Healthcare reform

[Dr. Doom]

Corky seemed like he had things pretty well figured out.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Originally Posted by TheCure

Yo, you called anyone who disagrees with you UNINTELLIGENT, homie. You're being irrational.

Actually, you're right, I just started a juvenile insult contest. I apologize.

Originally Posted by Dr. Doom

Corky seemed like he had things pretty well figured out.

Ever seen the movie Forrest Gump? Actually the book it was based on was meant to be a satire.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

Ever seen the movie Forrest Gump? Actually the book it was based on was meant to be a satire.

Now you've gone too far, Forrest Gump was a great man. Leave him outta this.

In all seriousness though, you mentioned before how Obama was lucky... Obama wasn't lucky, he (and his handlers) ran the better campaign. Plain and simple. The candidate that resorted solely to mudslinging tactics would lose, at least that was my prediction before the Iowa caucuses. Sure enough almost every McCain/Palin ad tried to play up Obama's middle name or where he was from. Obama, for the most part stuck to the issues (when he was running). His campaign knew you're not going to out shine a Vietnam POW if it comes down to personal accolades and reputation.

McCain's age coupled with Palin being VP didn't help things either. If McCain was 50-60 years old or Palin wasn't in the mix, he would've won hands down.

Also, quit blaming the "liberal media" for conservative shortcomings. That's like a hippie blaming the "system" for everything.

[That Matt Guy]

i'm cherokee jack

[ThirdMarioBro]

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

As far as Obama is concerned, he was far more lucky than masterful. For one thing, the news media was on his side.

Ah, the old "liberal elite media" bullsh*t. 80% of the news media is Republicans. Just ask Faux News and the endless empire of newspapers they slant in their favor daily. Corporate media has wanted health care to fail from the beginning because their network bosses are invested in the current establishment. If the media truly were liberal, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

[Barkworm]

I have heard this so many times by now: Conservatives talking about the "liberal media", liberals whining about "Republican broadcast stations". What's the truth?

[Anarky]

Both and none. It's one of these things that doesn't have an absolute truth. Media always go with the gout-de-jour and if people like being conservatives, then the media are conservative. After all, the media is not only about information but also about ratings and such. And in order to have people watch what you're broadcasting, you have to give them what they want. So, depeding on what the public's angle on a thing is, the networks take that position. Some do it more, some do it less extreme.

[odupianist]

The media goes with what will make them news and get them watched.

[Anarky]

Oh, really? Are you sure? I mean, that's a bold statement you make there. The only thing that bothers me a bit is that I get this weird feeling someone wrote that already somewhere.

I mean, I should maybe feel honoured that my posts are being knocked off, but that's just pathetic. Seriously, if you're going to regurgitate what I've said, then at least add something new to it. I'm pretty certain that you'd have plenty of stuff to add since you are - as opposed to me - immersed in the media we're talking about. Please, at least pretend to make effort.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

One thing you've missed. Until the 1980's, with the removal of the Fairness Doctrine law and the rise of cable TV in urban areas (with more channels available), there were only a few major media outlets available to the public. The Big Three television stations, plus a couple of local ones, some radio stations which were interlinked with the TV ones, and a few major newspapers. People followed them because that's all there was. There was no Fox News thirty years ago. With this media oligopoly, the media could pretty much run whatever content they wanted.

Bang went the old system when more news outlets were readily available. The major news outlets probably never expected there was a serious market for conservative opinions. Of course, with the rise of Fox News, the old-time news outlets stuck with their old formulas, to keep their old customer base.

Also, it was the Internet that put the kibosh on Dan Rather's career:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents

The late Robert Novak said in his column that for an experienced newsman like Dan Rather, it couldn't possibly have been an honest mistake.

[Katie]

See, that's part of the problem. Goes back to allllllllllll the information overload Anarky was talking about before. there are SO many choices out there for receiving your information. People only pay attention to the stuff that supports their own perspective be it right or wrong or whatever. You never really get exposed to other points of view. maybe what you're hearing is wrong...maybe what i'm hearing is wrong. But instead of talking about it, everyone's screaming at each other and NO ONE gets any benefit from all the angry shouting that's going on out there in the country. No one's listening to anyone else. It's just a bunch of anger. everyone's polarized

For example:


My dad calls CNN the communist news network. The man believes George W. Bush was too liberal. He's a die hard conservative. He will not listen to any other opinion because he thinks there is no other right but his right. (that's right as in right vs. wrong) if he were to come into a room with CNN on (or any network other than Fox) he just leaves....or bitches about all the lies and liberal blah blah blah. So, his entire opinion on any political subject is usually taken word for word from the Fox news crew.

Freaking frustrating to have an intelligent conversation with someone who has no desire or respect to hear the other opinion on the subject. He and I have long LONG LONG "discussions" about politics which basically is just a pissing contest where he tells me all the things wrong with the way I think, act, live my life, etc. If I try and give my thoughts and why I think it's not a bad thing to pay a little more to help people and he just glazes over and tells me I don't understand anything and I'm going to hell and stuff like that. (not rebuttals or anything, just stupid Sh*t) I'm SO turned off by hearing him say I'm stupid while he bitches about the president and all the money and all the other crap that really I have a bad taste in my mouth about anyone who thinks like that.

Thus the debate falls apart.


On a wider scale, this is what's happening in the country. conservatives scream bloody murder over all the spending and other things like that and call liberals stupid and say they're mad as hell. Liberals think the conservatives are stupid and selfish and can't understand why no one sees the benefit in helping those less fortunate.

meanwhile no one is listening to anyone because its all so angry.

nothing will ever be done because no one wants to see things from anyone else's perspective. God forbid we might have some common ground.



The United States is such a dysfunctional family

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Actually Bush was hardly conservative. He actually was the one starting the big-time spending on social programs (not just the wars). Obama is doing the same thing on a much greater scale. And it's easy to talk about "helping those less fortunate", which is an implication that arguing against social programs is being heartless. Social programs, in some cases, have cost too much or have done more harm than good. Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" program was obviously welfare for the more fortunate, not the people who genuinely needed help, and it certainly failed to do any economic good.

Having read articles about the history of the American newspaper business, the newspapers in the early days were openly partisan and made no pretense otherwise. Fox may be lying when they call themselves "fair and balanced", but Dan Rather, the example I used previously, was no better-and in fact dishonest, which correctly ruined his career.

[kyabetsu]

Please forgive me. I'm gonna jump back to the beginning of the thread.

Health care!

The basic: I'm for health care reform and a public option.

Why?

1. Personal Experience
2. Basic Logic Applied to Workforce Statistics
3. Basic Logic Applied to Economics
4. The Appeal of Compromise
5. A Desire to Efficiently Fulfill My Sense of Moral Obligation

Details:

1. Personal Experience
I would be dead right now if Cambridge, Massachusetts didn't have a generous public health policy. I was a resident of Cambridge without employment, not enrolled in a school, and sick with a debilitating illness that took me 2 years to heal ENOUGH that I could begin to work. Seven years later, I have gone from working part time to working full time in a salaried position and setting up my own business on the side. A few weeks ago, I cut free of my salaried position and am now a full time self-employed small business owner. AMERICAN DREAM FOR THE WIN!!

The people of Cambridge and Massachusetts, through their state taxes, saved my life by ensuring that the medication I was prescribed in the emergency room was available to me. With their help, I got to the point where I bought that stupidly expensive medication myself, and now, I'm a completely functional member of the American Economic Machine.

For everyone that takes advantage of the system, there is someone who uses the system as a necessary stepping stool. Not all medical issues are fatal.

I'm currently un-insured. I'll be going to the doctor tomorrow b/c my left eye has a retinal tear. I can afford the visit out of pocket, but if there's something the doc's gotta do to fix my eye so i don't lose my sight? I'll have to think about it. If it's immediately necessary, I'll put it on my credit card. If not, I'll go back to the doctor when my vision starts sparking and throwing up spots again.

Originally Posted by Roseangelo

Personally, I would rather pay for my own broken arm than collectively help pay for everyone else's.

My family was freaking rich as hell when I was kid. It doesn't take much to go from 'we sent our daughter to Europe twice in high school' to 'that daughter has $12.00 to her name. Period. Hope she likes ramen.' Right now, you can pay for your broken arm. Will you always be able to? What if it wasn't $1200 for arm, but $200,000 for your cervical cancer?

Insurance is all about paying some one just in case you get sick. Why pay people who are not legally bound to help you if you do get sick?

Reform would force insurance companies to uphold their end of their contracts. You pay in, then you WILL get taken care of.

Having a public option gives folks who cannot afford to 'pay in to' a shot at the same things private insurers offer (but may or may not deliver on).

As to you paying to chip in on that public option? You already pay for hospital treatments for people like me who stumble into emergency rooms and cannot legally be denied care. What you don't pay for in most states is my medication, which turns me from a drooling drain on society to a functioning, tax-paying, small business-owning, EMPLOYMENT-GENERATING member of these United States.

Originally Posted by odupianist

...I agree that prices are too high, and I'm sure people out there need help. I work hard and have worked hard to earn the money I'm making...

Yes. They do need help. Hell, you work hard. You know how it is. You've earned the money you're making. Why would you want to continue to spend it in an insurance market that can set its own prices? Drug companies hyper-inflate their costs. Insurance companies pad their bottom line. You're not guaranteed coverage if you do get sick. Why pay for that?!

If you're gonna keep your money--why not pay a little more in taxes and a lot LESS in insurance premiums and deductibles--with the added bonus of getting what you pay for? If you end up ahead, that's what helps your family, right? Call it enlightened self-interest.

Originally Posted by Leo656

...So as far as health care or ANY gov't aid, I want proof that every legal citizen would be treated equally based on need, regardless if they were black or white or purple. ...Plus, like a lot of people, I'm very skeptical about claims that illegal immigrants would not be covered under any gov't plan. ... I tend to not want anybody in this country having to pay higher taxes for programs to help out people that, legally, shouldn't be here...

I'm sorry you had so many terrible experiences with public programs. I had my share of bumps when I moved from Massachusetts to North Carolina and again to Maryland. Some states have CRAP-TASTIC program administration. North Carolina couldn't decide if I was allowed to see specialists. Maryland couldn't decide where or not I qualified for poverty-discounts from pharmaceutical companies b/c big-pharma kept changing their minimums.

I don't know how New Jersey compares, but if you have a system that's helping some people--even selectively--I would want to correct and codify that system so that it's applied as evenly and fairly across the entire country as humanly possible.

I'm not libertarian. I do believe that what's wrong with our system are not the programs themselves, but the way they are being run. I believe that you can work within our system to fix what's wrong. (Though Congress is testing my faith in that hypothesis).

I agree that immigrants who come here should do it legally. I agree that proof of citizenship or foreign insurance should be required for not only for patients seeking care, but of companies paying workers. (Mini-Rant: If you wanna stop illegal immigrants from finding work in the US, there need to be harsher criminal penalties for hiring them. It's currently cheaper for companies to pay a fee if they get caught with the wrong kind of workers than it is to pay at market rate to legal citizen. Punish the law-breaking companies. Not just ambitious illegal workers.) I agree that the health care system should be applied equally, not just to people without 'pre-existing conditions.' Whether those conditions are medical or racial. (Me, I was born with a pre-existing 'hispanic' condition.)


2. Basic Logic Applied to Workforce Statistics.

You want people working and generating taxable income? Make them healthy enough to DO work. See my first point.

Also, working people can afford birth control, go see a doctor rather than pass along swine flu, and more readily go back to school. All things that improve welfare numbers, not make them grow.

Originally Posted by odupianist

On the whole though, there will be people taking advantage of it by not taking care of themselves (much like the US welfare system). There's a big difference between paying for someone who's going to continue to have health problems (for whatever reason, cigarettes, unhealthy eating, lack of exercise, etc) and paying for the roads that benefit us all to help us get where we need to.

It's easier to eat healthy, care about exercise, and give up smoking when you're employed, not strung out about where next month's rent will come from, able to afford vegetables and real meal rather than ramen, and stable enough to make healthy choices for yourself. You can't force people to make those changes, but you can give them the option.

Many people will take it!


3. Basic Logic Applied to Economics
Re-read all of Anarky's & Katie's posts. This post is already too long and they've said it better than I could.


4. The Appeal of Compromise
The public option IS compromise.

I WANT a single-payer system. I will settle for the chance to have what insured people have. Health care that doesn't put me and my family out of our home--oh wait. It HAS. I'm moving at the end of the month because we can't make rent anymore.

I WANT a public option NOW. I will settle for one that's phased in slowly. I can live with family for a while. I will earn my way out of their house. I have before. I can do it again. It'll be harder if my left eye requires surgery, but I work hard, and I will repay my debts.

I understand that things cannot be done suddenly or the stock market will panic again and we'll all be screwed. I know it takes time to develop a completely new program. I know it's important that the administration be set up properly. I will compromise. I can wait. For a little while.


5. A Desire to Efficiently Fulfill My Sense of Moral Obligation

Churches and private groups cannot do enough with voluntary donations of money or volunteer efforts. If you want to help as many people as need to be helped across the country, we need something bigger than a local soup kitchen.

This is why the government builds roads. You don't leave those up to neighborhood associations.

Heck, even leaving much of health care to the states means that folks like Leo get the ****-end of the stick in New Jersey and I get the run-around in Maryland, but in Massachusetts they're saving lives! Patchwork and partial is not enough.

Consistent, Legal, and EQUAL care must be taken to take care of not 'those poor people,' but ME and others like me whose biggest hurdle to being productive is not welfare-reliance, but our own bodies.

People helped me. I want to know that help is still there, no matter where I live--and I need to know that I can PAY IT BACK both monetarily and morally. Not to some credit card company with stupidly high interest rates, but to others who are right where I was: ready to work and under a heap of health-related issues and debt.

[Anarky]

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

Actually Bush was hardly conservative. He actually was the one starting the big-time spending on social programs (not just the wars). Obama is doing the same thing on a much greater scale. And it's easy to talk about "helping those less fortunate", which is an implication that arguing against social programs is being heartless. Social programs, in some cases, have cost too much or have done more harm than good. Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" program was obviously welfare for the more fortunate, not the people who genuinely needed help, and it certainly failed to do any economic good.

Jeez, way to miss the point of Katie's post. Well done. Simmer down for a second and read it again without getting into one of the Katie-defined frenzies.

As for "helping the less fortunate:" You can't really call denying medical help to people who need but can't afford it "helping." That doesn't work out on a very basic level, regardless of political conviction or belief-system.

Having read articles about the history of the American newspaper business, the newspapers in the early days were openly partisan and made no pretense otherwise. Fox may be lying when they call themselves "fair and balanced", but Dan Rather, the example I used previously, was no better-and in fact dishonest, which correctly ruined his career.

All news media have to adorn themselves with adjectives like "Fair" and "Balanced" and "Objective." Otherwise they wouldn't be approved as official, real news. Then they'd be one of these boulevard-programmes.

As for dishonest people in the media... go into any newsroom, pay the editor a coffee and tell him to stand in the middle of the office and yell "You bastard, I saw what you did there! That's nothing more than a lie!" and you'll see how many people start trembling. Having worked for two newspapers, I can say that this is not one of the funnier gags your editor pulls.

[Roseangelo]

Originally Posted by kyabetsu

Right now, you can pay for your broken arm. Will you always be able to? What if it wasn't $1200 for arm, but $200,000 for your cervical cancer?

Actually, I couldn't pay for my own broken arm right now. I haven't had insurance since I dropped off my parents' coverage 8 years ago, I'm currently unemployed, and might as well have no money to my name. But I still can't support any of the health "reform" options that are currently being discussed and I would still rather take care of my own broken arm.

Please don't quote me and make assumptions about me when you don't know me.

[kyabetsu]

Sorry, it's a habit to quote. I won't quote you anymore. Your post was so far back at the beginning of the thread, I wanted to be sure I was reading it and responding to it correctly.

Even with every word you said, I still took the wrong idea away from your post. I'm glad you did address my questions to you, b/c I did want to hear your response. Thank you.

[Barkworm]

Originally Posted by Roseangelo

Actually, I couldn't pay for my own broken arm right now. I haven't had insurance since I dropped off my parents' coverage 8 years ago, I'm currently unemployed, and might as well have no money to my name. But I still can't support any of the health "reform" options that are currently being discussed and I would still rather take care of my own broken arm.

Hahaha, I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense. Your political opinion is more important to you than your own health?

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Originally Posted by Anarky

Jeez, way to miss the point of Katie's post. Well done. Simmer down for a second and read it again without getting into one of the Katie-defined frenzies.

As for "helping the less fortunate:" You can't really call denying medical help to people who need but can't afford it "helping." That doesn't work out on a very basic level, regardless of political conviction or belief-system.


All news media have to adorn themselves with adjectives like "Fair" and "Balanced" and "Objective." Otherwise they wouldn't be approved as official, real news. Then they'd be one of these boulevard-programmes.

As for dishonest people in the media... go into any newsroom, pay the editor a coffee and tell him to stand in the middle of the office and yell "You bastard, I saw what you did there! That's nothing more than a lie!" and you'll see how many people start trembling. Having worked for two newspapers, I can say that this is not one of the funnier gags your editor pulls.

First, the part about "helping the less fortunate": I assumed Katie was not talking about government health care specifically, as we already have Medicare and Medicaid, meant for the elderly and the very poor, respectively. As far as government assistance programs, there are legitimate concerns about whether they will work and how much do they cost. We taxpayers do have the right to ask such questions as we're the ones stuck with the bill. As far as government health care is concerned, will it cost us more, or not? And do we benefit? Everyone is going to vote on, "What's in it for me?" Certainly everyone in the U. S. Congress is aware of this, which is why they're not going to say "How high?" when Obama says to jump. Not if they want to stay in office.

Second, the part about the news media. Dan Rather was a television reporter for CBS, with a large public reputation. Bringing down someone so prominent would be a tall order indeed, and I doubt any editor could have made him tremble. Sometimes a liar just is a liar.

[Roseangelo]

Originally Posted by Barkworm

Hahaha, I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense. Your political opinion is more important to you than your own health?

My political opinion is not decided by what may or may not make life "easy" for me, and it's hardly something I need to justify to anyone here. I know I'm in a minority on this forum, which is why I exited the debate. Nothing said here is swaying any opinions, and I really don't care to try to. And that's all I really have to say on it.

[ThirdMarioBro]

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

Actually Bush was hardly conservative.

Well, we can at least agree on that point.