RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

caitlyn -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 1:54:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
Which would you rather have, several companies competing with each other to please you via the quality of their care and their prices because failure to please the customers means they might lose their jobs – or – a single massive bureaucracy whose workers don’t have to worry about pleasing you to keep their jobs. 


Don't you find this a bit simplistic?
 
In this industry, by the time you find out that you are not getting quality care, is it usually too late to make a change, correct?
 
I'm sorry, but your 'free market, checks and balances' line of reason, is without reason, in my view. What you might consider, is that insurance companies aren't very motivated to keep you as a customer, once you are a customer that is requiring them to pay out.
 
For all your examples, I'm amazed that this rather obvious point seems to have eluded you. Perhaps you have never had to deal with these people, and found out just what kind of crooks they really are.



thompsonx -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 5:37:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Your continued threats of personal violence against me seems to indicate that you are in the camp of the right wing thugs who have fled Venezuela to live in your neighborhood.
Why is it that you feel compelled to threaten me with physical violence?  Do you not posses the intellectual capacity to discuss this matter in a rational fashion?
Is not violence against those who disagree with you the hallmark of the very dictators whom you claim to despise?


You really are a simple minded creature, aren't you?


Marc2b:
Now you add character assassination and name calling to threats of assault on my person.
Do you not know how to disagree without being disagreeable?
thompson



thompsonx -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 7:00:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

I find it interesting that when I quote you I quote you in entirety while when you quote me you pull bits and pieces, often out of context.

I believe I covered every relevant point.
No you have only covered the points that you tried to respond to.


quote:

Your assertion that it is arguable that the Russians were better off under the Czar is just too funny.

Yeah, you're right, Stalin was such a nice guy.
Are you trying to suggest that Stalin is the only person who has been in power  in the Soviet Union?
 



quote:

You state that the president of Viet Nam is a ceremonial job shows your lack of knowledge of their system. He appoints the Prime Minister...he is the C&C of the military....and he is elected. This is something that none of his predecessors were.

I said largely ceremonial. As for his being elected – Bullshit. Any election in a communist country is a fraud.
So your position is that the will of the people in any given country be damned if you do not agree with them?  Sounds more like you like being the Dictator.
 
 

quote:

You call Castro a murderer....which U.S. president was not one also.

This is what I mean by irrelevancies. You are trying to excuse Castro’s behavior by pointing to other’s. The bad behavior of other’s in no way excuses Castro.
Just whom has Castro murdered?


quote:

You say that all the people who voted for Chavez are dumb asses and that you know better than they what is good for them...kinda makes you sound like a dictator.

I’m not the one trying to subvert their constitution... and yes, I contend that anyone that votes for a socialist is a dumbass. I’ll concede that it isn’t always the dumbasses fault that they are a dumbass – there is a lot of bullshit being taught out there.
So you,like the dictators whom you despise, know what is best for everyone else.

quote:

As for smacking me in the head...that reminds me of something my dad used to say..."When you put your hands on someone it only proves that you are not smart enough to talk to them"

Maybe the other guy isn’t smart enough to talk to me. I mean really, here I am stuck in a boat with this guy who prattles on and on about the glories of socialism and how wonderful dictators live Castro and Chavez are. Now I ask you, how long am I supposed to put up with that?
So it would seem that when you speak it is "ex cathedra" and when others with whom you disagree speak it is "prattling".
I have not once spoken about the glories of socialism or what wonderful dictators Castro and Chavez are.  What I have suggested is that those countries should be the final arbiters of what they do and who their leaders should be.
This is a discussion and should you wish to terminate it simply quit responding.  As long as you choose to respond common courtesy should prevail.


There are a lot of people out there who could use a smack upside the head.
You do realize that there are consequences to such behavior.



thompsonx -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 7:18:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
The Federalist Papers are the men who wrote the Constitution, commenting on the Constitution. In our understanding of the Constitution and why it says what it does, I’d say that they are of immense consequence.

Marc2b:
The Federalist Papers were written by John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.  They were the pimps who sold the constitution to the to the nation by the series of "letters to the editor" which constitute the Federalist Papers.  Of the three only Alexander Hamilton was a member of the constitutional convention that actually wrote the constitution.
Please try to get the facts correct.
thompson



Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 10:01:13 PM)

quote:

Don't you find this a bit simplistic?

No, not at all.

quote:

In this industry, by the time you find out that you are not getting quality care, is it usually too late to make a change, correct?

I think part of our confusion stems from the fact that people don’t get that I am – usually – a big picture guy and the fact that I am looking at the whole, not individual parts. I think we should start with a premise that I firmly believe in: there is no utopian social system to be devised that can guarantee us health and happiness from womb to tomb by protecting us from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (tip o’ the hat to the Bard).
 
The free market is not a guarantee that you won’t get fucked by some company either through negligence or design. This is one of the reasons why we are supposed to have rule of law – recourse is available through the civil courts and criminal courts if applicable. In a society with free speech there is an added benefit: others can learn from your example (a power greatly amplified in the internet age). Someone researching various insurance companies might learn from your example. Hmmm... they’ll think to themselves, I don’t know about the Dick-Head Insurance Company. I’ve heard they tried fuck over a number of their customers. Yeah, screw them, let’s look at these other guys. If enough someone’s do it, the Dick-Head Insurance Company is going to have bigger problems than law suits. Meanwhile, other insurance companies, if they’re smart, will take head and be motivated to do a better job in servicing their customers.

quote:

I'm sorry, but your 'free market, checks and balances' line of reason, is without reason, in my view. What you might consider, is that insurance companies aren't very motivated to keep you as a customer, once you are a customer that is requiring them to pay out.

Why aren’t insurance companies motivated to keep you as a customer? What’s protecting them from the natural consequences of having to please the consumer? Who has the power to protect them from such consequences? Why do they have that power?

If the Government runs health care out right, what will their motivation be to please the consumer? The problem isn’t the free market. It is the lack of a free market.

quote:

For all your examples, I'm amazed that this rather obvious point seems to have eluded you. Perhaps you have never had to deal with these people, and found out just what kind of crooks they really are.

Well, I think I’ve demonstrated that it hasn’t eluded me, merely that I am looking at the situation from a different perspective. If you got fucked over by an insurance company, you have my sympathies. I hope you were able to seek legal recourse.



Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 10:03:23 PM)

quote:

Now you add character assassination and name calling to threats of assault on my person.
Do you not know how to disagree without being disagreeable?


You crack me up sometimes, you really crack me up.



Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 10:27:37 PM)

quote:

No you have only covered the points that you tried to respond to.


Whatever.

quote:

Are you trying to suggest that Stalin is the only person who has been in power in the Soviet Union?


Now just what the hell is this happy horseshit supposed to mean?

quote:

So your position is that the will of the people in any given country be damned if you do not agree with them? Sounds more like you like being the Dictator.


When have I ever said that?

quote:

Just whom has Castro murdered?


This is willful blindness. Get fucking real. I won’t bother listing sources because they’ll al be run by right wing thugs.

quote:

You say that all the people who voted for Chavez are dumb asses and that you know better than they what is good for them...kinda makes you sound like a dictator.

How?

quote:

So you,like the dictators whom you despise, know what is best for everyone else.


Not everybody else but definitely some people, maybe even a lot of people. But there is a difference between thinking you know better than (some) others and trying to force them to behave as you think they should.

quote:

So it would seem that when you speak it is "ex cathedra" and when others with whom you disagree speak it is "prattling". I have not once spoken about the glories of socialism or what wonderful dictators Castro and Chavez are. What I have suggested is that those countries should be the final arbiters of what they do and who their leaders should be.


When have I suggested that they shouldn't.  Look, if the people of Venezuela want to live under a socialist dictator, I'm not going to stop them.  But that don't mean I don't have the right to voice my opinion on the matter.

quote:

This is a discussion and should you wish to terminate it simply quit responding. As long as you choose to respond common courtesy should prevail.


and

quote:

You do realize that there are consequences to such behavior.


You really, really, need to get a sense of humor. Relax, if for whatever bizarre reason, you and I end up in a life boat in the middle of the ocean together, I can assure you of two things. One, no matter how "lonely" we get – it ain’t gonna happen. Two, I won't smack you upside the head with an oar.

Until we run out of food.



Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 10:49:47 PM)


quote:

The Federalist Papers were written by John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. They were the pimps who sold the constitution to the to the nation by the series of "letters to the editor" which constitute the Federalist Papers.

 
Pimps? I’m surprised they weren't right wing thugs? After all, the framers did create a system that would be anathema to any socialist.

quote:

Of the three only Alexander Hamilton was a member of the constitutional convention that actually wrote the constitution.
Please try to get the facts correct.


Actually some of the authorship is under dispute, but that aside... All right, all right, so I got a little sloppy and said "men." Don’t have a conniption fit over it. The point remains, if you going to understand the Constitution, the Federalist Papers are a must read.




b12345 -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/6/2007 12:10:23 AM)

 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

.....promote the general welfare.....


First, that phrase is in the preamble of the Constitution. It is not a specific power granted to the Federal Government but rather part of a description of the purpose of the Constitution. In other words, it is in the general welfare to have a Constitution.

.


Edited for spalling mistakes.


Ahh but healthy people produce more, which has an effect on interstate commerce, and regulation of interstate commerce is a power granted to the Federal Government in the constitution...Don't you know that as far a congress and for the most part SCOTUS, everything effects interstate commerce, and therefore is fair game for the Feds.  If we went back to a pre 1920s interpretation of the  interstate commerce clause , a large portion of what the federal government does would be considered unconstitutional. 



MistyMenthal -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/6/2007 12:29:30 AM)

Anthony Edwards says~~~>[8|][8D][8|][8D][8|]
 
Always, Misty[;)]



sharainks -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/6/2007 3:36:07 AM)

I doubt that we will have govt. healthcare anytime in most of our lifetimes.  Why?  Too many lobbyists from the AMA, the insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals.   To cover the whole nation would mean strict limits on costs and these factors won't tolerate that.  The money will dry up for the campaign of anyone who insists on promoting this agenda. 



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/6/2007 4:42:21 AM)

I just have a few questions?

Why, is the only solution, I see discussed, a federal level health care system? What advantage is there really between a state system, and a federal system? And wouldn't it be better to 50 different healthcare models all running at the same time, and use that information, to see what is or isn't working.

It really gets me that people will site Canada, or France, or England as examples of countries that have socialized medicine. You know most of those countries are the size of a large state or two in population. An equivalent example of imposing a federal level healthcare system in the US would be more like a EU healthplan, with no individual country differences. So, would the EU member countries, be all for a forced single healthcare plan imposed on them against there will. I doubt it. So, why can't we mimic the EU, and say each state(pretty much equivalent to a france, or germany), within this Union of states, decide how it handles it's affairs like the EU, is doing.

(Just a note for you EU people, just look at the US's constant degeneration of states rights, and you'll see what will happen to your countries rights in the coming decades).

Essentially, the argument against the federal government in the US controlling everything, is the exact same as arguing for specific countries in the EU to be able to determine there own solution to internal problems. Oh, it'd work so much better if you just let the EU run everything.

Why Not?  Same thing. Identical scenario on a different timeline.





caitlyn -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/6/2007 6:32:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
Why aren’t insurance companies motivated to keep you as a customer? What’s protecting them from the natural consequences of having to please the consumer? Who has the power to protect them from such consequences? Why do they have that power?

If the Government runs health care out right, what will their motivation be to please the consumer? The problem isn’t the free market. It is the lack of a free market.


First of all, please be so kind as to accept my apology for the 'eduded you' comment. That sort of debate tactic isn't helpful, and I shouldn't have used it.
 
Insurance carriers are only motivated to please consumers, when consumers are paying premiums. Once you have a serious medical condition, their motivation tends to shift towards trying to do everything possible to avoid payment. The "Dick-Head Insurance Company" example works well for auto insurance perhaps. In that instance, the company will have a one time pay-out, and get a happy customer with a fully working automobile. The example works poorly for health insurance, where many times the paitent has a condition that will only deteriorate, and require additional payments by the carrier.
 
As far as the motivation for government run healthcare ... I think my answer is counter-motivation. At least they aren't in the business of ripping you off.
 
This tends to be the backbone of my argument. You want a system that uses free market motivation to provide good healthcare. I balk at a system that uses our health as a way to make money.



mnottertail -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/6/2007 6:58:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: b12345



quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

.....promote the general welfare.....


First, that phrase is in the preamble of the Constitution. It is not a specific power granted to the Federal Government but rather part of a description of the purpose of the Constitution. In other words, it is in the general welfare to have a Constitution.

.


Edited for spalling mistakes.


Ahh but healthy people produce more, which has an effect on interstate commerce, and regulation of interstate commerce is a power granted to the Federal Government in the constitution...Don't you know that as far a congress and for the most part SCOTUS, everything effects interstate commerce, and therefore is fair game for the Feds.  If we went back to a pre 1920s interpretation of the  interstate commerce clause , a large portion of what the federal government does would be considered unconstitutional. 


slight misquote in the first, but if the preamble is not of value to the constitiution, why stick the fucking thing in there? And if the preamble is not worthy to help in the interpretation, then the federalist papers are outhouse fodder.

Art 1 sec 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

now, ask yourself these questions:
Are there sick people in more than half of the states?
Are there hospitals in more than half of the states?
Are there people without equal remedy to healthcare in more than half of the states?
Are there both insured and uninsured in more than half of the states?

A constitutional lawyer with a shithouse (instead of a sheepskin) degree should be able to plow thru its constituionality.

Now as a conservative, I have watched universal healthcare for lo, these many years come of age in our globe, and there is great deal of accumulated evidence of what is working and what is not out there.  Since we fly our congressmen on junkets to see Iraq first hand, or to hang out in Pearl Harbor, or any other number of things, seems to me we can stick them in to meet with and review legislation with several universal health care countries, and take what works, and modify what doesn't...this will get us on the starting line, but we will be on the side of the hill, not the top of it....

The time to repair the roof is while the sun is shining.

Ron



thompsonx -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/6/2007 8:16:31 AM)

Marc2b:
If a country were to use military force to compel another nation to trade with them, would you consider that to be an act of international thuggery?
thompson



Sinergy -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/6/2007 9:04:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

I'm quite happy with my cell phone company.  Reasonable rates, great coverage.   What's to bitch about?  If you don't like the service you're getting, try someone else (and be happy that you can try someone else and aren't stuck with a single, government run, carrier).



Lets see.

I have had Verizon, Cingular, ATT, Sprint, and my buddy hates T-Mobile.

None of them work in my place.  None of them work in many parts of the harbor where I work.

I looked into them before taking Verizon as the laughable best of a bad lot.  The advertising budgets for
all of them far exceed the infrastructure budgets.

I have sent letters, emails, etc., to my carrier.

While it is an interesting deflection of my point, marc2b, my point was that relying on market competition to
ensure the consumer gets a superior product does not always apply.  It did with automobiles and the
ascendancy of Japanese quality automobiles dragging American manufacturer quality improvements up, but
in the case of cell phones, it is incorrect.

From my memory, when the telephone infrastructure was set up by a single Government entity back when I was a child, things seemed to work just fine.  Examples can be found to disprove your statement there as well.

Sinergy



Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/6/2007 12:15:44 PM)

quote:

First of all, please be so kind as to accept my apology for the 'eduded you' comment. That sort of debate tactic isn't helpful, and I shouldn't have used it.


Apology accepted. I can get quite snippy myself sometimes.  Besides, obvious points elude a lot of people... just not me. [;)]

quote:

Insurance carriers are only motivated to please consumers, when consumers are paying premiums. Once you have a serious medical condition, their motivation tends to shift towards trying to do everything possible to avoid payment.


Which is why we have laws (or should have laws) forcing them to live up to their obligations. To be fair, in order for insurance to work the insurance company needs enough people paying premiums who will never need a pay out to outnumber those who will need a pay out. Enough to cover the pay outs plus all other expenses (employees salaries, overhead, the electric bill, etc.) and still leave enough money left over for a profit. If too many people are receiving pay outs, then the whole system collapses.

quote:

The "Dick-Head Insurance Company" example works well for auto insurance perhaps. In that instance, the company will have a one time pay-out, and get a happy customer with a fully working automobile. The example works poorly for health insurance, where many times the paitent has a condition that will only deteriorate, and require guarantee payments by the carrier.


Which is why insurance companies are loath to accept people with pre-existing conditions. They know it’s a money loser right from the start (and the only real means of making sure there is enough money to cover such a person is to raise premiums on everyone else – which starts a whole new round of indignant squawking – and calls for the government to do something about it). It strikes any decent person as grossly unfair but reality is seldom fair. If we transfer the burden of payment to the government we are merely transferring payment from our insurance premiums to our taxes (Nothing is free – if something appears to be free it is only because someone else is paying for it). It also creates the problem of where do you seek recourse if the government fails to live up to it’s obligation? So where does that leave us? I think the main problem is that people don’t want affordable health care, they want top-notch "free" health care. Such simply is not possible.

quote:

As far as the motivation for government run healthcare ... I think my answer is counter-motivation. At least they aren't in the business of ripping you off.


Aren’t they? My tax bill sure as hell is a rip off. Government waste and fraud is so endemic that many people accept it as a matter of course. If we pay our insurance premiums directly to the government, what is our guarantee that they will put that money toward health care and not spend it on pork barrel projects? And there still remains the problem of choice. With the government the only choice you have is the one they offer you, in a free market you have many choices and – more importantly – you are the one who gets to decide, not some government bureaucrat. I don’t know about anyone else but I consider myself more qualified to make decisions about my health care and insurance than some government flunky who has never even met me.

quote:

This tends to be the backbone of my argument. You want a system that uses free market motivation to provide good healthcare. I balk at a system that uses our health as a way to make money.


If making money isn’t the motivation what else is there? Compassion? That’s a noble idea but it is unrealistic to expect people to have much compassion for strangers. It goes against the basic psychological nature of the human species. I’m not saying that we are all dirty rotten scoundrels, far from it. But thanks to our tribal nature, we tend to reserve our compassion (or at least the bulk of it) for our fellow tribe members (i.e. family and friends). It is why a friend dying in a car accident is a cause of intense grief but reading about strangers dying in a car accident causes, at most, a momentary pang of sadness before we flip the page to read Family Circus. Neither the government bureaucrat nor the insurance company CEO have much compassion for you and I, but the government can take your money without even asking (and spend it on anything they want) whereas the insurance company has to earn your money by providing a service you deem to be of equal or greater value.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. We can’t have a perfect system but we can have a good system, one better than what we’ve got. We’ve just got to get the government out of the business of protecting the insurance industry (and so many other industries) from the natural consequences of the free market.



Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/6/2007 12:51:44 PM)

quote:

slight misquote in the first, but if the preamble is not of value to the constitiution, why stick the fucking thing in there? And if the preamble is not worthy to help in the interpretation, then the federalist papers are outhouse fodder.


I never said the preamble is not of value but I do contend that it is not the part that grants particular powers to the government. The preamble is simply stating why we "do ordain and establish this Constitution..." The reason being "in order to form a more perfect union (as opposed to those totally lame Article of Confederation), establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility... etc.

quote:

Art 1 sec 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


General welfare of the United States (i.e. a political entity), not the specific welfare of each and every one of us. I credit the Framers with enough intelligence to realize that such is not possible.

quote:

now, ask yourself these questions:
Are there sick people in more than half of the states?
Are there hospitals in more than half of the states?
Are there people without equal remedy to healthcare in more than half of the states?
Are there both insured and uninsured in more than half of the states?

A constitutional lawyer with a shithouse (instead of a sheepskin) degree should be able to plow thru its constituionality.


Many a lawyer has plowed through one item or another’s constitutionality but that doesn’t mean they should be able to. The tenth amendment makes it clear that the Constitution has to specifically grant a certain power to the Federal Government for the government to have such a power.

I think people are mixing up two questions here. Should we have socialized health care? Should the Federal Government be the one to provide socialized health care? My answer to the first question, on principles of sound economics and freedom, is no. My answer to the second question is also no – Because the Federal Government doesn’t have the authority.

BUT

Even though I may be personally opposed, I do recognize the right of the State Governments to adopt socialized medicine within their own borders if they wish to do so. I may think it is a stupid idea, but I do recognize their right to do so.

quote:

Now as a conservative, I have watched universal healthcare for lo, these many years come of age in our globe, and there is great deal of accumulated evidence of what is working and what is not out there. Since we fly our congressmen on junkets to see Iraq first hand, or to hang out in Pearl Harbor, or any other number of things, seems to me we can stick them in to meet with and review legislation with several universal health care countries, and take what works, and modify what doesn't...this will get us on the starting line, but we will be on the side of the hill, not the top of it....


Well, to recap, if our Congressmen gather in a room to adopt a Federal health care system, then they are violating the Constitution. I don’t understand why some people (often the same people) who squawk about the government violating the Constitution in regards to war powers and domestic spying are perfectly okay with the government violating the Constitution in regards to our health care.

quote:

The time to repair the roof is while the sun is shining.


Actually, the best time is when it is cloudy (but not raining). The sun can heat up the roof something fierce and heat stroke is a serious concern. Take it from some who comes from a family of roofers.



mnottertail -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/6/2007 12:54:18 PM)

I also have repaired roofs.  We have a disagreement about section one article eight and how it applies and interacts with amendment ten.

That is about the end of the line for us then, I think.
You see it your way, I see it mine, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Ron



Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/6/2007 1:03:04 PM)

quote:

If a country were to use military force to compel another nation to trade with them, would you consider that to be an act of international thuggery?


Oh God, here we go with the international thuggery again. What does this question have to do with socialized medicine? I suspect it has to do with your innate need to blame all the worlds woes upon the United States. Something, no doubt, to do with Chavez being a heroic figure for "standing up to the United States." Yada, yada, yada. Once again – the bad behavior of one does not excuse the bad behavior of others.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875