Are Repubs Really Against Government Run Healthcare?

[Scalliwag]

Thee repubs are gonna get their chance to shutdown government ran healthcare. But I don't think their gonna like this. It will show though just like when Medicare was originally voted on 44 years ago yesterday, all the repubs then said it was oing to do all of these horribe things. They even had Ronald Reagan make an ad against it. But hell Ronnie was against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so he was on the wrong side of history alot.
But let's see how many repubs wanna wanna vote to eliminate this.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/31/76...t-up-or-Shut-up!

[newjacksm]

Im for fixing the health care system we have now. Not ripping it apart and putting in a brand new one. I sort of like the fact to get health care you have to go to school to get health care or work full time. I like it because it sorta pushs you to get on with life. On the other hand not all jobs give the best health care and sometimes that health care wont give you insurances. So there are in need for adjustments.

Any government ran stuff is usually ran shitty. USPS/DMV are just a few examples. If anyone worked for USPS you would know what I am talking about. Just being at the DMV and those people behind the counter... they love making your life a living hell Edited August 1, 2009 by newjacksm

[Rani]

It's become a partisan fight and I for one am so incredibly tired of partisan politics. I'm registered as a Democrat, but that's because the Democratic Party comes closest to my personal views. I don't vote the party line, and I don't endorse everything they do. I would hope our elected politicians would be the same. Having personal ideals, goals and views for the constituency they represent and be associated with the party that most closely aligns with those personal goals. But it's unlikely to happen in this political climate where favors are traded and the primary goal seems to be one-upmanship of one party over the other. In my opinion, anyone who says our healthcare system doesn't need to change doesn't have a firm grip on reality. Medical costs go up across the board to pay for treatment for the uninsured. And insurance companies are "for profit" companies whose purpose is to be the most profitable possible. There's no doubt the entire system needs to change. Is this the change we need? That I don't know because I'm not an expert on the subject.

Doing something isn't always better than doing nothing, but at no time have I heard President Obama say he's absoluted wedded to his own ideas and proposal on the suject. On every other issue he's valued the input and ideas coming out of the legislature - even when it comes from the other party. I don't see him acting differently on this issue.

If in your job you don't perform to the requirements of your supervisors you're fired. Our elected officials are so busy playing partisan politics they aren't performing to our requirements and we as they're supervisors need to start firing them. If necessary recall them mid-term. And certainly don't reelect them on rhetoric while ignoring a dismal past performance. What I'd like to see is a webcam in congress and the senate, broadcasting every moment they're in session. Let's see who's saying what, who's working together and who's putting personal feuds before their responsibility to the people they serve. Let's name names, and get rid of those who aren't doing what we elected them to do - work for the best interest of the people. This health care fiasco is a perfect example of how they're not doing what we elected them to do.


'Rani

[Tyler]

If anyone affiliated to any particular party votes a certain way just because that's the way people in their party are voring, before hearing and understanding the issue at hand, then they don't deserve a vote. There needs to be a test that everyone has to take and PASS that covers the basic stances on all the major issues befroe someone is allowed to vote.

On topic: Goverment needs to stay out of healthcare unless it's for senior citizens, vets, military personel, disability, ect. Normal healthcare should not be regulated at all.

[Scalliwag]

On topic: Goverment needs to stay out of healthcare unless it's for senior citizens, vets, military personel, disability, ect. Normal healthcare should not be regulated at all.

so your for the status quo? While healthcare costs keep going out of control and insurance companies you think this can just stay the way it is?
I remember the last time the subject came up in 1993 and Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole and all the republicans said they would present healthcare legislation as long as Hillary's did not pass. Well we never saw ANY proposals. 16 years later and now they start talking about their alternatives again. How many times we need to see this shit?
Fucking retarded repubs started backing "investing" Social Security funds into the stock market. Bush acted like that was a great idea.
They shut that shit up after the stock market bust.

BTW all the healthcare you're for except vets and military personel the repubs were against at the time. They used the same arguments they're using now. Old people were eating shit like catfood and repubs had no alternatives but bitching about it then too. Just because something is not perfect does not mean it's not far better than doing nothing.

[Tyler]

As I said, no one needs to agree 100% with their party, each of them do stupid things. I'm only Repub because they have MORE stances I agree with than Dem -- not by much, but they do.

[newjacksm]

I like this graph.

[mustang_steve]

I think the best thing is to fix the problems with how insurance actually raises the administrative costs of healthcare.

If you have seen any "cash only" care centers...they are FAR cheaper than those that accept insurance. There's a reason for that.

[Barnaby]

Healthcare right now is a joke, and can't be fixed. It needs to be replaced. With what is another question all together. Now, while I am lucky enough to have great healthcare coverage through my work, most are not. Having to fight with your insurance provider to cover things is innately wrong, as long as its not purely cosmetic (like, can I have a face lift, boob job, etc.. But having something like birth marks on your face, port whine stains, etc, I think should be covered).

Personally, I have no problem with socialist healthcare. It works great in most parts of the world. Having been oversees and experienced socialist medicine first hand, I really dont' have complaints. Most of the issues people bring up against public healthcare are grossly blown out of proportion. There is a reason why websites like marryacanuck.com exist. To get socialist healthcare, and not get ass raped on doctors and prescription costs.

[Showtime07]

"You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves."
-Abraham Lincoln

[Svaals]

Last year Repubs in this country had an opportunity to show that they were for small government. They could have voted for a candidate that has shown time and time again his support for small government. Did they vote for that candidate, Dr. Ron Paul... no, they voted for McCain, who had recently embraced the big gov't status quo of the GOP.

The leadership crisis that the GOP if facing today has a lot of do with the fact that Repubs in power today are NOT for small government. They want to spend money playing World Police rather than fixing the domestic problems we face in this country. The near-fanatical bully-pulpit repubs ruined the country, and the GOP. They handed the country over to big business and let the government have free reign to voilate the rights of the people they are meant to represent. As mentioned above, they almost handed Social Security over to a failing market. They committed multiple human rights voilations, from torture to spying on their on people.

Meanwhile, nobody wants to speak up and talk about the REAL problem with health care: FRIVILOUS LITIGATION! You know why nobody wants to talk about it? Because our government is full of the same kinds of lawyers that use the suffering of the people to make a quick buck, meanwhile breaking the system and driving up costs. Did you know that for nearly every drug Pharma produces, they have to budget billions of dollars for the possibility of litigation? This same kind of crap also raises the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors. And where does all that money come from, us, the sick American citizen. And it goes straight into the pockets of the lawyers running this failure of a government. Edited August 1, 2009 by Svaals

[TheScotsman]

I like this graph.

The defect is that without personal freedom, you have no economic freedom, and without economic freedom you have no personal freedom.


IMNHO the only reason the republicasaurus' are making it a party-line fight, and that the dumbocraps, while having the ability to bypass repub opposition, are pushing to be able to say "bipartisan support", is that they don't want that anchor tied to their necks alone. When it is realized for the boondogle it really is, the party responsible is going to suffer the wrath of the public. The politicians know what gov't healthcare is, they have studied Canada, and the UK, and know both systems are a failure on a epic scale. Right here we have the VA, and IHS systems, both "gubern'mint" run, and both a failure rivaling that of the UK and Canada. Name me one place with socialized medicine that has better healthcare than the USA? Really, name one... I am waiting. Not cheaper care, but better care, as in better cure rates, more avalibility of high tech medicine, more/better hospitals. I'm not hearing anything yet. Document just one. Now, it can't be some spin-bs off PMS-NBC, or crap-news-network. show me some numbers, or wipe the koolaid smile off, and realize there is no better medicine than found in the USA.

The repubs want their fingers in every chance to piss money down the drain, and moreover, want to hold the leash of every citizen for their own reasons, the fact they are standing back from the public healthcare trough should frighten anyone with an IQ over their shoe size. If there were any chance of it being successfull they would be right in there filling their pockets, they have proven that fact over, and over. Why aren't they now? This (the GOp) is the party that lost an election by running the most liberal relic they could find, trying to tout a guy that got stuffed in a POW camp as a hero. (after they attacked Kerry's record in the same war.) Good grief, what a bunch of hypocrites! For a hero I want the guy that didn't get a multi-million dollar piece of taxpayer owned hardware shot out from under himself... twice, and didn't spend time being brainwashed by a foreign government. (something I heard nothing about durring tha campaign) Hell, look at the Rx program for seniors, all that turned into is a paperwork debacle from hell, and a big handout to the iunsurance industry! Think of all those damn commercials from the insurance vampires we live through every year, about program renewal time. If there weren't giant piles of money to be had, every insurance company in the world wouldn't be pimping the old timers to join.

People expect their health insurance to pay for every little visit, that is the welfare-baby mentality the nany state, and unions have promoted for the last 40 years. Pay your own bills for routine visits, and minor needs, carry catastrophic coverage for those giant bills. Expecting to walk into any facility for any reason, and have it 100% paid is not ever going to be an economic reality.

Piss on the trial lawyers, they have made trillions making a problem where none existed, all for their own gain. Want to see healthcare get reasonable? Start requiring a bond to be acquired before filing any lawsuit with a settlement over 250,000. Start making the looser pay all legal expences for both sides with that bond. Disallow out of court settlements on any case with a value over 100,000. Problem with BS malpractice lawsuits gone. Oh, I forgot... almost all of our politicians (pres, and his wife, and most of both the GOP and DFL included) are LAWYERS! If you think any tort reform is ever going to occure, you are out of touch with reality. Politicians are essentially As long as there are gigantic settlements paid for nothing the Dr's did wrong, the money has to come from somewhere... medical costs are going to be high. As a result, Dr's are going to order every test they can to limit exposure to liability. That's just how the crap-system works.

[Barnaby]

True that, but don't forget. Healthcare right now is a business. BIG business. People get paid to deny claims to save a buck for the insurance companies. Why do you see ads for prescription drugs? Why do doctors have all those posters and pens with drug names on it? Because the drug companies are trying to sell a product. There is a reason why healthcare costs so damn much, because they can get away with it. This is one of the main reasons why healthcare in this country is fucked up. One of the times that the free market, and capitalism fucks things over. Providing healthcare should not be about making money, it should be about helping people. That's it. And I really do think that a socialist healthcare system gets rid of most of that.

Now, I know many believe he is biased, and this is probably true, but if anyone hasn't watch Michael Moore's Sicko, give it a watch. Its sad to say the least the way we treat healthcare in this country.

And before anyone gives me that BS that what about the taxes?!!? You want to give 50% of your income to the govt now like the rest of the world!?!? Guess what, you give more than that already. We are among the most heavily taxed nation in the world. If you add up all the taxes we pay on everything in this country it accounts for almost 60% of your yearly salary. 6 months out of the year we have to work, just to pay taxes..

I love being a debt slave.. makes me feel free..

[Scalliwag]

As I said, no one needs to agree 100% with their party, each of them do stupid things. I'm only Repub because they have MORE stances I agree with than Dem -- not by much, but they do.

I was more curious as to your comment implied that the healthcare system should be left as is?

[Svaals]

Piss on the trial lawyers, they have made trillions making a problem where none existed, all for their own gain. Want to see healthcare get reasonable? Start requiring a bond to be acquired before filing any lawsuit with a settlement over 250,000. Start making the looser pay all legal expences for both sides with that bond. Disallow out of court settlements on any case with a value over 100,000. Problem with BS malpractice lawsuits gone. Oh, I forgot... almost all of our politicians (pres, and his wife, and most of both the GOP and DFL included) are LAWYERS! If you think any tort reform is ever going to occure, you are out of touch with reality. Politicians are essentially As long as there are gigantic settlements paid for nothing the Dr's did wrong, the money has to come from somewhere... medical costs are going to be high. As a result, Dr's are going to order every test they can to limit exposure to liability. That's just how the crap-system works.

Litigation can be fixed without dissolving the rights of the people to file complaints. What needs to be done, is the government needs to be able to guarantee Pharma that complaints can't be filed about known side-effects. If something unforeseen happens, then the people should have the right to settle.

And to make a point on the private vs. social healthcare debate:

The average American citizen, unfortunately, does not understand WHO discovers medical breakthroughs. The scientists are the ones making the major discoveries, not the CEOs. The argument that a socialized system will remove incentive for innovation really is a hollow one. Scientists aren't going to see a change in pay or incentive, it's the CEO bonuses that are going to be affected, and they SHOULD BE.

The executives are not scientists or doctors, yet they are the ones deciding what research is worth doing. The result of that: Only the most prevalent (profitable) diseases get any R&D money. Most R&D money is spent on diseases that already have effective generic treatments, because patent drugs are where the money is. Fortunately for Pharma execs, rather than putting scientists to work on serious and currently untreatable illnesses, they can continue to make minor modifications to known treatments and repatent them to make more money.

And republicans seem to think our health-care system is working JUST FINE!

[Scalliwag]

it pisses me off to read all the one sided slant against trial lawyers. The case that John Edwards talked about where the little girl was disemboweled by a pool drain that the company's own internal documents showed to be flawed and could be fixed by a 25 cent bolt is exactly the reason tort reform is total bullshit. In "Scotty's World" that company would have literally got away with murder.
In some ways they did. Nobody went to jail over it. And sure all that money did not make the girl's suffering any less painful. But the company did not even accept responsibility.
Now in Scalli's world if it happened to one of my girls I would by a plane ticket to wherever the highest exec/owner of the company was at and there ultimately would have been a murder trial. In Scotty's world though it's always the little guys fault and we can trust executives and corporations to do the right thing.
I really wish that was the real world but here's the real world and the people Scotty wishes to protect. Choose your article, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=p...mp;oq=&aqi=

You may just love the hell out of the Ken Lay's of this world and the Bernie Madoff's Scotty. Your biggest fear is someone at the bottom end of the totem pole getting a free ride. Your arguments always follow suit with Rush Limpdick all the way down to bashing any news outlet but Faux news. Your solution is to get rid of trial lawyers and any regulations that may burden companies with anything that may keep them in check. At least your arguments always boil down to that. Edited August 2, 2009 by Scalliwag

[Scalliwag]

As I said, no one needs to agree 100% with their party, each of them do stupid things. I'm only Repub because they have MORE stances I agree with than Dem -- not by much, but they do.

I will agree with the statement you made though FSU. There really need to be a moderate party. The extremes of the dems and the repubs both suck. Extreme dems thik that any lazyass born in the US or elsewhere somehow deserves free everything. Unfortunately to me it seems that most of the repubs are exteme rightwing nowadays and believe cutting taxes and starting wars and survival of the fittest is the way to do things.
To me LBJ did the best thing for the democratic party anyone could have done when he signed the Civil Right Act. He said he just gave the south to the republicans for the next 50 years http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=l...mp;oq=&aqi= but with that signing he snt the KKK to the GOP who gladly accepted their support.

I respect you FSU and I don't think we are that far apart on beliefs, I just don't think the GOP rally supports as much as you may think they do when it comes to moderation. They always run on being more moral than their opponents and saying the dems wanna take everybodies guns. But the last 8 years shows exactly where they legislate from. Hell, those guys make me look tolerant!

[Tyler]

As an American voter I think it's important for one to identify what issues are the most important to them, things like the $10 million to help the Sea Turtles (80% of which MUST be spent internationally) and the otters really make me wonder WTF the American Goverment is thinking, and also makes me wonder who these animals' lobbyist is, because us humans need to borrow him/her for a while. There's so much stupid spending going on, it's sad that BREAKING NEWS today finds 300k worth of unused telephone lines and politicians gettign their news from the internet isntead of a newspaper, and they won't be renewing their subscriptions -- OH NO! THE PAPER INDUSTRY! If you ask me, the majority of newspapers need to be stopped so we can start saving some fucking trees and some money. And what are we doing with this saved money? We're not saving it, it's not going toward the deficit that needs to be dented, no, we already have it spent! I agree that the war is going on for too long, but at this point we've made it to the point where it's necessary to have presence there because if we pull out completely, things will collapse even more so and we'd get even more flak for that! We're in a scylla and charybdus situation here, and we're going to steer into both of them, we don't have a choice anymore.

[Scalliwag]

As an American voter I think it's important for one to identify what issues are the most important to them, things like the $10 million to help the Sea Turtles (80% of which MUST be spent internationally) and the otters really make me wonder WTF the American Goverment is thinking, and also makes me wonder who these animals' lobbyist is, because us humans need to borrow him/her for a while. There's so much stupid spending going on, it's sad that BREAKING NEWS today finds 300k worth of unused telephone lines and politicians gettign their news from the internet isntead of a newspaper, and they won't be renewing their subscriptions -- OH NO! THE PAPER INDUSTRY! If you ask me, the majority of newspapers need to be stopped so we can start saving some fucking trees and some money. And what are we doing with this saved money? We're not saving it, it's not going toward the deficit that needs to be dented, no, we already have it spent! I agree that the war is going on for too long, but at this point we've made it to the point where it's necessary to have presence there because if we pull out completely, things will collapse even more so and we'd get even more flak for that! We're in a scylla and charybdus situation here, and we're going to steer into both of them, we don't have a choice anymore.

Last I checked we were spending around 255 million dollars per day in Iraq. So that 10 million on Sea Turtles is less than an hour in Iraq. In the big scheme of wasteful spending I think sea turtles are not even a drop in the bucket. So in that respect you don't wanna find the animals lobbyist. That's chump change.

[Sonthert]

Nice graph. I guess I'm up near the top, about half-way between left-wing and libertarian.

I don;t agree with you Scotsman, you can have personal freedom without economic freedom and vice versa. Facist Italy would be an example of economic freedom with little personal freedom. You are applying the freedom of individual citizens and the freedom of corporations interchangeably. If we don't allow utility companies to raise utility rates above a certain price, that is restricted economic freedom. It doesn't affect personal freedom (like freedom of speech, freedom of reproductive rights, freedom of religion) in the slightest.

I have mulled over this healthcare idea for awhile. I will wait to see what comes out of Obama'a office, but I have strong feelings in both directions. I think we need to regulate health care more...rather than have the government take it over. It does seem like that is the prevailing current, but I think I am opposed to a British or Cuban style of health care.

Why? "A government big enough to give you everything that you want will take away everything that you have."-Jefferson

People are calling it a right...I'm saying its another rung in the government. If the government has problems or needs major overhaul, what will that do to our health care coverage? The idea of the government taking it over and preventing doctors and nurses from striking does have a certain perverse appeal.

[Svaals]

I really don't believe an unregulated totally private health care system CAN succeed to provide care to the American people in a fair way. Here's what I think needs to happen to fix our health care system:

1) Government option/regulation
The government option will operate at a higher efficiency than the for-profit model. Currently the for profit model operates with around 80% of every premium dollar going to a claim. The government option should use at least 95% of every premium dollar to pay claims. Gov't option should include a minimum total care plan, which will set the standard for "health insurance". This will fight the "under-insurance" problem faced by many Americans. Finally, gov't regulations should require that no one is denied at least the minimum coverage defined by the public plan.

2) Bring down litigation/malpractice insurance costs
In life, anything can happen. The ill should have the right to file a claim if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of a treatment. However, the gov't should step in and make it known that no reward will be given for side-effects that are known and disclosed to the public and to the patient or the patient's power of attorney. This should drastically lower the cost of care, and should lower malpractice insurance premiums for health care providers.

3) Change patent law for drug firms
Pharma CEOs have been very, very reluctant to spend R&D money on illnesses that they don't see as profitable. In order to fix this problem, the following changes to patent laws should be enacted:

1 - Existing drugs that are re-patented for treatment of another illness should have the shortest patent life (2 years)
2 - Minor modifications to existing treatments for currently treatable illnesses should have a shorter than normal patent life (3 years)
3 - Completely new treatments for currently treatable illnesses should have a slightly longer patent life (6 years)
4 - Any clinical effective treatments for currently untreatable illnesses should have a longer than average patent life (12 years)

The FDA also has to stop allowing drug firms to conjure up new illnesses our of old ones. These new ailments will not be treated as "currently untreatable" in regards to changes in patent law.

----

That would be a good start to fixing our current health care system. I'm really getting frustrated with the narrowed view of politicians trying to review the effectiveness of health care. Insurance is not the same thing as health care. Health care will require a lot more fixing than a government insurance plan.

[chinodos]

On topic: Goverment needs to stay out of healthcare unless it's for senior citizens, vets, military personel, disability, ect. Normal healthcare should not be regulated at all.

Looks Like I'm a little late to reply to this response, but felt the need to anyway. Healthcare needs to be regulated not only because the business side has gotten way out of hand but because I feel that we have a right as an american to have basic healthcare without going bankrupt. I work as a healthcare professional and everyday I have patients who can't afford to be seen because their paying 350+ dollars montly on insurance premiums for their families and still have a 2000 dollar deductible. ITS RIDICULOUS!! What is the point to having insurance at all if it costs $200 on top of your monthly premium to get seen for a damned strep throat? And while all this is going on you have to sit in the waiting room checking your bank account on your cell phone and listening to the Blue Cross Blue Shield commercial on the TV. I, a registered nurse, do not have insurance because Aetna's policy with my place of work sucks major ass. This is the reason why I am all for a national healthcare plan Obama's or anyone else who's worth a damn in congress and see's that something needs to be done. It is very sad when you can be treated in any other country's hospital for less than $20, get brand name meds for $4, and TAXI FARE TO GET YOU HOME; but in your own country USA have to put a second mortgage on your home to be treated.

[Tyler]

Because if it gets goverment regulated all private practices are gone, which a lot of people rely on. Plus some people don't need the amount of health care that would be required and no one would be able to chose the kind of heathlcare that fits them both financially and logically.

[Svaals]

Because if it gets goverment regulated all private practices are gone, which a lot of people rely on.

That's an assumption that the right makes to argue against public insurance. Yes, there will still be private practices, just like there are still private practices that take Medicare and Medicaid.

Plus some people don't need the amount of health care that would be required and no one would be able to chose the kind of heathlcare that fits them both financially and logically.

It depends on what the required amount of health care is. I'm a healthy, 20-year old citizen with no chronic ailments, but I have a family history of diabetes, heart disease, and glaucoma. Do I really need health insurance? No, probably not, but that's what insurance is for: For protecting you against what you don't see coming.

I'm not advocating that public insurance cost everyone 200 dollars a month so the people that "need" it pay 10 dollar co-pays. But for a lot of people, NO INSURANCE fits them financially, and that is part of the insurance problem in this country.

[clibinarius]

You know?

I just graduated college. And I can't get a job. No one wants to hire me. This isn't just me, but most people my age it seems. And not just my friends-my dad just went to high school reunions and nearly no one my age is getting jobs that pay ANY benefits, if they're getting them at all.

My generation is getting utterly screwed. For those of us 22-30, there's NOTHING GOOD OUT THERE. We are, disproportionately (along with blacks, hispanics as a whole) effected by this "recession."

I don't expect-though I'll take-a job with healthcare in the next year or two AT LEAST. I was watching C-SPAN and people were shouting "Get a job"-as if I haven't been TRYING for the last year. With the exception of one of my friends (IN FINANCE) EVERYONE is working either part-time government laborer (since around here no new permanent positions are being opened up because cronyism: a part time laborer friend of a politician is doing a job, fails the civil service test, and they refuse to fill the position with the people who passed it and just take it out of the budget) or in retail.

So why shouldn't I support universal healthcare? Higher taxes? All people with incomes should be lucky they have jobs. And my generation, who voted for this garbage, has to put up with it. If we don't raise the taxes on all the people with jobs, by the way, guess what? My generation's going to have to pay THESE BILLS ALSO. So my taxes are going to go up once I have a job and I'm not going to have healthcare. Thanks to these babyboomers, their pork and selfishness, my quality of life is going to go down, and I'm going to have to pay THEIR taxes when its time for me to retire.

Thus, tax hikes now, tax cuts later and make this economy sustainable. And don't talk to me about our system not being broken. It costs hundreds of dollars for my teeth maintenance a year alone. Why should my generation have to pay so much more into everything than theirs? Edited August 5, 2009 by clibinarius