• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama discusses deathbed measures

Caine said:
I dunno, it seems to me that a doctor would want a procedure to be done even if not necessary just to obtain more money.
Click to expand...

Are our doctors that low a caliper of human beings ???
If so, then our government should have much more say...
The surviving spouse should be the prime determiner, with advice from his doctor.
The government and insurance companies must stay out of it..
But, this business of pumping money into a corpse must stop....
 
earthworm said:
Are our doctors that low a caliper of human beings ???
If so, then our government should have much more say...
The surviving spouse should be the prime determiner, with advice from his doctor.
The government and insurance companies must stay out of it..
But, this business of pumping money into a corpse must stop....
Click to expand...


Actually, the business of pumping my money into someone else's body must stop, even if they're not corpses.

I don't owe them anything.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Actually, the business of pumping my money into someone else's body must stop, even if they're not corpses.

I don't owe them anything.
Click to expand...

My problem with this is, I like to think I'm not cold-blooded enough to let someone die because they can't pay for repairs.

And at the same time, I agree with you.

In other words, I want to keep my cake and eat it as well.

Can't be done.
 
danarhea said:
What bothers me is that the government gets the final decision on what treatment is acceptable. Of course, as it stands today, the insurance company is frequently the final decider. Whatever happened to the belief that the doctor is the most qualified to make these decisions?
Click to expand...

it bothers me too. The government needs to stay out of it.

I have a will and I request that I get no extraordinary support , no iron lung , no machines.
 
celticlord said:
But....are you entitled to all the health care you can afford?
Click to expand...

danarhea said:
I believe that the right way to frame this question is to ask "Should the government have the right to ration health care?".
Click to expand...

TheHat said:
So let me get this straight. Obama talks about cutting costs.

Now we find out exactly what he means by "cutting costs", which is grandma getting shut out of the healthcare she needs.

Glad Obama clarified this.

So by cutting costs, Obama means to ration healthcare.

Eugenics sure has a funny way of creeping back into the mainstream again doesnt it?

Government determining who is worthy of life and who is not. Didnt we fight a world war over this once before?
Click to expand...

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
hmmm that is great and all, but I thought we were promised that the government wouldn't be deciding what treatment you or I need....


This seems to suggest just the opposite, no?
Click to expand...

Of all the reasons to criticize Obama's health care proposal (and there are many), this isn't the best one.

I haven't heard that any proposal would ban private doctors or otherwise prevent you or I from purchasing medical care that the government system did not cover. The only decision that government would have would be as to what it would choose to cover.
 
RightinNYC said:
Of all the reasons to criticize Obama's health care proposal (and there are many), this isn't the best one.

I haven't heard that any proposal would ban private doctors or otherwise prevent you or I from purchasing medical care that the government system did not cover. The only decision that government would have would be as to what it would choose to cover.
Click to expand...
Why would explicit prohibition be necessary?

If the impact of the proposal is to artificially limit the availability of what might be purchased with private resource, it accomplishes the same end as an explicit prohibition: an arbitrary and likely capricious rationing of healthcare.

One cannot buy that which is not offered for sale.
 
RightinNYC said:
Of all the reasons to criticize Obama's health care proposal (and there are many), this isn't the best one.

I haven't heard that any proposal would ban private doctors or otherwise prevent you or I from purchasing medical care that the government system did not cover. The only decision that government would have would be as to what it would choose to cover.
Click to expand...

Is the government even proposing to go that far? All Obama said in the provided link is that education was needed. Of course our far right friends spun that into the government is going to let granny die, but that type of exaggeration is getting all too common lately.
 
celticlord said:
Why would explicit prohibition be necessary?

If the impact of the proposal is to artificially limit the availability of what might be purchased with private resource, it accomplishes the same end as an explicit prohibition: an arbitrary and likely capricious rationing of healthcare.

One cannot buy that which is not offered for sale.
Click to expand...

You don't think that there will still be a thriving market for private healthcare for those who can afford it?

Redress said:
Is the government even proposing to go that far? All Obama said in the provided link is that education was needed. Of course our far right friends spun that into the government is going to let granny die, but that type of exaggeration is getting all too common lately.
Click to expand...

I hope he was going that far. We cannot expect to improve healthcare outcomes so long as we're still spending such massive sum on extending low-quality life for short periods of time for old folks.
 
RightinNYC said:
You don't think that there will still be a thriving market for private healthcare for those who can afford it?
Click to expand...
There may be some market--but the extent to which it "thrives" is directly proportional to the extent to which government policy does not interfere with its existence.

RightinNYC said:
I hope he was going that far. We cannot expect to improve healthcare outcomes so long as we're still spending such massive sum on extending low-quality life for short periods of time for old folks.
Click to expand...
The biggest objection I have to this is the word "we".

Healthcare outcomes should be a matter of individual choice and individual consequence. What "we" need in healthcare is a whole lot less "we" and a whole lot more "I". "I want" needs to be balanced with "I will pay".
 
celticlord said:
There may be some market--but the extent to which it "thrives" is directly proportional to the extent to which government policy does not interfere with its existence.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've seen anything that would indicate the government plans to interfere to a significant degree in that aspect. I genuinely don't know and would appreciate any information on it if you have any.


The biggest objection I have to this is the word "we".

Healthcare outcomes should be a matter of individual choice and individual consequence. What "we" need in healthcare is a whole lot less "we" and a whole lot more "I". "I want" needs to be balanced with "I will pay".
Click to expand...

I think that this doesn't have to be totally incompatible with some sort of public care. We could have a system where the absolute basic essentials (checkup once a year, broken limbs, etc.) were covered under a government plan and where everything else was a matter of private choice.
 
RightinNYC said:
I don't think I've seen anything that would indicate the government plans to interfere to a significant degree in that aspect. I genuinely don't know and would appreciate any information on it if you have any.
Click to expand...

  • Forcing people to purchase health insurance.
  • Undercutting private insurance with public insurance.
Those two elements of the Kennedy bill are of themselves substantive interferences in healthcare markets. I do not see them as being benign.

RightinNYC said:
I think that this doesn't have to be totally incompatible with some sort of public care. We could have a system where the absolute basic essentials (checkup once a year, broken limbs, etc.) were covered under a government plan and where everything else was a matter of private choice.
Click to expand...
We could have that. That is not what is proposed.
 
celticlord said:
  • Forcing people to purchase health insurance.
  • Undercutting private insurance with public insurance.
Those two elements of the Kennedy bill are of themselves substantive interferences in healthcare markets. I do not see them as being benign.
Click to expand...

I don't either, but I don't think they would be so significant as to have seriously detrimental effects on your or my ability to go get a non-covered treatment.

We could have that. That is not what is proposed.
Click to expand...

I know, I'm just wishing and hoping fruitlessly over here.
 
RightinNYC said:
You don't think that there will still be a thriving market for private healthcare for those who can afford it?
Click to expand...

Oh, there most certainly will.

The people righting these asinine laws the destroy the option of private healthcare for the middle class most certainly have enough money to buy their own care and they most certainly will make sure the loop holes that exist exclude us and include them.

What suckers the Messiah Believers are.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh, there most certainly will.

The people righting these asinine laws the destroy the option of private healthcare for the middle class most certainly have enough money to buy their own care and they most certainly will make sure the loop holes that exist exclude us and include them.

What suckers the Messiah Believers are.
Click to expand...

Another possible theory: A public plan will by design attract those whose care is the most costly. The practical result of this might be a decrease in the average consumer cost on private plans, which could lead to a decrease in private plan cost.
 
RightinNYC said:
Another possible theory: A public plan will by design attract those whose care is the most costly. The practical result of this might be a decrease in the average consumer cost on private plans, which could lead to a decrease in private plan cost.
Click to expand...

I read an article describing this position just yesterday. Seems pretty realistic to me.
 
RightinNYC said:
Of all the reasons to criticize Obama's health care proposal (and there are many), this isn't the best one.
Click to expand...

I disagree, any control is a gateway to total control.


I haven't heard that any proposal would ban private doctors or otherwise prevent you or I from purchasing medical care that the government system did not cover. The only decision that government would have would be as to what it would choose to cover.
Click to expand...



Single payer means, one payer, meaning one entity dictates who and how doctors see.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I disagree, any control is a gateway to total control.
Click to expand...

But that gate doesn't have to be opened. Just because it's there doesn't mean it gets used. We have plenty of controls that stay right where they are. These are scare tactics, Reverend, but they don't hold water. There are better ways to go after one-payer systems.

Single payer means, one payer, meaning one entity dictates who and how doctors see.
Click to expand...

Possibly. Depends on how regulations were set up. If they use the current private insurance model, you are correct, and it would be a disaster.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
But that gate doesn't have to be opened. Just because it's there doesn't mean it gets used. We have plenty of controls that stay right where they are. These are scare tactics, Reverend, but they don't hold water. There are better ways to go after one-payer systems.
Click to expand...


:lol: are you suggesting I derail this thread? (it is about this aspect no?) :mrgreen:



Possibly. Depends on how regulations were set up. If they use the current private insurance model, you are correct, and it would be a disaster.
Click to expand...



they are going to run the private co's out of business.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
:lol: are you suggesting I derail this thread? (it is about this aspect no?) :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

:confused: No, I don't think that is what I was saying.

they are going to run the private co's out of business.
Click to expand...

Personally, I say good. If there isn't a whole lot of regulation put in place so that the private insurance companies stop some of their unethical practices, I'll do an Irish jig the day they all close up shop.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
:confused: No, I don't think that is what I was saying.
Click to expand...

:lol: weren't you telling me that discussing this aspect about the health disaster plan was a scare tactic?



Personally, I say good. If there isn't a whole lot of regulation put in place so that the private insurance companies stop some of their unethical practices, I'll do an Irish jig the day they all close up shop.
Click to expand...



Hmm, so what do we do with the thousands unemployed so you and I can get DMV style health care?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
:lol: weren't you telling me that discussing this aspect about the health disaster plan was a scare tactic?
Click to expand...

Making the slippery slope argument that any control is a gateway to total control is a scare tactic. I just pointed it out. I don't think you were derailing. I think you were making a logical fallacy...so I exposed it.


Hmm, so what do we do with the thousands unemployed so you and I can get DMV style health care?
Click to expand...

I have had to deal with the DMV a bit, lately, and am very happy with the service I have been receiving. Be that as it may, all those unemployed can go work for whatever new health care system we have. They'll have experience, so training shouldn't be so tough. They'll just have to be retrained on ethics and on regulations. Other than that, a pretty seemless transition, I would think.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Making the slippery slope argument that any control is a gateway to total control is a scare tactic. I just pointed it out. I don't think you were derailing. I think you were making a logical fallacy...so I exposed it.
Click to expand...


Ahh ok. i see. Still, its something we should consider.



I have had to deal with the DMV a bit, lately, and am very happy with the service I have been receiving. Be that as it may, all those unemployed can go work for whatever new health care system we have. They'll have experience, so training shouldn't be so tough. They'll just have to be retrained on ethics and on regulations. Other than that, a pretty seemless transition, I would think.
Click to expand...




Have you had the pleasure of going to the wayne regional office? :shock:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Ahh ok. i see. Still, its something we should consider.
Click to expand...

Anything's possible. Never a good idea to present some of these as more than possibilities. Just saying.

Have you had the pleasure of going to the wayne regional office? :shock:
Click to expand...
Many times. In and out in 10-15 minutes with issues resolved efficiently and quickly. I remember the old days...20 years or so ago waiting for hours either in Wayne or Springfield. I needed to hit 3 DMVs in one day for a variety of reasons, recently. Accomplished it and got everything taken care of in about 2 hours including driving time which was the bulk of it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Anything's possible. Never a good idea to present some of these as more than possibilities. Just saying.

Many times. In and out in 10-15 minutes with issues resolved efficiently and quickly. I remember the old days...20 years or so ago waiting for hours either in Wayne or Springfield. I needed to hit 3 DMVs in one day for a variety of reasons, recently. Accomplished it and got everything taken care of in about 2 hours including driving time which was the bulk of it.
Click to expand...




upstairs or down, what time did you get there. its still a madhouse depending on your business there.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
upstairs or down, what time did you get there. its still a madhouse depending on your business there.
Click to expand...

Upstairs. When I got there, the line was half way down the steps. The line moved pretty fast; I was at the counter in about 5 minutes or so. Then I waited on the line to see one of the service people or whatever they're called. Took about 5-7 minutes in line. The woman I saw handled the issue pretty quickly after asking me a few questions. This was on a pretty busy Saturday, late morning. Another time, about a week later, I went on a Monday morning. Things moved faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom