free health care

[dibblebill]

Yep. though scholarships are allowed, for some reason, to pick based on race (I turned down one that I qualified for on basis of being roughly 1/4 native American). Or tehy seem to be.

That's why a lot of places now tell you to call if you want to know why you weren't chosen for an interview (in the cases where they offer to tell you)- if its recorded, they can really open a can of worms, especially if they picked someone else due to gender, skin color, something like that. At least in her experience.

 

[jajrussel]

Wow! What an amazing conversation. It has lasted over a year. I am still reading it. It would be a shame if it were to die now.

One person seems to think that Obama care is the same as a social medical care plan would be, another is quick to point out that it isn't. While another says it is close enough.

Another person says that people who would prefer a real social medical system are actually comparable to slave owners. I understand the argument, but find that argument to be hilarious. Maybe it was ment to be funny. It pretty much would mean that anyone who tries to limit the cost of government is in effect acting like a slave owner. Maybe they actually ment to be sarcastic.

Whatever, they put an amazing amount of thought into the argument, and health care is something we really should keep thinking, and talking about all the while accepting some statements with the humor they deserve.

Their was also some name calling, left wing, right wing kind of thing. Being registered a democrat I think I am supposed to be left wing, or is it a left wing liberal.

My view is that republicans are the one's who want all the control, and if they could reduce the amount of government by limiting control to themselves they would do so in a heartbeat.

I believe that the government exists to help society. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the government using the tax money I pay to help someone pay their bills, or see a doctor. I do have a problem with them paying 700$ for a hammer. I don't care how perfect the hammer was. This thought should make me a conservative.

It seems too me that the times where us left wing liberals manage to bring something that is designed to help people to a vote the proposal that actually gets voted on is no longer our proposal.

The republicans who say that they believe in less government insist on loading the proposals up with government controls, and attachments that have nothing to do with being conservative, and if we do not agree, well they'll just shut the government down.

Okay, wait a minute shutting the government down is conservatism in its purist form. My bad...

If what I read today is true at least one of them will actually stand up in the Senate and cry. I really, really hope the New Yorker was just showing sarcasm.

Anyway, I hope this conversation continues until we actually do have social medicine. I don't really expect to live another thirty years, but if we don't keep taking about it, it won't ever happen.

 

[pckarma112]

Wow! What an amazing conversation. It has lasted over a year. I am still reading it. It would be a shame if it were to die now.

One person seems to think that Obama care is the same as a social medical care plan would be, another is quick to point out that it isn't. While another says it is close enough.

Another person says that people who would prefer a real social medical system are actually comparable to slave owners. I understand the argument, but find that argument to be hilarious. Maybe it was ment to be funny. It pretty much would mean that anyone who tries to limit the cost of government is in effect acting like a slave owner. Maybe they actually ment to be sarcastic.

Whatever, they put an amazing amount of thought into the argument, and health care is something we really should keep thinking, and talking about all the while accepting some statements with the humor they deserve.

Their was also some name calling, left wing, right wing kind of thing. Being registered a democrat I think I am supposed to be left wing, or is it a left wing liberal.

My view is that republicans are the one's who want all the control, and if they could reduce the amount of government by limiting control to themselves they would do so in a heartbeat.

I believe that the government exists to help society. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the government using the tax money I pay to help someone pay their bills, or see a doctor. I do have a problem with them paying 700$ for a hammer. I don't care how perfect the hammer was. This thought should make me a conservative.

It seems too me that the times where us left wing liberals manage to bring something that is designed to help people to a vote the proposal that actually gets voted on is no longer our proposal.

The republicans who say that they believe in less government insist on loading the proposals up with government controls, and attachments that have nothing to do with being conservative, and if we do not agree, well they'll just shut the government down.

Okay, wait a minute shutting the government down is conservatism in its purist form. My bad...

If what I read today is true at least one of them will actually stand up in the Senate and cry. I really, really hope the New Yorker was just showing sarcasm.

Anyway, I hope this conversation continues until we actually do have social medicine. I don't really expect to live another thirty years, but if we don't keep taking about it, it won't ever happen.

I would not call it name calling. Sounds like something we did in grade school. I wanted to have them expose the hatred that they feel. Guess what? They did. As per course with that segment of society. Their proud of it. By the way. Voting democrat does not necessarily mean your left wing or liberal. That's where the name calling comes in. Vote your conscience and remember hate should never be a family value.
I do not believe a word of his response. That is my point. Well, other than the fact their OK with it. That I truly believe..... And its scary. ..PS..Your/their turn.

 

[jajrussel]

I don't really believe the man was showing racism. I don't believe his argument was sound either. The health care plan isn't free. At best it can be said that it is affordable, but only for those that have jobs, and that is streching it a bit for those in minimum wage. In essence we might be able to afford to pay for the insurance, but can we afford to be sick?

Those who are not working without regard as to why will feel no effect. Their needs will be met in accordance with state and federal laws, and yes it does seem that they have it better, but that has nothing to do with the current health care plan.

I once saw a woman turned away from a walk in clinic because she had no insurance and only 25$. It didn't feel right to me then and it doesn't feel right to me now. The health care clinic was exercising its rights within the law. That institution should be proud of itself. Some might say that what they did is supported by the tenth amendment. I don't see how, but maybe they are right.

The Obama health care plan is a capitalist plan. The insurance companies don't object to people being told that they have to buy insurance. What they object to is being told what the package has to include.

What the plan does is tell the medical community that they no longer have to take the big hit at the insurance company's discretion. There are still loop holes I am sure.

When I get sick, if they can get out of paying the bill or even think that they can, they will try. That I have insurance from, and am actually a customer of their company will mean absolutely nothing to them.

They have no problem when those who are clueless repeat over, and over that their insurance bills are what they are, because of fraud and dead beats. It is what they want everyone to believe. I am fairly certain that the number of lawyers they have justifies what they pay them. What I am not certain of, is that what the lawyers accomplish is just.

I am not qualified to argue with a lawyer. I would need a lawyer. In my opinion the time that I most need a lawyer is when I buy insurance. I have never had a lawyer with me when offered insurance. I can not afford a lawyer.

What do I know about insurance. Only what I am told by them presumably in good faith. Sometimes I prove to be a presumptuous fool. Really, it is not my fault, the system is designed this way. It is what it is.

 

[sntaylor]

This all gets back to my initial statement really, why are lawyers involved in health care? Surely this only adds to the cost involved overall? If it was all paid for by taxes it keeps costs to a minimum as there are less parties looking to make a profit!? (Insurance company itself and any lawyers and the hospitals etc)

 

[jajrussel]

This all gets back to my initial statement really, why are lawyers involved in health care? Surely this only adds to the cost involved overall? If it was all paid for by taxes it keeps costs to a minimum as there are less parties looking to make a profit!? (Insurance company itself and any lawyers and the hospitals etc)

Actually, I am in complete agreement with your original post as I remember it, and this one.

The fear seems to be more taxes. The government doesn't have a problem with raising taxes, or wasting money. They just don't want to waste the money on health care.

The money spent in effort too get insurance companies to provide the service they have sold isn't coming out of state or federal funds; it comes out of the pockets of the insured. Like we can afford it.

One day I had insurance that seemed sufficient until I needed an operation. The only real benefit of the standard coverage is that you can afford a major cold or a minor injury like a smashed thumb. Any thing that requires an operation and you can kiss the affordability goodbye.

The only one's benefiting here are the medical providers. Their losses are being cut. They can also expect more business. They will follow the rule of supply and demand and increase their prices accordingly.

The insurance companies know that this will happen, and in fact is said to have already started. The insurance companies will scream. A republican will be voted into office. Three years later the insurers and the medical providers will kiss and make up, and all the stupidity will start all over again.

In the meantime the government will tell me that since I am going to have to work until the day I die anyway, I shouldn't mind if my social security is postponed indefinitely.

Then the place where I work isn't going to be exactly thrilled with the prospect I might die on the job. It is bad for business, so to them it is not going to matter if I need to work or not. Then some idiot will suggest that I should have the right to die with dignity. Then stand there and look at me as if they just solved all my problems.

 

[SiempreTuna]

Seems that, now Obamacare is finally rolling out (ever so slowly) and people are seeing-the-reality rather than hearing-the-insanity, it's getting more and more popular. Still not quite a majority in favour, but then the rollout does still have some way to go.

My guess is that, while there will always be some people who get a worse deal, when the vast majority discover they're actually better off, Obamacare's going to become as popular as the British National Health System. The NHS was also lambasted by the right wing and the medical profession when it was first set up but it is now probably the most popular institution in the country - politicians of all hues mess with it at their peril.

Of course, the idea that Obamacare will achieve that popularity assumes that the GOP doesn't somehow manage to kill and replace it with .. the 'right' to die in the street - I think that's current GOP policy .. at least, I haven't heard them mention anything else and it does sound exactly the sort of thing they'd favour

 

[dibblebill]

My reality still stands. My healthcare went up and I get less coverage, and my fiance only gets assistance if she gets pregnant (doesn't matter if she aborts, keeps, or adopts it). Wonderfully helpful system there. Moral of day: Her and I should have lots of babies to get government support (since its what she's literally been told multiple times by multiple agencies).

 

[Thatdad]

My reality still stands. My healthcare went up and I get less coverage, and my fiance only gets assistance if she gets pregnant (doesn't matter if she aborts, keeps, or adopts it). Wonderfully helpful system there. Moral of day: Her and I should have lots of babies to get government support (since its what she's literally been told multiple times by multiple agencies).

Probably trying to have another baby boom to make the future economy less crappy

 

[pckarma112]

Both sides of the isle are at fault because they're simply interested in undermining the other side of the isle instead of actually REPRESENTING what the people want. They have their own interests (read as how can the put more money in their bank accounts and keep getting elected at the same time). They are ALL a bunch of egotistical, unethical, blowhards that like to hear themselves talk but say and do nothing unless forced into it. This country is in bad shape and is swirling around the drain. I only hope I don't live to see the final flush, but I don't think it's far off. The majority of the people ( ), with the exception of the far left AND far right, are getting seriously fed up with these bozos and sooner or later, all h*** is gonna break loose.

But back to the topic, there ain't no free lunch. "Free health care" is a total myth. Someone is going to pay for it and that's those of us who aren't freeloaders and are, or have worked for a living. Free healthcare for illegal aliens is absolutely stupid. Don't people understand what ILLEGAL means any more? Welfare is stupid! It doesn't encourage people to work, it encourages people to have more dependents so their monthly paycheck goes up. BS - bring back WPA - you need help? That's fine and we're willing to help; do something to EARN what the PEOPLE give you. Pick up trash along the roads, plant trees, work on road crews, DO SOMETHING. Wanna bet you'd see people suddenly finding jobs who "couldn't" before?

I'm sorry for the rant. I really try and not get involved in this crap but sometimes I just can't stop my fingers. It's just so sad to see the idiots "in charge" trying to pull the flush handle - The other problem is; I'd bet you could take the most honest people in the country and replace the current idiots and within 6 months - they'd all be corrupt. It's called greed and everyone today has a bad case of it.

So what party do you recommend voting for then?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

My view is that republicans are the one's who want all the control, and if they could reduce the amount of government by limiting control to themselves they would do so in a heartbeat.

Even from a liberal, this just doesn't make sense. The closest I can find to any meaning here is in its similarity to the concept of

 

[pckarma112]

Even from a liberal, this just doesn't make sense. The closest I can find to any meaning here is in its similarity to the concept of

 

[SiempreTuna]

Interestingly, Bob, Princeton recently published a study into precisely what jajrussel said: because of things like the GOP spending the last decade and a half doing everything it can to deny fellow Americans their right to vote when they fear that vote will go against them, the success of right wing efforts to increase the influence of business by removing campaign spending limits etc etc, Princeton now classify the US as an Oligarchy.

So basically, Princeton are saying the only thing jajrussel has wrong is his timing: the right wing already has de facto control of the US. It has already happened.

No double talk. Actual evidence.

 

[out of ideas]

Interestingly, Bob, Princeton recently published a study into precisely what jajrussel said: because of things like the GOP spending the last decade and a half doing everything it can to deny fellow Americans their right to vote when they fear that vote will go against them, the success of right wing efforts to increase the influence of business by removing campaign spending limits etc etc, Princeton now classify the US as an Oligarchy.

So basically, Princeton are saying the only thing jajrussel has wrong is his timing: the right wing already has de facto control of the US. It has already happened.

No double talk. Actual evidence.

I think you've completely misread the study with your anti right-wing slant.

Scholar Behind Viral 'Oligarchy' Study Tells You What It Means

an interview with the author from Princeton. This study was a collection of survey questions asking people their opinion on certain proposed policy changes, separated out by income level

"What we did was to collect survey questions that asked whether respondents would favor or oppose some particular change in federal government policy. These were questions asked across the decades from 1981 to 2002. And so from each of those questions we know what citizens of average income level prefer and we know what people at the top of the income distribution say they want. For each of the 2,000 possible policy changes we determined whether in fact they've been adopted or not. I had a large number of research assistants who spent years putting that data together."

futhermore, it has nothing to do with the things you listed, claims no less fault for repubs or democrats, and doesn't actually classify it as an oligarchy. Also it wouldnt have any sort of official bearing on what we are called anyway.

continuing on

Both parties have to a large degree embraced a set of policies that reflect the needs, preferences and interests of the well to do.

If you lived here you would probably have a better understanding of the glaringly obvious fact that both major parties are wholly controlled by big money(in many cases the exact same companies), get superPAC funding, and dont give a crap about normal people.

 

[SiempreTuna]

If you lived here you would probably have a better understanding of the glaringly obvious fact that both major parties are wholly controlled by big money(in many cases the exact same companies), get superPAC funding, and dont give a crap about normal people.

Which is precisely what the oligarchy definition means: big money = oligarchs.

We're saying the same thing here.

Sadly, I don't need to be in the US to see this, either: we have the exact same issues (though it's maybe not quite so blatant) here in the UK.

Thanks for the link to that interview. It totally confirms my understanding of the paper (though it doesn't mention GOP voter suppression which would also appear to be a factor as the affect is to increase the domination of the avowedly pro-big money party):

"[T]he preferences of economic elites have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do."

I'd say that contrary to what decades of political science research might lead you to believe, ordinary citizens have virtually no influence over what their government does in the United States. And economic elites and interest groups, especially those representing business, have a substantial degree of influence. Government policy-making over the last few decades reflects the preferences of those groups -- of economic elites and of organized interests.

Over time responsiveness to elites has grown

The middle class has not done well over the last three and a half decades, and certainly has not done well during the Great Recession. The political system responded to the crisis in a way that led to a pretty nice recovery for economic elites and corporations.

That's all remarkably unequivocal for an academic. I grant he isn't happy with the term 'oligarchy', but what he describes is a pretty exact fit with my definition.

 

[jajrussel]

Obama care may appear to be as popular as the British health care system, but it will only be an allusion that DC magicians will be able to keep up only for a little while.

It is not affordable health care. It is affordable health insurance. There is a 2,500$ hole to be filled in for the single plan and twice that for the family plan.

Those whom the health care act is supposed to help won't be able to pay. That can barely pay their bills now, and those who are managing to pay their bills now are going to learn that the debt hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

Which bill do I pay or which bill do I not pay? In the world I live in things get really tense when bills are not paid.

Move in with family? This ain't little house on the prairie. Our family's are facing the same problems. Our friends have their own problems.

The state of our economy is putting the screws to all of us. Just seven years ago most of us never thought that we would be living the lives we now have. This isn't living. It's not even surviving anymore. It's desperation.

The government only offers hope. If I could choose between help and hope I'd take help, but all they give is hope. Hope doesn't stop the bill collector. It doesn't stop the debt hole from burying us.

A single thing like the car breaking down is a crises. You have a job and you are living on hope then the car breaks down. What do you do? How do you get to work? Hope they get the car fixed, hope I can pay the bill, hope someone will rent me a car, hope I can figure out how to pay the car rental.

DC is full of hope, full of advise, and full of fools who think that we can afford this so called affordable health care plan. It ain't affordable health care, it is affordable insurance, and its not even that if you lose your job.

 

[SiempreTuna]

It is not affordable health care. It is affordable health insurance

Very true. It is a Republican policy after all, so of course the oligarchs must get their cut.

You can only hope that once people actually get to see the reality rather than listen to the hysterical BS, they'll push their politicians to correct the real shortcomings.

 

[dibblebill]

Very true. It is a Federal Government policy after all, so of course the oligarchs must get their cut.

You can only hope that once people actually get to see the reality rather than listen to the hysterical BS, they'll push their politicians to correct the real shortcomings.

FTFY

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Very true. It is a Republican policy after all, so of course the oligarchs must get their cut.

It has become a ridiculous, but accurate, cliche, that this country's leftwrong-wing puts forth obviously-bad policies and then tries to blame the opposition for the consequences of these policies.

 

[jajrussel]

The problem is left wing or right wing no one fixes the problems. They posture, they stand there beating on their chest shouting to the world why they are best. Then they sit down on their ass long enough for someone else to do the same.
Then they cash their checks.

 

[dibblebill]

The problem is left wing or right wing no one fixes the problems. They posture, they stand there beating on their chest shouting to the world why they are best. Then they sit down on their ass long enough for someone else to do the same.
Then they cash their checks.

Preci-effin'-ly.

 

[SiempreTuna]

leftwrong-wing puts forth obviously-bad policies

Glad you crossed out left wing, coz I don't think anyone, anywhere could seriously describe the Republicans (who's policy this was: the last GOP presidential canditate, Romney implemented it in Massachusetts in 2006) as left wing

Wrong-wing, on the other hand works perfectly for them :rofl:

Re the relative competence of left and right wing: absolutely, they're as bad as each other, the only difference - sometimes - is what they're trying to achieve.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Glad you crossed out left wing, coz I don't think anyone, anywhere could seriously describe the Republicans (who's policy this was: the last GOP presidential canditate, Romney implemented it in Massachusetts in 2006) as left wing

Wrong-wing, on the other hand works perfectly for them :rofl:

Re the relative competence of left and right wing: absolutely, they're as bad as each other, the only difference - sometimes - is what they're trying to achieve.

Romney is hardly a conservative. That one plan was supported by a RINO such as Romney is no basis to characterize a badly bloated and distorted version thereof as a

 

[dibblebill]

I honestly can think of no stupider statement than the one I just read

 

[Thatdad]

Romney is hardly a conservative. That one plan was supported by a RINO such as Romney is no basis to characterize a badly bloated and distorted version thereof as a