Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Does The British Media Have an "Obama complex"?

bullet_catcher said:
If I have understood correctly from the newspapers over here, US citizens have to pay 18% of their income on healthcare insurance if they are not in an occupational welfare scheme (which costs half as much). I suspect that the proportion of income spent on healthcare would drop if a national health service was implemented, even if that meant taking on those currently rejected by the system for being too sick (and stand by to be corrected on this point). The spare money on the consumers' pockets could then be spent in the shops. Speaking from Scotland, that means I can hope for increased exports of whisky to the good old U. S. of A. while people celebrate their de facto pay rise.

Apparently a false assumption according to many "experts" who have analyzed it, including even Congress' own nonpartisan bean counters the CBO. Much of the problem is a perfectly reasonable skepticism of many of us who have seen our federal government in action with even much less ambitious social programs that are horrifically bloated, corrupt and spectacularly inefficient.
 

Bugsy

LE
jumpinjarhead said:
bullet_catcher said:
If I have understood correctly from the newspapers over here, US citizens have to pay 18% of their income on healthcare insurance if they are not in an occupational welfare scheme (which costs half as much). I suspect that the proportion of income spent on healthcare would drop if a national health service was implemented, even if that meant taking on those currently rejected by the system for being too sick (and stand by to be corrected on this point). The spare money on the consumers' pockets could then be spent in the shops. Speaking from Scotland, that means I can hope for increased exports of whisky to the good old U. S. of A. while people celebrate their de facto pay rise.

Apparently a false assumption according to many "experts" who have analyzed it, including even Congress' own nonpartisan bean counters the CBO. Much of the problem is a perfectly reasonable skepticism of many of us who have seen our federal government in action with even much less ambitious social programs that are horrifically bloated, corrupt and spectacularly inefficient.
If the enormously powerful health-insurance lobby gets its way, things will stay as they are. That means that 40 million folks will still be without any healthcare insurance at all, and 25 million will have seriously underfunded healthcare insurance.

A fundamental question for me is: how can a country professing to be "Christian" support such a barbaric, uncaring and distinctly un-Christian notion?

MsG
 

B_G_L

Old-Salt
Back on topic, I'd agree that there is an obsession in the UK press with Obama and the 'special relationship' both separate obsessions but intertwined. It is often my annoyance that stories regarding Obama & US domestic policy which have little bearing on the UK take headlines away from stories that do. Many people in the UK could probably give you a basic summary on Obama's position on US healthcare but be unable to tell you which of our EU partners are providing support in Afghanistan or what they are campaigning for within the EU.

If Britain is to effectively steer & form the EU for the 21st century should we not put aside our collective obsession as bystanders with US domestic affairs and concentrate on what is important to us nationally?

Whilst the cultural ties to the US remain (film, TV, literature, music) so will the casual interest in US domestic affairs and policy. When something happens at home the British press are often quick to link it to similar US affairs - the July 7th bombings for example which get referred to as 7/7 akin to 9/11. After the bombings I remember thinking that the press were quick to draw parallels to 9/11 but not so much to the Madrid bombings which were actually the more similar of the two. I doubt many Brits could tell you what year the Madrid bombings occurred let alone who did them, for what reasons and the major fall out that arguably led to a change in government of a fellow EU country where many Brits work, live and go on holiday.

Now I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to say that US domestic affairs impact and shape US foreign policy but for me I'm happy to read about that in depth and skim the news on what colour underpants Obama is wearing and how many times a day Michelle pumps iron...
 

SSeeker

Old-Salt
Oil_Slick said:
I like him and would happily vote for him if we had the choice.

He will be one of Americas greater Presidents and will win a second term.

The healthcare reform will make him or break him, the most problematic issue is who is going to pay over 85,000 dollars to keep over 500,000 afro americans alive?????????????
 
Bugsy said:
jumpinjarhead said:
bullet_catcher said:
If I have understood correctly from the newspapers over here, US citizens have to pay 18% of their income on healthcare insurance if they are not in an occupational welfare scheme (which costs half as much). I suspect that the proportion of income spent on healthcare would drop if a national health service was implemented, even if that meant taking on those currently rejected by the system for being too sick (and stand by to be corrected on this point). The spare money on the consumers' pockets could then be spent in the shops. Speaking from Scotland, that means I can hope for increased exports of whisky to the good old U. S. of A. while people celebrate their de facto pay rise.

Apparently a false assumption according to many "experts" who have analyzed it, including even Congress' own nonpartisan bean counters the CBO. Much of the problem is a perfectly reasonable skepticism of many of us who have seen our federal government in action with even much less ambitious social programs that are horrifically bloated, corrupt and spectacularly inefficient.
If the enormously powerful health-insurance lobby gets its way, things will stay as they are. That means that 40 million folks will still be without any healthcare insurance at all, and 25 million will have seriously underfunded healthcare insurance.

A fundamental question for me is: how can a country professing to be "Christian" support such a barbaric, uncaring and distinctly un-Christian notion?

MsG

I cannot agree with your premise Bugsy in that those of us who are adamantly opposed to this plan are also very strongly in favor of reforming our current system but through means that minimize federal government involvement. This is one of the problems with most of the US media coverage of this in that the alternatives being proposed that do not include massive federal government involvement are not even mentioned and indeed many in the media parrot the lie of the proponents that the opponents are the stooges of the evil insurance industry and merely want the status quo--this is simply untrue.

Also, do not be misled by failing to see the larger agenda of the proponents of this plan, which is increased centralized control of our lives by the central government. I realize that for you this is a desirable thing perhpas but it is not to many--I would say the vast majority if they were aware of it--Americans.

Furthermore, when I last checked, we are repeatedly told by many of those who are now trying to ram this ill-conceived plan down our collective throats that they do not want to hear from us narrow-minded, shallow-thinking, superstitious Christians on any issue.
 
Thanks for sticking your head above the parapet, Jumpinjar, that makes things a bit clearer. It seems then that this is a struggle between those who cherish American values of independence and freedom of choice, and those who wish to reform an inadequate system by imposing a new one on everybody. So there is no obvious common ground for compromise.
 

Tommy

Old-Salt
bullet_catcher said:
Thanks for sticking your head above the parapet, Jumpinjar, that makes things a bit clearer. It seems then that this is a struggle between those who cherish American values of independence and freedom of choice, and those who wish to reform an inadequate system by imposing a new one on everybody. So there is no obvious common ground for compromise.

Whilst perhaps ignoring that extending healthcare to all US citizens (where currently they either can't get it or are denied it via the 'previous condition' gotcha) neither limits a person's freedom nor their choice? Precisely why and how might it?

Can we get Jarhead to give any credible explanation as to why it might?

And it's an utter myth and deliberate falsehood (and one which Jarhead has repeatedly been all too happy to propagate on these boards) that Obama's attempt to introduce this healthcare reform will in ANY way "impose a new one on everybody". It's wilful dissembling like this which removes all credibility from the Republican position in this regard. Just more transparently dogmatic voodoo I'm afraid.

In fact, if you give him five minutes, he'll line up some of his stock "but there are profound Constitutional and cultural differences as to why Obama's universal healthcare plan will not work and is wrong for the USA..." misdirections for you. He has quite a few. Alas, none of them bear even the most meagre scrutiny.

The fact that they're nothing more than a list of learned-by-rote empty sound-bytes doesn't seem to phase him either.
 

Bugsy

LE
bullet_catcher said:
Thanks for sticking your head above the parapet, Jumpinjar, that makes things a bit clearer. It seems then that this is a struggle between those who cherish American values of independence and freedom of choice, and those who wish to reform an inadequate system by imposing a new one on everybody. So there is no obvious common ground for compromise.
There’s a little bit more to it than that, Bullet_Catcher, although JJ’s post, whilst being a tad simplistic, does actually capture the essentials.

The problem is that the health-insurance companies, who make utterly obscene amount of dosh, are anxious to stoke the argument put forward by JJ, but without offering any alternative plan that would; (a) provide more coverage for more folks, and; (b) prove to be markedly cheaper. The critical point here is that as more and more folks find they have difficulties in paying the premiums, the health-insurance companies simply increase them for those still covered. It's a vicious circle, but one they're very careful to keep away from public scrutiny.

There’s also the point that MediCare and MedicAid are criticised as typical gobment schemes, which are wasteful in the extreme. What the opponents of universal healthcare conveniently forget to mention is, that in spite of the wastefulness generated by these two gobment schemes, and there’s quite a lot, and taking into account the number of folks they cover, who, remember, either pay nothing at all, or pay a minimum amount, they actually cost only a third of the health-insurance companies' schemes.

It’s essentially both sides fielding scapegoat after scapegoat, but not engaging in any meaningful dialogue, even though they’re both in agreement that the system is sorely in need of reform. I won’t pretend to know the ins and outs of the whole case, but what I've managed to gather together to date makes me tend to favour the “for” side, as opposed to the “against” side.

There’s also the not unimportant aspect of this affair that the Republicans, the KKK and various other of the "raaht-on-America-fo'-whaaht-fowks” persuasion are using this to pointedly target Mr Obama as the font of all evil. Of course, everybody’s rushing to push their argument that it ain’t so, but the evidence it there and I find that disgraceful.

MsG
 
Bugsy said:
bullet_catcher said:
Thanks for sticking your head above the parapet, Jumpinjar, that makes things a bit clearer. It seems then that this is a struggle between those who cherish American values of independence and freedom of choice, and those who wish to reform an inadequate system by imposing a new one on everybody. So there is no obvious common ground for compromise.
There’s a little bit more to it than that, Bullet_Catcher, although JJ’s post, whilst being a tad simplistic, does actually capture the essentials.

The problem is that the health-insurance companies, who make utterly obscene amount of dosh, are anxious to stoke the argument put forward by JJ, but without offering any alternative plan that would; (a) provide more coverage for more folks, and; (b) prove to be markedly cheaper. The critical point here is that as more and more folks find they have difficulties in paying the premiums, the health-insurance companies simply increase them for those still covered. It's a vicious circle, but one they're very careful to keep away from public scrutiny.

There’s also the point that MediCare and MedicAid are criticised as typical gobment schemes, which are wasteful in the extreme. What the opponents of universal healthcare conveniently forget to mention is, that in spite of the wastefulness generated by these two gobment schemes, and there’s quite a lot, and taking into account the number of folks they cover, who, remember, either pay nothing at all, or pay a minimum amount, they actually cost only a third of the health-insurance companies' schemes.

It’s essentially both sides fielding scapegoat after scapegoat, but not engaging in any meaningful dialogue, even though they’re both in agreement that the system is sorely in need of reform. I won’t pretend to know the ins and outs of the whole case, but what I've managed to gather together to date makes me tend to favour the “for” side, as opposed to the “against” side.

There’s also the not unimportant aspect of this affair that the Republicans, the KKK and various other of the "raaht-on-America-fo'-whaaht-fowks” persuasion are using this to pointedly target Mr Obama as the font of all evil. Of course, everybody’s rushing to push their argument that it ain’t so, but the evidence it there and I find that disgraceful.

MsG

As I have said elsewhere, I have purposely not gone into detail in order not to hijack this thread or otherwise abuse our British cousins. Please do not assume that this means I do not know more or that I am in league with the evil insurance companies. Indeed I have had more than one large bone to pick with them over the years and have no love of them.

The point, however, and this gets to the heart of this and other issues we Americans are facing, is that in spite of my checkered experience with health insurers, I am not going to overturn over our entire private enterprise system and indeed our freedom to 'fix" it. Indeed, that is not the purpose of the exercise for those true believers who are using a hot button issue like health care to scare the American public into accepting unprecedented erosion of personal freedoms and a corresponding surrender of power to the federal government.

Looking at health care in particular, however, to be somewhat responsive to Bugsy and others who seem interested in this issue, and with the caveat that I am neither a political hack of any party nor an expert on health care, I continue to say that there are ways to improve the current system to address the main concerns advanced by many who want change.

If the media was doing its job, you would already know of some of these. In particular, there have been a number of proposals from apparently bi-partisan groups of members of Congress that include, significantly several medical doctors. From my study of these matters, and yes I have read the grotesquely complex original proposal of over 1000 pages, it seems the vast majority of those who want change focus on cost, portability between states and availability (for those with pre-existing conditions etc.). There are free market solutions to each of these issues that can work.

This brings us back to the real issue and why these alternatives are not even being put before the people. The proponents of this huge federal program want to expand federal power in general and their political power in particular.

Let me put it to you--would you be at all suspicious if your representatives admitted they had not even read the bills they are proposing, some of which were substantially influenced or even drafted by private groups that have been shown to be connected in various ways to other groups and movements that espouse various kinds of totalitarian control, AND where the proponents of this program have refused to even agree to a 3 day period to allow the American people and other members of Congress to read the bills?

If any of you are genuinely interested in learning about the alternatives that have been proffered, I can provide links etc. via PM so as not to hijack this thread.
 

Bugsy

LE
jumpinjarhead said:
As I have said elsewhere, I have purposely not gone into detail in order not to hijack this thread or otherwise abuse our British cousins. Please do not assume that this means I do not know more or that I am in league with the evil insurance companies. Indeed I have had more than one large bone to pick with them over the years and have no love of them.

The point, however, and this gets to the heart of this and other issues we Americans are facing, is that in spite of my checkered experience with health insurers, I am not going to overturn over our entire private enterprise system and indeed our freedom to 'fix" it. Indeed, that is not the purpose of the exercise for those true believers who are using a hot button issue like health care to scare the American public into accepting unprecedented erosion of personal freedoms and a corresponding surrender of power to the federal government.

Looking at health care in particular, however, to be somewhat responsive to Bugsy and others who seem interested in this issue, and with the caveat that I am neither a political hack of any party nor an expert on health care, I continue to say that there are ways to improve the current system to address the main concerns advanced by many who want change.

If the media was doing its job, you would already know of some of these. In particular, there have been a number of proposals from apparently bi-partisan groups of members of Congress that include, significantly several medical doctors. From my study of these matters, and yes I have read the grotesquely complex original proposal of over 1000 pages, it seems the vast majority of those who want change focus on cost, portability between states and availability (for those with pre-existing conditions etc.). There are free market solutions to each of these issues that can work.

This brings us back to the real issue and why these alternatives are not even being put before the people. The proponents of this huge federal program want to expand federal power in general and their political power in particular.

Let me put it to you--would you be at all suspicious if your representatives admitted they had not even read the bills they are proposing, some of which were substantially influenced or even drafted by private groups that have been shown to be connected in various ways to other groups and movements that espouse various kinds of totalitarian control, AND where the proponents of this program have refused to even agree to a 3 day period to allow the American people and other members of Congress to read the bills?

If any of you are genuinely interested in learning about the alternatives that have been proffered, I can provide links etc. via PM so as not to hijack this thread.
Dear JJ,

As much as I respect you, and I do that most assuredly, sir, I believe that you’ve become a victim to the belief in some sort of "individual choice" campaign, which isn’t an individual choice at all. It contains a basic factor which shouldn’t at all feature in the offerings of any health service company nominally worth its name.

The US health-insurance companies are wholly dependent on their profits for folks to stay as healthy as possible, to not bother them with bills for this or that treatment or operation. Once they start to receive such bills, they're anxious to offload the folks causing them, since they lower the bottom line for shareholders and subsequently also endanger the jobs of the executives (and their bottom-line earnings) engaged in trying to maintain maximum profits.

This is why I say, and have always said, that the business of public health should never be exposed to the utter brutality of the corporate world. It’s not a business in which you can coldly calculate highs and lows in a profit and loss account. You're dealing in a very direct way with the very lives and destinies of human beings on an intimate basis. Does that make some semblance of sense?

MsG
 

Tommy

Old-Salt
Bugsy said:
Dear JJ,

As much as I respect you, and I do that most assuredly, sir, I believe that you’ve become a victim to the belief in some sort of "individual choice" campaign, which isn’t an individual choice at all. It contains a basic factor which shouldn’t at all feature in the offerings of any health service company nominally worth its name.

The US health-insurance companies are wholly dependent on their profits for folks to stay as healthy as possible, to not bother them with bills for this or that treatment or operation. Once they start to receive such bills, they're anxious to offload the folks causing them, since they lower the bottom line for shareholders and subsequently also endanger the jobs of the executives (and their bottom-line earnings) engaged in trying to maintain maximum profits.

This is why I say, and have always said, that the business of public health should never be exposed to the utter brutality of the corporate world. It’s not a business in which you can coldly calculate highs and lows in a profit and loss account. You're dealing in a very direct way with the very lives and destinies of human beings on an intimate basis. Does that make some semblance of sense?

MsG


Well, quite.

Unfortunately, the idea of people-before-profits can just draw blank stares in the US - and your point about "dealing with the lives and destinies of human beings on an intimate basis" is well made.

And with that point in mind, here's a very real illustration of how ordinary people in the US - even when they are paying for healthcare - have their lives tossed when they get refused the OK for treatment by their HMO (HMO is their health insurance company, who have the final say in whether any given treatment can be authorised for payment - if it's not, you don't get the treatment - and they can and do refuse it on the grounds of something so trivial as a typo):



California's Real Death Panels: Insurers Deny 21% of Claims



Wed Sep 2, 2009 3:41pm EDT


PacifiCare's Denials 40%, Cigna's at 33%, in First Half of 2009


OAKLAND, Calif., Sept. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- More than one of every five requests for medical claims for insured patients, even when recommended by a patient's physician, are rejected by California's largest private insurers, amounting to very real death panels in practice daily in the nation's biggest state, according to data released today by the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee.

CNA/NNOC researchers analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, the six largest insurers operating in California rejected 31.2 million claims for care - 21 percent of all claims.

The data will be presented by Don DeMoro, director of CNA/NNOC's research arm, the Institute for Health and Socio-Economic Policy, at CNA/NNOC's biennial convention next Tuesday, Sept. 8 in San Francisco.

The convention will also feature a panel presentation from nurse leaders in Canada, Great Britain, and Australia exploding the myths about their national healthcare systems.

"With all the dishonest claims made by some politicians about alleged 'death panels' in proposed national legislation, the reality for patients today is a daily, cold-hearted rejection of desperately needed medical care by the nation's biggest and wealthiest insurance companies simply because they don't want to pay for it," said Deborah Burger, RN, CNA/NNOC co-president.

For the first half of 2009, as the national debate over healthcare reform was escalating, the rejection rates are even more striking.

PacifiCare denied 40 percent of all California claims in the first six months of 2009. Cigna, which gained notoriety two years ago for denying a liver transplant to 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan of Northridge, Calif. and then reversing itself, tragically too late to save her life, was still rejecting one-third of all claims for the first half of 2009.

"Every claim that is denied represents a real patient enduring pain and suffering. Every denial has real, sometimes fatal consequences," said Burger.

PacifiCare, for example, denied a special procedure for treatment of bone cancer for Nick Colombo, a 17-year-old teen from Placentia, Calif. Again, after protests organized by Nick's family and friends, CNA/NNOC, and netroots activists, PacifiCare reversed its decision. But like Nataline Sarkisyan, the delay resulted in critical time lost, and Nick ultimately died. "This was his last effort and the procedure had worked before with people in Nick's situation," said his older brother Ricky.

California Blues rejected 28 percent of claims in the first half of 2009. In 2008, six days before RN Kim Kutcher of Dana Point, Calif., was scheduled to have special back surgery, Blue Cross denied authorization for the procedure as "investigational" even though the lumbar artificial disc she was to receive had FDA approval.

At the time of denial, which she calls "insurance hell," Kutcher notes she had "already gone through pre-op testing, donated a unit of blood, had appointments with four physicians." Kutcher paid $60,000 out of pocket for the operation and is still fighting Blue Cross.

Kaiser Permanente, which denied 28 percent of all claims in the first half of 2009, was one of two systems to reject options for radiation and chemotherapy for 57-year-old Bob Scott of Sacramento after his diagnosis of a brain tumor in 2005. The reason cited was his age, says wife Cheryl Scott, RN. "He had been in perfect health all of his life. This was his first problem other than a sprained ankle. He died six months later."

Rejection of care is a very lucrative business for the insurance giants. The top 18 insurance giants racked up $15.9 billion in profits last year.

"The routine denial of care by private insurers is like the elephant in the room no one in the present national healthcare debate seems to want to talk about," Burger said. "Nothing in any of the major bills advancing in the Senate or House or proposed by the administration would challenge this practice."

"The United States remains the only country in the industrialized world where human lives are sacrificed for private profit, a national disgrace that seems on the verge of perpetuation," she said.

CNA/NNOC supports an alternative approach, expanding Medicare to cover all Americans, which would give the U.S. a national system similar to what exists in other nations. Data released in late August by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which tracks developed nations, found that among 30 industrial nations, the U.S. ranks last in life expectancy at birth for men, and 24th for women.

CNA/NNOC represents 86,000 registered nurses in all 50 states, and is working toward unification with the Massachusetts Nurses Association and United American Nurses to build a new 150,000 member national nurses organization.


SOURCE California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee

Charles Idelson, +1-510-273-2246, Shum Preston, +1-510-273-2276, or Liz Jacobs, +1-510-273-2232, all of California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee.

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Republicans keep trying to maintain a series of smoke-screens and false-flag arguments (lies in other words) about US healthcare reform being about "the removal of choice!", or "the imposition of, and access to, a government-only scheme!", or their on-going and innate paranoia about 'Big Government', and some utter voodoo about why healthcare reform can't be enacted because of some (suspiciously unnamed or explained) "Constitutional and cultural differences which mean they would not work here..."

All just balls, of course. It's merely a matter of educating them that people must come before profits and to drop their somewhat ingrained fcuk thy neighbour attitude in this respect.

And you'll no doubt find it strange that they never have this same tunnel-vision attitude when the subject of their other emergency services are raised - e.g. do they expect to receive an at-the-point-of-use invoice when they call their police or their fire brigade? Or when the Army, Air Force or the Navy gets used in your name?

That would be No.


Can Obama drag the US kicking and screaming in the modern era where the provision of universal healthcare is concerned?

Only the Americans can stop him now!
 
Bugsy said:
Dear JJ,

As much as I respect you, and I do that most assuredly, sir, I believe that you’ve become a victim to the belief in some sort of "individual choice" campaign, which isn’t an individual choice at all. It contains a basic factor which shouldn’t at all feature in the offerings of any health service company nominally worth its name.

The US health-insurance companies are wholly dependent on their profits for folks to stay as healthy as possible, to not bother them with bills for this or that treatment or operation. Once they start to receive such bills, they're anxious to offload the folks causing them, since they lower the bottom line for shareholders and subsequently also endanger the jobs of the executives (and their bottom-line earnings) engaged in trying to maintain maximum profits.

This is why I say, and have always said, that the business of public health should never be exposed to the utter brutality of the corporate world. It’s not a business in which you can coldly calculate highs and lows in a profit and loss account. You're dealing in a very direct way with the very lives and destinies of human beings on an intimate basis. Does that make some semblance of sense?

MsG

Respect is mutual Bugsy.


I think that is where we may be able to agree -I am not advocating a totally free market for the insurers. I do believe, however, that much of the anomalies and distortions in our current "system" is a result of ill-advised and often special interest driven government interference. I think it is legitimate for the government-not through some new super bureaucracy but using existing regulatory means, to make sure i) the insurance companies maintain sufficient liquidity, (ii) that there is a re-insurance pool formed for high risk (pre-existing conditions etc.), (iii) that the federal government under a legitimate exercise of its Constitutional role to ensure interstate commerce "de-balkanize" the insurance industry so that insurance can be offered nation-wide rather than state by state, (iv) a "safety net" for the truly poor provided (with incentives to move them out to be sell sufficient) and (v) that there is real competition in the marketplace for policies that offer specific coverages that are not bundled with other special interest driven coverages that drive up cost.

Even with the negatives to which you allude about private insurance companies, I am still not willing to have the federal government, with its proven track record of abject and expensive failure in every major social benefit program it has ever "provided" take over health care. I firmly believe that with appropriate oversight, the private health care system can work without direct involvement of the federal government.

As I continue to assert, one cannot really understand or evaluate the US health care debate in isolation from the larger and more fundamental social, economic, political and Constitutional issues involved. The more I debate this with those from other nations, the more it becomes apparent that due to their very different traditions, governments, economies and interrelationships between their governments and their citizens, they have a difficult time understanding not only why there is a debate about health care that to them the solution seems obvious, but also why so many of us are so deeply concerned about these other issues.
 

Tommy

Old-Salt
Tommy said:
jumpinjarhead said:
As I continue to assert, one cannot really understand or evaluate the US health care debate in isolation the larger and more fundamental social, economic, political and Constitutional issues involved. The more I debate this with those from other nations, the more it becomes apparent that due to their very different traditions, governments, economies and interrelationships between their governments and their citizens, they have a difficult time understanding not only why there is a debate about health care that to them the solution seems obvious, but also why so many of us are so deeply concerned about these other issues.


Republicans keep trying to maintain a series of smoke-screens and false-flag arguments (lies in other words) about US healthcare reform being about "the removal of choice!", or "the imposition of, and access to, a government-only scheme!", or their on-going and innate paranoia about 'Big Government', and some utter voodoo about why healthcare reform can't be enacted because of some (suspiciously unnamed or explained) "Constitutional and cultural differences which mean they would not work here..."


Mi'Lud, the prosection rests...
 
Tommy said:
Tommy said:
jumpinjarhead said:
As I continue to assert, one cannot really understand or evaluate the US health care debate in isolation the larger and more fundamental social, economic, political and Constitutional issues involved. The more I debate this with those from other nations, the more it becomes apparent that due to their very different traditions, governments, economies and interrelationships between their governments and their citizens, they have a difficult time understanding not only why there is a debate about health care that to them the solution seems obvious, but also why so many of us are so deeply concerned about these other issues.


Republicans keep trying to maintain a series of smoke-screens and false-flag arguments (lies in other words) about US healthcare reform being about "the removal of choice!", or "the imposition of, and access to, a government-only scheme!", or their on-going and innate paranoia about 'Big Government', and some utter voodoo about why healthcare reform can't be enacted because of some (suspiciously unnamed or explained) "Constitutional and cultural differences which mean they would not work here..."


Mi'Lud, the prosection rests...

As a lawyer now, I would enjoy tilting in a case with you if that is the extent of your "evidence" sufficient for you to rest your case. Indeed, there are precious few if any facts in the entire response. I have taken the time to list specific alternatives (admittedly in general terms since these threads are not the place for the details) that at least deserve an actual debate within our government and a weighing against those competing proposals in the gargantuan HB 3200.

Anything so extensive as this proposal warrants at a minimum under our Constitutional system a full and fair debate among our elected leaders and an opportunity for the people to be informed about the matters and respond appropriately to their elected representatives. This has not been done and in fact the opposite has occurred with the proponents trying numerous procedural and other devices to avoid debate and rush the bill through.

How can anyone reasonably contend that what has been done thus far even remotely comports with the process contemplated by our Constitutional system, especially when numerous critical legislators (chairmen of committees and the like) admit (incredibly) that they did not even know the terms of the proposed legislation and yet they were ready to vote on it? Such behavior demonstrates to many of us (and contrary to your characterization) this is not a petty dispute between political parties, this has less to do with health care and more to do with accumulating political power and buying votes through health care with an ultimate goal of transforming America from a constitutional republic to something never contemplated by our founders.
 

Tommy

Old-Salt
There's nothing new here Jarhead.

Every tough decision, or attempt at change, has to begin with the will to try - alas you, and certainly the great Republican unwashed masses, quite cheerfully lack that quality or desire, and appear to want to do everything within your power to decry any effort that might even attempt change for the broader majority of US citizens - using excuses about the Constitution and 'culture'.

If you put even half the industry into seeking ways how ever US citizen might be accorded access to healthcare, and not just those who can afford it, and/or those who haven't been refused cover (for any of the myriad reasons that might be), then we'd have a start point - but your stock "No We Can't!" is all you have.

As I've said to you before, I'm sure there were people in the US, back in the day, who thought that giving women the vote and civil rights to the blacks was the 1st step on the road to the end of civilisation as they knew it - and look how that turned out. How wrong were they?

Is it any wonder that Obama kept repeating the campaign slogan of "Yes we can!" ? It was for concrete-thinkers like you and an attempt to drag you from your "change is bad, so we won't even consider it" purely partisan torpor.

I think we're done here.
 
Interesting fact…

All the Western countries with the 'evil' of 'Socialized Medicine' as the Yanks hysterically call it have longer life expectancies than Americans who allegedly have access to the best healthcare money can buy…


Hmmmm…


Seems that there may be something in this 'Socialized Healthcare' thing.
 

Bugsy

LE
Oil_Slick said:
Interesting fact…

All the Western countries with the 'evil' of 'Socialized Medicine' as the Yanks hysterically call it have longer life expectancies than Americans who allegedly have access to the best healthcare money can buy…

Hmmmm…

Seems that there may be something in this 'Socialized Healthcare' thing.
To a certain extent, I can understand JJ's reluctance to entrust the Septic gobment with the administration of such a nationwide scheme, since gobments in general have proved to be less than optimal for such tasks. It's very easy for gobment employees tasked with the processing procedures to forget that they're dealing with real folks with health problems and simply regard them as administrative units.

But, very intriguingly, the two gobment-run health schemes in the US, Meidicare and Medicaid, cost only one third per patient of the treatment expenses of fully funded, private schemes. Given that these two gobment schemes are recognised to be very wasteful, and given that the patients they treat pay no or very minimal premiums, it does beg the question as to how such a situation reflects on the healthcare providers in the US.

In my opinion, the Septic public would be best served by a nationalised health service run on a state-by-state basis, with central financial provisions to redistribute funds to the poorer states and with cross-nation transferability. That would keep the US gobment pretty much out of the picture. This would not only reduced premiums dramatically right across the board, it would also be a factor in ongoing reductions of costs, since the states could negotiate much better prices for medication and keep those prices stable across the nation.

MsG
 
Obama looks and sounds good
 

Latest Threads

Top