The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Chuck to Chuck]

I did enjoy that the President gave an example of private competing with public: the Post Office vs. Fed Ex and UPS. I'm sure he wants to rethink that.

He's going to preserve disoorder.

[Gil Gunderson]

MikeC, I appreciate the fact that you shared that story with us.  I'm not being sarcastic at all; it was actually quite insightful.  But, I do not see how you can make mention of all of those various and sundry difficulties that you mentioned and then come back with tort reform as the answer.  It's like using rubber bands to take out an aircraft carrier.  Oh sure, you may hit a flight deck officer in the eye or something, and maybe, if his footing was off, he'll go overboard, resulting in the backup flight deck officer having to come up and take his place, but what are you going to do with rubber bands?  Take out two or three guys, at most?  Come on, don't be silly.

But in all sincerity, I just don't think anything will convince you otherwise on healthcare.  I don't think you can appreciate the moral imperative.  Whether it comes from an innate resistance to public assistance or something else, nothing will convince you that it is in this country's best interest to provide health care for its citizens.  Sure, other advanced countries have gotten on board with it, and while they are certainly still working out the kinks in their systems, they are at least attempting something, rather than allowing their own citizens to die from problems that in all likelihood were treatable. 

We can argue about waste in government, like the Congress' ordering of jets for itself, or about the efficacy of certain programs, like CARS.  But we shouldn't get away from that base level of services that the government provides, and health care, just like the military or law enforcement, is one such service.  And guess what, taxes are going to have to pay for those things, and yes, probably go up (the past twenty five years or so of rampant deficit spending has assured that regardless), but taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society, and if mine need to go up so that someone like yourself can get the quality that you deserved, I have no problem with that.

[Chuck to Chuck]

But we shouldn't get away from that base level of services that the government provides, and health care, just like the military or law enforcement, is one such service.

No.

Following that logic, there's nothing that the government shouldn't provide.  How about food service?  Transportation would all be public in your government assigned car.  Why not jobs?

There is a theory, to which I subscribe, that the purpose of a government in a capitalistic system is to provide markets that the free market does not efficiently provide.  That means, things that cannot be done efficiently for a profit.  Among those would be roads, police, military, and fire protection.  One could further argue schools, but at a little more of a stretch.

Can you make the argument for health care?  I'm not sure.  But the current system sure seems inefficient to me.  Does that health care doesn't work "for profit"?  Not necessarily.  But I am willing to consider a not-for-profit alternative.

[Oleg]

But we shouldn't get away from that base level of services that the government provides, and health care, just like the military or law enforcement, is one such service.

No.

Following that logic, there's nothing that the government shouldn't provide.  How about food service?  Transportation would all be public in your government assigned car.  Why not jobs?

Do you mean like free lunches for poor children?  Or food stamps?

Do you mean like the govn't subsidized igocars or rideshare programs (VIP on Pace?)?

Or, do you mean that there's no private military like Blackwater?  Or no private law enforcement like security companies (Securitas)?

[PenFoe]

MikeC, I appreciate the fact that you shared that story with us.  I'm not being sarcastic at all; it was actually quite insightful.  But, I do not see how you can make mention of all of those various and sundry difficulties that you mentioned and then come back with tort reform as the answer.  It's like using rubber bands to take out an aircraft carrier.  Oh sure, you may hit a flight deck officer in the eye or something, and maybe, if his footing was off, he'll go overboard, resulting in the backup flight deck officer having to come up and take his place, but what are you going to do with rubber bands?  Take out two or three guys, at most?  Come on, don't be silly.

But in all sincerity, I just don't think anything will convince you otherwise on healthcare.  I don't think you can appreciate the moral imperative.  Whether it comes from an innate resistance to public assistance or something else, nothing will convince you that it is in this country's best interest to provide health care for its citizens.  Sure, other advanced countries have gotten on board with it, and while they are certainly still working out the kinks in their systems, they are at least attempting something, rather than allowing their own citizens to die from problems that in all likelihood were treatable. 

We can argue about waste in government, like the Congress' ordering of jets for itself, or about the efficacy of certain programs, like CARS.  But we shouldn't get away from that base level of services that the government provides, and health care, just like the military or law enforcement, is one such service.  And guess what, taxes are going to have to pay for those things, and yes, probably go up (the past twenty five years or so of rampant deficit spending has assured that regardless), but taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society, and if mine need to go up so that someone like yourself can get the quality that you deserved, I have no problem with that.

Shooting rubber bands at the troops?
It all makes sense now, troophater.

[CBStew]

Finally after a year or so dealing with this it happened again on a trip to Denver. Went to the emergency room there and this time finally someone listened, sent me in for a CT scan and figured out what was wrong. It was my appendix. One of the simpliest diagnosis and procedures in medicine.

Mixed into this was a visit to a primary care physcian at the new local community health center. One of those centers that would probably be the centerpiece of Obamacare. My visit with the Doc lasted 30 seconds and she came up with the bright idea it was Acid Reflux (i had no symptoms of it) and gave me sample pills to treat it. She also recommended cutting out Alcohol and spicy foods. I wasn't too impressed with the hurry up get me out so i can move onto the next patient.

To go along with that my girlfriends kids had some kind of rash and we went to the same place. She has all the nice government health plans for low income people and doesn't pay a dime. Again 30 seconds its just a normal rash going around put this cream on it, it should be fine. It wasn't fine the rash wasn't going away. 2nd visit same thing different cream, again no reaction. I did a little research on the internet and narrowed it down to a form of Staph infection. I have no medical knowledge so i could have been way off. 3rd time i asked could we do a culture on it and maybe see what the fuck we are dealing with? They did that and it came back Staph infection and prescribed some heavy anti-biotics to finally get rid of it. Again not impressed with the hurry up get you out move onto the next person.

Anyways $10,000 wasted at Emergency rooms in Iowa, to not figure out what was going on, and $26,000 dollars in Denver for surgery on my Appendix with zero health insurance and not working at the time.
The problem really isn't insurance companies its our sue happy society. Doctors have to pay massive malpractice insurance which gets passed onto the public. If we could figure out how to protect the doctors and stop alot of these frivolous lawsuits costs would come down without the government getting involved.

Good for you.  You describe three episodes of medical malpractice, one of which could easily have been fatal, yet you don't want to sue.  That is your right.  Apparently the missed diagnoses which you described did not cause any physical injury to you or your girlfriend, but they could easily have had serious consequences.   Labeling people who have been physically harmed and sue doctors as "sue happy" is just wrong.  By the way, we lawyers (who sue doctors) also pay massive malpractice premiums to protect the public from us.

[BC]

But in all sincerity, I just don't think anything will convince you otherwise on healthcare.  I don't think you can appreciate the moral imperative.  Whether it comes from an innate resistance to public assistance or something else, nothing will convince you that it is in this country's best interest to provide health care for its citizens.  

Whether or not it is in this country's "best interest" for everyone to have proper health care isn't a question. The issue is whether or not the Constitution provides the power for the federal government to be able to provide the kind of health care coverage that is being discussed. I personally don't think it does, however the beauty of the Constitution is that it allows our representatives to discuss and debate policy proposals, vote on those proposals, and then after those decisions are made the voters decide to either keep their representatives or throw them out of office.

[Quality Start Machine]

But in all sincerity, I just don't think anything will convince you otherwise on healthcare.  I don't think you can appreciate the moral imperative.  Whether it comes from an innate resistance to public assistance or something else, nothing will convince you that it is in this country's best interest to provide health care for its citizens.  

Whether or not it is in this country's "best interest" for everyone to have proper health care isn't a question. The issue is whether or not the Constitution provides the power for the federal government to be able to provide the kind of health care coverage that is being discussed. I personally don't think it does, however the beauty of the Constitution is that it allows our representatives to discuss and debate policy proposals, vote on those proposals, and then after those decisions are made the voters decide to either keep their representatives or throw them out of office.

It's covered in the "general welfare" part of the Preamble.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Whether or not it is in this country's "best interest" for everyone to have proper health care isn't a question. The issue is whether or not the Constitution provides the power for the federal government to be able to provide the kind of health care coverage that is being discussed. I personally don't think it does

How Yellonesque.  Between the "necessary and proper" clause and the commerce clause, your belief is equal to that of a Flat Earther.

To argue whether or not the Congress has the power to do this is simply wrong.  To argue whether they should is wholly germane.

[RV]

Here's Zeke, then.

So what part of Zeke's paper do you have a problem with? I think we've had the rationing discussion before. If you believe that health care is a privilege rather than a right, aren't you saying that it should be allocated to those who can afford it? Isn't Zeke just arguing for a different type of allocation system than the current one?

As to Kurt's point, I'd agree that Palin's "death panel" rant leans more toward factually incorrect fearmongering than just "incendiary" language.

Here's Zeke's response to that bullplop McCaughey article:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1915835,00.html

"I couldn't believe this was happening to me," says Emanuel, who in addition to spending his career opposing euthanasia and working to increase the quality of care for dying patients is the brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. "It is incredible how much one's reputation can be besmirched and taken out of context."

For decades, Emanuel has studied the ethics of medical care, especially in situations where a scarcity of resources requires hard decisions to be made. His work sometimes deals with the hardest possible decisions, like how to choose who gets a single kidney if there are three patients in need, or the reasons that doctors order tests with little medical value. Emanuel's reputation ranks him among the top members of his field. He is published often in the best journals; he has been given multiple awards for work to improve end-of-life care.

And today's installment of nonsensical fear mongering from the LEGITIMATE NEWS REPORTING arm of Fox News:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/keeping_a_list_checking_it_twi.cfm

Video here.

[morpheus]

In any event, I can only ask what would happen if you, MikeC, were unemployed, and without health insurance.  We won't even consider your eligibility for Medicaid, for which you probably wouldn't qualify.

To be perfectly honest that happened to me earlier this year. Prior to last January for the last year plus every couple months i would have a bad case of stomach cramps. Bad enough that i had to go to the emergency room a few times for them to stop me from throwing up and stop the pain. It was really unbearable pain. Both times they ran tests found nothing just treated me for the naseua and pain and sent me home. After the 2nd time they sent me in for an Ultra Sound, again nothing wrong.

Finally after a year or so dealing with this it happened again on a trip to Denver. Went to the emergency room there and this time finally someone listened, sent me in for a CT scan and figured out what was wrong. It was my appendix. One of the simpliest diagnosis and procedures in medicine.

Mixed into this was a visit to a primary care physcian at the new local community health center. One of those centers that would probably be the centerpiece of Obamacare. My visit with the Doc lasted 30 seconds and she came up with the bright idea it was Acid Reflux (i had no symptoms of it) and gave me sample pills to treat it. She also recommended cutting out Alcohol and spicy foods. I wasn't too impressed with the hurry up get me out so i can move onto the next patient.

To go along with that my girlfriends kids had some kind of rash and we went to the same place. She has all the nice government health plans for low income people and doesn't pay a dime. Again 30 seconds its just a normal rash going around put this cream on it, it should be fine. It wasn't fine the rash wasn't going away. 2nd visit same thing different cream, again no reaction. I did a little research on the internet and narrowed it down to a form of Staph infection. I have no medical knowledge so i could have been way off. 3rd time i asked could we do a culture on it and maybe see what the fuck we are dealing with? They did that and it came back Staph infection and prescribed some heavy anti-biotics to finally get rid of it. Again not impressed with the hurry up get you out move onto the next person.

Anyways $10,000 wasted at Emergency rooms in Iowa, to not figure out what was going on, and $26,000 dollars in Denver for surgery on my Appendix with zero health insurance and not working at the time. And I still don't want so called free health care and believe the state has zero responsibility to provide it for you. They can regulate it but running health care? No fucking way should the federal government be involved.

The problem really isn't insurance companies its our sue happy society. Doctors have to pay massive malpractice insurance which gets passed onto the public. If we could figure out how to protect the doctors and stop alot of these frivolous lawsuits costs would come down without the government getting involved.

Another area is getting new drugs past the FDA, putting a new drug on the market is insanley expensive and time consuming. For once i advocate a system like Europe or Canada that is less regulated and allows people access to newer drugs more quickly. Also costs for these drugs seem to be far lower than in the USA.

CT Scans never show anything anyway - they're rather nondescript.

[Jon]

CT Scans never show anything anyway - they're rather nondescript.

I'm not sure whether to groan or applaud.

[Quality Start Machine]

CT Scans never show anything anyway - they're rather nondescript.

I'm not sure whether to groan or applaud.

Neither. Wonder when the 10 photoshops are coming.

[CBStew]

Maybe German politics are even sillier than ours.


"Debate is raging in Germany over whether a campaign poster using a now infamous photograph of Chancellor Angela Merkel in a deep-cut evening gown is cleverly ironic or downright tacky.

However you see it, the poster is adding some spice to what is shaping up to be an otherwise dull campaign leading up to Sept. 27 German parliamentary elections.

The poster shows a picture of Christian Democrat candidate Vera Lengsfeld, 57, in a low-cut evening gown alongside a well-known 2008 photo of Merkel, the party leader, taken at her appearance at the gala opening of Oslo's opera house.

"We have more to offer," reads the slogan under the revealing photos of the two women's chests — a twist on the Christian Democrats official slogan, "We have the power."









Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/13/international/i100637D19.DTL#ixzz0O6k9y2To

[thehawk]

Maybe German politics are even sillier than ours.


"Debate is raging in Germany over whether a campaign poster using a now infamous photograph of Chancellor Angela Merkel in a deep-cut evening gown is cleverly ironic or downright tacky.

However you see it, the poster is adding some spice to what is shaping up to be an otherwise dull campaign leading up to Sept. 27 German parliamentary elections.

The poster shows a picture of Christian Democrat candidate Vera Lengsfeld, 57, in a low-cut evening gown alongside a well-known 2008 photo of Merkel, the party leader, taken at her appearance at the gala opening of Oslo's opera house.

"We have more to offer," reads the slogan under the revealing photos of the two women's chests — a twist on the Christian Democrats official slogan, "We have the power."









Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/13/international/i100637D19.DTL#ixzz0O6k9y2To

Thanks Stew, always good to keep abreast of European affairs.