Groups > Tough Questions & Answers

Join Group

Group admin:: Veggiebubble
Created:: January 30, 2008
: 1128 Members

Group Tags:

Tough Questions, Answers, Eons, Politics, Fun

Member Kudos

Helpful (8875)
Funny (4342)
Inspirational (3487)

Discussion Board > View Discussion

to start a discussion

Healthcare: Right, Privilege, or Responsibility? continued...

From the original post:

2008-10-08 06:52:32.0

I thought this was one of the best questions posed in last night's debate. It goes right to the heart of...

EMAIL THIS

182 Comments // 36 Members

Julie Hershey

Posted: Oct 10, 08 11:55am

Rick Paglia wrote:

The private enterprise system was responsible for bringing all of those books to market. The success or failure of those books was dependent on several factors including the quality of the material and the acceptance of the books in the marketplace. By your own admittance this was especially true in the case of "The Satanic Verses." Far more copies of all of those books were read as a result of free enterprise rather than the library system. I would much rather have the free enterprise system bringing material to market than the government, ie Iran or China. I wonder how many people in Iran have read "The Satanic Verses."

The public library system is not free and unencumbered. There is a cost involved to build it and maintain it. Those costs are paid by tax dollars. Tax dollars which are part of the five months of taxes that government takes from all of us. And which will only become greater if we have a national healthcare system.

Yes, the government's job is to uphold and protect the constitution. It is not to be in the business of providing healthcare or taking over failed banks. When government gets involved our costs increase dramatically. Those costs are not only measured in dollars and cents but in the cost of having freedom and choices removed.

My example serves to illustrate how marketing tactics can influence our choices, and that even the term “choice” in this case was reserved for the book seller, not you, friend, and not me. Three years beyond the Cabbage Patch craze, profiteers had become well aware of the power of perceived shortages over our psyches, and wielded that heavy hand to create a national best seller. Had there been nothing in it for bookstores, had they believed it more profitable in the long run to refrain from selling controversial material, we would not have had access to the book except in the public library.

It is our constitution and those willing to intervene on its behalf, and NOT our free enterprise system that has allowed us access to information. Of course “The Satanic Verses” was not read in Iran, except by the Ayatollah himself, but let’s not compare the theocracy to democracy but to the corporatocracy for a better understanding of how limited individual rights can become when special interests, whether profits or gods, prevail. I am puzzled that intervention of such organizations as the American Library Association, the Civil Liberties Union, and others that seek to defend our freedoms - often from other government entities- is perceived as “more government,” and that voters have been willing to subject themselves to a more insidious and pervasive type of control in the name of freedom.

As for the parallel here with health care, this issue is no longer a matter of supporting the lower income segment of our society. If you think you have the right to expect a minimum standard of care from your provider because you have paid for that promise, be very afraid should you become ill. Their predatory practices have not been unlike those of sly mortgage lenders, and as the bulk of our population grows older and in greater need of medical care, their primary interest will be to accelerate your demise. Thanks to our freedom loving administrations of the past 28 years, we no longer have the right to due process when disputing the decisions of private health care corporations. Nope, not a damn thing you can do, because the law now says you can’t sue ‘em, any concerns or appeals have to be filed according to your provider’s in-house procedures.

We’d better hope for additional legislation (or “more government,” if you prefer) that restores our right as individuals to pursue life, and the quality thereof.

My example serves to illustrate how marketing tactics can influence our choices, and that even the term “choice” in this case was reserved for the book seller, not you, friend, and not me. Three years beyond the Cabbage Patch craze, profiteers had become well aware of the power of perceived shortages over our psyches, and wielded that heavy hand to create a national best seller. Had there been nothing in it for bookstores, had they believed it more profitable in the long run to refrain from selling controversial material, we would not have had access to the book except in the public library. It is our constitution and those willing to intervene on its behalf, and NOT our free enterprise system that has allowed us access to information. Of course “The Satanic Verses” was not read in Iran, except by the Ayatollah himself, but let’s not compare the theocracy to democracy but to the corporatocracy for a better understanding of how limited individual rights can become when special interests, whether profits or gods, prevail. I am puzzled that intervention of such organizations as the American Library Association, the Civil Liberties Union, and others that seek to defend our freedoms - often from other government entities- is perceived as “more government,” and that voters have been willing to subject themselves to a more insidious and pervasive type of control in the name of freedom. As for the parallel here with health care, this issue is no longer a matter of supporting the lower income segment of our society. If you think you have the right to expect a minimum standard of care from your provider because you have paid for that promise, be very afraid should you become ill. Their predatory practices have not been unlike those of sly mortgage lenders, and as the bulk of our population grows older and in greater need of medical care, their primary interest will be to accelerate your demise. Thanks to our freedom loving administrations of the past 28 years, we no longer have the right to due process when disputing the decisions of private health care corporations. Nope, not a damn thing you can do, because the law now says you can’t sue ‘em, any concerns or appeals have to be filed according to your provider’s in-house procedures. We’d better hope for additional legislation (or “more government,” if you prefer) that restores our right as individuals to pursue life, and the quality thereof.

Give kudos

Posted: Oct 10, 08 11:55am

Quote

The private enterprise system was responsible for bringing all of those books to market.  The success or failure of those books was dependent on several factors including the quality of the material and the acceptance of the books in the marketplace.  By your own admittance this was especially true in the case of "The Satanic Verses."  Far more copies of all of those books were read as a result of free enterprise rather than the library system.  I would much rather have the free enterprise system bringing material to market than the government, ie Iran or China.  I wonder how many people in Iran have read "The Satanic Verses."

The public library system is not free and unencumbered.  There is a cost involved to build it and maintain it.  Those costs are paid by tax dollars.  Tax dollars which are part of the five months of taxes that government takes from all of us.  And which will only become greater if we have a national healthcare system.

Yes, the government's job is to uphold and protect the constitution.  It is not to be in the business of providing healthcare or taking over failed banks.  When government gets involved our costs increase dramatically.  Those costs are not only measured in dollars and cents but in the cost of having freedom and choices removed.

Comment

spell check

My example serves to illustrate how marketing tactics can influence our choices, and that even the term “choice” in this case was reserved for the book seller, not you, friend, and not me.  Three years beyond the Cabbage Patch craze, profiteers had become well aware of the power of perceived shortages over our psyches, and wielded that heavy hand to create a national best seller.  Had there been nothing in it for bookstores, had they believed it more profitable in the long run to refrain from selling controversial material, we would not have had access to the book except in the public library.  
It is our constitution and those willing to intervene on its behalf, and NOT our free enterprise system that has allowed us access to information.  Of course “The Satanic Verses” was not read in Iran, except by the Ayatollah himself, but let’s not compare the theocracy to democracy but to the corporatocracy for a better understanding of how limited individual rights can become when special interests, whether profits or gods, prevail.  I am puzzled that intervention of such organizations as the American Library Association, the Civil Liberties Union, and others that seek to defend our freedoms - often from other government entities- is perceived as “more government,” and that voters have been willing to subject themselves to a more insidious and pervasive type of control in the name of freedom.  
As for the parallel here with health care, this issue is no longer a matter of supporting the lower income segment of our society.  If you think you have the right to expect a minimum standard of care from your provider because you have paid for that promise, be very afraid should you become ill.  Their predatory practices have not been unlike those of sly mortgage lenders, and as the bulk of our population grows older and in greater need of medical care, their primary interest will be to accelerate your demise.  Thanks to our freedom loving administrations of the past 28 years, we no longer have the right to due process when disputing the decisions of private health care corporations.  Nope, not a damn thing you can do, because the law now says you can’t sue ‘em, any concerns or appeals have to be filed according to your provider’s in-house procedures.  
We’d better hope for additional legislation (or “more government,” if you prefer) that restores our right as individuals to pursue life, and the quality thereof.

Alert me when someone comments on this discussion.

Julie Hershey

Posted: Oct 10, 08 12:00pm

PanDan wrote:

There seems to be an important fact overlooked in this thread, especially by those with the idealistic view that 100 years ago, taxes were much lower and the government basically did a lot less for us.

Consider this. Back when our country was more rural, and most people lived on farms and in small towns, most people could raise their own food. The majority of people in this country now live in cities and suburban areas. Most of them have no place to grow their own food. If you live in an apartment or condo, there is simply no space. If you live in a house that has some kind of neighborhood rules about lawns, house colors, etc, you could not plow under your grass and turn it into a vegetable garden. So how could we return to that kind of self sufficiency?

The other significant fact here is the extraordinary costs of health care. 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago, a person would not have been presented with a bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars for cancer treatments or heart attacks. They would never have faced a medical bill that large for anything. Today even exams cost thousands of dollars for a treadmill test or scan, etc. It is not possible to return to the days of self sufficiency, given these costs. Even those of us who do have coverage are frequently denied procedures or medicines if we are part of an HMO. If you are denied co-payment by your HMO, you can buy it out of pocket, but if you have a lower income or cash flow probems that is not possible.

Government has stepped where private industry did not. There was no national highway system before the govenment built it. The FDA was created because of the unsanitary conditions of slaughterhouses and health problems in our food system when there was only private industry and no inspectors.

Our banking system was stable and working fine from the last Depression until it was deregulated in the 80s. The evidence is that getting rid of the regulations destabilized our system.

Some of my observations are not on the main point of health care, but they are related in light of the fact that some advocate that we should all just buy our own health care and private industry can handle it all.

It should be noted that neither presidential candidate is promoting a single payer system.

There is a huge gap between those who are totally destitute and those who can afford whatever they want.

I a person is working, and has an illness or accident but can not afford to pay the bill, if you make more than poverty level wages, the state won't help.

Yet if you have a hospital bill of $60 - $100,000 or more, and you don't make enough to pay it, you are in an impossible situation. Lots of people are in this boat. A $5000 tax credit won't do jack to fix this type of situation.

There seems to be an important fact overlooked in this thread, especially by those with the idealistic view that 100 years ago, taxes were much lower and the government basically did a lot less for us. Consider this. Back when our country was more rural, and most people lived on farms and in small towns, most people could raise their own food. The majority of people in this country now live in cities and suburban areas. Most of them have no place to grow their own food. If you live in an apartment or condo, there is simply no space. If you live in a house that has some kind of neighborhood rules about lawns, house colors, etc, you could not plow under your grass and turn it into a vegetable garden. So how could we return to that kind of self sufficiency? The other significant fact here is the extraordinary costs of health care. 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago, a person would not have been presented with a bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars for cancer treatments or heart attacks. They would never have faced a medical bill that large for anything. Today even exams cost thousands of dollars for a treadmill test or scan, etc. It is not possible to return to the days of self sufficiency, given these costs. Even those of us who do have coverage are frequently denied procedures or medicines if we are part of an HMO. If you are denied co-payment by your HMO, you can buy it out of pocket, but if you have a lower income or cash flow probems that is not possible. Government has stepped where private industry did not. There was no national highway system before the govenment built it. The FDA was created because of the unsanitary conditions of slaughterhouses and health problems in our food system when there was only private industry and no inspectors. Our banking system was stable and working fine from the last Depression until it was deregulated in the 80s. The evidence is that getting rid of the regulations destabilized our system. Some of my observations are not on the main point of health care, but they are related in light of the fact that some advocate that we should all just buy our own health care and private industry can handle it all. It should be noted that neither presidential candidate is promoting a single payer system. There is a huge gap between those who are totally destitute and those who can afford whatever they want. I a person is working, and has an illness or accident but can not afford to pay the bill, if you make more than poverty level wages, the state won't help. Yet if you have a hospital bill of $60 - $100,000 or more, and you don't make enough to pay it, you are in an impossible situation. Lots of people are in this boat. A $5000 tax credit won't do jack to fix this type of situation.

Amen,PanDan. (And if you are a Christian, I do apologize for using that term a little freely. Hope you are not offended).