# We Can't Afford to Wait



## Blake Bowden

Some people will skip this video simply because it's produced by Moveon.org....trust me, I don't like them either, but how should we deal with this issue? What should happen to those individuals who cannot afford Health Insurance?

[video=youtube;8GoFj8Fc9iM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GoFj8Fc9iM[/video]


----------



## drapetomaniac

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care


----------



## JTM

drapetomaniac said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care


 
and we all... fall... down.


----------



## drapetomaniac

I guess I'm surprised at the widespread belief that the United States is the only nation incapable of doing what every other industrialized nation (and many developing) has done without total collapse.


----------



## JTM

the culture is different.  check out how nicely healthcare in california is working for them.

also, i think they'll all fail, too.


----------



## Traveling Man

How did this country exist for over 200 years without this urgently needed "Health Care"?

Let me ask, who here is willing to give up over 50% of their income for this?

You really didn't think you were going to make your neighbour pay for this without your contribution "for the greater good" did you? How selfish of you (shame on you if you were).


----------



## drapetomaniac

Of course the new Senator from Massachusetts voted for his own statewide Universal Healthcare.

I'd agree the culture is different, but I think that's why it won't get passed, not why it would fail.

Germany has had it for 200 years, England started 100 years ago and put it into final phases about 50.  I imagine there are massive rallies in other countries against their existing healthcare system?  

According to the rhetoric, the assumption seems to be every other industrialized nation will collapse and fall into communism.

I'm sure nobody wants to give up 50% of their check dedicated to health care (is that what every other industrialized nation is giving?) - but nobody wants to declare bankruptcy because they get one major illness either.  
However the majority of people who declare bankruptcy due so due to illness.

Here is the British Conservative Party Platform on Health:
http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Health.aspx


----------



## Traveling Man

I'm sure nobody wants to give up 50% of their check dedicated to health care (is that what every other industrialized nation is giving?) - but nobody wants to declare bankruptcy because they get one major illness either. 
However the majority of people who declare bankruptcy due so due to illness. 

I'm sure you know full well that every Social Welfare State that has this type of health care does indeed pay over 50% of their income in taxes... But wait for the drum roll.... You are right however, they don't file for bankruptcy; they die waiting for that health care they dearly paid for... 

Nice strawman though...


----------



## JTM

we've rehashed this a few times.

what if i say i don't want state healthcare?  will you force it upon me?  are you okay with other people forcing it on me?

what if texas decides to use nullification if they do pass it?  are you okay with them marching the army into austin to force it?


----------



## drapetomaniac

Traveling Man said:


> I'm sure you know full well that every Social Welfare State that has this type of health care does indeed pay over 50% of their income in taxes... But wait for the drum roll....



Actually I don't know that.  Every industrialized nation has some form of universal health care.  

You are saying that 50% or more every personal income in every industrialized nation but the US, goes to their universal healthcare plan?  And I'm assuming they pay more in additional taxes since that 50% is all due to the health plan.

Here's a chart with several industrialized nations and only 3 touch or exceed 50% - and that's *total* taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

And more, sortable by individual amount:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world



Traveling Man said:


> You are right however, they don't file for bankruptcy; they die waiting for that health care they dearly paid for...
> 
> Nice strawman though...


 
Ahh, straw men.  Like saying they die waiting for health care.  Check the longevity and mortality rates.

Life Expectancy by Nation (We're 38th, just below Cuba)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Infant Mortality (We're 33rd)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

More information from the first link:

International Health Comparisons: A Compendium of published information on healthcare systems, the provision of health care and health achievement in 10 countries
http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docId=e902d344-ab56-4808-ab63-399241d33484&version=-1

Read part 4 starting on page 22.


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> we've rehashed this a few times.
> 
> what if i say i don't want state healthcare?  will you force it upon me?  are you okay with other people forcing it on me?
> 
> what if texas decides to use nullification if they do pass it?  are you okay with them marching the army into austin to force it?


 
Pubic Education, Public Roads, Social Security, Medicare -- all passed under the threa of armed force?

Texas remains No. 1 in uninsured
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5968063.html

I wouldn't be surprised if we fought to stay number 1.


----------



## RedTemplar

There is only one industrialized nation I know of trying to keep up the rest of the World.  This nation just simply cannot continue to feed, clothe, shelter, as well as police the Universe. There are simply not enough resources for everyone to lead the lifestyle of an average American. If this statement is entirely true, How is America going to react when it finally accepts the situation? How will everyone react?


----------



## JTM

drapetomaniac said:


> Pubic Education, Public Roads, Social Security, Medicare -- all passed under the threa of armed force?
> 
> Texas remains No. 1 in uninsured
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5968063.html
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if we fought to stay number 1.


 
what wonderful examples.  you can see how well public education in texas is working.

medicare as well.

i wouldn't be surprised if people fought for more of the same sub-par services.


----------



## JTM

drapetomaniac said:


> Pubic Education, Public Roads, Social Security, Medicare -- all passed under the threa of armed force?
> 
> Texas remains No. 1 in uninsured
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5968063.html
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if we fought to stay number 1.


 also, doesn't the state pay for all those things?  none of those are federal.  medicare is partly federal, or is that medicaid?

either way, texas pays for most of it... doing it on the federal level is another problem altogether...


----------



## jonesvilletexas

We can't afford to wait.

We need to stop health care reform as they are trying to give us.


----------



## HKTidwell

All I will say is look at the news this week about Canada's Premier.  Canada's Universal Healthcare is so great he is coming to the USA.  Need I say anything else?


----------



## drapetomaniac

He has access to health care millions of Americans don't .  Because of his income.


----------



## JTM

HKTidwell said:


> All I will say is look at the news this week about Canada's Premier.  Canada's Universal Healthcare is so great he is coming to the USA.  Need I say anything else?


 
LOL.  i hadn't heard this.  that is HILARIOUS.



drapetomaniac said:


> He has access to health care millions of Americans don't .  Because of his income.


 
and if canadian healthcare is so great, why is he coming here?  is it possible he didn't want to wait in line?

i mean, if we're gonna have federal healthcare, where will our rich people go to have the best medical care?

also, you never responded to my above post regarding how far you'd go to push this onto me.


----------



## Traveling Man

drapetomaniac said:


> He has access to health care millions of Americans don't .  Because of his income.



His income is because he's part of the "ruling class" and gets a better plan than the public (just like our ruling class) and doesn't have to pay into the plan like all the other Canucks and chumps. He then can take that extra money, bail to the US to get better health care, why is that? Why is it in these systems you have to wait for the board of governors to tell you if you need immediate care? Then if the gate keepers says no, you have to pay extra for immediate care. Because the cost of diminishing returns has played out in these systems some more (to support the faltering system) is taken from "motor fuel taxes", you know the one certain politicos here think should be collected here at the same rate as Yurp! Here's a tip for those that think like that; go to Europe! There was a reason why they all came here…


----------



## JTM

by the way.  there are rumors that the euro might collapse.  where will their healthcare be then?


----------



## TexMass

JTM said:


> and we all... fall... down.


 
Cool!  We're closing in on Tobago!  Are you serious!!


----------



## TexMass

During my employment with Oldcastle, an international comapany, I came in contact and worked with many employees from Europe and Canada.  They laugh at our health care system.  They told me all the horror stores we hear about Canada is not true.  I am happy with the bill that is being proposed right now but unhappy so much of it has been stripped.  It has been shown by the CBO that it will do what is says it will do financially and that is to be budget nuetral.  I don't agree with the taxing of cadillac plans.  I did like the original idea of using the tax revenue from the expiration of the tax cuts for the rich, 3%.  This was the Bush tax cut for the rich that they are now letting expire.  It will now be applied to the deficit.  Harvard study says an average of 128 people die every day due to lack of insurance or underinsured.  My wife is diabetic and since I changed jobs she now has a pre-existing condition.  I have had surgery on both my knees and now have arthritis which I have been told is a pre-existing condition.  Things must change.  The one thing that really pissed me off was the Medicare Pharm bill that Bush signed.  It increasesd the payment for medicare drugs from 80% to 90% but you cannot buy generic drugs.  My mothers medicine went up over 300% because of this bill.  I hope they all burn in hell.


----------



## Traveling Man

All heated rhetoric aside, I too work for an international company (a BBC if you will, a British Based Company).The majority of our employees are ex-pats from the UK or one of the territories. It was quite interesting when I bought up y’alls topic during our dinner conversation last week.  As opposed to here there was no heated rhetoric, deplorable propaganda, what’s-in-it-for-me that I can make someone else pay for, etc. Just straight examination of facts. I was really quite revealing… I had only one question to ask (this was for all the dual citizenship ex-pats; If you were to seek any kind of extended treatment for a serious aliment, would you use the NHS or the American health system with your present insurance? The proof was in the pudding…


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> and if canadian healthcare is so great, why is he coming here?  is it possible he didn't want to wait in line?



Sure, it's also possible he has a mistress in the US and wanted his 12 week recovery to be spent with her.  We can wildly speculate about anything.  Fact is, he's a millionaire and gets to shop around the world for his specific ailment and specific 

As far as waiting in line - the basis of that entire "problem" is the idea that everyone has access.  The only way to keep the line short is to make sure other Americans don't have access to medical care.  This is what people are arguing for - making sure all Americans don't have access.  Because when they do, you'll have to wait behind the guy who would otherwise not have been covered for pre-existing conditions or lack of payment.



JTM said:


> i mean, if we're gonna have federal healthcare, where will our rich people go to have the best medical care?



I have no doubt we will make sure people with more money have higher access.  And a millionaire is a millionaire and can probably rent a part of the hospital for his stay and keep a staff.



JTM said:


> also, you never responded to my above post regarding how far you'd go to push this onto me.



Nullification and sending in troops?  I guess I didn't think you were serious, or at least its a different topic.  As I pointed out you could apply this to anything.  States all over the country don't want No Child Left Behind (or at least the unfunded portions).  Do you think troops should be sent in?  REAL ID replaced a law based on policies recommended by the 911 commission and many states are objecting to the cost and trouble of implementing REAL ID.  Should troops be sent in?

What about Medicare or Social Security, which is essentially a similar policy? Do you think we should drag old people to the hospital under gun point to make them get care and take a retirement check?  Do you think we should jail employers who refuse to deduct the tax amounts that go into these programs?

You can apply this to any federal program or policy.  

My own answer is the same as the threads about "when can we revolt"   - I expect everyone to be grown up and follow our actual laws, not theoretical ones.  We still have the Supreme Court, Congress and Executive Branch.  When one of those breaks down (and I do see a break down coming) then there's a problem.  Until then, we have checks and balances that our elected officials can act on (if we demand it of them, but we don't).

Otherwise, you can run through any federal, state or city law and take it down to the individual at any moment to decide to revolt - simply because you disagree.

I wouldn't mind having Texas Rangers investigate our phone hubs around the state and removing the federal branches allowing unfettered access to our communications.  But the country's elected officials were supported  when they granted amnesty and a continuation of the policy.

Nullification is a good rhetorical tool - we can use the word "tyranny" then.  But it can be applied to a massive amount of items at any moment.  And we really should have the ability at the local level, city and individual.  After all, "they're going to invade and shove guns in our faces to make us take our social security check!!!"

To bring this conversation to a masonic level  - we have the same decisions.  Does every lodge stand by and vet the Grand Lodge decisions to make sure they are masonic in our estimation?  And as individuals do we do the same?  When we disagree, do we just cut off the Grand Lodge?

Texas is dead last in insurance coverage and rank 30 in longevity of our states.

Play around with this map and look at the rankings of the states you think would nullify national health care:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14788133/ns/health-aging/  (Longevity)



> Texas is the uninsured capital of the United States. More than 5.8 million Texans â€“ including 1.5 million children â€“ lack health insurance. Texasâ€™ uninsurance rates, 1.5 to 2 times the national average, create significant problems in the financing and delivery of health care to all Texans. Those who lack insurance coverage typically enjoy far-worse health status than their insured counterparts.
> 
> Texas Medical Association



Let's fight to keep it that way!!!???

There is no single plan on the table.  Anyone who talks as if there is is being dishonest. At the very least there are two different Congressional Bills.  More than that, they still need to get both houses to agree.  None of them were written by Obama.  Universal Health Care has a wide variety of ways to be implemented.  There is no single way, and with EVERY other industrialized nation having implemented it, you would think our great nation would be able to analyze the best and worst implementations and find a good method.  

Instead, we rely on anecdotes and exaggerations  with the final goal of making sure every American isn't insured, or not even most (after all - we'd have to wait, a policy which could be changed with an altered focus on increased medical training).  With Texas dead last in insuring our children (which means slower starts to good health and more expenditures later in life for our state and fellow Texans) and our state and America trailing others in longevity, well being and health - our biggest focus seems to be on declaring ourselves supreme because the wealthy have the best in the world.

So, in addition to acting like grown up and being peaceable citizens so long as our government is in tact, I'd say that if a state which is dead last in being able to see a doctor and trailing others in health as a  state and in nation with similar trends opts to not participate - that should be an option.  Just make sure they pay twice as much when they come in because they chose to actively maintain the poor health of their citizens  while not offering alternatives or suggestions among the wide variety of plans active throughout the world.  Or better yet, never allow them to join and see where their wealthy citizens fly to get medical care.

But again, if the goal is to never have to wait with your fellow man because they also have health coverage, and to be sure millionaire foreigners have better medical care than most Texans - then this discussion is moot.


----------



## drapetomaniac

TexMass said:


> Harvard study says an average of 128 people die every day due to lack of insurance or underinsured.  My wife is diabetic and since I changed jobs she now has a pre-existing condition.  I have had surgery on both my knees and now have arthritis which I have been told is a pre-existing condition.  Things must change.  The one thing that really pissed me off was the Medicare Pharm bill that Bush signed.  It increasesd the payment for medicare drugs from 80% to 90% but you cannot buy generic drugs.  My mothers medicine went up over 300% because of this bill.  I hope they all burn in hell.


 
If my employment ever lapses for too long, both me and my wife are screwed for any future care on a few issues.  Unfortunately, the most common rhetorical point is "wait time" which means we need to keep the number of people accessing health care reduced (and not invest in additional medical training).

Healthcare reform is being treated as one monolithic plan hand written by Obama, when it's a high number of issues implemented a very wide variety of ways throughout the world.  And there is a dominating feeling of apathy or antipathy for our fellows "leeching off of us" instead of empathy.

My wife has a genetic disease in her family which she didn't inherit, luckily.  But she was tested while in a "socialist" european country and while awaiting the results, considered that she might actually have to stay in that country so she could live her life with care without bankrupting her family (keep in mind people pay taxes towards care before they get sick).


----------



## Blake Bowden

drapetomaniac said:


> As far as waiting in line - the basis of that entire "problem" is the idea that everyone has access.  The only way to keep the line short is to make sure other Americans don't have access to medical care.  This is what people are arguing for - making sure all Americans don't have access.  Because when they do, you'll have to wait behind the guy who would otherwise not have been covered for pre-existing conditions or lack of payment.


 
BINGO! You hit the nail on the head! 

+1


----------



## Traveling Man

> Fact is, he's a millionaire and gets to shop around the world for his specific ailment and specific…


 Like I said, “The Ruling Class Elite”.



> As far as waiting in line - the basis of that entire "problem" is the idea that everyone has access. The only way to keep the line short is to make sure other Americans don't have access to medical care. This is what people are arguing for - making sure all Americans don't have access. Because when they do, you'll have to wait behind the guy who would otherwise not have been covered for pre-existing conditions or lack of payment.



That had to be the most perverse logic that I have ever read in my life…
The fact of the matter is everyone wished all are covered and paid their own way, but that would boggle your mind wouldn’t it? The real elite (the ruling class) will not personally reject their plans and buy unto the public option, why? Could it be they are just using “breads and circuses to entertain the masses? Could this once again be the utilisation of class warfare envy?

So it’s this 75% of America that doesn’t want this, that are whom you are referring? For someone that claims to know all the facts, this (all of the programs before congress) doesn’t put a dent in the number of uninsured. Have you ever heard of cost rolling, ever wonder why your hospital district takes are so high? Tell me this again.



> As I pointed out you could apply this to anything. States all over the country don't want No Child Left Behind (or at least the unfunded portions).



They just didn’t want any accountability period. The rest is just a smoke screen. No benchmark, no rating, no accountability. It’s that simple.



> Do you think we should jail employers who refuse to deduct the tax amounts that go into these programs?



You missed the mark on that one, as they do. Besides did you ever figure why that (mandated employer payroll deduction) piece of legislation was passed in the dead of night? Hint: so that there would never be a taxpayer revolt! Read: plebs…



> "they're going to invade and shove guns in our faces to make us take our social security check!!!"



Great job on the fear factor there… The real facts are they’ll just take more taxes out; lest we forget “they” (the federal government) took the money out of our checks, taxed it, then sent it back out; the checks based on the value of the more increasingly useless value of the money “they” print as fast as they can print it. A nice gig if you can get it.



> To bring this conversation to a masonic level…


What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? It does not!



> EVERY other industrialized nation having implemented it…



One MORE TIME we are NOT like EVERY other industrialized nation… If you want it, go there, there was a reason the Europeans chose to came HERE, get it? 

What part of more illegal aliens, equals more uninsured do you not understand?
And then you expect us to feel guilty? NOT!


----------



## Traveling Man

> As far as waiting in line - the basis of that entire "problem" is the idea that everyone has access. The only way to keep the line short...



Ah I see, the line is getting too long for those that think they should have equal access without paying. I now get it!
Again I say, You really didn't think you were going to make your neighbour pay for this without your contribution "for the greater good" did you? How selfish of you (and shame on you if you were).


----------



## drapetomaniac

Traveling Man said:


> Like I said, “The Ruling Class Elite”.


 
Which are the only ones with consistent access to health care in this country. Even if they're from another country.  We are wholly agreed.



Traveling Man said:


> That had to be the most perverse logic that I have ever read in my life…
> The fact of the matter is everyone wished all are covered and paid their own way, but that would boggle your mind wouldn’t it? The real elite (the ruling class) will not personally reject their plans and buy unto the public option, why? Could it be they are just using “breads and circuses to entertain the masses? Could this once again be the utilisation of class warfare envy?



It is perverse logic - but "waiting" is the most cried out argument.  Everyone does pay their own way under the public option (which is only one of many ways to implement universal healthcare).  This would be the "tax" and "penalty' people complain about.  But again - that is one of many options. Not the only one and not required.  The widespread complain isn't " I have to wait and someone else didn't pay as much as I did"  it is simply " I have to wait"




Traveling Man said:


> So it’s this 75% of America that doesn’t want this, that are whom you are referring?



Want what?  There are multiple options and issues at hand.  Is "this" the Senate plan or the Congressional plan? Or another plan?



Traveling Man said:


> For someone that claims to know all the facts,



I apologize for citing sources and studies??

I don't claim to know everything - I do claim to know:
Many countries have implemented universal healthcare in a wide variety of ways and methods
There is no single method that is the sole method on the table right now
The United States isn't even in the top 25 of health in the world and while we might have the best doctors - foreigners have better access to them than a large number of our own citizens.



Traveling Man said:


> Great job on the fear factor there… The real facts are they’ll just take more taxes out; lest we forget “they” (the federal government) took the money out of our checks, taxed it, then sent it back out; the checks based on the value of the more increasingly useless value of the money “they” print as fast as they can print it. A nice gig if you can get it.



Pssst.. Someone else brought up forcing federal programs earlier in the thread and I was responding.



Traveling Man said:


> "To bring this conversation to a masonic level…"
> What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? It does not!



Besides this being a forum consisting of masons, in theory, That was in response to nullifying federal programs at a local level.

Kinda related.



Traveling Man said:


> One MORE TIME we are NOT like EVERY other industrialized nation… If you want it, go there, there was a reason the Europeans chose to came HERE, get it?



No we're not - we're less healthy and we like it that way.  Other industrialized nations have a culture more slanted towards life.



Traveling Man said:


> What part of more illegal aliens, equals more uninsured do you not understand?
> And then you expect us to feel guilty? NOT!


 
LOL.  Booga boogga boo.  They make your water taste funny too.

Absolutely not - I don't expect any guilt when there is a general apathy  and antipathy for well being and health.

Sorry to cite facts again, but:
"In 2007, Texas ranked 50th in the nation, with only 46.7 percent of Texans having employment-based health insurance coverage. FamilesUSA reports eighty percent of the uninsured have at least one family member who works either full-time or part-time in 2007 to 2008. 
http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=5517"

Employed full time on the books, just not insured.  Obviously illegal.  

If its any consolation Hispanics use less medical care than others.  Not actually a good thing though.


----------



## drapetomaniac

> As far as waiting in line - the basis of that entire "problem" is the idea that everyone has access. The only way to keep the line short...





Traveling Man said:


> Ah I see, the line is getting too long for those that think they should have equal access without paying. I now get it!
> Again I say, You really didn't think you were going to make your neighbour pay for this without your contribution "for the greater good" did you? How selfish of you (and shame on you if you were).


 
Two arguments.
1) I don't want to wait in line
2) I want others to pay their own way

Besides "paying their own way"  being a separate issue from wait times (if everyone were capable of paying their own way, you would still have to wait), you're the first person I've ever heard to combine the two issues into one.

And again, one of the complaints about "one of the many options on the table" is the "penalty or tax" ------ which would be paying their own way.

If certain various people started going to the doctor more, you'd have to wait longer.
If coverage in Texas goes up 30%, you will have to wait longer for medical care in Texas.  That's if people pay their own way or don't.


----------



## drapetomaniac

Also - if you take away "pre-existing condition"  exclusions - you will have to wait longer for medical care.


----------



## Traveling Man

I look at your sources and I see who they are; once again, I follow the money.
I guess you, like the politicos don't understand, the "we the people” part of that pesky document the constitution. We have a say in our destiny, we are not regulated by the divine rights of kings vision.
75% of the population is happy with their health care and do not want these changes.
There is no need to have health care reform that is longer than the declaration of independence and the constitution combined that is being manipulated by lobbyists behind closed doors (the same ones being railed against here by the way). 

 The legislation needs only to be about five sentences long. (along with repealing all of those government programs that have increased the cost of our health care). 

I can see the investment in medical tourism will become a bigger boom than it is now.



> If its any consolation Hispanics use less medical care than others. Not actually a good thing though.



Sure I believe that; every time I see the statistics from our hospital district report and every time I take an employee into the emergency room for “emergency” care. Anyway thanks for the laugh.

You know what Samuel Clemens said about those statistics…


----------



## drapetomaniac

Traveling Man said:


> 75% of the population is happy with their health care and do not want these changes.


 
Which changes?  

This simple statistic on its own implies it is a survey of those insured.  And, those who haven't lost coverage because of an illness or lapse in employment or coverage.

I'm happy with my health insurance.  Not with the fact that if I'm laid off for too long before finding another job, several members of my young family won't ever be insurable again.

Yeah - I'd bet people who are insured are satisfied.  I'd say that was a given.  it's when they get sick in between jobs or even get a major illness that this changes.


----------



## drapetomaniac

Traveling Man said:


> Sure I believe that; every time I see the statistics from our hospital district report and every time I take an employee into the emergency room for â€œemergencyâ€ care. Anyway thanks for the laugh.
> 
> You know what Samuel Clemens said about those statisticsâ€¦


 
It's easier to win an argument when you ignore the ones you don't like- or dismiss it before you see it based on anecdotes?


----------



## Traveling Man

drapetomaniac said:


> Two arguments.
> 1) I don't want to wait in line
> 2) I want others to pay their own way
> 
> Besides "paying their own way"  being a separate issue from wait times (if everyone were capable of paying their own way, you would still have to wait), you're the first person I've ever heard to combine the two issues into one.
> 
> And again, one of the complaints about "one of the many options on the table" is the "penalty or tax" ------ which would be paying their own way.
> 
> If certain various people started going to the doctor more, you'd have to wait longer.
> If coverage in Texas goes up 30%, you will have to wait longer for medical care in Texas.  That's if people pay their own way or don't.


 
Except they are not separate arguments; witness California’s increase in “private” hospitals.
It eliminates cost rolling and waits along with pay-for-services. What a concept!

Better yet, “medical tourism”, like the Canadian President, read; less expensive not because he’s a millionaire, except it wont be for anchor babies. Don’t think our doctors jobs are safe from being “offshored“.

That penalty is a joke because if you’re under the “means test” you pay nothing!
A joke at best, once again stealing from you neighbours.


----------



## Traveling Man

drapetomaniac said:


> It's easier to win an argument when you ignore the ones you don't like- or dismiss it before you see it based on anecdotes?


 
The facts are what I see in the emergency rooms and in my hospital district statements; those are the FACTS, not anecdotes or stats some shill for the AMA or any other self serving group wants to quote for some self serving purpose. Let's see if others see the very same facts. I guess I can not believe my lying eyes.


----------



## drapetomaniac

Well, like i said, no use in pushing it on people with antipathy towards humans. We we look at someone in need and simply see theft, then that about settles it.

I stole from my neighbors in my youth via free lunch at schools and subsidized housing and other means.  I, my parents and siblings,  pay plenty and am capable of paying plenty back because of our criminal leeching off of society.  I paid back my crimes and gladly pay forward to the other filthy criminals who make less than I do.


----------



## Traveling Man

When charity becomes an entitlement it no longer is charity. We as citizens are granted certain privileges and rights, along with those rights come responsibilities. One of these responsibilities is to not become a burden upon society. Only the spoiled brat would claim charity as a right. This same distortion is held by the United Nations which think as individuals we are entitled to all kinds of things that an Utopian Society can provide, but the reality is there is no such guarantee or place.  Wishing it so wont make it so. The fables of Robin Hood are just that, but in reality Robin Hood was a thief. 
You can claim what “you think” about individuals with antipathy towards humans but you’d be wrong. There were days when we would by the widow a cow so she could have milk for her children and she would make cheese and other products that would afford her a living. We now give everybody free milk, receive nothing but further dependence and the demand for more entitlements.


----------



## drapetomaniac

Traveling Man said:


> When charity becomes an entitlement it no longer is charity.



Not sure it is for those giving it either way when the recipient has to pass a judgement test.



Traveling Man said:


> We as citizens are granted certain privileges and rights, along with those rights come responsibilities. One of these responsibilities is to not become a burden upon society. Only the spoiled brat would claim charity as a right...
> You can claim what â€œyou thinkâ€ about individuals with antipathy towards humans but youâ€™d be wrong. There were days when we would by the widow a cow so she could have milk for her children and she would make cheese and other products that would afford her a living. We now give everybody free milk, receive nothing but further dependence and the demand for more entitlements.


 
Well, that's a simply wrong.

My two brothers who received free milk are veterans.  Although they didn't received welfare while in the service, many others do: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/moneymatters/a/foodstamps.htm

Spoiled brats? 

My suspicion of antipathy comes from all of the demonizing language of the poor, sick and infants.  But more so from the fact that their motives are already determined and insisted upon.  They are criminals - lazy thieves clamoring for more.

The claim that the poor are clamoring for entitlement is wide spread and consistent.  Especially the idea that they don't want to work or make enough money to pay their own way.  If they're lazy and don't want to pay their own way, then of course they're despicable... something involving crime..  Thieves.  This way they are immoral and criminals....

Of course, I've never seen this rally, heard the results of this conference of the poor and sick, or seen the survey of poor that says they don't want to work and demand others work for them.  I've always seen people with jobs who wanted their kids fed.  And families who wanted their family member to be healthy first, and to at least live if the possibility exist.  But if they're vermin, of course we shouldn't help them.

A woman wakes up to find her husband as walked out.   She might be someone who just wants to make sure her kids can eat, focus on school, are safe after school and are healthy - all of which require assistance or for which assistance is available. 

But if she actually asks for it - well, then lets call her a thief who shouldn't have had kids she couldn't support.  And if this is her second marriage and her first child was by her first husband, well then we can add whore.  Obviously, we shouldn't help her.

However, if I in my graciousness dain to help her individually above her protests, then she just might be worthy of charity without being a lazy thieving drug addicted prostitute.



> * More than one out of four working families with children is low-income. In all, a total of 42 million adults and children struggle to get by.
> * The number of low-income working families increased by 350,000 between 2002 and 2006.
> * Income inequality among working families increased by almost 10 percent from 2002 to 2006.
> *  The goal of economic self-sufficiency remains an elusive dream for far too many working families.
> http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/about.html



What if instead of focusing on the most fringe and demonizing extreme we can imagine, we thought about the working poor.

Of course, at this point we can start to talk about "how they shouldn't be allowed to have kids if they can't care for them" (even though many of the working poor don't have kids) or "they should have worked harder in school so they could get a better job."

We can assume their work ethic, motives and other demonizing factors at any point and then apply it to them all.  

Then again, mention raising the minimum wage at all and people freak out.  Mention making it a living wage, they'll be congressional riots.  Mention forcing minimum wage to track inflation and we'll have a civil war on our hands.   There is an insistence we have a large working poor class, and when we demonize them and assume their motives then well, the thieving bastards just have it coming to them.

Those who are willing to pay into social programs are thinking about the working poor.  Opposition seems to be thinking about the thieving anchor baby crackheads who are just lazy at their core (and they kick puppies) while they drool over the riches earned by people with actual work ethics and morals. And if every poor and sick person is like that, well then obviously they deserve what they get.  

42 million lazy thieves in working families. . I'm starting to hate the lazy bastards now :32:

Of course, I'd still like to know how we managed to determine so much of their motives and character.


----------



## Traveling Man

drapetomaniac said:


> Not sure it is for those giving it either way when the recipient has to pass a judgement test.





> A woman wakes up to find her husband as walked out.   She might be someone who just wants to make sure her kids can eat, focus on school, are safe after school and are healthy - all of which require assistance or for which assistance is available.
> 
> But if she actually asks for it - well, then lets call her a thief who shouldn't have had kids she couldn't support.  And if this is her second marriage and her first child was by her first husband, well then we can add whore.  Obviously, we shouldn't help her.



Oh please continue as this sounds familiar… VBG




> However, if I in my graciousness dain to help her individually above her protests, then she just might be worthy of charity without being a lazy thieving drug addicted prostitute.
> What if instead of focusing on the most fringe and demonizing extreme we can imagine, we thought about the working poor.
> 
> Of course, at this point we can start to talk about "how they shouldn't be allowed to have kids if they can't care for them" (even though many of the working poor don't have kids) or "they should have worked harder in school so they could get a better job."
> 
> We can assume their work ethic, motives and other demonizing factors at any point and then apply it to them all.



You are preaching to the choir:

And you were doing so good until you went there. You again are wrong! You see your scenario was my life’s story, except you’ve got a couple of things wrong. First my mother didn’t ask, expect nor receive a hand out, whether it was food stamps, welfare, ADC or any thing of the kind. Step two, she got a job and raised us the best she could. My three brothers were not thieves or social miscreants of any kind. We were raised to believe that it would be more honourable to starve to death than to take something that didn’t belong to us. I started working at the age of 13 and haven’t stopped yet. Did I tell everyone else (my employer) how much I should be paid? No. Does the world owe me anything? Absolutely not. Am I demonized because of my wealth? Are those who think that I have more than my “fair share”? Do a lot of individuals think that somehow my wealth is purloined at the expense of others?

Keep on keeping’ on brother…


----------



## TexMass

> Originally Posted by drapetomaniac
> As far as waiting in line - the basis of that entire "problem" is the idea that everyone has access. The only way to keep the line short is to make sure other Americans don't have access to medical care. This is what people are arguing for - making sure all Americans don't have access. Because when they do, you'll have to wait behind the guy who would otherwise not have been covered for pre-existing conditions or lack of payment.QUOTE]
> 
> Wow!  Way off the mark.  The IDEA is to allow healthcare to all so people with minor problems can have them checked out and not wait until it's a hospital stay.  Better access to health cares breeds better health and longer life.  Look at ALL the countries who do better than us.  The numbers are all there.


----------



## TexMass

Originally Posted by Traveling Man 
"When charity becomes an entitlement it no longer is charity".
What charity are we speaking of?  Food Stamps?  Medicade?  Social Assistence?  If I'm not mistaken, I pay for all that in case I need it.  So, if I need it, I'm entitled to it.


----------



## Traveling Man

TexMass said:


> Originally Posted by Traveling Man
> "When charity becomes an entitlement it no longer is charity".
> What charity are we speaking of?  Food Stamps?  Medicade?  Social Assistence?  If I'm not mistaken, I pay for all that in case I need it.  So, if I need it, I'm entitled to it.


 
None of the above. When food pantries give food as an act of charity and then one demands free food as a “right” it is no longer charity. When doctors give free medical assistance and then the recipients demand free health care it is no longer charity. When our lodge gives free daycare, food to young teenaged mothers (provided that they stay in school) that’s charity. When the state was so impressed with our program they instituted the same program but without the caveat of the mothers finishing school, it no longer was a charity. We had mothers come to us demanding the benefits of the program without the stipulations in the contract, they claimed, “it was their right”. We had a local food kitchen that served food to the hungry but that too was discontinued because we were told that our stipulation that they not be drunk or high was illegal and it was “their right” to be fed. Where do you think the idea of support for widows and orphans came from?  Charity, look what it has turned into! Alexis de Tocqueville would be shocked!


----------



## TexMass

So are you saying that all of the people were coming to you saying they had a right and that you must take care of them or only a few?  Because no matter the program there are always a few.  I think I see where your going with it.  Give up on the charity because a few people or a few "stipulations" make it too difficult or am I misreading your post.  If you're complaining about a select few messing it up for the rest well welcome to the real world.  We either accept a few are going to try and take advantage of a system and just deal with it or we junk it and leave this charity thing to someone else.  Are you just stating your opinion or are you making a suggestion?


----------



## Traveling Man

TexMass said:


> If you're complaining about a select few messing it up for the rest well welcome to the real world.  We either accept a few are going to try and take advantage of a system and just deal with it or we junk it and leave this charity thing to someone else.  Are you just stating your opinion or are you making a suggestion?


 First it was a few, then more and then we were "informed" through a lawyer. We then devised a new charity. It's not my opinion, it was the reality of the situation. It was truly a case of biting the hand that fed them. So sad, their loss not ours.


----------



## TexMass

I'm with you Brother.  We had a group who would organize and meet incoming military returning from Iraq at a military base in western MA.  They found out that no arrival time was given only the date.  Families would wait for hours with small children until a plane would finally arrive.  The next time, they brought a grill and served hot dogs and even rented a "bounce castle" for the kids.  It was great.  When the GL found out they were told to discontinue the event since they did not have insurance for serving food in the event someone gets sick nor are they protected against any  injuring in the "big bounce".  They were very disapointed.


----------



## JTM

bottom line:

the federal govt doesn't have the authority to enact universal healthcare, and i'd extend that to social security and medicare.

the commerce clause is such crap.  the universal clause?  even moreso. nullification needs to start being used as more than rhetoric.

i just wanna be left alone to earn and spend my money on my own accord, and i'm tired of things being decided for me and things forced upon me.  i see universal healthcare as expanding this.  more and more and more just being piled on top of me until i just have no decisions to make and no freedoms left.

i'm not saying our current insurance system is great at all... it's pitiful.  i wish we could get out of this idea that healthcare and work are tied together.  i also think universal healthcare is a step in the wrong direction.

this idea that HMOs/PPOs should be used is absurd.  we owe this great system to nixon, and to the state senators that have been paid off for it.  government created the problem and now i see you asking for more government to solve it.


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> i'm not saying our current insurance system is great at all... it's pitiful.


 
So what are the suggested reforms?  All I hear are threats and condemnations.  "Health reform"  is now an evil phrase even though there are hundreds of options.

What are the suggestions for non-evil reform.


----------



## Traveling Man

drapetomaniac said:


> So what are the suggested reforms?...What are the suggestions for non-evil reform.


 
The only individuals that don't know the alternative suggestions, are the individuals talking in echo chambers.
You know the ones that claimed the "other side" had no suggestions (a blatant lie), the individuals that tried to excoriate the other party as the party of "no".
Meanwhile making backroom deals with Big Pharma, Big Unions and The AMA while ignoring "we the people". It's all about the power and money, it has little to nothing to do with the real problem. I agree with JTM leave us alone; please don't "help" us anymore.


----------



## drapetomaniac

Traveling Man said:


> The only individuals that don't know the alternative suggestions, are the individuals talking in echo chambers.
> You know the ones that claimed the "other side" had no suggestions (a blatant lie), the individuals that tried to excoriate the other party as the party of "no".
> Meanwhile making backroom deals with Big Pharma, Big Unions and The AMA while ignoring "we the people". It's all about the power and money, it has little to nothing to do with the real problem. I agree with JTM leave us alone; please don't "help" us anymore.


 
I'm sorry - you just seemed to say "there are suggestions" followed by "leave us alone".  And you prior posts declared people don't want health care reform.  (Even though that seemed to be a survey of people satisfied with their health care, thus having health care).

What are the suggestions for non-evil reform?


----------



## Traveling Man

drapetomaniac said:


> I'm sorry - you just seemed to say "there are suggestions" followed by "leave us alone".  And you prior posts declared people don't want health care reform.  (Even though that seemed to be a survey of people satisfied with their health care, thus having health care).


 
I'm sorry you seem so confused. The answer is: if there "are" alternative suggestions but those suggestions being summarily dismissed out of hand, "we the people" select "none of the above". People have an aversion to things being negotiated behind closed doors and then summarily crammed down their throats. Is that so hard to understand?



> thus having health care…



Are you implying the only ones who should be heard are those without health care? How absurd!


----------



## drapetomaniac

So.  No suggestions for raising the longevity, infant mortality and other health conditions to be on par with much poorer nations? No suggestions on how the working poor can gain the same access to health care rich foreigners do?

Suggestions other than  screw em they're bad people.



Traveling Man said:


> Are you implying the only ones who should be heard are those without health care? How absurd!


 
Not implying that.  But that seems to be the inverse of you using the 75% number (which seems to only listen to the insured).


----------



## Traveling Man

drapetomaniac said:


> So.  No suggestions for raising the longevity, infant mortality and other health conditions to be on par with much poorer nations? No suggestions on how the working poor can gain the same access to health care rich foreigners do?
> 
> Suggestions other than  screw em they're bad people.
> 
> 
> 
> Not implying that.  But that seems to be the inverse of you using the 75% number (which seems to only listen to the insured).


 
So you are admitting that all those “government programs” to protect those listed above isn’t working? Then the answer must be, (drum roll please) another “program”. 

Come on let’s not be intellectually lazy, look up the suggested alternatives. There’s no need for your hateful heated rhetoric, please cease and desist, otherwise this dialogue is closed!


----------



## drapetomaniac

Traveling Man said:


> So you are admitting that all those â€œgovernment programsâ€ to protect those listed above isnâ€™t working? Then the answer must be, (drum roll please) another â€œprogramâ€.



I guess I'm not aware of the government programs meant to provide access to people 



Traveling Man said:


> Come on letâ€™s not be intellectually lazy, look up the suggested alternatives.



Just asking a question. What are the alternatives you know of.  It might be lazy not to look it up, but one of the purposes of discussing it with someone is to gain from those who know something.

It's especially hard when the criteria are "no government action" and "those who actually seek help are wrong to do so"

I have good googling skills, but can't quite weed it down.

I'll offer an alternative mentioned.  That was co-ops.  My objection to that idea is that its untried and theoretical.  We have programs around the world we could analyze for good and bad implementations to refine them.  We don't have any co-op models on a large scale.  I might be more likely to accept the idea if we actually had the foresight to at least analyze existing programs.



Traveling Man said:


> Thereâ€™s no need for your hateful heated rhetoric, please cease and desist, otherwise this dialogue is closed!



I'll try not to use terms like intellectually lazy and absurd when responding to others in this thread.   I'll try not to stereotype or demonize the poor and sick.


----------



## Blake Bowden

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32646.html


----------



## JTM

drapetomaniac said:


> So.  No suggestions for raising the longevity, infant mortality and other health conditions to be on par with much poorer nations? No suggestions on how the working poor can gain the same access to health care rich foreigners do?
> 
> Suggestions other than  screw em they're bad people.


 
easy.  let the scottish rite children's hospital, the shriner's hospitals, other not for profit hospitals, state hospitals, county hospitals, for profit hospitals, doctors, and families decide what is best for the situation and let them implement it.

this idea that the federal govt has to be involved at all is outrageous.  get them OUT.


----------



## JTM

cuba, finland, swedend, the UK, germany, france, canada, israel, australia... what's the difference between their healthcare systems and ours?  around 300 million people.  

why does finland's work so well?  because there are only 5 million people involved, very little immigration, and besides the 2 factions of natives vs islamic immigrants, they are much a homogeneous population.  

ours: 304 million and about as heterogeneous as it gets... you can't have a uniform program for that many people.

the idea that HMOs will work for everyone is stupid.  why will universal healthcare be any better?  it's a false promise of a better system that you're going for.


----------



## Blake Bowden

So Rush, why shouldn't the Republicans participate in this so-called "Healthcare Summit" with Obama? You label it as a trap, but why? If the Republicans have a better plan...then speak up!!


----------



## JTM

blake said:


> So Rush, why shouldn't the Republicans participate in this so-called "Healthcare Summit" with Obama? You label it as a trap, but why? If the Republicans have a better plan...then speak up!!


 
republicans?  



JTM said:


> easy.  let the scottish rite children's hospital, the shriner's hospitals, other not for profit hospitals, state hospitals, county hospitals, for profit hospitals, doctors, and families decide what is best for the situation and let them implement it.
> 
> this idea that the federal govt has to be involved at all is outrageous.  get them OUT.


 

there's your answer.


----------



## JTM

again, there are a couple main differences between these two plans.  1st: obama's dream plan requires more theft from the rich.  You seem to think that they aren't rich for a reason and won't get their money back.  You'll still be paying for it, and if you couldn't afford it before, being forced to pay for it later will mean the money comes from somewhere.  Probably another area of your life you aren't willing to give up.


2) for what the dream plan requires you are forcing people to give up their earned money.  All you need for my plan to work is to leave me alone.  It increases freedom and liberty at the same time.  Win, imo.


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> easy.  let the scottish rite children's hospital, the shriner's hospitals, other not for profit hospitals, state hospitals, county hospitals, for profit hospitals, doctors, and families decide what is best for the situation and let them implement it.
> 
> this idea that the federal govt has to be involved at all is outrageous.  get them OUT.


 
The answer is Do Nothing?  How about this - is there anything to do to increase the nonprofit presence or county hospitals, etc?  This was actually one of the plans on the table, but the general cry is all reform is evil.  Every nonprofit facility I know of is suffering right now, not growing.

We have millions of working poor without insurance, and even middle class who have been worked out of the system for pre-existing conditions. The only solution to that is "leave em be?"  

Expanding nonprofits was on the table 
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...eigh-in-on-nonprofit-healthcare-cooperatives/

This is the cultural difference I think we both mentioned earlier. Some nations are ok with the community chipping in when they can and helping each other stay healthy and fed.  Ours is not.

I think in many instances because they actively participate and define instead of just protest, they may not see their community programs as "them."

How many Shriners hospitals do you think there will be in 10 years compared to now?


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> You seem to think that they aren't rich for a reason and won't get their money back.  You'll still be paying for it, and if you couldn't afford it before, being forced to pay for it later will mean the money comes from somewhere.  Probably another area of your life you aren't willing to give up.


 
You seem to be ok with the vast income disparity in this country, achieved by the wealthy helping the wealthy?  Leave the rich alone or they'll punish you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html


----------



## JTM

drapetomaniac said:


> The answer is Do Nothing?  How about this - is there anything to do to increase the nonprofit presence or county hospitals, etc?  This was actually one of the plans on the table, but the general cry is all reform is evil.  Every nonprofit facility I know of is suffering right now, not growing.
> 
> We have millions of working poor without insurance, and even middle class who have been worked out of the system for pre-existing conditions. The only solution to that is "leave em be?"
> 
> Expanding nonprofits was on the table
> http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...eigh-in-on-nonprofit-healthcare-cooperatives/
> 
> This is the cultural difference I think we both mentioned earlier. Some nations are ok with the community chipping in when they can and helping each other stay healthy and fed.  Ours is not.
> 
> I think in many instances because they actively participate and define instead of just protest, they may not see their community programs as "them."
> 
> How many Shriners hospitals do you think there will be in 10 years compared to now?


 
how many?  probably none, if obama had his way.  the best hospitals in the world would actually be gone.

as for the first part, "do nothing?"

this is wrong.  in fact, your solution is the "do nothing" answer.  "let government take care of it for you."  my solution is the "do everything" answer.  i will take care of my health, not pawn it off onto someone else.



> Some nations are ok with the community chipping in when they can and helping each other stay healthy and fed.  Ours is not.



this is so bogus.  you call it "chipping in when they can."  i call it stealing 10% of someone's hard earned money on a regular basis wether they "can" or not.


----------



## JTM

drapetomaniac said:


> You seem to be ok with the vast income disparity in this country, achieved by the wealthy helping the wealthy?  Leave the rich alone or they'll punish you?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html


 
they aren't punishing you.  you are demanding more services and they are making you pay for it.  isn't that fair?

and guess what?  as government gets larger and larger, the income gap is widening and thinning in the middle.  so you want more and larger government?  you'll just be pushing that income gap wider.


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> they aren't punishing you.  you are demanding more services and they are making you pay for it.  isn't that fair?
> 
> and guess what?  as government gets larger and larger, the income gap is widening and thinning in the middle.  so you want more and larger government?  you'll just be pushing that income gap wider.


 
The income inequality starts out by funneling all the wealth to the top of the food chain.  Is that process fair?


----------



## JTM

who funnels the wealth to the top?  government.  and you want more government.

who allows for them to "punish" us for making them pay more taxes?  government.  and you want more government.


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> how many?  probably none, if obama had his way.  the best hospitals in the world would actually be gone.
> 
> as for the first part, "do nothing?"
> 
> this is wrong.  in fact, your solution is the "do nothing" answer.  "let government take care of it for you."  my solution is the "do everything" answer.  i will take care of my health, not pawn it off onto someone else.



What is your suggested solution to increasing health access for Americans?



JTM said:


> this is so bogus.  you call it "chipping in when they can."  i call it stealing 10% of someone's hard earned money on a regular basis wether they "can" or not.


 
Like I said cultural differences.  It takes a village to raise a child versus get the urchin out of my site.


----------



## JTM

drapetomaniac said:


> What is your suggested solution to increasing health access for Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said cultural differences.  It takes a village to raise a child versus get the urchin out of my site.


 my suggested solution?  good lord, i've put my suggested solution up 3-4 times in this thread already.  let me take care of my healthcare, and get out of my business.  that is my solution!  i'm beginning to assume that you don't even read my posts.  me, my family, my doctor, my church, my friends, my community, the organizations i'm in, and any insurance i want to purchase will be involved in my decisions... not some politician in D.C.

and i completely agree that it takes a village to raise a child... nobody ever says, "it takes a government to raise a child"



more from before:

what you are saying to me is that "Because the rich have all the money, and the income gap is widening, let's go get our pitchforks and take it back!!"

and then you take the moral high road and call it "chipping in when they can" and other bogus catchphrases that make me look like an insensitive jerk that's trying to steal from other people.


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> who funnels the wealth to the top?  government.  and you want more government.
> 
> who allows for them to "punish" us for making them pay more taxes?  government.  and you want more government.



The government isn't handing out bonuses and hasn't been on a regular basis - that *are not* based on performance.  It doesn't pay wildly out of scale regardless of performance.

Everyone if focus on "theft from the rich" but ignores their theft from stockholders and workers that gave them their insanely lopsided wealth.


----------



## JTM

i'm sorry, what?  if you find theft from stockholders anywhere, you are welcome to bring them before a judge.

again, i'm sorry, what?  government jobs are the easiest and laziest of jobs out there.  productivity amongst government jobs is the lowest.  government jobs promote laziness.  

i've seen this in action: finishing a contracting job with the government ahead of time and under-budget is a mark AGAINST you.  next time you won't get as much time or as much money... "you didn't need it the first time."  the better idea is to just go slow and do a crappy job... then you can claim you weren't given enough money and it wasn't your fault.


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> my suggested solution?  good lord, i've put my suggested solution up 3-4 times in this thread already.  let me take care of my healthcare, and get out of my business.  that is my solution!  i'm beginning to assume that you don't even read my posts.  me, my family, my doctor, my church, my friends, my community, the organizations i'm in, and any insurance i want to purchase



Well you're insured.  That's not my question and hasn't been.  There are hard working people who can't afford insurance or access to health care and a growing number of children - and people who are just cut out of access because they got sick at the  wrong time. 

What about _them_?  I have health insurance too, a pretty good plan.  I wouldn't mine being left alone (of course I wouldn't mind helping others as I have been helped in the past) - but I would like to see the richest country in the world have a better longevity, infant mortality and health rates in general. I'd like to see my fellow citizens healthier than they are and less afraid to get sick in this country.

Leaving them alone isn't working.  And especially in youth, a sick youth typically means a less healthy adulthood which comes back to haunt us all.


----------



## JTM

there are a ton of county hospitals, free clinics, etc.  there would be a lot more if the federal government got out of this business.  and that's my solution: get the federal government out, allow for a return of the strength that is the private, not for profit hospital and clinic.

if you would like to see your fellow citizens healthier than they are now, then go help them.  work with them on a diet and perhaps help pay for their medications.  a) we'll see how interested they are in that kind of thing and b) how incredibly effective it is.

as it is now with this government handout crap, check out how many people get appointments at hospitals from the government and don't even bother showing up.


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> again, i'm sorry, what?  government jobs are the easiest and laziest of jobs out there.  productivity amongst government jobs is the lowest.  government jobs promote laziness.
> ...
> i've seen this in action: finishing a contracting job with the government ahead of time and under-budget is a mark AGAINST you.  next time you won't get as much time or as much money... "you didn't need it the first time."  the better idea is to just go slow and do a crappy job... then you can claim you weren't given enough money and it wasn't your fault.


 
So what makes our American government _inherently_ incapable of productivity or reform in productivity?


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> there are a ton of county hospitals, free clinics, etc.  there would be a lot more if the federal government got out of this business.  and that's my solution: get the federal government out, allow for a return of the strength that is the private, not for profit hospital and clinic.



What is the government doing right now to prevent the presence of community hospitals and health clinics? (Ignoring for a moment how many get federal and state grants for operations).

You speak of a "return" - when was that golden era of near universal coverage or access to health for Americans?



JTM said:


> as it is now with this government handout crap, check out how many people get appointments at hospitals from the government and don't even bother showing up.



So - they don't want coverage?


----------



## JTM

drapetomaniac said:


> So what makes our American government _inherently_ incapable of productivity or reform in productivity?


 
i thought i gave the example:



> i've seen this in action: finishing a contracting job with the government ahead of time and under-budget is a mark AGAINST you. next time you won't get as much time or as much money... "you didn't need it the first time." the better idea is to just go slow and do a crappy job... then you can claim you weren't given enough money and it wasn't your fault.


----------



## JTM

drapetomaniac said:


> What is the government doing right now to prevent the presence of community hospitals and health clinics? (Ignoring for a moment how many get federal and state grants for operations).
> 
> You speak of a "return" - when was that golden era of near universal coverage or access to health for Americans?



http://www.wusa9.com/money/story.aspx?storyid=88915&catid=37

these lists go on and on, dude.  the larger government gets, the more impossible it is for a charity to survive.

and they do it in several ways... including money that was going to charities going to new taxes, inflation and rising costs making it impossible to do things for free nowadays... a myriad ways.



> So - they don't want coverage?


 i have no idea.  i know it's anecdotal, but i have several nurse/pharmacist/doctor buddies that talk about the hatred they have for serving medicaid patients.  one D.O. that i know won't accept medicaid payments anymore... he just treats them for free and tells them he'll bill medicaid.


----------



## JTM

The golden age of charities: 1870-1890s.

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/news-issue/giving-that-worked/


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> i thought i gave the example:


 
So, if we change that?  Would that help efficiency or increase waste?  If we ended this - would government run faster?


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> The golden age of charities: 1870-1890s.
> 
> http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/news-issue/giving-that-worked/



I didn't see health coverage or access mentioned?  Was that the era every American who needed to coud see a doctor?


----------



## JTM

drapetomaniac said:


> I didn't see health coverage or access mentioned?  Was that the era every American who needed to coud see a doctor?


 
if they paid for it, sure.


----------



## JTM

drapetomaniac said:


> So, if we change that?  Would that help efficiency or increase waste?  If we ended this - would government run faster?


 
if we change what?  you aren't going to change it... that's how it's always been.  government is wasteful...


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> http://www.wusa9.com/money/story.aspx?storyid=88915&catid=37
> 
> these lists go on and on, dude.  the larger government gets, the more impossible it is for a charity to survive.



I didn't see anything about health access?  Is there an example that shows when the US government doesn't interfere, Americans get health coverage?  The current state seems to contradict that.



JTM said:


> and they do it in several ways... including money that was going to charities going to new taxes, inflation and rising costs making it impossible to do things for free nowadays... a myriad ways.
> 
> i have no idea.  i know it's anecdotal, but i have several nurse/pharmacist/doctor buddies that talk about the hatred they have for serving medicaid patients.  one D.O. that i know won't accept medicaid payments anymore... he just treats them for free and tells them he'll bill medicaid.



No worries - I know plenty of other people who, for instance, see how poor women are treated when they go in to have a baby on health care.  Tests are expensive, so lets run tests.  Natural birth doesn't cost much, surgery does - bring the knife.  There are providers on both sides of that.  If there's a source for revenue, they'll take it.

How many charities do you know that don't apply for federal grants?


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> if we change what?  you aren't going to change it... that's how it's always been.  government is wasteful...


 
Inherently so?  No possibility for reform? No possibility for analysis and improvement?  Why is the United States Government impossible to reform or improve?

I often wonder if part of the reason it's bad is we elect people who think it's inherently bad and therefore spend no time on analysis and improvement.


----------



## JTM

drapetomaniac said:


> Inherently so?  No possibility for reform? No possibility for analysis and improvement?  Why is the United States Government impossible to reform or improve?
> 
> I often wonder if part of the reason it's bad is we elect people who think it's inherently bad and therefore spend no time on analysis and improvement.


one of the best examples of someone that represented change in the name of the people that i can think of right off the top of my head would be none other than the great Hugo Chavez.


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> one of the best examples of someone that represented change in the name of the people that i can think of right off the top of my head would be none other than the great Hugo Chavez.


 
Which is why he kept getting re-elected and appears to be the only coup in Latin America reversed by the people bringing the country to a halt.

Why is the United States Government impossible to reform or improve? You say it is inefficient, why is that inefficiency impossible to change?


----------



## drapetomaniac

blake said:


> So Rush, why shouldn't the Republicans participate in this so-called "Healthcare Summit" with Obama? You label it as a trap, but why? If the Republicans have a better plan...then speak up!!


 
It's a trap because those at the summit will have to acknowledge there are people who are uninsured who are actual people, often with jobs and morals - and sickness.  It would be more of a trap if you had some of the uninsured present.

They will have to acknowledge there is a problem or say there isn't.

And then they will have to sugest something that they wil see as an improvement - they will actually have to offer a strategy.

All of that gives credence to the idea there are working people in this country of highest wealth, who don't live as long as other countries.


----------



## JTM

drapetomaniac said:


> Which is why he kept getting re-elected and appears to be the only coup in Latin America reversed by the people bringing the country to a halt.
> 
> Why is the United States Government impossible to reform or improve? You say it is inefficient, why is that inefficiency impossible to change?


 
change to what?  an uber streamlined example of efficiency?

because there are 304 million customers.


----------



## Blake Bowden

We have 46 million Americans without Healthcare insurance, yet we're able provide Universal Healthcare to over 31 million Iraqis and 28 million Afghans! In matter of fact, Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution states:

"First: Every citizen has the* right to health care*. The State shall maintain public health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different types of hospitals and health institutions."

Where's the outcry from the right about this?


----------



## JTM

i believe everyone has a right to health care, just like you have the right to guns.  you're welcome to have a gun, but you have to buy it yourself.


----------

