Uh-oh....

[SportsNut]

Isn't there a HUGE difference between cancer treatment for a middle-aged person, and some sort of uber-expensive high tech treatment for someone eight-seven years old who doesn't have much of a prognosis and won't be around at the start of the football season?

My point is this: if we had unlimited funds available, it would be one thing...but we don't. It ain't 1965, and the good ole USA doesn't have the economic might that it once did.

If we don't confront some of these issues, like Congress we will be forced into a reactionary posture, there won't be any choice, the point will be moot, and your worst fears about the rationing of care will come true.

Act, or react? I'd rather act.

PS-In addition to a son, I also have two daughters.

Moon: Unfortunately I don't think what is currently going on today... about the reform of healthcare is working in the same direction of confronting issues like Congress. In fact it is quite the opposite, really. Once the Gov't, ala Congress has control over healthcare and its dollars, then their power runs unchecked and out of control even worse. What concerns me is when our Gov't is involved in every decision of our lives, and we have approached this ever so subtly to the point where are choices will be exactly what Washington says they are, and that is it.

Once they decide Grandma won't be around until football season, (and that is a shame because she was such a fan too), it is only a matter of time until they move the marker (adjusted by just how much money IS available to treat whoever and whatever). When the system then decides that you or I are outside the limits of what is affordable, then we become expendible. I would much rather take my chances with a free enterprise system as opposed to a bureaucrat making such crucial decisions. The more of that we have the less freedom we have, and we have moved in a direction over the past decade that quite frankly is uncomfortable to me. decisions is simply part of the debate, but it will serve as an example of WHY we do not want some lame group of Congressmen appropriating our lifestyle and life... Just my opinion.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

There's a LOT of irony in the system Al wants us to have since the UK and Canadian system all but shelve the elderly.

So a 72 year old lady needs hip replacement in Canada. Sorry, but we're into rationing. That 72 year old is no longer contributing to society - she's a blight on the system so her surgery is...oh......a year away.

Why? We need to get that 32 year old patient in ahead of her who's currently contributing.

Remember, there's no profit, it's "free" which means too much demand and not enough supply.

It's the old ethical dilemma of who gets the heart transplant, the 14 year old girl or the 65 year old guy? There's one heart, you decide.

Well, national health care is that dilemma every hour of every day of every week for every procedure.

My son need ear tubes put in but sorry...that's a 10 week wait since other kids need more important procedures.

Gov't run health care does not work. It doesn't work in Canada, Cuba, the UK or any other country that has it in place.

If you think it'll work here let's discuss the Medicaid system.

 

[moonlightandmargaritas]

A couple of interesting stats I stumbled upon...

In their most recent quarter, United Healthcare paid out nearly 84% of collected premium in claims.

5% of Medicare beneficiaries account for 43% of the cost.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I would much rather take my chances with a free enterprise system as opposed to a bureaucrat making such crucial decisions. The more of that we have the less freedom we have, and we have moved in a direction over the past decade that quite frankly is uncomfortable to me. decisions is simply part of the debate, but it will serve as an example of WHY we do not want some lame group of Congressmen appropriating our lifestyle and life... Just my opinion.

I don't disagree a bit Nut.

Somehow, someway, we've got to get a handle on the costs. If we don't - the point will end up moot.

 

[Corporate Death]

Very well said and a waste of time. Al will just come back and call you an "Uncle Tom."

Rick

Good point.

 

[sunmed]

Good job Corporate Death

 

[Paradigm]

What bothers me most about this post is something Al said that since he is wealthy he will be able to afford to buy his own healthcare in a two tiered system.

That is the crux of liberal elite hypocrisy and a great example of their false do gooder mindset.

 

[Guest]

Hey, I got a better idea. How about medicare for those who cannot get issued a regular policy or who are just not making enough money to pay for one (assuming they have sold their SUV's, monster trucks, and all of their toys and they have real priorities setup)? The rest of us can continue to pay for our own insurance.

I could agree on that. That would (or could) work.

Why are liberals always so damn angry?

Because with you neo-cons everything is "policy" and politics. Being ideologically pure is more important than forming a better society. It is why you neo-cons are the "people of no."

I found it interesting that you felt necessary to mention your race. What was even more interesting is that you are a neo-con AND of that race. I sure don't meet many of them (I actually DO know one who lives near me.)

We are angry because for every piece of social legislation that we've worked to pass, we (moderate-liberals) have had to beat the political crap out of guys like you to get it done. Indeed, we've learned from you... from the crackers (you're too young to know what that term means) in the South, from the Billy Sunday's, the Thurmonds, the Byrds, the Wallaces, the Nixons, the Dukes, etc. that to convince 'good people' to get get up off their butts and do the right thing, we have to vilify our enemies. If anything, we've learned this from you folks. It is unfortunate, but it works. (Of course it didn't hurt seeing you folks and your dogs on TV bite the marchers in Selma or spit on little girls walking to school. You made it easier for us.)

You are a conservative, yet I bet you don't know the first thing about your own history. You vilify the government as the root of all evil, yet it was the government, prodded by people in the streets (like me, not your pals here), that sent the troops to Mississippi, that created educational, public accommodation, and voting rights for our minority citizens... because BOTH the "good-people" wouldn't do it on their own and the white power-structure was flat-out opposed to it.

Where do you think the rights and freedoms that YOU have today came from? Do you honestly believe that your neo-con friends (on this list and elsewhere) approve of them? You don't think that your friends believe in their heart of hearts that it is perfectly fine for a bus company to decide that blacks sit in the back... or that they can't use the same restrooms as whites? And do you really believe that the conservatives on this board are happy that you have been GIVEN the rights that they say you should have WORKED for?

Having been on this board for over two years and having read their political screeds, I have no doubt that the majority of the folks you are standing shoulder to shoulder with would happily roll back the clock to Alabama of 1958 (and you have no idea what that was like, but Rick and I do... for sure.)

Show me how unbridled capitalism has made any society better in the long run. Tell me how much you want to go back to a totally laissez-faire economic and political system and how that would be good for all of us?

I don't see you (or anyone) wanting to repeal Medicare or Part D or Social Security or Food Stamps, or Medicaid or any of the other safety nets we (liberals) have established over the vigorous objections and obstructions of you and your brethren.

We moderates and liberals look at things and don't ask "why" we ask "why not." You folks have the answer: "Because it is socialism and God (ie. the Christian god) is against it."

Why do you hate the concept of socialism? Because basically you don't like the people. It's the money and power you really love.

Why does a conservative sell Medicare supplements or MA if he is opposed to socialized medicine? Why does a conservative send his child to public school if he is true capitalist? Why does a neo-con accept an agricultural subsidy? It's the money.

I think conservatives have a story to tell, but have you noticed that fewer and fewer people are listening? Why? Because under all of your nice platitudes of "opportunity" and "boot-strap pulling" and "individual responsibility" you don't really practice or believe it.

Moderates and liberals are angry because we don't want to see hungry, sick children. But you do. We moderates and liberals don't want to see people go homeless. But you do. We moderates and liberals don't want to see older people lose their homes if they get sick. But you do. And we moderates and liberals believe that healthcare, like education, is a right... but you and your friends (here) see it as a privilege... only to be granted to those who are ideologically pure.

Moderates and liberals are angry because we get tired of fighting for social legislation against the same tired social-Darwinist arguments. Fortunately for us, our tide is turning and our side is coming into a cycle where people seem more open to change. We know the window won't last long so we need to take advantage of it as we did in the early 1960s.

I was hoping that by this time in my life, and all the struggles I've seen by people like me (not you) to make this a better society that it would get easier... but it hasn't. Your desire for power and your drive for monetary self-aggrandizement have not been ameliorated by the social improvements that have occurred in the past forty five years.

You people are fighting for a way of life and a set of so-called principles that simply does not work well in a multi-cultural, post-industrial state.

I guess we are angry because we see, work for and look forward to a better future. You look only to the past and extol the virtues of a time and a system that was only better for you and those who were white and wealthy.

We've had neo-cons in power the past 16 years (either the Congress or White House or both have been Rep.) I think that people are tired of looking over their shoulders at the rural past and hearing you folks say "If we only go back to 'Alabama of 1958' we will have a better society." I believe that the election of a liberal president and a liberal majority in the Congress is a sign that your white, rich, reactionary thinking is now (hopefully forever) out of vogue and that people like me can (again) have some input into the political process and we will see programs and legislation, like we saw in the 60s, that will help make this country better FOR ALL.

You are welcome to join... but you won't because you will have to give up some of your money, some of your power, and maybe some of your choice. You folks really didn't like sharing ballot boxes, urinals, or classrooms with minorities and the "bad, mean, commie" liberals made you do it. We know that. And we know we will again have to MAKE you see that a society that gives everyone the opportunity to have healthcare will be as beneficial to society as integrating the schools, the lunch counters, and the voting booths.

Yes, you will oppose it, but we beat you last time and we will beat you again.

Bring it on.

Al
Preserve your memories

 

[dgoldenz]

All I read from these posts is blah, blah, blah, blah. Cliff notes it a bit....

 

[Winter_123]

We've heard all the gloom and doom about civilization as we know it ending if we had Medicare (back in 1963.) The world did not end and our citizenry is better for it.

ANC

I am glad that we got that Medicare funding all figured out and under control before we started moving on to providing health insurance for the rest of the population. We can agree that over time the funding of Obamacare will look like the projected funding of Medicare - a frigging bus going off a cliff.

Oh, that's right. Liberals focus on services. Someone else needs to be concerned about how we are going to pay for it.

 

[djs]

Al

You are the only one here arguing people shouldn't have the right to healthcare. The rest of us are far beyond that, talking about how it gets paid for.

Nobody here objects to people having health insurance or healthcare. In fact, I think everyone here encourages it.

If you would open your eyes for a minute, you would see this. We just want a healthy discussion about how it gets paid for and what, if any, is societies role vs individual responsibility.

You are welcome to join a healthy debate.

Dan