Obama's supporters dislike the socialism sobriquet, but socialized medicine by stealth is what we'll end up with. Moreover, and for the sake of semantic veracity, let us, at the very least, name the beast rising out of this sea of statism: the "public option" is really "tax-financed health care."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=102186
Ye gods...Semantic veracity? There are some $25,000.00 words for ya! What a way to wake up on an early Friday morning...! lol And, by the way...A good post. O keeps stating that, if you already have health insurance, you won't be forced to change. Uh, that's great...Until all of the companies get rid of their existing plans, in favor of turning their employees over to the State plan.
It would be a fiasco for sure.
One wonders how the country can ever survive with the commitments
and entitlements already in place.
Folks ought to be against socialism and be not afraid to take a stand.
Afterall, our country was founded on principles against socialism.
Government run health insurance can work if it is properly handled. Doctors and Hospitals today have the option of accepting which health insurance plans they want. If the government offers a low cost health insurance plan, many people currently without insurance could sign up to get coverage, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they can go just anywhere to get treated. If O is looking at it as threatening the existence of private health insurers then that is the wrong way to go. It should be looked at as a way to get people the help they need rather than a competition. There will be some who will drop their coverage in favor of cheaper government insurance, but they might not get the same quality care they had before. I know I wouldn't sacrifice my health and have to give up my primary care doctor for someone who maybe isn't as good. I know I wouldn't want to drive 25 miles to a hospital that accepts government insurance when I can just go 1 mile with my current insurance. Some companies might/would drop their insurance plans in favor of the cheaper insurance, but if the government said that the government plan was for those who do not have the benefit of insurance from the company they work for, and telling those companies who do offer health insurance that they don't have the option to offer the cheaper insurance, then it might work. In other words, if you work for a company or someone who doesn't offer insurance, you qualify for government insurance. If you do work for a company does offer it, you don't qualify for it. Look at it like a social program such as welfare. If you are under a certain income lever, you qualify for welfare. If you make more, you don't. But the store you shop at is still going to take your money no matter where you got it from.
Cheeesh and I haven't even had my second cup yet.
Larryj
If that's what only one cup does for you, then I'm waiting eagerly to see what the second cup brings! lol ;D ;D
I am sorry to jump in here but Doctors should not have the option to either accept Medicaid/Medicare/etc. as the government provides the license for them to practice. It represents an unfair disadvantage to those using those options, some of which have no alternative. Why should someone with Medicare, age 72 for example, living on a fixed income not be able to utilize a specialist because they do not accept Medicare? That is unethical and should be corrected. You don't want to accept Medicare/Medicaid/etc. don't petition the state for a license to practice.....
That's not unethical. We ought to be strivng to keep a free country.
Gov't programs are limiting freedoms.
The Fed's should not be paying for anything. This country was established
so that folks could be free to take care of themselves for their own needs and
to provide for their own wants.
I usually arise early (between 6 and 7) and have two cups of coffee whilst cruising the forum. Once I have read it and commented where I wanted to comment, I have breakfast. By this time it is between 9 and 10 AM. Unlike others, coffee has no effect on me as far as keeping me awake. If there is nothing pressing, I take a nap. I am only eloquent, read full of it, during those first two hours. After that it is downhill. My wife has been off work for a while due to physical disability so we get to spend a lot of time together which, I guess, is good in some ways. She sleeps in and when she wakes I bring her a cup of coffee. She remains in the bedroom and while waking up begins to organize her day and make any phone calls needed. She then goes to the kitchen for her second cup of coffee and informs me of the schedule for the day. If there is nothing pressing, i.e., appointments, etc., then we both take a nap. Lazy? Sure, but we have worked all our lives, raised our children, enjoy our grandchildren, and are not suffering from empty nest syndrome. However, my wife has stated vigorously in the past she will not move away from our grandchildren so we live in our same house of 35 years and enjoy the peace and quiet. Not lazy. Communication? There is less because we know each other's habits and can almost read each others mind. So there is no need for unnecessary communication. And, besides, all communication now has shifted towards reminding each other of something that the other forgot. A great deal of our time is spent in tracking down lost glasses or keys which don't seem to get put in a place where they are supposed to be. Love? If you have been able to live with the same person for 35 years and survive, then you have love. So if you love each other and are comfortable and happy and have the opportunity to enjoy a good nap once or twice a day, enjoy your children and grandchildren, what else is there? Excitement? If I wake up in the morning and read the obituarys and I am not in them, I am excited. We do take weekend trips up the coast.
I hope I didn't make you wait too long!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Larryj
Wow...larry, you're great! How fun it is to get to know another of the Forum Greats! :laugh: :laugh:
Thanks, Cat. Great? nah, just getting along with life. While typing my last lengthy reponse, however, I missed the posts about Medicare and Doctors. I didn't read all of this article and it is too big to paste here, but check it out.
www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
I did read and I am not sure if it was in the above site, but it is more expensive for a Doctor to process a medicare patient than other patients, something like over $14 for the medicare patient and a little over $11 for the others. I guess this would be a reason for Doctors to not accept Medicare patients.
Larryj
LarryJ; that is awesome that you're able to enjoy retirement so completely! I think it is horrible how many people cannot have a true retirement and still have to continue to work to support themselves, or even just to support their medicare/medicaid payments! I can understand if someone just wants to work so they can have extra fun things to buy, but I feel horrible for those elderly (and I mean elderly) who have no one to support them and they have to work almost until they die!
So whose fault is it that medical costs are as high as they are today? Is it the insurance companies, or is it the doctors/medical companies? I think that medical companies have started charging SO much b/c the insurance companies make them write off so much of the cost and they only get reimbursed for part of it. So a $40 exam is now priced at $80, but the doctor will still only get $40 from the insurance company. In the meantime, they still charge everyone $80, even those who don't have insurance.
Quote from: redcliffsw on June 26, 2009, 10:37:18 AM
That's not unethical. We ought to be strivng to keep a free country.
Gov't programs are limiting freedoms.
The Fed's should not be paying for anything. This country was established
so that folks could be free to take care of themselves for their own needs and
to provide for their own wants.
And screw everybody who doesn't have limitless means? I'm sorry but your interpretation of how the country was established is not completely accurate, it is a perspective of it.
Tobina, I am fortunate that I worked for a company that had a retirement plan and a 401k plan for me. So retirement is as good as it can be for us. We are comfortable, not rich financially, and would probably do some more projects if we weren't so lazy. Wait a minute. I think I said we weren't lazy. Oh well. Anyhow, we are somewhat hampered by the 50' hose attached to my face and the amount of hours in an oxygen bottle when we go out, but that is not so bad.
As far as those elderly who are faced with no means of support, my father-in-law came to live with us eleven years ago. His only income was his SS check. He was abused by his second wife and my wife brought him here. We got him divorced and settled him into our home. He volunteered to pay us some money to cover his "room and board" as he called it. But if he didn't have family to support him, he would have been homeless and dead long before he died last year. He had lost his ability to drive and after only a few years here became dependent on a walker. He wouldn't have been able to work. His only other out was the VA which could have placed him in a nursing facility, but the waiting list was huge at that time. Anyway, he was fortunate to have us and we were fortunate to have him as long as we did.
Larryj
Second note. The medical costs and the Doctors and the insurance companies form a "vicious cycle". The Doctor says, "I am going to charge this amount for an office visit because that is the going rate among my fellow Doctors." The patient carries insurance which allows him to pay the Doctor little or no money for a co-pay. The insurance company doesn't want to pay the Doctor the full amount of the cost of the office visit, so it contracts with the Doctor to pay a lesser amount guaranteeing the Doctor that he will be paid something rather than have a non-insured patient skip out on him. But now the Doctor is not getting the amount that he wants to charge and raises his rates because he has to give his employees a raise or buy more expensive and newer equipment. The insurance company usually working on a percentage basis of paying the Doctors then passes on the increase to the company that the patient works for and the company passes all or part of the increase on to the patient in the form of deductions from the paycheck. The patient sees the increase drawn from his paycheck and opts to change to a different insurance that might be cheaper. The Doctor meantime realizes he is losing a patient or two and maybe downgrades the cost of the office visit in order to maintain a steady clientele. The insurance company accepts the new rate and pockets the difference in the money received from the patients company and what it pays the Doctor. It is all a bunch of hogwash (there's that hogwash word again) and just goes on and on. My brother once told me I should just contract with the Doctor myself and I would be better off in the long run. I was too chicken to try that.
Larryj
jerry wagner-
Your perspective of the country never existed until the socialists began
their activities in the middle 1800's and their perspective does not make it right either.
You mean that the Fed's should capture another's money or property
and then redistribute it to others?
Certainly, if one wants to help somebody, then that's on them and
their business. But, to make others donate is not right.
Quote from: redcliffsw on June 27, 2009, 10:59:59 AM
You mean that the Fed's should capture another's money or property
and then redistribute it to others?
This kills me. The redistribution happens in the form of a service, not a direct payout. The service would be added to the other services that the federal government already runs. They already capture money and property to redistribute in the form of public education, police & fire departments, national defense, and a whole bunch of other services. Health Care would be just one service on a long list that might help us catch up to the rest of the developed countries that already provide this for their people.
Calling it a "service" sounds so much better than using the term "socialism".
It might even be politically correct.
But...............I'm against it.
By the way, just because other countries are doing the "health care services",
does not mean a thing. We oughta remain unique and distinct, instead of
following them.
Do you consider the police force and fire department socialist institutions also?
No, why should I?
Although, I'll say the Fed's ought not supply the police and fire dept's with money or programs.
Quote from: Anmar on June 28, 2009, 06:38:54 PM
This kills me. The redistribution happens in the form of a service, not a direct payout. The service would be added to the other services that the federal government already runs. They already capture money and property to redistribute in the form of public education, police & fire departments, national defense, and a whole bunch of other services. Health Care would be just one service on a long list that might help us catch up to the rest of the developed countries that already provide this for their people.
The rest of the developed countries...you mean like canada, and france, whose standard of medical has dropped through the floor? Where patients are denied life-saving medications based on an age bracket? Or medical procedures have such long waiting lists that the patients tend to die before treatment? Or where cancer rates are much higher because screenings are not conducted in time?...No thanks, if I wanted to live in a "nanny" state I'd move to one.
QuoteWhere patients are denied life-saving medications based on an age bracket? Or medical procedures have such long waiting lists that the patients tend to die before treatment? Or where cancer rates are much higher because screenings are not conducted in time?
As if to say those things don't already happen here in the US? And the biggest reason they do happen here is because health insurance is being denied to those in need of it. How many elderly are cutting back on their meds so they can afford to eat or heat/cool their home? How many people don't see a doctor for preventive care, because they can't afford it, only to develop chronic illness? Many of those are then denied health coverage for "pre-existing conditions." Or if they are eligible, they can't afford the hundreds of dollars a month for the insurance.
I'm not saying that those thing don't happen here, they do, but not on the levels of canada and france. I just don't want to see a program implemented that will lower the standard of care in our country. I mean, think about it, the same people who voted on legislation that THEY DIDN'T EVEN READ, will be the ones in charge of your medical care.
Quote from: jerry wagner on June 26, 2009, 10:24:38 AM
I am sorry to jump in here but Doctors should not have the option to either accept Medicaid/Medicare/etc. as the government provides the license for them to practice. It represents an unfair disadvantage to those using those options, some of which have no alternative. Why should someone with Medicare, age 72 for example, living on a fixed income not be able to utilize a specialist because they do not accept Medicare? That is unethical and should be corrected. You don't want to accept Medicare/Medicaid/etc. don't petition the state for a license to practice.....
Uhmm excuse me but Licensing cannot be used as a tool to force a doctor to accept less than what he sets his prices for services rendered. That is unethical.
Quote from: jerry wagner on June 26, 2009, 11:54:08 AM
Quote from: redcliffsw on June 26, 2009, 10:37:18 AM
That's not unethical. We ought to be strivng to keep a free country.
Gov't programs are limiting freedoms.
The Fed's should not be paying for anything. This country was established
so that folks could be free to take care of themselves for their own needs and
to provide for their own wants.
And screw everybody who doesn't have limitless means? I'm sorry but your interpretation of how the country was established is not completely accurate, it is a perspective of it.
Where in the constitution does it guarantee any medical care to everyone? Where in the constitution does it even say the Government can offer medical care to those who cant afford it?
Quote from: Anmar on June 29, 2009, 10:42:21 AM
Do you consider the police force and fire department socialist institutions also?
hmm since the police department's only job is to protect public property, and serve warrants you could say that. Their certainly not required to protect the individual.
Here's a bit of history on the third-party payments (health insurance)
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell050803.asp
Nobody can explain things like Walter Williams. Here he makes
more good American sense that we ought heed:
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/07/25/health_care_government_vs_private
Quote from: srkruzich on June 30, 2009, 07:35:01 PM
Quote from: jerry wagner on June 26, 2009, 11:54:08 AM
Quote from: redcliffsw on June 26, 2009, 10:37:18 AM
That's not unethical. We ought to be strivng to keep a free country.
Gov't programs are limiting freedoms.
The Fed's should not be paying for anything. This country was established
so that folks could be free to take care of themselves for their own needs and
to provide for their own wants.
And screw everybody who doesn't have limitless means? I'm sorry but your interpretation of how the country was established is not completely accurate, it is a perspective of it.
Where in the constitution does it guarantee any medical care to everyone? Where in the constitution does it even say the Government can offer medical care to those who cant afford it?
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."General Welfare" --> interpret it how you like, and that the necessary and proper clause provides the power to do so
Quote from: jerry wagner on June 30, 2009, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: srkruzich on June 30, 2009, 07:35:01 PM
Quote from: jerry wagner on June 26, 2009, 11:54:08 AM
Quote from: redcliffsw on June 26, 2009, 10:37:18 AM
That's not unethical. We ought to be strivng to keep a free country.
Gov't programs are limiting freedoms.
The Fed's should not be paying for anything. This country was established
so that folks could be free to take care of themselves for their own needs and
to provide for their own wants.
And screw everybody who doesn't have limitless means? I'm sorry but your interpretation of how the country was established is not completely accurate, it is a perspective of it.
Where in the constitution does it guarantee any medical care to everyone? Where in the constitution does it even say the Government can offer medical care to those who cant afford it?
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
"General Welfare" --> interpret it how you like, and that the necessary and proper clause provides the power to do so
I have the exact meaning of it handy here.
Lyndon LaRouche has identified the principle of the general welfare as the only legitimate basis for the authority of government. A useful summary may be found, for example, in LaRouche's article, ``Will the U.S.A. keep its sovereignty?'' published in the November 19, 1999 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
LaRouche emphasizes that our United States republic ``came into existence as direct heir of those anti-oligarchichal, anti-Roman, Platonic principles of natural law'' which were first affirmed in the founding of the first nation-state republics during the late 15th Century: France under Louis XI, and England under Henry VII. LaRouche describes the source of this law as ``
a combination of the Classical Greek, republican heritage, with those doctrines, respecting the universal notion of human individuality, which were promulgated by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, notably the Epistles of the Apostle Paul.''Out of this,
came the central principle upon which ``the authority, powers, and responsibilities of the sovereign nation-state republic were premised ... the notion of `general welfare,' or commonwealth.'by Edward Spannaus
Printed in the American Almanac, May 15, 2000.
Stop it with the authoritative statements as to the exact meaning. That phrase can have many meanings. The author you supplied, wrote out his interpretation.