Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Yeah-I was just trying to give credit for youthful indiscretions and be non-confrontational.
Facts are, I was raised to always try to have compassion for everyone. And I believe it sunk in and meant something to me from an early age because I KNEW what it was like to suffer AND to pull myself up by my bootstraps. Sometimes we ALL need a little help, though. The minute I bring up MY OWN suffering and hard work, is the moment before someone who's got it worse teaches me empathy...
Mercy and grace. One can never have enough.
Last Edit: Aug 21, 2009 23:33:07 GMT -5 by red - Back to Top
Post by nitetimeritetime on Aug 21, 2009 18:59:19 GMT -5
I hear you, red. I guess I was just acknowledging my own youthful indiscretions, because I used to be sure I knew who deserved things and who didn't.
But then I encountered a lot of people who work hard and have taken on more personal responsibility in their lives than most of the middle class kids I grew up around ever will, but who still don't get much further than next month's paycheck. I talk to hardworking people every day -- people who make the best choices available to them but aren't lucky enough to be part of the 63% of the population who get employment-based insurance -- hardworking people who are one injury away, one child's major illness away, one tumor or heart attack away, from sending their family into bankruptcy and poverty.
I see the statistics that 62% of all personal bankruptcies are linked to medical expenses, and 80% of people filing for bankruptcy are employed, and I know that the people I talk to are not exceptions to the rule.
I see how hard they work, and realize that in fact, as others have said in this thread, life is not fair. If life were fair, these people wouldn't have to skip on doctor's visits so their children can get healthcare instead. If life were fair, they wouldn't have to worry constantly that they were one accident away from financial ruin. If life were fair, they would be rewarded for the hard work they do. But they're not rewarded for their hard work and personal responsibility, because life isn't fair.
So I've realized that I don't know enough about everyone else's circumstances to decide who deserves help and who doesn't. I've switched to the default position that everyone deserves help, because if I'm going judge people incorrectly, I would rather be wrong and help people who don't deserve it than be wrong and do nothing while deserving people suffer and die.
Blessings buddy. Cuz to me, there couldn't be any higher pursuit.
Even if we end up losing battle after battle, war after war, we can sleep well, knowing that we fought for something worth fighting for... ... ... in Tomahawk county... ...
ive skipped to page 4 on the convo, but to the people quoting the 'Scary Bill' . . . well, there really is no single bill. there are several ones drafted, and you were told which ones to look at you were told to be scared.
Red...it's not that I don't think something needs to be in place to help people, I just don't think the gov't plan is going to accomplish anything positive in terms of reform.
And Mike...the link I posted was to H.R. 3200, which is available at the website for congress, www.house.gov
So I've realized that I don't know enough about everyone else's circumstances to decide who deserves help and who doesn't. I've switched to the default position that everyone deserves help, because if I'm going judge people incorrectly, I would rather be wrong and help people who don't deserve it than be wrong and do nothing while deserving people suffer and die.
This right here sums it all up perfectly in my opinion. I like the way you think
Red...it's not that I don't think something needs to be in place to help people, I just don't think the gov't plan is going to accomplish anything positive in terms of reform.
That's a broad prediction. Let's look at redefining pre-existing conditions and their subsequent denials for treatment based, at root, on change of employment. It's not unique to the public option ONLY, but rest assured, lobbies including news channels who run a good deal of pharmaceutical ads will do anything they can to stop ANY reform from happening. This is merely the first step in a debate that has already been steered to the absurd by references to death panels,etc., that aren't part of ANY of the bills on the table. I watched an interview with Newt Gingerich midweek where he was STILL trying to beat the death panel horse. The reporter called him on the fact that nowhere in any of the bills was this an issue. Newt slithered it off by referring to over 1000 pages to read, yadayada. The republicans have been accused and sued on a federal level over campaigns of misleading. The verdict has always been that it is not illegal to mislead the stupid. In this case, I believe it is fuckin' TREASONOUS.
Now, with all of the Obama ratings taking precedence in the "news", the whitehouse AND noncohesive democrats are backpeddling.
Also in the news I've noticed a tendency for the corners being smoothed off by the folks who oppose the public option(and ultimately ANY reform I believe). Less underlining of governmental ineptitude, and rather, a focus toward admitting reform IS needed-just not this kind of reform. And coincidentally I check in here to find Lelie approaching it in the same fashion.
THEY WILL KILL THIS BILL BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY(INCLUDING MISLEADING LIES AND COOPTING PROTEST VIA TOWN HALL IDIOCY)
AND THEN THEY WILL KILL THE NEXT.
divide and conquer since the Reagan era. Nothing less. Very few in the house OR the senate are free from ties to the Med for Profit industry...democrat OR republican. All of this is mostly a dog and pony show. One must really wonder what back door shenanigans are REALLY going on while they ALLOW us to squabble this to death...
Well, why don't you think that, nitetime? I just don't trust the government enough to believe that they will step in and run an efficient, money saving, high quality health care system that will solve everyone's problems, no matter what. I think the people who feel this way are going to be very disappointed if/when this legislation gets passed.
And Red, I'm offended by your little comment implying that I am too stupid to read facts on my own and form my own opinions, so I must just listen to what all the conservative right wing freaks are saying. For the record, I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh. Ever. I have never said "I believe in reform, just not this way", what I meant was that if you've worked hard your entire life, and then something devastating like illness/disease/an accident happens and you aren't able to afford it, then I am in favor of something being in place to cover that. What I don't support, for example, are women who go out and just can't seem to stop having kids even though there is no dad around (or multiple fathers or their multiple children) and they've figured out how to get the government to pay for all their and their kids medical needs (not to mention welfare and food stamps), including the cost of the birth itself, but they can't figure out how to go get on gov't funded birth control. I know several girls who go to the health clinic for their gyno visits and they get the real, name brand birth control, not the generic stuff. I believe there is a $15 or $20 fee, but it is waived if you can't afford it...never been, but this is my understanding of how it works. I think if a woman is knocked up and she is applying for medicaid, she should have to undergo mandatory birth control counseling....I'd like to say mandatory birth control, but I know that's really touch territory; to mandate birth control would be a slippery slope. But I would rather pay for these women to get a BC shot (since they wouldn't be trusted to take a pill at the same time every day) or even a one-time fee to have their tubes tied at the time of birth than to pay the cost of raising their children who, let's face it, will likely grow up to follow in their mother's footsteps. I should add that I have a very close friend who is a shining example of the fact that really great people come from every background, so I know it's a generalizatoin to say that those kids will not grow up to be productive; unfortunately it's true, no matter how harsh or uncomfortable the truth may be. I've said before, I have no problem paying to help kids, but it's sad that there are so many selfish women who have kids they can't afford.
Hey-that's your choice to be offended. I simply pointed out the irony of having heard the new spin by the talking heads, and then logging on inforoo to read the very same thing echoed.
Crunchy for a happy sunday, mkay ? Don't take anything I say personally. If it makes you look into yourself, only good can come, so long as you hold on to that which you can use. And anything that doesn't stick-let it fly-please. I'll try my best to do the same. We need to take each other higher...that is why I am here.
Last Edit: Aug 23, 2009 10:41:32 GMT -5 by red - Back to Top
I've said before, I have no problem paying to help kids, but it's sad that there are so many selfish women who have kids they can't afford.
I think by judging the mothers' motives and preparedness and using that JUDGEMENT as a standard of whether you are willing to help give that child a better leg up in this world, YOU DO HAVE A PROBLEM PAYING TO HELP KIDS.
and IT IS VERY SAD THAT THERE ARE SO MANY SELFISH WOMEN(and Men-to be fair)... .... ....who have kids that they can't afford.
"Those we push away hardest, are those that need our help the most." Question whether or not that is true for you, and I believe you will find it fairly universally applicable.
Last Edit: Aug 23, 2009 10:50:16 GMT -5 by red - Back to Top
Well, why don't you think that, nitetime? I just don't trust the government enough to believe that they will step in and run an efficient, money saving, high quality health care system that will solve everyone's problems, no matter what. I think the people who feel this way are going to be very disappointed if/when this legislation gets passed.
Well, like I said, every single industrialized democracy on the planet has managed to run efficient, money saving, high quality health care systems that guarantee health care to all of their citizens. The US is the wealthiest nation in the world, so if those other countries can all do it, then I have every expectation that we can do it too.
It is possible that whatever legislation gets passed may be disappointing, but that's not because there's anything inherently troubling about health care reform. I will be disappointed if our representatives cave in to pressure from the insurance industry and give us a watered down piece of legislation that helps only the insurance companies. If the legislation turns out to be disappointing, it will be because the health insurance industry did everything it could to work against the interests of the American people, and because all Republicans and some Democrats capitulated to those moneyed interests.
Instead of giving in to vague fears about "the government," you should take a look at the ways some other countries run their health care systems. You will see that other countries' governments have managed to positively reform their health care systems in the past. I don't think those countries are intrinsically better than the US, so I think if they can do it, we can do it too (maybe even better than they have).
Post by nitetimeritetime on Aug 23, 2009 14:33:38 GMT -5
A lot of different terms are thrown around in the healthcare debate, but it's obvious that many people using those terms don't know what they mean. For example, some people seem to conflate "single payer" with "socialized medicine," when the two concepts are in fact distinct.
If anyone wants to know a little more about what single payer healthcare means, the Wikipedia page is a surprisingly good resource (!) for the basics. It's worth reading through this entire entry -- and hey, it's a Wikipedia entry, so it's relatively short:
That page discusses in brief the systems in Canada, Taiwan, and The Netherlands. If you'd like to know a little bit about the systems in place in some other countries, the National Coalition on Health Care has some pdf files containing brief introductory info on several other health care systems:
The above link to takes you to the NCHC website, which is a pretty good resource for general info on health care, and it's worth the time to look around the rest of the site after you read up on how some other countries have reformed their systems.
I've been out of town but thought I'd chime back in (though we seem to be discussing the same basic concepts over and over.)
It should be stressed again that no one is even considering government run healthcare. Single payer is dead (unfortunately IMHO.)
The public option allows you to choose a Medicare like system IF YOU WISH. But there is no coercion or mandate to join so if you don't trust the government, don't use their system. It's that simple. (And, sadly, even this public option is in serious trouble.)
I'd also like to HIGHLY recommend an episode of PBS' Frontline that examines 5 different healthcare systems around the world. It is an excellent background on systems other countries used to solve the problems we are facing and the pros and cons of each. I was amazed at how varied "government healthcare" actually is and how widely the systems differ. It is an hour long program but is well worth it.
Post by nitetimeritetime on Aug 23, 2009 20:09:38 GMT -5
I didn't mean in my post above to imply that single payer was the only possible option. Other models of health care we can draw from include multi payer systems like France and Germany have.
There are even different kinds of single payer systems. Canada has a universal single payer system that isn't actually "socialized medicine" in the same way the UK's single payer system is. In the UK, hospitals and doctor's offices are government-owned and operated, but in Canada the medical services are delivered mostly by private offices and hospitals, and the government pays them in much the same way insurance companies pay doctors and hospitals here in the US.
The US has single payer systems (e.g., Medicare) that operate like Canada's, but we don't have a universal single payer system like Canada.
Now, it's my understanding, and I could be wrong here, that the "public option" would be a singe payer system, much like Medicare. It just wouldn't be a universal single payer system, because people would have the option to decide whether to participate in it (hence the "option" part of "public option"). Like I said, I may have the basic gist of the public option wrong. If so, somebody please correct me here.
The public option would be a "pseudo- single payer" plan but not taxpayer financed. It would have to balance its books using only the premiums and fees charged to its participants. That way private insurers should be able to compete.
And, yes, anyone could choose to opt in (or out) of the public system or go with a private insurer as available.
Last Edit: Aug 23, 2009 20:59:04 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Post by nitetimeritetime on Aug 23, 2009 21:31:53 GMT -5
^^ Ah, that's the part I was missing out on. So the idea then is that it has potentially more people paying in than any other single insurance company, and can spread the risk out that way?
How can private insurers compete? And do you seriously think this will all get through without a tax increase?? Isn't the whole point to cover people who can't afford premiums and fees? So then how will it be funded? I feel like one argument that I hear, especially when people are talking about "review boards" is that "well, the insurance companies already do that, already decide what your care will or will not include. But if the insurance companies are so evil, then why would anyone be okay with the gov't doing the same thing? And yeah, nobody will be forced to switch to the gov't plan unless their employer switches to that option- which many will because it will cut down on their own cost of contributing to employees' plans....but make no mistake that cost will be covered somewhere else...most likely through tax hikes. Clark Howard says (and no, I don't know his source, but he's a smart guy when it comes to money) that the current federal spending is such that for every $1 brought in they are spending $1.70....all of the current spending will have to be paid for during our lifetimes.
This whole thing boils down to a fundamental disagreement as to what the government's role is/should be in our society. I believe it should be limited...very limited. Supporters of the health reform don't. Therefore, we will never come to a resolution on this subject.
How will we ever pay for the war in Iraq ????? Afghanastan ?????? Oh-wait, guess that's not an issue.
Rebuild what we destroyed while people at home DIE because of how things gotta get paid. Ann Coulter about raising taxes , yet enact no measure of legislated restrictions on corporations while they pull down record profits.
Similar to saying, "We can't breathe, the ocean is boiling, all the polar bears are dead.....but how will Exxon survive ?".
Poor private insurers just won't be able to compete....
Last Edit: Aug 24, 2009 8:57:09 GMT -5 by red - Back to Top
The same way Fed Ex and UPS compete with the post office. Each sector will find their niche. The public option will not worry about profits but likely will pay employees better, probably using union employees so things will balance.
Instead of record profits going to CEO's in private firms, they will make smaller salaries and public companies will give this money to employees (or just waste it in Republican philosophy.)
Also covering the unwanted poor will eat up some of the money private forms would use as profit.
And do you seriously think this will all get through without a tax increase?? Isn't the whole point to cover people who can't afford premiums and fees? So then how will it be funded?
There will be tax increases to cover the premiums and fees of the working poor (most not working have Medicaid already) and the "uninsurable." Obama wants to cover these costs through repealing the tax cuts given to the top 3% of wage earners (people making over $250,000/yr) and returning the top tax bracket to what it was during Clinton's term.
This whole thing boils down to a fundamental disagreement as to what the government's role is/should be in our society.
Absolutely true, This is the key argument. I believe when the Preamble to the Constitution says "promote the general welfare", it should include this. Every other country can do it without undue burden and so should we. Just MHO.
all of the current spending will have to be paid for during our lifetimes.
Really? Then why hasn't any other president paid off the debt? Andrew Jackson is the only president that I know of that actually was able to pay down the debt. I can almost guarantee that no amount of money you pay in taxes will be put toward the national debt.
I don't get the people who say that our children have to pay off this debt. As if we are paying off the debt of our parents.
I feel like one argument that I hear, especially when people are talking about "review boards" is that "well, the insurance companies already do that, already decide what your care will or will not include. But if the insurance companies are so evil, then why would anyone be okay with the gov't doing the same thing?
I think troo covered the other statements, so I'll address this one.
When Republicans bring up "review boards" or "death panels" as a scare tactic, they purposefully ignore the fact that insurance companies already do this. It happens now, so trying to scare people by saying the gov't will do it is dishonest. The Republicans are lying by omission, and people should point that out.
Further, insurance companies do it more often and more dishonestly than the gov't will have to. Insurance companies actually pay bonuses for the number of claims their employees deny. People have resigned from insurance companies because they couldn't live with themselves for doing this.
Every denied claim is more profit for the insurance company, so insurance companies find every way they can to deny claims, to refuse treatment, and to practice rescission after people have been paying premiums for years. The business model of the private insurer is to find ways to save money (for the shareholder), so they do so, even when they don't have legitimate cause to deny a claim. The argument is that insurance companies are evil for doing this, because human life matters more than money (well, to some people, at least).
Take away the profit, and you lessen the number of denied claims. In the hands of the gov't, insurance rescission disappears completely. No profit, fewer denied claims, and zero motive to kick people out of the system they have been paying into.
^^Agree but will never happen. 