HEALTH CARE AS EXPLAINED BY A NOBEL-PRIZE WINNER

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=1

We already have government-run or government-backed systems in place, such as Medicare & Medicaid. I'd like to see if people like mra and Joe are willing to step up to the plate and demand that all such programs be dismantled. Tell that to your grandparents' faces, too.

Eddie (posters5) said -

Quote:
"I'd like to see if people like mra and Joe are willing to step up to the plate and demand that all such programs be dismantled."

?? Why would you want me to "demand" this?

....I'm not against those government programs (or their reform).

But - Obama's heavily one-sided health care bill that's being discussed now [he did not allow Republican suggestions to get in on writing the bill], a mega-size bill that nobody, including Obama has actually read every page of, and his ignoring the large American public that disagrees and rejects his plans for the bill (Obama's support is in the minority according to all of the major polls) should be of REAL CONCERN to any thinking person.

Plus all of his other "government takeovers" he has been, or will try to do... Saturday I read that the FDIC chairman is now opposing Obama's planned changes for the Fed Reserve, and also Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Every week it's yet another part of government that Obama is trying to change towards his ideology, rather than keeping it straight and business-friendly. Often, you have to wonder if some of the ideas he's proposing are technically legal (and if could withstand a legal challenge).

Eddie, YOU should be more worried and concerned about Obama's "rule" than whatever disagreements you have with Reagan and Bush (Iraq war etc).

-JOE- (Love Hendrix!)

Joe,

Well, at least it seems like you realize that the government has to run something and that even the beloved (by the right) Reagan made government as big as anyone ever did.

As far as Obama, I think that he's not doing enough. He's being shackled by Republicans and blue-dog Democrats from doing truly game-changing work. For example, the current health-care proposal is still too half-assed and not comprehensive enough.

---

[Post edited by posters5 on Aug 17, 2009 - CDT 8:58 PM]

Quote:
As far as Obama, I think that he's not doing enough. He's being shackled by Republicans and blue-dog Democrats from doing truly game-changing work.

"...from truly game-changing work"... or truly damage-changing wok? The opposition has made some very good points about the extremities of Obama's plans (especially the very HIGH cost).

Why doesn't Obama make only moderate changes, instead trying to go for the jugular? As many of us on the right feel, his experience is showing more and more, and he will probably fail unless he comes to the middle, and moderate some of his ideas, especially on the anti-business, anti-consumer "cap and trade" legislation (still in the Senate).

-JOE- (Love Hendrix!)

Joe,

There is no such thing as "moderate" or "slight" change. Change is change, period. Health-care is one of those things where, if you give companies a profit motive, they'll screw over people who truly need health care.

Look, I know what the real argument is. The real argument is that some people never get sick, never get into car accidents, and have never had to visit a doctor in their whole entire lives. If I were one of those people, I, too, would feel a little sore about paying taxes so that other people could get health-care on my dime. Guess what? There is another option on the table, which is to have NO insurance whatsoever for anything--auto, homeowner's, renter's, health, etc. As I wrote in another thread, I want either NO insurance or TOTAL insurance. The half-assed crap that we have now makes me pay a lot of money for premiums that don't cover anything substantive anyway.

Joe,

Forget cap-and-trade, we need genuine reductions in carbon emissions. The alternative is that we make the planet inhospitable to human life--in which case we all die, and no one would be left to argue anyway.

That's not the only argument... another thing to consider - WHICH IS A BIG DEAL - is how well will the government-run health care work? Our government can't even handle this simple "Cash for Clunkers" program in a timely manner (only 4% of rebates have had checks sent to dealers, the rest is still being "worked on").

Now consider the masses signed up to a government-run health service, and then the doctors who will participate... are you truly confident that a gov-run service work will smoothly? Is it getting great reviews in Canada, and other countries -- what about the complaints people are always raising about those areas?

Obama has it within his power (but he isn't compromising yet) to reform the health care MODERATELY, use some of the ideas of the opposing party, and also slowly put it into operation, without the massive debt that the estimates are showing "his" ideas will cost (if fully implemented)... But does our President care? Or is his real goal to simply make a radical change, without caring what the cost to the U$A will end up being over the coming decades?

Obama is too radical and inexperienced in my opinion. His policies are too "anti-consumer" and "anti-business" since they will be the cause of increased prices, taxes, loss of jobs, and are against many of the resources we already have in this country... and all because he wants a "greener" future.

-JOE- (Love Hendrix!)

I just got these humorous email tonight regarding the health care legislation being debated in Washington...

The American Medical Association has weighed in on Obama's new health care package. The Allergists were in favor of scratching it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves. The
Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the
Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
Meanwhile, Obstetricians felt certain everyone was laboring under a misconception, while the Ophthalmologists considered the idea
shortsighted. Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!", while the
Pediatricians said, "Oh, grow up!"

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the
Radiologists could see right through it. Surgeons decided to wash
their hands of the whole thing and the Internists claimed it would
indeed be a bitter pill to swallow. The Plastic Surgeons opined that
this proposal would "put a whole new face on the matter".

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea. Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and those softy Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no. In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington.

-JOE-

Joe -

We've had the biggest loss of jobs since the great depression. All under Bush's watch and all under a system of very little regulations on private business and the most comfy tax bracket the rich have ever known. However, I suppose you'll tell me it's all the Dems. fault, as most Republican's manage to do.

Point is, no one side has ever been perfect and each has their lots of issues to blame. Many American's are scared and full of unnecessary fear, but failed political promises from both parties are to blame for this outrage. I could blame Bush and Cheney for being Nazi's, too, but where's that going to get me or anyone?! Nevertheless, if anyone can manage to use moral, common sense, we should all realize health care needs to be reformed to work for every citizen in this country. There really are genuine, hard working people that have lost everything due to this economic downturn, and they lost their health insurance right along with it. Some of these people need serious attention, and it does them no justice for us to be selfish about slowing it all down while they could possibly die.

I, too, am concerned where all the money will come from and how it will all work in the long run, but that does not take away from the fact that we can not stall on this issue any longer. Health care reform has been in dire need for over 50yrs, and we've waited long enough. To be honest, I'll take a small tax hike on my income (which I'm sure I'd barely notice in the first place) rather then see the insurance industry rape us all for another 428% premium hike over the next 8yrs.

And you talk about this not being a "business friendly" plan. Are you sure about that? Glenn Beck has lost 20 sponsors now on his FOX program. Did you ever stop and think how Big Business might actually be behind the health care reform? And why not? They stand to benefit by decreasing their health care expense. If you were the CEO of Walmart, wouldn't you like to see premiums cut in half due to reform? So tell me, how is that not business friendly?

Boy, all this ranting is fun, isn't it!? It's like the good ol' days! You, Eddie and myself need or own "face to face" show!

---

[Post edited by Tim Raynor on Aug 18, 2009 - CDT 12:13 AM]

ALL children should have some kind of coverage until the age of 18. They should not be held accountable for their parents actions or lack there of.

And if you really think about the way things have been going with the almost total wipeout of the middle class you cannot help but wonder if struggles within the current health care system are imminent.