History calls

History calls (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> History calls (11/24/2009 3:41:36 PM)
Critics storm that health-care reform is "a cruel hoax and a delusion." Ads in 100 newspapers thunder that reform would mean "the beginning of socialized medicine." The Wall Street Journal's editorial page predicts that the legislation will lead to "deteriorating service." Business groups warn that Washington bureaucrats will invade "the privacy of the examination room," that we are on the road to rationed care and that patients will lose the "freedom to choose their own doctor." All dire -- but also wrong. Those forecasts date not from this year, but from the battle over Medicare in the early 1960s. ..... Indeed, these same arguments we hear today against health reform were used even earlier, to attack President Franklin Roosevelt's call for Social Security. It was denounced as a socialist program that would compete with private insurers and add to Americans' tax burden so as to kill jobs. Daniel Reed, a Republican representative from New York, predicted that with Social Security, Americans would come to feel "the lash of the dictator." Sen. Daniel Hastings, R-Del., declared that Social Security would "end the progress of a great country." John Taber, a Republican representative from New York, went further and said of Social Security: "Never in the history of the world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers." In hindsight, it seems a bit ridiculous, doesn't it? Social Security passed, and the republic survived. Similar, ferocious hyperbole was unleashed on the proposal for Medicare. President John F. Kennedy and later President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed for a government health program for the elderly, but conservatives bitterly denounced the proposal as socialism, as a plan for bureaucrats to make medical decisions, as a means to ration health care Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09328/1015797-109.stm#ixzz0Xp6y2aS8 much more... an interesting read... thoughts?

Moonhead -> RE: History calls (11/24/2009 3:46:12 PM)
Is socialised medicine really that bad? If the Cubans get it working with their economy it must be doable...

slvemike4u -> RE: History calls (11/24/2009 3:50:40 PM)
Tazzy if some parties interests aren'y being threatened...than there is no reform.Threaten someone's interest(in this case Heath Insurance co's)and expect backlash...what is interesting is the same old play book is being used...and so damm effectively it would seem. Great thread by the way

LadyEllen -> RE: History calls (11/24/2009 4:00:37 PM)
Sitting here at my PC, at ten to midnight on 24th November 2009 in the UK, the entire episode seems laughable, tragic, unbelievable, and a quite amazing lesson in the fact that despite all we share in heritage, culture, lifestyle and aspirations, the US is a very foreign country. The arguments against socialised health care coverage are redundant; made so by the sheer inequalities of the US system next to the democratic urge for a better deal because of and despite them. This is a movement which cannot be stopped, it will surge forward again until it is attained, regardless of set backs it might suffer. The only debate - and it is a valid debate, which the current opponents ought to seek so as to retain some semblance of decency and dignity, is that concerning expense - not in the sense that to provide the cover now would be too expensive, for such an argument too is made redundant by comparison to other budgetary items which they consider necessary but which the people do not, but in relation to how the expense will be managed into the future, as science and research develops new treatments, the population ages and the costs increase. E

willbeurdaddy -> RE: History calls (11/24/2009 5:04:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Critics storm that health-care reform is "a cruel hoax and a delusion." Ads in 100 newspapers thunder that reform would mean "the beginning of socialized medicine." The Wall Street Journal's editorial page predicts that the legislation will lead to "deteriorating service." Business groups warn that Washington bureaucrats will invade "the privacy of the examination room," that we are on the road to rationed care and that patients will lose the "freedom to choose their own doctor." All dire -- but also wrong. Those forecasts date not from this year, but from the battle over Medicare in the early 1960s. Wrong? You do realize that all of that is happening under Medicare right now?

switch2please -> RE: History calls (11/24/2009 5:04:34 PM)
Absolutely. Lady Ellen, I applaud your perspective. If the US had considered these same factors when implementing Social Security - which was also denounced as socialist reform - we might be better equipped to handle the effect our current senior population is beginning to have on SS funds. A couple months ago there was an extensive report on NPR about this issue, and citing one of the interviews, in ten years the US will have more citizens over 60 than under 15. How will we pay for this? Cut SS benefits, or raise taxes. Choose your poison. There's a fiction novel about this, Boomsday by Christopher Buckley (the author of Thank You For Smoking). Brilliant satire, highly recommended for a laugh...though most of the statistics are factual, so it might make you cry too... I have no issue with this 'socialist reform' of health care coverage, but the future expense does worry me a bit...

willbeurdaddy -> RE: History calls (11/24/2009 5:07:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: switch2please Absolutely. Lady Ellen, I applaud your perspective. If the US had considered these same factors when implementing Social Security - which was also denounced as socialist reform - we might be better equipped to handle the effect our current senior population is beginning to have on SS funds. A couple months ago there was an extensive report on NPR about this issue, and citing one of the interviews, in ten years the US will have more citizens over 60 than under 15. How will we pay for this? Cut SS benefits, or raise taxes. Choose your poison. There's a fiction novel about this, Boomsday by Christopher Buckley (the author of Thank You For Smoking). Brilliant satire, highly recommended for a laugh...though most of the statistics are factual, so it might make you cry too... I have no issue with this 'socialist reform' of health care coverage, but the future expense does worry me a bit... Its that shitty US healthcare system to blame. People collect Social Security for an average of 16 years instead of 2 when it was implemented. Bastard doctors, fuck up everything.

tazzygirl -> RE: History calls (11/24/2009 5:08:22 PM)
No one said the Drs are shitty. Its the insurance industry that is... and the billing...

switch2please -> RE: History calls (11/25/2009 2:13:50 AM)
Ah the billing...we are capitalists at heart. On the other hand, we are a democratic republic, like the UK - which has government-subsidized healthcare, unless I'm mistaken. How do they manage to pay for treatment of citizens? Well, not policing other nations with valuable resources is a start... Really though, does anyone know how the UK affords their superior healthcare system...the one that we should have used as as model for ours, years ago.....? [sm=banghead.gif] off to do research

rulemylife -> RE: History calls (11/25/2009 2:38:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Critics storm that health-care reform is "a cruel hoax and a delusion." Ads in 100 newspapers thunder that reform would mean "the beginning of socialized medicine." The Wall Street Journal's editorial page predicts that the legislation will lead to "deteriorating service." Business groups warn that Washington bureaucrats will invade "the privacy of the examination room," that we are on the road to rationed care and that patients will lose the "freedom to choose their own doctor." All dire -- but also wrong. Those forecasts date not from this year, but from the battle over Medicare in the early 1960s. Wrong? You do realize that all of that is happening under Medicare right now? Examples Willbeur? Or would that be too much of a burden?

switch2please -> RE: History calls (11/25/2009 5:10:25 AM)
Unfortunately these are examples that have been used fairly recently in the debate - but they have as much validity as the, ahem, death panels. Which is to say, not much. But hey, that's a radical solution to Social Security AND healthcare reform...death panels!! If everyone over 65 gets that extra-gentle shove into the light, we'll save a bundle on SS benefits and with the sudden excess, we'll be well on our way to financially feasible healthcare reform! Woo hoo! ......just kidding, of course......[sm=angel.gif]

switch2please -> RE: History calls (11/25/2009 5:20:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Critics storm that health-care reform is "a cruel hoax and a delusion." Ads in 100 newspapers thunder that reform would mean "the beginning of socialized medicine." The Wall Street Journal's editorial page predicts that the legislation will lead to "deteriorating service." Business groups warn that Washington bureaucrats will invade "the privacy of the examination room," that we are on the road to rationed care and that patients will lose the "freedom to choose their own doctor." All dire -- but also wrong. Those forecasts date not from this year, but from the battle over Medicare in the early 1960s. Wrong? You do realize that all of that is happening under Medicare right now? It seems she's referring to the forecasts being the same, reused, redundant, as another wrote "the same old playbook"... Of course they're the same alarmist responses, recycled for a new issue. Because the issue is similar enough, they're not even bothering to put a fresh face on their arguments. With all the potential media coverage, you'd hope they'd at least make an effort to be original [:)] Unless you agree with these alarmist responses. It is, after all, the 'Red' Cross (tee hee)....do you have an issue with so-called socialized health care reform?

eyesopened -> RE: History calls (11/25/2009 5:36:10 AM)
When Social Security and Medicare were first introduced, the expected longevity of the recipients was expected to be a 5-15 year range. No one could have predicted the advances in medicine and healthier lifestyles. The largest growth in the senior demographics are those over the age of 80. It was expected back in the 40s and 50s that most folks would only be recieving benefits for 5 years and very few might recieve benefits for 30 years. Now we have senarios where two generations in the same family are recieving benefits at the same time. My brother and my father are one example. Who could have predicted that? The IRS has been looking closely at these figures. The best solution is to change the age at which we recieve benefits to more closely align with the longevity expectations of the original bill. Even if we increase the age at which folks become eligible for SS and Medicare to age 75 instead of age 65, the cost saving would be huge without having to decrease benefits or service. People working for an additional 10+ years supplies more tax base. It really is the best answer. Change the eligibility age to age 80 and it would be more in line with the original intent. I don't know anyone who believes they are aged at age 65.

Moonhead -> RE: History calls (11/25/2009 5:48:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: switch2please Ah the billing...we are capitalists at heart. On the other hand, we are a democratic republic, like the UK - which has government-subsidized healthcare, unless I'm mistaken. How do they manage to pay for treatment of citizens? Well, not policing other nations with valuable resources is a start... Really though, does anyone know how the UK affords their superior healthcare system...the one that we should have used as as model for ours, years ago.....? [sm=banghead.gif] off to do research Mostly through taxes. That said, its funding has been cut (along with that of the most of the public sector) heavily over the last thirty years: by Thatcher and Major to bribe the electorate with tax cuts before elections and by Blair because he'd rather spend the money on autocratic control freakery and funding military occupations started under false pretences.

LadyEllen -> RE: History calls (11/25/2009 5:53:29 AM)
Tis one possible solution Eyes; but it would require a massive increase in available jobs to keep the 65-75 year olds at work and not claiming social benefits - roughly equivalent to a 20-25% increase in the number of jobs at the "boom time" a few years back, if the younger generations are also to work. And that increase takes no account of immigrants who also (presumably) would like jobs. Ultimately, all social benefit programmes are doomed to become oversubscribed, decline and collapse, and that includes social healthcare, unless there is sufficient economic growth activity to support them with year on year funding increases. This is the real debate around healthcare and it comes down to a question of how to generate sufficient economic growth. It cannot be achieved by swapping pieces of paper on Wall Street, and it cannot be achieved by flawed notions of "trickle down" economics. It also cannot be achieved if a high proportion of the results of economic activity and growth are to go towards other budgetary items on a wholly disproportionate basis. Generating wealth - which is not the same as money profits - is the only way to achieve it, and to do that requires a row back from the way business is done today that has replaced the older way over the last 10-20 years - against a backdrop of a more globalised trading system that hardly existed when the older way held sway. The real question then is how to fund these programmes, and whilst having people work longer to reduce costs is worth looking at, the jobs they will need come back to the same issue - economic growth. E

Moonhead -> RE: History calls (11/25/2009 5:53:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened When Social Security and Medicare were first introduced, the expected longevity of the recipients was expected to be a 5-15 year range. No one could have predicted the advances in medicine and healthier lifestyles. The largest growth in the senior demographics are those over the age of 80. It was expected back in the 40s and 50s that most folks would only be recieving benefits for 5 years and very few might recieve benefits for 30 years. Now we have senarios where two generations in the same family are recieving benefits at the same time. My brother and my father are one example. Who could have predicted that? The IRS has been looking closely at these figures. The best solution is to change the age at which we recieve benefits to more closely align with the longevity expectations of the original bill. Even if we increase the age at which folks become eligible for SS and Medicare to age 75 instead of age 65, the cost saving would be huge without having to decrease benefits or service. People working for an additional 10+ years supplies more tax base. It really is the best answer. Change the eligibility age to age 80 and it would be more in line with the original intent. I don't know anyone who believes they are aged at age 65. Very good points. That said, keeping people employed for another ten or fifteen years is going to be rough on the younger generation, a lot of whom already feel they've been handed the shitty end of the stick over the consequences of the population boom from the '40s. Doesn't the 'States have the world's oldest prison population as well? I think that silly three strikes and you're business has supposed to have led in a big hike in the number of inmates who are only ever going to leave in a box. That's probably costing the taxpayer a fair bit too.

switch2please -> RE: History calls (11/25/2009 6:03:08 AM)
True: Social Security was not intended to be permanent, and yet it's still in effect. Raising the minimum age for benefits would be ideal...and can you imagine the outrage? True: UK health coverage is mainly funded through taxes (and like any public program, funding can be cut or allocated to other programs). It's not foolproof, but it still seems like a better use of taxpayer money than, oh, strategic tax cuts before elections...and "autocratic control freakery"...and "military occupations started under false pretenses". Beautifully worded, Moonhead [sm=flowers.gif] and thanks for the info

switch2please -> RE: History calls (11/25/2009 6:05:21 AM)
is kicking Baby Boomers off the face of the earth not an option then....? ......again........kidding..............

tazzygirl -> RE: History calls (11/25/2009 6:05:34 AM)
Problem.... 80 Million baby boomers are about to start hitting retirement age. While i agree with eyes, it would save.... it would also reduce the amount of jobs available for younger workers. I dont see that as a viable solution.

Termyn8or -> RE: History calls (11/25/2009 6:07:33 AM)
"Examples Willbeur? " Easy one. Words from a commercial on TV "and our plan usually lets you keep your own doctor". Why would they feel the need to mention that ? T

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.152344E-02