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.
sounts awesome.. it will be interesting to watch because if it works well I think it could work on a national level..which is something we truly need.
The bigger an organization gets, the less responsive to change it becomes-- for instance, if the system was heavily geared towards treating brain cancer, but one year, colon cancer raged, a big system will take a long time to regear to handle colon cancer because approvals have to go through so many layers of beauracracy. A smaller organization, however, is suited to share information with other small organizations (states for instance) but has less layers to move to respond to changes.
Even more important, the cultures of states are very, very different. Think Oregon versus Kentucky. It's hard for an enormous company like the federal government to respond to the different needs of each. However, when it's state run, the programs are tailored to their individual needs. (Again, Oregon will have reason, I suspect, for response to shark attacks or tsunami recovery. Kentucky would need stomach pumping facilities for their moonshine.
The bigger an organization gets, the less responsive to change it becomes-- for instance, if the system was heavily geared towards treating brain cancer, but one year, colon cancer raged, a big system will take a long time to regear to handle colon cancer because approvals have to go through so many layers of beauracracy. A smaller organization, however, is suited to share information with other small organizations (states for instance) but has less layers to move to respond to changes.
Even more important, the cultures of states are very, very different. Think Oregon versus Kentucky. It's hard for an enormous company like the federal government to respond to the different needs of each. However, when it's state run, the programs are tailored to their individual needs. (Again, Oregon will have reason, I suspect, for response to shark attacks or tsunami recovery. Kentucky would need stomach pumping facilities for their moonshine.
I understand your points.. but this is what I just can't understand.. people.. governments..only make things as complicated as they want to make them. If they set out to make something simple.. they will .. We've all got it in our minds that things will be complicated on convoluted..
Secondly.. I just don't understand how "culture" of different states factors in herer.. or anywhere in health care for that matter. EVERYONE regardless of their "culture" deserves affordable health care. .. I get your point when you talk aobut cost of living (for example.. just declaring all people that make $40K "middle class" across the board is just.. well wrong.. especially where I live you are living in the ghetto at $40K a year.. because you can't survive on that kind of salary)...
But healthcare.. EVERYONE needs to go to the dr and treat their illnesses.. so i really do not feel that "culture" plays into it. Yes.. some ethnic backgrounds tend to be prone to certain health complications.. but U.S is such amelting pot that they all cross.. and it sitll needs to be cared for regardless. It's also not based on where you live.. but what ethnicity your paretns were orginally.
I think you fail to see the need for health care reform. Harry S. Truman wanted universal health care over 60 years ago. What perplexes me is that many like you still have their heads buried in the ground.
FDR preserved your rotten Social Darwinist economic system over 70 years ago by taxing the wealthy and corporations- too bad you have learned so little.
You seem to have merged two separate issues into a single thought.
I didn't state at all that healthcare shouldn't be reformed, however I am (and continue to be) concerned about the sliding scale premiums and deductibles.
If a state already has a "progressive" income tax system, and adds this to the mix, then it just continues the "achievement penalty". I generally disagree with this, on multiple levels of taxation. It has nothing to do with providing healthcare.
I understand your points.. but this is what I just can't understand.. people.. governments..only make things as complicated as they want to make them.
Anytime the government acts, it's an opportunity for politicians to exercise power. That power might come out in a Bill Clinton pardoning a lot of shady people for money or George Bush hiring incompetent individuals like Brown or Bremer.
Last week, Congress debated and voted on the Farm Bill. In the Farm Bill, many, many Congresspeople subsidize farming-- More accurately, they bribe constituents who farm with your money. All three of my Congresspeople voted yes for it and yes to override the presidents veto. The Farm Bill demonstrates how politicians always want it complicated. When it's the Healthcare Bill, there'll be lots of doctors and hospitals getting your money above and beyond what they don't deserve... just like farmers do now.
We can say "Well yeah, but we just have to keep an eye on our politicians." My response is it hasn't happened yet, why would we start now? Further, I might be able to watch my three Congresspeople, but what about the next person who doesn't watch theirs? You can't do anything if the next district doesn't care. As soon as you give the government control over something, you always have to compromise with 540 Congresspeople... each trying to get a little piece of the pie.
How can a project be effective when there are 540 chiefs who have to be in agreement?... I'll tell you how: By every one of those people getting a little piece of the action so they'll go along with the program.
That, honest to God, is how the government works. It sucks.
Quote:
Secondly.. I just don't understand how "culture" of different states factors in herer.. or anywhere in health care for that matter.
One way that culture will make a difference is that in the north, there'll be more cold-weather related issues and in the south, obviously, heat-related issues. A state being able to respond to it's unique needs without answering to superiors who don't understand those needs is an example of how culture plays a role.
When you start dealing with politicians (get involved with local politics if you haven't) you quickly find that they're great at getting elected but not necessarily as concerned with the well-being of people as they are concerned with stroking their egos. What happens is that organizational decisions (just like in a big corp) are made on account of who's the best butt kisser... So cultural needs (like cold vs. hot weather responsiveness) will be dictated less by locale and more by who's the most chummy with the decision-maker. (This is at the heart of what we all mean when we say "government doesn't do anything right.")
Another example of cultural differences is that I only go to the doctor if I have a broken bone. That's true of every person I knew growing up. No one went to the doctor. Imposing a system that is more burdensome than demand requires because Oregonians go to the doctor for sniffles is inconsiderate of my culture... and not giving them as much of a system as they want isn't considerate of theirs.
Lastly, off the top of my head, is most significant. One fact of life is that the more services you provide, the more you must tax. The more you tax, the less innovative and productive the citizens and the more difficult to move through the economic ranks. (If you haven't heard this before, think back to when Barack was being questioned at the debate about raising the cap. gains tax. When the tax is lower, the government takes in more money than when it's higher. That's because, when you raise taxes, people do only enough to survive, but when you lower them, even though people are actually paying more, they're willing to bust their butts to make money.)
The people of one state may prefer the least amount of care-- say preventative and catastrophic-- so that taxes are as low as possible. However, the next state might prefer less social mobility in favor of more services-- prescription coverage maybe. That is an important detail.
One other thing about fed control is that it gives no out for those oppressed by the system. If public healthcare is the boon everyone thinks it is, what's going to happen is the states with the best system (balancing price and services) is going to draw lots of people. Businesses will be drawn there because the glut of labor will offset the cost of taxes for healthcare.
When the local health system goes bad (they all do, it's just part of an organization's lifecycle) all the workers run to the next state that is best... and businesses follow. From there, the government is forced to remake itself. (Check out Michigan right now to see a government going through an implosion.)
When the fed controls that system, your only option is to accept the declining quality of the system and there is no motivation-- like a declining population-- to push the politicians into fixing the problems. (Think Social Security and Medicare for the biggest rip-off of our lifetimes that we're being oppressed by.)
And one more last thing I just thought about. Illegal immigration is causing a tremendous burden our system right now. If the states with problems had control, they could simply tax the businesses that hire illegals so that the responsible parties pay their share. However, if it was done by the fed, every special interest related to helping illegals and companies who hire them would be working Congresspeople who have nothing to do with it. What happens is the Congressperson who lives in the UP of MI and has never seen an illegal is voting down your amendments to fix your problems because the special interest is going to do him a favor at a later date.
Politics are dirty. Always have been, always will be. If you can keep a few politicians out of your pocket, you really should.
Quote:
EVERYONE regardless of their "culture" deserves affordable health care. ..
Well, I'd say that I don't understand why anyone would deserve anything they're not working for. Government is formed in order to preserve order and to give protection. If one person deserves any form of support from another, then the person giving the support deserves to use whatever method of violence they see fit against the recipient. That's really how it works. There's no such thing as deserve. "Deserve" is a BS concept that socialists are selling you without telling the whole story-- When the government takes money to redistribute, it leads to a declaration of natural war... ask the British.
It seems this debate should not be going on in 2008. Harry S. Truman in 1946 in his 'Fair Deal' wanted Universal Health Care, and some 62 years later we still even have the courage and moral ethic to discuss this issue? It again shows the profound bankruptcy of a nation as wealthy as the USA in not providing a basic human right.
The Federal reserve and the Government however has no problem in providing tax payer money to Banks and the wealthy for their errors. Sad.
It seems this debate should not be going on in 2008. Harry S. Truman in 1946 in his 'Fair Deal' wanted Universal Health Care,
What year was the "Communist Manifesto" written? Should we revisit socialism based on the theory's age?
Perhaps the debate would stop if answers were given... rather than pandering to the "gimme" voters.
Quote:
...and some 62 years later we still even have the courage and moral ethic to discuss this issue? It again shows the profound bankruptcy of a nation as wealthy as the USA in not providing a basic human right.
What's a human right? My understanding is that we have self-evident rights... but nowhere in those do I find a "take what isn't naturally mine" right. Can you help me with that?
Quote:
The Federal reserve and the Government however has no problem in providing tax payer money to Banks and the wealthy for their errors. Sad.
Would you please respond to my grievances with federally mandated healthcare program?
The federal government should NOT be regulating people... they are here to create, maintain, and protect our infrastructure... you want someone to take care of people, then you don't need to look further then the state government. I wouldn't go blaming the federal government over issues that constitutional they have no right to regulate... if you think the federal government should regulate, then perhaps you think the U.N. should regulate the federal government...
Anytime the government acts, it's an opportunity for politicians to exercise power. That power might come out in a Bill Clinton pardoning a lot of shady people for money or George Bush hiring incompetent individuals like Brown or Bremer.
Last week, Congress debated and voted on the Farm Bill. In the Farm Bill, many, many Congresspeople subsidize farming-- More accurately, they bribe constituents who farm with your money. All three of my Congresspeople voted yes for it and yes to override the presidents veto. The Farm Bill demonstrates how politicians always want it complicated. When it's the Healthcare Bill, there'll be lots of doctors and hospitals getting your money above and beyond what they don't deserve... just like farmers do now.
We can say "Well yeah, but we just have to keep an eye on our politicians." My response is it hasn't happened yet, why would we start now? Further, I might be able to watch my three Congresspeople, but what about the next person who doesn't watch theirs? You can't do anything if the next district doesn't care. As soon as you give the government control over something, you always have to compromise with 540 Congresspeople... each trying to get a little piece of the pie.
How can a project be effective when there are 540 chiefs who have to be in agreement?... I'll tell you how: By every one of those people getting a little piece of the action so they'll go along with the program.
That, honest to God, is how the government works. It sucks.
I completely agree that the way our government works right now sucks. I can say that my generation.. gen x is partly to blame.. I spent a lot of time NOT paying attention to what goes on around me.. and now that I am a mother, paying ridiculous property taxes where I live AND having to fork over $800 / month to cover ONLY me and my son (can't afford my husband on that plan) I pay attention. I also think that this economic downturn will be a HUGE eye opener for the gen x generation. I for one won't stand for it anymore.. I'm sick of corporate welfare.. of special interest that do not work in the best interest of the people of this country buying our politicians! A lot of people are complaining about "socialistic, liberal attitudes" and they poo poo any idea that helps out the hard working middle class families of this country.. yet they turn a blind eye to the corporate welfare country that we have become. I do believe that a sea of change can take place and will take place. Hell. I'm witnessing it right here where I live.. where all us taxpayers are crying foul and people are getting indicted and investigated left and right for recieving pensions they shouldn't etc.. all that added to our overinflated property taxes.... and that's because we stood up and werent going to take it anymore. The same thing CAN happen on a national scale.. BUT.. where healthcare is concerned it will take more and more people finding themselves uninsured or underinsured before it does. Right now the numbers are growing fast..but they are still not high enough to effect a change.. because the majority who are truly ignorant to the real healthcare issues in this country (and not by their own fault.. they may have an employer right now that CAN competively offer them good insurance coverage.. but those days will be gone soon as the costs keep skyrocketing) begin to have their eyes opened.
One way that culture will make a difference is that in the north, there'll be more cold-weather related issues and in the south, obviously, heat-related issues. A state being able to respond to it's unique needs without answering to superiors who don't understand those needs is an example of how culture plays a role.
When you start dealing with politicians (get involved with local politics if you haven't) you quickly find that they're great at getting elected but not necessarily as concerned with the well-being of people as they are concerned with stroking their egos. What happens is that organizational decisions (just like in a big corp) are made on account of who's the best butt kisser... So cultural needs (like cold vs. hot weather responsiveness) will be dictated less by locale and more by who's the most chummy with the decision-maker. (This is at the heart of what we all mean when we say "government doesn't do anything right.")
Another example of cultural differences is that I only go to the doctor if I have a broken bone. That's true of every person I knew growing up. No one went to the doctor. Imposing a system that is more burdensome than demand requires because Oregonians go to the doctor for sniffles is inconsiderate of my culture... and not giving them as much of a system as they want isn't considerate of theirs. I get your argument in the above paragraph.. but again ..t hat is NOT a regional thing.. it is just who YOU are.. not cultural in the sense that it depends on WHERE you live in the U.S. For example.. I live in the North a "cold" state.. we have colds and flus.. but I do not run to the dr for a cold either.. because im' not dumb enough to think that antibiotics will fix the cold. Also.. men tend not to go to the Dr. even for annual check ups.. my father was one of them. So to use that each section of the country has a "cultural difference' is really mute here.. because it's NOT a cultural thing.. That is more of the argument that YOU dont' want to pay for someone else's trips to the Dr.. BUT.. I hate to tell you if you already have insurance you already ARE paying for someone else's more frequent visits to the Dr. YOu just offset that person.. that' is why companies get better discounts.. because they have a larger pool to offset each other from.. if you know what I mean. AND again.. whatever the health issue we're talking health... if someone has a heat stroke and needs medical attention or someone has strep from a cold and needs medicine.. it's all the same.. they go and get treated for whatever ails them regardless.
Lastly, off the top of my head, is most significant. One fact of life is that the more services you provide, the more you must tax. The more you tax, the less innovative and productive the citizens and the more difficult to move through the economic ranks. (If you haven't heard this before, think back to when Barack was being questioned at the debate about raising the cap. gains tax. When the tax is lower, the government takes in more money than when it's higher. That's because, when you raise taxes, people do only enough to survive, but when you lower them, even though people are actually paying more, they're willing to bust their butts to make money.)
The people of one state may prefer the least amount of care-- say preventative and catastrophic-- so that taxes are as low as possible. However, the next state might prefer less social mobility in favor of more services-- prescription coverage maybe. That is an important detail.
I can see your argument.. but to have ONLY catastrophic and the like is ..well irresponsible.. it's called being UNDERINSURED.. and guess who ends up paying for the underinsured when they can't afford to pay for their own treatments.. the rest of us. See.. if you go to the hospital and you ring up a bill and can't pay it, then you forfeit your payment .. the hospital or provider looses money but they pass on the cost to the rest of us that are paying.. I think EVERYONE should have coverage.. and those that do use it will offset those that don't.. and those that are younger and healthier will someday end up older and in need of medical attention. .and will reap what they put in .. adn it's a cycle... Underinsured is a HUGE problem in this country.. many don't even realize they are underinsured until
One other thing about fed control is that it gives no out for those oppressed by the system. If public healthcare is the boon everyone thinks it is, what's going to happen is the states with the best system (balancing price and services) is going to draw lots of people. Businesses will be drawn there because the glut of labor will offset the cost of taxes for healthcare.
When the local health system goes bad (they all do, it's just part of an organization's lifecycle) all the workers run to the next state that is best... and businesses follow. From there, the government is forced to remake itself. (Check out Michigan right now to see a government going through an implosion.)
When the fed controls that system, your only option is to accept the declining quality of the system and there is no motivation-- like a declining population-- to push the politicians into fixing the problems. (Think Social Security and Medicare for the biggest rip-off of our lifetimes that we're being oppressed by.)
And one more last thing I just thought about. Illegal immigration is causing a tremendous burden our system right now. If the states with problems had control, they could simply tax the businesses that hire illegals so that the responsible parties pay their share. However, if it was done by the fed, every special interest related to helping illegals and companies who hire them would be working Congresspeople who have nothing to do with it. What happens is the Congressperson who lives in the UP of MI and has never seen an illegal is voting down your amendments to fix your problems because the special interest is going to do him a favor at a later date.
Politics are dirty. Always have been, always will be. If you can keep a few politicians out of your pocket, you really should. Well. . now you're talking about having EVERYTHING across the board be determined by 1 central government.. I get that each state is different.. but in healthcare it isn't neccesarily so.
AS for illegal immigrants.. they too are already recieving free healthcare..because when they are ill and go to the emergency room and either give fake names or can't pay their bill.. the cost gets passed on to the rest of us!! And they won't really ahve this "universal" care because they don't really exist.. so their status with health care will remain the same... I mean obviously you cant give THEM the universal free pass to just visit a dr. whenever they want.
Yes.. immigration is a HUGE issue in this country.. but you know what's funny.. they do the jobs that the rest of us dont' really want to do..clean toilets.. all that stuff. I dont' see any illegal immigrants living the high life here.. Not that I'm defending it..i do think it's wrong. But if that person had to hire someone to clean the dishes that WAS legal they'd have to pass on the cost of paying more for smoeone to do it by raising their prices.
Well, I'd say that I don't understand why anyone would deserve anything they're not working for. Government is formed in order to preserve order and to give protection. If one person deserves any form of support from another, then the person giving the support deserves to use whatever method of violence they see fit against the recipient. That's really how it works. There's no such thing as deserve. "Deserve" is a BS concept that socialists are selling you without telling the whole story-- When the government takes money to redistribute, it leads to a declaration of natural war... ask the British.
You're assuming I'm talking about people that aren't working..that are just sitting on the keesters.. Yes.. there are those that do that .. but guess what.. they already have FREE healthcare.. it's called Medicaid!! and the elderly have Medicare.. because while they worked their whole life... in their old age they can not afford the high cost of health care on their fixed income! We're talking hard working families that simply can not cover their premiums.. or whne they get sick suddenly find out that their underinsured..or their provider of health insurance finds some way to NOT cover them and leave them.. well uninsured for an illness. Sorry.. I think the middle class deserves to have their health taken care of just as much as the wealthy man.. Wealth does not always determine how hard a person works or doesn't work.. I and my hsuband work DAMNED hard.
I completely agree that the way our government works right now sucks.
Now? It's always been this way. Social Security was at the brink in the 70's and 80's and the solution was to bump us up to 15.3% tax rate for something that isn't going to be around. (FYI: SS started at 2%)
If they can't handle Social Security, which is pretty straight forward, what makes you think they can handle healthcare?
Quote:
...men tend not to go to the Dr. even for annual check ups.. my father was one of them. So to use that each section of the country has a "cultural difference' is really mute here.. because it's NOT a cultural thing..
I grew up in Michigan. I lived in Oregon. In Oregon, the entire attitude toward medicine was different. I gave you an example of it. You call that "a personal choice". That's what culture is-- many, many personal choices individuals make that are popular in an area.
What do you think culture is but personal choices?
Quote:
That [cultural tendency to not go to the doctor] is more of the argument that YOU dont' want to pay for someone else's trips to the Dr...
But, if 60% of one state prefers not to go to the doctor, but 60% of another state prefers to go to the doctor, why would you oppress either with a system that's suited to one group's preferences more than the other?
Quote:
but to have ONLY catastrophic and the like is ..well irresponsible.. it's called being UNDERINSURED..
That's the thing about freedom... It's the right to make a decision the next person doesn't approve of.
Quote:
I think the middle class deserves to have their health taken care of just as much as the wealthy man
That will never happen. Ever. You will get the health care of the poor and the middle class will be further eliminated and, because of the 70% taxes we'll be paying, moving up will be impossible... and the current powerholders who are making promises to you will get exactly what they want: power solidified.
My argument, from start to finish, is for a level of freedom. What is yours? That people shouldn't have freedom? That state of Florida is unable to make a decision without you? That, somehow, when you bring in Texas and California, Florida will be better off because decisions are out of their direct hands?
I just don't understand you socialists. I just don't understand how you look at the world and say "I'm smarter than you. You will do as I say."... For what? Because your husband has a job... Christ...
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.
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.
