You said: "Feathers, tar, rail - some assembly required..."
I say, rope, tree, congress critter... Some assembly required!
This is getting past the point of being nice. These people need to be put in their place, and if we don't do it soon, we won't have anything left with which to fight!
TCM: It's like what I said in another thread. Of course he's willing to lose his job. It doesn't actually matter. Once he's a "made man" in the DC scene, short of being found with a live boy or a dead girl, he'll get some fat lobbyist job once he's out of office.
The penalty of "losing his position" is clearly not enough to dissuade him, or most of these people.
Well, I'm happy for two reasons. One, Kevin is encouraging people to get involved in the political process. Two, that the CSM is being used as a source on this blog. I have been reading this publication for 25 years and have found it to be an excellent source of actual news (see: no Michael Jackson stories). In addition they are largely unbiased and engage regularly in critical thinking. I thought it would be a drag when they switched to a weekly but it's actually improved their reporting.
Fascinating! No comment about the content of the CSM peice? I noiced that you "reviewed" the bills and found nothing really wrong with them, except perhaps they didn't go far enough. now the "largely unbiased" and "critical thinking" CSM comes along with an alarmist piece and you have nothing to say about their criticisms? What, their "inner rage" isn't escaping?
I commented overall on health care in a below thread. Wanted to get that out of the way first and respond to you.
I think the criticism is great. Granted, it was from the opinion page of the CSM but I think those portions of the bill deserve it. If people don't want insurance, they shouldn't be forced to have it. Should those same people be denied treatment if they can't pay for it? That's the real question.
Markadelphia, there are FIVE paragraphs reviewed by CSM - only ONE of which has to do with health care COVERAGE. The other five have to do with PRIVACY. No comment about those?
And those people without insurance now - they don't receive any health care? None?
"Should those same people be denied treatment if they can't pay for it?"
Five years ago, my brother's father-in-law suffered a heart attack, was hauled to a hospital emergency room by an EMS crew, saved and stabilized in ER, and admitted for treatment. The following day a quadruple cardiac bypass shunted around his clogged arteries. Four days later, his chest split open from a severe coughing fit (he was a two-pack-a-day smoker), so he went back into surgery to have his sternum re-wired and the incision re-closed, at which point his recovery started over. He continued to smoke, and so four days ago he had angioplasty to relieve partial clogging of his shunts. Yup, he still smokes.
He had no insurance then, couldn't pay for all this treatment then, has no insurance now, and can't pay for this new treatment now. It's expensive, too; the hospital bill for my triple bypass in 2005 was right at $80,000, with the cardiologist, surgeon, and anesthesiologist rounding it out to $100,000.
Teacher boy, they aren't being denied treatment. By current federal law, they can't be denied treatment even if they can't pay for it and have no insurance.
What is proposed in the House and Senate doesn't change that, but it would increase the net cost for it by several hundred billion dollars per year and add over a hundred feddle bureacracies to its administration.
Personally I think that if you want people with no money and no coverage to get healthcare anyway, you should form a private sector charity to pay for said care. That way you can provide care for those who need it (that you can pay for), those who don't wish to pay for it don't have to, and you don't have tosteal the moneyfrom anyone, which is precisely what's happening now.
Will Farrell is really passionate about making videos to support ObamaCare... but you'll notice he's not willing to spend any of his own money on those "less fortunate" than him.
Sometimes it's very difficult for me not to take the attitude of, "screw em, let em all die." Why? Because every time I see a plan to "help" them, and actually look at it, it nearly always turns out to be a sop to the two groups with the highest profit margins on the planet: Trial lawyers and film actors.
I guess I'm not as concerned about those other four paragraphs at present because the bill hasn't passed yet. In order for it to make it past Baucus, Conrad, Lieberman, Landrieu, and Nelson those paragraphs are going to be drastically altered or removed entirely. I think you need to have faith in the "Democrats."
"they aren't being denied treatment. By current federal law, they can't be denied treatment even if they can't pay for it and have no insurance."
That's true but who do you think now has to pay for his stay? The tooth fairy? We do with higher premiums. And what about the people who have insurance, have paid into it forever, and are denied coverage? I asked the question above because it speaks to privacy as well. If someone refuses coverage, fine. There should be no law forcing them to be covered. That also should mean that better well be able to afford treatment and if they can't...then what, DJ? What do you think they should do? Fuck 'em?
This all comes down to whether or not health care should be a for profit endeavor. Should it?
"you should form a private sector charity to pay for said care."
Great idea. One problem, though. It won't be enough. Private charities are great and there are many Americans who giver generously but they lack the infrastructure of the government. Add in the fact that some Americans gargle my balls. While we have many that give generously, we also have many that are the laziest, fattest selfish morons on the planet. Getting them out of their easy chairs would be a titanic endeavor.
And it's not even money that is really required. It's time. People need to give more of their time to help people. Time would go along way to solving many of our nation's problems. But many people would rather spend that time playing video games.
"By current federal law, they can't be denied treatment even if they can't pay for it and have no insurance."
That's true but who do you think now has to pay for his stay? The tooth fairy? We do with higher premiums.
Um, what? We pay higher premiums for insurance because of those who got treated for free at ERs or wherever who had no insurance to bill for the care?
No, Mark. That comes out in taxes, not in insurance premiums.
This all comes down to whether or not health care should be a for profit endeavor. Should it?
How would you have it be other than a for-profit endeavor? Enslave doctors? Force people to go to medical school?
Those people who aren't allowed to profit by their skill and labor as doctors and nurses and EMTs... how do you propose they pay their bills and feed their children?
Can they still be sued for malpractice, even though they are the indentured servants of the state?
Great idea. One problem, though. It won't be enough. Private charities are great and there are many Americans who giver generously but they lack the infrastructure of the government.
Okay, so it won't be enough. Tell that to the gazillionaires who are tellin us people who actually work for a living that we have to give more.
It's not my fault that people like Al Gore and Micheal Moore are greedy bastards. If they have all these grand plans, let them cough up the fucking cash to pay for it for a change.
And "lack the infrastructure of the government"? You say that as if it's a bad thing. Precisely because private sector endeavors "lack the infrastructure of government", they are orders of magnitude more likely to be flexible and innovative, and therefore able to actually solve problems rather than merely perpetuating a political dependency class as government programs do.
So what's it really about Mark? Do you just want a Democrat Party-progressive wing victory, or do you actually want to solve the problem?
And it's not even money that is really required. It's time. People need to give more of their time to help people. Time would go along way to solving many of our nation's problems. But many people would rather spend that time playing video games.
Tell it to Code Pink, MoveOn.org and others. If they'd spend half the time and money actually doing something that they do whining, most of the issues they grumble about would be well on the way to being addressed by now.
It's time for those who claim to be crusaders for ____________ to put their money where their mouth is.
Either ante up or damn well fold.
"That's true but who do you think now has to pay for his stay? The tooth fairy?"
I do. I'm one of those ordinary guys who pays his own way, thus I also pay the way for gazillions of people whom the gubmint told the medical industry to give a free ride to.
Teacher boy, haven't you yet understood that I complain about this? You're acting as if I think that's the way it oughta be. Are you really that blitheringly dense?
"If someone refuses coverage, fine. There should be no law forcing them to be covered."
You have been championing for months what is proposed in the House and Senate, and what is favored by Obamateur, which will, if enacted, force them to be covered. You've contradicted yourself yet again, liar boy.
"That also should mean that better well be able to afford treatment and if they can't...then what, DJ? What do you think they should do? Fuck 'em?"
Sigh ...
Proofread this crap, willya, teacher boy? Save the goddamned pronouns, fill in the missing words, and ask it in plain English.
"This all comes down to whether or not health care should be a for profit endeavor. Should it?"
Yes, of course it should. What the hell do you think made modern medical wizardry the marvelous thing it is?
You really do not understand the profit motive at all, do you?
"Private charities are great and there are many Americans who giver generously but they lack the infrastructure of the government."
Which means what, precisely? You're spouting gibberish again, teacher boy.
"Add in the fact that some Americans gargle my balls."
See? Do you really expect to be taken seriously, troll boy?
I guess I'm not as concerned about those other four paragraphs at present...
Okay. How about the flat refusal to allow tort reform?
How about the flat refusal to allow insurance companies to be subject to competition from other insurers by allowing all of them to insure people in all 50 states?
Several times I've seen you say that Democrat healthcare reform was supposed to be all about providing people with more choices at lower prices, yet the biggest, easiest and most likely to work methods of lowering prices and increasing options were not only not included, they were actively fought against by the Democratic leadership.
So tell me Mark, do you consider the refusal of tort reform and competing insurers to be a bug or a feature?
We do with higher premiums. And what about the people who have insurance, have paid into it forever, and are denied coverage?
Again, you confuse insurance coverage and health-care cost. Also, you got any examples of someone who has been denied coverage - assuming you aren't talking pre-existing condition. Hopefully something better than your corporation using force case.
This all comes down to whether or not health care should be a for profit endeavor. Should it?
There is only one way that you can't have a for-profit market in health services. You have a lot more justifying to do for that proposal than anyone else does for the status quo.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/11/christian-science-monitor-piles-on.html (17 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Call your Congresscritters. Tell them you're not kidding.
I'm not sure what good it would do. This is what I'm up against:
Bennet willing to lose election to vote for health care reform
And I'm willing to help him!
I guess he's made up his mind and isn't about to be confused by facts. I'm still letting him know what I think, though -- FWIW...
TCM
You said: "Feathers, tar, rail - some assembly required..."
I say, rope, tree, congress critter... Some assembly required!
This is getting past the point of being nice. These people need to be put in their place, and if we don't do it soon, we won't have anything left with which to fight!
TCM: It's like what I said in another thread. Of course he's willing to lose his job. It doesn't actually matter. Once he's a "made man" in the DC scene, short of being found with a live boy or a dead girl, he'll get some fat lobbyist job once he's out of office.
The penalty of "losing his position" is clearly not enough to dissuade him, or most of these people.
That's me in the corner,
That's me in the spotlight,
Losing my position....
Well, I'm happy for two reasons. One, Kevin is encouraging people to get involved in the political process. Two, that the CSM is being used as a source on this blog. I have been reading this publication for 25 years and have found it to be an excellent source of actual news (see: no Michael Jackson stories). In addition they are largely unbiased and engage regularly in critical thinking. I thought it would be a drag when they switched to a weekly but it's actually improved their reporting.
Fascinating! No comment about the content of the CSM peice? I noiced that you "reviewed" the bills and found nothing really wrong with them, except perhaps they didn't go far enough. now the "largely unbiased" and "critical thinking" CSM comes along with an alarmist piece and you have nothing to say about their criticisms? What, their "inner rage" isn't escaping?
I commented overall on health care in a below thread. Wanted to get that out of the way first and respond to you.
I think the criticism is great. Granted, it was from the opinion page of the CSM but I think those portions of the bill deserve it. If people don't want insurance, they shouldn't be forced to have it. Should those same people be denied treatment if they can't pay for it? That's the real question.
Markadelphia, there are FIVE paragraphs reviewed by CSM - only ONE of which has to do with health care COVERAGE. The other five have to do with PRIVACY. No comment about those?
And those people without insurance now - they don't receive any health care? None?
"Should those same people be denied treatment if they can't pay for it?"
Five years ago, my brother's father-in-law suffered a heart attack, was hauled to a hospital emergency room by an EMS crew, saved and stabilized in ER, and admitted for treatment. The following day a quadruple cardiac bypass shunted around his clogged arteries. Four days later, his chest split open from a severe coughing fit (he was a two-pack-a-day smoker), so he went back into surgery to have his sternum re-wired and the incision re-closed, at which point his recovery started over. He continued to smoke, and so four days ago he had angioplasty to relieve partial clogging of his shunts. Yup, he still smokes.
He had no insurance then, couldn't pay for all this treatment then, has no insurance now, and can't pay for this new treatment now. It's expensive, too; the hospital bill for my triple bypass in 2005 was right at $80,000, with the cardiologist, surgeon, and anesthesiologist rounding it out to $100,000.
Teacher boy, they aren't being denied treatment. By current federal law, they can't be denied treatment even if they can't pay for it and have no insurance.
What is proposed in the House and Senate doesn't change that, but it would increase the net cost for it by several hundred billion dollars per year and add over a hundred feddle bureacracies to its administration.
Why do you subscribe to the lie, liar boy?
I may be going out on a limb here, DJ, but he probably "subscribes to a lie" BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT LIBS/SOCS/ PROGS/COMS DO.
Personally I think that if you want people with no money and no coverage to get healthcare anyway, you should form a private sector charity to pay for said care. That way you can provide care for those who need it (that you can pay for), those who don't wish to pay for it don't have to, and you don't have to steal the money from anyone, which is precisely what's happening now.
Will Farrell is really passionate about making videos to support ObamaCare... but you'll notice he's not willing to spend any of his own money on those "less fortunate" than him.
Sometimes it's very difficult for me not to take the attitude of, "screw em, let em all die." Why? Because every time I see a plan to "help" them, and actually look at it, it nearly always turns out to be a sop to the two groups with the highest profit margins on the planet: Trial lawyers and film actors.
Granted, it was from the opinion page of the CSM
Eh, I've only had one cup of coffee this morning. Was that Markadelphia that said THAT? Since when did he start making distinctions about sources?
"No comment about those?"
I guess I'm not as concerned about those other four paragraphs at present because the bill hasn't passed yet. In order for it to make it past Baucus, Conrad, Lieberman, Landrieu, and Nelson those paragraphs are going to be drastically altered or removed entirely. I think you need to have faith in the "Democrats."
"they aren't being denied treatment. By current federal law, they can't be denied treatment even if they can't pay for it and have no insurance."
That's true but who do you think now has to pay for his stay? The tooth fairy? We do with higher premiums. And what about the people who have insurance, have paid into it forever, and are denied coverage? I asked the question above because it speaks to privacy as well. If someone refuses coverage, fine. There should be no law forcing them to be covered. That also should mean that better well be able to afford treatment and if they can't...then what, DJ? What do you think they should do? Fuck 'em?
This all comes down to whether or not health care should be a for profit endeavor. Should it?
"you should form a private sector charity to pay for said care."
Great idea. One problem, though. It won't be enough. Private charities are great and there are many Americans who giver generously but they lack the infrastructure of the government. Add in the fact that some Americans gargle my balls. While we have many that give generously, we also have many that are the laziest, fattest selfish morons on the planet. Getting them out of their easy chairs would be a titanic endeavor.
And it's not even money that is really required. It's time. People need to give more of their time to help people. Time would go along way to solving many of our nation's problems. But many people would rather spend that time playing video games.
"By current federal law, they can't be denied treatment even if they can't pay for it and have no insurance."
That's true but who do you think now has to pay for his stay? The tooth fairy? We do with higher premiums.
Um, what? We pay higher premiums for insurance because of those who got treated for free at ERs or wherever who had no insurance to bill for the care?
No, Mark. That comes out in taxes, not in insurance premiums.
This all comes down to whether or not health care should be a for profit endeavor. Should it?
How would you have it be other than a for-profit endeavor? Enslave doctors? Force people to go to medical school?
Those people who aren't allowed to profit by their skill and labor as doctors and nurses and EMTs... how do you propose they pay their bills and feed their children?
Can they still be sued for malpractice, even though they are the indentured servants of the state?
Great idea. One problem, though. It won't be enough. Private charities are great and there are many Americans who giver generously but they lack the infrastructure of the government.
Okay, so it won't be enough. Tell that to the gazillionaires who are tellin us people who actually work for a living that we have to give more.
It's not my fault that people like Al Gore and Micheal Moore are greedy bastards. If they have all these grand plans, let them cough up the fucking cash to pay for it for a change.
And "lack the infrastructure of the government"? You say that as if it's a bad thing. Precisely because private sector endeavors "lack the infrastructure of government", they are orders of magnitude more likely to be flexible and innovative, and therefore able to actually solve problems rather than merely perpetuating a political dependency class as government programs do.
So what's it really about Mark? Do you just want a Democrat Party-progressive wing victory, or do you actually want to solve the problem?
And it's not even money that is really required. It's time. People need to give more of their time to help people. Time would go along way to solving many of our nation's problems. But many people would rather spend that time playing video games.
Tell it to Code Pink, MoveOn.org and others. If they'd spend half the time and money actually doing something that they do whining, most of the issues they grumble about would be well on the way to being addressed by now.
It's time for those who claim to be crusaders for ____________ to put their money where their mouth is.
Either ante up or damn well fold.
"That's true but who do you think now has to pay for his stay? The tooth fairy?"
I do. I'm one of those ordinary guys who pays his own way, thus I also pay the way for gazillions of people whom the gubmint told the medical industry to give a free ride to.
Teacher boy, haven't you yet understood that I complain about this? You're acting as if I think that's the way it oughta be. Are you really that blitheringly dense?
"If someone refuses coverage, fine. There should be no law forcing them to be covered."
You have been championing for months what is proposed in the House and Senate, and what is favored by Obamateur, which will, if enacted, force them to be covered. You've contradicted yourself yet again, liar boy.
"That also should mean that better well be able to afford treatment and if they can't...then what, DJ? What do you think they should do? Fuck 'em?"
Sigh ...
Proofread this crap, willya, teacher boy? Save the goddamned pronouns, fill in the missing words, and ask it in plain English.
"This all comes down to whether or not health care should be a for profit endeavor. Should it?"
Yes, of course it should. What the hell do you think made modern medical wizardry the marvelous thing it is?
You really do not understand the profit motive at all, do you?
"Private charities are great and there are many Americans who giver generously but they lack the infrastructure of the government."
Which means what, precisely? You're spouting gibberish again, teacher boy.
"Add in the fact that some Americans gargle my balls."
See? Do you really expect to be taken seriously, troll boy?
I guess I'm not as concerned about those other four paragraphs at present...
Okay. How about the flat refusal to allow tort reform?
How about the flat refusal to allow insurance companies to be subject to competition from other insurers by allowing all of them to insure people in all 50 states?
Several times I've seen you say that Democrat healthcare reform was supposed to be all about providing people with more choices at lower prices, yet the biggest, easiest and most likely to work methods of lowering prices and increasing options were not only not included, they were actively fought against by the Democratic leadership.
So tell me Mark, do you consider the refusal of tort reform and competing insurers to be a bug or a feature?
We do with higher premiums. And what about the people who have insurance, have paid into it forever, and are denied coverage?
Again, you confuse insurance coverage and health-care cost. Also, you got any examples of someone who has been denied coverage - assuming you aren't talking pre-existing condition. Hopefully something better than your corporation using force case.
This all comes down to whether or not health care should be a for profit endeavor. Should it?
There is only one way that you can't have a for-profit market in health services. You have a lot more justifying to do for that proposal than anyone else does for the status quo.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>