Health Care Hypocrisy

[FRE]

Massachusetts already has mandatory insurance, and mind you mandatory insurance was shoehorned into the Healthcare Reform by the Insurance Industry. It wasn't put there to lower costs or anything to benefit us.

The premiums in MA have gone up the same, if not more since Mitt Romney put it in place. It doesn't fix anything, the statistics already showed that.

All it is, is a ploy by the industry to get more money. They essentially told Obama if he didn't include it, they would fight the whole thing tooth and nail.

Everything else is lies and propaganda, like it spreads costs, or blah blah. It's simply not true.

I herewith repeat my question, which you have not addressed:

"Without having mandatory health insurance, how would you deal with the above situations?"

I am, of course, referring to the questions in my previous post, i.e., post #39.

 

[MercyfulFate]

I herewith repeat my question, which you have not addressed:

"Without having mandatory health insurance, how would you deal with the above situations?"

I am, of course, referring to the questions in my previous post, i.e., post #39.

Mandatory insurance should only be possible with a true universal system.

Without it, no mandatory insurance. Rates will go up just the same, so your example doesn't really matter.

 

[FRE]

Mandatory insurance should only be possible with a true universal system.

Without it, no mandatory insurance. Rates will go up just the same, so your example doesn't really matter.

You still have not answered the questions which I posed in my post #39. However, I do not find that surprising at all; it is typical of people who take your position.

It's easy to say, "No, No, No, Never, Never, Never, That's socialism." It's more difficult to find real solutions, and you have made no attempt whatever to propose real solutions.

 

[MercyfulFate]

You still have not answered the questions which I posed in my post #39. However, I do not find that surprising at all; it is typical of people who take your position.

It's easy to say, "No, No, No, Never, Never, Never, That's socialism." It's more difficult to find real solutions, and you have made no attempt whatever to propose real solutions.

Wait, what? Apparently you're inventing arguments now.

I told you, your examples don't mean much because mandatory insurance doesn't fix anything. People who get sick without insurance still have to pay, and everyone having insurance doesn't fix the cost of premiums. They're rising all the same. We need universal healthcare, and then there will be no problem. That's my solution, or did you miss that?

No, never that's socialism? What on earth are you talking about? I advocate universal healthcare, and now I'm against socialism?

Say what?

 

[FRE]

Wait, what? Apparently you're inventing arguments now.

I told you, your examples don't mean much because mandatory insurance doesn't fix anything. People who get sick without insurance still have to pay, and everyone having insurance doesn't fix the cost of premiums. They're rising all the same. We need universal healthcare, and then there will be no problem. That's my solution, or did you miss that?

No, never that's socialism? What on earth are you talking about? I advocate universal healthcare, and now I'm against socialism?

Say what?

OK, universal healthcare would fix the problem; on that we agree. However, it was impossible, for political reasons, to enact universal tax supported healthcare so the next best thing was done. It was better than doing nothing and we can be hopeful that it may be the first step towards enacting universal tax supported healthcare. The alternative would have been to do nothing.

It should also be noted that universal tax supported health care also requires people to buy health insurance but through their taxes rather than through their own individual payments. So, in a sense, it is really very similar.

 

[Bbucko]

I am totally unclear on the difference between universal health care and universal health insurance, which affords universal access to care.

Can anyone enlighten me on this?

 

[FRE]

I am totally unclear on the difference between universal health care and universal health insurance, which affords universal access to care.

Can anyone enlighten me on this?

I'm not sure that there is a difference. I'll see whether google can help.

 

[MercyfulFate]

OK, universal healthcare would fix the problem; on that we agree. However, it was impossible, for political reasons, to enact universal tax supported healthcare so the next best thing was done. It was better than doing nothing and we can be hopeful that it may be the first step towards enacting universal tax supported healthcare. The alternative would have been to do nothing.

It should also be noted that universal tax supported health care also requires people to buy health insurance but through their taxes rather than through their own individual payments. So, in a sense, it is really very similar.

Healthcare reform = good

Mandatory Health Insurance = bad

Also, paying for it through taxes when it's likely to be MUCH cheaper is fine. Right now, my employers plan went from 200 a month to 250 (in a state where it's mandatory) and since I didn't take it, I'm going to be fined.

I'd support paying through taxes, but we all know it won't be 200+ dollars a month out of our taxes.

So get rid of mandatory insurance until it happens, because it solves nothing.

 

[SilverTrain]

Healthcare reform = good

Mandatory Health Insurance = bad

Also, paying for it through taxes when it's likely to be MUCH cheaper is fine. Right now, my employers plan went from 200 a month to 250 (in a state where it's mandatory) and since I didn't take it, I'm going to be fined.

I'd support paying through taxes, but we all know it won't be 200+ dollars a month out of our taxes.

So get rid of mandatory insurance until it happens, because it solves nothing.

You're a Republican Congressman's wet dream.

 

[FRE]

You're a Republican Congressman's wet dream.

Probably he's not a Republican. He supports universal health care which is tax supported which is something that most Republicans eschew passionately. What he opposes is the law requiring people to purchase private health insurance.

 

[MercyfulFate]

You're a Republican Congressman's wet dream.

Do you two have no concept of politics or what?

 

[cdarro]

Probably you're talking about the fact that the U.S. appoints cabinet members who are not elected whereas in the UK, cabinet ministers are appointed from Parliament. Actually, the U.S. system of appointed cabinet members is far superior.

In the UK, it is unclear just whom the cabinet ministers are supposed to be representing. If they acted in the interest of those who elected them, then they would not necessarily be acting in the interests of the country as a whole and, if they acted in the interest of the country or the PM, then they might have to ignore the interests of those who elected them. Thus, in a sense, if a MP is appointed as a cabinet minister, then the voters who elected him lose a representative. Moreover, cabinet ministers have to be chosen from a group of politicians and that can make it impossible to choose cabinet ministers with the experience and expertise necessary to do their jobs properly.

Here in the U.S., when a cabinet member is chosen, no district loses a representative. Moreover, the president can choose cabinet members who are experienced experts. Thus, for example, the surgeon general can be highly experienced in the field of medicine. If the surgeon general had to be chosen from Congress, it might be impossible to find someone with the needed experience. That isn't to say that our system is perfect since there is no guarantee that the president will chose highly qualified people for the cabinet, but at least he is able to do so whereas in the UK, that could be impossible for some positions.

An MP appointed to a cabinet post pays as much attention (or his staff does) to his constituent's concerns as ever, and speaks for them in caucus and in Parliament - he better, or he won't be re-elected! It's true that a minister often might act contrary to his constituents' best interests, but party discipline ensures that virtually all MPs do so at one time or another; if they're too independent they'll simply be ejected from the party caucus.

As for a president being able to appoint experts, sure, I suppose they can - but how often do they? Seems like most US cabinets are a combination of supporters, rivals, and ethnic and regional interests, just like here in Canada. Fortunately for you, you only have a dozen or so cabinet secretaries, while here we have to endure thirty or more ministers lol.

 

[SilverTrain]

Probably he's not a Republican. He supports universal health care which is tax supported which is something that most Republicans eschew passionately. What he opposes is the law requiring people to purchase private health insurance.

Exactly. Despite apparently supporting the ultimate goal (universal health care under a single payer system), he's willing to frustrate the process of attaining that goal by complaining about (and apparently) voting against the partial steps necessary to reach the goal.

 

[FRE]

An MP appointed to a cabinet post pays as much attention (or his staff does) to his constituent's concerns as ever, and speaks for them in caucus and in Parliament - he better, or he won't be re-elected! It's true that a minister often might act contrary to his constituents' best interests, but
party discipline ensures that virtually all MPs do so at one time or another; if they're too independent they'll simply be ejected from the party caucus.

As for a president being able to appoint experts, sure, I suppose they can - but how often do they? Seems like most US cabinets are a combination of supporters, rivals, and ethnic and regional interests, just like here in Canada.
Fortunately for you, you only have a dozen or so cabinet secretaries, while here we have to endure thirty or more ministers lol.

Right now, our secretary of energy is a highly qualified physicist. Here is some information on him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu

It's unlikely that such a highly qualified person could have been found from among the politicians in Congress. However, it's true that cabinet secretaries are not always that well qualified and, even when they are, their attempts to do an outstanding job are often stymied by political constraints. That may be the situation with Mr. Chu because right now, it is almost impossible for a Democrats to put a strong emphasis on nuclear power; they have to pretend that wind and solar are practical.

I do believe that the Westminster system would be better if cabinet ministers did not have to be MPs. I don't know about how it works in Canada, but in some countries with the Westminster system, the number of cabinet positions is determined by the PM in which case the size of the cabinet does not have to be so unwieldy.

Probably most U.S. citizens don't know what the Westminster system it.

 

[MercyfulFate]

Exactly. Despite apparently supporting the ultimate goal (universal health care under a single payer system), he's willing to frustrate the process of attaining that goal by complaining about (and apparently) voting against the partial steps necessary to reach the goal.

Seriously. I want mandatory insurance removed, if it won't be removed by itself I'd support removing the entire thing and starting over.

 

[FRE]

Seriously. I want mandatory insurance removed, if it won't be removed by itself I'd support removing the entire thing and starting over.

It took decades to get what we have now and I definitely do not want it removed until or unless it is replaced by something better.

 

[cdarro]

I do believe that the Westminster system would be better if cabinet ministers did not have to be MPs. I don't know about how it works in Canada, but in some countries with the Westminster system, the number of cabinet positions is determined by the PM in which case the size of the cabinet does not have to be so unwieldy.

QUOTE]

The westminster system would not work at all if ministers did not have to be MPs, since cabinet is responsible to the House of Commons for its management and direction of the government. The arrangement wasn't originally written into law, it simply wouldn't work any other way, as parliament would not vote supply (money) if the crown's advisors (cabinet) were not elected.

The prime minister appoints whomever he wants (provided that they have or can obtain a seat in parliament) to whatever cabinet post he wants. If he wants 10 ministers, 20 or 30, so be it. In Britain as I understand it, a minister is not necessarily a member of cabinet unless so designated by the prime minister, making for a sort of inner cabinet that sets policy. Not here, all minister are theoretically equals, although some portfolios (finance, national defence, public security) carry more weight. There's also the concern of ensuring that each province and perceived interest has "adequate" representation, which tends to inflate the numbers.

 

[B_crackoff]

I do believe that the Westminster system would be better if cabinet ministers did not have to be MPs. I don't know about how it works in Canada, but in some countries with the Westminster system, the number of cabinet positions is determined by the PM in which case the size of the cabinet does not have to be so unwieldy.

Probably most U.S. citizens don't know what the Westminster system it.

I think that you're forgetting that it's the civil service that runs things, whichever of those systems, & they're staffed with not only experts, but also have a long history in dealing with each & every organisation & nation. Policy is originated by party think tanks (containing experts drawn from both the public & private spheres), & mandated by the party Executive.

Ministers are literally administrators, sometimes enforcers, who are the public face of the department's policies. Unlike an appointee, which can happen in the second chamber, they have a democratic mandate, & poor decisions that they make can make them lose not only their ministry, but their seat.

I'd also note that at Westminster, the upper house is stuffed full of experts from every field.

It's not like experts ever agree though. How many Supreme Court rulings have been unanimous? Furthermore, aren't all democratic centres stuffed full of expert lobbyists?

I do see your point, but it's equally applicable to the private sector, where the chosen few are fast tracked to manage departments whose operations they no nothing about, & go on to lead companies where they haven't the first clue about their products or services from the grassroots up.


PS: for clarity, the mandatory healthcare insurance I'm talking of, is one where employees & employers both contribute a specific tax into a specific pot. Even the unemployed can do some voluntary community work that takes care of their contributions to the pot. A limitation on medical liability would ease costs.

I don't think it would provide better healthcare for those receivind it now, but it wouldn't be that far off, & is the decent thing to do.

 

[B_crackoff]

That's only if I was judging you based on your sex (which I wasn't), your race (which I also wasn't), your religion (which I don't care), your nationality (which I wouldn't give two shits if you were from Mars), your sexual preference (which I wouldn't care if you were asexual), or your gender (which I couldn't careless if you had a vagina with teeth or a penis with a tongue between your legs). I was referring to stupid people... and yes, you are just that. And last time I checked, stupid is neither a "protected class" or a definable trait that is protected by any hate crime legislation or anti-discrimination laws. So you know where you can shove your bigotry claims.

But thanks for playing anyhow. Now do you have anything worthy to contribute or shall I put you back on ignore? I swear, the stupid people really have it out for me today.

Bonkers!!

YouTube - Dizzee Rascal & Armand Van Helden - Bonkers (Video)

Last time I looked, the mentally handicapped were protected.:smile:

I'm surprised, given your given race & sexuality, that you rely on legislation to determine your ethics. Therefore, you clearly must agree with the anti homosexual legislation in Uganda, & the former apartheid system of South Africa.

Thee are none so bigoted, as those who claim to fight injustice.

Don't forget, you're the man who tells other posters to go blow their brains out!

Since you're so content to put words in my mouth, how about you open wide so I can shove a dick in yours? Go find a gun and shoot yourself.

Classy - pure intellectual genius. Yet when HG made that "shine" comment, you went running off to momma to get him banned. Here you both advocate rape & encourage suicide - both statutory offences here, & probably in the US too! But what happens - nothing. People like Spec etc. are too adult to become whiny little .....

Really though- NO ACTION. Incredible. The ToS & Mods in this joint truly have there own lame arse agenda.

Have that donut & reflect; it does seem that your logic lets you down sometimes, & then you throw your toys out of the pram. Stop picking silly fights & chill.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Stop throwing up completely unrelated strawman arguments, crackoff. Your forecasting into what I should believe based on your own misguided beliefs is not only laughable, it's downright offensive... especially since I'm on record denouncing what is going on in Uganda and was one of the very first on this board to address it. Alas, you must've missed that while you were going through my previous posts to concoct your completely laughable accusation that I somehow condone rape and suicide. Also, if you want to imply that the Mods are somehow favoring me and are discriminating against you that is something you'd better take up with them privately. Not a single mod has given me any favoritism or leniency on this board. And BTW, I already stated for the record twice that I didn't report HazelGod back when we had our tussle so you can kindly shut up about that matter since you have no clue what you're talking about.

This thread is about Health Care. Not whether or not you think I'm the antichrist. Fre, cdarro, MercyfulFate and others are actually contributing things that make this thread worth reading. You are just taking a dump all over it with your mindless accusations. Congratulations crackoff, not only have you earned your username you are now the 59th person on my ignore list. Now get out of my face.