IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Yes, and phuck you!

You're getting kind of extreme there, ci. Thomas is one of a half dozen or so members that I always listen to. There are none with whom I always agree, but it's always nice to hear well thought out opinions without the insults. I also read, and often disagree with engineer, and sure miss FreeDuck.

Now that's funny!

Although I wouldn't go as far as accepting your offer to engage in sexual intercourse with me, I do like you too, CI.

Your privilege.

I don't mind people questioning what I say, but have no patients for people who stick in one-liners that doesn't address the issues being discussed.

It's not about "how many years anyone practices medicine." Any asshole should be able to figure that out!~

Yeah, and I wouldn't mind if we never met again.

Fair enough, then let's not. <shrugs>

Unintentionally ironic quote of the day.

I'll hold you to this one in the future CI.

Yes you do and have quite a long history of doing so.

dos, If you have, you should also know that I've actually invited people to question my posts.

You do understand the difference between relevant questions and stupid questions don't you?

Maybe not.

The last two pages, which I happened on in the faint hope that Thomas had posted something worth reading, illustrate very well my reasons for losing interest in these discussions.

In the first place Cicerone's name-calling and expressed anger are entirely unjustified. They have no place in a rational discussion whose purpose is some combination of an attempt at persuasion and a search for improved understanding. You do that far too much Cicerone, and those of us who have met you know that you are a much better person than that. Why behave like such an ass here?

In the second place the claims of the administration about large cost savings, together with assurances that care will in no way become rationed, simply don't pass the common sense test. Both savings and some form of rationing may well occur that could indeed improve the public welfare generally. However, it is also possible that adverse forms of rationing and brueaucratic muddle could occur, accompanied by no savings at all and even added waste. For this we must look to realistic expectations of government operations. Heaping scorn on one who raises this point is not a reasonable or defensible response either.

Opinions here vary a great deal, depending mostly on the political prejudices of those involved. However, in most activities the private sector, operating in a real competitive market, does far better. We don't have real competitive market for health care services today - so that aspect of the comparison is muddy at best.

The particular issue that appears to have ignited this petty tempest appears to have resulted from the Administration's assurances that it will avoid politicizing the rationing or "best practices" process, through an appointed "independent" board that will make these decisions. While this is indeed a step towards independence, our government is littered with analogous boards and brueaucracies chartered to oversee a wide range of public processes. All, over time, have become quite thoroughly politicized. Our Congress is very proficient on that score. Moreover the process by which the current health care legislation itself was created, as well as other major actions of the Administration, gives the lie to any such assurances. I'm not suggesting a Republican administration would be any better on this score, it would merely be less inclined to intervention generally.

I believe the Administration had tried very hard to craft a politically acceptable reform of our health care system and has done so in a largely sincere desire to improve the public welfare as they see things. In doing so they have had to deal with the insistent demands of powerful constituent groups (Labor unions, for example), as well as the opposition of various other groups, ranging from medical service providers, insurers, device makers, pharmaceutical firms, associations (AMA, AARP, etc.) - all in addition to the sectarian and regional political issues that complicate all of it in the process. They have successfully bought off some opposition groups, but not others. Each of these 'politically necessary' accomodations has observably degraded the coherence and potential efficacy of the resulting draft program.

In addition the process has highlighted a number of fundamental contradictions which are not addressed at all in any aspect of the program. If we are going to increase the availability of medical care to an increasing number of people, then we will have to increase the supply of doctors, laboratories, specialists, and hospitals with which to provide these services. There is nothing at all in the political program before us that addresses this fundamental aspect of the issue. Instead there is the implicit assumption that a government bureaucracy will be able to find sufficient economies in delivering care to do this job. I find it amazing that no one addresses this issue, and I believe that in part that is what Cicerone was concerned about. It is a reasonable and fundamental question.

The usual blithe response is that Medicare and Medicaid are delivering care with better efficiency and lower cost than insurers. However this absurd fiction ignores the huge subsidies both programs get from other sources and the higher prices charged other consumers by doctors, hospitals, and insurers who are compelled by law to support the government programs indirectly.

These are all issues over which we can reasonably disagree and exchange views and recommendations. Unfortunately here the dialogue quickly degenerates to name-calling and invective. That is clearly the fault of the participants.

Whoo, let's just tone it down a bit, that's uncalled for.

I'm sure we can all discuss this as adults... I apologize if I have become too combative, I just hate seeing people complain about a lack of information when it is so freely available.

Cycloptichorn

Well stated, georgeob, and I'll accept my part of the **** slinging and the blame. My patience becomes zero when supposedly "smart" people like Thomas inputs his one-liner that doesn't address the topic under discussion. Who gives a rat's ass if one doctor has 2.5 years or 25 years experience? I'm interested in the topic being discussed, not the individual's years of experience.

Guys --

I'm glad most of you like my posts most of the times. But if that leads you to to think that I owe you an in-depth analysis every time I post something here, you're getting ahead of yourself. And if, by not posting that kind of analysis, I cause disappointment and even abuse, that's going seriously too far. I am not a profundity machine, and sometimes I just feel like fooling around and posting something silly. Deal with it.

If that offends your sense of entitlement, you are setting terms for these discussions under which I respectfully decline to participate. It doesn't make me happy to do this, but I am who I am and this is what it is.

I'm going to take a break from the political threads now. See y'all sometime next year.

I dealt with it. You just missed the message.

Thomas, I agree with you.

The ****-slinging on this board is out of control. I told Cyclops a few months ago (before I placed him on ignore) that his posts would have consequences on the quality of conversations he has with people here.

That same advice applies to all of us, and is something that CI would do well to consider now.

Best Wishes for a very happy and successful 2010, and same to you, Thomas, and George. Same to you, cyclops.

This is so true.

Universal Healthcare a Moral Issue

To the Editor:

Universal access to health care is a moral issue. It has the same moral dimension as abolishing slavery, ending child labor, and achieving universal rights of citizenship for women and blacks. It has the same origin in the universal ethical teachings of Jesus, the Buddha, and the other great religious teachers and philosophers.

Senator Harry Reid simply stated the truth when he compared the movement for universal health care to the anti-slavery movement. The defensive outrage this statement stirred up among advocates of the status quo, who worship the false religion of the money-changers, starkly exposed their moral blindness and hypocrisy.

The fact that universal access is a profound moral issue like the abolition of slavery or child labor should be pointed out again and again. People understand it. They understand it far, far better than they understand all the technical arguments that obscure the clear moral issue.

We all need to stand up for those dying from inadequate care, for those forced into bankruptcy, and for the educated middle-class Americans in our own towns who now cannot put food on their tables at the end of the month because of medical bills.

Robert Mann, Oneida

Bullshit; all you did was get pissed when I accurately pointed out the fact that your primary purpose on A2K seems to be bitching about Obama. The name for your behavior is 'concern troll.' If that means you want to shut someone out of conversation, fine; but don't pretend that I was running around being rude to everyone in sight, or '****-slinging.'

Cycloptichorn

And what is your "primary purpose on A2K" ?