PDA

View Full Version : Obama speaks to Congress


Mr.Burns
10-09-09, 01:01
Anyone watching this right now? Nice ideas but DC's too corrupt for him to make them realities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8247207.stm

patriots88888
10-09-09, 01:10
I didn't realize this was on. *goes to watch, for awhile anyways* :p

And I agree with you on the corruption part. ;)

Ward Dragon
10-09-09, 01:32
The Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority in Congress. If Obama can't get his plans through, then it's because he doesn't have Democratic support. He's making enemies on all sides with this healthcare plan because people are starting to realize that what they've got now isn't so bad compared to what they'd get if the government ran everything. Obama should be fixing Medicare and Medicaid to cover the handful of people who don't have coverage (and considering the total population of the country, it is a handful).

If he really wants to make spending go down, he'd introduce tort reform to ban frivolous lawsuits that raise the malpractice insurance hospitals and doctors must pay (the cost of which inevitably gets passed on to the people needing healthcare, whether they pay it themselves or their own insurance pays it and then charges them higher rates). But nearly all Congress people are lawyers so they'll never do anything to hurt their fellow ambulance chasing brethren :rolleyes:

Kittypower
10-09-09, 01:35
The Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority in Congress. If Obama can't get his plans through, then it's because he doesn't have Democratic support. He's making enemies on all sides with this healthcare plan because people are starting to realize that what they've got now isn't so bad compared to what they'd get if the government ran everything. Obama should be fixing Medicare and Medicaid to cover the handful of people who don't have coverage (and considering the total population of the country, it is a handful).

If he really wants to make spending go down, he'd introduce tort reform to ban frivolous lawsuits that raise the malpractice insurance hospitals and doctors must pay (the cost of which inevitably gets passed on to the people needing healthcare, whether they pay it themselves or their own insurance pays it and then charges them higher rates). But nearly all Congress people are lawyers so they'll never do anything to hurt their fellow ambulance chasing brethren :rolleyes:

But obama stated that you dont have to take the government run healthcare if you are already happy with your own current health care.

Ward Dragon
10-09-09, 01:37
But obama stated that you dont have to take the government run healthcare if you are already happy with your own current health care.

But he's going to pressure your employer to stop providing your current health care so you'll end up with no choice anyway. What rational employer is going to continue to pay to provide you with health insurance when he can simply say, "You know what, I don't have to pay for this because you can just get the free stuff from the government."

Edit: I found a Youtube video showing clips of Obama saying he wants to eventually eliminate private insurance. The video has some of his supporters saying it too. The video maker obviously hates Obama, but Obama did say the things in the video and I find it hard to believe any context could change the meaning of what he said, so...

p-bY92mcOdk

EmeraldFields
10-09-09, 01:57
I'm supposed to be watching this for my Government and Politics class!:eek:

But, I have to finish writing a letter to my Senator which is due tomorrow. I'll watch it on YT later.:p

Ward Dragon
10-09-09, 02:02
I'm supposed to be watching this for my Government and Politics class!:eek:

But, I have to finish writing a letter to my Senator which is due tomorrow. I'll watch it on YT later.:p

And I'm supposed to be writing a lesson plan on telling children how to do homework and prioritize. You get an A+ (And I may steal your example for class :p)

EmeraldFields
10-09-09, 02:07
And I'm supposed to be writing a lesson plan on telling children how to do homework and prioritize. You get an A+ (And I may steal your example for class :p)

Yay! I get to be used as an example!:D

You know how on Sept. 17th is Constitution Day and you have to teach about the Constitution on that day?

Well, we have to write a letter to both Sen. Robert Byrd (the one who carries around a pocket size Constitution) and our Senator (I can choose either Ben Nelson or Mike Johanns) describing whether we think that Constitution Day is Constitutional.:p

SpaceChild
10-09-09, 04:38
This scares the hell out of me, frankly. It's a foot in the door to complete government control over our very bodies, and (as Obama has stated publicly,) government power to decide who lives and who dies - errmm, must take "pain pills" in lieu of medical care - 'cause their lives lose out to "funding" in some bureaucratic panel's cost/benefit equation. "So sorry, your life's not worth the money. Please go away and wait to die. Kthxbye. Next..." It's textbook fascism.

I'm trying to avoid politics 'cause it's basically a great big sewer, but I despise irrationality, and attempting to solve a problem without first identifying that problem's causes is lunacy. There are three questions nobody (well almost nobody) is asking:

1. Why was it possible for a person of modest means to afford quality medical care four decades ago without courting bankruptcy, but not now?

2. What, specifically, was done to the medical industry in 1965, roughly five years before medical costs began their dramatic upward spiral?

3. Who, exactly, did it?

In short, the reason medical costs have gone through the roof is: massive government intrusion into the once-free medical market, via the "Medicare/Medicaid" legislation of 1965. It's as if someone lifted this sorry spectacle right off the pages of economist Ludwig von Mises' 1947 book "Planned Chaos" and made it law.

So the solution to a mess created by... government intrusion, is...complete government control?

Ahh-yuh.

My analogy: There is a stone drunk, face down in the gutter, a broken booze bottle floating in the muck beside him. Two groups of concerned people are standing on the sidewalk, trying to decide what to do. The first group is recommending cold-turkey sobriety and a good 12-step program. The second group is demanding that someone bring him a truckload of better whisky.

- The first group is the Congressional GOP;

- The second group is Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the power-crazed Demo-Socialist Party;

- The passed-out drunk is American medicine;

- The broken bottle is Medicare/Medicaid;

- The citizens are his liver.

There is, and always has been, only one practical and ethical fix for this government-created mess:

A complete Separation of Medicine and State - instituted in the same way, and for the same reason, that we have a Separation of Church and State. IOW, the precise, polar opposite of what Obama & Co. are trying to ram down our throats.

And the allusion to the Constitution is apt - along with the logical, ethical and the practical, there is also no Constitutional justification for this corrupt power grab. Fortunately, some of those monarchic fools in D.C. seem to be listening to what we plebes out here are saying and the fascist medicine scam is fizzling fast.

Bowie
10-09-09, 05:30
I'm no particular Obama fan, but Wardie I think people have to realize that good Presidents often harbor radical views on how to change things for the better in their opinions, but that doesn't matter unless Congress creates bills to make those principles come into effect.

It's like, I'm a pretty huge Ron Paul fan (yeah, here's where you all insult me), but I'm a social liberal whereas Ron Paul is a social conservative. But Ron Paul has also repeatedly said how his personal views (anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage) would not influence policy to any extreme, because how can they? It's not up to the President, most of the time.

But with Ron Paul's libertarian streak, it would just have been even better :P

Big Matt
10-09-09, 06:03
This scares the hell out of me, frankly. It's a foot in the door to complete government control over our very bodies, and (as Obama has stated publicly,) government power to decide who lives and who dies - errmm, must take "pain pills" in lieu of medical care - 'cause their lives lose out to "funding" in some bureaucratic panel's cost/benefit equation. "So sorry, your life's not worth the money. Please go away and wait to die. Kthxbye, next..." It's textbook fascism.

I completely agree, SpaceChild. As if such an invasion of our rights and freedoms was not enough, there are wicked little individuals such as Democratic senator Max Baucus of Montana who is proposing a bill that would impose fines of up to 3,800 dollars on American citizens who do not have health insurance. Such a move would force everyone who cannot afford private health insurance to submit themselves to the mercy and triage of the government run plan or be considered a criminal by the US government.

SamReeves
10-09-09, 06:31
Totally missed it, but then again that's me. :vlol:

Healthcare is going down, not enough bluedogs are on board with it, and I think Obama's ego is hurting as a result. Therefore he's gotta talk down to the schoolkids. :p

voltz
10-09-09, 06:42
Therefore he's gotta talk down to the schoolkids. :p

http://www.cagle.com/working/090904/benson.gif

SamReeves
10-09-09, 07:10
I'd like to see the same reaction when your private schools dry up in favor of public ones!

Mad Tony
10-09-09, 08:39
I don't recall anyone calling Obama a socialist over what he said in his speech to school kids.

I saw a bit of this on the BBC late last night, didn't think much of it really. I just hope he didn't refer to the UK as an example of how government run, universal healthcare can work, because it really isn't that good.

stereopathic
10-09-09, 17:23
I don't recall anyone calling Obama a socialist over what he said in his speech to school kids.

in texas, especially in my hometown of houston, people called him a socialist because of it, a nazi and called his speech to school children "indoctrination" even going so far as to compare it to hitler's youth.

i watched this last night and i noticed a glaring lack of specifics. however, it seemed to be more of a rallying cry for the dems, encouraging them to unite. and while i'm not a fan of the current version of obama's healthcare plan, frankly speaking, i think it may have worked.

he really got tough on the conservatives, calling out the alarmists who were screaming "death panel," and pointing out that many members of the gop are sacrificing long-term goals for short-term victories. while this has been a problem for both parties in the past, on this point, obama's correct. healthcare is a problem for everyone as it's quickly collapsing under its own weight.

and was there a veiled shot at palin in there?

after the speech, blue dogs like ben nelson seemed to have changed their tune while the unfortunate misstep by joe wilson during the speech seems to have galvanized the dems this morning.

i'm also reading a lot about the republicans criticizing obama for seemingly abandoning his bi-partisan ideals, which seems silly since they've seemingly opposed the president at every turn in a staunchly partisan manner. in fact (and again i want to reiterate that i do not support the healthcare plan in its current form), i think that partisanship may be what's hurt the gop the most on this deal, and what's only going to provide the democrats the motivation to push this thing through, if only to spite them.

so, in regards to obama's presidential agenda, i feel the speech was a complete success and prolly pushed the health care bill over the hump, ending any questions that may have been lingering of whether it may or may not go through.

Super Badnik
10-09-09, 17:30
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46353000/jpg/_46353307_007921430-1.jpg
"YOU LIE!"That made my day for some reason. :vlol:

interstellardave
10-09-09, 17:33
WardDragon and Spacechild win this topic. I've especially not heard many people say all the things Spacechild has said... and he/she is exactly right, BTW.

It's the same with everything... the government declares an "emergency" and then seeks total control over something that it has previously messed up--creating, in large part, the emergency itself! :(

stereopathic
10-09-09, 18:42
while ward made some excellent points (an astute mind she has), spacechild began his/her post with accusations of death panels. which are patently false. please please please tell me you don't buy into that crap, dave.

anyway, i think it's readily apparent that the greed of the insurance companies is what's caused this crisis. and i mean apparent as in blazing ****ing obvious. but to intrude into their gorging is some kind of unconstitutional socialist attack on all that is holy and free?

you pull government support from the poor and what happens to your insurance premiums then? just because your abolish medicare doesn't mean poor people stop using the system; it doesn't mean they suddenly get healthier. and it sure as hell doesn't mean that they stop using emergency rooms for primary care. we can go laissez-faire all day long with healthcare but that's never going to make it affordable. insurance companies are citing those who can't afford healthcare as the reason they charge so much. as they charge more, fewer people can afford it. so premiums go up. so fewer people can afford it. so premuims go up. etcetcetcadinfinitum.

what's wrong with obama's plan is, as i think it was Sam Reeves who pointed out in a different thread, that it too closely resembles the VA system which, besides it's outstanding medical records database, is a colossal pain-in-the-ass. everything moves at one-third speed (if that) because of unending government red-tape-laden bureaucracy. it's a sure-fire method for bringing the entire system to a screeching halt.

how you bring down costs is this: the government pays for preventative medicine. estimates of what that would save monetarily are astronomical (sorry i don't have numbers in front of me to blow your collective minds). this alone could preserve american healthcare in a form familiar to us, but on top of that you do something about the estimated 12 million illegals crushing the system and no matter what you stop malpractice abuse NOW.

also the FDA has to nut up and start caring about the citizens. you know they can't say something is bad for you, or to eat/drink less of something? large corporations fight them on the wording until they are forced to relent. there was a fight a while back about sugary soft drinks where ultimately coca-cola won out, and the FDA was prevented from telling people to drink fewer sodas. they HAVE to be able to tell people to stop getting fat (for starters), as that would dramatically decrease the strain on the healthcare system. true fact.

you do this and you can consider the problem solved.

interstellardave
10-09-09, 18:51
while ward made some excellent points (an astute mind she has), spacechild began his/her post with accusations of death panels. which are patently false. please please please tell me you don't buy into that crap, dave.

anyway, i think it's readily apparent that the greed of the insurance companies is what's caused this crisis. and i mean apparent as in blazing ****ing obvious. but to intrude into their gorging is some kind of unconstitutional socialist attack on all that is holy and free?

I kinda skimmed Spacechilds' post and liked most of what I saw--particularly about Medicare and Medicaid. Not sure what Death Panels are, TBQH!

Insurance companies have way too much power in healthcare... but that's a result of government interference, too... too many regulations in some areas, not enough in others, etc. Just like the drug companies... our government plays favorites, manipulates the situation, etc.

I do not say government has caused all the problems in healthcare, but I do not in any way believe they can make it better by eventually taking total control over it, either.

Well-regulated private healthcare would be best.

Chocola teapot
10-09-09, 18:52
Cant obama just Make the rule?? He's president.

Mad Tony
10-09-09, 18:59
Cant obama just Make the rule?? He's president.That would be called a dictatorship.

Chocola teapot
10-09-09, 19:00
That would be called a dictatorship.

...?
Then what's the point in a president?

Mr.Burns
10-09-09, 19:06
The US government is broken up into three branches. The Executive (president), Legislative (congress) and Judicial (supreme court). Neither branch can have total power else the concept of checks and balances as a key piller to a republic/democracy would be null and void.

In other words: The prez can't have that much power otherwise he'd be a dictator like MT said. The President can make policies but in most cases, he or she needs approval from Congress. That's how our government works. :p

Chocola teapot
10-09-09, 19:12
The US government is broken up into three branches. The Executive (president), Legislative (congress) and Judicial (supreme court). Neither branch can have total power else the concept of checks and balances as a key piller to a republic/democracy would be null and void.

In other words: The prez can't have that much power otherwise he'd be a dictator like MT said. The President can make policies but in most cases, he or she needs approval from Congress. That's how our government works. :p

Oh... Thankyou! :) Now I understand.

Larapink
10-09-09, 19:48
Obama just seems to be going back on his words sometimes..

patriots88888
10-09-09, 20:15
The US government is broken up into three branches. The Executive (president), Legislative (congress) and Judicial (supreme court). Neither branch can have total power else the concept of checks and balances as a key piller to a republic/democracy would be null and void.

In other words: The prez can't have that much power otherwise he'd be a dictator like MT said. The President can make policies but in most cases, he or she needs approval from Congress. That's how our government works. :p

Don't you actually mean, should work? :p

Mr.Burns
10-09-09, 20:18
It still works that way on paper. Practically, eh, gotta love corruption :rolleyes:

Lemmie
10-09-09, 21:17
I don't recall anyone calling Obama a socialist over what he said in his speech to school kids.

I saw a bit of this on the BBC late last night, didn't think much of it really. I just hope he didn't refer to the UK as an example of how government run, universal healthcare can work, because it really isn't that good.

If they didn't call him socialist they called him fascist. It seems some people just can't decide what political extreme Obama subscribes to.

I think that the quality of care from NHS varies across the country, and that in some areas it can be under-resourced or over-subscribed. I wouldn't like to see it go away, nor would I like any system that does not embrace the 'care at point of need' ideal replace it.

However, it is heavily burdened by bureaucracy and does have some features that Americans might legitimately worry about seeing, such as attempting to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness over individual care. But when it was introduced in 1948, it radically improved the lives of British people overall. Of course, our needs have changed with time, and the NHS has failed in some ways to change along with it, while increasing in cost and bureaucracy - but it remains an institution which most people are very proud of.

I have heard it pointed out that some of the best nationalised healthcare can be found in Scandanavian countries, but these nations are of course much smaller in terms of population, and are very wealthy for their size. Also I personally would be cautious of ascribing too much to their system, as I have not experienced it myself.

I have also heard some people saying that campaign finance reform is required before healthcare reform can be initiated, as many Republican senators and members of congress, as well as Blue Dog Democrats, receive money from health insurance companies and pharmaceutical/medical equipment companies.

Mad Tony
10-09-09, 22:20
If they didn't call him socialist they called him fascist. It seems some people just can't decide what political extreme Obama subscribes to.

I think that the quality of care from NHS varies across the country, and that in some areas it can be under-resourced or over-subscribed. I wouldn't like to see it go away, nor would I like any system that does not embrace the 'care at point of need' ideal replace it.

However, it is heavily burdened by bureaucracy and does have some features that Americans might legitimately worry about seeing, such as attempting to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness over individual care. But when it was introduced in 1948, it radically improved the lives of British people overall. Of course, our needs have changed with time, and the NHS has failed in some ways to change along with it, while increasing in cost and bureaucracy - but it remains an institution which most people are very proud of.

I have heard it pointed out that some of the best nationalised healthcare can be found in Scandanavian countries, but these nations are of course much smaller in terms of population, and are very wealthy for their size. Also I personally would be cautious of ascribing too much to their system, as I have not experienced it myself.

I have also heard some people saying that campaign finance reform is required before healthcare reform can be initiated, as many Republican senators and members of congress, as well as Blue Dog Democrats, receive money from health insurance companies and pharmaceutical/medical equipment companies.I haven't heard of any Republican politicans refer to Obama as a fascist. Still, one can be fascist and socialist at the same time. Note at this point though that I don't think Obama is a fascist.

My ideal healthcare system is not one which is completely run by the government but more along the lines of what Dave suggested - well regulated private healthcare. I guess part of your stance on healthcare and government depends on what role you think government should play in people's lives.

It does annoy me though when people think the NHS is absolutely perfect and to criticize it is akin to high treason.

Ward Dragon
11-09-09, 02:30
Not sure what Death Panels are, TBQH!


As I understand it, Obama's healthcare bill calls for some kind of committee to review cases and decide if treatment should be given or denied. Some politicians (notably Sarah Palin) have been calling this committee a "Death Panel" because it is possible that they will have the power to decide who receives life-saving treatment and who does not. There is concern that lack of money and cost of treatment will result in many people being denied coverage if they are too sick.

Kittypower
11-09-09, 03:06
I haven't heard of any Republican politicans refer to Obama as a fascist. Still, one can be fascist and socialist at the same time. Note at this point though that I don't think Obama is a fascist.

My ideal healthcare system is not one which is completely run by the government but more along the lines of what Dave suggested - well regulated private healthcare. I guess part of your stance on healthcare and government depends on what role you think government should play in people's lives.

It does annoy me though when people think the NHS is absolutely perfect and to criticize it is akin to high treason.

Nazi=Fascist

Ward Dragon
11-09-09, 03:12
Nazi=Fascist

Nazis were the National Socialist party, so they were both socialist and fascist.

SpaceChild
11-09-09, 03:58
spacechild began his/her post with accusations of death panels. which are patently false. please please please tell me you don't buy into that crap, dave.

False? So tell me: If a.) the government is sole provider of medical care - and if you believe that private institutions will survive economically in the wake of a vast new state monopoly with a natural immunity to the need to turn a profit, then I have this nice bridge... - and if b.) the items in the balance are your granny vs. that bureaucracy's budget and that budget is a little tight, guess what granny gets instead of the treatment she needs to remain alive? Obama has told us this, unequivocally: A bottle of painkillers, to keep her comfortably numb while she waits to drop dead.

Here's his "plan," straight from his own mouth:

U-dQfb8WQvo

In what way is that not execution-by-service-denial, nonchalantly admitted by Obama himself?

Oh, of course there's no "panel" smacking a gavel and announcing "You Must Die!" No - just the disinterested, impersonal, and utterly final "notice" you'd get from a random DMV-type health collective bureaucrat, informing you that "We regret that your requested treatment falls outside the parameters of allowable care. Please report to the Happy Trails Pharmaceutical Collective for your painkillers. Have a nice day."

In practice - e.g., throughout Canada's collectivist system - this scenario would actually be rare because a good number of patients get skimmed off the rolls just via attrition: They die during the interminable waits for treatment anyway.

i think it's readily apparent that the greed of the insurance companies is what's caused this crisis. and i mean apparent as in blazing ****ing obvious.

'Sounds nice and angsty, but this is blatant scapegoating. It is also patently false.

Or were you hoping we'd all jump onto this class-envy bandwagon and just nod our heads in knowing agreement? The term "greed" has become the modern-day vestigial collectivist's version of the Medieval term "heresy," and about as hazy and intellectually fraudulent. Perhaps a better analogy would be to the guy trying to whip up a mob of torch-wielding villagers to storm Baron Frankenstein's castle...

I would recommend doing a cursory study of American medical history. I mean, have a quick look at a graph of aggregate medical costs per capita over the last century. You will see a relatively flat line right up until the early 1970s, then a dramatic incline - or "hockey stick," if you'd like a little Gorish irony. It took roughly five years of bingeing on new freebies before the cost overruns began to roll in and the merde hit the proverbial ventilateur.

How did the Medicare/Medicaid bureaucrats respond to the cost crisis they engineered? Did they admit they had no logical, ethical or even pragmatic justification in imposing government edicts on the medical business in the first place and abolish the program? Does any statist ever do this?

No, what they did is, again, something Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises described two decades earlier in his short work "Planned Chaos": they doubled down, dove in with a whole new rash of statist impositions piled right atop the initial ones, with the idea of controlling costs via micromanagement and comprehensive government regulation of the entire medical industry. After they'd heaped blame for the disaster, loudly and publicly, on... the very medical industry they'd invaded and distorted a couple of years earlier.

we can go laissez-faire all day long with healthcare but that's never going to make it affordable. insurance companies are citing those who can't afford healthcare as the reason they charge so much. as they charge more, fewer people can afford it. so premiums go up. so fewer people can afford it. so premuims go up. etcetcetcadinfinitum.

Umm, economics text. Find one and crack it. I recommend George Reisman's 1996 treatise "Capitalism (http://www.capitalism.net)," which Nobel laureate James Buchanan compared favorably to the work of Adam Smith - posted at that link in its entirety, free, in PDF format.

First off, by what standard of economic evaluation do you characterize the present-day medical industry as "laissez faire?" I recommend you reexamine my initial post. American medicine was relatively free...right up until a pack of officious, power-drunk collectivists decided to take it over in 1965. Today it's already in a stranglehold of crushing regulators and the out-of-control litigation lottery crowd - to which the statists want to add a full straightjacket.

The statists created complete economic chaos within that market - which market interventions invaribly must (see again Mises) - and with every successive crisis they'd created, they enacted not a withdrawal of their controls, but yet further intrusions, to gloss over the consequences of their previous ones. So the snowball has continued growing and the costs have continued their upward spiral. Robert Higgs called this phenomenon "ratcheting" in his landmark 1987 work "Crisis and Leviathan"; Von Mises pointed out that unless the government intrusions are not decisively reversed, the only possible terminus is complete government control of the economy, the Zwangswirtschaft of Nazi Germany.

The post-1965 cost spiral has not been the result of a cheap, caricatured "greed," but because it costs physicians and medical institutions arse-loads of money to drag a massive bureaucratic swamp of hyper-regulation and crushing controls behind them, while still remaining afloat financially. Add to that the American Left's pet swine, the Litigation Lobby, and you've got another massive, six-figure insurance expense for each such provider, annually.

For the proponents of state controls on medicine to blame their victim for the cost spiral that is the direct result of prior state controls, is not just dishonest, it's massive intellectual fraud.

I'll leave my response at that for now. I haven't even touched upon another creepy, Stalinist detail in Obama's scam: Section 163, which hands to the government's health bureaucracy real-time access to your and my bank records - including direct access to bank accounts for electronic fund transfers...(!)

Lastly, there's this:

...also the FDA has to nut up and start caring about the citizens. you know they can't say something is bad for you, or to eat/drink less of something?...there was a fight a while back about sugary soft drinks where ultimately coca-cola won out, and the FDA was prevented from telling people to drink fewer sodas. they HAVE to be able to tell people to stop getting fat (for starters), as that would dramatically decrease the strain on the healthcare system. true fact.

The ominous, fascistic implications of state dictation of personal consumption ought to be obvious, but to make it clear I will end with something Von Mises published exactly sixty years ago, just after he'd escaped the Nazi occupation of Austria and arrived in America:

"[But] once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.

It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects' minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away."
- Von Mises, from Human Action, 1949, 3rd Revised Ed., pp. 733-734.


Pardon the running long, but this stuff had to be addressed.

stereopathic
11-09-09, 13:38
...long post...you like to type, huh? i admire your dedication to the debate. :)

regarding your first point, we're never going to see eye-to-eye on this one. are you asking for the government to get personally involved in each case and make decisions after interviews with each individual patient? no, you're most likely not. these decisions have to be made from an emotional distance and you can call it whatever you want, impersonal or what have you, but your doctor operates with the same sense of detachment. decisions on treatment are made logically, not based on a 105-yr-old woman's level of joie-de-vive.

if an "arrhythmia specialist" or surgeon decides that the inherent risks outweigh the potential benefits of installing a pacemaker in a 105-year-old, then why would a government insurer (or any insurer for that matter) pay for that operation, which the physician advised against? no, her doctor would most likely prescribe pain control and whatever other non-surgical options that made sense in her case. the bottom line in this example, was that a call was made that the lady's best chances to live longer and more comfortably meant not getting the pacemaker.

and let's not forget that hospice care, while nothing a family ever wants to hear, is sometimes the best thing for the patient.

------

your second point is a reiteration of your disdain for medicare/medicaid. i don't need to look up american medical history as i'm quite familiar with it. i feel these government programs are an easy target as they are undeniably a sieve, sucking money as fast as they can get it. they pay less to doctors than any other insurer and the only reason that they continue to accept it is that they HAVE to pay. doctors know that if they see a patient with medicare, the practice/hospital gets paid for sure. insurance companies, though they pay more for services rendered, don't always feel they have to pay for something, leaving both patient and physician out to dry.

however, what you and those of your ilk often forget to consider, is what the costs would be for we-the-taxpayers without these programs. and elderly person with medicare is seeing a PCP regularly, keeping up with their prescriptions, and generally staying as healthy as possible because they can afford to. without medicare, they would do what every other uninsured american does and clog up emergency rooms for their primary care, costing us many times what the preventative medicine would have cost. it's easy to point fingers at the programs for what they cost, but considering what it would cost us not to have them, i'll take them any day.

-----------

third point - i didn't classify modern american medicine as laissez-faire. i was referring to your expressing concern over government interference and said you wanted less of it. and since you have reverted to your medicare argument in paragraph two which i have just addressed, i'll let that one go here. my point still stands.

-----------

fourth point. i feel you may have misunderstood me again. i want for the FDA to be able to recommend eating less of something. if you think that that qualifies as some sort of nazi control over mind and body, then me typing any further would prolly just be a waste of both of our time.

i guess to sum up, while i respect that you've put the thought into that you have and am quite sure nothing i say will change your mind, i have no choice but to disagree on all points.

interstellardave
11-09-09, 13:58
As I understand it, Obama's healthcare bill calls for some kind of committee to review cases and decide if treatment should be given or denied. Some politicians (notably Sarah Palin) have been calling this committee a "Death Panel" because it is possible that they will have the power to decide who receives life-saving treatment and who does not. There is concern that lack of money and cost of treatment will result in many people being denied coverage if they are too sick.

Ah... now I see. Yes, that is a possibility... there are stories all the time about it happening in HMO's now. It could certainly happen in Nationalized Health Care too.

The biggest danger, then, is if Nationalized Health Care was the only option for people... that's why there should always be choices available... this thing, if it gets off the ground, should never become universal.

SpaceChild
11-09-09, 20:51
you like to type, huh?

Can I take that as an objection to having your worldview rebutted at all? Just some friendly advice: It's flat wrong on a multitude of levels, so expect more of this. Keep in mind that I am not debating here to "win" or any of that competitive crap. I am presenting facts to contrast with what's being perpetrated under this Obama/Demo-Soc medical putsch. To paraphrase talk dude Dennis Prager, clarity is more important than agreement - I'm presenting my case; let the observer decide which argument is consistent with reality, logic, and ethics. Practicality follows from the rational and the ethical; the irrational and unethical can only destroy. At any rate, this is far too important an issue to be truncated to "twittering."

are you asking for the government to get personally involved in each case and make decisions after interviews with each individual patient? no, you're most likely not.

You're right, I am not. I am asking for the government, after four decades of legalized vandalism, to get the hell out of our medical industry completely and permanently.

To repeat from my initial post, the only ethical (ergo practical) solution to this statist mess is a complete Separation of Medicine and State. Obama and his merry band of retro-fascists are trying to impose the exact opposite, in gleeful defiance of Constitutional, rational or ethical constraints.

[N.B. - On the socialism vs. fascism question people touched on earlier, both are variants of the same core philosophy: collectivism. They're blood-brothers, with a special emphasis on blood. They differ only in superficial methodology and insignia; at root they're identical. As one philosopher put it: "It is too easy, too demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory." A good reference article in this context is also by Pepperdine economist George Reisman, "Why Nazism Was Socialism (http://mises.org/story/1937)." But it'll be useless if you're limited to a sitcom attention span. You need to read it.]

In point of fact, even if someone waved a magic wand and this gargantuan power-grab became ethical, your entire premise is fraudulent: The government, under the Obama/Democrat-Socialist regime, would be making these decisions on criteria wholly unrelated to the the individual patient's wishes and medical requirements. More insidiously, it would obliterate any and all alternative (read: private) medical institutions, unless or until a black market in clandestine medical services were to arise. Budgetary criteria would become the primary consideration, and provide an all-purpose excuse for any bureaucratic whim regarding any given subject forced into this regime. As we've seen in the Canadian and British systems, the patients often don't even get to the doctor. They sit and wait, and wait, and wait, dropping dead before they're even granted an audience by the Grand Imperial Ministry of Health Care. I have a friend who interviewed one such Canadian, a cancer patient, on film. Her cancer was in early stages when she petitioned the government for treatment, but during the three-year wait her cancer metastasized for lack of treatment and she died.

these decisions have to be made from an emotional distance and you can call it whatever you want, impersonal or what have you, but your doctor operates with the same sense of detachment. decisions on treatment are made logically, not based on a 105-yr-old woman's level of joie-de-vive.

"Your doctor operates with the same sense of detachment" is false, comically so. Show of hands please...When you go to an appointment with your physician, are you typically dismissed without seeing him? The very essence of our private - correction, semi-private - health care industry is direct one-on-one consultation with the doctor of your choice, in every situation in which you want it. If you don't like your doctor's opinion and want another, or just want a different doctor, you pick another one.

This is a quaint thing that Obama and the Demo-Socs wisely know know to be a childish anachronism that needs to be dismantled so that a Brave New World can emerge. It's a thing called "freedom." But what un-hip clod wants that, anyway? The high costs we pay currently are a direct reflection of, again the genius of even a heavily-encumbered market: It finds ways to continue offering people freedom of choice, but the existing government stranglehold makes that task vastly more expensive than it was four-plus decades ago.

...if an "arrhythmia specialist" or surgeon decides that the inherent risks outweigh the potential benefits of installing a pacemaker in a 105-year-old, then why would a government insurer (or any insurer for that matter) pay for that operation, which the physician advised against? no, her doctor would most likely prescribe pain control and whatever other non-surgical options that made sense in her case. the bottom line in this example, was that a call was made that the lady's best chances to live longer and more comfortably meant not getting the pacemaker.

But...this woman's private - that's: private - physician did install a pacemaker for her, and she's lived six years with it, and counting. What you are saying here is that you, not the patient in question, should be granted the godlike power to decide whether someone else's life is worth being allowed to continue

The first point you're strenuously evading here is an ethically-monstrous one, inescapable with a state-imposed medical system: Under government medicine, government functionaries would be making life-or-death decisions about other people's medical care based entirely on cost-benefit analyses rather than any shred of concern for the patient as a unique individual human being.

Does the surly Postal Worker at your local station worry that his rotten service and attitude will lose you as a customer for First Class business? He doesn't have to, because federal law forbids any entity other than the USPS from delivering First Class mail. A federal health bureaucrat, similarly, would not have to give a rat's arse whether you or your granny or your pregnant wife or your injured daughter, etc, lived or died. You'd be a number on a "Comparative Effectiveness" treatment schedule and you'd "take it or leave it."

Am I just blowing smoke here? Have a listen to what some mealy-mouthed proponents of this 40-years-and-running medical micromanagement scam are saying about elderly patients vs. "comparative effectiveness":

qsx_QILgzjc


your second point is a reiteration of your disdain for medicare/medicaid...doctors know that if they see a patient with medicare, the practice/hospital gets paid for sure.

You speak as if "disdain for Medicare/Medicaid" were something to be dismissed out of hand, like you're lobbing a Poisoning the Well fallacy. To recap: [B]It is precisely the Medicare/Medicaid intrusion, passed in 1965, which initiated the descent of America's once-healthy medical market into its present complexity, high cost and inflexibility.

I can only assume that your motive in trying to shift criticism away from Medicare/Medicaid is that, as a proponent of a government medical takeover, you recognize that it is vital to keep blame for this mess focused on its innocent victim/scapegoat - the private medical industry itself - rather than on the actual criminal: government interventionism in medicine.

Again, without first identifying causes, no problem can be solved; The dead silence on initial government interference as the root cause of this crisis, is revelatory of massive intellectual and political fraud among those who seek to impose as a "cure" yet more of the same poison that sickened the once-healthy medical industry in the first place.

however, what you and those of your ilk often forget to consider, is what the costs would be for we-the-taxpayers without these programs... it's easy to point fingers at the programs for what they cost, but considering what it would cost us not to have them, i'll take them any day.

This is the second point you're evading: Again, have a look at average medical costs in America prior to the 1965 government invasion of the medical market. You, like every one of the government takeover proponents from Obama on down, are engaging in a Circular Argument here. The reason present-day medical costs are high is because of forty years of government controls.

By what standard of logic can you use a condition caused by government interference as an argument for complete government control of the industry it destroyed?

So no, your point doesn't stand. It's built on a classic fallacy in logic, which is the equivalent of quicksand.

i feel you may have misunderstood me again. i want for the FDA to be able to recommend eating less of something. if you think that that qualifies as some sort of nazi control over mind and body, then me typing any further would prolly just be a waste of both of our time.


George Washington: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force."

Please point out to everybody here the clause in the U.S. Constitution that empowers government to make nonbinding "recommendations." 'Cause I'm just not finding it in my trusty Cato pocket edition here. If government is "recommending" something, it is doing so with the implicit threat of deadly force. History has shown, amply, that what begin as "recommendations" ultimately become binding law, to be obeyed or else. The coercion can be direct or indirect, with the latter being accomplished monetarily. Just ask the tobacco producers what the effects were of McCain & Co's late-'90s Carry Nation Revival. Or have a look at the effect in 1920s American law of the original Carry Nation/WCTU "recommendations."

There is only one solution to the medical problem and to every other political problem we may face: Individual Liberty.

Obama is daily revealing himself to be a virulent arch-enemy of liberty, which, as I've said, scares the hell out of me. We've gone down this road before, and we know exactly where it leads.

Hasta.

stereopathic
11-09-09, 21:29
you said that my statement that doctors do not operate with the same sense of detachment is "comically" false. that proves that you know nothing, and i repeat ZILCH about doctors. i can too easily extrapolate that to medicine and the system in general. they are trained from the very beginning to operate without getting personal. hell, if you just turned on a medical sit-com you'd know that. please explain to me why i should debate anything regarding the healthcare system with someone who has no grasp of the simplest facts regarding the front lines of said care?

you also spouted something about me evading a point about national healthcare. which is crap. again it's you missing the point. my point is that the same decisions are made everyday. sometimes it's the insurance companies that deny service or drop a client, sometimes it's the doctors who think the risks/costs outweigh the benefits. those decisions will always be there and will have to be made. they're being made everyday in every hospital and each one is a sad story. but go right ahead, you can spin it into whatever horror story you want people to believe about death panels or whatever.

i stopped reading your post after this. i'm regrettably not as in love with your prose as you are. and fair or unfair, you present yourself as just another sadly typical alarmist conservative who just wants to cry about our country going nazi or whatever.

good luck with that.

SpaceChild
12-09-09, 05:28
'Not a conservative, sorry. Objectivist. The most radical conservatives in this are, ironically, Obama and his blind followers - he seeks to drag the United States of America, the first country in human history founded on an explicitly individualist philosophy, back to the intellectual and material squalor of collectivism, the philosophy that dominated every tyranny in world history up until the Renaissance, Enlightenment and...the advent of Revolutionary America.

As for doctors being "trained from the very beginning to operate without getting personal," I'm a little puzzled as to how you extrapolate from that bizarre opinion the stunning conclusion that I "have no grasp of the simplest facts." Which is another instance of the ad hominem fallacy, incidentally.

I'll assume you're just a super-healthy dude who's never been to a doctor, and I'll take as a certainty that you don't know any doctors personally. Go to Bing or Google and type in the words "bedside manner." Better yet, go to a doctor and witness first-hand something that'll presumably be a brand-new experience: A doctor discussing your physical health with you. Personally.

Jeez.

To repeat the point on private choice: If an insurance company or doctor decides to drop a patient (which given the prospect of Litigation Lotto vultures is not likely,) that patient has the option of choosing from a multitude of other insurance providers and physicians.

Under a government monopoly there simply is nothing else. Unless as I've said a black market or underground medical market springs up spontaneously. I can envision a clandestine, underground medical industry being the most popular option if a government takeover were allowed to happen. Then we could all be considered "criminals" - for wanting decent medical treatment. Swell.

Relevant quote:
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - Orwell

Ward Dragon
13-09-09, 23:50
This discussion started to turn into a mudslinging match. Back on topic and no personal insults, please :)

Andariel
14-09-09, 05:09
The insurance companies are always raising their premiums, refuse to cover people as much as possible, and just don't do what their suppose to do. This needs to change. I don't know what kind of health reform would be best for the US but it's needed.

amiro1989
14-09-09, 05:21
...?
Then what's the point in a president?

Manipulate people's mind to make them believe the good thing to do is to do it.

*Coughcough*BushDestructionWeaponsIraq*coughcough* :D