U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-25-2010, 02:20 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,582 posts, read 8,286,139 times
Reputation: 4158

Advertisements

They are discussing how to reform Health Care.

But the problem is, the conservatives want the government out of Health Care. And the Democrats want government heavily involved in Health Care, basically running the whole thing. They make a few comments about "some" private functions still being "allowed", but the very idea of government having the power to decide what parts of Health Care will be "allowed", is anathema to conservatives.

With conservatives wanting government out, and leftists wanting government in, what compromise is possible?

If the conclusion is that government will only run part of it instead of all of it, is this really a compromise?

It's a lot like people who have all their money in a bank on one side, and bank robbers on the other side. The people want their money to stay in the bank, and the robbers want to take it out. A "compromise" might be that the robbers only get part of it and the people get to keep the rest in the bank.

This is clearly ridiculous. The very notion that a "compromise" is possible, means that the people (or, in the health care case, the conservatives) lose, period; and the robbers (or leftists) win.

The socialist Democrats are trying to debate the question of how much the government should take over health care. The conservative Republicans (there are some there, somewhere) are trying to debate whether the govt should take over any of it at all. If the Republicans even allow that the Democrats' question is "debatable", the Republicans automatically have lost.

What compromise is even possible?

What can these "discussions" be, other than another Democrat smoke-and-mirrors diversion where majority Democrats try once again, to ram their government-uber-alles proposals down the throats of an American citizenry that has repeatedly insisted they don't want them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2010, 03:49 PM
 
Location: Colorado
305 posts, read 318,146 times
Reputation: 48
The 'compromise' could be achieved through 'regulation'...but neither Republican or Democrat is willing to go deeply in suggesting a solution that the other side may consider in that realm. So, I would say you are correct in your statements. When it comes to insurance, I could possibly appreciate more regulation - but not socialization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
6,954 posts, read 4,425,113 times
Reputation: 2764
I watched the HC debate,and at the table you had both parties leadership and the President,what you did not see is a sitting Gov.Here they are talking about reform that will effect the states and not one GOV at the table.What the DC elitist are telling us that they think the Gov and the state legislature can add nothing to HC reform and they are incompetent imbeciles.
I think otherwise of the states,Mass under Romney reformed their HC system and some of it's provisions are in the federal bill.Of course,no one talked about the states being involved at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 28,234,776 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
They are discussing how to reform Health Care.

But the problem is, the conservatives want the government out of Health Care. And the Democrats want government heavily involved in Health Care, basically running the whole thing. They make a few comments about "some" private functions still being "allowed", but the very idea of government having the power to decide what parts of Health Care will be "allowed", is anathema to conservatives.

With conservatives wanting government out, and leftists wanting government in, what compromise is possible?

If the conclusion is that government will only run part of it instead of all of it, is this really a compromise?

It's a lot like people who have all their money in a bank on one side, and bank robbers on the other side. The people want their money to stay in the bank, and the robbers want to take it out. A "compromise" might be that the robbers only get part of it and the people get to keep the rest in the bank.

This is clearly ridiculous. The very notion that a "compromise" is possible, means that the people (or, in the health care case, the conservatives) lose, period; and the robbers (or leftists) win.

The socialist Democrats are trying to debate the question of how much the government should take over health care. The conservative Republicans (there are some there, somewhere) are trying to debate whether the govt should take over any of it at all. If the Republicans even allow that the Democrats' question is "debatable", the Republicans automatically have lost.

What compromise is even possible?

What can these "discussions" be, other than another Democrat smoke-and-mirrors diversion where majority Democrats try once again, to ram their government-uber-alles proposals down the throats of an American citizenry that has repeatedly insisted they don't want them?
The compromise will be the use of the nuclear option and then the Dems hoping that the people fail to take them to task in November. I forgot that Dirty Harry has forgotten his howling about nuclear option in 2005. He just howled his head off back then and McCain and other progressive Republicans made him happy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 04:12 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 28,234,776 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by reid_g View Post
I watched the HC debate,and at the table you had both parties leadership and the President,what you did not see is a sitting Gov.Here they are talking about reform that will effect the states and not one GOV at the table.What the DC elitist are telling us that they think the Gov and the state legislature can add nothing to HC reform and they are incompetent imbeciles.
I think otherwise of the states,Mass under Romney reformed their HC system and some of it's provisions are in the federal bill.Of course,no one talked about the states being involved at all.
I can agree with you about the fact that all those governors hanging around and not one was allowed in the meeting. I think it makes it very obvious that some of the Dems just don't think Governors are any smarter than the rest of us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,534,315 times
Reputation: 27566
First of all they are not reforming healthcare. They are trying to figure out how to subsidize health insurance and how to eventually pay for it.

If they made that the issue and problem and defined it as such then maybe they could come up with something that solves the problem.

Reforming health CARE involves alot more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 04:42 PM
 
5,196 posts, read 4,678,977 times
Reputation: 1562
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
First of all they are not reforming healthcare.

If they made that the issue and problem and defined it as such then maybe they could come up with something that solves the problem.

Reforming health CARE involves alot more.
This is something that the MSM rarely touches on but the administration has been studying this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
There has been research done to find out how to deliver the most appropriate and efficient care and this has even been required reading at the White House. Now if and how the research is put into action in health reform is another matter.
Here's a snippet.

"And some of the answers that they gave me were alarming. There were massive numbers of physicians, large numbers of physicians, who were now buying up their own imaging centers, surgical centers. And what they were describing to me was a world where medicine had become a business, where the desire to—there’s always, in any system, a conflict between the way you can make money and the way you can take good care of patients. And the incentives in our healthcare system as a whole have been screwy. With a fee-for-service system, if you do more, you get paid more. That leads to more surgery, more radiology. And you saw it in McAllen. They were doing twice as many heart operations, twice as many pacemaker placements. And home healthcare spending was through the roof. There was a sense in which the culture of medicine had gone to an extreme that we don’t want to approach as a country."
There is a metro in Colorado that is also on the admin's radar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
This is an interesting article on providing low cost and quality health care.

I think the key element is to have non-profit, whether private or public, in order to get the best bang for the buck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
6,954 posts, read 4,425,113 times
Reputation: 2764
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
I can agree with you about the fact that all those governors hanging around and not one was allowed in the meeting. I think it makes it very obvious that some of the Dems just don't think Governors are any smarter than the rest of us.
The federal gvt and the banking cartel FR are out of control and the only way I see freedom being protected is through the states.Take HC reform,I have a {D} GOV Strickland and the house and senate are mixed between the parties.I do not think they are incompetent or to stupid to do whats best for Ohio.
The issue would be closer to the people where they can take action,instead of being run by the "one size fits all " tyrants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 04:55 PM
 
8,287 posts, read 11,838,765 times
Reputation: 4948
honestly I say screw the whining obstructionist Pukes and pass the bill without them. They had their chance with Bush & a Republican controlled Congress and did nothing about healthcare except for a unfunded prescription bill for seniors.
The Republicans are still vouching for the insurance companies to the detriment of the health of the American people. They are worried that it will cost up to a trillion dollars yet they didn't mind spending that much to fund Dubya's two wars over & over with no questions asked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
14,131 posts, read 27,098,301 times
Reputation: 6826
The two sides are too far apart and just at odds on basic philosophy. Looks like reconciliation is the only option at this point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:07 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top