The Rubber Room

Today I was attempting to get on the Interstate. There was a semi in the lane right next to me but the semi never moved to the other lane to allow me the lane to merge into traffic. I ended up having to slam on the brakes slowing to 30 mph on the shoulder before being able to get on the interstate. I was furious, but at the same time I figured that there had to be a car or truck in the lane next to the semi that wasn't allowing a lane change. To my amazement when I finally got on the interstate behind the semi, there wasn't a vehicle in front, beside, or behind the semi in the other lane that would have caused the driver not to be able to merge to allow me on.

The driver simply didn't want to merge.

I know this isn't the norm for truck drivers, but you can imagine what would be said if I posted a blog on here damning all truck drivers because of a few bad apples.

But once again sam has taken one situation and damned all teachers because that's what he does. He has become so "indoctrinated" that teaching is an evil profession that he will take any story bad about teachers and ad hoc it to represent all teachers.

As for the health care reform he has completely misrepresented what Obama actually wants to do, which isn't a shock for someone who takes the Republican talking points whole-heartedly.

What the Obama Administration is actually wanting to do is offer a public option, which would give people the CHOICE between going with a private ensurer or a government ensurer. That's it, nothing more. Not underhanded or evil. Just a simple option.

But as Obama put it, if people are so convinced that the government can't run anything properly why would they be afraid to compete with the government to offer services. Well actually they would have to offer those services at affordable and fair prices instead of the price gauging we see today.

P.S. Welcome back sam

Silly me I thought competition was an American ideal. Of course private companies don't want competition, and it has nothing to do with fear of going out of business, they don't want to lower their prices. They've been able to charge whatever they want to for anything for as long as they like.

American people, who, in the rest of their lives have enough money to do most things, have had to declare bankruptcy because they can't afford their medical bills. What's fair about that? Or, is that the American dream now?

Yes they need to return the good ole yesteryear when the mafia ran the unions and union bosses, such as, Jimmy Hoffa, who mysteriously disappeared after disagreeing. Yup, the old nobility when unions were more concerned with THEIR bottom line and not the welfare of the workers.

Mike,

"What the Obama Administration is actually wanting to do is offer a public option, which would give people the CHOICE between going with a private ensurer or a government ensurer. That's it, nothing more. Not underhanded or evil. Just a simple option."

Now you know how Bush felt when he wanted to give people the option of choosing a PORTION of their social security contribution into a private plan or social security. That was just a simple option too.

"Silly me I thought competition was an American ideal. Of course private companies don't want competition, and it has nothing to do with fear of going out of business, they don't want to lower their prices."

I'm all about competition but I think private companies should be competing with private companies not the government. It provides an unfair playing field for a couple very big reasons. There is the obvious fact that the government can force taxpayers to cover any shortages in their insurance plan. There's also the fact that the government is the one who regulates the insurance industry. If Progressive was allowed to set the rules for all the other insurance companies then those companies would object just as strongly as they are now because you have a competitor in charge of your industry's regulations. This means that the government can make regulations worded to benefit their plan while putting restrictions on private plans with wording such as "except for plans offered under a public option" or "not including federally subsidized policies".

If Obama wanted to lower prices then he could impose price controls and save taxpayers trillions of dollars while still reducing prices. I don't think government should be doing price controls either but it's certainly easier and less expensive than passing an entire government program in the name of "competition". The whole concept is like buying a helicopter to get you around McCook when all you need is a car. It's just absurdly excessive.

Btw, isn't Jimmy Jr. running still in the union business?

"Now you know how Bush felt when he wanted to give people the option of choosing a PORTION of their social security contribution into a private plan or social security. That was just a simple option too."

Except that is a different situation. I thought the entire point of Social Security was that it was a "safety net", so that no matter what poor job/market choices people made, they were taken care of (very minimally) when they were elderly.

So let's say that we DID allow people to invest a portion of their social security in the market. What happens when the market crashes and they lose their investment? Their "saftey net" is gone, which defeats the entire purpose (not having homeless old people).

Let's say that Bush and Congress did push that through, and a large portion of Americans invested their social security money in the market, then the market crashed before they could withdraw that money for retirement. We would then have a large amount of destitute and possibly homeless elderly citizens that the government would have to support anyway.

AS you do so often Guillermo, you marvelously demonstrate hate run amok. You show what years of propaganda and anti-American education delivers. You regurgitate the hate taught to you, most likely in America's own schools, and most likely with someone else's money.

I appreciate the demonstration of the leftist delusion of superiority as well.

You lie and don't even know it, that is the strangest thing. So full of vile for the United States of America, so full of disgust at American exceptional-ism, that you are eaten up with poison.

In the leftist delusion, you on the left take the poison, then you wish for others to die.

That is why I have maintained that the weird, sociopath, delusional and greedy leftism that is on display today in the USA, and which you clearly demonstrate, has to be a religion, or it's a mental illness. A mental illness brought on by years of leftist assaults on your brain.

Conservatism is the way for America to have a future, not leftist delusional thinking.

Yes Sam and you don't practice hate at all .... since you can't see me I am rolling my eyes. I don't see how you can honestly sit there and judge someone for spewing hate when you do the exact same thing.

jhat,

"What happens when the market crashes and they lose their investment?"

Retirement is done over the long term so the amount they invest over a 30-40 year period is statistically going to go up and the majority are going to make a much better profit than anything the government has ever offered.

Nobody can go from having money to nothing so fast that they don't have time to react. The market may have had some large losses but those kinds of losses don't happen so quickly. There are regulations and procedures that have been instituted that prevent that from happening.

Those people who have a portion of their retirment in the private market would still have money in social security because it is only a minor portion not the entire amount.

If a retirement fund was as poorly funded as social security then people would have bailed from it long ago and gone with a portfolio under better management but we are forced to contribute to the same pathetic program, not because it's a better investment for us, but because it's been so poorly managed that it will completely collapse if we try to find a better investment for ourselves. I can make more money in a cd than I can with social security. My government screwed up the whole program well before I was born and has continued to do so. Therefore, I should continue to dump money into this program so they can continue to mismanage it?

If my portfolio manager came to me and said, "your returns are going to be terrible but I have a lot of other investors that are relying on you to keep contributing so I can write their checks. That means you can't switch your investment to a better plan but you do have to keep putting money into this plan with a poor return. Don't worry though, I'll always have a lot of younger investors who I'll make give me money too, so I can guarantee you a check when you retire but it'll still be a small one.", I would sue him and I would win but since it's the government, they don't have to play by the rules that others in the retirement business have to follow.

Ah, Rahm "Stinky Fish" Emmanuel. I don't know for sure how close to evil he is but he is definitely as crooked as a mountain road.

As for Walpin, I'll wait until all the evidence comes in. Not to be blunt but it doesn't surprise me that a 77 year old would get confused as he gets older.

It could be a political firing, but I'm not going to take my news from Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck.

As for the comparison on the outrage over the judge firings. Nothing happened on that for SEVERAL months after the last one was fired.

"As for Walpin, I'll wait until all the evidence comes in. Not to be blunt but it doesn't surprise me that a 77 year old would get confused as he gets older."

If getting confused is grounds for termination then tell me one person in government who shouldn't be fired. Obama seemed extremely confused about how his own executive orders would work to closed Gitmo. And if you want to talk about disorientation then let's talk about trying to walk through a White House window thinking it was a door despite the lack of a handle or knob of any kind or visiting 57 states with more to go. It sounds to me it's hypocritical of Obama to criticize someone and then fire him for being "confused and disoriented" when he's guilty of it himself.

Nobody fires somebody for "being confused" and I'm really surprised they haven't come up with an excuse that at least sounds a little more substantive than that.

You are right however about waiting for all the evidence to come in. It would be good to know what exactly he is confused about since this guy was respected by both sides and his staff. He was actually doing exactly what Congress told him to do and he was doing it well.

G.I.,

A actually did a spit-take when I read your last response to sam (two comments ago). lol

I was also going to point proudconservative to exactly the same point in the constitution. "Promote the general welfare". It is sort of ambiguous, but so is "Provide for the common defense".

As far as a public plan, regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong. It's undeniable that the US spends much more per capita on health care than other western countries. Including other western countries that rank HIGHER on the WHO's rankings for healthcare.

And yes, just because it works in other countries doesn't mean it will work here. I freely admit that. But the flip side of that is also true. Just because it DOESN'T work well in other countries, doesn't mean it won't work well here.

There are a cacophony of factors that go into how well your healthcare system provides. GDP, quality of medical schools, quality of technology, even geography of the country.

But it's undeniable that it's time for serious reform in the health-care arena. Health costs are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in our country. Millions of people remain uninsured because of either expense or pre-existing conditions. Something needs to change.

Whether or not a public option is the right answer, only time will tell. All we can do is try it, and if it doesn't work, get rid of it. I hope the democrats man up and push something through, even with 0 Republican support. And then if it doesn't work, the public can vote their butts right out of office in a few years. They need to take the risk.

"But do you want to be non-partisan and get nothing? Or do you want to be partisan and end up with a good health care plan?"

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller

proudconservative,

"Health care rationing will take place because you cant increase the number of recipients and cut costs"

That's why they are looking for money to pay for the increase in healthcare. So far I've heard suggestions that they begin taxing employer-provided health benefits, as well as levying additional taxes on tobacco/alcohol/soda. I personally don't mind those suggestions, despite the fact that I use all of those things, and would have to pay a little more (although I only use tobacco sparingly, and I'm trying to quit soda).

"If you want to look at cutting costs, why not get to the root of the problem. It isn't the doctors, but rather the ambulance chasing lawyers that continue to drive up healthcare costs"

That is true, to a certain extent. And I agree that we need some sort of reform there. The difficulty lies in finding the balance between allowing frivolous lawsuits and not allowing legitimate lawsuits.

Another major cost that drives up the cost of healthcare is uninsured patients. When someone without insurance is treated and has an inability to pay, some of the cost is passed on to you through your insurance premiums. Some more of the cost is passed on to the government (which also comes out of our pockets). And of course the hospital eats some of the cost as well.

Now, if we had no uninsured citizens, the idea is that premiums could come down, because they would no longer have to account for treating uninsured patients. Of course, you also have to factor in the additional tax cost of insuring the uninsured people.

But, the plan favored by the administration does not pay for all uninsured citizens. They will have to buy their own healthcare from the government (though the lowest-income citizens will be subsidized and paid for).

"Look at the pubilc health systems that they are trying to model this after"

Which health care systems are you referring to? Canada? The UK? France? Norway? They all have single-payer health care systems. There are currently no proposals (of which I am aware) in congress for a single-payer system. This is a red herring typically used by conservatives and right-wing personalities to discourage interest in health care reform. The health care reform currently favored by most democrats does NOT include a single payer system.

Yes, it's easy to find examples of single-payer healthcare gone bad. Many people cite the waits in hospitals in Canada, or the poor response of emergency medical services. But as I tried to explain in my last post, there are other factors to consider. It's not necessarily the fault of single-payer healthcare that those bad things occur.

Canada, for example, sometimes DOES have poor emergency response. But a reason for that is it's geography. Canada's population is much more rural and spread out than ours (they have alot more room). So even if they have the same number of hospitals per capita, their hospitals are going to be drastically farther apart, and have to server a MUCH larger geographic area. This makes it difficult to support expedient emergency services.

Or take the classic example of foreigners coming here for advanced medical procedures. They come because we have the most advanced medical technology, and the most highly skilled doctors. You might be able to attribute SOME of that to our more competitive insurance system, but I think those advantages are primarily due to the fact that we have the world's best universities and technological/biological research institutions. Changing to a single payer health care system wouldn't change the fact that we have the best medical institutions on the planet.

And I know it's convenient, but you can't ignore the countries with single payer systems that are very successful in serving their citizens. The WHO ranks countries like France, Norway, and Japan (all single-payer) much higher than the US. They have longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality ratings, universal coverage, etc.

Long post, I know. But the point is that you can't directly compare our healthcare system setup to other countries, because there are too many factors to consider. Some countries with universal healthcare don't manage it well. And it sucks. Others manage it just fine, and take very good care of ALL of their citizens.

Mike,

"People have died in the waiting rooms of hospitals waiting for someone to figure out what is wrong with them."

What does that have to do with health insurance or a public option plan unless you actually want the government to start running the actual hospitals too. No form of insurance dictates waiting times in hospitals not even the so called public option. It's not going to make the diagnosis any quicker or better either.

"I'm all for private companies running the medical field, IF they actually run it as a medical field and not some cheap way to make money off people being sick, which is exactly what they are doing. And why is this? No competition."

The medical field is as much a way to make money off the sick as the education system is a way to make money off the uneducated. Making such a generic statement completely ignores the good people in the medical profession who thoroughly enjoy the good work they do. So what if they make good money doing it? The majority of nurses, doctors, PAs and yes, even the board members of the hospital are there to ensure the best quality of care for their patients, first and foremost.

The people working in the hospitals work A LOT of hours and are constantly on call. The board members are continuosly making sure that the hospital is making money so they can maintain the most up-to-date facilities and give the hospital staff the best wages they can. Not to mention, just trying to keep the doors open so the community has medical services available.

There is a lot of competition in the medical field which is why so many doctors make a lot of money. Every hospital wants the best doctors for their patients and they're willing to pay for it. I only wish the education system worked on the same philosophy. To say there is no competition is just completely devoid of all reality.

jhat,

"I think Mike was referring more to the insurance companies who manage the care for profit, not the actual hospital staff. (and maybe also the boards of trustees that run hospitals)."

That was the point I was making. The availability of insurance and the policies they offer do not dictate waiting times or increase the doctors' ability to make a diagnosis. In fact, if you want to be technical, if more people are insured then waiting times are going to go up because more people will be more willing to go to the hospital more frequently.

I don't know about your specific hospital but my sister is a nurse and she has one of the most in demand jobs in the country. So I share your shock that their board of trustees would vote to give themselves a raise and not hire more nurses and other needed staff. I just think that the majority of board trustees are looking out for the hospital's operation, its patients and employees before thinking of themselves even though there are several selfish trustees out there, I think they are the exception not the rule.

Government programs don't need to make a profit because the shortages are picked up by the taxpayer. So everyone is paying for the mismanagement or simple under performance of all hospitals not just the one they go to. Not to mention the government has consistently provided us with more problems than solutions. We can't even afford to run Medicare and Medicaid right now, let alone, a brand new medical insurance program. The federal government does not have unlimited funds and neither do the taxpayers that fund that government. We would like to keep more for ourselves and our families rather than continuing to pay in for every new program dreamed up by politicians in Washington.

I heard Obama on the radio say there would be a commission of doctors that would review the "best practices" which would mean certain procedures would not be covered under the government plan. He didn't say what the meaning of "best practices" means but it is going to be a restriction on medical care available to people and we can only hope they don't take it too far or direct it at specific groups of people. I will have to wait on the wording which can always change depending on who is on that board. When the government is involved it rarely ends well.

The government could put age restrictions on certain procedures and blame it on the "likelihood of survivability" for that specific procedure. A 50 year old is more likely to survive a triple bypass than an 80 year old, for example, so they could have a cutoff age of 79 to fund a triple bypass surgery.

There will be politicians who try to get this passed as a "public option" just so they can get the program started. Then they will go to work on making it mandatory once the program is established. They're brilliant when it comes to passing new policies and programs just not effective ones.