Calm down, please. The sky hasn't fallen.

[oggbashan]

The threads about President Obama's health care legislation have produced some fierce arguments. I can understand that many people are unhappy but it isn't worth high blood pressure and virulent anger.

He was elected in a free and fair democratic process and promised change. Whether that change is welcome to you personally or not, that is the way a democratic system works.

I don't like my present government and many of its policies. When there was a Conservative government I still didn't like some of its policies. But whichever political party is in power, most legislation in the UK is bi-partisan, supported by most representatives, amended sensibly and not controversial.

In the Houses of Parliament, representatives of all parties continually work together, meet together, differ on some issues, win some arguments and lose others. Yet they can remain courteous to each other recognising the differences that divide them.

I talk frequently to local representatives from all three political parties even though only one party has control of our local council. I might disagree with one group or another on a particular issue. I might influence the debate and the decision. I might not. But once that issue is decided, it's finished. I move on to the next matter, knowing that I will be listened to, even if they don't like what I'm saying.

Why do I get a hearing when others don't? Perhaps because I speak concisely to the issue, never to the personalities, and never accuse the representatives of ulterior motives even if I suspect them.

I can appreciate that issues in the US are much more fiercely fought than in the UK but there does need to be some understanding that, Republican or Democrat, each feels that they are working for the good of the country and its people. You might disagree with what each does, but the other party feels just as strongly that you are wrong and they are right.

If your party is in power, it is wrong to be triumphalist about it. If your party isn't in power, it is wrong to think that the government are agents of the devil determined to crush opposition by any means.

Please remember that Republicans and Democrats are both Americans, and both believe that they are trying to do the best for their country even if you personally don't agree.

Your health and blood pressure are more important than arguing about politics.

Og

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Spoken like a comfortable bird in a gilded cage. You warble sweetly and hop about your perches, but you remain in a cage.

Debates sharpen your arguments and reveal your flaws. They make you stronger. And they succor your fellow-travelers.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]Your health and blood pressure are more important than arguing about politics.

Og

Well, actually our health and blood pressure depend on arguing about politics, at least in this case.

But, your point is well taken.

I think the essential point you miss, however, is the degree to which the Right wing echo chamber creates a political narrative that increasingly divorces itself from reality. It's not just people on forums who are freaking out - it's leading GOP and Conservative figures! Here's one long-winded but coherently argued take:

Let's face facts. It's never pleasant when activists are confronted with their own political impotence. (Not to mention their abysmal vote-counting skills.) But that's exactly what happened over the weekend as Democratic members of Congress passed health care reform -- reform that the radical right had already pronounced dead. In fact, the GOP Noise Machine had spent weeks dancing on reform's grave and mocking Democrats' inability to act. So how did it all go so terribly wrong for health care haters?

My hunch is that over the past few months, the right-wing media, along with self-adoring Tea Party members, made the mistake of believing their own hype. They convinced themselves that not only did 2 million people take to the streets of the nation's capital last September to protest Obama (a number that was off by 1.9 million), but that "millions" more had marched coast-to-coast over the past 12 months (a number that was completely fabricated). They fastidiously constructed their own parallel universe and convinced themselves that last summer's mini-mobs at local town hall forums had defeated health care reform. They thought their rowdy show of force, complete with Nazi and Hitler posters, and even some protesters parading around with loaded guns, had changed the debate.

Listening to Limbaugh, they thought they were dictating the agenda. Watching Fox News, they though they reflected the mainstream. And reading right-wing blogs, they thought they had killed health care reform.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. It was the sudden and rude realization that, instead, they'd spent the past few months trapped inside an echo chamber, I think, that created the volcanic and unhinged response we've seen play out in recent days. It's the kind of childish and hysterical reaction I didn't think we'd ever witness from a major political movement.

[...]
For instance, imagine if the anti-war movement, and its highest-profile media supporters, had attacked military families whose sons and daughters were fighting in Iraq as the invasion unfolded. That kind of abhorrent behavior would have been universally condemned as just being beyond the pale. Yet last week, as its opposition to reform grew increasingly futile, the GOP Noise Machine dedicated lots of time and energy to mocking and attacking cancer-stricken patients, as well as a motherless 11-year-old boy who had the audacity to speak out in favor of health care reform.

Limbaugh's immortal words to the boy: "Your mom would have still died, because Obamacare doesn't kick in until 2014."

To me, the attacks indicated a withering of the right-wing media's shrinking moral compass, not to mention common sense. (Mocking the seriously ill is a winning political strategy?) It was another tell-tale sign of the unfolding, and unstoppable, nervous breakdown.

Because how else do you describe this kind of erratic, disturbed behavior? And it's worth repeating: This wasn't coming from minor, fringe players. It's been coming from the supposed leading lights of the conservative media; leading lights who, blinded by paranoia, have suffered a collective collapse and can no longer make sense of their surroundings.

 

[ishtat]

But whichever political party is in power, most legislation in the UK is bi-partisan, supported by most representatives, amended sensibly and not controversial.

In the Houses of Parliament, representatives of all parties continually work together, meet together, differ on some issues, win some arguments and lose others. Yet they can remain courteous to each other recognising the differences that divide them.


Og

Og you are a decent person but this is complete nonsense. All UK legislation is partisan. It is not supported by most MP's, the government could not get their own agenda up without a 3 line whip on their own party, Debate if allowed at all is routinely guillotined.

Courteous, that bearpit in Westminster, you have to be kidding. American politicians are models of good manners compared with average British MP's. MP's unlike Congressman have no power at all and the only thing all parties have agreed on in recent times is how they can most efficiently defraud theeir expenses allowances.

Og this is Dr Pangloss gone mad.

 

[oggbashan]

Og you are a decent person but this is complete nonsense. All UK legislation is partisan. It is not supported by most MP's, the government could not get their own agenda up without a 3 line whip on their own party, Debate if allowed at all is routinely guillotined.

Courteous, that bearpit in Westminster, you have to be kidding. American politicians are models of good manners compared with average British MP's. MP's unlike Congressman have no power at all and the only thing all parties have agreed on in recent times is how they can most efficiently defraud theeir expenses allowances.

Og this is Dr Pangloss gone mad.

I have worked with MPs and worked (unpaid) at Westminster. Much of what happens in the Houses of Parliament is never reported because it isn't partisan, or doesn't take place on the floor of the House, and/or isn't newsworthy.

The "bearpit" as you call it, is political posturing for media attention and soundbites. Most of the Houses' business is low key and frankly boring.

The expenses scandal is wrong - because MPs wouldn't vote themselves a pay increase. They let the expenses system be a replacement for increased pay and turned a blind eye, for years, to a fudge. Much of the hype about expenses has been just that - the media on a witch hunt. The reality is that a few were possibly criminal, perhaps more were cavalier and unthinking, and the majority were innocent. The damage that it has done to our Parliamentary system is massive but it tars all our representatives when most don't deserve any blame at all.

Because politics is adversarial, the differences between parties are emphasised far more than the things on which they agree. Three line whips are very rare, but so is abstaining or voting against your party's line on a significant issue.

I still maintain that there isn't the rancour in British politics that has been appearing in the US recently.

Og

 

[rgraham666]

Ogg? Things tend to be calmer and multi-partisan here in Canada as well. Although our Prime Minister's recent decision to prorogue Parliament for the second time in as many years pissed a lot of people off.

Myself, I'm thinking that the Republican party is becoming the next version of the Communist Party. It's the place for the misfits and those least able to live in the world the way it is now. So they tend to be loud beyond their numbers and rather intractable in their beliefs. Until a new party representing the less extreme conservatives is formed politics in the U.S. is going to work the way it has recently,

 

[LaRocha]

There's nothing Panglossian about what he said. The main difference between UK and US politics is individuals hold power in the US, as opposed to the more uniform voices of the parliamentary parties. To get elected in the US you have to differentiate yourself from both the democratic and republican party lines. The only uniform voice in the last ten years has been for war and against specific legislative/policy initiatives by the rival party in power. The current state of affairs is the same Chicken Little nonsense that went on for the last eight years, it's just a different shade of silly. It would be a miracle if either political party backed a specific legislative initiative. Health care is a joke compared to what it should have been if the president had any fortitude and a will to bend his party to meaningful reform.

 

[trysail]

Og,
The law of unintended consequences is going to operate.


You are well aware of the old saw "A camel is a horse designed by a committee." Well, if ever there were a horse designed by a committee, this is it— and the unfortunate fact is that this particular committee does not appear to have an acquaintance with economics or the concept of supply and demand.


If there is no constraint, the demand for healthcare is infinite. With no constraint on demand, healthcare is price insensitive. However, we all know that is an ultimate impossibility. "If something can't go on forever..., it won't."


In other words, it is an absolute certainty that healthcare must ultimately be rationed. For some strange reason, nobody seems to want to address the "how" of it.


Many of those possessing knowledge of economics and experience believe they see the direction and logical endpoint where this particular path is likely to lead.

 

[Liar]

Debates sharpen your arguments and reveal your flaws. They make you stronger. And they succor your fellow-travelers.

Yes, DEBATE does.

Sceaming talking points at one another, is not debate.

 

[TxRad]

Yes, DEBATE does.

Sceaming talking points at one another, is not debate.

Around here of late, yes it is.

 

[Pure]

note to try, and 'is the sky falling'

try In other words, it is an absolute certainty that healthcare must ultimately be rationed. For some strange reason, nobody seems to want to address the "how" of it.

Pure: here's the news, try. reality. it's been rationed for decades. as to the 'how' of wisely spending public health funds, it's not rocket science except to Americans. With the exception of England, the W. European countries and Canada are controlling costs. and their newborns are dying at half the rate yours are.

==
major health insurance companies: CHECK THE GRAPHS, esp for the month and year.

Aetna at a high. others nearly so.

aetna
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Aetna_(AET)


humana
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Humana_(HUM)


wellpoint

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=WLP

unitedhealth

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=UNH&t=1y

===

they appear blissfully unaware they've been nationalized or face bankruptcy; that a maoist is in the White House.

in sum, American corporations are unruffled. that's because they deal in reality (and have lots of lobbyists who had a say!)

 

[dr_mabeuse]

There've certainly been periods in US history where political disagreement took on a more virulent tone (the Civil War, maybe?), but in my half-century of desultory observation, I've never seen things sink to this level of ugliness and vituperation. This is no longer a matter of differing political philosophies. This is sheer, naked personal hatred, intolerance, and vilification, a willingness to let the whole country go down in flames rather than cede a point to the other side.

I was around in the 60's, when protesters fought police in the streets and American cities raged with flames. But even then, national leaders still engaged in respectful debate. Compromises were reached, and civility was maintained. The national interest was still put above partisan victory.

Something changed, though, and I trace it back to the rise of talk radio and Bill Clinton's first term. I've never seen such hatred, fear, anger and contempt directed at a national politician as I saw directed at Bill Clinton. It was truly unprecedented. Not even Nixon at his sleaziest and most criminal elicited such knee-jerk loathing and animosity as did Clinton.

Part of this virulent hatred was due to the emergence of the religious right as a political force and their ready acceptance into the republican party. The religious right is terribly moral-authoritarian, elevates principle above pragmatism, and hates with an intensity of an old testament prophet. And part of it was due to the various voices of talk radio, who in the early 80's hit upon a way to commodify Americans' fears and dissatisfactions and turn them into a lucrative and powerful revenue stream by promoting the myth of the Demonic "Liberal", America's neo-Spawn-of-Satan.

Since then there's been no going back. Republican political success is now wholly contingent on making government look bad and inept, so there's nothing to be gained by bipartisanship. Moderates in both parties have been marginalized and eliminated, and what progress as may be made now can only be made by riding over the body of your opponent.

I don't know how common it is in the UK to see death threats against politicians as a normal part of political discussions, or suggestions for the violent overthrow of the government, but it's become quite common here with Obama's election. I've been following the health care debate over the last few weeks as it plays out in readers' comments to online news stories, and it's pretty obvious that few people know what's in the bill or what it means, and they don't especially want to know. At that level, the entire debate is conducted in terms of hatred, fear, and demagoguery, and this is what American democracy seems to have become.

 

[trysail]

try

Alright, so how is healthcare to be rationed?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Yes, DEBATE does.

Sceaming talking points at one another, is not debate.

My computer has a laugh-track audio card that recognizes words like 'socialism' and 'living wage' and 'healthcare reform' then emits guffaws and snickers and yucks like my teevee. So I dont hear all the screaming that you hear.

 

[bronzeage]

Alright, so how is healthcare to be rationed?

Whenever someone asks this question, I always ask how it is rationed now. So far I haven't seen a response.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Whenever someone asks this question, I always ask how it is rationed now. So far I haven't seen a response.

That's because you keep forgetting to put the '?' mark at the end of your question. Without that nobody knows you are asking a question.

 

[trysail]

Whenever someone asks this question, I always ask how it is rationed now. So far I haven't seen a response.

To a very modest extent, healthcare is currently rationed by price. If you want a radical prostatectomy performed by the best in the business, you go see Pat Walsh at Hopkins' Brady Clinic. He does not accept insurance company-mandated reimbursement amounts and, almost needless to say, he doesn't even consider government-mandated Medicare reimbursement amounts. While he does a portion of procedures for reasons other than price, the majority of his patients are those who can afford him.


There are an increasing number of physicians who simply will not accept insurance, at all. They simply do not want the hassle, expense and interference of dealing with bureaucracy. These physicians make a very handsome living and practice the way they want to without so much as a "by your leave."


Most of the Hopkins physicians of my acquaintance are disgusted by what has happened to medicine— and I'm not even talking about the "slicks"— in many cases I'm talking about Hopkins clinical professors. In the words of one, "I didn't sign up for this." He is contemplating retirement. Of my best pals, one is a Hopkins-trained physician who has never practiced because of the mess that is healthcare.


So, there are already at least two or three classes of healthcare. I strongly suspect that the tinkering will do nothing other than continue the trend of stratifcation of healthcare. The equivalent of Jiffy Lube has evolved to assembly-line process large quantities of people. In the long run and in the end, economics always trumps politics.


Competence, virtuosity and service have always commanded premium prices.


When a consumer bears the cost of their economic decisions, that consumer tends to carefully assess the cost-benefit calculus and to restrain their spending where possible. God knows, that is certainly the case with me. For the most part, healthcare costs I incur come out of my hide.

 

[DesertPirate]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100030793/a-dark-day-for-freedom-in-america/
Even the Brit press hates it.

 

[PoppingTom]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100030793/a-dark-day-for-freedom-in-america/
Even the Brit press hates it.

just a quote from a comment to this article:

This article should start by saying, “Nile Gardiner is a Republican Right wing Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator.”
How dare you say this is a dark day for freedom in America? Perhaps you haven’t tried getting treatment without the unaffordable health insurance the country currently has, or your wife having a baby with no health insurance, or being diagnosed with cancer and being told that it’s not covered by your current insurance or not being able to get coverage because of it. I think you should shut up and count yourself lucky. Others are sent into bankruptcy because of healthcare bills.

 

[Pure]

note to try

tryTo a very modest extent, healthcare is currently rationed by price.

slight understatement. estimates are the 32 million more will be insured. assuming most want this, and wanted it, the 'rationing' (by price) system denied them coverage.

add to these the countless lower middle class working and insured families who need major surgery, say of a cost equal to their house, who are subject to some lower maximum of claims in a year, and have thus postponed. will you give me a million at least, there?

that's a LOT of rationing!

 

[trysail]

tryTo a very modest extent, healthcare is currently rationed by price.

slight understatement. estimates are the 32 million more will be insured. assuming most want this, and wanted it, the 'rationing' (by price) system denied them coverage.

add to these the countless lower middle class working and insured families who need major surgery, say of a cost equal to their house, who are subject to some lower maximum of claims in a year, and have thus postponed. will you give me a million at least, there?

that's a LOT of rationing!

That's a LOT of exaggeration and a lot of squatters! ( and, as usual, no capitalization or punctuation ).

Just send the bill to me ( and all the other involuntary philanthropists ). That's what you always do.

...and now they've got a sugar daddy called "everybody else."

 

[trysail]

try

Alright, so how is healthcare to be rationed?

 

[amicus]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100030793/a-dark-day-for-freedom-in-america/
Even the Brit press hates it.

~~~

Hello DP and thank you...

What we have just witnessed is a massive slap in the face for limited government and the principle of individual responsibility. Its net result will be the erosion of freedom in America, and a further undermining of the country’s economic competitiveness. This may be a political victory for the president and his supporters in Congress, but it is in reality a defeat for America as a great power, and another Obama-led step towards US decline.

Oggbashan in his rfhetoric, comes across as a whipped puppy yipping down a cobble street with tail between his legs. One wonders if the Brits will ever grow a backbone after losing their Empire.

The entire Obama agenda is an affront to the very concepts that are America. FDR's memory survives intact because of the Depression and World War Two and few remember or know that his efforts, like Obama's, to socialize America, terrified America and sent much of FDR's legislation into the Court system where it was overturned.

One is reminded of the period of time where Germany flaunted law and treaty terms and Europe did nothing. England, to their everlasting disgrace attempted to appease the Dictator.

Few will advocate violence for the sake of violence, but when does the thought of violence become rational?

Some wag mentioned the conflict between people of principle and those pragmatists who advocate compromise until there is nothing left to comprise.

Seldom do I use cliche'd language but: "If not now, when? If not us, who?"

Two full generations of children have not been educated to understand America, the free market and a principled way of life as values to live by, support and defend.

I am appalled by the total ignorance of most on this forum who have no idea as to where values come from, what a moral or ethical action is, and why they should take an absolute stand beyond which they will not compromise.

It is not a light issue to deal with threats to one's security and peace of mind and I am concerned about those who speak and act from an emotional basis rather than a rational one and it is to those who I attempt to communicate in terms of learning and preparing to meet the coming and inevitable insurrection.

I am re'writing and updating a book published in 1984, "A Call ti Convention, A CaLL to Arms", a passionate plea for awareness and vigilance.

Up the Revolution!

Amicus

 

[bronzeage]

To a very modest extent, healthcare is currently rationed by price. If you want a radical prostatectomy performed by the best in the business, you go see Pat Walsh at Hopkins' Brady Clinic. He does not accept insurance company-mandated reimbursement amounts and, almost needless to say, he doesn't even consider government-mandated Medicare reimbursement amounts. While he does a portion of procedures for reasons other than price, the majority of his patients are those who can afford him.


There are an increasing number of physicians who simply will not accept insurance, at all. They simply do not want the hassle, expense and interference of dealing with bureaucracy. These physicians make a very handsome living and practice the way they want to without so much as a "by your leave."


Most of the Hopkins physicians of my acquaintance are disgusted by what has happened to medicine— and I'm not even talking about the "slicks"— in many cases I'm talking about Hopkins clinical professors. In the words of one, "I didn't sign up for this." He is contemplating retirement. Of my best pals, one is a Hopkins-trained physician who has never practiced because of the mess that is healthcare.


So, there are already at least two or three classes of healthcare. I strongly suspect that the tinkering will do nothing other than continue the trend of stratifcation of healthcare. The equivalent of Jiffy Lube has evolved to assembly-line process large quantities of people. In the long run and in the end, economics always trumps politics.


Competence, virtuosity and service have always commanded premium prices.


When a consumer bears the cost of their economic decisions, that consumer tends to carefully assess the cost-benefit calculus and to restrain their spending where possible. God knows, that is certainly the case with me. For the most part, healthcare costs I incur come out of my hide.

If healthcare is rationed by price, then it is really rationed by the people who set the prices.

The prostate surgeon who does not deal with insurance companies has set his own price. Of course, he is one of those "last doctors you will ever see" type of doc. When a man needs his prostate removed, it's a little late to worry about preventive care.

The patients he sees for "reasons other than price" are another form of rationing. This must mean people who can't afford his usual price, which is to say "charity cases". This also means the affluent patients subsidize the poor. This is fine as long as they are unaware of the arrangement.

This is the basic principle of healthcare insurance. Someone pays more than the services they consume, and someone else pays less. Don't tell anyone.

There is no real problem with rationing by cost. It should be easy to relate income and net worth to medical needs. A person who works at Jiffy Lube, gets Jiffy Lube grade health care. We could dispense with insurance altogether and go on a real cash basis system. Doctors would have to compete, not only on competence and virtuosity, but also on price. I suspect a few Doctors might soon be working at Jiffy Lube.

We would quickly find out the true cost of healthcare. This would be a boon to the liver transplant clinics in India. Don't ask where they got the liver.

I have read a lot of your posts and this is one of the strangest yet.

"Of my best pals, one is a Hopkins-trained physician who has never practiced because of the mess that is healthcare."

This guy went to medical school and after graduating, looked out the window and said, "Nope, not gonna do that."

He must be one hell of a Doctor, considering the years of experience he does not have.

"When a consumer bears the cost of their economic decisions, that consumer tends to carefully assess the cost-benefit calculus and to restrain their spending where possible. God knows, that is certainly the case with me. For the most part, healthcare costs I incur come out of my hide."

Aside from a few hypochondriacs, what consumer has any control over their healthcare expenses? Other than refusing treatment, what are the options?

Of course the first choice is to simply do nothing and hope to not develop a critical problem. An earache might go away by itself. It could become a serious infection, leading to deafness or brain damage. Which would you choose? What is the calculus of a deaf brain damaged child. Would the cost of an affordable visit to a pediatrician, subsidized by you and me, be more or less than the burden on society of a deaf brain damaged adult?

Don't forget to factor in the contributions of a hearing intelligent adult, working over a lifetime in the equation.

 

[TxRad]

~~~

Hello DP and thank you...



Oggbashan in his rfhetoric, comes across as a whipped puppy yipping down a cobble street with tail between his legs. One wonders if the Brits will ever grow a backbone after losing their Empire.

The entire Obama agenda is an affront to the very concepts that are America. FDR's memory survives intact because of the Depression and World War Two and few remember or know that his efforts, like Obama's, to socialize America, terrified America and sent much of FDR's legislation into the Court system where it was overturned.

One is reminded of the period of time where Germany flaunted law and treaty terms and Europe did nothing. England, to their everlasting disgrace attempted to appease the Dictator.

Few will advocate violence for the sake of violence, but when does the thought of violence become rational?

Some wag mentioned the conflict between people of principle and those pragmatists who advocate compromise until there is nothing left to comprise.

Seldom do I use cliche'd language but: "If not now, when? If not us, who?"

Two full generations of children have not been educated to understand America, the free market and a principled way of life as values to live by, support and defend.

I am appalled by the total ignorance of most on this forum who have no idea as to where values come from, what a moral or ethical action is, and why they should take an absolute stand beyond which they will not compromise.

It is not a light issue to deal with threats to one's security and peace of mind and I am concerned about those who speak and act from an emotional basis rather than a rational one and it is to those who I attempt to communicate in terms of learning and preparing to meet the coming and inevitable insurrection.

I am re'writing and updating a book published in 1984, "A Call ti Convention, A CaLL to Arms", a passionate plea for awareness and vigilance.

Up the Revolution!

Amicus

Speaking of rhetoric and bullshit. The 1950's are well past. I lived then and it wasn't the picnic you seem to remember. Sixty years have passed, so wake up and join the right century. Your revolution is nothing but a pipe dream.

Ogg, this is the stupidity that reigns on the far right. The dreams of old men for the "good old days" which were not nearly as good as they seem to remember. They have no idea what socialism means. It's a catch phrase to scare others. No more, no less.

People like Ami have no problems with high blood pressure. You have to actually think for yourself to have your blood pressure go up. He just parrots what he hears and then twists it even more to fit his past fantasy life.

Stupid is, as stupid does. They can't change when they are caught in the past in their minds.