Genetics and Health Insurance

[ClakarEQ]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24403453/

Can someone explain why this would be a bad thing?
Along with that, is Ron Paul attempting to keep his name in lights? I personally don't understand any negative aspect of a law like this.

[Martrae]

He's a Constitutionalist...if it's not in the Constitution he feels the federal government shouldn't be getting involved.

[araby]

Of course they don't tell you that in the story.

[Tikker]

well, it's kind of a dumb thing to vote against

at some point, you have to examine your broad views of things, and realize not everything is cut and dried

[ClakarEQ]

well, it's kind of a dumb thing to vote against

at some point, you have to examine your broad views of things, and realize not everything is cut and dried

That was kind of my point, I realize he is a Constitutionalist but you have to ask yourself the question; "is this good for the people or not" and then look beyond your narrowed focus personal view and see a bigger picture. His seemingly inability to compromise would make it impossible for his views to gain significant traction.

I just wasn't sure if he was trying to be odd man out to somehow get his name in the paper, not that it isn't in the paper anyway, but this brought him to the front, unfortunately in a negative light.

[Martrae]

He's called Dr. No for a reason. He's been the sole dissenting vote for many many things.

[Evermore]

He's a Constitutionalist...if it's not in the Constitution he feels the federal government shouldn't be getting involved.

and he is right

[ClakarEQ]

He's a Constitutionalist...if it's not in the Constitution he feels the federal government shouldn't be getting involved.

and he is right

So, you have rights to have firearms, but you have no rights to health and hospitals.

Explain the logic there please because I'd think for most, that makes no sense.

BIG tangent . .
So yesterday McCain was here in MI, just a mile up the road from my office. Caught some of his spew on the news though regarding the bad economy here in MI and explained how his biggest priority once he is the man in charge is to re-educate the UAW workers who lost their jobs. Now the part that gets me is he goes on to say . . .

The current programs do not work, the government programs have failed the people. Who has the best education out there, well community colleges do, I would task that every community college create programs to re-educate the workers bla bla bla.

Where the fuck is that money going to come from? I hate the "not my problem" attitude of McCain, it is a "local" issue, yet damn near every state is underfunded in education.

Anyone else see the 11:00pm news last night (local MI folks that is).

[Tikker]

He's a Constitutionalist...if it's not in the Constitution he feels the federal government shouldn't be getting involved.

and he is right

that's just dumb

half of your highly prized rights weren't originally in the constitution either

[Naethyn]

He's a Constitutionalist...if it's not in the Constitution he feels the federal government shouldn't be getting involved.

and he is right

that's just dumb

half of your highly prized rights weren't originally in the constitution either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

[Tikker]

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me, or trying to disagree

it's definitely a living document which is pretty much what I was alluding to.....

[Evermore]

He's a Constitutionalist...if it's not in the Constitution he feels the federal government shouldn't be getting involved.

and he is right

that's just dumb

half of your highly prized rights weren't originally in the constitution either

Please name exactly which rights you speak of.

and it isnt dumb What is dumb is allowing a badly functioning government to try and regulate things when it cant even regulate itself correctly.

[Tikker]

put this into google


define: amendment

[ClakarEQ]

and it isnt dumb What is dumb is allowing a badly functioning government to try and regulate things when it cant even regulate itself correctly.

While I agree that our GOV can't regulate itself very well.

The question is, do you agree that everyone should have the right to health and hospitals at he same level and costs?

And don't kid yourself, private companies can't regulate themselves correctly either, so your comment doesn't hold much value.

[Arlos]

What boggles me is how few people realize that we are nowhere near a laissez-fair capitalistic system. We haven't been near that since the turn of the century. The 19th century. We as a nation saw the outcome from unregulated capitalism: monopolies and pretty much the elimination of the middle class entirely. So, laws were enacted to reign in the corporations, bolster the middle class, inhibit monopolies, etc. etc. etc. These were done in the first couple decades of the 20th century, and extended in the 30s after the Great Depression hit.

So all that time where America was at its height, the 50s, etc, the government was involved in regulating the economy and corporations. This is hardly something new here....

You honestly want to remove all the consumer protection laws and restrictions on corporations? All it's going to do is send us back to the 1890s, which is where we've been heading anyway under Bush's policies. Look at the figures for the rich vs poor and the status of the middle class now compared to the 50s or 60s. Or hell, even the 70s.

-Arlos

[Evermore]

and it isnt dumb What is dumb is allowing a badly functioning government to try and regulate things when it cant even regulate itself correctly.

While I agree that our GOV can't regulate itself very well.

The question is, do you agree that everyone should have the right to health and hospitals at he same level and costs?

And don't kid yourself, private companies can't regulate themselves correctly either, so your comment doesn't hold much value.

where does it say no one has the right to health care? the issue is financial not politial.

[ClakarEQ]

It doesn't say that anywhere and that is the problem.

Where does it say everyone has the right?

Fiscal or political makes no difference.

Do you feel that Americans should have the right to health and hospital in our own country or not?
Just like the right to bear arms.

[Evermore]

It doesn't say that anywhere and that is the problem.

Where does it say everyone has the right?

Fiscal or political makes no difference.

Do you feel that Americans should have the right to health and hospital in our own country or not?
Just like the right to bear arms.

absolutely they do, just like the right to bear arms, and fiscal and politial make ALL the difference. Especially in a capitalist society. why do you think we dont have a system in place now? because some elected thief hasnt passed a law? dont fool yourself its because its not profitable.

[ClakarEQ]

If anyone knows how to make money out of nothing, I bet our GOV can find a way LOL

I'm not aware of that amendment, can you point it out? (I'll check wiki as well)

money and health should not be used in the same breath, I suppose that is my problem. The value of your bank account should not justify your means to get medical attention. My life is worth no less than Bill Gates, but I can promise you he will get better service than I could ever dream of.

It is a service that we all should pay for because we should treat our fellow man like a man, and not an opportunity to generate money from. (ok corny line there LOL)

I do hear what you're saying though, and can appreciate it from a capitalistic perspective

[Evermore]

What is the secret of America?


There is a show on HBO i think it is called "who killed the Electric Car?" you should watch it. there are alot of things going on now that are not much different

[araby]

I don't know how far off the mark I am going to be with this post, but it's what comes to mind and so I'm gonna gopher it.

The government takes care of our military, medically and dentally. I don't know about the medical, but the dental is pretty shotty. I mean, nowhere near the standard of care. They do the least amount they can get away with because it costs less.

I don't think the government needs to interfere with health care of any kind because I don't think they have the standard of care in mind. Sure, let's take care of everyone, equally. If someone doesn't agree to that, they are definitely not looking out for humankind. I know that when I went to my podiatrist after my injury in jail, he did not give me the same care and attention that he gave the lady who walked out before me. I didn't even get a diagnosis. I was sent on my merry way, with my records being held hostage until I paid my bill.

It's a touchy subject, one I'm thinking more about lately, especially since this thread.

[Eziekial]

Just because you have the right to something, doesn't mean you have to have it, nor does it make that thing free. Clarks point about guns is an excellent example. Just because I have the right to own a $1,500 shotgun made in Italy, doesn't mean I don't have to still PAY $1,500 for that gun. The price is set by the market. Just like health-care, I think no-one should be DENIED health care but they have to pay the going rate. The sooner we understand that it's a MONETARY issue the sooner we can address the problem. Medicine in America is a monopoly regulated by the government. The sooner we open it up, the sooner the prices will go down. As prices go down, so will insurance premiums.

The problem is most people don't want to "settle" for the least expensive doctor or the simple procedure. They want the latest and greatest fix, pill, or lazer-guided precision cut 2000 removing that mole on their fat ass.

[Arlos]

How in hell is it a government regulated monopoly?

The only thing you need to be a doctor is a MD, and there are plenty of completely private institutions that give those out. About the only way the government MIGHT be involved is in setting the minimum STANDARDS necessary to get a MD, but that's about it.

30 years ago, the government regulated parts of health care, like where hospitals could get built, how many beds they could have, etc. That was back, you know, when we weren't spending 15% of our GDP on health care, and were actually, you know, getting better care. That government organization got tossed out under Reagan.

The only other way that the government is involved in health care right now is the FDA and Medicare for old people. The FDA is an absolute necessity. Look up Thalidomide if you want the classic perfect example why they're needed. Now, you could argue medicare's efficiency, but last stats I saw, it spent far less % on overhead than private insurance companies did, so you wouldn't get anywhere with that argument.

Honestly, I just think it's wrong that middle managers can be deciding who lives and who dies based on their bonus numbers. Look at recent testimony, insurance company personnel turned people down for absolutely necessary procedures, because otherwise they wouldn't have made budget numbers, and it would have effected their personal bonus amounts. It's sickening.

We are the only western 1st world nation that does not provide universal health care for all of its citizens. It is reprehensible that we do not.

-Arlos

[ClakarEQ]

Just because you have the right to something, doesn't mean you have to have it, nor does it make that thing free. Clarks point about guns is an excellent example. Just because I have the right to own a $1,500 shotgun made in Italy, doesn't mean I don't have to still PAY $1,500 for that gun. The price is set by the market. Just like health-care, I think no-one should be DENIED health care but they have to pay the going rate. The sooner we understand that it's a MONETARY issue the sooner we can address the problem. Medicine in America is a monopoly regulated by the government. The sooner we open it up, the sooner the prices will go down. As prices go down, so will insurance premiums.

The problem is most people don't want to "settle" for the least expensive doctor or the simple procedure. They want the latest and greatest fix, pill, or lazer-guided precision cut 2000 removing that mole on their fat ass.

To put you on track , you've taken my example out of the context and spun it, good spin at that, kudos . I made the right to bear arms example because it was a recent debate here that I was involved in. The question at hand is, should an American have the right to health and hospital.

If you want to compare rights and what this would be best compared with is the legal system. A homeless person gets a lawyer for free, no charge, yet a homeless man can't get a prescription that would save his life. Sure they can refuse the lawyer, just as anyone could refuse medical attention, the point here is you get legal representation for FREE, because it is your right as an American, no other reason.

Value of life != value of guns

So again the question is:
Do Americans have the right to health and hospital in our country?
The answer today is, No, you do not have that right, you only get access to it if you have money.

EDIT
as for the costs and all of that, there are few reasons it costs what it does, pharmaceutical lobbyists, their lust for money, and the ease to sue dr's.
/tangent:
Like here in MI, you can NOT sue a pharmaceutical company, period, do you think that is right? That was done by pharmaceutical lobbyists along with a republican governor. You know what that governor became, one the best known pharmaceutical lobbyists, strange how that works out, ain't it.

[Eziekial]

That's wrong. You can walk into any hospital and they will treat you.