Down with Socialized Medicine;Gummint can't do anythng right

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: KeithE

Down with Socialized Medicine;Gummint can't do anythng right

Postby KeithE » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:07 pm

Borrowed with permission:

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8357
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Down with Socialized Medicine;Gummint can't do anythng right

Postby Dave Roberts » Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:50 am

You mean that government actually can do something right :wink: :wink: :wink: :?
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6928
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Part I

Postby ET » Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:58 pm

Long response....gonna break this one into multiple posts.....

Ahhh, so many "arguments" -- so much bad thinking, at least when it comes to the philosophy of limited government and confining it to its proper roles; much less the historical Constitutional intent of differentiating between state/local government responsibilities and those of our modern day Asherah pole -- those white granite buildings D.C. I am not yet sure if this continual misunderstanding of what constitutes the proper role of (particularly) the national government is done willingly, if people just don't care to think and wish to have all their cares put on someone else's shoulders or they are just too plain stupid and can't understand the concept of limited government and why it benefits everyone. :brick:

Of course, now you know why things cost a lot to manufacture in this country. Now you know why it's cheaper to make things in other countries and import them in so many cases. Now you know why prescription drugs are so expensive and it takes almost $800 MILLION to $1 BILLION to bring a single, approved drug to market over the course of 7-10 YEARS, with 7 or 8 out of every 10 never making it to market.

As usual, the assumption in the "arguments" above is that all of the "good" that government does is somehow necessary or that alternatives to these government "successes" couldn't possibly be better or arrived at without "gummint" meddling. The interstate highway system is touted as one example of success of government work, yet those same government lovers are now trying to regulate us out of the vehicles we use to travel freely in this country on that system and stuff us all into Priuses or onto mass transit with grand and glorious Utopian visions of light rail and buses and high-speed trains moving us here, there and yon. Ever stop to think that if Eisenhower had not built the highway system, bus lines and passenger railroad might still be around to move folks around the country? Instead of the eco-crowd wringing their hands as we pile into Suburbans and head out on the interstate at 15mpg because it's so easy to get places now, we might be heading to the train station to go to the Grand Canyon or to see family across the state. Would the eco-crowd be lamenting "urban sprawl" if the interstate system wouldn't have made it so convenient and quick to travel from the suburbs or neighboring communities to work in another city?

(continued below....)
Last edited by ET on Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2777
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Part II

Postby ET » Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:58 pm

Anybody see John Stossel's show last week where the state of Louisiana has decided it needs to license and regulate florists??? How wonderfully glorious it that? You wouldn't believe the amount of :horse: that the guy from the florist association was shoveling to explain why this was a necessity. "Ensure the quality of the product the consumer was getting" was a biggie. Government there now actually employs people to run around and do things like making sure the flowers are in a cooler at the proper temp and that they have water. Of course, you gotta take a state test to get your license.

Some states regulate who can call themselves an "interior designer" versus an "interior decorator", right down to using the height of the furniture involved to differentiate the two. Misrepresent yourself and you are subject to a fine of up to $1000 or up to a year in prison. All for our own protection and benefit, according to its proponents. Of course!

Anybody see the recent USA Today study where CAFE standards were estimated to be responsible for 46,000+ deaths due to smaller and lighter and thus less safe cars? Apparently Congress does not yet possess the power to alter the Laws of Physics. There's also the interesting historical note that after CAFE standards were implemented, gasoline consumption went up. With higher mpg, people could own more cars and drive for less $$$, so the "benefit" of CAFE standards was wiped out and had the opposite effect -- more gasoline consumption, more cars on the road and more wear and tear on roads. Gotta love central planning, don't you know? :wink:


I'm not sure I would want to put the Post Office in this list of "successes". How much money do they stand to lose next year? Cutting back on service. Wondrously successful. Probably a harbinger of future Obamacare.

Given the comparisons measuring U.S. public education against those of the rest of the world, it's a bit of a stretch to tout public education as a "government success". Has anybody else noticed that as government gets more involved in education and medical care, those things get more screwed up?

I notice that HMOs are not included on that list. Any Dems want to acknowledge that it was Ted Kennedy who was instrumental in creating that now-reviled concept in American health care? Yet while a creation of government, when problems arose with HMOs, fingers are not pointed at government for the "failure" of that concept nor did people call for them to keep their meddling fingers out of health care, but they called on action to treat the symptom and not the cure.

And why is it that we are still stuck in the "quagmire" of the "War on Poverty"? Forty years of fighting that war and still no signs of victory or no end in sight? When are Dems going to call for an end on that war?

Why is college not "affordable" by now? Thirty plus years of student loans and grants and yet politicians STILL talk about how they've got more ideas or need more money to make college "affordable"?

For 30 years or more I have heard politicians talk about the waste and fraud in Medicare/Medicaid. Why does it STILL occur? Who wouldn't be an ABSOLUTE FOOL to believe that Obama is going to stop it or that politicians aren't playing us for fools to use the "elimination of fraud and abuse" as a cost reduction measure to mask the horrendous cost of Obamacare?

Why are so many in denial about government's role in the current housing/mortgage crisis? Why no finger pointing to politicians who rewrote the lending rules and gave an implied guarantee that if the banks made loans and they went bad, we taxpayers would back those loans? All the finger-pointing at "Wall Street 'greed'", but next to none at government meddling.

(continued below....)
Last edited by ET on Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2777
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Part III

Postby ET » Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:00 pm

Don't know what goes on around the guy's neck of the woods above, but it's the first time I've heard of the "Fire Marshall" inspecting a home. Never had a visit from the Fire Marshall in almost 20 years of home ownership. We've got plenty of police around my city, but that doesn't seem to stop businesses or homes from being plundered on a regular basis or people getting carjacked. He forgot to leave out the part about not being mugged or killed before he got home due to the police "preventing" that. And if the police "prevent" crime, why are there so many places that hire private security guards?

Gotta stop....I could be here all day. Thanks for posting this one, Keith. It was good for a few laughs and eye rolls.

Just remember:
"Human beings will generally exercise power when they can get it, and they will exercise it most undoubtedly in popular governments under pretense of public safety." -- Daniel Webster

"All history is one long story to this effect: men have struggled for power over their fellow men in order that they might win the joys of earth at the expense of others, might shift the burdens of life from their own shoulders upon those of others." -- American professor William Graham Sumner (1840-1910)

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis

For all the accusations against the "religious right" trying to legislate morality, this country is full of politicians (and their supporters) who desire to be "omnipotent moral busybodies" -- everything from seat-belt laws to bicycle helmets to the amount of water a toilet flushes to determining the "right" composition of a workforce or management based on an arbitrary quota system or a "living wage".
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2777
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: Part III

Postby KeithE » Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:53 pm

ET wrote:
Gotta stop....I could be here all day. Thanks for posting this one, Keith. It was good for a few laughs and eye rolls.



My pleasure.

Recommend you assess what good gummint has done for you (and all of us).

Did you know that GOP once was bullish on mandatory health insurance
In 2006 Romney called it "a personal responsibility principle" not "socialized medicine".

The big health care bill winner of course in the long term is the health insurance business. But costs will continue to rise no matter whether uncovered individuals, insurance companies or exchanges pay the bills. There were incredibly no cost reductions allowed. Shuffling some money and coverages, but medicine remains a for-profit industry and why cut off the flow of money.

So in this case ET I'm with you - this government action will not help. Not all governmnet actions are wise. But in the near term, this bill does add taxes on the high income earners and on the investor class and that will help with the deficit (not with you there ET) .
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8357
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Part III

Postby ET » Sat Mar 27, 2010 6:17 pm

KeithE wrote:Did you know that GOP once was bullish on mandatory health insurance
In 2006 Romney called it "a personal responsibility principle" not "socialized medicine".

Yep, sure did. That very thing is why I wasn't too hip on Romney when he ran for Prez. Republicans aren't immune from being "Democrat lite" and trying the same stupid stuff.

Bothered to check out the results from Romney's plan? Not good.
From a report back last summer (emphasis mine):
Massachusetts is struggling to keep the state's groundbreaking coverage program running. Against a massive budget shortfall, lawmakers are planning to cut about 30,000 legal, taxpaying immigrants out of the system, which requires nearly everyone in the state to have health insurance coverage.
****
The state program has been a success in that more people have health insurance in Massachusetts than anywhere in the country. Less than 3 percent don't, compared to 15 percent nationally.

But with residents losing their jobs and enrollment increasing, combined with sagging revenue in a recession, the system is in trouble. Costs associated with the plan are expected to rise far more than originally anticipated in the coming years. The $1.3 billion annual program is up from $630 million in fiscal year 2007, according to a February report by Physicians for a National Health Program titled "A Failed Model for Health Care Reform."
Last edited by ET on Thu Apr 01, 2010 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2777
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: Part III

Postby KeithE » Sat Mar 27, 2010 7:21 pm

ET wrote:
KeithE wrote:Did you know that GOP once was bullish on mandatory health insurance
In 2006 Romney called it "a personal responsibility principle" not "socialized medicine".

Yep, sure did. That very thing is why I wasn't too hip on Romney when he ran for Prez. Republicans aren't immune from being "Democrat lite" and trying the same stupid stuff.

Bothered to check out the results from Romney's plan? Not good.
From a report back last summer (emphasis mine):
Massachusetts is struggling to keep the state's groundbreaking coverage program running. Against a massive budget shortfall, lawmakers are planning to cut about 30,000 legal, taxpaying immigrants out of the system, which requires nearly everyone in the state to have health insurance coverage.
****
he state program has been a success in that more people have health insurance in Massachusetts than anywhere in the country. Less than 3 percent don't, compared to 15 percent nationally.

But with residents losing their jobs and enrollment increasing, combined with sagging revenue in a recession, the system is in trouble. Costs associated with the plan are expected to rise far more than originally anticipated in the coming years. The $1.3 billion annual program is up from $630 million in fiscal year 2007, according to a February report by Physicians for a National Health Program titled "A Failed Model for Health Care Reform."


The costs growth (your emphasis) is happening everywhere. Massachusetts experience is given in the report you referenced. I am not for mandated insurance premiums into a struggling health insurance business. This report is from the Physicians for a National Health Program which I believe is the best source of progressive ideas about health care in this country - well researched. You outta read all their stuff if you are going to use them as authorities on the Massachusetts experience.

Medical cost controls (perhaps via tort reform, greater preventive medicine, greater use of nurse praticioners, volume drug buys and above all adminsitrative cost controls) are what is needed and not provided in the bill that just passed. The PNHP suggests many cost controls that private heath care businesses would not ever want to employ. Chief among those cost controls involves streamlining adminstrative costs utilizing the Canadian model. Read about it here. Admin costs account fro 31% of medical costs in the USA. The Canadian system cuts that by a factor of over 3. It sounds like a smart government approach.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8357
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Down with Socialized Medicine;Gummint can't do anythng right

Postby KeithE » Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:29 am

Romney the father of the individual mandate

This shows that for the right wing the who of a proposed change means more than the what.

And this is not an April's fool trick.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8357
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Obama Care; Fascinating look

Postby Stephen Fox » Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:50 am

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... deal/talk/

I would hope that anybody who comments after this will watch the documentary online first
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 8980
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: Down with Socialized Medicine;Gummint can't do anythng right

Postby Jonathan » Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:06 pm

KeithE wrote:Romney the father of the individual mandate

This shows that for the right wing the who of a proposed change means more than the what.

And this is not an April's fool trick.


I'm having a hard time finding conservatives who support what Romney did in Mass (esp. the individual mandate). Romney himself seems to be running from the program's failures.

What this shows, that for the right wing, Romney has an albatross around his neck.
"There is a simple way to get corporate money out of politics: get the government out of our lives and economic affairs. If government has no favors to sell, no one will spend money trying to win them." - John Stossel
Jonathan
 
Posts: 4209
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:31 am

Re: Down with Socialized Medicine;Gummint can't do anythng right

Postby Jim » Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:36 am

In the wake of this government’s recent healthcare legislation turning all healthcare over to government bureaucrats, the British are now in the process of dismantling their system, the system to which Obama and his gang aspire. This is crazy. The British have finally decided that people and their local doctors are better qualified than faceless bureaucrats to make healthcare decisions.

British Reversal.
Jim
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Down with Socialized Medicine;Gummint can't do anythng right

Postby Ed Pettibone » Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:51 pm

Jim wrote:In the wake of this government’s recent healthcare legislation turning all healthcare over to government bureaucrats, the British are now in the process of dismantling their system, the system to which Obama and his gang aspire. This is crazy. The British have finally decided that people and their local doctors are better qualified than faceless bureaucrats to make healthcare decisions.

British Reversal.


Ed: I would advise all who are interested in this topic to follow the link that Jim provided. I Don't find the story reporting a "reversal" of socialized medicine. It seems they are simply reorganizing how it functions. While thy claim that putting the decision processes in the hands of local doctors to cut cost I predict that a short way down the road those doctors will spread that money around by hiring a new level of paper shufflers who will end up making the ultimate decisions because the doctors don't want to mess with the paper work.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Down with Socialized Medicine;Gummint can't do anythng right

Postby ET » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:21 pm

Agreed, Ed P....it's not a "reversal"....only a rearranging of the deck chairs as it were. I think the biggest highlight of the article is the fact that is rarely mentioned by those in support of such systems. The centrally planned health care systems face the same increasing costs as our own system.

The whole question in this debate is this: If you have X amount of dollars to spend on health care (or anything else for that matter), who will most wisely and judiciously spent those dollars -- the actual consumer who reaps the direct benefit to his pocketbook by making the most economical decisions, or a bureaucrat in government OR an insurance company?

This change in the British system won't fix the problem. But someone, somewhere will get some brownie points because they "did something". Politicians excel at rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship and trying to sell their efforts as "success" or "progress".
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2777
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: Down with Socialized Medicine;Gummint can't do anythng right

Postby Jim » Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:04 pm

Ed Pettibone wrote:
Jim wrote:In the wake of this government’s recent healthcare legislation turning all healthcare over to government bureaucrats, the British are now in the process of dismantling their system, the system to which Obama and his gang aspire. This is crazy. The British have finally decided that people and their local doctors are better qualified than faceless bureaucrats to make healthcare decisions.

British Reversal.


Ed: I would advise all who are interested in this topic to follow the link that Jim provided. I Don't find the story reporting a "reversal" of socialized medicine. It seems they are simply reorganizing how it functions. While thy claim that putting the decision processes in the hands of local doctors to cut cost I predict that a short way down the road those doctors will spread that money around by hiring a new level of paper shufflers who will end up making the ultimate decisions because the doctors don't want to mess with the paper work.

These paragraphs outline the plan and the following segments develop them. This IS a reversal, though it may never happen.

"Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.

The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.

In a document, or white paper, outlining the plan, the government admitted that the changes would “cause significant disruption and loss of jobs.” But it said: “The current architecture of the health system has developed piecemeal, involves duplication and is unwieldy. Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.”
The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients. Currently, how and where patients are treated, and by whom, is largely determined by decisions made by 150 entities known as primary care trusts — all of which would be abolished under the plan, with some of those choices going to patients. It would also abolish many current government-set targets, like limits on how long patients have to wait for treatment."
Jim
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.


Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Jon Estes and 1 guest