I guess if 600,000 Americans died in a war over whether or not slavery should be allowed to persist as an American Institution, I should not be surprised that a small number of Pleistocene pachyderms want to destroy our economy because they want health care to remain a institution for the wealthy, healthy, and those in the government belfry.
Also, its not surprising because as a friend on the post string reminded me that there is only one person in this fight that has no re-election concerns and can therefore do what he/she thinks is best for all Americans--who could that be? The rest usually act based on fear of losing their jobs--which hopefully will be the case anyway.
Comment 1: Loren M. Lambert - My good friend who has been selling millions of dollars of medical supplies over several decades verified what you don't understand and that is for the last 40 or more years, we have been paying for the honestly destitute, the broken destitute and the maliciously destitutes' medical care. That gets nowhere in your thinking process for some reason. Let me again explain it--if not for profit hospitals must provide care for all that come to their doors, it has to pass the expenses on to you and me--in fact it had been passing the expense on to me in triples--that is because while I am healthier than 90% of the population, I take care of myself and I suspect better than you do (I know, them's are fighting words but I probably do and I'm thrilled your making a run at it--keep going–you’re a great person. For more fighting words I suspect I take better care of myself than a few of the other tubby contributors that post--and don't take it personally guys, when I lived in Spain, it was something that people talked about freely and didn't take it personally and, as the saying goes I have lots of good tubby friend--back to biz). Why? because I had a dreaded pre-existing condition and after two years of looking could only get catastrophic, crappy insurance (that was in 1995), with three times the premium and paying full price at the doctors office and hospital. So what does government do well? Create rules for an even playing field. We're all in the game now and there is no other way to do it because health care has "none-elastic demand." You, Russell Josephson, Walter Platz never seem to acknowledge that nor understand it. Do you really know what it means? Do you have any clue as to why that could be a problem? So yes, I do believe my admittedly over-simplistic sound bite encapsulates and summarizes the truth--because the more complex details are irrelevant when you are a human being with a child of god in your family who has a catastrophic or chronic illness--all such people want is to have access like everyone else and to pay for it like everyone else--through a premium that spreads the risk among all the insured--just what insurance is suppose to do.
Comment 2: Loren M. Lambert - Let me respond to your “summary.”
1. Q: "We both want affordable health care for everyone."
A: Yes.
However, you think at some point in time charity has gotten "everyone" affordable health care? If you believe that you are mistaken. At no time in history except in small communities who’s health care consisted of a comforting hand and maybe some voodoo magic or bloodletting, has everyone had access to health care. Even in our own country there are millions without such access. While I encourage favor and participate in “good old-fashion Christian charity” it is simply without precedent to believe that it ever has or ever can give everyone access to health care. We’re not dealing with Sunday school lessons about the City of Enoch nor is there any perfect heaven on earth, we are dealing with reality.
2. Q: “You see the government as the only vehicle to achieve that, and you don't have a problem if the govt. takes from the rich and gives to the poor, or forces people against their will to participate in your plan, nor do you seem to care how much it costs, or whether or not the government will have to ration care, and or limit freedoms to somewhat control costs.”
A: This is an emotive, hyperbolic, extreme strawman argument and run on sentence.
I do not see the government is the only vehicle to achieve this goal. I don’t believe in taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I care about costs. I care about freedom and don’t like rationing any more than you do. Private industry could achieve it, but they have refused to do so. This is due to greed and this is due a product that has inelastic demand but again you don’t understand what that is and how it distorts the delivery of healthcare.
What is really at issue here is somewhere along the line you have gotten so bent out of shape and so sideways with the government regarding taxes that you don’t understand that in any great democracy there will be honest differences of opinion regarding what services should be specifically provided by the government. Every person I’ve ever known who has refused to pay taxes and got sideways with the government always have had some holier than thou excuse for why they should not have to pay them and other people should pay. And, no, I don’t like paying taxes, I don’t always like contributing to charity but I do so because I know it is important for civilized society and sometimes even a little bit of heart shines through. There is and always should be tension regarding taxes and whether or not they should be for a war like Iraq, a national space exploration program, farm subsidies, old age pension Social Security, or establishing rules for health insurance companies which require access for all Americans.
3. Q: “For you forced equal outcomes (at least for the masses....not the elite of course) is more important than personal liberty.”
A: Again this is an extreme overblown hyperbolic strawman argument. It merely tells me that you really have nothing to add to the conversation. I do not believe in “forced equal outcomes.” I believe in balance. Providing good educations does not force equal outcomes, it allows access to the means to a meritocracy. Where the children of the poor, middle class, and the rich (if they so choose) can pursue whatever dream they choose by just taking advantage of the opportunity. Providing access to health care does not force equal outcomes, it merely allows citizens a foundation to stand upon so that they can be in their best health to contribute to society. Rather than spew like a catatonic automaton the same old stuff why don’t you talk specifically about what you don’t like about Obama/ACA instead of dripping with vitriolic against those who you oppose?
4. Q: “I believe that more freedom, the free market, the absence of socialist programs, more personal responsibility, more self-reliance, and good old fashion Christian charity when needed, is the only way to achieve that goal.”
A: There’s nothing wrong with such a belief. It is consistent with my own values and beliefs. Unfortunately, unlike you where you may have perhaps lived in nirvanic blessed societies, my study of history, my experience in life, and the experiences of others that I have met in my life, have shown me that “good old fashion Christian charity,” has never been fashionable enough to meet the needs of a vast numbers of human beings. There just aren’t enough “Christians” to go around.
I urge you to be as smart as Steve Simms and come up with some real information to support your ideas instead of expecting everyone to just take it as a matter of faith.
Loren M. Lambert © October 9, 2013
Also, its not surprising because as a friend on the post string reminded me that there is only one person in this fight that has no re-election concerns and can therefore do what he/she thinks is best for all Americans--who could that be? The rest usually act based on fear of losing their jobs--which hopefully will be the case anyway.
Comment 1: Loren M. Lambert - My good friend who has been selling millions of dollars of medical supplies over several decades verified what you don't understand and that is for the last 40 or more years, we have been paying for the honestly destitute, the broken destitute and the maliciously destitutes' medical care. That gets nowhere in your thinking process for some reason. Let me again explain it--if not for profit hospitals must provide care for all that come to their doors, it has to pass the expenses on to you and me--in fact it had been passing the expense on to me in triples--that is because while I am healthier than 90% of the population, I take care of myself and I suspect better than you do (I know, them's are fighting words but I probably do and I'm thrilled your making a run at it--keep going–you’re a great person. For more fighting words I suspect I take better care of myself than a few of the other tubby contributors that post--and don't take it personally guys, when I lived in Spain, it was something that people talked about freely and didn't take it personally and, as the saying goes I have lots of good tubby friend--back to biz). Why? because I had a dreaded pre-existing condition and after two years of looking could only get catastrophic, crappy insurance (that was in 1995), with three times the premium and paying full price at the doctors office and hospital. So what does government do well? Create rules for an even playing field. We're all in the game now and there is no other way to do it because health care has "none-elastic demand." You, Russell Josephson, Walter Platz never seem to acknowledge that nor understand it. Do you really know what it means? Do you have any clue as to why that could be a problem? So yes, I do believe my admittedly over-simplistic sound bite encapsulates and summarizes the truth--because the more complex details are irrelevant when you are a human being with a child of god in your family who has a catastrophic or chronic illness--all such people want is to have access like everyone else and to pay for it like everyone else--through a premium that spreads the risk among all the insured--just what insurance is suppose to do.
Comment 2: Loren M. Lambert - Let me respond to your “summary.”
1. Q: "We both want affordable health care for everyone."
A: Yes.
However, you think at some point in time charity has gotten "everyone" affordable health care? If you believe that you are mistaken. At no time in history except in small communities who’s health care consisted of a comforting hand and maybe some voodoo magic or bloodletting, has everyone had access to health care. Even in our own country there are millions without such access. While I encourage favor and participate in “good old-fashion Christian charity” it is simply without precedent to believe that it ever has or ever can give everyone access to health care. We’re not dealing with Sunday school lessons about the City of Enoch nor is there any perfect heaven on earth, we are dealing with reality.
2. Q: “You see the government as the only vehicle to achieve that, and you don't have a problem if the govt. takes from the rich and gives to the poor, or forces people against their will to participate in your plan, nor do you seem to care how much it costs, or whether or not the government will have to ration care, and or limit freedoms to somewhat control costs.”
A: This is an emotive, hyperbolic, extreme strawman argument and run on sentence.
I do not see the government is the only vehicle to achieve this goal. I don’t believe in taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I care about costs. I care about freedom and don’t like rationing any more than you do. Private industry could achieve it, but they have refused to do so. This is due to greed and this is due a product that has inelastic demand but again you don’t understand what that is and how it distorts the delivery of healthcare.
What is really at issue here is somewhere along the line you have gotten so bent out of shape and so sideways with the government regarding taxes that you don’t understand that in any great democracy there will be honest differences of opinion regarding what services should be specifically provided by the government. Every person I’ve ever known who has refused to pay taxes and got sideways with the government always have had some holier than thou excuse for why they should not have to pay them and other people should pay. And, no, I don’t like paying taxes, I don’t always like contributing to charity but I do so because I know it is important for civilized society and sometimes even a little bit of heart shines through. There is and always should be tension regarding taxes and whether or not they should be for a war like Iraq, a national space exploration program, farm subsidies, old age pension Social Security, or establishing rules for health insurance companies which require access for all Americans.
3. Q: “For you forced equal outcomes (at least for the masses....not the elite of course) is more important than personal liberty.”
A: Again this is an extreme overblown hyperbolic strawman argument. It merely tells me that you really have nothing to add to the conversation. I do not believe in “forced equal outcomes.” I believe in balance. Providing good educations does not force equal outcomes, it allows access to the means to a meritocracy. Where the children of the poor, middle class, and the rich (if they so choose) can pursue whatever dream they choose by just taking advantage of the opportunity. Providing access to health care does not force equal outcomes, it merely allows citizens a foundation to stand upon so that they can be in their best health to contribute to society. Rather than spew like a catatonic automaton the same old stuff why don’t you talk specifically about what you don’t like about Obama/ACA instead of dripping with vitriolic against those who you oppose?
4. Q: “I believe that more freedom, the free market, the absence of socialist programs, more personal responsibility, more self-reliance, and good old fashion Christian charity when needed, is the only way to achieve that goal.”
A: There’s nothing wrong with such a belief. It is consistent with my own values and beliefs. Unfortunately, unlike you where you may have perhaps lived in nirvanic blessed societies, my study of history, my experience in life, and the experiences of others that I have met in my life, have shown me that “good old fashion Christian charity,” has never been fashionable enough to meet the needs of a vast numbers of human beings. There just aren’t enough “Christians” to go around.
I urge you to be as smart as Steve Simms and come up with some real information to support your ideas instead of expecting everyone to just take it as a matter of faith.
Loren M. Lambert © October 9, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment