betterthantv

I don't know but I did shudder.

Hey BtTV, you know, you and I have some common ground here. We probably won't ever come fully into agreement, but that's OK. Different folks, different opinions, different concerns. I think this legislation has bitten off more than it can chew. It's too much, and too dependent on itself. For example:

- The bill aims to restrict the insurance companies from picking and choosing who they will cover, denying folks for pre-existing conditions is the biggie, and kicking people out when they become sick. Now I think there's good arguments on both sides to whether this is good or bad. If this is a provision though, the insurance industry WANTS the individual mandate. Without the mandate folks can get insurance when they are sick and drop it when they are healthy. I'd say there are some other ways around this too, but that's the meat of the requirement. Car owners and home owners are mandated to have insurance, is that different enough to say that it is constitutional? (I'll just throw in here that I do know there are some options for NOT having insurance, but for the most part, it's required). Now that makes sense to me from the insurance and consumer standpoint. Consumers get a guarantee of sorts that they can get insurance, and the insurance companies get a guaranteed revenue stream where cheaper patients offset more expensive ones. It may not be the only solution, it may not be the best solution. But it's not the worst solution and it IS a solution.

The more dependent things you tack into a bill, the harder it gets to manage though. As we've seen this one is gigantic. And trying to tackle so many areas at once if any one point works poorly, it could bring the whole thing down. Then everyone will say what a piece of crap the whole thing is, when perhaps one tiny little part was the culprit, like a big Jenga tower. I have to agree it needs to be smaller and it needs to be more focused. Tackle one smaller set of problems at a time and see how they do. If poorly, it's small enough to be flexible, if well, then you can phase in a second part and see how that goes.

Tort reform? Sure why not. It aims to address skyrocketing costs due to litigation and 'defensive medicine'. The biggest negative hurdle it has to overcome though, in my opinion, is time. How long after reform goes through will costs start to drop? if I need affordable insurance now, what is tort reform going to do for me? Nothing at all. And you know I can't help but think, what happens when companies reduce their costs? They maintain prices and put the extra in the pockets of their executives. So maybe after the CFO gets to upgrade his 50' yacht to 65' he'll consider dropping the cost of the plans. But for sure tort reform needs to be addressed. A small fix, that in the long run could have positive benefit. Could it be combined with a shorter term fix to help the immediate problems?

I'm not saying the the GOP isn't pushing tort reform, but if they are they're being awfully quiet about it. News outlets aren't showing any kind of back and forth. Truthfully I see 99% of their statements being 'no way to this bill', and next to zip, 'here's what we bring to the table'. Clinton tried for healthcare reform and failed. Bush came on and all of a sudden no congressional interest in pursuing reform. Where was the GOP with their Tort Reform? It's almost like the counter argument they use only when it's in their face, but when they're free to do it on their own, they find something better to do. My opinion, shit or get off the pot. If Tort reform is their idea, then bring it out throw it on the table, show that every GOP member will vote for it, and let's hear it talked about on CNN and Fox News. Give the other side a chance to say why it's a piece of shit, just like you're doing to theirs. (not you BtTV, GOP and their backers). I think they're scared because any bill can be torn apart for one reason or another, and when you're struggling to get 'back in power', you don't want to show that your farts stink just as bad.

Sorry, I'm being bitter. The bill itself doesn't directly bother me, it's everything around it that is pissing me off. The symptom, not the disease. It's the double talk, the venom and the attitude, the hypocrisy. Healthcare Reform isn't going to bring this country, we've been on a spiral for years, and this bill is just another tool to further damage our crumbling building. It could be a bill about what color of white to repaint the White House, and if it was made a public issue we'd be just as evil about it. We've turned into a nation of drama queens. No ketchup for my fries?! What the fuck?! You are going down you bastards!

Well you are absolutely right on that. If you don't believe in having a bill at all, it's tough to argue merits and failures.

You know, honestly, I struggle with that. How much should a government 'intervene' on the population?

This buddy of mine that I usually get into these things with, we often talk about varying aspects of it. He's conservative (but not republican, though he votes that way more because those two tend to coincide, or did at one time. I'm much more middle ground, with leanings each way depending on the issue.

Let me tell you where I currently stand on government control, 'cause I know you're dying to know

I think every Social, Political or Economic structure has something that's it's good at and something it's bad at. And if any society is going to thrive and sustain, there has to be a good balance between the 3 no matter what they may be. I think like anything, any one side getting to much power throws too much into chaos. So where does that leave us? It seems to me that as corporations get more powerful (and damn are they!), you've got to have other areas step up as well to offset it. When left alone, any one group getting too powerful usually ends up in some kind of uprising or rebellion. So a constant back and forth regulated relationship keeps that kind of anarchy at bay. You know, let's talk about our differences before they get to be problems and we end up saying or doing something extreme that we can't take back.

Currently I don't think we're doing such a great job at this balance. It seems more and more like Government and Corporate are teaming up behind closed doors, leaving the people fighting two battles. So we complain to the Govt about the Corps and Corps about the Govt, and they're both winking at each other. Not good. So perhaps healthcare reform is the Govt way of making us think they're doing something for us so we don't suspect that they and Corp are meeting in a motel every night playing flippy flop. Corps do the same thing with public relations and do-gooder facades. So I think the balance is out-of-whack and the uprising isn't going to be pretty.

I do not blame the Obama administration because this has been progressing for a many many decades, long before I was born. No one can get into politics with an agenda and then just do it. You find once you get into the cogs that things don't work how you thought or hoped and you're forced to change direction. While I think many politicians lie lie lie, I think some of the campaign promises are broken just because they get in and find that it's not going to work that way.

LOL, breathe! Have a Happy New Year From your tree hugging, vegetarian, Northern, Latino, non-Christian and liberal friend.

By the way, I agree that the American flag should be the only one flown in America and it is despicable how many people have absolutely no idea how to handle it. It drives me insane to see a flag tattered and faded, while the owner is calling himself a good American.

I also agree with several of your points, but I'm trying to get ready for NYE festivities, so another day.

Hey man, Happy New Year.

There's a lot in there that is valid in my opinion. I think the religion part is rather inconsistent, with everyone having a right to their own religion and God, and yet God should stay on our money and be brought back in. In the case of the US, despite the founding pretenses of religious freedom, the nation is largely a Christian-esque nation, and 'other' religions are not given the societal respect. There is some amount of tolerance, but still largely viewed as 'outsiders'. Sorry, organized religion and me don't go well together. NPR was interviewing a fellow recently who talked about Christmas being a cultural holiday more than a religious one in the US, and in that sense I'm more inclined to agree with our holidays and God having a strong role. It was some time ago that i read it, but Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth" spent some time discussing that 'God' on our money and in our Pledge was more metaphorical, and not intended as a Christian reference.

You know some if this reminds me of the old School House Rock, the great american melting pot song. Now we've got this 'salad bowl' which I personally think is the wrong way to go. To use the Borg term, assimilation into American culture will keep the nation strong. The most powerful things we've ever done have been when we were unified. The last 20 years have seen a nation splitting apart from within, spewing venom at the 'other side', and it makes me wonder how we'll hold together.

Been there done that and I was the only one to emerge from Mardi Gras without an STD!

I think I may be the only person in America that's never been to Mardi Gras, heck never even been to New Orleans. I made it to Biloxi once for work, but I'm certain that doesn't count.

That was an excellent e-mail, thanks for passing it along.

After awhile you become immune to the ignorance on this site and it becomes satirical.

I'm not really in agreement with this letter, and nothing to do with right/left. I guess anyone can write a letter ranting about how awful you are for this, or how terrible this is because of you. It's easy to apportion blame to a target, and if you write with enough emotion, people have this tendency to go along with you: "Yay, this WWII veteran is pissed, and he's war hero, he is totally right!"

He isn't showing any acknowledgment of understanding the world in it's current state. Yes he may make some individual points that are agreeable (our economy, or more precisely our debt, is getting bloated), but that doesn't make his entire letter true. Right now, our political system looks to be in the most adversarial condition I have ever witnessed. I blame BOTH sides. Dems and Reps are taking stances merely because they oppose the other side. It no longer has anything to do with what might be best for the US and the world, but merely being in power and beating the other side. Two sides exist to achieve balance and fairness. I would not want to live in a country under pure democratic OR pure republican ideals.

Like it or not, in the 90 years this fella has lived, the world has changed. The world changed for the 90 years before he lived. it changed throughout human history and will continue to do so. This is NOT Obama's fault, nor Bush's. To fight change, to say everything is great now and anything different sucks; that's a losing battle.

Countless people have died in 23 generations as he said. Not all of them were Americans, and not all fought for OUR ideals. I have to disagree that our only motivation was "no other reason than to free a
whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness." I know that's the picture we like to paint of ourselves. But in my opinion, it's hogwash. It may have been ONE reason, but it certainly wasn't the only reason. It may be the reason we are proud of, but it wasn't the only reason. All of those people who have died fighting, on our side and not on our side, and even in wars we weren't involved in, fought only for what they believed in. And it's wrong to declare that fighting for your belief automatically makes your belief 'correct', even if you win.

That is cool. I want a Little Debbie gingerbread cookie.

Goodtimes! We have a family house out on Long Island and frequent the vineyards there. Actually I'm planning on taking the fiance out there this weekend to get some wine for Christmas and before it gets too cold out there to enjoy.

There is no debating here. People only post hoping their lemming friends will kiss their ass.

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