Silent no more

Everything you said is partially true except the congressmans reasons for doing the town halls. They are trying to sell it to us like used car salesmen. If there was not so much public anger over it they would have just pass it before they left for the recess with the majority they have but the people are so raging mad the blue dogs can't vote for it and be sure they have a job come election time.

and also that there are people who do not want affordable health care or do not want others to have affordable health care, its THIS bill that is the problem.

as a former used car salesmen...you know who lies most when buying a new car? the one buying , not selling it I found.
 
Werbung:
as a former used car salesmen...you know who lies most when buying a new car? the one buying , not selling it I found.

Dang Pocket ! how many jobs have you had anyways!!


I have only ever bought one used car. The man told me no one ever sat in the back seat and no one had ever smoked in the car. That is not the reason I bought it, it was not at all what I was looking for but he was not letting me out of there unless I got this car and I ended up getting it.

There were cigarette butts in the ash tray of the back seat :) I still laugh about that :)
 
Dang Pocket ! how many jobs have you had anyways!!


I have only ever bought one used car. The man told me no one ever sat in the back seat and no one had ever smoked in the car. That is not the reason I bought it, it was not at all what I was looking for but he was not letting me out of there unless I got this car and I ended up getting it.

There were cigarette butts in the ash tray of the back seat :) I still laugh about that :)

I said I worked at ford, and I sold on both the New and used side...what ever you wanted I sold.

but so you know
Paying jobs
Ford Dealership
Sears Appliance store ( private run)
Sears Tools and paint, full line store
Barns and Noble for about 4 years with 1 year break in middle
now Assistant manager/Sales major mattress store in MN ( made more here then selling cars)
also I worked at a gas station for like 3 years.

and no those are not in order
 
rtrh0jtbyt.jpg
 
I said I worked at ford, and I sold on both the New and used side...what ever you wanted I sold.

but so you know
Paying jobs
Ford Dealership
Sears Appliance store ( private run)
Sears Tools and paint, full line store
Barns and Noble for about 4 years with 1 year break in middle
now Assistant manager/Sales major mattress store in MN ( made more here then selling cars)
also I worked at a gas station for like 3 years.

and no those are not in order

Those all sound like interesting jobs.
 
Well if you're talking about creating a "Public Option" to "compete" (unfairly) against private insurance, then the "out of control costs" will get even farther out of control, and quickly.

I'm watching C-Span right now and (D) Jim Moran is speaking at a townhall in Virginia. Representative Moran explained the "Public Option" as an expansion of Medicare/Medicaid programs. If you think modeling our National HC plan after those bankrupt programs constitutes "reform" which is an "attempt to rein in the out of control costs", then we have an irreconcilable disagreement on appropriate reform and on what constitutes a redistribution of wealth.


Do you think that is moral? I don't. Those who think they have a "moral obligation" to pay for other people to receive goods and services - at no charge - should be free to choose to donate to charities that perform these functions while those who do not feel it's their moral obligation to do so should be free to choose not to donate to such charity.

The same is true for HC insurance. If you think providing others with HC ins. is a moral obligation, then dig deep into your own wallet and make it happen by your own free will and by your own choice. What you should not do is utilize the governments monopoly on force to eliminate the free will and freedom of choice for others in order to force your morality onto them.


Depends on who's reform you're looking at, doesn't it? The Progressive's proposed system of expanding Medicare/Medicaid is an expansion of the welfare state and an expansion of the redistributive philosophy that's bankrupting the country (fiscally and morally).


That "patchwork" system was designed, implemented and is currently administrated by the government.

Why do you have faith that the same government who created the mess can effectively reform it? I'd rather have government get out of the HC business and let the free market work:

1. Remove gov. mandates on Ins. Companies that prevent them from offering affordable options, such as Catastrophic care.

2. Remove the burdensome regulations that prevent Ins. Companies from competing over state lines (the "public option" would "compete" with the Ins. Co. over state lines and not be held to the same rules and standards as the private Ins. Co.s.).

3. Tort Reform is also a badly needed reform but seeing as the trial lawyer lobby is currently the number one lobby group in Washington and they came in #2 in the 2008 election cycle (with 85% of their quarter Billion dollars worth of contributions going to Democrats), I don't see tort reform happening with the Democrats in control of Washington.

There are more but those are the top 3 reforms I'd suggest.


Capitalism too, look at how many of the small minded have drool running down their chin while blaming "unregulated" capitalism for our problems.

BTW, a "mixed" economy (our system) is a Fascist design, its the "third way" between Lassez Faire Capitalism and a Communist/Socialist style Command Economy. Under our system, the means of production are (for the most part, save some banks, ins. companies and auto makers) owned privately but regulated by the Gov. That is a Fascist economic model, adopted over a century ago before terms like Fascist and Dictator were seen in a negative light, and it was instituted by Progressives at the turn of the century.



Cmon... You can't be that misinformed... That's a leftist talking point, pure propaganda, and not based on actual facts.


You should watch more C-Span:

Republicans Have Offered Three Alternative Health Care Reform Bills

I won't pretend to agree with all their ideas for reform but its a better direction than what the Democrats are offering.


If we allow the typical unprincipled approach of pragmatism to guide the reforms, we will find yet another square on the patchwork quilt that will require more patches to cover the holes it creates.


Blaming Ideology? I just don't get that... Do you have any principles? Are those principles worth fighting for or do you just discard, or compromise, them when faced with opposition?


So you're totally misinformed... your news source didn't inform you that the Republicans have offered 3 HC alternatives since May and that same source is leading you to believe that the opposition that gets the most media coverage constitutes "the" opposition. (Spotlight fallacy)

Wow! I really pushed a button there, didn't I?

Let's look at health care reform from an ideological point of view, then.

From the standpoint of ideology, I'd have to agree that big government is seldom the solution to any problem. So, what solution is there that doesn't involve government?

Health insurers provide a variety of choices, and the consumer picks one, or none at all. If said consumer picked wrong, or decided to take a chance on getting sick or injured, and lost that lottery, then the government does nothing. It is up to local charities to either provide for care, or not. Doctors and hospitals would simply turn him out if he couldn't pay, since it would be wrong for them to pass on the cost to anyone else. That is, after all, income redistribution and therefore not ideologically acceptable. That solution would control costs, no doubt about it. It would also have people literally dying of injuries and diseases that could have been prevented or treated.

You can say that the option of people dying is a straw man. It has already been labeled that. If there is no government sponsored plan, no Medicare, no Medical, nothing but private insurance or pay as you go, then what is the option for those who can't pay?

It is not a straw man argument until you can answer that question.

Now, from the pragmatic (that's the P in PLC, by the way) option:

We know that, since we aren't willing to let people die for lack of care, that the poor are paid for one way or another. The tab is paid by hospitals charging more for those of us who can pay, by the government, which gets its money from the rest of us. Therefore, we're already paying anyway.

Unless we're willing to opt for the ideological solution I've outlined above, then the pragmatic approach is to admit what is happening and try to streamline the system so that costs are limited. A single payer, government sponsored program is one way to accomplish that. It isn't what is in HR 3200, but it would be an option, and one that every other country on Earth has found to be more efficient than the plan we have.

The very best solution, in my opinion, would be a single payer plan, subsidized and regulated by government but administered privately, one that would pay for catastrophic medical costs as well as preventative care.

Individuals would be required to have either that plan, or a private plan, no exceptions. While that sounds fascistic, socialistic, authoritarian, and a lot of other bad things, the alternative is that the rest of us will pay for that person's care one way or another. There is no other way, unless we are really willing to let the individual die.

By catastrophic, I mean that, once medical bills reached a set level, the plan would pay for the rest. Individuals would pay for what they could reasonably be expected to pay for.

The reason for covering preventative care is that it would save money in the long run.

Of course, I'm not in charge of writing a plan, unfortunately. I'm pretty sure I could do a better job of it than the government can, especially with the utter nonsense being said about health care reform.

If individuals paid for most of their bills out of pocket, it would encourage shopping around and competition, so there is a bit of ideology in my pragmatic plan as well.

But a plan based purely on ideology simply won't work, will it?

What is your plan?

(my text was too long, so I deleted some of your post. I hope you don't mind. It is still readable above anyway.)
 
PLC,

I ask again... Give me the exact quote where Mr. Hedrick states that "attempts to reform healthcare equate to nazism" or just admit that you made that up and he said no such thing.

"I also heard you say that you will let us keep our health insurance, well thank you! Its not your right to decide whether or not I keep my healthcare insurance." - Hedrick

Nowhere in that statement does he seem 'to think that government wants to take his health care plan away from him', so while you complain that he "didn't actually say" any of the reasons I attributed as possibilities for him to speak out against the Public Option, are you now willing to also admit that he "didn't actually say" that he was afraid government wanted to take away his healthcare?

Lastly, you say a public option and single payer is a good idea... that just boggles the mind. Truly you have cast any Libertarian or Conservative principles into the wastebasket to embrace such lunacy.

Another expansion of medicare, a system already more than 60 TRILLION dollars in debt, and you honestly think that constitutes a long term solution to the problem?

Here's where it stands without adding another layer to the welfare state:
661.gif


Your "pragmatic" approach is a sharp, rusty, metal bandaid for a gaping wound. It will compound problems we already have and create new ones to boot.

Sorry I couldn't address your other comments. I promise I'll give you a detailed HC Reform plan that any Capitalist would be proud to support... And yes, Ideology (principled belief) can, and does, work for solving problems.
 
PLC,

I ask again... Give me the exact quote where Mr. Hedrick states that "attempts to reform healthcare equate to nazism" or just admit that you made that up and he said no such thing.

"I also heard you say that you will let us keep our health insurance, well thank you! Its not your right to decide whether or not I keep my healthcare insurance." - Hedrick

Nowhere in that statement does he seem 'to think that government wants to take his health care plan away from him', so while you complain that he "didn't actually say" any of the reasons I attributed as possibilities for him to speak out against the Public Option, are you now willing to also admit that he "didn't actually say" that he was afraid government wanted to take away his healthcare?

Lastly, you say a public option and single payer is a good idea... that just boggles the mind. Truly you have cast any Libertarian or Conservative principles into the wastebasket to embrace such lunacy.

Another expansion of medicare, a system already more than 60 TRILLION dollars in debt, and you honestly think that constitutes a long term solution to the problem?

Here's where it stands without adding another layer to the welfare state:
661.gif


Your "pragmatic" approach is a sharp, rusty, metal bandaid for a gaping wound. It will compound problems we already have and create new ones to boot.

Sorry I couldn't address your other comments. I promise I'll give you a detailed HC Reform plan that any Capitalist would be proud to support... And yes, Ideology (principled belief) can, and does, work for solving problems.

OK, I listened once again:

"The Nazis were a Socialist party. They took over .... health care. Now if Nancy Pelosi wants to find a Swastika, she should look at the sleeve of her own arm."

Is he or is he not saying that the government wants to take over health care, just like the Nazis took over health care?

Sounds like it to me.

As for the statement about "letting us keep our health insurance", that was just a statement that the government is not taking over health care.

One more statement to try to refute the absolute lies that are being told about health care reform. No one has proposed taking away our health care. No one. That is simply a bit of misinformation being thrown out there by ... who? I suspect the health insurance industry, but I'm really not sure who is responsible for all of the misinformation.

Ideology works for solving problems some of the time. When it doesn't, it's time to go with the pragmatic approach.

As for Medicare, there are two main reasons why it is getting more expensive: The aging of the population, and the increase in the cost of health care.

If we could find a way to decrease the age of the population, short of actually offing the oldies, as has been suggested is the plan being proposed, I'd be all for it. In fact, if someone could find a way to subtract 40 or so years from my age, I'd say, go for it.

Failing that, we must rein in the cost of health care. Reform is an absolute necessity, and soon. We can't afford to do nothing. If what is in HR 3200 is not the way (and it may not be) then let's craft another plan. What isn't helping is fearmongering and name calling. There are no Nazis in the government, only people who do or don't agree with our biases.
Those who don't are not Nazis, or fascists.
 
Do you by chance trust factcheck.org?

I hadn't used that site, so I looked it up. It doesn't seem to be fact checking the death panels, or the euthanasia clause, nor that 10 billion to be given to the unions, but it does mention the issue under discussion here. It says:

Obama's claim depends on what employers would likely do under several legislative scenarios.

President Obama has repeatedly said that under the health care overhaul efforts in Congress, “if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan.” But he can’t make that promise to everyone. In fact, under the House bill, some employers might have to modify plans after a five-year grace period if they don’t meet …

Edit: I went back and clicked on the "see them all" icon. It appears that site does a good job of exposing the hype and nonsense being spread on both sides. Excellent!

OK, that makes sense. The president can't keep a promise that everyone will keep their health care plan. If the employer can save money by switching to a public option (should we ever actually have a public option, and should it turn out to be more economical than the other options that is) then said employer would be expected to protect the bottom line by opting for a less expensive plan.

If we're going to attack the falsehoods being promoted by the pro side, then Obama's assertion that we can have health care reform without a tax increase seems the most suspect, but his promises are suspect as well.

There are false statements on both sides of the debate. No one seems to be discussing reality, nor recognizing the fact that there is no health care plan that has been passed by anyone at this point. What such a plan might contain is pure conjecture.

Still, if the opposition to HR 3200, the only tentative proposal I've seen so far, can only come up with death panels and euthanasia and the like as counter arguments, then it must be a pretty good place to start, don't you think?
 
I hadn't used that site, so I looked it up. It doesn't seem to be fact checking the death panels, or the euthanasia clause, nor that 10 billion to be given to the unions, but it does mention the issue under discussion here. It says:



Edit: I went back and clicked on the "see them all" icon. It appears that site does a good job of exposing the hype and nonsense being spread on both sides. Excellent!

OK, that makes sense. The president can't keep a promise that everyone will keep their health care plan. If the employer can save money by switching to a public option (should we ever actually have a public option, and should it turn out to be more economical than the other options that is) then said employer would be expected to protect the bottom line by opting for a less expensive plan.

If we're going to attack the falsehoods being promoted by the pro side, then Obama's assertion that we can have health care reform without a tax increase seems the most suspect, but his promises are suspect as well.

There are false statements on both sides of the debate. No one seems to be discussing reality, nor recognizing the fact that there is no health care plan that has been passed by anyone at this point. What such a plan might contain is pure conjecture.

Still, if the opposition to HR 3200, the only tentative proposal I've seen so far, can only come up with death panels and euthanasia and the like as counter arguments, then it must be a pretty good place to start, don't you think?


I posted about what you said before, how they are not going to take over health care... but it seems for many of us UNWILLING folks, they will be after all.

as for the rest of the stuff...

I kind of buy the death pannel stuff, not because it says DEATH PANNELS in the bill but more for what it does not say and more than anything because It happened here in Oregon already. Our state government denied a woman on our government insurance help with her cancer, and only offered to pay for her doctor assisted suicide. We are robbed so much money every month for our "government health care plan" because we are told we are greedy if we dont and so we do and the government did not help this woman.

Unless this bill states clearly it will not be used to fund abortion
unless this bill states clearly it will not cover anyone who is not a legal United States Citizen
unless this bill clearly says they will never deny someone the medication or treatment they need due to lack of funds

I do not want the bill.

I do not want the bill anyway because I do not think its right to force some to pay for others, I think its sick that we exepct people to do that and I think its even more sick that there are people out there feeling they are owed by other hard working Americans to have them pay their health care bills.

but if they would at least make the bill clear I would not be so upset and fighting it as hard as I am.


If they were honest, they will make it in plain english what they intend for the bill to do. We have all these people saying all these things because the bill is cloudy and unclear.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top