• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

World Politics

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 24, 2009
464
0
0
TRDean said:
You are an idiot...what did I say that was self rightous or self centered you rump ranger? What I don't believe in your ideals?

For your information this country was settled and formed by self starters...people who looked out for themselves...did for themselves. They didn't move west hoping the government would be there to bail them out if they failed...they are the exact type of people you have contempt for...they asked for nothing!!!!

And for the record...I am not back pedaling...quite the opposite...you just keep up with you idiotic rants and you make it easier for me to laugh at you.

Who said anything about compassion? Did I say I wasn't...NO...you azz pirates keep putting words into peoples mouths...see what happens. Womens rights? WTF? For the record...I have lost a relative in every war this country has been in starting with the Revolution...and not including Korea or the current situation. Don't dare claim that you have more compassion or patriotism than I do...

Funny...Bush was called a Nazi...rightly so maybe...and that was OK...but not now? Inexplicable double standard turd burglar!!

Yea...lets put the insurance companies out of business...how many people do the insurance companies employ you dill hole? I'm sure they want to be on the street.
And I was ranting!? I hope You're proud of yourself, you sorry SOB.
 
titan_90 said:
I have read every comment on this thread and have considered everyone's opinions. I also read the articles that you linked. I did see issues they brought up that are worth discussing but the rest is conservative PR.

I support a single payer system based on the European models. I understand that these models are not perfect nor will they ever be. But they provide better care to everyone in their countries compared to the system we have here currently.

Bottom line for me is that 45,000 people are dying every year in this country because they don't have health care(one person is one too many). Is that something as an American or even as a human being you are proud of? As an American I am embarrassed and as a human being I find this abhorrent.

Our political leaders and citizens need to get off their lazy asses and start making the hard decisions for the future of this country.
The European model, unfortunately, won't work in America, not for technical reasons but for political ones.

There are just too many obstructionist right wing conservatives in the US government, as well as enough spineless pseudo-liberals, who side with the old model; along with the the endless sums coming from the insurance corporations to be invested in a smeer propagandistic advertisment campaign within the mass media to determine an already sceptical American public away from such a model.

It is pathetic and sad and allows us to see that the country is in the hands of those individuals and individual entities that place their own interests (economic), before those of the nation as a whole. That there has been no campaing financing reform only makes more difficult Obama's task in this regard.

And so we get the type of back-stepping and compromising we have already seen, which isn't a reflection actual position the president's part, but political necessity cause by a natural response to the harsh political waters in which such a bold reform has seen himself placed.

Therefore when one talks about not trusting government and its politicians, one should qualify which government and which politicians, because from my perspective it is the government of corporate interests and the politicians who unwaveringly support them (in the right and in the left: even though this is much more a conservative position than a progressivist one) which have taken over the country and have molded it to its own liking (through the propaganda) so as to be able to better manage it (what they are professionals at) in accordance with their business, and therefore profit, interests.

In this sense, and to a far greater degree than in Europe, the American government is no longer about politics, but business, where as at least a small degree of real political culture (based upon a humanistic and enlightenment philosophy that the people within the State are to be gauranteed the basic coverages of life by it) exists independent from the business rational. This fundamental contrast between American democracy and European democracy, explains why such a debate about universal healthcare is tearing the nation appart into two mutually hostile camps, and why the same debate seems frankly absurd to any European (even among the conservative class) and alien to him.
 
Mar 11, 2009
664
0
0
rhubroma said:
The European model, unfortunately, won't work in America, not for technical reasons but for political ones.

There are just too many obstructionist right wing conservatives in the US government, as well as enough spineless pseudo-liberals, who side with the old model; along with the the endless sums coming from the insurance corporations to be invested in a smeer propagandistic advertisment campaign within the mass media to determine an already sceptical American public away from such a model.

It is pathetic and sad and allows us to see that the country is in the hands of those individuals and individual entities that place their own interests (economic), before those of the nation as a whole. That there has been no campaing financing reform only makes more difficult Obama's task in this regard.

And so we get the type of back-stepping and compromising we have already seen, which isn't a reflection actual position the president's part, but political necessity cause by a natural response to the harsh political waters in which such a bold reform has seen himself placed.

Therefore when one talks about not trusting government and its politicians, one should qualify which government and which politicians, because from my perspective it is the government of corporate interests and the politicians who unwaveringly support them (in the right and in the left: even though this is much more a conservative position than a progressivist one) which have taken over the country and have molded it to its own liking (through the propaganda) so as to be able to better manage it (what they are professionals at) in accordance with their business, and therefore profit, interests.

In this sense, and to a far greater degree than in Europe, the American government is no longer about politics, but business, where as at least a small degree of real political culture (based upon a humanistic and enlightenment philosophy that the people within the State are to be gauranteed the basic coverages of life by it) exists independent from the business rational. This fundamental contrast between American democracy and European democracy, explains why such a debate about universal healthcare is tearing the nation appart into two mutually hostile camps, and why the same debate seems frankly absurd to any European (even among the conservative class) and alien to him.
I agree 100%, American politics is ran by big business and has been for sometime.

The unbridled greed of big business is going to continue to destroy America by turning us more and more into a two class society. I believe it is already too late to stop this trend. We are going to have to ride this train until it derails.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
I don't know how many people in the US follow 'world news', and I have noticed it's rather difficult to stay informed about current events that do not take place inside American borders. I try to catch the BBC America version to get a general update, because regular news outlets only tell me who has been shot/killed/raped/kidnapped in various parts of the States, which American citizen can be called a hero today, tear jerking mishaps, and some insights in political proceedings on the hill, including sensationalist scandals.

In Europe, I have noticed, even in the Middle East, it is far more common to first discuss domestic issues, related to the economy, politics, and society at large, including new reports (socio-cultural-economic) published by think tanks, developments in infrastructure, technology etc, and how certain socio-economic-legal developments affect people in their everyday lives. Often they also have special reports on more abstract subjects or themes like 'green energy', 'privacy in the internet age/"post 9/11" age' in a balanced, no-nonsense and not dumbed down kind of way.

Then international news follows, like elections in (important) other countries (Germany anyone?; in the Netherlands I think the US presidential campaign was covered as if we were voting for the US president ourselves), weekly updates on Middle Eastern affairs, the position of Berlusconi at the moment, Polish laws restricting gay's rights, French laws affecting muslim immigrants, Belgium's political problems, dynamics in African countries (not only when a US captain is taken hostage by Somalians)...

I mean, it would be kind of interesting to interview the US envoy that visited Swiss, Netherlands, UK, Canada to see how HC is organised there. Ask them for their opinions and balance it against insights from domestic objective HC experts who can emphasize the differences and how/what could/would work and what would certainly not, instead of showing townhall meetings and the opinions of people who just repeat the talking points of their favoured politicians...
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
usedtobefast said:
wow, i just read 7 pages of todays posts and some very intense ones they are.
i grew up in the 1950's in texas. i saw first hand institutionalized racial discrimination. whites only this and that. everything you read about in books.
it was the way things were. the colored people were over there and we white folks had our better place. they got the crumbs, we got the cake.
my christian upbringing told me this is not what we are supposed to do.
the healthcare issue is very much the same thing. the time has come for
everyone to benefit from quality healthcare, not just a privileged class.
not some watered down "compromise" or "just go to the er dude", but healthcare for all. freemarket??? please. nothing free about it.
Funny you should mention how your "christian" upbringing steered you straight in terms of human rights. Alot of so called "religious" people use religion to justify their hate and discrimination. At least you understood the book, but intelligence is never really the strong point of religious nuts.

On a related healthcare subject - I read the other day that a French *gasp* pharmaceutical company has come up with a potential vaccination for aids. How did that happen? I thought only things like that could happen in a capitalistic system. And, in France of all places. Sheesh, first Obama and now the French finding cures. The world will end soon.

rhubroma - you are my hero, but I suggest you go read some of the fine articles socal scott posted from the heritage foundation to get you out of your righteous funk.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Part of my problem with this issue is I'm not able to draw much distinction between corrupt corporate heads and corrupt politicians crafting legislation. As much as some on this forum seem to loathe business, at least, at the very least, the profit motive provides incentive to be effecient. There is nothing comparable for a big govt program. Corruption is corruption wheather in a corporate tower or the halls of congress. To suggest that those that will administrate a govt run health care will be any more efficient or effective than those that run Veterans Administration or Medicare is, I regret to say, wishful thinking. Where is the evidence that the govt can do this??

Also, there seems to be a lot of hostility toward the idea of company's making profit. Take a quick second and ask yourself what this world would look like without the profit motive? As it is with anything else, those that are in a position to abuse others for a profit should pay a price as it is corrupt. The way the system is, it seems to me much easier/quicker/more effective to identify and correct corruption in a system already in place than to create yet another monumental big govt program that will be crafted by... corrupt people.

I may have set a record for the use of the word corrupt:D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rhubroma said:
The European model, unfortunately, won't work in America, not for technical reasons but for political ones.

There are just too many obstructionist right wing conservatives in the US government, as well as enough spineless pseudo-liberals, who side with the old model; along with the the endless sums coming from the insurance corporations to be invested in a smeer propagandistic advertisment campaign within the mass media to determine an already sceptical American public away from such a model.

It is pathetic and sad and allows us to see that the country is in the hands of those individuals and individual entities that place their own interests (economic), before those of the nation as a whole. That there has been no campaing financing reform only makes more difficult Obama's task in this regard.

And so we get the type of back-stepping and compromising we have already seen, which isn't a reflection actual position the president's part, but political necessity cause by a natural response to the harsh political waters in which such a bold reform has seen himself placed.

Therefore when one talks about not trusting government and its politicians, one should qualify which government and which politicians, because from my perspective it is the government of corporate interests and the politicians who unwaveringly support them (in the right and in the left: even though this is much more a conservative position than a progressivist one) which have taken over the country and have molded it to its own liking (through the propaganda) so as to be able to better manage it (what they are professionals at) in accordance with their business, and therefore profit, interests.

In this sense, and to a far greater degree than in Europe, the American government is no longer about politics, but business, where as at least a small degree of real political culture (based upon a humanistic and enlightenment philosophy that the people within the State are to be gauranteed the basic coverages of life by it) exists independent from the business rational. This fundamental contrast between American democracy and European democracy, explains why such a debate about universal healthcare is tearing the nation appart into two mutually hostile camps, and why the same debate seems frankly absurd to any European (even among the conservative class) and alien to him.
The sad thing is that these facts are the exact reason I do not support universal coverage at this point. I already factor in the FACT that obstructionist politics (primarily from the right) will ALWAYS under fund any government program. This has been proven time and again. Politicians don't have the balls to fund programs properly because it would require increased taxes. Therefore, what we get is watered down bullshit policies that only push the burden of payment down the road to a point where the program will either be done away with, they attempt to pay with monetary policy magic, or they raise taxes in a massive manner (which, had they had paid for all along would have resulted in a lower overall tax rate).

What we have in Washington are a bunch of pansies running for class president of their district. It is a popularity contest and has little to nothing to do with any real policy. The fact is that the great majority of the populace does not understand HOW it is ineffective, they just know that it is and assume that the politicians who say it is ineffective are the ones telling the truth. The problem is that the ones saying it is ineffective bear the greatest responsibility for its ineffectiveness because of obstructionist politics.

What I long for is a politician with the guts to stand up and say, "Here is what it is, and this is how much it costs, and this is how you will pay for it." Instead, we have a quagmire in which people have been convinced that they get NOTHING for their tax dollars but mismanagement, a Republican party that knows the power of the words "you will be taxed more" and Democrats unwilling to provide sound reasoning for an increased tax burden because they themselves have no spine and also understand just how freaking stupid the general populace is here.

We have a country who gets their news from TV, what did we expect? TV is about selling dish soap and pharmaceuticals, not journalism. Our country is dying of ignorance. I do not mean to suggest that better informed people will necessarily vote for liberal policies. I do believe that reality does have a liberal bias, but respect that there are genuine oppositional positions to any given issue. Unfortunately, the general populace isn't arguing the right issue on either side of any argument. I drive a lot, and sometimes listen to Rush Limbaugh, and he professes to be telling the "truth," Yet, if you listen, his truth is all propaganda. I listen to Keith Olberman sometimes also, and it is the same thing, just from the other side.

I am not sure of the answer? I do know this: If Sarah Palin becomes President, I will seek to leave my country of origin. I have no desire to live anywhere someone such as that can attain the highest political office. It is hard enough to live somewhere she is considered viable by some because it shows an ignorance that is unfathomable.

Well, I could go on for days. I have enjoyed the discourse on this thread.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Spoken like someone who objectively wants to understand all sides of the agrument and reach a rational conclusion.

The papers are heavily notated and written by doctors and policy analysts. I guess that is only important if one agrees with the conclusions reached, otherwise it's just back to the name calling.
He knows it is spin and opinion, like he said.

The problem is with a capitalistic solution to problems it only works with certain issues. Does what you preached on the other page, that the marketplace will determine what is best for the public good, work when it comes to healthcare? It's not like we are picking out bubblegum at the checkout stand, with multiple choices that are easy to make and implement. There is no realistic competition and public choice for the market to work in this instance. That is what is driving up cost, not the red herring of malpractice insurance and awards the wingnuts wave around to stir up the useful idiots.

Also, in general for the marketplace to work as advertised makes the assumptions that everybody is playing fairly, and without sensible regulation that is hard to confirm. That is the biggest problem IMO with the free market/supply side model.
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
The sad thing is that these facts are the exact reason I do not support universal coverage at this point. I already factor in the FACT that obstructionist politics (primarily from the right) will ALWAYS under fund any government program. This has been proven time and again. Politicians don't have the balls to fund programs properly because it would require increased taxes. Therefore, what we get is watered down bullshit policies that only push the burden of payment down the road to a point where the program will either be done away with, they attempt to pay with monetary policy magic, or they raise taxes in a massive manner (which, had they had paid for all along would have resulted in a lower overall tax rate).

What we have in Washington are a bunch of pansies running for class president of their district. It is a popularity contest and has little to nothing to do with any real policy. The fact is that the great majority of the populace does not understand HOW it is ineffective, they just know that it is and assume that the politicians who say it is ineffective are the ones telling the truth. The problem is that the ones saying it is ineffective bear the greatest responsibility for its ineffectiveness because of obstructionist politics.

What I long for is a politician with the guts to stand up and say, "Here is what it is, and this is how much it costs, and this is how you will pay for it." Instead, we have a quagmire in which people have been convinced that they get NOTHING for their tax dollars but mismanagement, a Republican party that knows the power of the words "you will be taxed more" and Democrats unwilling to provide sound reasoning for an increased tax burden because they themselves have no spine and also understand just how freaking stupid the general populace is here.

We have a country who gets their news from TV, what did we expect? TV is about selling dish soap and pharmaceuticals, not journalism. Our country is dying of ignorance. I do not mean to suggest that better informed people will necessarily vote for liberal policies. I do believe that reality does have a liberal bias, but respect that there are genuine oppositional positions to any given issue. Unfortunately, the general populace isn't arguing the right issue on either side of any argument. I drive a lot, and sometimes listen to Rush Limbaugh, and he professes to be telling the "truth," Yet, if you listen, his truth is all propaganda. I listen to Keith Olberman sometimes also, and it is the same thing, just from the other side.

I am not sure of the answer? I do know this: If Sarah Palin becomes President, I will seek to leave my country of origin. I have no desire to live anywhere someone such as that can attain the highest political office. It is hard enough to live somewhere she is considered viable by some because it shows an ignorance that is unfathomable.

Well, I could go on for days. I have enjoyed the discourse on this thread.
big thumbs up
"The message you have entered is too short. Please enter at least 10 characters"
 
Thoughtforfood said:
The sad thing is that these facts are the exact reason I do not support universal coverage at this point. I already factor in the FACT that obstructionist politics (primarily from the right) will ALWAYS under fund any government program. This has been proven time and again. Politicians don't have the balls to fund programs properly because it would require increased taxes. Therefore, what we get is watered down bullshit policies that only push the burden of payment down the road to a point where the program will either be done away with, they attempt to pay with monetary policy magic, or they raise taxes in a massive manner (which, had they had paid for all along would have resulted in a lower overall tax rate).

What we have in Washington are a bunch of pansies running for class president of their district. It is a popularity contest and has little to nothing to do with any real policy. The fact is that the great majority of the populace does not understand HOW it is ineffective, they just know that it is and assume that the politicians who say it is ineffective are the ones telling the truth. The problem is that the ones saying it is ineffective bear the greatest responsibility for its ineffectiveness because of obstructionist politics.

What I long for is a politician with the guts to stand up and say, "Here is what it is, and this is how much it costs, and this is how you will pay for it." Instead, we have a quagmire in which people have been convinced that they get NOTHING for their tax dollars but mismanagement, a Republican party that knows the power of the words "you will be taxed more" and Democrats unwilling to provide sound reasoning for an increased tax burden because they themselves have no spine and also understand just how freaking stupid the general populace is here.

We have a country who gets their news from TV, what did we expect? TV is about selling dish soap and pharmaceuticals, not journalism. Our country is dying of ignorance. I do not mean to suggest that better informed people will necessarily vote for liberal policies. I do believe that reality does have a liberal bias, but respect that there are genuine oppositional positions to any given issue. Unfortunately, the general populace isn't arguing the right issue on either side of any argument. I drive a lot, and sometimes listen to Rush Limbaugh, and he professes to be telling the "truth," Yet, if you listen, his truth is all propaganda. I listen to Keith Olberman sometimes also, and it is the same thing, just from the other side.

I am not sure of the answer? I do know this: If Sarah Palin becomes President, I will seek to leave my country of origin. I have no desire to live anywhere someone such as that can attain the highest political office. It is hard enough to live somewhere she is considered viable by some because it shows an ignorance that is unfathomable.

Well, I could go on for days. I have enjoyed the discourse on this thread.
A huge problem for the US is the amount you spend on 'defence'. Can you imagine ye spent that money on something positive? Education, healthcare, culture?
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,834
0
0
ruamruam said:
A huge problem for the US is the amount you spend on 'defence'. Can you imagine ye spent that money on something positive? Education, healthcare, culture?
This is exactly correct!!! I stated in an earlier post that the amount that the US spends around the world, whether defense, or money to other countries is huge and could be put to better use. I think there is some sort of dichotomy there...and I could be wrong...but there is a feeling that having to be the world leader and spending on defense for that sake. When or where does the US draw a line in the sand and say...enough. This country has issues of its own...as is clearly demonstrated in this thread..with differing points of view...anyway, no doubt defense spending is crazy out of control.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
ruamruam said:
A huge problem for the US is the amount you spend on 'defence'. Can you imagine ye spent that money on something positive? Education, healthcare, culture?
We have to spend this money to rid the world of the evildoers.

If we spent it on education then we might recognize there aren't as many evildoers in the world as we have been led to believe. That would hurt the stock price of the defense contractors. That is commie talk.

What is culture?
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,834
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
The sad thing is that these facts are the exact reason I do not support universal coverage at this point. I already factor in the FACT that obstructionist politics (primarily from the right) will ALWAYS under fund any government program. This has been proven time and again. Politicians don't have the balls to fund programs properly because it would require increased taxes. Therefore, what we get is watered down bullshit policies that only push the burden of payment down the road to a point where the program will either be done away with, they attempt to pay with monetary policy magic, or they raise taxes in a massive manner (which, had they had paid for all along would have resulted in a lower overall tax rate).

What we have in Washington are a bunch of pansies running for class president of their district. It is a popularity contest and has little to nothing to do with any real policy. The fact is that the great majority of the populace does not understand HOW it is ineffective, they just know that it is and assume that the politicians who say it is ineffective are the ones telling the truth. The problem is that the ones saying it is ineffective bear the greatest responsibility for its ineffectiveness because of obstructionist politics.

What I long for is a politician with the guts to stand up and say, "Here is what it is, and this is how much it costs, and this is how you will pay for it." Instead, we have a quagmire in which people have been convinced that they get NOTHING for their tax dollars but mismanagement, a Republican party that knows the power of the words "you will be taxed more" and Democrats unwilling to provide sound reasoning for an increased tax burden because they themselves have no spine and also understand just how freaking stupid the general populace is here.

We have a country who gets their news from TV, what did we expect? TV is about selling dish soap and pharmaceuticals, not journalism. Our country is dying of ignorance. I do not mean to suggest that better informed people will necessarily vote for liberal policies. I do believe that reality does have a liberal bias, but respect that there are genuine oppositional positions to any given issue. Unfortunately, the general populace isn't arguing the right issue on either side of any argument. I drive a lot, and sometimes listen to Rush Limbaugh, and he professes to be telling the "truth," Yet, if you listen, his truth is all propaganda. I listen to Keith Olberman sometimes also, and it is the same thing, just from the other side.

I am not sure of the answer? I do know this: If Sarah Palin becomes President, I will seek to leave my country of origin. I have no desire to live anywhere someone such as that can attain the highest political office. It is hard enough to live somewhere she is considered viable by some because it shows an ignorance that is unfathomable.

Well, I could go on for days. I have enjoyed the discourse on this thread.
If we could ever get term limits you might be able to get the politicians you desire
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
Go say you are taking it away and see what you get. One other thing, taking into account the BEST statistics, we are somewhere around 17th in terms of overall health care.

...insolvency. Why would you suppose this is? It is because politicians don't have the testicular fortitude to fund it sufficiently. And that IS the real answer.

Again, show me the real world example of what you suggest.

I do respect the difficulties of owning a small business. My wife has one. I also believe that our government, so long as we can remain financially viable (and we can regardless of the fear mongering rhetoric of the far right), public services are part of the deal.
Yes, I agree and you make my point. Tell a senior we are going to take away their medicare or social security. Nevermind those programs a nearing insolvency.

I linked some position papers from the Heritage Foundation (full disclosure: It's a conservative think tank :eek:) on an earlier post regarding the healthcare debate. Take a look if you have time.

Once this is in place, if it succeeds or if it fails, it will never go away. If it succeeds then great. If it doesn't, we are all serious trouble. Call me cynical, but once this is passed the ultimate goal will be a govt takeover of healthcare and once that is done, the democrats will be in power for at least the next century. I guess if you think like a liberal that's a good thing. I don't.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ChrisE said:
He knows it is spin and opinion, like he said.

The problem is with a capitalistic solution to problems it only works with certain issues. Does what you preached on the other page, that the marketplace will determine what is best for the public good, work when it comes to healthcare? It's not like we are picking out bubblegum at the checkout stand, with multiple choices that are easy to make and implement. There is no realistic competition and public choice for the market to work in this instance. That is what is driving up cost, not the red herring of malpractice insurance and awards the wingnuts wave around to stir up the useful idiots.

Also, in general for the marketplace to work as advertised makes the assumptions that everybody is playing fairly, and without sensible regulation that is hard to confirm. That is the biggest problem IMO with the free market/supply side model.
I understand your position. Opposing points of view are just spin and opinion as opposed to what you agree with which is purely factual. Ok.

One thing you have wrong. Tort reform would dramatically drive down costs of health insurance. The way medicine is practiced today is to 1. identify and treat the condition and 2. do everything to avoid any potential litigation.

Go talk to an family MD (if you can find one) and ask him how much he pays in professional liability insurance. Talk to a hospital ceo sometime and ask the same question. Guess what? Those costs get passed on to the end user.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
Part of my problem with this issue is I'm not able to draw much distinction between corrupt corporate heads and corrupt politicians crafting legislation. As much as some on this forum seem to loathe business, at least, at the very least, the profit motive provides incentive to be effecient. There is nothing comparable for a big govt program. Corruption is corruption wheather in a corporate tower or the halls of congress. To suggest that those that will administrate a govt run health care will be any more efficient or effective than those that run Veterans Administration or Medicare is, I regret to say, wishful thinking. Where is the evidence that the govt can do this??

Also, there seems to be a lot of hostility toward the idea of company's making profit. Take a quick second and ask yourself what this world would look like without the profit motive? As it is with anything else, those that are in a position to abuse others for a profit should pay a price as it is corrupt. The way the system is, it seems to me much easier/quicker/more effective to identify and correct corruption in a system already in place than to create yet another monumental big govt program that will be crafted by... corrupt people.

I may have set a record for the use of the word corrupt:D
The problem with health care is that profit motive provides incentive to minimize treatment and care in this particular market. It isn't like providing better products will drive in more business. Cancer doesn't say, "hey, more people have health insurance, lets infect more people." People who have cancer don't have the option of buying standard definition treatment versus HD treatment. People who have cancer don't have the choice to putting off the purchase until it makes more sense. Profit motive is the biggest problem in health care from my perspective. Not that profit is evil. That profit is necessary to have insurance services offered. Therefore, those services will inherently be streamlined at the point of contact with the consumer of the product. That minimization of costs will therefore result in the problems we currently see now of denial of coverage, disqualification for pre-existing condition, and failure to offer programs for people with prior problems. Add to that the advent of genetic testing to determine propensity for specific diseases, and you can see that anyone who wants to make a profit, HAS to deny and minimize consumer options to stay in business.

It isn't a market. Therefore, profit motive had a completely different real world effect than it does in other markets. Add to that the fact that anti-trust laws do not apply to insurance companies. (something NEITHER SIDE is considering changing- THIS makes me more angry than just about anything in this fight) Government may be ineffective, but we will be a healthier nation if they run health care.

Unfortunately, as I stated above, we have at least half the government bent on making sure it works poorly for political reasons. Therefore, I am not sure that now is the time. Only if things get worse will we be willing to put into the pot the money we need to do what is necessary.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ChrisE said:
We have to spend this money to rid the world of the evildoers.

If we spent it on education then we might recognize there aren't as many evildoers in the world as we have been led to believe. That would hurt the stock price of the defense contractors. That is commie talk.

What is culture?
Nice trolling commentary there, Chris.

In California we spend , by law, nearly half of every dollar taken in State revenue in public education and we are 49th out of 50 when compared to the other states. It is ALWAYS the same argument. The teachers union swears up and down if they only had more funding they could improve. If Social Security had more funding it would not be nearing insolvency. If Veterans Administration had more funding they could provide decent care. If the DMV had more funding the lines wouldn't be so long, and on and on and on.

If GM and AIG could have just raised taxes and taken more money out of your pocket then they would have been much more effective... See how much different that sounded?

Your confidence placed in corrupt policymakers in misplaced, IMHO.
 
Mar 18, 2009
733
0
0
FWIW I'm from the US and I live in and work in a "hybrid system" (believe TFF coined it in here somewhere), and have been here for just over 2 years now.

Highly skeptical, but open-minded, when I moved here and all I can say, that hasn't already been said in the thread, is it works pretty dang well, and I'm happy.

I can only really nit-pick some very arbitrary stuff that's not worth mentioning.

While I tend to agree with TFFs assessment of why it won't happen in the US, I certainly can't see why it wouldn't work in the US.

To date most, if not all, of my concerns and misconceptions have been dispelled. Taxes are higher here but, for the most part, cost out of pocket is comparable.

I certainly don't feel any less "free"...to the contrary actually.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TRDean said:
If we could ever get term limits you might be able to get the politicians you desire
I agree. Career law makers run for office and pass legislation as sparingly as they can. Congressman make sure you get your SS check, and send you a nice letter when you call them, and that is their primary focus. It is why they have the lowest approval rating overall, but generally high approval rating from their individual district. Everyone likes their Congressman, it is the others who are the problem...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
The problem with health care is that profit motive provides incentive to minimize treatment and care in this particular market. It isn't like providing better products will drive in more business. Cancer doesn't say, "hey, more people have health insurance, lets infect more people." People who have cancer don't have the option of buying standard definition treatment versus HD treatment. People who have cancer don't have the choice to putting off the purchase until it makes more sense. Profit motive is the biggest problem in health care from my perspective. Not that profit is evil. That profit is necessary to have insurance services offered. Therefore, those services will inherently be streamlined at the point of contact with the consumer of the product. That minimization of costs will therefore result in the problems we currently see now of denial of coverage, disqualification for pre-existing condition, and failure to offer programs for people with prior problems. Add to that the advent of genetic testing to determine propensity for specific diseases, and you can see that anyone who wants to make a profit, HAS to deny and minimize consumer options to stay in business.

It isn't a market. Therefore, profit motive had a completely different real world effect than it does in other markets. Add to that the fact that anti-trust laws do not apply to insurance companies. (something NEITHER SIDE is considering changing- THIS makes me more angry than just about anything in this fight) Government may be ineffective, but we will be a healthier nation if they run health care.

Unfortunately, as I stated above, we have at least half the government bent on making sure it works poorly for political reasons. Therefore, I am not sure that now is the time. Only if things get worse will we be willing to put into the pot the money we need to do what is necessary.
This also will happen when budget constraints force public administrators to curtail and ration care. It happens everyday in Canada and the UK too.

This is a very tough situation.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ruamruam said:
A huge problem for the US is the amount you spend on 'defence'. Can you imagine ye spent that money on something positive? Education, healthcare, culture?
I agree that is a problem, and it is exacerbated by the fact that defense contractors know they can pad the living crap out of their contracts. Eisenhower's farewell address is one of the most poignant speeches made by any president in the 20th century.

I also recognize this: There ARE people in this world who will do anything to kill people from my country. It is one place where I tend to be more conservative. I hear liberals extolling the virtue peace. I have no problem with working for peace with people who want reasonable discourse. The problem we face (as do you in reality) is that there are people in this world who will take a knife and cut your head off regardless of how peaceful you are. Nick Berg was trying to help, and the guys who cut his head off didn't care. We face this unfortunate reality, religious fanatics (fundamentalists) of ANY stripe prove more draconian than any group on the planet. I am religious, but I don't think it is my right to impose my religion on you regardless of how much I love it.

We now face a religious based opposition in many places that doesn't want peace. They want our death. We have to provide for a strong military. It matters little how we got here at this point.

The interesting thing to me is that if we had taken all of the money spent on the Iraq war and spread it around the world in humanitarian aid, we would have seen a greater improvement in international relations that we ever will by dropping bombs. However, we would still need a strong military if that were the case.

Again, the solution here is very complex, and looking at reality and not ideals is necessary on this subject. The fact is that we still need a strong military.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
One thing you have wrong. Tort reform would dramatically drive down costs of health insurance. The way medicine is practiced today is to 1. identify and treat the condition and 2. do everything to avoid any potential litigation.

Go talk to an family MD (if you can find one) and ask him how much he pays in professional liability insurance. Talk to a hospital ceo sometime and ask the same question. Guess what? Those costs get passed on to the end user.
Most opinion like your comes from a position of ingnorance and insulation....ignorance from understanding the benefit of litigation in making products safe for the consumer in general. Insulation meaning you probably haven't lost somebody due to negligence of another. If you have, I bet you were all for limiting what types of damages you could seek. Right.

Well, in your free market if MDs are less because insurance is high, then insurance should come down because the demand is less. If they get passed on to the end user then the end user should have a choice to go to a doctor or hospital that sends less of this cost to the end user. That will drive all of this bad stuff away and we can all hold hands and sing about the great virtue of the free market in healthcare!

I'm willing to wade thru the code words the right tosses out about lazy people, mostly minorities, and "lawyers" winning millions in litigation when somebody produces a product that endangers the consumer. We all benefit from that, at a fraction of the cost if it didn't exist, even if some of us don't realize it.

One of my favorite spectator events is watching wingnuts run to lawyers when they get in some type of trouble. Hypocrisy runs rampant in your world.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
This also will happen when budget constraints force public administrators to curtail and ration care. It happens everyday in Canada and the UK too.

This is a very tough situation.
You are absolutely correct, and I would favor a public option (only if PROPERLY funded- and that will not happen) only because it appears to offer slightly better overall care based on statistical analysis. It also provides this for a greater number of people. The big difference here is that in the US, we are less accepting of greater tax burden than are many European countries, and would not fund our system even to their level. (which in many cases appears to be underfunded even with their acceptance of higher taxes).

This is one of those where I am torn between reality and ideals, and one day I feel one way, and the next I feel the other.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
I couple of weeks ago I read this article (dutch) in the newspaper. Apparently it's also available via CBS 60 minutes

I don't know if any of you have ever heard of this before, but it sort of says that an 'American developing organization' Remote Area Medical (RAM) which generally operates in Africa and the rest of the Americas, (has) set(s) up camps, currently near Wise, VA and another one soon near near Los Angeles, CA. They offer patients from poor, surrounding areas free (dental) treatment, because none of them can afford it. They show up a night in advance, beause the wait is so long, that you could easily miss the opportunity to receive treatment.

It strikes me as absurd that 'development' strategies and interventions, commonly thought to exist only in the poorest of the poorest countries, are deemed necesarry to support a fraction of the American population. It's what they commonly do in failed states, as part of post-conflict nation-building efforts or whenever a natural disaster occurs.

What I also understand from the short time I have been here - echoing TFF - is that the VA for example is in a rather pathetic shape. Some of the problems associated with this 'big government program' and perhaps other programs as well:

- malpractice/malfunctioning employees are almost impossible to get rid of. Hired for life.
- sheer impossible to hire/keep well young and educated people. Many can earn much more working for businesses.
- high age of current employees, some/most lacking the skills to keep up with modern tech. Many with a low education.
- almost zero incentives to improve performance, especially when one reaches a certain position. No/diffuse responsibility, ownership.
- Outdated equipment, technology, workflow methods.

Government isn't going to get anything done if it is seriously lacking in the 'human capital' department...

And guess what, to improve their operations government hires big consultancy companies with the well educated youngsters who come in to assess and recommend and analyze, while paying these companies exorbitant fees that could easily be used to permanently employ high quality employees in the first place.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Off Topic DIscussions 12
Similar threads
2019 Rugby World Cup

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS