What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Status
Not open for further replies.
walrus said:
So you believe the proposed health care bill is headed in the right direction?
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with anything? One can disagree with the bill while not buying into the, "the world is coming to an end" crying from some factions of the opposition. The level of opposition to this bill - probably by many people that are as uneducated as to its contents as those they assail on the other side - is preposterous. Where were these protestors when they found out they were lied to in order to start a war? Where were they when it came to protesting the shenanigans behind Haliburton as well as the destruction of Bill of Rights and The Constitution the prior 8 years?

Seriously, this is what this country has come to? Yeah, faux outrage - coming off the heels of the past 8 years - describes to a tee what these folks are demonstrating. I may not like the bill and I sure as heck don't want to see a tax hike on the middle class, but get a grip with the nazi/fascism labels given the fact many of you ignored the same under junior.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Either side can trivialize the other by claiming they're just "special interest groups."

Yet, the most important special interest group out there is the group of one, the individual.

Once you start trivializing those, you're on the wrong path. Broad brush assumptions (ala the Georgia doctor and his US Congress Rep) is the wrong path. The Rep had a great opportunity and blew it.

In other locales individuals trivialized themselves by not staying civil.

The phrases are and remain ... civil discourse and civil disobedience.
 
Last edited:
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Hey I hear ya. Bush left the country in a hell of a mess.

I did notice the part about medical spending going up during the year. Yet another reason to support the reform proposals being worked on.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Rover said:
Yup, just spontaneous outrage by regular ol' citizens.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You're honestly upset that a Republican leader would encourage other people to attend an event holding a sign "if they can?" Seems like faux outrage to me. :D
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Slap Shot said:
What's that got to do with anything? One can disagree with the bill while not buying into the, "the world is coming to an end" crying from some factions of the opposition. The level of opposition to this bill - probably by many people that are as uneducated as to its contents as those they assail on the other side - is preposterous..
Click to expand...

One can disagree and be outraged also. It was a simple question.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

The Sicatoka said:
Either side can trivialize the other by claiming they're just "special interest groups."

Yet, the most important special interest group out there is the group of one, the individual.

Once you start trivializing those, you're on the wrong path. Broad brush assumptions (ala the Georgia doctor and his US Congress Rep) is the wrong path. The Rep had a great opportunity and blew it.

In other locales individuals trivialized themselves by not staying civil.

The phrases are and remain ... civil discourse and civil disobedience.
Click to expand...

Very well said and duly repped. :)
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

LynahFan said:
You're honestly upset that a Republican leader would encourage other people to attend an event holding a sign "if they can?" Seems like faux outrage to me. :D
Click to expand...

When you start with the "Barack Hussein Obama" schpiel, you're appealing to the birthers to show up and raise hell as opposed to asking legitimate questions. Speaking of which, I notice that appeal from a righty org didn't say anything about asking questions. I can't imagine why that would be...
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Slap Shot said:
What's that got to do with anything? One can disagree with the bill while not buying into the, "the world is coming to an end" crying from some factions of the opposition. The level of opposition to this bill - probably by many people that are as uneducated as to its contents as those they assail on the other side - is preposterous.
Click to expand...

The perception is that people are being hit with a steam roller, and the people driving it not only haven't explained where they're going but don't know themselves.

The proponents need to go through all the details of the proposal, point by point, and make their case.

The government always tries to delegitimize protesters and dissenters and because the government has great power I think, all things considered, we should err on the side of giving dissenters respect. So when there is a town meeting, circulate a microphone and have a time limit and let people have their say. I'm even willing to let one person scream into the mic for 30 seconds -- I don't think they'll convince anybody of anything other than that they're angry and they probably don't have a cogent argument that can be explained in words -- but let them give it a shot. That doesn't mean letting the rest of crowd shout them down. There are things like Robert's Rules for a reason.

A public debate between sincere, intelligent representatives might help. We aren't getting that from Congress or the media.
 
Last edited:
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Kepler said:
The perception is that people are being hit with a steam roller, and the people driving it not only haven't explained where they're going but don't know themselves.

The proponents need to go through all the details of the proposal, point by point, and make their case.

The government always tries to delegitimize protesters and dissenters and because the government has great power I think, all things considered, we should err on the side of giving dissenters respect. So when there is a town meeting, circulate a microphone and have a time limit and let people have their say. I'm even willing to let one person scream into the mic for 30 seconds -- I don't think they'll convince anybody of anything other than that they're angry and they probably don't have a cogent argument that can be explained in words -- but let them give it a shot. That doesn't mean letting the rest of crowd shout them down. There are things like Robert's Rules for a reason.

A public debate between sincere, intelligent representatives might help. We aren't getting that from Congress or the media.
Click to expand...
Well put, but I have to spread around rep...
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Too much whining going around. Let me give some perpective to one and all.

Reforming health care is the biggest domestic policy effort in almost 45 years. Not since the Civil Rights battles of the 60's has anything on this grand a scale been achieved (if it gets enacted later this year). Of course its going to be messy. Why would anybody expect differently?

Given that fact, there's a lot of legitimate reason why its been messy. 1) A desire to include at least some moderates from the minority party, 2) a definite need to bring together all sides of the ideological spectrum of the majority party, 3) a bitter fringe minority desperate to climb back to relevance by sabotaging a singature effort of the President, and 4) an scenario that demogagues, naysayers, crackpots, and doomsdayers thrive in.

People and the media tend to have a short attention span, so a 5 point fluctuation in polls for example makes news, but when looked at from afar is largely irrelavent. The key to all of this is that the House has made its own deal with its conservative Dem members to move the legislation. The Senate Finance committee can now either make a deal with 3 members, or with 1 member (the ME senator) and still call it bipartisan. Once this passes, with or without the GOP, its effect on the still over a year away 2010 election will be small. Why? Because people will move on to the latest Outrage of the Day, which will pale in comparison to the key issue for next year - the economy.
Anybody who thinks Obama wants govt run health care, euthanize people, etc also thinks he was born in Kenya, so they're not exactly swing voters. ;)

So, the bottom line is all this hand wringing is for naught. From a purely political perspective, whether you agree with it or not, the Dems are better off passing this than letting it fail. They know that, and they have the votes. They also know that the stock market & employment rates are going to determine their fortunes next year. Right now, all of this bipartisanship is basically a cover, much like the stimulus negotiations were. Once both houses have the same cost for the overhaul (900B) & mechanism to pay for it (taxing high cost health plans) the rest is fluff. That's why you've seen a guy like Sen. Alexander say the Dems have the votes already. Whatever happens with the health care forums circus/beat down, its all for show. The only funny part is seeing people (and the media) take it all seriously.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Rover said:
Too much whining going around. Let me give some perpective to one and all.

Reforming health care is the biggest domestic policy effort in almost 45 years. Not since the Civil Rights battles of the 60's has anything on this grand a scale been achieved (if it gets enacted later this year). Of course its going to be messy. Why would anybody expect differently?

Given that fact, there's a lot of legitimate reason why its been messy. 1) A desire to include at least some moderates from the minority party, 2) a definite need to bring together all sides of the ideological spectrum of the majority party, 3) a bitter fringe minority desperate to climb back to relevance by sabotaging a singature effort of the President, and 4) an scenario that demogagues, naysayers, crackpots, and doomsdayers thrive in.

People and the media tend to have a short attention span, so a 5 point fluctuation in polls for example makes news, but when looked at from afar is largely irrelavent. The key to all of this is that the House has made its own deal with its conservative Dem members to move the legislation. The Senate Finance committee can now either make a deal with 3 members, or with 1 member (the ME senator) and still call it bipartisan. Once this passes, with or without the GOP, its effect on the still over a year away 2010 election will be small. Why? Because people will move on to the latest Outrage of the Day, which will pale in comparison to the key issue for next year - the economy.
Anybody who thinks Obama wants govt run health care, euthanize people, etc also thinks he was born in Kenya, so they're not exactly swing voters. ;)

So, the bottom line is all this hand wringing is for naught. From a purely political perspective, whether you agree with it or not, the Dems are better off passing this than letting it fail. They know that, and they have the votes. They also know that the stock market & employment rates are going to determine their fortunes next year. Right now, all of this bipartisanship is basically a cover, much like the stimulus negotiations were. Once both houses have the same cost for the overhaul (900B) & mechanism to pay for it (taxing high cost health plans) the rest is fluff. That's why you've seen a guy like Sen. Alexander say the Dems have the votes already. Whatever happens with the health care forums circus/beat down, its all for show. The only funny part is seeing people (and the media) take it all seriously.
Click to expand...
I disagree, but one of the consequences of the 2008 election is the Dems have a bullet proof majority and can do what they want.

Whether or not it is what the voters want, will remain a big question until election night 2010.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Rover said:
Too much whining going around. Let me give some perpective to one and all.

Reforming health care is the biggest domestic policy effort in almost 45 years. Not since the Civil Rights battles of the 60's has anything on this grand a scale been achieved (if it gets enacted later this year). Of course its going to be messy. Why would anybody expect differently?

Given that fact, there's a lot of legitimate reason why its been messy. 1) A desire to include at least some moderates from the minority party, 2) a definite need to bring together all sides of the ideological spectrum of the majority party, 3) a bitter fringe minority desperate to climb back to relevance by sabotaging a singature effort of the President, and 4) an scenario that demogagues, naysayers, crackpots, and doomsdayers thrive in.

People and the media tend to have a short attention span, so a 5 point fluctuation in polls for example makes news, but when looked at from afar is largely irrelavent. The key to all of this is that the House has made its own deal with its conservative Dem members to move the legislation. The Senate Finance committee can now either make a deal with 3 members, or with 1 member (the ME senator) and still call it bipartisan. Once this passes, with or without the GOP, its effect on the still over a year away 2010 election will be small. Why? Because people will move on to the latest Outrage of the Day, which will pale in comparison to the key issue for next year - the economy.
Anybody who thinks Obama wants govt run health care, euthanize people, etc also thinks he was born in Kenya, so they're not exactly swing voters. ;)

So, the bottom line is all this hand wringing is for naught. From a purely political perspective, whether you agree with it or not, the Dems are better off passing this than letting it fail. They know that, and they have the votes. They also know that the stock market & employment rates are going to determine their fortunes next year. Right now, all of this bipartisanship is basically a cover, much like the stimulus negotiations were. Once both houses have the same cost for the overhaul (900B) & mechanism to pay for it (taxing high cost health plans) the rest is fluff. That's why you've seen a guy like Sen. Alexander say the Dems have the votes already. Whatever happens with the health care forums circus/beat down, its all for show. The only funny part is seeing people (and the media) take it all seriously.
Click to expand...

Thats right. Representative Democracy doesn't matter. Just roll over and take it. The gov't knows best. :rolleyes:

I assure you, if the gov't takes over 20% of our economy people are going to notice. People will remember when they are stuck waiting in line paying more for less care what the cause was. Unfortunately it will be too late then. Gov't does not give up control once it gets it. That is what our founding fathers knew and why they set up our form of gov't the way it is. Unfortunately, we've torn enough corners off of the constitution that the mob may take from the individual and the gov't takes the place of responsibility.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

:
MinnFan said:
How ObamaCare will make spending worse

The gov't pay for half of healthcare as it is so why is it that costs keep going up?
Click to expand...

Before I put you on the spot MinnFan, I wanted to post a list of all of the author's most recent articles:

Obama's Health Care Will Make It Worse - August 10, 2009
"The status quo is unsustainable for families, businesses and government." -- President Obama, June 13 WASHINGTON -- One of the bewildering ironies of the health care...
California's Reckoning and Ours - August 3, 2009
WASHINGTON -- California's budget debacle holds a lesson for America, but one we will probably ignore. It's easy to attribute the state's protracted budget stalemate,...
Obama's Misleading Medicine - July 27, 2009
WASHINGTON -- The most misused word in the health care debate is "reform." Everyone wants "reform," but what constitutes "reform" is another matter. If you listen to...
The Squandered Stimulus - July 20, 2009
WASHINGTON -- It's not surprising that the much-ballyhooed "economic stimulus" hasn't done much stimulating. President Obama and his aides argue that it's too early to...
The Consequences of Big Government - July 13, 2009
WASHINGTON -- The question that President Obama ought to be asking -- that we all should be asking -- is this: How big a government do we want? Without anyone much...
Economists, Out To Lunch - July 6, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Niall Ferguson is one of those rare characters: a respected scholar who's also a successful popularizer. Ferguson, a Brit, has taught at Oxford, New York...
Panics 'R' Us! - June 29, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Since its earliest days, the United States has suffered periodic financial crises. The first dates to 1792. In the 19th century, bank panics occurred...
Our Sinking Welfare State - June 22, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Raised in an individualistic culture, Americans dislike the concept of the "welfare state" and do not use the term. But make no mistake, the United States...
Naive, Hypocritical and Dishonest - June 15, 2009
WASHINGTON -- It's hard to know whether President Obama's health care "reform" is naive, hypocritical or simply dishonest. Probably all three. The president keeps...
Inflation, Deflation--or Both? - June 8, 2009
WASHINGTON -- To make sense of today's most perplexing economic debate -- whether we're flirting with inflation or deflation -- it's worth recalling what happened after...
The Obama Infatuation - June 1, 2009
WASHINGTON -- The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John...
The Bankruptcies We Need - May 25, 2009
WASHINGTON -- When the trustees of Social Security and Medicare recently reported on the economic status of these programs, the news coverage was universally glum. The...
Obama's Dangerous Debt - May 18, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Just how much government debt does a president have to endorse before he's labeled "irresponsible"? Well, apparently much more than the massive amounts...
The Great Tax Dodge Demystified - May 11, 2009
"(The U.S. tax code is) full of corporate loopholes that makes it perfectly legal for companies to avoid paying their fair share." -- President Barack Obama, May...
The Bias Against Oil and Gas - May 4, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Considering the brutal recession, you'd expect the Obama administration to be obsessed with creating jobs. And so it is, say the president and his...
Selling the Green Economy - April 27, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Few things are more appealing in politics than something for nothing. As Congress begins considering anti-global warming legislation, environmentalists...
Our Depression Obsession - April 20, 2009
WASHINGTON -- The Great Depression of the 1930s was the most momentous economic event of the 20th century. It was a proximate cause of World War II, having fed the...
Obama's Economic Mirage - April 13, 2009
What Obama proposes is a "post-material economy." He would de-emphasize the production of ever-more private goods and services, harnessing the economy to achieve broad...
A Global Free-For-All? - April 6, 2009
It may surprise Americans that, up to a point, his analysis is correct. The dollarized world economy developed huge instabilities -- vast trade imbalances (American...
Uncle Sam's Hedge Fund - March 30, 2009
But succeed or fail, Geithner's plan illuminates a fascinating irony. "Leverage" -- borrowing -- helped create this mess. Now it's expected to get us out. How can...
Can American Capitalism Survive? - March 23, 2009
Almost everything about Schumpeter's diagnosis rings true with the glaring exception of his conclusion. American capitalism has flourished despite being subjected...
The Shadow of Depression - March 16, 2009
What's more, the Depression changed our thinking and institutions. The human misery of economic turmoil has diminished. "American workers (in the 1930s) had...
Obama is a Great Pretender - March 9, 2009
With today's depressed economy, big deficits are unavoidable for some years. But let's assume that Obama wins re-election. By his last year, 2016, the economy...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah. Is this guy a "birther" too. :D :rolleyes: :D Geesh, even I can give you one example of something Bush did that I support (two actually, TARP & Afghanistan).

Moving on, I tend to hear a lot about this concept of "shopping for cheaper, but more effective" health care. This author applies it to Medicare. "One approach is through vouchers; Medicare recipients would receive a fixed amount and shop for networks with the lowest cost and highest quality."

Tell me MinnFan - do you truly expect the millions of 80, 90 and even pushing 100 year old elderly and/or disabled recipients of Medicare to be able to hop on the internet, read through pages upon pages of legalese contained in any health care plan documentation, be able to do a crackerjack cost vs benefits analysis for their personal needs, re-evaluate coverage every year, make sure that their own doctors actually take said insurance, and avoid any of the countless scams that would no doubt crop up as a result of this "idea" (and I use that term loosely). If so, on what planet in which solar system would this realistically take place, and what is the cost of airfare/spacefare to reach this place? :D
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

More grist for the mill ...

Republicans are conjuring nightmares of government bureaucrats blocking patients from life-saving treatment, while Democrats paint pictures of heartless insurance executives dropping or denying coverage.
Click to expand...

The back-and-forth obscures a truth acknowledged on both sides -- that doctors and patients, left to themselves, often order unnecessary and costly treatments, contributing to soaring national health costs.

The public is divided over whom to trust. In a recent CNN/Opinion Research poll, people were asked whom they would rather have make tough decisions about patients. Forty percent said insurance companies and 40% said government.
Click to expand...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124986191040518189.html
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Awww...someone gave me a neg rep and didnt have the balls to sign it! I think I am gonna cry :( ;) :p

Wasn't there a bill a while back that would have given Americans access to the same health care that federal employees get at the same discounted rate? Wouldn't that make more sense for a public option than anything that has been proposed so far?
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Another reason to pass health care reform.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top