betterthantv

Ilsa is a very level-headed young lady. She is one that likes to engage in actual conversations and understands people have different points of view. While I have minor correspondences with other members and SGs, she by far has been the most prolific and rewarding.

I want to be clear, I am not advocating for what many call the 'Obama Plan'. I would say that the largest reason for this is that there is no such thing. 'Obama' doesn't HAVE a healthcare plan. He has asked Congress to come up with one, and right now, the house and senate are fighting it out. Obama did set goals forth that I personally cannot take a lot of issue with. Lower costs and broader coverage for more US citizens being the key. I know he has stated he supported a 'public option', a government backed healthplan to compete with the healthplans offered by insurance companies. 1) Competition usually drives overall costs down, 2) I do not believe he has ever advocated that such a plan should replace existing ones, just be an 'option'.

Recently he appears to have backed off the 'public option'. Not that he no longer wants it, but that not having one is not a deal-breaker. Here's one reason I respect that: Obama is showing a rare trait in a politician - refining one's opinion based on new information. Politicians are people too, and they don't have all the answers. But people should be allowed to talk about things, gather more information and make better judgements based on that. Think about all the things that people used to 'know' and that with current information you'd think them morons for hanging onto ('world is flat' is a common example). Many politicians DO change their tunes regularly (flip-floppers which exist on both sides), but they make excuses and they do these for their own or their party's benefit, not for the betterment of the people. As evidence mounts, a 'public option' may not be a good idea right now. MAYBE it will be in the future, MAYBE it won't, but right now it doesn't appear that the US can do it.

I completely agree that those who will benefit most from a new health plan are the ones crying loudest. But, when is this not the case? Not just with a health plan, but with anything? I don't stick my neck out to advocate for a new park in some Utah community. I don't have a lot of energy to complain about the 'Estate tax'. (These issues and many more) Neither effects me now, nor do I perceive they will in the foreseeable future. I do however advocate that the people who those areas will effect, they have the right to fight for them. My guess is a whole bunch of people who used to not care about unemployment payout rates are now taking a very big interest in them. To me, that's human nature, and not the government's fault, not Obama's fault.

I understand your position on Unions, and I can see well how it's been formed by your experiences. Unions were an equalizer so corporations couldn't push their employees around. But like any equalizer, it has to stay equal. A tall order, yes, but unless equality is maintained the side with power seems to invariable push to their own self interest. These cycles are everywhere of course. Human nature again?

For me, I am in healthcare. My wife is in healthcare. We have family in healthcare and social services. We have friends in healthcare and social services. I see and speak with clinicians all the time. I see how ERs are plugged with people, some critical, some just with no alternative. In both critical and no alternative cases, there definitely are some where it is their own doing. But not everyone. Treating the uninsured in an ER is 10x more expensive then treating them in a clinic for the same problem (non-emergency of course). Hospitals are required by law to treat everyone who comes to an emergency room, and if they cannot pay, the government pays it through medicaid/medicare. This is a good thing and a bad thing. A hospital is a business and run as such. Now there are arguments for and against this practice, but I'm avoiding that right now. It is their interest to make money. What you don't want is for you to come in a stretcher, unconscious with no ID, and have the hospital say 'until we know if he can pay, we aren't treating him'. That's why this law exists, to give treatment first ask for money later. Of course, there will be abuses. That pesky human nature again However, if we take that same 10x expense and apply it to a clinic visit, we could treat 10x as many people for the same $. If we are paying for it already why not maximize the efficiency? We can argue against the whole concept of s paying for it at all, but again I'm avoiding that. The $ we are putting out now are $ we know and can account for. You know Americans, we are loathe to change. I too would like to remove the abuses from the system. A lot of systems though, are linked to one another. A change to clinical healthcare for the general public is going to have an effect on many other areas well.

We've agreed 'something' needs to be done about our healthcare system. I can guarantee whatever it is will benefit a great many people, and piss off a great many people. Ilsa did note that public health care isn't the best answer, but then again what we've got now isn't the best answer either. Perhaps there is no best answer. Just a better or worse answer than what we have and the era in which we have it.

Thanks for the kind words about my mom. It was a tough time for my family, but I won't pretend that millions of people worldwide don't go through the same or worse on a regular basis.

Honestly, I am strongly for reform as well. It seems to be the one thing all parties agree on, well most anyway, there do appear to be some who are against the entire thing. Personally I have a problem with the public option component, but I DO see why some think it's needed and wise. I just think we can get to the goal, broader coverage for everyone, through different means. I feel those means are cost reductions.

Why do employers offer health plans? This hasn't always been the case. I know my parents didn't grow up with that being prevalent. Why is it not taxed? Car insurance- not paid by your employer, not tax free; Home insurance- not paid by your employer, not tax free. Car insurance is required by law. Home insurance required for most everyone depending on how much of your home is paid for. Healthcare insurance is not required at all.

What if we bought healthcare the same way we buy car insurance? Competition, which is truly the tried and proven method for reducing the cost of anything. It seems to me that the spirally healthcare costs are directly tied to the relatively new practice of it being paid for by your employer and you not being taxed on it. What I mean by not being taxed on it, is that the monthly amount deducted from your paycheck is a pre-tax deduction.

Tort reform is certainly another way to address costs. But litigation for automobile and home insurances are not skyrocketing out of control, why does it for healthcare?

I personally do not agree that healthcare public option is any kind of conspiracy for the government to control us. I think yes, it would result in some increase in control of the people, some more than others. I would dispute one part though, and that is that government control is inherently bad. Yes it CAN be bad, but it can also be good. It really depends on what the control is and how it is put in place. Any group of people need rules to function. And if the group is large enough, you need a representative body. 10 voices can all be heard, 10000 cannot. So many aspects of our lives are already controlled by the government, and most of those I think we are thankful for. It's a 'free country' you should be able to drive on whatever side of the road you want, right? That of course is a very simple example, but all laws are really nothing more than control. And we hope, that more often than not, that control is beneficial. If it isn't, we elect different people. A simplistic argument yes, because it isn't that simple in real life. But 300 million people involved in ANYTHING and it'll get complicated. I think that ANY law is going to be disputed by at least some group, it is not possible to make everyone happy.

I think you have to give the government some slack too. I work in a Fortune 500, deal with them all the time. They are far from well-oiled machines, and they enact PLENTY of corporate policies that don't work.

And hey, congratulations on being 'clean' for 2 years. We've got some AA members in my family tree. That's a good government public health program, right?

my fiance has been incarcerated for 4 years

Very well said. Don't sweat the asshats that are sure to tell you how to think in the new utopia that has been created since the last election

I think half the umpires have some severe eyesight and physical issues. There should be a cap to the age for these guys, just think about how slow the reaction time is on a 60-70 year old that is out of shape and overweight...