Palin Speaks

[luke warm]

So: Really what we are talking about, from my standpoint, is helping others. I have no disagreement with helping others, but if someone wants to get my support for a program for helping others then the arguments have to be a little different than when he is trying to sell me something that will benefit me.

i have come to the conclusion that we're going to have some sort of plan passed... since that's a given, it's my view that the only option worth considering is the public one... now i also believe that obama has dropped the ball on this, for many of the reasons winston stated - both parties are corporate hacks who have absolutely no allegiance to the country or its people, except insofar as it gets them reelected

 

i believe obama should have framed the discussion in more emotional terms... iow, this is not a policy debate, this is a moral debate... make *that* argument, and win or lose on it alone

[hrothgar]

Too bad he ran a campaign that rejected his own principles, so that no knowledgeable principled voter could cast a ballot for him.

lol

 

Really?! All 60 million or so Americans who were McCain voters were either ignorant or unprincipled? I mean, I didn't vote for the guy, and I didn't think much of him as a candidate, but this strikes me as over the top. Doesn't it depend on which issues or principles are most important to a given voter?

I seem to recall some lovely cross tabs analyzing

 

Political identification

Geographical identification

"Opinion" on any one of a variety of subjects

 

Is Obama a Muslim?

Was Obama born in the US?

Were the US and Africa ever part of the same continent?

 

I'm not claiming that every individual who voted Republican is ignorant or unprincipled. I am willing to state that the Republican rump is profoundly factually challenged.

 

Moreover, they seem downright proud of this...

[Lobowolf]

Too bad he ran a campaign that rejected his own principles, so that no knowledgeable principled voter could cast a ballot for him.

lol

 

Really?! All 60 million or so Americans who were McCain voters were either ignorant or unprincipled? I mean, I didn't vote for the guy, and I didn't think much of him as a candidate, but this strikes me as over the top. Doesn't it depend on which issues or principles are most important to a given voter?

I seem to recall some lovely cross tabs analyzing

 

Political identification

Geographical identification

"Opinion" on any one of a variety of subjects

 

Is Obama a Muslim?

Was Obama born in the US?

Were the US and Africa ever part of the same continent?

 

I'm not claiming that every individual who voted Republican is ignorant or unprincipled. I am willing to state that the Republican rump is profoundly factually challenged.

 

Moreover, they seem downright proud of this...

Just as a for instance, I don't think it's unprincipled or ignorant to be a litmus test abortion voter (and there are many on both sides). If you think abortion is more important than the war, or the economy, or health care reform, that's not "unprincipled" (although it's a principle I'd certainly disagree with). And if you're pro-life (I am not), and you think that McCain is going to appoint Supreme Court Justices more aligned with your beliefs, you're probably right.

[PassedOut]

Just as a for instance, I don't think it's unprincipled or ignorant to be a litmus test abortion voter (and there are many on both sides). If you think abortion is more important than the war, or the economy, or health care reform, that's not "unprincipled" (although it's a principle I'd certainly disagree with). And if you're pro-life (I am not), and you think that McCain is going to appoint Supreme Court Justices more aligned with your beliefs, you're probably right.

As my uncle Robert would have said (he didn't finish college), "That's the exception that proves the rule."

;)

[kenberg]

Someone, I forget who, said "All important decisions are made on the basis of insufficient information."

 

 

When I think, for example, of Ben Bernanke I am somewhat comforted by the thought "He may be right, he may be wrong, but he probably understood more about finance when he was in the third grade than I do now so let's hope he knows what he is doing." A sort of reverse idea came up the other day when I was at a friend's house for dinner. He thinks all our troubles began in 1913 with the creation of the Fed, and he is a big fan of Ron Paul. I said that there was really no chance that we would be abolishing the Fed, and we would not be electing Ron Paul president any time soon, so I preferred to just hope he was wrong. I am not prepared to debate the point. My host does fairly well with investments and spends far more time thinking about financial things than I would ever be able to stand so I would be at a fact based disadvantage.

 

Health care: I don't see anyone emerging that I can say "I think this guy really understands the issues backwards, forwards, and upside down. Let's just quit fussing and do it his way, it's our best shot at success." Mr. Obama obviously was a very successful campaigner, although it helps to run against a somewhat lost soul John McCain and a bizarre Sarah Palin, but we now will find out how he fares as a leader. I am crossing my fingers.

 

Side note: Regarding Nixon/Kennedy and cooperation, I was thinking further back, say to civil rights under Johnson, the space program under Kennedy, the interstate highway program under Eisenhower. Things got done. The late sixties early seventies were very weird years for this country. Also, Kennedy and Nixon did not work it out and Nixon did not succeed. For that matter, the view of Ted Kennedy at that time, to put it gently, was different than now.

[Al_U_Card]

Why did the founding fathers give the legislature the right to control the minting of coin? Why did they vehemently resist the founding of the first and second (private, just like the Federal Reserve) Bank of America? Why did Andrew Jackson run on a platform of "Death to the Bank(ers) and win? Why was he almost assassinated twice? Never mind Garfield, McKinley, Lincoln, FDR and JFK who all took on the central bank(ers) in one way or another.

 

Money makes the world go.....period. As Rothschild said, more or less, he who controls the money supply makes the law of the land. Its the way of the world.

 

Health care is not about health or care, it is about cost....isn't it? :)

[Winstonm]

I side with Bill Moyers who said to Bill Mahers (and I paraphrase) that he would rather see Obama go down fighting for something just than compromise and get a watered-down nothing.

[luke warm]

As Rothschild said, more or less, he who controls the money supply makes the law of the land. Its the way of the world.

i think that was the emperor and i think he said 'he who controls arakas controls the spice' or something like that

[Winstonm]

both parties are corporate hacks who have absolutely no allegiance to the country or its people, except insofar as it gets them reelected

 

I am certainly in agreement with this - and it is a big reason that 97% of Congress is re-elected.

[Lobowolf]

To the extent that "getting reelected" is inconsistent with "doing what's best for the country," that's more of an indictment of the voters than the politicians.

[Winstonm]

To the extent that "getting reelected" is inconsistent with "doing what's best for the country," that's more of an indictment of the voters than the politicians.

I am not chomping on that bait - you are not that naive - and I know it. :rolleyes:

[mike777]

Some posters have advocated socialized medicine or socialism.

 

 

I suggested medicare for all as of 7-04-2009 with auto enrollment but that failed. Granted I had no idea how to pay for it let alone the existing form of medicare.

 

Here is another idea:

 

 

Insurance can be bought across state lines and for those that cannot afford it a negative income tax..say up to around 7500$.

 

I make no claims this is the best idea...just a good first step that hopefully could be passed.

[Al_U_Card]

Let's see...."socialized" medicine works in virtually all of the western nations EXCEPT the US. They are also rated better at dealing with health-related issues than service in the US. I wonder what could possibly be the impediment to the adoption of a similar system in the US.....oh right....the word "socialized" (and also the constant death panels that we must deal with....) but surely not the Health insurance companies and HMO's ....they couldn't possibly be against improving US health care by adopting a previously proven methodology....could they?

[PassedOut]

To the extent that "getting reelected" is inconsistent with "doing what's best for the country," that's more of an indictment of the voters than the politicians.

I am not chomping on that bait - you are not that naive - and I know it. :)

I guess I am though. I agree with Lobowolf's statement.

[mike777]

Let's see...."socialized" medicine works in virtually all of the western nations EXCEPT the US. They are also rated better at dealing with health-related issues than service in the US. I wonder what could possibly be the impediment to the adoption of a similar system in the US.....oh right....the word "socialized" (and also the constant death panels that we must deal with....) but surely not the Health insurance companies and HMO's ....they couldn't possibly be against improving US health care by adopting a previously proven methodology....could they?

Al, I have discussed this often, as far as I can tell no country in Europe or even Canada has socialized(socialism) their entire health care system. Please note I include the UK where the term a socialism health care system is commonly used but I think in error. I have tried to use that term carefully.

 

 

Now if the discussion is have Canada and Europe distorted health care economics to the detriment of the patient... That is another thread. :)

 

 

 

1) The famous WHO study is in much debate

2) Transparency of most Europe and Canadian health care systems is poor for noncitizens.

 

 

With all of that said my proposal does not claim to be better than your ideas, whatever they may be.

 

btw I note in Canada links have been posted that suggest millions of Canadians do not have access to a primary health care doctor let alone other basic health care. There have been links that suggest the provinces are going broke.

 

What ever the accurate facts are, at the very least I hope Canadians post all the facts about their system and not just some of the facts that may distort.

[PassedOut]

Not all republicans want to block health care reform: Who’s to Blame on Health Care Reform?

 

David Brooks: Gail, thank you for absolving me of the Republican mistakes. I have enough trouble with my own. In fact, my criticism of Democratic bills is the complete opposite of the conventional Republican criticism. Most Republicans say the Democratic bills are radical and socialist. My problem with them is they are modest and timid. The Democrats say the current health care system is dysfunctional, then they preserve and extend it. They don’t touch the fee-for-service system. They don’t touch the employer-based system. They don’t alter the runaway costs.

 

Some Republicans say the Democratic bills would create death panels. I wish. I’m pro-death panel. We spend so much money on end of life care we have to have some way of talking about it.

 

My big takeway from this whole mess is that incremental reform doesn’t work. We have to go back and redo the system.

I followed the link to the David Goldhill article recommended by David Brooks and found it to be a very good read: How American Health Care Killed My Father

 

Indeed, I suspect that our collective search for villains—for someone to blame—has distracted us and our political leaders from addressing the fundamental causes of our nation’s health-care crisis. All of the actors in health care—from doctors to insurers to pharmaceutical companies—work in a heavily regulated, massively subsidized industry full of structural distortions. They all want to serve patients well. But they also all behave rationally in response to the economic incentives those distortions create. Accidentally, but relentlessly, America has built a health-care system with incentives that inexorably generate terrible and perverse results. Incentives that emphasize health care over any other aspect of health and well-being. That emphasize treatment over prevention. That disguise true costs. That favor complexity, and discourage transparent competition based on price or quality. That result in a generational pyramid scheme rather than sustainable financing. And that—most important—remove consumers from our irreplaceable role as the ultimate ensurer of value.

 

These are the impersonal forces, I’ve come to believe, that explain why things have gone so badly wrong in health care, producing the national dilemma of runaway costs and poorly covered millions. The problems I’ve explored in the past year hardly count as breakthrough discoveries—health-care experts undoubtedly view all of them as old news. But some experts, it seems, have come to see many of these problems as inevitable in any health-care system—as conditions to be patched up, papered over, or worked around, but not problems to be solved.

It's clear that whatever gets done on health care this year will not be sufficient -- not by a long shot -- but it will be completely unacceptable not to make a start. If the republicans insist on keeping the status quo, as it seems now, the reconciliation process will have to be used.

[Lobowolf]

To the extent that "getting reelected" is inconsistent with "doing what's best for the country," that's more of an indictment of the voters than the politicians.

I am not chomping on that bait - you are not that naive - and I know it. :)

I guess I am though. I agree with Lobowolf's statement.

I am, too...I wasn't being facetious. But don't tell Winston; I kinda appreciate his faith in me.

[jdeegan]

:) Goldhill sees things correctly imho. MORAL HAZARD IS THE PROBLEM. Let us not forget that death comes inevitably, one to a customer. You may have to face a DEATH PANEL because you opted for the el cheapo insurance plan, and you can't raise the additional $89,000 it takes for the New Dehli heart transplant. For many life after a heart transplant can be short and PAINFUL. You might just decide to go quietly if its your own money.

[mike777]

"as it seems now, the reconciliation process will have to be used."

 

 

Your major point may be true ....but to pass what?

 

 

Please note the Senate rules are extremely, extremely restrictive when it comes to this process.

 

 

--------------------

[Trinidad]

Let's see...."socialized" medicine works in virtually all of the western nations EXCEPT the US. They are also rated better at dealing with health-related issues than service in the US. I wonder what could possibly be the impediment to the adoption of a similar system in the US.....oh right....the word "socialized" (and also the constant death panels that we must deal with....) but surely not the Health insurance companies and HMO's ....they couldn't possibly be against improving US health care by adopting a previously proven methodology....could they?

Al, I have discussed this often, as far as I can tell no country in Europe or even Canada has socialized(socialism) their entire health care system.

I think that you are misinformed.

 

While I am not sure that all EU countries have "socialized" health care, many of them did. There are different variations, though.

 

It ranges from "Government paid health care for all" in e.g. Sweden to "Mandatory insurance. If you can't pay the premium, the government will." in countries like The Netherlands.

 

The basic idea in the Swedish system is that no individual has Health insurance. If you get sick you just visit your doctor. You pay a tiny fee for visiting. The fee is enough to prevent people from visiting the doctor for getting a band aid and low enough so that everyone can go to the doctor when needed (think of about 5-10 US$). Whatever that physician (and the following doctors) decide upon is free of charge. In practice it doesn't work 100 % like that, but it is awefully close.

 

If you don't call that "socialized health care", I wonder what "socialized health care" would look like.

 

Rik

[Winstonm]

To the extent that "getting reelected" is inconsistent with "doing what's best for the country," that's more of an indictment of the voters than the politicians.

I am not chomping on that bait - you are not that naive - and I know it. <_<

I guess I am though. I agree with Lobowolf's statement.

When there are only two parties, both of whom are loyal only to the moneyed power that helps them into power, then which side the voter picks is irrelevant.

 

Add to that the incredible benefits to re-election that incumbents possess, it really the voters' fault for the 97% re-election rate?

 

Ultimately, over a period of decades, we can blame the voters for allowing this to happen. You may note I didn't dispute Lobo's claim - but to say that today's voter's can change anything with their votes is naive IMO, as that assumes a real, working two-party system.

[Al_U_Card]

Let's see...."socialized" medicine works in virtually all of the western nations EXCEPT the US. They are also rated better at dealing with health-related issues than service in the US. I wonder what could possibly be the impediment to the adoption of a similar system in the US.....oh right....the word "socialized" (and also the constant death panels that we must deal with....) but surely not the Health insurance companies and HMO's ....they couldn't possibly be against improving US health care by adopting a previously proven methodology....could they?

Al, I have discussed this often, as far as I can tell no country in Europe or even Canada has socialized(socialism) their entire health care system.

I think that you are misinformed.

 

While I am not sure that all EU countries have "socialized" health care, many of them did. There are different variations, though.

 

It ranges from "Government paid health care for all" in e.g. Sweden to "Mandatory insurance. If you can't pay the premium, the government will." in countries like The Netherlands.

 

The basic idea in the Swedish system is that no individual has Health insurance. If you get sick you just visit your doctor. You pay a tiny fee for visiting. The fee is enough to prevent people from visiting the doctor for getting a band aid and low enough so that everyone can go to the doctor when needed (think of about 5-10 US$). Whatever that physician (and the following doctors) decide upon is free of charge. In practice it doesn't work 100 % like that, but it is awefully close.

 

If you don't call that "socialized health care", I wonder what "socialized health care" would look like.

 

Rik

It can also be a case of who controls the spin on just what is "good" for you.

 

If I can make a living (despite taxation) and not have to worry about or deal with bankruptcy due to an illness that may have been "pre-existing" according to some insurance company's ledger sheet requirement, then that is fine by me.

 

My brother, in Phoenix, tells me about various "insurance" stories where people were financially wiped out by illness or medical conditions. Never hear of that in Canada. Never hear much about anything terrible except for long waits for elective or non-ICU surgery.

 

The US "climate of fear" extends to every act being one of terrorism in one form or another. Wonder where THAT comes from.... :lol:

[luke warm]

there are problems now with what's called balance billing and non-network ancillary providers... for example, if a facility is in your insurance company's network and you go in for some sort of surgery, it's highly likely that the radiologist and the anesthesiologist are out of network for you... your company would pay (usually) according to its out of network rules (usually 70% of the amount paid to in network providers, after some out net deductible)... you the patient would have to pay the rest of the billed charges (the balance)

 

the same goes for er visits... most hospitals' er are staffed by doctors not on staff... and most of these doctors are not in any network (in louisiana, there are relatively few er doctors, radiologists, or anesthesilogists in any insurance company's network)... you'd again get stuck with a huge bill

 

how problems like these are handled in whatever comes out of washington, or how they're handled elsewhere, is interesting to see

[PassedOut]

The current mess is really hurting businesses. Today we learned that our premiums are going up another 25.13%. Argh.

[Al_U_Card]

But "socialized" medicine comes out of "all" taxpayer's" pockets so maybe it might just be....business friendly? (HMO's and insurance companies potentially excluded to a certain (profitability) degree) :(