OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

Government running healthcare is not the way to proceed. First the working class should not pay for the healthcare of those who are lazy and choose not to work. I could understand those who are temporarily out of work or disabled, but not those who choose to remain out of work despite no health problems....

I am always confused by these sorts of arguments.

First, under a properly administered national health scenario, everyone would contribute equally to the health-care costs of the nation. Think of it like insurance - you pay the premium, never knowing if you are someone you love will fall ill. The premium is less than the cost of the care that you might need, and everyone pays it so that those who do fall ill, do not suffer needlessly.

Secondly, why do fiscal conservatives insist on looking at "welfare" in the mold of what it is today? Our entire welfare system is completely broken. There are few rational people who are demanding that everyone be taken care of whether they contribute to society or not. Though, generally the compassionate among us would say that everyone should be taken care whether they can contribute to society or not, so as to not leave out the young, the elderly, and the chronically ill. At any rate, a functioning system would have programs that would employ "marginally functional" laborers, enforcing their minimal contribution to society, in return for a marginal living. So if someone wanted to be horribly lazy, they could get by on 15-20 hours of menial government labor, and would be given dorm style living and a small allowance.

If you want to look at that oddly controversial quote in a more rational light - "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability." - then you can see that perhaps in the context of our modern society, all a terribly lazy and amotivational slacker needs is a case of ramen and a little dorm room, because all they con contribute is a little bit of mindless drudge work. The point is not to take from the motivated to give to the leech, but rather to reach a balance between contribution and reward. The only point at which any real action needs to be taken, then, is if someone resists contributing enough to account for their bare minimal survival needs (a small room and crappy food), at which point they are put to work in places no one else wants to toil (scrubbing subway toilets, anyone?).

You can point at the throngs of homeless in America, and claim that they prove that I am wrong. However, I would argue that if you actually looked at these people, you would find that at least 99% of them fall into 2 categories - those who would gladly contribute but can't find work, and the mentally ill. So the former will work if we find something for them to do, and the latter need to be dealt with in some humane fashion, rather than condemning them to rot and fester in a dark alley, haunted by schizophrenic nightmares.


I'm just going to stop typing now. Hopefully I've made enough sense for this morning.

[thejeff]

I'd also like to point out that an increasingly large part of the working class doesn't have health insurance. Many low end jobs don't supply it and decent individual health insurance is far from affordable, and if you have any kind of "preexisting condition", may simply be unavailable at any price.

Those at the very bottom end of the scale often do have access to healthcare through Medicaid and other programs. It's those who are trying to climb out of the bottom rung that are screwed. Like NtJedi's single mom example. If she earns more at a job that still doesn't provide insurance, she no longer qualifies for the government programs. So she has no choice but to stay at the bottom.
Employment based health care no longer makes sense, if it ever did. The only reason it stays on, is that insurance companies stand to lose a great deal of profit, and the Republican party has spent years driving the message that government can't work and can't be trusted. And then doing their best to prove it when in power.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by lch

Why do you insist on calling him that? He was born as Barack Hussein Obama II to Barack Hussein Obama Senior, so I'd guess that he's entitled to the name. Do you have that little faith in the government that you'd think they let somebody run for president of the United States under a false name? Sticking to calling him Soetoro without any reason is just trolling.

And presuming I am without reason is somewhat ignorant.
Do you know when he changed his name - and why? I do - both the reason he gives in his book dreams of my father, and the more likely 'real' reason.

Since you will call me a rascist etc if I tell you - I suggest you go read Dreams of my father. And read it in his own words.

Lastly, I suggest you consider why would anyone change their name from Barry Soutero to Barrack Hussein Obama? Do you think just perhaps if you were going to be involved in an activist miniority movement that somehow the name 'Barry' might not go over too well? And then look at when it happens...

When considering people in general, and politicians in specific, it is often more useful to consider what they do, rather than what they say.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by thejeff

I'd also like to point out that an increasingly large part of the working class doesn't have health insurance. Many low end jobs don't supply it and decent individual health insurance is far from affordable, and if you have any kind of "preexisting condition", may simply be unavailable at any price.

Those at the very bottom end of the scale often do have access to healthcare through Medicaid and other programs. It's those who are trying to climb out of the bottom rung that are screwed. Like NtJedi's single mom example. If she earns more at a job that still doesn't provide insurance, she no longer qualifies for the government programs. So she has no choice but to stay at the bottom.
Employment based health care no longer makes sense, if it ever did. The only reason it stays on, is that insurance companies stand to lose a great deal of profit, and the Republican party has spent years driving the message that government can't work and can't be trusted. And then doing their best to prove it when in power.

Travelgate, Whitewater, Tyson foods, Hillaries amazing stock picks; Fannie Mae, Mac (including to Barrack Hussein Obama), Wm Jefferson, Barry Nagel, the mayor of detroit, PostOfficeGate, Jennifer Flowers, Espry - just a few democratic scandals that leap to mind. So the fact that you act completely ignorant of repeated democratic abuses of power suggests educating you is pointless.

However to change topics to healthcare - which I believe is a great topic for debate.

First, a few things of which you are probably unaware. The federal government is *causing* a great deal of our present problem. And before you dismiss this statement out of hand, let me show you why its so. When you think healthcare, you probably think ever increasing costs - prices that are increasing at 10+% every year.

So, every year, the federal govt. mandates a certain level of care. If you are a medicare or medicaid recipient you are entitlted to certain procedures. All well and good. However, the federal govt has never once in the *history* of the program paid for the full cost of these programs. So what happens is the federal government says you have to provide these services - and then doesn't provide the money for it.

Currently, the federal government is reimbursing at about 66% of the actual cost of providing for the service.

So, now consider if you are a hospital - your level of service is mandated. You can't deny an indigent patient medical services, yet if the service cost you $1000 and the federal govt only gives you %650 what are you going to do?

Unlike the federal government which can operate in a deficit seemingly forever, hospitals pretty much have to balance their books every year. So that $350 cost gets spread around to the people that can pay it - both insured and cash basis patients.

And every time we expand federal programs - such as this new program 'for the children' that Obama is proposing, or the prescription benefit program - the situation just gets worse.

This is one of the many examples of federal programs having unanticipated consequences. There is another problem with the federal approach.

First they are creating a sense of entitlement. I have actually heard people say they were *owed* a quadruple bypass. And they got it for free.. at a cost of over $176,000. In what way does an entitlement program encourage one to plan and conserve for ones medical needs? The fact is - it doesn't. As long as someone will foot the bill people will oversubscribe the service.

The second larger problem with the idea of health insurance - is that it no longer *IS* health insurance. I am all in favor of health insurance - but its no longer even possible to buy that in the US today.

The idea of health insurance as it was practised long ago was that *I* was responsible for the first X thousand dollars of my medical coverage. After that amount X was reached the insurer stepped in with something between 80%-100% of the coverage costs.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am in favor of the government providing basic medical services. Prenatal care, innoculations, emergeancy health care, etc.

But I am amazed that the left - the same people that worry about big government intrusion into our bedrooms (gay marriage etc), and our conversations (wireless wiretaps) are so willing to willy nilly cede complete control of their health care to a government beaurocracy.

There are a number of other factors that contribute to why our healthcare works - or doesn't work - the way it does. So, I'll give one more example: it costs more than $700 million dollars to bring a product to market in the united states. Seven Hundred MILLION. Thats because of the rules and regulations for testing, and product liability. But think about it - it means that *only* the very large companies can afford to drug trials here. And what happens when you restrict competition- prices go up.

It is easy to believe in slogans. But the good news, if I can call it that, is that the damage that barry can do in this arena is limited. He will propose more porgrams, and borrow more money to throw at it. And create a little bit more of an entitltement state - but in the end, its unsustainable even in its present form.

It is ironic - but the nucleus of McCains healthcare plan actually has the seeds of how to get out of some of this mess.
First, give every american $5000 dollars a year toward healthcare costs. Bankable or savable. But 5000 a year will pay for all the usual innoculations, and broken bones, and dental xrays. And then make things above that *your* responsbility.

Anyway.. I'm tired of typing = )

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

First, under a properly administered national health scenario, everyone would contribute equally to the health-care costs of the nation.

Now see this is where the problem begins... the government has a proven history of problems spending our taxes and thus does not qualify for taking new responsibilities. If a college student is failing the majority of his classes you don't sign him up for another 4 credit class.

Originally Posted by thejeff

Secondly, why do fiscal conservatives insist on looking at "welfare" in the mold of what it is today?

Until our government can fix existing problems I don't have any faith in them controlling more of my life... such as healthcare. To blindly believe a huge government with many problems can run healthcare is like not buckling your seatbelt when the driver is heavily drunk... it's like asking for a trouble.

Originally Posted by thejeff

If you want to look at that oddly controversial quote in a more rational light - "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability." - then you can see that perhaps in the context of our modern society, all a terribly lazy and amotivational slacker needs is a case of ramen and a little dorm room, because all they con contribute is a little bit of mindless drudge work. The point is not to take from the motivated to give to the leech, but rather to reach a balance between contribution and reward. The only point at which any real action needs to be taken, then, is if someone resists contributing enough to account for their bare minimal survival needs (a small room and crappy food), at which point they are put to work in places no one else wants to toil (scrubbing subway toilets, anyone?).

Yes everyone should contribute to society when possible.

Originally Posted by thejeff

You can point at the throngs of homeless in America, and claim that they prove that I am wrong. However, I would argue that if you actually looked at these people, you would find that at least 99% of them fall into 2 categories - those who would gladly contribute but can't find work, and the mentally ill. So the former will work if we find something for them to do, and the latter need to be dealt with in some humane fashion, rather than condemning them to rot and fester in a dark alley, haunted by schizophrenic nightmares.

The mentally ill should be helped, the homeless have shelters and programs which are to get them back into being useful into society. I've done volunteer work at these locations and they are given opportunities for returning back into society and some make this progression. The problem is many choose to remain homeless because they don't want any responsibility(cleaning dishes & answering phones) or they have bad habits such as stealing, violence and leeching off others.
Universal healthcare also opens the door to all the drug addicts who would now get free insurance allowing them to fake pains at the hospital so they can receive a fix of free drugs. At least today they need to provide their own insurance before abusing this option.

[quantum_mechani]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

Government running healthcare is not the way to proceed. First the working class should not pay for the healthcare of those who are lazy and choose not to work. I could understand those who are temporarily out of work or disabled, but not those who choose to remain out of work despite no health problems....

All I can say is I am slightly boggled by this point of view. Is it really worth letting innocent but unlucky people go without health care just because a few people abuse the system? I mean, abuse of the system is unfortunate but a little more taxes won't kill anyone, as opposed to the alternative. And it's not like the vast majority of people that can't afford health care don't work, either.

[Tifone]

Call me stupid, but I can't really figure out where all those masses of strongly religious people in the U.S. who go nuts about abortion and gay marriage, are when they should defend the "right to live" of less fortunate people (EXPECIALLY immigrants) who can't afford health insurance for them and their children

(Dt 10,18; 14,28-29; 24,17-20; 26,1-11; 26,12-13; 27,19; Lv 19,34; 23,22; Sal 72,13; 146,9; Mt 15,21-28; Lk 10,25-37)

Maybe some good believer which thinks those people don't deserve those cares despite what the Bible and Jesus said (or even mister KO, who knows about religions far better than me, but I'd prefer first hand material ) can enlighten my mind... (After all, I'm just a poor Agnostic/Buddhist/Taoist living very far from US...)

[Tifone]

Should I try to guess a self-answer? (and sorry for double post)

Should I deduce those masses of ppl are proud and loyal and angry Christians, until they have to put an hand to their pocket, not to talk about "Go, sell all your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (MT 19,21)?

It would seem pretty hypocritical. But surely I'm wrong.

[lch]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

And presuming I am without reason is somewhat ignorant.
Do you know when he changed his name - and why? I do - both the reason he gives in his book dreams of my father, and the more likely 'real' reason.

I am not ignorant, I am telling you to be reasonable. The man calls himself Barack Obama, he is enlisted as Barack Obama in the election, the media calls him Barack Obama, and thus it makes absolutely no sense that you insist on calling him Soetoro as if you are some kind of republican nutjob. Personally I would not care if he was named Barack Adolf Josef Hussein Bin Laden. So since I was the first to fall victim to your trolling, completely aware of it, I ask you to stop this kind of trolling right here and now.

[sum1lost]

Originally Posted by lch

I am not ignorant, I am telling you to be reasonable. The man calls himself Barack Obama, he is enlisted as Barack Obama in the election, the media calls him Barack Obama, and thus it makes absolutely no sense that you insist on calling him Soetoro as if you are some kind of republican nutjob. Personally I would not care if he was named Barack Adolf Josef Hussein Bin Laden. So since I was the first to fall victim to your trolling, completely aware of it, I ask you to stop this kind of trolling right here and now.

Pardon, but my mother's name is Adolf Stalin Hussein Pol Pot Bin Laden, and I am highly offended by this post. Please stop trolling.

On a slightly less retarded note, please remember, everyone, that simply because someone holds to a position that you find irrational and pointless doesn't mean that they are trolling. They might just be an irrational and pointless kind of guy, like Don Quixote.