21
   

Republicans using Healthcare as a political game.

 
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 05:56 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
What it really sounds like is a system that shouldn't be expanded, but I don't expect you to get my drift, either.

I will, however, agree that it is a really big untapped market. There is an enormous market for Dodge Intrepids, too - at $5,000. Wonder why Chrysler hasn't figured this out. Maybe with a little help from our friends in Washington, they will.
0 Replies
 
hamburgboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 06:59 pm
@maporsche,
reporting from the northern side of the border :

the harvard study reports seem to give the nod to canadian health-care over U.S. health-care - mainly because of lower administrative costs .

however if you are looking for million $ (experimental) treatments , you will likely NOT find them in canada .
the canadian health-care system is geared towards keeping ALL canadians as healthy as possible - while also looking at cost-effectiveness (wish that would not be nececessay - but cost is always a factor - in any system , i believe ) .
is the canadian system without any problem/fault at all ? of course not - hardly anything ever is .

i'm sure many would like to see the latest (experimental) drug or procedure applied to themselves or their dying loved one - no matter what the cost .
but how often have they turned out to be of no use , or even inflicted unnecessary pain ? of course , i don't know .

imo the U.S. is a country rich enough to give excellent health-care to everyone - and still work on the latest medical discoveries as an example for the world .
or am i wrong ?

with the US population about 10 times canada's , there should be massive economies of scale for the U.S. health care system to provide the best service for everyone .
hbg

one of many reports from google :

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 07:27 pm
@ebrown p,
Quote:
The problem with your argument is that it smacks up against reality.


Which argument is that?

That private health insurance cannot compete with a government program?

Quote:
We have a private, for-profit, health care system now that the great majority of us can see is a disaster. Costs are rising at a far greater rate than incomes, outcomes are not that good compared to other countries with much lower costs, and it is far too easy for good, working Americans to fall through the cracks.


How does this even address, let alone rebut, my argument.

Quote:
(Ironically this is not that different than the for-profit war in Iraq that the great majority of us now see was a disaster. But you made this connection and I will let you decide if you want to continue down this path).


How does this even address, let alone, rebut, my argument that your initial post was hypocritical?

Quote:
Republicans are arguing for the status-quo, in spite of the fact that it is clearly failing, and in spite of the fact that many other countries have socialized health care systems that-- under any objective measurement-- provide better results at a lower cost.


At least you, unlike your fearless leader, are not shying away from your socialist intentions.

As for objective measures of healthcare quality:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00643/news-graphics-2007-_643378a.gif

Healthcare costs are increasing at a ruinous rate and need to be addressed.

Unfortunately, according to the CBO, the Democrats healthcare plan will not only not reduce these costs but increase them.

One of the ways we can reduce healthcare costs is to bring medical malpractice litigation under control, but is there anything about tort reform in the Democrats' healthcare plan?










Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 07:33 pm
@hamburgboy,
Quote:
i know i'm a "simpleton"


If you say so.

By the way, why did you use quotation marks on simpleton?

Quote:
healthinsurance = keep people healthy

war = killing and maiming people - including many americans .


Your point is?

Quote:
of course , there is more to it than what i picked out ... but i would have trouble discussing the two items in one subject .


Oh, so that's your point.

We can't discuss healthcare and war in the same thread.

Perhaps your self-assessment is closer to the mark than you might think.



0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 07:41 pm
@revel,
Quote:
One side apparently wants to see it continue to fail and the other apparently wants to fix it without it costing anything.


Not sure why it is apparent to you that Republicans want to see healthcare reform fail.

You may want to watch this clip as it could change your mind, or at least better inform your assumptions.

http://www.foxnews.com/fns/

If Republicans don't want Obama's plan for reform it doesn't mean they don't want reform.
revel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 07:41 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
The thread started with a quote from republican who wants the health care reform to be Obama's 'Waterloo' to "break him".

There have other remarks from republicans who have said they have wanted Obama to fail. Remember Limbaugh thing with plenty of conservative agreeing with him?

I understand, in a way, if GOPers don't agree with any of the Obama administration's plans they would not want them to pass. They should say why and what they object to and they would have put in place. But just to obstruct and delay to help the republican part is not putting Americans first but their own party first.

Quote:
KRISTOL'S ADVICE SOUNDS FAMILIAR.... In his inaugural column for the print edition of the Washington Post, Bill Kristol offers some advice for his Republican brethren: obstruct as much as humanly possible.

...Obama's aim is not merely to "revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity." ... Conservatives and Republicans will disapprove of this effort. They will oppose it. Can they do so effectively?

Perhaps -- if they can find reasons to obstruct and delay. They should do their best not to permit Obama to rush his agenda through this year. They can't allow Obama to make of 2009 what Franklin Roosevelt made of 1933 or Johnson of 1965. Slow down the policy train. Insist on a real and lengthy debate. Conservatives can't win politically right now. But they can raise doubts.... Only if this happens will conservatives be able to get a hearing for their (compelling, in my view) arguments against big-government, liberal-nanny-state social engineering -- and for their preferred alternatives.



It seems like an odd thing for Kristol to put in writing. Generally, Republicans say they want to at least try to have a constructive role in public policy. Kristol counsels the opposite -- Obama is poised to "make history," so Republicans need to "obstruct and delay." The GOP, Kristol insists, needs to "find reasons" to do. Obstruct for obstruction's sake, and figure out the rationale later.

What's striking is how predictable Kristol's advice has become. This was the strategy Kristol recommended during the fight over the economic recovery package, and more importantly, it was the advice he offered Republicans in the early 1990s, when they confronted the Clinton White House. Indeed, in December 1993, Kristol wrote a strategy memo to congressional Republicans, urging them to "kill" any effort at healthcare reform -- "sight unseen" -- because it would help the Democratic Party.

Jonathan Chait noted this morning, "His current advice is equally disingenuous. Kristol is saying that Republicans should raise objections about the speed of legislation, pick fights, point to foreign policy -- but not because they actually care about the speed of the legislative process or the other fights they're going to pick. It will all be a pretext to stop Obama's agenda. Is this the kind of thing he should be admitting in public?"

Probably not. The minority party is going to oppose the majority party's ideas. That's expected; it's what the minority party is supposed to do. But Kristol's advice helps end the charade -- Republicans, if they take the columnist's advice, won't play a constructive role and won't make good-faith compromises to advance a policy agenda.

That's largely in line with expectations, but it's nevertheless interesting to see in print.



source

However, after reading the transcript it seem there are some republicans who want to see some action on health care reform and our offering up their own plans. Which is good. Not sure their plans are viable. I mean if people are struggling right now (and they are) how in the world are they going to be able afford to buy insurance for "catastrophic events." I also think he is being officious by saying that these people opt to spend their money on something other than health insurance And the rest of the population, he plans with subsidies for people to buy extra insurance along with medicare and other government paid insurance to give them options. Don't see how that is much different than a "big government" plan. He plans to pay for it by limiting the deductibles and by giving reimbursements to doctors based on performance. Who would decide that; and wouldn't that be big government getting involved in the private sector as well? Wouldn't any plan be getting the govenment involved in the private sector which seems to be the main objection. But on the whole I am impressed that he sees the need for health care reform. And I was impressed that he found something of which he agrees with the president about.

Quote:
But clearly, the president " the goals the president set out I agree with " you know, cover everybody, bend the out-year cost curve, make sure if you have your own insurance you get " and you like it, you get to keep it.


H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 07:58 am
@revel,
revel wrote:

The thread started with a quote from republican who wants the health care reform to be Obama's 'Waterloo' to "break him".



It get even better...

Steele Blasts Democratic Health Reform Push, Urges Obama to 'Slow Down'
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 08:43 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
wheres Japan, Canada, UK, France, etc. I can undertsand the Germany survival rate since the numbers reflect 2000 to 2002 nd include the old "East Germany".

I wonder whether those stats were "cherry picked" dont you?
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 08:53 am
I wonder whether those stats were "cherry picked" dont you?

Yup.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 09:07 am
@edgarblythe,


The stats (cherry picked or not) are not important because Obama's health care
plan has never been about improving health or the health care system in the US.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 11:07 am
@farmerman,
Interesting to compare the survival rate with the death from cancer..

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-death-from-cancer

I guess it means the US is more likely to get cancer since they have more deaths and are more likely to survive.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 11:27 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
As for objective measures of healthcare quality:


okey dokey - can do

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country

http://www.cancerrecovery.org/site/PageServer?pagename=CancerSurvivalDependsonWhereyouLive

abstract of the source document

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(08)70179-7/abstract

I'm still looking for free access to the full report.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 08:35 pm
@revel,
revel wrote:

The thread started with a quote from republican who wants the health care reform to be Obama's 'Waterloo' to "break him".


That would be "a" Republican.

It would also be a Republican expressing a desire for the Obama healthcare reform plan to fail.

It doesn't follow from either that Republicans don't want helathcare reform.

revel wrote:
I understand, in a way, if GOPers don't agree with any of the Obama administration's plans they would not want them to pass. They should say why and what they object to and they would have put in place. But just to obstruct and delay to help the republican part is not putting Americans first but their own party first.


Sounds a lot like the Democrat's strategy when Republicans held power in the White House and Congress. I could be wrong, but I doubt you were chastising the Dems for their obstructionism back then.

revel wrote:
However, after reading the transcript it seem there are some republicans who want to see some action on health care reform and our offering up their own plans. Which is good.


Good for you. You don't have to agree with their proposals but at least you acknlowledge they exist.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 08:37 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

wheres Japan, Canada, UK, France, etc. I can undertsand the Germany survival rate since the numbers reflect 2000 to 2002 nd include the old "East Germany".

I wonder whether those stats were "cherry picked" dont you?


No I don't, but here's the link. You decide.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 08:38 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

I wonder whether those stats were "cherry picked" dont you?

Yup.


What a surprise edgar.

You have no idea where the stats came from but you assume they were "cherry picked."

How cynical of you.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 08:40 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
As for objective measures of healthcare quality:


okey dokey - can do

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country

http://www.cancerrecovery.org/site/PageServer?pagename=CancerSurvivalDependsonWhereyouLive

abstract of the source document

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(08)70179-7/abstract

I'm still looking for free access to the full report.


Your point is?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 06:17 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
That would be "a" Republican.


I have a tendency to leave words out; sometimes I catch it; sometimes I don't.

Quote:
It would also be a Republican expressing a desire for the Obama healthcare reform plan to fail.


No, it would be a republican hoping the health care reform fails so that it would be Obama's Waterloo, exactly how he said.

Quote:
It doesn't follow from either that Republicans don't want helathcare reform.


I stand corrected, some do obviously want health care reform, most don't.

Quote:
Sounds a lot like the Democrat's strategy when Republicans held power in the White House and Congress. I could be wrong, but I doubt you were chastising the Dems for their obstructionism back then.


Since nearly everyone one of Bush's proposals or bills (however to word it) I fundamentally disagreed with, I didn't have a problem with democrats trying to stop them if in fact they did do so, however, for the most part they rolled over and played dead after talking a good game. But there is fine line between objecting to proposals and just saying no to everything in order for the president to fail so that your own party will win next election. Since democrats went along with a fair number of Bush's proposals, I don't think the comparison is accurate.




ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 06:30 am
@revel,
For the record, I have never said, or even thought, that a bill should be defeated simply to make Bush fail.

There were several times I supported Bush-- particularly the immigration bill, and a couple of times I praised him -- for example right after 9-11 when he made the Islam is Peace speech.

I opposed most of Bush's policies (probably as much as anybody here), but I would never oppose a good policy simply because it came from Bush.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 06:52 am
@ebrown p,
Quote:
For the record, I have never said, or even thought, that a bill should be defeated simply to make Bush fail.


Never said you did, ebrown, I also agreed with Bush on his immigration stance which was out of the norm for him and I am pretty sure I have said so. I have forgotten the speech you are referring to but I remember something like Islam being a peaceful religion and getting a lot of flack for that from his own party. I was for the Afghanistan war and the hunt for Bin Laden though I thought it was in poor taste to call it a crusade...
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 08:05 am


White House declines to disclose visits by health industry executives
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 09:09:01