stv-archives.com - Obama's First Day

Wed Oct 30, 2024 5:14 am

FAQ

Obama's First Day
View: previous topic :: next topic

stv-archives.com Forum Index -> World News

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

Author

Message

Ntypical
Lieutenant

Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 136
Location: North Carolina

Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:58 pm

beansidhe wrote:

Because...

Having service-related injuries and sequelae covered by private insurance *isn't* the "same old failed policy." It's a new idea, and as I said...

Actually. It is called a bait and switch. That is where someone who knows they do not have a leg to stand on comes in and references something that they believe was faulty in a former stance from the opposite side in an attempt to bring attention away from the subject at hand.

And it is not a new idea. They tried it in the sixty's and late seventy's in the form of denying care. They also tried it in the 90s in the form of reducing coverage. It sir, is not a new idea.

Quote:

Further, it's just always fascinating to me how the same people who were promoting things that were also non-starters during the Bush years (e.g. privatizing Social Security) never go back and look at those ideas and say, "yeah, good thing that didn't go through--we'd be in even worse straights now."

Ya see. If things progressed as they have, then yes some would be in bad shape. But what the proposed plan you speak of would have done is allowed the people to choose how their money was invested. You act as if the stock market was the only place to invest. Also, let us remember why the stock market is tanking right now. Yes, other factors are contributing to it, but if you take away that one major contributor then things would be much better off.

Quote:

I mean, here I am an Obama supporter, and I think this idea is a bad one.

Have any of the conservatives here ever come out against a conservative idea? Could be as I'm not here all the time, but I haven't seen it.

Now in answer to your question. If it is a truly Conservative idea, then no, most would not oppose it, because it is in keeping with the premise of how this country was founded, and has worked pretty well up until now.

Remember there is a difference between a conservative idea, and a conservative's idea.

beansidhe
Ensign, Junior Grade

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 42

Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:41 pm

Ntypical wrote:

beansidhe wrote:

Because...

Having service-related injuries and sequelae covered by private insurance *isn't* the "same old failed policy." It's a new idea, and as I said...

And it is not a new idea. They tried it in the sixty's and late seventy's in the form of denying care. They also tried it in the 90s in the form of reducing coverage. It sir, is not a new idea.

I'm a woman. "Sir" is incorrect and unnecessary.

I wonder why so many here can't get that? Most names that end with "a" are feminine.

Please reference previous attempts to deny veterans care. I frankly don't remember any, and my dad, being a Marine vet of the Korean conflict would have been ranting and raving quite loudly at that.

And as I've been in healthcare for over 30 years now, I think I'd remember any proposed policy like this before.

So some links would be helpful.

Quote:

People were being encouraged to put their money in the stock market. The market tanked.

Those who are of retirement age and relied on those 401Ks are screwed.

At least they'll have the SS security net. Without that...

Quote:

Instead of using jargon to communicate, how about plain English?

And give an example of a "conservative's idea" you disagree with.

Ntypical
Lieutenant

Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 136
Location: North Carolina

Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:46 pm

beansidhe wrote:

And as I've been in healthcare for over 30 years now, I think I'd remember any proposed policy like this before.

I am fixing to take my family out for dinner, when I hop back on I will see what I can pull up for you. But surely you remember the TriCare cuts during the Clinton era.

And you will have to forgive me for calling you Sir. I am just a busted up redneck former Marine with a bad wheel, turned rockhound. Proper English is not my forte, though I do try.

Now, you being in health care, you know the difference between health care and health insurance correct?

Quote:

And they would have had the choice of how their money was spent. They could have taken "safe investments" and stayed away from the stock market, but would have made less on those investments, or can make risky investments, but have the chance to make more from them. Then end result is people spending their money how they wish to. Then they could have chosen to pull the money before the market tanked, put it in a safe investment, and bought again when we rebound.

Though the money would have been in their control. Not the government's control. I am sorry if I do not trust a government that can not make money running a brothel with my retirement money.

Care to take a guess at what the biggest contributing factor to the market tanking is?

Quote:

Instead of using jargon to communicate, how about plain English?

And give an example of a "conservative's idea" you disagree with.

I do not know why you think I am not using plain English. I think I said it pretty clearly. Though ok. Sure.

A conservative idea is one keeping with conservative values, a Conservative's idea is one thought up by a conservative. Just because a person is claims to be a conservative does not mean that they are one, and that means that not all ideas that come out of their heads are keeping with conservative values.

John McCain. "I think it is the right of every American to have a College education."

Every American has the opportunity to seek a college education if they choose to work hard and earn it. Though many do not have the means (I am not talking about monetary means).

beansidhe
Ensign, Junior Grade

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 42

Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:45 pm

[quote="Ntypical"]

beansidhe wrote:

But surely you remember the TriCare cuts during the Clinton era.

Were the Tri-Care cuts aimed at service-related conditions, or just at care in general? I really don't remember--and in the 90s, I was completely focused on cancer research, so it's the era I remember least.

Quote:

Now, you being in health care, you know the difference between health care and health insurance correct?

Uh, yeah. Your point?

Quote:

y would have had the choice of how their money was spent. They could have taken "safe investments" and stayed away from the stock market, but would have made less on those investments, or can make risky investments, but have the chance to make more from them. Then end result is people spending their money how they wish to. Then they could have chosen to pull the money before the market tanked, put it in a safe investment, and bought again when we rebound.

The problem is, most Americans haven't a clue how to invest. Heck, how did so many get talked into mortgages they couldn't afford?

I mean, here in SoCal, people were buying $500K homes on a $50K income. And then wondering what happened when the bills came due...

Quote:

A conservative idea is one keeping with conservative values, a Conservative's idea is one thought up by a conservative. Just because a person is claims to be a conservative does not mean that they are one, and that means that not all ideas that come out of their heads are keeping with conservative values.

John McCain. "I think it is the right of every American to have a College education."

Every American has the opportunity to seek a college education if they choose to work hard and earn it. Though many do not have the means (I am not talking about monetary means).

Okay, that's clear. Thanks.

Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus

Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America

Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:11 pm

beansidhe wrote:

Theresa wrote:

Ntypical wrote:

Thus far it has gone pretty much as I have expected.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/

Quote:

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

Yup, sure does look like he supports our military.

That would just about, if not totally, do in my grandparents. Both in their 80's with no way to supplement their income, and their private insurance already maxed trying to take care of my grandmother, and now my grandfather would be required to take care of himself... This pisses me off on a very personal level.

Just like Bush's plan to privatize social security pissed me off on a very personal level... and you said it was a terrific!!!!! thing.

Do you still feel we'd be better off if *every* American had their retirement in the stock market as Pres. Bush wanted to do? Where would be be--and that includes your grandparents--today?

This idea re: veteran's medical care isn't going to happen. It's a non-starter out of the gate.

Let's not generalize, shall we? I never said anything of the sort.

-------signature-------

Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars

Ntypical
Lieutenant

Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 136
Location: North Carolina

Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:58 am

beansidhe wrote:

All of the above. And you will have to forgive me. I am having a tough time digging through all the idiotic blogs and what not while looking for links. There is a lot of misinformation out there on both sides of the fence.

Quote:

Uh, yeah. Your point?

Just didn't want to hear how xx number of Americans are unable to get health care.

Quote:

And who's fault is that? Natural selection does still exist in the human equation. It just shifted from eliminating the slow and weak through disease and predators to getting rid of the stupid and inane. If you are dumb enough to buy a home that is outside of your means, then should you not have to live with the consequences? Also, if your side of the fence would not have forced banks to lend to people that could not pay, we likely would not be in the situation we are in now.

So, now people that have bettered themselves through hard work smart choices and educating themselves are expected to pick up the tab for those that are too dumb to know that you can not spend twelve hundred a month if you only make a thousand a month?

I am all about helping people out, and do donate to charity. But it should be a person's choice if they want to do so. Not forced upon them.

When I got out of the Corps I was taking home about 43k a year.

Now that I am out, my before tax pay is just over the 25% tax bracket, so after state and federal tax I actually take home 1 grand less a year than I did when I was in the Corps. Then when you add in the new taxes that are proposed, it will only be that much worse. For everyone. Wealth is not created from the bottom up, and taxes do not bring you out of a recession.

beansidhe
Ensign, Junior Grade

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 42

Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:33 am

Ntypical wrote:

beansidhe wrote:

Uh, yeah. Your point?

Just didn't want to hear how xx number of Americans are unable to get health care.

The thing is, given that we ration healthcare on the ability to pay for it, in this system xx number of Americans are unable to access healthcare.

Quote:

And who's fault is that? Natural selection does still exist in the human equation. It just shifted from eliminating the slow and weak through disease and predators to getting rid of the stupid and inane. If you are dumb enough to buy a home that is outside of your means, then should you not have to live with the consequences? Also, if your side of the fence would not have forced banks to lend to people that could not pay, we likely would not be in the situation we are in now. [/quote]

I do believe that people should be responsible for their own, often stupid, choices.

However, given the debacle in the housing market, can you imagine where we'd be if SS had been put into the same bubble market? You would end up with increased numbers of homeless elderly with no safety net to fall back on. And, has been proven in the past (see the conditions surrounding the formation of Medicare in the early 60s), private charity doesn't have the economy of scale nor the security that public programs do.

What would we do with those homeless? Put them into sanctuary districts a la DS9?

Quote:

Wealth is not created from the bottom up, and taxes do not bring you out of a recession.

But trickle down economics has only given us what we have today. Even Greenspan--the architect of trickle-down economics has said, "we didn't take into account greed."

Well, duh. Today the rich are insanely rich and the gap between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of us is higher than it's been at anytime during our history. This is a recipe for disaster.

Ntypical
Lieutenant

Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 136
Location: North Carolina

Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:10 pm

beansidhe wrote:

The thing is, given that we ration healthcare on the ability to pay for it, in this system xx number of Americans are unable to access healthcare.

So you are saying that people are flat out told no, we won't treat you, when they walk into the ER?

If that is the case then why is it that so many illegals are skipping out on ER payments that they had to shut down a large number of hospitals in Cali?

It is illegal to turn someone away from the ER.

Quote:

I do believe that people should be responsible for their own, often stupid, choices.

However, given the debacle in the housing market, can you imagine where we'd be if SS had been put into the same bubble market? You would end up with increased numbers of homeless elderly with no safety net to fall back on. And, has been proven in the past (see the conditions surrounding the formation of Medicare in the early 60s), private charity doesn't have the economy of scale nor the security that public programs do.

What would we do with those homeless? Put them into sanctuary districts a la DS9?

And I still maintain that there wouldn't have been a problem if the major contributing factor, and the government would have not forced banks to give loans to people that could not afford them.

There is no reason why anyone that does not want to be homeless is homeless.

Quote:

If you want to make money, then go out and make money. It can be done. I come from a poor family. Well we started as a poor family. When I was very young we were so poor that the neighbors would bring us food. But dad went back to school worked hard and now makes close to 200k a year. They didn't have money for school, so mom worked two jobs so dad could go to school.

I finished HS near failing, and joined the Corps, worked hard while I was in, and realized that it was only a matter of time before I got hurt, or retirement came. Then what would I do? So I got educated.

Starting out in my new career I make middle 60k (before the gov taxes me down to less than I was making before getting out). Within two years (depending on what happens with the drilling industry) I will likely be making inside of 150k a year. I have been putting 10% of my pay away since I joined, and I kept every single bonus I ever got. So if something bad happens, then We will survive. But people choose to make idiotic choices, then expect the gov to come bail them out.

Every able bodied person in the US has the opportunity to better themselves. But for some reason many choose not to.

Yes there is greed. But much of the wealth gap is not just because of greed, it is because many people don't want to work hard to get their money, so they instead choose to vote for who will take money from those that do work hard, so they don't have to.

If my dumb redneck butt can do it, then anyone can.

Arellia
The Quiet One

Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX

Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:37 pm

Ntypical wrote:

beansidhe wrote:

The thing is, given that we ration healthcare on the ability to pay for it, in this system xx number of Americans are unable to access healthcare.

You still get *seen* in the ER, but they cannot fix everything for you. I saw a case where a woman had an advanced-stage abcess of her breast. Without surgery, she would become septic, and if treatment was delayed she could lose the breast. The docs sent her away because she had no money, but it was myself and a social worker who finally found a clinic where she might be able to get treatment. I have no idea what happened to her.

If you don't have health insurance and go to the ER, and your area does not have some kind of special plan, you ruin your credit by not paying. This might not bother people without credit, but it still isn't cool. I definitely believe it should be illegal to turn people away at the ER. I could never see myself as a doctor say to a person with a life-threatening case, "Sorry, you have no money." Health care is a moral issue to me, not an economic one.

beansidhe
Ensign, Junior Grade

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 42

Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:00 pm

Ntypical wrote:

beansidhe wrote:

The thing is, given that we ration healthcare on the ability to pay for it, in this system xx number of Americans are unable to access healthcare.

Actually, no, it isn't.

Under EMTALA, we are required to stabilize an emergent case. And emergent means just that--emergency. If you're in immediate danger of dying or severe disability, you get stabilized.

But even aside from that, you don't get a hip replacement in the ER. You don't get cardiac bypass in the ER. You don't get cancer treatment in hte ER. You don't get dialysis in the ER.

I've gotta run to work now, but I'll follow up with more from your post later.

beansidhe
Ensign, Junior Grade

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 42

Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:04 pm

Arellia wrote:

I definitely believe it should be illegal to turn people away at the ER. I could never see myself as a doctor say to a person with a life-threatening case, "Sorry, you have no money." Health care is a moral issue to me, not an economic one.

It is to me, too. But hospitals have to have money to stay open. We can't treat everyone for everything and for free. Doctors, nurses, techs, orderlies, janitors--every employee deserves a paycheck.

And the American people deserve the best we can provide. This requires investment in new techology and treatments. A state-of-the-art MRI scanner costs $12 million. Where do we get the money to invest in that equipment if we give services away to anyone who walks in the door, emergency or not, medically necessary or not?

Ntypical
Lieutenant

Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 136
Location: North Carolina

Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:22 pm

Does this sound familiar?

Quote:

Although a doctor is free to choose whom he will serve, his liberty does not extend to accident, injury and emergency cases. As per law, hospitals, nursing homes and clinics of doctors, that declare, or profess, in writing that they provide emergency sevices/24 hour services are legally bound to attend all the cases . Failure to have the requisite equipment in working order and non-availability of competent staff within reasonable time would be inferred as medical negligence.

Now. Define emergency.

beansidhe
Ensign, Junior Grade

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 42

Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:04 pm

Easy one for break time...

Quote:

A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in --
placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,
serious impairment to bodily functions, or
serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part, or

"With respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions --
that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
that the transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or her unborn child

Please note that EMTALA does not demand that hospitals *cure* every emergent condition that comes in the door. We only are required to stabilize the patient until that patient can be discharged or transferred to another facility.

And, of course, it doesn't mean that the treatment is free.

Ntypical
Lieutenant

Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 136
Location: North Carolina

Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:42 pm

Nothing is free, ever.

But they are not turned away for lifesaving care.

Do you really want to see what would happen to our health care system if it were "free"?

beansidhe
Ensign, Junior Grade

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 42

Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:26 am

Ntypical wrote:

Nothing is free, ever.

But they are not turned away for lifesaving care.

Do you really want to see what would happen to our health care system if it were "free"?

It's never going to be free. Healthcare is a limited resource--everyone will never get everything they want. But there are ways to make it more equitable.

Right now, we ration healthcare based on one's ability to pay for it. That says that those who can pay are worth more to us as a society than those who can't. And the onus of payment is increasingly on employers. As premiums rise, employers pay a bigger burden. This does not help business.

The question is not emergency care--it's elective procedures. It's a 40 year-old woman born with a bum hip getting a hip replacement so she can stay in the workforce rather than collect disability from a wheelchair. Which would be better long-term for both her and the economy?

Just to use one example. Do you want others?

Display posts from previous:

stv-archives.com Forum Index -> World News	Goto Page Previous 1, 2

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures

Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com