| Author | Post |
|---|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 03:55 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Thanks Duncan, I was waiting for someone to finally say that. We fought that war so we wouldn't have to argue it again.
We won the war, so we got to say what our rights were.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 03:53 am |
|
Duncan Idaho wrote: Terrance wrote: I notice you have dodged the question about whether or not maintaining an army is socialism.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "the real rights". All the rights we have we have given ourselves. We have agreed to say these our our rights. I'm willing to bet the King of England didn't agree with our concept of rights as we articulated them in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Case in point about pursuing answers to insignificant questions. Real rights are those enumerated in out Constitution and perceived rights are just as you say, those given to yourselves. Such as "a woman's RIGHT to choose." You don't seem to distinguish between civil rights and inalienable rights. What the King of England's perception of rights are is totally irrelevant.
What a scholar! Exactly how did the inalienable rights become the inalienable rights?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1174 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 07:49 pm |
|
| Thanks Duncan, I was waiting for someone to finally say that. We fought that war so we wouldn't have to argue it again.
|
Duncan Idaho
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 344 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 07:48 pm |
|
Terrance wrote: I notice you have dodged the question about whether or not maintaining an army is socialism.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "the real rights". All the rights we have we have given ourselves. We have agreed to say these our our rights. I'm willing to bet the King of England didn't agree with our concept of rights as we articulated them in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Case in point about pursuing answers to insignificant questions. Real rights are those enumerated in out Constitution and perceived rights are just as you say, those given to yourselves. Such as "a woman's RIGHT to choose." You don't seem to distinguish between civil rights and inalienable rights. What the King of England's perception of rights are is totally irrelevant.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 03:41 am |
|
Bixby wrote: One more time. You are a prime example of the rise of "principled immorality." The rule now as portrayed by the leftist liberal Democrats and their fellow travelers is to ignore and violate citizen's actual rights by implementing a whole new set of rights never dreamed of in the nation's history, that is until fairly recent times. The "rights" being foisted on us are "rights" which require no earning, no effort, and no action at all on the part of the recipient. That describes socialized medicine, even though it is disguised as "universal healkth care" or a "single payer system", which of course means the government. The liberals say that you are entitled to something (health care) simply because it exists for others and you want or need it and that you are entitled to be given it by the graces of government. So where does the government get it from? What does the government have to do to the private citizen to extract the funding for these "entitlements"in order to carry out the (Democrat, or more so, the Obama) promise of bestowing this "free' service on people? The answer should be obvious. These new "rights" wipe out the real rights and turn the recipients of these "rights" into mere cerfs or servants of the state. This has been tried in the former Soviet Union and has failed.
Well, some progress. By your definition, I am not a liberal. I don't believe health care is a right. I don't believe we are entitled to health care. I just think its a good idea. I also think its our choice as to how we spend our money.
You simply don't agree with me about health care being a good thing to invest in.
I notice you have dodged the question about whether or not maintaining an army is socialism.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "the real rights". All the rights we have we have given ourselves. We have agreed to say these our our rights. I'm willing to bet the King of England didn't agree with our concept of rights as we articulated them in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 03:33 am |
|
One more time. You are a prime example of the rise of "principled immorality." The rule now as portrayed by the leftist liberal Democrats and their fellow travelers is to ignore and violate citizen's actual rights by implementing a whole new set of rights never dreamed of in the nation's history, that is until fairly recent times. The "rights" being foisted on us are "rights" which require no earning, no effort, and no action at all on the part of the recipient. That describes socialized medicine, even though it is disguised as "universal healkth care" or a "single payer system", which of course means the government. The liberals say that you are entitled to something (health care) simply because it exists for others and you want or need it and that you are entitled to be given it by the graces of government. So where does the government get it from? What does the government have to do to the private citizen to extract the funding for these "entitlements"in order to carry out the (Democrat, or more so, the Obama) promise of bestowing this "free' service on people? The answer should be obvious. These new "rights" wipe out the real rights and turn the recipients of these "rights" into mere cerfs or servants of the state. This has been tried in the former Soviet Union and has failed.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 03:20 am |
|
Bixby wrote: Terrance wrote:
Bixby, I clearly said health care wasn't a "right'. There isn't too much ambiguity in that. I said that I thought it was a good idea. I also said that if the majority of us wanted to spend our money providing that service, that would be okay and consistent with our Constitution.
Do you object to us spending money to maintain an army?
As long as we can always vote for what we want and nobody takes over and justs orders things done, I figure we're okay.
You said that it wasn't a right but it's a good idea? Not ambiguous at all. The implication is clearly there. No, maintaining an army benefits the nation, especially in these times. It doesn't compare with socialized medicine, which is what we are discussing, right? The problem the Founding Fathers discovered about a democracy is that 51% of the population can, by vote, force the other 49% to acquiesce to something unpalatable to them. That's why they constructed the rules of Congress that something be passed with a 2/3rd majority and not just a simple majority. (See the minutes of the Debates of the Constitutional Convention by Max Farand, 1820).
You are correct in that what I said was not ambiguous. Would I be correct if I said that maontaining an army was a socialistic thing to do? I can make a case that helping people get health care benefits the nation too.
Everything that we enact is arbitrary on our part. You like certain things, you don't like other things. That's what this comes down to, so spare us the lectures on socialism.
Choosing to spend money to maintain an army to protect us is as socialistic as choosing to spend money on health care to protect us. You like the idea of the army you don't like the idea of health care.
So you don't like the idea of health care. Okay, but that doesn't make me a socialist.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 03:05 am |
|
Terrance wrote:
Bixby, I clearly said health care wasn't a "right'. There isn't too much ambiguity in that. I said that I thought it was a good idea. I also said that if the majority of us wanted to spend our money providing that service, that would be okay and consistent with our Constitution.
Do you object to us spending money to maintain an army?
As long as we can always vote for what we want and nobody takes over and justs orders things done, I figure we're okay.
You said that it wasn't a right but it's a good idea? Not ambiguous at all. The implication is clearly there. No, maintaining an army benefits the nation, especially in these times. It doesn't compare with socialized medicine, which is what we are discussing, right? The problem the Founding Fathers discovered about a democracy is that 51% of the population can, by vote, force the other 49% to acquiesce to something unpalatable to them. That's why they constructed the rules of Congress that something be passed with a 2/3rd majority and not just a simple majority. (See the minutes of the Debates of the Constitutional Convention by Max Farand, 1820).
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 02:52 am |
|
Bixby wrote: Terrance wrote: I don't know that health care is a right, but it is a good idea. I think a single payer system would be better than any of the alternatives that are currently being discussed. I also do not find anything inconsistent with choosing to opt for a single payer system and upholding our Constitution. The citizens of this country have the right under our Constitution to spend their money as they see fit. If we elect representatives and charge them with the task of initiating a single payer system, that would not turn our government into a Marxist or socialist institution.
It might improve the overall health of our citizens and lower the amount we collectively spend on health care now. Terrance, my cyber friend. You are attempting an end run here. You didn't necessarily say that health care is a right but you imply it by saying it's a good idea, Standing on my soap box again I further state that the right to life doesn't mean that your neighbors have to feed you and clothe you or medicate you even though you may not be able to afford any or all of these things. The right to life means that you have the right to earn your food and clothe yourself and to medicate yourself or see a doctor and pay for the saervices, even if it means a hard struggle and that no one can forcibly stop ypour struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words, Terrance, you have the right to act and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or trade them with others, if you so desire. But you do not have the right to the actions and products of others, except on the terms to which they voluntarily agree. So to have government confiscate my earnings to fund a system of health care for others who do not earn is patently against our form of government. It is, however, conducive to a socialist or communist form of government.
Bixby, I clearly said health care wasn't a "right'. There isn't too much ambiguity in that. I said that I thought it was a good idea. I also said that if the majority of us wanted to spend our money providing that service, that would be okay and consistent with our Constitution.
Do you object to us spending money to maintain an army?
As long as we can always vote for what we want and nobody takes over and justs orders things done, I figure we're okay.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 02:35 am |
|
Terrance wrote: I don't know that health care is a right, but it is a good idea. I think a single payer system would be better than any of the alternatives that are currently being discussed. I also do not find anything inconsistent with choosing to opt for a single payer system and upholding our Constitution. The citizens of this country have the right under our Constitution to spend their money as they see fit. If we elect representatives and charge them with the task of initiating a single payer system, that would not turn our government into a Marxist or socialist institution.
It might improve the overall health of our citizens and lower the amount we collectively spend on health care now. Terrance, my cyber friend. You are attempting an end run here. You didn't necessarily say that health care is a right but you imply it by saying it's a good idea, Standing on my soap box again I further state that the right to life doesn't mean that your neighbors have to feed you and clothe you or medicate you even though you may not be able to afford any or all of these things. The right to life means that you have the right to earn your food and clothe yourself and to medicate yourself or see a doctor and pay for the saervices, even if it means a hard struggle and that no one can forcibly stop ypour struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words, Terrance, you have the right to act and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or trade them with others, if you so desire. But you do not have the right to the actions and products of others, except on the terms to which they voluntarily agree. So to have government confiscate my earnings to fund a system of health care for others who do not earn is patently against our form of government. It is, however, conducive to a socialist or communist form of government.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 02:24 am |
|
Bixby wrote: Terrance wrote: Playing the Game wrote: So has old age.
So it has. Maybe we could just put our elderly infirmed out at night in the winter and save a bundle on healthcare. Why stop there? We could put ill newborns out too. What a guy. This is the typical socialist propaganda trying to evoke sympathy and guilt for those who object to having their earnings taken from them to care for someone's burdens other than their own. Health care is no more of a right than is having the right to have a home of your own. It would be immoral. What is morality in this context? Our American concept of rights are officially stated in the Declaration of Independence where it upholds our individual rights. Consider that the term "rights" is a moral one and not just a political one and it tells us that a certain form of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not intefered with and that anyone who violates someone's rights is wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned and evil.
Our only rights are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. The Founders did not meqan it to have a right to a trip to Disneyworld, or a Burger King, or a kidney dialisis treatment. We have specific enumerated rights and that's it.
The Founders, in their infinite wisdom, observed taht all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action and not to receive rewards from others. Our rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the obligation to leave you alone. Our American system guarantees us the chance to work for what we want and not to be given to you without the effort of someone else.
Liberalism attempts to impose obligations on us for the benefit of others.
I'm guessing you either didn't read or simply ignored it when I wrote health care wasn't a "right". If you had read it or hadn't ignored it, then you couldn't have gotten on your soapbox and it is painfully apparent how you love your soapbox.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 02:19 am |
|
Terrance wrote: Playing the Game wrote: So has old age.
So it has. Maybe we could just put our elderly infirmed out at night in the winter and save a bundle on healthcare. Why stop there? We could put ill newborns out too. What a guy. This is the typical socialist propaganda trying to evoke sympathy and guilt for those who object to having their earnings taken from them to care for someone's burdens other than their own. Health care is no more of a right than is having the right to have a home of your own. It would be immoral. What is morality in this context? Our American concept of rights are officially stated in the Declaration of Independence where it upholds our individual rights. Consider that the term "rights" is a moral one and not just a political one and it tells us that a certain form of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not intefered with and that anyone who violates someone's rights is wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned and evil.
Our only rights are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. The Founders did not meqan it to have a right to a trip to Disneyworld, or a Burger King, or a kidney dialisis treatment. We have specific enumerated rights and that's it.
The Founders, in their infinite wisdom, observed taht all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action and not to receive rewards from others. Our rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the obligation to leave you alone. Our American system guarantees us the chance to work for what we want and not to be given to you without the effort of someone else.
Liberalism attempts to impose obligations on us for the benefit of others.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 12:27 am |
|
Habanero wrote: Terrance wrote:
So it has. Maybe we could just put our elderly infirmed out at night in the winter and save a bundle on healthcare.
They already do that if those elderly people happen to enjoy tobacco products and live in any type of group facility.
You don't sound like a particularly happy camper.
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 3711 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 1st, 2008 11:33 pm |
|
Terrance wrote:
So it has. Maybe we could just put our elderly infirmed out at night in the winter and save a bundle on healthcare.
They already do that if those elderly people happen to enjoy tobacco products and live in any type of group facility.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 1st, 2008 11:25 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: So has old age.
So it has. Maybe we could just put our elderly infirmed out at night in the winter and save a bundle on healthcare. Why stop there? We could put ill newborns out too. What a guy.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1174 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 1st, 2008 10:42 pm |
|
| So has old age.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 1st, 2008 10:41 pm |
|
Prophet of Doom wrote: How very socialistic and immoral. Marxism abounds within the ranks of the Democratic party. Such thinking will surely bring us to our doom!
Thinking has rarely brought anyone to their doom. Diseases have killed many people.
|
Prophet of Doom
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 19th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 214 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 1st, 2008 08:31 pm |
|
How very socialistic and immoral. Marxism abounds within the ranks of the Democratic party. Such thinking will surely bring us to our doom!
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 1st, 2008 06:43 pm |
|
I don't know that health care is a right, but it is a good idea. I think a single payer system would be better than any of the alternatives that are currently being discussed.
I also do not find anything inconsistent with choosing to opt for a single payer system and upholding our Constitution. The citizens of this country have the right under our Constitution to spend their money as they see fit. If we elect representatives and charge them with the task of initiating a single payer system, that would not turn our government into a Marxist or socialist institution.
It might improve the overall health of our citizens and lower the amount we collectively spend on health care now.
|
Mendavor
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 219 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 1st, 2008 05:11 pm |
|
You people have to get over the fact that health care under a capitalist system is not working, at least not for the masses. The only answer is a socialized medical insurance system under a single payer, the government. That way we are all guaranteed medical care and not only the wealthy. There are far too many people without health care insurance and are routinely denied medical attention. Even those two rogue border patrol cops, Campion and Ramos, have their families being denied health care because their insurance has been taken from them since they went to jail. Health care is an absolute right and those of us who have the means to pay must take on the burden of helping our fellow citizens who are in need. We do this through taxes and administered by the government. There is no other way to ensure that people will be taken care of. At least giverbnment had the foresight of providing people with food stamps because it is their right to eat. We allso have housing help because everyone has a right to shelter. You all deride socialists but none of you would lift a finger or give a dime to help your fellow citizens. As citizens, we all have a right to equal benefits under government care. It is expected, by my prediction and hope, that when Obama becomes president, he will appoint Sen. Hillary Clinton as the admionistratior of implementing a universal, socialized medicine health care plan. She will get the job done.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 08:01 pm |
|
Fred wrote: Fred wrote: I'm curious,and this goes to the Cobras and Bixbys of the world...
1. Do you really think there is one and only one "European" health care system, or do you acknowledge the variety of the various systems?
2. Do you really think there are two and only two options to health care...the current system and a "socialist" one?
3. Do you think we are incapable of modifying our health care system to make it better?
Let's answer these questions, first. OK, Fred. Stop planting allusions. I never said that there is only one European health care system but as JP pointed out, there are several variations of a socialist (government run) system, all of them counter to the free market style.
There are more than two options, however, under two main headings. Free market and government run (socialist).
We are certainly capable of doing better and I have time and time again agreed with you on that one. I believe we can make it better in a free market system as opposed to a government run system.
Hillary Care is not dead. It lurks behind every Democrat dream of a government run system. What Democrats want is some form of a socialized medicine concept where they declare that health care is a right and should not be compromised. However well intentioned, a government run universal health care system in impractical.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6165 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 05:25 pm |
|
Fred wrote: I'm curious,and this goes to the Cobras and Bixbys of the world...
1. Do you really think there is one and only one "European" health care system, or do you acknowledge the variety of the various systems?
2. Do you really think there are two and only two options to health care...the current system and a "socialist" one?
3. Do you think we are incapable of modifying our health care system to make it better?
Let's answer these questions, first.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 461 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 05:13 pm |
|
Terrance. Re-read this post. Where do you think that all these subsides are coming from? What happens when people discover that the public (government) plan is cheaper? They will swamp the lifeboat. Eventually (as planned) the private plans will disappear and in comes the feds.
Duncan Idaho wrote: Barack Obama's Plan
Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All
Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.
National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.
Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.
Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.
Flexibility for State Plans: Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform. The Obama plan builds on these efforts and does not replace what states are doing. States can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan.
Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System
Reducing Costs of Catastrophic Illnesses for Employers and Their Employees: Catastrophic health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers. The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums.
Helping Patients:
Support disease management programs. Seventy five percent of total health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. Obama will require that providers that participate in the new public plan, Medicare or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) utilize proven disease management programs. This will improve quality of care, give doctors better information and lower costs.
Coordinate and integrate care. Over 133 million Americans have at least one chronic disease and these chronic conditions cost a staggering $1.7 trillion yearly. Obama will support implementation of programs and encourage team care that will improve coordination and integration of care of those with chronic conditions.
Require full transparency about quality and costs. Obama will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to administrative costs.
Ensuring Providers Deliver Quality Care:
Promote patient safety. Obama will require providers to report preventable medical errors and support hospital and physician practice improvement to prevent future occurrences.
Align incentives for excellence. Both public and private insurers tend to pay providers based on the volume of services provided, rather than the quality or effectiveness of care. Providers who see patients enrolled in the new public plan, the National Health Insurance Exchange, Medicare and FEHBP will be rewarded for achieving performance thresholds on outcome measures.
Comparative effectiveness research. Obama will establish an independent institute to guide reviews and research on comparative effectiveness, so that Americans and their doctors will have the accurate and objective information they need to make the best decisions for their health and well-being.
Tackle disparities in health care. Obama will tackle the root causes of health disparities by addressing differences in access to health coverage and promoting prevention and public health, both of which play a major role in addressing disparities. He will also challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care through quality measurement and reporting, implementation of effective interventions such as patient navigation programs, and diversification of the health workforce.
Insurance reform. Obama will strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance and will promote new models for addressing errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship and reduce the need for malpractice suits.
Lowering Costs Through Investment in Electronic Health Information Technology Systems: Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes it hard to coordinate care, measure quality or reduce medical errors and which costs twice as much as electronic claims. Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT. Obama will ensure that patients' privacy is protected.
Lowering Costs by Increasing Competition in the Insurance and Drug Markets: The insurance business today is dominated by a small group of large companies that has been gobbling up their rivals. There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market. These changes were supposed to make the industry more efficient, but instead premiums have skyrocketed by over 87 percent.
Barack Obama will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. His plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. His new National Health Exchange will help increase competition by insurers.
Lower prescription drug costs. The second-fastest growing type of health expenses is prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies are selling the exact same drugs in Europe and Canada but charging Americans more than double the price. Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S. Obama will also repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, which could result in savings as high as $30 billion. Finally, Obama will work to increase the use of generic drugs in Medicare, Medicaid, and FEHBP and prohibit big name drug companies from keeping generics out of markets.
Fight for New Initiatives
Advance the Biomedical Research Field: As a result of biomedical research the prevention, early detection and treatment of diseases such as cancer and heart disease is better today than any other time in history. Barack Obama has consistently supported funding for the national institutes of health and the national science foundation. Obama strongly supports investments in biomedical research, as well as medical education and training in health-related fields, because it provides the foundation for new therapies and diagnostics. Obama has been a champion of research in cancer, mental health, health disparities, global health, women and children's health, and veterans' health. As president, Obama will strengthen funding for biomedical research, and better improve the efficiency of that research by improving coordination both within government and across government/private/non-profit partnerships. An Obama administration will ensure that we translate scientific progress into improved approaches to disease prevention, early detection and therapy that is available for all Americans.
Fight AIDS Worldwide. There are 40 million people across the planet infected with HIV/AIDS. As president, Obama will continue to be a global leader in the fight against AIDS. Obama believes in working across party lines to combat this epidemic and recently joined Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) at a large California evangelical church to promote greater investment in the global AIDS battle.
Support Americans with Disabilities: As a former civil rights lawyer, Barack Obama knows firsthand the importance of strong protections for minority communities in our society. Obama is committed to strengthening and better enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) so that future generations of Americans with disabilities have equal rights and opportunities. Obama believes we must restore the original legislative intent of the ADA in the wake of court decisions that have restricted the interpretation of this landmark legislation.
Barack Obama is also committed to ensuring that disabled Americans receive Medicaid and Medicare benefits in a low-cost, effective and timely manner. Recognizing that many individuals with disabilities rely on Medicare, Obama worked with Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) to urge the department of health and human services to provide clear and reliable information on the Medicare prescription drug benefit and to ensure that the Medicare recipients were protected from fraudulent claims by marketers and drug plan agents.
Improve Mental Health Care. Mental illness affects approximately one in five American families. The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that untreated mental illnesses cost the U.S. more than $100 billion per year. As president, Obama will support mental health parity so that coverage for serious mental illnesses are provided on the same terms and conditions as other illnesses and diseases.
Protect Our Children from Lead Poisoning. More than 430,000 American children have dangerously high levels of lead in their blood. Lead can cause irreversible brain damage, learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and, at very high levels, seizures, coma and death. As president, Obama will protect children from lead poisoning by requiring that child care facilities be lead-safe within five years.
Reduce Risks of Mercury Pollution. More than five million women of childbearing age have high levels of toxic mercury in their blood, and approximately 630,000 newborns are born at risk every year. Barack Obama has a plan to significantly reduce the amount of mercury that is deposited in oceans, lakes, and rivers, which in turn would reduce the amount of mercury in fish.
Support Americans with Autism. More than one million Americans have autism, a complex neurobiological condition that has a range of impacts on thinking, feeling, language, and the ability to relate to others. As diagnostic criteria broaden and awareness increases, more cases of autism have been recognized across the country. Barack Obama believes that we can do more to help autistic Americans and their families understand and live with autism. He has been a strong supporter of more than $1 billion in federal funding for autism research on the root causes and treatments, and he believes that we should increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to truly ensure that no child is left behind.
More than anything, autism remains a profound mystery with a broad spectrum of effects on autistic individuals, their families, loved ones, the community, and education and health care systems. Obama believes that the government and our communities should work together to provide a helping hand to autistic individuals and their families.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 03:38 pm |
|
Jurisprudence wrote: No there are a variety of systems but along a common theme. Single-payer or government paid and run. The variations are not that great, although, the U.K. and some of Canada’s systems are now drifting toward fee-for-service. In all cases that I have inquired, decisions are made more on a monetary basis rather than a health basis. Kind of like some of these crummy HMO's we have here. Managed care. For instance, it is not cost-effective to give an elderly patient a triple by-pass. The older you are, the less chance you have of getting extraordinary care. You will be made comfortable, but that’s it.
Regarding something in Bixby’s post, what Freidman is repeating is from Adam Smith, referred to often as the founder of economics. He is the first advocate of free markets and one of the most famous. Smith and his ideas were supposedly passé at the time but now, of course, market economics has swept the world. Even old socialists, such as the Chinese and the Indians, believe in markets and allocate their capital and their energies according to the markets' demands. Marx and Engels are has-beens. The only Marx we admire today is Groucho, except for the socialists and liberals (more than not, both are the same). The very system that liberals advocate has been tried for years in the old Soviet Union and it failed miserably. Why can’t we learn? I recently had occasion to go to Europe on business but luckily while in France and the U.K., I never had to make use of any of their health care systems. As posted below, doing so remains pretty sketchy. Their systems are undoubtedly socialist. ("Single-payer.") To repeat the theme, “The government pays, and the patient waits and waits. This is a point that never is mentioned by campaigning American Democrats.” You want “single payer?” Be prepared to experience rationed care.
You are aware that neither McCain nor Obama is advocating for a single-payer health care system, aren't you?
Last edited on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 03:38 pm by Terrance
|
Jurisprudence
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 794 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 01:51 pm |
|
No there are a variety of systems but along a common theme. Single-payer or government paid and run. The variations are not that great, although, the U.K. and some of Canada’s systems are now drifting toward fee-for-service. In all cases that I have inquired, decisions are made more on a monetary basis rather than a health basis. Kind of like some of these crummy HMO's we have here. Managed care. For instance, it is not cost-effective to give an elderly patient a triple by-pass. The older you are, the less chance you have of getting extraordinary care. You will be made comfortable, but that’s it.
Regarding something in Bixby’s post, what Freidman is repeating is from Adam Smith, referred to often as the founder of economics. He is the first advocate of free markets and one of the most famous. Smith and his ideas were supposedly passé at the time but now, of course, market economics has swept the world. Even old socialists, such as the Chinese and the Indians, believe in markets and allocate their capital and their energies according to the markets' demands. Marx and Engels are has-beens. The only Marx we admire today is Groucho, except for the socialists and liberals (more than not, both are the same). The very system that liberals advocate has been tried for years in the old Soviet Union and it failed miserably. Why can’t we learn? I recently had occasion to go to Europe on business but luckily while in France and the U.K., I never had to make use of any of their health care systems. As posted below, doing so remains pretty sketchy. Their systems are undoubtedly socialist. ("Single-payer.") To repeat the theme, “The government pays, and the patient waits and waits. This is a point that never is mentioned by campaigning American Democrats.” You want “single payer?” Be prepared to experience rationed care.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6165 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 12:52 pm |
|
I'm curious,and this goes to the Cobras and Bixbys of the world...
1. Do you really think there is one and only one "European" health care system, or do you acknowledge the variety of the various systems?
2. Do you really think there are two and only two options to health care...the current system and a "socialist" one?
3. Do you think we are incapable of modifying our health care system to make it better?
Last edited on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 01:02 pm by Fred
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 12:48 pm |
|
Cobra wrote: Gee, I thought that he nailed it on the head (where I emphasized in red)
"The alternative to the European style heath care system with its long waits and rationing" is a statement of opinion. There is nothing factual to back that up and since there is no single European health care system, he would have to do that on a country by country basis.
What if his opinion is based on an incorrect statement about health care in various European countries?
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 261 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 12:37 pm |
|
Terrance wrote: Bixby wrote: This universal health care idea is nothing new, but socialist it is. Harry Truman first thought of socialized health care (sorry, we now say "single-payer" health care), the liberal wing of the Democratic Party sedulously has championed it as though nothing in the realms of economic or social innovation changed. Look at Hillary Clinton’s failed grand scheme, parts of which may be resurrected. Milt Friedman, (a free market economist) noted in a 2001 essay that “technological leaps in agriculture, transportation and communication have lowered prices and raised quality. Yet such technological leaps in medical technology have been accompanied by higher rather than lower costs.” (The Public Interest) The reason he gave for rising costs was “single-payer health care” -- that is to say, government-sanctioned employer-based health insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. These are not free market solutions, so costs have skyrocketed.
Friedman figured out that if health care expenses had been paid for according to free market principles ( as they were in the first half of the 20th century) -- before government involvement -- today they would be less than half what they are now, and the quality would be no less than it is today, maybe even better. The alternative to the European style heath care system with its long waits and rationing is to seek free market solutions, such as health savings accounts and increased competition among health insurance carriers unburdened by state-imposed mandates. Government is not the panacea that liberals think it is.
There are some here who perceive that "elitists" have taken from them and therefore have little, none, or poor quality health care insurance. Now they are more than willing to have it taken from others so they can have something better. Government force to lift them pout of their misfortune. The classic liberal response is the collection and redistribution of wealth by government.
You do not address a single problem we have with health care today. All you offer is ideological rhetoric. Gee, I thought that he nailed it on the head (where I emphasized in red)
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1174 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 02:08 pm |
|
| My sentiments exactly with Obama's plans.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6165 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 12:48 pm |
|
| He got all the legislation he wanted introduced. Getting it passed is a different thing, friend....thank God.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1174 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 02:25 am |
|
Yeah right Fred..............................Think about that statement before I disprove you with such topics as Social Security, among others.
Fred wrote:
Absolutely correc.t He got pretty much every piece of legislation he wanted passed, until his party lost Congress.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6165 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 02:23 am |
|
| Absolutely correc.t He got pretty much every piece of legislation he wanted passed, until his party lost Congress.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1174 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 02:21 am |
|
Like President Bush was able to.
Fred wrote:
Well, as President he tends to have more friends, and certainly can get the legislation he likes introduced.
I've heard of other proposals similiar to this that have languished in various committees...why not try to address the merits (or demerits) of such a proposal rather then attack the person?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6165 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 12:00 pm |
|
Well, as President he tends to have more friends, and certainly can get the legislation he likes introduced.
I've heard of other proposals similiar to this that have languished in various committees...why not try to address the merits (or demerits) of such a proposal rather then attack the person?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1174 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 11:38 pm |
|
Why didn't Obama try any of this as a Senator? Does he realize that as president he only signs or vetos legislation, he doesn't get to write it.
OOPS! He was only a Senator for 153 days and rarely voted. How on earth could I even think he would have time to write or introduce legislation. But then Hillary has been a Senator for 8 years and nothing came from her.
Not to be undone, McCain has been a Senator for over 20 years and has jacksh*t to show for his time in office.
That is why Senators make lousy presidents. Let's see who was the last Senator to actually get elected? Why it was JFK, he was off'd after 2 years, who was the last Senator before him?
Fred wrote:
Agreed.
Obama has a proposal out to give a 50% tax credit for small businesses that offer health care. As most new jobs are in this sector, and most places can't afford the fees, this seems like it is a step in the right direction. The small businesses could find their own health care plan, or if they take it to the next step, they could ban together to get better rates as part of a larger group.
I don't think it solves all the problems, but seems to be solve some of them. Let's see if y'all can discuss the pros and cons of this program...and you get bonus intelligence points if you don't use the words "socialist" in your response.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121600699982150317.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6165 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 12:45 pm |
|
Agreed.
Obama has a proposal out to give a 50% tax credit for small businesses that offer health care. As most new jobs are in this sector, and most places can't afford the fees, this seems like it is a step in the right direction. The small businesses could find their own health care plan, or if they take it to the next step, they could ban together to get better rates as part of a larger group.
I don't think it solves all the problems, but seems to be solve some of them. Let's see if y'all can discuss the pros and cons of this program...and you get bonus intelligence points if you don't use the words "socialist" in your response.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121600699982150317.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 11:58 am |
|
Bixby wrote: This universal health care idea is nothing new, but socialist it is. Harry Truman first thought of socialized health care (sorry, we now say "single-payer" health care), the liberal wing of the Democratic Party sedulously has championed it as though nothing in the realms of economic or social innovation changed. Look at Hillary Clinton’s failed grand scheme, parts of which may be resurrected. Milt Friedman, (a free market economist) noted in a 2001 essay that “technological leaps in agriculture, transportation and communication have lowered prices and raised quality. Yet such technological leaps in medical technology have been accompanied by higher rather than lower costs.” (The Public Interest) The reason he gave for rising costs was “single-payer health care” -- that is to say, government-sanctioned employer-based health insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. These are not free market solutions, so costs have skyrocketed.
Friedman figured out that if health care expenses had been paid for according to free market principles ( as they were in the first half of the 20th century) -- before government involvement -- today they would be less than half what they are now, and the quality would be no less than it is today, maybe even better. The alternative to the European style heath care system with its long waits and rationing is to seek free market solutions, such as health savings accounts and increased competition among health insurance carriers unburdened by state-imposed mandates. Government is not the panacea that liberals think it is.
There are some here who perceive that "elitists" have taken from them and therefore have little, none, or poor quality health care insurance. Now they are more than willing to have it taken from others so they can have something better. Government force to lift them pout of their misfortune. The classic liberal response is the collection and redistribution of wealth by government.
You do not address a single problem we have with health care today. All you offer is ideological rhetoric.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 11:21 am |
|
This universal health care idea is nothing new, but socialist it is. Harry Truman first thought of socialized health care (sorry, we now say "single-payer" health care), the liberal wing of the Democratic Party sedulously has championed it as though nothing in the realms of economic or social innovation changed. Look at Hillary Clinton’s failed grand scheme, parts of which may be resurrected. Milt Friedman, (a free market economist) noted in a 2001 essay that “technological leaps in agriculture, transportation and communication have lowered prices and raised quality. Yet such technological leaps in medical technology have been accompanied by higher rather than lower costs.” (The Public Interest) The reason he gave for rising costs was “single-payer health care” -- that is to say, government-sanctioned employer-based health insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. These are not free market solutions, so costs have skyrocketed.
Friedman figured out that if health care expenses had been paid for according to free market principles ( as they were in the first half of the 20th century) -- before government involvement -- today they would be less than half what they are now, and the quality would be no less than it is today, maybe even better. The alternative to the European style heath care system with its long waits and rationing is to seek free market solutions, such as health savings accounts and increased competition among health insurance carriers unburdened by state-imposed mandates. Government is not the panacea that liberals think it is.
There are some here who perceive that "elitists" have taken from them and therefore have little, none, or poor quality health care insurance. Now they are more than willing to have it taken from others so they can have something better. Government force to lift them pout of their misfortune. The classic liberal response is the collection and redistribution of wealth by government.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 02:44 am |
|
| Sixty Miinutes had a great piece relating to health care this evening. On a different topic, there was also a great Guest Opinion in Sunday's Delaware State News.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 02:05 am |
| | |