Memories are still razor-sharp of the last time Hillary Clinton tried to overhaul Americans’ health care, which assured attention for today’s unveiling of her new $110 billion-a-year health care proposal. Its "individual mandate" that all Americans carry insurance, aided by public dollars if they can’t afford it, sounds a lot like the Massachusetts plan, which has proved far more costly than forecast. The comparison to states’ car-insurance mandates makes sense to a point — until you recall that Kansas, despite such a mandate, still has 160,000 uninsured drivers. But at least Clinton and other Democratic presidential candidates see lack of access to affordable health care as the worsening crisis it is. Their GOP counterparts act as if all is well.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
198 Comments
Bottom Line: There is no money tree out there to “pick” FREE MONEY to support FREE HEALTHCARE:
US Headed for Financial Disaster
(CBS) This segment was originally broadcast on March 4, 2007. It was updated on July 8, 2007. (can’t get any more liberal than that)
When the stock market soars or plunges, everyone pays attention. But short term results aren’t that important to the man you’re about to meet. David Walker thinks the biggest economic peril facing the nation is being ignored, and for nearly two years now he has been traveling the country like an Old Testament prophet, urging people to wake up before its too late. Who is David Walker and why should we care?
As correspondent Steve Kroft first reported earlier this year, he is the nation’s top accountant, the comptroller general of the United States. He’s totaled up our government’s income, liabilities, and future obligations and concluded that our current standard of living is unsustainable unless some drastic action is taken. And he’s not alone. It’s been called the “dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows” – a set of financial truths so inconvenient that most elected officials don’t even want to talk about them, which is exactly why David Walker does.
“I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan but our own fiscal irresponsibility,” Walker tells Kroft.
David Walker is a prudent man and a highly respected public official. As comptroller general of the United States he runs he Government Accountability Office, the GAO, which audits the government’s books and serves as the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress. He has more than 3,000 employees, a budget of a half a billion dollars, and a message he considers urgent.
“I’m going to show you some numbers…they’re all big and they’re all bad,” he says.
So bad, that Walker has given up on elected officials and taken his message directly to taxpayers and opinion makers, hoping to shape the debate in the next presidential election.
“You know the American people, I tell you, they are absolutely starved for two things: the truth, and leadership,” Walker says.
He calls it a fiscal wake up tour, and he is telling civic groups, university forums and newspaper editorial boards that the U.S. has spent, promised, and borrowed itself into such a deep hole it will be unable to climb out if it doesn’t act now. As Walker sees it, the survival of the republic is at stake.
“What’s going on right now is we’re spending more money than we make…we’re charging it to credit card…and expecting our grandchildren to pay for it. And that’s absolutely outrageous,” he told the editorial board of the Seattle Post Intelligencer.
You have heard this before, from Ross Perot 15 years ago. You might have even thought the problem had been solved, when President Clinton announced, “Tonight, I come before you to announce that the federal deficit … will be simply zero.”
“Well, those days are gone. We’ve gone from surpluses to huge deficits and our long range situation is much worse,” Walker says.
“President Bush would argue that the economy is in pretty good shape, unemployment is down, the deficit is actually less than expected,” Kroft remarks.
“The fact is, is that we don’t face an immediate crisis. And, so people say, ‘What’s the problem?’ The answer is, we suffer from a fiscal cancer. It is growing within us. And if we do not treat it, it could have catastrophic consequences for our country,” Walker replies.
The cancer, Walker says, are massive entitlement programs we can no longer afford, exacerbated by a demographic glitch that began more than 60 years ago, a dramatic spike in the fertility rate called the “baby boom.”
Beginning next year, and for 20 years thereafter, 78 million Americans will become pensioners and medical dependents of the U.S. taxpayer.
“The first baby boomer will reach 62 and be eligible for early retirement of Social Security January 1, 2008. They’ll be eligible for Medicare just three years later. And when those boomers start retiring in mass, then that will be a tsunami of spending that could swamp our ship of state if we don’t get serious,” Walker explains.
To illustrate their impact, he uses a power point presentation to show what would happen in 30 years if the U.S. maintains its current course and fulfills all of the promises politicians have made to the public on things like Social Security and Medicare.
What would happen in 2040 if nothing changes?
“If nothing changes, the federal government’s not gonna be able to do much more than pay interest on the mounting debt and some entitlement benefits. It won’t have money left for anything else – national defense, homeland security, education, you name it,” Walker warns.
Walker says you could eliminate all waste and fraud and the entire Pentagon budget and the long-range financial problem still wouldn’t go away, in what’s shaping up as an actuarial nightmare.
Part of the problem, Walker acknowledges, is that there won’t be enough wage earners to support the benefits of the baby boomers. “But the real problem, Steve, is health care costs. Our health care problem is much more significant than Social Security,” he says.
Asked what he means by that, Walker tells Kroft, “By that I mean that the Medicare problem is five times greater than the Social Security problem.”
The problem with Medicare, Walker says, is people keep living longer, and medical costs keep rising at twice the rate of inflation. But instead of dealing with the problem, he says, the president and the Congress made things much worse in Dec. 2003, when they expanded the Medicare program to include prescription drug coverage.
“The prescription drug bill was probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s,” Walker argues.
Asked why, Walker says, “Well, because we promise way more than we can afford to keep. Eight trillion dollars added to what was already a 15 to $20 trillion under-funding. We’re not being realistic. We can’t afford the promises we’ve already made, much less to be able, piling on top of ‘em.”
With one stroke of the pen, Walker says, the federal government increased existing Medicare obligations nearly 40 percent over the next 75 years.
“We’d have to have eight trillion dollars today, invested in treasury rates, to deliver on that promise,” Walker explains.
Asked how much we actually have, Walker says, “Zip.”
So where’s that money going to come from?
“Well it’s gonna come from additional taxes, or it’s gonna come from restructuring these promises, or it’s gonna come from cutting other spending,” Walker says.
He is not suggesting that the nation do away with Medicare or prescription drug benefits. He does believe the current health care system is way too expensive, and overrated.
“On cost we’re number one in the world. We spend 50 percent more of our economy on health care than any nation on earth,” he says.
“We have the largest uninsured population of any major industrialized nation. We have above average infant mortality, below average life expectancy, and much higher than average medical error rates for an industrialized nation,” Walker points out.
Walker says we have promised almost unlimited healthcare to senior citizens who never see the bills, and the government already is borrowing money to pay them. He says the system is unsustainable.
“It’s the number one fiscal challenge for the federal government, it’s the number one fiscal challenge for state governments and it’s the number one competitive challenge for American business. We’re gonna have to dramatically and fundamentally reform our health care system in installments over the next 20 years,” Walker tells Kroft.
And if we don’t?
“And if we don’t, it could bankrupt America,” Walker argues.
You’re probably expecting to hear from someone who disagrees with the comptroller general’s numbers, projections, and analysis. But hardly anyone does. He is accompanied on the wake-up tour by economists from the conservative Heritage Foundation, the left-leaning Brookings Institution, and the non-partisan Concord Coalition. The only dissenters seem to be a small minority of economists who believe either that the U.S. can grow its way out of the problem, or that Walker is over-stating it.
“The Wall Street Journal for example calls you ‘Chicken Little,’ running around saying that the ’sky is falling, the sky is falling,’” Kroft remarks.
“Unfortunately they don’t get it. I don’t know anybody who has done their homework, has researched history, and who’s good at math who would tell you that we can grow our way out of this problem,” Walker replies.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke validated much of Walker’s take on the situation at congressional hearings this year, and so did ranking Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee. Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota is the chairman.
Sen. Conrad thinks David Walker is “providing an enormous public service.”
Asked if he agrees with Walker’s figures and his projections, Sen. Conrad says, “I do. You know, I mean we could always question the precise nature of this projection or that projection. But, that misses the point. The larger story that he is telling is exactly correct.”
Conrad acknowledges that most people in Washington are aware how bad the situation is. “They know in large measure here, Republicans and Democrats, that we are on a course that doesn’t add up,” the senator tells Kroft.
“Why doesn’t somebody do something about it?” Kroft asks.
“Because it’s always easier not to. ‘Cause it’s always easier to defer, to kick the can down the road to avoid making choices. You know, you get in trouble in politics when you make choices,” Sen. Conrad says.
Asked if he thinks taxes should be raised, the senator says, “I believe first of all, we need more revenue. We need to be tough on spending. And we need to reform the entitlement programs … we need to do all of it.”
But he admits he doesn’t think there’s a consensus for raising taxes.
“Any politician who tells you that we can solve our problem without reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is not telling you the truth,” Walker told an audience at the University of Denver.
Over the next year, the nation’s top accountant will be traveling to the early primary states, telling voters that we need to begin raising taxes or government revenues and put a cap on federal spending if we want to maintain our economic security and standard of living.
“If you tell them the truth, if you give them the facts, if you explain this in terms of not just numbers but values and people, they will get it and empower their elected officials to make tough choices,” Walker argues.
Asked if he knows any politicians willing to raise taxes or cut back benefits, Walker says, “I don’t know politicians that like to raise taxes. I don’t know politicians that like to cut spending, but I think what we have to recognize is this is not just about numbers. We are mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren at record rates, and that is not only an issue of fiscal irresponsibility, it’s an issue of immorality.”
I think it was Kansas who posted reference to the 46 million people in this country without healthcare. But something like half this number included ILLEGAL CRIMINAL IMMIGRANTS. And how many are eligible for healthcare thought their work and chose NOT to participate (for whatever reason – it’s available)?
So you don’t take a system which works for the vast majority of 300 million Americans, and revamp it for a few.
Leave my healthcare alone.
Take your socialized medicine to somewhere else.
Ah, health care. Brought to us by the same people who are doing such a bang-up job in public education. Efficiency by the same people who brought us the $800 hammer. Service by the same people who did such a great job in the federal response to Katrina.
I can’t wait.
The current “system” (if you can call it that) is a mess, true enough, though most of the “uninsured” statistics are less than advertised, once the stats are broken down and teased away from their political agenda.
But thinking that the Federal government can do better, given the track record of the Feds managing anything with any sort of competence, is dreaming of the worst sort. Bureaucracies exist to feed bureaucracies; this new bureaucracy, should it come, will be no different.
Second (or third, or fourth) verse, same as the first.
Interesting Rhonda,
Just who in this country doesn’t have access to healthcare? No one.
Even the phoney 41 million without health insurance number is phoney.
Most people that don’t have healthcare have merely made a choice to spend their money on something else. If you are thirty and single and employed by someone that doesn’t provide health insurance benefits what are your biggest concerns about healthcare? Accidents are covered by auto insurance when driving; mishaps at work are covered by workers compensation; accidents at home are covered by home owners insurance. If you become disabled you can collect SS benefits.
What’s left? Minor ailments that the individual can pay fo himself a lot cheaper than relying on a health insurance company.
Almost every problem with our health care system can be directly traced to the government’s involement.
Hank
So am i gonna go to jail if i refuse health insurance? If so might as well go for something worthwhile like kill me a politican
And ironically, the same people who are all a-twitter that gov’t might overhear them order pizza are ready, willing, and able to hand over to that same gov’t their medical records.
Who’d a thunk it.
Here’s a idea the government doesnt pay for anyones health care with one exeption vets wounded in the line of duty. And I guess workmans comp for federal employees
Socialized medicine will come back and bite those asking for it. One suggestion is a payroll tax. Just like Social Security and Medicare. And just like these, poor people can’t cry their way out of them. Additionally, the government may mandate employees participate if their company offers a plan. There goes choice.
There is not enough money at the top 5% of wage earners to fund this brand spanking new entitlement program. Socialized medicine will affect everyone’s pocketbooks. And when it is all said and done, and you start getting poor service, stand in lines, and wait listed -
who you going to call?
“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Like no one else is addressing Health Care?
The timing is amazing dontcha think? Why is Hillary bringing this up today?
Nice distraction from the Clinton Campaign Crisis!
Democrat financing is now a Culture of corruption.
Hank, Lawyers do a good job at F ucking up health care also, actually i cant think of anything lawyers dont mess up
“But thinking that the Federal government can do better, given the track record of the Feds managing anything with any sort of competence, is dreaming of the worst sort.”
I received Medicare and Medicaid several times and they are two of the worst handled govt programs around. Trust the feds to do better with mandated healthcare? I have some beachfront property in Colorado to sell you.
I choose to be without health insurance because I save a lot of money compared to what the premiums are. Many of us uninsured are the same way. Most of the rest of those without insurance are too lazy to apply for the free or low cost govt programs available.
“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Words to be very afraid of. Also an oxymoron, but thats another story.
Hank will you please stop talking about what you know nothing of. I truly mean it. I was for years one of the ones without health insurance, and it isn’t because I simply chose to spend it on other things. Even without it, we were barely making the bills.
The insurance companies should be backing this plan by the boatloads…forced to buy their insurance HORRAY. Then they can really screw over people with this isn’t covered, and that isn’t covered, and you can’t go to this hospital or this doctor.
I’d be happier if medicaid was simple expanded and we all paid into it.
I was for years one of the ones without health insurance, and it isn’t because I simply chose to spend it on other things.
Posted by: political_mom | September 17, 2007 at 01:17 PM
So because you had problems, you think I shouold fall under a government program, give up the great healthcare I have via my employer, and help pay for yours?
That’s real American of you.
Actually, that’s socialism.
Hey Mr. Paine,
Even the problem of lawyers can be traced to the need for tort reform in our country. They couldn’t aversely effect health care if the law didn’t allow frivoulous claims. (you know, the kind that John Edwards made all his millions from.)
Hank
Hank you got that right.
Though you can’t put a $$ to the value of a life, you can put a $$ to the economic value of a life.
Limit medical liability say to $3 million per person or actual damages, whichever is higher. Also limit attorney fees to 25% of awards or $500,000, whichever is lower.
As long as the Socialists are regulating Doctor salaries, might as well limit attorney fees too.
Soon, ALL working people will have their salaries regulated by SOCIALISTS.
I wonder if Mary Caruso would like Hillary “Her Royal Thighness” Clinton’s health care plan.
It would take her privately structured pay scale and reduce it to a government, bureaucratic one. You’d only get a pay raise when the government would allow you one.
Want to get a “boob” job? Well then, get on the list. You’ll be about the One hundred and thirteenth thousandth on the list. You’ll get it about the age of 60 or so. :)
As long as the Socialists are regulating Doctor salaries, might as well limit attorney fees too.Posted by: Max
Hey Max that’s a GREAT idea! I can’t afford a lawyer, so the government should regulate them and provide me one. Not the court appointed type, but so I can sue, be sued, and get advise like the RICH people get.
That’s a basic human right, ain’t it?
Yup American Way. We have a right to lawyers.
And Kansas, women should have a right to boob jobs too! In fact, there should be a means test. We may need to require it in certain, um…, situations.
Government should pay for lawyers and boob jobs.
Dear political_mom,
I would wager that I know more about healthcare, health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, employer’s self pay health benefit plans, Hillary’s failed healthcare plan, Tricare, Champus, worrkers compensation, the veteran’s administration, etc., etc., than anyone else on this BLOG.
Pick any of the above topics and I can have an intelligent conversation on their strong and weak points. I can also explain how the government’s involvement pretty much has screwed them up.
Just because I know very little about your anecdotal healthcare problems means nothing. You’re problem is specific and unique to you. If it wasn’t for the government’s involvement in healthcare it would be cheaper. You might even be able to afford coverage.
Makes no difference to the discussion though. If you wish to bring your health into the discussion then it’s only fair that we all examine your habits, lifestyle, etc and then we all can form an intelligent opinion on your problems.
Hank
If Hillary could give us the same care for 110 billion it would be a bargain
http://depositfiles.com/files/1106402
Factoring in costs borne by government, the private sector, and individuals, the United States spends over $1.9 trillion annually on healthcare expenses, more than any other industrialized country. Researchers at Johns Hopkins Medical School estimate the United States spends 44 percent more per capita than Switzerland, the country with the second highest expenditures, and 134 percent more than the median for member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These costs prompt fears that an increasing number of U.S. businesses will outsource jobs overseas or offshore business operations completely. U.S. Representative John P. Sarbanes (D-MD), a member of the House Education and Labor Committee, told CFR.org that in light of these concerns a “consensus is emerging” on Capitol Hill to do something to ease pressures on U.S. employers. Many experts recommend some form of increased public-private partnership, though the specifics of competing plans vary wildly.
Her 110 B wont replace the 1.9 T figure, it is on top of that number. Wheres the money going to come from? Us, the shrinking middle class in the form of payroll taxes. Once the government is involved, rest assured the cost of the program will skyrocket like a July 4 fireworks display.
On my comment above I don’t know what that link is. I copied a link from a Council on Foreign Relations article.
Sorry about that.
would wager that I know more about ……….. Tricare, Champus,
Posted by: Hank Price | September 17, 2007 at 01:48 PM
That’s awesome Hank, if there is someone out there that understands Tricare/Champus in detail, I’d sure like to buy you a beer and a little of your time.
http://www.downtownkc.org/oktoberfest.aspx?pgID=1022
Retired Vet
Sorry about that.
Posted by: eulb llort
What else can we expect from a blue troll?
You can folks can bark about “socialized medicine,” but we’re already paying for it, with possibly the most expen$ive medical care in the word.
A healthy people is a productive people.
Just wait until the plagues start.
First, the fiscal/budget issues:
Currently, the maximum “earned” income subject to Social Security or FICA taxes is $97,500.
I predict this cap will go away, and ALL earned income will be subject to SS taxation.
After all, HI or Medicare taxes on earned income currently have NO cap!
Currently, a retired couple filing JOINTLY finds that 50% of their Social Security INCOME is taxable, once they exceed $25,000 and that 85% of Social Security INCOME it taxable when they exceed $44,000.
For single filers, the thresholds are $25K and $34K.
I predict that 100% of Social Security INCOME will soon be taxable.
This is the easiest way to “means test” the programs. Those living on SS alone will not be affected.
However, the “Universal” nature of the program is already becomming a joke, and will be a complete fraud once these “reforms” take place.
The “rich” pay the overwhelming share of these taxes.
The “rich” already see much of their “benefits” taxed away.
The “poor” often pay NOTHING into the SS system, as the “Earned Income Credit” actually refunds the payroll, or SS tax.
Social Security will become a WELFARE program.
If the poor dont pay for it, and the rich cant really keep much of it, what else can you call it?—-Of course, Rich lawyers like John Edwards can “incorporate” and then just receive dividends.
Interest and dividends are not taxed by Social Security or Medicare—-One other thing:
The purpose of insurance is to protect your savings and your estate.
If you are poor, going without insurance might be a very rational choice.
In fact, I can get in trouble for selling some forms of insurance to poor people, since they have no assets that need to be protected.—-Growth pays taxes.Only economic growth can pay our bills.
I have Tricare and supplemental insurance Hank. It’s a bit more paperwork involved when the bills come, but much easier on the wallet when one or the other covers the costs. :)
Hey American Way!
What branch? I’m retired Navy, you can have as much of my time as you need, I’ll buy!
When I first retired I use to volunteer at the AFB and help old vets manouver through the system. Things have changed a lot since then, more paper, less care.
I’ve also helped at the VA on occasion when I was a commander of a local VFW. With all its faults, the VA really is doing a pretty good job.
Hank
Do you like the way our very expensive U.S. health care system is setup?
Health care is an essential service, like fire departments, and police.
Maybe the U.S. should have for-PROFIT corporations run the fire and police departments, like we do for health care?
sorry, eyes didnt follow chart well
For married retired people,
$32K gets you to 50%$44K gets you to 85%
Just wait until the plagues start.
Posted by: Rage | September 17, 2007 at 02:15 PM
Do you live in a rat infested neighborhood Rage? :)
Currently, the maximum “earned” income subject to Social Security or FICA taxes is $97,500.
I predict this cap will go away, and ALL earned income will be subject to SS taxation.Posted by: Econ101
I don’t like that Econ. But I guess I could live with that without supporing a revolution: As long as my SS entitlement’s go up. Afterall, if I’m paying in more, I should receive more someday.
Anything short of that is simply theft.
“Do you live in a rat infested neighborhood Rage? :)
Posted by: Kansas | September 17, 2007 at 02:23 PM
Nope, I live a nice neighborhood, thank you, but one can find homeless people less than a half-mile away, and an emergency room about the same distance.
I guess you think microbes only feed on the poor.
Health care is an essential service, like fire departments, and police.Maybe the U.S. should have for-PROFIT corporations run the fire and police departments, like we do for health care?
Posted by: cosmos | September 17, 2007 at 02:22 PM
Essential Service? Says who? You and what constitution? The one you libs make up as you go along?
Regardless, for the vast majority of Americans – we have healthcare now. Do you turn ours off to take care of the few?
And yes, I would vote in favor of police and fire being privatized.
When I retired from the Army a couple of years ago, I looked into Tri-Care and if I recall correctly, I couldn’t find hardly any local Drs in the system. Has that changed since??
Your arguments about “boob jobs” as you put it, are misleading at best. The majority of breast augmentations are ELECTIVE – meaning, they would not be covered even by private health care. The only time a breast augmentation would be covered by insurance is if it is reconstructive, like after a radical masectomy, and even then many times health insurance will not cover the expense… if you are going to “make a point” then make a valid one, please…
Take your socialized medicine to somewhere else.
Posted by: Hotdog1
Like, Iraq.
Oh, don’t forget the free schools, free hospitals, free homes, free money, free guns and free dead children george bush gives to the people of Iraq.
That’s $12,000,000,.00 AN HOUR 24/7/365 we GIVE the people of Iraq.
Your tax money put to very good use by the neo-CONS in washing dc.
American
Predictions and endorsements are two very different things.
I am predicting what will happen.
I don’t like it either.
Hog Future Hillary’s plan is a totalitarian health plan that mandates unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortion. Watch for Hog Futures Hillary to target black babies with an abortion rate that will shift much higher than the now 3-times-higher rate killing black children, not just in abortion mills, but with gruesome after-effects in later pregnancies, like premature birth, infant mortality, and cerebral palsy in black infants.Hillary hates black babies.
And yes, I would vote in favor of police and fire being privatized.
Posted by: American Way
like george do you get a big bribe when a segment in whored out to a private corporation.
like blackwater for instance.
Essential Service? Says who? You and what constitution?
Posted by: American Way
the constitution doesn’t matter to you neo-cons so don’t fake it like you care about anyone other than yourself.
hopefully soon you will lose your health and your insurance will be canceled because keeping you alive is too expensive, you die, and your wife can find a new husband who cares. your kids might be happy with the new choice too.
the constitution doesn’t matter to you neo-cons so don’t fake it like you care about anyone other than yourself.
hopefully soon you will lose your health and your insurance will be canceled because keeping you alive is too expensive, you die, and your wife can find a new husband who cares. your kids might be happy with the new choice too.”
What you wish on other people can come back to haunt you, or do you not believe in Karma?
“And yes, I would vote in favor of police and fire being privatized.”
Posted by: American Way | September 17, 2007 at 02:27 PM
Fire used to be private… it didn’t work.
See ‘history’,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_department
And are you willing to pay extra for those who can’t pay? Or DENY them the service?
American
Predictions and endorsements are two very different things.
I am predicting what will happen.
I don’t like it either.
Posted by: Econ101 | September 17, 2007 at 02:34 PM
I knew you didn’t, but that’s probably because you have a better understanding of economics than most.
Poor people will always have a hand stretched out full of nothing and a mouth full of gimmee. What puzzles me is the middle class “endorsing” socialized medicine. Don’t they understand that they will pay the most – both is terms of poor service and costs? The poor will be happy with their free service, and the truly wealthy will still afford the best service.
The middle class will get squeezed by this. That’s why it is important that libs define “rich” before they jump on this bandwagon. There is not enough money available from the top 5% to fund this huge new entitlement system.
Maybe the U.S. should have for-PROFIT corporations run the fire and police departments, like we do for health care?
Posted by: cosmos | September 17, 2007 at 02:22 PM
Um, how much research and technology is needed by the police and fire departments?
Health Care requires millions be invested in R & D to develop new drugs, new treatments, new technology.
If you take away any profit incentive for that, we’ll not see new drugs and technology come out from any government program.
And how often do you choose your police and fire departments? Never.
You Socialists want to take away the right to choose your own doctors, and hospitals. You also want to take away the right to choose from available treatment options.
Thought you Libs were Pro Choice? Not for Healthcare you’re not.
Oh the many differences…
First of all, a fire threatens the whole community.
If my neighbors house is on fire, if he didn’t have a fire department to put it out, the fire could very easily spread to several other houses and end up destroying much more.
It is in the interest of everyone that the fire be put out. Especially with the history of fire in the civilized world.
You simply can’t afford to let someones house burn down because they couldn’t afford to have a fire department put it out.
If my neighbor doesn’t have health insurance and dies, my life will go on and so will the other neighbors.
So there is a huge difference between why we have a fire department vs nationalized health care.
What you wish on other people can come back to haunt you, or do you not believe in Karma?
Posted by: neerg llort | September 17, 2007 at 02:45 PM
‘American Way’ believes that health care is not an essential service.That’s bad Karma for ‘American Way’.
Boy. Without Hilary to hate, who would you Wingnuts be? You need her an awful lot more than she needs you.
More to the point, the level of Wingnut vitriol on this thread confirms two things: a) how scared Wingnuts are about the health care issue, and b) the “me first and screw you!” orientation of conservatives generally.
Seems beyond Wingnuts, or at least the ones who post here, to entertain any conception of shared risk or shared purpose. Their fantastical, wishful-thinking, supposedly ‘minimalist’ reading of the Constitution stops at the door with gun ownership and pushing their beliefs on everybody else.
The postmodern, privatized apocalypse world that “American Way” itches for has just one problem: it fails to secure the basic necessities for which individuals enter the social contract. And if the state fails to secure these necessities, the underlying social contract becomes null and void.
The Wingnuts seem to lust after turning America into a sectarian battleground, just as they’ve done in Iraq. Denying American citizens access to affordable health care is just a plank in this platform.
Hank I seriously doubt you know so much or you wouldn’t have made that post. I offered that it does happen, and you want to talk about my smoking? That’s fine, can we talk about your boozing?
Even if I hadn’t smoked, i was still 300 a month shy of what health insurance would have cost us. Pull that one out of your butt.
Parkay, of all people who should go for national healthcare, it should be you mr. anti-abortion. Healthcare costs are one reason why women choose abortion. Take that out of the equation and maybe more moms would give birth.
I have heard for weeks that Bush has taken away our rights under the constitution. Well I don’t care if he listens to my phone calls and I don’t care if he reads my emails and I don’t care if he knows what library books I read – but I sure do care if Hillary takes away my right to my own insurance and tells me I have to make do with less because she wants to give more to someone else.
If socialized medicine is so great why is Mayos overrun with Canadians coming in to get healthcare? Check it out. I recently told about the 27 year old bus driver we met in Canada who is paying 42% of his salary for Canada’s great healthcare. Some of you had better be careful of what you wish for you just might get it.
Pmom to say an entire nation needs nationalized healthcare because you didn’t have it at one time is single minded at least and very egotistical at best.
This is how the libs do it. Leave MY healthcare alone!!!
CF2K, scared of Hillary Care? You bet.
It will degrade the quality of health care for all Americans. We are talking lifespans here for you, for me, and for all Americans. Read Hillary’s plan released last spring – those with critical care needs will be left to die if beyond age 50. (that will save money though)
It will add billions to a Federal Budget that is already exploding. It’s a massive increase in socialist programs at a time when we have yet to solve the Social Security/Medicare Fiscal Crisis.
It will cause an increase in taxes for the top 50% of taxpayers in this country. (Unless you tax 75% of the top 25% again like they did in the Johnson administration)
It’s being proposed by someone who can’t manage the finances of her own political campaign, and by someone with Zero accomplishments as US Senator, and by the same person who bungled this program in 1994.
“If my neighbor doesn’t have health insurance and dies, my life will go on and so will the other neighbors.”
Posted by: Nathan | September 17, 2007 at 02:59 PM
The real compassionate(sic) conservative…
“You simply can’t afford to let someones house burn down because they couldn’t afford to have a fire department put it out.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_department
“Firemen summoned to burning buildings were expected to look for these plaques before fighting the fire.
If the fire was in a building covered by a rival insurer, some brigades would deliberately obstruct that company’s fire brigade in an attempt to give rise to greater property damage (and subsequent expense to the insurer).”
The postmodern, privatized apocalypse world that “American Way” itches for has just one problem: it fails to secure the basic necessities for which individuals enter the social contract. And if the state fails to secure these necessities, the underlying social contract becomes null and void.
Posted by: CF2K | September 17, 2007 at 03:00 PM
CF where do you come up with this garbage? Who do they sign this social contract with. That is what is wrong with those who think they are owed something.
Before you know it Hillary ‘it takes a village’ will be removing all children from their homes before the age of 3 so they can be programed to think socialism is the American way.
I hope it never happens but when I read how some on here think we should take from those who have and give to those who don’t I have to admit it is depressing and not just a little scary.
American citizens access to affordable health care is just a plank in this platform.
Posted by: CF2K | September 17, 2007 at 03:00 PM
So now it isn’t just access to healthcare – it’s “affordable” healthcare. This is your essential services that government should provide?
Because it is EXPENSIVE, it is wrong? So wrong that you want it for free? It will not be free, and it will not be the best.
Do you take your car to the cheapest auto mechanic? Do you eat at the cheapest diner? Or do you get the best you can afford?
How much more are you willing to pay for your life? Healthcare is not cheap. Even where it is socialized it is not cheap.
Someone always has to pay. But it’s not just cost. If our government jumps in – it’s administrative. It will become a nightmare of paperwork and continual political tinkering. Look at the IRS.
All of this crying and whining because less than 8 percent of Americans do not have healthcare.
The other 92 percent have ACCESS to healthcare. “Affordable” is a matter of individual perspective. But you would have the government judge that.
Leave my healthcare alone.
What you wish on other people can come back to haunt you, or do you not believe in Karma?
Posted by: neerg llort | September 17, 2007 at 02:45 PM
‘American Way’ believes that health care is not an essential service.That’s bad Karma for ‘American Way’.
cosmos that applies to you and the numerous other radilibs on this blog. Your hate is worse than the hate of the other side since you hide behind it. You refuse to consider other people may be correct and that only your dogma, faith, is correct. Your group likes to bandy the concept of Karma as it applies to other people and refuse to acknowledge Karma when someone points it out to you, or you attack them like flaming trolls. Unlike you and many others on this blog, I have a life outside of this place. Based on the amount of time and energy spent by you and a number of people on either side of the barn, it would not appear that you all do.
Unlike you, I do not take personal attacks against me personally because I know those attacks are attempts to get my goat, and I dont give other people that pleasure or power. Also unlike you, I am willing to consider other possibilities instead of being locked into one thing. I have been convinced of others’ beliefs and I have convinced others of my beliefs. I do not try that here since both sides are dead set on their way.
That Karma applies to me as much as it does to you.
when I read how some on here think we should take from those who have and give to those who don’t I have to admit it is depressing and not just a little scary.
Posted by: ksgrm
It’s the new Socialist Party of America wrapped behind the democrat shield:From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. The phrase summarizes the idea that, under a communist system, every person shall produce to the best of their ability in accordance with their talent, and each person shall receive the fruits of this production in accordance with their need, irrespective of what they have produced. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy everyone’s needs.
In many ways – I won the cold war!
“Before you know it Hillary ‘it takes a village’ will be removing all children from their homes before the age of 3 so they can be programed to think socialism is the American way.”
*****
The fallacy of the weak opponent (also called straw man): distorting the position of one’s opponent and then attacking that distortion (instead of attacking the actual beliefs of the opponent).
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Hillary Clinton probably doesn’t want to kidnap children and put them in re-education camps.
But that’s just the rationality talking.
Rave on, wing-nuts.
Karl you are to right in what you said. I can only hope the American people wake up before the Clinton’s get a chance to ruin our nation completely.
One of Dick Morris’s favorite thing to tell about Hillary is that she never forgot when someone made her made. I fear that we as a nation made her mad and now we are going to pay the price.
“Before you know it Hillary ‘it takes a village’ will be removing all children from their homes before the age of 3 so they can be programed to think socialism is the American way.”
*****
Let’s see, we have before school care, government lunch program, after school care, busing, all provided by the government K-12.The care must meet strict government requirements which are enforced with threat of loosing funds.
The poster is not too far off track.
“The fallacy of the weak opponent (also called straw man): distorting the position of one’s opponent and then attacking that distortion (instead of attacking the actual beliefs of the opponent).”
Ah, the king of straw man arguments making an appearance and accusing others of the same thing he does. You do the same with the trolling issue, or maybe I should call you King Troll in addition to King Straw Man. Capn methinks you protest too much. I hope you dont act this way in church.
American Way,
8% of the population lacks health insurance? Sounds like “conservative” math–in other words, a LIE.
The number is 47 million, according the National Coalition on Health Care. That’s 16%.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
Oh, and if you want to claim that half are illegal aliens, provide a link or be a liar.
Second point: of course it has to be paid for. Duh. But I’d rather see MY premiums going to government-run healthcare, that is accountable to ME as a CITIZEN, than to see it sucked up into HMO profits and operating costs about which I have NO recourse.
The privatization of health care over the last thirteen years has been a disaster for the well-being of Americans. Private enterprise can’t be given a blank check to do right by those for whom it is supposed to care. It’s proven itself incapable of doing what it was intended to do. But it IS great at making a few folks wealthy by denying the rest of us access to health coverage.
ksgrm,
I know intellectual depth is kind of a challenge for you. But America’s founding fathers bought into the social contract model. And this grounds the legitimacy of the state in its ability to deliver its inhabitants from the depredations of the state of nature. To the extent that it fails to do so, it surrenders its legitimacy.
For example, the Bush Administration’s leaving New Orleaneans to die in the sun counts as a breach.
Finally, with Max, well, lots of sound and fury, little of substance. Very much what we’ve come to expect of him.
“Someone always has to pay. But it’s not just cost. If our government jumps in – it’s administrative.”
Posted by: American Way | September 17, 2007 at 03:18 PM
Do you believe that all the insurance agents, and all the competing, for-profit healthcare companies have no “administrative” costs?
It’s a very high overhead system.
“Let’s see, we have before school care, government lunch program, after school care, busing, all provided by the government K-12.The care must meet strict government requirements which are enforced with threat of loosing funds.
The poster is not too far off track.”
You left programs that start with children as young as 3 years old. During the week, schools and other govt agencies see your kids more than you do.
“It’s a very high overhead system.”
Not as high as when the govt gets involved. I dont like private insurance but it is better than once you get the feds involved.
it fails to secure the basic necessities for which individuals enter the social contract. And if the state fails to secure these necessities, the underlying social contract becomes null and void.
Posted by: CF2K | September 17, 2007 at 03:00 PM
CF where do you come up with this garbage? Who do they sign this social contract with. That is what is wrong with those who think they are owed something.
Before you know it Hillary ‘it takes a village’ will be removing all children from their homes before the age of 3 so they can be programed to think socialism is the American way.
Posted by: ksgrm | September 17, 2007 at 03:14 PM
………………………….
The STATE is now REQUIRED to provide NECESSITIES. That is Socialism. “Necessities” are now defined to include:
FoodClothingHousingSocial SecurityMedicarePrescription DrugsHeating AssistancePublic TransportationHealth InsuranceWhat’s next?
Boob Jobs were used sarcastically above to highlight the absurdity of a State providing all of our Necessities. And all for FREE, by the way.
KSgrm, you got it – the Socialists are trying to take over. Now they have the People signing Contracts with the State to provide Necessities.
The Socialists do believe they are born unto this planet Earth and they are OWED something from everybody else! (by Evolution or by God, not sure which?)
That Village for our Children will have the State raising our kids.
We will also have a Social Security Village for the Poor and all Retired people will be required to relocate to a State Social Security Village. (SSSV)
The State will take care of us all right. But the State will decide what is a Necessity for us. We won’t have to decide anything anymore.
Why do I fear Hillary Care? It’s just one step toward Hillary’s reordered world. Reordered in the Socialist Way of Hillary’s Design! Because she is so dang smart she knows it all!
neerg llort,
Are you saying that believing that health care is NOT an essential service is not “bad Karma”?
I know intellectual depth is kind of a challenge for you. But America’s founding fathers bought into the social contract model. And this grounds the legitimacy of the state in its ability to deliver its inhabitants from the depredations of the state of nature. To the extent that it fails to do so, it surrenders its legitimacy.
For example, the Bush Administration’s leaving New Orleaneans to die in the sun counts as a breach.
Posted by: CF2K | September 17, 2007 at 03:36 PM
Who in history said anything about a social contract model? Prove it or be a liar CF2K.
Max,
We will need the government to give us our car insurance so we can drive safely…
Give us free child care so we can work…
Give us free tranportation so we can get to work…
Work will get stressful, so we will need free mental heath care too…
Throw in paid time off, because we might not be able to afford to take a needed break from all that hard work…
Where does it stop?
Cap in most instances I would agree but when it comes to Hillary she scares me. Did you read her book “It Takes a Village”?
Believe I don’t want to be sitting her in 4 years saying ‘I told you so’.
Where does it stop?
Posted by: Nathan | September 17, 2007 at 03:45 PM
Give us guns too Nathan, don’t forget!
Not as high as when the govt gets involved. I dont like private insurance but it is better than once you get the feds involved.
Posted by: Karl Jr. | September 17, 2007 at 03:39 PM
FALSE. It’s multiple, competing, for-profit corporations versus one system.
Max,
Guns are bad, the great Mother state will take care of all our needs.
Just get in line for your daily dose… because feelings are bad.
Have you seen the movie Equilibrium?
Try this book about Hillary:
Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House (Hardcover)
by R. Emmett Tyrrell (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Madame-Hillary-Dark-White-House/dp/0895260670/re
Or read her own writing crap:
THESIS> http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/hillaryclintonsthesis.htm>
> HEALTH CARE PLAN> http://www.hillaryclinton.com/files/pdf/healthcarecosts.pdf
People got along fine without govt funded healthcare for many thousands of years and those countries that have instituted are failing or will be soon. How are we going to pay for this monster once it is created? We can pay for it until the baby boomers start retiring within 3 – 23 years, but what then? We will not have enough payers to cover the ones receiving it. Current federal healthcare programs suck and anyone that says otherwise only needs to access them to find out the truth of that statement. If the feds and states cant make Medicaid and Medicare work, why should we believe they can do a better job with universal healthcare?
Nowhere have I seen your opponents argue people should not have health coverage. They argue against the govt doing it. Healthcare was a lot more affordable before the govt stuck its nose into the pigpen.
People like to point to Europe, Canada, and Cuba as great examples of healthcare. Anyone who believes Cuba is a good example better have a lot of money when visiting or you will find out how bad it really is. If Canada and Europe’s are so great, how come they come here for many of their procedures? If our country used common sense, our healthcare costs would go down. Eating at McD’s every day and a person cant figure out why they weigh 300+ lbs? That contributes to our low life expectancies, increased risks of various life shortening diseases, and a host of other things.
Equilibrium? Should I see it?
Nathan scratch the car insurance, you won’t need it. The ‘bus’ will be by early in the morning. Can’t give you a choice of whether to go to work or not. Someone has to pay for Hillarycare. It will bring you back home at dark. We all have to work really hard to make this thing work.
We won’t have to worry about old age – we won’t live that long unless we can afford to leave the country to find good health care. A friend of ours lived in England for years, at the age of 56 he needed dialysis to continue to live, was put on a 9 month waiting list. He has moved back to the good old USofA.
Forget about a choice of Doc also. When they find out how much Hillarycare will pay them they will leave in droves. From those who have to those who don’t. Hope this works for the atts also but since we will be dealing with an att couple probably will be exceptions. I guess the John Edwards of the future will have to sue the fed gov. Some change is good.
Do you believe that all the insurance agents, and all the competing, for-profit healthcare companies have no “administrative” costs?It’s a very high overhead system.Posted by: cosmos | September 17, 2007 at 03:38 PM
I have no problem with my money supporting all those jobs you indicated.
The true number of uninsured, 47 million does include 20% illegals. That brings you down to about 12% of the population. Now subtract from that the large number of people who do NOT elect coverage through their work – when it is available (prossibly due to the cost) and you have even a lesser percent without insurance. But you IGNORE the rest of the 303 million Americans who have healthcare coverage.
You don’t change the whole world for a few.
If you want to fix health care you have to get the government to quit paying for it. The only health care the government should pay for is wounded combat vets? you make people pay for their own health costs then prices go down. Other things you can do let people buy their prescription in Canada or the federal government needs to,leave the medical marijuana people alone. do away with the VA.
Max,
It is a great show. It is a bit slow in the beginning because it is building up to an AWESOME ending.
Basic review:
Furture society where feelings have been outlawed. Everyone is “forced” to take a drug which makes you have no feelings. When I say feelings, I am talking about emotion.
The society claims to be perfect because there is not any war or violence anymore… per say.
Except for those who refuse to take the drugs who are summarily executed and hunted down.
Also, everything like music and art is outlawed as well, because there is no purpose for any of it without emotions. So all art and music is destroyed and treated as contraband.
It is a good example of what Utopia would be like… Complete and total authoritarian control over the people!
Tom those vets served to protect your sorry behind and as part of their contract with our country they were given medical care.
On the other hand many on welfare come from families who are career welfare recipents.
Who do you think deserves the free care? Many vets don’t qualify decause they do means testing but I say they everyone should be covered and gratefully by the American public.
I’ll check it out. Thanks Nathan.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/
However, don’t you think that those who do elect not to have health insurance due to cost, do so because they don’t really have a choice? when it costs roughly $300 a month (as an estimate based on my own health insurance costs (and I have crappy coverage)) to insure a family of 3 – well that’s a hell of a lot more than “fun” stuff to waste money on – many times for lower income families, that is a whole months rent or groceries or gas for that matter… not extravagent spending, but for many of us in the real world more than we can realiztically afford… I am not saying that Clinton’s answer is the answer either – but I think your arguments are both close minded and misleading because you are failing to take in to consideration the millions of people who WANT health insurance, and if they could afford to pay for it would, but simply can’t, or work minimum wage jobs that don’t offer benefits because that is the job they can get and that is what pays the bills and is better than being on state assistance…. because consider that your numbers of uninsured likely do not include those who qualify for state medical assistance, as that is an insurance itself… puts an entirely different spin on things, doesn’t it? I mean, really, imagine for a minute that you work a minimum wage job, and yes, they offer health insurance, at the bargain rate of $180 a paycheck for you, your wife and your child… however, your wife can only work part time because on your income neither of you can afford the cost of daycare, so she has to work when you are home and vice versa… and she is only making minimum wage as well… even with the wage hike, your income BEFORE taxes per week is 262.00 – or 524.00 each pay period – again BEFORE taxes… now figure your wife is bringing in roughly half of that… so total for a month (again, BEFORE taxes) your income is 1,572.00. Now figure that 16% of that goes to income tax, social security and medicare… which leaves you at 1320 take home… and your rent is lets say $550 a month for a two bedroom apartment… so that leaves you with 770.00. And you have to figure utilities at say roughly 150 a month… and gas at likely a minimum of $200 per month and then lets say your child is an infant, and there is formula and diapers and clothing to buy, at an expense of around 225 per month… does that leave you with enough to cover health care? And we haven’t even gotten to groceries or car insurance yet…
“Who in history said anything about a social contract model? Prove it or be a liar CF2K.
Max”
Max,
Regarding the question of “who provided a social contract model,” well, Max, it’s so well-known and obvious that it almost doesn’t need to be explained. But OK, since you seem as ignorant as you are malicious, here you go:
“The political theory on which the U.S. Constitution is based is that a society is created by a social contract, or compact. The main proponent of this theory was John Locke, who developed it in his Second Treatise on Government, published in 1690″
http://www.constitution.org/col/jdr/usconstitution_el.htm
Or here:
“Many of the framers, especially Madison, studied history and political philosophy. Two political theorists had great influence on the creation of the Constitution. John Locke, an important British political philosopher, had a large impact through his Second Treatise of Government (1690). Locke argued that sovereignty resides in individuals, not rulers. A political state, he theorized, emerged from a social contract among the people, who consent to government in order to preserve their lives, liberties, and property. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, which also drew heavily on Locke, governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Locke also pioneered the idea of the separation of powers.”
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569008_2/Constitution_of_the_United_States.html
Contrary to Wingnut/Fundo agitprop, the Bible was neither the foremost nor the only influence on the Framers of the Constitution.
I swear, the level of studied Wingnut ignorance would be enough to drive educated folks to despair, if so much of it weren’t simple dishonesty and the unwillingness to be shown up as ignorant.
American Way,
Got some substantiation for your claim about the number of uninsured who are illegal aliens?
Kgrm, I stated that the only people who should get government health care are wounded vets. Some guy that put in his 4years and gets cancer because he smokes that’s his problem. And one only has to look at the way Walter Reed treats wounded vets to see the future of government run health care
I think the lack of health insurance in the people of color category is outrageous and astounding. I praise Sen. Clinton’s approach to healthcare, and the way it will help people of all color. Helping the poor, and needy, and those without, is the way of this nation. God Bless.
Rev. Al
I’m sure someone has posted this information before, but I’ll ask anyway.
What is the number of people who want medical insurance but do not have any? The 46 million number is mis-leading. However, what is the real number? According to who?
CF
The Social Contact of which you speak was indeed a social contract for, in the words of Locke, protection of life, liberty, and property. It was a very limited contract, however, where government was granted relatively little, and the individual retained a great deal; it fact, in it’s original form, as Locke (and Jefferson) saw it, it was quite near modern libertarianism (and no, I am not a libertarian).
You’re not the only one who can spout off on Locke, Hobbes, etc. Toss in a little Machiavelli and Plato, and it gets interesting. Just get off the high horse.
Whether government-provided health care was imagined by the founders to be a part of that contract is silly, of course. Whether it should, today, is HIGHLY debatable. Certainly, health care is not a right, in the same sense as a right to freedom of religion, speach, press, firearms, freedom from unreasonable search, jury trial, etc.
The real problem is that, in the eyes of many, gov’t is failing NOW to do the jobs that are already delegated to it. Why would we add a new huge responsibility and financial burden on a federal government currently demonstrating institutional incompetence and facing unfunded obligations in the hundreds of billions, if not trillions?
Thus, my objection is not so much theoretical as practical. I have seen little demonstration that the feds are capable of running such a program with anything near competence. It will cost more, and we will get less. Remember, this is brought to us by the same people who are doing such a bang-up job in public education. Efficiency by the same people who brought us the $800 hammer. Service by the same people who did such a great job in the federal response to Katrina.
And ironically, the same people who are all a-twitter that gov’t might overhear them order pizza are ready, willing, and able to hand over to that same gov’t their medical records. Explain that to me.
What in God’s green earth would give me any confidence that they can manage a health care system? The Feds can’t find their butt with both hands now.
Bureaucracies never change, and this one will be the mother of all bureaucracies. Bureaucracies exist first and foremost, like all life forms, to feed themselves and grow; this new bureaucracy, should it come, will be no different. It’s the nature of the beast (or the leviathan, if you will).
Second (or third, or fourth) verse, same as the first.
GMC, State and local governments aren’t any better. Just today I read the city council is holding a hearing on wether to ban wallabes
In the words of the Declaration of Independence, which also drew heavily on Locke, governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Locke also pioneered the idea of the separation of powers.”
Posted by: CF | September 17, 2007 at 04:16 PM
CF when you climb down off that high horse or fall off, makes me no never mind, look at the sentence that says “governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Well this government doesn’t have my or many of my fellow Americans consent to take away by private healthcare and substitute it with a gov ran one.
So wingnut chew on that one for a while and post something that makes a little sense.
Speaking of local governments i suspect that Wichita will ban pit bulls now if I owned a Pit bull (which I dont) I wonder if you could fight that on 2nd amendment grounds
GMC, you knocked that one out of the park! Great post!
You know, I was about to say the same thing….
:)
Actually, I was going to go back to my history books to verify CF2K’s claim, as that was totally contrary to anything I read before.
Government was intended to have a very limited role. How it got to where it is today is hard to understand. Where government grows for the next generation may be unbelievable – at the current pace of growth.
CF, what I don’t know is if you actually beleive your claim, or you are just using it to justify a Socialist agenda?
(you know, the kind that John Edwards made all his millions from.)
As I said before had Edwards been a republican, the party would have him up for sainthood, his face carved into Munt Rushmoew, and bury him next to St. Ronnie
It’s as if republican lawyers never filed a lawsuit asking for damages to a client
I’m retired Navy,Posted by: Hank Price
East or West Coast, Hank?
Speaking of Pitbulls Tom,
The city isn’t about to ban them, just pass some very stupid legislation putting restrictions on them.
KNSS, channel 3, is doing a segment on the legislation tonight. They interviewed me for the spot. I might get on for 5 or 10 seconds.
Hank
Hey hud,
I retired off the Batfish in Charleston. I’ve been everywhere you could go on a submarine.
Hank
“Service by the same people who did such a great job in the federal response to Katrina.”
Posted by: GMC70 | September 17, 2007 at 04:38 PM
Actually, FEMA did a very good job when James Lee Witt was director.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lee_Witt“By 1996, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial said, “FEMA has developed a sterling reputation for delivering disaster-relief services, a far cry from its abysmal standing before James Lee Witt took its helm in 1993.”
And the healthcare would be provided by the same doctors, hospitals, etc that we use now.
“you are failing to take in to consideration the millions of people who WANT health insurance, and if they could afford to pay for it would, but simply can’t”
Call me hard-hearted, but why should I consider anyone other than my own family? I started my life poor even by today’s income standards. I worked hard to earn enough money to pay for the good things in life – and yes needs came first. Now had I known the government was just going to GIVE me an entitlement, I might not have worked so hard and long hours to make more of myself. Healthcare will become another generational welfare entitlement. Past welfare programs – even with reforms, support this claim.
Regardless, you don’t change an entire system, jobs, private industry (healthcare goes far beyond the doctors office or hospital in our economy) for those who DO meet the above bleeding heart criteria?
I’ll support (regretfully) a program to “assist” people who do not have ANY healthcare available over a limited time frame. This would make sense. But I will not support throwing the baby out with the water because a few million of us truly are “needy”.
I’d also support means testing to qualify. In other words, if your work offers a program, and you turn it down – your government costs will equal your work costs. Possibly a small stipend to defray those costs. This would include a standard INCOME STATEMENT/EXPENSES. If you own a bass boat, an expensive car or SUV, or whatever, then sorry Charlie. If you are in debt up your ass on unnecessary purchases, sorry Charlie. But again, limited in time.
So although I do not believe health care is a “right” and the word compasssion is NOT in my dictionary, I am willing to help those truly in need, until they can help themselves.
It’s not so black and white..I’ve had cancer and my premiums for private insurance would run about $3,000 per month..right now I’m lucky because my husband has had the same employer for almost 20 years and we get our insurance through their group plan..if he loses his job then it will be “sorry Charlie” for me, the only affordable insurance I could get would have a rider in it stating it wouldn’t cover cancer treatment. I don’t think it’s fair that we would have to lose everything we worked for, including our house and retirement, if I should get sick again. Why can’t there be a middle ground for folks like us who have worked hard all our lives but don’t have the riches it would take to pay for another round of cancer treatment without insurance? If we can pay 3 billons dollars a week for the freakin’ war and the rebuilding of Iraq, why can’t Americans have access to basic healthcare? Why can’t there be some middle ground, like health care on a sliding scale or coverage for catastrophic illness? I think people should have a basic right to health care the same way we have the right to education or clean drinking water.
American way, “There but for the grace of God go I”..it would do you well to remember that…just think about how you would feel if soneone in your family got sick and you didn’t have insurance through your employer or weren’t poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. What would you do?
Mary I agree with what you are saying and this is why I get so mad looking at what the government did to the HIPAA law. It was originally meant to protect someone like you or someone with a child with a dibilitating disease that loses a job and as things stand now their insurance. After the congress and senate got finished there was nothing about ‘portability’ what the P really stands for. Anyone will tell you that stands for privacy because the bill was changed to protect that. Now the bill has been gutted and Hillary is attempting to turn all of our medical records over to the government. Kiss privacy goodbye.
Just the thought of gov managing healthcare is frightening.
We will need the government to give us our car insurance so we can drive safely…
Give us free child care so we can work…
Give us free tranportation so we can get to work…
Work will get stressful, so we will need free mental heath care too…
Throw in paid time off, because we might not be able to afford to take a needed break from all that hard work…
Where does it stop?
Posted by: Nathan
People are already getting these things from the government now, Nathan, or do you not know how abusers are abusing the current system?
Just be a single parent with kids and you qualify for many free things from the government. But just when two people marry and have those same kids – then the free health dries up – which is WHY we have so many abusers in the current system!!!!
I’m tired of paying for these people getting free health care, day care, subsidized housing, etc. But that welfare money tree goes both ways. There is corporate welfare that is just as bad as the lower income welfare. There are millionaire ‘farmers’ getting their welfare checks – but I don’t hear anyone complaining about that going on.
The current healthcare system is broken and it needs to be fixed. But I think if we limit the for-profit motivation in healthcare, then half of the access problem will go away. Take away the insurance companies being the doctors by deciding which procedures will be done and which ones will not be done. Put the job of doctoring back into the professional doctors’ hands – and get it out of the corporations who just want to make that dime extra profit in order that their CEO can get his multi-million dollar parachute package when he decides to bail after a few years.
I retired off the Batfish in Charleston. I’ve been everywhere you could go on a submarine.Posted by: Hank Price
I was in Charleston once commissioning a target. Tincan sailor on west coast most of time. At the end ship change homeport to Norfolk so they could deploy us to the Pacific.
MaryPlease check out this link:
http://www.khiastatepool.com/
Without much trouble, you should be able to pull up the rates.
This is a GUARANTEED insurance option, for those who can’t find insurance elsewhere.
Basically, if you are comming OFF Cobra, or have been turned down elsewhere, you can rather easily get coverage here.
Yes, the deductables and premiums are high. However, the premiums are a bit lower than what you quoted, above!
This plan is subsidized by the insurance companies that do business in Kansas.
Maid as much as we hate to admit it healthcare is a for profit business. This said it does need fixing but not by the government. Many jobs are created by this for profit business. How many of these would survive radical changes.
What quality of care would we get with the larger demand on what I think will be fewer providers. A young man I talked to in Canada told me about his last trip to see a doctor. No appointment. After you have chosen a provider you just show up at the office when sick, take the seat closest to the door and move up each time a person is called in.
How many of us will settle for that. What Hillary is proposing is so massive that we could expect many hangups along the way. How many will die before it is straightened out.
Are we prepared to have one facility in town with an MRI, another one that does CAT scans, one that does dialysis, one that can do hearth caths, etc.. This is the plan Canada has. That is why the lines are so long for treatment.
Ins. companies have to much input but a good doctor knows how to get around the system. I remember some years back going in for an ear surgery that was supposed to be outpatient only. My doctor wanted me to spend the night to make sure there were no complications. I told him my insurance only paid as a same day surgery. He told me if I had complications they would approve overnight stay. He also said I was going to have complications!
We have got to get away from the mentality that all corporations are bad. These corporations pay millions each year for benefits for their workers. They aren’t the enemy.
American Health Choices Plan
Okay, I have read it one time. Maybe it will make sense if I read it a few more times.
Almost did not get pass the second page where the Public Plan Option is discussed. She says, “It will provide a more affordable option, in part, through greater administrative savings.”
Another way of saying, “I am from the Government, I am here to help you.”
Somebody explain to me what “compassionate” means in the term “compassionate conservative”. I’m sure not seeing it here. I haven’t seen anything from conservatives that would be considered compassionate. All I’m seeing here is a hell of a lot of lying.
“I don’t want to lose the health insurance I have”
“you won’t get to see the doctor you want”
Clinton said you could keep the insurance you have and you can keep your doctor. So there’s a couple of lies exposed.
“if your over 50 and get a fatal disease, you get thrown out in the street”
What a whopper that is.
You conservatives are some of the meanest, cold-hearted people I ever heard. God forbid we should insure poor children or the working poor.
I wanna be there when God judges you heartless animals.
XXX,
I don’t want to have a HUGE increase in taxes just so Joe Slob can have free health care.
So if I get to keep my own medical insurance, I will have to subsidize everyone else’s insurance.
What is fair about that?
XXX if someone can’t afford insurance now and all at once he gets it. Where is the money coming from. He doesn’t have any money remember. I’m not sure I can still afford to keep my own insurance if I have to start paying for others. So now I have to go on government ins. and now who is paying for it – and on and on and on.
It has nothing to do with compassion. It has everything to do with a politician who is promising something with absolutely no realistic plan to deliver it. To her it is just a campaign promise.
Clinton said you could keep the insurance you have and you can keep your doctor.
Posted by: XXX
Yes, but she also want to cap the tax benefits companys receive. Will the companys keep the same insurance plan if have to pay an increase in tax. Or are you keeping the same insurance with less benefits?
Good question Hud. As a small business owner I can tell you the answer to that. No. We would rather pay a little more in taxes and let our employees join the universal plan. It would save us money in the long run.
We can afford to spend 150 bil. a yr. to kill iraqies, but not for universal health care? Guess it’s just a matter of ones priorities.
I’m not sure I can still afford to keep my own insurance if I have to start paying for others.Posted by: ksgrm
But Hillary says you are paying now for the uninsured: a hidden tax.
“…premiums are roughly $900 higher to pay for the cost of care for the uninsured.”
How many uninsured are there? If it is about 50% of the people, why do we not just pay $900 for the uninsured health care?
Okay, I will admit I need to read The American Health Choices Plan a few more times but…
I cannot find where it discusses, if this plan is approved, who is going to pay for the healthcare of those people who remain uninsured?
Dear XXX,
Compassionate conservative has always annoyed me. It implies that conservatives were not compassionate before George came along.
At first I thought it was just a clever ploy to fool the liberals into voting for him. I now realize that it was the ‘conservative’ part that was disingenuous, he called himself a conservative to fool us true conservatives.
Now I guess that if you think it’s compassionate for the government to enslave generation after generation trapped in the cruel joke that is now welfare in this country then I don’t fit the description.
And don’t worry, you’ll be there when we all get judged!
Hank
Hud having worked in the insurance industry for 10 years I know how rates are decided on. An insurance company will take the experience report (claims paid in a companies behalf) for the preceeding 12 months. They will factor in the census (ages of group participants) and then add on overhead – in our case 19% to cover salaries, building expenses, employee benefits, etc.. This will be the base for the next years rates.
If indeed we are paying for the uninsured it would be padded in the cost of claims paid – hospital costs, doctor fees, etc…
As for what would we do with those who uninsured – under Hillary’s plan they don’t exist. Everyone will be forced to have coverage like it or not. That is what she said when I was listening to her.
“As for what would we do with those who uninsured – under Hillary’s plan they don’t exist. Everyone will be forced to have coverage like it or not. That is what she said when I was listening to her.”Posted by: ksgrm
When you say “everyone”, I assume you mean “American Citizen”.
ksgrm, why would you be frightened at the thought of the government running health care? They already do. It’s called Medicaid and Medicare..and from what I see it works really well. Yes, it’s going to be expensive to provide healthcare to everyone, but I’d rather see the money spent on healthcare for OUR citizens than foreign governments or war. I don’t mind waiting in line if it means I can afford the care. I have great insurance now, and I STILL have to wait in line most of the time.
“If socialized medicine is so great why is Mayos overrun with Canadians coming in to get healthcare? Check it out. I recently told about the 27 year old bus driver we met in Canada who is paying 42% of his salary for Canada’s great healthcare. Some of you had better be careful of what you wish for you just might get it.”
OMG If I hear one more person continue the propaganda machine of the big business health insurance and drug companies, I will scream. If you have not lived there under their system why do you talk. A bus driver paying 42% of his income??? That is pure crap. I would bet it is his fines/child support etc he is paying. But no it is not his health care taxes.
How do i know? I lived there for 35 yrs and let me tell you. It is nothing like the big business insurance propaganda machines would have you think it is. I’m so tired of that. I bet the guy who posted that just left a home after telling a family of 4 that their health insurance is inadequate and that he can sell them much better for 800 a month.
I never paid that kind of rate. Ever. That is just spread so people will be scared of Universal Health Care. Yeah there were lines. FOUR months for a gall bladder removal. Thats just sad.It was free. But right here in red slipper land I waited 4 months for my gall bladder surgery as well AND I got the added benefit of being billed over 5 grand.
By the way it is mostly SIN taxes that pay for Medical up there. 13 bucks for a pack of cigs, alcohol and gambling taxes twice as much. But no, my taxes were certainly NOT 42% of my wages. Someone is lying. And I smell a very stinky Health Insurance Company.
It is almost too funny to read. Educate yourselves about Universal HeathCare. So many times people ask me what i find different from living in Canada and I say.. “your winters are MUCH better and your health insurance system sucks”
The best part of Universal Health care is the preventative piece. Here by the time you put of going and put of going to save the money, it is too far gone in the diagnosis to do anything about.
People do come here from Canada… yes. But the numbers are not what “they” would have you think and guess what.. Canadian Health care pays for it!!!!!! LOL. I swear its almost too funny to think about. My nephew has a very rare disease and his air fair, hotel, meals …everything was paid for (as well as his mother) by the provincial health care system because they could not help him there. THAT is caring more about people than the almighty dollar that is!.
er…. air FARE … geesh I get too worked up over something that this country will NEVER fix. *shaking my head*
Mary! Come on! Medicare works really well?
Medicare is a cancerous, festering sore on the butt of the health care industry. Everyone pays more for their health care because of Medicare!
Since the inception of Medicare the elderly pay twice the percentage of their income for health care and we all pay higher premiums so that clinics and hospitals can afford to defray the costs of Medicare patients.
Don’t even get me started on the cruel joke that Medicaid is!
Hank
So tell me JustTired, where’s your nephew going to go when our system is as sorry as Canada’s?
Hank
“Hillary Clinton unveiled the third part of her plan to ensure that all Americans have affordable, quality health insurance.”
I only see 2 parts. I see several problems with both, but I’d like to see the 3rd part (if there is one) as it may answer some questions and fill in some gaps – though I doubt it.
It would be nice if her Web Site listed links for All 3 Parts, but organization skill and attention to detail is not one of Hillary’s strengths.
But, I trust her to be President and radically change Health Care for All Americans, right!
Here’s one part of Hillary’s health plan:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/files/pdf/healthcarecosts.pdf
Here’s the other revealed today:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx
BTW: Any Libs do any research on the Republican candidates or do you just pull that Blue Lever?
“You must be a U.S. citizen to vote in the U.S.Please correct your entry in the field in red below.”
You can register to vote thru Hillary’s web site. This is the error message you get on Hillary’s voter registration form if you check the box saying you are not a US citizen.
There’s nothing to correct. Why doesn’t it say:
“I’m sorry, you are not able to vote if you are not a US Citizen”.
Instead, the implication from Hillary is that you should LIE on the form.
“BTW: Any Libs do any research on the Republican candidates or do you just pull that Blue Lever?”
O hell ya! I checked out whatshisname just the other day, (as Hank says) right!
Because people make mistakes when filling out those forms? That’s why other sites will kick you back to the place where you made an error, and for less important reasons than voting. Jesus Max, are you really quite this dense? Or just this petty? That’s quite a stretch to accuse Hillary of signing up illegals.
Yes Max, I’m sure Hillary does her own website design and layout. Like she’s got enough time to do it.
Petty, extremely.
I’m going to have to start coming up with ridiculously petty things to complain about the republicans about….like…he wore black shoes with brown pants!
it took my grandmother 9 months to get her gallbladder removed.
I’m glad you’re speaking out…my canadian friends say the same thing…that the Americans against their healthcare have not a damn clue what they’re talking about.
Mom, if you can’t manage a web site manager, then you can manage the country?
The Devil is in the Details Mom.
Try reading once and you will find out.
oh …. you mean how Bush managed Chertoff and “you’re doing a good job browny”?
or how he has managed to rack up record breaking deficits ?
What irks me, is that insurance companies will get deep discount for services to their insured. If you don’t have insurance, hospitals and doctors will charge you full rate! Looks like the uninsured are subsidizing the insurance companies discounts!
political_mom,
According to my Canadian friends, they do not agree with your Canadian friends. They admit getting health care in America because they can get it here quicker.
I dont know why your mother had to wait 9 months, but that is a rarity unless she had an incompetent doctor or it was not that bad. I have had numerous surgeries over the last few years and these surgeries were completed within 4 – 6 weeks or less from the time the doctors recommended surgery.
Canada’s biggest crisis in their medical field is the lack of doctors. Their doctors feel they deserve better pay and are not getting it so they leave Canada. England is seeing the same problem with doctors. Canada rations its healthcare, whether that is something done by the govt or by the providers I dont know.
They’re most likely leaving their countries to come to the U.S., If we have the same system, where will a greedy dr. go?
not that bad? She lost 60 lbs in that time frame, she couldn’t eat at all.
She’s lost 20 more lbs since the surgery, still can’t eat right, they attribute it to anorexia from the gall bladder, but they also haven’t ruled out all the cancers that can do that too.
Shortage of doctors is the only reason my friends say they have issues with waiting…and the wait isn’t that bad. The rich just want to pay their way to the front of the line.
What you say, is that the rich deserve to be at the front of the line for healthcare, no matter the outcome.
Cost Shifting is the term we use to describe the Medicare and Medicaid drain on the system.
Medicare and Medicaid do NOT pay full price or even cover the cost of many services.
The law will not allow the provider to charge the patient the difference between the “approved” rate and the “charged” rate. Therefore, the rest of us who are not in Medicare or Medicaid pick up the slack in our charges.
Rural hospitals face closure all the time because Medicare is a large percentage of their business, and there are no young patients on which to “shift” the costs.—-xxx
Hillary says it, so it must be so?
Hillary says you can keep your insurance and your doctor, and you BELEIVE her, no matter what?
—- What did Hillary say about Weapons of Mass Destruction? What did Hillary say about Saddam? (Actually, she was right on those instances, a rare occurance for her.)
Pmom I find it convenient that someone from Canada just happens to drop in on those days that we are discussing universal healthcare to enlighten us. Don’t you? As for why that crazy bus driver would tell me he paid over 40% in taxes – well he must have been delusional. I hope they improve their healthcare and entice more and better docs because I might need somewhere to go when I need care.
Again foks:
The purpose of ALL insurance is to protect money and property, to replace property and replace income and protect financial assets.
Those who do not have any money are either on welfare and Medicaid or Medicare, or they will run up bills that nobody can collect.
Insurance does NOT buy health care.
Insurance avoids bill collecters, leins and bankruptcy.
Again: an insurance agent can get into trouble for selling health insurance to someone on Medicaid, or for selling Long Term Care insurance to someone who has NO money to protect.
State and Federal law recognizes that the purpose ofinsurance is NOT to provide for health care, Insurance protects your estate!
Insurance companies don’t pay full rates either. My father-in-law had a dental insurance which provided almost no benefit, execpt that the dentist had to charge to the insurance schedule, so while they didn’t cover most of his expenses, he just had to pay at the insurance schedule rates.
This is all a distraction. Hillary made the announcement today to draw attention away from her illegal campaign contributions. The issue of healthcare will never make it to congress because Hillary is going to be discredited and possibly prosecuted for more Clinton unethical and illegal activity.
And you want government to decide when you get treatment, if you get treatment, and how much treatment you are entitled to?
HEALTH CARE RESOURCE PRIORITIZATION AND RATIONING—WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT?
Dan W. BrockHarvard Medical School
This issue of Social Research focuses on difficult choices, choices that are difficult because of their inherent nature, not just the circumstances in which they must sometimes be made, and explores what makes them such. The prioritization of health care resources and rationing is a paradigm example of difficult choices, and yet one might well wonder why. Individuals are continually forced every day to prioritize their own resources, deciding what to use them for and what to forego. The process couldn’t be more familiar. Since our wants typically outrun our resources, although we may regret what must be foregone, we learn to make the choices and move on to the next ones. So why is the very idea of prioritizing and rationing health care resources so troubling and controversial?Americans are deeply ambivalent and inconsistent about health care rationing. On the one hand many like to pretend that it does not take place, but on the other hand they fear being denied beneficial care, in particular payment by their health insurance plans for care they need. If rationing doesn’t take place, of course, there is little to fear. On the one hand, many say that we are a rich country and have no need to ration health care, but on the other hand they resist rising costs of health care, particularly when they result in greater out-of-pocket costs to them. On the one hand, many say that life is precious and money should not enter into decisions about medical treatment, but on the other hand resist the ever increasing proportion of both our national wealth and their own wealth that goes to health care. On the one hand many recognize the need to limit the use of some health care, but on the other hand resist those limits when they are applied to them or others about whom they care.Now these inconsistencies might simply reflect a perfectly common and understandable desire to have more of a valued good like health care, but not to pay more for it. For goods that we must purchase in a marketplace, we soon learn that this is not a desire that can be satisfied—if we want more, we must be prepared to pay more, and so we must decide how much that more is worth to us in comparison with other uses for our resources. Most Americans, however, do not pay out of pocket the full costs of the health care they receive, but instead have most or all of the costs of their health care paid through health insurance. So unlike goods fully purchased and paid for in the marketplace, we don’t bear the full, often most, or sometimes even any, of the real costs of the health care we consume. In the extreme, if we can get it for free, it is hardly surprising that we do not support rationing which will have the effect of denying some health care to us.
Rationing is the allocation of a good under conditions of scarcity, which necessarily implies that some who want and could be benefited by that good will not receive it. This allocation or rationing can take place by many means. The use of a market to distribute a good is one common way to ration it, since attaching a price to a good or service is one way of allocating it in conditions of scarcity, and results in some who would want it and could be benefited by it not getting it. One reflection of our ambivalence towards health care rationing is reflected in our resistance to having it distributed in a market like most other goods–most Americans reject ability to pay as the basis for distributing health care. They do not view health care as just another commodity to be distributed by markets. Despite this widespread view, we are the only developed country without some form of universal health insurance, and so for the 46 million Americans without health insurance their access to health care often does depend on their ability to pay for it.
Rationing largely remains a topic that the public, their elected leaders, and many health care professionals prefer to avoid. The avoidance takes many forms. As already noted, a prominent one is to deny that significant rationing takes place. Perhaps we must ration health care resources that are physically scarce such as organs for transplantation, but rationing because of costs is less visible to the insured. Another strategy of avoidance is to employ a restrictive understanding of rationing which characterizes practices that are plausibly understood as rationing as not in fact rationing. When this denial becomes increasingly difficult to maintain in the face of the realities of the healthcare system, a typical alternative strategy then is to condemn rationing as unjust or unethical and so to deny that it should take place. This fits the strongly negative connotation that rationing has with the public and with many health care professionals. If people widely believe that healthcare rationing does not take place, and that if it did it would be wrong, it is hardly surprising that we have not had a responsible public debate about when and how it should be done. But both of these beliefs that healthcare rationing does not take place, and that if it did it would be wrong, are mistaken.
What is Rationing?One source of confusion about rationing is widespread misunderstanding about what it is, or at least widespread differences in people’s understanding of what it is. As already noted, I understand healthcare rationing to be: the allocation of healthcare resources in the face of limited availability, which necessarily means that beneficial interventions are withheld from some individuals. Rationing can be understood narrowly or broadly, and this account is deliberately broad in order to capture the full range of cases where scarcity of resources, either economic (e.g. money) or physical (e.g. organs, professionals’ time), results in patients not receiving some beneficial care. If we understand rationing too narrowly we will miss some cases that raise people’s concern about rationing, which is that they will be denied some beneficial care.Several comments will help to clarify this conception of rationing. First, at the patient care level rationing of limited healthcare resources more commonly takes the form of failure to offer some care of expected net benefit to the patient rather than the denial of care that the patient or surrogate has explicitly requested. Health care professionals regularly act on judgments about whether a particular diagnostic test or treatment warrants its costs—not every patient complaining of headaches gets an MRI to rule out the rare brain tumor, not every infection requires the latest generation antibiotic when a less expensive one might do the job. But these judgments are typically made by the health professional before making a recommendation to a patient. As a result, much rationing goes unnoticed by patients or their families, which no doubt contributes to the common perception of many that rationing is relatively uncommon. Parenthetically, it also raises the ethical question of whether and when physicians may have a responsibility to inform patients or their surrogates about care of significant benefit that is not being offered to them.
Second, much rationing goes unnoticed by physicians as well because they merely understand it as good clinical care. It is not necessary to do an MRI on every patient presenting with a headache because in the absence of other presenting symptoms, the probability of picking up an otherwise undiagnosed brain tumor is so exceedingly small. But exceedingly small is not zero, which means that the MRI would have had some very small benefit in ruling out the tumor. Here and elsewhere physicians have developed formal or informal protocols and guidelines for the treatment of patients with various presenting symptoms, and those protocols and guidelines sometimes explicitly, but more often implicitly, reflect judgments that some diagnostic or treatment interventions promise too little benefit to warrant their costs. Many common diagnostic interventions such as MRIs, Intravenous Pyelograms (IVPs), and cardiac angiography use contrast agents that carry very small risks of allergic reactions. Low osmolality contrast agents reduce those risks, yet are not used for most patients because such reactions are relatively rare and can generally be medically managed, and because they are many times more expensive than high osmolality agents. (Steinberg 1992) Radiologists or cardiologists doing one of these procedures are aware that the safer agent is not being used, but do not typically think of this as rationing because they are just following professional practice and guidelines for the procedure. Physicians referring patients for the procedure will rarely even think about what contrast agent will be used, leaving that to the professional judgment of the radiologist or cardiologist. And the patient may be told that there is a very small risk of an allergic reaction, but will be assured that it can nearly always be medically managed and will not typically be offered the safer but more expensive contrast agent. So guidelines for sound clinical practice will reflect a rationing decision about what contrast agent to use, but once the guidelines are in place almost no one will think they are rationing care when they practice in accord with those guidelines.
And you want government to decide when you get treatment, if you get treatment, and how much treatment you are entitled to?
HEALTH CARE RESOURCE PRIORITIZATION AND RATIONING—WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT?
Dan W. BrockHarvard Medical School
Rationing can also take place at different levels in the healthcare system, and be more or less direct. When a hospital CEO allocates funds between an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and a primary care clinic, she makes a rationing decision that affects the level of resources and care available for patients in the ICU and in the primary care clinic. For example, the ICU budget will inevitably limit the number of beds in the ICU, which will in turn require the ICU manager to refuse admission when all beds are already occupied to some patients who would have benefited from ICU care. The ICU manager directly rations the ICU bed between competing patients, while the CEO makes a higher level resource allocation decision that indirectly results in the direct rationing of the ICU bed. Some may insist that the CEO’s decision is an allocation, not a rationing, decision, but for our purposes here that is a distinction without a difference since both decisions share the feature of allocating a limited resource that results in denying potentially beneficial interventions to a patient. When the CEO allocates money to the different units within the hospital the patients that will be affected are not identified, whereas the ICU manager may have to deny admission to an identified patient. However, it would be a mistake to think that rationing only occurs with decisions that at the time they are made affect identified patients. To do so would exclude a great many decisions from rationing, such as what services an insurance plan will cover or what is on a hospital’s drug formulary, despite their directly resulting in some patients not receiving beneficial care.
While this understanding of rationing includes more limits on care than are often recognized as rationing, it does not include all denials or failures to offer care. Rationing is the allocation of healthcare resources “in the face of,” that is as required by, their limited availability. This excludes some cases of limiting patients’ access to healthcare resources when the reason for the limitation is not their limited availability. For example, when care is not provided to a patient because it is believed to be futile in treating the patient’s condition, the reason is not its limited availability—it would be provided to the patient if it was believed to have any potential for benefit—but rather its lack of any expected benefit for the patient. This is not to deny that claims of futility—which the public will understand as treatment that “wouldn’t work” to provide any benefit in the particular circumstances—are sometimes hidden rationing decisions to the effect that the very small or very unlikely benefit the treatment might provide the patient is not worth its cost. This latter judgment is a rationing decision and should not be confused or conflated with true futility judgments. More problematic as to whether it is rationing is when patients are not provided a treatment such as antibiotics because of concerns about their overuse leading in turn to their decreased effectiveness; this is usually seen as a public health concern, not a resource scarcity concern. However, it could be considered rationing because it shares the feature that potentially beneficial care is withheld from some patients for the sake of others, in this case others who will need effective antibiotics in the future .Rationing also assumes that the limited resources allocated between competing patients or needs are, or would be, wanted by those patients; if not, then it is not rationing because the patients are not competing for limited resources. Treatments are often not provided to patients who for a variety of reasons have refused those treatments; this is not properly understood to be rationing, even if the care would have been beneficial to the patient. A possible exception to this is if patients’ refuse the treatment or services because they cannot, or decide not to use their limited resources to pay for it. Economists typically characterize markets for healthcare or other goods and services as rationing by price; the goods or services will be allocated by the market only to those able and willing to pay for them. And, of course, since 46 million Americans now lack healthcare insurance and many millions more are underinsured, patients in fact often do not receive needed and beneficial services because they are unable or unwilling to pay for them. As insured patients are forced to bear increasing out-of-pocket costs for care, they often do not receive needed and wanted care for lack of ability or willingness to pay for it.
Rationing does not occur only in order to limit healthcare costs. A prominent instance of healthcare rationing is the allocation of scarce organs for transplantation. (Veatch 2000) The limited availability of organs is not a result of concerns about limiting healthcare expenditures, but rather results from the limited number of donor organs available for transplantation; the scarcity is physical, not economic, required by the inadequate supply of organs for those who could benefit from them. Another important example of non-economic rationing is the rationing that all healthcare professionals must continually do of their time. Spending a bit more, or in some cases even a lot more, time with many patients would have some, even if often only small, additional benefit for those patients. When time is limited for patient visits because the waiting room is full, however, all health professionals must allocate the relatively fixed resource of their time between competing needs and patients.The Necessity, Rationality and Desirability of RationingAs noted above, when the fact that rationing regularly takes place is not denied, many people then respond that it is nevertheless wrong that it takes place. Perhaps rationing is inevitable in the face of limited physical availability of resources like organs for transplantation, although controversial proposals for markets in organs might reduce or eliminate that scarcity. Perhaps it is inevitable that rationing must occur if others limit resources available to physicians to care for their patients, but many deny that resources should be limited in this way. This is a mistake, however, and it is important to understand why. How could we avoid the need for rationing? So long as there is some limit to the resources available for healthcare, healthcare will have to be allocated to those who need or want it with not everyone getting all they need or want; that is a necessary implication of limited resource availability. Even if physicians were to try to limit having to decide who gets what, for example by giving all patients who present for care anything that may benefit them until resources run out, this still involves making choices that inevitably determine who receives what care. So allocation in the face of scarcity is inevitable.
But is scarcity of healthcare resources itself inevitable? The only way of avoiding scarcity in the health sector would be to provide all services to all patients that have any positive expected benefit, no matter how small and uncertain the benefits, and no matter how high the costs. This is clearly impossible. Everyone might benefit from the health services available to the President, for example having a private physician accompany us when we travel, or from unlimited resources for research for diseases that we have or have some chance of getting. More mundanely, everyone would benefit from avoiding the small risk of allergic reactions to high osmolality contrast agents if the much more expensive but safer low osmolality agents were always used in diagnostic testing, or from having an MRI on the very tiny chance that a brain tumor may be causing the headache they are experiencing. Yet none of this would be possible without enormous increases in health care costs.
More important, even if possible, none of it would be rational or desirable. To avoid scarcity by providing everyone with all care of any positive expected benefit, no matter how small the benefit and how high the costs, would have enormous opportunity costs. (Brock 1993) We would have to devote enormous additional resources to healthcare that produced very minimal or marginal benefits when we could have used them in ways that would have produced vastly greater benefits elsewhere, such as in education, rebuilding the country’s infrastructure, or taking more Caribbean vacations. Even within the health sector, providing all beneficial care for some patients regardless of costs would inevitably prevent us from treating other patients who would benefit more, unless resources to the health sector were literally unlimited. So the only way of avoiding the need to ration healthcare would be irrational and undesirable. (Ubel 1999) It would also be arguably unethical. We would have to use resources in a very inefficient manner producing far less by way of overall benefits for the population served than if we did ration care. And since society has other ethical responsibilities to its citizens in areas such as personal and national security, education, and so forth, failing to ration health care would inevitably result in it failing to meet these other ethical and political responsibilities and obligations.
I think this Hillary Healthcare is just a diversion.
She’s trying to sell the Easter Bunny to adults, and many want to see the Easter Bunny, so they are buying this crap.
And the whole time they are thinking about the Easter Bunny, they have forgotten about the $900,000 Hillary Clinton Campaign mess.
Hillary may have Teflon just like Bill, because there’s enough stupid people out there chasing the Easter Bunny.
If I was a pastor, or priest, or rabbi, I would not be posting religious material on this blog without expecting to get criticized for my religious views if they do not appear by some to be consistent with my political views.
And after having represented myself as a religious leader, I would not be responding to such criticism in an inappropriate way.
Thus ends the lesson for this evening.
God she’s a bimbo. Thought maybe, just maybe she had a chance but after this BS..no way. My God she is dumber than Bush and that takes so doing.
They want to believe in the Easter Bunny, because the bunny gave them candy for free before, so they assume there must be more where that came from.
Not sure it’s the Easter Bunny. That might indicate a religious belief. And we can’t have any of that.
Of course, the Easter Bunny doesn’t show up in any of the nine greek texts anyway, so maybe it works just fine.
GMC, do you really think the general population is smart enough to NOT chase the Easter Bunny that Hillary is dangling in front of the Democrats?
I had faith in the American people until 1996. I thought anyone could be fooled once by Bill Clinton, but to vote for him twice, that’s just stupidity.
I truly believe that the majority of the voting population is now stupid enough to believe anything, and stupid enough to blindly follow a political party for life, no matter how it may have changed.
I believe this is what you are looking for (uninsured in the U.S.)http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf2006 census, I believe Table 6 is what you are
interested in.Joseph Antos of the American Enterprise Institute
did the analysis on the above census.The main website is http://www.aei.org/The numbers you are looking for described by Antos
are belowuninsured who are NOT U.S. CITIZENS IS 45% of the
47 million.Broken down by age, 18 – 24 years old – 29.3% of
the 47 million.25 – 35 years old – 26.9% of the 47 million.Broken down by salary, $75,000 or more per year -
8.5% of the 47 million.
Those are not U.S. Citizens, but not necessarily illegal aliens.Although if there was some more investigation, one could find that the majority of the above statistic was indeed illegal aliens.I’ll have to search for more information on that specific statistic.Regardless, we shouldn’t be paying for free medical care for non-citizens and the non-citizen
statistic shouldn’t have been used by Michael Moore in his “Health Scare” movie as part of the 45 million total.Moore’s scare tactic is typical of the Liberal goose steppers. They only include part of the information and exclude parts that incriminate themselves as spreader of false documentation and analysis.Posted by: Kansas | September 03, 2007 at 08:43 PM
Well maybe it’s not the Easter Bunny. Maybe it’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.
I wonder how many of those illegal uninsured immigrants will be covered by Hillarycare?
Hillarycare premiums are based on a percent of your income, so if you make $20,000/year you probably pay nothing. (Though Hillary hasn’t released any DETAILS!)
Likely the illegal immigrants will be covered by Hillarycare without paying a dime for it.
Or Hillary will just push Amnesty thru and make 20 million illegal immigrants US Citizens, as long as they register as Democrats. So they will be covered by Hillarycare.
“What you say, is that the rich deserve to be at the front of the line for healthcare, no matter the outcome.”
I do not think the rich should be at the head of the line. Unfortunately, that is the way it is, in this country and in other countries. Govt run healthcare will not change this one bit. The rich will still buy their way to the front of the line.
“Medicare and Medicaid do NOT pay full price or even cover the cost of many services.”
I had ear surgery and it cost me $4900.50. If I had Medicare, it would have cost Medicare around $600 or less, probably closer to under $500. I was subsidizing Medicare.
We need healthcare reform, but having the govt do it is not the way to go. Finland had to cut back its program several years ago because it was costing too much. They may have to make further costs to keep the country solvent.
We have got to get away from the mentality that all corporations are bad. These corporations pay millions each year for benefits for their workers. They aren’t the enemy.
Posted by: ksgrm |
When corporations return to being good AMERICAN citzens, then I will stop thinking corporations are bad. Why do you feel comfortable with a corporate insurance pencil-pusher being in charge of your healthcare?
And why should the doctor have to “know how to get around the insurance game”? A doctor should be a doctor – not an insurance racket professional that can out-maneuver the insurance company.
For those of you opposing universal health care, I don’t see you questoning the insurance companies which are now in charge of everything. You are so willing to learn how to manipulate the insurance racket to get what you want but you don’t want anyone else to get the same health care coverage that you have. That is what is wrong with America today – it is about me-me-me and not us-us-us.
Our country is so divided now along political lines – just wait until we are divided by the have and have nots. It will not be a pretty picture when the middle class is no longer in the picture and the welfare people and the wealthy people won’t have the middle class to fund both of their lifestyles.
had faith in the American people until 1996. I thought anyone could be fooled once by Bill Clinton, but to vote for him twice, that’s just stupidity.
I truly believe that the majority of the voting population is now stupid enough to believe anything, and stupid enough to blindly follow a political party for life, no matter how it may have changed.
Posted by: Suzy Aiken
The same could be said about the people that voted for George W. Bush twice!!!
Medicare is a cancerous, festering sore on the butt of the health care industry. Everyone pays more for their health care because of Medicare!
Since the inception of Medicare the elderly pay twice the percentage of their income for health care and we all pay higher premiums so that clinics and hospitals can afford to defray the costs of Medicare patients.
Don’t even get me started on the cruel joke that Medicaid is!
Hank
Posted by: Hank
Let me guess, Hank – are you old enough for Medicare? If so, I can bet your ass is the first one in line to get your share of the Medicare benefits – right?
Do I believe what Hillary says? Just like I believe what any politician says. I find her easier than some to believe and I like some of what she has to say.
You conservatives are ok with spending 3 billion a week to slaughter people, but 110 million to provide health insurance, and we have to scrape you off the ceiling.
You conservatives all claim to be such righteous Christians. Go read what what Jesus has to say about how we treat the least among us.
“In the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they’d fed the hungry, slaked the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner.”
Hmmm…..
XXX,
Jesus was talking about us as individuals. Not having the government take other peoples money by force and then have it redistributed to the least amongst us…
Nathan,And taking money by force, as you put it, and invading a country on bad intelligence, and spending 3 billion a week to kill people is alright with you? Somehow, I come away thinking your priorities are skewed.
When the people arn’t enough to fix the problem, it’s governments turn to step in. But using less than a days war money to insure people is wrong to you. Evidently, taking care of the least isn’t in your religion. That’s a shame.
Nathan, say what you want to me, that’s not what matters. When it’s time for judgment, try parsing with God. I’m sure your college debate skills will win.
He doesn’t understand a word you saying, Walker, not one word…
I have an idea…how about all of us who decide we want national healthcare get together and create one…and anyone who votes against it can’t join.
“Mary! Come on! Medicare works really well?
Medicare is a cancerous, festering sore on the butt of the health care industry. Everyone pays more for their health care because of Medicare!
Since the inception of Medicare the elderly pay twice the percentage of their income for health care and we all pay higher premiums so that clinics and hospitals can afford to defray the costs of Medicare patients.
Don’t even get me started on the cruel joke that Medicaid is!”
Hank
I have all Medicare and Medicaid patients Hank, I know what the rules are and I can tell you the system works well for those it serves. Yes, it’s expensive..I never said it wasn’t, but what would you prefer? That NO one have health coverage or everyone be at the mercy of the insurance companies? Belive me, if you want to restrict access to health care, then let the insurance industry manage it. That’s where the joke is…insurance laymen making the decisions about who can have medical care and who can’t.
Max,
I see that you are as ignorant as I thought you were. All hole, no donut.
GMC70,
Thanks for proving my point about the social contractarian origins of the U.S. Constitution to Max. Much obliged.
As for your follow-up point, it is indeed correct Locke’s Second Treatise secures a degree of liberty that more closely resembles a contemporary version of libertarianism than it does the welfare state. That is, the only goal of the state is to secure the private property of individuals, and not any sort of common good.
But so what. This isn’t the eighteenth century, conditions are different, and modern ideological positions usually don’t end up where they started out.
For example, by the time you get to John Stuart Mill, arguably the premier libertarian of the nineteenth century, one finds a very robust idea of the common good, and arguments for the need to reform society so as to raise the general level of education and social participation. Mill’s goal is to set up society to maximize the happiness of individuals. To do this, he actually advocates a redistribution of wealth.
My point here, GMC70, is merely to say that three hundred year-old constructs are of limited value in dealing with a social-political landscape that has undergone multiple revolutions. For that matter, so are 231 year old ones as well.
As for the distrust of government to administer health care, well, given that the foundations of our system ARE Lockean/Jeffersonian (regardless of what ksgrm says), I trust them to deliver health care more than I trust unanswerable and unaccountable corporations. It is a truism, GMC70, that governmental bureaucracies are inherently evil. But they are made more evil when administered by people who think they are evil, such as the Bush Administration. Do you trust corporations to deliver expensive health care, when their primary answerability is to shareholders?
If the folks who run our government had a robust idea of the common good, and believed in the government as the visible manifestation of the citizenry’s collective decision, then it would have been possible, for example, to have responded to Katrina adequately. But that isn’t what this administration believes. It believes in privatizing public good, and in outsourcing the government’s work (disaster relief, defense, security, intelligence) to private contractors. It has done this in New Orleans as well as in Baghdad, and in so doing has created a shadow government that is neither accountable to the taxpayers who funded it, nor responsive to their needs for material support and security.
To the extent that these private agencies (Blackwater, Bechtel, etc) have failed to protect the people of New Orleans from the depredations of the state of nature, the government that made the financial deals has surrendered its legitimacy. And THAT comes straight from Locke and Jefferson.
Ah, Locke, Mill, et al.; I knew those Western Civ classes would come in handy some day.
To add my 2 cents, if the populace collectively determines that the common good requires the delivery of funding for health care through the government, it then seems to me that it becomes the responsibility of the government to so provide.
“if the populace collectively determines that the common good requires”
Thanks goodness you put the collective phrase in there. This would not be a prez dictator making that decision for the populace. Now we have to define what ‘collective’ means.
Hillary states that her plan is NOT government run health care… And, that if you dont WANT an alternate plan, you can keep what you already have.
Her plan will NOT be an entitlement plan. It sounds like all of the nay sayers are just blowing smoke!!
If it wasnt for Medicare, my wife would be totally blind… Medicare paid for her cataract surgery.. What is wrong with that?? Everybody pays for it for those who cant afford it for themselves!!
ksgrm, given our form of government, perhaps if a majority of the populace?
“Her plan will NOT be an entitlement plan.”
**Show me the details in the plan where it says that.
“If it wasnt for Medicare, my wife would be totally blind… Medicare paid for her cataract surgery.. What is wrong with that?? Everybody pays for it for those who cant afford it for themselves!!”
**And because you could not take care of your own wife, the taxpayers have to? No wonder you are a Socialist Chas!
If it’s somebody else’s money that’s being spent, who wouldn’t be for that program?
Posted by: Chas. | September 18, 2007 at 09:39 AM
Max,
I see that you are as ignorant as I thought you were. All hole, no donut.
Posted by: CF2K | September 18, 2007 at 09:24 AM
Brilliant CF2K, you read one article in Wikipedia and you are all of a sudden a Constitutional expert.
At one point you use the Constitutional argument, at another you say we have evolved beyond the original intent in the last 231 years.
And now you believe in the Tooth Fairy to bring you free healthcare.
You say Government is more accountable to the people then private business.
How often can you change Government programs if you don’t like it? Never. How often can you change Insurance Companies? I can change once a year through work or I can change anytime if I want to shop for a private plan.
Corporations perfect? Far from it. As long as there is competition though, there will be options with the companies that are best meeting the customers needs, and these will be the successful companies.
With Government, you have no choice.
And with 2 of the 3 Hillary plans (anyone find her 3rd plan yet?) I’ve read, options will be limited for everyone, regardless of whether you choose America’s Plan initially or not.
I don’t believe on this thread anywhere did anyone point out the fact that we are ALREADY paying for the uninsureds’ health care. How, you ask?
People with no insurance use the most expensive forms of health care – which is in Emergency Rooms. When they are not able to pay these bills, hospitals say they absorb the costs. That is not true, the hospitals and health care service agencies pass their bad debt on to those of us who have health care insurance.
So, we are paying already for uninsureds’ whether they are illegal aliens or not.
Bush recently said that all people have access to health care – anybody can go to an ER – he said. Which just goes to show you how much that clown understands the problem.
Bush recently said that all people have access to health care – anybody can go to an ER – he said. Which just goes to show you how much that clown understands the problem.
Posted by: Steven Davis | September 18, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Yeah, I agree.
Also: couldn’t you just hear his mother, Barbara Bush, making exactly this statement, even down to the 1st-gen semi-smirk? I sure could. (remember her comments about how being stuck in NO’s Superdome was such a good deal for those unlucky enough to be there?)
Pretty striking how similar they are.
Max,
One Wikipedia reference later, and you can’t even claim to be a novice.
And, of course, no surprise that you regurgitate, on cue, what appears to be Right Wing rhetoric about interpreting the Constitution according to its “original intent.”
HAH. If ever there was a judicial fantasy, “original intent” and its ideological brethren, “strict constructionism,” would be it. As if it could EVER be divined what the Founding Fathers “meant,” and as if Scalia and his ilk haven’t sufficiently whored this out to mean whatever they want it to mean.
Famously, Justice Rehnquist gave away the game as to the meaning for which “strict constructionist” is the code:
“A strict constructionist judge is one who favors criminal prosecutors over criminal defendants, and civil rights defendants over civil rights plaintiffs.”
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20011101.html
So this is “original intent”: a phony approach that conservatives employ to present their biases as fact.
Look out CF2K, your political agenda is showing.
“Look out CF2K, your political agenda is showing”
. . . and yours isn’t? Why don’t you just come out and say what you are, Max. My opinion is you’re a typical neo-con whose disagreement with others is enough for you to label them dangerous adverseries, rather than concerned Americans.
Why the hell do you think there is more than one party, Max? It’s to keep this country from being run by either party extreme. We don’t need a Taliban right, nor do we need a socialist left.
What we do need is principled people in government who know the real meaning of bipartisan politics. We sure as hell don’t have that now.
Stumper, CF2K deftly tried to stand behind a Constitutional argument for Socialism. Implying some sort of neutrality and accuracy in ‘his’ interpretation.
I never claimed to be neutral. Pure anti-Socialism Capitalist I am.
And I don’t see anything in the Constitution where it requires me to give money to you or any other Socialist so that you can buy your health insurance.
Dangerous Adversary? Sure, anyone trying to weaken the United States of America is a dangerous adversary.
Anyone pushing the Socialist Agenda is pushing for less freedom, less individual rights, the weakening of the American economy, low productivity, and ultimately a weak National Defense.
Wild Socialist Spending and High Taxation will lead to the greatest economic Depresion this country has EVER seen.
And I have some real concerns over my last days here, and even more concerns about my kids and what their lives will be like.
Socialist are looking out for themselves only. As long as their livelihood comes from someone else, they don’t care.
I do.
What we do need is principled people in government who know the real meaning of bipartisan politics. We sure as hell don’t have that now.
Posted by: stumper | September 18, 2007 at 02:13 PM
Yeah. I agree. Anybody seem one of those lately? On any side? BOth sides just pander to what ever crowd they think will get them elected. They (the party elite) could give a dang about you or me. It;s all about power.
Max said,
“CF2K deftly tried to stand behind a Constitutional argument for Socialism. Implying some sort of neutrality and accuracy in ‘his’ interpretation.”
Get real, Max. Judicial pragmatism may equate with socialism in your paranoid and “all or nothing” world, but it doesn’t anywhere else.
And guess what, Max? The ‘greatest depression this country has ever seen’ DID NOT come about because of ‘wild socialist spending’ and ‘taxation’–it came about because of an unregulated stock market and bullying, robber baron capitalism.
Given how historically uninformed you are, Max, your tendency to grandiose and fantastical pronouncements isn’t much of a surprise.
Max,
“Dangerous Adversary? Sure, anyone trying to weaken the United States of America is a dangerous adversary.”
Well, Max, if this is REALLY your paramount concern, it seems like you ought to start with Bush, since he’s weakened Habeas Corpus–which is written into the Constitution.
“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/
Leave it to a fascist like you, Max, to define threats to the United States as threats to property, rather than as threats to persons.
Rewording again I see CF2K, I said:
“Anyone pushing the Socialist Agenda is pushing for less freedom, less individual rights, the weakening of the American economy, low productivity, and ultimately a weak National Defense.”
You see Freedom and Individual Rights listed? That is, Personal Freedom and Personal Rights as opposed to your Socialist Government Control.
Again, the clueless Lib CF2K tries to bring up the Habeas Corpus issue when everyone and their dog only know it applies to enemy combatants as defined under the MCA passed by Congress. They keep bringing it up, I’ll keep shooting it down.
Crying wolf about nothing once again is the Muppet poster CF2K.
Max,While I at times disagree with CF2K, I admire his tenacity in backing his beliefs. I hardly consider him a threat to anyone; well, except those who would label rather than communicate. Remember Joe McCarthy?
Does it get any more right-wing than that? There are many who want this country to be like that again, some of them elected officials. Who’s going to balance that out of the equation, Brownback? I don’t think so.
So, Max, what part of the political spectrum do you belong to? How far left does one have to be to counterbalance your beliefs? For that matter, how far right does one have to be to counterbalance CF2K’s beliefs?
What is the standard of living in Canada?
It is actually LOWER than the standard of living in the United States.
A LOT lower!
One of the reasons for this is that Canada is more socialist than the United States.
Max,
Based on your self-identification as “pure anti-Socialist Capitalist,” it was quite reasonable for me to define you as one who equates “personal freedom” with property rights. So, too, in light of the perponderance of your comments on this thread, which decry Hilary Clinton’s putative “socialism” for taking away your “choice” about how to spend or allocate your money.
My challenge still stands: if you really ARE concerned about “personal freedoms” and “individual rights,” then condemn the President’s evisceration of Habeas Corpus.
Or get used to being called a fascist.
Maid M
Quit making stuff up!
The fact is, the RICH pay most of the bills in this country!
The middle class gets entitlements.
In fact, the poor are already covered by Medicaid, Medicare or Veterans benefits.
This “Universal Health Care” stuff is just another middle-class entitlement.
So, Max, what part of the political spectrum do you belong to? How far left does one have to be to counterbalance your beliefs? For that matter, how far right does one have to be to counterbalance CF2K’s beliefs?Posted by: stumper | September 18, 2007 at 05:23 PM
Stumper, we may have to wait until the next election 14 months from now to answer your questions.
Econ101,
And whose work makes the rich rich?
My challenge still stands: if you really ARE concerned about “personal freedoms” and “individual rights,” then condemn the President’s evisceration of Habeas Corpus.
Or get used to being called a fascist.
Posted by: CF2K | September 18, 2007 at 05:25 PM
I condemn many acts of President Bush.
I’m a registered Independent because I do not see either party as representing Conservatives any more.
Bush is FAR from being an economic Conservative, and I won’t begin to defend his record.
And I don’t have time to list the Bush actions I would condemn!
“My challenge still stands: if you really ARE concerned about “personal freedoms” and “individual rights,” then condemn the President’s evisceration of Habeas Corpus.”Posted by: CF2K | September 18, 2007 at 05:25 PM
Yo, Clueless Muppet!
Ask any Judge, attorney locally or wherever you live if anyone has lost their habeas corpus privileges.
You will find that the answer will be no.
The MCA passed by Congress has to do with enemy combatants regarding habeas corpus.
Just because you keep repeating the same falsehood Muppet boy, doesn’t make it come true.
CF -
As a died in the wool textualist, I’ll disagree with your characterization of what you refer to as “original intent.” The meaning of the language, as understood (as best can be determined) by the persons contemporary to its writing is, in my opinion, the only rational basis for constitutional interpretation. The “living constitution” is no constitution at all, and substitutes the personal whims and political prejudices of nine entirely unrepresentative demi-gods for a constitution. It is such a philosophy that has lead directly to the excessive politicization of the court we all seem to decry (though the court is ultimately a political institution, of course). You complain that textualism, or “original intent,” if you like, restricts us to the understanding of 200+ years ago (as modified by amendment duly adopted). That is exactly my intent, of course. And it was the Founders’ intent; constitutions are written precisely to limit government. To do otherwise is to throw out constitutionalism entirely, for what is left is in no way a constitution at all.
But that’s not the subject of this thread.
Is there a constitutional bar to enacting Hillary!care, or some version of it? No, given the bastardization of the Commerce Clause that has long since been done, and (unfortunately) we’re not going back. We are where we are. And as even you (I think) concede, there is no constitutional mandate for such a health care system, nor does the lack of any such system violate any “social contract.” You, of course, read into that contract for more than I. I have little use for Mills, who is often simply a kinder, gentler Marx.
Whether such a program is wise idea is another matter. You concede that a bureacracy is “evil,” as you put it. This program will be the mother of all bureaucracies, and we both understand the nature of such beasts.
The problem with the State operating that bureaucracy is twofold, as I see it.
1) There is effectively no constraint upon it. To put it bluntly, elected political leadership has little effective control of such bureaucracies. When I was teaching, there was a standard phrase we would note whenever a new regime, advocating the latest reform, would arrive. It’s this: THIS TOO SHALL PASS. Political leadership comes and goes; the bureaucracy, and it’s institutional memory, goes on and on. Presidents come and go, the civil servants who actually do the work stay, administration after administration. And just try to fire one . . .
2) There is little if any incentive to minimize costs and maximize benefits. It need not compete in the marketplace, and rather may mandate participation. Today, if you on’t like your provider, you may find another (sometimes easier said than done, true enough!). And Hillary!care WILL mandate participation, no matter what she says. If not this year, or the next, or the next, it will come. It will be mandatory, and universal. It’s the nature of the bureaucracy that runs it (and though she won’t say it, it’s in Hillary’s nature, too, closet totalitarian that she is). No need to respond to stockholder’s demands to keep costs down, to offer lower rates or better service to attract customers, just keep the paper trail moving and ensure the survival of the bureaucracy, and it’s growing budget, for another fiscal year.
Ultimately, if your question is whether I prefer to be left to the tender mercies of a federal bureaucracy or a corporation, I’ll take the corporation everytime.
I will NEVER trust the good will of political leadership; I never assume they have same. Corporations operate out of financial interest, driven by the market, and that same market provides some restraints. Very little effectively controls the State, especially a State which controls more and more of a nation’s economic life, and especially a State unrestrained by the contraints of a meaningful written constitution (oops, just had to throw that in . . .).
Bottomline, I trust the market far more than I will ever trust the State. It is a philosophical perspective, and one I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on.
It is pleasant, however, to discuss these issues in terms deeper than slogans and pejoratives.
Max,
Fair enough. But do you defend Bush’s stripping away of Habeas Corpus from American citizens, or don’t you?
GMC70,
Fair enough. I figured you’d come after me over the ‘originalist / textualist’ discussion above. But it’s late and my blood sugar has plummeted. Ack. I’ll post a thought-out response later tonight or tomorrow.
And BTW, CF -
In a very real sense, in the real world that most of us live in (it is a material world after all, to borrow from the Material Girl), personal freedom does indeed primarily (though not entirely) mean property rights.
The 4th amendment is vital. And yes, it protects us all. But it’s application primarily applies to those who violate the law; most of don’t worry much about the fine points of 4th amendment law, and usually don’t need to.
The first amendment is equally vital. But most of us have little interest in reaching its boundaries, or stretching its limits. It’s practical application, aside from the paper we read daily or our TV, has little impact.
And yes, we all have a right to trial. But the vast majority of us will never see the inside of a courtroom, except perhaps as jurors.
These rights, though real and certainly vital, have little real daily impact on most people.
But economic rights are daily life for all of us. They matter, RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW. The State which pulls an increasing percentage from your pocketbook (and Hillary!care will) impinges in your REAL freedom, in a REAL way, daily.
So while I don’t discount your concern over habeus (largely misplaced, BTW) and other constitutional rights, please understand that REAL freedom is being restricted every time the State pulls another penny from my pocket. It is entirely justified to get just as worked up about that, if not more, than the other more esoteric civil rights.
Max,
Fair enough. But do you defend Bush’s stripping away of Habeas Corpus from American citizens, or don’t you?
Posted by: CF2K | September 18, 2007 at 05:33 PM
Instead of guessing, swag-in the answer, insulting you, or making something up, I’ll confess I’m not familiar with the law you reference.
Be happy to read it sometime though, or you could enlighten us. (One reason I read this blog is that sometimes you actually learn something!).
I would oppose just about anything that limits the rights of the people of the United States any more so then they are today.
I’m not entirely happy with the Patriot Act for example, though the intent appears to be good. (Who could oppose an American Patriot?)
Not happy that Bush failed to veto any of the spending increases.
Not happy with the massive Education bill he happily signed, that gave us the greatest funding ever for Education, without improving Education in the slightest.
Hindsight says we should not have invaded Iraq. Information at the time supported it. The way the war was directed could have been much improved, though the additional casualties which would have resulted from 500,000 troops wiping out all insurgents in the 1st year would have garnered so much negative press Bush would have been impeached by his own party.
A ruthless invasion of Iraq may have convinced Iran, and Syria to follow the surrender (with payment) path of Lybia and now apparently North Korea.
Not happy that Bush didn’t push harder for solving the Social Security/Medicare fiscal crisis, but he lost all credibility when he continued to sign pork spending bills.
Not happy that a meaningful Energy Policy was not implemented.
Etc, etc…
Tax cuts were good, a tough stand on the 2nd Amendment was good, a tough stand against terrorists was good.
Enough about Bush though, that’s looking backward now. There will be no accomplishments by either party now until 2009 – at the earliest.
“Stumper, we may have to wait until the next election 14 months from now to answer your questions.”
Max, that’s a true copout. You don’t know your own beliefs, politics wise, now? You haven’t read enough of CF2K’s writing to figure it out without labels? Or yourself, for that matter?
What kind of credibility can one proscribe to someone who has to wait 14 months to figure out who they are? Sorry, Max, you need some time in the corner.
Oh come on Stumper, you must not have read any of my posts?
Clearly conservative.
I agree with most of Fred’s voting record. Scroll to the very bottom of this link for a test.
http://ontheissues.org/Fred_Thompson.htm
Test Link:
http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/quiz.asp?quiz=Pres2008
I’m borderline Conservative/Libertarian and surprisingly a Social moderate.
Might be fun for all to take the test and compare notes.
“Pmom I find it convenient that someone from Canada just happens to drop in on those days that we are discussing universal healthcare to enlighten us. Don’t you? Posted by: ksgrm | September 17, 2007 at 10:31 PM”
Why is this convenient? Im missing something. It always amazes me how people talk and talk about Canadian Health Care (yet never experienced it) and so felt I should reply with my 35 yrs of experience living under that system. Is that not allowed?
There are other things I could post on that are different like gun control but alas, I have no concerns with that. It really does not affect my day to day living like paying hundreds of dollars out of my paycheck for insurance. Just to sit on lists anyway!
It is not just taxes that pay for the Canadians health care. It is the fact that the money is spent on it instead of the Armed Forces and I am not going to get into how I feel about that.
Canadians b*tch and complain about the system. Sure. Because as human beings we all seem to have to b*tch about something. I did too. Until I moved here and I went wtf? 19,000$$$ for giving birth to my son? huh? I will never forget the first time I got a bill in the mail for a simple dr. visit here. I thought for sure there was a mistake. So yeah I dont b*tch about the Canadian system so much anymore.
By the way? the $19,000? After making the crooks send me an itemized detailed bill with everything on there from Tylenol for $5.00 per tablet(I brought my own), a breastfeeding consultant (i had refused it as I used to be a LaLeche instructor) and thousands for a screw up on the hospital’s part, the bill came to 11,000. Not bad for an adorable kid I would say. However, would I rather have had him in Canada (with drs that care about my family and I rather than the $$ beside our names) like my other kids and never have had to go through that crap of arguing with them about it? And still 7 yrs later paying for it with the added extra of having a nice little b*tch slap on my credit rating.
I just laugh now. Then I read the standard of living in Canada is lower than here. Where do people get this stuff?
I mean it is great to be patriotic? but blindly patriotic? I dont think so.
I know when I visited Canadian Forces Base Lahr in Germany, the Canadians I spoke with were always eager to visit our medical facilities the Air Force had, because the Physicians were better trained and the treatment was better.
Of course, their Exchange was better than ours. Where else could one buy a gallon of Chivas for thirty bucks. :)