Bizarre Health Care Reactions

[Jerome Scuggs]

So talking to my friends is an exchange of information, and therefore an example of capitalism???

Capitalism is about one thing: capital.

then I am not a capitalist, and you should not convey your misconceptions about capitalism to an argument that does away with those misconceptions. My ethical and moral observations are not derived from a study of exchange of capital. A theory encompassing all exchange can then account for historical periods where there was little or no capital proper. I mean, government didn't just appear one day - societies developed to such an extent that the idea of government became possible. Same with the emergence of capital. And yet, some social force existed prior to both ideas. I argue that the same force drives society today, that society exists in spite and not because of government. That force whatever it is, is what is recognized politically as 'natural law' and used as the basis of deriving powers for many constitutions. The idea of government, written law, is drawn from the laws of society - so don't tell me anarchy means lawlessness. A crime is a crime not because of a piece of paper, but because of the violations of these natural laws. Murder and theft are invasions of property.

And seriously, when people talk about the ones "screwed" by "capitalism" - seriously, when will this sink in? In the twentieth century, 267 million people were murdered by governments. That is a figure almost seven times as high as the amount of combat deaths in war over the same period. Because of these governments - in particular, socialists doing things for the greater good, a new word was coined in the English language: "genocide".

How can one feel morally satiated at shaving a few bucks off your new colostomy bag when we're destroying livelihoods across the world? It does not seem to me like any sort of greater good to me

[Jerome Scuggs]

Btw, I just realized we have strayed from the original topic. I'd say it's because you get into the whole "nature of people when left to themselves" thing. I see where this will go. Can we sort of try to ignore the farout philosophy and whatnot? Yes, my wild dreams of narcissistic freedom and hedonistic joy will not be happening anytime soon, and healthcare is in fact an issue that will help or fuck us in the near or long term. We should keep talking about that.

[genocidal]

You just keep asking for it. :|

That's exactly what I thought genocidal. Realize, my post just taught you a lot

If your talking about towards the end. I was trying my best to understand your statement which says "Dermatologists do not accept medicare or medicaid anymore"

No, I said that most have begun to stop accepting it. It's no new thing with Medicaid but Medicare is beginning to be rejected as this health care crisis comes to a head.

You cannot be more wrong in that statement. This statement alone proves you know absolutely jack shit about healthcare.

Really, that statement alone proves I know absolutely nothing? I think saying something like that says a lot more about you than about me.

And just to rub it in, I even did your Google research for you. Here is the abstract of an article from 2004 (before the crisis) that talks about Medicaid being accepted at much lower rates than insurance and Medicare and how Medicare (in 2004 mind you) was beginning to experience the same type of rejection and wait times:

Dermatologists in these areas (or their staff) received a telephone call asking about the next available appointment for a hypothetical patient with a randomly assigned insurance type (ie, Medicaid, Medicare, or fee-for-service private insurance). RESULTS: Of 631 physicians (or staff members) contacted, 612 (97%) agreed to participate. Overall acceptance rates were similar for patients with Medicare (85%) and private insurance (87%), but were much lower for those with Medicaid (32%).

Although overall access to dermatologists appears comparable for patients with Medicare and private insurance, some access limitations in "hot spots" where Medicare payments are low relative to commercial insurers suggest that patients in these areas may be most sensitive to further payment reductions. Significant access problems for beneficiaries of Medicaid, particularly in areas where Medicaid payments are relatively low, may be a harbinger of the potential consequences of sustained declines in Medicare physician reimbursement.

Source (man it must suck to be wrong so often).

I bolded the important parts to save you even more effort and to patronize you for making me do your work. In case you don't know what harbinger means, I'm going to patronize you a bit more and tell you so that you know exactly what that last sentence means. Harbinger means a sign of things to come, meaning this particular author thought that drastic reductions in dermatologists accepting Medicaid was a sign of things to come for Medicare - in 2004.

Now paradise, who do you think should probably stop opening their mouth?

[Epinephrine]

Btw, I just realized we have strayed from the original topic. I'd say it's because you get into the whole "nature of people when left to themselves" thing. I see where this will go. Can we sort of try to ignore the farout philosophy and whatnot? Yes, my wild dreams of narcissistic freedom and hedonistic joy will not be happening anytime soon, and healthcare is in fact an issue that will help or fuck us in the near or long term. We should keep talking about that.

Well it's hard to discuss with you sometimes because you don't really have any actual constructive ideas aside from making the world into your ideal world without government. You criticize stuff that exists which is fine, but criticism without any positive and alternative plan gets old fast, especially since you just endlessly criticize all the plans out there.


And a sidenote, it's not governments that have killed so many people in the past century, it's PEOPLE that have killed so many people... part of this 'natural law'... actually the formation of government is part of this 'natural law' too, because I guess when whatever happens happens, I guess government is what ends up happening cause now it's everywhere.

[Summa]

Well it's hard to discuss with you sometimes because you don't really have any actual constructive ideas aside from making the world into your ideal world without government. You criticize stuff that exists which is fine, but criticism without any positive and alternative plan gets old fast, especially since you just endlessly criticize all the plans out there.

Nietzsche made a killing doing this.....although he died of syphilis (jerome's potential future?)

The following are all personal and fairly unsubstantiated beliefs, so if you're looking for facts you might want to skip this:

I believe that right now more than ever the United States is at a critical juncture in terms of economic philosophy. What happens with this health care bill will likely shape the future of the country. Where we stand now is in a state of moderately socialized capitalism, which is not a good state for our country to be in. Endless compromise has brought us to a state of a watered down hybridization of capitalism and socialism that has begun to flounder in the water. What this bill presents is a choice, to move closer to one of the extremes, rather than this ineffective gray area. The socialization of one industry will likely (over a large period of time) lead to a general socialization of most all industries (and for those who think that there will only be a "public option"; bitch plz everyone knows this is 1 step to socialized health care), while the choice to forgo this opportunity will likely either keep us in the muddled gray area of failure or a step back from bailouts and government hands in industry towards the market and allowing it to "correct itself". Why people are fighting back so hard is because this wil likely cause a domino efftect for the socialization of industries.

blurb of the day, off to work.

[Mattey]

Robert Reich has two scenarios in mind.

Snowe can save healthcare reform by voting against it
Republican opposition to healthcare reform will ensure better legislation is passed

By Robert Reich

Sept. 17, 2009 | How is it that a decision next week by a single senator from Maine will almost certainly determine whether America's future healthcare system is still in the hands of private for-profit insurance companies and Big Pharma or enables more Americans to get better healthcare at lower cost? Bear with me, because you need to know what's likely to happen if she signs on, and if she doesn't. The next few weeks are crucial.

Scenario One: If Olympia Snowe votes in favor of Max Baucus' plan -- which is favored by the medical-industrial complex because it dramatically increases their customer base without a public option that squeezes their profits -- the Baucus plan will be the bill that goes to the Senate floor. Why? Because her vote will give enough political cover to wavering Dems Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Jim Webb and Evan Bayh to gain their support for the Baucus plan. Which means the White House and the Democratic leadership in the Senate will have a good chance to get the 60 votes they need when the bill goes to the Senate floor in a few weeks.

The two bills then go to a reconciliation committee where the White House can put some final touches on it before it goes back to the two chambers for a final vote. The White House likes this scenario because it keeps private insurance companies, Big Pharma, and the AMA from bolting. It enables the president to call the resulting bill "bipartisan," and to claim that it marks real reform. And maintains the possibility of Republican support for financial reform and environmental legislation next year.

Scenario Two: If Snowe decides not to sign on, history moves in a very different direction. Most important, the Senate Dems know they won't possibly have 60 votes they need. So they'll have to say goodbye to bipartisanship -- perhaps even farewell to Nelson, Landrieu, Webb and Bayh -- and bundle healthcare reform into a "reconciliation" bill that can pass with 51. This new goal post strengthens the hand of Senate progressives on the Finance Committee, like Rockefeller. It also gives more weight to the version of healthcare reported out by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension committee -- which includes a public insurance option, employer mandate, and more generous subsidies to the poor and lower middle class. Hence, the bill that goes to the Senate floor is much more progressive, and the final Senate's vote (with 51 votes) better reflects the values of the Democratic base.

This Senate vote, moreover, gives more momentum and legitimacy to the House version of healthcare -- which also includes the public option, employer mandate, broader Medicaid coverage and more generous subsidies to the lower middle class. That Senate vote thereby reduces the power of House Blue Dogs and conservative Dems to influence the bill that goes to the House floor. It also enables Pelosi to say to them: It's either this or nothing. If you vote against this bill you're voting against healthcare reform. The more progressive Senate bill, plus the stark choice Pelosi poses, garners enough votes from the conservative and Blue Dog Dems to pass a strong bill.

The White House doesn't like this scenario because the use of a reconciliation bill in the Senate poisons relations with Republicans and risks their support for financial reform and cap-and-trade. It may even make it more difficult for Obama to rely on Republican support for more troops in Afghanistan. But as we move into the gravitational pull of the 2010 midterms, congressional Republicans won't support Obama anyway, on anything. And remember, George W. Bush used reconciliation early in his first term to enact his huge tax cuts, mostly for the very wealthy. It's a tried-and-true strategy.

I don't know about you, but I'm hoping the senator from Maine votes no next week. If she does, America has a fighting chance of getting real healthcare reform.

I don't think the Dems have the balls to pull off the second scenario.

[Izor]

whoa holy shit i see essay after essay im not going to read. has this honestly turned into a capitalism vs socialism discussion?

read a history book

[DoTheFandango]

read a dictionary, asshat.

no one is saying socialism is the answer. socialized programs help though.

[Izor]

At what point do you draw the line on socialized programs before its socialism?

[Squeezer]

At what point do you draw the line on socialized programs before its socialism?

At the point where you no longer have a Democratic Republic.

Though some might argue we crossed that a long time ago.

[Mattey]

Exactly. There is no country that is strictly Capitalist. Strict Capitalism just doesn't work.

And I like how Izor doesn't read anything that's longer than 4 paragraphs. America, ladies and gentlemen. Who am I kidding? There are no ladies on the internet.

[Galleleo]

Man some of you people are extremely scared of the word socialism, wait, that probably has to do with these people being scared of the word social and anything having to do with it, which isn't that surprising, socializing can be scary when you have been living in your mom's basements for over 20 years now.

[Izor]

I'll read things that are more than 4 paragraphs i read that one article you posted, but i dont want to read forum threads that are pages long is that so hard to understand? I've been around here long enough to generally know what people are saying anyway

Give me an example in the past where capitalism has failed please? since you all say it wont work. Keep in mind history has actually proven socialism wont work

And do I really need to go into depth about why socialism does not and will not work? Im pretty sure I've said so in the past about inefficency

[Ara]

I'll read things that are more than 4 paragraphs i read that one article you posted, but i dont want to read forum threads that are pages long is that so hard to understand? I've been around here long enough to generally know what people are saying anyway

Give me an example in the past where capitalism has failed please? since you all say it wont work. Keep in mind history has actually proven socialism wont work

And do I really need to go into depth about why socialism does not and will not work? Im pretty sure I've said so in the past about inefficency

It fails every 30 years, it's a cycle where in every depression and recession
the rich get richer and poor pay the price.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

[Jeenyuss]

sometimes i hope that veterinary health care becomes socialized because i don't want my cat to have to wheel around in a cat wheel chair forever.