DescentBB

Posted: **Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:57 am**

We all know donkeys are beasts of burden, forever doomed to packing the weight while Da Man is free to walk unburdened. So it is with Alfred E. and his glorius ideals of what we should bear under his proposed government backed health care boondoggle plan.
At least ABC had somebody that could ask a revealing question:

Snip
\"President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people -- like the president himself -- wouldn't face.
A special edition of \"Nightline\" from inside the White House.

The probing questions came from two skeptical neurologists during ABC News' special on health care reform, \"Questions for the President: Prescription for America,\" anchored from the White House by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson.

Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it's not provided by insurance.

**Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.**

The president refused to make such a pledge\"
End snip

So there you have it ladies and germs, whats good enough for the goose is NOT good enough for the gander. Having never been a leader of anything, I guess Obama's idea of leadership is simply one of throwing the meat picked bone to the hounds and consider them fed.

Posted: **Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:09 am**

so it wasn't so biased after all?

Posted: **Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:21 am**

Pandora wrote:so it wasn't so biased after all?

Drawing that conclusion from one quote is almost as knee-jerk as woody's earlier complaint that it would be biased.

Posted: **Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:31 am**

i know. but it was (at least partially) a honest question. I haven't seen it.

Posted: **Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:39 pm**

That special bored the hell out of me, and I didn't hear enough to satisfy me. I want a national healthcare plan, no matter the cost. There shouldn't be a price on life, and no one should have to die because they are not rich enough. Too bad we can't lower our defense budget to PAY FOR ONE!

It's a bunch of ★■◆● Obama, when you keep the military budget the same and then talk about needing to get revenue for your health-care plan (which I like to call Health-Care Lite™). We can't afford to give healthcare to everyone but we can spend 50% more than the entire European Union on weapons? That's bull★■◆●!

I'm pleased we are going forward, hell, small steps for mankind, but we are fifty years behind on this crap, and I'm sick of this country being held down by a ★■◆● healthcare system!

Posted: **Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:53 pm**

Dakatsu wrote: I want a national healthcare plan, no matter the cost.

thats easy to say when you do not yet pay taxes

There shouldn't be a price on life,

But thats EXACTLY what Managed healthcare is. putting a price of your life, by denying certain proceedures because they cost too much

It's a bunch of ***** Obama, when you keep the military budget the same and then talk about needing to get revenue for your health-care plan (which I like to call Health-Care Lite™). We can't afford to give healthcare to everyone but we can spend 50% more than the entire European Union on weapons? That's *****!

I'm pleased we are going forward, hell, small steps for mankind, but we are fifty years behind on this crap, and I'm sick of this country being held down by a ***** healthcare system!

universal healthcare will never get passed, the Democrats know it. this is all just a smoke screen. the politicians want to stay in power and when the rubber meets the road and their constituants start screaming at them about the mounting debt. they will vote against it. its all just politics

Posted: **Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:33 pm**

“Your future is managed, your freedom a joke…but you don’t know the difference, while you put on the yoke.”

Posted: **Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:23 pm**

Spidey wrote:“Your future is managed, your freedom a joke…but you don’t know the difference, while you put on the yoke.”

hehe, i see what you did there.

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:18 am**

woodchip wrote:So there you have it ladies and germs, whats good enough for the goose is NOT good enough for the gander. Having never been a leader of anything, I guess Obama's idea of leadership is simply one of throwing the meat picked bone to the hounds and consider them fed.

I don't get the outrage over this. Isn't the plan just supposed to provide the most needy with a decent basic level of health care? Why is it a problem that Obama - or anyone rich for that matter - can buy more and better treatment beyond this basic plan? I might totally be misunderstanding things, but aren't you here criticizing Obama for not being socialistic ENOUGH?

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:36 am**

Pandora, what is going to happen is all those employer who supply their employee's with health care are now going to supply them with the Govt. plan as a cost saving method. Then what you will have is the vast majority of workers who may of had a decent ins. plan now will be on the Govt. plan. In short, if you are the Queen of France, don't say, \"Let them Eat Cake!\"

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:16 am**

ah, i see. just to see that we're on the same boat: you say that:

a) companies go for the cheapest health care solution
b) the cheapest one that they are giving their employees right now still provides better service than what the government option will provide.
c) so employees will loose when companies switch to the cheaper government option.

correct?

If this is the argument than the problem rests entirely on point b). If the government option provides equal service to the low cost options present right now, then nobody will loose.

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:37 am**

The operative word is \"If\"

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:55 am**

Pandora wrote:Isn't the plan just supposed to provide the most needy with a decent basic level of health care?

Nope. The most needy already have a decent basic level of health CARE, which they get simply by going to the doctor and not paying, and then those of us who do pay (through our "insurance" which should actually be called "bulk payment") cover the cost. What they don't have is health COVERAGE, which is a system wherein the government uses our tax dollars to pay for that health care while the rest of us still pay the same price as we do now. In other words, my dollars already pay for the needy's health care, this just makes me pay for it twice over.

That, in itself, is bad enough. The thing that makes it worse is that we'd be forced to pay the same price for inferior coverage, and only the extremely rich or powerful would be able to go outside the system.

If Obama proposed a system along the lines of "super-basic health care coverage accounts for the most needy" (that worked much like EBT) and paired it with other reforms to "insurance", malpractice, up-front disclosure of costs, etc. so that health care costs came down, it wouldn't be quite so objectionable.

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:49 pm**

Also, most States have their own version of health care for those who can't a program or don't have one via their employer. It's part of the welfare/food stamp system (well, not directly, but the same dept.)

Federal health care isn't NEEDED.

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:55 pm**

BUT!! BUT!!

How will you take care of the Democrat Voting illegals if you dont

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:01 pm**

CUDA wrote:BUT!! BUT!!

How will you take care of the Democrat Voting illegals if you dont

3.85 kilotons of thermite!

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:35 pm**

Duper wrote:
CUDA wrote:BUT!! BUT!!

How will you take care of the Democrat Voting illegals if you dont
3.85 kilotons of thermite!

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:39 pm**

Lothar wrote:The most needy already have a decent basic level of health CARE, which they get simply by going to the doctor and not paying...

Duper wrote:Also, most States have their own version of health care for those who can't a program or don't have one via their employer.

I've heard these arguments before, and they're true to some extent, but I'm not sure I completely buy the argument being made.

It's true the poor can get emergency care without having to pay for it, and there are a number of assistance programs out there. However, when it comes to other areas of care like diagnostic tests, prescriptions, and non-elective surgery, it can be almost impossible for people to get the care they need without coverage.

Note: Before someone takes shots at me for being some kind of liberal, don't bother; I'm not. I don't support a huge federal plan like this. But I don't buy the argument that says the poorest in our country already have adequate care, either.

--------

P.S. Personally, I find it nothing less than sickening when people make arguments from a self-centric (or ethno-centric) "my $$ shouldn't be used to help *those* people" perspective. Even when it's said as a joke.

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:52 pm**

We have the Oregon health plan for those that qualify here in Oregon State. Normally, you have to be below \"poverty level\" which is something like 36K/year +/-.

It's not an \"argument\", it's a resource for folks who can't get health care. It's also available to illegals. (so there!

)

got more to say, but I'm at work. pics at 11!

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:34 pm**

Foil wrote: P.S. Personally, I find it nothing less than sickening when people make arguments from a self-centric (or ethno-centric) "my $$ shouldn't be used to help *those* people" perspective. Even when it's said as a joke.

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:50 pm**

Foil wrote:...
P.S. Personally, I find it nothing less than sickening when people make arguments from a self-centric (or ethno-centric) "my $$ shouldn't be used to help *those* people" perspective. Even when it's said as a joke.

How about - "No more of my money should be taken to help any people because the government already takes far too much of it and wastes far too much of what they do take!"
Create a much wiser and much more efficient government to get more out of what they already take...that's the best I can offer.

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:37 pm**

Perhaps I should be more clear; what sickens me is the perspective that says \"[group X] shouldn't be helped / aren't worth helping\", particularly when the rationale is a self-centric \"my money\" or an ethno-centric \"not my people\".

In my book, W-Rob's push for more efficient use of resources (which is perfectly appropriate) is quite different than comments like the 'thermite' crack above (which just smacks of a callous apathy).

Yeah, I may agree that a federal health program like this would likely cause more harm than good. But that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore thoughtless socio-political shots, even ones made in jest.

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 5:48 pm**

Foil wrote:Perhaps I should be more clear; what sickens me is the perspective that says "[group X] shouldn't be helped / aren't worth helping", particularly when the rationale is a self-centric "my money" or an ethno-centric "not my people"....

Well soon enough if ObamaCare is implemented we will have government accountants telling us which people "aren't worth helping" as they try and balance the ObamaCare budget. But don't worry, our fearless leaders will be exempt from those life ending decisions so their elite class will be able to bring us more and more of their wonderful compassionate legislation! The important people will be saved!

Now excuse me while I inventory my gun safe and ammo supply suddenly it seems more important than I ever imagined...that reminds me, I need to pick up a good carbine or two while they are still out there....

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:51 pm**

Foil wrote:that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore thoughtless socio-political shots, even ones made in jest.

Actually it wasnt thoughtless at all.

I am quite sick of my government TAKING the dollars that I work very hard for, and that I use to TRY and provide a living for my family.
I do things legal and above board. I pay for my own health care and my own car insurance and I do not abuse the system and I struggle mightly just to pay my bills. and yet our glorious politicians chose to give certain people a free ride. People that have not and probably will not ever contribute to that same system.

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:23 pm**

“self-centric“…lol

Code word for selfish little prix.

How dare “you” want to keep the money “you” earn, for any damn reason!

Posted: **Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:13 am**

Spidey wrote:How dare “you” want to keep the money “you” earn, for any damn reason!

I have been shamed

Posted: **Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:28 am**

Greg Mankiw weighs in on the Public Option

...Even if one accepts the president’s broader goals of wider access to health care and cost containment, his economic logic regarding the public option is hard to follow. Consumer choice and honest competition are indeed the foundation of a successful market system, but they are usually achieved without a public provider. We don’t need government-run grocery stores or government-run gas stations to ensure that Americans can buy food and fuel at reasonable prices....

...Such explicit or implicit subsidies would prevent a public plan from providing honest competition for private suppliers of health insurance. Instead, the public plan would likely undercut private firms and get an undue share of the market....

...A dominant government insurer, however, could potentially keep costs down by squeezing the suppliers of health care. This cost control works not by fostering honest competition but by thwarting it....

...To be sure, squeezing suppliers would have unpleasant side effects. Over time, society would end up with fewer doctors and other health care workers. The reduced quantity of services would somehow need to be rationed among competing demands. Such rationing is unlikely to work well....

Naturally, one should read the whole thing.

Edit: There are a number of other articles over at Mankiw's blog. He also links an article from a few years back where Milton Friedman explains health savings accounts, where he also provides a little background on how we got to this point in the first place -

The revival of the company store for medicine has less to do with logic than pure chance. It is a wonderful example of how one bad government policy leads to another. During World War II, the government financed much wartime spending by printing money while, at the same time, imposing wage and price controls. The resulting repressed inflation produced shortages of many goods and services, including labor. Firms competing to acquire labor at government-controlled wages started to offer medical care as a fringe benefit. That benefit proved particularly attractive to workers and spread rapidly.

Initially, employers did not report the value of the fringe benefit to the Internal Revenue Service as part of their workers’ wages. It took some time before the IRS realized what was going on. When it did, it issued regulations requiring employers to include the value of medical care as part of reported employees’ wages. By this time, workers had become accustomed to the tax exemption of that particular fringe benefit and made a big fuss. Congress responded by legislating that medical care provided by employers should be tax-exempt.

Posted: **Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:06 am**

Of course it was biased. Obama gets his own exclusive interview. The republican congress asked for their own interview, ABC turned them down flatly. They offered to pay for their own commercial space, ABC turned them down flatly.

DescentBB

The Donkey and the Da Man

The Donkey and the Da Man

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: The Donkey and the Da Man

Re: The Donkey and the Da Man

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: