PDA

View Full Version : Senator Scott Brown from Massachusetts


Solice
20-01-10, 03:45
This is a twist of fate, particularly at this crucial moment. The Democrats will now find it more difficult to forward their legislative agenda. So what do your think? Is this good or bad?

I think its good overall; there needs to be a balance of power. Parties, any party, becomes self-serving if too much power is centered. Gridlock? Yes, but that is our system, no one group can run amok over the citizens.

If the shoe was on the other foot, and the Republicans had 60 Senators, I would welcome a new Democrat. I know it's not ideal, but so far a representative republic appears to be the best for a majority of people.

EmeraldFields
20-01-10, 03:47
I loved his centerfold spread in Cosmo. http://i48.************/uxb85.gif

patriots88888
20-01-10, 03:57
Partisanship is the key to all we know today. I believe it discovered the cure for cancer as well.

I don't restrict myself by aligning in either direction. I can get my fair share of abuse from both. An A hole is an A hole no matter how you slice it or dice it.

SamReeves
20-01-10, 05:12
I think Obama will get to re-think his socialist agenda now! ;)

miss.haggard
20-01-10, 05:34
An A hole is an A hole no matter how you slice it or dice it.

You slice and dice yours? :(


:p

Solice
20-01-10, 06:01
I loved his centerfold spread in Cosmo. http://i48.************/uxb85.gif

Sex sells:D

EmeraldFields
20-01-10, 06:03
Sex sells:D

He looked pretty hot! :cln:

Mad Tony
20-01-10, 07:22
Good on him I say! :tmb: This time a year ago I never believed something like this would happen, not in quite a long time anyway. It's good to see Obama's polls dipping and the Dems losing senate races.

aktrekker
20-01-10, 07:28
Hopefully this is just the beginning.

Mad Tony
20-01-10, 07:31
Could it be a tight election in 2012?

knightgames
20-01-10, 07:37
I've never felt a sense of entitlement come from a candidate like I felt from AG Martha Coakley. She must have had the worst campaign management ever.

Our Governor Duval Patrick hasn't been shy about tossing insults to those who oppose what the Democratic Party is trying to achieve.

People remember Barney Frank yelling down opposition instead of listening to what their concerns were during the summer healthcare meetings.

People of good conscience and with REAL concerns about spending have been lumped together with the extremism of those who carried Curious George stuffed animals to rallies.

People remember the scare tactics used by the right (Condaleeza Rice and mushroom clouds anyone?) and see scare tactics employed by this administration and want to slow this down before we get a clear picture of where we are now and WHERE we will be in ten years. These policies will affect generations should they fail. Having fear as an ally to forward a policy is not the way to endear oneself to your constituency. Have we learned nothing from the last administration?

The BILLIONS already earmarked and spent to kickstart the economic recovery is based upon a hope - a gamble with half empty piggy banks. "Here China. Here's an IOU for covering our debt. We'll repay you as we get repayed." With unemployment still at 10%, and forclosures STILL happening at an alarming rate, many people don't see an improvement, and promising billions on a gamble of an economic recovery when things still look pretty bleak is something that people want examined closely before slamming through.

Longstanding policies that were put in place for the benifit of society have been abused, neglected or turned on their ear to benifit the wrong people. When the call came for examination and possible reform the politic line stood up and said NO. So while I can see the intended benifit of welfare, laxing of credit qualification in the late 70s and reorganising mortgage lending practices they WEREN'T cared for or managed right Hell! They were downright abused. Hence a partial reason we are in the economic condition we are in.

To quote President Obama, it was a "systemic failure" that caused the situation we are in. BOTH parties did this. Both parties huddled together to protect their own interests trying to cast blame on the other.

I don't want to stop this train the country is on. I WANT this country to succeed. I just want to slow this train down enough so that when we do reach the station we don't crash through and lose it all. That's a far cry from the extremism many deride here in the forums and elsewhere. It's a far cry from the belief or fear that we want President Obama to fail, thus wanting the country to fail.

To be honest. I'm for health care. I ask that those in responsible positions look at the long term. Seeing as what has happened with prior policies, I think it extremely important to see what will happen ten, twenty, and even fifty years down the line to ensure tax money we spend won't further us along the tracks to danger. I want to make sure the intended benificiaries of this spending are the ones to see the benifits and not lobbying fact cats who find ways to better themselves through deceit and theft.


This is all that is really wanted. To have open and real dialogue that exresses the concerns without rhetoric from both sides. To ensure the policies implimented today won't have an adverse affect in the future. We're ALL on this train. Some voices are louder than others and it's the extreme ones that get the eye and ear, while the real concerns are brushed aside as coming from extremism.

Martha Coakley forgot about ALL the people. She took a vacation in December thinking she was a shoe in for the senate seat. She is a complacent candidate dependant on the democratic constituency of the Massachusetts voters. Mass voters are like Red Sox fans. We have long memories of long ago world series victories. We remember how many people were dismissed last summer during the congressional break.

Now that it's the bottom of the ninth and she assumed she had a sure victory with two outs, an unknown steps up to bat. We know what happened in 04. The Yanks were swept after leading 3 games to none with a lead in the ninth. The rest is history. Complacency will kill you every time. (Curt Schilling reference)

I hope the voice of extremism can be drowned out so that real progress for ALL in the country can succeed.

Cochrane
20-01-10, 07:46
I don't care too much about it (if americans truly insist on their right to not be able to pay for a doctor, that's hardly my problem), but I find it interesting that the republicans now have sort of a majority with 41 of 100 votes. I'm fairly certain the US Senate was never meant to require supermajorities of 60 votes for everything, but that's the situation it is in today. The idea of filibuster does not have any legal justification in the US constitution. You could say it protects the minority from harmful decisions by the majority, but the way it is used today, for absolutely anything of importance, makes it more of an "I don't wanna" instrument than another check and balance.

In short, I'm happy we don't have anything like that here in Germany.

knightgames
20-01-10, 08:18
I don't care too much about it (if americans truly insist on their right to not be able to pay for a doctor, that's hardly my problem), but I find it interesting that the republicans now have sort of a majority with 41 of 100 votes. I'm fairly certain the US Senate was never meant to require supermajorities of 60 votes for everything, but that's the situation it is in today. The idea of filibuster does not have any legal justification in the US constitution. You could say it protects the minority from harmful decisions by the majority, but the way it is used today, for absolutely anything of importance, makes it more of an "I don't wanna" instrument than another check and balance.

In short, I'm happy we don't have anything like that here in Germany.

I think the abuse of the filibuster is more symptomatic of the polarization of America. Sad, huh?

Ward Dragon
20-01-10, 12:52
I think this is a good thing. The healtchare bill as it stands right now is horrible. It's full of all sorts of bribes to get the Congress people to vote for it, there's a lot of wasteful spending, and it really doesn't guarantee any more access to healthcare than what people already have right now. Not to mention Congress itself is exempt from having to use the system, so if it's not good enough for them why should I accept it? The Republicans now having 41 Senators means that they will be able to object to any underhanded attempts by Pelosi and Reid to ram the bill through without following the proper procedures. Pelosi and Reid wanted to have some kind of closed discussion where they would come up with a new version of the bill, or simply go with the Senate version, without anyone else being able to read what was actually in the damned thing. That's completely unacceptable. Something so important should be done openly where everyone has a chance to review it and know what is happening.

I found an interesting story on it, which I accidentally posted as a new thread before someone directed me to this one :p

Jan. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Scott Brown won a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts in a political upset that imperils health-care legislation in Congress and sends a warning to President Barack Obama and Democrats ahead of November’s midterm elections.

The loss yesterday by the once-favored Democratic state Attorney General Martha Coakley for a seat held by the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy for nearly half a century shook the nation’s political dynamics and started a blame game.

“This Senate seat belongs to no one person, no one political party,” Brown said at his victory party last night. “This is the people’s seat.”

The race came to exemplify the nation’s political divide over health care, taxes and the role of government. It also provided a measure of Obama’s prestige and his party’s momentum heading into this year’s campaign season.

As the incoming senator predicted similar Republican victories this fall, he called for a do-over on the health-care debate.

“We need to start fresh, work together to do the job right,” he said. “We can do better.”

...

Brown, 50, a previously little-known state senator, cast himself as an independent voice to help thwart Obama’s health- care plan and keep a check on Democrats in Congress, particularly on tax-increase proposals.

Brown’s victory increases his party’s Senate numbers to 41, which gives Republicans enough members in the 100-person Senate to block votes on an overhaul of the U.S. health-care system, Obama’s top legislative goal.

...

Brown’s victory, in a state Obama won by 26 percentage points in the 2008 election, is the third recent high-profile Democratic loss. In November, the president’s party lost the governor’s mansions in New Jersey and Virginia. It follows decisions by five House Democrats since November to retire instead of face potentially tough races later this year.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-20/republican-brown-wins-massachusetts-seat-in-tsunami-election.html

Dennis's Mom
20-01-10, 13:00
I don't like any it when any election or elected official is suddenly the "swing" vote for issues. It gives the official a warped sense of importance and power.

This election will bit America on the a$$ somehow. I'm not saying Coakley should have won, just that this situation is one we should not be in to begin with.

Eddie Haskell
20-01-10, 13:10
I think the abuse of the filibuster is more symptomatic of the polarization of America. Sad, huh?

It's terrible. And by the way, superb post above.

People need to turn off their televisions and radios and stop being led around by idiots. They need to educate themselves on all of the issues and what is really needed to make this nation function correctly and fairly, not follow what some highly paid pundit or personality tell them is good for them and this country.

Cochrane
20-01-10, 13:12
I think this is a good thing. The healtchare bill as it stands right now is horrible. It's full of all sorts of bribes to get the Congress people to vote for it, there's a lot of wasteful spending, and it really doesn't guarantee any more access to healthcare than what people already have right now. Not to mention Congress itself is exempt from having to use the system, so if it's not good enough for them why should I accept it? The Republicans now having 41 Senators means that they will be able to object to any underhanded attempts by Pelosi and Reid to ram the bill through without following the proper procedures. Pelosi and Reid wanted to have some kind of closed discussion where they would come up with a new version of the bill, or simply go with the Senate version, without anyone else being able to read what was actually in the damned thing. That's completely unacceptable. Something so important should be done openly where everyone has a chance to review it and know what is happening.

I found an interesting story on it, which I accidentally posted as a new thread before someone directed me to this one :p



http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-20/republican-brown-wins-massachusetts-seat-in-tsunami-election.html

Are you sure it's getting better now, though? Now it'll only include more bribes, inconsistencies and useless stuff while leaving out bits that may have been important, all just to get one republican senator to vote for it.

If true bipartisan cooperation isn't possible, and it does not seem to be all that likely in the current american political situation, then the only way to govern well is to have a comfortable majority —*otherwise you're always fighting parts of your own party or (in other countries) coalition because you need every last seat. The filibuster has made it very hard to get a significant majority, though, because even controlling 59% of the senate isn't enough yet. No filibuster would probably lead to a bill that republicans like even less, but that would generally do a better job.

Of course, it's obvious that a party with a huge majority also has the possibility to wreak massive damage if it's run by incompetent fools, something that seems to apply to all major parties in Germany for example. But I don't think a system where you have to insert all sorts of edge cases for a single vote is really good for the nation either.

Ward Dragon
20-01-10, 13:16
Are you sure it's getting better now, though? Now it'll only include more bribes, inconsistencies and useless stuff while leaving out bits that may have been important, all just to get one republican senator to vote for it.

No, the bribes were to get the Democrats to vote for it against the wishes of their constituents. Pelosi and Reid are corrupt and have done a lot of damage to the Democratic party. This new Republican was so adamantly against the way the healthcare bill was done that I don't think he'll ever vote for it, which means it probably won't get passed. Right now it has individually passed the House and the Senate, but the two versions are so different from each other that a new version needs to be made combining them and then that new version needs to pass another vote. I don't think it will pass.

Cochrane
20-01-10, 14:18
No, the bribes were to get the Democrats to vote for it against the wishes of their constituents. Pelosi and Reid are corrupt and have done a lot of damage to the Democratic party. This new Republican was so adamantly against the way the healthcare bill was done that I don't think he'll ever vote for it, which means it probably won't get passed. Right now it has individually passed the House and the Senate, but the two versions are so different from each other that a new version needs to be made combining them and then that new version needs to pass another vote. I don't think it will pass.

I don't think they want or need this Republican's vote, they need any of them… and I really doubt that there is no way at all to get a single republican vote for some half-cooked, ineffective scheme that won't get the job done.

As for the wishes of the constituents, that is hard to gauge. Polling on the issue has been extremely inconsistent and seems to depend on the wording of the question more than anything else. The bribing (which I don't deny) really seems more aimed at making the senators forget their own political points of view…*which, of course, have changed a lot over the course of the debate as well.

I won't deny that the current health care bills are already way too complicated (at least as far as I understand them), and probably does not do an excellent job at doing what it's supposed to do. However, I don't think the republican party would be able to do much better. But then, I'm not sure the republican party even wants to make sure that everybody can get health care in the first place.

Mad Tony
20-01-10, 14:22
But then, I'm not sure the republican party even wants to make sure that everybody can get health care in the first place.The Republicans want everybody to have access to health care, they just don't want it to come from the government, which is perfectly understandable.

Ward Dragon
20-01-10, 14:27
I don't think they want or need this Republican's vote, they need any of them… and I really doubt that there is no way at all to get a single republican vote for some half-cooked, ineffective scheme that won't get the job done.

Pelosi and Reid can't even get all of the Democrats to vote for whatever they're trying to force into action. Why would they be able to get a Republican to switch sides at this point?

But then, I'm not sure the republican party even wants to make sure that everybody can get health care in the first place.

The Republicans want to allow competition between insurance companies across state lines and reduce government involvement in health insurance in order to allow people to buy specifically what they want at lower prices. Nothing drives prices up like a monopoly, which insurance companies currently have in some states, and which the government definitely will have if the current plan gets passed. The current healthcare bill is so full of everything that's wrong with the government that I just want it to get scrapped. A completely different approach needs to be taken.

Solice
21-01-10, 01:33
People need to turn off their televisions and radios and stop being led around by idiots.

True, it's easier to believe than it is to think.

Catracoth
21-01-10, 01:34
I knew my state would screw up the election. But then again, I knew Martha wasn't going to win. Oh well. I don't give a hoot about politics anyway.

Love2Raid
21-01-10, 02:00
I always call this 'protest voting'. People are not happy with the way things are at the moment, so out of disappointment they vote for the counterpart. In this case, a Republican. How will he make things better, lol?

wantafanta
21-01-10, 03:52
The Republicans want everybody to have access to health care, they just don't want it to come from the government, which is perfectly understandable.

That's absolutely false. Republicans believe that if you can't afford healthcare, then it's your own fault. Mad Tony, name for me one time when the Republicans ever tried to get everybody healthcare. Republicans see government having only one function - to drop bombs on people in other countries. After that, Republicans hate government. They hate Social Security, they hate Medicare - what makes you think they would like to see everybody get healthcare? And BTW, there is no way to do that without getting the Government to do it.

I just had a procedure done at a local hospital, a standard exam. It cost $7000. I was in the hospital for about 2 hours. The doctor got half, the hospital got half. I have insurance through my employer - WHO BY THE WAY HATES INSURING ME - but he has to because my union MAKES HIM DO IT. Companies are cancelling their employee plans left and right. How would you pay for that $7 Grand bill if you didn't have insurance?

Capt. Murphy
21-01-10, 04:19
That's absolutely false. ....Republicans see government having only one function - to drop bombs on people in other countries.


Bull ****. :wve:

Anyway... I'm impressed to see such a change, this man who will be replacing a Liberal icon - Ted Kennedy.

MangelinaJolie
21-01-10, 05:07
I always call this 'protest voting'. People are not happy with the way things are at the moment, so out of disappointment they vote for the counterpart. In this case, a Republican. How will he make things better, lol?

That seems to be the general reaction to the outcome, too. "Take that, Obama!"

If these people think the President is doing badly, I can't imagine what delusions they're under in thinking they're helping the situation with votes mostly founded on spite.

Mad Tony
21-01-10, 07:39
I always call this 'protest voting'. People are not happy with the way things are at the moment, so out of disappointment they vote for the counterpart. In this case, a Republican. How will he make things better, lol?Normally protest voting involves third parties, but then again there are only two big parties in the US so you could be right.

Still, I guess you could also call the 2008 election a protest vote too eh? :D

That seems to be the general reaction to the outcome, too. "Take that, Obama!"

If these people think the President is doing badly, I can't imagine what delusions they're under in thinking they're helping the situation with votes mostly founded on spite.I don't know actually. A lot of opposition to Obama is over his healthcare bill and by electing Brown they might hold that up.

That's absolutely false. Republicans believe that if you can't afford healthcare, then it's your own fault. Mad Tony, name for me one time when the Republicans ever tried to get everybody healthcare. Republicans see government having only one function - to drop bombs on people in other countries. After that, Republicans hate government. They hate Social Security, they hate Medicare - what makes you think they would like to see everybody get healthcare? And BTW, there is no way to do that without getting the Government to do it.
You know you're absolutely right. Democrats never enter or start any wars. Oh wait, except the Korean war, Bosnian war, continuing the Vietnam war, continuing the Iraq war they supposedly disagree with and many others.

And yes, Republicans don't think government should have any other function - that's why the size of government grew under president George W Bush...

To be fair the only Republican I know of who thinks Government should be severely limited in size (which on the surface isn't too bad, but he does go a bit too far) is Ron Paul, but he's a nut anyway.

Cochrane
21-01-10, 08:22
The Republicans want everybody to have access to health care, they just don't want it to come from the government, which is perfectly understandable.

The Republicans want to allow competition between insurance companies across state lines and reduce government involvement in health insurance in order to allow people to buy specifically what they want at lower prices. Nothing drives prices up like a monopoly, which insurance companies currently have in some states, and which the government definitely will have if the current plan gets passed. The current healthcare bill is so full of everything that's wrong with the government that I just want it to get scrapped. A completely different approach needs to be taken.

Okay, then I misunderstood their plans. So what do the republicans plan to do to ensure that people who can't get or think they don't need health insurance still can get access to health care, independent of how much money they currently have in the bank?

wantafanta
22-01-10, 01:45
Okay, then I misunderstood their plans. So what do the republicans plan to do to ensure that people who can't get or think they don't need health insurance still can get access to health care, independent of how much money they currently have in the bank?

Cochrane - notice that the thread stops here. That's because they can't answer your question. REPUBLICANS NEVER HAD, NEVER WILL, HAVE A PLAN TO INSURE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD IT. In fact, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if we had president McCain and his bimbo Palin in the white house.

Oh, and Mad Tony, I never said that Democrats don't bomb other countries. But at least they believe in butter as well as guns. Republicans excel in wiretapping my phone line illegally, in waterboarding, monitoring my web surfing, and making sure I have an adequate supply of Mercury and Aresenic in my drinking water.

Eddie Haskell
22-01-10, 02:03
Cochrane - notice that the thread stops here. That's because they can't answer your question. REPUBLICANS NEVER HAD, NEVER WILL, HAVE A PLAN TO INSURE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD IT. In fact, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if we had president McCain and his bimbo Palin in the white house.

Oh, and Mad Tony, I never said that Democrats don't bomb other countries. But at least they believe in butter as well as guns. Republicans excel in wiretapping my phone line illegally, in waterboarding, monitoring my web surfing, and making sure I have an adequate supply of Mercury and Aresenic in my drinking water.

Republicans are notorious for passing legislation to "help" people, and then underfunding and/or understaffing it. They don't want "those lazy blacks and Hispanics" getting any of their hard-earned tax dollars. But they are damn good at paying lip service to it.

The Republicans think that tax breaks and deregulation solve everything...

Ward Dragon
22-01-10, 02:25
Okay, then I misunderstood their plans. So what do the republicans plan to do to ensure that people who can't get or think they don't need health insurance still can get access to health care, independent of how much money they currently have in the bank?

Medicaid already does a fair job of that, and could be improved if it's missing out on some people who need help. My uncle has Medicaid and it's a very good program. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to try to "fix" healthcare by eliminating a program like Medicaid that actually works in favor of some nebulously defined "universal" plan that forces everyone to join under penalty of IRS audits. Better to leave the currently insured people alone and fix the existing program if it is leaving people out who need assistance.

Eddie Haskell
22-01-10, 02:40
Medicaid already does a fair job of that, and could be improved if it's missing out on some people who need help. My uncle has Medicaid and it's a very good program. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to try to "fix" healthcare by eliminating a program like Medicaid that actually works in favor of some nebulously defined "universal" plan that forces everyone to join under penalty of IRS audits. Better to leave the currently insured people alone and fix the existing program if it is leaving people out who need assistance.

Medicaid only covers mothers with young children, the children themselves, some disabled and old people. So many, many people are left out.

Personally I think they should scrap the bill and start again. If they cannot provide us with Universal Health Care for all, than they need to increase those eligible for Medicaid (and fund it completely), subsidize those individuals and families that cannot afford to pay out all they need for health insurance, and demand that everyone have health care of some kind.

Ward Dragon
22-01-10, 02:48
Medicaid only covers mothers with young children, the children themselves, some disabled and old people. So many, many people are left out.

Personally I think they should scrap the bill and start again. If they cannot provide us with Universal Health Care for all, than they need to increase those eligible for Medicaid (and fund it completely), subsidize those individuals and families that cannot afford to pay out all they need for health insurance, and demand that everyone have health care of some kind.

This sounds good to me. Basically what I was trying to say :) Instead of reworking the entire insurance system, they should expand Medicaid to cover whoever needs help and isn't already covered by it. Meanwhile, people who have decent insurance now will keep what they've got without the government getting involved in it.

Beans-Bot
22-01-10, 03:52
As long as the health care bill is kept circulating in some form, consider me happy. I realize that the current bill is kinda nasty, so some changes are greatly welcome. :) Just as long as Senator Brown doesn't listen to all the right-wingers shouting for Washington to kill the bill completely...

[I'm not spouting vitriol against the right for once, did you ever think you'd see it? :ton:]

aktrekker
22-01-10, 05:41
The rising cost of health care is not because of the insurance companies, it's because of the hospitals. They order expensive tests when a cheaper test would tell them what they need to know. They order expensive procedures when a less expensive one would get the job done. They keep people waiting and practice delay tactics so they can charge more for their time, even though you might never see a doctor. And they charge outrageous prices for the simplest things.
Hospitals used to be mainly non-profit organizations. Now they are being run for profit by corporations. And it shows. Quality goes down, cost goes up.
Granted, many, many people skip out on their bills because they have no coverage and can't afford to pay. So the hospital has to charge others more to make up the difference. It's just like retail stores charging more because of shoplifting.
But if everyone is covered in some way, then the hospital will always be payed. People won't be skipping out on their bills anymore. So you would expect the hospitals to greatly reduce their prices, resulting in lower health care cost for everyone. But do you think they'll do it? HELL NO!

So in my opinion, any health care bill needs to provide regulation of hospitals. Otherwise costs will just keep rising. As the hospitals get greedy and charge more, insurance companies will have to raise rates. So regulate hospitals or you haven't accomplished anything.

Ward Dragon
22-01-10, 05:55
So in my opinion, any health care bill needs to provide regulation of hospitals. Otherwise costs will just keep rising. As the hospitals get greedy and charge more, insurance companies will have to raise rates. So regulate hospitals or you haven't accomplished anything.

If you limit how much doctors can make, the really talented people won't become doctors anymore when they could do better in another profession. Before we even think of regulating what hospitals are allowed to charge, we should regulate lawsuits. If hospitals didn't have to pay such high malpractice insurance they wouldn't have to charge so much to patients just to break even let alone make a profit. Tort reform should be the priority. Once punitive damages are limited to something reasonable, then we can see if something needs to be done to regulate hospitals or not. But to regulate the hospitals first without doing anything about the frivolous lawsuits would only gut the healthcare industry and significantly reduce the quality of healthcare.

aktrekker
22-01-10, 06:15
Doctors charge separately from the hospitals. Regulating the hospitals won't affect the doctors.

And I agree lawsuits are a problem. But you would be surprised at how many times the lawsuit itself is justified. I think we need to limit the amounts, and at the same time take into consideration how the medical screwup will affect the rest of the persons life. In some cases it won't, in some cases the person can be permanently disabled. Occasionally large amounts are justified. Usually they are not.

Ward Dragon
22-01-10, 06:40
Doctors charge separately from the hospitals. Regulating the hospitals won't affect the doctors.

And I agree lawsuits are a problem. But you would be surprised at how many times the lawsuit itself is justified. I think we need to limit the amounts, and at the same time take into consideration how the medical screwup will affect the rest of the persons life. In some cases it won't, in some cases the person can be permanently disabled. Occasionally large amounts are justified. Usually they are not.

I don't think punitive damages are ever justified. If the mistake was that bad, then the doctor needs to be in prison. I think lawsuits should only cover material damages.

Cochrane
22-01-10, 09:25
Medicaid already does a fair job of that, and could be improved if it's missing out on some people who need help. My uncle has Medicaid and it's a very good program. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to try to "fix" healthcare by eliminating a program like Medicaid that actually works in favor of some nebulously defined "universal" plan that forces everyone to join under penalty of IRS audits. Better to leave the currently insured people alone and fix the existing program if it is leaving people out who need assistance.

Sounds like a good idea, but won't that result in people not buying insurance because Medicaid would take over? Or is that part of the plan?

Personally, I have no idea how to organize health care. All methods I know suck in some way or another. I just think that we are progressed enough, as a society, that we needn't and can't allow people to be in a situation where they can't get health care because of money or go broke because of it.

Ward Dragon
22-01-10, 09:47
Sounds like a good idea, but won't that result in people not buying insurance because Medicaid would take over? Or is that part of the plan?

I meant it should offer assistance to anyone who wants to buy insurance but is having financial difficulties. If someone can afford insurance but doesn't want to buy it, they wouldn't get it for free just because they don't have it yet. I think if someone has the means and opportunity to buy insurance but chooses not to, then the government has no obligation to step in if they suddenly need medical treatment. That's my view on a lot of things, that everyone should have the opportunity to do well and take care of themselves, but they have to choose to take advantage of it instead of the decision being made for them. I suppose the government could make it illegal for someone to not buy insurance (which is part of the current healthcare bill) but I don't want the IRS to have any more power because it's already too strong as it is.

Cochrane
22-01-10, 10:19
I meant it should offer assistance to anyone who wants to buy insurance but is having financial difficulties. If someone can afford insurance but doesn't want to buy it, they wouldn't get it for free just because they don't have it yet. I think if someone has the means and opportunity to buy insurance but chooses not to, then the government has no obligation to step in if they suddenly need medical treatment. That's my view on a lot of things, that everyone should have the opportunity to do well and take care of themselves, but they have to choose to take advantage of it instead of the decision being made for them. I suppose the government could make it illegal for someone to not buy insurance (which is part of the current healthcare bill) but I don't want the IRS to have any more power because it's already too strong as it is.

Hm, okay. Personally, I'd argue that the government should force everyone to have health insurance. People may think they don't need it, and they may be right 90% of the time, but when it does hit them, it'll likely be too late. In a similar (though cheaper) manner, we are already forcing people to wear safety belts, even though, in most cases, it only affects their own health.

Whether the IRS should be allowed to check that is a different issue, of course. I don't like our "Finanzamt" either.

Ward Dragon
22-01-10, 10:22
Hm, okay. Personally, I'd argue that the government should force everyone to have health insurance. People may think they don't need it, and they may be right 90% of the time, but when it does hit them, it'll likely be too late. In a similar (though cheaper) manner, we are already forcing people to wear safety belts, even though, in most cases, it only affects their own health.

I suppose. I don't feel too strongly one way or the other about it because the conscientious people will get insurance anyway and the foolhardy people will forget to pay the bills or whatever and end up not having it anyway regardless of what the government does. I'm mainly concerned with how the government would implement a program to force people to buy insurance and how it would affect my life. Depending on that, I might range from accepting it to being vehemently against it.