patrick.net

Honest Abe says

4X - I believe you have things backwards. The arch-conservatives, as you call them, are patriots defending the attacks on America’s constitutional rights and freedoms. They recognize that supporting the constitution is supporting America. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of choice (aka - the free market), the right to bear arms, the right to keep the fruits of your own labor, etc, etc, etc, are all constantly under attack.
The arch-conservatives as you label them are the defenders of America’s liberty and freedom. They understand sound money is a benefit to freedom, and fiat currency is a liability. They know gun prohibition schemes, and “gun control” proceeded every major genocide of the 20th Century [Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership www.jpfo.org]. They know centralized “total government” programs have have had miserable, selfish and violent masters. Read the stories of those who survived under the regimes of Stalin, Mussolini, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and others…that should tell you everything you need to know about centralized planing and centralized government.
Its not possible to lose your civil liberties but keep your freedom. Patriots know that abiding by the constitution is the best way to maintain freedom. The easiest way to determine if a proposed change is legitimate, or not, is to ask yourself “where is this proposal authorized by our consitution?” Yes, I said OUR constitution…the basic, underlying law of America.
The fruther removed we become from following our own law(s)…the more our country stumbles. The “arch-conservatives” LOVE our country, but dislike the direction that freedom haters and rights destroyers have been taking it. Its that simple.

We, progressives, love our country too. The United States Constitution is the shortest and oldest written constitution still in use by any nation in the world today. The framers of the Constitution were aware that changes would be necessary if the Constitution was to endure as the nation grew. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. On the other hand, they also wanted to ensure that a rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. I can respect your view of why our constitution is important, but amendments should be made when progress can be accomplished. In America, our families should not be left to go hungry or suffer starvation simply because our constitution did not originally include an amendment for social services.

Honest Abe says

Right, why not continue to pile on more debt that clearly is unmanagable? Why just indebt our children when we can indebt our grandchildren too? Why stop there…we can financially cripple our great-grandchildren while were at it.
I don’t think you have the right to tell me how to live my life and spend my money any more than I have the right to tell you how to live your life and spend your money. Who gives you that right?

Are you saying because you are wealthy enough to pay for your families healthcare, food and shelter your are willing to watch as others die simply because they cannot afford the services? You do realize without social services there will come a point that even you wont be able to afford healthcare services and will also have to sit and watch a member of your family die?

I agree that these programs are broken, however, we need to reform them to reduce waste not get rid of them entirely.

Honest Abe says

Okay, “if you live here in the US, you’re agreeing to conform to the laws and customs of the country”….so would that include following the underlying law of our country…the constitution?

Even our fore fathers knew it would require amendments for the bettAdHominem says

Abe,
Some here would have us believe that living in a “free country” means we have to put up with things like wiretaps, corporate welfare, providing for the dependency class, cavity searches, increasing taxes and decreasing dollar values, and eventually an injection of a computer chip and daily rations.
Welcome to the future.

No, that is not my point. WE are not for the loss of freedoms, we are for providing for those who have lower economic living conditions that cannot provide for themselves. Bush Sr. set the precedent for corporate welfare with the bailout of the S&L banks in 89, it obviously helped, because 20 years later were back in the same mess due to de-regulation. If we let these industries fail, then we open the gates for a financial takeover by foreign banks and lose control over the financial sector.

We may be ok with televisions (electronics), clothes (textiles) being manufactured overseas but we wont be if our financial systems are controlled by foreign nations.

Our nation is anchored on the military and a strong economic system, no one here has said the we want our freedoms to be lost.

Honest Abe says

I don’t think you have the right to tell me how to live my life and spend my money any more than I have the right to tell you how to live your life and spend your money. Who gives you that right?

The same right that St Jefferson had in authorizing the purchase of the Louisiana Territory with "your money".

In 1776, he wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

While not a Constitutional basis, this is the general support of the General Welfare clause of the constitution.

Your worldview does not allow the possibility that Free Enterprise is necessary but not sufficient for securing the pursuit of Happiness. I believe, through my understanding of history and comparison with other national experiences present in the world today, that a mixed economy is potentially superior to your visions of utopic minarchy, and that the Hamiltonian argument WRT the General Welfare clause is sufficient support for any Federal-level welfare scheme.

Some things are too important to experiment with on the state level, and health care is one of them. Our public-private mishmash has us spending more for much less goods & services. We're getting robbed by the rentiers and it's time we rein them in.

Honest Abe says

The arch-conservatives, as you call them, are patriots defending the attacks on America’s constitutional rights and freedoms.

Those would be the same arch conservatives that wrote the patriot act? Let's see what we gave up on that one:
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
I'd sure hate to think what liberals would have done. Sorry Mr. Arch Conservative but that dog don't hunt. To quote a very wise man "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Nomograph says

Honest Abe says

BTW, why the use of the word “CZAR”? That word has a BAD connotation. Are we being “conditioned” for something? YUCK.

It’s a Reagan-era term.
I’ve noticed that Honest Abe is heavily influenced by the feelings or emotions associated with a particular word or set of words, but he seem completely uninterested in the actual semantics or meaning. That’s why he falls for (and propagates) empty yet pithy-sounding sloganeering such as “Libs hate freedom” or “Conservatives are America’s defenders.” This may all be well and true, but he NEVER backs up his arguments with facts and figures, only opinion and emotional appeal. When his arguments are refuted with facts and figures (see the CRA thread), he dismisses those facts as somehow tainted. In other words, he subordinates facts to feelings. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS, FOLKS. It leaves one wide-open to manipulation.
The ability to control people through nationalistic emotional appeal is the cornerstone of propaganda. Always, always, always question the message and check the facts with an open mind.

I've noticed the Nomo is keen to use the black and white on his computer screen for Ad Hominem disguised as psychoanalysis, of Abe and others. While this is cute and mildly entertaining, it is by no means a substitute for honest to goodness decree by the thought police that Abe is or isn't a terrorist threat to society. Please leave that to the bureaucrats who are bought and paid for by the proper corporate lobby.

Nomo also uses straw man arguments such as implying that Abe and others use words like "you hate freedom."

Many people like Nomo's posts. But the last two are a classic example of fallacies in arguement. Ad Hominem and Straw Man.

Kinda like "when did you stop beating your wife?" Sometimes even asking a question implies guilt and people here are sure good at using false arguments to discredit those who disagree with them.

bob2356 says

Honest Abe says

The arch-conservatives, as you call them, are patriots defending the attacks on America’s constitutional rights and freedoms.

Those would be the same arch conservatives that wrote the patriot act? Let’s see what we gave up on that one:

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans’ papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

I’d sure hate to think what liberals would have done. Sorry Mr. Arch Conservative but that dog don’t hunt. To quote a very wise man “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”

Where is Obama with the change we can believe in? Why did he NOT end this IMMEDIATELY? Well, he didn't even try when he was in Congress so why start now?

where has Code Pink went?

Code pink Koolade! now fortified with 100% daily allowance of Hope and Change, enough to keep you from protesting incumbent president.

lol ... that would be negative.

Nomograph says

AdHominem says

honest to goodness decree by the thought police that Abe is or isn’t a terrorist threat to society.

Geez, man, do you always need everything spelled out? Falling for emotion-based propaganda and sloganeering is dangerous, not Abe. Honest Abe can’t think his way out of a paper bag, much less pose a threat to anyone.
AdHominem says

Nomo is keen to use the black and white on his computer screen for Ad Hominem disguised as psychoanalysis, of Abe and others.

Disguised? Try blatantly sarcastic.
AdHominem says

this is cute and mildly entertaining

Mildly entertaining? It’s freaking hilarious. I crack myself up regularly.
AdHominem says

Many people like Nomo’s posts.

Everyone likes my posts. They are pretty much the best posts ever and stuff.
But seriously, this is banter between strangers on the Internet. I don’t know you, or anything about you that you don’t want me to know. I’m sure your a perfectly nice person. I apologize if I offended you.

Thanks Nomo,

no not offended. I kinda like you too and stuff, but not in a man on man kind of way. Not that there is anything wrong with that except in a Biblical sense.

BTW the stuff about the thought police was kind of a joke. And you still owe an apology to Abe.

Nomograph says

Disguised? Try blatantly sarcastic.
AdHominem says
this is cute and mildly entertaining
Mildly entertaining? It’s freaking hilarious. I crack myself up regularly.
AdHominem says
Many people like Nomo’s posts.
Everyone likes my posts. They are pretty much the best posts ever and stuff.

I think what I like most about Nomo's posts are his humility.

4X says

Are you saying because you are wealthy enough to pay for your families healthcare, food and shelter your are willing to watch as others die simply because they cannot afford the services? You do realize without social services there will come a point that even you wont be able to afford healthcare services and will also have to sit and watch a member of your family die?

XXXX,
First off one need not be wealthy to afford health care. There is a bit of good fortune or whatever you want to call it, to actually be healthy. Which fortunately for most people is the case (that is why health insurance companies can be sure to make a profit, and likely will receive a huge windfall if Obamacare passes and 40 million people are added to the insurance rolls).

A lucky person will never suffer an illness that requires hospitalization. I know many people who fall into this category.

But as we age the likelihood of avoiding serious illness drops off significantly. So the question is how does a person handle this? Should we expect people to save money when they are young and healthy so that when they are old and infirm they can provide for themselves? Or should we expect that everyone else will provide for us when we can’t provide for ourselves?

These are opposing values. The value of personal responsibility (and right to keep the fruits of your own labor) vs. the value of looking out for a brother in need.

I see the value of personal responsibility as trumping the value of looking out for a brother in need. That is not to say that a brother in need should not be helped. When we as individuals find our fellow man with a need we ought to do our part to meet it. But what about the moral hazard of telling people, “we got your back no matter what stupid thing you do.” Nature itself tells us there have to be consequences, survival of the fittest. As for me, it seems more reasonable to inform everyone that there is no safety net. It will instill hard work, wise use of resources etc… and avoid the creation of a dependency class.

People have looked to America since before we even became a nation, as a place to escape from oppression. Oppressive governments from around the globe forced people here for not allowing private property or freedom of religion. Many came not to escape oppression but to escape poverty, to live in a land where hard work was rewarded.

Slowly we are becoming less tolerant of private property, religion and a place where hard work often leads to higher taxes and less food stamps. It is becoming a real problem. The last I heard one in eight adults is now utilizing food stamps. When will it end, will we see one in five, one in three? Eventually will we all get our daily rations from the Food Czar?

This is not hyperbole this is a growing problem of government dependency, and the things that made America great are fading faster than you can say 10th Amendment.

You yourself make the same argument against Abe above when you say that without government help one day even he won’t be able to afford health care. Wow! What a prediction. You are predicting we all we be dependent on the government. And I thought the government was dependent on us?

I hope you see the point here and that is that I perfectly agree with you. Unless things change we all (except for the elites) will become completely dependent on the government. As such we DO need change. We need government to return to its role of PROTECTING the people and refrain from pretending to PROVIDE for people. People PROVIDE for themselves and the government, and Government in turn PROTECTS the people so the people can continue to provide. This is the way it must work, otherwise you will end up with tyranny.

The only winners are those who provide healthcare

AdHominem says

4X says

Are you saying because you are wealthy enough to pay for your families healthcare, food and shelter your are willing to watch as others die simply because they cannot afford the services? You do realize without social services there will come a point that even you wont be able to afford healthcare services and will also have to sit and watch a member of your family die?

XXXX,
First off one need not be wealthy to afford health care. There is a bit of good fortune or whatever you want to call it, to actually be healthy. Which fortunately for most people is the case (that is why health insurance companies can be sure to make a profit, and likely will receive a huge windfall if Obamacare passes and 40 million people are added to the insurance rolls).
A lucky person will never suffer an illness that requires hospitalization. I know many people who fall into this category.
But as we age the likelihood of avoiding serious illness drops off significantly. So the question is how does a person handle this? Should we expect people to save money when they are young and healthy so that when they are old and infirm they can provide for themselves? Or should we expect that everyone else will provide for us when we can’t provide for ourselves?
These are opposing values. The value of personal responsibility (and right to keep the fruits of your own labor) vs. the value of looking out for a brother in need.
I see the value of personal responsibility as trumping the value of looking out for a brother in need. That is not to say that a brother in need should not be helped. When we as individuals find our fellow man with a need we ought to do our part to meet it. But what about the moral hazard of telling people, “we got your back no matter what stupid thing you do.” Nature itself tells us there have to be consequences, survival of the fittest. As for me, it seems more reasonable to inform everyone that there is no safety net. It will instill hard work, wise use of resources etc… and avoid the creation of a dependency class.
People have looked to America since before we even became a nation, as a place to escape from oppression. Oppressive governments from around the globe forced people here for not allowing private property or freedom of religion. Many came not to escape oppression but to escape poverty, to live in a land where hard work was rewarded.
Slowly we are becoming less tolerant of private property, religion and a place where hard work often leads to higher taxes and less food stamps. It is becoming a real problem. The last I heard one in eight adults is now utilizing food stamps. When will it end, will we see one in five, one in three? Eventually will we all get our daily rations from the Food Czar?
This is not hyperbole this is a growing problem of government dependency, and the things that made America great are fading faster than you can say 10th Amendment.
You yourself make the same argument against Abe above when you say that without government help one day even he won’t be able to afford health care. Wow! What a prediction. You are predicting we all we be dependent on the government. And I thought the government was dependent on us?
I hope you see the point here and that is that I perfectly agree with you. Unless things change we all (except for the elites) will become completely dependent on the government. As such we DO need change. We need government to return to its role of PROTECTING the people and refrain from pretending to PROVIDE for people. People PROVIDE for themselves and the government, and Government in turn PROTECTS the people so the people can continue to provide. This is the way it must work, otherwise you will end up with tyranny.

I agree, up to the point that I am willing to provide for a brother in need. Now, that does not mean that I am for anything but:

1. Removing pre-existing condition clauses
2. Removing the ability of Insurance companies to drop patients once they reach a financial cutoff
3. Reducing the fees of doctors. It should not cost $350 for a 15 minute doctors visit.

My wife works in healthcare insurance, she frequently tells me stories of people who will be dropped because they admitted to having health issues prior to signing up for their insurance plans. She discusses stories of how people reach their maximum benefit and are dropped, only to die a few months later.

These are the conditions that we should fight against, nothing more and nothing less.

I still don't know what liberalism is and how it's destroying america. It seems to be anything that AM radio hosts consider "bad". It's certainly not what was commonly referred to as liberalism in the 18th and 19th century (when we were worried about oppressive dictatorships that wanted to destroy liberalism).

Of course, our nation's history is filled with people proclaiming this or that is destroying it:

http://www.google.com/search?q=destroying+america&hl=en&safe=off&tbo=1&num=20&site=mbd&ei=hesdS-29I4L0sgO4npD8CQ&sa=X&oi=timeline_other_dates&ct=timeline-other-dates&ved=0CBcQpQI&tbs=tl:1,tlul:1776,tluh:1976

...and that's before the bicentennial!

I'm sure when I'm a very old man I'll be hearing about some new threat that is destroying america too.

Kev you are on to something. You might enjoy this one. It talks about that very thing. How "liberals" became the new "conservatives" and vice versa.

Why American History is Not What They Say
by Riggenbach, Jeff

XXXX,

I agree with your goals. The only question is the methods. Can we dictate, centrally plan, and enforce fairness, or are we better off focusing our energies on preventing abuse of power of any kind so that everyone is free to prosper or fail, based on their own choices? I vote for the later. Anything less is tyranny.

For example. While government had good intentions in establishing licensing requirements for health care providers- what it really did is give monopoly over health care to a small and powerful minority.

It sounds extreme but here's an idea: lets do away with license requirements. This will drive the cost of education down (students won't be forced to go to only the "accredited institutions"), open the way for perhaps otherwise qualified providers for rendering service, and give patients more choice. Most importantly it puts the patient in control and ends the monopoly of the medical elites.

What people need are more options. Not less. Not some Medicare bureaucracy, but a free market complete with things like Priceline.com for health care. Check the ratings of your provider, find a good price shop around. Find what works for you! If you get your bypass from anyone else YOU PAY TOO MUCH! Power to the people, and away from the elites.

elvis says

And if health care is a “right,” shouldn’t an automobile be a right? And shouldn’t every car have safe tires and good brakes? Shouldn’t everyone have a house, or at least a nice condo - with a view, and a TV. And every household should have the right to a computer, and computer service, or how else could they pay their government subsidized bills on-line?

The eurosocialists have basically answered this question, and it correlates pretty closely to my philosophy.

Modern society is productive enough to afford ALL PEOPLE access to that which is necessary to become and remain a productive member of society.

Also, this does not entail "FREE" goods and services, rather the government establishes itself as an intermediary -- a Single Payer if you will -- to nudge the Free Market (peace be upon it) to operate more effectively than is its wont.

The teabagger blindness is to ignore the vast amount of rentierism that operates in any Free Market (peace be upon it).

They way I see it, our incomes after necessities and luxuries just end up in higher land values. As long as we're paying $300,000 or more for a house we've got plenty of room to raise taxes to more fully fund the egalitarian acccess that I think everyone has a right to. I think every dollar of taxes we raise drops land values a dollar, a good thing in my book.

4X says

3. Reducing the fees of doctors. It should not cost $350 for a 15 minute doctors visit.

Yea - Docs are soooooooooooooo overpaid. I went to the doc and she charged me $100 for a 10 minute follow up. The insurance paid her $5 and I paid her $15. She wrote off $80.

She also paid her staff, her malpractice, her unemployment insurance, her staff's benefits, her rent & various overhead, student loans, supplies, etc. out of that. Not all docs are overpaid, in fact, many are struggling due to massive amounts of bills. Someone who gives up 10 years of their life for school, more for training, more for ongoing training, is oncall 24/7, is responsible for my healthcare... Yea, $350 a year for an exam is worth it. My doc caught something serious and "fixed" it so that I can live a relatively pain-free, happy life.

People pay auto mechanics to fix their cars, change the belts & plugs & such. New tires, etc. But they bitch about what they pay their docs. Do some docs make money hand over fist? Sure - but many of them make their money from investing in equipment companies, home health/hospice companies, etc. Those who contract with hmo's get paid shit wages for their patients, while the insurance companies make bank.

I know we need reform, but it's the big insurance companies that make money hand over fist by denying benefits.

I'm not saying that doctors don't make huge amounts - some do. But most are hard working professionals who don't have the opportunity to benefit from the money they make. Just sayin.

Thanks Ellie,

That was well said. We agree that insurance companies are much of the problem (a problem the government collaborated with them to create).

It is funny to me that many of the same people who have a distaste for wiretaps (patriot act style), endless wars (to make the world safe for "democracy" and democratic organizations like Blackwater and Halliburton) and government abuse of power in these areas somehow desire that that same corrupt government take over health care. When you call me "all over the place." I just laugh because this philosophy of so many on this site is all over the place. You want central government planning of health care but not war. You want central planning of welfare but not a survelience state. You want central planning of our economy but hate it when corporatism takes over as a result. How is that working for you?

elvis says

What concerns me, and appears to be of concern to millions of vocal, patriotic Americans is where all this centralized government control is leading. Taxes are the largest single expenditure for most Americans…approximately 50% (by the time ALL taxes, fees, permits, license fees, etc, etc, etc are included). $ TRILLIONS of new government deficit spending is taking place with even more being proposed. It’s time to stop the insanity.
Millions of Americans do not want to become slaves to the state, nor mortgage their children’s futures because the politicians can’t live within their budget(s). Millions of Americans don’t want their basic rights stripped away. They don’t want to live in a pathetic “Nanny State”. They don’t want a panel of disinterested bureaucrats, or under-paid government employees, making health care decisions for them. They don’t want to live in a master-slave relationship - without the freedom and liberty that Americans fought and died for. The very thought is repugnant.

You are aware that over half of your federal taxes goes to the military aren't you? Another 20% goes to interest on the debt. How this is not concerning to millions of vocal patriotic americans who don't want to be slaves of the state is a mystery to me. Could someone explain this oversight of the elephant in the room? What's left is over goes to the pathetic nanny state that is obviously the root of all evil in America today. A nanny state that is doing terrible communist things like feeding hungry children which must consume at least .02% of the federal budget or about the cost of 1 jet fighter.

I certainly don’t want a panel of disinterested bureaucrats, or under-paid government employees, making health care decisions for me. I much prefer a bunch of interested bureaucrats at the insurance companies whose paycheck and bonuses depend on how much healthcare they deny me or how quickly they can cancel my policy if I get truly sick. Let freedom ring.

I find it hard to believe that any of the people who are so against the idea of government healthcare have ever actually been seriously sick or hurt. I have been both. The amount of paper work and time involved to track and pay everything or even worse to get the insurance company to pay is just staggering. The game is to deny, deny, deny until the doctor just gives up or the patient just pays it. What make it even worse is that most doctors offices and hospitals are terrible at billing/accounting, frequently they are just plain incompetent. I broke my hand last year and spent 8 months and probably 50 hours of my time getting everything paid. I think. My father in law had chemo and the paperwork was well over 2 feet tall. Anyone who was seriously ill could not possibly track and deal with this. Which I believe is something insurance companies actually count on.

I've been (and currently am) aresident of several of the dreaded government health care countries over the years. I never saw a bill of an kind and received zero paperwork for any medical services while receiving care that was just as good as any I've gotten in the states. The way it works elsewhere is the government provides basic care and you can buy very reasonably prices health insurance if you want to go outside the public system. Hardly what any reasonable (key word) would call slavery or stripping away of basic rights. Certainly none of the other countries systems are perfect, but it's just ridiculous that congress is forging ahead with major changes in health care without at least carefully looking at what works and doesn't work for the rest of the world first.

AdHominem says

When you call me “all over the place.” I just laugh because this philosophy of so many on this site is all over the place.

The reason that I say you're all over the place is because your arguments aren't pertinent, concise or easily understood. Nor do they make sense. The common thread in all of your posts is that you tend to blame the government for everything - if something is bad, it's the government's fault, while if something is good, it's in spite of the government. Perhaps you believe that there's a huge conspiracy against you personally. That's possible.

But you started this thread using an opinion piece to support your theory that someone - an unelected body - will dictate your future medical decisions. Unfortunately, that's already happening but since it's private enterprise, not the government, it doesn't fall within your paranoid ramblings so you don't give it any play.

On another thread you use an anecdote about a woman who can't get care at her local clinic and meds at her pharmacy as an example of how Medicare doesn't work. But - Medicare is the payment source, not the provider. According to you, private enterprise should be in control of medical care - yet in that instance, it is and you complain about that.

Hence the comment(s) that you're all over the place.

Troy says

elvis says

And if health care is a “right,” shouldn’t an automobile be a right? And shouldn’t every car have safe tires and good brakes? Shouldn’t everyone have a house, or at least a nice condo - with a view, and a TV. And every household should have the right to a computer, and computer service, or how else could they pay their government subsidized bills on-line?

The eurosocialists have basically answered this question, and it correlates pretty closely to my philosophy.
Modern society is productive enough to afford ALL PEOPLE access to that which is necessary to become and remain a productive member of society.
Also, this does not entail “FREE” goods and services, rather the government establishes itself as an intermediary — a Single Payer if you will — to nudge the Free Market (peace be upon it) to operate more effectively than is its wont.
The teabagger blindness is to ignore the vast amount of rentierism that operates in any Free Market (peace be upon it).
They way I see it, our incomes after necessities and luxuries just end up in higher land values. As long as we’re paying $300,000 or more for a house we’ve got plenty of room to raise taxes to more fully fund the egalitarian acccess that I think everyone has a right to. I think every dollar of taxes we raise drops land values a dollar, a good thing in my book.

So how is it cool that a 15 minute visit cost me $150 plus whatever my insurance paid them?....the docs, insurance and pharms are in this together to keep their profits.

elliemae says

AdHominem says

When you call me “all over the place.” I just laugh because this philosophy of so many on this site is all over the place.

The reason that I say you’re all over the place is because your arguments aren’t pertinent, concise or easily understood. Nor do they make sense. The common thread in all of your posts is that you tend to blame the government for everything - if something is bad, it’s the government’s fault, while if something is good, it’s in spite of the government. Perhaps you believe that there’s a huge conspiracy against you personally. That’s possible.
But you started this thread using an opinion piece to support your theory that someone - an unelected body - will dictate your future medical decisions. Unfortunately, that’s already happening but since it’s private enterprise, not the government, it doesn’t fall within your paranoid ramblings so you don’t give it any play.
On another thread you use an anecdote about a woman who can’t get care at her local clinic and meds at her pharmacy as an example of how Medicare doesn’t work. But - Medicare is the payment source, not the provider. According to you, private enterprise should be in control of medical care - yet in that instance, it is and you complain about that.
Hence the comment(s) that you’re all over the place.

Yeah, Adhom...what is up with that? You celebrating now that private insurance gets to dictate their prices?

elliemae says

AdHominem says

When you call me “all over the place.” I just laugh because this philosophy of so many on this site is all over the place.

The reason that I say you’re all over the place is because your arguments aren’t pertinent, concise or easily understood. Nor do they make sense. The common thread in all of your posts is that you tend to blame the government for everything - if something is bad, it’s the government’s fault, while if something is good, it’s in spite of the government. Perhaps you believe that there’s a huge conspiracy against you personally. That’s possible.
But you started this thread using an opinion piece to support your theory that someone - an unelected body - will dictate your future medical decisions. Unfortunately, that’s already happening but since it’s private enterprise, not the government, it doesn’t fall within your paranoid ramblings so you don’t give it any play.
On another thread you use an anecdote about a woman who can’t get care at her local clinic and meds at her pharmacy as an example of how Medicare doesn’t work. But - Medicare is the payment source, not the provider. According to you, private enterprise should be in control of medical care - yet in that instance, it is and you complain about that.
Hence the comment(s) that you’re all over the place.

Ellie may,

I believe I have been quite consistent in insisting that government should not confiscate anyone's earnings, or spend money on anyone's care.

I have been critical of Government spending programs from the beginning and will continue to be so until the problem is resolved. As far as this lady and her health care goes, if it is not an example of how the government run Medicare program is failing, then how would you describe it? "Oh its just her own darn fault the government confiscated her wealth and now is making it hard to get some of it back?" Or a dazzling success providing labor for thousands of bureaucrats since 1965?

Yeah, Adhom…what is up with that? You celebrating now that private insurance gets to dictate their prices?

No one should dictate prices to anyone. Did you see my post on the other thread. We (through government regulation) have given too much power to providers and insurers. The answer is not to give that power to the government but to return it to the people.

AdHominem says

No one should dictate prices to anyone.

And yet you believe that the provider of care in a rural clinic should accept Medicare - which dictates the prices it pays to providers. You can't have it both ways. AdHominem says

As far as this lady and her health care goes, if it is not an example of how the government run Medicare program is failing, then how would you describe it?

Seeing as how you don't know if she's enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, which places limits on providers, or if she is in the traditional program which pays all providers a certain amount, it's hard to tell what is going on there. For instance, if she's in an Advantage plan she has to have a PCP, who will be assigned if she doesn't choose one. If the clinic in her area isn't accepting new patients on that plan, she'll have to go elsewhere. If it's traditional Medicare, that's different.

I wouldn't describe your anecdote as a failure - except that you fail to provide enough information to adequately describe the problem if there is one. The payment is there - which Medicare provides - but the private provider doesn't accept her payment. That's a failure of the patient for not checking to see who she can go to, certainly not the provider. And she has the ability to receive care, perhaps not within 15 miles of her home, but she still has payment for her care at a provider who will accept it.

AdHominem says

Oh its just her own darn fault the government confiscated her wealth and now is making it hard to get some of it back?”

The government isn't making it hard for her to get some of her "wealth" back. She can access healthcare and she can access a pharmacy - she didn't choose a plan that had her medications in their formulary. She has access to medications through the mail order pharmacy and through whatever pharmacy is closest to her home that accepts her insurance plan. That's a common thing in the healthcare industry - but you wouldn't know that because it's not what you do. It's also common for people to have an MD for years, then change jobs or not have coverage and find that they have to find another MD.

That's private enterprise at work.

AdHominem says

Yeah, Adhom…what is up with that? You celebrating now that private insurance gets to dictate their prices?

No one should dictate prices to anyone. Did you see my post on the other thread. We (through government regulation) have given too much power to providers and insurers. The answer is not to give that power to the government but to return it to the people.

How would poor people pay for healthcare under your policy?

4X says

How would poor people pay for healthcare under your policy?

Under his policy poor people would have no coverage. They'd get really sick, go to the hospital and be turned away because no coverage. They'd die. Problem solved.

elliemae says

And yet you believe that the provider of care in a rural clinic should accept Medicare - which dictates the prices it pays to providers. You can’t have it both ways.

When did I ever say that? now you are surely putting words in my mouth. I was simply pointing out that Medicare failed her because she CAN'T use it at her doctors office. It is not her fault, not her doctors fault either.

Yes it is traditional medicare A and B with Medicare D for drugs.
elliemae says

The government isn’t making it hard for her to get some of her “wealth” back. She can access healthcare and she can access a pharmacy - she didn’t choose a plan that had her medications in their formulary. She has access to medications through the mail order pharmacy and through whatever pharmacy is closest to her home that accepts her insurance plan. That’s a common thing in the healthcare industry - but you wouldn’t know that because it’s not what you do. It’s also common for people to have an MD for years, then change jobs or not have coverage and find that they have to find another MD.

No, it is very easy to find a new doctor and drive dozens of miles in either direction to get what you used to get in walking distance. My bad. There is only one pharmacy in her town. It doesn't take medicare. For the past 15 years she has been happy with her health plan. When medicare came in, now she can't do anything in her home town. But I am sure she is better off with it than on her old plan right? Again, my bad

Do you know why doctors don't accept Medicare patients or limit the number of Medicare patients? Reimbursement rates are low. Do you know why just about every hospital I've ever worked at wants to be known as a great cardiac center? Medicare reimburses cardiac care at higher than normal levels. Do you know why most hospitals have outsourced their kidney dialysis? Crappy reimbursement. Do you know that some procedures get chosen over others even though the less chosen has better outcomes? Higher reimbursement rates.

Leigh says

Do you know why doctors don’t accept Medicare patients or limit the number of Medicare patients? Reimbursement rates are low. Do you know why just about every hospital I’ve ever worked at wants to be known as a great cardiac center? Medicare reimburses cardiac care at higher than normal levels. Do you know why most hospitals have outsourced their kidney dialysis? Crappy reimbursement. Do you know that some procedures get chosen over others even though the less chosen has better outcomes? Higher reimbursement rates.

Thanks Leigh, you are right on.

And these are all examples of how government intervention is failing/causing more waste and mis-allocation of resources in the health care marketplace.

AdHominem says

Kev you are on to something. You might enjoy this one. It talks about that very thing. How “liberals” became the new “conservatives” and vice versa.

"Conservatives" today aren't anything like the liberals of the 1800s. They happen to agree on certain aspects of economics, and that's about it.

Kevin says

AdHominem says

Kev you are on to something. You might enjoy this one. It talks about that very thing. How “liberals” became the new “conservatives” and vice versa.

“Conservatives” today aren’t anything like the liberals of the 1800s. They happen to agree on certain aspects of economics, and that’s about it.

Just read the book, then we'll talk.

And I recommend this great book: How Doctors Think

http://www.jeromegroopman.com/how-doctors-think.html

It's not just Medicare reimbursement rates that are problematic.

AdHominem says

When medicare came in, now she can’t do anything in her home town. But I am sure she is better off with it than on her old plan right? Again, my bad

She's eligible for Medicare. Just as with her old insurance, there are rules and some providers don't accept that reimbursement. Medicare isn't better than her old plan - and it's probably no worse than her old plan. It's different.

Again, free enterprise comes into play. If the government ran healthcare, the clinic & pharmacy would be providers. They don't. And she'll need to find new providers. Just as she would if the clinic closed, or the doctor died and she had to find another provider. Same with the pharmacy. This isn't a good example of how the government should stay out of healthcare.

The subject of this thread is about the unelected body that will dictate future medical decisions - but we already have unelected people running our healthcare. And, using your example, it's not working so well.

Just sayin.

Leigh says

And I recommend this great book: How Doctors Think
http://www.jeromegroopman.com/how-doctors-think.html
It’s not just Medicare reimbursement rates that are problematic.

This is true. Private pay is the only way to go. End all third party payers.

elliemae says

Medicare isn’t better than her old plan - and it’s probably no worse than her old plan. It’s different.

Tell that to her. I'm sure it will make her feel a whole lot better.

AdHominem says

elliemae says

Medicare isn’t better than her old plan - and it’s probably no worse than her old plan. It’s different.

Tell that to her. I’m sure it will make her feel a whole lot better.

I'd be happy to. What is her phone number? I would like to speak with her and hear her story firsthand.