Obama V: For Vendetta

[French Rage]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

(2) Again, what do you mean? There are both positive and negative practical limitations on personal freedom, and in the same way you could say the failure to provide insurance and a minimal standard of care to a large number of citizens is also anti-personal freedom. For that matter, the corporate model of profit-driven care rationing isn't really something I'd enshrine as a vital freedom when compared with, say, basic health needs.

Well, I think the argument there would be that as is anyone has the freedom to buy any care or insurance they want as long as they have the money, which they have the freedom to earn in any way they can. They would then contrast this to the proposed health insurance exchange which must approve private plans before they can be bought by individuals through the exchange (if I'm reading the bills right...). Granted this is so it can be insured that they meet the restrictions imposed on them, but in the view of a completely unfettered market this can be seen as a restriction of freedom to choose. (I'm not saying the view is right or wrong, just how it would be seen from there.)

 

[duper]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

This morning I had a healthcare provider explain to me why he sets his per-session cost at $200. He believes that his session is worth $75, but if he charges $75, insurance will not allow it. By setting his fee at $200, insurance allows $75. So if you have insurance, you have to pay (in my case) $7.50 for a session, while my insurance pays $67.50; the problem is that he can't charge a different rate for people who either have no insurance or whose insurance doesn't cover his services, so if you have no insurance, you have to pay $200, which he believes to be too much. So what I'm getting at is that if insurance companies can't automatically discount the rate, this guy, as an example, would cut his rates more than in half.

Not making an argument here, just found this conversation with a provider to be quite interesting.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Well, I think the argument there would be that as is anyone has the freedom to buy any care or insurance they want as long as they have the money, which they have the freedom to earn in any way they can.

One main discriminator between the politically active posters here and probably on most (all?) other forums is how willing a person is to have this principle run the system without any moderation. The spectrum is something like:

100% Caricatures in Democratic attack ads

95% hardcore libertarians who don't quite want to privatize the military (Paul)

90% mainstream conservative Republicans (Reagan)

85% blue dog Democrats and European conservatives (Cameron)

80% Me

75% mainstream liberal Democrats (Obama)

70% English-speaking non-American liberals and 1930's Dems (FDR)

65% Continental liberals

60% Sociology professors at any top 10 school except Stanford

50% My wife

45% Markos Moulitsas

40% Michael Moore

35% Noam Chomsky when on medication

30% Actual Socialists, if any remain at large

25% Noam Chomsky after missing medication

10% Marx

0% Caricatures in GOP attack ads

 

[Slap Shot]

Don't you think that past experiences with these huge bills would lead one to believe that crap is going to get hidden in there? Seems to happen quite often why would this bill be an exception?

This doesn't make the bill in and of itself not viable. If 'every bill' has hidden bits and pieces yet some of them in the end work...

Again - I'm not defending the bill as is, I'm saying there are enough tangibly (sp?) wrong items to specifically critique without crowing about possibilities. I just think approaching the bill in this manner sends a better message than demonstrating outrage and not giving specific criticisms people can grasp.

 

[duper]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

This doesn't make the bill in and of itself not viable. If 'every bill' has hidden bits and pieces yet some of them in the end work...

Again - I'm not defending the bill as is, I'm saying there are enough tangibly (sp?) wrong items to specifically critique without crowing about possibilities. I just think approaching the bill in this manner sends a better message than demonstrating outrage and not giving specific criticisms people can grasp.

A strong point. The fact that EVERY bill has loopholes is not a reason not to pass any one bill. (Obviously, I'm sure no one believes every bill has loopholes, but making a small point through acknowledged hyperbole.)

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

A strong point. The fact that EVERY bill has loopholes is not a reason not to pass any one bill.

Though it may be a reason to oppose this bill or any other bill. The biggest thing as I see it right now is lack of information about the bill. Its not in its final form and probably won't be for awhile, so who really knows what its going to contain?

I saw some lady(on the news this AM) touting the bill for the Whitehouse calling some peoples concerns laughable. Is that something you'd say to ease someones concerns?

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

60% Sociology professors at any top 10 school except Stanford

This seems like a compliment to Stanford, but it's you posting, so I'm confused...

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

I saw some lady(on the news this AM) touting the bill for the Whitehouse calling some peoples concerns laughable. Is that something you'd say to ease someones concerns?

I would if said "concerns" are setting up euthanasia boards to off people for costing too much money. That qualifies as laughable, and while we're here, lets poll USCHO conservatives. How many of you think that's under consideration or will end up in the bill? Oh, and MinnFan you don't have to go through the trouble of replying. We already know you think that's in there.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

This seems like a compliment to Stanford, but it's you posting, so I'm confused...

That was my graduate dept. Not a compliment or an insult, just an observation.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

I would if said "concerns" are setting up euthanasia boards to off people for costing too much money. That qualifies as laughable, and while we're here, lets poll USCHO conservatives. How many of you think that's under consideration or will end up in the bill? Oh, and MinnFan you don't have to go through the trouble of replying. We already know you think that's in there.

Well, this opinion may automatically disqualify me as a conservative, but I don't think that elderly or terminally ill people (heck, for that matter, *any* people) are entitled to publicly financed medical procedures that have marginal chance of adding to their length and quality of life. We, the human race, do not have unlimited resources - it may be a shame, but it's still a fact.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

I would if said "concerns" are setting up euthanasia boards to off people for costing too much money.

You're a diplomatic genius so that doesn't surprise me. When 60 or 70 year old folks are watching, I doubt saying that one of their fears( whether real or imagined) is laughable is a good way to make a point. I thought Obama was a a master at communication? I guess he isn't paying attention to what his staff is saying

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

You're a diplomatic genius so that doesn't surprise me. When 60 or 70 year old folks are watching, I doubt saying that one of their fears( whether real or imagined) is laughable is a good way to make a point. I thought Obama was a a master at communication? I guess he isn't paying attention to what his staff is saying

Since it is laughable, why not term it as such? Why would you give serious credence to something so ridiculous? Its like if you're up in Maine, and somebody starts saying that UMaine ran the cleanest program in college hockey in the 90's. Do you go through a step by step dissertation of Walshy's cheating, or do you just laugh in their face?

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Like this fiasco is going any better?

Obama's legacy will be defined to a large degree by his handling of this issue. If he doesn't seize control of it, it will seize control of him.

Maybe it would, if the Repubs and the Blue Dogs would just quit stonewalling it, and actually contribute something useful.

But they don't want any kind of reform, they just want to kill whatever plans get proposed.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Though it may be a reason to oppose this bill or any other bill. The biggest thing as I see it right now is lack of information about the bill. Its not in its final form and probably won't be for awhile, so who really knows what its going to contain?

I saw some lady(on the news this AM) touting the bill for the Whitehouse calling some peoples concerns laughable. Is that something you'd say to ease someones concerns?

If those concerns are that there will be government 'death boards' deciding who gets care and who dies, then yes, they are laughable.

Thank you Sarah Palin. Now, just go away.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Well, this opinion may automatically disqualify me as a conservative, but I don't think that elderly or terminally ill people (heck, for that matter, *any* people) are entitled to publicly financed medical procedures that have marginal chance of adding to their length and quality of life. We, the human race, do not have unlimited resources - it may be a shame, but it's still a fact.

Nazi.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Well, this opinion may automatically disqualify me as a conservative, but I don't think that elderly or terminally ill people (heck, for that matter, *any* people) are entitled to publicly financed medical procedures that have marginal chance of adding to their length and quality of life. We, the human race, do not have unlimited resources - it may be a shame, but it's still a fact.

So I take it then you support this aspect of health care reform - the part about having doctors discuss end of life planning?

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Maybe it would, if the Repubs and the Blue Dogs would just quit stonewalling it, and actually contribute something useful.

But they don't want any kind of reform, they just want to kill whatever plans get proposed.

I'm more inclined to support the Blue Dogs' premise that you need to figure out a way to estimate and control costs with any program as a starting point. That's what they told Waxman and Pelosi, and **** near managed to scuttle the entire thing, especially when the pricing came out. I think the Blue Dogs are right to act as "fiscal conservatives" within their own party, if anything to force some clarity on these issues and get the politicians to give somewhat honest answers.

As for the GOP ... they really need to $TFU unless they can offer sound counterproposals or an intellectual counterweight to the White House and Dems on the Hill.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

So I take it then you support this aspect of health care reform - the part about having doctors discuss end of life planning?

100%. But then again, I'm pro-choice, so I'm probably a liberal elitist of some kind...

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

I'm more inclined to support the Blue Dogs' premise that you need to figure out a way to estimate and control costs with any program as a starting point. That's what they told Waxman and Pelosi, and **** near managed to scuttle the entire thing, especially when the pricing came out. I think the Blue Dogs are right to act as "fiscal conservatives" within their own party, if anything to force some clarity on these issues and get the politicians to give somewhat honest answers.

As for the GOP ... they really need to $TFU unless they can offer sound counterproposals or an intellectual counterweight to the White House and Dems on the Hill.

The Blue Dogs had no qualms about spending a tgrillion dollars in iraq. Or passing tax cuts of over a trillion. But to help ordinary American citizens get affordable healthcare? Suddenly, we can't afford to do that.

The only cost controls the Blue Dogs care about are the possibility that the hundreds of thousands that the insurance industry throws at them will come to an end. They want to keep that spigot flowing.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

The only cost controls the Blue Dogs care about are the possibility that the hundreds of thousands that the insurance industry throws at them will come to an end. They want to keep that spigot flowing.

You can say that about everyone in Gov't