Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Quenching My Thirst For Knowledge
I have two questions, folks - one for my conservative colleagues, and one for my liberal colleagues. First the conservatives; How, pray-tell, could the President's/Democratic health-care legislation be considered a "take over of the American health-care system" when all that it is is basically a replica of the Republican plan from 1993 and the bipartisan Bennett-Wyden plan from 2007?......Alright, now the liberals; How, people, can the recently passed Affordable Care Act possibly work when there have already been 1,200-1,300 exemptions already allowed for it?......That's it. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
What is the impact of 1200 - 1300 exemptions?
One impact of the exemptions will be the Supreme Court ruling Obamacare being unconstitutional.You cant give exemptions to unions,McDonalds and others while forcing americans to purchase health care.The commerce law argument is'nt going to hold up.Giving anyone an exemption is a mistake.
I'm sorry for the subject change,but have you heard Obama has approved both drone and attack jets in Yemeni? Thats makes it four wars we are in.I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
And I think Barry does also
Russ, my opinion has always been, if we can kill al Qaeda and not have it cause instability in the region, then we should clearly do so (it was why I initially opposed the drone attacks in Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons, yada yada). I don't have a problem with Mr. Obama's actions on this one.............The way that I see it, Jerry, for a comprehensive plan to be adequate effective, it really and truly has to be comprehensive. The higher the number of people and businesses in the system, the better.
Will,
Very true, but is 1200-1300 a significant number? It is 1200-1300 out of what?
Jerry,1300 in'st the final number,exemption request are being filed everyday.
Three weeks ago there were about 500 approved in Nancy Pelosi's district alone.
Health care has been an issue for a long time... During my collegiate years, as a varsity debater, the topic in
1972-1973
RESOLVED: "That the federal government should provide a program of comprehensive medical care for all its citizens."
... I know the information has changed, no doubt, the statistics..everything... but it was a concern almost 40 years ago and it never got fixed, it cgot worse. One of the main issues, back then, and this I believe is the largest problem today, is a reliance on third parties to pay the 'Doctor Bill'
one example..."Major business wires are reporting that Humana Inc. first quarter 2011 net income rose 22 percent compared to the first quarter of 2010." *insiderlouisville.com
... now given that there is no one at an insurance company that actually 'heals' anyone.. that seems steep, a 22% quarterly increase. And that is only one company. And only one quarter.
I do not have answers... but to claim that we DO NOT need to make some kind of reform..is patently ridiculous. And dammit... no one wants to cooperate in Congress!!!
Based on my limited knowledge of the law, I think Rusty is correct. I won several grievances because labor law required employees to be treated equally.
This is an example of pandering out of fear, not governing with courage and conviction. If it gets us to a single payer system sooner than great.
Jerry, some of those exemptions are huge; unions, MacDonald's, etc.. I'm fearful that it could eventually be a problem. Just for the record, this isn't my favorite approach. (As I think I may have mentioned before), I would much prefer the Ezekial Emanuel plan of vouchers, health-boards, etc.. But, if we are going to go this route, I say that we have to be serious about it. It has to be universal, I think.
How about the government just provides for national defense, infrastructure, and only LOOSELY regulate commerce for fairness and then let adults take care of themselves?
Will,
Are exemptions for union members regardless of employer or union employees?
Volt,
The government is charged by the Constitution with more responsibilities than just those you listed.
The real takeover would be the zero-choice government monopoly option (usually called "single-payer"). No, we did not get it. But Mr. Obama has stated that if he had his way, that is what we would have.
Wait a minute. No body has said that a single payer system has to be the only system. Private insurance companies can offer insurance also. Simply open Medicare to everyone with people under 65 paying the full cost through their premiums just like with private insurance. There's no take over. If private insurance can offer a better deal, let them.
Why protect inefficiency?
Volt, believe it or not, I actually have a libertarian strain, too. I would totally love it if a society could function like that. But it can't. I work in a convalescent home and 90% of the residents are on state aid. They're destitute. I mean, I suppose that we could try and tap the extended families for the bill. But do you really want to bankrupt every single son and daughter of the people currently residing in long-term care facilities? Talk about an economic meltdown.............I'm not totally sure about the breakdown, Jerry. I'm surmising, though, that we're talking about millions of people here. And just for the record, I'm not the only one who's concerned about these exemptions. Jack Welsh is, too.
Jerry said: "No body has said that a single payer system has to be the only system."
That's contradictory. Single payer means the only system.
Please see this mild and uncontroversial definition from Wikipedia:
"Single-payer health care is the financing of health care from a single insurance pool, which in all existing and proposed cases is government run'.
That clearly says only system; monopoly.
-----------
"Simply open Medicare to everyone with people under 65 paying the full cost through their premiums just like with private insurance. "
I disagree strongly. We need to means-test the hell out of Medicare. No more handouts to the well-to-do and wealthy. Expand and improve Medicare coverage to the needy, (the destitute as Will described) but no one else.
That's a big part of why we are in this budget mess: the ever-expanding waste of welfare handouts to the well off; those who can take care of themselves and don't need a safety net.
We've come to a strange pass when Democrats push hard for welfare for the wealthy and the Republicans oppose it. This was quite evident in the battle over SCHIP, which was intended for the disadvantaged. However, it got tweaked so money intended for needy children went to rich adults. The Republicans opposed this, while the Democrats strongly defended it.
You don't like the term single payer, fine. Let's drop it. But, we should expand and improve Medicare for everyone, not just the needy. It is not a welfare program. And what is the problem with letting those under 65 in as long as they pay the full cost just like private insurance?
"We've come to a strange pass when Democrats push hard for welfare for the wealthy and the Republicans oppose it."
WOW! That's an interesting statement given the huge tax cuts that both Ryan and Pawlenty are proposing for the wealthy and corporations. I call that welfare for the wealthy.
"WOW! That's an interesting statement given the huge tax cuts that both Ryan and Pawlenty are proposing for the wealthy and corporations. I call that welfare for the wealthy."
If you call it that, you are being entirely erroneous. It's not a handout or a gift at all. It's not welfare for a would-be plunderer to merely choose to plunder less from someone. Say it is bad, come up with an accurate description for it, but it is not in any way a handout, welfare, or subsidy to let people keep more of what they happen to own already.
Personally, I do oppose handouts, bailouts, etc to the well off and wealthy. But I don't have a lot of problem with letting everyone keep more of what they have earned already.
So, Jerry, if a mugger steals your wallet and lets you keep your shoes, do you call your shoes a gift from the mugger?
And what do you have to say about cutting SCHIP's actual government handouts for free healthcare for the well-off?
(I forgot to add another great example of Democrats being for corporate welfare and Republicans opposing it: TARP. Most Republicans opposed this really massive giveaway. Most Democrats favored it. And at the two tea party events I went to to observe, there were many signs opposing TARP, and not one in favor. )
Congratulations, dmarks. You have come up with the perfect analogy for the government -- a mugger. This describes to a tee the conservative's and the republican's view of the government. In fact, it is exactly what they are trying to turn the government into. And who is getting mugged? The American People, that's who.
Thanks, dmarks! You have made your position crystal clear. And you have also clearly expressed why republicans should never be elected to office.
Ya know Jerry? You're right.
Why should anyone be able to keep any portion of what they worked so hard for? If higher taxes are good, then maybe we should just take it all. Then the government could dish it back out equally and fairly to everyone, even the drug abusers and the lazy. Of course we'd have to regulate that so people only spent what little we give them as we believe they ought to. And of course politicians being the best of us and all would make sure that it was all done with an even hand, and certainly none of them would take advantage of their positions to consolidate wealth or power.
You may be onto something there!
I know it's never worked anywhere it's ever been tried, but that's only because no one as intelligent as you has ever tried it.
And Jerry managed to avoid the point about calling it a handout if someone chooses to steal less from you.
Again, Volton, rather than disputing the facts, you fall back on the fallacious argument about taxing all income at 100%. No one has ever proposed anything like that. But then, that is what conservatives and republicans do -- lie, fearmonger, and distort.
Congratulations, you and dmarks are great representatives of the conservative/republican philosophy.
Post a Comment