[blackhole]

Would you count a discussion about how blackhole and High Max are angry little beasties as a good discussion? Sounds boring and flamey to me..

:C

[NGTM-1R]

Would you count a discussion about how blackhole and High Max are angry little beasties as a good discussion? Sounds boring and flamey to me..

I'm all for the pyschological dissection of High Max. It's endless fun and games.

[High Max]

Only for children who have nothing better to do. Man, that is the genuine talk of a person who acts like a high schooler. Only caring about fun and games at the expense of others. That sounds also like the thinking pattern of a loser and a bully. Surely you have something else to do? People these days  

[iamzack]

WOW. WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED THAT ENCOURAGING THIS COURSE OF DISCUSSION WOULD END IN WHINGING AND FLAMES.

[Colonol Dekker]

I hate living up to stereotypes.

WOW. WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED THAT ENCOURAGING THIS COURSE OF DISCUSSION WOULD END IN WHINGING AND FLAMES.

But she said it...stop all the emo **** or i'll happily annoy you with lockage.

[Sushi]

This thread is starting to remind me of Empire.

Welcome to the internet.

Deep breath, everyone? Can we accept that, maybe, we're all intelligent people with different views and opinions and try to have a useful discussion instead of a screaming catfight? Thanks.

I know, I know, it's the internet. I'm probably hoping for too much. But I've always been an optimist.

[Colonol Dekker]

That's the thing that pi**es in my cornflakes, people just back and forth blah blah blah. Simple courtesy and acceptance goes a long way.
 
Still. . . Swine flu eh? What an overreaction.

[TESLA]

That's the thing that pi**es in my cornflakes, people just back and forth blah blah blah. Simple courtesy and acceptance goes a long way.
 
Still. . . Swine flu eh? What an overreaction.

Yeah just wait until spaghetti flu, that will be the real killer. 
Although this winter will be interesting.....

[Flipside]

Found this an interesting read:

http://sobeale.blogspot.com/2009/08/dont-talk-to-me-about-death-panels.html

Of nothing else, it shows the depth of feeling on both sides of the debate.

Oh, and that Sarah Palin is a clueless cow, but I don't think that's really a revelation...

[iamzack]

Unfortunately, some people are SO. STUPID. that that story won't even phase them. I don't understand how people can be THIS. DUMB.

What spin!

How anyone can imagine that the government will NOT use the provisions of this bill to ration care with a panel determining "return on investment" is beyond me.

More than half of the costs of medical care arise from medical problems of the elderly. Clearly that is the only area where any significant "savings" can be found.

The plan is simple: Old people, no longer working and usually paying little or no taxes, are a drain on government and a direct threat Obama's grand marxist utopia. Withdraw care for those who will not likely live long to "amortize" the cost and divert it to those with more voting years left as dependents of the state.

We cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you" is the real message of the socialists.

Sarah Palin is not an idiot and is not seeking "cheap political points."

Although the health care bill does not specifically call it a "death panel," it does give the government the option of cutting off care to those it deems unworthy of the investment, namely, old people with catastrophic illnesses.

So I don't really see the difference between Obamacare and what happened to your mother. Do you?

First of all, you need to realize that the evil, death-panel insurance companies favor this bill. They favor it because they feel, in the decade before they are pushed out of the market, they will make tons of money by selling policies to people the government will subsidise. Most CFOs and CEOs have a five year horizon - just long enough to take the money and run - so Obamacare is a big win for them

Palin is looking longer term, just like Obama is. Obama said he wants this as a transition to a single-payer system. You are correct that there are death panels now, but Palin is correct on the more significant point that there will be (and note the singular) a death panel then, because the bill explicitly calls for an "independent" board that will define treatment minimums for public and private plans alike. Sorry, but Palin is just smarter than you, because she realizes that the Obamacare panel will be staffed with bean-counting, self-interested, corruptible humans - in other words people who are just like the denizens of today's death panels. For some odd reason, you seem to think the Obama death panel will be staffed with angels that are somehow conjured into existence.

The only thing Palin got wrong is that she imagined a hearing before the Obama Death Panel. They'll have a hearing about as often as the Supreme Court does. Their decision to stop funding extended care from the elderly and those with poor "quality of life" prospects, in order to free up money for goodies to favored constituencies, will be final. One less day of an elderly person in an ICU can fund a community votor registration drive for undocumented workers, who are well and truely motivated by the prospect of, "reproductive health benefits", mental health benefits, dental, vision care, therapeutic massages and spa treatments. And they know their skills gaming the immigration system will be sufficient to run rings around any individual mandate system. Since it's hard to construct a benefits package that will appeal to Downs Syndrome voters, neonatal ICU babies may never vote, and elderly ICU patients may never vote again, the big win is to let people like that wither away, and focus on a more attractive, more compelling package for swing constituencies.

*sigh*

AARP debunking: http://blog.aarp.org/shaarpsession/2009/08/debunked_health_reform_means_r.html

[Liberator]

AARP debunking

Like AARP and the other "letter" groups that "debunk" these claims don't have a dog in the fight on Obama's side...

At the end of the day this isn't about health care in any form or fashion.  It's about control.  More acurately, it's about whether the citizenry, the source of true power, or the elitist, Washington scumbags gain/retain control over 1/6 of the US economy and by extension control over the aforementioned citizenry.

This is a battle for the very soul of America...

[NGTM-1R]

Like AARP and the other "letter" groups that "debunk" these claims don't have a dog in the fight on Obama's side...

Earth to Lib: They don't, except that it'd be, y'know, good for old people. Is there something wrong with good for old people?

More to the point, is there some reason to believe that the old people, who need health care most, are going to do something that will result in a lesser quality of care? Isn't that kind of shooting themselves in the foot? Wouldn't that be, you know, stupid? AARP is many things, including probably going to destroy our generation's lives with taxes because of Social Security regardless of what party we support or is in office, but it's not stupid.

At the end of the day this isn't about health care in any form or fashion.  It's about control.  More acurately, it's about whether the citizenry, the source of true power, or the elitist, Washington scumbags gain/retain control over 1/6 of the US economy and by extension control over the aforementioned citizenry.

What? You don't think 1/6th of economy doesn't already control Washington? If it was really as powerful/lucrative as you say, then this bill wouldn't have a hope in hell.

Unless there was massive public outrage. It's sorta hard to argue with massive public outrage. And that sorta doesn't happen unless something really bad is going down.

This is a battle for the very soul of America...

This phraseology, and your immunity to logic as presented by myself and others in this thread, sort of proves something. To borrow a metaphor from the Archive of Tears, you refuse to turn on the lights because you know, somewhere deep down, that it would once and for all define whether you are merely in the dark or have your head up the butt of an elephant...and you fear the answer to that question.

As you should.

[Rian]

Because I just took an entire class on this topic, I'm going to toss out a little hard data about the US system as it stands.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Chartbooks/2007/May/Multinational-Comparisons-of-Health-Systems-Data--2006.aspx

This report studied healthcare systems in the US, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Australia, the UK, Japan, and New Zealand.

Of these countries, as far as I can tell from my reading, only the US lacks some form of universal healthcare coverage. (Detailed information about each of these healthcare systems can be found here.)

Out of the nine countries discussed in this report, which examined the situation as it stood in 2006 (before any recent reforms):

Healthcare spending in the US was the greatest, at almost twice the per capita, cost-of-living-adjusted cost of its closest competitor.
The US had the most spending on administration and insurance.
The US had the highest spending on pharmaceuticals.
The US had the worst outcomes for respiratory disease, diabetes, circulatory disease, medical and surgical errors. It placed in the bottom half in all but one of the other measures of mortality.
The US had by far the least investment on health information technology, which has been demonstrated to improve efficiency and reduce errors.

Another survey (in PDF form here)found that more people in the US thought their healthcare system needed fundamental changes or a total overhaul than in any of six other countries from the list above.

So what does all this mean? First, the US healthcare system as it stood (and perhaps still stands, I'm not really addressing recent developments here) is fundamentally broken. Costs are out of control, patient outcomes are mediocre to downright poor, and public satisfaction is dismal. Second, universal healthcare as practiced pretty much everywhere else (note that each of these countries has a different system and a different way of balancing public and private funding) produces comparable or better results at lower cost and in a way that better satisfies their respective populations.

I would say that the US is long overdue to shake up the old system a bit. There are plenty of better examples that we can emulate.

[High Max]

This is a battle for the very soul of America...

It is clear you are blinded by patriotism and so no matter what, you will say "I love America". Why don't you be your own person and not think USA is the best country in the world just because the culture makes you think it is and it's been drilled in your head since you were born? You will always think USA is always right, no matter how the corrupt culture here thinks and what USA does, huh? For a country that's always right, I sure see many problems, including problems with morality, safety, the priorities of many, health, love for war, economy, kindness, etc. Oh, 2/3's of the people here being obese could hardly be called always right. The arrogance. It's wrong in most ways, I would say.

Just accept that no civiliztion or way a society runs lasts forever. But it seems China is the longest lasting (maybe 10,000 years) and is still there and in one piece and thriving more than ever. Maybe China did something right and its discipline and "for the common good" train of thought kept it alive for so long? I know back then a few 1000 years ago that it was full of war and brutal though. At least during the first dynasty and first emperor. I watched something about that on the history channel. Also about the brutal execution style of having 2 horses pull a man apart when his limbs were tied to ropes and the ropes tied to some horses running in opposite directions.

[Kosh]

It's not partiotism, it's just blindness.

[Flipside]

There's a great deal of good-will behind the concept of self-reliance, I can understand why it exists, and why it was installed into America, but there are places where it doesn't mingle well with the fact that America, as a society has grown exponentially in population and linearly in output.

You have two options; heavy birth control, and a minimum wage that allows everyone to be able to get a job that allows them to be self-reliant, or, provide some form of state-funded supply of the basic requirements, such as Fire Protection, Health Care and Policing. Note that two of those are state funded now.

[Grizzly]

Note that two of those are state funded now.

Thank the gods for that. What if the Fire Fighters Corperation just decided that your house is not the effort?

[Mongoose]

Note that two of those are state funded now.

Thank the gods for that. What if the Fire Fighters Corperation just decided that your house is not the effort?

From what I understand, that's precisely what happened on occasion when Benjamin Franklin established the first property insurance company in the United States in Philadelphia.  The buildings the company insured displayed its symbol on the exterior, and if a fire department unassociated with the company came across one of its insured buildings on fire, they'd just let it burn.  Thankfully, things are a bit more altruistic these days.

[Sushi]

I think just about everyone agrees that the current system is broken and needs reform. People disagree over the nature of the reform that should take place, not it's necessity.

Here's something nobody has adequately explained to me:

Why do we need a federal healthcare system? Why isn't all of this done at the State level? We don't have one giant national Firefighting system, or one giant national police system. Why do we need one giant national healthcare system? Assuming we did go to universal healthcare (which isn't the target of current reform proposals anyway), why do it at the federal level instead of the state level?

It seems to me that doing it at the state level would be much better for many reasons. States are pretty diverse, and there wouldn't have to be an ill-fitting "one size fits all" that's uncomfortable for everyone. Instead, each state could design a program that works best for it. Furthermore, by letting each state do its own thing, you allow for competitive comparison. Survival of the fittest healthcare system, basically. Also, if people don't like the way their state handles things, there is always the "vote with your feet" option. That becomes much more difficult if it's the same in every state (much easier to move state-to-state than to leave the country). Finally, the constitutional mandate for federal healthcare is weak at best IMO. Letting states take care of it themselves seems much more inline with the constitution.

And yet, nobody even TALKS about letting the states do their own healthcare reform. Does everyone else know something I don't?

Or am I the only person left who still believes in some degree of state autonomy?

[Scotty]

You are not alone.

Healthcare Reform is this year's high school policy debate topic.  I'll let you guys know if I see anything worth mentioning.

Then again, supposedly smart people have come up with some pretty stupid stuff before .