Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=BringBackJoeT;568705]1) Okay, then, for starters, we can agree that you were flatly wrong with your original post.
2) Will do. I'm sure it's a very unbiased account.
3) "Minor details"? Then what was the relevance of the point you made, which, again, we can agree was entirely inaccurate?[/quote]
1) Flatly wrong, absolutely not. Did I neglect to mention what was basically a war tax during the Civil War and the 1890s short-lived income tax, yes. But the basic premise is correct, the 16th ammendment wasn't in place until 1913.
2) I don't think you will read it. And I guess anyone who has a different opinion that those on the left is automatically "biased" and their ideas don't merit consideration.
3) GDAS got it [URL]http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lot/30288-obama-care-10.html#post568847[/URL]
But to be clear the point is, people were making money in this country and it was growing just fine economically long before the income tax and the obscene amounts of federal government taxation/regulation/intervention today. I hate to hear the argument that the rich/successful wouldn't be so without the federal government, so they basically "owe" the government a much higher tax rate. This argument is so far from reality it's ridiculous.

Re: Obama Care
 

Hey saden,
In light of this post: [URL]http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lot/30358-healthcare-education-and-q-and-thread-2.html#post568512[/URL]

I found this article pretty interesting. I've got some connections here, having been in the USAF and just having the exact same surgery (private hospital, thank God) about six months ago.

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534050,00.html?test=latestnews"]Airman Loses Legs in Botched Gallbladder Surgery, Future of Career Uncertain - Incredible Health - FOXNews.com[/URL]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;568929]Wait, in addressing how best to provide health care services to a diverse population with a vast range of economic, racial and religious variations - all of which can impact on the choice, needs and costs of health care provided, it is irrelevant that most social/universal health care systems don't need to address the diversity or size of our population? You believe that a comparison of signifcantly smaller, basically homogenous populations is of significant value to extrapolate to our society?

I would agree there is some value in such comparisons and information but would suggest that such would be minimal given the inherent and substantial differences between the US and the countries you name. [/quote]

Diversity has nothing to do with it and last time I checked these countries also struggle with poverty issue though some not as bad. Health care is strictly a monetary issues...those that can afford it and those who can't. The difference is their poor can walk into a hospital or clinic and get treatment and ours can't.

Honest, I can't quite comprehend what difference diversity makes in the field of health care? Care to elaborate with something more than "it has, don't you think," specifically why you think it does. Also, France is very good example of a diverse country with a successful universal health care and relatively low poverty rate.


[quote]Now, if France, Germany and England had a joint universal health care system that actually worked, then I would be very interested.[/quote]

Are you intimating universal health care at the state level might be a better solution than a federal one?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568909]If we can get 85% of the currently uninsured I'll be satisfied though not fully. [/quote][URL]http://www.coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf[/URL]


Looks like we're pretty close to your target if you use the 45.7M estimate from the Census and then look at the real numbers of the people that are truly "uninsured" being at about 8.2M. Comes out to about 82% covered or not really needing gov't coverage. There are also some other examples of non-gov't controlled heath care solutions detailed.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568943]Diversity has nothing to do with it and last time I checked these countries also struggle with poverty issue though some not as bad. [B]Health care is strictly a monetary issues...those that can afford it and those who can't. The difference is their poor can walk into a hospital or clinic and get treatment and ours can't. [/B]

Honest, I can't quite comprehend what difference diversity makes in the field of health care? Care to elaborate with something more than "it has, don't you think," specifically why you think it does. Also, France is very good example of a diverse country with a successful universal health care and relatively low poverty rate.




Are you intimating universal health care at the state level might be a better solution than a federal one?[/quote]

Are you so simplistic as to think that is even a basic valid point? It is false on so many levels you truly are reaching and in this case I will let you go try to find the answers yourself.

Of course you also re-iterate and strengthen JoeRedskins point that GDAS questioned by saying that you were not saying it is all basically a money issue. Because you just stated it is, at least in your opinion.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;568939]And most everyone here has been debating just these issues and the role of government and private enterprise in resolving them for pages on end. Has anyone taken the consistent position that the current status of health is not an issue of public health to be addressed? Schneed10 has consistently said the current system is stressed to the breaking.

In response to these discussions and outside a handful of posts you have been dismissive those who assert a different point of view than yours or who believe the solution lies outside a simple transference of wealth (either direct or indirect) to "take more peope into the system". In response to attempts to define the issue and identify the root causes in competition you blantantly dismiss legitimate economic theory as magic. Further, throughout this thread and similar threads, you have brought the assertionof[B] hypocrisy in american history[/B], [B]wishes for death of[/B] those who disagree with you, and a blatantly causal attitude to the concerns that it is our children who be bearing the costs of our current greed to the discussion.[/quote]

I have opinions, some of which people aren't going to like. I am, however, concerned about your dismissive attitude with my "assertion" and misrepresentation of position. I'm also concerned with your lack of concern displayed by you lot when Bush was spending money from left to right and sending you a tax-cut check. I think you should hold off playing these cards.

[quote=JoeRedskin;568939]
NOW after 29 pages, innumberable discusssions of the points raised in the above post, you "get it".[B] Perhaps if you had come off your high horse earlier, admitted that your belief system may just not be infallible and considered points of view that did not necessarily fall with your self-approved economic and philosophical theories, you could have brought your considerable talents to constructive solutions rather than an arrogant dismissal of real questions that need to be addressed.[/B]

It's not that "There are many things we can do yet people here don't seem to want to bother." It's that almost everything has a down side to it and, unless the discussion realizes and incorporates the underlying competing philosophies, it will not begin to cut the gordian knot that is the american health care system.

Come have some tea with me saden, I don't care if we use the kettle or the pot.[/quote]

I've always gotten it Joe and I've always held the belief that there no game without some pain and intimated as much. Do me a favor though, lets not act like you and a lot of folks in here aren't playing polo and sipping on a drink of your fancy either.

I like mint flavored green tea.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;568946]Are you so simplistic as to think that is even a basic valid point? It is false on so many levels you truly are reaching and in this case I will let you go try to find the answers yourself.

[B]Of course you also re-iterate and strengthen JoeRedskins point that GDAS questioned by saying that you were not saying it is all basically a money issue. Because you just stated it is, at least in your opinion.[/B][/quote]

What in the world are you talking about? What do you think all this poverty business was all about?

I think I may have overestimated you.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568949]What in the world are you talking about? What do you think all this poverty business was all about?

I think I may have overestimated you.[/quote]

and I you. Go young man, and find the fallacies I speak of. Perhaps then we can continue this part of the discussion.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;568944][URL]http://www.coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf[/URL]


Looks like we're pretty close to your target if you use the 45.7M estimate from the Census and then look at the real numbers of the people that are truly "uninsured" being at about 8.2M. Comes out to about 82% covered or not really needing gov't coverage. There are also some other examples of non-gov't controlled heath care solutions detailed.[/quote]

A link from an insurance company? :doh:...come on man...just scanned the first few pages...it says 1/3 are eligible for government assistance but aren't enrolled. These are people the government isn't paying for through various programs (i.e. medicaid, SCHIP, etc) so I'm not sure how you translated that to "82% covered or not really needing gov't coverage."

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=dmek25;568919]•According to Statistics Canada, the official government statistical agency, "In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. Nationally, median waiting times remained stable between 2003 and 2005 - but there were some differences at the provincial level for selected specialized services.… 70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable" "Access to health care services in Canada, Waiting times for specialized services (January to December 2005)," Statistics Canada, [URL]http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-575-XIE/82-575-[/URL]
seems like about what we have here in the U.S. right now[/quote]

And here's an article detailing how different the numbers are. Those numbers you're referencing come from the Canadian government, who chose to represent them in the most positive light possible. The truth is wait times are much worse than they let on.

[URL]http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lot/30358-healthcare-education-and-q-and-thread-4.html#post566223[/URL]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568953]A link from an insurance company? :doh:...come on man...just scanned the first few pages...it says 1/3 are eligible for government assistance but aren't enrolled. These are people the government isn't paying for through various programs (i.e. medicaid, SCHIP, etc) so I'm not sure how you translated that to "82% covered or not really needing gov't coverage."[/quote]and of course the U.S. Census Bureau isn't influenced in any way by politicians & gov't bureaucrats interested in expanding the gov't sphere of influence.....:doh:

So before you completely discount the link, I'll break it down for you. The Census Bereau estimate of "uninsured" is 45.7M. What the Blue Cross, Blue Shield asserts is the following:

Of the 45.7M
- 14M would qualify for Medicaid/SCHIP or another gov't program to provide coverage.
- 13M make over $ 50K or more and have access to coverage and chose not to pay for it.
- 5.7M are short-term uninsured, or people who are between jobs, college grad, etc.
Total = 32.7M

The 8.2M number isn't in the link, and I'll have to look for where I found it again, but the 8.2M number includes an estimate of about 4.8M for illegal immigrants who were counted as "uninsured" by Census. Either way the 45.7M is grossly over-estimated. Using 8.2M as the real number of uninsured we have accounted for 82% of the 45.7M that you want covered....and we haven't passed any legislation or spent a dime.

Now back to my voucher point, why can't we use some sort of voucher for these 8.2M to buy private insurance, pass legislation limiting awards to malpractice lawsuits and see how things go, without a masive gov't intervention into health care.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;568940]1) Flatly wrong, absolutely not. Did I neglect to mention what was basically a war tax during the Civil War and the 1890s short-lived income tax, yes. But the basic premise is correct, the 16th ammendment wasn't in place until 1913.
2) I don't think you will read it. And I guess anyone who has a different opinion that those on the left is automatically "biased" and their ideas don't merit consideration.
3) GDAS got it [URL]http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lot/30288-obama-care-10.html#post568847[/URL]
But to be clear the point is, people were making money in this country and it was growing just fine economically long before the income tax and the obscene amounts of federal government taxation/regulation/intervention today. I hate to hear the argument that the rich/successful wouldn't be so without the federal government, so they basically "owe" the government a much higher tax rate. This argument is so far from reality it's ridiculous.[/quote]

Okay, maybe I won't rush out to buy the Bortz book you suggested. But if I did, it would be far from the first time I've read a book from "the other side," so to speak. Seriously, though, I checked it out on Amazon, and noted one of his other books is "The Terrible Truth About Liberals," and that under the "Customers Who Bought This Book Also Bought" section there is included Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" and Levin's "Conservative Manifesto."

You'd have to admit this is a background that would be hard to separate from the substance if I were to read it. I know, I know--I would actually have to pick it up before I could make any true judgments. But really, how much hope does someone writing from a virulently partisan standpoint really have of changing the mind of someone from the opposite side of the aisle? This, obviously, is criticism that extends to the left as much as the right.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=dmek25;568919]•According to Statistics Canada, the official government statistical agency, "In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. Nationally, median waiting times remained stable between 2003 and 2005 - but there were some differences at the provincial level for selected specialized services.… 70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable" "Access to health care services in Canada, Waiting times for specialized services (January to December 2005)," Statistics Canada, [URL]http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-575-XIE/82-575-[/URL]
seems like about what we have here in the U.S. right now[/quote]
Go no further than wiki to blow the above argument up.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada"]Health care in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL]

Wait times
One of the major complaints about the Canadian health care system is waiting times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, imaging procedures such as [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_Resonance_Imaging"][COLOR=#0000ff]MRI[/COLOR][/URL] or [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystoscopy"][COLOR=#0000ff]Cystoscopy[/COLOR][/URL], or specialized treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer. Studies by the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fund"][COLOR=#0000ff]Commonwealth Fund[/COLOR][/URL] found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 4 weeks or more to see a specialist; 24% of Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-23"][COLOR=#0000ff][24][/COLOR][/URL]
A March 2, 2004, article in the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Medical_Association_Journal"][COLOR=#0000ff]Canadian Medical Association Journal[/COLOR][/URL] stated, "Saskatchewan is under fire for having the longest waiting time in the country for a diagnostic MRI—a whopping 22 months." [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-24"][COLOR=#0000ff][25][/COLOR][/URL]
A February 28, 2006, article in [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times"][COLOR=#0000ff]The New York Times[/COLOR][/URL] quoted Dr. Brian Day as saying, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-25"][COLOR=#0000ff][26][/COLOR][/URL] The Canadian Health Coalition has responded succinctly to these claims, pointing out that "access to veterinary care for animals is based on ability to pay. Dogs are put down if their owners can’t pay. Access to care should not be based on ability to pay." [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-26"][COLOR=#0000ff][27][/COLOR][/URL] The CHC is one of many groups across Canada calling for increased provincial and federal funding for medicare and an end to provincial funding cuts as solutions to unacceptable wait times [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-27"][COLOR=#0000ff][28][/COLOR][/URL]. In a 2007 episode of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_News"][COLOR=#0000ff]ABC News[/COLOR][/URL]'s [I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20/20"][COLOR=#0000ff]20/20[/COLOR][/URL][/I] titled "Sick in America," host [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel"][COLOR=#0000ff]John Stossel[/COLOR][/URL] cited numerous examples of Canadians who did not get the health care that they needed. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-28"][COLOR=#0000ff][29][/COLOR][/URL]
According to the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute"][COLOR=#0000ff]Fraser Institute[/COLOR][/URL], treatment time from initial referral by a GP through consultation with a specialist to final treatment, across all specialties and all procedures (emergency, non-urgent, and elective), averaged 17.7 weeks in 2005.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-29"][COLOR=#0000ff][30][/COLOR][/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-30"][COLOR=#0000ff][31][/COLOR][/URL] However, the Fraser Institute's report is greatly at odds with the Canadian government's own 2007 report.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-31"][COLOR=#0000ff][32][/COLOR][/URL]
Since 2002, the Canadian government has invested $5.5 billion to address the wait times problem.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-32"][COLOR=#0000ff][33][/COLOR][/URL] In April 2007, Canadian Prime Minister [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper"][COLOR=#0000ff]Stephen Harper[/COLOR][/URL] announced that all ten provinces and three territories would establish patient wait times guarantees by 2010. Canadians will be guaranteed timely access to health care in at least one of the following priority areas, prioritized by each province: cancer care, hip and knee replacement, cardiac care, diagnostic imaging, cataract surgeries or primary care.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-33"][COLOR=#0000ff][34][/COLOR][/URL]

Canadians visiting the U.S. to receive health care



Some residents of Canada travel to the United States because it provides the nearest facilty for their needs. Some do so on quality grounds or because of easier access.[LIST][*]According to a September 14, 2007, article from [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTV_News"][COLOR=#0000ff]CTV News[/COLOR][/URL], Canadian Liberal MP [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belinda_Stronach"][COLOR=#0000ff]Belinda Stronach[/COLOR][/URL] went to the United States for breast cancer surgery in June 2007. Stronach's spokesperson Greg MacEachern was quoted in the article saying that the US was the best place to have this type of surgery done. Stronach paid for the surgery out of her own pocket.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-44"][COLOR=#0000ff][45][/COLOR][/URL] Prior to this incident, Stronach had stated in an interview that she was against two-tiered health care.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-45"][COLOR=#0000ff][46][/COLOR][/URL][*][B]When [/B][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bourassa"][COLOR=#0000ff][B]Robert Bourassa[/B][/COLOR][/URL][B], the premier of Quebec, needed cancer treatment, he went to the US to get it.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-46"][COLOR=#0000ff][47][/COLOR][/URL][/B][*]In 2007, it was reported that Canada sent scores of pregnant women to the US to give birth.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-47"][COLOR=#0000ff][48][/COLOR][/URL] In 2007 a woman from [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary"][COLOR=#0000ff]Calgary[/COLOR][/URL] who was pregnant with quadruplets was sent to [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Falls,_Montana"][COLOR=#0000ff]Great Falls, Montana[/COLOR][/URL] to give birth. An article on this incident states, "There was no room at any other Canadian neonatal intensive care unit."[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-48"][COLOR=#0000ff][49][/COLOR][/URL][*]Champion figure skater Audrey Williams needed a hip replacement. Even though she waited two years and suffered in pain, she still did not get the surgery, because the waiting list was so long. So she went to the US and spent her own money to get the surgery.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-49"][COLOR=#0000ff][50][/COLOR][/URL][*]A January 19, 2008, article in [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Globe_And_Mail"][COLOR=#0000ff]The Globe And Mail[/COLOR][/URL] states, "More than 150 critically ill Canadians – many with life-threatening [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_hemorrhages"][COLOR=#0000ff]cerebral hemorrhages[/COLOR][/URL] – have been rushed to the United States since the spring of 2006 because they could not obtain intensive-care beds here. Before patients with bleeding in or outside the brain have been whisked through U.S. operating-room doors, some have languished for as long as eight hours in Canadian emergency wards while health-care workers scrambled to locate care." [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-50"][COLOR=#0000ff][51][/COLOR][/URL][*]While some Canadians have gone to the US to receive health care services, the numbers are few and insignificant when compared to the population as a whole. Also note that travel costs to the US as well as other expenses make this trip to the US affordable only to those that have the money to do so. Many health care lobbyists in the US are using the argument that Canadians come to the US for treatment because they want to block a public option in the US.[/LIST]Pretty damning of that country's system when the Premier goes out-of-country to get treatment. And he came here to use our "terrible" system.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=BringBackJoeT;568959]Okay, maybe I won't rush out to buy the Bortz book you suggested. But if I did, it would be far from the first time I've read a book from "the other side," so to speak. Seriously, though, I checked it out on Amazon, and noted one of his other books is "The Terrible Truth About Liberals," and that under the "Customers Who Bought This Book Also Bought" section there is included Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" and Levin's "Conservative Manifesto."

You'd have to admit this is a background that would be hard to separate from the substance if I were to read it. I know, I know--I would actually have to pick it up before I could make any true judgments. But really, how much hope does someone writing from a virulently partisan standpoint really have of changing the mind of someone from the opposite side of the aisle? This, obviously, is criticism that extends to the left as much as the right.[/quote]Here's a link from a CNN Money writer abou the FairTax Book, not your traditional liberal bashing book (although that is good fun). :)

[URL="http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/consumptiontax_0510/"]Money Magazine: Just how fair is the 'FairTax'? - Sep. 7, 2005[/URL]

If you really want to read the book, PM me and I'll let you borrow mine. There is also a follow-on book that discusses many of the arguments from detractors of the plan.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=FRPLG;568915]I am loving all this back an forth on thsi thread now.

I did want to comment on the bolded remark above.

Not to put it too harshly but that is a load of crap. Humans, not just Americans, act based on self-interest. No one does anything that doesn't bring some type of satisfaction to their own self-interest. It's the way we work. Hell it is the way all living beings work. This notion of "conscious thinking" is silly because we are all driven by our own unconscious thinking that we can, by definition, not control. Can we do better? Maybe but there isn't going to be some magical shift in base human action. It isn't something we can change any more than you can change how tall you are or what color your eyes are.[/quote]

Self-interest is a product of the ego. You are not your ego -- it is separate from who you are, and it is a product of your mind. If you disagree, ask yourself: if you lose all your possessions are you any less? Your ego would say yes, because it identifies with forms. But if you are conscious, even in the slightest bit, you will understand why that is untrue. Perhaps you are totally unconscious. It is a plague that permeates mankind, so I wouldn't be surprised. However, I have hope that people will eventually awaken from their unconsciousness and be free of egoic thinking.

We are not, "driven by our own unconscious thinking," -- you are either driven by conscious thought, or by your ego (if you are unconscious). Since I suspect you are totally unconscious, I can understand why you think the ego is uncontrollable -- it has become you.

Conscious thinking is to be aware of your ego, and not let it control you (or [i]be[/i] you, if you will). Do you think it is impossible to deny your ego? Would you be afraid of the results?

Jesus said, "Deny thyself." What do you think he meant?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;568936]Now your getting it! [b]And understand there will NEVER be a thought process shift in humanity like you mention.[/b] Don't forget, Communism was tried and failed miserably and left millions dead in its wake (Soviet Union, Cambodia, China).

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism"]The Black Book of Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL][/quote]

Never? I can tell you're old.

Just because you would rather consider yourself before others, doesn't mean everyone does (or will continue to).

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;568970]Self-interest is a product of the ego. You are not your ego -- it is separate from who you are, and it is a product of your mind. If you disagree, ask yourself: if you lose all your possessions are you any less? Your ego would say yes, because it identifies with forms. But if you are conscious, even in the slightest bit, you will understand why that is untrue. Perhaps you are totally unconscious. It is a plague that permeates mankind, so I wouldn't be surprised. However, I have hope that people will eventually awaken from their unconsciousness and be free of egoic thinking.

We are not, "driven by our own unconscious thinking," -- you are either driven by conscious thought, or by your ego (if you are unconscious). Since I suspect you are totally unconscious, I can understand why you think the ego is uncontrollable -- it has become you.

Conscious thinking is to be aware of your ego, and not let it control you (or [i]be[/i] you, if you will). Do you think it is impossible to deny your ego? Would you be afraid of the results?

Jesus said, "Deny thyself." What do you think he meant?[/quote]

Holy cow man there may be no hope for you. I don't think you get it.

Re: Obama Care
 

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/20/AR2009072002277_pf.html]Administration Delaying Release of Key Economic Report[/url]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;568971]Never? I can tell you're old.

Just because you would rather consider yourself before others, doesn't mean everyone does (or will continue to).[/quote]And us "old folks" find the term "old" offensive. I thought you youthful idealists soaking up the wonderful radical left-wing, anti-U.S. propaganda from the pot-smoking, hippie, anti-war college professors would've had a course or two on Political Correctness and learned the proper term to describe us is "experienced". :spank: J/K

Anyway, I make my statement based on the historical fact that men have always sought to dominate/control other men for their own gain. In reality, not theory, Communism dictates rights come from the "state" (other men). These men are subject to human failings and we see what happens (my previous post, 94M dead). This wonderful experiment in democracy and the belief that all men have rights not given by other men, but by God, is currently the greatest force for freedom from government oppression the world has ever seen. Once you've "experienced" a bit more of life I'm sure you'll be a great voice for democracy and conservatism.

Haven't you heard the quote; "If you aren't a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you aren't conservative at 40 you have no brain".

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;568970]Self-interest is a product of the ego. You are not your ego -- it is separate from who you are, and it is a product of your mind. If you disagree, ask yourself: if you lose all your possessions are you any less? Your ego would say yes, because it identifies with forms. But if you are conscious, even in the slightest bit, you will understand why that is untrue. Perhaps you are totally unconscious. It is a plague that permeates mankind, so I wouldn't be surprised. However, I have hope that people will eventually awaken from their unconsciousness and be free of egoic thinking.

We are not, "driven by our own unconscious thinking," -- you are either driven by conscious thought, or by your ego (if you are unconscious). Since I suspect you are totally unconscious, I can understand why you think the ego is uncontrollable -- it has become you.

Conscious thinking is to be aware of your ego, and not let it control you (or [I]be[/I] you, if you will). Do you think it is impossible to deny your ego? Would you be afraid of the results?

Jesus said, "Deny thyself." What do you think he meant?[/quote]

Too much philosophizing dog. I don't think you're dealing with the ego so much as the id....these folks are concerned with keeping more of their money.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568981]Too much philosophizing dog. I don't think you're dealing with the ego so much as the id....[B]these folks are concerned with keeping more of their money[/B].[/quote]

aaaaaannnnddd were out. Saden is back to his dodge, avoid, deny. So close to actual self realization and he backs out.

Nope. Never been the problem and never been the assertion. Solve the problem in something approaching a cost effective manner and everybody on this board would go with you. Don't solve it or create a solution so expensive as it is doomed to fail, and no one backs it.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=FRPLG;568972]Holy cow man there may be no hope for you. I don't think you get it.[/quote]

LOL, yeah I guess I'm doomed. What a terrible way to think, huh? I'm so dysfunctional. :doh:

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;568978]And us "old folks" find the term "old" offensive. I thought you youthful idealists soaking up the wonderful radical left-wing, anti-U.S. propaganda from the pot-smoking, hippie, anti-war college professors would've had a course or two on Political Correctness and learned the proper term to describe us is "experienced". :spank: J/K

Anyway, I make my statement based on the historical fact that men have always sought to dominate/control other men for their own gain. In reality, not theory, Communism dictates rights come from the "state" (other men). These men are subject to human failings and we see what happens (my previous post, 94M dead). This wonderful experiment in democracy and the belief that all men have rights not given by other men, but by God, is currently the greatest force for freedom from government oppression the world has ever seen. Once you've "experienced" a bit more of life I'm sure you'll be a great voice for democracy and conservatism.

Haven't you heard the quote; "If you aren't a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you aren't conservative at 40 you have no brain".[/quote]

You must have missed the point where I said once we have shifted to conscious thinking. The idea is that if we could deny our egos, a commune would best serve everyone. Hard to believe, I know.

Also, don't stereotype too much. You have no idea what my beliefs are. Just because I try to think positive, I must be all those "bad" things you mentioned?

Haven't you heard the quote: "You can't teach an old dog new tricks."

BTW, I'm mostly conservative -- trust me.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568981]Too much philosophizing dog. I don't think you're dealing with the ego so much as the id....these folks are concerned with keeping more of their money.[/quote]
You really don't get it do you Saden, its not about keeping more money, it is about what type of government can actually work in this world. Its about not putting a massive debt on our childrens backs that will bury the promises of this country. You can ignore my posts on the debt as much as you want but that doesn't make it less real. Are their some who only think its about leave my money alone, sure, and ya know if they earned it, and contribute back reasonably, there is nothing wrong with that sentiment. But the big and real debates around the uhc is about what our future will be like, I for one would like it to be fiscally sound first, from their we can do all sorts of great things.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;568956]and of course the U.S. Census Bureau isn't influenced in any way by politicians & gov't bureaucrats interested in expanding the gov't sphere of influence.....:doh:

So before you completely discount the link, I'll break it down for you. The Census Bereau estimate of "uninsured" is 45.7M. What the Blue Cross, Blue Shield asserts is the following:

Of the 45.7M
- 14M would qualify for Medicaid/SCHIP or another gov't program to provide coverage.
- 13M make over $ 50K or more and have access to coverage and chose not to pay for it.
- 5.7M are short-term uninsured, or people who are between jobs, college grad, etc.
Total = 32.7M

The 8.2M number isn't in the link, and I'll have to look for where I found it again, but the 8.2M number includes an estimate of about 4.8M for illegal immigrants who were counted as "uninsured" by Census. Either way the 45.7M is grossly over-estimated. Using 8.2M as the real number of uninsured we have accounted for 82% of the 45.7M that you want covered....and we haven't passed any legislation or spent a dime.

Now back to my voucher point, why can't we use some sort of voucher for these 8.2M to buy private insurance, pass legislation limiting awards to malpractice lawsuits and see how things go, without a masive gov't intervention into health care.[/quote]

You know what really bothers me? That you think the Census Bureau and BCBS are on the same playing field. I really did look at the document looking for methodology used and all I got was "Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002; BCBSA analysis." WTF does that mean? How did they arrive at "13M make over $ 50K" is beyond me.

I'm sorry but this document is totally unacceptable.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;568970]Self-interest is a product of the ego. You are not your ego -- it is separate from who you are, and it is a product of your mind. If you disagree, ask yourself: if you lose all your possessions are you any less? Your ego would say yes, because it identifies with forms. But if you are conscious, even in the slightest bit, you will understand why that is untrue. Perhaps you are totally unconscious. It is a plague that permeates mankind, so I wouldn't be surprised. However, I have hope that people will eventually awaken from their unconsciousness and be free of egoic thinking.

We are not, "driven by our own unconscious thinking," -- you are either driven by conscious thought, or by your ego (if you are unconscious). Since I suspect you are totally unconscious, I can understand why you think the ego is uncontrollable -- it has become you.

Conscious thinking is to be aware of your ego, and not let it control you (or [I]be[/I] you, if you will). Do you think it is impossible to deny your ego? Would you be afraid of the results?

Jesus said, "Deny thyself." What do you think he meant?[/quote]Taking some psychology courses are we? I didn't take too many of those, psycho-babble was never a big interest of mine, just an easy grade. But I thought the Ego was basically the balance between the Id & the SuperEgo. The Id was the "basic instinct" and the Super-Ego was the "conscience" or moral compass. The Ego was the balance in the real world between the two. I guess Psych classes have changed a bit.

And I don't think Jesus was referencing Freud. He was letting people know that if they wished to follow Him into the kingdom of Heaven they had to put God and Jesus' two commandments before their own selfish desires. I would also argue that Jesus is no fan of Communism seeing as Communists believe Jesus is just a figment of the stressed human imagination.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;568985]You must have missed the point where I said once we have shifted to conscious thinking. The idea is that if we could deny our egos, a commune would best serve everyone. Hard to believe, I know.[/quote]I didn't miss your point, it just won't happen.

[quote]Also, don't stereotype too much. You have no idea what my beliefs are. Just because I try to think positive, I must be all those "bad" things you mentioned?[/quote]The sterotype part was tongue-in-cheek, lighten up.

[quote]Haven't you heard the quote: "You can't teach an old dog new tricks."[/quote]I have and I agree. Humans are about 200K years old and human nature hasn't really changed.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568987]You know what really bothers me? That you think the Census Bureau and BCBS are on the same playing field. I really did look at the document looking for methodology used and all I got was "Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002; BCBSA analysis." WTF does that mean? How did they arrive at "13M make over $ 50K" is beyond me.

I'm sorry but this document is totally unacceptable.[/quote]But what if those numbers are correct, or pretty close. I would say that changes the health care discussion, correct?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GMScud;568975][url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/20/AR2009072002277_pf.html]Administration Delaying Release of Key Economic Report[/url][/quote]

Interesting, though without looking it up - I will take the aadministration's word that this is fairly typical. I do think it is yet another reason to slow down and take a look at where the healthcare law before we just rush blindly into the night.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;568988]Taking some psychology courses are we? I didn't take too many of those, psycho-babble was never a big interest of mine, just an easy grade. But I thought the Ego was basically the balance between the Id & the SuperEgo. The Id was the "basic instinct" and the Super-Ego was the "conscience" or moral compass. The Ego was the balance in the real world between the two. I guess Psych classes have changed a bit.

And I don't think Jesus was referencing Freud. He was letting people know that if they wished to follow Him into the kingdom of Heaven they had to put God and Jesus' two commandments before their own selfish desires. I would also argue that Jesus is no fan of Communism seeing as Communists believe Jesus is just a figment of the stressed human imagination.[/quote]

Stop for a second and pretend you don't know me. That will help you to better understand my points, rather than arguing with yourself based on your assumptions of me.

I'm 27, and I've been out of college for 5 years. The ideas I'm proposing are from no college course, so you can rest assured the curriculum hasn't changed.

Don't try and invalidate what I'm saying by using stupid cliche phrases, like "psycho-babble". You are better at debate than that. Don't lower yourself, because you think you know me -- and that me, and people like me, are the problem with this country. Remove emotion from your argument. I can tell you are frustrated with a certain type of thinking, which you have mistakenly assumed I am advocating. Take some time to try and understand what I'm saying, rather than assuming you already know, and looking like an ass.

I'm not talking about "ego" in the sense of Freud. I'm talking about the illusory self, the voice in your head that never stops talking. It's a Buddhist concept -- long before Freud. But, you're so smart, you probably knew that already.

I can't explain, "Deny thyself," as well as Eckhart Tolle, so I'll just quote him:

"And when Jesus said, 'Deny thyself,' what he meant was: Negate (and thus undo) the illusion of self. If the self -- ego -- were truly who I am, it would be absurd to 'deny' it."

Following in this vain of thought, Jesus also said, "If someone takes your shirt, let him have your coat as well." In other words, let go of the world of form -- the world of the ego. Let go of your ego, and its attachments.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;568983]aaaaaannnnddd were out. Saden is back to his dodge, avoid, deny. So close to actual self realization and he backs out.

Nope. Never been the problem and never been the assertion. Solve the problem in something approaching a cost effective manner and everybody on this board would go with you. Don't solve it or create a solution so expensive as it is doomed to fail, and no one backs it.[/quote]

aaaaannd you're not interested coming up with a solution of your own and only capable of pointing out what [I]you[/I] think won't work. Why don't you just say "can't do it, why bother?" and save some bandwidth?

You're also not comfortable with holding all the players to the same standard interms of cost effectiveness. Plus cost effectiveness is subjective. I'm willing to pay more in taxes to get the benefit of covering as many people as possible and you folks are not, thus wanting to keep more of your money.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;568990]But what if those numbers are correct, or pretty close. I would say that changes the health care discussion, correct?[/quote]

Assuming, big monstrous assumption here, it would change to something along the lines of [I]I still want universal health care and this what we aught to do[/I]:

[LIST=1][*]Get those who are eligible but not enrolled covered and inform them of their ability to get basic heath care.[*]Force those making over 50K to sign up. No saving money on the side and asking us to bail them out when they have an emergency. If our savings rate is any indication these fools most likely don't have enough money to pay for a costly surgery.[*]Get those short-term uninsured covered so they wouldn't worry about getting sick or having to pay for health care while unemployed.[/LIST]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568997]aaaaannd you're not interested coming up with a solution of your own and only capable of pointing out what [I]you[/I] think won't work. Why don't you just say "can't do it, why bother?" and save some bandwidth?

You're also not comfortable with holding all the players to the same standard interms of cost effectiveness. Plus cost effectiveness is subjective. I'm willing to pay more in taxes to get the benefit of covering as many people as possible and you folks are not, thus wanting to keep more of your money.[/quote]

How much Saden? How much does the magic wallet have to come up with? Is there any price too high? It's not "a no pain no gain" issue. It's a "how much pain for how much gain" issue?

Again, I have asserted that effective health care reform must first address cost. I have suggested ways in which this could be done. Essentially, I think we need to create a worker's comp equivalent for malpractice. You pooh poohed this w/out understanding the way it shifts liability and its effect on costs. I have also asked Schneed what the costs involved in expanding medicaid to cover those currently uninsured. Not sure if its feasible but, in combination with loweiring litigation and malpractice costs - I wonder if there is a way to move in this direction. Schneed has also pointed out in the Healthcare Info thread that, in some cases, the competition for patients actually drives up costs and has suggested that, if this could be addressed, it may be an effective way of cost reduction.

I have consistently stated that, if Obama can find a way to lower costs and maintain quality, I will pay an extra 10% on top of my current premium to ensure that every U.S. citizen receives basic health care. (You asked me at one point what decrease in quality of care I am willing to accept - as to me, if everyone gets basic care, I am willing to suffer a decrease in care. Howerver, as to my kids, I have a zero tolerance for decline).

Others have also indicated that additional taxes would be acceptable if the end result is an effective system. However, a wealth transference in an already out of wack system simply feeds the beast and doesn't address teh underlying problem of spiraling costs.

What is your suggestion to control costs b/c it is my firm belief that effective health care reform starts there. Oh wait, in your mind, costs in the health care market are irrelevant to Aunt Jane and Uncle Joe and the government's ability to intervene.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568997]aaaaannd you're not interested coming up with a solution of your own and only capable of pointing out what [I]you[/I] think won't work. Why don't you just say "can't do it, why bother?" and save some bandwidth?

You're also not comfortable with holding all the players to the same standard interms of cost effectiveness. Plus cost effectiveness is subjective. [B]I'm willing to pay more in taxes to get the benefit of covering as many people as possible and you folks are not, thus wanting to keep more of your money[/B].[/quote]

You keep saying this Saden, and that is great. Honest. But you have yet to ever answer the questions on the deficit and debt in any way that remotely brings down the debt. If we can get government reduced and fiscally sound, then lets do that first, and then we can shift the priorities to universal healthcare.

Suppose we stridently reduce our military, lets say to 50% of current outlays, would you also be willing to forego new UHC expenses, and freeze other social expenditures for 2-4 years to try to atleast hold the line against the debt? And by freeze, I mean just that no cola adjustments, no automatic increases, a hard freeze. No government agency's discretionary budget could receive a penny more in real dollars for up to 4 years, so if the Dept Of Education's budget this year is 46.2 billion dollars, then the budget for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 would be 46.2 billion dollars. Perhaps add an emergency clause requiring a supermajority approval could be added, but it would have to be a per case basis, not an omnibus gargantuan bill. So if the Dept of Ed had an emergency need for a 1 year raise in cost they could apply for that but at the end of the year the next years budget would be staked at the 46.2billion dollars.)

I would. And, I have stated before that I would be willing to reduce the standing Army (not AF/Navy) to 1/3(or less) of it's current size, and enforce 2yr mandatory service (and ya know I just realized if we mandated 2yrs of service, think of all the 18-20yr olds who currently don't have healthcare who would then have 2 years access to military hospitals! further we could extend the 2yrs access to 4yrs access at military healthcare locations, and have our countries youth covered from 18-22yrs old. Is that a Win Win or what!)

Maybe we could include hospitals as an option for mandatory service requirements. Schneed''s discussions seems to have said we need to increase the medical labor pool, so perhaps you could choose to serve the country in hospitals, I am sure many would then go further in the health care field.

If we could reduce the military, and reduce the debt (not the deficit) than we could seriously look at ways to bring about UHC.

But please stop saying you would accept a raise in taxes, as if your taxes somehow will cover our 11.6Trillion dollar debt.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568997]...I'm willing to pay more in taxes to get the benefit of covering as many people as possible and you folks are not, thus wanting to keep more of your money.[/quote]

Further, I pay $6500 dollars in Federal income tax a year(obv. not including SS/Medicare/State), if I pay the government $7500 a year, or $8000 a year, it's not gonna make a dent in the 11.6Trillion dollar debt. Assuming you are not making 33Trillion dollars a year, your tax hit isn't gonna wipe the debt out either. I am sure your tax hit is noticeably more than mine, but seriously in terms of a 1.8trillion dollar projected deficit, it still aint squat. (even if you Are Bill Gates)

Balance the budget by any means necessary. Stop Deficit spending on both sides of the aisle. Protect our children's future, and then we can work together to make healthcare for the least fortunate a possibility.

Re: Obama Care
 

I have not read every post, but where do the illegal aliens fit into this equation?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Hog1;569038]I have not read every post, but where do the illegal aliens fit into this equation?[/quote]

well my understanding is that the MIB squad collects tariffs on every alien that lands on Earth, so they really should be covered. I also believe they need different medical needs than us humans ;)

Re: Obama Care
 

At this point I would like to submit for a "special ban" request!

Re: Obama Care
 

One problem we would face if the Fed's created a UHC program would be Debt. We currently have 38 million seniors < most recieving SS & MC > , by 2050 will have an estimated 86 million ,, [url=http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/SeniorStats/5-04-25SeniorFacts.htm]Senior Citizens Facts Provided by Census Bureau for Older American Month[/url] . Canada has 33 million citizens we have 300 million , I just do not see a Gov't agency being able to run/fund a program this huge . We do need improvements , I just don't see how UHC would be sustainable or how we could fund it considering the growing number of people who will be drawing on SS & MC .

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;568984]LOL, yeah I guess I'm doomed. What a terrible way to think, huh? I'm so dysfunctional. :doh:[/quote]

Pretty much. Instead of some fairyland fantasy utopia you should consider taking a long hard look at the real world. Seems like everyone else in this thread at least a has firm grasp on reality.