Health Care Reform - A Modest Proposal
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Richard A. Abbott wrote: Yet, if you believe that his manifesto promises are outside of the scope that your Constitution addresses then surely you should do that which is necessary to legally redress the situation. The problem with that is that the US is no longer a constitutional republic, at least in the sense that the federal government is in any way restrained by any meaning inherent in the constitution. They have empowered themselves to interpret the constitution in an open and unrestricted fashion. So, what ever they say is constitutional, is constitutional. I no longer have rights which derive from my creator, the only rights I have are those I am granted by the state. Richard A. Abbott wrote: Unless you are of the opinion that most of those who voted for him did so out of disenchantment with Republican politics, then you will need to demonstrate that the actioning of that manifesto is somehow flawed, and demonstrate it to those who matter. Any such manifesto is clearly flawed. One only need observe the incestuous relationship between virtually every major source of information in our society, from education to Hollywood, and the radical left which controls the democrat party, to appreciate the nature of the situation in the US. We the people keep trying to retake our nation, and the power held by a few keeps ripping it back out of our hands. The situation is entirely untenable.
It appears that you might be caught between a rock and a hard place. Time perhaps to re-evaluate your own political future by grasping the bull by the horn and campaign for your beliefs.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
It appears that you might be caught between a rock and a hard place. Time perhaps to re-evaluate your own political future by grasping the bull by the horn and campaign for your beliefs.
I'm not the one caught anywhere. The one enormous advantage we true conservatives enjoy is that none of the things we disagree with have any hope of success. No matter how any of this is managed, it is all going to fail. But frankly, I think people are going to have to learn their lessons the hard way. The industry committed to promoting the propaganda behind all this is too powerful. If we are at the point of talking openly about allowing the elderly to die in order to have a viable health care system, which only a few decades ago would have been the plot of some kind of horror science fiction plot, the end cannot be far away. As Carson pointed out, the elderly are not the entire problem. If we can allow them to die, why not allow illegal immigrants to die? Black people often have more health problems than white people as they age, shouldn't we consider letting them die sooner? This will all become an issue as the health care system continues to malfunction. All I have to do is set and wait - and demand my health care, damnit!!!
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This is part why I said above about guarding against a charge of playing God.
There is a decision to be made: whether or not to be forced to fund treatments of extremely limited benefit for terminal patients or not. Saying "yes" is no less playing God than playing "No." Nothing in my proposal says that you, Richard, cannot devote whatever share of your income you see fit to helping the elderly have a few more days of life. It simply says that you will not be arrested and put in jail if you don't.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This has the sound of callousness and an uncaring attitude
Why exactly should I care how it sounds to you??? You can infer that I am a heartless bastard if you wish, but I am not responsible for your attempts at reading my mind. For all you know I am weeping my eyes out as I suggest this. But either way, it doesn't matter. What matters is whether I make rational proposals based on verifiable facts.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Yes Jon, a very emotive subject. And a subject where peoples will make their stand whichever side of the fence they happen to stand. A modest proposal - of course - but enshrining it, or a variation of it, into law might be a tad problematic - those pressure groups will not make it easy for you.
-
Yes Jon, a very emotive subject. And a subject where peoples will make their stand whichever side of the fence they happen to stand. A modest proposal - of course - but enshrining it, or a variation of it, into law might be a tad problematic - those pressure groups will not make it easy for you.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
those pressure groups will not make it easy for you
If it's easy, it's not worth doing. Or was that if she's easy, she's not worth doing? I forget. . . At any rate, I emailed my proposal off to Obama, now it's up to him to recognize brilliance.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Rob Graham wrote:
The problem is that this is how you end up spending 80% of your medical dollars on the last 6 months of life.
So, a 'right to health care' is entirely dependent upon one's status as a human being?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, a 'right to health care' is entirely dependent upon one's status as a human being?
Absolutely. I don't support taxpayer funded health care for pets or farm animals.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, a 'right to health care' is entirely dependent upon one's status as a human being?
Absolutely. I don't support taxpayer funded health care for pets or farm animals.
Rob Graham wrote:
I don't support taxpayer funded health care for pets or farm animals.
:thumbsup::thumbsup: Although I've known some dogs and horses I'd put in line in front of Stan. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, a 'right to health care' is entirely dependent upon one's status as a human being?
Absolutely. I don't support taxpayer funded health care for pets or farm animals.
Rob Graham wrote:
Absolutely. I don't support taxpayer funded health care for pets or farm animals.
OK, so perhaps I didn't phrase that well. So allow me to try again. If we are predicating our arguments upon the notion of health care as a human right, than you simply cannot disallow any one from recieving it, regardless of age or any other consideration. The only thing you can do is to decide that some of us are not quite as human as the rest of us and therefore can be allowed to die. If you do not predicate it on a human right, than the entire rational for government empowering itself to be involved at all collapses completely unless you compltely disregard the constitution altogether.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Obama seems to be eying the Medicare and Medicaid programs as potential sources of funding for his new programs - there goes the senior citizen vote (I wonder if there are more Hispanics or retirees in Florida?) But he may be on to something. I suggest the following. 1. Cut out Medicare Part D. It is basically a scam that benefits insurance companies. Instead, increase the Social Security payment to each senior citizen by changing the payout from every month to every four weeks. 2. Cut out the alternative insurance plans offered by AARP, Humana and the rest and funded by Medicare. Their admin costs are about 4 times what Medicare paying directly is. 3. Eliminate Medicaid. It has nothing to do with Social Security or medicare but was deliberately misnamed to tie the two together. It is paying for a lot of healthcare that the new super-duper program is supposed to cover, and if it doesn't, then too bad. 4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year of life. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year. i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half. 4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain-dead. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain dead i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half. 6. Offer a buyout program for each senior citizen presently receiving payments equal to a lum of (81 - sr.'s present age) times hisher present yearly payment. 7. Offer a buyout program for each person who has been paying into Social Security for at least 15 years of a lump sum of 10 times what hisher present yearly payment would be if he retired at 62.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain-dead.
Was it meant to be a joke that this item jumped back to #4 from #5 ? :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
None of this will work, there are too many entrenched interests to eliminate or curb any of it - unless Obama continues on his quest to turn us into Venezuela. The correct solution, once we become Venezuela, is to: Nationalize the medical community Nationalize the drug companies Eliminate insurance companies, take the presumed savings to cover the 500k people no longer employed. Euthanize anyone over 62 who cannot jog a mile in at least 8 minutes or quit being a nanny state and see how self reliance, family and charity works
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
quit being a nanny state and see how self reliance, family and charity works
That worked fine, when the cost of medicine was to go in the yard and find some leeches. It doesn't work now, unless you mean, just accept that only the rich can afford medical care.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
quit being a nanny state and see how self reliance, family and charity works
That worked fine, when the cost of medicine was to go in the yard and find some leeches. It doesn't work now, unless you mean, just accept that only the rich can afford medical care.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
Christian Graus wrote:
That worked fine, when the cost of medicine was to go in the yard and find some leeches.
It was working fine the last time it was tried - 1950s, and probably well into the '60s.
Christian Graus wrote:
unless you mean, just accept that only the rich can afford medical care.
Why is excluding the poor any different than excluding the elderly? Regardless of what system you devise, someone gets excluded.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Perhaps just euthenise all retiree without health insurance and force all prisoners on a life tariff or death row to become immediate enforced organ donors.
Won't work. Nobody wants a 75 year old replacement.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Won't work. Nobody wants a 75 year old replacement.
I don't follow - why are people on death row all 75 ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
That worked fine, when the cost of medicine was to go in the yard and find some leeches.
It was working fine the last time it was tried - 1950s, and probably well into the '60s.
Christian Graus wrote:
unless you mean, just accept that only the rich can afford medical care.
Why is excluding the poor any different than excluding the elderly? Regardless of what system you devise, someone gets excluded.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It was working fine the last time it was tried - 1950s, and probably well into the '60s.
I would be interested to know what the cost of health care was back then, relative to income, as compared to today. The cost of a basic doctors visit in the USA is beyond obscene, I can only imagine what surgery costs.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why is excluding the poor any different than excluding the elderly? Regardless of what system you devise, someone gets excluded.
Who said I wanted to exclude the elderly ? I can't think of anyone who is excluded here, in Australia.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
Oakman wrote:
Won't work. Nobody wants a 75 year old replacement.
I don't follow - why are people on death row all 75 ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
Oakman wrote:
Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain-dead.
Was it meant to be a joke that this item jumped back to #4 from #5 ? :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
Christian Graus wrote:
Was it meant to be a joke that this item jumped back to #4 from #5 ?
Nope. If a family wants to keep a body breathing after it has been pronounced brain-dead then they are welcome to do it, but not at tax-payer expense - and subject to the new luxury tax, of course.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Was it meant to be a joke that this item jumped back to #4 from #5 ?
Nope. If a family wants to keep a body breathing after it has been pronounced brain-dead then they are welcome to do it, but not at tax-payer expense - and subject to the new luxury tax, of course.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Sure. I don't disagree. You're saying the poor don't get health care now, but the rich but brain dead, do ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
quit being a nanny state and see how self reliance, family and charity works
That worked fine, when the cost of medicine was to go in the yard and find some leeches. It doesn't work now, unless you mean, just accept that only the rich can afford medical care.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
Christian Graus wrote:
That worked fine, when the cost of medicine was to go in the yard and find some leeches. It doesn't work now, unless you mean, just accept that only the rich can afford medical care.
that is exactly what I mean. the adavnces in treatment have extended lives but access to that care is not a fucking right, the road we're heading down is simply government enforced charity and is no fucking business of the government.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Absolutely. I don't support taxpayer funded health care for pets or farm animals.
OK, so perhaps I didn't phrase that well. So allow me to try again. If we are predicating our arguments upon the notion of health care as a human right, than you simply cannot disallow any one from recieving it, regardless of age or any other consideration. The only thing you can do is to decide that some of us are not quite as human as the rest of us and therefore can be allowed to die. If you do not predicate it on a human right, than the entire rational for government empowering itself to be involved at all collapses completely unless you compltely disregard the constitution altogether.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I never suggested it was a "human right". We limit many rights, however, and in this case we are only talking about limiting taxpayer funding of medical care to that which is reasonable and economic. No one suggests disallowing those who want to from paying for additional care on their own. You don't get unlimited retirement support from Social Security either, but are allowed to save whatever you want to supplement that. Your argument, as usual, is pure B.S. And nothing in the Constitution prohibits us from choosing to fund medical care through taxes, in fact, since we already fund it for some (medicaid and medicare) one could argue that the Constitution mandates that we extend it to all (equal protection clause of the 14th amendment - if it's good for schools, then it's also good for this).
-
Christian Graus wrote:
That worked fine, when the cost of medicine was to go in the yard and find some leeches. It doesn't work now, unless you mean, just accept that only the rich can afford medical care.
that is exactly what I mean. the adavnces in treatment have extended lives but access to that care is not a fucking right, the road we're heading down is simply government enforced charity and is no fucking business of the government.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
the adavnces in treatment have extended lives but access to that care is not a f***ing right, the road we're heading down is simply government enforced charity and is no f***ing business of the government.
Do you have an insurance policy ? Health care works the same, it's shared risk. The difference is, we let our government organise it, and you let private companies use it as a means of preying on the weak, while robbing the strong. You explain to me why the cost of care is so much more in the US compared to here ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
the adavnces in treatment have extended lives but access to that care is not a f***ing right, the road we're heading down is simply government enforced charity and is no f***ing business of the government.
Do you have an insurance policy ? Health care works the same, it's shared risk. The difference is, we let our government organise it, and you let private companies use it as a means of preying on the weak, while robbing the strong. You explain to me why the cost of care is so much more in the US compared to here ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
Christian Graus wrote:
You explain to me
how many innovations your drug companies have developed. how many innovations your durable medical equipment companies have developed. something other than the military that is done better because our government controls it.
Christian Graus wrote:
you let private companies use it as a means of preying on the weak
bullshit. but back to my point, it is no fucking business of the government, healthcare is not a "right" any more than is food, clothing, shelter - all are personal responsibilities.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You explain to me
how many innovations your drug companies have developed. how many innovations your durable medical equipment companies have developed. something other than the military that is done better because our government controls it.
Christian Graus wrote:
you let private companies use it as a means of preying on the weak
bullshit. but back to my point, it is no fucking business of the government, healthcare is not a "right" any more than is food, clothing, shelter - all are personal responsibilities.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
how many innovations your drug companies have developed
Don't get me started on the BS that is the drug industry in the US
Mike Gaskey wrote:
how many innovations your durable medical equipment companies have developed.
See, you're american, so I don't blame you that there's little to no chance of you seeing any reportage on medical breakthroughs outside the US. However, Australian teams produce their fair share of medical innovation. http://www.whitehat.com.au/Australia/Inventions/InventionsA.html[^]
Mike Gaskey wrote:
but back to my point, it is no f***ing business of the government, healthcare is not a "right" any more than is food, clothing, shelter - all are personal responsibilities.
And that is still only true in a society that preys on the weak, and feasts on their bones. I go back to my core point - the cost of modern medicine, especially in the USA, is far too high for most people to afford. If you have any sort of insurance, then you are buying into the concept of shared risk. The health of the members of a society, affects that society, and so it is not just out of compassion that it makes sense for society to engage in shared risk to make health care within the reach of it's members.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
I never suggested it was a "human right". We limit many rights, however, and in this case we are only talking about limiting taxpayer funding of medical care to that which is reasonable and economic. No one suggests disallowing those who want to from paying for additional care on their own. You don't get unlimited retirement support from Social Security either, but are allowed to save whatever you want to supplement that. Your argument, as usual, is pure B.S. And nothing in the Constitution prohibits us from choosing to fund medical care through taxes, in fact, since we already fund it for some (medicaid and medicare) one could argue that the Constitution mandates that we extend it to all (equal protection clause of the 14th amendment - if it's good for schools, then it's also good for this).
Rob Graham wrote:
I never suggested it was a "human right". We limit many rights, however, and in this case we are only talking about limiting taxpayer funding of medical care to that which is reasonable and economic. No one suggests disallowing those who want to from paying for additional care on their own. You don't get unlimited retirement support from Social Security either, but are allowed to save whatever you want to supplement that. Your argument, as usual, is pure B.S. And nothing in the Constitution prohibits us from choosing to fund medical care through taxes, in fact, since we already fund it for some (medicaid and medicare) one could argue that the Constitution mandates that we extend it to all (equal protection clause of the 14th amendment - if it's good for schools, then it's also good for this).
Well, if you believe that, all I can say is live and learn. You will find out the hard way what the pure B.S. was all along. What we are attempting to do simply cannot be done. Just as with Social Security, the system will degrade over time and more and more people will find themselves on the wrong side of some bureaucrats slide rule. And, as far as the constitution is concerned, if it can be used to justify providing health care for all, than it is so far from the original purpose it was created to achieve that for all intents and purposes it is entirely unnecessary. If the federal government can do this, there are essentially no limits on its power at all.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.