03-09-2010, 09:02 PM
goodintentions Wrote:I will never support my tax dollars being spent on people that are here illegally.You did if you voted for G-dub.
Thread Rating:
|
Teabaggers and Health Care
|
03-10-2010, 11:07 AM
I think the free market system is a wonderful way to go for health care reform. We currently don't have a free market in health care reform because insurance companies cannot compete across state lines. You are stuck with the policy you have and do not have the choice to find truly affordable health care.
An example would be Apple. Apple is making tons of money and no one is screaming about their corporate greed. I don't hear anyone saying that an iPod costs too much. Apple has given the technology industry a decade of great innovation because they were interested in, get this, profits! How dare them, I don't want my iPod anymore. This is what a truly free market will give us. We have been brainwashed to think that our current system of healthcare is broken because of the greedy corporate executives of the insurance companies. Yes, they are driven by profits just like Apple but their hands are tied by the current Federal and State laws designed to protect us. For a free market to truly exist it actually has to be a free market.
03-10-2010, 12:02 PM
wakluvit Wrote:I think the free market system is a wonderful way to go for health care reform. We currently don't have a free market in health care reform because insurance companies cannot compete across state lines. You are stuck with the policy you have and do not have the choice to find truly affordable health care.In terms of health care how does the free market focus on what is best for the people, the best way to treat people, the best way to cure illness? The answer... it doesn't. A corporations only obligation is to make as much profit as possible. That is the bottom line. A corporation doesn't exist to help people. There is no integrity in a corporation. There may be an appearance of integrity as a public relations gimmick but if anyone thinks that there is a corporation in existence that puts the best interest of the masses ahead of profit they would be sadly mistaken. Is a hospital there to help people or to make money? Do you think at their board meetings they agonize over losing a patient or the cost of a new piece of equipment? Is a phameceutical corporation there to help people or to make money? Look up the history of the Pure Food and Drug Act to see where an example of the down side of an unregulated free market.
03-10-2010, 12:54 PM
Danno Wrote:wakluvit Wrote:I think the free market system is a wonderful way to go for health care reform. We currently don't have a free market in health care reform because insurance companies cannot compete across state lines. You are stuck with the policy you have and do not have the choice to find truly affordable health care.In terms of health care how does the free market focus on what is best for the people, the best way to treat people, the best way to cure illness? The answer... it doesn't. A corporations only obligation is to make as much profit as possible. That is the bottom line. A corporation doesn't exist to help people. There is no integrity in a corporation. There may be an appearance of integrity as a public relations gimmick but if anyone thinks that there is a corporation in existence that puts the best interest of the masses ahead of profit they would be sadly mistaken. Is a hospital there to help people or to make money? Do you think at their board meetings they agonize over losing a patient or the cost of a new piece of equipment? Is a phameceutical corporation there to help people or to make money? Look up the history of the Pure Food and Drug Act to see where an example of the down side of an unregulated free market. A regulated free market is the best way, but wedon't even have a well regulated free market for healthcare. Free markets give us innovation. Are our lives better because of the invention of CT Scan Machines? I would say yes. Was the CT Scan invented by the government? No. Does a corporation make a profit on the design, manufacture, and sales of the CT Scan? Yes. So, if a corporation is making a profit on a CT Scan that is having a positive benefit to us, how is that not in the best interest of the public? That's the benefit of a free market, innovation. What incentives will Doctors and medical device companies have to be at the cutting edge of medical innovation when they are simply meeting a quota? I am a cancer survivor because I went to Johns Hopkins and had the cutting edge equipment provide me with the best radiation treatment available at the time. Johns Hopkins makes a lot of money, the machine they used on me is made by a corporation that makes money. That doesn't mean they aren't in the best interests of people. They have to be because they are one of the top hospitals in the country and therefore they make money because people go to them to get treated. Profits tie directly into the care that they give people. Now, that sounds like the America I want to live in. Danno, go ahead and demonize corporations until you are blue in the face. Without them, this country wouldn't be the same. I'm not buying the argument that insurance company greed is the reason our health care system is broken. I believe the wrong kind of government regulation is to blame.
03-10-2010, 01:07 PM
Danno Wrote:wakluvit Wrote:I think the free market system is a wonderful way to go for health care reform. We currently don't have a free market in health care reform because insurance companies cannot compete across state lines. You are stuck with the policy you have and do not have the choice to find truly affordable health care.A corporation doesn't exist to help people. There is no integrity in a corporation. There may be an appearance of integrity as a public relations gimmick but if anyone thinks that there is a corporation in existence that puts the best interest of the masses ahead of profit they would be sadly mistaken. Interesting quote above. Exchange "corporation" with "politician." Later, in the quote exchange "profit" for "re-election." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you feel our government operates in the best interests of its people. If anyones believes that, they are sadly mistaken. Our government is run by politicians who have an appearance of integrity as a public relations gimmick and they are there to get re-elected. The reason why corporations operate so effectively is because they make decisions based on the best for the corporation. If a corporation fails, everyone working within that corporation loses his/her job. So, the Managers must make tough, sometimes unpopular decisions for the best interest of the corporation employing the people that are left employed there. That doesn't sound heartless to me. Politicians, on the other hand, make the most popular decisions which aren't always the best decisions for our country so they'll get re-elected. What happens when our country fails? Government run health care is not the answer!!!
03-10-2010, 06:32 PM
I have my health, knock on wood. But other friends and family I know worry about pre-existing conditions,loopholes and keeping insurance/employment. My share of my employer's policy goes up 10-15% a year! 20% of my gross income is health insurance paid mostly by my employer! My three options are almost identical coverage. I probably have a "Cadillac plan" and still not satisfied with co-pays, unpaid claims and every year less services for higher cost. Then what happens to me and my family if I get layed off? What if my kid gets sick between jobs? This free market solution isn't working. Thats why Republican should stop trying to kill the bill and get involved in the common sense regulation thats needed. I agree with them on some things like mandated policies with the insurance companies and penalties for noncompliance. I see how they can drop the cost of healthcare from a healthier pool but it seems unamerican. Why cant the republicans use individual mandate, pre-existing condition and coverage between jobs as talking points? All I hear is tort reform, across state lines and abortion funding, none of which is going to affect me.
Dennis mentioned that keeping insurance companies as the primary contact has improved Dutch healthcare. He may be right but what he calls "free market" has strong gov. regulation and a "public option" for the chronically ill. Thats what a tea bag patriot calls Obamcare or SOCIALISM! Back to my original point pure free markets dont exist. Its an idealist construct, even that awesome iPhone probably was made by somechild labor in China. let freedom ring. Insurance companies only profit should be derived on keeping their costumers healthy, not denying claims for technicalities and dropping folks when they get to sick. wakluvit Wrote:We currently don't have a free market in health care reform because insurance companies cannot compete across state lines Thats sounds great, but thats the same argument the banking industry and credit cards used. Now they all set up shop in which ever state has the least regulation, so they can charge you any rate for any reason. At least you have an option to not use a credit card. If we do this reform we need a federal set of guidelines. Not bankrupt states whoring out laws that keep people sick and insurance companies rich.
03-10-2010, 06:53 PM
wakluvit Wrote:Sorry for misleading you. I didn't mean to demonize anything. I don't believe demons exist anyway. I'm just trying to say that there is a better way than the free market. We modern Western Hemisphereians are so indoctrinated to regard the free market as some kind of godlike pinnacle... that nothing could be better. All I'm saying is that we, meaning modern human science, now know that there can be a better way.Danno Wrote:wakluvit Wrote:I think the free market system is a wonderful way to go for health care reform. We currently don't have a free market in health care reform because insurance companies cannot compete across state lines. You are stuck with the policy you have and do not have the choice to find truly affordable health care.In terms of health care how does the free market focus on what is best for the people, the best way to treat people, the best way to cure illness? The answer... it doesn't. A corporations only obligation is to make as much profit as possible. That is the bottom line. A corporation doesn't exist to help people. There is no integrity in a corporation. There may be an appearance of integrity as a public relations gimmick but if anyone thinks that there is a corporation in existence that puts the best interest of the masses ahead of profit they would be sadly mistaken. Is a hospital there to help people or to make money? Do you think at their board meetings they agonize over losing a patient or the cost of a new piece of equipment? Is a phameceutical corporation there to help people or to make money? Look up the history of the Pure Food and Drug Act to see where an example of the down side of an unregulated free market. Your question/statement about incentive and doctors is a common misconception about human nature. That being that money is the only incentive that motivates people to do good things. That is a very negative outlook on human flexibility and potential. The fact is that modern psyphology knows that to not be the case by any means. Here is a dissertation on the very subject followed by an excellent piece on human nature. It is from the Zeitgeist Movement FAQ. Please try to read it without any preconceptions. The free-enterprise system does create incentive to achieve, however it also breeds the incentive for corruption, theft, and greed. Our aim is to encourage a new incentive system, one no longer directed toward the shallow and self-centered goals of wealth, property, and power. Today, financial barriers place enormous limitations on innovation, individual creativity, and personal incentive. In The Venus Project, money would not be required to help one achieve or create, as facilities would be made available to serve everyone's needs. We do advocate that all people have access to all goods and services, medical care, education, shelter, food and so forth. It is not enough to provide the necessities of life alone. We feel that our proposals will generate a new incentive system. Human beings need challenges in order to evolve intellectually and maintain a high level of curiosity and a need to overcome shortages. The type of education that we advocate is the intelligent use of existing resources and the protection of the environment. The shameful thing about the free enterprise system is the wasted lives of many people - young girls standing behind counters in department stores waiting for a sale, men and woman working in industrial plants using a small part of their mental capabilities. In the schools of tomorrow people will learn how to relate to others intelligently, cooperate and share ideas to help make the world a far better place, and not to squander resources in wars and military expenditures. If you fail to grasp the significance consider this: when the states joined together the militias disappeared at the borders and Americans were free of territorial disputes. This same process can be applied globally where all science and technology are utilized for the benefit of all of Earth's inhabitants. These concepts are based upon years of cumulative data. If we fail to do our own thinking and conform to established social institutions, others will do our thinking for us. I also believe in the incentive system but not the shallow, self-centered incentives perpetuated by our monetary-based institutions. The question "why are we here?" is a philosophical question which has no reference. Attempts have been made by theologians to answer this. Our answer is that we are here as a by-product of evolution. The scientific response is not a question of "why are we here," it is "what are the processes that generate different life forms." We also go into this in the book The Best That Money Can't Buy, by Jacque Fresco, above on page 19 in the chapter "From Superstition To Science." You have been brought up to believe people are inspired by rewards or money. In essence all of the people we have admired in the past, Michael Angelo, da Vinci, Bell, the Wright Brothers, Darwin, and many others worked because they were interested in problem solving, not financial gain. This in some cases was a by-product. Usually money-oriented people become business men, or stock brokers; they are rarely creative. I have always felt threatened by people whose sole motivation is financial gain. On islands in the South Pacific, people had more than enough resources. Although banana, coconuts, fish and breadfruit were abundant, the natives worked continuously building navigation equipment, canoes, huts, and weaved cloth. Although no money was used, their incentive improved their standard of living. In the early days in America a man and wife could build a log cabin in several months. Today it takes 30 years or so to pay off a house with the additional funds to bankers and others that actually have nothing to do with the building of the house. If you examine your statements carefully of people who have access to all the necessities of life you will find that many wealthy people do not eat 25 meals a day even though they have access to it and they do not stuff their environment with hundreds of musical instruments and accumulate hundreds of cars. It is not the availability of resources that is disturbing to people, it is the lack of resources that is responsible for most crimes, embezzlement, deception of all kinds, etc. Consider this when few nations control most of the worlds resources and exploit other nations with their positions of differential advantage. All of the technical staff and everyone else will have access to a very high standard of living; the incentive, which will propel people, is the end of war, territorial disputes, economic hardship, debt, and the basis for most crimes as they will all be eliminated. In this new society as proposed by The Venus Project, the environment in which people are raised and educated will be based upon the fundamental principles of science and the comprehensive knowledge of the interrelationship between people and the environment, which sustains all life. Isn't this against Human Nature? From H. G. Wells, "The anti-progressives of the early twentieth century loved to assert that "Human Nature" never altered; to imagine that the men of the Stone Age felt and thought like bank clerks picnicking in a cave, and the ideas of Confucius and Buddha were easily interchangeable with the ideas of Rousseau, Karl Marx or De Windt. They were not simply ignorant, but misinformed about almost every essential fact in the past experiences and present situation of the race." The New Utopians by Robert Boguslaw: "As Norman R. F. Maier (and others) point out years ago, the term "Human Nature" is characteristically used as a screen to hide our ignorance about man in general. And one of the more elementary oversights made in discussions of human behavior consists of ignoring the fact that the actions of men are set in motion by external as well as internal forces." As Arthur C. Clark and many other forward writers have pointed out, anyone who brings up the human nature question is naïve. From the book Looking Forward, by Jacque Fresco: "When little was known about cultural anthropology, sociology, and psychology, it seemed quite valid to resist proposed reforms by saying, "it won't work. It is against human nature." It is difficult for many people to appreciate the fact that what they call "human nature" just doesn't exit. People are like mirrors they largely reflect their surroundings. If people were to come into the world with a fixed "nature" consisting of automatic responses, civilization would be impossible. Like the ants, we would live out our lives in patterns that are modified but little with the passing of time. The wonderful thing about us is that we come into this world with maximum flexibility." From The Best That Money Can't Buy, Page89, by Jacque Fresco Bigotry, racism, nationalism, jealousy, superstition, greed, and self-centered behavior are all learned patterns of behavior, which are strengthened or reinforced by our upbringing. These patterns of behavior are not inherited human traits or "human nature" as most people have been taught to believe. If the environment remains unaltered, similar behavior will reoccur. When we come into the world we arrive with a clean slate as far as our relationships with others are concerned. In the final analysis, any judgment regarding undesirable human behavior serves no purpose without an attempt to alter the environment that creates it. In a society that provides for most human needs, constructive behavior would be reinforced, and people who have difficulty interacting in the community would be helped rather than imprisoned. Aspiring to a particular ethical behavior has to do with human aspirations and ideals. Functional morality is the ability to provide a process level to achieve a sustainable environment for all people. By this, we mean providing clean air and water, goods and services, and a healthy and innovative environment that is emotionally and intellectually fulfilling. It is difficult to conceive of any solutions that would serve the interest of the majority in a monetary-based system. None of this can be accomplished without a comprehensive redesign of our social system and eventual replacement of the monetary-based system by a resource-based economy.
03-10-2010, 07:00 PM
goodintentions Wrote:I will never support my tax dollars going to pay for the abortion of people Do you support death penalty and War? Both of which use tax money for murder. Does your private insurance company pay for medical abortion? How would you know?
03-10-2010, 07:02 PM
wakluvit Wrote:Why would you assume that? I distrust almost every aspect of government. The parallels between big busnisses and government are many.Danno Wrote:wakluvit Wrote:I think the free market system is a wonderful way to go for health care reform. We currently don't have a free market in health care reform because insurance companies cannot compete across state lines. You are stuck with the policy you have and do not have the choice to find truly affordable health care.A corporation doesn't exist to help people. There is no integrity in a corporation. There may be an appearance of integrity as a public relations gimmick but if anyone thinks that there is a corporation in existence that puts the best interest of the masses ahead of profit they would be sadly mistaken.
03-10-2010, 09:43 PM
Danno Wrote:wakluvit Wrote:Why would you assume that? I distrust almost every aspect of government. The parallels between big busnisses and government are many.Danno Wrote:wakluvit Wrote:I think the free market system is a wonderful way to go for health care reform. We currently don't have a free market in health care reform because insurance companies cannot compete across state lines. You are stuck with the policy you have and do not have the choice to find truly affordable health care.A corporation doesn't exist to help people. There is no integrity in a corporation. There may be an appearance of integrity as a public relations gimmick but if anyone thinks that there is a corporation in existence that puts the best interest of the masses ahead of profit they would be sadly mistaken. Sorry if I assumed that you were supporting government running health care over insurance companies. I'm just tired of everyone blaming the insurance companies for our health care problems when our government's regulation over the insurance companies is the problem. Expanding government to run health will only make it worse and is not the answer. This health care bill needs to be thrown out and our congress needs to work together to come up with a good plan. Maybe if we make the Congressmen and Women use the same insurance as us they'll come up with a good plan within weeks. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)