

If there is to be a requirement to carry insurance, it should be only for major medical. It should also be done on a state by state basis such as what Massachusetts has done.

The reason is two fold. A Federal requirement is unconstitutional and so is Medicare and Social Security. I do not know how they ever got passed to begin with. The constitution expressly gives the federal government limited powers, and neither of these even comes close to being legal.

The state however does have the authority to do this, and so it should be done legally by the states. States are also closer to their constituents, so each state can fit their plan to the needs of their state. States are generally more responsible that the Federal Government and do not routinely run up unsupportable deficits.

By people paying out of pocket for minor problems and routine visits, it keeps costs down by providing competition for routine services. It also prevents abuse of the system. If someone cannot pay because of a financial problem, there can be organizations to help that person out. Preventative services, that have been proven to reduce future costs or illnesses can be part of the insurance package, but nothing else.

Legal organizations of most any kind should be able to form insurance pools to buy insurance at a group rate. Any government paid insurance should bought on a competitive bid from a private insurance company, or multiple companies.

The monopoly of the AMA also needs to be broken up. The AMA is a doctors organization that exists for the benefit of the doctor, not the patient. The AMA will often put the needs of the doctor ahead of the patients needs.

The AMA also works against any doctor that uses alternative methods for treatment. Since I know from personal use that some of these work, and even work better than standard treatments, I do not see any reason for this restriction. Instead, there needs to be another organization for those who practice alternative or complimentary treatments that is on par with the AMA. In another words, a doctor should not have to risk his or her license because they are using IV vitamin C to control a deadly Flu reaction instead of Tamiflu. Especially since there is more evidence that the later is more effective, and no evidence that the former does anything at all.

There needs to be a third organization that is totally independent to study the outcomes of all treatments. There is fraud on both sides of the fence, and it is not impossible to measure the results of most treatments.

Until we get away from political medicine, we all overpay and suffer for it.

The biggest overall problems are the lack of competition between pharmaceuticals products and non pharma treatments.

No competition between conventional and alternative treatments. The fact that the word alternative even exists proves this point. There is only effective and ineffective treatments. They do not follow one brand of medicine or the other.

Not enough competition between insurers, and over reliance on insurance. Insurance was designed to prevent devastating losses from major catastrophes, not routine expenses. If you have insurance for every conceivable doctor visit, you will abuse it. That is just human nature.

If you had insurance for your groceries, would you be checking prices? Would you buy more expensive food? Would you buy food you may not even eat, but end up throwing out? Of course you would.

Dan
 
BWS1982 said:
All in good taste. I have plenty of moments of self deprecating humor myself, so I spread it pretty well. I'm Christian as well, just one who's very troubled and lost a lot of faith...

Here's a lighter couple I'll write: Chuck Norris didn't want the cure for cancer. Cancer heard about him and cured itself.

Chuck Norris did have Crohn's for a total of 30 minutes. His immune system found out it had to attack his body inside, and decided against it. Norris no longer has Crohn's.

lol
Click to expand...
Now that is totally hilarious! That one was so good!!!! lol
 
Technically something passed, but no one understands what was passed or when it will be implemented, including those politicians that endorsed it. So we are off to a typical start.

Several states are challenging mandatory health insurance dictated by the Federal Government as unconstitutional, which it is. It may will go to the supreme court at some point.

In practice today, nothing has changed that I am aware of.

Dan
 
I hope you don't mind me asking questions.

Why don't you know what was passed? What is the process that makes it this way?

If the changes that were originally outlined were passed how difficult or easy is it for a change of government to overturn them? Or do you think once they are implemented the opposition incoming government wont want to change them?

Dusty.
 
Here is one paragraph of the 2,309 page bill. I think you can see why no one knows what it is, or when it can be put into practice.

PREMIUM TAX CREDITS.—Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 1401 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and amended by section 10105 of such Act, is amended ... in subsection (c)(2)(C) ... by striking ‘‘(b)(3)(A)(iii)’’ in clause and inserting ‘‘(b)(3)(A)(ii)’’.

My paperback book of "War & Peace" by Tolstoy is 1,409 pages long compared to the Health care bills 2,309 pages. It took me quite a while just to read War & Peace. I can't imagine understanding it as an instructional manual written like the above paragraph.

Why do we pass things that are not understood? That is the Federal Governments way of doing things. It will certainly have several revisions over time, if it is not scrapped altogether. That much was known ahead of time.

We have a saying over here, that is put into practice far too often. "Do something, even if it is wrong". Time will tell if it is right or wrong.

We will just have to wait and see what happens.

Dan
 
OK, so is it at all possible to get major reform through Federally, in something that resembles what was initially intended, in one term of office??

Dusty.
 
Well, it is passed, but it will be challenged. It is possible to do it, but it is probably not the way it should be done.

Assuming it survives the constitutional challenges, and is not repealed in the future, it has been done. Nobody knows what might happen in the future, but it was not supported by the majority of the public, so there could be a back lash.

I should say, there already is a back lash, by way of constitutional government groups forming around the nation. It is not a huge movement at this time, but there was no such organized movement a couple of years ago.

I do not know how it will all play out, but there does seem to be a "back to constitutional government" movement that is gaining ground quickly over here. We will see what happens in the next elections.

Dan
 
I know I am picking the eyes out of this thread but there are a couple of points I would like to make:

1. Please don't confuse universal health care with socialised health care. Socialised is an American term for government health care that tends to have negative connotations.

2. Because one lives in a country with a universal health care system it does not mean that the government controls our lives. We essentially have the same freedoms you do.

3. Reference was made to Prostate survival rates quoting 90% for the US and 60% for the UK after 10 years. The implication here is that universal health care has inferior outcomes. In Australia, according the the Cancer Council, 10 year survival rates for prostate cancer are 93%.

I am merely making these points to try and clear up some misconceptions. ;)

Dusty. :)
 
I think the US system is better for those with good insurance but inferior for those without it. They can still get treatment but the added stress of impossibly high med. bills is too much to bear. A truly market based insurance industry cannot afford to insure chronic patients!!! It's as simple as that!!! The solution is the quasi-social system we already have ie. medi-caid and medi-care which our govt. has shown such wonderful ability to manage....lmao!!!! Is Australia's universal system solvent???
 
I don't think that the word Socialised or more to the root of the word Socialism, is necessarily thought of as a bad word over here. It represents a different form of interaction with a central authority which would be the federal government in our case.

We have Social Security, which is a Socialist type of government program. You really can't get around a government managed retirement account or medical program being anything else but socialist. By definition that is what it is. You can call it universal health care, but if it is managed by the central authority it is a socialist program by its structure. I do not think that is good or bad or anything in between. It is a system, and it has to be interpreted by the people it is serving.

In one country it is an accepted part of the system. In our country, we really have no legal provision of a socialist system stemming from the Federal government. The states do have more latitude on what power they have as they are more direct representatives of the peoples will. The limit on Federal powers was deliberately put into place by our founders, to prevent abuse and authoritarianism.

Since our founders could not anticipate every and all future circumstances, they also put into place procedures for changing the constitution if the need arises. It has been done before, and there is nothing wrong with doing so, if it is the will of the people.

What is not acceptable to many in our country is to ignore the constitutional power limitation, and just go around it, or ignore it all together. If we are going to change the operating principle of our country, then it needs to be done in the way laid out in the constitution. Otherwise it becomes a dead document, of no value to the very citizens it is designed to protect.

The issue of socialized medicine or universal health care consists of two points in my mind.

Is socialized or universal health care a good idea? There are many views on this, and it is a matter of opinion more than being a factual matter.

2. Does the Federal government have the authority to impose it on its citizens?

In my opinion, it does not. Why is this an important question? If one part of the constitution can be ignored, than any part of the constitution can be ignored by precedent. And the precedent that will be used for this massive change will be the Social Security program we already have. If that argument is accepted, than we really have no constitutional protections, as it has no practical power.

Rightly or wrongly, the majority of the people did not want this. If we are a self ruling people than it should not have occurred. We do not elect people to make such fundamental decisions for us, but to carry on the will of the people, and administer that will. The fact that it did happen points to the very Authoritarianism that was to be stopped by the constitution. Even if the will of the people would have been in favor of this, it would have required an amendment to the constitution to provide for expanded powers of the Federal government to accommodate it.

What we have, is an end run around the constitution instead of using the proper procedure of an amendment.

Whether you think this form of health care is, or is not, a good idea is only one aspect of problem many people have with it. They simply want legal reform, and not what is perceived as an dictate from the Federal government, that has no authority to do so.

Universal health care may be right, or it may be wrong, but either way, it should be up to the people to decide, not the government doing what it perceives to be in our best interest.

It basically comes down to a Ron Paul quote.

Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.

That is what it boils down to in my mind.

Dan
 
Very well said Dan. Very well said.

The constitution is not a dead document. Its a living breathing document than can be amended thru the proper channels. The problem that I believe most citizens over here now is that currently the administration in power wants to use the it when it suits them or what they would like to accomplish regardless of what our "republic" not a democracy wants. Universal Healthcare in reality can not work here in the current form. Its just way to expensive. The debt that the US is racking up from just this administration's first 18 months is 2.5 trillion dollars. To put that into perspective for you in the first 200 years of our country the debt was racked up to 2.1 trillion dollars. Thru two world wars, numerous other wars and even a cold war.

I have two incurable diseases, Crohn's and Diabetes. I am like 70% of the citizens, I do not agree with the healthcare bill. Like Dan stated, it's over 2,000 pages long. Our president and congress didn't even know what's in it. The president came on tv stating you'll know what's in it once its passed. Explain to me that logic. In a republic we elect representatives to vote for us. When a majority of the population does not want it. Something is wrong here. Now because of this, a lot of my friends and family will be paying more for insurance because the insurance still has to make money in order to survive. Its not fair to the rest of the population. I have what's coined high risk insurance. Its not major medical but it sure helps people like me. I was on a partial medic-aid for a few months and was treated like garbage because I couldn't afford insurance. I got meds, but no real help because I couldn't see a GI and the GI I had treated me as a number. Now I have some insurance again, I'm getting the treatment I need again to get out of this flare I have been in for almost a year.

People come to the US for medical care all around the world because we have some the very best doctors and treatments. I'm actually scared to think what'll happen to us after our socialized medicine kicks in. I've talked to numerous people from around the globe on here and they do not like the way they are treated with universal/ socialized medicine. They are given the run around and have to have multiple procedures done because the cost is absolutely enormous. So they from what I understand they deal with it because they have too. I am proud to say I am an American citizen, and I deserve the best healthcare I can get because of that. Doctors know what's going on here, not to say their aren't good doctors anywhere else in the world, we have some of the leading researchers on it right now.

One of things that makes our country the greatest in the world is we have that freedom to change what we don't believe in or agree with. There is an enormous amount of backlash going on right now over the healthcare bill and other things because the government thinks they know better than me and I'm happy to report they most certainly do not. Things will change. That is my prayer.

Man it feels good to back on here commenting again. Its been a while.
 
I'm going to say this respectfully to them, but to DustyKat, I wholeheartedly disagree with my countrymen (politics, they'll know why):

Many of us are fine with the concept that passed and is on the conveyor belt (that is what was explained already 6+ months ago, it is a timeline, not a light switch). I don't know of any such "majority" against it or misunderstanding about what passed, but whatever, people have their own perspective. Hey, it's who you talk to and what you read. There IS a vocal group who is still shouting about it and have retreated to the apparent safety of "well, George Washington and the patriots would have opposed this"...and again, I say this with respect, as you can see above, but, misinformation is a virus this year (came back stronger, too). I've lost my patience with the Tea Party agenda (=extremists), so I'm sorry, this nostalgic thread digs up open and sore wounds for me, because it's extremely emotional for me to encounter such mindsets as "you don't deserve help, you deserve sickness, let the rich get the tax breaks", so right now I'm writing in a hurtful state.

I feel things are/were so deplorable and pathetic, that the goals being implemented (it is not a flipped switch, as was originally outlined long ago) are already giving some of us hope. The last two years, WITH INSURANCE, I spent roughly 1 in $7-9 on medical expenses. I work in a field where I speak with thousands of people who are on the brink of bankruptcy and medical/financial devastation, and rapport is there. Did you know the number one reason for bankruptcy in America is medical debt? What good is a debt-free country full of bankrupt and sick citizens? And how is it that the happiest nations, by poll, are in Europe, where Socialized Medicine exists? Why is it that other nations question why we fight over this? Let's not think about it, we might solve a problem.

But, it's sad that what may happen is the insurance companies will win, again, and we'll still be ******, again, and the rich will get richer, again. If it doesn't change enough and I just get more sick in the years ahead, as I said, I will be forced to flee my own country for superior healthcare. Not necessarily because of superior quality, but because of superior lines of thinking and implementation. I can't afford ignorance, plain and simple. I won't go bankrupt because people don't possess foresight. I'm sorry, but if mass misinformation, slurs, scare tactics and smear campaigns get the better of a majority and that perspective gains enough traction, I don't want to be a part of any "new" nation at that point and will be fine leaving anyways. It would feel like the death of America, and the knife is already being sharpened. No healthcare to those in need? That selfish and heartless mentality is NOT the "American Way" but some people are all for it because "the government isn't allowed to control us". I just don't get it. I'm tired of intolerance, bigotry and tunnel vision dictating the course of the country that used to be so great. Soon it'll be about anarchy and arrogance and survival of the richest, and George Washington would be appalled.

I'm on a rant here because I've seen nothing but spewed racist/hateful/deceptive garbage come out of areas of the political realm ever since Obama got elected. Obama-Hitler billboards, claims that our President is a terrorist, or not a real US Citizen. Death threats. All to show "disapproval"...I'm sorry, but you'd NEVER see that from any Democrats, no matter how extreme. McCain was teased about his age. Harmless. Obama? Let's go for the jugular and then piss down his throat, he has it coming for wanting to make a difference. I've seen nothing but opposition to everything rather than suggestions for something. It's tiresome. Obama could have the cure for cancer, but people would call it an Islamic devil cure and vow he's trying to convert us with socialist voodoo. But wait, then George Washington and the Constitution would approve of such a claim...it's the American Way.

Sorry, this really hurts.

Edit: allow an illustration, or a Cliff Notes, rather:

health-reform-powell-editorial_cartoon33.jpg
 
Last edited:
BW, In the last year, I have gone from being completely in accord with Dan and Mike to having much softened approach to this debate. I can still see the constitutional arguments as paramount. On those grounds, there is no debate to be had!!! It's as simple as that!!! A universal system that requires private citizens to buy health-care is unconstitutional. There is no argument with that!!

However, this debate must take into account people like my son. And this is my fear!! How will he ever have any quality of life if he is constantly worried about unpaid medical bills? How will he ever get quality health insurance with two serious pre-existing conditions? I never had to consider him before when I made my arguments opposing all federally mandated hc options. Now, unfortunately, I do!! It's no longer a constitutional argument for me, it's completely personal!! I hope there will at least be reform enough that medical bills won't be the biggest issue in his adult life, whatever form that may take.
 
I've never previously specifically involved myself in the argument for or against mandated health insurance, I've simply supported the idea of reforming things over opposing everything that's laid on the table, and there's only one group laying things on the table (the other seems to be dismantling the legs of the table). The well being and health of a country's citizenship is more important than a debt that can be paid off in time. Dead citizens can't pay taxes. But if I bring the topic of a mandate up now I find much argument, how is it any different than me being required to buy car insurance, BY LAW? Where were the Tea Party folks then? Bush's ranch? Honestly, I find it beyond naive to be without health insurance or car insurance or home owners insurance...but...

Respectfully, I therefore don't buy the "Constitution" card any more than I'd buy an 8 of clubs, but that's my own view...I understand everyone's entitled to a view on something this deep.

I hope your son sees better days than we could be headed for or than what a lot of us been through.
 
Last edited:
The requirement to buy car insurance is state law, not Federal. The state does have the authority to do this, so it is not a constitutional issue. Not all states have the mandatory insurance law, but they do all require that you have the ability to pay for damage to someone else's property in the event of an accident.

If the Federal government required car insurance, it would be a different matter.

Dan
 
Another difference in car insurance vs. health insurance...you can choose not to own a car.
 
I've been somewhat on the fence about the mandate (see below, skipping insurance is stupid to me), as I'm not mindless about the initiative, but I'll take that fence sitting since the broader picture is immensely prettier. But remember, if you require so, you get money to buy insurance, so the requirement to "purchase" becomes moot.

In a case of state vs. federal, a state cannot silence the freedom of speech or ban the right to bear arms. A state cannot override anything federal in any such manner, so how is it that Illinois Republicans are not fighting car insurance mandates all over the airwaves and rooftops? Why aren't other states' Republicans fighting a comparable law with similar defamation or obstructions? It doesn't make sense, I will always believe it's a political agenda, nothing more. Yes, a car isn't required. Even so, for the sake of argument, how can you leverage the point of view that citizens should avoid health insurance when it's, more or less, ignorant? Simply because there should inherently be a right to be smart or ignorant?

It's ignorant to drive/ride without a seat belt, but the law has precedent to enforce that (including IL, again) and give tickets for infractions. Is this "unconstitutional", because it's someone's prerogative to eject themselves through a broken windshield at 68 MPH? Sometimes, people are not wise enough to deserve certain options/choices so babysitting comes in, I'm sorry to say. We shouldn't have to fine people for being stupid (although from a business standpoint the market is viable). The fact that some of the general populace is defiant enough and idiotic enough to drive around with a death wish and the government, like a mother, has to step in and say "buckle up" is sad.

I do, however concede, that this nation was founded on freedom, the freedom to do and then justify many actions, no matter how naive, ignorant and reckless they may be.

I still disagree with the perspective (always will), but agree with the good intentions I know good people have. As it stands now, we have less control/freedom with the insurance companies raping us, so I don't foresee any loss of liberties. I don't subscribe to the "stealing our rights" view. With healthcare, we have none right now. What is being touted as a theft of freedom is actually liberation for many, remember.

I don't intend to change your minds, and I sure hope you don't intend to change mine. I want to clear the air with any misconceptions or one-sided perspectives presented (internationally) that America, in an entirety, feels the reform passage is a mistake. MANY here support it with our lives, because it will return the favor one day.
 
I am not saying universal heath insurance is a good or bad idea in itself. That certainly depends on each individual situation. It also depend on how well it is run.

If a state wants to pursue that agenda that is within it right, as the people in that state will vote on that issue. We had no vote on the current version.

The seat belt law is a perfect example of the state doing what is good for you, overriding your right to make your own decisions. They have an pretty solid argument for having to wear one in a car with passengers. Because by you not wearing one, you pose a danger to others, and your rights are infringing on someone else s health in practice.

Why does someone have to wear one while alone? Does the state have a right to decide this for you? I do not think so. It is only going to directly affect you, and not always for the worse. We had a pickup that got smashed in the back in our area. The cab of the truck was pushed in the back, and the seat belt killed the driver by suffocation.

Did the state have the right to make this decision for this person? In this case, and I am certain it does not happen often, the person was killed, likely because of the law. Certainly the state is not going to accept liability for him, because of the law. These are the situations you get into when the government decides what is good for you. Why would anyone want to give up any right they have now, no matter how minor, for someone else to decide?

If someone wants to risk being thrown from the car in a collision, what right does anyone else have to say they can't? Who is directly affected by that decision? I do not want the government making any decisions for me, because they are not always right, and they certainly are not doing it our of the love of their child, as a Mother would.
Often enough, they are doing it in the interest of a corporation, not the citizens.

All you have to do is think of who benefits most from a seat belt law. There is a financial incentive to certain groups to enact this law, and others, and it is not always done for your benefit.

The motorcycle helmet law is another example. I wear a helmet most of the time, but sometimes I do not. When it is ninety degrees out and humid, it is unbearable to wear a helmet. I am somewhat sensitive to high heat, due to having to work in extreme heat in the past. Is it up to the state to decide that in spite of the danger of a heat stroke, I have to wear a helmet? It may save someone else's life, but it may cost me mine if I pass out. The law does not make exception for extenuating circumstances. Who is better suited to make that decision, and who suffers the direct consequences. I do, therefore it should be my decision to make.

Luckily we no longer have a state helmet law for adults, but that is only because it was fought vigorously by motorcyclists. People die because there is no law, but that the risk the person decided to take. My wife had more influence over me wearing a helmet than anything else. I really would rather die than have a broken neck because of the helmet. She sees it differently.

It is always about freedom of choice in the U.S. It is what this country was founded on, and I do not know why I would want to give that up. I do not think trading freedom for security or financial gain is a good deal.

Dan
 
I believe it is a fine line to walk between wanting security and free choice. Usually when something bad happens people shoot outta the cupboards wondering "why didn't they prevent this, someone should have done something" but then people also wanna do what they want to do. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

But then accepting the loss of security would most generally mean having to take responsibility for laziness and failures at a personal level. People most generally wanna displace the blame and its easier to have a government to come in and fix or prevent than to self-enforce. You can't get without giving.

This country was also founded on capitalism... and not wanting a financial gain contradicts that principle.

My last thought. Which is merely a thought, don't go burning me here. But is a 200+ year old document (the constitution and such) written for the technology and ideas of those times right for a society of today's caliber?

I don't have an opinion... just throwing in all the theoretical and contradictory ideas I studied in college. ;)
 
Edit: this is towards Dan

I agree with the support of freedom, however, I think you speak about not only extenuating circumstances, but extreme ones. Those are sad cases, but I would think statistically, such an event as the seat belt one is so unlikely you cannot make any argument to undermine the intent of the law. There is part of me that thinks "hey, just let them not wear anything, it's survival of the fittest, and if they go, it's one less of them" but not all of those who don't wear one are doing so with negligence. It could be an emergency and they didn't think to put it on speeding on the way to a hospital, etc...

In what way does wearing a seat belt have any financial gain to other parties, I can't fathom that? I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I'd wager a bet that seat belts have saved at least 100 people (if not far more) for any one they've killed (airbags are another issue).

In the case of you wearing your helmet (or not) in such heat, that is your own choice, and sadly you'd have to do what you feel is the lesser of evils. That may garner you a ticket, but you'd be paying a ticket as an exception. You'd have lived in a chaos theory, where more of a fluke was involved, not the standard. In the big picture, that is again, the exception and not so much a rule. In larger numbers, such concepts as seat belts and helmets are still winning by a large margin in the life-saving game (despite points being scored against them in some tragic cases once in a while).

Here's what I don't get still: If in this hybrid system we institute an alternative insurance, a competitor to private insurance, then that is more competition, that is more coverage (and med costs "should" go down because providers won't have to constantly swallow the costs of the uninsured), and that is more choice. That to me is more freedom. You talked about how the gov could be doing something in the "interest" of a corporation--that is a transcendent concern...and the crux of the entire problem with private insurance right now is it's not just in their interest, it's in their dictation. They are the gods of our healthcare. They hold all the cards and all the keys, they make medical decisions for us based on business sense. I find little freedom in that.
 
Last edited:
katiesue1506 said:
But is a 200+ year old document (the constitution and such) written for the technology and ideas of those times right for a society of today's caliber?
Click to expand...

This, especially. I don't disregard the document or its ideals or the new paradigm it created for free nations, but basing how we live, think, breathe and eat (was there a poop clause too?) solely on it is not going to always work. Remember what roles blacks and women had back then. The evolution of our society, our hopes, our challenges and our enemies, and the new facets of our lives have perpetually created the need for us to reanalyze its contents and perspectives. That is why there are amendments, after all.
 
Last edited:
The constitution changes through amendments. It still is a living breathing document.

Benson I do respect you very much and I understand where we disagree in politics, but the founding fathers did intend for the states to have more power than the federal government. That is why there is all this controversy over healthcare, the AZ immigration law etc. States can decide what they feel is best for their citizens. If the citizens don't like it, they can vote with their feet and move to another state.

There are a lot of laws that I think are a little extreme but I get the gist of what they are wanting to do. But I believe it should be up to the states to regulate those type of laws. These are the seventeen enumerated powers to the Congress according to Article I, section 8 of the Constitution:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
"To borrow money on the credit of the United States;"
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
"To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;"
"To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;"
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
"To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;"
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;"
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
"To provide and maintain a Navy;"
"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"
"And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Because the founding fathers were concerned about how this would be interpreted they added the Tenth Amendment, which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I don't see anywhere in there that states the federal government must force it citizens to purchase healthcare in order to be considered a citizen.

Please remember I do respect everyone on here and I do not intend to upset anyone with opposite views if you share those.
 
I guess my point about the state was that the state of Idaho, for example, cannot have the power to eliminate the freedom of the press. Certain authority is designated to the Feds and certain power lies more locally, and I think we voted for this overhaul in November 2008. He ran on a platform of such change, and against much resistance, did what he said he would. Even if he retracted that promise and ditched reform, I think that conservatives would then be complaining about what he didn't do, even though they are against it. He's wrong no matter what.

You're right that there isn't an item listing healthcare, but that's probably because at the time the concept of copays and deductibles and modern insurance were yet to be conceived. :)

I guess it's just a disagreement on how flexible we feel the foundation of the country was meant to be or is. Interpretation issues. If we adhered to too much of it, there'd still be slaves outside my apartment tending the garden and my fiancee couldn't vote, but without it, we'd be ordered how to worship or dress. The battle lies in the middle, I suppose.

Likewise, I like and respect you Mike. You're a great guy, and I love your sense of humor. Dan Bergy is a friend, too, and I just met Dex. I'd rather just walk away and keep friends than to sever friendships.
 
The constitution is deliberately general enough to apply today as well as in the past. It is a document of principles that are not made obsolete by time. The right to self determination is one of its principles. Whether I wear my seat belt, want to live in a crime ridden neighborhood, or eat a diet that is not particularly healthy, or drink myself into oblivion, are all risky behaviors that we all make choices on.

My example of the man who was killed by the seat belt is extreme. It rarely happens, but the fact that his life was terminated by the law was probably important to him. Maybe he decided to wear it because he felt safer, we do not know. Does the government have the right to sacrifice a few, so more can, in theory, be alive today? Why get into that can of worms, when everyone has the ability to put one on anyway? No one cares about this law except the financially interested parties, or people who are intent on forcing their will on us, because they are far smarter than the little people.

Does anyone want the government to prepare your diet based what they perceive to be healthy? If you do not comply, you will be fined of course. It is no different than the seat belt debate. I can very easily make the argument that your or my crappy diet costs society money, does you harm, and find "science" to support that conclusion. Does that make this a good idea, even though it is for your own good? Why or why not? If that is not a good idea, then why is the seat belt law a good one? What is the difference?

If the government wants to put out a public service campaign on the benefit of wearing a seat belt, or eating healthy, I am fine with that. When the boot gets stuck on my throat, I am automatically against it.

The intent of the seat belt law is to control your behavior. No one is going to convince me that the government is more concerned with my life than I am. Or that they know what is best for me. Who gains from this. Insurance companies gained huge amounts of money from the enactment of the seat belt laws. Less injuries, less money to pay on claims. It does not get any simpler than that. The auto insurance industry does many of the car crash testing, and rates the safety of cars based on this. They are not doing it for humanitarian reasons, they do it to shift their costs to auto manufacturers by making safer cars. It is not about us.

Should we ban motorcycles, hang gliders, mountain climbing because it is in those peoples best interest to not allow them to pursue risky hobbies? It is the next logical step, if we start going down the path of ends justify the means. It will save lives without question. Is it always about saving lives, or money, or is there some things that rise above that argument?

That is always the argument for these encroachments. They cost society money or lives. I will look out after my own life, and if my freedom costs society money, or my life, it is money and a life well spent, as it assures your freedom also.

Who decides how much your freedom of choice is worth? There is always someone willing to tell you how you should live your life. Luckily, most of the time we can decide for ourselves. That is not a future guarantee.

Trial lawyers, certainly gained huge amounts of money as a result of mandatory liability insurance, now that every person involved in an accident has very deep pockets to dip into for any auto related lawsuit. The front page of my phone book has trial lawyers right on the cover advertising for auto accident claims. Nothing could have been better for them than mandatory liability insurance. It was not done for us.

The point is that these laws are not there to help you. They may help you incidentally, they may not, but it is not about us, it is about whoever gains from it. That may be hard to swallow, but more often than not, that is why they exist.

I have been around longer than many here, but in both cases, there was no public outcry for reform in either of these areas. If the public did not have a problem with the past system, who then did make it an issue? I have never known anyone who has an emotional attachment to the seat belt law. No one has ever said "thank goodness the government finally did something about this seat belt problem". They either wear it or they don't. Mandatory auto insurance is also a non issue for most anyone. Most people never even were aware of the issue, until it became law.

The constitution did not regard blacks as property. It was a perversion of interpretation that led to that. By not classifying them as "men" it was made not to apply to them. It sounds absurd now, but that is what happens when you pervert the meaning of the document, as it is perverted today.

The constitution can be amended, and rightly has been amended when needed. If we need an amendment now, then it should be done lawfully the same way it was done in the past. I have no problem with that. To ignore it is not wise. It was put there to prevent enslavement of the population. People are not immune to that today, any more than in the past.

The best example of risky behavior that is unquestionably unhealthy is smoking. There is no debate about it, and no one can make a reasonable argument that it is anything else but unhealthy.

And yet for all of the evidence that it benefits almost nobody, no one has banned tobacco products. This should be a lock. I wonder why this most glaring inconsistency exists today? It would save more lives and money than any single other issue, and yet it is still here. You would think if it was about our health and the governments concern about us, it would have been done 30 years ago.

Can anyone think of any reason that in spite of the overwhelming good it would do, why this has not been done? If it is about us, then it would have been. I am not advocating it be outlawed, only that if it was about the government being really concerned about us, it would have been done already. It is about the money, and who it benefits.

My darn post is so long, I had to break it up into two posts. I think that may be a record. Please see part two.

Dan
 
Health insurance is the problem from what I can determine. I make a good living off processing insurance claims. We own a medical billing service. We are middle men that serve no purpose other than force insurers to pay what they owe to doctors, or patients. We are one middle man, of many. It is so complex to get paid, doctors pay us to do it for them.

Insurers are also a middle man. They serve no purpose other than to spread risk, take a good chunk of money for their service, and pay whoever is owed.

There are also companies called gatekeepers. They lie between the insurance company and us. They are paid basically to try to deny claims by any method they can dream up. They are paid by insurers to do this. Not all or even most insurers use a gatekeeper, but some do.

Between us and the gatekeeper and the insurance company is the clearing house. They forward claims to each insurer in the correct electronic format. We either pay them for the service, or the insurer.

This is as simple as it gets with insurance. All of these middle men get paid, even though non of it helps your or my heath one bit.

I do not think insurance is a bad thing. It becomes bad when it is used for everyday routine stuff. Insurance was developed for devastating loses, not everyday expenses.

Most all of our health care problems would go away with a few simple steps. not politically simple, but simple in concept.

Eliminate all employer paid health insurance that is anything more than for major medical. We cannot outlaw individuals from buying whatever they want, but most are not going to buy anything else anyway.

This forces market changes in pricing for routine health care. It also eliminates all middle men from the brunt of health care costs, including our business, and all insurers, gatekeepers, clearing houses, etc. The cost of health care would automatically drop as now every consumer is in charge of spending their money wisely. Only consumers have a chance of evaluating what their health care is worth. The health care facility also is no longer paying all the middlemen, getting you the most for your money. Nothing makes a transaction cheaper than paying it with cash.

Eliminate the need for a referral to a specialist. Get rid of the GP middle man when you have a specific problem. I cannot even estimate the amount of wasted time and money, I have spent with a GP for Crohn's.

Eliminate pharmaceutical companies lock on treatment of disease. The FDA plays a big role in this. They are nothing more than advocates for Pharmaceutical companies today. They are largely funded directly by them. The FDA is probably the most corrupt organization of them all.

There are far cheaper and even more effective methods of treatment, that have both the science and the studies that can be implemented today. Vitamin D alone can save billions in future health care costs, but no one is selling vitamin D to the doctor. Luckily, some of my doctors are up to speed on this. Most are not.

Break the AMA grip on doctors. The AMA is a special interest group that often hinders the advancement of medicine. They have deliberately squashed medical advancements in the past. They have already done irreparable harm to medicine.

Major medical insurance can be purchased by anyone who wants to buy it. More companies can afford major medical insurance, and so can more individuals. If there are people who cannot afford it, then this is where the state government comes into it.

State government simply changes the law to allow anyone who wants to buy major medical insurance, to have that ability regardless of any previous conditions. Insurers are only obligated to spend x amount of money per year one any one patient. After that thresh hold is met, the state picks up the balance. The insurers liability is limited, and this takes much of the risk off of the insurance companies back.

Those that cannot afford major medical insurance, will get it paid for in part by the state. It is important that most people do not to get it for 100% free. I see directly how this works in reality, and it does not work well.

One important point of this, is that by paying for routine expenses out of pocket, you have 100% choice of who and where you go. It is competitive like any other business. Market forces will drive costs to its lowest possible point. The lack of middle men such as myself, makes nearly 100% of your money go toward something useful. Hard to bash myself, but that is why I know the system, and why it does not work.

A new independent commission of cheap, natural, out of favor, and alternative treatments. Doctors and researchers need a method to prove or disprove their methods. I use a few of these methods, and they are cheap effective treatment methods that lack the ability to be proven in scientific manner because they are cheap.

There is no one with the resources to test them.The state government needs to have an independent commission to decide what and how to test these methods that have the ability to save billions of dollars in future health care money. There needs to be a firewall between this commission, and the FDA and AMA. These groups are largely corrupt and have way to much influence in medicine, and much of it is not in our best interest. We need honest, unbiased research to get to effective treatments, not more profitable ones. This is imperative to reasonable future health care costs.

Probably my longest post ever, but this is not a simple matter, but it is not unresolvable either. The solutions offered so far, only can make the problem worse, because they do not address the problem of the middle men, and unnecessary complexity.

There are many finer points, but in general, this puts things on a more sustainable path that can result in both improvement, and cost reduction of health care.

Take it for what it is worth, and thanks for all of the thoughtful discussion. I read all of it, and it makes me think, which is not a bad thing. I always learn something new also.

Dan
 
Geez Dan, have you thought about this a little?:). You obviously know the answer to your tobacco question is $$$$$. As I was reading your post, Michelle Obama appeared on the news touting the benefits of healthy diet. Being Fox news, they were showing the pres in the background stuffing his face with hot dogs and hamburgers. Can you imagine how deep the pockets of the fast-food industry lobbyists could be. Hmmm, let's create our next crisis and point the finger at McD's and KFC. Can you say payday!!!

It's all about $$$!!!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top