Obama Healthcare Speech

[irvine_home_owner_IHB]

Doctors overwhelmingly in support of a public option:

Do you think this has anything to do with how much and how quickly they will get paid?

It would be nice to have taxpayers pay my salary too... and the job security would be awesome.

I don't like the slippery slope... and if healthcare is a right... so is eating... so we're back to Universal Donut Care.

 

[IrvineCommuter_IHB]

Doctors overwhelmingly in support of a public option:

Do you think this has anything to do with how much and how quickly they will get paid?

It would be nice to have taxpayers pay my salary too... and the job security would be awesome.

I don't like the slippery slope... and if healthcare is a right... so is eating... so we're back to Universal Donut Care.

I am sure that has something to do with it but I also believe that most doctors are in the profession because they care (I am sure the money helps).

Not a big fan of the "slippery slope" argument...we should have no social services whatsoever then...do not believe in the "I got my...go get your own" mentality.

Am a big fan of social contracts though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

As I asked before, should people with no children have to fund schools? Should people with cars have to fund public transit? Should the Amish/pacificists have to fund the army?

 

[irvine_home_owner_IHB]

I am sure that has something to do with it but I also believe that most doctors are in the profession because they care (I am sure the money helps).

The chart is misleading. It doesn't really tell me that professionals prefer a public option... just that they prefer 2 sources of income... who wouldn't? So yes... the money helps.

Not a big fan of the "slippery slope" argument...we should have no social services whatsoever then...do not believe in the "I got my...go get your own" mentality.

As I asked before, should people with no children have to fund schools? Should people with cars have to fund public transit? Should the Amish/pacificists have to fund the army?

I've commented on this type of counter already and so has nude.

Schools, transit, fire/police are local services... can you imagine how difficult it would be for the Fed to run those things at a national level?

If there were to be some public UHC at all... it would have a better chance of success (and be better run) if it were a local/state service. There would still be waste, but not as much as a nationally run service.

And about social services... what percentage of my tax dollar earmarked for that service actually goes to that service?

 

[autox_IHB]

Doctors overwhelmingly in support of a public option:

Do you think this has anything to do with how much and how quickly they will get paid?

It would be nice to have taxpayers pay my salary too... and the job security would be awesome.

I don't like the slippery slope... and if healthcare is a right... so is eating... so we're back to Universal Donut Care.

Ask any doctors how much the like getting paid by Medicare/medical vs. private insurance and you'll get your answer.

medicine already has built in job security. Don't need gov't plan for that. As far as salary goes, compare gov't pay with private pay. If money was the only motivator, there's no one in their right mind that would want a gov't option.

 

[IrvineCommuter_IHB]

I am sure that has something to do with it but I also believe that most doctors are in the profession because they care (I am sure the money helps).

The chart is misleading. It doesn't really tell me that professionals prefer a public option... just that they prefer 2 sources of income... who wouldn't? So yes... the money helps.

More from from the article:

"Keyhani says doctors already have experience with government-run health care, with Medicare. And she says the survey shows that, overall, they like it. "We've heard a lot about how the government is standing in between patients and their physician," Keyhani says. "And what we can see is that physicians support Medicare. So I think physicians have sort of signaled that a public option that's similar in design to Medicare would be a good way of ensuring patients get the care that they need.""

Not a big fan of the "slippery slope" argument...we should have no social services whatsoever then...do not believe in the "I got my...go get your own" mentality.

As I asked before, should people with no children have to fund schools? Should people with cars have to fund public transit? Should the Amish/pacificists have to fund the army?

I've commented on this type of counter already and so has nude.

Schools, transit, fire/police are local services... can you imagine how difficult it would be for the Fed to run those things at a national level?

If there were to be some public UHC at all... it would have a better chance of success (and be better run) if it were a local/state service. There would still be waste, but not as much as a nationally run service.

And about social services... what percentage of my tax dollar earmarked for that service actually goes to that service?

The fact that you (and Nude) believe that social services are better run at local/state level does not negate the fact that they are funded with money from people who have no use for them. Your original post was that you did not consider healthcare as a "right" for individuals living in the US...nothing about funding social services at a local/state level supports that point.

Some problems/issues are better tackled at a local/state level and others are better tackled at a federal level. Just like environmental regulations, Healthcare requires a federal solution/floor because the problems cannot be contained at a local/state level. States can offer more if they want but there needs to a national standard.

As for whether the federal government can handle it: It already handles medical insurance for about 23 percent of the population, including some of the poorest, sickest, and oldest which the private insurers do/would not cover. Governments in the UK, Germany, France, and Japan have managed okay so far...why can't the US government do it?

 

[no_vaseline_IHB]

I don't like the slippery slope... and if healthcare is a right... so is eating... so we're back to Universal Donut Care.

Okay!

Know your rights!

When you're injured and in the emergency room, the last thing you want to have to do is fight for treatment. Fortunately, a federal law passed in 1986 to prohibit a practice commonly known as "patient dumping" gives you the right to emergency care regardless of your ability to pay. The federal law applies to hospitals that participate in Medicare -- and that includes most hospitals in the United States.

 

[irvine_home_owner_IHB]

Know your rights!

When you're injured and in the emergency room, the last thing you want to have to do is fight for treatment. Fortunately, a federal law passed in 1986 to prohibit a practice commonly known as "patient dumping" gives you the right to emergency care regardless of your ability to pay. The federal law applies to hospitals that participate in Medicare -- and that includes most hospitals in the United States.

Sorry... I should have said "universal health care".

So is there such a thing as emergency donut care? Can I collapse at a Krispy Kreme or a Winchell's and get a federally mandated glazed fed to me?

 

[irvine_home_owner_IHB]

The fact that you (and Nude) believe that social services are better run at local/state level does not negate the fact that they are funded with money from people who have no use for them. Your original post was that you did not consider healthcare as a "right" for individuals living in the US...nothing about funding social services at a local/state level supports that point.

I'm not sure I stated if I believed UHC was a right or not... I just questioned it. And just because I believe some programs are run better at local/state level doesn't validate them. There are many local/state programs that are probably a waste of money too.

My point was I don't think the government can wisely spend my money for such a program. They can't do it now with other services and I'm not one who easily parts with my earnings for programs that have no proof of concept.

Am I the only who doesn't trust the government with my money?

Some problems/issues are better tackled at a local/state level and others are better tackled at a federal level. Just like environmental regulations, Healthcare requires a federal solution/floor because the problems cannot be contained at a local/state level. States can offer more if they want but there needs to a national standard.

Really? So how did all our other local/state services work out? I would rather it be in local/state power where I have more influence to "fire" who's in charge.

As for whether the federal government can handle it: It already handles medical insurance for about 23 percent of the population, including some of the poorest, sickest, and oldest which the private insurers do/would not cover. Governments in the UK, Germany, France, and Japan have managed okay so far...why can't the US government do it?

Again with the comparisons to other countries. Spain takes a siesta in the afternoon... why can't we do that too?

 

[tmare_IHB]

The fact that you (and Nude) believe that social services are better run at local/state level does not negate the fact that they are funded with money from people who have no use for them. Your original post was that you did not consider healthcare as a "right" for individuals living in the US...nothing about funding social services at a local/state level supports that point.

I'm not sure I stated if I believed UHC was a right or not... I just questioned it. And just because I believe some programs are run better at local/state level doesn't validate them. There are many local/state programs that are probably a waste of money too.

Again with the comparisons to other countries. Spain takes a siesta in the afternoon... why can't we do that too?

Hey, I really do want an answer to that question! Viva la Siesta!

 

[Nude_IHB]

What if you can’t afford the medicine or the care without insurance? Should you just die or suffer? Should we just marginalize the poor and the sick? I refuse to accept this as an option in our country.

This is the truth we accept in this modern world of the 21st century. We need to look at the past for what can happen if we go the other direction.

Back in the 30`s we had a government in Europe that understood what to do with those that were sick and didnt believe in the current form of government at the time.

I hear that in the background here. Its just a small step away from what you think is fair.

Lets put the weak, the poor and the sick in a camp. Then the next step up from that ? Well I think you see my point.

Don't go SkipperDan on us. Those camps had nothing to do with the sick the poor, or the weak and you damn well know it. Either post facts, cites, or links that support your opinion on the current state of heath care, or shut the f*ck up. We don't need that kind of baiting in what is already an emotional discussion.

bltserv is actually not that wrong in this regard. Part of the Nazi propaganda was the "outrageous" cost of caring for the very sick and handicapped. They were advocating for forced sterilization (in cases of hereditary diseases) and eventually euthanasia so that the people wouldn't have to be burdened with the cost of caring for them. You may want to refresh your history by checking out the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

PS: I'm not supporting the argument, just shedding some light on the atrocities that happened - which you seem to deny.

Umm, no. The intention of the camps was not to deal with the infirm or handicapped. That may have been how they rationalized the creation of the death camps to the masses, as being forthright with "We're going to slaughter Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals in a systematic fashion" would have turned the majority against them. But that they had to create propaganda in the first place shows that the intent was not the same as the public explanation.

Bltserv is trying to equate opposition to Obamacare with state-backed genocide, which is funny considering that he's advocating putting the state in charge of delivering health care. Apparently it hasn't yet occurred to him that a state-run medical system would be deciding what kind of care is permitted, a de facto control over life and death at the government level.

PS: Should we ever meet in public, I want you to repeat your insinuation that I am a holocaust denier. And bring some friends to help you.

 

[Nude_IHB]

What if you can’t afford the medicine or the care without insurance? Should you just die or suffer? Should we just marginalize the poor and the sick? I refuse to accept this as an option in our country.

This is the truth we accept in this modern world of the 21st century. We need to look at the past for what can happen if we go the other direction.

Back in the 30`s we had a government in Europe that understood what to do with those that were sick and didnt believe in the current form of government at the time.

I hear that in the background here. Its just a small step away from what you think is fair.

Lets put the weak, the poor and the sick in a camp. Then the next step up from that ? Well I think you see my point.

Don't go SkipperDan on us. Those camps had nothing to do with the sick the poor, or the weak and you damn well know it. Either post facts, cites, or links that support your opinion on the current state of heath care, or shut the f*ck up. We don't need that kind of baiting in what is already an emotional discussion.

Easy Nude. I was making an extreme point of how ignoring the fact we have millions of uninsured and those that never

get adequate care is a real issue in our modern society. What do you think we should do with the uninsured

or indigent in the case of extreme costly illness ?

I think the indigent are already covered under Medicaid, so nothing else needs to be done. I think we could cover those uninsured who can't afford or cannot get coverage for far less that it would cost for Universal health care. I also think that of the "millions of uninsured" there are millions who simply choose not to buy it even though they can afford it. I never paid a dime for insurance from 1988 to 2004 because it was cheaper to just pay my medical bills as they arose. Was I taking a risk? Yes, but it was my risk to take. You are intentionally, still, conflating care and insurance (as if they are interchangeable) in order to bootstrap your argument. Just stop.

A couple of simple points. Inner City Hospitals. Like King Drew. Or in my Sisters case. Brotman in Culver City.

So if your unlucky enough to live in these areas. (My sister lives in Culver City and has full health coverage).

And you happen to have an accident or condition of some type. In my sisters case she had a stroke.

Because the inner city hospital is so inundated with emergency room cases that could have been handled by a regular

doctor if they were insured. My sister fails to get proper care because the admitting Nurse thinks she is on drugs.

Thank god my neice got out of school and got her over to UCLA or she might have died. She sat for sveral hours

that are critical in her case of stroke. All beacuse our system is broken. Emergency rooms were never designed

this way.

Under your proposal, Brotman Medical Center (a private hospital) wouldn't exist, forcing people into the E.R. at UCLA instead. You might have eased some of the crowding by reducing the number of patients that delayed minor conditions until they became emergencies (a dubious assumption) but that was more than offset by the overall reduction in Emergency Rooms and hospitals that closed when the for-profit model was displaced by government health care. And not to put too fine a point on it, but your issue should be with the admitting nurse. Your sister clearly made it that far, despite the overcrowding you claim, but the admitting RN failed to triage her correctly. Is that the fault of the private medical system or just poor judgment, because the ER was clearly not so busy that she was not seen by a nurse.

Also looking at the 3rd world efforts of RAM. Except this time the 3rd world is in Inglewood.

Normally RAM would be in Africa or after some other natural disaster.

This is the strongest nation in the world. Yet we put more effort and money into making war than our own people ?

According to the Department of Health and Human Services 2008 Financial report, the Federal Government spent $657.9 Billion on Medicare and Medicaid services alone in that Fiscal Year. According to the White House, the TOTAL budget for the Department of Defense this year (FY2009) is $651 Billion, an increase of $68 Billion over 2008. The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars COMBINED wouldn't fund Medicare/Medicaid for even 4 months.

blt, your arguments are long on hyperbole, emotion, and propaganda and short on facts.

 

[green_cactus_IHB]

What if you can’t afford the medicine or the care without insurance? Should you just die or suffer? Should we just marginalize the poor and the sick? I refuse to accept this as an option in our country.

This is the truth we accept in this modern world of the 21st century. We need to look at the past for what can happen if we go the other direction.

Back in the 30`s we had a government in Europe that understood what to do with those that were sick and didnt believe in the current form of government at the time.

I hear that in the background here. Its just a small step away from what you think is fair.

Lets put the weak, the poor and the sick in a camp. Then the next step up from that ? Well I think you see my point.

Don't go SkipperDan on us. Those camps had nothing to do with the sick the poor, or the weak and you damn well know it. Either post facts, cites, or links that support your opinion on the current state of heath care, or shut the f*ck up. We don't need that kind of baiting in what is already an emotional discussion.

bltserv is actually not that wrong in this regard. Part of the Nazi propaganda was the "outrageous" cost of caring for the very sick and handicapped. They were advocating for forced sterilization (in cases of hereditary diseases) and eventually euthanasia so that the people wouldn't have to be burdened with the cost of caring for them. You may want to refresh your history by checking out the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

PS: I'm not supporting the argument, just shedding some light on the atrocities that happened - which you seem to deny.

Umm, no. The intention of the camps was not to deal with the infirm or handicapped. That may have been how they rationalized the creation of the death camps to the masses, as being forthright with "We're going to slaughter Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals in a systematic fashion" would have turned the majority against them. But that they had to create propaganda in the first place shows that the intent was not the same as the public explanation.

Bltserv is trying to equate opposition to Obamacare with state-backed genocide, which is funny considering that he's advocating putting the state in charge of delivering health care. Apparently it hasn't yet occurred to him that a state-run medical system would be deciding what kind of care is permitted, a de facto control over life and death at the government level.

PS: Should we ever meet in public, I want you to repeat your insinuation that I am a holocaust denier. And bring some friends to help you.

I never said that you were a holocaust denier. You claimed that "those camps had nothing to do with the sick the poor, or the weak and you damn well know it". I merely pointed out that part of the systematic killing of people did involve the sick and handicapped (as well as old and maimed in later stages). They may have not ended in actual "concentration camps" but were murdered and cremated nonetheless. About 200000-250000 victims perished in this "euthanasia" program and it was a precursor to the holocaust and its associated concentration camps. This is what I meant when I wrote that "bltserv is actually not that wrong" about his initial comment.

 

[irvine_home_owner_IHB]

your arguments are long on hyperbole, emotion, and propaganda and short on facts.

Hey... what's wrong with that?

This is a real estate site... and in the Politics section.

 

[no_vaseline_IHB]

your arguments are long on hyperbole, emotion, and propaganda and short on facts.

Hey... what's wrong with that?

This is a real estate site... and in the Politics section.

 

[Nude_IHB]

...

just shedding some light on the atrocities that happened - which you seem to deny.

PS: Should we ever meet in public, I want you to repeat your insinuation that I am a holocaust denier. And bring some friends to help you.

I never said that you were a holocaust denier.

* Main Entry: in·sin·u·ate

* Pronunciation: in-?sin-y?-?w?t, -yü-??t

* Function: verb

* Inflected Form(s): in·sin·u·at·ed; in·sin·u·at·ing

* Etymology: Latin insinuatus, past participle of insinuare, from in- + sinuare to bend, curve, from sinus curve

* Date: 1529

transitive verb 1 a : to introduce (as an idea) gradually or in a subtle, indirect, or covert way <insinuate doubts into a trusting mind> b : to impart or suggest in an artful or indirect way : imply <I resent what you're insinuating>

2 : to introduce (as oneself) by stealthy, smooth, or artful meansintransitive verb 1 archaic : to enter gently, slowly, or imperceptibly : creep

2 archaic : to ingratiate oneself

 

[green_cactus_IHB]

...

just shedding some light on the atrocities that happened - which you seem to deny.

PS: Should we ever meet in public, I want you to repeat your insinuation that I am a holocaust denier. And bring some friends to help you.

I never said that you were a holocaust denier.

* Main Entry: in·sin·u·ate

* Pronunciation: in-?sin-y?-?w?t, -yü-??t

* Function: verb

* Inflected Form(s): in·sin·u·at·ed; in·sin·u·at·ing

* Etymology: Latin insinuatus, past participle of insinuare, from in- + sinuare to bend, curve, from sinus curve

* Date: 1529

transitive verb 1 a : to introduce (as an idea) gradually or in a subtle, indirect, or covert way <insinuate doubts into a trusting mind> b : to impart or suggest in an artful or indirect way : imply <I resent what you're insinuating>

2 : to introduce (as oneself) by stealthy, smooth, or artful meansintransitive verb 1 archaic : to enter gently, slowly, or imperceptibly : creep

2 archaic : to ingratiate oneself

You may want to read up on what most historians define as the holocaust.

 

[Nude_IHB]

You may want to read up on what most historians define as the holocaust.

You may want to learn how to apologize, since defining the holocaust has nothing to do with denying it, nor with equating it to opposing Universal Health care. It's much easier to man up and say "I'm sorry, I didn't mean it that way" and move on than it is to try and twist out of it by attempting to place the onus back on me.

 

[bltserv_IHB]

Nude when I mentioned the Camps of the 30`s you did go a little "Agro".

Don’t go SkipperDan on us. Those camps had nothing to do with the sick the poor, or the weak and you damn well know it. Either post facts, cites, or links that support your opinion on the current state of heath care, or shut the f*ck up. We don’t need that kind of baiting in what is already an emotional discussion.

And I do appreciate Cactus covering my back on my argument. It did have some merit after all.

I took more offense to the "Skipper" comment than the F-Bomb.

Lets just consider the issue closed. Its just the Internet after all.

Now back to the discussion.

Looks like we have our first draft of the Baucus Bill released. 223 Pages.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/09/baucus_health_bill_released.html

 

[IrvineCommuter_IHB]

It's interesting to me that the Baucus is still getting no republican love. If that's the case, why should the Democrats care about the Republicans at all?

 

[Nude_IHB]

Nude when I mentioned the Camps of the 30`s you did go a little "Agro".

Don’t go SkipperDan on us. Those camps had nothing to do with the sick the poor, or the weak and you damn well know it. Either post facts, cites, or links that support your opinion on the current state of heath care, or shut the f*ck up. We don’t need that kind of baiting in what is already an emotional discussion.

And I do appreciate Cactus covering my back on my argument. It did have some merit after all.

I took more offense to the "Skipper" comment than the F-Bomb.

No offense, but you aren't important enough for me to go "agro", although it's cute that you are trying to be hip in your old age. And if you are going to post like SkipperDan, you can hardly be offended if someone calls you out on it.

As for the camps, the were *run by the government* as part of a not-so-secret eugenics program that provided the means to accomplish the real goal of genocide. You equated opposition to Obamacare as the first step to death camps, the implication being that health care denied is tantamount to mass gas chambers, which is patently absurd considering it is HR3200 that seeks to limit end-of-life care by creating a dollar spent/usable life ratio. Which sounds more like the first step toward support for death camps to deal with sick people, keeping government from controlling the treatment of patients or telling grandma to forget about the pacemaker and take a pain pill?

Lets just consider the issue closed. Its just the Internet after all.

Now back to the discussion.

Discussion? So far all you have done is spew hyperbole and thrown bombs. You haven't responded to any of my points. Instead, you ignore them and veer off into some other screed against insurance companies, republicans, or claims that Inglewood is a really a Third World Country.

Looks like we have our first draft of the Baucus Bill released. 223 Pages.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/09/baucus_health_bill_released.html

I've scanned the entire document, and I have to say that (pending further revelations) it seems like something I would support. That being said, the chances that this gets passed without being amended is zero. Requiring everyone to have insurance, regardless of age, will hit young people the hardest. It also requires seniors, that can afford it, to contribute to the costs of their own care... more than previously so. It also directly addresses the issues of portability, pre-existing conditions, and costs of insurance in a way that avoids government control of delivery. I would support this bill "as is" but not as part of some reconciliation with HR3200.