Double Exposure, Inc.
  • December 01, 2020, 05:52:47 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Health Care Bill  (Read 2938 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Health Care Bill
« on: July 31, 2009, 09:22:34 AM »

This is unbelievable, but it is being pushed through behind our on the taxbayers backs.  Listen to these interviews and learn what's what is planned for the older generations, including baby boomers!   However, they will provide counseling every 5 years so years so that you can accept your fate or commit suicide!  They'll They will even tell you how to do it!
Click on the link below:
 
Fred Thompson: Interviews
http://fredthompsonshow.com/premiumstream?dispid=320&headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD03MzUxJnBsYXlsaXN0PXRydWUmY2hhcnR0eXBlPWNoYXJ0JmNoYXJ0SUQ9MzIwJnBsYXlsaXN0U2l6ZT01
 
 
There are other interesting interviews on this page by Fred Thompson. Be sure you listen to the McCaughey one!!  
  
Logged

Mark

  • Freshest Sushi is Boat to Throat
  • Senior Staff
  • Super Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 677
  • YOLO = Carpe Diem for stupid people
Re: Health Care Bill
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2009, 09:00:39 PM »

A quote I saw somewhere:

"If you think health care is expensive now just wait until it's free!"
Logged
Pillage, then burn.

Everything is air-droppable at least once.

A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

That which does not kill you has made a tactical error.

There is no "overkill".  There is only "Open Fire" and "Time to Reload!"

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Health Care Bill
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2009, 08:31:49 AM »

Well, if this goes through, bend over and grab your ankles.
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Health Care Bill
« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2009, 12:23:51 PM »

Well, if this goes through, bend over and grab your ankles.

1) Right. Because changes to the health care system are EXACTLY like rape. Brilliant analogy.

2) Betsy McCaughey is a conspiracy theorist and a liar. A quick review of the bill will show that there is no such language. It is HR 3200, current session of the 111th Congress. Thomas.loc.gov, or the GPO has their pdf up. I think this is a permanent link http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf

Birthers weren't enough, so now we have to deal with deathers too? WTF!

You know, I don't even LIKE this bill, because it accomplishes very little and is quite expensive, and it makes me SO mad that I'm forced into a position of defending a bill I hate, because the alternative is to sit by and let lies and nonsense prevail. SO irksome.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Health Care Bill
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2009, 08:13:45 AM »

The problem is that there are several bills moving through the house at the moment. They are feeling it out so they can decide which one has a snowballs chance. When someone objects to something in one bill, they pull out another one without that in it and say, "Where is it? We don't see it." It is like a giant shell game that is going to cost trillions while only making things far worse. Pres. Obama when running for office when he thought he was not on camera admitted that he wanted a single payer system like in Europe and Canada, but did not think he could get it through so they would bring it in incrimentally. The next thing you know we are stuck with no choices and a declining system where there is no incentives for doctors to excell.
 If they truely want to fix healthcare they need to start by reforming the legal system, give incentives to the insurance companies to have group plans at lower cost, and offer more incentives to small buisinesses to get into multi-company policies that will make it affordable to provide insurance for their workers. As far as illegals go, if someone shows up and is not legal, treat them, then send them home.
 This stuff is not all that complicated. When the government gets more involved in the process it gets more complicated and less efficient. Sometimes the simple fixes are far superior. You will pay higher taxes and get worse service, how is this a fix.
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Health Care Bill
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2009, 04:02:40 PM »

The problem is that there are several bills moving through the house at the moment. They are feeling it out so they can decide which one has a snowballs chance. When someone objects to something in one bill, they pull out another one without that in it and say, "Where is it? We don't see it."

This is such a bullshit dodge. Nowhere, in any section of any bill currently before either house of Congress, is there any language that remotely equates to mandatory suicide counseling. It is an utter fabrication. Address that, don't dodge it.

Pres. Obama when running for office when he thought he was not on camera admitted that he wanted a single payer system like in Europe and Canada, but did not think he could get it through so they would bring it in incrimentally.

My recollection is that this statement was made openly, not 'by accident', and was widely reported, including on his own website? Except for the random insertion of conspiracy bit - there's no 'next step'. The current proposals do not lead to anything remotely resembling a single-payer system within the possible political lifetime of the president - he can't incrementally develop this mess in to singlepayer in 8 years, much less 4. More's the pity.

The next thing you know we are stuck with no choices and a declining system where there is no incentives for doctors to excell.

Yes, because I have such a bounty of choices available to me now...

f they truely want to fix healthcare they need to start by reforming the legal system, give incentives to the insurance companies to have group plans at lower cost, and offer more incentives to small buisinesses to get into multi-company policies that will make it affordable to provide insurance for their workers.

So, essentially, by tying the hands of judges and condeming victims of medical malpractice to only AMA approved remedy, and providing massive subsidies to the for-profit malpractice and health insurance industries, we will magically get better care at lower cost?

I don't follow your thinking here at all.

As far as illegals go, if someone shows up and is not legal, treat them, then send them home.

Yes, because forcing immigration and health care changes into the same build is guaranteed to generate forward momentum!
 
This stuff is not all that complicated. When the government gets more involved in the process it gets more complicated and less efficient. Sometimes the simple fixes are far superior. You will pay higher taxes and get worse service, how is this a fix.

I'm sorry, what is the "simple fix" here, other than saying "fuck off - you get what you can afford, or what you can beg for, and that's it", which is definitely simpler, but not really particularly good.

Again, anarchists such as yourself scare me quite a bit with your over-the-top anti-government sentiments.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Health Care Bill
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2009, 08:21:45 AM »

This is such a bullshit dodge. Nowhere, in any section of any bill currently before either house of Congress, is there any language that remotely equates to mandatory suicide counseling. It is an utter fabrication. Address that, don't dodge it.
This blog references the bill and section. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2295165/posts
My recollection is that this statement was made openly, not 'by accident', and was widely reported, including on his own website? Except for the random insertion of conspiracy bit - there's no 'next step'. The current proposals do not lead to anything remotely resembling a single-payer system within the possible political lifetime of the president - he can't incrementally develop this mess in to singlepayer in 8 years, much less 4.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=52208
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
So, essentially, by tying the hands of judges and condeming victims of medical malpractice to only AMA approved remedy, and providing massive subsidies to the for-profit malpractice and health insurance industries, we will magically get better care at lower cost?
Thats not what I am saying at all. Right now there are so many bullshit lawsuits out there it is pathetic. The liberal lawyers know they can tie stuff down in litigation for years causing things to become too expensive for people to do things, see Sarah Palin for instance. They can make a great living bringing forward massive lawsuits are essentially unfounded. The insurance companies settle because the cost of fighting it is just too expensive. If they had a loser pays system it would lower this considerably.
Yes, because forcing immigration and health care changes into the same build is guaranteed to generate forward momentum!
 
Yes it would help alot since a large amount of the uninsured are illegals. Cutting down on them and their need for healthcare would save the system large amounts. By making it so you can't even inquire about immigration status, you insure that they will keep using the system, and we will continue paying for it.
I'm sorry, what is the "simple fix" here, other than saying "fuck off - you get what you can afford, or what you can beg for, and that's it", which is definitely simpler, but not really particularly good.

Again, anarchists such as yourself scare me quite a bit with your over-the-top anti-government sentiments.
There is a big difference between minimal government as detailed in the constitution of the United States and anarchy. Government is there to help on the big things that we can not do through public solutions, not to micromanage buisiness and the private sector. They should not be redistributing wealth, or bailing out buisinesses, or running health care. I want freedom from the government intervention, when they become oppressive, just as was set up in the constitution, you know that document that liberals (Progressives)  love to try and circumvent, and I will do it through peacefull methods as is my right. Thugs like President Obama and his cronies would like to take that by calling us names and intimidating us. It will not work.
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Health Care Bill
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2009, 12:46:12 PM »

This blog references the bill and section. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2295165/posts

This isn't government mandated euthanasia counseling. It's about making sure seniors know how to set up living wills in case, say, they don't want their families burdened with the expense of maintaining them on life support for years after their higher brain functions cease. For someone so pro-autonomy, you'd think you'd be FOR something like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=52208

So, he'd like a single payer, thinks the US isn't ready for it and that it's not workable, politically or practically, and so went with the best he could get. Rather than be seen as a reasonable person, perhaps too willing to compromise, this is proof he is a villainous plotter against America. Totally sensible!

Thats not what I am saying at all. Right now there are so many bullshit lawsuits out there it is pathetic. The liberal lawyers know they can tie stuff down in litigation for years causing things to become too expensive for people to do things, see Sarah Palin for instance.

Indeed. Because all greedy lawyers are liberals, and all liberal lawyers are greedy parasites. This kind of idiocy... do you have the capacity for self-reflection? I mean, really - this doesn't pass any kind of sniff test.

Though I'll note that one should totally hope that lawsuits make it too expensive to abuse the public trust.

They can make a great living bringing forward massive lawsuits are essentially unfounded. The insurance companies settle because the cost of fighting it is just too expensive. If they had a loser pays system it would lower this considerably.

Umm... citation?

Yes it would help alot since a large amount of the uninsured are illegals. Cutting down on them and their need for healthcare would save the system large amounts. By making it so you can't even inquire about immigration status, you insure that they will keep using the system, and we will continue paying for it.

You realize that rapists, murderers, and terrorists also receive 100% tax-payer funded medical treatment, in many cases better care than can be found at the local charity hospital ER? Seems like a better place to start.

There is a big difference between minimal government as detailed in the constitution of the United States and anarchy. Government is there to help on the big things that we can not do through public solutions

There to do what, exactly? What's the test, how do you know what's too big and what's not? I say healthcare is too big to be done right by the states or the private sector.

I want freedom from the government intervention, when they become oppressive, just as was set up in the constitution, you know that document that liberals (Progressives)  love to try and circumvent, and I will do it through peacefull methods as is my right.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Circumvention of Constitutional protections is no vice particular to progressives.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Health Care Bill
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2009, 10:38:23 AM »

This isn't government mandated euthanasia counseling. It's about making sure seniors know how to set up living wills in case, say, they don't want their families burdened with the expense of maintaining them on life support for years after their higher brain functions cease.
Giving OPTIONAL end of life counseling is good, mandating it is not, but the doctor should not initiate this. This option pays physicians to give end of life counseling every 5 years to terminal patients, including giving options for ending life. Though the patient can refuse this counseling, the doctor can initiate the conversation and even refer the patients to specific agencies and counselors. It leaves alot of ethical questions unanswered. Once the patient is there any options can be discussed, including ending life "with dignity". Also it allows doctors to perhaps work out financial deals to refer to "friends" who might not have the patient's best interest at heart.
So, he'd like a single payer, thinks the US isn't ready for it and that it's not workable, politically or practically, and so went with the best he could get. Rather than be seen as a reasonable person, perhaps too willing to compromise, this is proof he is a villainous plotter against America. Totally sensible!
It always starts this way. Income Taxes were never supposed to go over 10% even to the highest tax brackets, now they are nearly 50% on all over $200,000 a year. Compromise to the Government is just getting the foot in the door so it can eventually be kicked down. Once the insurance Companies are not able to compete with a Government plan because the Government does not have to make a profit to continue to function, the Government will have to expand to cover everyone else and then choice goes away. If you do choose to keep your coverage for some time, you will not only have to pay for your health insurance, but through higher taxes you will be paying for everyone else too.
Indeed. Because all greedy lawyers are liberals, and all liberal lawyers are greedy parasites. This kind of idiocy... do you have the capacity for self-reflection? I mean, really - this doesn't pass any kind of sniff test.
Nice play, try to take the comment and deflect it to sound as if I am making blanket statements. Of course not all liberal lawyers are evil, and of course not all greedy lawyers are liberal. I was speaking specifically of that subset that fit this criteria.
Though I'll note that one should totally hope that lawsuits make it too expensive to abuse the public trust.
[/quote ]
If this were true, ACORN would be out of buisiness. The lawsuits that have caused it so no new Refineries have been built in over 30 years, and those that harrassed Sarah Palin into having to step down so Alaska could actually have a Governor not bogged down in rediculous lawsuits that have all been eventually dismissed or she was totally vindicated, are the ones I am talking about.
You realize that rapists, murderers, and terrorists also receive 100% tax-payer funded medical treatment, in many cases better care than can be found at the local charity hospital ER? Seems like a better place to start.
I am all for the death penalty being in place and done fairly swiftly to avoid this too. I am also for chain gangs to have inmates work for their expenses. I do believe that these should be addressed to lower the burden to the taxpayer.
There to do what, exactly? What's the test, how do you know what's too big and what's not? I say healthcare is too big to be done right by the states or the private sector.
And I say you are wrong, it is precisely because it is too big, that it should not be done by the Government. Apparently we will have to just disagree on this.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Circumvention of Constitutional protections is no vice particular to progressives.
The constitution applies to American Citizens, not to enemy combattants or those in the country illegally. Liberals (Progressives) love to stand up for their rights but to hell with everyone elses, especially if you are not part of some victim group. The Constitution acknowledges your rights as citizens. The definition of a right is something the goverment can not take away. This administration wants to redefine rights as things the government gives you. What  Government can give, it can take away.
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Health Care Bill
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2009, 12:47:43 PM »

Giving OPTIONAL end of life counseling is good, mandating it is not, but the doctor should not initiate this.

Optional, patient-initiated end of life counseling is already available. However, it is not well utilized, for a number of reasons.

Mandating that people at least consider their own mortality and prepare for their own death or incapacitation is an excellent idea because it helps reduce the number of families who suddenly have crippling expenses or debts thrust on them in addition to the other pains and problems of having a loved one die. It also helps preserve the patient's own agency, as once ones capacities become diminished it becomes almost immediately prohibitively difficult to asset one's own preferences over those of caregivers or family members who think they know better than you how you want to be treated. If people are too stubborn or self-centered to consider these things ahead of time, I don't see a problem with nudging them. None at all.

Quote
This option pays physicians to give end of life counseling every 5 years to terminal patients, including giving options for ending life.

A patient who has to sit through 2 or more mandatory quintennial end of life counseling sessions can in no reasonable way BE considered a terminal patient, save in a few very rare and unlikely cases. Just saying.

Also, you're still quoting from the unsubstantiated claims of someone who has made a career out of boldly and blatantly lying about the text of this bill - the option does NOT do this! It provides for counseling services to the elderly, whether terminally ill or not.

Quote
Though the patient can refuse this counseling, the doctor can initiate the conversation and even refer the patients to specific agencies and counselors.

Because one thing a doctor should NEVER do is suggest you might want to consider alternative care options.

I really can't stress enough that the failure to prohibit doctors in states where doctor-assisted suicide is legal from mentioning those options to patients who would qualify (and let me tell you, even in Oregon, it's not like they're mowing through the terminally ill at a rapid pace - it's hard and you have to fight, it's just that at least there if you fight hard enough you can get what you want, instead of being denied outright no matter what), is IN NO WAY the same thing as paying doctors to tell old people "here's a Double Arrow and a helpful pamphlet".

Quote
"with dignity".

What's with the scare quotes there?

Quote
Also it allows doctors to perhaps work out financial deals to refer to "friends" who might not have the patient's best interest at heart.

Oh, so end of life counseling is bad because by payments to doctors for this beneficial service are too similar to, and therefore too likely to set up the same perverse incentives as, pharmaceuticals sales and marketing? That, at least, is an interesting argument. I have to think about that a little, even though I'm sure that's not what you meant.

Quote
It always starts this way. Income Taxes were never supposed to go over 10% even to the highest tax brackets, now they are nearly 50% on all over $200,000 a year.

The top tax bracket rate has not been under 15% since, what, 1916? The 16th amendment was ratified only 3 years prior, so I find your argument rather suspect. Also, the current top tax bracket rate is ~35%, as it has been since ~2003, representing that tax rates are currently trending downward on income.

You statement seems to imply a steadily increasing top marginal rate and decreasing threshold for same, when this is not at all an accurate portrayal of the history of income taxation in the United States. Do some readin'.

Your framing of government as a "given an inch, takes a mile" sort of monster is… troublesome. Again, if all government can ever be is a semi-necessary evil, and ANY amount of government intervention necessitates an inevitable (if sometimes slow) increase tending towards absolute authoritarian control, then the only rational response from liberty loving individuals must be anarchy. So, again, you are either mistaken, an anarchist, or both.

If you are, as you claim, not an anarchist, and instead are merely mistaken, I suggest you think about the incompatibility of the following statements:

A) "Governments serve a legitimate purpose, implemented properly."

B) "Government always seeks to increase its control and diminish freedom, no exceptions."

These may not peacefully co-exist forever.

Quote
Once the insurance Companies are not able to compete with a Government plan because the Government does not have to make a profit to continue to function, the Government will have to expand to cover everyone else and then choice goes away.

Oddly, the Red Cross continues to function despite direct government aid to some of the same served populations. Even allowing for your argument, it means only that private health insurance may no longer remain a viable for-profit enterprise. However, given that the public option may not cover all possible care options for all possible insured, and that private insurance is not prohibited, those supplemental health insurance plans that thrive today will continue to do so, and new ones would emerge. The market might change, but the existence of a not-for-profit, government adminstered health insurance plan (assuming the 'public plan' wasn't subcontracted out to the very companies it is intended to compete with, which is not all that far-fetched a potential outcome these days), will not automatically destroy the ability of anyone else to offer any kind of plan, ever.

Quote
If you do choose to keep your coverage for some time, you will not only have to pay for your health insurance, but through higher taxes you will be paying for everyone else too.

The fact that everyone else would also be paying for yours, of course, never even enters into the equation?  Solidarité, brother! ;p

Quote
Nice play, try to take the comment and deflect it to sound as if I am making blanket statements.

Well, you were, though potentially not the same blanket statements I brought up..

Quote
I am all for the death penalty being in place and done fairly swiftly to avoid this too. I am also for chain gangs to have inmates work for their expenses. I do believe that these should be addressed to lower the burden to the taxpayer.

So, automatic, no-appeals death penalty for all, then?

My point is - criminals in jail get health care, because it's basic human decency to provide some minimum standard or care for prisoners. So if it's okay to provide incarcerated criminals with free health care, why is it not okay to provide it to non-incarcerated criminals? BTW, that's a framing I also reject, but I wanted to point out that even if you DO frame such people as 'illegals' and de facto criminals, automatic disqualification from health care coverage does not logically follow. UNLESS I am to take your previous statement as endorsing speedy execution of nearly all criminals upon conviction, with little recourse for appeals (as these are what delay executions even where the death penalty is used), at which point your arguments become more internally consistent, but at the expense of any sort of humanity.

Quote
And I say you are wrong, it is precisely because it is too big, that it should not be done by the Government.

And what's your position on the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways? Much less the military? Shouldn't we have primarily private infrastructure and defense mechanisms, as these are just as big?

Quote
The constitution applies to American Citizens, not to enemy combattants or those in the country illegally.

The Constitution establishes a government according to certain principles and sets limits on the activities of that government. The document says "no person", not "no citizen", and it means exactly what it says. You can read it yourself if you don't believe me.

Quote
Liberals (Progressives) love to stand up for their rights but to hell with everyone elses, especially if you are not part of some victim group.

What rights do you see progressives as typically failing to stand up for on behalf of others?

Quote
What  Government can give, it can take away.

Seriously, dude, you are like the poster child for paranoia fueled anarchistic separatism!
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 03:50:26 PM by LucasJamison »
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Health Care Bill
« Reply #10 on: August 14, 2009, 02:35:15 PM »

Optional, patient-initiated end of life counseling is already available. However, it is not well utilized, for a number of reasons.
 If people are too stubborn or self-centered to consider these things ahead of time, I don't see a problem with nudging them. None at all.
So spend a heck of a lot less to promote it but I have a big problem with forcing it on people. They have a right to do or not do what they want as far as after life care. If you want to put out comercials during shows that target the elder population and such, fine. Raise the level of awareness for the counseling, just don't take away someone's right to do as they wish. Some may have religious or moral objections to what they are counseling them about. They should not be told that their coverage will be cut off if they do not go to end of life counseling.
Because one thing a doctor should NEVER do is suggest you might want to consider alternative care options.
I really can't stress enough that the failure to prohibit doctors in states where doctor-assisted suicide is legal from mentioning those options to patients who would qualify (and let me tell you, even in Oregon, it's not like they're mowing through the terminally ill at a rapid pace - it's hard and you have to fight, it's just that at least there if you fight hard enough you can get what you want, instead of being denied outright no matter what), is IN NO WAY the same thing as paying doctors to tell old people "here's a Double Arrow and a helpful pamphlet".
You will never convince me that it is a doctors job to help someone end their life. A doctors job is to help save their lives or tell them there is nothing he can do so they can either try to get another doctor, or make their decision to not fight it on their own. When we start having doctors tell people that ending their own lives is OK they might as well hang up their stethoscopes.
What's with the scare quotes there?
Because there is no dignified way to kill themselves. 'Ending life with dignity' is just a gentle way of saying committing suicide. Lets call it what it is without trying to make it sound all nice. When killing ones self is reprihensible.
Oh, so end of life counseling is bad because by payments to doctors for this beneficial service are too similar to, and therefore too likely to set up the same perverse incentives as, pharmaceuticals sales and marketing? That, at least, is an interesting argument. I have to think about that a little, even though I'm sure that's not what you meant.
No that was not my line of thought. No, it allows the doctor to refer patients to people who will assist their patients with their end of life activities. Some of which could be special interests that could rip off the patient or convince the patient to do something their families may truely object to.
I will get to the rest of this tomorrow I hope.
Logged

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Health Care Bill
« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2009, 09:30:19 AM »

The top tax bracket rate has not been under 15% since, what, 1916? The 16th amendment was ratified only 3 years prior, so I find your argument rather suspect. Also, the current top tax bracket rate is ~35%, as it has been since ~2003, representing that tax rates are currently trending downward on income.
The tax structure has been a fluctating entity. If it had not been for the tax reforms pushed through by Ronald Reagan to lower the top rate from over 50% down to 26% (which has been raised to 35% since and probably will only go higher under Pres. Obama) the problem is that between corporate taxes, Capitol Gains taxes, Social Security Taxes, FICA taxes etc. a much greater percentage of income is taken. When you factor in State taxes and Property Taxes, most "rich" people easily end up paying more than 50%.
You statement seems to imply a steadily increasing top marginal rate and decreasing threshold for same, when this is not at all an accurate portrayal of the history of income taxation in the United States. Do some readin'.
I have done some reading. It seems every time we get a liberal in office, the top rate gets raised. As stated it was over 50% during the 70s under Jimmy Carter. During WW 2 it had reached almost 96% for the top 1%. Origianal it was proposed as a tax on only the super wealthy and only 1% up to 7% for the wealthiest 1% with exemptions built in to make charitable organizations exempt. Not many were threatened by it see this link http://www.takebackusa.com/profiles/blogs/the-16th-amendment-explained this paragraph was pretty interesting. How the Cute Little Monkey Grew into a Gorilla:

When the first income tax was sent out to the people, the Congress chortled confidently that "all good citizen will willingly and cheerfully support and sustain this, the fairest and cheapest of all taxes." That was the cute little monkey part. After all, the first tax ranged from merely 1% on the first $20,000 of taxable income and was only 7% on incomes above $500,000. Who could complain?(Ed. note: In 1994 "dollars" that $20K is now over $250K and the $500K is today over $6 million!)

At first, scarcely anyone did. Little did they know that before the tinkering was done in Washington, this system would be described by many Americans as the most unfair and expensive tax in the history of the nation. Within a few years, it had become the principal source of income for the federal government.

In the beginning, hardly anyone had to file a tax return because the tax did not apply to the vast majority of America's work-a-day citizens. For example, in 1939, 26 years after the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, only 5% of the population, counting both taxpayers and their dependents, was required to file returns. Today, more than 80% of the population is under the income tax.

Your framing of government as a "given an inch, takes a mile" sort of monster is… troublesome. Again, if all government can ever be is a semi-necessary evil, and ANY amount of government intervention necessitates an inevitable (if sometimes slow) increase tending towards absolute authoritarian control, then the only rational response from liberty loving individuals must be anarchy. So, again, you are either mistaken, an anarchist, or both.
I love the way you try to frame me as an anarchist simply because i want a limited government. I do not want the federal government to go away completely, I simply want checks and balances on it. This is typical, if you can't combat the message, combat the messengers, try to demonize them as fringe groups and Nazis. Then when they are isolated, pick them off. The government does consistantly take a mile when given an inch. The Expressway and toll roads here in NJ were supposed to lose their toll aspect as of the 70s, this has not only not happened but Gov. Corzine wants to push the tolls even higher than the 50% increase he has already gotten. The Income tax which was at first only supposed to be a 1% tax on only the top 10% of Americans is now an oppressive Juggernaut that is out of control. Without the people acting as a check and balance system for government, it by nature gets out of control.
If you are, as you claim, not an anarchist, and instead are merely mistaken, I suggest you think about the incompatibility of the following statements:

A) "Governments serve a legitimate purpose, implemented properly."

B) "Government always seeks to increase its control and diminish freedom, no exceptions."

These may not peacefully co-exist forever.
Actually I reject both of these two options and instead believe myself to be a constitutionalist on this subject and agree with our founding fathers that government should be only used for the absolutely necessary tasks and should for the most part not infringe on our liberties. But you are right in that they might not peacefully coexist forever. Someone is going to push too hard or overreach too much and cause serious problems. I hope Pres. Obama never overreachs that much. I truely hope the congress  gets the hint from the people and pulls back before they do push the American people up against a wall. I would never advocate violence and think it is still not too late for the Congress to come to it's senses, however I fear you may be right.
Oddly, the Red Cross continues to function despite direct government aid to some of the same served populations. Even allowing for your argument, it means only that private health insurance may no longer remain a viable for-profit enterprise. However, given that the public option may not cover all possible care options for all possible insured, and that private insurance is not prohibited, those supplemental health insurance plans that thrive today will continue to do so, and new ones would emerge. The market might change, but the existence of a not-for-profit, government adminstered health insurance plan (assuming the 'public plan' wasn't subcontracted out to the very companies it is intended to compete with, which is not all that far-fetched a potential outcome these days), will not automatically destroy the ability of anyone else to offer any kind of plan, ever.
The Red Cross exists only because of huge donations given by the people. It is not a health care company as it is comprised. It gives aid primarily during crisis. I am not sure how this applies. There will be a very few Health care companies that will survive the government plan, like Aetna which has been instrumental to helping to shape the health care bill. The ultimate goal however will be to get everyone covered under one plan. I find it interesting that none of the changes will go effect however until 2013. Interesting that that will be after the next Presidential election. He does not want the bad effects coming into play before he plans to be reelected. He knows this is a dog that will overwhelm the system so his friends can move in and reshape the economy through designed emergencies to become more like his design. This is the perfect way to do it.
The fact that everyone else would also be paying for yours, of course, never even enters into the equation?  Solidarité, brother! ;p
I have health care and am fairly happy with it. I took my job knowing I would have health care. I probably could not have afforded to take the job I did without it being there.
So, automatic, no-appeals death penalty for all, then?
Of course there would be an appeal process, however, they would be done swiftly and concluded within a two year period. At the end of which, the prisoner would be executed. It would only of course be for the most serious of crimes as well.
My point is - criminals in jail get health care, because it's basic human decency to provide some minimum standard or care for prisoners. So if it's okay to provide incarcerated criminals with free health care, why is it not okay to provide it to non-incarcerated criminals?
Simple, because if we knew about them, they would no longer be in the country. I also originally stated that I would treat them, then immediately send them back to their country of origin. If they commit a crime that deserves a jail sentance then we are obliged to treat them until we deport them. Any employer that knowingly hired illegals would at a minimum pay a huge fine, or at maximum get free health care also because they would be in prison too.
And what's your position on the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways? Much less the military? Shouldn't we have primarily private infrastructure and defense mechanisms, as these are just as big?
There are some things we have no other way to handle but through Federal government, these would fall under the necessary parts of government, however we have a healthcare system, that does not need the government to screw it up. It is through the ways they are already involved that healthcare is such a mess as it is.
What rights do you see progressives as typically failing to stand up for on behalf of others?

Seriously, dude, you are like the poster child for paranoia fueled anarchistic separatism!
Simple, the rights of life, (see the abortion debate and the proposed end of life debates.)Liberty, (There are constant assaults on this, from what you can say, to what you can eat.) and the persuit of Happiness, (which they also assault by trying to take away said liberties. There you go again with the labeling and trying to seperate and marginalize. Combat on the topics, when you try to label me as paranoid aand a seperist, you could not be further from the truth. I simply see my liberties about to be taken away and do as the founders allow in sparking debate. Remember, power is given by the people. If enough people feel they are being railroaded by that same government, it is their duty to try and stop it and give that power to others who deserve it more. The American people are starting to wake up to the constant assaults on their liberties and realize they made a mistake in the last election. All they can do now is express their displeasure and vow to change that mistake at the first possible oppertunity. That is what we are doing. That is how America was set up. When you try to brand us as Anarchists and seperatists, angry mobs and Nazis, all you do is anger us further and strengthen our resolve more.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up