LGP Political Discussion Thread

[GaryRissling]

6 lobbyists for every lawmaker:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... Mce51JoZWw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That’s six lobbyists for each of the 535 members of the House and Senate, according to Senate records, and three times the number of people registered to lobby on defense. More than 1,500 organizations have health-care lobbyists, and about three more are signing up each day. Every one of the 10 biggest lobbying firms by revenue is involved in an effort that could affect 17 percent of the U.S. economy.

The health-care industry also contributed $20.5 million to federal candidates and the political parties during the first six months of the year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who is up for re-election next year, received $382,400, more than any other lawmaker.

Now, really, out of you people who support Obama's plan - do you really think - given the documented influence of K Street on this legislation - that this is going to be a plan that befits the average american? Maybe you'll answer that it's better than our current system. If that's your argument, you'd better support it knowing full well that your argument will be weighed against the back-door deals already on record.

We need fewer hands in the till, not more.

[bhaw]

What does the ER give you for, say, lung cancer? Or is treatment for cancer a privilege?

frankly, yes.[/quote]

I applaud you for your honesty.[/quote]

It's not society's OBLIGATION to pay for the prolonged care of the terminally ill. If one so chooses to do so (which is a very respectable choice, and my wife and I do donate to cancer societies when we can), that is what it should be... their choice.

The story of a poor single mother with 5 children who can't afford that kind of care is all fine and touching. But I don't think the people who get the feel goods about that story would have the same feeling when they are helping pay for the long term care of someone who has been jailed twice for child molestation or someone who is unable to find a job because they got drunk and killed a family of 4 when he decided it was too much of an inconvenience to call a cab.

It all comes back to obligation versus choice. I would hope people with the mean to would choose to help those less fortunate. But a) they shouldn't be forced to do so and b) they should be able to choose who that money goes to.

[HomerPenguin]

Now, really, out of you people who support Obama's plan - do you really think - given the documented influence of K Street on this legislation - that this is going to be a plan that befits the average american?

Of course not, although I don't actually support what they're talking about in Congress so I don't fit your criteria.

The big problem with Obama? It's that he's a corporatist, not a socialist.

[MWB]

Now, really, out of you people who support Obama's plan - do you really think - given the documented influence of K Street on this legislation - that this is going to be a plan that befits the average american?

Of course not, although I don't actually support what they're talking about in Congress so I don't fit your criteria.

The big problem with Obama? It's that he's a corporatist, not a socialist.

I think there are very few people who post in this thread that do support this plan. Some people may think reform is necessary and changes are needed, but that doesn't mean that they think this is the plan to do it.

[HomerPenguin]

It all comes back to obligation versus choice.

Actually it also comes back to whether or not life has any inherent value or, if not, to what extent we feel comfortable determining who is worthy of receiving life-saving medical care.

I would hope people with the mean to would choose to help those less fortunate. But a) they shouldn't be forced to do so and b) they should be able to choose who that money goes to.

And, let's be realistic, c) they don't, at least not in large enough numbers to eliminate the disparity. So that's fine; treatment for cancer is something you earn, or win, as a successful member of society, not something you deserve as a human being. Again, and I mean this in all sincerity, I think you're to be commended for frankly stating your position. I don't agree with it, but I respect the fact that you didn't try to sugar-coat it.

[bhaw]

It all comes back to obligation versus choice.

Actually it also comes back to whether or not life has any inherent value or, if not, to what extent we feel comfortable determining who is worthy of receiving life-saving medical care.

Who decides that? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like we should treat life as a business decision.

If that's the case, would you say it's generally true that each generation is becoming smarter (thanks to the footwork of past generations), more able to adapt to newer technology, and physically bigger/stronger? That would mean no one should receive long term care (except for those elite [not monetarily elite... smartest/strongest people] clearly worth it to society) and all that money should be reinvested in future generations.

I'm not meaning to put words in your mouth, but that's what I take from that comment. We have to somehow put a monetary value on life (or individual lives) and determine their care based on that.

Please correct me if I'm wrong b/c I don't want to skew what you are saying...

[HomerPenguin]

It all comes back to obligation versus choice.

Actually it also comes back to whether or not life has any inherent value or, if not, to what extent we feel comfortable determining who is worthy of receiving life-saving medical care.

Who decides that? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like we should treat life as a business decision.

I'm the single-payer guy; I think everybody should have access to basic care. You've argued that treatment for things like cancer is a privilege, which means we've got to determine who is worthy of that privilege and who isn't.

[bhaw]

I would hope people with the mean to would choose to help those less fortunate. But a) they shouldn't be forced to do so and b) they should be able to choose who that money goes to.

And, let's be realistic, c) they don't, at least not in large enough numbers to eliminate the disparity. So that's fine; treatment for cancer is something you earn, or win, as a successful member of society, not something you deserve as a human being. Again, and I mean this in all sincerity, I think you're to be commended for frankly stating your position. I don't agree with it, but I respect the fact that you didn't try to sugar-coat it.[/quote]

And what is this a product of? I think people are inherently good for the most part. Problem is that with so many systems out of whack, we have learned that we need to stock pile the money for that rainy day.

I think that if people had more available money, they'd donate it. But again, why should they be mandated to do so?

I don't believe life is totally based on luck and circumstance. There are plenty of people that aspire to break that mold and do. Problem is that people now feel entitled, so motivation to succeed is way down. And now giving out universal coverage would give people one less reason to aspire for a good job with benefits.

[HomerPenguin]

I would hope people with the mean to would choose to help those less fortunate. But a) they shouldn't be forced to do so and b) they should be able to choose who that money goes to.

And, let's be realistic, c) they don't, at least not in large enough numbers to eliminate the disparity. So that's fine; treatment for cancer is something you earn, or win, as a successful member of society, not something you deserve as a human being. Again, and I mean this in all sincerity, I think you're to be commended for frankly stating your position. I don't agree with it, but I respect the fact that you didn't try to sugar-coat it.

And what is this a product of? I think people are inherently good for the most part. Problem is that with so many systems out of whack, we have learned that we need to stock pile the money for that rainy day.

I think that if people had more available money, they'd donate it.

What's the evidence to suggest that they would?

[MWB]

I think people are inherently good for the most part.

Problem is that people now feel entitled, so motivation to succeed is way down. And now giving out universal coverage would give people one less reason to aspire for a good job with benefits.

Isn't this a contradiction? If people are inherently good (which I agree with), won't inherently good people aspire for success no matter what? I don't think inherently good people will say, "To hell with it, I'm not going to try to succeed in life because I'll be given everything."

[bhaw]

I'm the single-payer guy; I think everybody should have access to basic care. You've argued that treatment for things like cancer is a privilege, which means we've got to determine who is worthy of that privilege and who isn't.

It should be implied... those that can afford it or can attract donations.

Is basic care to include long term care? Where does "basic" stop? I agree people should be able to get emergency care. I agree the routine care should be available to all (so to prevent the costly emergency and long term, late life issues). But where does basic care cut off? I think beyond routine and emergency care, it should be up to you to provide for it.

Of course, it should be noted that I think health care in general needs to be fixed so that you don't need to be well off to afford it. But even if that ever becomes the case, long term care is a choice.

As an aside, I think people should be able to choose to terminate their life. Not just at the drop of a hat, but if they've undergone counseling and can be deemed in a healthy mind state, I think it's crazy we forbid that.

[bhaw]

I think people are inherently good for the most part.

Problem is that people now feel entitled, so motivation to succeed is way down. And now giving out universal coverage would give people one less reason to aspire for a good job with benefits.

Isn't this a contradiction? If people are inherently good (which I agree with), won't inherently good people aspire for success no matter what? I don't think inherently good people will say, "To hell with it, I'm not going to try to succeed in life because I'll be given everything."

No, those are different character traits. There are very good people who have zero motivation. I have known people who have absolutely no aspirations but would help anyone with anything they did have. Conversely, there are plenty of people who aspire to do well but are terrible people.

They are not mutually exclusive nor a package deal.

[bhaw]

What's the evidence to suggest that they would?

None. My own feeling/belief.

Forcing people to do so will only give it more of a negative connotation. The more we force it, the less likely people are to do it on their own.

These are personal opinions.

[HomerPenguin]

I'm the single-payer guy; I think everybody should have access to basic care. You've argued that treatment for things like cancer is a privilege, which means we've got to determine who is worthy of that privilege and who isn't.

It should be implied... those that can afford it or can attract donations.

Is basic care to include long term care? Where does "basic" stop? I agree people should be able to get emergency care. I agree the routine care should be available to all (so to prevent the costly emergency and long term, late life issues). But where does basic care cut off? I think beyond routine and emergency care, it should be up to you to provide for it.

I'm confused. You're trying to pin me down to a definition of "basic care" while using the term "routine care." What do you see as the difference? Isn't surgery/radiation/chemo "routine" care for somebody diagnosed with cancer?

Of course, it should be noted that I think health care in general needs to be fixed so that you don't need to be well off to afford it. But even if that ever becomes the case, long term care is a choice.

I guess. If a doctor told me that I had cancer, I'm not sure I'd see the decision to receive or refuse treatment as a choice. Maybe at a very late stage.

[HomerPenguin]

What's the evidence to suggest that they would?

None. My own feeling/belief.

Forcing people to do so will only give it more of a negative connotation. The more we force it, the less likely people are to do it on their own.

These are personal opinions.

But people aren't forced to do it now, and they're not. What is it that's keeping them from doing it now?

[bhaw]

I'm the single-payer guy; I think everybody should have access to basic care. You've argued that treatment for things like cancer is a privilege, which means we've got to determine who is worthy of that privilege and who isn't.

It should be implied... those that can afford it or can attract donations.

Is basic care to include long term care? Where does "basic" stop? I agree people should be able to get emergency care. I agree the routine care should be available to all (so to prevent the costly emergency and long term, late life issues). But where does basic care cut off? I think beyond routine and emergency care, it should be up to you to provide for it.

I'm confused. You're trying to pin me down to a definition of "basic care" while using the term "routine care." What do you see as the difference? Isn't surgery/radiation/chemo "routine" care for somebody diagnosed with cancer?

Not my intention. Routine as in check ups/physicals, screenings, etc. If those are available, someone who goes to the doctor regularly would have a higher chance of getting, say, prostate cancer caught earlier, where it is more affordable to treat. Versus someone who doesn't go for 20 years, comes in to the ER because the cancer has taken over, and now has to undergo far more costly procedures to treat it.

My definition of "basic" care is ER (oh my god I cut my finger off!) care and preventative types of care. I would be happy if those were universally covered in an effective way. But once you get past that, it's not society's job to take care of you.

[bhaw]

What's the evidence to suggest that they would?

None. My own feeling/belief.

Forcing people to do so will only give it more of a negative connotation. The more we force it, the less likely people are to do it on their own.

These are personal opinions.

But people aren't forced to do it now, and they're not. What is it that's keeping them from doing it now?

Are you asking about right now when people can't even afford their own houses and are afraid for their jobs? That's a silly question.

[bhaw]

side note: oi! you know you've been in Canada too long when you go to spell check ups and it comes out as cheque ups!

[HomerPenguin]

Not my intention. Routine as in check ups/physicals, screenings, etc. If those are available, someone who goes to the doctor regularly would have a higher chance of getting, say, prostate cancer caught earlier, where it is more affordable to treat. Versus someone who doesn't go for 20 years, comes in to the ER because the cancer has taken over, and now has to undergo far more costly procedures to treat it.

Early stage treatment for prostate cancer is surgery, which inevitably is going to cost thousands of dollars. That it's "more affordable" to treat at that stage than it would be later does not mean that everybody would be able to afford it.

My definition of "basic" care is ER (oh my god I cut my finger off!) care and preventative types of care. I would be happy if those were universally covered in an effective way. But once you get past that, it's not society's job to take care of you.

Right. So again, the people who have the means, or can raise them through charity, deserve treatment and those who don't or can't, don't. That seems to be the point you've restated several times now. Am I misrepresenting it somehow?

[HomerPenguin]

But people aren't forced to do it now, and they're not. What is it that's keeping them from doing it now?

Are you asking about right now when people can't even afford their own houses and are afraid for their jobs? That's a silly question.

Is it your contention that the problem of vast numbers of uninsured citizens has just arisen in the past 9 months? What were people with means doing before the economic meltdown?

[ExPatriatePen]

Serious question. Does anyone following this discussion really think that the Obama administration or the law makers that are advocating healthcare reform - that those individuals have any intention of participating in this reform themselves, or will they continue to exempt themselves and hold onto their "cushy" health care benefit package courtesy of you and me, the Tax paying people of America?

[Hockeynut!]

My definition of "basic" care is ER (oh my god I cut my finger off!) care and preventative types of care. I would be happy if those were universally covered in an effective way. But once you get past that, it's not society's job to take care of you.

Didn't you mention that you recently moved to Edmonton and that society is paying for your wife's pregnancy/the birth of your child?

Serious question though. While you've been in Edmonton, have you noticed a big uprising from citizens against the universal health care system? Are people up there clamoring to go to a system like we have in the US? Are the employers in Canada saying "Please let us pay for our employees health insurance?" I know the Canadian system has flaws, but I'm wondering if people want it to be changed to a non "socialized" system.

[eddysnake]

Serious question. Does anyone following this discussion really think that the Obama administration or the law makers that are advocating healthcare reform - that those individuals have any intention of participating in this reform themselves, or will they continue to exempt themselves and hold onto their "cushy" health care benefit package courtesy of you and me, the Tax paying people of America?

if there is an option that you can keep your coverage you currently have, absolutely no way they are going to switch. I know I wouldn't if I were them, and still won't (being that I work for the state and currently get "cushy" benefits)

[bhaw]

Not my intention. Routine as in check ups/physicals, screenings, etc. If those are available, someone who goes to the doctor regularly would have a higher chance of getting, say, prostate cancer caught earlier, where it is more affordable to treat. Versus someone who doesn't go for 20 years, comes in to the ER because the cancer has taken over, and now has to undergo far more costly procedures to treat it.

Early stage treatment for prostate cancer is surgery, which inevitably is going to cost thousands of dollars. That it's "more affordable" to treat at that stage than it would be later does not mean that everybody would be able to afford it.

My definition of "basic" care is ER (oh my god I cut my finger off!) care and preventative types of care. I would be happy if those were universally covered in an effective way. But once you get past that, it's not society's job to take care of you.

Right. So again, the people who have the means, or can raise them through charity, deserve treatment and those who don't or can't, don't. That seems to be the point you've restated several times now. Am I misrepresenting it somehow?

Other than using "deserve" as in saying that they morally shouldn't get it somehow, you're about right. Change deserve to "entitled." A totally different connotation.

I'm a good person. I donate to charity, rescue dogs, help people, etc. When my wife and I ran into trouble did I not "deserve" help? Or was I not "entitled" to it? I'd hate to think I was deemed undeserving while there are plenty of worse people out there who apparently are "deserving."

As far as the first point goes (sorry, out of order)... in the long run, it actually would promote cheaper health care because less people have to rush in for the emergency surgeries and have the public pick up the tab. If you catch it when it's more affordable, there are still more people who can afford it, even though it may not be everyone. (note: I'm getting myself lost now... I had about 4 other points to this part but lost them all...)

[bhaw]

But people aren't forced to do it now, and they're not. What is it that's keeping them from doing it now?

Are you asking about right now when people can't even afford their own houses and are afraid for their jobs? That's a silly question.

Is it your contention that the problem of vast numbers of uninsured citizens has just arisen in the past 9 months? What were people with means doing before the economic meltdown?

I don't understand the question.