Angry Mob of Racist Extremists Beats Black Man at Town Hall Meeting

[kokonut]

Experience of government-run health care around the world shows that they do try to keep costs down by using comparative effective research to decide what procedures, drugs, etc. are worth the cost and what's not. They will try to keep costs down by refusing services. It's just like when the President said you may be better off just taking the painkiller instead of getting the surgery. That's the sort of decisions they'll make.

Of course that won't keep them from operating in the red and adding trillions to the national debt.


No disagreement there. If it's not interstate commerce, they have no constitutional right to regulate it. If it is interstate commerce, it's unwise to regulate them out of business. But given the demagoguery we've already gotten on this issue, I don't trust they won't use regulation for that purpose.

It is also called "rationing health care" because it is exactly what they do since money is limited, something has to be rationed and justified.

Have you seen Barney Frank admitting on camera that it is exactly what he's trying to do with the help of others? And that the govt's intention to regulate the private insurance industry out of business. A govt takeover of health care. Here's an audio clip of former Iowa Dem. Governor Tom Vilsack at Drake University on Nov. 16 describing how S-CHIP will help achieve those universal entitlement ends or universal health care:
http://tinyurl.com/knwqqu
And the transcript:

“I think there is going to be a commitment to universal coverage. I don’t think it’s necessarily going to be a sector by sector process. I think you either need to go in whole hog or not. We tried to sort of squeeze the middle here with doing children and doing seniors, and trying to squeeze it. If anything happens, it would more likely look something like this: you would extend eligibility for children from 200% of poverty to 300% of poverty, and create resources to insure the parents of those children.”

In other words, a Trojan horse sitting on your front lawn.

 

[shel90]

Should people go without health care because they dont have the privelege of working for a company that is loyal to its employees?

Anyone willing to answer that?

 

[kokonut]

Really? Big business can decide who can get health care but government cant. Government will have to provide for all citizens just like with public schools.

Should people go without health care because they dont have the privelege of working for a company that is loyal to its employees?

Yet at the same time govt is trying to kill the ideaf of a school voucher program. Already Obama made sure that the schools of D.C. will not see their highly successfull (academically-wise) school voucher program continue.

If the govt's intention to regulate the insurance industry out of business and to ensure that choices are not left to parents when it comes to deciding a public school, home schooling or a school voucher program then we have a problem. And we're seeing that problem get worse.

 

[kokonut]

Just as white people take advantage of white priviledge every single day of their lives and think it is perfectly acceptable, some of the African American race will play the race card when it is to their advantage. If it is acceptable for white people to take advantage of white privilege, why is it unacceptable for blacks to play the race card to their advantage? You are proposing that we have 2 different standards…one for blacks and one for whites. That is the stuff that racism is made of. Once again, if racism didn’t exist in this country, there would be neither the race card to play, nor white privilege to take advantage of. You don’t like the system that racism has created, then work to rid this country of that plague. All you are doing is perpetuating by playing on it yourself.

"White priviledge" does not describe much but lots of connotations. Bottom line, if any merits it should be done on the basis of the person him/herself and not about color. Next, please, do not put words into my mouth. I have not proposed any ideas of having different standards. Just that racism and double standards exist on all sides. You acknowledged that. But to see people play the intellectual dishonesty game is not a good idea. Again, how am I perpetuating this "double standard"? Or do you somehow have a corner market on this by standing on this soapbox of yours?

 

[shel90]

Shit, some of my posts got messed up. Oh well.

 

[shel90]

"White priviledge" does not describe much but lots of connotations. Bottom line, if any merits it should be done on the basis of the person him/herself and not about color. Next, please, do not put words into my mouth. I have not proposed any ideas of having different standards. Just that racism and double standards exist on all sides. You acknowledged that. But to see people play the intellectual dishonesty game is not a good idea. Again, how am I perpetuating this "double standard"? Or do you somehow have a corner market on this by standing on this soapbox of yours?

Without racism, playing the race card would not exist. You seem to want to make it more complicated than it is. Simple fact is, every community will either practice racism or experience racism.

You complain about people playing the race card but yet, you do it too. Cant have your cake and eat it. If you want people stop playing the race card, then let's get to the root of the problem.

 

[kokonut]

Should people go without health care because they dont have the privelege of working for a company that is loyal to its employees?

Anyone willing to answer that?

Will Congress ditch their own healthcare insurances and go under Obamacare?

This is all a double-edge sword. If you don't have any money then how is this possible?

Lets look at the effects of socialized medicine in Britain which is engineered by government-run cost-cutting panels. This is the kind of program the Obamacare would be modeled after yet in Britain this sort of govt run health care continue to wreak havoc on the elderly and infirm.

*Elderly left at risk by NHS bidding wars to find cheapest care with reverse auctions.
Elderly left at risk by NHS bidding wars to find cheapest care with reverse auctions - Times Online


*Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections.
Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections - Telegraph

*Elderly suffer in care shambles.
Elderly suffer in care shambles | Society | guardian.co.uk

*Twisted priorities that let the elderly suffer
Twisted priorities that let the elderly suffer - Telegraph

*NHS neglects elderly depression.
NHS neglects elderly depression.

*NHS failure on Down’s screening kills healthy babies
NHS failure on Down's screening kills healthy babies | Society | guardian.co.uk

*‘I said to the nurse, please feed her:’ Pauline Pringle’s mother went into hospital for a hip operation and came out close to starvation. And as Blake Morrison reports, hers is not an isolated case
'I said to the nurse, please feed her' | Society | The Guardian

If hospitals in Britain can't do it's job because of the lack of money to do it right then what makes you think that the rest of the population will haveadequately covered health care? Bottom line, we don't have the money to do this.

Shel, first thing first. Make sure we have the money to do this then everything's ok with me. However, the sad fact is that we don't have that kind of money. It'll cost trillions of dollars to do this. And our population continues to grow.

Where's the money, Shel? You tell me that first.

 

[shel90]

Will Congress ditch their own healthcare insurances and go under Obamacare?

This is all a double-edge sword. If you don't have any money then how is this possible?

Lets look at the effects of socialized medicine in Britain which is engineered by government-run cost-cutting panels. This is the kind of program the Obamacare would be modeled after yet in Britain this sort of govt run health care continue to wreak havoc on the elderly and infirm.

*Elderly left at risk by NHS bidding wars to find cheapest care with reverse auctions.
Elderly left at risk by NHS bidding wars to find cheapest care with reverse auctions - Times Online


*Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections.
Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections - Telegraph

*Elderly suffer in care shambles.
Elderly suffer in care shambles | Society | guardian.co.uk

*Twisted priorities that let the elderly suffer
Twisted priorities that let the elderly suffer - Telegraph

*NHS neglects elderly depression.
NHS neglects elderly depression.

*NHS failure on Down’s screening kills healthy babies
NHS failure on Down's screening kills healthy babies | Society | guardian.co.uk

*‘I said to the nurse, please feed her:’ Pauline Pringle’s mother went into hospital for a hip operation and came out close to starvation. And as Blake Morrison reports, hers is not an isolated case
'I said to the nurse, please feed her' | Society | The Guardian

If hospitals in Britain can't do it's job because of the lack of money to do it right then what makes you think that the rest of the population will haveadequately covered health care? Bottom line, we don't have the money to do this.

Shel, first thing first. Make sure we have the money to do this then everything's ok with me. However, the sad fact is that we don't have that kind of money. It'll cost trillions of dollars to do this. And our population continues to grow.

Where's the money, Shel? You tell me that first.[/QUOTE]

Legalize weed!

Maybe this country will just run itself into the ground and take all of us with us. Then, healthcare would be the last thing on our mind.

Give me a moment to think about this...

 

[kokonut]

Without racism, playing the race card would not exist. You seem to want to make it more complicated than it is. Simple fact is, every community will either practice racism or experience racism.

You complain about people playing the race card but yet, you do it too. Cant have your cake and eat it. If you want people stop playing the race card, then let's get to the root of the problem.

There is no "complication" but a simple fact. Racism do exists on all sides. Just because it exists on all sides doesn't mean everybody practice racism. And, no, I don't play the race card any more than playing the audism card for the purpose of expediancy.

 

[kokonut]

Legalize weed!

Maybe this country will just run itself into the ground and take all of us with us. Then, healthcare would be the last thing on our mind.

Give me a moment to think about this..

That's fine but then that means the govt would be sanctioning the destruction of one's own health (e.g. lung cancer, et) and we end up paying for that person's downhill health down the road 30 years later as a result. It'd be a net loss than a gain if one were to tax the sale on reefers.

 

[darkdog]

Really? Big business can decide who can get health care but government cant. Government will have to provide for all citizens just like with public schools.

Should people go without health care because they dont have the privelege of working for a company that is loyal to its employees?

Oh, you mean employers? My bad- I misunderstood. Yes, you're right that when getting health insurance through your employer, you're limited in your options. That's why I think health insurance should be separated from employee compensation packages. Whatever they spend on health insurance, I would rather have that money in my paycheck and then buy health insurance myself. I've written about that numerous times here. I'd also like to be able to buy insurance across state lines and have fewer mandates so I can decide if I want a bare-bones policy or a Cadillac policy. That's a great way to increase options.

All this would increase competition and lower medical costs in general so medical care can be more affordable for everyone and not just for skilled workers who can get a cozy high-paying job. If you doubt that it works, look at $4 generic prescriptions. Walmart started doing it and suddenly, all the major pharmacies started doing it. That didn't require any government mandates.

If you still doubt it's possible, look at private clinics. Once again, Walmart is paving the way. In many of their stores, they started leasing space to private clinics that charge a flat rate for an office visit- usually around $50. That's without insurance. If you have really expensive insurance, copay for a doctor's visit might be around $25, but that's not the cost. That's just the price you pay. The actual cost is in the hundreds of dollars. The fact that the entire cost of an office visit is $50 is amazing. That didn't require any government mandates and surely government couldn't do it that efficiently.

Like I said, there are other options that will not incur the very real problems of government-run health care systems.

 

[kokonut]

Oh, you mean employers? My bad- I misunderstood. Yes, you're right that when getting health insurance through your employer, you're limited in your options. That's why I think health insurance should be separated from employee compensation packages. Whatever they spend on health insurance, I would rather have that money in my paycheck and then buy health insurance myself. I've written about that numerous times here. I'd also like to be able to buy insurance across state lines and have fewer mandates so I can decide if I want a bare-bones policy or a Cadillac policy. That's a great way to increase options.

All this would increase competition and lower medical costs in general so medical care can be more affordable for everyone and not just for skilled workers who can get a cozy high-paying job. If you doubt that it works, look at $4 generic prescriptions. Walmart started doing it and suddenly, all the major pharmacies started doing it. That didn't require any government mandates.

If you still doubt it's possible, look at private clinics. Once again, Walmart is paving the way. In many of their stores, they started leasing space to private clinics that charge a flat rate for an office visit- usually around $50. That's without insurance. If you have really expensive insurance, copay for a doctor's visit might be around $25, but that's not the cost. That's just the price you pay. The actual cost is in the hundreds of dollars. The fact that the entire cost of an office visit is $50 is amazing. That didn't require any government mandates and surely government couldn't do it that efficiently.

Like I said, there are other options that will not incur the very real problems of government-run health care systems.

Then again the threat of a malpractice suit is one reason why health insurance premiums are so high and that doctors are forced to charge higher costs for their services. If Walmart had that same problem it wouldn't be the same Walmart as we know for their low cost products.

 

[darkdog]

Should people go without health care because they dont have the privelege of working for a company that is loyal to its employees?

Anyone willing to answer that?

I'll answer it. No. That's why I'd like to see more free-market reforms that will enable low income workers to afford medical care and health insurance more easily. Then we can figure out what to do with those still struggling. I would hope people would be charitable enough for private charities to take care of those.

I would also add that companies don't give health insurance benefits out of a sense of personal loyalty than they give salary. It's all just part of the compensation package that they need to give to attract and retain good workers. If companies are forced to give health insurance to low income workers, they'll likely hire fewer of them which will increase unemployment. It's the same problem as minimum wage.

 

[darkdog]

Then again the threat of a malpractice suit is one reason why health insurance premiums are so high and that doctors are forced to charge higher costs for their services. If Walmart had that same problem it wouldn't be the same Walmart as we know for their low cost products.

True. It's not just the direct costs, but the indirect costs. Many companies stop selling certain medical products because they decide the risk of getting sued exceeds whatever profit they could make. That reduces competition and customer choices along with supply which drives up costs. Also, many doctors have to do a myriad of tests, even risky ones, just to avoid lawsuits. That also drives up costs.

The very fear of an unpredictable verdict will lead many companies to settle. I think we should have a loser pays system. There's too much to gain from frivolous lawsuits and nothing to lose.

 

[Reba]

I must have not been a member during those times..

Besides I was referring to IRL too.

You've been a member since 2006. Since that time were the most "I hate Bush" posts.

 

[shel90]

You've been a member since 2006. Since that time were the most "I hate Bush" posts.

Well, then my memory fails to serve me.

 

[shel90]

That's fine but then that means the govt would be sanctioning the destruction of one's own health (e.g. lung cancer, et) and we end up paying for that person's downhill health down the road 30 years later as a result. It'd be a net loss than a gain if one were to tax the sale on reefers.

No difference because prescription drugs and alcohol are legal and taxed. If are asking me where to find the money, that's the answer I can think of unless you have better ideas?

 

[shel90]

I'll answer it. No. That's why I'd like to see more free-market reforms that will enable low income workers to afford medical care and health insurance more easily. Then we can figure out what to do with those still struggling. I would hope people would be charitable enough for private charities to take care of those.

I would also add that companies don't give health insurance benefits out of a sense of personal loyalty than they give salary. It's all just part of the compensation package that they need to give to attract and retain good workers. If companies are forced to give health insurance to low income workers, they'll likely hire fewer of them which will increase unemployment. It's the same problem as minimum wage.

That's still a risk. To depend on people to be charitable for health care is not a good solution, IMO. I want health insurance to be mandatory for all Americans.

I used to work for an insurance company and ironically, it started a contractual program in which any new hirees after 1995 recieved no benefit package. Then, it seemed like a trend was followed by several other companies.

 

[darkdog]

Have you seen Barney Frank admitting on camera that it is exactly what he's trying to do with the help of others? And that the govt's intention to regulate the private insurance industry out of business. A govt takeover of health care. Here's an audio clip of former Iowa Dem. Governor Tom Vilsack at Drake University on Nov. 16 describing how S-CHIP will help achieve those universal entitlement ends or universal health care:
http://tinyurl.com/knwqqu

I think I posted that video a few days ago here. What's more telling than that is what Dr. Jacob Hacker said. He's the guy that came up with the idea of the public option and influenced Barack Obama. Here's what he said about it (1:45 on the video):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E]YouTube - The Public Plan Deception - It's Not About Choice[/ame]

My transcription:

Someone once said to me this is a trojan horse for single payer. And I said, "Well, it's not a trojan horse, right. It's just right there!" I'm telling you! We're gonna get there, over time, slowly, but we'll move away from reliance on employment based health insurance, as we should, but we'll do it in a way that we're not going to frighten people into thinking they're going to lose their private insurance. We're gonna give them their choice of public and private insurance when they're in the pool and we're going to let them keep their private employment-based insurance if their employer continues to provide it.

 

[darkdog]

That's still a risk. To depend on people to be charitable for health care is not a good solution, IMO. I want health insurance to be mandatory for all Americans.

I'm not totally closed to the idea of the state helping, but I think it should be the state governments, not the federal. The federal government doesn't have any constitutional authority to do so, much less placing a health insurance mandate on everyone.

I really do think private charitable giving should be emphasized more. Here's an example. There's a guy from my church that is severely disabled. He's a paraplegic and gets severe muscle cramps that produce intense pain. The only way to keep it under control is for him to receive massage therapy every day. It's a necessity for his survival. He's now on Medicare and they don't cover that. His family, while relatively rich, can't afford it because of all his other medical expenses so people from church volunteer and come do it. They've been doing it for almost 2 decades now and he's still alive.

Like I said, there will always be those who fall through the cracks and we should place more emphasis on private charity to take care of those. I much prefer helping with something like that or giving a part of my paycheck to a charity of my choosing over sending in my tax check. Taxes are necessary, of course, but I always feel like much of it is going to be wasted or even used for counterproductive activities.

I used to work for an insurance company and ironically, it started a contractual program in which any new hirees after 1995 recieved no benefit package. Then, it seemed like a trend was followed by several other companies.

Did they have trouble hiring new people after that? If so, they made a bad business move. If not, that's probably more an indication of market conditions at the time.