Fear and mistrust of anything different from what we already do is a bedrock conservative value.
We all agree that the 47 million uninsured people is a huge problem. But attempts to change the system are greeted with accusations of socialism and even comparisons to Nazis.
The 47 million people still get their health care. The rest of us pay for through taxes. Higher premiums and higher health care costs. But that is familiar so far too many of us would rather stay with what we know despite the ridiculousness of it, than make the system better.
I pictured the late Mayor Daley of Chicago because although he was a Democrat, he was still beloved by Chicagoans because he kept the status quo in order for years.
Social Security, a fully worthwhile program is also a lousy investment vehicle. Putting the same money in the bank would pay far better than what Social Security pays out. But try and change it. The Country as a whole went apeshit.
Try and pass rational laws to prevent guns from being sold to minors and nuts. Lord help you because here will come the crowds demanding freedom and accusing the other side of wanting a dictatorship. I just don't want nuts to have guns. I can run from a nut with a knife. I can't outrun a bullet.
The resistance to anything out of the ordinary is probably why presidents end up spending most of their time working on foreign policy. They can pretty much do and go wherever they want internationally.
In the end, I still love the irony of what's going on in America now. Exercise your rights to free speech and assembly and somebody else exercising his/her rights to free speech and assembly is going to shout that you're either a nazi or a socialist. They will be called fascists.
In the end, the status quo will have won and we will still have millions uninsured that the rest of will be paying for. Now be a good citizen. Mow your yard. Fix your muffler and go to church.
18 comments:
Why can't you and Shaw just write about a subject without the name calling? It's so refreshing to read an objective piece that is not littered with hatred and rabid emotional rants.
Sandy, this piece didn't have any name calling, and seemed pretty laid back to me.
TRUTH 101,
Sandy came over to my blog this morning and scolded me for name calling, too.
I visited her blog and read a number of her posts and this is what I found:
FROM HER MAY 12, 2009 POST: "Not President Smirky, we will just show everybody, HE WON! He will do what he likes. I'm sure Michelle is proud of his Country now. She is sitting on the other throne.
FROM HER APRIL 8, 2009 POST: "But I don't think that Bibi Netanyahu is going to allow the little pipsqueak Obama to dictate to him in any way shape or form!"
FROM HER SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 POST: 'Palin was right. Gibson is a braying jackass,"
FROM HER SEPT. 13, 2008 POST:"Baabaa Waawaa and her gaggle of post menopausal hags obviously do not have the dignity or etiquette to treat some one like Senator John McCain with the respect he deserves as a guest, a senator, a former Vietnam POW, or Presidential candidate."
I pointed these name-calling incidents on HER blog out to her, but she has been silent on any explanations.
And yes, it's very curious that she came to both our blogs to berate us for the very thing she does herself.
I really, really don't understand some of these people.
Her hiy count must be down. A sure way to get back to being a right wing hero is to scold you or me Shaw.
Funny thing is I thought I was really doing a good job behaving myself.
I don't fear change. In fact, I'm all for it. I think that the health care system definitely needs to be fixed. I think it's great that people are finally starting to be more energy conscious and looking for better, more efficient ways to run things.
"attempts to change the system are greeted with accusations of socialism and even comparisons to Nazis."
I don't condone anyone comparing Obama to Nazis, because they are completely different scenarios and we all know it.
That being said, opposition to Obama's plan are so extreme because that is how opposed we are to it. Notice I didn't say change, but of the plan itself.
I don't think conservatives are against change itself but of what some of these changes may bring. I don't think you will find one conservative that doesn't want some kind of change to health care. Depending on their situations, they may feel stronger than others about what kind of change.
The bailout, the health care plan.... these are things that I protest against because I feel that is the wrong direction to go.
I agree with James here, I don't see any name calling. Generalizations yes. We all can't be painted with the same brush, just like all liberals cannot. :-)
I challenge anyone to come up with a better plan than I have for single payer health insurance.
For my right leaning friends, show me a plan that covers everyone and everyone pays.
This is what irks the hell out of me Jennifer and I've been blogging a long time. I get potshots from the opposition but no solutions or altenatives. If the best alternative any of my right, or left because I've seen more than my share of lefties take potshots with no ideas of their own, is to just keep what we got, then say so.
This bullshit will not end until we get real ideas from those we elect instead of the usual pandering to big money lobbyists and special interests.
I've even embraced the right wing idea of term limits. I've even posted on the ripoff that Social Security is. I've advocated for Israel's defending of itself. When people like Sandy come here and post what she posts, it shows me a closed mind. Now will one of the righties post some ideas so we can make some progress? Please?
For my right leaning friends, show me a plan that covers everyone and everyone pays.
Truth: The above is almost impossible, because not everyone pays taxes. Also, we have a problem with the illegals. THAT situation needs to be addressed.
You talk about single-payer a lot, so my questions is this: Who will handle that system? The government or an unbiased organization? I’m curious to your answer to that so if you don’t mind elaborating. Or if you have an older post on it that you could direct me to. Thanks.
You wanted a “Right Wing Suggestion” to health care. Well here’s mine. This may have been talked about before, and if it has, I apologize.
How about we add a policy, something like Medicare, let’s just call it “Medifree” for sake of argument. Medifree will cover anyone who doesn’t have private insurance, isn’t on Medicare, Medicaid or can’t afford insurance through their employer or any other means. In other words, those who CAN afford insurance but chose NOT to purchase it, i.e. the 18-34 yr old invincibles and families who earn at least $50K would have to purchase their own insurance. So, those who truly can NOT afford insurance would get insurance through “Medifree” because they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid and are too young to be on Medicare. Obviously we tax payers would have to foot the bill, but we are ultimately paying for their health care coverage anyway. But it may be cheaper in the long run, because if those who CAN afford insurance buy their own then we won’t be paying for them, only those who truly can’t afford it. We also need to look into tort reform and also into ways to keep other costs down and find out why these insurance companies pay for some things that shouldn’t be covered but don’t cover other items that should be covered. There’s also the issue of the insurance companies gouging the heck out of the policy holders. Why is that? They are making exuberant profits but yet they are constantly raising our premiums.
Again, if this has already been discussed, I apologize or if it’s not something we could implement, again I’m sorry. But it’s something that has been on my mind and I thought I’d post it here since you asked for a suggestion from someone on the Right. And maybe there are some who could add to or subtract from what I've suggested.
PDH,
I feel I could've have written what you have. The government controlling anything gives me indigestion. SS, military procurement, Medicare/Aid, the Post Office, Welfare/Public Housing, CARS,on and on. The government has mismanaged program after program to the tune of trillions of dollars wasted.
I wish I had the specifics of a plan, but I'll leave that up to smarter people than me. The general outline of what you've written is a good start.
A single payer system brings the possibility of unchecked government power. We have many examples of programs that ran mostly in the dark with little outside scrutiny. The Fed comes to mind as a present day example.
I think that if the government and private health care can form a partnership, something on the order of the public utilities commissions, that would be the best way to go.
Health plans need to be portable fit to the individual and government is dismal at dealing with individual circumstances. By its very nature government is necessarily a "one size fits all" entity. A monolithic health care bureaucracy is a frightful alternative. Just some thoughts.
BTW, I don't allow Hitler comparisons in my classes to anyone we study. Hitler was a monster on a scale unparalled so far in history. I say so far, because I think as information trickles out of Russia, Stalin will replace Hitler as the symbol of evil. All comparisons with these two are out of bounds and not acceptable.
Truth,
I respect your position about single payer, but in my opinion your faith in government is misplaced.
I have been in government service all my working life and I have seen first-hand the waste, ineptitude, and corruption in the government's mishandling of the taxpayer's money.
My health care has always been a partnership arrangement between the government and a private carrier. The prices are getting out of hand due to circumstances I would be glad to discuss later as this post is getting very long and I apologize for that.
Good day, sir.
Truth, I obviously didn't come up with these myself, but after some research I think it's a good start.
* Change the tax code. Individuals should have the same tax incentives as employers who offer coverage. For example, there could be an income tax deduction of $7,500 for individuals and $15,000 for families. Over the long-term, people will move to portable, long-term individual insurance.
* Refundable tax credit. A refundable tax credit of $2,500 for individuals or $5,000 for families would eliminate the tax exclusion for those who get their insurance from their employers.
* Allow the purchase of health care insurance across state lines so that individuals have more choices in plans. This will encourage a robust market in individually owned health care.
* Reduce state regulations and mandates on insurance plans to help reduce costs. There are 1,901 mandates nationwide in 2007, up from 1,843 in 2006.
* Expand tax breaks for Health Savings Accounts. HSAs provide for tax-free accumulation and at the same time offer real protection against larges losses.
* Allow for the growth of convenient clinics. There are about 700 retail clinics located in Wal-Marts, Targets, and other Walk-in Centers. Convenient clinics reduce the costs by offering the uninsured an alternative to emergency rooms. It’s also an inexpensive option for people with HSAs.
* Medical Malpractice reforms are needed to help keep doctors’ insurance costs down which will reduce the costs of care. For example, states could enact laws that would put a cap on non-economic damages.
* Provide vouchers for the working poor so that they can purchase insurance from a state pool.
Did anyone ever consider this from a state control vs national government control angle?
I also think that we have to get illegal immigration controlled before we can begin to find answers. They are a part of the problem.
I also really like the idea of HSA's. The details would have to be worked out of course but paying into something that actually belongs to you.
I think the biggest thing is controlling the insurance companies profit and I have no problem with government getting involved to deal with it. As long as the concern is profit instead of the care itself, nothing will change!
One more thing.....
What if health insurance was more like car insurance. Where we could pick and choose what we need or want? I'm not sure if that could even work but it can't hurt throwing it out there.
Jennifer: Yeah! Good ideas! I elect YOU to Congress! All in favor say "I"!
I like that "car insurance" idea. I've been saying that for awhile now. Why isn't our health insurance like our car insurance and why can't I purchase health ins in California when I live in Pa? We need to get some of the Gov regulations removed to do some of those things, I THINK.
I admire the ideas presented. But many of them still require government control so in the end, I think we all realize government will have to play a big role.
Pamela's "medifree" idea is an excellent suggestion if we don't end up with a single payer system.
Jennifer's suggestion that this be done on a state level makes sense. Closer to the people being served and it's far easier to keep an eye on things at a state level than the massive federal level.
LAOT: I've been in public and private sector employment. Your concens are well founded. But I saw plenty of waste and innefficiency on both parts.
It's too bad but there will always be the lazy and the lowlifes among us.
In a nutshell, my single payer plan calls for a 4% payroll tax that eveyone pays so everyone contributes along with a deductible or copay system to fund the program. The unemployed will get jobs eventually and children will join the workforce eventually.
You go to the doctor or hospital you want. This will encourage competition and good service.
There will still be business for supplemental insurance.
I agree that tort reform is a priority. I have many close relatives in the health care field. Baseless lawsuits tie up the courts and the time of the doctors and nurses that have to defend themselves against irresponsible behavior from some patients.
The problem I have with tax code changes is the tax code is already a cumbersome jumble of unintelligible blather. It's time we all payed for programs we want instead of arranging the tax code so this group gets a break. We borrow from China or the Social Security Trust Fund.
I concede the undocumented worker is a problem also. To be frank, I don't blame them for wanting to come here for a better life as my ancestors did. I wish I could think of a kind and gentle way to treat them. The gansters and dope dealers; drop em on an island in the Pacific and they can start their own country. The decent undocumented workers? Get a social security number and help pay for Truth's program. I can't think of any other way to treat decent people.
Captain Fogg is pissed and Octopus agrees.
"Try and pass rational laws to prevent guns from being sold to minors and nuts."
The NRA is against selling guns to minors, so what laws are you talking about? Be specific please.
People being able to buy guns at gun shows without proper background checks Tom. Columbine.
There is no gun-show loophole. It doesn't exist. All vendors at shows must conduct proper background checks as required by law.
What is at issue is whether private citizens can sell guns to each other, because obviously they do not have the capability to do the background check.
Columbine had nothing to do with loopholes of any sort, and no significant amount of crime is causes by anyone getting a gun that they bought from another private citizen.
It's all rather silly that this has become such a big rallying cry because it's such small potatoes.
There's no winning a gun debate. In the end, the law abiding guy is the one inconvenienced by a plethora of rules. Crooks and nuts will still get guns whenever they want.
valium no prescription overnight valium dosage opiate withdrawal - much does valium cost uk
Post a Comment