Political: Moderate, Centrist, and Progressive Thread

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by John Atkinson

Does the fact that I think we need a king make me regressive?

Not if that king is Jesus.

You see, most social conservatives under estimate the power of the gospel. They think we need the governments help to resolve difficult social issues. I don't believe that's so. I think Government should protect our boarders and keep the economy stable. Out side of that let freedom ring and the church preach the truth. The power of the truth will change hearts and that's when these issues will be really dealt with.

[ChristopherHall]

[QUOTE=BoredOutOfMyMind;348484]Christopher, you seem like a highly intelligent person. Your post shows you don't know beans about how a health care system socialized in America would work. Actually, while I currently work for the government I was a medic in the military and have worked in the health care field as a therapeutic programming assistant. I know more about health care than you might think.

Only this week in the news a lady in ICU could not return to Vancouver, BC. Seems the government reduced the number of beds, and now there is not an empty bed to allow her to return.

I'm interested in reading the story can you provide your source?

Was she moved to another hospital? Even private hospitals can choose to reduce the number of beds and one can find themselves having to go elsewhere. This problem isn't endemic to the national health care system seeing it can be found in the private system also. Give our readers some credit for having some brains bro. LOL

I want to know details, please provide your source so I can research this one. My experience is that most of these stories are exaggerated. Most likely this one is too.

The healthcare companies did not count on a hospital charging $56 for a bottle of eyedrops, or $5 to dispense an aspirin tablet. I don't care for large executives getting Billion US Dollar bonuses while a $7 clerk determines my health "benefits" either. Sponsored by the Government, we would see the calls eventually outsourced and not only do you have 2 hr phone waiting, you then get someone you cannot understand, and who can understand you less pushing a button to deny your case without any means of appeal.

Not really. A national system would require insurance work and records be handled much like those in the Medicare system. It's been deemed one of the most efficient systems we have. Also it would most likely be handled by government employees, like myself, who operate under government employee labor laws that would restrict outsourcing. Where in the world did you get this stuff?

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by trickledown

Chris
This is from the report that ABC's John Stossel made about the failure of the WHO to report accurately due to politically motivated methods: he starts with the weight of life expectancy in the findings, I'll pick up here...

You need to critically examine things better dear friend:

Stossel's Healthcare Distortions
One-sided report omits context--and facts

9/25/07

ABC's 20/20 host John Stossel got an hour of prime time on September 14 to launch a one-sided attack on single-payer healthcare, and advocate for the so-called "free market" solutions that Stossel and his favorite sources prefer.

"Tonight, we ask some provocative questions about your healthcare. We get some surprising answers," explained Stossel at the beginning of the "Sick in America" special. But "surprising" is not the first thing that comes to mind for anyone familiar with Stossel's journalism; as usual, Stossel relied largely on interviews with people who endorse the ABC host's platitudes about the virtues of the marketplace ("Private sector does everything better because they compete," for example). Except for an appearance by filmmaker Michael Moore, which serves to set up some of Stossel's complaints, the experts interviewed all share Stossel's vision: right-wing think tank spokespeople, a Harvard business school professor, a CEO who offers employees "health savings accounts" instead of insurance, a senior fellow at Manhattan Institute identified only as a "Canadian doctor" who criticizes his country's health system, and so forth.

Stossel tries to make the familiar argument that public healthcare programs in countries like Canada and Great Britain don't live up to the hype. "Many people say that healthcare in countries like France, Germany, Britain and Canada is great because it's free. Government pays for everything. No one has to worry. And free is good, right? Well, not so fast." In an effort to debunk the idea that "free" is always good, Stossel presents footage of giveaways for gasoline and ice cream causing chaos.

This is a classic straw-man attack, as actual advocates for single-payer healthcare rarely describe it as "free"; instead, they accurately point out that governments that provide healthcare for everyone spend far less money than the United States does to provide healthcare for some. It's a central point of his opponents' argument that Stossel never directly addresses.

When Stossel does get around to the quality of care under public systems, he relies on showcasing a few anecdotes, omitting mention of research that would undermine his point. "Waits are so long, some people do it themselves," he says, before launching into a string of anecdotes--each premised on the assumption that Americans are accustomed to timely care. But studies of these systems arrive at a strikingly different conclusion; when the Commonwealth Fund studied (5/15/07) various government healthcare systems--including Britain--all but one (Canada) were found to have shorter wait times than the United States. It's a staple of Stossel's journalism to showcase a few anecdotes when more careful research would undermine his point.

Later in the special, Stossel admits, "Now, I should say all of Canadian healthcare is not long lines." But this is merely a set-up for another slam on Canadian care--that animals get better healthcare than humans.

Stossel claims another advantage for for-profit medicine--that it drives medical improvements: "People competing for profit-- that's lifted us out of the 13th century and given us 21st century medicine. Drug companies looking to make money create things that improve our quality of life and save lives." When Stossel notes that government researchers do research of their own, one of his favored guests--Grace-Marie Turner of the pro-free market Galen Institute--responds, "Government is responsible for 4 percent of the drugs on the market today." Stossel follows up with a reference to an earlier guest's medical care: "Those expensive cancer drugs Vicki needs? They were made by companies looking to make a profit. So were these amazing artificial legs and artificial hearts. All invented for profit."

Actually, many of the advances Stossel referred to received significant public sector research support. Reporter and medical industry expert Merrill Goozner summarized the evidence that undermines this industry-friendly argument (American Prospect, 11/30/02):

Every independent study that's ever looked at the sources of medical innovation has concluded that research funded by the public sector--not the private sector--is chiefly responsible for a majority of the medically significant advances that have led to new treatments of disease.


Goozner cited a Joint Economic Committee of Congress (JEC) report that

pointed to a 1997 National Bureau of Economic Research study showing that public research led to 15 of the 21 drugs considered to have the highest therapeutic value introduced between 1965 and 1992. The JEC also cited a 1990 study by Robert Maxwell and Shohreh Eckhardt, "Drug Discovery: A Casebook and Analysis." That study found that 60 percent of 32 innovative drugs would not have been discovered or would have taken much longer to discover without research contributions from government labs and noncommercial institutions.


Goozner also pointed out that the National Cancer Institute had sponsored research for most anticancer drugs (as of 1995). It's also worth pointing out that artificial heart research has received significant government research funding over the years (New York Times, 12/10/87). Once again, Stossel's simple free-market fable turns out to be much more complicated in real life.

Stossel is critical of the health insurance industry, but largely because he views health plans that cover a wide range of care and treatment as interfering with the discipline of the market. A better alternative, he argues, are health savings accounts, where employers give workers a fixed amount of money and a high-deductible plan, and care is paid for out of that fund. Healthy workers who don't need care can save up the money themselves, making it a free-market dream. Stossel's account is based almost entirely on the case presented by guest and Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, a staunch supporter of this approach to healthcare.

A balanced report would have interviewed critics of health savings accounts, who point out that while this arrangement works well for younger, healthier workers, it would have little effect on total healthcare spending, since a relatively small number of patients who require much greater levels of care incur the majority of total healthcare costs (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/12/06).

Stossel also championed healthcare providers who avoid traditional insurance and sell their services directly to consumers. His leading example is laser eye surgery, which is not often covered by insurance. These doctors are competing and keeping costs down for consumers, enthused Stossel: "Prices dropped, even though doctors pay for advertising."

Stossel may have made a stronger point had he chosen a different example, though: Two major laser eye surgery providers were cited for deceptive advertising by the Federal Trade Commission in March 2003.

Such inconvenient facts can't stop Stossel from reaching utterly predictable conclusions: "Where consumers decide for themselves rather than having governments or insurance companies make decisions for them, competition erupts. And competition gives us more choices.... Choice gives us power."

Ironically, Stossel criticizes Michael Moore for not interviewing more health insurance companies for his documentary Sicko ("Why didn't you confront them?"). But the same should be asked of Stossel: Why was his "Sick in America" special so heavily slanted in favor of the arguments he favors?

John Stossel is a rightwing political hack who distorts the facts.

[trickledown]

Chris,
You seem to have a problem understanding my post. Clearly the article I sighted was used to support the case that the WHO is not entirely credible. Not unlike a politician you chose to slander my articles source. This is your ploy that ends with you calling the author a rightwing hack. Does this prove the validity of your WHO stats? ...
Let’s look at the source of your article. FAIR:

Quote:


[I]Tax-exempt leftist "media watchdog" organization
Noam Chomsky was keynote speaker at its 15th Anniversary party.


Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) is a tax-exempt "media watchdog" organization founded in 1986 by radical activist Jeff Cohen, who regards the Democratic Party as "right wing." FAIR's position, as summarized in a 2004 article co-authored by its senior analyst Steve Rendall and staffer Anna Kosseff, is that, contrary to the claims of conservatives, the mainstream media in America are biased to the right, not to the left.
Edited by Admin- This is a copyrighted article

From the looks of things... the source of your article would seem to have a substantial bias of their own.
This is the reason that there isn't debate that can sway your mind. You choose to attack the arguments that you can't answer to. I simply wanted you to realize that in the eyes of many informed people it is laughable to see the healthcare in our country as poorly as the WHO presents it. I intend no disrespect but while I can see your thought process about Jon Stossel, what bearing does it have to quote from a totally unrelated piece as a means of discrediting my comments?
Hoping that you can see the facts in these comments and better understand how to stick with a single argument without stooping to character assassinations that seem unrelated.

Thanks,
Trickle

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by bishopnl

I think the term "progressive" is just double speak for liberal. And there's nothing progressive about liberalism. And neither is there any room for Christianity in liberalism. It's all about replacing God ordained roles with government ordained ones. In the church of liberalism, government is god.

Interesting observation.

I notice many liberals don't even like to call themselves liberals any more. So they use the word progressive. I guess they think it sounds better?

It kinda reminds me of how homosexuals don't like to be called homosexuals, but rather "gay" instead.

(Not that I'm equating liberalism with homosexuality, mind you. I'm just saying... )

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It is your resonsibility to control your daughter's sexual behaviors. If one of your daughters gets pregnant, it's your responsibility to know not the government's to inform you. It's your responsibility to know where your child is at at all times and in all circumstances. It's not the government's job to inform you as to where your child is or what she's done.

You have to parent.

So many parents think they can allow their daughters to play with boys and be in compromising situations while they stay at home and watch tv all night. Then these parents think it's the government's job to call them and interupt their favorite tv show if their daughter goes to have an abortion. That lame parent should have known where their daughter was in the first place! If parents can't parent that's a domestic issue not a political one.

Good grief. Lets not paint with such a broad brush here. What world do you live in?

Kids play hooky from school...Kids fool around in school stairways etc... Kids tell their parents theyre going to Jill's house but end up going over to Jack's house. These things can happen, even with good parent. If a kid goes and fools around sexually behind their parent's back, it doesn't make them a "lame" parent. Get real .

News flash for you sir: No parent can "control" their daughter's sexual behavior unless you're with them 24/7/365.

Originally Posted by Aquila

If one of your daughters gets pregnant, it's your responsibility to know not the government's to inform you.... It's not the government's job to inform you as to where your child is or what she's done.

You have to parent.

So many parents think they can allow their daughters to play with boys and be in compromising situations while they stay at home and watch tv all night. Then these parents think it's the government's job to call them and interupt their favorite tv show if their daughter goes to have an abortion.

Absurd.
A 15 year old can't choose to have plastic surgery or any other elective medical procedure without the consent of a parent or guardian. So why should abortion be any different ?? Isnt abortion a medical procedure, and one with potentially harmful or fatal complications?

Why are abortion doctors the only ones out there that can perform a medical procedure on your child without telling you, the parent, about it?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Good grief. Lets not paint with such a broad brush here. What world do you live in?

Kids play hooky from school...Kids fool around in school stairways etc... Kids tell their parents theyre going to Jill's house but end up going over to Jack's house. These things can happen, even with good parent. If a kid goes and fools around sexually behind their parent's back, it doesn't make them a "lame" parent. Get real .

News flash for you sir: No parent can "control" their daughter's sexual behavior unless you're with them 24/7/365.



Absurd.
A 15 year old can't choose to have plastic surgery or any other elective medical procedure without the consent of a parent or guardian. So why should abortion be any different ?? Isnt abortion a medical procedure, and one with potentially harmful or fatal complications?

Why are abortion doctors the only ones out there that can perform a medical procedure on your child without telling you, the parent, about it?

Trickle, evidently Chris has spent time in Canada and is familiar with life outside of the United States. I'm courious, have you lived or been outside of the United States for any extended period of time?

My point is that Chris speaks from personal, eye witness experience and association with those outside of the US. You're merely repeating what you've been told. Who is the reader to believe?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Good grief. Lets not paint with such a broad brush here. What world do you live in?

Kids play hooky from school...Kids fool around in school stairways etc... Kids tell their parents theyre going to Jill's house but end up going over to Jack's house. These things can happen, even with good parent. If a kid goes and fools around sexually behind their parent's back, it doesn't make them a "lame" parent. Get real .

News flash for you sir: No parent can "control" their daughter's sexual behavior unless you're with them 24/7/365.

Absurd.
A 15 year old can't choose to have plastic surgery or any other elective medical procedure without the consent of a parent or guardian. So why should abortion be any different ?? Isnt abortion a medical procedure, and one with potentially harmful or fatal complications?

Why are abortion doctors the only ones out there that can perform a medical procedure on your child without telling you, the parent, about it?

My point is that the other side has valid concerns. Personally I'd rather be notified. Most liberals here in my neck of the woods would agree with me and would like to be notified too. There are extremists on both sides. I believe it was a gallop poll that revealded that 42 or 43% of registered Democrats believed abortion was immoral and the taking of a human life. I know the extremists on the fringe are the loudest but we have to be careful, the rank and file are just blue collar workers who want this country to be just as good if not better than the way we found it. Liberals don't have horns and eat human flesh like everyone thinks they do.

I believe more in personal responsibility. It's my opinion that if you don't home school or send your child to a church run school in which absence is immediately verified you're lacking in the parenting department. Kids have no place in the public schools (public schools should be shut down) nor, as Apostolics, do they belong in larger non-denominational Christian schools. Stay home and educate your children. Live with one car instead of two. Listen the radio instead of pay for cable tv. Buy less expensive food. Don't eat out as much. Do whatever you have to do to afford to raise your kids and home school them. The truth is, if you want to YOU CAN do it. The sad fact is that most parents don't want to.

If you home school it would be pretty hard for Jane to play hooky and get preggers. That's being a biblical parent in my opinion.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe more in personal responsibility. It's my opinion that if you don't home school or send your child to a church run school in which absence is immediately verified you're lacking in the parenting department. Kids have no place in the public schools (public schools should be shut down) nor, as Apostolics, do they belong in larger non-denominational Christian schools. Stay home and educate your children. Live with one car instead of two. Listen the radio instead of pay for cable tv. Buy less expensive food. Don't eat out as much. Do whatever you have to do to afford to raise your kids and home school them. The truth is, if you want to YOU CAN do it. The sad fact is that most parents don't want to.

If you home school it would be pretty hard for Jane to play hooky and get preggers. That's being a biblical parent in my opinion.

Get off your high horse, Aquila, and stop looking down on people.
Do you have any idea how closed-minded and judgmental you sound? Has God appointed you to judge the parenting skills of other Apostolics? I think not.

To me, its just outlandish and preposterous you would declare that someone is "lacking in the parental department" or not being "a biblical parent" if their kids are not home-schooled or in Apostolic schools. Please.


Stop the madness.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm not for universal health care, BUT, since you claim you know how it would work here in the ol' USA I'm interested. One thing about the Universal Health Insurance notion that does interest me is the stimulation of competition. Christopher is right. If all Americans were insured the cost of health care would go down because hospitals and doctors would actually receive payment for so many of the bills that presently go unpaid. And if a universal health insurance system were optional it would force private insurance to compete with the system, thereby bringing insurance costs down. That's a no brainer. That's market forces of competition at work. With health care costs down insurance would have to become affordable to compete with the national system or go out of business. It's really an interesting idea. But the libertarian in me is hesitant to embrace the idea of a universal health insurance system right now.

Do you really think you are incapable of deciding what is best for YOUR health care? Do you need a government program to decide for you. Are you libertarian or NOT? Seems you are listening to the wrong voice.

Not necessarily true.

I had a PPO. That to the uneducated is a Physician Provider Organization. I had a problem where I suddenly could not walk, and so I went to a chiropractor. I was authorized for six visits. It was better, but not totally, so I requested six more. They were approved. Then on visit 12, not only were the additional six denied, so were all future chiropractor visits FOREVER. Seems the new person in the office approved the additional six and no way were they going to approve anymore.

Next, click the quote back and see the $56 eyedrops and $5 asparin tablets. That was two items of the $88,000 hospital bill for MrsB last year.

Prices go down for DOCTORS? I think anyone who spends 80 hrs a week for THREE years deserves every penny they can earn. I know doctors in my town who were at the hospital at 6 AM, and there even at 8 PM at night. And that also included weekends. My wife had a specialized test. The hospital earned $4000. The doctor $146, and this year the allowed amount is going to be cut in half. The doctor admitted he soon will decide to not take on patients since he cannot work for free.



Exactly true my friend. Sadly exactly what is the condition of future care. Sadly also is that many Americans will march to this goose step of the Gimme Generation without much thought, study or education on what they are talking about.