Rug Burn Junky on 19/8/2009 at 22:32
I don't think that you really ought to be so self satisfied about it "speaking for itself." Nobody else is bothering to take your post seriously either.
I'm pretty sure I'm not in the minority here in thinking that you're an ignorant douche.
DDL on 19/8/2009 at 23:09
I'm intrigued as to how any of this would lower healthCARE costs, though.
I mean, surely healthcare costs are...like, a given. It's like expecting "the right to free tyre repair" to magically make tyres, as a commodity, cheaper. Drug X costs Y. Doctor X costs Y dollars per unit time, to work. These are not factors that universal healthcare really tries to even address, it merely seeks to make sure that EVERYONE is able to get drug X and see doctor X.
The bill remains the same, who pays it varies. Instead of it being an insurance company who will do everything to screw you out of those meagre dollars ANYWAY (because it's in their best interests), it becomes the government, via your taxes, and who DON'T have a vested interest in screwing you over.
Right?
jay pettitt on 20/8/2009 at 00:03
One of the neat things about the US is there's quite a lot of variety between states. Some have publicly owned infrastructure, some have privately owned infrastructure. Publicly owned services in the US are, on average 10% more efficient than their privately owned counterparts.
Quote:
Am I the only one who finds it amusing how often the word "nazi" is being thrown around?
Yes. I think it's tear-jerkingly sad that so many people in the US think they're being really clever by noting that the Third Reich grew out of the National Socialist German Workers Party (a party that adopted both far right and far left ideologies), and then go on to conclude that therefore all social policy must = Nazi and evil. It's depressingly pathetic on every level.
Brad Schoonmaker on 20/8/2009 at 00:15
@DDL
I'd like to hear a synopsis on this, too. Politicians don't hold much credence with me at the best of times.
@RBJ
Next to you, I'd say I'm very ignorant on this issue, but most people are so divergent on this matter, that both yours and CCToad's points can sound right. To me, it's really about trusting that those in charge know what the hell they're talking about, because there's just so much to take in. I don't see either side actually deserving that trust without full disclosure on how this bill will accomplish stated goals; what effects it has on the country's health care industry; and why the fuck it's taken so long to bring this thing to a head. Some if not all of this is no doubt debated/disclosed somewhere, but not everyone is getting it. I think it's likely by choice some don't wish to know the true facts since this shit is so disgusting to digest even in small bites. This deliberate state of ignorance contributes to the fear machine that's being used to fight the process.
I for one have always had trouble following explanations of topical issues like this, because the 'truth' is usually tempered by compromises for general acceptance as in politics.
Quote Posted by CCCToad
In other words, he is advocating that your potential value to society is what should prioritize health care: when there are shortages of services(and there are now), care is to be given in order of whatever value to society you have. Granted, the bill doesn't say how the government insurance panels will prioritize care. However, this philosophy is held by those who will be setting up the panels.
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=8611247) This is our future, then?
CCCToad on 20/8/2009 at 01:39
cheers, brad.
There is simply a huge amount of misinformation about this, which is party of why I don't think this bill is productive. IMHO, we'd be better off scrapping it and starting fresh with a simpler bill.
Quote:
Yes. I think it's tear-jerkingly sad that so many people in the US think they're being really clever by noting that the Third Reich grew out of the National Socialist German Workers Party (a party that adopted both far right and far left ideologies), and then go on to conclude that therefore all social policy must = Nazi and evil. It's depressingly pathetic on every level.
Partially what I'm getting at, but not entirely correct. It stems from two very illogical trains of thought, as it seems to me. Not all collectivist-minded legislation is the same as socialism. I'm not quite certain where the idea of calling those on the right nazis comes from, but my guess is associated with the hyper-nationalism displayed by farthest right. It would be far more accurate to slanderize the right (as slanders go) by calling them cromwellian, or saying they are like a middle-eastern theocracy (due to the fact that they want government to enforce their own moral beliefs).
also, fixed for a more likely explanation of their rage:
Quote:
As they've gotten older, they've watched gang crime escalate (fault of The Blacks), education go down the shitter (fault of desegregation), wages stall (fault of illegals) and jobs ship overseas (fault of foreigners). They've reached these conclusions because what used to happen somewhere else (integration, diversity) is happening in their own neighborhood as all these minorities get too big for their britches and actually think they deserve to pursue happiness. There's only so much to go around you know, and they're taking some of mine with their gangster rap and cheap restaurants. If they want to enjoy America, they need to earn it. You know, like we did with the Indians way back.
Quote:
As they've gotten older, they've watched gang crime escalate (
due to decline of traditional moral values), education go down the shitter (
fault of government "feel good" educational directives, such as no child left behind ), wages stall (
fault of the government and the federal reserves economic mismanagement and corruption) and jobs ship overseas (
fault of the government's free trade policies, allowing corporations to ship manufacturing jobs overseas.).
You are correct in that they are seeing the country go down the shitter, and thats whats causing their rage.
However, I doubt that (in the majority of cases, nutcases always exist) it is racial anger and white supremicism masking itself as anger towards the government. It IS anger towards the government.
Even in what is stereotypically one of the most "racist" states, Chambliss nearly lost the senate race as a result of supporting the Bush Bailout.
Quote:
Mr. Martin's surge in the polls coincided with Mr. Chambliss' support earlier this month of the Bush administration's $700 billion Wall Street bailout package.
"That's when things started to fall apart for him," said University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock.
The Rothenberg Political Report, which in late September placed Mr. Chambliss in its "currently safe" category, now has handicapped the race as "narrow advantage for incumbent party."
(
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/21/wall-street-bailout-puts-chambliss-on-the-block/)
Swiss Mercenary on 20/8/2009 at 01:45
Quote Posted by DDL
I'm intrigued as to how any of this would lower healthCARE costs, though.
It may not immediately lower them, but let me give you a brief explanation for why healthCARE is so expensive in the US.
Say you have a set of privately owned hospitals. Say you've got someone with... Full medical insurance. If one hospital is typically operating at say... 90% of capacity, and the other one operates at 60% of capacity, which one would you go to? Probably the one that it's easier to schedule an appointment with. Hospital B. As such, Hospital A, in order to keep customers, is pressured to increase its capacity to the point that that extra 40% sits idle, most of the time. Operational fees increase. Treatment ends up costing more. They bill your insurance company more. Your insurance company bills you more. There is no such thing as a free market, because
you can't negotiatiate with the hospital, and the insurance company isn't particularly pressured to negotiate either, because it has, for the most part, a captive customer base. And if you jump ship to another insurer... The hospital won't change their billing rates.
Or, say, Hospital B employs every single kind of specialist, even if they have nothing to do for half the day. Hospital A feels the need to one-up them - otherwise, they'd lose customers. As a result, operational fees increase... Cost of healthcare goes up.
In a nutshell, you've got the tragedy of the commons, and no amount of Adam Smith will help you, since American healthcare is not a fair, free market - as an individual you have no bargaining power, while drug companies, hospitals, and your insurer have no particular interest in representing anything but their own bottom lines.
Now, when you have a system where hospitals cooperate, rather then compete, or are encouraged to do so, based on a government-set payment for services provided, then not every hospital in a city
needs every kind of specialist. Not every hospital
needs every new fancy medical gadget. You only need as many of them in the city as there is demand for them. As such, instead of 10 hospitals having 10 specialists in a field, who only have enough work to keep them busy half the time, you get 10 hospitals with 5 specialists, who have enough work to keep them busy full time.
Sadly, I don't think the current bill will do much to discourage the kind of behaviour I outlined.
fett on 20/8/2009 at 02:21
Quote Posted by CCCToad
I think thats something reflected in both of our posts, as both of us have "proven" each other wrong, and correctly, on multiple points.
No.
fett on 20/8/2009 at 03:31
Quote Posted by CCCToad
@ Swiss:
I'm not even sure why it needs to be addressed in a bill at all. Isn't this something we could try to fix with the ad council? I think having a living will is something where we can all agree that if you are too stupid to make one, then you deserve whatever happens to you as a result of that.
This statement alone shows your astonishing lack of understanding about what is happening to the health care industry as it is forced to take on more and more elderly patients. If fact, it's such a serious problem that muddy end-of-life care orders have been responsible for huge layoffs and hospital closings in the area where I live. The expense is staggering and yes, it needs to be addressed in a bill.
The ad council. Seriously? :idea:
CCCToad on 20/8/2009 at 03:57
Quote:
I think having a living will is something where we can all agree that if you are too stupid to make one, then you deserve whatever happens to you as a result of that.
What you're saying is what I'm getting at.
I'm suggesting that if you don't make a good living will, you run the risk of getting the plug pulled against your actual (though now unknown) will.
And to the OP:
It isn't just american conservatism thats insane, its America thats insane:
Inline Image:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/389683829_4294ab4f02.jpg?v=0Inline Image:
http://www.hermes-press.com/obama_hitler1.gifIf you want an explanation, I highly recommend Christopher Lasch's "Culture of narcissism". It was written in 1979, but is remarkably applicable to what we see today. And for those of you who are unfamiliar with Christopher Lasch and believe that conservative is simultaneous with batshit insane: Lasch was very far from a "contemporary' american conservative.
