I keep telling people that go off into death-panel hysterics. Look, we already HAVE death panels, except that they're private. Personally, I'd rather have public non-profit death panels than private for-profit ones.
The problem with the public non-profit "death panels" as compared to private insurance denials of coverage is that with private insurance and care, if you're denied coverage you have the option to either shop around for alternate coverage or simply go into debt yourself and obtain the treatment you need.
With a government-mandated public healthcare system, if the government refuses to treat you, you no longer have the option to go around them to obtain the care you need as private insurance and care cannot survive competing against the government that doesn't have to make a profit, has the costs paid by taxes, and doesn't have to deal with the same regulatory compliance costs.
I'm not saying there will be *no* private alternatives, but the only alternatives left will be available only to the wealthy & powerful because the costs will necessarily skyrocket with an extremely small risk pool/customer base as most people will be pushed into the public plan.
This whole thing isn't about healthcare, costs, debt, or insurance. It never was. It's about control over people's lives, finances, and lifestyles.
This radical expansion of government power will allow government to regulate every aspect of life. Nearly everything has some effect on health, and as we've seen with the regulatory creep that's happened with the Interstate Commerce Clause, they wouldn't need to stretch much to claim regulatory power over just about anything they desire.
If you are willing to calmly debate with someone who disagrees with you, then your dissent is warranted. But if you go around screaming "Healthcare is going to kill your grandma!" or "Obama's setting up death panels!", then we have a problem.
If the allegations are untrue, simply prove them wrong. Unless of course they're essentially accurate in the end-effect parts of the healthcare bill might have. Then you're just engaging in disingenuous distraction by attempting to label those people as nutcases.
This seems to be a popular tactic of late when politicians and others want to ignore the wishes of the majority of people. Right out of Saul Alinky's "Rules For Radicals"; "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it" and also; "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."
Once you've read Saul Alinsky and Cloward & Piven, a lot of things the Progressives say and do that wouldn't otherwise make sense suddenly do.
And he gets to decide what is and isn't misinformed fear mongering, FUD-spreading speculation, and meaningless obstruction?
No, that much is fairly common knowledge among the sane.
Who exactly are these ideally "sane" people about whom you speak? Do they happen to be people that [gasp!] generally agree with you?**/the poster politically & ideologically, and share common cultural viewpoints?
Are those on the Left and in the Progressive movement now publicly of the general opinion that engaging in the business of declaring people that non-violently disagree with their ideological & political points of view "insane" as they do in certain countries to political dissidents and troublemakers is OK because they're disagreeing with *you*?
Strat
**I'm not certain if you share ideologies and/or political viewpoints with the OP or not from your post, so only conditionally include you. If you don't, then of course I'm not including you.
Dissent IS a form of patriotism. But misinformed fear-mongering, blatantly FUD-spreading speculation, and purposeful yet meaningless obstruction is NOT.
I see, so you've only got a problem with dissent you disagree with and/or uses facts or logic that makes your point of view look untenable and/or is in *your opinion* "misinformed fear-mongering, blatantly FUD-spreading speculation, and purposeful yet meaningless obstruction"?
What about protecting free speech, and especially that speech with which you disagree? Or is that protection only for Progressives & others on the Left with the "correct" views & opinions?
We're going to aggressively protect our intellectual property,
I can't wait until the US launches a pre-emptive military strike against [insert media vilified subsection of the population here] for a grave and gathering threat of...copyright infringement!
The richest people in the U.S. have, on average, shorter lives than those in nations with universal health care. And these people have access not only to the insurance policy of choice, but to the doctors and hospitals of choice as well.
I've decided that I, in a selfless & noble act of self-sacrifice, will accept all your money. I wouldn't want to see you put at risk.
Oh wait, that's what the healthcare plan is for! The government takes all your money and doles it out to other people as the government sees fit.
Ah, economic & social justice/redistribution of wealth! What great concepts. Except, of course, to anyone who might be ambitious enough to accomplish and discover things that might make them wealthy and benefit society. Our society needs to curtail all those greedy over-achievers anyway./s
There's only one major government program I can think of that I'd consider under-funded and not in desperate need of elimination or drastic cuts, and that's space exploration. Leave it to our corrupt and ideologically-bankrupt Progressive-led government to increase spending astronomically to just about every government program *except* the space program.
Strat
How does this post merit a "Troll" mod?
Considering the Progressive-leaning demographics of/. I might understand a "Flamebait" mod, although that's simply disagreeing with mod points instead of being capable of forming a convincing, cogent, and factual refutation.
"Troll" is just plain inaccurate. It's also a failed strategy if the goal was to minimize attention to the post.
Strat
Oh boy, looks like I've got some Progressive "fans" with mod points doing what Progressives do when confronted with opposing viewpoints they can't refute with facts and logic...silence the messenger/bury the message.
Unfortunately for you Progressives the paradigm has shifted, and the people of the US have awakened due to your antics in Washington and they're now aware of your agendas and will toss them and the Progressive movement back on the junk heap of failed ideas and ideologies where they belong come this November just as they have every time in the past when Progressives have attempted to "fundamentally change America".
The richest people in the U.S. have, on average, shorter lives than those in nations with universal health care. And these people have access not only to the insurance policy of choice, but to the doctors and hospitals of choice as well.
I've decided that I, in a selfless & noble act of self-sacrifice, will accept all your money. I wouldn't want to see you put at risk.
Oh wait, that's what the healthcare plan is for! The government takes all your money and doles it out to other people as the government sees fit.
Ah, economic & social justice/redistribution of wealth! What great concepts. Except, of course, to anyone who might be ambitious enough to accomplish and discover things that might make them wealthy and benefit society. Our society needs to curtail all those greedy over-achievers anyway./s
There's only one major government program I can think of that I'd consider under-funded and not in desperate need of elimination or drastic cuts, and that's space exploration. Leave it to our corrupt and ideologically-bankrupt Progressive-led government to increase spending astronomically to just about every government program *except* the space program.
Strat
How does this post merit a "Troll" mod?
Considering the Progressive-leaning demographics of/. I might understand a "Flamebait" mod, although that's simply disagreeing with mod points instead of being capable of forming a convincing, cogent, and factual refutation.
"Troll" is just plain inaccurate. It's also a failed strategy if the goal was to minimize attention to the post.
The richest people in the U.S. have, on average, shorter lives than those in nations with universal health care. And these people have access not only to the insurance policy of choice, but to the doctors and hospitals of choice as well.
I've decided that I, in a selfless & noble act of self-sacrifice, will accept all your money. I wouldn't want to see you put at risk.
Oh wait, that's what the healthcare plan is for! The government takes all your money and doles it out to other people as the government sees fit.
Ah, economic & social justice/redistribution of wealth! What great concepts. Except, of course, to anyone who might be ambitious enough to accomplish and discover things that might make them wealthy and benefit society. Our society needs to curtail all those greedy over-achievers anyway./s
There's only one major government program I can think of that I'd consider under-funded and not in desperate need of elimination or drastic cuts, and that's space exploration. Leave it to our corrupt and ideologically-bankrupt Progressive-led government to increase spending astronomically to just about every government program *except* the space program.
Once you start down the path of looking at the Constitution as a "living document" with alternate, non-intuitive & non-literal interpretations of clauses and articles, or just plain ignoring certain parts for conveniences' sake, then it becomes subject to the interpretive whims of whomever is in power,
Yes. That is by design. Not ignoring parts, that isn't right. But making interpretations is part of that flexibility in the face of unforeseen circumstances.
The "flexibility" was the Constitutional Amendment process. Not a judge, not even nine judges in black robes has that Constitutional power. That is one of the things that has changed in how the Constitution is treated.
The Supreme Court's only function is to compare the case in front of them to what the Constitution says. Not to create new meanings or completely new rights or government powers. That is what the amendment process is for. If you want it to work differently, that's perfectly fine...as long as you amend the Constitution to say so.... which is precisely what has taken this country off-path since the time of Wilson, T. Roosevelt, and the other Progressive leaders from the '20s-'30s to present.
Path? What path? The path of industrialists carving up the country amongst themselves?
The path of the Federal government's power remaining within the bounds set forth in the Constitution as amended. How do you think the "industrialists carving up the country" got the power to do that? By using the power of the Federal government outside of Constitutional bounds through corrupt politicians which is another reason why a strong central government is a bad idea...only a small subset of Federal politicians need to be corrupted to exercise power over the whole nation.
It was the fact that for the first roughly 100 years we *didn't* treat the Constitution as a "living document" open to wide interpretation and "work-arounds" as we treat it today that made this country the greatest, most free country on the planet.
Which is why over half of the amendments that have ever been made were done within that first century, with the first ten or so done concurrently?
Notice you yourself mention that the changes were done through *amendments*, not just creative interpretation by the Judicial branch or flat-out ignoring the parts that politicians in the Executive & Legislative branches found inconvenient to their re-elections and/or their accruing of ever-more power & wealth.
"Creative interpretation" of the Constitution, as you put it, is part and parcel the job description of a Supreme Court Justice, and to a lesser extent, all federal judges, who are all part of those procedural safeguards you mention, provided by the very same Constitution.
See my response above concerning the SCOTUS/Judicial branch and it's role re: the Constitution. It's purely to judge the cases before them as they relate to a plain reading of the Constitution. The Judicial does not have the power to change the Constitution, and has been engaged over the last ~100 years in doing end-runs around the Constitution through creative interpretation/judicial activism.
As you yourself point out, if any branch of government can unilaterally change the Constitution and/or it's effective meaning whenever it's convenient then the Constitution might as well be toilet paper for all the good it will do in restricting the government when it chafes against it's Constitutional bounds.
But wait, I see you've capitalized "Progressive" as if to indicate a proper noun, maybe a label with which to blanket a group? One used disparagingly and separate from its actual definition? Something to consider.
No offense meant here, but you seem to be either un- or misinformed about the Progressive movement. You should do some Googling on the Progressive movement as it's fascinating. They even hijacked the Liberal movement as cover when they found themselves a failed ideology and
Our Constitution and government were designed to be limited but flexible, which worked well for the first century or so.
That's precisely and completely backwards on both points. The Constitution was designed to be anything *but* flexible, as the tortuous procedure for amending the Constitution highlights, and what many Progressives use as an excuse to "work around" the Constitution have complained of.
The Constitution was intentionally made difficult to change, needing overwhelming support by the States and the people to amend. Once you start down the path of looking at the Constitution as a "living document" with alternate, non-intuitive & non-literal interpretations of clauses and articles, or just plain ignoring certain parts for conveniences' sake, then it becomes subject to the interpretive whims of whomever is in power, which is precisely what has taken this country off-path since the time of Wilson, T. Roosevelt, and the other Progressive leaders from the '20s-'30s to present.
It was the fact that for the first roughly 100 years we *didn't* treat the Constitution as a "living document" open to wide interpretation and "work-arounds" as we treat it today that made this country the greatest, most free country on the planet. It's just like Animal Farm where the rules began to slowly morph in small incremental steps while nobody said anything about it until the pigs in charge were indistinguishable from the humans they'd replaced and "some animals are more equal than others". Animal Farm was written by Orwell as a warning against communism & socialism in Europe and the Progressive movement in the US.
Changing the Constitution by either flat-out ignoring certain parts or using "creative interpretation" rather than going through the procedures specifically put in place as safeguards is like Homer Simpson ignoring/reinterpreting reactor safety procedures & rules so he can be the first to get to the donuts in the break-room. It's just *not* going to end well.
I'm not trying to backpedal, I've just come down off the bad mood I had been in at the time. I was looking to do some flamebaiting, you turned it back on me; well played. I enjoy doing that myself. Also, I apologize for the name calling, but I usually only resort to ad hominem when I feel I've been pigeonholed. And my subsequent comment was intended as a joke.
I think we agree more than we disagree, fundamentally anyway. It's refreshing to spar with someone who does know what they're talking about, happens so seldom on the internets.
Thanks. I appreciate your forthrightness. No apologies really needed however as I understand this is "teh intra-webz" and on that bell-curve of troll-ish/flamebait-ish behavior you're not anywhere close to either end of the curve. Trust me, in this "age of Obama and Progressive-ism" I find myself in, my true-conservative and Constitutional-originalist/literalist, anti-Progressive views get far shorter shrift and far more flaming by those who fail to understand their history than you've done here.
I love how assholes like you try to make "progressive" and "elitist" into dirty words.
You seem to be doing an excellent job without any help, considering this and your following post's tone.
My personal dream is that humanity would will itself to a higher consciousness that doesn't NEED any kind of government oversight. That people stop being greedy, self-important, self-righteous, imbeciles and CAN make logical, rational decisions about their own lives that don't fuck over at least one other person. Yes, I have contempt for people as they are now, and you, sir, have just demonstrated why.
This is where you have a fundamental misunderstanding. Government is only people given power over others. This gives people with all the attributes you list power over your life. People have always been this way and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. This is why the Constitution was specifically designed to put extreme limits on governments' power. Because the people in it will *always* seek to use it for their own purposes and not those of the people it governs.
The only logical solution is to put extreme limits on the power, size, and scope of the national government and leave the majority of domestic governance close to those it governs so that the people have more direct control over their government and their lives.
The moves away from the Constitution that the government has been pursuing under the Progressives in both parties for the last 100 years while growing in size, scope, and power, is a major cause or contributing factor behind why the current government (either R or D controlled) sucks and why the country is declining.
See how I did that?
I answered your post and effectively refuted everything in it and didn't need to use ad-hominem attacks, strawman arguments, or generally nasty and disrespectful tones even once. One only uses those tactics when history, logic, human nature, and facts don't support their point of view.
Maybe you should have a bit of a re-think on your points of view? I hate seeing someone under that kind of stress from pushing a non-viable world-view.
and those trucks don't say "Budweiser" on the side.
It still wouldn't be beer.
Yes, yes, beer purists. I'm with you, but I was wording my post with the US-centric majority of my fellow/.ers in mind, who instantly identify "Budweiser" as a brand of "beer" whose trucks are a common sight on the USian roadways.
Allow people to complain that they don't have broadband online(they can use dialup or someone else's service). Then the biggest clusters of people complaining get targetted first.
Targeted how exactly, and for what? "Take off and nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure" type targeting, or something slightly more benign? Could you mean targeted as in for putting every man, woman, and child, as well as their children and grandchildren into virtual economic servitude to pay for their own enslavement at the hands of a government grown out of control?
Although I suppose the answer to those questions depends on which "government official" you ask on a given day, and how far up or down his numbers are with his constituents if an elected official and/or as in the case of the government hallway-rat, whatever will both secure his position and advance it and his overall wealth & power. And, of course, how honest said official feels he/she can be without worry of ending up at the end of a rope.
There will always be some irrationality-spouting, fear mongering chode on the air trying to incite panic from the lesser morons of the world.
Yeah, man!...and all that hatred & vitriol, the personal attacks & name-calling...Oh, wait...you mean we *weren't* talking about Air America/DailyKOS/Huffington Post/CNN/MSNBC??
It's apparent to anyone who has listened to/watched Becks' radio & TV shows for any length of time that, judging by your comments, you obviously have not and are simply saying and thinking what you've been told to like a good unquestioning and obedient little Progressive cog in the total-government machine.
Makes me nostalgic for the good old days when the radicals were trying to take power *away* from "the Man" ("Power to the people!") rather than being on "the Man"'s side and trying to take power *from* the people to give to "the Man".
I suppose that the view that an all-encompassing, all-powerful government is necessary is inevitable, however, when one considers anyone who disagrees with them "the lesser morons of the world". It displays the contempt the elitists in the Progressive movement have for people's ability to manage their own lives and make their own decisions without having every decision made or approved by government.
Just something for you to think about; maybe it isn't *they* who are the morons here? Sort of like how parents are morons until their children reach a certain maturity, whereupon they realize that their parents were actually pretty smart.
Correct, that's exactly what a public health plan does; it gives everyone access to a doctor before an ER visit, the most expensive medical treatment known, is required.
If insuring the uninsured is the goal, why not simply buy all ~24 million uninsured a moderate private health insurance plan? We could do that at a fraction of the cost of the proposed healthcare plans. Why not allow healthcare to be purchased across state lines as they do with pretty much any other insurance, including vehicle insurance? If you say; "well there's more stuff" fine, let's do what's sensible and practical and can have some measure of general support first, then we can move on to the next issue and see what can be done. The reason why the Progressives refuse to go a step at a time is that smaller bills can be more easily parsed and faults, carve-outs, and payoffs can more-easily be detected which could threaten passage.
Almost any reasonable public health plan would be better than none.
That's just the problem, the nation cannot afford the economic drain through the money the government would have to collect in order to pay for healthcare for everyone. Never mind the fact that the Constitution does *not* grant the federal government any such powers, regardless of what 9 oligarchs in black robes may pronounce. They also pronounced from on-high that it was fine to use the force of government to back the taking of private property from one citizen to give it to another citizen if the government "believed" the new owner may pay the government more in taxes.
Whether or not the government pays the original owner does not even enter into it at all, the act of government-backed forced property confiscation only to give said property to another private citizen or entity is wrong regardless of reason.
Using this as an argument against a better system makes no sense.
There's no majority agreement among the people (Remember them? The ones Constitutionally in charge, not the politicians?) that any bills yet proposed constitute a "better system", and it's not because they don't understand, they understand well enough and they reject it, as only ~35% or so want any of the healthcare plans yet proposed and ~65% are against. If you're for enacting legislation clearly against the wishes of the majority of the population, then feel free to relocate to a non-free country...that's not how things are done where freedom exists.
You are aware that a single payer healthcare, run by the government, would operate with about 97% of funds going to healthcare and the rest to administration?
Nobody who has ever had any experience with government spending believes that for a picosecond. Even if those proportions ended up being accurate, the total amount would still increase hugely as whenever government has entered a market, it pushed up prices massively.
You also cannot have a no-preexisting-condition system without massive cost increases. Insurance doesn't work that way. Currently private health insurance companies average only a 2-1/2%-3% profit margin. If you increase the amount paid out, it has to come from somewhere, so rates go up. Government insurance would also have to get the money from somewhere, and that would be taxes in one form or another.
To use a car analogy, how much would your car insurance premiums go up if they *had* to insure everyone with multiple alcohol-related wrecks, speeding tickets, etc etc and also include those that for one reason or another (may not own or plan to own a vehicle) don't want or need insurance?
The rest of your post reads like a class-warfare screed. Don't buy into that crap. It's only designed to create a boogey-man to vilify while the politicians take away your freedoms and the fruits of your labors.
I'd love to see everyone have the very best healthcare possible, but that's just not feasible. Neither in this system, nor in the proposed healthcare plans to date. There just isn't enough money.
In Star Trek, they have universal healthcare because they have reaped the riches of the resources of the universe that interstellar space travel makes possible, as well as technologies such as the replicator. It is a fantasy economy with no relation to today's realities of limited resources and budgets.
No the healthcare systems of all western Europe, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Canada do not rate as fantasy.
I also believe that those politicians that insist on such an all-at-once, sweeping change to the system desire just such effects as I've described to further enrich themselves and increase their power at the expense of the poorest.
I would say it is the gradualists, who represent the wealthy corporate interests and the Senate's version of a health care bill, who are trying to further profit from the poor by forcing them into private insurance policies. The former are trying to suppress the obvious choice of a universally available public option, which is the type of health insurance that has succeeded throughout the developed nations for many decades now.
That's fine for Europe and the other countries you mention. Those countries are not democratic republics, they are not the USA, they are not as free. Many of those countries are currently on the verge of economic collapse with the costs of entitlements, including socialized/universal healthcare, being large contributors. I do not care to emulate failed models and/or sacrifice individual freedoms on the altar of socialism, as that is precisely what the principles of universal healthcare are based upon.
It remains a fact that such programs as have been proposed will cost trillions and increase healthcare costs, and no amount of hand-waving over the numbers will change that. The US cannot afford it, period, full stop. The US is on the verge of an economic collapse. That and the people, when fully informed of all the things in the healthcare bills proposed, reject them in *very* large majority.
The citizens of the US *will not accept it*. We will toss out any politicians that attempt it. Watch what happens come this November. There have already been indicators of what will happen in recent state governor and federal senate elections. There will be a long line at the unemployment office for those politicians who have pushed for this against the people's will. Even if the Progressives manage to ram a healthcare bill through against the people's wishes, it will be repealed when they are tossed out of office.
The only way universal healthcare as proposed will become and remain reality is if the federal government abandons all pretense and declares war on its' own people and starts filling gulags, and I'll still bet on the side of the people to emerge victorious, for no form of government long stands when the people reject it.
You know what? I think I'd actually like to see congress pass the most egregious version of the healthcare bills proposed. That will further enrage people and motivate them to restructure the government down in size to a more strict-Constitutional-interpretation model with a weak federal branch that is more in line with what the Founders of this country intended.
Saying that people should wait as they do now, for personal health problems to appear and then become so severe that going to the emergency wing becomes an option -- just because its worked out for *you* so far -- that really is a load of crap pop philosophy.
The Trek analogy is also poor because we are not living on a military space vessel. In order for it to work even slightly, Spock and the other officers would have had to come from a society where they didn't receive the benefit of universal health care that helped get them to where they were at that moment.
I've been somewhat lucky, if you can call a serious chronic and life-threatening ilnnes lucky, but I think it's more to do with having educated myself on my own health issues and insisting on proper care from healthcare providers.
I'd love to see everyone have the very best healthcare possible, but that's just not feasible. Neither in this system, nor in the proposed healthcare plans to date. There just isn't enough money.
In Star Trek, they have universal healthcare because they have reaped the riches of the resources of the universe that interstellar space travel makes possible, as well as technologies such as the replicator. It is a fantasy economy with no relation to today's realities of limited resources and budgets.
My point with the ST quotes still stands; that in order to have a universal healthcare system, resources and care will have to be rationed to make it sustainable as we don't have replicators, transporters, or interstellar travel yet. This puts the welfare of the collective over the welfare of any particular individual, and even worse in the political-favor-driven proposals laid out so far, restricts them either to a greater or lesser extent based on an individual's membership in a particular class or group as in the carve-outs for unions and other groups that have political power & influence.
I'm still of the opinion that the nation cannot afford the proposals put forth so far, and as far as I can see, would worsen the actual quality and availability of healthcare for the poorest, increase healthcare costs overall, all while elevating those with political power & influence and/or riches to a privileged class that would receive a much higher level of medical care than would be available to common folks.
I also believe that those politicians that insist on such an all-at-once, sweeping change to the system desire just such effects as I've described to further enrich themselves and increase their power at the expense of the poorest.
The problem here is that you assume that a public health plan would actually get most poorer patients better/earlier diagnosis and/or care. Poor people like myself have no credit or "credit score" to worry about in the first place, so that is a non-starter.
A "publicly-insured" patient will have the same stigmas as far as being the preferred patient class as Medicare/Medicaid patients currently, if not much worse as all the plans I've read have even lower doctor/hospital reimbursement rates than current Medicare/Medicaid plans making them a much-less desirable patient in financial terms than they are currently.
What I see this creating is a low-quality minimal-care system for the "plebes" and another high-quality care system for those in government & unions, and those wealthy people that can afford to pay high rates and government-mandated penalties for private insurance and care.
All this doesn't even touch on the fact that no matter how politicians try to massage the numbers, this will be a huge increase in costs to the country and *will* mean huge increases in everyone's taxes across the board at a time when the country is on the verge of a national debt crisis with massive inflation imminent.
Nevermind the fact that you're a leech, and don't seem to care, but your care isn't free.[SNIP]You mention all those programs, but you also mention getting a bill. Hence, I can only conclude that nobody was paying and the hospital absorbed the cost.
I'm unable due to health to work, have long ago exhausted any significant personal assets, and am covered by Medicare & Medicaid. However, Medicare & Medicaid doesn't cover everything, and even combined with the additional NGO/private/faith-based etc programs, there are some tests & treatments etc that are not covered, so I received bills. Some I've been able to pay, some not.
I received that care even though I was unable to pay. The care was ordered based on my medical needs and not my ability to pay because it was the *doctors* who were in charge of what care I received, not some faceless government bureaucratic panel.
"Universal" health coverage as has been proposed in the US would *necessarily* mean that a doctors' ability to order certain types & levels of care for an individual would be limited and/or reviewed by some agent(s) of the government and if not limited outright, there would be penalties imposed on doctors/healthcare facilities that provided care outside that which would be considered "appropriate" by the government, *not* the doctors, and not entirely based on what would be most likely to maintain/improve my health as an individual.
If I'd become ill under such a system if it had been in place at that time, due to my age and seriousness of my health problems, I would most likely not be here now. "Sorry Grandpa, we'll just give you painkillers until you die because the collective is more important than the individual." This embodies the old "Star Trek: The Wrath Of Khan" dialog between Spock and Kirk at the end as Spock is dying from radiation he states based on Vulcan logic; "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one", to which Kirk asserts the opposite out of the human capacity for compassion and love in "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" when he tells Spock, "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many."
Do we as a society care for people based on Vulcan logic or Human compassion? This, I believe. is at the heart of this whole debate.
In the US the poor 20% of the population have nothing.
This is utter tripe. It is *not* true.
I've *been a part* of that 20% for a good while, so I know. You always get care. You are never refused care. You get care on a par with most everyone else. I've always had medications and treatments provided. I've never been unable to have any testing done such as X-ray, CT, MRI, blood-work, biopsies, etc.
Yes, they'll send you a bill in the mail. If you're unable to pay, they continue to send bills for a while, then they stop. You are not charged with any crime even if your care has amassed hundreds of thousands in charges. There is Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other programs...some federal, some state, some NGO, some faith-based, some even provided by those *evil* pharma companies that stand ready to act as safety nets.
It is pure unadulterated political FUD so obviously untrue that even MS would be too ashamed to spread it.
Everyone can be equal in their poverty in a slum. True equality for all is human destiny!
Why was this modded "Troll"? Socialism is all about "sharing the wealth" and "income redistribution", described as "economic justice" and "social justice".
Most of the world lives closer to the conditions of the Mumbai slums than they do to the average US suburbanite, so when all this "equalization" occurs, do you think the average standards will end up being closer to the standards enjoyed by the average US suburbanite, or to a Mumbai slum resident?
It's *much* easier to reduce significantly the standards enjoyed by a few hundred million than it is to raise significantly the standards of many billions to achieve equality.
Think about that simple fact whenever someone goes on about how Socialism isn't that bad, and how "social & economic justice" is a great thing and what that may mean to yourself, your children, and their children.
And no, this isn't a zero-sum game; raising living standards in one part of the world does not necessarily mean that some other part must go through a reduction in those standards. This is class-warfare guilt-tripping for political manipulation and not based on actualities.
Ooh, an "Offtopic" mod! I must have angered a Progressive with mod points.
Typical reaction from a Progressive, though; rather than debating on the facts and merits, where they know they can't win as logic and facts are stubborn things, just shut out/silence opposing views.
Thanks for proving me correct about Progressives yet again!:D
Any group of men who thinks they know my interests better than I do can speak with me and try to convince me that this is so, but it is I who makes the final decision. Provisions decided in secret without public knowledge or consent will result in nothing but more lawlessness. Anyone who approves this agreement clearly shows that he does not represent me.
Well, good luck with that "making the final decision" when you have an administration official saying things like; "We tend to agree with Mao, that power comes mainly from the barrel of a gun." That doesn't bode well for the lifespan of anyone who gets in the way of their agendas.
They don't really care about you, a citizen, or what you want or even what's best for you or America (because people are too stupid to see how right *they*, as the elite, are). They have their own plans, and you don't even make it onto the bottom of the list. You and others like you who may disagree are obstacles to be silenced and defeated by whatever methods are the easiest and most expedient, as the ends justify the means.
The way things are trending around the world, it won't be long until a person will have more individual freedom in Russia or China than in America thanks to the Progressives in both the Republican and Democrat parties (McCain, Hillary, and Obama have all declared themselves to be Progressives). Get ready for the Progressive Oligarchy of America, delivered fresh to you each day from the barrel of a gun.
The CRU emails show nothing more than scientists being snarky about what they perceive to be political attacks on their work. I see nothing in them to indicate mangling data to fit a preconceived outcome.
There are none so blind as those that will not see. I see wrongdoing in the CRU emails. If you cannot then we simply will never agree and this discussion is over, as it is pointless for me to attempt to persuade someone who regards global warming/cooling/climate change (depending on what part of GW dogma has most recently been outed) as a religion. Just as with any religion whose believers make harming others a part of their dogma, it will simply be defeated by showing it for what it is.
Slashdot Mirror
I keep telling people that go off into death-panel hysterics. Look, we already HAVE death panels, except that they're private. Personally, I'd rather have public non-profit death panels than private for-profit ones.
The problem with the public non-profit "death panels" as compared to private insurance denials of coverage is that with private insurance and care, if you're denied coverage you have the option to either shop around for alternate coverage or simply go into debt yourself and obtain the treatment you need.
With a government-mandated public healthcare system, if the government refuses to treat you, you no longer have the option to go around them to obtain the care you need as private insurance and care cannot survive competing against the government that doesn't have to make a profit, has the costs paid by taxes, and doesn't have to deal with the same regulatory compliance costs.
I'm not saying there will be *no* private alternatives, but the only alternatives left will be available only to the wealthy & powerful because the costs will necessarily skyrocket with an extremely small risk pool/customer base as most people will be pushed into the public plan.
This whole thing isn't about healthcare, costs, debt, or insurance. It never was. It's about control over people's lives, finances, and lifestyles.
This radical expansion of government power will allow government to regulate every aspect of life. Nearly everything has some effect on health, and as we've seen with the regulatory creep that's happened with the Interstate Commerce Clause, they wouldn't need to stretch much to claim regulatory power over just about anything they desire.
Strat
If you are willing to calmly debate with someone who disagrees with you, then your dissent is warranted. But if you go around screaming "Healthcare is going to kill your grandma!" or "Obama's setting up death panels!", then we have a problem.
If the allegations are untrue, simply prove them wrong. Unless of course they're essentially accurate in the end-effect parts of the healthcare bill might have. Then you're just engaging in disingenuous distraction by attempting to label those people as nutcases.
This seems to be a popular tactic of late when politicians and others want to ignore the wishes of the majority of people. Right out of Saul Alinky's "Rules For Radicals"; "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it" and also; "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."
Once you've read Saul Alinsky and Cloward & Piven, a lot of things the Progressives say and do that wouldn't otherwise make sense suddenly do.
Strat
And he gets to decide what is and isn't misinformed fear mongering, FUD-spreading speculation, and meaningless obstruction?
No, that much is fairly common knowledge among the sane.
Who exactly are these ideally "sane" people about whom you speak? Do they happen to be people that [gasp!] generally agree with you?**/the poster politically & ideologically, and share common cultural viewpoints?
Are those on the Left and in the Progressive movement now publicly of the general opinion that engaging in the business of declaring people that non-violently disagree with their ideological & political points of view "insane" as they do in certain countries to political dissidents and troublemakers is OK because they're disagreeing with *you*?
Strat
**I'm not certain if you share ideologies and/or political viewpoints with the OP or not from your post, so only conditionally include you. If you don't, then of course I'm not including you.
Dissent IS a form of patriotism. But misinformed fear-mongering, blatantly FUD-spreading speculation, and purposeful yet meaningless obstruction is NOT.
I see, so you've only got a problem with dissent you disagree with and/or uses facts or logic that makes your point of view look untenable and/or is in *your opinion* "misinformed fear-mongering, blatantly FUD-spreading speculation, and purposeful yet meaningless obstruction"?
What about protecting free speech, and especially that speech with which you disagree? Or is that protection only for Progressives & others on the Left with the "correct" views & opinions?
Strat
We're going to aggressively protect our intellectual property,
I can't wait until the US launches a pre-emptive military strike against [insert media vilified subsection of the population here] for a grave and gathering threat of...copyright infringement!
FTFY
ywkthnxbye :)
Strat
The richest people in the U.S. have, on average, shorter lives than those in nations with universal health care. And these people have access not only to the insurance policy of choice, but to the doctors and hospitals of choice as well.
I've decided that I, in a selfless & noble act of self-sacrifice, will accept all your money. I wouldn't want to see you put at risk.
Oh wait, that's what the healthcare plan is for! The government takes all your money and doles it out to other people as the government sees fit.
Ah, economic & social justice/redistribution of wealth! What great concepts. Except, of course, to anyone who might be ambitious enough to accomplish and discover things that might make them wealthy and benefit society. Our society needs to curtail all those greedy over-achievers anyway. /s
There's only one major government program I can think of that I'd consider under-funded and not in desperate need of elimination or drastic cuts, and that's space exploration. Leave it to our corrupt and ideologically-bankrupt Progressive-led government to increase spending astronomically to just about every government program *except* the space program.
Strat
How does this post merit a "Troll" mod?
Considering the Progressive-leaning demographics of /. I might understand a "Flamebait" mod, although that's simply disagreeing with mod points instead of being capable of forming a convincing, cogent, and factual refutation.
"Troll" is just plain inaccurate. It's also a failed strategy if the goal was to minimize attention to the post.
Strat
Oh boy, looks like I've got some Progressive "fans" with mod points doing what Progressives do when confronted with opposing viewpoints they can't refute with facts and logic...silence the messenger/bury the message.
Unfortunately for you Progressives the paradigm has shifted, and the people of the US have awakened due to your antics in Washington and they're now aware of your agendas and will toss them and the Progressive movement back on the junk heap of failed ideas and ideologies where they belong come this November just as they have every time in the past when Progressives have attempted to "fundamentally change America".
Strat
The richest people in the U.S. have, on average, shorter lives than those in nations with universal health care. And these people have access not only to the insurance policy of choice, but to the doctors and hospitals of choice as well.
I've decided that I, in a selfless & noble act of self-sacrifice, will accept all your money. I wouldn't want to see you put at risk.
Oh wait, that's what the healthcare plan is for! The government takes all your money and doles it out to other people as the government sees fit.
Ah, economic & social justice/redistribution of wealth! What great concepts. Except, of course, to anyone who might be ambitious enough to accomplish and discover things that might make them wealthy and benefit society. Our society needs to curtail all those greedy over-achievers anyway. /s
There's only one major government program I can think of that I'd consider under-funded and not in desperate need of elimination or drastic cuts, and that's space exploration. Leave it to our corrupt and ideologically-bankrupt Progressive-led government to increase spending astronomically to just about every government program *except* the space program.
Strat
How does this post merit a "Troll" mod?
Considering the Progressive-leaning demographics of /. I might understand a "Flamebait" mod, although that's simply disagreeing with mod points instead of being capable of forming a convincing, cogent, and factual refutation.
"Troll" is just plain inaccurate. It's also a failed strategy if the goal was to minimize attention to the post.
Strat
The richest people in the U.S. have, on average, shorter lives than those in nations with universal health care. And these people have access not only to the insurance policy of choice, but to the doctors and hospitals of choice as well.
I've decided that I, in a selfless & noble act of self-sacrifice, will accept all your money. I wouldn't want to see you put at risk.
Oh wait, that's what the healthcare plan is for! The government takes all your money and doles it out to other people as the government sees fit.
Ah, economic & social justice/redistribution of wealth! What great concepts. Except, of course, to anyone who might be ambitious enough to accomplish and discover things that might make them wealthy and benefit society. Our society needs to curtail all those greedy over-achievers anyway. /s
There's only one major government program I can think of that I'd consider under-funded and not in desperate need of elimination or drastic cuts, and that's space exploration. Leave it to our corrupt and ideologically-bankrupt Progressive-led government to increase spending astronomically to just about every government program *except* the space program.
Strat
Once you start down the path of looking at the Constitution as a "living document" with alternate, non-intuitive & non-literal interpretations of clauses and articles, or just plain ignoring certain parts for conveniences' sake, then it becomes subject to the interpretive whims of whomever is in power,
Yes. That is by design. Not ignoring parts, that isn't right. But making interpretations is part of that flexibility in the face of unforeseen circumstances.
The "flexibility" was the Constitutional Amendment process. Not a judge, not even nine judges in black robes has that Constitutional power. That is one of the things that has changed in how the Constitution is treated.
The Supreme Court's only function is to compare the case in front of them to what the Constitution says. Not to create new meanings or completely new rights or government powers. That is what the amendment process is for. If you want it to work differently, that's perfectly fine...as long as you amend the Constitution to say so. ... which is precisely what has taken this country off-path since the time of Wilson, T. Roosevelt, and the other Progressive leaders from the '20s-'30s to present.
Path? What path? The path of industrialists carving up the country amongst themselves?
The path of the Federal government's power remaining within the bounds set forth in the Constitution as amended. How do you think the "industrialists carving up the country" got the power to do that? By using the power of the Federal government outside of Constitutional bounds through corrupt politicians which is another reason why a strong central government is a bad idea...only a small subset of Federal politicians need to be corrupted to exercise power over the whole nation.
It was the fact that for the first roughly 100 years we *didn't* treat the Constitution as a "living document" open to wide interpretation and "work-arounds" as we treat it today that made this country the greatest, most free country on the planet.
Which is why over half of the amendments that have ever been made were done within that first century, with the first ten or so done concurrently?
Notice you yourself mention that the changes were done through *amendments*, not just creative interpretation by the Judicial branch or flat-out ignoring the parts that politicians in the Executive & Legislative branches found inconvenient to their re-elections and/or their accruing of ever-more power & wealth.
"Creative interpretation" of the Constitution, as you put it, is part and parcel the job description of a Supreme Court Justice, and to a lesser extent, all federal judges, who are all part of those procedural safeguards you mention, provided by the very same Constitution.
See my response above concerning the SCOTUS/Judicial branch and it's role re: the Constitution. It's purely to judge the cases before them as they relate to a plain reading of the Constitution. The Judicial does not have the power to change the Constitution, and has been engaged over the last ~100 years in doing end-runs around the Constitution through creative interpretation/judicial activism.
As you yourself point out, if any branch of government can unilaterally change the Constitution and/or it's effective meaning whenever it's convenient then the Constitution might as well be toilet paper for all the good it will do in restricting the government when it chafes against it's Constitutional bounds.
But wait, I see you've capitalized "Progressive" as if to indicate a proper noun, maybe a label with which to blanket a group? One used disparagingly and separate from its actual definition? Something to consider.
No offense meant here, but you seem to be either un- or misinformed about the Progressive movement. You should do some Googling on the Progressive movement as it's fascinating. They even hijacked the Liberal movement as cover when they found themselves a failed ideology and
Our Constitution and government were designed to be limited but flexible, which worked well for the first century or so.
That's precisely and completely backwards on both points. The Constitution was designed to be anything *but* flexible, as the tortuous procedure for amending the Constitution highlights, and what many Progressives use as an excuse to "work around" the Constitution have complained of.
The Constitution was intentionally made difficult to change, needing overwhelming support by the States and the people to amend. Once you start down the path of looking at the Constitution as a "living document" with alternate, non-intuitive & non-literal interpretations of clauses and articles, or just plain ignoring certain parts for conveniences' sake, then it becomes subject to the interpretive whims of whomever is in power, which is precisely what has taken this country off-path since the time of Wilson, T. Roosevelt, and the other Progressive leaders from the '20s-'30s to present.
It was the fact that for the first roughly 100 years we *didn't* treat the Constitution as a "living document" open to wide interpretation and "work-arounds" as we treat it today that made this country the greatest, most free country on the planet. It's just like Animal Farm where the rules began to slowly morph in small incremental steps while nobody said anything about it until the pigs in charge were indistinguishable from the humans they'd replaced and "some animals are more equal than others". Animal Farm was written by Orwell as a warning against communism & socialism in Europe and the Progressive movement in the US.
Changing the Constitution by either flat-out ignoring certain parts or using "creative interpretation" rather than going through the procedures specifically put in place as safeguards is like Homer Simpson ignoring/reinterpreting reactor safety procedures & rules so he can be the first to get to the donuts in the break-room. It's just *not* going to end well.
I'm not trying to backpedal, I've just come down off the bad mood I had been in at the time. I was looking to do some flamebaiting, you turned it back on me; well played. I enjoy doing that myself. Also, I apologize for the name calling, but I usually only resort to ad hominem when I feel I've been pigeonholed. And my subsequent comment was intended as a joke.
I think we agree more than we disagree, fundamentally anyway. It's refreshing to spar with someone who does know what they're talking about, happens so seldom on the internets.
Thanks. I appreciate your forthrightness. No apologies really needed however as I understand this is "teh intra-webz" and on that bell-curve of troll-ish/flamebait-ish behavior you're not anywhere close to either end of the curve. Trust me, in this "age of Obama and Progressive-ism" I find myself in, my true-conservative and Constitutional-originalist/literalist, anti-Progressive views get far shorter shrift and far more flaming by those who fail to understand their history than you've done here.
Cheers!
Strat
I love how assholes like you try to make "progressive" and "elitist" into dirty words.
You seem to be doing an excellent job without any help, considering this and your following post's tone.
My personal dream is that humanity would will itself to a higher consciousness that doesn't NEED any kind of government oversight. That people stop being greedy, self-important, self-righteous, imbeciles and CAN make logical, rational decisions about their own lives that don't fuck over at least one other person. Yes, I have contempt for people as they are now, and you, sir, have just demonstrated why.
This is where you have a fundamental misunderstanding. Government is only people given power over others. This gives people with all the attributes you list power over your life. People have always been this way and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. This is why the Constitution was specifically designed to put extreme limits on governments' power. Because the people in it will *always* seek to use it for their own purposes and not those of the people it governs.
The only logical solution is to put extreme limits on the power, size, and scope of the national government and leave the majority of domestic governance close to those it governs so that the people have more direct control over their government and their lives.
The moves away from the Constitution that the government has been pursuing under the Progressives in both parties for the last 100 years while growing in size, scope, and power, is a major cause or contributing factor behind why the current government (either R or D controlled) sucks and why the country is declining.
See how I did that?
I answered your post and effectively refuted everything in it and didn't need to use ad-hominem attacks, strawman arguments, or generally nasty and disrespectful tones even once. One only uses those tactics when history, logic, human nature, and facts don't support their point of view.
Maybe you should have a bit of a re-think on your points of view? I hate seeing someone under that kind of stress from pushing a non-viable world-view.
Strat
those trucks don't say "Budweiser" on the side
Thankfully not!
----
and those trucks don't say "Budweiser" on the side.
It still wouldn't be beer.
Yes, yes, beer purists. I'm with you, but I was wording my post with the US-centric majority of my fellow /.ers in mind, who instantly identify "Budweiser" as a brand of "beer" whose trucks are a common sight on the USian roadways.
Strat
Wait wait wait... You can download beer? Can I order the equipment from NewEgg?
Of course you can't download beer, silly!
The intrawebs are a series of *tubes*, not taps, and those trucks don't say "Budweiser" on the side.
Strat
Allow people to complain that they don't have broadband online(they can use dialup or someone else's service). Then the biggest clusters of people complaining get targetted first.
Targeted how exactly, and for what? "Take off and nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure" type targeting, or something slightly more benign? Could you mean targeted as in for putting every man, woman, and child, as well as their children and grandchildren into virtual economic servitude to pay for their own enslavement at the hands of a government grown out of control?
Although I suppose the answer to those questions depends on which "government official" you ask on a given day, and how far up or down his numbers are with his constituents if an elected official and/or as in the case of the government hallway-rat, whatever will both secure his position and advance it and his overall wealth & power. And, of course, how honest said official feels he/she can be without worry of ending up at the end of a rope.
Strat
There will always be some irrationality-spouting, fear mongering chode on the air trying to incite panic from the lesser morons of the world.
Yeah, man!...and all that hatred & vitriol, the personal attacks & name-calling...Oh, wait...you mean we *weren't* talking about Air America/DailyKOS/Huffington Post/CNN/MSNBC??
It's apparent to anyone who has listened to/watched Becks' radio & TV shows for any length of time that, judging by your comments, you obviously have not and are simply saying and thinking what you've been told to like a good unquestioning and obedient little Progressive cog in the total-government machine.
Makes me nostalgic for the good old days when the radicals were trying to take power *away* from "the Man" ("Power to the people!") rather than being on "the Man"'s side and trying to take power *from* the people to give to "the Man".
I suppose that the view that an all-encompassing, all-powerful government is necessary is inevitable, however, when one considers anyone who disagrees with them "the lesser morons of the world". It displays the contempt the elitists in the Progressive movement have for people's ability to manage their own lives and make their own decisions without having every decision made or approved by government.
Just something for you to think about; maybe it isn't *they* who are the morons here? Sort of like how parents are morons until their children reach a certain maturity, whereupon they realize that their parents were actually pretty smart.
Strat
Correct, that's exactly what a public health plan does; it gives everyone access to a doctor before an ER visit, the most expensive medical treatment known, is required.
If insuring the uninsured is the goal, why not simply buy all ~24 million uninsured a moderate private health insurance plan? We could do that at a fraction of the cost of the proposed healthcare plans. Why not allow healthcare to be purchased across state lines as they do with pretty much any other insurance, including vehicle insurance? If you say; "well there's more stuff" fine, let's do what's sensible and practical and can have some measure of general support first, then we can move on to the next issue and see what can be done. The reason why the Progressives refuse to go a step at a time is that smaller bills can be more easily parsed and faults, carve-outs, and payoffs can more-easily be detected which could threaten passage.
Almost any reasonable public health plan would be better than none.
That's just the problem, the nation cannot afford the economic drain through the money the government would have to collect in order to pay for healthcare for everyone. Never mind the fact that the Constitution does *not* grant the federal government any such powers, regardless of what 9 oligarchs in black robes may pronounce. They also pronounced from on-high that it was fine to use the force of government to back the taking of private property from one citizen to give it to another citizen if the government "believed" the new owner may pay the government more in taxes.
Whether or not the government pays the original owner does not even enter into it at all, the act of government-backed forced property confiscation only to give said property to another private citizen or entity is wrong regardless of reason.
Using this as an argument against a better system makes no sense.
There's no majority agreement among the people (Remember them? The ones Constitutionally in charge, not the politicians?) that any bills yet proposed constitute a "better system", and it's not because they don't understand, they understand well enough and they reject it, as only ~35% or so want any of the healthcare plans yet proposed and ~65% are against. If you're for enacting legislation clearly against the wishes of the majority of the population, then feel free to relocate to a non-free country...that's not how things are done where freedom exists.
You are aware that a single payer healthcare, run by the government, would operate with about 97% of funds going to healthcare and the rest to administration?
Nobody who has ever had any experience with government spending believes that for a picosecond. Even if those proportions ended up being accurate, the total amount would still increase hugely as whenever government has entered a market, it pushed up prices massively.
You also cannot have a no-preexisting-condition system without massive cost increases. Insurance doesn't work that way. Currently private health insurance companies average only a 2-1/2%-3% profit margin. If you increase the amount paid out, it has to come from somewhere, so rates go up. Government insurance would also have to get the money from somewhere, and that would be taxes in one form or another.
To use a car analogy, how much would your car insurance premiums go up if they *had* to insure everyone with multiple alcohol-related wrecks, speeding tickets, etc etc and also include those that for one reason or another (may not own or plan to own a vehicle) don't want or need insurance?
The rest of your post reads like a class-warfare screed. Don't buy into that crap. It's only designed to create a boogey-man to vilify while the politicians take away your freedoms and the fruits of your labors.
Strat
I'd love to see everyone have the very best healthcare possible, but that's just not feasible. Neither in this system, nor in the proposed healthcare plans to date. There just isn't enough money.
In Star Trek, they have universal healthcare because they have reaped the riches of the resources of the universe that interstellar space travel makes possible, as well as technologies such as the replicator. It is a fantasy economy with no relation to today's realities of limited resources and budgets.
No the healthcare systems of all western Europe, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Canada do not rate as fantasy.
I also believe that those politicians that insist on such an all-at-once, sweeping change to the system desire just such effects as I've described to further enrich themselves and increase their power at the expense of the poorest.
I would say it is the gradualists, who represent the wealthy corporate interests and the Senate's version of a health care bill, who are trying to further profit from the poor by forcing them into private insurance policies. The former are trying to suppress the obvious choice of a universally available public option, which is the type of health insurance that has succeeded throughout the developed nations for many decades now.
That's fine for Europe and the other countries you mention. Those countries are not democratic republics, they are not the USA, they are not as free. Many of those countries are currently on the verge of economic collapse with the costs of entitlements, including socialized/universal healthcare, being large contributors. I do not care to emulate failed models and/or sacrifice individual freedoms on the altar of socialism, as that is precisely what the principles of universal healthcare are based upon.
It remains a fact that such programs as have been proposed will cost trillions and increase healthcare costs, and no amount of hand-waving over the numbers will change that. The US cannot afford it, period, full stop. The US is on the verge of an economic collapse. That and the people, when fully informed of all the things in the healthcare bills proposed, reject them in *very* large majority.
The citizens of the US *will not accept it*. We will toss out any politicians that attempt it. Watch what happens come this November. There have already been indicators of what will happen in recent state governor and federal senate elections. There will be a long line at the unemployment office for those politicians who have pushed for this against the people's will. Even if the Progressives manage to ram a healthcare bill through against the people's wishes, it will be repealed when they are tossed out of office.
The only way universal healthcare as proposed will become and remain reality is if the federal government abandons all pretense and declares war on its' own people and starts filling gulags, and I'll still bet on the side of the people to emerge victorious, for no form of government long stands when the people reject it.
You know what? I think I'd actually like to see congress pass the most egregious version of the healthcare bills proposed. That will further enrage people and motivate them to restructure the government down in size to a more strict-Constitutional-interpretation model with a weak federal branch that is more in line with what the Founders of this country intended.
Strat
Saying that people should wait as they do now, for personal health problems to appear and then become so severe that going to the emergency wing becomes an option -- just because its worked out for *you* so far -- that really is a load of crap pop philosophy.
The Trek analogy is also poor because we are not living on a military space vessel. In order for it to work even slightly, Spock and the other officers would have had to come from a society where they didn't receive the benefit of universal health care that helped get them to where they were at that moment.
I've been somewhat lucky, if you can call a serious chronic and life-threatening ilnnes lucky, but I think it's more to do with having educated myself on my own health issues and insisting on proper care from healthcare providers.
I'd love to see everyone have the very best healthcare possible, but that's just not feasible. Neither in this system, nor in the proposed healthcare plans to date. There just isn't enough money.
In Star Trek, they have universal healthcare because they have reaped the riches of the resources of the universe that interstellar space travel makes possible, as well as technologies such as the replicator. It is a fantasy economy with no relation to today's realities of limited resources and budgets.
My point with the ST quotes still stands; that in order to have a universal healthcare system, resources and care will have to be rationed to make it sustainable as we don't have replicators, transporters, or interstellar travel yet. This puts the welfare of the collective over the welfare of any particular individual, and even worse in the political-favor-driven proposals laid out so far, restricts them either to a greater or lesser extent based on an individual's membership in a particular class or group as in the carve-outs for unions and other groups that have political power & influence.
I'm still of the opinion that the nation cannot afford the proposals put forth so far, and as far as I can see, would worsen the actual quality and availability of healthcare for the poorest, increase healthcare costs overall, all while elevating those with political power & influence and/or riches to a privileged class that would receive a much higher level of medical care than would be available to common folks.
I also believe that those politicians that insist on such an all-at-once, sweeping change to the system desire just such effects as I've described to further enrich themselves and increase their power at the expense of the poorest.
Strat
The problem here is that you assume that a public health plan would actually get most poorer patients better/earlier diagnosis and/or care. Poor people like myself have no credit or "credit score" to worry about in the first place, so that is a non-starter.
A "publicly-insured" patient will have the same stigmas as far as being the preferred patient class as Medicare/Medicaid patients currently, if not much worse as all the plans I've read have even lower doctor/hospital reimbursement rates than current Medicare/Medicaid plans making them a much-less desirable patient in financial terms than they are currently.
What I see this creating is a low-quality minimal-care system for the "plebes" and another high-quality care system for those in government & unions, and those wealthy people that can afford to pay high rates and government-mandated penalties for private insurance and care.
All this doesn't even touch on the fact that no matter how politicians try to massage the numbers, this will be a huge increase in costs to the country and *will* mean huge increases in everyone's taxes across the board at a time when the country is on the verge of a national debt crisis with massive inflation imminent.
No thanks, I'll pass.
Strat
Nevermind the fact that you're a leech, and don't seem to care, but your care isn't free.[SNIP]You mention all those programs, but you also mention getting a bill. Hence, I can only conclude that nobody was paying and the hospital absorbed the cost.
I'm unable due to health to work, have long ago exhausted any significant personal assets, and am covered by Medicare & Medicaid. However, Medicare & Medicaid doesn't cover everything, and even combined with the additional NGO/private/faith-based etc programs, there are some tests & treatments etc that are not covered, so I received bills. Some I've been able to pay, some not.
I received that care even though I was unable to pay. The care was ordered based on my medical needs and not my ability to pay because it was the *doctors* who were in charge of what care I received, not some faceless government bureaucratic panel.
"Universal" health coverage as has been proposed in the US would *necessarily* mean that a doctors' ability to order certain types & levels of care for an individual would be limited and/or reviewed by some agent(s) of the government and if not limited outright, there would be penalties imposed on doctors/healthcare facilities that provided care outside that which would be considered "appropriate" by the government, *not* the doctors, and not entirely based on what would be most likely to maintain/improve my health as an individual.
If I'd become ill under such a system if it had been in place at that time, due to my age and seriousness of my health problems, I would most likely not be here now. "Sorry Grandpa, we'll just give you painkillers until you die because the collective is more important than the individual." This embodies the old "Star Trek: The Wrath Of Khan" dialog between Spock and Kirk at the end as Spock is dying from radiation he states based on Vulcan logic; "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one", to which Kirk asserts the opposite out of the human capacity for compassion and love in "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" when he tells Spock, "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many."
Do we as a society care for people based on Vulcan logic or Human compassion? This, I believe. is at the heart of this whole debate.
Strat
In the US the poor 20% of the population have nothing.
This is utter tripe. It is *not* true.
I've *been a part* of that 20% for a good while, so I know. You always get care. You are never refused care. You get care on a par with most everyone else. I've always had medications and treatments provided. I've never been unable to have any testing done such as X-ray, CT, MRI, blood-work, biopsies, etc.
Yes, they'll send you a bill in the mail. If you're unable to pay, they continue to send bills for a while, then they stop. You are not charged with any crime even if your care has amassed hundreds of thousands in charges. There is Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other programs...some federal, some state, some NGO, some faith-based, some even provided by those *evil* pharma companies that stand ready to act as safety nets.
It is pure unadulterated political FUD so obviously untrue that even MS would be too ashamed to spread it.
Strat
I suppose Socialists find slums desirable.
Everyone can be equal in their poverty in a slum. True equality for all is human destiny!
Why was this modded "Troll"? Socialism is all about "sharing the wealth" and "income redistribution", described as "economic justice" and "social justice".
Most of the world lives closer to the conditions of the Mumbai slums than they do to the average US suburbanite, so when all this "equalization" occurs, do you think the average standards will end up being closer to the standards enjoyed by the average US suburbanite, or to a Mumbai slum resident?
It's *much* easier to reduce significantly the standards enjoyed by a few hundred million than it is to raise significantly the standards of many billions to achieve equality.
Think about that simple fact whenever someone goes on about how Socialism isn't that bad, and how "social & economic justice" is a great thing and what that may mean to yourself, your children, and their children.
And no, this isn't a zero-sum game; raising living standards in one part of the world does not necessarily mean that some other part must go through a reduction in those standards. This is class-warfare guilt-tripping for political manipulation and not based on actualities.
Strat
Ooh, an "Offtopic" mod! I must have angered a Progressive with mod points.
Typical reaction from a Progressive, though; rather than debating on the facts and merits, where they know they can't win as logic and facts are stubborn things, just shut out/silence opposing views.
Thanks for proving me correct about Progressives yet again! :D
Strat
Any group of men who thinks they know my interests better than I do can speak with me and try to convince me that this is so, but it is I who makes the final decision. Provisions decided in secret without public knowledge or consent will result in nothing but more lawlessness. Anyone who approves this agreement clearly shows that he does not represent me.
Well, good luck with that "making the final decision" when you have an administration official saying things like; "We tend to agree with Mao, that power comes mainly from the barrel of a gun." That doesn't bode well for the lifespan of anyone who gets in the way of their agendas.
They don't really care about you, a citizen, or what you want or even what's best for you or America (because people are too stupid to see how right *they*, as the elite, are). They have their own plans, and you don't even make it onto the bottom of the list. You and others like you who may disagree are obstacles to be silenced and defeated by whatever methods are the easiest and most expedient, as the ends justify the means.
The way things are trending around the world, it won't be long until a person will have more individual freedom in Russia or China than in America thanks to the Progressives in both the Republican and Democrat parties (McCain, Hillary, and Obama have all declared themselves to be Progressives). Get ready for the Progressive Oligarchy of America, delivered fresh to you each day from the barrel of a gun.
Strat
The CRU emails show nothing more than scientists being snarky about what they perceive to be political attacks on their work. I see nothing in them to indicate mangling data to fit a preconceived outcome.
There are none so blind as those that will not see. I see wrongdoing in the CRU emails. If you cannot then we simply will never agree and this discussion is over, as it is pointless for me to attempt to persuade someone who regards global warming/cooling/climate change (depending on what part of GW dogma has most recently been outed) as a religion. Just as with any religion whose believers make harming others a part of their dogma, it will simply be defeated by showing it for what it is.
May Gore bless,
Strat