[quote]Professor X wrote:
You ask who gets turned down for treatment…just about anyone who has NO insurance and a low income status.[/quote]
It is illegal to deny medical coverage to anyone needing emergency treatment. So, incorrect.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
None of the above means that we need an entirely new system. I think we have the best health care system in the world. When does anyone ever get turned down for medical attention in the US? And by the way how is it my responsibility to pay for someone else’s child relative to sickness or injury simply because I am on the high end of income earners in the US?
That is my biggest gripe with national health care Obama style.
My point is, who the fuck have I been paying for all of this time? If I lose over a grand in income tax, you are saying that is better because I don’t know where it is going? From what I understand, LESS would be taken out of my paycheck under what he is trying to pass…and any true and honest discussion of what is so “insidious” seems to never happen. I really want to know specifics because simply calling it “insidious” doesn’t tell me shit and our current system has many flaws that often affect the doctor more than the patient.
You ask who gets turned down for treatment…just about anyone who has NO insurance and a low income status.[/quote]
Doc,
Why can’t the clinic set up it’s own low cost system or payment plan for its low income patients?
I have a friend who is a GP in West Virginia-- poor and inpoverished coal territory. He stopped taking insurance all together so that he can actually treat people. He sets up payment plans for those who need help, and has even bartered goods/services with families.
If it can work for him, why not for other practices? Admittedly, I’m not sure how he handles perscriptions… maybe I’ll fire off an email.
I guess what I’m getting at is that when most hear the phrase “Healthcare Reform”, they think “government solution”. I’d venture to say that most people are in fact FOR ‘reform’, but not government as the solution.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Doc,
Why can’t the clinic set up it’s own low cost system or payment plan for its low income patients?
I have a friend who is a GP in West Virginia-- poor and inpoverished coal territory. He stopped taking insurance all together so that he can actually treat people. He sets up payment plans for those who need help, and has even bartered goods/services with families.
If it can work for him, why not for other practices? Admittedly, I’m not sure how he handles perscriptions… maybe I’ll fire off an email.
I guess what I’m getting at is that when most hear the phrase “Healthcare Reform”, they think “government solution”. I’d venture to say that most people are in fact FOR ‘reform’, but not government as the solution.[/quote]
You raise a great issue - and WV is unique because it grants an exemption to primary care physicians who open up these kinds of practices. Many practitioners operate like a gym with a flat rate “gym membership” that gets you access to a menu of medical care options.
Unfortunately, WV is the exception. Most states would call such an arrangement “insurance” and would require the docs to act and be regulated like an insurance company (and stockpile reserves, etc.). WV is revolutionary in this regard - that’s right, I said WV is “revolutionary”. :>
The obstacles are the insurance lobby - they don’t like the competition - and the regulators themselves - who don’t like such practices because of the danger of them failing (taking on risky, expensive patients when they aren’t prepared for it).
I think it is a shame, and hopefully the WV pilot program starts a trend. It is old-fashioned medicine that is patient-centric.
To me having a discussion about something which involves a political view
is such a waste of time. Threads like just reinforce this. When I discuss things,
I like to do so with utopian view that if I make my point well enough I can change
the person’s mind. From what I have seen from any and all
political “discussions” which I have been involved in or been witness to,
is that is almost impossible. What happens is that the initial discussion
is reasonable and then slowly but surely turns ugly with name calling ensuing
bringing out the worst from both sides of the discussion. The result is that both
sides end up more convinced that the other sides are morons resulting in a nasty feedback
loop.
Hence I leave you with a quote which keeps me from wasting my time everytime I feel the urge
to enter into said discussions:
“Equations are more important to me, because politics is for the present, but an equation is something for eternity.”
Carry on.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
What is wrong with social justice is it too liberal for you 
Tell me pittbull what is your definition of “social justice”?
Until just looking it up my definition would have been no euphemism. It would have been a literal description of justice
Then now you understand why Sotomieyeor was an important appointment for Obama. Social Justice.
[/quote]
Reparations will never happen, it will never make it to any court, and I am not even convinced that the majority of blacks would vote for reparations.
I believe this is something else the Right wing nut jobs have conjured up.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
What is wrong with social justice is it too liberal for you
Tell me pittbull what is your definition of “social justice”?
But to say Obama meant his statement euphemistically would be stretching it, because Social Justice has a literal definition as well
But what is your definition?[/quote]
My definition of Social Justice would be a literal definition.
Social - refers to a characteristic of living colony of man kind
Justice-concerns the proper ordering of things people in society, Fainess, honetsty
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
What is wrong with social justice is it too liberal for you
Tell me pittbull what is your definition of “social justice”?
But to say Obama meant his statement euphemistically would be stretching it, because Social Justice has a literal definition as well
But what is your definition?
My definition of Social Justice would be a literal definition.
Social - refers to a characteristic of living colony of man kind
Justice-concerns the proper ordering of things people in society, Fainess, honetsty
[/quote]
Social justice even literally implies assigning â??fairnessâ?? along the lines of social groups. And determining fairness based on groups rather than individuals. This to me is the opposite of justice. You CANNOT deal out justice along social lines. To do so is to throw out individual character and merit in your decisions of fairness. So no, I do not agree with â??social justiceâ?? along literal lines because I donâ??t believe justice in a social context is even possible. Justice can ONLY come in an individual context.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
What is wrong with social justice is it too liberal for you
Tell me pittbull what is your definition of “social justice”?
But to say Obama meant his statement euphemistically would be stretching it, because Social Justice has a literal definition as well
But what is your definition?
My definition of Social Justice would be a literal definition.
Social - refers to a characteristic of living colony of man kind
Justice-concerns the proper ordering of things people in society, Fainess, honetsty
[/quote]
I agree with part of your definition.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
One thing is clear despite everyone’s opinion here… the 2 party system sucks ass. [/quote]
Some of our forefathers made the same observation (Madison comes to mind, but I’ll have to double check my sources).
The problem that they saw however was that the more parties you had, the smaller the percentage of the population would be needed to have a majority. And therefore the smaller the percentage of the population that could potentially set the rules for the rest of the population.
If you had 3 parties you would only need 34% of the majority of voters to win an election/get a bill passed, etc…
If you had 4 paties, you’d only need 26%
5 parties, you’d need 21%
6 parties, you’d only need 17%
And so on.
Instead, they urged that no parties be formed. Unfortunately, that’s probably just not a realistic request to make.
The two party system is far from ideal, and I’d love to adopt something better as well if anyone has any ideas, but at least it requires a majority made up of a large percentage of the population in order to win.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
By the way- for all of you tin hat idiots who were scared about this one fucking speech… don’t you feel stupid now?
No, of course you don’t. But you should [/quote]
I wasn’t concerned about the speech myself, but in their defense, isn’t it possible that people freaking out caused the white house to alter the speech? If that’s the case there’s really no reason to feel stupid.
Commandant Obama hasn’t really proven himself the most trustworthy, or at the very least as a guy you looks at the ramifications of his or his administration’s actions. I could very well have seen him say something then hear Gibbs the next day saying, “That wasn’t what he meant,” or “He probably would have said that a different way.” Hasn’t this already happened a few times?
mike