The Alabama Moderate

Painting the Red State Purple.

  • Hit Counter

    • 41,265 hits
  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • August 2009
    M T W T F S S
    « Jul   Sep »
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

    Yahoo! Avatars

An Idea for Those Who Favor Reform

Posted by ALmod on August 15, 2009

On the heels of my last, rather heated post, I have a rather interesting idea to “rally the troops” so to speak for the proponents of health care reform.

How about an organized effort to demand that opposing senators and congressmen opt-out of their own government health care plans?  Make ’em honest.  There’s nothing I’d love to see more than a t-shirt or two that says, “Give up my government option?  You first!”

Advertisements

7 Responses to “An Idea for Those Who Favor Reform”

  1. I have an even better idea for proponents of health care reform: they should actually have to read the bill they favor so passionately.

    None of them have, of course.

  2. ALmod said

    I’d recommend the same to you, but first there actually be one completed bill to read. (I imagine the a smart guy like yourself already knew that, right? It’s how I know you haven’t read “the bill” either.)

    There is, however, a wonderful site that compares the different proposals (about a dozen or so in all). And yes, it does contain links to the actual legislation, but I’m betting opponents won’t bother. You can find it here:

    http://www.kff.org/

    FactCheck also has an excellent writeup on what does and doesn’t exist. But I’m sure it’s much easier to imagine whatever random boogeymen happens to be the flavor of the day and create “what if” scenarios rather than pay attention to actual countries who have government health care and how they really do compare to the United States.

  3. I’d recommend the same to you, but first there actually be one completed bill to read.

    If you know that, what exactly are you “rallying the troops” for? You don’t know. And you know you don’t know. That’s what’s so fascinating.

  4. ALmod said

    I know enough to know what’s a lie. And I know that there are folks who are trying right now to end any chances of any future reform. Basically, the stuff you’re probably worried about are imaginary “what if” scenarios that don’t exist in any form in any of the proposals at the moment. I also happen to know what exists in other countries that have government run plans and what doesn’t.

    I also know what the current system has.

    I also know what your congressman has, and it proves that they are capable of giving us a quality government plan IF THEY WANT TO.

    Reading past the first sentence = good. You should try that.

    Worried about paying for the health care of the poor? You already are. You’re also paying for those who can afford private plans (Congress). At what point do you start to benefit from the health services you’re already paying for, because those who have it seem to be just as happy with it as you are with your private wonderland of rainbows and chocolate. The fact is that you pay more, get crappier care, and live a shorter life in comparison to people in Japan, France, the UK, Italy, etc.

    That’s a fact. It’s not speculation or an imaginary “what if” scenario.

    Ask your congressman how many bureaucrats come between him and his doctor. When was the last time you had to make sure your doctor was “in-network” with your private policy? Oddly enough, my insurance company refused to pay for my last pap smear (routine yearly procedure that IS covered), and I had to cover it out of pocket. Thank you Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

    My biggest question to you would be this. If you’re not fighting for better health care for the working classes, who exactly are you fighting for? The poor are covered. The rich can afford whatever they want. The congressmen are loving their government plan. The insurance companies have lobbyists. And the right is fighting for the interests of all that I just named. Again I ask… Who’s fighting for the rights of the working class? We’re certainly the ones suffering the most under the current status quo– and we’re fighting tooth and nail to keep it.

    “Rallying the troops” is in reference to getting GOOD information out there as opposed to the lies (and that’s what they are) about what will happen. Or would you rather the populace stay ignorant? Who exactly does THAT serve?

  5. Basically, the stuff you’re probably worried about are imaginary “what if” scenarios that don’t exist in any form in any of the proposals at the moment.

    I assume you know this because you’re thoroughly familiar with the contents of those proposals. Like, you’ve read them all and everything.

    What’s your favorite part?

    Worried about paying for the health care of the poor? You already are.

    True. Through Medicaid, through various state programs, and due to EMTALA. You are very right. In a very real sense, we already have universal health care.

    So what is the problem that needs fixing exactly?

    At what point do you start to benefit from the health services you’re already paying for,

    Never. It will never happen. I have already paid for far more than I have used. And you’re trying to tilt that balance even further, by getting me to pay even more (and use even less).

    Do you deny it?

    because those who have it seem to be just as happy with it as you are with your private wonderland of rainbows and chocolate

    What are you talking about? Rainbows and chocolate? You lost me.

    When did I say I was “happy”? I hate the current system as it stands, and I hate it when people propose to make it even worse by cranking up the stupidity even more. (like you)

    The fact is that you pay more, get crappier care, and live a shorter life in comparison to people in Japan, France, the UK, Italy, etc.

    However true that may be, nothing Obama is proposing to do, and nothing you are proposing to “rally the troops” for, is going to fix that.

    The fact is that you pay more, get crappier care, and live a shorter life in comparison to people in Japan, France, the UK, Italy, etc.

    That’s a fact.

    you must have a strange definition of “fact”. I’m going to live a “shorter life” than who, exactly? How do you know? How do you even know how old I am already let alone how long I will live? What do you mean by “fact”?

    When was the last time you had to make sure your doctor was “in-network” with your private policy?

    Yes, that is pretty stupid. I sure wish there was a free market in health care so I wouldn’t have to do that. (For example, notice, there is a free market in barber shops – I need a hair cut, I go to the barber. There’s no “network”, there’s no “copay”, there’s no “health maintenance organization”. Just me and the barber. I give him something called “money” for this service, perhaps you’ve heard of it?)

    This is sanity. This is how normal human services work. Are you proposing to move things in this direction? Of course not. You’re proposing to move things even further away from sanity.

    My biggest question to you would be this. If you’re not fighting for better health care for the working classes, who exactly are you fighting for?

    I guess you could say I’m “fighting for” my family, against people trying to take money out of my pocket, thus opportunities away from them. Which is exactly what you’re “fighting for”: taking money out of my pocket.

  6. “you must have a strange definition of “fact”. I’m going to live a “shorter life” than who, exactly? How do you know? How do you even know how old I am already let alone how long I will live? What do you mean by “fact”?”you must have a strange definition of “fact”. I’m going to live a “shorter life” than who, exactly? How do you know? How do you even know how old I am already let alone how long I will live? What do you mean by “fact”?

    I’m going on averages from other countries from the above cited sources, which YOU confirmed to be correct. Japan currently has the longest expected life span (83 years) with the U.S. at 78 years. The U.S. was last ranked in 2000 at #37 for overall care. (France and Italy were first and second.) And the U.S. is currently recorded to spend the most per person for health care. We spend 20% more per person than the next country down. Those are very easily recordable facts. Hard numbers. Either a person is dead or he isn’t. Either a baby dies in infancy or it doesn’t. One dollar is less than two. Those are facts.

    You also seem to think that the problem lies in those who either don’t have insurance or can’t afford it. That’s the problem, in that it’s not the problem at all. The problem is that those who HAVE INSURANCE aren’t getting the coverage they pay for or are dropped at the first sign of a major illness, and many who can afford insurance can’t get it and don’t qualify for government programs. It’s not a “trying to get something for nothing” situation as you imply with your attempt at whimsy by saying that I should try paying money for services. It’s a “trying to get something we’re already paying for and get our money’s worth rather than get scammed” situation.

    A completely free market is a nice idea for a perfect world, but unfortunately, there are things like greed and laziness in the real world. Were we talking about something like the car industry, I have no issues leaving that to the free market, but when it comes to LIFE AND DEATH SITUATIONS, I’d rather those decisions not be left in the hands of someone interested in making the most money for the least amount of services. Right now, that’s exactly what we’re getting. We’re paying more money for fewer services.

    You argue that yes insurance companies force you to limit your choices on doctors and then you argue that a government system will give you less choice. What do you base that on? What someone told you? Why not simply just look at the government plans we already have? Why not look at other countries, and by that, I mean looking at the actual legislation rather than listen to what people tell you about them? Then you argue that while I’m pursuing a plan that will cost less and provide better care (and is downright PROVEN to do so) that I’m trying to take more money out of your pocket. Are you not listening to yourself, here?!

    As for knowing [insert here] about you… You provided a link to what I assume is your blog, which by the way, tells me exactly how well you choose to inform yourself. And here’s the kicker…

    You said something to the effect that you don’t like to read “fine print” and that doing such is for “no-life-havers”. That would make you willfully ignorant, and as such, easily manipulated. That pretty much says all that needs to be said about your argument. I’m sure you’re a politician’s wet dream come true. I have news for you. Ignorance isn’t always bliss, and right now, it’s costing you more money without any of the benefits. You are seriously arguing that you paid $1000 for a stained shirt and got a better deal than the guy who paid $200 for a brand new designer label suit. And you say I’m the one moving further away from sanity.

    Yes, I’ve read up on the proposals. You haven’t, and you’ve stated you have no interest in doing so. Then you called me stupid for doing so. So then which of us would most sane people reason knows more about what he/she is talking about?

  7. I’m going on averages from other countries from the above cited sources,

    Ah. Well, telling me, one particular person, that I’m “going to live a shorter life” (than someone) based on “going on averages” does not qualify as a “fact”. Just so you know.

    You also seem to think that the problem lies in those who either don’t have insurance or can’t afford it. That’s the problem, in that it’s not the problem at all.

    Then why do people bring up the number of uninsured at all?

    The problem is that those who HAVE INSURANCE aren’t getting the coverage they pay for or are dropped at the first sign of a major illness,

    Sounds like those people need to find a different/better insurance carrier. If they “can’t”, we need to figure out what is failing in the market to get it to them. Most likely, government barriers, regulations, and distortions of various kinds, none of which Obama is proposing to fix.

    and many who can afford insurance can’t get it and don’t qualify for government programs.

    No one “can’t” get insurance, as long as they’re willing to pay enough. And I thought you just said that the problem wasn’t in those who don’t have/can’t afford insurance. Which is it?

    It’s not a “trying to get something for nothing” situation as you imply with your attempt at whimsy by saying that I should try paying money for services.

    It wasn’t whimsy. It was a suggestion of how a sane market would function. It was also a response to your complaint that you had to pay some money for a medical service. You stated this, as a complaint, and seemed to think it illustrate the need for reform of the health care market. In my view, the fact that people have to pay for services is not a valid complaint. That’s how markets are supposed to function.

    It’s a “trying to get something we’re already paying for and get our money’s worth rather than get scammed” situation.

    Again, if you feel cheated by your insurance carrier, that may be a valid complaint, but nationalized health care is not the solution. Free markets are. If you “felt cheated” by your barber you’d just go to a different barber. Why can’t you do that with insurance?

    Bingo.

    A completely free market is a nice idea for a perfect world, but unfortunately, there are things like greed and laziness in the real world.

    Actually, a completely free market is a nice idea for a world with greed and laziness in it. It has a much better record, indeed, than does a government-controlled market in a world with greed and laziness in it.

    but when it comes to LIFE AND DEATH SITUATIONS, I’d rather those decisions not be left in the hands of someone interested in making the most money for the least amount of services.

    And we don’t, actually. When it comes to LIFE AND DEATH SITUATIONS we have a thing called EMTALA already, which obligates emergency providers to provide emergency care regardless of ability to pay. So this is a moot point.

    You argue that yes insurance companies force you to limit your choices on doctors and then you argue that a government system will give you less choice. What do you base that on?

    I actually don’t recall saying this, nor can I find it above.

    I do think it’s practically tautological however that “a government system” will give you less choice: the government system, or nothing.

    Then you argue that while I’m pursuing a plan that will cost less and provide better care (and is downright PROVEN to do so) that I’m trying to take more money out of your pocket.

    Indeed. Because you’re ignoring who’s paying and who’s receiving. Let’s say you’re right that it will ‘provide better care’ – well in my judgment, that ‘better care’ would mostly go to OTHER PEOPLE, and my taxes will be raised. So yes, of course you’re trying to take more money out of my pocket.

    You said something to the effect that you don’t like to read “fine print” and that doing such is for “no-life-havers”. That would make you willfully ignorant, and as such, easily manipulated.

    Agreed, I am easily manipulated when presented with a complicated bureaucratic process with lots of fine print that is meant to benefit, and controlled by, insiders.

    That’s a very prominent reason why I oppose government-controlled health care and prefer free, open markets.

    right now, it’s costing you more money without any of the benefits.

    I agree 100%: right now, a lot of money is taken from me, without any benefits.

    You, in your oh so big-heartedness, are proposing to crank this up even further, and take more opportunities away from my children. My feelings about this are essentially unprintable in mixed company.

    You are seriously arguing that you paid $1000 for a stained shirt and got a better deal than the guy who paid $200 for a brand new designer label suit.

    No, I’m arguing that I paid $1000 for a stained shirt and would resent the hell out of efforts to force me to buy a whole closet-full of suits from the same vendor – for other people, at that.

    Yes, I’ve read up on the proposals.

    Hmm, “read up”? Is that the same thing as “read”?

    Thought not.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: