Thread: Your thoughts on the White House's request to send fishy emails on National healthcar

Originally Posted by astralis

JAD,



certainly, i understand the point. however, i have my doubts that the protests would be so raucous if opponents hit the bill for what it IS as opposed to the dark paintings they're drawing for the public.

takes blues' point- that the government should have no interest in the health care business. fair enough. better that, than deranged ramblings about how soon everyone over 55 is going to get euthanized, or the weirdly opposite point, suddenly we're going to be in a communist society where everyone gets the same thing.

I agree some of the people protesting Obama's plan seem to have recently arrived via UFO. But exposing some protestors as idiots doesn't make the case for the plan any stronger.

As far as I can tell not many media outlets made an effort to interview a wide range of protestors. If they had, they would have discovered what NPR did, that most of them are not whakos bussed in from Bellvue, but are local folks who speak directly to the issue.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

there is no point in arguing with the guys that insist that they're right, when they're demonstrably not. It's like playing chess with somebody using the rules for checkers. There is no basis for a conversation with people like that.

So I'm dismissive of them. People like rooseveltrepub (or Bluesman) would rather run their mouths than actually listen, and when presented with some fact that doesn't accord with what they'd rather believe, they rationalize it away. So it is here.

Physicial heal thyself.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

This is a great example of an idiotic post. No, nobody could possibly pull that off, and if they could, it would lead to dislocations that would likely be apocalyptic to the society that we've constructed.

My point was and remains that none of this should have ever been done, but now that it has, there's no way back. And should we be foolish enough to compound the mistakes we've already made by doubling down on an already ruinous bet, we're never going to recover. We will forever change freeborn citizens into nothing more than aged adolescents, mewling and jostling for what their betters will grant to them. The way forward is not a greater dependency than we've already gotten used to, but a statement that sometimes, a man has to act like a MAN, and shoulder his own responsibilities, like looking after himself and his family.

The social security example (of which the medicare proposal was a derivative), was from Milton Friedman's "Freedom to Choose" chapter "Cradle to Grave", where he tried to propose a way out of Social Security. I suppose he is an extremely idiotic person.

My proposal is not a stupid one, your post is an example of backing down and giving up. You say that removing dependency from the government is the right thing to do, so why are you backing out of trying to find a solution?
What you are basically saying is that we are doomed since we have gone down this path and there is no point of return.

And the interesting part is that these do not have to be done together. You can continue current benefits and fund them through accumulated monies or by issuance of bonds, while stopping further collections through payroll taxes.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Such people are ready for self-governance, and the ones that look to minders and administrators of the details that properly belong to a citizen in the fullest sense of that term are lost to that sense of freedom. They're subjects, and nothing more. They settle for hay and a barn for the human cattle that they've become.

If that's you, you're to be pitied.

I don't give a tinker's cuss for Medicare/ Medicaid/ Social Security. They come out of my taxes and there is certainly no guarantee that they would be there in the future if I ever have the misfortune to actually need them. My contributions go to pay for someone else's benefits, and my benefits depend on the largesse of a future generation. If they decide to bite the bullet, well, we are gone if we do not make additional arrangements

Originally Posted by JAD_333

I agree some of the people protesting Obama's plan seem to have recently arrived via UFO. But exposing some protestors as idiots doesn't make the case for the plan any stronger.

As far as I can tell not many media outlets made an effort to interview a wide range of protestors. If they had, they would have discovered what NPR did, that most of them are not whakos bussed in from Bellvue, but are local folks who speak directly to the issue.

JAD,

Right on this board, I have heard more ideas about this proposal than I have seen in the entire media, including the right wing ones.

Yes, there are tonnes to debate on, like care for illegal immigrants, requirements of the so called "Qualified Plans", discussions on why the individual plans should go away, which parts would actually save money and so on.

But the Right Wing and their media focus on non-existent Death Panels, and the Left Wing media in turn focus on the Right Wing media.

I do not believe either the Right or the Left want to really discuss the issues

Originally Posted by antimony

The social security example (of which the medicare proposal was a derivative), was from Milton Friedman's "Freedom to Choose" chapter "Cradle to Grave", where he tried to propose a way out of Social Security. I suppose he is an extremely idiotic person.

My proposal is not a stupid one, your post is an example of backing down and giving up. You say that removing dependency from the government is the right thing to do, so why are you backing out of trying to find a solution?
What you are basically saying is that we are doomed since we have gone down this path and there is no point of return.

And the interesting part is that these do not have to be done together. You can continue current benefits and fund them through accumulated monies or by issuance of bonds, while stopping further collections through payroll taxes.



I don't give a tinker's cuss for Medicare/ Medicaid/ Social Security. They come out of my taxes and there is certainly no guarantee that they would be there in the future if I ever have the misfortune to actually need them. My contributions go to pay for someone else's benefits, and my benefits depend on the largesse of a future generation. If they decide to bite the bullet, well, we are gone if we do not make additional arrangements

You're right; I'm climbing down. I thought you were saying that I was wrong to claim the previous acts were a terrible idea, and had fundamentally altered - and not in a GOOD way - the citizen's relationship to his government. My bad; I see your points now.

Originally Posted by antimony

JAD,

Right on this board, I have heard more ideas about this proposal than I have seen in the entire media, including the right wing ones.

Yes, there are tonnes to debate on, like care for illegal immigrants, requirements of the so called "Qualified Plans", discussions on why the individual plans should go away, which parts would actually save money and so on.

But the Right Wing and their media focus on non-existent Death Panels, and the Left Wing media in turn focus on the Right Wing media.

I do not believe either the Right or the Left want to really discuss the issues

Well, I certainly don't. I want to strangle the entire deformed mess in its crib. To get into the details is to concede that any monstrosity that is crafted through compromise is an advance against some problem or another. I don't concede that at all, and this supposedly awful system - even as grotesquely twisted out of shape as it has been by 'progressive' ideas and liberal tinkering - still manages to deliver the greatest quality and quantity of health care for the greatest number of citizens, and no amount of government intervention is going to be an improvement.

This whole thing is a con, and to discuss the issues is to consent to be conned just a little less - for now, anyway - than what the liberals are trying for with the Whole Magilla.

No. I have no interest in negotiating my freedom away.

blues,

Well, I certainly don't. I want to strangle the entire deformed mess in its crib. To get into the details is to concede that any monstrosity that is crafted through compromise is an advance against some problem or another. I don't concede that at all, and this supposedly awful system - even as grotesquely twisted out of shape as it has been by 'progressive' ideas and liberal tinkering - still manages to deliver the greatest quality and quantity of health care for the greatest number of citizens, and no amount of government intervention is going to be an improvement.

i disagree. discussing details or ideas certainly doesn't equate to "consent to being conned just a little less". if so, then every time you talk to someone you disagree with, does that mean you've just legitimized their argument?

trying to shout down and engage in demagoguery against an idea, no matter how distasteful it may or may not be, is absolutely corrosive to a democracy that demands reasoned, thoughtful participation by its citizens.

there is an identified problem, rising healthcare costs. these costs sap american financial strength and economic competitiveness, not to mention health of the population in general.

if you do not believe a solution involves government, then there's certainly some expectation that there should also be workable ideas involving the free market. pretending that the problem does not exist ("this supposedly awful system - even as grotesquely twisted out of shape as it has been by 'progressive' ideas and liberal tinkering -still manages to deliver the greatest quality and quantity of health care for the greatest number of citizens") doesn't advance the cause of freedom one bit.

Originally Posted by antimony

JAD...Grandma wants her hip replacement to be funded through Medicare but is upset about the government trying to have a say in it. I call that abject hypocrisy. If you want government assistance you should also allow government scrutiny of what you are doing. Or else you say no thank you, don't want either. I that the second option is not on the plate now, but what do you think the reaction would be if someone proposed it?

Grandma didn't create Medicare. Those who did long ago shifted responsibility for her care from family, private insurance or charity to what it is now. Her dependency was forced on her, and she can't be faulted for coming to rely on it. That doesn't mean that Grandma cannot perceive the long-range effect of a program that now constitutes 20% of Federal outlays annually and speak out against it. Why would you label her a hypocrite when you leave her no alternative. I submit that someone who takes a benefit and speaks out against it is no less honest than someone who takes a benefit and argues in favor of it.

For most people who oppose Obama's health care plan it is not a question of denying the sorry state of the health care industry. We all agree that something must be done about it. Where we disagree is in how to do it. Those who favor Obama's plan don't fear the consequences of creating yet another government-run social program to deal with health care. Many of us do because we perceive, rightly or wrongly, that increasing people's dependency social progarms will weaken the qualities that made the US great. We also believe that cumulative cost of social programs will eventually lead to higher and hiigher taxes which will, in turn, weigh down the economy.

Keep in mind that Medicare, which is in large part responsible for rising health care costs, because of its fee-for-service payout policy, did not exist before 1965. For more than 180 years the US did without it and yet the country rose to its present stature. That's just something to think about on a rainy afternoon.

Originally Posted by astralis

blues,



i disagree. discussing details or ideas certainly doesn't equate to "consent to being conned just a little less". if so, then every time you talk to someone you disagree with, does that mean you've just legitimized their argument?

trying to shout down and engage in demagoguery against an idea, no matter how distasteful it may or may not be, is absolutely corrosive to a democracy that demands reasoned, thoughtful participation by its citizens.

Well, OF COURSE you disagree. You're on the side of the con men.

No, you're not following me. Not every time I disagree do I refuse to talk it over with the other side. But on this particular subject, to engage in negotiations over how much autonomy I'm willing to cede is a loser right out of the gate. To start out with the premise that there's some detail or other in the bill that I need decided in my favor in order for me to give you the go-ahead to wreck a dam' fine system that is delivering what it's supposed to, despite the massive interference in the working of a private matter, is to miss the point.

I'm not looking for you to grant to me what is mine by birthright and a properly-understood Constitution. I'm telling you to mind your own goddam' business, and stick to the proper business of government. (And even THAT is hardly a model of efficiency, so until the stuff that the government is already doing is humming along at an acceptable pace and in a more-or-less correct direction, why don't all of you geniuses just busy yourselves with doing the right things BETTER, and leave the other stuff to people that don't have a tendency to screw up an anvil with a rubber mallet?)

Originally Posted by astralis

there is an identified problem, rising healthcare costs.

Here's a bulletin for you: LOTS of stuff goes up in price. But the very last thing I am inclined to do about it is bring in government lawyers to somehow make the cost go down. Has that EVER worked?

these costs sap american financial strength and economic competitiveness, not to mention health of the population in general.

DEAD WRONG. The ONLY cost that isn't actually a PART of the American economy is the part that government is involved in. Do you imagine that the landscaping industry in America shouldn't be counted in GDP? The costs are rising in that segment of our economy at roughly the same rate, so does it seem right to you that it should be regulated back into a 'proper' increase in pricing?

And the health of the American people is WAY better served by our system than the less-free subjects of states that have imposed on their people the sub-par government-run catastrophes that have neither any incentive to actually carry out their mandate, nor any compassion for the consequences when they fail so spectacularly to do so.

if you do not believe a solution involves government,

And I don't...

then there's certainly some expectation that there should also be workable ideas involving the free market.

It doesn't 'involve' the free market; it IS the free Market.

pretending that the problem does not exist ("this supposedly awful system - even as grotesquely twisted out of shape as it has been by 'progressive' ideas and liberal tinkering -still manages to deliver the greatest quality and quantity of health care for the greatest number of citizens") doesn't advance the cause of freedom one bit.

Pretending that you wouldn't have a tough time trying to win track and field events against Olympians doesn't advance the cause of freedom, either. But attempting to do anything about either through government action CERTAINLY works against the cause of freedom. That's not a very good point you're trying to make so clumsily.

Originally Posted by antimony

JAD,

Right on this board, I have heard more ideas about this proposal than I have seen in the entire media, including the right wing ones.

Yes, there are tonnes to debate on, like care for illegal immigrants, requirements of the so called "Qualified Plans", discussions on why the individual plans should go away, which parts would actually save money and so on.

But the Right Wing and their media focus on non-existent Death Panels, and the Left Wing media in turn focus on the Right Wing media.

I do not believe either the Right or the Left want to really discuss the issues

Well, sir, militarily it makes perfectly good sense to attack the parts as well as the whole, just as the purveyors of the plan attack the protestors for being hired mercenaries. It seem a waste of time to debate the specifics of the plan. I happily concede that many of the specifics have been made into grossly inaccurate urban legends at the grass roots level. But I am against the big enchalada--government-run health care, and don't see any gain in spending energy on side issues. I'll be happy to debate with anyone who is reasonably well informed.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Well, I certainly don't. I want to strangle the entire deformed mess in its crib. To get into the details is to concede that any monstrosity that is crafted through compromise is an advance against some problem or another. I don't concede that at all, and this supposedly awful system - even as grotesquely twisted out of shape as it has been by 'progressive' ideas and liberal tinkering - still manages to deliver the greatest quality and quantity of health care for the greatest number of citizens, and no amount of government intervention is going to be an improvement.

This whole thing is a con, and to discuss the issues is to consent to be conned just a little less - for now, anyway - than what the liberals are trying for with the Whole Magilla.

No. I have no interest in negotiating my freedom away.

But the problems are very real. Healthcare is expensive. Many people really do not have coverage. And to me, worst of all, my contributions as a taxpayer really do not benefit me, since I have to buy health insurance on top of that.

I am not saying at all that the current proposal solves all problems, but there has to be a proposal, right?

If you do not want to discuss, how do you expect to influence the outcome positively?

I hate to say this, but even the British NHS system is better than this. When I was working in the UK, I was eligible for healthcare, however rationed it might have been since I was paying taxes. Here I am not eligible even though I pay through my nose through payroll taxes.

I honestly do not know who to blame, but things like prohibition in importing prescription drugs do not help either. I am sure there are other areas of savings, like the now demonized advance planning. These can only come out if we do join the discusions

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Grandma didn't create Medicare. Those who did long ago shifted responsibility for her care from family, private insurance or charity to what it is now. Her dependency was forced on her, and she can't be faulted for coming to rely on it. That doesn't mean that Grandma cannot perceive the long-range effect of a program that now constitutes 20% of Federal outlays annually and speak out against it. Why would you label her a hypocrite when you leave her no alternative. I submit that someone who takes a benefit and speaks out against it is no less honest than someone who takes a benefit and argues in favor of it.

I agree with you that a needless dependency has been built, but I believe there are ways around it. I have given some ideas (or to be honest, I copied Milton Friedman's idea) in a post above for both Medicare and Social Security (which I like even less).

Either way, there has to be some way to do away with the current falsehood that Social Security and Medicare constitute.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

For most people who oppose Obama's health care plan it is not a question of denying the sorry state of the health care industry. We all agree that something must be done about it. Where we disagree is in how to do it. Those who favor Obama's plan don't fear the consequences of creating yet another government-run social program to deal with health care. Many of us do because we perceive, rightly or wrongly, that increasing people's dependency social progarms will weaken the qualities that made the US great. We also believe that cumulative cost of social programs will eventually lead to higher and hiigher taxes which will, in turn, weigh down the economy.

Fair enough, and that is why I am saying that there must be actual dialogue on this, instead of false demonizing. There are good mixtures of government and private plans around the world, which actually deliver value to tax payers instead of excluding them like the American one does. The French system comes to mind, which proved taxpayer funded care for very basic stuff and private insurance provided care for anything beyond that.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Keep in mind that Medicare, which is in large part responsible for rising health care costs, because of its fee-for-service payout policy, did not exist before 1965. For more than 180 years the US did without it and yet the country rose to its present stature. That's just something to think about on a rainy afternoon.

I come from a society where we have little faith in the government and we stick together as families. I understand where you are coming, probably even more than you yourself do.