Audible Nectar Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 I have to hand it to the looooooooooooooong winded here,you're really loooooooong winded. If you're really into debating policy(paaaast,present and future) this much you should run for office(east or west). I'm automatically disqualified. I don't go to church, don't have kids, and have seen too many Grateful Dead concerts. I'm also not capable of telling people what they want to hear - and telling the truth loses elections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 I have to hand it to the looooooooooooooong winded here,you're really loooooooong winded. If you're really into debating policy(paaaast,present and future) this much you should run for office(east or west). I'm automatically disqualified. I don't go to church, don't have kids, and have seen too many Grateful Dead concerts. I'm also not capable of telling people what they want to hear - and telling the truth loses elections. None of "those" things would disqualify you from gettin' my vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hifi jim Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 I have to hand it to the looooooooooooooong winded here,you're really loooooooong winded. If you're really into debating policy(paaaast,present and future) this much you should run for office(east or west). Yes. If you want to get past the HotTalkRadio level of "that's communist!" "You're a fascist" and "Your're just a socialist, man!" than it takes words. Words are the tools of ideas. Going "on air" and just shouting that someone is "just plain wrong and stupid and a socialist" is the tool of the frustrated, ill-informed, and ignorant. My interest in public policy has nothing to with running for or holding office. It is merely the interest any citizen would need to use their powers wisely. So yes, it is true, I don't inform my views from ignorant blowhards shouting 3-word slogans into the ether. So, it's hard to express them with the written economy of those who think "wut R U warin" is a high-falutin' courtship missive. Wow Mark. You and I must yell at the TV in stereo. The current state of news media is just plain horrendous, and I'm shocked that even the coverage of the Presidential Inauguration was dumbed down to a level fit for Beavis and Butthead. I was surprised and upset to hear comments from Barbara Walters, Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson that were a poor attempt at humor and so seemingly improper for the event at hand. Media today is intent on capturing the short quote or clip that will eventually be replayed on Yahoo or You Tube and thus promote their news agency further. Trouble is, they've aided in the "Dumbing Down of America" and have almost forced politicians to speak in short catchy snippets to produce soundbites. The exchange of words and ideas continues to dwindle and we know what happens when two sides can no longer freely exchange ideas. The example set for the young Americans is one of impatience, ignorance and selfishness that continues to worsen with every new technology. Most teens or pre teens I see today are so self absorbed in their own world of text messaging or video gaming, I can't help but wonder what the future holds. OMG! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkin Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 From My post on page 7 of this thread. And yes the police, fire, utilities and public education are paid for on a socialistic method to a degree. Fire and police I have no problem with since it is local and we have more control. Education is another whole bucket of worms. I did not say that all socialistic ideals are bad, they are a better way for certain goods and services, I just don't beleive that they are our answer to all problems either. mdeneen wrote the following post at Sat, Jan 24 2009 4:25 PM: Why should "disease and sickness defense" be any different than "defense against bullets?" I pointed out this same ideas with Police and Fire services. You know, back in 1900 in San Francisco, you DID have to hire your own private fire protection. Those schemes proved unworkable and more importantly, unpopular. When referring to the government, it isn't "them" some alien entity, it is US. We are simply deciding what we want US to do for US. Private armies running all over are probably a bad idea, so we unified it. Private insurance companies for healthcare also seem to be a bad idea, so we are going to unify that too. I would not dream of standing out in front of my fire, or police department and saying, "Man, you SOCIALISTS have no clue how wrong you are!"Is General Patreas a socialist too? So Mdeneen if you would reread my post which I quoted above it would answer your rant. I believe there are certain goods and services that are better handled and managed by a central government, some by a local government and some by the individual. As my central argument was that expansion of medicaire is an increase of control of all healthcare by the central government which I think is a mistake. I believe it is a mistake for numerous reasons some of which I gave examples. I have not stated anything about stopping all central government control of all programs. In a earlier post you said something about radio talk show kiddie bantor when you can't make a good argument on the subject. Would your above section that I quoted be an example of that? I have never called anyone a socialist, but I would not be upset if you called me a capitalist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Well......I wouldn't know about talk radio,never listened,just music.I'm also interested in public and private policy,just not enough to try to convince the world of my views.Funny thing about the human belief system,very hard to change what one believes. I guess my point was,yellin' at the tv or typing an opnion pc. on this site is not likely to change much........although I suppose it's not hurtin' nothin'. I for one would be glad to see politicians speak in short,easy to understand sentences.The problem is not the words or their number,it's the implimentation. Thanks and I'd appeciate your vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hifi jim Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Hey Jim--- Yeah, I can scarcely watch TV news anymore. The inability of highly paid people to put a sentence together on the fly is simply shocking beyond belief. The stuttering, the ums, and ahs, the totally inarticulate grammar, and the inability to use words properly by highly paid newscasters is something I just would not believe without hearing it. They do "ok" reading what editors have written for the teleprompter, but the minute they have to speak contemporaneously it's just embarrassing. And the cable guys and gals? Forget it. Of the whole lot on Network and Cable, I can think of maybe TWO people can carry on an off-the-cuff conversation on the TV and make good-witted sense. Most of the on-air talent today seem to have a vocabulary of about 450 words - about the same as those who use English as a second language. Even the jokes on late night TV are now insipidly dumbed down and bluntly juvenile. Not even a hint or breath of cleverness or sophistication. If the joke doesn't name at least two body parts no one laughs. I have found some broadcast news/events shows I like (two on TV, two on radio) and the rest is junk. I don't know what to make of it. Also, you may have noticed how many people refuse to discuss "religion or politics" in public under the belief that it is "impolite." When I grew up, that's ALL anyone discussed in their households, or at picnics! How did so many people obtain the belief it is impolite? What on earth DO people talk about in their houses? Football and American Idol? You've hit the nail on the head again Mark. I watch foreign broadcasts from the BBC to obtain news about my own country as well as world news. The reporters there can speak fluent English and seem to have some knowledge on what it is they're reporting. I also use the internet to obtain information from different news agencies. The local news stations here are absolute garbage and they've gone the route of using "sex sells" as every weather, sports and now news woman must all be young, busty and "hot", albeit brainless and unworldly. Even the ads that promote their news is one of cleavage and airbrushed looks as opposed to integrity and professionalism. Late night as you've pointed out has fallen into the same trap, and listening to Leno explain the punch line to his own jokes is just too insulting to one's intelligence. America has used the cloak of "political correctness" to a fault. No politics, no religion, no Christmas. "Football and American Idol", I thought I was the only one who noticed. I hate football (I know, flame away), but I'd be happy to talk hockey or baseball if anyone followed those sports anymore. And don't get me started on American Idol... utter garbage and nonsense. The producers purposely keep the worst of the worst from the early auditions so that they may be used later during televised auditions as entertainment for those inclined to watch the show. Placing these rejects of society on TV is doing little to authenticate the show, and only serves as a poor example for America's youth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Wow,I never knew people with such great intelligence were so judgemental.You guys do know that just because you think x y or z that it's no more than YOUR thought,nothing more,not an oz. more. I have watched the BBS myself,sometimes,along with just about every other news outlet,you know,for a well balanced view,not just to have my wacky opinions supported. Vote ME! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hifi jim Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 I have watched the BBS myself,sometimes,along with just about every other news outlet,you know,for a well balanced view,not just to have my wacky opinions supported. I did say BBC along with other news agencies from the internet, that meaning various online papers from left and right views. However the BBC is as neutral a news source as I have found. I'll admit to some wacky opinions, but I've never asked anyone to support them. [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I counted three so far, so I'll put another plug in for Mark. Mark, while I might disagree with you a lot, I do not find your posts lacking in intelligence. For example, your comparison of military, police and fire protection to nationalized health care, for purposes of assuaging the fears of anti-socialists, is a good one. I see the logic in it. When it comes to matters of fiscal concerns, I am more anti-socialist than I am when it comes to health care. Since we typically debate taxation, the economy, the bail-out, etc., you will see me often more in disagreement with you. As to health care, I am not as much in disagreement as I am just concerned. I have had Americans, including Michael Moore, tell me over and over how the delivery of health care in England and Canada, for example, is really not all that bad. They say it is better than ours. But then, I have people from England and Canada that work in my building, who tell me our system is far superior and there is no way they would want to go back. So, I don't know what to think, except that health care in America definitely has some problems that need to be fixed. I think the prices charged are a massive rip-off, and as evil as insurance is, at least the insurance companies have had enough stroke to get reasonable prices out of health care providers. Incidentally, our state requires all driver's to maintain auto liability insurance if they want to drive. That has not destroyed us. A forced purchase of health insurance might not be a bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Blacksmith Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Mark, There is a large number of people here that CHOOSE to not have healthcare covered for them by their employer. These are young adults, in good health and though they discount things like accidents, they don't feel that they want to have money spent on them for healthcare, rather they want the money in their paycheck. Another number to add to your list. Number of Americans (and non citizens) who get free healthcare from hospitals and clinics 100% of those who want care. Is this the most efficent way to get it to them.... no but it is available. I am sorry, I just don't want our health care system to degrade into a single payer government run system. This is the result you would get when the employers look at the costs and decide to do away with private insurance and move to paying their share in a government run system. The shift would start slowly then pick up speed then eventualy it would take over. You then wind up with a system that is no better than in GB. It is fine to have an opinion as you made reference to in the above post. However, I also have one and I enjoy good health care abet in a PPO. A large part of the problem of cost, as I see it, is not that private doctors and hospitals run up the bills, rather, employers pay for healthcare and THEY are the customer, not the patent. Thus when things get added to the bill (yes we have had several hospital stays and I DO look at the bill) and the patent brings up errors on the bill, the hospital just ignors them. I have brought these things up with my insurance and they just blow it off also as they know I am not paying the insurance preimum, my employer is. My employer does not care as my complaint would take up more time and money to investigate and fix than they would save with the preimuim. If you could hire, fire and shop for insurance plans with the money provided by an employer and YOU are the customer, they would listen better. I have found thousands of $ errors on hospital bills, medications provided multiple times to use up old stock. Point in case, once my wife needed a silver based ointment during her stay in the hospital. The size spot that was being treated was about the size of a silver dollar. She had a tube of ointment about the size of a small tube of toothpaste in her room that was being used. I came in one day and though there was only about 1/4 of the tube used, they had provided a TUB of ointment holding over a quart of ointment and used just a single dose from it. I looked at the TUB and the experation date was only 30 days from when it was issued and it had a shelf life of 24 months. It is clear why it was issued, the insurance co would pay for it. They did and when I reported it to them they did nothing about it as well as the other things I found with the bill. The cost of the TUB was well over $1k There is a plan similar to what I am advocating, it is the type of plan that you have a savings plan and you choose the doctor etc, not the ins company. You get a set $ ammount to work with through the year and what is left over you get to keep. There is a backup to your savings though and if a large expense happens, it is covered. This saves everyone money and the CONSUMER is the one who is BUYING the medical care thus the providers are answerable to them, not a big company that does not care. I do NOT want to see us go to the system you are puting forth, I am sorry it is indeed socicalist, like the word or not that is what it is and thoug there are several places where that system works best such as the services you mention, I don't agree that medical care is another place for the socicalist system. The physical defense of our nation is prescribed in our founding doccuments, medical care is not and like free speach morphing to free access to porn, our medical system should not be morphed into defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hifi jim Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 There is a large number of people here that CHOOSE to not have healthcare covered for them by their employer. These are young adults, in good health and though they discount things like accidents, they don't feel that they want to have money spent on them for healthcare, rather they want the money in their paycheck. I was one of these young adults several years back and I regret the decision. I was without insurance and went without dental care for too long a time until I had done some real damage and was forced to spend thousands to repair what would've been an inexpensive and routine repair. Who did this benefit? My dentist of course. A friend of mine was also without insurance when he was young and was seriously hurt at home. What did he do? He was treated at a hospital and never paid the bill? Who does this affect? All of us. Uninsured people of any age is unacceptable in my opinion. Having friends and family who are losing their savings and more trying to pay for overpriced medications and treatments is just too painful to watch. Health care is getting worse, not better. If that's not reason alone for government intervention, then what is? The physical defense of our nation is prescribed in our founding doccuments, medical care is not and like free speach morphing to free access to porn, our medical system should not be morphed into defense. I'm pretty sure our "founding documents" predate medical care almost all together, along with assault rifles and handguns. Should those be tossed out too then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Mark, what you said in your post in reply to mine makes sense to me. On that, we are in agreement. As to whether kids (or anyone) should be able to avoid the expense of mandatory coverage, I think that is the reason why coverage would be mandatory. It is one thing to realize that the odds of loss are in your favor as a young person, but it is quite another when you are the one the odds caught up with. There is no doubt you, who elect to not participate, will do whatever you can to get treatment and would not accept being turned away from treatment due to lack of coverage. Further, we have a collective mentality in the profession, as it exists in this country, that people get treatment, even if they are uninsured. So, if coverage is not mandatory, the purpose behind responsible health care is thwarted. It really is about time we had universal coverage. Of course, if we do that, where will all the sick people in England and Canada go for better treatment than their countries provide? [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikekid Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 GOD BLESS OUR MILITARY & the USA If it wasn't for these Men and Woman, we wouldn't be ALOUD to voice the rotten things we say. My son served in Iraq, and as far as I am concerned...MANY in the media should be charged with treason. I have read most of this thread and it is amazing to me how so many BELIEVE what they read and listen to on TV ( or look up on the web). Too bad really. Now we get to watch MTV and Barnum and Bailey in charge. This will be fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkin Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Hey Mark, if I may call you that, When you gave the long list about civilians to Jeff you forgot to include one number. Out of the 40M uninsured how amy are illegal aliens? Out of the 40M don't want insurance? How many left Cuba for health care? I can answer that at least one named Fidel. How can you keep a straight face and say that our unisured get worse healthcare than the people of Cuba? Why does the Clevland clinic have a large patient population from Canada(I have a friend who is a hospital administratior there) that come and pay cash for procedures? What is the ratio of people leaving the US to go to countries with socilized medicine for healthcare compared to people coming to the US for healthcare from countries with socilize medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Blacksmith Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 There is a large number of people here that CHOOSE to not have healthcare covered for them by their employer. These are young adults, in good health and though they discount things like accidents, they don't feel that they want to have money spent on them for healthcare, rather they want the money in their paycheck. I was one of these young adults several years back and I regret the decision. I was without insurance and went without dental care for too long a time until I had done some real damage and was forced to spend thousands to repair what would've been an inexpensive and routine repair. Who did this benefit? My dentist of course. A friend of mine was also without insurance when he was young and was seriously hurt at home. What did he do? He was treated at a hospital and never paid the bill? Who does this affect? All of us. Uninsured people of any age is unacceptable in my opinion. Having friends and family who are losing their savings and more trying to pay for overpriced medications and treatments is just too painful to watch. Health care is getting worse, not better. If that's not reason alone for government intervention, then what is?The physical defense of our nation is prescribed in our founding doccuments, medical care is not and like free speach morphing to free access to porn, our medical system should not be morphed into defense. I'm pretty sure our "founding documents" predate medical care almost all together, along with assault rifles and handguns. Should those be tossed out too then? Good morningl Your story proves my point. We live in a free country. We have the right to choose what we want. I do not think that we should give up the right to choose the path in life for ourselves by mandating from the government what we will and will not do for ourselves. In the decisions we make in life we should be accountable to oursleves. If we choose poorly, we shoud bear the brunt of our decisions. This is the down side of being able to choose, the responsibility for our actions or lack there of. We should not live in a nanny state were the government makes all the "hard" decisions for us. As to medical care not being available when our nation was founded, have you ever herard of Hippocrates of Kos (c. 460 BCc. 380 BC) he was an ancient Greek physician. He has been called "the father of medicine", and is commonly regarded as one of the most outstanding figures in medicine of all time. He was a physician trained at the Dream temple of Kos, and may have been a pupil of Herodicus. Writings attributed to him (Corpus hippocraticum, or "Hippocratic writings") rejected the superstition and magic of primitive "medicine" and laid the foundations of medicine as a branch of science. Little is actually known about Hippocrates's personal life, but some of his medical achievements were documented by such people as Plato and Aristotle. The Hippocratic writings introduced patient confidentiality, a practice which is still in use today. This was described under the Hippocratic Oath and other treatises. Hippocrates recommended that physicians record their findings and their medicinal methods, so that these records may be passed down and employed by other physicians.Other Hippocratic writings associated personality traits with the relative abundance of the four humours in the body: phlegm, yellow bile, black bile, and blood, and was a major influence on Galen and later on medieval medicine. Medical care was available in the pre BC days so I am quite sure that it was available 1,700 years later at the founding of our country. It may not have been as advanced as what we have today but you can be sure that there were doctors available to treat people at our nations founding. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Blacksmith Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Good morning Mark, I agree that there was (and is) no way to foresee the future. What lies ahead is indeed unknown. However, our guidance is from the past for our future and what the intent was then, is the future, now, and as such we must be careful to not twist the intent from then to fit the political correctness of today. Our nation was founded on freedom, the freedom to choose our own direction in life. If we choose poorly, we must pay the price for our decisions. This is called individual responsibility, I do not believe that I have any right to choose the path in life for you, nor do you have any right to make decisions for me. Government must walk a very tight line to not impose on me or you what the political whims of the day are. We do not live in a nanny state, nor should we. The only way to live in a utopia where no one suffers, no one makes bad decisions, no one has any problems is to have the government make all the decisions about what is best for all and in doing so, makes a compromise for everyone and no one is free to follow the path in life that they want to and the utopia never is achieved for anyone. This type of society has been tried through the ages, most recently in USSR, China, Cuba and a host of other countries. What sets the U.S. apart from them is our freedom to choose for our self be it for good or ill. In order to have the ability to choose, we need a foundation on which we can build. This was given to us by our Christian heritage in this nation. The Jewish-Christian foundation can not be denied regardless of what history revisionists choose to say. The bible, a liberating set of 66 books if there ever were any, sets the ground rules and are the underpinnings of our nation. I bring this up, not to start a discussion on this topic (though now I am sure there will be one and thus this thread will take off on a tangent, but I hope not) but to say that we DO have a solid foundation on which to go into the future with. When we deny our past and the lessons learned from it, we are doomed to repeat it. The clear and historic definition of defense is military, to try to subvert the meaning to include healthcare is pure folly. This is the same road that our courts have traveled to give us porn as free speech and abortion as a personal right (though it denies the right to life of the killed child). Though we need to make decisions on things in light of the facts now, we must do so with the utmost care. When we give government (or government takes) the rights to make decisions for us, government never gives those rights back to us. It is a one way street that we are traveling with the surrender of rights to the governmen. Government programs to help one segment of society will punish another segment. Government's goal should be to provide motivation to individuals to better themselves not to become dependent on government. This can not happen if government makes all the choices and takes all the personal accountability away. There should indeed be a safety net for those who can not do for themselves, that is only right in a caring society but the help should be only the most basic thus providing incentive one to do better for themselves. It is also a fact that once someone becomes dependent to someone for their survival, they become resentful of those who are taking care of them. Our nation has at its core, the dream that our children can have a better life than we have had. It is our duty to teach our children from our mistakes, so that they do not make the same ones that we did. To instill in them self dependence and the ability to fend for themselves. Government can not do this for them, it is our duty, not that of the state. In teaching our children to be independent, this has the natural consequence of keeping power FROM the government, not giving power to the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Cal, there is no doubt that freedom is an important thing. But it certainly is far from the end-all. Freedom to not choose insurance and live with the consequences of a bad decision? Well, here is my belief as to what will really be the case as regards "living with the consequences." John chooses not to have insurance. He has a heart attack. Where does he go? Straight ot the emergency room. I don't see him, while in his moment of desperation, saying to himself, "Gosh. I don't have insurance. Guess I'll just stay home and see how it turns out." Will he likely pay the $73,800 in medical bills? No. Can the medical providers likely collect it from him if they bother so far as to take him to court and get a judgment? No. So, how is that living with the consequences? Sure, he got straddled with a debt he'll never pay. That's not living with the consequences. He took the health care, but he's not going to pay the bills. That's the problem. And I really don't think we would ever have a system where people who showed up at the emergency room while suffering a heart attack were turned away due to no insurance/no cash up front/no proof of ability to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Blacksmith Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Jeff, please re-read my post. I do say that there should be a safety net for the truly needy but that it should be minimal, think VW bug or Smart car, not BMW sports coupe or Rolls Royce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I do say that there should be a safety net for the truly needy but that it should be minimal, think VW bug or Smart car, not BMW sports coupe or Rolls Royce. Cal, what's the dividing line for "truly needy"? $72,000? $50,000? $10,000 for a family of 4? Or does it make a difference whether the insured is single, or the head of a big family? Is it income-related (which a BIG administrative cost!), or should it be $15,000 regardless of a family income of $26,000/year or $126,000? And, does it depend on which disease?Cal, you're talkin' welfare here!! Do you really want to turn everyone's medical care over to welfare?? And no one knows how much it's going to be when sickness or disability strikes. Not like deciding to go onto a BMW lot instead of Chevy or Toyota. Lots of minimal plans around, so I doubt that's the issue here. The basic issue is how to spread the cost across the population. The ultimate alternative to insurance is NO insurance, which is OK until unexpected illness strikes. No insurance co., or Medicare, will issue insurance to someone only when they become sick, just like you probably can't get good auto insurance after the accident. A few of the issues to be weighed & debated if we move into this debate. I doubt very much that most of the insured don't want health (or auto) insurance unless they suddenly need it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 There should indeed be a safety net for those who can not do for themselves, that is only right in a caring society but the help should be only the most basic thus providing incentive one to do better for themselves. Cal, I see your reference and hope you will agree the above is what you were referring to. What I am saying is that this is not just an issue about those who can't help themselves. Mark has framed the debate (to some extent) this way - as if it's a "pitting the poor against the rich," or "healthcare against military." For me, it is not that. A great many people can afford the expense of a catastophic policy. Instead, they buy cell phones, beer, cigarettes and fast food. This is not a question of "needy" or "helpless people," so much as it is a question of whether government should be involved to force the act of procurement of coverage. You can't just persuade everyone to spend money a certain way, so should the cost be legislated? I think it might not be such a bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.