patrick.net

Yawn.

This "discussion" is going nowhere.

Bap33 says

you are correct ellie — the feller lacks the basics of discussion and that puts a hitch in the giddy up.
and soooooo …. how long until Patrick puts up an ellie section for political issues to be hashed out?
I dig the cowdog pic by the way.

It'll never happen. and, she was 10 weeks old at the time.

Tenpoundbass says

Moreover, it’s no accident that AMERICA is the only country in the World that calls a National Health Care system “Socialized Medicine”.
Socialism in an American adjective we tack on the end of everything we aim to politically kill.

Where as a “National Health Care system” is a “NOUN”.

2/3rds of the American populace is old enough to have lived through the cold war. Give it a generation or two.drfelle says

Why work hard for something that is going to be given to you anyway? True, the rich won’t have to “give-up” their doctors. But what’s going to be the incentive for the next generation to work hard? More “bling bling”???

Yeah, because people only work hard when their life depends on it.

Bap33 says

Socialism - much like liberalism - fails each and every time it is used.

Do you even know what socialism is? Because a public insurance option, or even a single payer system like Canada has, are not even close to socialism. Under socialism, the government owns the means of production. For health care, that would mean that the government owned all of the hospitals and employed all of the doctors.

Every country that anybody would actually choose to live in today has some form of mixed economy. Critical infrastructure (roads, police, fire fighters, military) tends to be state run while non-critical infrastructure (televisions and automobiles) tends to be privately owned.

This is a very good setup. Some countries have few or no state provided services. Not a single one of them is a country that you would want to live in.

Very few countries have gone so far as to say that health care is a piece of critical infrastructure. Most rational, sane countries have decided that health care does need to be universal, though -- the only way in which they disagree is how to fund it.

If poor people can't get health care, they spend more time in emergency rooms (as happens today). You could try to prevent them from going to emergency rooms, but then they're just going to riot and commit more crime. You can't imprison or kill them all, and even if you could it would just make everything that you do in life more expensive.

Rather than following a negative ideology (that is, one that simply complains about a problem without offering realistic solutions), why not try to actually propose realistic solutions that will solve problems in the most agreeable way possible for you?

So you have a problem with illegal immigrants? Fair enough. What is your realistic solution for fixing illegal immigration? Finding and deporting (or arresting) every illegal immigrant in California would cost more than the total cost of services given to illegals in the first place, not to mention the rioting that it would trigger amongst citizen friends and family of the deported. Even if you got them all out of the country, there is a massive border that no amount of fence is going to fix.

Once you've gotten rid of all of the illegal immigrants, you're still going to have a lot of poor people who work shitty jobs for low pay who will demand government services, and will vote for people who represent their interests. What will the scapegoat be then? Blaming the poor is counter-productive. Poor people grow up in broken, dysfunctional homes and go to broken, dysfunctional schools. They reach adulthood uneducated and jaded, so will inevitably repeat the cycle that they were born into.

There is a good website called abovetopsecret.com

Insurance is a scam.

Let's go with the mass transit trains, or just rebuilding the ghetto, or anything. This is getting pretty sad.

Maybe a go-cart track, cool miniature golf course, skating rink, bumper cars, ping-pong and beer, tennis club, video game tournament local, park, fish for dinner, concert hall, or something.

"Poor people grow up in broken, dysfunctional homes and go to broken, dysfunctional schools."

Yes, I can see how Paris Hilton and the other Trust Account Babies will do well in life and contribute much to our society.

I think poor kids should grow up in kick ass orphanages, and not be forced into a house with a totally uncomfortable atmosphere. 'They' totally missed out on capitalizing on Oliver.

But I'm a moron. Paris Hilton was smart to be born to a wealthy family. Much like a lot of brilliant So Cal's.

This economy is really bad. When do we go back to normal?

I should put a bit more thought into my comments.

Health care for people that can't afford to pay out of pocket doesn't sound all bad. I think there should be emergency only health care... just in case. And it should be cheap. Just so an accident doesn't unfairly clean someone out of their savings.

Blame it all on the libs. This forum seems to polarize (by a few) rather than offer thoughtful discussion. The truth is that our country has progressed to this point under both liberal and conservative leaders. We need to fix the problem, not sit around and blame.

But the slackers you refer to aren't the majority of the people suffering, IMHO. The people who are hard-working middle class, that don't qualify for benefits, those are the ones that are finding themselves in a bind. Both liberal and conservative.

Facts:

1) Most other developed world countries have some form of nationalized health care.

2) They manage to pay for it.

3) No system is perfect and all ration health care. Sometimes there are long wait times.

4) The USA has defacto rationing of health care by wealth status. Sometimes there are long wait times.

5) In the USA, one serious illness (e.g. heart disease, cancer) can bankrupt an average middle class family, insured or not.

6) No country which has nationalized health care has voted to have it removed and gone back to a private system.

If I have any of this wrong, I'll be interested in hearing about it.

What matters is solving the problem, not poll results, especially by Rasmussen (Rasmussen is an Evangelical Christian and is president of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association). Seen without a political agenda, nationalized health care is obviously the best of several bad choices for dealing with medical needs, en masse.

drfelle says

I have a feeling Patrick doesn’t mind the “few” that offer polarizing opinions (although they’re contrary to his own) because it helps keep the discussion interesting and his forum going strong.

I like when people write all kinds of opinions, as long as they are reasonably polite. No need to be politically correct, just don't be an asshole.

So, for example, saying "I don't like Obama" or even "I'm horrified we have a black president" is within the bounds of sincere discussion, but posting a picture of Obama as a monkey is being an asshole.

ian807 says

Facts:
1) Most other developed world countries have some form of nationalized health care.
2) They manage to pay for it.
3) No system is perfect and all ration health care. Sometimes there are long wait times.
4) The USA has defacto rationing of health care by wealth status. Sometimes there are long wait times.
5) In the USA, one serious illness (e.g. heart disease, cancer) can bankrupt an average middle class family, insured or not.
6) No country which has nationalized health care has voted to have it removed and gone back to a private system.
If I have any of this wrong, I’ll be interested in hearing about it.
What matters is solving the problem, not poll results, especially by Rasmussen (Rasmussen is an Evangelical Christian and is president of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association). Seen without a political agenda, nationalized health care is obviously the best of several bad choices for dealing with medical needs, en masse.

6 ... Canada - slowly moving away from a nationalized system

Here is decent article on the issue: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/29/canada-private-clinic-controversy/

Basically, docs aren't paid enough and are tired of it. People have extra money and don't want to wait in line. Previously only the really rich would come to the US for care. Now it is trickling into the mainstream.

In the end I think it will be a private/public mix but you asked for an example of a national healthcare system moving the other way and there is one just a few blocks north.

What ian807 said -- right on the money.

drfelle says

Here’s a novel idea, How about the “slackers” help pay for these services?

You can't get blood out of a turnip. How do you propose making a welfare recipient without so much as a high school education 'pay'?

freddy22122 says

Here is decent article on the issue: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/29/canada-private-clinic-controversy/

Decent? I do not think it means what you think it means.

drfelle says

Blame it all on the libs. This forum seems to polarize (by a few) rather than offer thoughtful discussion.

This forum has never attempted “thoughtful discussion”; and it’s very disingenuous for you to suggest that it has.
Your definition of “thoughtful discussion” is stating your opinion and everyone else agreeing with you.
I have a feeling Patrick doesn’t mind the “few” that offer polarizing opinions (although they’re contrary to his own) because it helps keep the discussion interesting and his forum going strong.

I have no problem with people agreeing with me. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I do have a problem with people who blame everything on the liberals, the conservatives, the democrats, the republicans... It detracts from the issues we're discussing.

But I have no problem if you want to agree with me. That would be very cool.

I don't like soci-alism too.

So please get rid of Medicare that so many of the "conservative" old leeches are relying on. Medicare is the BIGGEST soci-alism leech ever with dying people spending easily millions of my tax money. If they are so damn financially "conservative", why do they want to waste my money by visiting doctors and clinics for free and using hospital for free room and board?

I am all for keeping the existing system if we can just abolish Medicare completely. If we keep the leeching Medicare, then I want to get some same leeching privilege myself as well.

All of you who are arguing against the government-run medical system, please direct your fire right at the existing Medicare, the largest government run healthcare in the world. If you hate the government run healthcare so much, why not get rid of the existing systematic tumor instead of fighting against something that doesn't even exist yet?

OO says

I don’t like soci-alism too.
So please get rid of Medicare that so many of the “conservative” old leeches are relying on. Medicare is the BIGGEST soci-alism leech ever with dying people spending easily millions of my tax money. If they are so damn financially “conservative”, why do they want to waste my money by visiting doctors and clinics for free and using hospital for free room and board?
I am all for keeping the existing system if we can just abolish Medicare completely. If we keep the leeching Medicare, then I want to get some same leeching privilege myself as well.
All of you who are arguing against the government-run medical system, please direct your fire right at the existing Medicare, the largest government run healthcare in the world. If you hate the government run healthcare so much, why not get rid of the existing systematic tumor instead of fighting against something that doesn’t even exist yet?

AMEN!!!!!!
I wish I could write that in neon green with a huge font, because I could not agree more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So I just use too many exclamation points.

Bap33 says

a well known, but silent (thanks to the state run media), push for state med is from the deviant liberals who entertain themselves by performing sex acts that are known to spread disease and cause unwed prego-ness.

Wow, you mean those deviant sex acts can cause prego-ness? Amazing!

Bap33 says

I never agreed to the gov taking my money and giving it to anyone else.

Ah good now we are getting somewhere. You are a tax abolitionist that would enjoy living in warlord countries. There's a long list of these idyllic spots on the planet.

Good luck with implementing it here. Many seem incredibly opposed the idea of not having huge government programs, they just have a different idea of which ones they should be. For some it's a military deployed all over the world. For others it's an interstate road system. All sorts of "waste" you could cut if only we made you Emperor.

Facts:

1) Almost all developed countries have some nationalized health care.

2) They pay for it.

3) They have not collapsed of insolvencty, nor are their populations dying of disease.

4) People in England, Canada and the gentleman in Scotland (see above) seem happy enough with the nationalized system.

5) The systems aren't perfect and are rationed. Their rationing works by rules. Ours works by economics.

6) No country has voted to go from nationalized back to private-only health care.

Basically, the folks who are saying we can't do this are saying that Americans are too corrupt, stupid or otherwise impaired to do what countries like Canada, England or Cuba are able to do.

I have yet to meet ONE conservative old fart that wants to take a stab at the Medicare. When it concerns their own interest, they are suddenly soci-alist, when they are dealing with other people's welfare, they are suddenly "conservative".

I urge everyone who is against soci-alism to devote their energy to doing away with Medicare first. You love your grandparents and parents right? Please do not make your love my burden, and pay for your loved ones out of YOUR pocket, I don't love them nor do I care for them, and don't make me, the conservative advocate to pay for old farts' cumulative fuck ups in life.

After you do away with Medicare, please then do away with Social Security. Just these two alone can help us, the true conservative workers, save 7% of taxes.

Tude says

Wow, you mean those deviant sex acts can cause prego-ness? Amazing!

Clearly he thinks that heterosexual intercourse is a 'deviant sex act'. Not surprising considering the sex acts preferred by so many so-called conservatives as of late.

drfelle says

I answered this. “I” pay taxes. Most taking advantage of Socialized Medicine don’t!

Who are these people 'taking advantage of socialized medicine'? We don't even have 'socialized' medicine in this country, and the closest thing we have to it is Medicare.

The last time I checked, everyone who works pays for medicare, to the tune of almost 3% of gross pay. Are you implying that most current medicare recipients didn't pay for it already? That's absurd -- the US has had a sub-10% unemployment rate for almost the entire duration of medicare's existence. At best, 10% of recipients haven't paid into it.

drfelle says

The majority of people in this great country have opportunities to do great things. Men and women alike have a responsibility to plan / prepare to take care of themselves and their families. This is done by education, fiscal responsibility, and unselfish hard-work. You can tell me all day long about some people not having the opportunities that others have. Or how some people hit a string of bad luck that’s no fault of their own. Listen, every decision that you make in life has consequences. I’ve made bad decsions in life, but I don’t look to the Gubbermint for a hand-out or to take me by the hand and start balancing my checkbook for me. People will survive on their own if you give them a chance to be self-sufficient. If you bail them out because of their piss poor planning they become unreliable to themselves and their families.

So you don't think adequate childhood health care is an unfair advantage? You don't think being afflicted with horrible diseases due to not getting vaccines, or losing limbs, eyesight, or your life due to inadequate medical care are disadvantages?

You mentioned education here. Why is education important but not health care? Do you honestly believe that everyone gets an equal education?

It is orders of magnitude more difficult to succeed in life when you have an unstable home life, poor diet, poor education, and no health care than when you have a stable home life, good diet, good education, and good health care. It's a LIE to claim otherwise.

But nobody ever said that life was 'fair'. This isn't about 'fairness', it's about what is BEST for the future of the country, and substantial overhaul of the medical system is what is best for the future of the country. We CAN NOT AFFORD the current system.

I don't really offer much, but you can see the vultures (ie bottomfeeders) beginning to creep out of the woodwork here. The complete over analysis regarding basic human rights and the utter lack of compassion, it just, well I really don't care. I'm ready to see people beaten to death for lack of health care coverage due to a glitch in the insurers system.

I think that Jesus Christ is watching people who act like they are bourgeousie, and judging them. And all I've felt for the last 2 years is mud slapped in my face, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to kick your ass as soon as I can.

But regarding health care and 70% not covered, or 70% realizing that it isn't actually government controlled, ( same 70% finding out the banks aren't actually the gov't), or what the hell, we all gotta duck when the sh** hits the fan...

It seems that a bunch of smart people are squallering around trying to put some sense to all that is happening right now. And the other ones, smart as they are, are saying we're obviously f***ed! by some consortium of evil f***s.

And I'm just caught in the middle looking to shine for the one that comes out on top and say... Hey! I just want to do the best I can.
But no doubt, I'll set myself up to get f***ed.

Sad, as I said before.

I really like your posts and all, but it's become so desolate for the construction indusry which is the precursor to whatever business you are in... I'm feeling it and the preducursor is in:

My opinion was that if things didn't pick up by March or April '09, that it's going to Hell in a handbasket.

Health Insurance is going to be the least of your worries, put your money in the church before paying the A'holes, know what I'm sayin'.

The whole concept of "replacing government handouts with charity" is utterly bogus.

First of all, healthcare is not a handout. Second, there is no way it can be replaced by charity.

More generally, the idea that charity can replace real programs with real funding is just a Republican pipe dream. Or rather, it is a cynical ploy to avoid taxes by invoking a charity fairy that does not exist and will not work.

It makes about as much sense as replacing police service with vigilantes and fire service with volunteer bucket brigades.

drfelle says

Quit confusing my opinion on Nationilizing Health Care as me not being compassionate.

I never said anything about being "compassionate", so I don't know where you pulled that comment from. I'm not a compassionate person myself, I'm a rational one. I don't really care that much that poor people don't have insurance, I care about how that lack of insurance is harming everyone else. There will always be people who get a shitty lot in life.

The current health care system is too expensive and is putting too big of a burden on the economy -- it needs to be massively overhauled for the good of the people as a whole. The ONLY reason why we even have nations is for the betterment of the members of the nation. The decisions made must ALWAYS be in the best interest of the people as a whole, not select groups. The current system is not in the best interest of the people -- it is in the best interest of insurers.

I do, however, take great issue with everyone who says that everybody gets an equal opportunity. This is just a lie. Some of us are born blind, or poor, or mentally retarded, or ugly. This isn't fair. Being born with eyesight, or middle class, or of average intelligence is a competitive advantage. That's life.

Excuse my ignorance, isn't charity also run by bureaucrats? I have a friend who is a senior management at a large non-profit charity, and the kind of waste and boondoggle I saw there is no less shocking to government. There are plenty of charities that spend as much as 50% of the donations they accept on admin (read: compensation and benefits to employees).

Or, when we talk about charity, we are all referring Mother Teresa? There are definitely more child-molesting fathers than Mother Teresa in the world, I am sure.

We have our present medical system to tie us to our jobs.

Our real estate system works exactly the same way with everyone forced to take on a massive amount of debt in order to buy a house. And the mortgage interest deduction only adds to this since when you lose a job you lose the benefit of the mortgage interest deduction.

Apparently this was all shoved down our throats by a news media dominated by corporations.

Hopefully with the internet Americans will finally see how stinking stupid we are to tie our lives to all this stress.

Off-topic Kook Alert:

Sarah Palin goes off the deep end.

I think anyone should be able to get heart surgery for free. As long as they didn't ignore at least 3 warnings from Big Brother that they were ordering unhealthy meals, AND that their implant chip has not been tampered with, AND that they have been available for work and actively looking for work during the past week.

"Now, there's just going to be a few forms to fill out, and then we're going to move forward with that CPR, mmkay?" I don't think the government will be that bad. No entity could be worse than the insurance companies that have evolved over the last 25 years. Flo from Progressive and that f***ing gecko are costing us twice what we would otherwise pay for car insurance, just so we can pay to watch commercials.

Overall, the system or machine is too big to comprehend. If you put it in terms of there being a fixed amount of money in the world and you need to fight for your share, then it shuts down. Nobody will pay for anything. If you let things expand and say people are generating money (from where I don't know) then you scratch your head and wonder what they were doing the last 10 years or so to make that work.

I think 70% of Americans DO want government run health care because at least they feel there is a chance of controlling the monster. Maybe they could speak up about costs and vote someone in to fix it. Not be at the mercy of a corporation that can send you a bill and leave it up to you to hire a lawyer to dispute it. Not worth it if they say they're just not going to cover your $500 visit. Total life devastation if they say they're not going to cover your $100,000 visit.

I just don't want to pay for TenPoundBass to have his head examined.

See what I mean.

Just put doctors on good government salaries based on the number of patients they have and be done with it. Doctors would deal directly with the patient, and if the patients don't like them, they go to the good doctors that do a good job. This eliminates all the money going to insurance companies paying executives salaries in excess of 10 million a year! And you just pay it in tax that comes out of your paycheck so you can still budget and not really feel it in the form of a bill that needs to be paid. They're doing that already with your paycheck if you have a job. It's just a question of do you want your "health insurance providers" to be held up to public scrutiny or not?

It is not surprising that 70% of Americans want a public health care system. In fact, I'm a little surprised the number is not higher. Christianity is the dominant religion in the United States. And, all true Christians know they are to try their best to walk in the footsteps of Jesus. Jesus says, "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." (John 15:12). Who among us believes that Jesus would deny health care to anyone? The fact is, Jesus would not deny anyone health care. He spent much of his time healing: the leper, the blind, the dead, even the servant who arrested him.

Is there any passage in the Bible where Jesus withheld healing?
Is there any passage in the Bible where Jesus demanded payment for healing?
Is there any passage in the Bible where Jesus worries about the "cost" of healing?
Is there any passage in the Bible where Jesus worried that some people might wrongfully benefit if he healed someone?

Perhaps, I missed something either in church or in reading the Bible. If there are any true Christians out there who can point me to a passage where Jesus turned his back on the sick, I'd be more than willing to read it. If not, I am a little saddened as to how low the 70% number is. I pray that Jesus forgives the the other 30%.

Special emergency care would not be based on the number of patients, but I'm sure that can be figured out. There is left the question of what if Joe Doctor just doesn't feel motivated to come in and perform that middle of the night emergency surgery because it isn't going to pay him another dime.

Then there's the medication, those pills that replace marijuana. You look at pills, housing, insurance, tv, and cell phones, not to mention credit card rates... and then you have to listen to the economists in charge like Greenspan was telling you they're doing what they can to control inflation... unbelievable.

Exactly Ryan, and there is a nice cross over here we've got picked out just for you, just need you to carry it to Capitol Hill and...

chrisborden says

If I am forced to buy health insurance at $500 a month (I’m sure it will cost at least that), I will go broke within two years, as I have only $25,000 in savings and earn $400 a week and live on it since being laid off and am unable to find a job at 54. Guess I’ll just have to start withdrawing what’s left of my “retirement.” I CHOOSE not to buy because I STAY HEALTHY and do not worry about catastrophe (why?). Yet the socio-Marxist Obama thinks he knows what’s good for me. I CHOOSE to live MY way. If some disaster were to befall me, I take full responsibility for the cost; if I go bankrupt, so what? Life will go on somehow. That is how I want to live. I do not want the government telling me what to do with my money. It is a risk I am quite willing to take. And yet, I will be penalized either way. We cannot win; the deck is stacked against us, folks, courtesy of your “savior” in the Black House.

If we had a single payer system such as laid out in detail in HR676 you would be better off.

Here is how it would be funded according to the proposed law.
A) Existing sources of Federal government revenues for health care.

(B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners.

(C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.

(D) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.

(2) System savings as a source of financing.—Funding otherwise required for the Program is reduced as a result of—

(A) vastly reducing paperwork; and

(B) requiring a rational bulk procurement of medications under section 205(a).

(3) Additional annual appropriations to USNHI program.—Additional sums are authorized to be appropriated annually as needed to maintain maximum quality, efficiency, and access under the Program.

chrisborden says

CHOOSE not to buy because I STAY HEALTHY and do not worry about catastrophe (why?). Yet the socio-Marxist Obama thinks he knows what’s good for me. I CHOOSE to live MY way. If some disaster were to befall me, I take full responsibility for the cost; if I go bankrupt, so what?

If you go bankrupt, you put the burden on everybody else. When a hospital writes off your medical bills, who do you think pays? That's right, the tax payers who are now footing the bill for the write off.

What happens if you get hit by a car tomorrow? Who's paying that bill? By your own admission, you couldn't possibly afford it, which means that the hospital will be writing off your expenses, which makes the whole process MORE expensive than if there was either a single payer or a public medical plan.

You can't just 'choose' to stay healthy your entire life. If that was an option, we wouldn't have intensive care units.