Post by Tzalaran on Jun 17, 2009 13:41:44 GMT -6
Once again, great hatchet job. Way to play to the base.
no joe, no bo, nj (Sent Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:41 PM)
******************************************************
Pot, meet kettle. All the conservative members that post here constantly rattle off the 'catch phrase of the day', and you have the nerve to call this report a hatchet job/playing to the base? that is all conservatives do today, so give it a rest. The moderators didn't post my apology to you yesterday, and now i'm glad they didn't, as you've once again shown yourself to be promoting partisan propaganda while decrying others from doing the same.
The failure of republican/conservative philosophy is this: There is an intrinsic belief that government can do nothing right, therefore anything attempted by the government will create more problems than it solves, so we shouldn't bother attempting to change anything. When the government (run by conservatives) then attempts to do anything, the inherent belief that it is destined to failure/will only create more problems becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Katrina or Iraq/Afghanistan anyone?)
If this philosophy were true, this country wouldn't exist today because WWII would have failed (military is government run, so we should have lost WWII), The civil rights movement would never have happened (it was all federally mandated laws that provided equality), and the USSR would currently be the lone superpower (because the US government couldn't have provided an alternate model of governance that outlasted the Soviets).
For the Health care issue to be solved (and i don't like any plan i've heard so far) there are a few major things that need addressed:
1) groups need to be expanded to increase the pools - this would provide more people paying into a plan, thereby spreading the risk over a broader number and reducing cost to the individual (most groups are just your office, why can't we form larger groups of multiple businesses into super groups? This larger pool should be able to reduce costs across the board as there will be more people putting into the plan, with about the same number drawing out of it.)
2) Health care needs to streamline their standard procedures for common practices (MSNBC had an article on a surgical hospital that developed 31 step procedures that each surgeon would follow for a surgical procedure, and this reduced overall costs, had fewer people return for secondary operations, and improved the quality of care for this procedure). expand this for all common procedures and we can save lots of inpatient time, and therefore expense.
3) Demand insurance companies take anyone willing to pay for their services. Their common practice now is to disallow preexisting conditions because they KNOW they will have to pay for care, while they allow healthy people to spend outrageous amounts of money 'just in case'. This is how they are making their profits - exploitation of the healthy while ignoring the sick. this is flat out wrong. If the insurance companies refuse coverage to pre-existing conditions, there needs to be a non-profit public option available to the majority of the people. with a large pool of individuals buying into the group, rates should stay low, and the sick can get the help we need.
The argument against a public plan claiming that it would mean an end to private insurance is a slippery slope argument, and therefore is invalid. A true company would adjust their business model to compete and succeed against the public option by providing better care, more cost effective care, or finding another way to be more attractive to the consumer. That is the goal in a pure capitalistic system (which i don't believe for one second we truly have); to always keep one step ahead of your competition so as to stay viable. the monopolistic model these companies have been working under for the past 30 years has stagnated them until they are unable to be competitive, and therefore by capitalistic ideals, they should fail.
The days of the 'almighty dollar' are coming to an end. Society no longer believes in the old american way, and those of us in the younger generations (i'm 34) are not satisfied with working for peanuts for years in the hopes of one day catching a break. Profits will never be more important than the health of our families, and you can't place a dollar value on time spent with our children (mostly because far too many of us know what it was like to not have mom and/or dad around...) Greed and corruption are the two things crushing our once proud nation, and this debate highlights that. it is greed on one side, and what is right on the other. the two can never be reconciled, one will win while the other evaporates.
i personally am rooting for what is right: That it is our collective responsibility to take care of our fellow citizens, and profits and self interest should NEVER get in the way of that.
no joe, no bo, nj (Sent Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:41 PM)
******************************************************
Pot, meet kettle. All the conservative members that post here constantly rattle off the 'catch phrase of the day', and you have the nerve to call this report a hatchet job/playing to the base? that is all conservatives do today, so give it a rest. The moderators didn't post my apology to you yesterday, and now i'm glad they didn't, as you've once again shown yourself to be promoting partisan propaganda while decrying others from doing the same.
The failure of republican/conservative philosophy is this: There is an intrinsic belief that government can do nothing right, therefore anything attempted by the government will create more problems than it solves, so we shouldn't bother attempting to change anything. When the government (run by conservatives) then attempts to do anything, the inherent belief that it is destined to failure/will only create more problems becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Katrina or Iraq/Afghanistan anyone?)
If this philosophy were true, this country wouldn't exist today because WWII would have failed (military is government run, so we should have lost WWII), The civil rights movement would never have happened (it was all federally mandated laws that provided equality), and the USSR would currently be the lone superpower (because the US government couldn't have provided an alternate model of governance that outlasted the Soviets).
For the Health care issue to be solved (and i don't like any plan i've heard so far) there are a few major things that need addressed:
1) groups need to be expanded to increase the pools - this would provide more people paying into a plan, thereby spreading the risk over a broader number and reducing cost to the individual (most groups are just your office, why can't we form larger groups of multiple businesses into super groups? This larger pool should be able to reduce costs across the board as there will be more people putting into the plan, with about the same number drawing out of it.)
2) Health care needs to streamline their standard procedures for common practices (MSNBC had an article on a surgical hospital that developed 31 step procedures that each surgeon would follow for a surgical procedure, and this reduced overall costs, had fewer people return for secondary operations, and improved the quality of care for this procedure). expand this for all common procedures and we can save lots of inpatient time, and therefore expense.
3) Demand insurance companies take anyone willing to pay for their services. Their common practice now is to disallow preexisting conditions because they KNOW they will have to pay for care, while they allow healthy people to spend outrageous amounts of money 'just in case'. This is how they are making their profits - exploitation of the healthy while ignoring the sick. this is flat out wrong. If the insurance companies refuse coverage to pre-existing conditions, there needs to be a non-profit public option available to the majority of the people. with a large pool of individuals buying into the group, rates should stay low, and the sick can get the help we need.
The argument against a public plan claiming that it would mean an end to private insurance is a slippery slope argument, and therefore is invalid. A true company would adjust their business model to compete and succeed against the public option by providing better care, more cost effective care, or finding another way to be more attractive to the consumer. That is the goal in a pure capitalistic system (which i don't believe for one second we truly have); to always keep one step ahead of your competition so as to stay viable. the monopolistic model these companies have been working under for the past 30 years has stagnated them until they are unable to be competitive, and therefore by capitalistic ideals, they should fail.
The days of the 'almighty dollar' are coming to an end. Society no longer believes in the old american way, and those of us in the younger generations (i'm 34) are not satisfied with working for peanuts for years in the hopes of one day catching a break. Profits will never be more important than the health of our families, and you can't place a dollar value on time spent with our children (mostly because far too many of us know what it was like to not have mom and/or dad around...) Greed and corruption are the two things crushing our once proud nation, and this debate highlights that. it is greed on one side, and what is right on the other. the two can never be reconciled, one will win while the other evaporates.
i personally am rooting for what is right: That it is our collective responsibility to take care of our fellow citizens, and profits and self interest should NEVER get in the way of that.
