# "The perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine"



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

According to this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/opinion/12krugman.html?hp

It does sound as if the facts were conveniently twisted. Does anyone else think that the healthcare issue has grown so pressing that significant change is inevitable, no matter what noises the pundits make?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I'm not sure if significant change is inevitable. It partly depends on what you mean by "significant change". More people have lost their health insurance, and it keeps getting more expensive for those who are lucky enough to have it, so there's change.

You would think that American industry would see that it's not helping them to be saddled with health care costs, and the cost differentials that they entail for manufactured goods. I'm a bit concerned that the Chrysler and GM deals might reduce some of the pressure that the auto industry might otherwise have felt to push for change.

Here's another thread on the right-wing sliming of this family: p://greenmountaindaily.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1707


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

BertieW said:


> According to this:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/opinion/12krugman.html?hp
> 
> It does sound as if the facts were conveniently twisted. Does anyone else think that the healthcare issue has grown so pressing that significant change is inevitable, no matter what noises the pundits make?


This is just poltical gamemanship. Dems are pushing the issue, knowing they have general public support for growth in govt health converage. They are setting the stage for next year with Hillary's plan. Dumb ass Republicans bit on the trap, making themselves look like they hate kids. For all of you who somehow think Bush has poltical capital left, here is your example that he does not. This is why he is just waiting out his term. So relax about Iran etc.

Anyway, regarding health care, as I stated, this is just a poltical manuever, overall, it's not pressing. However change is inevitable. Within 20 yrs we will have universal coverage.

The bottom line is that the American people don't want to have to pay for medical coverage. People ***** and moan about $10 copays and $1000 deductibles. The economics of it are lost on people. If people looked at health insurance like car insurance then our present system could survive. But they don't. They want everything paid for so we can blow money on stupid consumer goods. Health care is becoming perceived as a "right" And anytime something is seen a "right" and not a "good", you can forget it.

It will be hailed as a great "progressive" victory. Then people will complain why things take so long.

Just another step in the march toward socialism, lack of personal responsibility etc. What else is new. We've been going in this direction since the New Deal.

Cheers


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

JRR said:


> The bottom line is that the American people don't want to have to pay for medical coverage. People ***** and moan about $10 copays and $1000 deductibles. The economics of it are lost on people. If people looked at health insurance like car insurance then our present system could survive. But they don't. They want everything paid for so we can blow money on stupid consumer goods. Health care is becoming perceived as a "right" And anytime something is seen a "right" and not a "good", you can forget it.


Why is subsidized health care a "right" when food and shelter aren't?

Housing and food are necessary for life, but I don't see a call for free or subsidized housing or food for middle-class families. This is why SCHIP expansion was vetoed; it's meant to help the poor. The middle-class people I know all have coverage, but sometimes they have to pay for it or work at companies that offer it. We all have to work to cover our basic needs.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

We already have subsidized housing for middle income people. It's called the mortgage interest deduction.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

I knew this issue was a landmine for Republicans, but wow look at these numbers.

https://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm

The people want it. Costs be damned...


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> And there's one more point that should not be forgotten: ultimately, this isn't about the Frost parents. It's about Graeme Frost and his sister.


No, Dr. Krugman, you propagandist whore, it's about the Frost parents.

Maybe if the father decided to get a job that paid more than being a woodworker, which I am sure he finds very pleasant and _crafty_, he could afford to provide for his family. I thought about being a woodworker once. I decided I wouldn't make enough money at it, in light of the economics of, you know, the world after the Industrial Revolution.

The good Dr. Krugman also failed to make mention of the commercial property that the father owns. Maybe if he sold that, they could afford to pay for things.

Maybe if he sold their half-million dollar house and moved into a cheaper one, they could afford to pay for things.

I didn't read the part in the Constitution where we all have the right to be immune from the consequences of our own decisions -- like the decision to have 4 kids and be under-insured.

How about if you are unable to pay your bills, or you suffer economic setbacks, you ASK me to help you? Pay me the simple, basic respect. The Democrat way is to trot your seventh-grader out in an effort to get the gub-mint to FORCE me to pay for the stuff you want to buy. I don't care if you want an operation to save your kid's life -- when you point a gun at me, I typically lose enthusiasm.

Maybe government should stop driving up the price of medical care. Maybe people who make $45,000 could afford it.

Maybe government should stop diluting the value of our money. Maybe $45,000 would be enough for a family of four to live on.

But after eliminating all of these various options, the Democrat plan, based on the hardship of one family, is instead to further socialize a multi-billion dollar segment of our economy, affecting hundreds of millions of people. Brilliant.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

So, so many issues being conflated here. To start off with, Krugman is a funny person to talk about the right wing machine as he's a big player in the left wing machine. However, he is quite correct in describing the behavior of the Repubs as bad, if all this is true (I'll take it at face value though). But how this boy was treated when trotted out as a poster child *has nothing to do with the SCHIP debate in and of itself*. Also, the Dems are guilty of similar crap when they told the story of a boy that eventually died from what started out as an abscessed tooth. While a tragedy, it appears the boy had Medicaid, ergo would not be affected by any SCHIP legislation as SCHIP is expressly designed for those with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid.

So basically, I deem neither side is playing fair and both are twisting the truth or out right lying to suit their ends. Both sides are dirty on this issue.

Then we now have a poster dragging in the mortgage tax credit. Hey, I say let's give the left what it wants, get rid of that and also make all employer sponsored health care benefits taxable. Works perfectly for me and I sincerely hope Pelosi puts these ideas forward. Or POTUS Hillary.

Universal care: I have argued for it in principle here many times. I really believe a basic universal plan focused on prevention and wellness, while holding individuals responsible where their actions directly affect their health, is a great idea. The thing is, the concept of "basic" "prevention" and "responsible" will have absolutely nothing to do what any universal plan that gets put foward.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

JRR said:


> I knew this issue was a landmine for Republicans, but wow look at these numbers.
> 
> https://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm
> 
> The people want it. Costs be damned...


I'm not sure why they even bother to ask questions about satisfaction to Americans. We've become so spoiled, I don't remember the last time I met an American that was satisfied with anything, particularly anything they had to pay for. I'm typically a big fan of my fellow countrymen, but right now there's a lot of weakness and whining going around.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Phinn said:


> The good Dr. Krugman also failed to make mention of the commercial property that the father owns. Maybe if he sold that, they could afford to pay for things.
> 
> Maybe if he sold their half-million dollar house and moved into a cheaper one, they could afford to pay for things.


Or, God forbid, work more than 40 hours in a week.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The right and left wing are both really nasty on this regard and both are so determined to "win" that they don't care what is left over after they destroy the other side. Both of them are destructive and sick.

I do like Wayfarer's ideas about the medical system.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

*BOHICA*



Phinn said:


> No, Dr. Krugman, you propagandist whore, it's about the Frost parents.
> 
> Maybe if the father decided to get a job that paid more than being a woodworker, which I am sure he finds very pleasant and _crafty_, he could afford to provide for his family. I thought about being a woodworker once. I decided I wouldn't make enough money at it, in light of the economics of, you know, the world after the Industrial Revolution.
> 
> ...


Here we go again, more talk about government thugs and guns. And, godammit why can't these people just make more money! 
I thought being a lawyer didn't pay so well, Phinn?

_Soon after the radio address, right-wing bloggers began insisting that the Frosts must be affluent because Graeme and his sister attend private schools (they're on scholarship), because they have a house in a neighborhood where some houses are now expensive (the Frosts bought their house for $55,000 in 1990 when the neighborhood was rundown and considered dangerous) and because Mr. Frost owns a business (it was dissolved in 1999)._


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I do like Wayfarer's ideas about the medical system.


Thanks for the props. Glad to see someone else thinks a balance can be created that will benefit society in multiple ways, including costs.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Thanks for the props. Glad to see someone else thinks a balance can be created that will benefit society in multiple ways, including costs.


I also like your plan, and totally agree with this one:

_So basically, I deem neither side is playing fair and both are twisting the truth or out right lying to suit their ends. Both sides are dirty on this issue.
_


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

" Let me save you from drowning, said the Monkey to the fish, as he put him up a tree." Why do I feel like a goldfish in a bowl with a right and left hand reaching in?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Here we go again, more talk about government thugs and guns. And, godammit why can't these people just make more money! I thought being a lawyer didn't pay so well, Phinn?


What does my income have to do with this?

And where's the part where you actually address or -- here's an idea -- refute something that I actually said?

Krugman didn't mention whether this family has access to resources, like an expensive house that has gone up in value (and is worth more than most people's houses) or a commercial building. There are reports that they do. The fact that Krugman studiously avoided mentioning these facts one way or the other tells me that they probably don't support his pathetic little propagandistic thesis.

I don't care what the guy paid for his house in 1990. If he needs money to pay for stuff, and he is sitting on a couple of huge assets, then sell them. That's what grown-ups do.

Judging by the age of his children, and the reports that he decided not to buy health insurance in the 1990s when he was running his woodworking business (with his wife as an employee), he probably looked into buying health insurance that covered pregnancies. That's more expensive. Buying high deductible coverage without maternity that would pay for medical treatment when, for example, you or your family gets into a car accident, costs less than $1,200 per month. He didn't buy it. So, as a result of his lack of fiscal responsibility, now the Democrats are telling me that it will be my responsibility, under penalty of jail time, to pay for the things he didn't have the foresight to buy on his own.

You seem to have a problem getting your mind around the idea that government-mandated, tax-supported programs are backed by force. The solution to this conundrum is for you to attempt to expand the capacity of your mind to comprehend such things.



> So basically, I deem neither side is playing fair and both are twisting the truth or out right lying to suit their ends. Both sides are dirty on this issue.


All politicians are scum by definition, but so is a parent that pimps its 12 year-old out to advance a political agenda.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Maybe if the father decided to get a job that paid more than being a woodworker, which I am sure he finds very pleasant and _crafty_, he could afford to provide for his family.


I was saying, maybe he should have been an attorney like you, instead of being a lowly (in your eyes) woodworker. But, then you said in a previous thread that you were vastly underpaid, so I guess that wouldn't be a good option either. Maybe he should just find a reason to sue somebody for millions. You lawyers are always good for that sort of thing.

Good idea about selling the house though. All of the working people should just sell off all of their assets to afford healthcare. Damn the kids! They can find another school district to attend. Did you ever stop to think that even if he were to sell his home that he wouldn't be able to afford another house in the area? The guy paid $55k for his house. It's not like they bought a house far beyond their means. Give the guy a break, at least he is working and not living on wellfare. Your arrogance is amazing.

I'm not saying there should be nationalized, socialized or whatever you want to call it healthcare, but there needs to be some system put in place (Wayfarer has a good idea) to help those who can't afford it. Not everyone has access to a great group insurance plan. My wife happens to be in the teacher's union, so we are one of the lucky ones. If she didn't have her benefits, we would be paying $800+ per month for the two of us and our son. Now for us, that isn't bad, but if we were only making $45k/year it _would_ be a big deal.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Phinn said:


> What does my income have to do with this?
> 
> And where's the part where you actually address or -- here's an idea -- refute something that I actually said?
> 
> ...


This is such classic right-wing crap: I've got mine, so f**k you if you don't have yours, regardless of why you don't have yours.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> maybe he should have been an attorney like you, instead of being a lowly (in your eyes) woodworker


Lowly? Where did I say that? Are you lying again?

I think woodworking is pretty cool. This isn't about my approval or disapproval of his job or his lifestyle, or whether I think his situation isn't unfortunate, or whether in a perfect world they ought to have more money. It's about whether they (or you, or any of your fellow travelers) have the moral right to force me (and everyone else) to pay for other people's stuff.



> All of the working people should just sell off all of their assets to afford healthcare. Damn the kids!


If he has assets that would help pay for the medical needs of his own children, but he refuses to sell his half-million-dollar house, then I'd say that *he* is the one who is damning the kids.



> Did you ever stop to think that even if he were to sell his home that he wouldn't be able to afford another house in the area? The guy paid $55k for his house. It's not like they bought a house far beyond their means.


Bully for him. He should have a fat amount of equity in the place, then. I don't have a half-million dollar house. Not even half. He can come live in my relative-slum of a neighborhood.



> Give the guy a break, at least he is working and not living on wellfare.


How is this subsidy for medical services not a form of welfare?



> Your arrogance is amazing.


Your susceptibility to propaganda is amazing.

Besides, since when is "Please stop robbing me" arrogant?

Just ask me for help. It's the civilized thing to do. Just ask. If I can help, I just might do it.

When the government puts these programs into place, they're not asking. Have you figured that part out yet?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> This is such classic right-wing crap: I've got mine, so f**k you if you don't have yours, regardless of why you don't have yours.


This Democrat proposal is such classic left-wing and/or mafia crap: What's yours is mine, so f*ck you, hand it over.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Lowly? Where did I say that? Are you lying again?
> 
> I think woodworking is pretty cool. This isn't about my approval or disapproval of his job or his lifestyle, or whether I think his situation isn't unfortunate, or whether in a perfect world they ought to have more money. It's about whether they (or you, or any of your fellow travelers) have the moral right to force me (and everyone else) to pay for other people's stuff.
> 
> ...


You didn't say lowly. I got that impression by your clever description of his job as a woodcutter, "which I am sure he finds very pleasant and _crafty._"

Go salaí na gráinneoga cealgrúnacha do chuid calóga arbhair.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> This is such classic right-wing crap: I've got mine, so f**k you if you don't have yours, regardless of why you don't have yours.


Counter arguments are so much more respected vs. factless rants. And read my posts carefully before you lump talk about any "right wing rants" this time please.

Phinn does have a valid point IMO. If someone has 400k or more of equity in a home, you sell the damn home and down size before sticking your hand out to the government IMO. Sure the need for doing such things might change, even under my proposed basic universal coverage, but within the current system, you don't short your kid like that in my books.

Now I know Phinn won't agree with my concept of basic universal coverage either, but I sure am not going to write off all of his thoughts just because wee disagree on that.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3602626&page=1


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

WARNING DANGEROUS USE OF MIXED METAPHORS. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK:

This is the classic case of the cure that kills the patient. The real question is "Why does medical care cost so much?" At least part of the answer lies in classic monetary theory that the more cash that gets injected into a system the higher prices go. 

Prior to the 1930's people paid for health care from their own pockets. However, the government in its infinite wisdom implemented wage and price controls. Since businesses couldn't raise wages they looked for other ways to increase compensation that fell outside of the restrictions: Voila! Employer paid healthcare. More money into the system, higher prices. 

Then the government got in on the act: Medicare = more money into the system = higher prices. As prices go up, people's ability to pay their own way goes down and the need for more government funding goes up followed by more price inflation followed by more money until we're in a healthcare inflationary cycle that no one can break. So some smart guys in the 1980s get together and invent...wait for it...managed care (the system everyone loves to hate), where insurance companies attempt to replace the government in the Guido the Enforcer role to try to contain costs by denying service while at the same time pumping more money into the system and extracting even higher costs from governments, employers and individuals.

The solution to the problem my friends will ultimately be found in breaking the inflationary cycle, not in pumping ever increasing amounts of money into the system to keep the cycle going. Unfortunately as any Argentinian will tell you, this solution works and works like a charm, but is EXTREMELY painful. I have ZERO confidence that this solution is anywhere on the table, but ultimately it will have to be or healthcare costs will be the swarm of locust that consumes the entire crop.

Instead we will continue drinking the poison that made us so sick in the first place, clicking the heels of our ruby slippers, wishing for the comforts of home. But the magic will not come. Perhaps we should just go ahead and down the whole bottle of poison now and speed up the coming of the inevitable.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Mark:

The Medicare part was even worse than what you painted. It was a charge based system vs. a cost based. Bascially, the AMA had been fighting Medicare legislation for passage so LBJ bought them off with allowing physicians and hospitals to charge whatever they felt was "usual and standard" and also had no reins on utilization either.

The tax law went for benefits went into effect during WWII. Remember much of the work force was made up of what were in effect single mothers (father overseas fighting). What better benefit to attract a single mother than "free" health care, right? That bit of tax code is a nasty legacy and I've carped about it here for as long as I've been posting here.

Why I keep pushing the concept of a universal coverage that stresses prevention and personal responsibility is that this is how society will receive a public good payback through a basic universal coverage. The problem is that many on the right will fight it due to the nasty word "universal" and many on the left will fight it because I think the best care for a 400lbs non-compliant diabetic that smokes two packs a day is hospice care. Many lefties will think everyone deserves utter and complete interventional care, no matter the clinical picture and life style choices made by the individual. They should be totally able to pay for any care they want, but I think all the public should provide this person is comfort/hospice style care. (Please no one fixate on the example, think big picture).


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Mark:
> 
> The Medicare part was even worse than what you painted. It was a charge based system vs. a cost based. Bascially, the AMA had been fighting Medicare legislation for passage so LBJ bought them off with allowing physicians and hospitals to charge whatever they felt was "usual and standard" and also had no reins on utilization either.
> 
> ...


I guess my problem with universal healthcare is that it is like we've been running in the wrong direction for years getting farther and farther from our goals, so the solution is to simply run faster, but not change directions. Not sure why that makes any sense.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Go salaí na gráinneoga cealgrúnacha do chuid calóga arbhair.


Go gcreime maorlathaí míthrócaireach do chuid calóga arbhair.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Laxplayer and Phinn, English only at the table please.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

JRR said:


> https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3602626&page=1


Great article. And for every one of those, how many are there about people who can't afford health insurance (which is entirely separate from health care)? I'm guessing one or two hundred.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I guess my problem with universal healthcare is that it is like we've been running in the wrong direction for years getting farther and farther from our goals, so the solution is to simply run faster, but not change directions. Not sure why that makes any sense.


After several decades of this behavior, the only rational conclusion is that a result that is "farther and farther from our goals" is, in fact, closer and closer to _their_ goals.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

I think it is funny that the majority of people are so ignorant that they think the government has its own money. As if the government "paying" for something somehow alleviates the burden on the populace when all it really does is make the whole damned process less efficient. 

The real reason healthcare costs are rising is because the government got involved in the first place. Complying with the idiotic red tape associated with the 15 million goverment programs covered under Medicare and Medicaid cost healthcare companies bundles and they pass it on to the consumer.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Mark:

Do not forget, you are talking to a guy that grew up in Canada and has made health care management his career. I am totally with you most other countries have bungled universal coverage. The major reason is that they have made this coverage comprehensive. If you notice, I always want severe limits on what is covered. Also, these other countries have either outlawed private insurance plans or marginalized them. I would propose neither of those choices but rather have a strong, market driven tier of private insurance. Medicare and Medicaid would also be history, as would every other single government based system, including the VA (although vets would have seperate coverage expansions, i.e. service related things covered even if they are not in the larger plan for the general public).

So what leftie backers of universal coverage in the US all seem to think, is that something like major cardiac surgery will be available to all under a US universal system. Well, that is obviously not going to happen, as at the very least, we have a limited number of surgeons and surgery suites for such work. Also, places like the UK have strict clinical criteria that if you do not meet, you just do not get the surgery, i.e. over an age limit, too comprimised, etc. I would have private insurance cover things like the heart surgery (catastrophic policies).

We really good get more people better care, for less money. The major problem is just going to be placing personal responsibility for things like lifestyle, regular check ups, etc. on the individual with real teeth for consequences in making poor choices.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Mark:
> 
> Do not forget, you are talking to a guy that grew up in Canada and has made health care management his career. I am totally with you most other countries have bungled universal coverage. The major reason is that they have made this coverage comprehensive. If you notice, I always want severe limits on what is covered. Also, these other countries have either outlawed private insurance plans or marginalized them. I would propose neither of those choices but rather have a strong, market driven tier of private insurance. Medicare and Medicaid would also be history, as would every other single government based system, including the VA (although vets would have seperate coverage expansions, i.e. service related things covered even if they are not in the larger plan for the general public).
> 
> ...


Fair enough. I haven't seen all of your prior posts on this topic and am not used to seeing "universal" and "limited" in the same proposal. :icon_smile_wink: Certainly worth considering.

But current floated proposals I hear out there (not yours) are to continue to extract an ever increasing share of national resources and aim it at the health care industry and expect that THIS TIME the result will be different and all of our problems will be solved seems to me the text book definition for insanity (doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result). I'd like to see someone's...anyone's plan actually address the underlying issue which is government created cost inflation in healthcare. Price controls haven't worked (because ultimately they can't), centralized rationing hasn't worked (because it's galactically stupid). So why implement a plan that takes price controls, centralized rationing and combines it with more money and expect that you're going to get anything resembling a solution?

Anyway...rant over.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Go gcreime maorlathaí míthrócaireach do chuid calóga arbhair.


Translation: _May a pitiless bureaucrat gnaw at your cornflakes._
They do, and do the same for the rest of the middle class.

_Go salaí na gráinneoga cealgrúnacha do chuid calóga arbhair. _
Translation: May the malevolent hedgehogs soil your cornflakes.

Sláinte


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Translation: _May a pitiless bureaucrat gnaw at your cornflakes._
> They do, and do the same for the rest of the middle class.
> 
> _Go salaí na gráinneoga cealgrúnacha do chuid calóga arbhair. _
> ...


Where in the hell did you two learn to speak Gaelic?


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Phinn said:


> This Democrat proposal is such classic left-wing and/or mafia crap: What's yours is mine, so f*ck you, hand it over.


typical


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Badrabbit said:


> I think it is funny that the majority of people are so ignorant that they think the government has its own money. As if the government "paying" for something somehow alleviates the burden on the populace when all it really does is make the whole damned process less efficient.
> 
> The real reason healthcare costs are rising is because the government got involved in the first place. Complying with the idiotic red tape associated with the 15 million goverment programs covered under Medicare and Medicaid cost healthcare companies bundles and they pass it on to the consumer.


Just what enormous burden does a 61 cent tax on tobacco products place on the taxpayer?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

This guy has been advocating a blended approach for healthcare:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1586482890/

He does a nice job running this weekly zoo:

https://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/lr

You may also be interested in this:



Mark from Plano said:


> Fair enough. I haven't seen all of your prior posts on this topic and am not used to seeing "universal" and "limited" in the same proposal. :icon_smile_wink: Certainly worth considering.
> 
> But current floated proposals I hear out there (not yours) are to continue to extract an ever increasing share of national resources and aim it at the health care industry and expect that THIS TIME the result will be different and all of our problems will be solved seems to me the text book definition for insanity (doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result). I'd like to see someone's...anyone's plan actually address the underlying issue which is government created cost inflation in healthcare. Price controls haven't worked (because ultimately they can't), centralized rationing hasn't worked (because it's galactically stupid). So why implement a plan that takes price controls, centralized rationing and combines it with more money and expect that you're going to get anything resembling a solution?
> 
> Anyway...rant over.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Hopkins_student, This lad journeyed to a hiring fair and was taken on for harvest at a large farm. The Squire's daughter fell in love with the lad and would have no other. So the father made discrete inquiries and learned the young man's home village. He dispatched the matchmaker to make inquiries as to the boy's family and future prospects. The man arrived a few days later by train at a bleak, wind and ocean wave battered stretch of land. He asked directions and located the lad's home, little more than a rough shanty with one wall completely fallen over and the seemingly never properly thatched roftop covered by flotsam recovered from the beach. His parents sat on the ground before a humble peat fire pounding the ashes from small, roasted potatos. The matchmaker looked on, tapping his pipe in palm and muttering sadly, for he had taken a liking to the lad. So a few days later the matchmaker is standing before the Squire. Squire asks him about the boy's people. " Well now Squire, the family has a grand window overlooking the ocean as big as anyone else's entire wall. And the table! Sir, I declare the table is so grand your eyes would trick you into thinking it went as far as the eye could see. And they are so well off the usual thatched roof is not good enough, but is done with exotic woods from across the sea itself. " The couple were soon married and lived happily ever after. Your after needing a bigger table if the base, brutal tongue of the Sassanach is your only guide in this world of woe.


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

why do we need a universal health system.

SO THAT WE HAVE A LARGE SUPPLY OF HEALTHY YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN.
WHY? SO THAT WE CAN SEND THEM TO DIE OR BE MAIMED IN FOREIGN LANDS.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

a tailor said:


> why do we need a universal health system.
> 
> SO THAT WE HAVE A LARGE SUPPLY OF HEALTHY YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN.
> WHY? SO THAT WE CAN SEND THEM TO DIE OR BE MAIMED IN FOREIGN LANDS.


Universal healthcare as part of the VRWC. Now I have seen everything. Is that tin foil hat bespoke?


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> We already have subsidized housing for middle income people. It's called the mortgage interest deduction.


This is well said.



rip said:


> This is such classic right-wing crap: I've got mine, so f**k you if you don't have yours, regardless of why you don't have yours.


This is living proof that not only can a horse's ass talk, but that it requires no brain to do so.



Phinn said:


> This Democrat proposal is such classic left-wing and/or mafia crap: What's yours is mine, so f*ck you, hand it over.


This is well said.

Solution: Outlaw health insurance both public and private and watch health costs drop through the floor.

M8


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Where in the hell did you two learn to speak Gaelic?


 :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Universal health care. This is what Liberals truly want so that they can do things like forced sterilizations, as in this thread... https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=74729

M8


----------



## Desk Jockey (Aug 19, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Universal health care. This is what Liberals truly want so that they can do things like forced sterilizations, as in this thread... https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=74729
> 
> M8


What the deuce? Holy left field and wacky, Batman!

Aside from that, the point here that everyone seems to be missing is that Graeme Frost (who the crap names a kid that?) and his family were already covered under the original program (you know, because Maryland's cool like that). In other words, by cutting the money going to SCHIP, as the President did in the most recent budget, the Frost's healthcare was going to disappear. What's quite likely, post-veto, is that Mr Bush will go to a compromise conference with less money than the original program had. Therein is the reason for the 12 year-old (who was not forced by his parents into being a spokesperson).

This furor did work really well to blunt criticism over the $190b that Sec Gates went up to the Hill to ask for earlier in the week. Kudos to the GOP for that.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> This furor did work really well to blunt criticism over the $190b that Sec Gates went up to the Hill to ask for


Great. $190 billion of mis-allocated money (i.e., the time, effort and skill of everyone involved). $190 billion that will *not* be spent on the things that the owners (i.e., the earners) of that money would have voluntarily bought with it.

You see one set of sympathetic parents who get a subsidy (and the feel-good soft-headed warm fuzzy that you get for pretending that you are oh-so- caring). I see $190 billion worth of voluntary economic activity that will *not* occur because it will be diverted from the places where it would have gone to where the government forces it to go.

Go explain your self-indulgent ego gratification to the millions of other families whose income is reduced because of this (and every other) forcible diversion of money away from their businesses.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Re SCHIP: I thought that the dispute was over the Dems effort to tie re-authorization to expansion. Bushies are OK with re-authorization but not expansion. Is that wrong?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Re SCHIP: I thought that the dispute was over the Dems effort to tie re-authorization to expansion. Bushies are OK with re-authorization but not expansion. Is that wrong?


That was pretty much my read too. In fact, I think more money than current FY was being offered, it was just one of those "cuts" where what has been cut is the Dems desired growth.



DeskJockey said:


> Aside from that, the point here that everyone seems to be missing is that *Graeme Frost (who the crap names a kid that?)*


Man, that is pretty offensive from where I sit and very culturally insensitive. I thought liberals were big on diversity?


----------



## Desk Jockey (Aug 19, 2005)

> Man, that is pretty offensive from where I sit and very culturally insensitive. I thought liberals were big on diversity?


_Mea culpa_, I shouldn't have wrote that. Though I've a distaste for parents choosing special names for their children, it was inappropriate for me to have stated it.



Mike Petrik said:


> Re SCHIP: I thought that the dispute was over the Dems effort to tie re-authorization to expansion. Bushies are OK with re-authorization but not expansion. Is that wrong?





Wayfarer said:


> That was pretty much my read too. In fact, I think more money than current FY was being offered, it was just one of those "cuts" where what has been cut is the Dems desired growth.


Less money was offered in his new budget to the tune of $10B necessary to cover the 7M children already eligible under the existing program.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

https://health.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Zjk4ZjA2NDIxNmEzNGM4YTZmNTBjODY3NmI5OGQ3NjU=


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

JRR said:


> https://health.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Zjk4ZjA2NDIxNmEzNGM4YTZmNTBjODY3NmI5OGQ3NjU=


I think you're a meanie for even posting this. I hope they take away your Captain Obama decoder ring.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Mark from Plano said:


> I think you're a meanie for even posting this. I hope they take away your *Captain Obama decoder ring*.


And remember to drink your _Ovaltine_ kids!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I will admit I am not a big fan of National Review. But JRR, thanks for posting that link. Not only did he present some good and salient facts, he asked some good thought questions too.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> I will admit I am not a big fan of National Review. But JRR, thanks for posting that link. Not only did he present some good and salient facts, he asked some good thought questions too.


I've come to think of these poor kids as political human shields. Somehow if you place one in front of a non-sensical social policy it's supposed to make it inhuman or mean to criticize the policy. The inhuman part is putting them there in the first place. And if they're put there to represent the embodiment of the need for the policy then questioning that fact has to be a legitimate part of the debate. It's unfortunate, but its the direct consequence of the immoral choice made to put them in that position.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Mark from Plano said:


> I think you're a meanie for even posting this. I hope they take away your Captain Obama decoder ring.


LOL...


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Mark from Plano said:


> I've come to think of these poor kids as political human shields. Somehow if you place one in front of a non-sensical social policy it's supposed to make it inhuman or mean to criticize the policy. The inhuman part is putting them there in the first place. And if they're put there to represent the embodiment of the need for the policy then questioning that fact has to be a legitimate part of the debate. It's unfortunate, but its the direct consequence of the immoral choice made to put them in that position.


That's why it's done. This issue is hugely emotional. It's a much eaiser sell to focus on that part of the issue.

Politically, I think the Dems are smart to do this, Reps are in a no win position. They just come out looking like they hate kids.

Dems know they are trying to pull a fast one and expand health coverage while Bush is weak on an issue that the naive public supports.

Just hope my taxes don't go up too much when universal coverage comes into existance.

Cheers


----------



## Xenon (Oct 3, 2007)

JRR, you shouldn't be worried just about the taxes, you should also worry about the quality of health care services you will get when private insurance is outlawed and those premiums you payed are now renamed "increases income tax" or "health tax" etc and diverted to the public system such as is defacto the case in Canada. 

That diverted money sees Mr/Mrs 10% ( ie government bureaucracy ) take its cut ( what ever the actual cut may be). So less for the actual health part.

Wayfarer, you bring many good points on universal coverage for certain items with a limit. The problem with limits is that they are pityless, have no mercy, emotions or any warm fuzzy feel to them, nor do they have any defense against such phrases as "but look at her, she just absolutely has to have this intervention--have a heart, make an exception this time, won't you!" when someone in Parliment gets the idea that " the limit" should be raised to include many more items. Limits don't stand a chance--Pandora's Box. 

We must all accept that government does not have miracle solutions and cannot create something out of nothing, however it is quite capable of creating nothing out of something (your money). If government intervention was a solution, former com-bloc countries, africa, etc would be bloody paradises.

It is an inevitable fact that throwing money into any system without any possibility that that money can later be removed will produce inflation!!! 

Universal coverage = Government Growth= Cancer.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Xenon said:


> JRR, you shouldn't be worried just about the taxes, you should also worry about the quality of health care services you will get when private insurance is outlawed and those premiums you payed are now renamed "increases income tax" or "health tax" etc and diverted to the public system such as is defacto the case in Canada.
> 
> That diverted money sees Mr/Mrs 10% ( ie government bureaucracy ) take its cut ( what ever the actual cut may be). So less for the actual health part.
> 
> ...


Xenon,

That's the funny thing, the American people think that health care standards will improve with govt intervention. There is a real disconnect from reality here.

Luckily for me, I have good genes, and I don't abuse my body with tobacco, drugs, alcohol so I should have a good run no matter what.

Cheers


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

They have to have somebody to tax people. In my search I can spot those just laid off from the auto industry ( Out of State license plates and LIVE BETTER-WORK UNION bumperstickers) Mortgage Industry ( preppy polo shirts and chinos with wrist braces from Carpel tunnel syndrome and fatiqued eyes) and retail ( multiple credit cards from KMART, WALMART, HOME DEPOT, SEARS.) Since latinos take yobs us lazy americanos won't; building trades, the once unionised meat processing industry, fast food, hotel workers, picking peaches ( Steinbeck, remember?) It looks like the only jobs left are in private security where we can watch each other and the legal profession so we can sue each other for invasion of privacy.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

Yes - healthcare needs to be reformed - but its focus - not how we pay for it. Healthcare in the US is overwhelmingly focused on getting sick people healthy, and not keeping healthy people healthy, which is much cheaper and easier. Want proof? The FDA will not pass any drug unless it is specifically targeted at treating some disease or condition. If it is a drug targeted at just maintaining health - they will not pass it. In the early 90s, the FDA tried to go as far as trying to make vitamins and herbs by prescription only, and it would have happened if so many people weren't against the idea.

I do think the FDA and the pharmacutical companies lie at the center of whats wrong, and this may sound strange coming from me, but it is all about money. I see many parallels between the energy industry and the medical industry. There is little incentive for radical innovation in either field. Look at the last 100 years. During the first 50 or so, disease after disease was cured - tuberculosis, measles, polio, etc, etc. That said, how many have we cured in the latter 50? After polio, I cannot think of one. Why? My honest belief is that THE IS NO MONEY IN CURES, BUT THERE IS HUGE MONEY IN "TREATMENTS." Think about our medical system today - how many ailments now are treated by "take two pills a day....forever." That makes one hell of a cash flow stream, for both the Drs and big pharm. Technology has increased far faster in the last fifty years than it has at any other time in human history, so I cannot find any other explanation for this other than money. 

Unfortunately, I do not have a free market answer for this, since the economic forces of the oligopoly are to keep the system just at it is. If we need our government here, it is to provide incentives for companies and Drs to cure people and keep them healthy, not to steal more money from productive people to feed a very broken system.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Dems do not have the juice...*

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB119272276370263572.html?mod=djemalert

NewYork raises a good issue, treatment is an ongoing revenue stream. I look on some conditions as "half way cures" though. Look back to polio. I was not around for the Iron Lung, but that was a 1/2 way cure. It offered poor quality of life, did not cure, kept the person alive, and was very expensive. I think we have several diseases at the Iron Lung stage right now, and tha is part of the drain on the system.

Totally agree that emphasis should be on primary care and prevention, not tertiary care and intervention. As I have said many times before though, as long as we have "ER" and a host of other shows portraying tertiary care is the important and "sexy" side of medicine, we will not get a change in paradigm. We need George Clooney to star in a show about a GP or geriatrician.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

*Another interesting article*

https://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzI5MjU1NGRhNzhiOTE4YTlhMWMxYTlhYjUzNTFiMTE=&w=MA==


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Dubya was right...*

Remember his statements that the Dems/libs wanted to use SCHIP to expand federally paid for healthcare and use it as a wedge for socialized or single payer? Well, Hillary's own words:



> In light of the failure of the House to override President Bush's veto of S-CHIP, Clinton said, "I'm absolutely committed to comprehensive health-care reform and extending SCHIP as far as we can." She envisions moving S-CHIP up the income ladder.


https://blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/10/18/clinton-hashes-out-health-plan/

I'll be damed, Dubya was right!


----------



## Xenon (Oct 3, 2007)

*primary care*

Agree about primary care. We must promote a healthy living approach for society as a whole. Food, lifestyle, non-smoking, exercise etc need to be clearly addressed first. Let's start with school cafeterias and definetly make smoking illegal everywhere-period.

NewYorkbuck, part of me believes what you propose, and it certainly would make sense as a corporate conspiracy, however at the same time we must understand that the first 50 years of discovery were relatively easier discoveries and treatment was sometimes done in methods that today many would no longer approve.

An example: my mother remembers bieng sprayed with DDT as a massive effort to eradicate a particular vector of Small Pox-- it worked and until now small pox was competely wiped out accross the world.

DDT is now taboo, even though it would still be the most effective tool in the fight against malaria in tropical developing countries. I know that i would rather die of DDT induced prostate cancer 30 years from now rather than malaria next week. If malaria was an issue in North America we would no longer get that choice.

Another example are bacteria that were once completely at the mercy of antiabiotics--no longer. The bacteria and virus are re-arming. Just look at hospitals in Quebec- death due to bacterial infection is starting to be a serius issue!

Also living healthy also means living older which in itself may create more cases of age related illnesses--alzhiemer ,etc. As well people now expect to be successfully treated for conditions that not long ago were almost always fatal and untreatable.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

*This article sets the political stage well*


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

A month or so back ... during the middle of the night ... a situation arose requiring a visit to a hospital emergency room. Upon registering I received a rather surprised ... "Oh my, you actually have insurance, the last five didn't." 

After my doctor attended to the issue having caused my visit ... I mentioned the above comment. He indicated that the majority of this particular ER's visitors do not have insurance ... and the majority of those never pay. He indicated that there are many who now use the emergency room (one of the more expensive options when seeking medical care) as their one and only approach to health care. They can't go to a doctor ... so they go to a hospital ER ... and more often that not ... an ER level of care is not required. 

It's no wonder that medical care is expensive ... those of use who have insurance and/or the ability to pay ... are already being charged for more than our share. Perhaps it's time for a national health plan ... so that those who need care ... can get the appropriate kind of care from the appropriate (and more economical) source.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> A month or so back ... during the middle of the night ... a situation arose requiring a visit to a hospital emergency room. Upon registering I received a rather surprised ... "Oh my, you actually have insurance, the last five didn't."
> 
> After my doctor attended to the issue having caused my visit ... I mentioned the above comment. He indicated that the majority of this particular ER's visitors do not have insurance ... and the majority of those never pay. He indicated that there are many who now use the emergency room (one of the more expensive options when seeking medical care) as their one and only approach to health care. They can't go to a doctor ... so they go to a hospital ER ... and more often that not ... an ER level of care is not required.
> 
> It's no wonder that medical care is expensive ... those of use who have insurance and/or the ability to pay ... are already being charged for more than our share. Perhaps it's time for a national health plan ... so that those who need care ... can get the appropriate kind of care from the appropriate (and more economical) source.


Do you want to know something? Being born and raised in Canada, having worked in the Canadian health care system, I can tell you that the ERs there are abused in a similar fashion, *even though they all have coverage to see a PCP or seek a lower level of care*. A modicum of this behaviour might be insurance driven but the vast majority is just *a reflection of poor decision making on a lifetime basis.* If a person runs their personal finances and their career in a poorly thought out fashion, what makes you think they will suddenly make astute decisions with tax money?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> those of use who have insurance and/or the ability to pay are already being charged for more than our share. Perhaps it's time for a national health plan


How does the fact that you are subsidizing people lead you conclude that a "national health plan" will solve that problem? It will expand and increase the subsidy problem you have identified.

If the problem is that users of the services aren't paying for their own share, why not set it up so that everyone pays for his own services?

You know, kind of like how everyone pays for his own groceries. And cars. And shoes. And ...


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Phinn said:


> If the problem is that users of the services aren't paying for their own share, why not set it up so that everyone pays for his own services?


First ... I'll say the world is full of people who probably shouldn't be here. But now, let me take a step back inside humanity ... after all, they _are _here.

I suppose people could been refused care ... but then there is the problem of the Hippocratic oath. I imagine there are some (many?) who would suggest that this oath be jettisoned. But money isn't the bottom line of everything ... certainly not of life ... unless life is nothing but greed.

I'm currently suffering a medical issue first diagnosed toward the end of 2006. My medical bills are running on average more than $30,000.00 per month ... a tad high for the average American without insurance. I'm told that my prognosis is good ... so this will not continue indefinitely. I could pay the bill in full if I had to do so ... but I'm quite thankful that I have a good health plan.

In the emergency room the night of my visit ... I doubt 25% of the patients could afford to pay (via their pocket or with the help of insurance) their own share of even that brief visit. And few hospitals are going to spend the funds necessary attempting to collect such debts... as it would be a loosing battle.

Also, I am aware that my position of relative comfort comes at the expense of others. No ... not directly one on one at the expense of others ... but very much so indirectly. So yes, I do believe that it is my duty to help others who are not as fortunate ... to assist with their basic needs ... and my tax money can do that. In addition, each year my charitable donations exceed the maximum allowable deduction under the rules of the IRS ... so I'm doing my personal bit as well.

As for what help the government should and shouldn't give ... I do differentiate between needs (basic health care, food, shelter, and clothing) and wants (cars, consumer electronics, gourmet meals, fashion, and just about everything else sold in the typical mall).

And no, I'm not one who believes that the government has the answer to every problem. And yes, the government has a history of being absurdly wasteful and ineffective ... but perhaps that is what should be reformed ... and perhaps the private sector can be brought into play. 
I wish that all could be handled in the private sector ... but it can't ... and it wont' be.

Frankly, I prefer to keep my private care (with the assistance of personally paid insurance). But for some ... the government is the only answer ... unless we are willing to allow them to suffer whatever fate befalls them.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I suppose people could been refused care ... but then there is the problem of the Hippocratic oath. I imagine there are some (many?) who would suggest that this oath be jettisoned. But money isn't the bottom line of everything ... certainly not of life ... unless life is nothing but greed.


Have you considered the fact that the medical industry has, , thus artificially restricting supply of their services, thus artificially raising prices?

Is _that_ part of their oath?



> My medical bills are running on average more than $30,000.00 per month ... a tad high for the average American without insurance.


Have you considered the fact that the prices for medical care are so high in the first place _because of_ the government-sponsored medical insurance industry?



> And yes, the government has a history of being absurdly wasteful and ineffective ... but perhaps that is what should be reformed ... and perhaps the private sector can be brought into play. I wish that all could be handled in the private sector ... but it can't ... and it wont' be.


The government can only increase waste and inefficiency, as a result of its inability to engage in economic calculation. Waste and inefficiency are an inevitable, automatic consequence of the government's isolation from the price system.



> But for some ... the government is the only answer ... unless we are willing to allow them to suffer whatever fate befalls them.


That's welfare.

The current system is actually worse than welfare. In other words, a straightforward, need-tested welfare system would be less wasteful than the current one.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Phinn said:


> The current system is actually worse than welfare. In other words, a straightforward, need-tested welfare system would be less wasteful than the current one.


I am in complete agreement here.

The only time I truly disagree with you Phinn is in your substitution of the word fact for opinion ... even when the opinion has some degree of merit.

And yes, I'm famirilar with mises.org.


----------

