How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Oh, those Little Details!!   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ]
 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Oh, those Little Details!!

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


325 posted 08-23-2009 07:19 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Have you read the "Your Life, Your Choices," information booklet Huan?
http://www.rihlp.org/pubs/Your_life_your_choices.pdf

Page 21 has the relevant section "What makes your life worth living?"

.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


326 posted 08-23-2009 07:37 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


Oh no, apparently
more dumb people
including another senator . . .

.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


327 posted 08-23-2009 07:44 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


I agree Huan - what the heck are they thinking - obviously, unlike us, they haven't actually read it.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


328 posted 08-23-2009 07:47 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

So then Denise -- five choices wouldn't be better than two?

Of course you have the option to choose none right now -- but what has coerced you to choose one?  Did your employer let you choose which company(s) would be your provider?  The aforementioned company I worked for with the HMO -- they gave me the choice too -- HMO or Major Medical -- guess what the difference between the costs were -- not much of a choice -- if there's one thing the free market is good at -- it's coercion.

It's my understanding that the 'penalty' for not having insurance is a 'fine' or 'tax' that would be equivalent to your premiums -- which would be used to enroll you in a health care plan.

I've been half-waiting for the Towey thing to come up -- what Fox and WSJ (same thing) fail to tell you is that Towey is trying to sell his own end of life book to the VA and has been trying to do so for a long time --
http://www.agingwithdignity.org/about.php

Let's take a look at 'Your life your choices'

quote:

Do you have any strongly-held
beliefs that should guide your care?

Think ahead. Imagine being in a critical conditionó
one in which you were unable to communicate your
wishes. If medical decisions could mean the difference
between life and death, what would you want
your loved ones and health care providers to do?
Your strongly-held beliefs can guide these choices
because they help others understand what you value
about life. But be sure to explain your beliefs because
people often use the same words to mean very
different things. Consider the cases of Mrs. Santini
and Mrs. Johnson, both deeply religious women.

"I want to be kept alive as long as possible,"
Maria Santini has said on many occasions. "Life is
sacred and has meaning, no matter what its quality."

"When my time comes, keep me comfortable."
Irene Johnson also believes life is sacred. However,
she has often said, "Iíve lived a long and full life. I
donít want anything done just to keep me alive."

Because Mrs. Santini and Mrs. Johnson both
believe that life is sacred, many people would
assume that their views on being kept alive would
been the same. But, as youíve seen, itís not that
simple.
Here's another example. Have you ever heard
anyone say, ďIf Iím a vegetable, pull the plugĒ?
What does this mean to you? What's a vegetable?
What's a plug? Even people who live together can
have very different ideas about what the same words
mean without knowing it. The story of May and
John Williams shows how important it is to be
specific about what you mean.

"I'd never want to live like a vegetable." Both
May & John Williams have always shared this belief
during their fifty years of marriage. But when they
were talking about their advance care plans, they
learned that they had very different views about what
that meant. For May, itís when she canít take care of
herself. John was surprised. For him, being a
"vegetable" is much worse. "Itís when my brainís not
working but my body is being kept alive by
machines."

If you couldnít speak for
yourself, what would you want
done for you?
Think about the following statements. Do you agree
with any of them? Discussing your answers with
others can help them understand what is important
to you and where you stand with respect to health
care decisions.
My life should be prolonged as long as it can, no matter
what its quality, and using any means possible.
I believe there are some situations in which I would not
want treatments to keep me alive.
I'd want my religious advisors to be consulted about all
medical decisions made on my behalf to make sure
they are in keeping with my religious teachings.
My personal wishes would not be as important as what
my family thinks is best for me.
I'd want to have my pain controlled, even if the
medications make me sleepy or make it difficult to have
conversations with my family.
http://www.rihlp.org/pubs/Your_life_your_choices.pdf



Feeling suicidal?

No?

Let's contrast it with the living will Towey wants to sell to the government:
http://www.agingwithdignity.org/catalog/nonprintpdf/Five_Wishes_Final.pdf

Sorry -- you just have to go to the link -- Towey is so proprietary about his document we can't cut and paste from it...

'Your Life Your Choices' is not currently in use by the VA and is still being revised with a release date due in 2010.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


329 posted 08-23-2009 08:27 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

WASHINGTON Ė An independent senator counted on by Democrats in the health care debate showed signs of wavering Sunday when he urged President Barack Obama to postpone many of his initiatives because of the economic downturn.

"I'm afraid we've got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy's out of recession," said Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. "There's no reason we have to do it all now, but we do have to get started. And I think the place to start is cost health delivery reform and insurance market reforms."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090824/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul_14

Thank you, Joe.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


330 posted 08-23-2009 08:33 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
That's the thing Grinch -- a committee that forwards recommendations isn't setting the policy -- the Secretary is....who works for the President.


I got that LR and you're right in that ultimately they're only recommendations but I saw it as at least an attempt to reassure people that the contents would be the product of a transparent process. I can understand why there has to be a final sign off but I saw it as a decision of veto for fiscal or constitutional reasons. Perhaps that was a little naÔve, I can see how it could be abused but I go back to the effort they've put in to make the decision inclusive - if the intent was to leave the choice solely to a government suit why go to the trouble of building such a powerful group to oppose or contradict the choices.

Can you imagine the headlines if the Secretary tried to slip something in without the committees approval or agreement?

I guess you can only put so many checks and balances in place - or maybe the answer is to really confirm the intent and actually limit the secretary's powers to one of veto on fiscal or constitutional grounds.

BTW Nice catch on the Towey pdf - I can take that off my "must research" list.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


331 posted 08-23-2009 10:12 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I don't know Grinch.  Committees without power really only serve the purpose of keeping up appearances. I wouldn't want the committee's recommendation to be binding but I wouldn't want the Secretary to be able to implement without the committees recommend. I'm not real sure how the committee members are getting selected either. If that's the best they can do I'd be more inclined to be in favor of the co-op option.  I don't think it's the bogey man the left are making it out to be.

I lived in Tennessee under TVA which utilized electric co-operatives to deliver my electricity and it worked like any public utility should.  I really see the health care payment system as a public utility in much the same light.  Having local control and Federal-backed funding wouldn't be such a bad plan.

Further -- I don't think it would be a backtrack for the Obama-Biden ticket -- all they campaigned on was a 'Public-Exchange'.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


332 posted 08-23-2009 10:47 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
No Ron, there is another option. Pay for emergency care only for illegals just prior to their deportation.

In theory, that's what we're already doing, Denise. Except, of course, it isn't working. When was the last time you called INS to have someone deported?

Short of racial stereotyping, illegals immigrants tend to look a lot like everyone else. And, twenty years in Southern California, I never had one person come up to me and tell me they were illegal. You?

quote:
What about those of us who have already been told by our employers that we can't keep our current insurance ...

Get a new employer?

Seriously, Denise, you need to ask yourself WHY your employer doesn't want to continue paying for private coverage. And whether they'll continue to pay for it when the premiums continue to rise at several times the rate of inflation. The status quo is NOT an option, Denise. Not any more.

quote:
Do we stick with the status quo that over 70% of Americans say they are satisfied with?

See my response to Denise, Mike. The status quo is not an option, no matter how many people are satisfied with it. So long as medical costs and coverage continue to climb, we're all on a downward spiral. Let those 70 percent pay their OWN costs or even their own premiums for a while and then ask them again how satisfied they are.

quote:
The government says nothing about reigning in the insurance companies, the pharmaseuticals or tort reform.

Reign in how, Mike? Do you want government setting drug prices instead of the market? Can you think of any industry where that has worked real well? I can't. Or do you want to stop holding doctors and hospitals responsible for their services? What kinds of doctors do you think we'll get if they know you can't sue them?

quote:
Can any reasonable person look at the government's plan and not see it's designed to put private insurance out of business?

There, see, the government IS talking about reigning in the insurance companies.

Seriously, some of the things being discussed will indeed force private insurance to adjust and become more competitive. That's a good thing. Other things being discussed will go a long way towards making tort reform unnecessary. Those million dollar judgments add relatively little to your insurance premium. All the unnecessary tests doctors order to avoid those judgments is another matter entirely. Some of the things being discussed (like the advance care planning you're happy to have taken off the table) will help eliminate the need for those unnecessary tests and procedures.

quote:
Ron, here's one. There are others..

Com'on, Mike. When asked if you still believe the government is going to force old folk to attend suicide clinics you said, no, because that part of the bill was removed. But the part you now point at as being removed clearly said no such thing. Aren't you just going in circles?

Can't you just admit that you listened to the wrong people and got bad information?

I think it's a real shame that intentional obfuscation got advance planning yanked from consideration. Counseling clearly doesn't force (or necessarily even encourage) anyone to end their life prematurely. It does help apprise them of their choices and I strongly suspect it would eliminate a TON of expense keeping people alive past any real hope of a meaningful (by any definition) life. Without advance directives, in today's legal climate, no doctor or hospital dares do anything that might land them in court.

quote:
I have a choice right now, LR. I can choose from two different plans or choose to have nothing.

The only choices you have, Denise, are the ones your employer has decided to give you. That won't change. What you're really worried about is that your employer will give you different choices than those you currently have. That's going to happen no matter what the government does.

quote:
"I'm afraid we've got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy's out of recession," said Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman.

I think we've already put it off, Mike. Through a couple recessions?

"Putting a lot of that off" didn't work for me when I was married and facing a massive honey-do list. I don't think it will work now, either.

Seriously, I think it's high time America decided to suck it up and do what needs to be done, with a little less regard to the immediate costs. We're tougher than that.

I hope.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


333 posted 08-23-2009 11:11 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, Ron, there is certainly little care for immediate costs. I'll grant you that. Of course, when the country is in as much debt as it now is, what's a few more billion??

Apparently you think sucking it up and doing what's necessary means letting the government take it over. I don't. Time will tell which opinion is the most accurate. Do you see passage of Obama's plan  as a help or hindurance to the unemployment situation?

Just saw on the local news that cost  of living increases for Social Security receiptients have been suspended for the next two years. Oh, well, when you;re that old you don't need as much anyway. I'm sure Congress will also forego the cost of living increases they give  themselves, too, right?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


334 posted 08-24-2009 12:02 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Towey's pamphlet is a standard Living Will leaving something that is a private decision, private.

The VA book, created by the former Hemlock Society, includes a detailed list of scenarios one might find themselves in and asking them to select how they feel about each one, even asking them to explain if they don't wish to fill it out. It seems to be designed to 'lead' the patient to consider the 'life is not worth living' option for any and all problems imaginable. It's too leading and intrusive in my opinion, and is good example why it isn't a good idea to let government get involved in these things. Why not just offer a simple living will?

Currently we are offered an HMO and a PPO, and a third PPO is offered for union members, with no financial penalty for declining.

The government can offer a million health care choices. None of them are really a choice if a tax penalty is involved. As to the amount, the only thing I read was that the amount has not yet been determined but would have to be significant enough to make choosing a plan the better route to take.

Mike didn't get bad information, Ron, nor is he going around in circles. It is the politicians that are doing that. The end of life counseling that was taken out that Mike referred to was in one of the Senate bills. It still exists in the House version, and could very well end up in a finalized version.

I know that reforms need to be made, but as I said before this attempted government takeover of the healthcare industry is not the answer.  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


335 posted 08-24-2009 01:26 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

The thing about propaganda Denise -- is that it's a two-way street. One has to desire the message of the propaganda in order for it to be effective.

There isn't anyone who would objectively read "Your Life Your Choices" an conclude that it 'steers' anyone in any direction other than preparing a living will that addresses the major concerns involved in the process.  

It uses real life scenarios to help clarify the meaning of a person's wishes in end of life decisions and is particularly sensitive to religious and spiritual considerations.

How would the VA handing a vet 'Five Wishes' be any more or less 'private' than handing them 'Your Life Your Choices'?

If a person reads 'Your Life Your Choices' and winds up feeling that life is not worth living -- then that says something about them -- not about the 'pamphlet'.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


336 posted 08-24-2009 06:12 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I see it as a psychological inducement to lead someone who may be in a vulnerable situation to begin with to view themselves as a burden on their families or on society and that probably the best for all concerned is to end it all.

I forgot my main point that I wanted to make on losing my health insuracne at work and being forced into a government plan, as milions will be...how can Obama and others still claim that if we like what we have we can keep it, when it is patently false?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


337 posted 08-24-2009 06:34 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

You won't be 'forced' into a government plan Denise -- anymore than you're 'forced' into the plan you have now.  If you want to opt-out of the plan your employer offers you and buy your own private plan then you'll be free to do that -- although -- it will obviously not be free.

Everyone who is in the position of 'choosing' health plans -- whether individuals or H.R. departments -- will still be choosing what coverage they seek.

Please explain to me the difference between the two end of life preparation pamphlets as you see them and how YLYC 'induces' someone to end their life.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


338 posted 08-24-2009 07:21 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Reb, you will be forced into a plan if that is the plan your employer chooses and what employer will not choose a government plan that saves him thousands a month to carry? Yes, if you are solid financially, you can not accept the employer's choice and find insurance on your own but that means you pay 100% of the cost, instead of only a portion. In a plan supposedly designed to help the average citizen, what kind of choice is that?

Then there's that little clause that states that, within a few years, all insurance companies will have to be approved by the government to continue coverage? Do you think many, if any, will survive that? And what about the part that says you can continue your private coverage but, should you drop it, you cannot continue with another company because insurance companies will be allowed to service existing customers but not write new business? How many insurance companies will survive that? All of these points, with references, have been brought up in previous threads here.

Anyone who looks at these points and still believes that private insurance will continue is fooling themselves. If you want to just say good riddance to those evil insurance companies, fine, but this pretense that private insurance will continue is not valid.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


339 posted 08-24-2009 07:40 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

WASHINGTON Ė President Barack Obama still may push through an overhaul of the American health care system, but political indicators point to a needed overhaul of his own tactics for selling reform.

Barely eight months in office, Obama is trapped between the jaws of a tightening vise. On one side, Republicans refuse to countenance further government involvement in health care; on the other, liberal Democrats insist Obama keep his campaign pledge to make sure the estimated 50 million Americans who are without coverage can afford health insurance.

"The people don't have sufficient information, and I'm surprised the administration and others backing reform haven't done much more to educate the public," said Robin Lauermann, professor of politics at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090824/ap_on_an/us_obama_health_care_analysis_4

That's the point I was trying to make, Ron, with my earlier posts.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


340 posted 08-24-2009 07:55 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

As the White House prepares to release worse-than-expected deficit projections this week, even Democrats in Congress said that whatever health care bill emerges this fall will have to cost less than the $1 trillion price tag contemplated earlier this year.

"It's going to have to be significantly less than what we've heard talked about," Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., one of six senators from both parties seeking a bipartisan health care bill, said on CBS' Face the Nation. "We've got to have the deficit reduced as a result of this effort. That is absolutely imperative."

Now, the health care debate is being framed by new figures expected Tuesday that will show deficits totaling $9 trillion over the next 10 years, up from the $7 trillion predicted in May, the Associated Press reported, citing White House officials. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the numbers have not been officially announced.

McCain told ABC's This Week that the high deficit "gives people pause about another trillion dollars that would have to be spent to reform health care."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-08-23-healthcare_N.htm?csp=34

So the 7 trillion predicted by the government in May has become 9 trillion, remindful of the 8.5% projected unemployment that went over 10%. At least they are consistent in their inabilities to be accurate.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


341 posted 08-24-2009 12:37 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Reb, you will be forced into a plan if that is the plan your employer chooses and what employer will not choose a government plan that saves him thousands a month to carry?

Mike, why do you suppose an employer is currently carrying insurance? Couldn't they save thousands a month by NOT carrying insurance?

quote:
And what about the part that says you can continue your private coverage but, should you drop it, you cannot continue with another company because insurance companies will be allowed to service existing customers but not write new business?

Ah, I see now why you didn't understand my earlier comments, Mike, about misinformation and lies being shot down again and again as so much nonsense. You must be skipping some of the posts?


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


342 posted 08-24-2009 12:44 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Sure, they could save money by not carrying insurance, Ron. They could also save money by paying all employees minimum wage. Health benefits and other perks are a way to attract and keep good employees. Should they decide to revert to governmental coverage, well, they are still offering a better perk than the employee paying all himself so they can still do it and make it a perk.

As far as the second half of your reply, ok you have me curious. I'll go back and check all entries.

Still waiting for you to answer my question about unemployment issues....

All insurance companies will have to be approved by the government to continue coverage Is that also misinformation or should we just accept on faith that the government, competing against these companies, will be honest and fair? (swampland still available)
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


343 posted 08-24-2009 03:17 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
I'd be more inclined to be in favor of the co-op option. I don't think it's the bogey man the left are making it out to be.


I don't either LR; in fact when I originally read the bill my initial thought was that the real intention was that the "government plan" would be contracted out to a private company. Or that it was a sacrificial lamb put in there to attract enough negative reaction that when it was finally removed the bill would sail through and all sides could claim some sort of a victory.

There's still time yet.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


344 posted 08-24-2009 07:18 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Should they decide to revert to governmental coverage, well, they are still offering a better perk than the employee paying all himself so they can still do it and make it a perk.

And if they are competing with other employers who don't revert to governmental coverage, Mike?

I can only speak from my own personal experience as an employer for several decades. Generally, there were two reasons for picking one insurance plan over another. First, I had to compete with other companies. If my benefits were sub par, I simply couldn't attract the best employees. Second, whatever group plan I selected for my employees was the same group plan I had to use. I couldn't get one for them and a different, better one for myself. It didn't work that way, at least not ten or fifteen years ago.

It's easy to play the what-if game. What if all employers revert to public coverage? What if all employers decide insurance premiums have just plain gone to high and can't be continued at all? What if new stem cell research increases the average life span to 150 years? There are a thousand things that could go wrong. There are just as many that could go right. Basic human nature (which is at the core of employer supplied medical coverage) isn't going to change all that much. The employers who currently shaft their employees at every turn will still do so, and the employers who take care of the employees will also still do so. And in both cases, it will be for much the same reasons.

quote:
Still waiting for you to answer my question about unemployment issues....

You mean: Do you see passage of Obama's plan as a help or hindrance to the unemployment situation?[/quote]

I don't think the health care plan is intended to address unemployment, but I suspect the short term effect will probably be negative. If nothing else, the insurance companies will have to get rid of some dead weight when the windfall profits dry up. In the long term, however, the real goal of the plan is to lower health care costs and THAT will have a very positive effect on all facets of the economy. If, uh, we don't go broke first?

quote:
All insurance companies will have to be approved by the government to continue coverage Is that also misinformation or should we just accept on faith that the government, competing against these companies, will be honest and fair?

First, Mike, the government isn't competing with insurance companies. That would imply a goal centered on profits. Yea, right, the government make a profit? Maybe when pigs learn to fly.

Second, all insurance companies already have to be approved by the government. Remember, I wrote software for that industry for over ten years? The regulations are Brobdingnagian. The only real difference is that regulation would be centralized at the Federal level instead of fragmented at the state level. With any luck at all, Mike, the Feds might even get it right. I can assure you, most of the states haven't.

Here's the real issue, Mike.

The insurance companies NEED to be regulated. Desperately so. Most of them make used car salesmen look like naÔve saints. They are raping this country and no one has cared because the costs are being passed around a circle like musical chairs. Few consumers pay a premium. Most companies write off the premiums they pay as tax deductions and then pass on the remaining costs as higher product prices. In the end, everyone ends up paying and yet no one ever feels the knife being pushed deeper and deeper into our collective backs.

In my opinion, any legislation the insurance industry doesn't like is probably good for the country. I know that's a generalization, but I think it's also a pretty good rule of thumb.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


345 posted 08-24-2009 07:50 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I don't think the health care plan is intended to address unemployment, but I suspect the short term effect will probably be negative.

Exactly, Ron, and we have both agreed that unemployment is of paramount importance. Why now for something that will make it worse?

If nothing else, the insurance companies will have to get rid of some dead weight when the windfall profits dry up.

If nothing else, Ron? You know darned well there is something else, something like higher costs and higher taxes to businesses which will have a negative effect on employment and hiring. Right now the deficit has had to be revised by 2 trillion due to the collapse of a tax base due to unemployment due to the failure of Obama's stimulus plan. Is this the time to add to that unemployment?
.
With any luck at all, Mike, the Feds might even get it right. Luck, Ron? Divine intervention would have to be the more likely cause. Hopefully, you don't base the fact that they "might" get it right based on their track record....or maybe you do. Odds favor the fact that they must get at least ONE thing right before the world explodes into a feiry ball....but I wouldn't bet on it. Will you?

The insurance companies NEED to be regulated

Here you have my complete agreement. They DO need to be regulated. The pharmaseutical companies need to be regulated. Lawyer  fees need to be regulated. The question is - do we need a government takeover of health care to regulate them? Can't the government regulate them in any other way?  Is the government so weak they can't even handle insurance companies?


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


346 posted 08-24-2009 08:16 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Sorry guys, I'm too wiped out to participate -- but I have read and appreciate all of your replies.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


347 posted 08-24-2009 10:18 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

...and I appreciate your input, reb...even when I don't agree.


An e-mail that I got makes it pretty clear...

The Government wants to pass a health care reform plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, to be passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, but exempts themselves from it,
signed  by a President that also hasn't read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a Treasury Secretary who didn't pay his taxes, overseen  by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a Country that's nearly broke.

What could possibly go wrong?????
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


348 posted 08-25-2009 12:32 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Exactly, Ron, and we have both agreed that unemployment is of paramount importance.

I agreed to no such thing, Mike. Unemployment is important, not paramount. It does not override all other concerns.

quote:
You know darned well there is something else, something like higher costs and higher taxes to businesses which will have a negative effect on employment and hiring.

If there's anything I learned from Ayn Rand, Mike, it's that privileging short term benefits over long term benefits is rarely wise. You're looking at only the short term effects, and even those are questionable. Over the long haul, failure to get medical costs under control will do one hell of a lot more to employment and hiring than anything Obama or a Democratic legislature can even imagine.

I don't know if they've got it right, but I do know we can't be afraid to let Joe the Plumber sit on the unemployment line a little longer if that's what it takes to solve a problem that has been building since before you and I were born. Sure, I wish the problem had been addressed before the economy went south. It wasn't. And the excuses for doing nothing then were different and still the same. If we delay now, what will be the next excuse?

The opportunity was there, Mike. For a long time. All we ever got, though, were excuses. Now it's someone else's turn to try.

quote:
The question is - do we need a government takeover of health care to regulate them?

You haven't convinced me there IS a government takeover, Mike. Indeed, everything I've seen so far sounds more like the Feds are doing too little rather than too much.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


349 posted 08-25-2009 08:03 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Unemployment is important, not paramount. It does not override all other concerns.

I think about 15% Michiganders may disagree with you, Ron, plus a few million more in the national unemployment lines. Employment puts food on the table. It pays bills. It produces sales. It provides a tax base. It pours money into a government sorely in need of money. To say it is not of paramount importance is like saying your money should be spent on haircuts and getting a pedicure instead of food. Employment is food. Regardless of what else you do to the body to make it better, without food it will die.

but I do know we can't be afraid to let Joe the Plumber sit on the unemployment line a little longer if that's what it takes to solve a problem that has been building since before you and I were born.

Sell that one to Joe the Plumber or Harry SixPack. Easy for us to say that, isn't it, Ron? I doubt you're concerned where your next meal is coming from and neither am I. That comment would come from a Taggert - and not Dagny....or perhaps Marie Antoinette.

What is this problem  that has to be solved so immediately that employment is secondary? Oh, yes, the health care issue that over 70% of the people are satisfied with. It is paramount because Obama says that it is paramount, the same way he said the bailouts were paramount, the stimulus bill was paramount, the cap and trade was paramount...anything that will give the government more power seems to be paramount, even more important that the ability to buy food and take care of one's family.

Go back to Atlas Shrugged, Ron, and re-read what she says about sacrifice and the people who preach it. As she states, when someone speaks of sacrifice, they are speaking of YOUR sacrifice, not theirs. Obama won't miss a meal or cut back on household expenses anytime soon. Neither will any member of Congress...yet they are the ones telling the American people how sacrifices must be made, belts must be tightened, and unemployment lines must be accepted a little longer for the "common good".  Please tell me you are not one of them.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Oh, those Little Details!!   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors