Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Health care      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 202
Et tu L.A. TimesPage 9 of 46    (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, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)

I think sometimes, both parties would rather cut off their nose in spite of their faces.

On this healthcare issue, the Dems are doing this, throwing their moderates under the bus to move their more progressive liberal views forward. I hope the Republican and Conservatives don't do the same thing.


Ideologues of either stripe see things in all-or-nothing terms. Why do we listen to any of these adrenaline junkies?
 DeliveryRN
Joined: 8/26/2007
Msg: 203
view profile
History
Et tu L.A. Times
Posted: 2/23/2010 6:16:44 PM
I am an RN and work in a hospital. Often I am asked what my views are on the notorious healthcare reform. This is my short form opinion, we better do something and do something fast. Should have been done years ago. I am sick to death of the right wing left wing battle. This is the USA bring the best American Health Care Minds together and work on a solution. Take political emotion out of it and put some humanitarian emotion in to it.
Start first by eliminating half of the healthcare dollar going to defend ourselves against the lawyers. Second let nurses get back to taking care of patients instead of nursing computers all day long (which is in fact, almost solely, to protect us from law suites).

BTW if you know a nurse it would be advantageous to treat them kindly. Spend any time in a hospital and it will became quite clear, who is there to save your ass.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 204
view profile
History
Et tu L.A. Times
Posted: 2/23/2010 9:22:20 PM
The only thing our federal government is supposed to do fast is defend this country. When it comes to government, speed and political efficiency are for dictatorships, not for democratic republics like the U.S. Everything about our government was designed to make sure domestic actions wouldn't usually be very easy to take.

We could do a number of things to free up restrictions on private health care, and they wouldn't cost much. Here are a few:

First, make it harder for tort lawyers to sue. The laws could be changed to have this effect, possibly by requiring the losing party to pay part of the winner's legal fees, or by limiting the contingency fee plaintiff's lawyers could charge their clients. These personal injury lawyers are the largest single contributor to the Democrat Party, which is one of the reasons this free, obvious remedy is not part of the socialized medicine Mr. Obama wants.

Second, remove restraints to buying medical insurance from companies in other states. The laws that imposed these restraints are protectionism, pure and simple--states wanted to favor in-state companies. This would introduce competition between insurers and reduce the price consumers paid for medical insurance.

Third, extend the tax credit for medical insurance that employers get to private parties also. Why should you have to pay more just because you decide to buy your own insurance, rather than have your employer buy it for you?

Fourth, states could change their laws so insurers no longer had to cover all the frivolous, optional procedures many states require them to. Why should everyone else have to pay for a few to have therapeutic massages, acupuncture, grief counseling, or who knows what else covered by their medical insurance?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 205
Maxine's view of healthcare reform
Posted: 2/24/2010 1:47:25 PM
ROFLMAO!!!!

What could possibly go wrong indeed!

I wrote the man after the Massachusetts election to tell him to bag health care and move on and focus on the economy. Without a public option, it's nonsense.

You might say it's nonsense with a public option, but I'm open to the idea of a national buyer's co-op as the "public" option.

I'm with Match on his items 2-4. I'm not with him on 1 because of the difference in power between an individual consumer who's harmed and a large corporation. I think those tort lawyers are a necessary nuisance.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 206
Maxine's view of healthcare reform
Posted: 2/24/2010 5:04:12 PM

As I recall, a woman spilled McDonalds coffee on her lap and was awarded over $600,000 and that was just one case. I will grant you that McDonalds could have settled for much less before it went to court.


There was a reason why she got so much money. McDonald's had been warned previously on several occasions that the coffee they served was hot enough to scald motorists if spilled, but they did nothing to correct the danger to their customers.

McDonald's could have avoided the whole thing by adjusting the thermostats on their coffee dispensers and saved some energy costs in the process.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 207
view profile
History
Maxine's view of healthcare reform
Posted: 2/24/2010 5:25:00 PM
^^^^^Correct. Mc Donald's really screwed up. The rest of the fast food chains served their coffee at 170, but they chose to serve it at 190--evidently to get a sales advantage. Standing out from the herd like that's a very bad idea when safety could be involved, because it leaves you wide open to a claim that you failed to follow standard procedures.

People come to expect whatever S.O.P. is, in anything, and they're not on guard for deviations from it. When Mc Donald's got nailed, it had been seventy years since courts had made "normal practice within the industry" the legal standard for determining negligence in cases like that. And the poor old lady, who was senile, barely got enough out of it to cover her medical bills, after the judge reduced the jury's award. I think she ended up with only about $300,000 for third-degree burns to her privates and continuing pain.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 209
Health care
Posted: 2/25/2010 12:00:04 AM
Blues, dude, the utilities aren't nationalized. They're regulated. That's a very big difference. They are privately owned, or owned by local municipalities subject to the control of local voters.

I do agree that our best bet would be to treat insurance and medical care both as regulated monopolies for God's sake.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 210
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 2/25/2010 12:34:25 AM

Health care in the country needs to be nationaized


I'm sure you'll be glad to cite us the specific part of the Constitution which authorizes socialized medicine. Or maybe you don't concern yourself with details like whether the U.S. government has the authority to do the things you advocate. It would be sort of surprising for a lawyer to disregard such a basic legal question. But maybe you were too excited about the prospect of turning the U.S. into an updated version of the Soviet Union to care about the law.

The same people who hate Christianity and want the Establishment Clause twisted into an absolute prohibition of any interaction between church and state--which both the Court and constitutional scholars have always known it's not; and who hate America, and so excoriate Mr. Bush for "trashing" the Constitution (of course without ever specifying any particular violations) to protect it; these same people are cavalier and dismissive about whether the federal government has any constitutional authority to engage in whatever social engineering they happen to favor. That inconsistency reveals these brownshirts' *real* feeling toward individual freedoms and the U.S. Constitution which guarantees them: utter contempt.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 211
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 2/25/2010 12:53:11 AM

They are privately owned, or owned by local municipalities subject to the control of local voters.


That's true--and water, electric, and other utilities are often organized as special districts under state law. They're run by boards like regular corporations, have designated service areas, own land, have eminent domain power, and have to account to the state public utilities commission for most of their decisions--especially in setting service rates.
 Gogetter1956
Joined: 1/9/2010
Msg: 212
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 2/25/2010 9:55:47 AM
Media Note: You can watch the latest debate on youtube if you don't have C-Span.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 213
Health care
Posted: 2/25/2010 11:35:13 AM


They are privately owned, or owned by local municipalities subject to the control of local voters.


That's true--and water, electric, and other utilities are often organized as special districts under state law. They're run by boards like regular corporations, have designated service areas, own land, have eminent domain power, and have to account to the state public utilities commission for most of their decisions--especially in setting service rates.


Exactly. And isn't this exactly what we need to make sure that health care costs are reasonable and that everyone who needs access to emergency care and infectious disease prevention is covered?

I'd like to extend that list of services covered by my locally managed health care utility to preventive care, but I suspect that as long as our diets are laden with corn syrup there wouldn't be much of a point.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 214
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 2/25/2010 2:35:19 PM

A govt big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it ALL away.




"[T]hey believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes.
And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god,
eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Benjamin Rush


If only more Americans today were so determined to resist government control over their lives. The "soft tyranny" de Tocqueville and others warned us about is well underway in 2010.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 215
Health care
Posted: 2/25/2010 2:52:52 PM
Match,

If you extend that notion to corporate tyranny, you'll find me right there with you.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 216
Health care
Posted: 2/25/2010 4:44:06 PM
LOL!!!

I'm thinking of the farmers who've been sued and the grain cleaners who've been run out of business by our good friends at Monsanto who are using their accumulated wealth to enforce patents on wind-pollinated food crops. That's like trying to make people pay for copies of wind-blown fliers after you drop them from a plane.

I'm thinking of all those people who have been routinely denied medical treatment. I'm thinking of the folks in Hinkley and Love Canal. I'm thinking of all those kids who were abused by Catholic priests. Let's not forget all the small, local businesses done in by major chains. Who did kill the electric car anyway?

Tell you what, GC. I'll grant you the danger of government abuse of power if you'll do the same with respect to corporate abuses. If you'll acknowledge the risk there, we'll have something to talk about. If not, I'll continue to back the government over the corporations, because unlike the corporations, I can vote for my government--except of course that now the only candidates with a chance in hell are the ones that won't be libeled at the last minute by corporate interests.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 217
Health care
Posted: 2/25/2010 6:47:42 PM
I must admit to a prejudice against people in high corporate offices. Lately, though, I've been meeting more and more of them and find most of them to be highly competent and moral. But then there are the Bernie Madoffs and I haven't quite acquired the skill to suss them out. Have you?

What's the difference between baksheesh and campaign contributions? But even if you grant that there is not much of one at least here they have to run. Not so in those countries where you have to bribe everyone. The only reason GS didn't have to bribe Bush was because he was already in the club. And if the Iraq war wasn't an immense windfall for Halliburton and the so many other corporate welfare queens, I don't know what was. All "off budget" of course.

So I guess you're not going to meet me in the middle. Didn't expect you to, but felt the offer was worth making.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 218
Health care
Posted: 2/25/2010 8:16:02 PM
I worked in the Silicon Valley for many years, during the start-up boom. I saw many young companies with great ideas get bought up, shaken down, or their intellectual property copied or outright stolen by larger players like Miscrosoft. I'm also watching as the alternatives to high-fuel consumption are still systematically undercut.

Your average corporate person does live in fear of damaging the brand. However, when the brand isn't likely to be damaged, they have no qualms about damaging the prospects of others they see as potential future competitors.

Many of those shakedown artists are running interference for corporate interests, which is why those interests contribute to their campaigns. Corporate tyranny doesn't hurt the brand provided they can "greenwash" with sufficient $$.

I'm not naive either, about either major sources of threat to our freedoms and prosperity.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 219
view profile
History
Health care
Posted: 2/26/2010 1:09:04 AM

What's the difference between baksheesh and campaign contributions?


The First Amendment guarantee of free speech. Citizens United was only the latest of many Court decisions upholding campaign contributions by corporations as political speech protected by the First Amendment. The Court's always considered prior restraints on speech--i.e. laws that don't just punish it afterwards, like laws against libel--but instead prevent it from ever being made, like unreasonable refusals to permit demonstrations, billboards, campaign contributions, etc., the worst kind of violation of the free speech guarantee.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 220
view profile
History
Health care summit
Posted: 2/26/2010 8:38:49 AM

Well I watched the entire 7.5 hour summit


My hat's off to you, GC. I'm not sure I could have taken much more than 7.5 minutes of that desperate charade by our president and the other economic illiterates in his party. Kind of like watching someone who once saw "Saving Private Ryan" trying to do a detailed analysis of the Invasion of Normandy.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 221
view profile
History
Health care summit
Posted: 2/26/2010 2:08:29 PM
Smug, above it all, condescending, impatient, prickly.


I love it! That doesn't play well to most voters. Everyone knew FDR and Eleanor had both been born with silver spoons in their mouths, and he may well have been a snob in some ways. But if you read and listen to his speeches, or see film of her in old clothes out digging a hole to plant a tree somewhere in the Appalachians, you can't detect even a hint of condescension toward regular folks. And most of those folks took to them.

President Kennedy had everything going for him, too, but he was always gracious enough not to act like it. And he liked to smile and laugh. The lack of that ease and grace is a weakness of this man, and people like Sarah Palin know just how to use it against him. The blind spot of today's elitist liberals--and Mr. Obama is Exhibit 'A'--is that they tend to dismiss conservatives as less intelligent, less knowledgeable, and less worldly than they are. I hope they keep right on doing it.

As for this bill, I don't much care if the Democrats violate Senate rules and use the reconciliation ploy. Let it pass the Senate--it has no chance in the House, anyway. The five votes by which it passed before are no longer there. Worse yet for Speaker Pelosi, it's almost certain that quite a few more Representatives in her party now realize that if they vote for this bill, they can forget about being re-elected. The harder Mr. Obama pushes this plan, the less popular he and his party become, so I hope they keep it up.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 223
view profile
History
Federal health care
Posted: 3/6/2010 12:50:57 PM
I've read a couple articles recently which say that this administration is willing to risk losing Congress this year, if that's what it takes to get socialized medicine in place. They argue that there's a good reason why Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Congress who support his health care proposal are willing to make this trade--they know once the program was established, people would become accustomed to it and dependent on it. As it has with other federal entitlement programs, this would create a political inertia which would tend to make it permanent.

Once a vast federal bureaucracy is in place, it may not make much difference when, from time to time, a Republican administration takes over. The huge administrative agencies and the hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats who run them go on as usual, whichever party is in power. Even President Reagan wasn't able to do away with the Departments of Education and Energy Mr. Carter created, and New Deal programs like Social Security are still in place 75 years later. Mr. Obama's willing to go the mat for socialized medicine because if he succeeds in installing it, it will permanently shift the U.S. government to the left.

There are now quite a few million people who officially are Americans, but who care mainly about what they can get out of this country. They're much less concerned about whether they pull it down in the process.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 224
view profile
History
Federal health care
Posted: 3/7/2010 10:57:42 AM

a provision of these privacy rules includes a powerful, blanket waiver, which can be used at the discrimination of a "Privacy Board," accting under HHS.


That may be OK under the law as it stands, but I wonder if the courts have ever reviewed it. The right to privacy the Supreme Court more or less invented in the '60's and '70's would really be a joke, if the Court held that invasions of privacy as bad as this one were constitutional.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 225
view profile
History
Federal health care
Posted: 3/11/2010 7:41:45 PM
I hear there's a right on lady from New York in Congress--I think her name's Louise Slaughter--who knows a way to change their rules and stuff so we can finally get this thing done. The best part is--are you ready for this???--they won't even have to VOTE on it. How cool is that??? Go for it, Weezy!!!

It's so, so wonderful that BHO has decided health care's too important to let that effed up dumb Constitution get in the way. Yeah, they make them all swear to protect and defend it, blah, blah--big deal. I mean, who's never told a little white lie, when something big was at stake???? This is, like, im-por-tant, people. Like, helloooo?? Wake up and smell the coffee, OK?

We can't worry about what those disgusting right wingers want--all those racist gun and war nuts who love their Jesus and hate all Muslims. Who cares about all that powdered-wig mess from the 1700's they love to sling around???? All that stupid crud just bores me to tears anyway--we had to spend a whole hour on it in school, and I just totally tuned out. I mean, let's talk about our hopes to change things TODAY, ok? Things that MATTER, ok? And lose all that old, idiotic dead white men bull!!!

We the people are going to have our health care, just like the Europeans (God, I wish this lame hick country was sophisticated like them!!) And all you mean, hating Repugnican losers out there, who don't care about anyone but yourselves, better effing get used to it. As for your precious constitution, you can just wad it up and use it to wipe your . . . windows. That's all it'll be good for when we get through with it. Sooooo, bottom line is, you fascists lose, ok? You can all go have yourselves a good cry--and get over it!!!!
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 226
Federal health care
Posted: 3/15/2010 6:54:38 PM
I believe the President's Health care is a good thing and will try my best to provide a rebuttal to some of the posted claims:

"Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!"

Nothing wrong here. Government audits in my opinion protects the business . Why oppose double checking the math? Is it a good thing they could possibly find money saving errors? Unless those were errors were intentional...



"Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)"

Its unfortunate how one non-profit group can discredit all of the them. If you would like to knows more about some of these Community-Based Home medical Services I suggest investigating an organization like Alta-med (www.altamed.org)


blah too tired to continue....

Is there a specific one you would like addressed.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 227
Federal health care
Posted: 3/15/2010 7:58:34 PM
Sir Paul why the anger? Can't handle an opposing view?

Yes, I do excersize my right to vote. How I vote is none of your concern.

Healthcare is not a hot topic issue for me, I believe its about time and tired about this debate. Healthcare is complicated and providing care for its citizens should be a no brainer. While we may not agree on everything on paper, I believe the time for reform is now. Would you rather move forward or stall? The current debate is a reflection of the ongoing struggle between serving the people or serving to corporate greed. This includes providers, medical supplies, and administration. Quite frankly most of your accusations require time to tell and does not address the possible positive qualities.

After your explanation, I support the audit. I think of mandated health care like how auto insurance is required in California. Where is the fuss about that?

While I'm here I'll argue your claim about how a government appointed Commitee is bad and the following claim:

"Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly."

Did you know there are large price discrepancies for the same procedure? For example a Hernia operation at one hospital can cost 3k, while at another can gouge up to 6 k for the same operation? Do you know where the best deals are in your area if you were to break an arm? A government committee could possibly prevent such discrepancies and possibly expose fraud or wasteful spending.

The second clause is to prevent future government spending fighting cases. I'm pretty sure Matchlight can provide some insight how long these battles can take and cost the tax payers.

Did most of you guys opposed seat belts too?

Commitee=Good please also note its commitee, not death panel

"Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)"

Another case of overreaction and too quick to scapegoating Illegal Aliens.

Did you ever consider non-English and English as a 2nd Language speaking citizens? Providing translators or paperwork in different languages ensures this segment of the population has access to proper care. Do you seriously oppose this?

John




 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 228
view profile
History
Federal health care
Posted: 3/15/2010 8:35:17 PM
^^^^^^I think there's a basic question, aside from particular issues about this bill (whatever, exactly, it is.) And you hit on it. What's the source of Congress' authority to force individual U.S. citizens to buy health insurance?

To answer my own question, the Constitution doesn't give Congress any such authority. The body of the Constitution describes what the federal government may and may not do, and the Bill of Rights limits that even further. Through the 14th Amendment, as the Court has interpreted it, almost everything in the Bill of Rights also limits state governments. (The exceptions are the 5th Am. right to be indicted by a grand jury for capital crimes or other major felonies, the 8th Am. right to bail, and the 2d, 3d, & 9th Ams.) But to order U.S. citizens to buy health insurance, pay a tax penalty in lieu of that--or if they don't do either, to subject them to a fine or even imprisonment for tax evasion--is tyranny.

There's another issue. Rep. Louise Slaughter, who chairs the House Rules Committee, has said she plans to use a rule that will let the House "deem" the Senate's bill approved--but without any of its members ever having voted on one final version that's identical to what the Senate passed. The Constitution says, though, that both Houses of Congress have to "pass" a bill before presenting it to the President. How can the House of Representatives do that without voting?

The Constitution also says either House must record how its members voted on any issue, if one fifth of the members present want the vote recorded. But there's nothing to record if there's no vote. It seems like Rep. Slaughter has as much contempt for that requirement as she does for the rest of the Constitution that she swore to uphold. She is not fit to serve in the U.S. Congress, and the House should expel her.

If Congress does pass this undemocratic and anti-American bill, I hope not one U.S. citizen, private or public, obeys it. No one has any legal duty to obey any unconstitutional law, and the people whose job it is to execute it are obligated to refuse.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Health care