![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 14 of 14. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by bleauberry on March 29, 2010, at 19:46:40
...companies of millions of dollars. AT&T and Caterpillar for starters, had to take write-off charges of millions of dollars in order to cover the additional expense the health care bill put on them.
Wow.
When do I get the $2500 discount Obauma promised no less than 20 times during speeches in the last year?
How come this bill is screwing companies? I thought it was supposed to make things better?
It doesn't even kick in for 4 years (ah-hem, after Obauma is gone), but is already doing carnage. What the heck?
I heard stories in the news that people are walking into hospitals and doctors offices thinking they now have free care. Oh boy. No wonder we get the idiot politicians we got. The people voting them in don't even know what the heck about anything.
Posted by Phillipa on March 30, 2010, at 0:19:18
In reply to Health Care Bill Has Already Robbed, posted by bleauberry on March 29, 2010, at 19:46:40
For real there are signs in doc's offices saying they will no longer take medicaire patients told to me by a neighbor today. Phillipa
Posted by desolationrower on April 1, 2010, at 14:28:53
In reply to Health Care Bill Has Already Robbed, posted by bleauberry on March 29, 2010, at 19:46:40
oh, here was the post i was looking for here http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20090821/msgs/941633.html
Posted by bleauberry on April 2, 2010, at 19:22:17
In reply to Health Care Bill Has Already Robbed, posted by bleauberry on March 29, 2010, at 19:46:40
Forget all the details and fine print and political views for a moment.
Never in history in any city, state, or country across the entire planet has government controlled health care provided greater coverage or greater care than free society. Never. Look to Europe. Britain. Canada. Massachusettes. Anywhere you want. Mass is the most recent example in which you will have to hunt high and low to find anyone that has something good to say about, as dramatically witnessed by the recent election there. The people who have actually experience state controlled health care want out of it badly. And that system was the best that Americans could muster. Sounded great. Promises galore. Utopia for all. Miserable failure. Not a single person likes it. Opposite of what was expected. Now too big of a machine to change it. Can't stop a tank once it starts rolling downhill.
It has never worked before. So it amazes me that somehow someone thinks this is different, it will work this time? Yeah really? Tell me exactly, in detail, how does this plan circumvent the weaknesses of all those other attempts throughout history across the globe?
As always, these things look great on paper and sound good on the tongue. In the real world, funding them is mathematically impossible. Money eventually runs out. Cutbacks follow. Lowered quality of care is predictable based on history, previous examples, and logical deduction.
But at least everyone is covered. No matter that the coverage they all get rather sucks. At least they all suck together. Equality. Fairness.
I want someone who is pro-Obama-care to tell me exactly, in detail, how this particular state controlled health system has bypassed the falacies of all those that came prior to it.
It really boils down to this. Over 200 years ago men, women, and children died while beating off the Kings of England who had too much government control of their lives and were taxing them too highly. These men, women, and children shed their blood in order to create a country that had minimum government intervention into people's lives and to provide reasonable taxation. The current state of affairs spits on those people who died to create this awesome country you live in that you even have the choice to be pro-Obama or con-Obama. Back then, they didn't even have that choice.
Going backwards in history to repeat mistakes already made is where we are at today.
Mecicare is the best state controlled health care system Americans have ever developed in a real life experiment. I think just about everyone can see how that doesn't work. The current plan is no different, just a lot bigger in terms of size and in terms of the amount of people it will negatively impact.
Healthcare for everyone. We all want that. Who wouldn't? Better healthcare. We all want that. Who wouldn't? Cheaper healthcare. We all want that. Who wouldn't? The problem is, any government controlled provider cannot do that. Only free markets can. The methods that would have provided those results were thoroughly ignored by the pro-Obama leftists.
And that was on purpose. It was no accident. The things that would truly address problems are not desired. What is desired is continuation of problems and creation of new problems. Why? Because that provides a chaotic environment for government to step in and take over even more. Which is exactly the goal of leftists. The healthcare bill is a mere opening step in an effort in that direction.
Which will be sqaushed one way or another. As my mother always told me wisely, "The pendulum swings". The Dems were in control for decades. The Repubs were accustomed to playing second fiddle, compromising, going along with it. Then they got majority. The pendulum had swung. But they didn't know what to do with it. It was a new thing. After Reagan, they kind of got lost. That caused another pendulum swing. Demo majority. There we discovered there are no such things as moderate Dems. Their true colors of leftist liberals were unveiled. Massachusettes revolted. The pendulum is swinging again.
I say to anyone who likes high taxes and likes government to control as much as possible, get the heck out of the USA because that is not what this country is all about. You don't belong here. You belong somewhere where there are already high taxes and high government involvement. If you don't like the USA as it was created, go somewhere else.
If the healthcare is so great, then why are Obama and his staffers exempt from it? It's good enough for the stupid americans, but not good enough for them?
Posted by Willful on April 3, 2010, at 0:42:25
In reply to Re: Health Care Bill Has Already Robbed, posted by bleauberry on April 2, 2010, at 19:22:17
You say:
"I say to anyone who likes high taxes and likes government to control as much as possible, get the heck out of the USA because that is not what this country is all about. You don't belong here. You belong somewhere where there are already high taxes and high government involvement. If you don't like the USA as it was created, go somewhere else. "
but given that we LIKE the new health care system and you DON"T, wouldn't it be more logical for you to leave the country and for us to stay. (Not a suggestion, just an observation about the logic of your position.)
Willful
Posted by Sigismund on April 3, 2010, at 15:53:39
In reply to Re: Health Care Bill Has Already Robbed » bleauberry, posted by Willful on April 3, 2010, at 0:42:25
High taxation is 19/6 in the pound, as it was in Britain after the war when people decided they wanted a different society.
Socialism is only confused with liberalism in the USA.
Some Fox news thing, their contribution to enlightenment?When decisions relating to defense and bailouts can be made in a flash and yet it takes an almighty fight to give people a minimum of health care, I'm left wondering about how the USA will handle the multi-polar future. More money for weapons and liberty?
Posted by bleauberry on April 4, 2010, at 14:35:43
In reply to Re: Health Care Bill Has Already Robbed » bleauberry, posted by Willful on April 3, 2010, at 0:42:25
> You say:
>
> "I say to anyone who likes high taxes and likes government to control as much as possible, get the heck out of the USA because that is not what this country is all about. You don't belong here. You belong somewhere where there are already high taxes and high government involvement. If you don't like the USA as it was created, go somewhere else. "
>
> but given that we LIKE the new health care system and you DON"T, wouldn't it be more logical for you to leave the country and for us to stay. (Not a suggestion, just an observation about the logic of your position.)
>
>
>
> WillfulI completely understand your humorous take.
In response I would say there is no possible way you or anyone else could claim they LIKE this healthcare bill for the following reasons:
1. No one knows what's in it. New details come out daily. 2000 pages that hardly anyone understands or has read completely is a lot to fathom. Being written by leftists, you can be assured it is government-friendly and citizen-unfriendly, cloaked within a costume of utopia.
2. No one knows what it is going to personally cost them. Not a clue. Not even a rough estimate.
3. No one knows if you get to keep your doctor or choice, the frequency of visits, a short wait time, a choice of brand versus generic, or anything.
4. No one knows yet if some white coat panel is going to deny your treatment because it costs too much.It is impossible to LIKE something you don't know what's in it. All we know at this point are very general things on the surface.
It is impossible to know if you like something that hasn't even been experienced yet, something that won't even start until 4 years from now.
To like the bill, you must know more than I do. For example, you do know for a fact because you've seen it in writing and you know that in 4 years or 10 years it is still guaranteed, that:
1. It will cost less than my Blue Cross does.
2. The yearly increases will be less than my Blue Cross.
3. I can see any doctor of my choice.
4. I can see a doctor once a week, once a month, once a quarter, once a year, whatever, any schedule I want.
5. I can freely choose between brand or generic as I do now.
6. Freedoms of all kinds, in medicine, enjoyed today will either remain the same or increase, but not in any way diminish.
7. My wait time for an appointment will remain in the 2 to 4 week range as it is now.If those are true, then hey, I might change to liking this thing to.
Tell me what pages they are on. Somewhere in that 2000 pages.
My broader question still goes unanswered. Show me one example in history, a country, or a state, where government managed healthcare lived up to the rose garden promise of greater care and less cost that it promised.
Plenty of reasons to be suspicious, if not outright disliking.
Posted by bleauberry on April 4, 2010, at 14:52:23
In reply to Re: Health Care Bill Has Already Robbed, posted by Sigismund on April 3, 2010, at 15:53:39
> High taxation is 19/6 in the pound, as it was in Britain after the war when people decided they wanted a different society.
>
> Socialism is only confused with liberalism in the USA.
> Some Fox news thing, their contribution to enlightenment?
>
> When decisions relating to defense and bailouts can be made in a flash and yet it takes an almighty fight to give people a minimum of health care, I'm left wondering about how the USA will handle the multi-polar future. More money for weapons and liberty?The almighty fight for a minimum of health care...think about that. Most people have a lot more than a minimum of health care. The bill is helping a small minority of people, not the majority. That's why all the fuss. That's why all the fight. That's why so hard to pass even with a majority in the house and senate and executive branch.
Those without health care will get a minimum of health care now, better than they had, cool. The great majority will get less than what they are accustomed to. History proves that. No need for armchair quarterbacking, predictions, or opinions.
Comparing the issue to national defense doesn't seem like a logical comparison to me. Apples and oranges. When thousands of people are killed in blown up skyscraper buildings and airplanes, defense becomes an issue to not take lazily.
That said, the whole commitment to Mid East is kind of iffy in my mind. I don't think we needed to get so deeply entrenched in that whole affair in order to protect our own borders. Much cheaper effective ways to do that. Politicians of all colors and stripes have made mistakes, as humans they are bound to.
As for liberty, that does not cost money. As a matter of fact, the more money that is spent in its name, the less liberty there is. Government, get out of the way, provide basic defense and regulation for the few idiots that would tarnish the thing, and leave free people unchained to accomplish miracles. The USA has proved that is the way it works. No one has a better medical system on the entire planet, as just one example of what a free society does.
Fox News has nothing to do with my take on liberalism or socialism because I don't have Fox News. As I understand it, liberalism attempts to fix all problems with government intervention, run business with government intervention, take wealth from those that earned it and give it to those who didn't, and to limit the amount of success any individual can achieve in the name of fairness. In other words, state controlled everything with high taxes to pay for it. To me that is liberalism, is also socialism, and not exactly communism but close.
In any case, whether my perceptions are wrong or right, they all hinge on the same thing...
White coats in a government building assume to run your life and your neighbor's life better than you can whether you like it or not. That is human arrogance and folly on display.
Posted by Sigismund on April 4, 2010, at 15:27:01
In reply to Re: Health Care Bill Has Already Robbed, posted by bleauberry on April 4, 2010, at 14:52:23
>As I understand it, liberalism attempts to fix all problems with government intervention, run business with government intervention, take wealth from those that earned it and give it to those who didn't, and to limit the amount of success any individual can achieve in the name of fairness. In other words, state controlled everything with high taxes to pay for it. To me that is liberalism, is also socialism, and not exactly communism but close.
That's the American version. It's not my idea of liberalism. It's almost the reverse.
Posted by bleauberry on April 4, 2010, at 18:32:33
In reply to Re: Health Care Bill Has Already Robbed » bleauberry, posted by Sigismund on April 4, 2010, at 15:27:01
> >As I understand it, liberalism attempts to fix all problems with government intervention, run business with government intervention, take wealth from those that earned it and give it to those who didn't, and to limit the amount of success any individual can achieve in the name of fairness. In other words, state controlled everything with high taxes to pay for it. To me that is liberalism, is also socialism, and not exactly communism but close.
>
> That's the American version. It's not my idea of liberalism. It's almost the reverse.Words have different meanings in different parts of the world and in different cultures.
Where do you live?
What is your definition/description of liberalism?
Posted by Sigismund on April 4, 2010, at 19:50:27
In reply to Re: Health Care Bill Has Already Robbed » Sigismund, posted by bleauberry on April 4, 2010, at 18:32:33
Well, it's a long time since political science but I'll do my best.
Liberalism started as a reaction to the control of politics by the aristocracy and emphasised limitations on state control and (maybe?) the rule of law (but probably not democracy?) The main people are James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Michael Oakshott. Much of it was a reaction to the French Revolution and later the Russian Revolution. The idea is that the market is the best reflection of the wishes of society, with certain provisos about morality that are absent from modern day capitalism.
You live in Maine?
Where do you think I live?
You should be able to tell.
An Irishman on the plane back here had an interesting thing to say about my country. He said that half the blokes are bogans and the other half engage in a contest to be as dry as possible.
You must be able to guess by now.
Posted by bleauberry on April 6, 2010, at 17:46:10
In reply to Re: Health Care Bill Has Already Robbed » bleauberry, posted by Sigismund on April 4, 2010, at 19:50:27
Well, if liberalism where you are means limitations on state control, then that is a complete 180 degree opposite definition in USA.
Funny how the same word can mean completely opposing things depending on where you are.
Liberalism in USA means government knows best and should rule people's lives in every way. It means limited freedom. It means policies that discourage growth and discourage wealth, punishing those who achieve it. It means as many people as possible dependent on government. It means the rules apply to all the people but not to the ones in control. They are exempt and have their own set of high life standards that no one else gets, and they don't share it.
The supposed attempt is to create a utopia where all known problems are controlled. But of course, the opposite happens. Worse problems are created as a result.
The real attempt is probably a genetic craving to control someone else's life. Probably an ego thing. The more power, the better.
Posted by Sigismund on April 8, 2010, at 1:15:59
In reply to Re: Health Care Bill Has Already Robbed » Sigismund, posted by bleauberry on April 6, 2010, at 17:46:10
Conservatism
Nineteenth century Burkian conservatism was an approach to politics and to social change. It valued tradition, culture and cultural continuity. It was suspicious of anything ideological. It was not anti-change, but it did not seek to remake the world in pursuit of some ideal or theory. It was occupied instead with the management of the diverse currents and counter-currents that inevitably flow within an organism as complex as human society. Burkian conservatism was inherently broad and pluralistic in a way that progressive, ideological politics is not.
Liberalism
Nineteenth century Millsian liberalism sought to protect the individual from the persecution of society. The role of the law and of government was therefore not to impose a majority will, but to ensure the liberty of the individual. Millsian liberalism was progressive in the sense that it sought to improve the human condition, but like Burkian conservatism it did not accept the right of a person or a policy to impose radical utopian designs on society.
Liberal Conservatism
The laws, governance structures and institutions of the West have long since evolved to embody the principles of liberalism. Once liberalism itself became institutionally customary and traditional, conservatives embraced it. Liberal conservatism is associated with a range of ideas anchored in the priority given to individual libertyincluding most famously, a firm belief in free enterprise, low taxation and small government. For liberal conservatism, the citizenry is a collection of individuals, not groups.
Neo-Liberalism
Neo-liberalism is neo for a reason: it is derivative from liberalism but importantly distinct. Neo-liberalism conceives of society entirely through the lens of the market. The market therefore becomes far more than an economic concept: it becomes an organising principle for politics and society. In a market society, things obtain value only once they are commodified, because they do not have an inherent cultural or ethical value, as tradition might have had it.
Within this framework, it makes no sense to ask what should be done about the markets negative consequences. By definition, there are none. Everything from heightened inequality to environmental degradation is to be tolerated in a neo-liberal world because neo-liberalism lacks any vigorous means of critiquing its own consequences.
Neo-liberalism is a thoroughly progressive political ideology. It is above all a prescription for freedom; it promises ongoing economic growth and unending social change to create a world of perfect individual liberty. Government interference in the economy is an evil because it is the road to serfdom, not merely because it hampers economic growth.
Neo-Conservatism
Modern conservative politics is bedevilled by a philosophical inconsistency. Having unleashed the radically transformative power of the free market, the defenders of tradition have become the apologists for radical change. But rather than vacate the social realm as neo-liberalism would have them do, conservatives have attempted the opposite. In a vain attempt to restore the balance, conservatives have resorted to a new and strident brand of cultural politics that is not truly conservative but nostalgic: a pining for past social stability and coherence that is no longer feasible. In Australia this cultural politics embraces culture wars, Anzac nationalism, history wars, values talk and border protection. This modern brand of cultural politics is belligerent and rhetorically clear, but it is not ideologically consistent, because it is impossible to reconcile neo-liberalism with traditional conservatism. It is neo-conservatism, and its seminal exponent was John Howard.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2010, at 3:27:41
In reply to Re: Health Care Bill Has Already Robbed » Sigismund, posted by bleauberry on April 6, 2010, at 17:46:10
> Liberalism in USA means government knows best and should rule people's lives in every way.
Please don't exaggerate.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.