|
|
I wasn't that worried about GWB. I was more worried about people like "The Red".Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
GWB has done an artful job of keeping things secret, though. I love his "open" meetings with the people when he screens everyone at the door to make sure that there are no "negative" comments or questions from the crowd.They messed up when they let the former CIA person in for Rumsfield's press conference, though.
No kidding... You think the tin foil around his head would have clued them in a little.They messed up when they let the former CIA person in for Rumsfield's press conference, though.
I think the song is complaining about being taxed for everything and making a mockery of it. That is a very conservative thing to do.
Yeah, if you listen to the song, ole George is not a fan of the Taxman. I heard an interview with him once where he was talking about getting up into the highest tax bracket. Back then, he was paying 19 1/2 shillings on the pound in taxes, and there were only 20 shillings in a pound.
Off the Revolver album. Good tune.
Thanks DHD. Brainfart on my part.That makes much more sence.
I know nowadays in England that they take 33.3333 Percent of your check and put it towards socialized healthcare. Wow, I am glad I dont live there. Of course, if some in the US had their choice, we would be paying that to piggyback those that dont want to work and get insurance.
When I think of our health care system versus a system like Canada's or Western Europe's, it's basically a choice between 84% of the people getting a Cadillac, or 100% of the people getting a 1983 Yugo.
That is exactly how I view it. This goes along with the whole competition thing we were discussing in the other thread. We would rather drag all kids down to the same level than teach them to compete. This bleeds over to their adult lives and they think that socialized healthcare and other "equalizing" policies are good. They arent. I am into Pareto efficiency. You have to do what is better for the whole, even if some are hurt by it.
Exactly. And a wrecked Yugo at that.
Austin and dhuss,
I totally understand your view. Let me ask you a question, though. What about those that TRULY can't help themselves. Do you think that persons with a true handicap should die because they cannot get healthcare?
The following example is a true one on a former patient of mine:
This was a man in his early 50's, although he looked like he was 70 due to poor nutrition and a hard life. He first had symptoms of Schizophrenia when he was around age 20. He was in college at the time, but had to leave. He went from minimum wage job to minimum wage job for about 10 years. The medicine when he was that age didn't do him much good, but he did take it. He would be come non-compliant with his meds from time to time, though.
Anyway, his family gradually stopped helping him (common story for many persons with mental illness). His Mother continued to try until she died around 5 years ago. This guy then had absolutely no one. He was in and out of the state hospital, but had not been hospitalized in the last 3 years due to the tougher restrictions on who could be hospitalized. You have to be an imminent risk to yourself or others now to get in (coupled with one of the "big 3" diagnoses). He just didn't qualify, because he wouldn't hurt a sole and was not suicidal. He had no health insurance, of course. He was turned down for Medicaid, as well. Many people are turned down that really need this (of course if we had no healthcare for them, this is mute). He didn't qualify, because he had periods of doing a little better at times. One of our workers worked very had to get him qualified, but he could hold it together during those interviews with the doc. for short periods of time. The new medications that we have, also, helped him. He would even work a little during stable periods. His work was always at a convenience store or something like that, though - again, no insurance. That further hurt his chances of getting on some type of assistance. Those times would only last for about a month at a time, anyway. Everyone around town knew him because he hung around downtown all the time. That further hurt his chances for any type of job.
Now, comes the medical problems. He had diabetes and was last year was diagnosed with cancer. This was in the emergency room - where he was a LOT of the time. He could not get any type of healthcare here. He would get sick and go to the Emergency room all the time. At least there, a doctor would try to help him. He received no treatment to speak of, though. There is no "charity" type hospital here.
6 months ago he died.
I use this case as an example for several reasons. First of all, this is a good case to demonstrate what some severly disabled persons go through. In fact, this is a VERY common story.
Second of all, it shows how our emergency rooms all over the country are being used for regular care. That is the only choice for many without insurance. This is 3 times more expensive than a regular doctor.
Third, it begs the question of if we should let this happen.
Many people state things such as we should not give hand outs. They forget, though, that many people that are receiving assistance TRULY need the assistance. There are many that do not receive any assistance at all, as well.
This guy did receive the following:
Mental Health treatment - this is getting tighter now in Texas. Without insurance, you have to be VERY ill to qualify for any type of care at a mental health agency in Texas now.
Emergency room care - EXTREMELY expensive
So, by saying that we should not provide handouts, do you mean that he should not have received mental health treatment or medical care?
My stance is this:
1. We need to tighten up our gov't agencies that provide this care. Some of them are very wasteful beuracracies that need to be cleaned up.
2. We should insure (on a sliding scale) ALL children that have parents that cannot afford insurance. CHIPS does this in Texas, but not a very good job of it.
3. We should FORCE employers to provide insurance at an affordable rate to their employees.
4. We should make sure that those that receive care REALLY need it and the others are forced to get their own.
5. We should concentrate on preventative and ongoing care instead of paying out the #$@ for emergency care only.
Would you choose not to do any of these things? I really am not into changing your mind on this. I just wanted clarification of your points.
Last edited by champion110; 05-31-2006 at 11:10 AM.
Champ, I see your point and I agree with those that cannot help themselves. I wonder what percentage that is of all of those that receive government money. It is tricky. My wish is that the government would do a better job of deeming who needs assistance and who doesnt. My aunt gets disability from the government because of the stroke she had at 40 years of age. Of course, she worked her whole life until then. Able-bodied people should be weened off of the government teat as soon as possible though. I just dont want to start leaning towards socialized healthcare because the man you just discussed would not get the proper treatment anyway given his terrible condition. It is sad that his family did not help him much.
As for forcing companies to give affordable healthcare, I believe most do and those that dont will suffer because of it. You would have to define good healthcare, though, and if the policy is too stringent, it might serve as a huge barrier to entry for smaller companies trying to elbow their way in. Which, in turn, would stifle economy and job growth. You have to watch it when you start forcing businesses to do things. The government would have to do a sliding scale if they were giong to do that because smaller businesses simply cannot offer the same packages that a big company can. My sister worked at Enron and she never paid a dime for her insurance and it was like a 10 dollar copay when she did go. I work for a good, much smaller company and my insurance is much more, but it is still very affordable.
I agree with absolutely everything that you just posted. I think that the "Welfare to Work" program was handled HORRIBLY. It was a good idea and should have helped. It lacked a couple of things:
1. Child care should have been provided more consistently.
2. Better job training to prepare people for the work world.
3. Training of the WORKERS that were carrying it out. They were (and are) stuck in the old system and did not change with the program.
I posted something a long time ago on my ideas for changing the system. I don't remember when or where I posted it, but I would love to dig it up now. We do have waste in our system, though. I am the first to admit that. The problem is when we try to fix it, we hurt the ones that need it and still have the abusers of it going strong. Many of the abuses are by a small percentage of the ones receiving assistance. They are savy, though, and know how to work the system - even when you change it up on them.
Frankly, I'm not sure how I feel about what "Should" be done. I was simply stating what the choices are. Maybe it is more moral for 100% to get the Yugo. But there are practical realities that go along with providing that Yugo.
1. The general quality and number of doctors will go down - Who wants to go to school for 12 years to earn a meager state salary. An idealistic few, to be sure, but a very idealistic few.
2. Availability goes down. Ever talked to someone from Canada? Ask them what happens when you need a surgery deemed non-life threatening--like a knee or hip replacement.
3. It is very easy to "Mandate" things that businesses provide. But as with everything else, cause leads to effect. Ever wonder why businesses are relocating to Mexico and India? Now we can argue all day long about how wicked those business owners are for leaving and going to cheaper countries. I'll even allow you to question their patriotism and whether or not they are going to heaven or hell. But the practical thing is, they did leave with the jobs and we're here shaking our fists at how evil they are.
4. I agree with your point #1. Medicare needs a total overhaul. Hospital fraud of Medicare is rampant (I have anectdotal evidence of this) and either Medicare needs to get its act together, or go away entirely (I personally would prefer the former).
5. Preventative care is more preferable to emergency care. But how do you achieve this? Tax people based on their cholesterol and Body Mass Index? Okay, but something tells me that would be a regressive tax, and not something you support.
<DIV style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt">
"The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote