The Republican Thread

[kapkomet]

No. But I believe that a health care system is a unique beast...because a modern society just can't function without it.

Seriously? That is utopia at its finest, because medical decisions are taken away from the individual. I cannot see how anyone can be ok with that.

 

EVERYONE can get health care now if they want to make that choice - because mechanisms are in place to make that happen.

 

[Cubano]

You really strongly believe in social utopia, don't you?

 

Folks,

 

I came from a socialist system. I lived in one for many years where the government controls everything. It does not work. It is not efficient. Nobody cares about anything because the government is the boss. Waste, bad service and frustation are the norm.

 

When is the last time the government managed something good?

Edited June 11, 2009 by Cubano

[Balta1701]

Seriously? That is utopia at its finest, because medical decisions are taken away from the individual. I cannot see how anyone can be ok with that.

 

EVERYONE can get health care now if they want to make that choice - because mechanisms are in place to make that happen.

Do you really and truly think that individuals are currently making health care decisions? That the decision is not being made by 1. the individual's doctor, 2. the individual's insurance company, and 3. at a long distance back, the individual? And frankly, do you really think individuals are qualified to be the ones making health care decisions? I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm not. Trying to scare me with the idea of a bureaucrat making decisions about health care doesn't work when it's already happening...just happens to be done by a person who's job is to do everything possible to make sure that his or her company doesn't have to pay the bill.

 

Furthermore...saying "Everyone can get health care now if they want to make that choice" is a wonderful straw man...because that's not the issue. The issue is that the way people are being forced to get health care is vastly, VASTLY more inefficient than the alternatives. Not going through preventative care is vastly more expensive than having to deal with something major that could have been avoided. Going to an emergency room for care is vastly more expensive than being able to see a regular physician.

[Rex Kickass]

Do you really and truly think that individuals are currently making health care decisions? That the decision is not being made by 1. the individual's doctor, 2. the individual's insurance company, and 3. at a long distance back, the individual? And frankly, do you really think individuals are qualified to be the ones making health care decisions? I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm not. Trying to scare me with the idea of a bureaucrat making decisions about health care doesn't work when it's already happening...just happens to be done by a person who's job is to do everything possible to make sure that his or her company doesn't have to pay the bill.

 

Furthermore...saying "Everyone can get health care now if they want to make that choice" is a wonderful straw man...because that's not the issue. The issue is that the way people are being forced to get health care is vastly, VASTLY more inefficient than the alternatives. Not going through preventative care is vastly more expensive than having to deal with something major that could have been avoided. Going to an emergency room for care is vastly more expensive than being able to see a regular physician.

 

I have been in a situation in the last three years where I had to decide whether or not to file a claim on some diagnostic work because I feared having my coverage dropped as a result of the kind of tests that were required.

 

I have been in a situation in the last year where I was denied the only available medical plan to me that I could afford because I was eligible for a much more expensive plan in another state that would not honor any claims I made because I lived in the wrong state.

 

Bureaucracy and managed care is alive and well in the US, just in the name of making money.

[kapkomet]

I have been in a situation in the last three years where I had to decide whether or not to file a claim on some diagnostic work because I feared having my coverage dropped as a result of the kind of tests that were required.

 

I have been in a situation in the last year where I was denied the only available medical plan to me that I could afford because I was eligible for a much more expensive plan in another state that would not honor any claims I made because I lived in the wrong state.

 

Bureaucracy and managed care is alive and well in the US, just in the name of making money.

These are the problems with our system - and you DO NOT FIX IT by having the government take it over.

 

I saw where there is a "compromise" being floated about "health care co-operatives" being started up. Let's see the details on that.

 

[kapkomet]

Do you really and truly think that individuals are currently making health care decisions? That the decision is not being made by 1. the individual's doctor, 2. the individual's insurance company, and 3. at a long distance back, the individual? And frankly, do you really think individuals are qualified to be the ones making health care decisions? I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm not. Trying to scare me with the idea of a bureaucrat making decisions about health care doesn't work when it's already happening...just happens to be done by a person who's job is to do everything possible to make sure that his or her company doesn't have to pay the bill.

 

Furthermore...saying "Everyone can get health care now if they want to make that choice" is a wonderful straw man...because that's not the issue. The issue is that the way people are being forced to get health care is vastly, VASTLY more inefficient than the alternatives. Not going through preventative care is vastly more expensive than having to deal with something major that could have been avoided. Going to an emergency room for care is vastly more expensive than being able to see a regular physician.

Preventative health care is a straw man, too, IMO. It will lead to dictates of what will and will not get treated.

 

[southsider2k5]

Do you really and truly think that individuals are currently making health care decisions? That the decision is not being made by 1. the individual's doctor, 2. the individual's insurance company, and 3. at a long distance back, the individual? And frankly, do you really think individuals are qualified to be the ones making health care decisions? I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm not. Trying to scare me with the idea of a bureaucrat making decisions about health care doesn't work when it's already happening...just happens to be done by a person who's job is to do everything possible to make sure that his or her company doesn't have to pay the bill.

 

Furthermore...saying "Everyone can get health care now if they want to make that choice" is a wonderful straw man...because that's not the issue. The issue is that the way people are being forced to get health care is vastly, VASTLY more inefficient than the alternatives. Not going through preventative care is vastly more expensive than having to deal with something major that could have been avoided. Going to an emergency room for care is vastly more expensive than being able to see a regular physician.

 

So the brilliant solution is to add "50,000,000" people to the system for free, well at the riches expense, and that will fix things. We have a fixed number of care providers, facilities, and drug companies. If we are complaining that our system is bad now, how is adding 20% more load, while reducing the incentive to be better by the people providing the goods and services going to make it better? The answer is it won't. Wait times will explode. Quality of care will plummet, and the number of people willing to work in the sector is going to dry up because any monetary incentive will be destroyed by the government. We will kill more people with government health care, than we do with the evil private system we have now, mark my words.

[BearSox]

Well, you know systems like that have worked brilliantly in europe...

 

My question is, how is the United States not gonna go into bankruptcy?

[kapkomet]

So the brilliant solution is to add "50,000,000" people to the system for free, well at the riches expense, and that will fix things. We have a fixed number of care providers, facilities, and drug companies. If we are complaining that our system is bad now, how is adding 20% more load, while reducing the incentive to be better by the people providing the goods and services going to make it better? The answer is it won't. Wait times will explode. Quality of care will plummet, and the number of people willing to work in the sector is going to dry up because any monetary incentive will be destroyed by the government. We will kill more people with government health care, than we do with the evil private system we have now, mark my words.

But at least we will be like the rest of the world.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't jump into these health care discussions a lot because I think its incredibly complicated, and I don't have a good holistic solution in mind.

 

But this...

 

Preventative health care is a straw man, too, IMO. It will lead to dictates of what will and will not get treated.

 

...is ridiculous. You think that preventative care is a straw man? First, that doesn't even make sense, as preventative care exists. Second, if you are saying its bad, I don't get that at all. Clearly, measures you take to be healthier via regular maintenance (diet, exercise, and yes, regular checkups to detect problems early) are a huge win for everyone involved. Lowers the need for more expensive health care, makes us all healthier... how can you possibly be against that?

 

[kapkomet]

I don't jump into these health care discussions a lot because I think its incredibly complicated, and I don't have a good holistic solution in mind.

 

But this...

 

 

 

...is ridiculous. You think that preventative care is a straw man? First, that doesn't even make sense, as preventative care exists. Second, if you are saying its bad, I don't get that at all. Clearly, measures you take to be healthier via regular maintenance (diet, exercise, and yes, regular checkups to detect problems early) are a huge win for everyone involved. Lowers the need for more expensive health care, makes us all healthier... how can you possibly be against that?

If the definition of "preventative care" must include being told by our government what it constitutes, then it is a straw man that will lead to what will and will not be treated - and will be incredibly costly because now the system will require payments on "preventative care" visits.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Preventative care is a bad thing? I think I've heard it all now.

[Rex Kickass]

If the definition of "preventative care" must include being told by our government what it constitutes, then it is a straw man that will lead to what will and will not be treated - and will be incredibly costly because now the system will require payments on "preventative care" visits.

 

Preventative care = checkups, innoculations, etc.

 

When was the last time I went to my doctor for free? I think it was when I went to the health center in college.

[NorthSideSox72]

If the definition of "preventative care" must include being told by our government what it constitutes, then it is a straw man that will lead to what will and will not be treated - and will be incredibly costly because now the system will require payments on "preventative care" visits.

I think you are misusing the term "straw man" here, but that is an aside.

 

More to the point, I fail to see how preventative care becomes deciding what will and will not be treated. How do you make that leap? And how is that something that makes preventative care somehow bad?

 

[kapkomet]

I think you are misusing the term "straw man" here, but that is an aside.

 

More to the point, I fail to see how preventative care becomes deciding what will and will not be treated. How do you make that leap? And how is that something that makes preventative care somehow bad?

Again, because our government is going to mandate what "preventative care" is. How many people don't get yearly checkups now? And if you don't, oh, you have a medical issue? Tough poo poo, buddy, because I see you weren't in the system for "preventative care".

 

Of course, by itself, preventative care is good. However, it will be used as a mechanism to deny services down the road, and that's bad. And that is partly what I'm getting at. The other part is, by mandating "preventative care", costs will go up because you will have a mass flood of people because they will not otherwise get care down the road.

[Balta1701]

Of course, by itself, preventative care is good. However, it will be used as a mechanism to deny services down the road, and that's bad. And that is partly what I'm getting at. The other part is, by mandating "preventative care", costs will go up because you will have a mass flood of people because they will not otherwise get care down the road.

See, this is a great example of why our current system is broken...this argument focuses so much with the short term costs that we're willing to pay 5x more down the road to avoid them. The data is quite simple; preventative care saves a crapload of money over the long term. But you're trying to say that because adding in 100 million extra people actually focusing on preventative care would cost a decent chunk of money in the short term, you're willing to ignore the dramatic long-term savings. It's like arguing that no one should go to college because those extra years of school are expensive...yeah they are, but when you get paid back several times over, it's a smart strategy.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Some bumper stickers someone just sent me

 

 

 

[kapkomet]

See, this is a great example of why our current system is broken...this argument focuses so much with the short term costs that we're willing to pay 5x more down the road to avoid them. The data is quite simple; preventative care saves a crapload of money over the long term. But you're trying to say that because adding in 100 million extra people actually focusing on preventative care would cost a decent chunk of money in the short term, you're willing to ignore the dramatic long-term savings. It's like arguing that no one should go to college because those extra years of school are expensive...yeah they are, but when you get paid back several times over, it's a smart strategy.

I knew that you were going to say this.

 

Now that you have a lot more people in the system, I will argue that the costs will dramaticallty go up. It's purely a numbers thing - there's going to be a lot more volume, which will raise costs, including the long term.

 

The only single way to "cut costs" is to cut services (ration). Period. And that's exactly what they will do.

 

[Balta1701]

The only single way to "cut costs" is to cut services (ration). Period. And that's exactly what they will do.

How is that any different from what insurance companies do right now? How is that any different from keeping people out of the system and letting them get sicker and sicker until they have no choice but to go to the ER like we do now? That IS rationing.

 

It's not the only way to cut costs, you're wrong on that also...but that's not the biggest flaw in your argument. You're arguing in favor of a system that doesn't exist...a system where everything you could ever want is paid for happily and easily as long as we exclude 25% of the population, and that is just fiction.

[lostfan]

kap, you seem to be acknowledging that the current system is broken and something needs to be done, and I'm guessing you're just opposing the idea of the government running it or extending healthcare to uninsured. What are you proposing be done?

[EvilMonkey]

If the government starts mandating and defining preventative care it will only be a short step until that preventative care includes other things like regulating smoking, drinking or any 'risky' behavior, or denying coverage if you do engage in those activities.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Rev. Wright Says the 'Jews' are Keeping Him From Obama

 

President Barack Obama's controversial former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is blaming "them Jews" for keeping him from speaking to the president.

 

Wright, the former pastor of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, said he hasn't spoken to Obama since he became president.

 

"Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office," Wright told the Daily Press of Newport News following a Tuesday night sermon at the 95th annual Hampton University Ministers' Conference.

 

"They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. ... I said from the beginning: He's a politician; I'm a pastor. He's got to do what politicians do."

 

Obama was a longtime member of the church but resigned from it and cut ties with Wright after videos surfaced during the presidential campaign showing Wright's sometimes provocative sermons. Wright's incendiary comment included shouting "God damn America" and accusing the government of creating AIDS.

 

In the interview Tuesday, Wright also criticized Obama for not sending a U.S. delegation to the World Conference on Racism held recently in Geneva, Switzerland, saying Obama chose not to for fear of offending Jews and Israel.

 

"Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing (by) the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don't want Barack talking like that because that's anti-Israel," Wright said.

 

The White House declined to comment to the Associated Press on Thursday on Wright's remarks. A phone message left by the AP at Wright's home wasn't immediately returned.

[BearSox]

Some bumper stickers someone just sent me

 

 

I can't decide if I like the work harder or bend over one better.

[Balta1701]

If the government starts mandating and defining preventative care it will only be a short step until that preventative care includes other things like regulating smoking, drinking or any 'risky' behavior, or denying coverage if you do engage in those activities.

So you're saying you oppose things like Cigarette and alcohol taxes?

 

(And the whole point of a universal system is...you can't deny coverage!)

[southsider2k5]

See, this is a great example of why our current system is broken...this argument focuses so much with the short term costs that we're willing to pay 5x more down the road to avoid them. The data is quite simple; preventative care saves a crapload of money over the long term.

 

Great. So when are we moving everyone out of California, the Gulf coast, and the Atlantic coast? After all we KNOW that there are going to be natural disasters there that are going to cost trillions more than if we just deserted those areas. We KNOW that many, many people there are going to be harmed. Why don't we force everyone out? Why did we pay to rebuild, and maintain places like Louisana when we KNOW that more Katrinas will happen in the future. It would just be preventative care, right? It would be saving people from harm, right?

 

Nope, sorry, I don't agree with the logic. People are free to do what they want, and I shouldn't be forced to subsidize it, even though I pretty much am.