Legislators have health care tunnel vision

Jos. Smith

Wed Aug 5 2009 00:05

Sam is hilarious. We should ban coffee!

Did Moroni tell you to say that?

Jeff

Tue Jul 21 2009 22:27

No, what has failed us is people like you that think the government is the answer to everything. Over the last thirty years, federal mandates on private health insurance have increased from 252 to almost 2,000, causing the cost of everyone's insurance to go up. That is a problem, a relevant FACT. Also, illegal aliens are not the only problem with our health care system, another thing you would have seen in my posts if you COULD read. I also mentioned abuse and malpractice lawsuits, there is a definite need for reform there. Obama is the one talking about socialism, his ideas are based on socialist principles (and that's a FACT.) I don't attack you personally for your inability to notice what I have posted and your inability to synthezise relevant facts, I feel sorry for you. I feel sorry that you think Obam-Pelosi-Reid care is right for America. I feel sorry for you that you would sympathize with the idea of stealing from those who earn their own living and giving to those who won't help themselves. You should probably pursue a career in England or Canada where government health care is already a reality, you would probably feel cozy in such an environment, which is also sad.

DesignerGenes

Tue Jul 21 2009 18:19

Who said anything about socialism? The argument that what's needed is more of what's failed us is illogical. One method used trying to make such arguments is to confuse the issue with unrelated statements of gibberish. The hogwash of "illegal aliens" being the cause of the failure of the American health care system is such gibberish. Another method used is stating facts that aren't facts. And of course, there's always the old fall-back of personal attack. Thank you, I read just fine.

Jeff

Mon Jul 20 2009 23:22

Designer Genes,
Do you not know how to read? Where did i mention that I sanctioned the republican party? I'm disgusted with the party for whoring itself out as much as the Democrat party does. I am a conservative, not a republican, and conservatism WORKS when applied, not when people pretend to implement it and throw kick backs to their big business buddies. How many politicians have actually worked to reform immigration and close the gaping holes in our land borders? I would presonally donate $100 and four weeks of manual labor to the construction of the great wall of america on our southern border. I believe in America first, not like our elected officials that only care about themselves. Conservatism has never failed anyone, the only failure that comes when conservatism is the guiding idealogy is when people fail themselves. take a reading comprehension class. Conservatism works, freedom works, socialism does not.

DesignerGenes

Thu Jul 9 2009 19:02

More of what's failed us is always the Republican way.

Jeff

Wed Jul 8 2009 17:04

I love you, Designer Genes, by throwing what could have been a rational statement out the window by mentioning "the last 8 years" as a source of everything that is wrong with the health care industry. Bravo for barfing all over yourself in the conclusion of your statement. Over regulation, abuse by the uninsured, and government's inability to control the flow of illegal immigrants are the problems with health care, read my previous posts and try to apply some reading comprehension. Capitalism is not license for unethical business practices, conservatives don't believe in letting the "surplus population die," instead, send the people back to Mexico who came here ILLEGALLY, we will gladly pay for their deportation instead of their medical bills. It is immoral to obligate a person to pay for the health care of others under penalty of taxes. I wish we had unregulated capitalism, I wish that the private ownership of property was not infringed upon like it is today by state and federal law. Political collusion (back room deals) is not capitalism. Corporate "monstership" is not capitalism. I would say, however, how grateful I am to corporations that provide health care to their employees at the corporations' expense, that is a job well done. Most corporations take care of their own. Also, the government's move to nationalize health care, not capitalism, it is socialism and it is evil. You are quick to criticize non medical personal who supposedly "short changed" health insurance customers. I remind you that the federal government is "King" (or Czar, if you will) of short changing its citizens when its unelected and elected officials who don't know what they are doing are appointed to regulate and make decisions on behalf of the fed. Barack Hussein Obama is a prime example of someone who knows nothing about what he is doing. He is pushing for obamunization (nationalization or "change") of the health care system when he himself knows as much about health care as I do about landing a jet on the Hudson River.

DesignerGenes

Mon Jul 6 2009 18:35

We have a declining health care delivery system in the U.S. due to the hijacking of what was once the best of the best by "entrepreneurs" and non-medical personnel determined to deliver the least for the most. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams due to the collusion of politicians who believe in uncontrolled capitalism as panacea for everything.

Without controls, capitalism (Which is the best theoretical economic system yet devised.) inevitably leads to corporate monsters gobbling everything to the detriment of the populace as a whole. "Then let them die and decrease the surplus population."

As the number of middle-class citizens forced to choose between enormous insurance premiums for nothing or food for their children's mouths increases, we must throw out the monsters who have done this to us. Mr. Hatch is one of them. Remember this: the "administrators" of HNMOs -- Health Non-Maintenance Organizations -- can and do simply ramp up once again their obscene rates in response to declining membership. The only way out is regulation, which is Change by definition, after the last eight years of Republican "let them all hang" theory.

Jeff

Sat Jul 4 2009 02:08

Aruba,
You're dead wrong! health care should not be free and it is not a right. My point is "weak" because people don't want to pay for their health care so they go to a socialist country? That doesn't make any sense. Apparently, you don't care what the constitution says, nor do you care what the founding fathers thought. Being outnumbered has never made anyone's position incorrect, the brave men who fought England for independence were grossly outnumbered, but they were right in their resolve to break away from a tyrannical government. Why should I be enslaved by the government in order to pay for others' health care??? Give me liberty or give me death! God bless America!

Aruba

Thu Jul 2 2009 15:38

But Jeff, health care should be free and it should be a right. Many Americans "flock" to other countries such as Canada and Mexico (the list goes on) to seek more affordable healthcare, meds, etc. so you're arguement is a weak one. Sorry, buddy. You're outnumbered on this post!

Reese

Wed Jul 1 2009 13:57

Without affixing generalized labels like "communism/socialism" from the Right, and "government is the answer" from the Left, John has failed to make any valid points. Yes, he's writing in the opinion column, presumably because you don't have to have any evidence to support an opinion, but you cannot ignore history.

The Federal Government began "making health care more efficient" in the 1960's by creating HMO's and the current Managed Care system that so many of us complain about. A Democratic Party controlled Federal Government changed the system so that health insurance no longer functioned as "insurance," but as an all encompassing medical payment system. Do you bill your car insurance company for an oil change? Do you bill your homeowners insurance company when you install new door locks or windows? Then why do we bill our health insurance companies when we go in for a routine check up?

Insurance is about assessing risk. If you have several speeding tickets, drive a sports car, and have been involved in an accident, your automobile insurance rates will be higher because you pose more of a risk to the insurance company than someone who drives a Toyota Corolla with a clean driving record. Health Insurance companies can no longer manage high risk situations (necessary surgery, cancer, etc) because they are being billed for everything from routine doctors visits to cosmetic plastic surgery.

The United States of America still has the best Health Care in the World, but your Health Care System is broken. But who broke it? The Federal Government! They interfered with the Free Market system with disastrous consequences.

John Stafford, you are entitled to your opinion, but as usual your opinion is wrong and you fail to look at the larger picture when you're whining about the Evil Republicans.

Jeff

Tue Jun 30 2009 02:17

Bob, Bob, Bob, I'm sorry, but you fell into a common misconception of what socialism is and what it isn't. Socialism does not include the military, police departments, road construction, fire departments, CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security. Such departments would fall under the category of "Federalism," a concept discussed thoroughly during the creation of the Constitution. We can do without social security and medicare, which are socialist, national programs (and even the post office can be done away with since it is federally subsidized to stay alive). Under federalism, states have the power to make law and exercise certain authority so long as it doesn't violate the constitution, leaving the federal government responsible for such things as national security. Under essay #39 of the "Federalist Papers", James Madison describes the Constitution drafted before its ratification as not wholly national nor federal in nature. Not completely national meaning that the central government would not be able to exercise absolute supremacy over its citizens and not completely federal in that the Constitution doesn't require 100% concurrence from the individual states in order for the central government to act. Programs like medicare, medicaid, social security, and the community reinvestment act are socialist in that the national government gains another piece of supremacy over its citizens that does not require total authorization on the behalf of the states, but only a simple majority is needed, it therefore is socialist because it is a national authority issue. I reject your opinion that my views are from the "far right." If Madison is correct, (with whom I agree on issues of government) then it is the national government and the public that have run far to the left because they have abandoned many of the federalist principles that maintain authority on the state level and they have allowed the national government to gain too much absolute power.

Jeff

Tue Jun 30 2009 02:16

Bob, Bob, Bob, I'm sorry, but you fell into a common misconception of what socialism is and what it isn't. Socialism does not include the military, police departments, road construction, fire departments, CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security. Such departments would fall under the category of "Federalism," a concept discussed thoroughly during the creation of the Constitution. We can do without social security and medicare, which are socialist, national programs (and even the post office can be done away with since it is federally subsidized to stay alive). Under federalism, states have the power to make law and exercise certain authority so long as it doesn't violate the constitution, leaving the federal government responsible for such things as national security. Under essay #39 of the "Federalist Papers", James Madison describes the Constitution drafted before its ratification as not wholly national nor federal in nature. Not completely national meaning that the central government would not be able to exercise absolute supremacy over its citizens and not completely federal in that the Constitution doesn't require 100% concurrence from the individual states in order for the central government to act. Programs like medicare, medicaid, social security, and the community reinvestment act are socialist in that the national government gains another piece of supremacy over its citizens that does not require total authorization on the behalf of the states, but only a simple majority is needed, it therefore is socialist because it is a national authority issue. I reject your opinion that my views are from the "far right." If Madison is correct, (with whom I agree on issues of government) then it is the national government and the public that have run far to the left because they have abandoned many of the federalist principles that maintain authority on the state level and they have allowed the national government to gain too much absolute power. Also, the concept of getting something while giving nothing is indeed socialist (social security, welfare programs in general.) In addition, socialism is by definition any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy (For example, Obama's take over of General Motors = socialist.) The only way in which the entities you mention (such as the military and police departments) become socialist is when people who live in a society no longer contribute to maintain the originally federalist programs because of a corrupt tax code and then the people who contribute are abusively taxed to make up the difference. Certain people like children, some disabled people, and the nearly dead cannot work to sustain themselves, in such cases exceptions can be made. But when the exception includes the physically capable who are exempt from taxes because they only earn 30,000 a year or receive welfare even though they don't work is indeed socialist, evil, immoral, and wrong (should I keep going?)
p.s. I see you get your talking points from CNN's T.V heads. I suggest you consult multiple sources, especially the federalist and anti-federalist papers, as well as the constitution and the declaration of independence.

Jeff

Tue Jun 30 2009 02:15

Bob, Bob, Bob, I'm sorry, but you fell into a common misconception of what socialism is and what it isn't. Socialism does not include the military, police departments, road construction, fire departments, CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security. Such departments would fall under the category of "Federalism," a concept discussed thoroughly during the creation of the Constitution. We can do without social security and medicare, which are socialist, national programs (and even the post office can be done away with since it is federally subsidized to stay alive). Under federalism, states have the power to make law and exercise certain authority so long as it doesn't violate the constitution, leaving the federal government responsible for such things as national security. Under essay #39 of the "Federalist Papers", James Madison describes the Constitution drafted before its ratification as not wholly national nor federal in nature. Not completely national meaning that the central government would not be able to exercise absolute supremacy over its citizens and not completely federal in that the Constitution doesn't require 100% concurrence from the individual states in order for the central government to act. Programs like medicare, medicaid, social security, and the community reinvestment act are socialist in that the national government gains another piece of supremacy over its citizens that does not require total authorization on the behalf of the states, but only a simple majority is needed, it therefore is socialist because it is a national authority issue. I reject your opinion that my views are from the "far right." If Madison is correct, (with whom I agree on issues of government) then it is the national government and the public that have run far to the left because they have abandoned many of the federalist principles that maintain authority on the state level and they have allowed the national government to gain too much absolute power. Also, the concept of getting something while giving nothing is indeed socialist (social security, welfare programs in general.) In addition, socialism is by definition any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy (For example, Obama's take over of General Motors = socialist.) The only way in which the entities you mention (such as the military and police departments) become socialist is when people who live in a society no longer contribute to maintain the originally federalist programs because of a corrupt tax code and then the people who contribute are abusively taxed to make up the difference. Certain people like children, some disabled people, and the nearly dead cannot work to sustain themselves, in such cases exceptions can be made. But when the exception includes the physically capable who are exempt from taxes because they only earn 30,000 a year or receive welfare even though they don't work is indeed socialist, evil, immoral, and wrong (should I keep going?)
p.s. I see you get your talking points from CNN's T.V heads. I suggest you consult multiple sources, especially the federalist and anti-federalist papers, as well as the constitution and the declaration of independence.

Bob

Tue Jun 30 2009 01:22

From what I've seen, the United States is really good at very expensive, high-end surgeries and technologies, and merely average or below average at everyday things. In other words, we're exceptional at treatments people can barely, if at all, afford. What good is a high end system when it's financially out of reach to people who need it?

Bob

Tue Jun 30 2009 01:21

Jeff I wonder if you and the other far-right Neo-McCarthyites are willing to give up "socialist" government-run services like: -Public schools -Police departments -Postal service -Fire departments -Roads -Social Security -Medicare -The military -Homeland Security -The CIA -The FBI.....must I go on ?

Bob

Tue Jun 30 2009 01:16

Jeff -
I see you have received your "talking points" right out of the republican talking points book on health care.

Sam

Mon Jun 29 2009 17:43

I would like to point out that recently a high ranking Obama cabinet staff member was asked to name a country that has implemented universal government paid healthcare successfully. I will now like to quote his response, it was "I don't know...", which is the problem, no country that has universal healthcare, has it working correctly. The Europeans that are so idolized by US Democrats, continually complain about their own health care systems! You all really should watch CSPAN when they cover the House of Commons in Britain, and routinely complain about their health system, do we really want to copy that? The reason for this is that it can't be done solely by use of government dollars from our taxes. Private and Corporate insurance is best for the masses, and only limited (no frills care) at government expense for the certified, documented poor by the IRS. It should never be given free at tax-payer expense to Lexus driving, iPhone loving, Fancy Vacation taking moochers. If you want a private hospital room, you'd better have good insurance, and so on. Also, we need to move all the illegal aliens back to where they came from, so that they quit going to the ER at all of our hospitals, while running up big bills and then taking off without paying. Additionally, we need to ban all tobacco, alcohol, tea and coffee products which continually cause major unnecessary claims on the health care system. In conclusion, some University students who gravitate toward the left-end of the political spectrum think they want free universal health coverage at tax-payer expsense while they're in school, young and usually relatively healthy. I wonder though if they will still feel the same when they are out of school, have a full-time job where they will have to pay higher taxes, and are older with more health problems? I'll bet they won't like it when they go to the ER under ObamaCare and get to wait forever while they writhe in pain! I also think they'll hate it when they don't get to choose their physician, or when all the good physicians go get other types of jobs instead that have less red tape! Obama wants says he still want private and corporate insurance. However, his plan will pretty much put everyone on government paid health care and drive private and corporate insurance out. We will have an even bigger deficit if Obama mania health care isn't nipped in the bud.

Jeff

Mon Jun 29 2009 17:40

The doctors laughingly said "we're not in America" and said the bill would be nil because they know that England operates under a socialist health care system and that the people of England would be paying for your daughter's expensive doctor's visit. That puts England's health care system to shame; make everyone else pay for your problems, force other people to cover the bill for your daughter. That's called slavery, and shame on you for passing the buck and making someone else pay for your family's needs, that's right, shame on YOU. And yes, the AMERICAN system is still the best in the world, the only fear mongering that you could pull from my posts is if you are afraid of the facts, which tends to be the case for die-hard progressive types. You would suppose that we conservatives don't care about anything but ourselves and that you progressive commies have the "feelings" department under control. You would have people believe that you really "care" about others, because its not fair to have to pay to have the best doctor around come and look at your kid. Its not fair to have to pay for health care, or a house, or a car, or a credit card bill, or anything in the liberal Utopian Obamaland.

Archie

Mon Jun 29 2009 16:57

The fear-mongering by Jeff is typical of the Bush administration years. The comment that our health care system is the best in the world is real head-in-the-sand parroting of right-wing talking heads. We lived in England for six years and saw a national health system that puts ours to shame. When our daughter was diagnosed with a rare blood virus, the top hemotologist in Europe came to consult on her case. We were worried about what that would cost, and the docs laughingly said we were not in America, and the cost would be nil.

Jeff

Sat Jun 27 2009 18:44

The current system is not working, why then do people flock here from all over the world to have surgery done? There is no "have and have not" as you put it so eloquently into a false application of rich and poor politics. The same people who "have not", as you say, have cable t.v., cell phones, dvd players, expensive flat screens, and cars, yet they whine and moan that they don't have money for health care because it is too expensive. I have seen many cases like these with my own eyes. The problem is not a broken health care system, the problem comes down to priorities. Health care is not a priority for many americans, whining about it is. If it was a priority, people would make behavioral changes to pay for their own coverage. Not to mention the federal government's involvement in driving up the cost of health care. Thirty years ago, there were 252 federal mandates on health insurance to require insurance companies to cover the cost of certain procedures or services. Today, there are almost 2,000 federal mandates on private health insurance, requiring insurance companies to cover things they shouldn't have to like marriage therapy or alcohol and drug abuse rehab. Also, the Austin American Statesmen ( a newspaper) reported that "In the past six years, eight people from Austin and one from Luling [Texas] racked up 2,678 emergency room visits in Central Texas, costing hospitals, taxpayers and others $3 million, according to a report from a nonprofit made up of hospitals and other providers that care for the uninsured and low-income Central Texans." Nine people in six years went to one emergency room 2,600 times. This points out something that is never discussed in health care by the Democrats, and that is the abuse of the system by American citizens -- abuse that is paid for by everybody else.