http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090731/pl_politico/25646
Recently, a hand full of Congressional members attempted a local town hall meeting with the citizens of their repsective states. However, when hot topics such as health care reform, energy consumption taxes and stimulus packages came up the crowd began to become a bit unruley.
"Democrats, acknowledging the increasing unruliness of the town-hall style events, say the hot-button issues they are taking on have a lot to do with it." Republican Bruce Braely from Iowa said, "I think it's just the fact that we are dealing with some of the most important public policy issues in a generation". He too was confronted by angry voters regarding his stance on the new health care legislation.
So are we getting closer to the masses grabbing pitch forks and storming the castle? I will have to say, I am a bit surprised that these town halls are not controlled a bit better. I would have thought that those that spoke at them would be screened before hand.
Originally posted by whodeyyou call this "going wild"? I thought you were talking about topless women, or something more interesting. rather disappointing I have to say...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090731/pl_politico/25646
Recently, a hand full of Congressional members attempted a local town hall meeting with the citizens of their repsective states. However, when hot topics such as health care reform, energy consumption taxes and stimulus packages came up the crowd began to become a bit unruley.
"Democrats, ackn ...[text shortened]... better. I would have thought that those that spoke at them would be screened before hand.
He too was confronted by angry voters regarding his stance on the new health care legislation.
that is only natural, if politicians can't explain what exactly they're proposing then how do they expect the people to support them?
So are we getting closer to the masses grabbing pitch forks and storming the castle?
is that what you're proposing? are you an anarchist now?
Originally posted by generalissimoPerhaps the people are protesting the fact that such legislation is often time not even read in its entirety before they pass it in a partisan fashion? Of course, I am finding that this seems to happen more often that not. They pass legislation just for partisan reasons or porkulus reasons. However, when you are messing with such large amounts of the publics money and their health care and future energy consumption, the status quo begins to falter.
that is only natural, if politicians can't explain what exactly they're proposing then how do they expect the people to support them?
Originally posted by generalissimoI propose nothing, rather, I simply am observing what every one else has. I think for too long the American public have remained docile and apathetic to its governments corruption and ineptitude and its move towards an oligarcal control over them. Howeever, I think that is beginning to change. The question is, is it too late and will it be enough?
is that what you're proposing? are you an anarchist now?[/b]
A major problem is that the Dems haven't been able to agree among themselves about what they want to do. A number of ideas have been proposed, but there is not as of yet a final plan that anyone could be expected to "read". I do hope that once the Dems agree on something that they would post the bill on the internet so that EVERYONE will have a chance to read it and debate about it.
So right now there's all this uncertainty. Meanwhile, there's a lot at stake for providers, insurers, employers etc --- so we've been deluged with all sorts of ads, many of which are designed to scare people as much as possible, and none of which have any intention of providing a reasoned, balanced presentation of what's going on. Given all the scary stuff that's going around, I'm surprised things aren't worse. It's possible that the "birther" nonsense might actually be serving as a useful distraction until the Dems get their act together and can produce something concrete for us all to look at.
Originally posted by MelanerpesFor me, the situation is pretty simple. On the one hand, you can try to cover more people, which is what they plan on doing or they can improve the system for thos currently in it. At the same time, they say that the current system, is going belly up because it is costing too much. So the question begs, how can we cover more people and do it more cheaply if what we are doing now is not affordable? I suppose you could argue that there are ways to bring down costs, but I really don't buy it. Perhaps there is some truth in being able to bring costs down, and is really something they should have been focusing all along instead of who pays for it. However, the bottom line is that if you are going to bring costs down and cover more people then health care will have to be further rationed. Unfortunately for the Dems, this means rationing about 80+% of the populace while those who don't pay get coverage. This means alienating about 80% or more of the voting population. In addtion, it takes away any other plans that my come up in the future such as the state wide solution Romney came up with for his state. In short, like all other entitlement programs it will become an entrenched peice of legislation that will at some point go belly up like all other entitlement programs. Of course, you can NEVER convince those on the left of this. In fact, many of them deny that social security is going belly up. To do so would mean they must acknowledge that the religion of entitlements is flawed. After all, to question the innerancy of there entitlement beliefs would be heretical.
A major problem is that the Dems haven't been able to agree among themselves about what they want to do. A number of ideas have been proposed, but there is not as of yet a final plan that anyone could be expected to "read". I do hope that once the Dems agree on something that they would post the bill on the internet so that EVERYONE will have a chance to ms get their act together and can produce something concrete for us all to look at.
some of the things that are behind healthcare costs
1. Many new treatments are being developed every year, and the population is aging. So even if everything was at maximum efficiency, I would still expect that healthcare's share of the GDP will be rising over the next few decades.
2. The insurance industry makes a certain amount of money every year -- money that a non-profit entity would not be making. This is a major reason why the insurance industry doesn't want a "public option" -- it's very hard to compete against someone who doesn't care about whether they're going to make a "profit" every year.
3. Drug companies often hold a monopoly over a given drug - which allows them to "corner the market" and charge excessively high prices. This approach is needed (at least up to a point) so that drug companies can make money from a drug they spent a lot of time and money to develop, but it can add a lot of costs to the system and heavy burdens for those depending on those drugs
4. A lot of providers practice "defensive medicine" - making the maximum number of tests and procedures just in case someone decides to file a huge lawsuit. These extras don't really do anything to help patients.
5. Everyone these days is urged to get all sorts of tests despite showing no symptoms, just so that they can "catch something early". The problem is that these tests often catch a lot of "suspicious stuff" that would've been totally harmless -- leading to a lot of unnecessary treatments. In addition to the extra costs, these treatments may end up doing a lot more harm than good.
6. Everyone wants to get the very best possible treatments, even where much cheaper alternatives exist that would work almost as well.
7. We need to do a lot more to get people to eat better diets and be more active. Why is it that (except for orange juice commercials), almost all of the food you see advertised is so high in fat, sugar, and salt?
Originally posted by MelanerpesBut there is no time my friend. Why we don't even have time for us to even read the bill let alone talk about it.
It probably would be best to spend this year focusing on ways in which we can get all these costs down -- and take on the "universal coverage" issue at a later time
One thing is for sure and that is something will be done. Something MUST be done because medicare and medicaid are going bust. So what are the chances the government will do away with a health care entitlement to replace it? There is virtually no chance of that, the only question will be, what are going to be the details. My guess is that whatever replaces the current system will keep us afloat for a little while longer but will eventually meet the same fate as medicare/medicaid.
Originally posted by MelanerpesMilton Fredman would say that a large part of the problem is a third-party payer who has been asked to cover "routine" expenses.
some of the things that are behind healthcare costs
1. Many new treatments are being developed every year, and the population is aging. So even if everything was at maximum efficiency, I would still expect that healthcare's share of the GDP will be rising over the next few decades.
2. The insurance industry makes a certain amount of money every year almost all of the food you see advertised is so high in fat, sugar, and salt?
This is like taking out car insurance to cover regular oil-changes and tires -- things you know have to happen or will wear out.
Do an experiment -- go to your insurer and say you want coverage for all these things. See what the premium is on your 1996 Chevy Impala to keep it in top running condition with every system functioning.
The insurance model is meant to cover "accidents" where the insurer can take the time to investigate and deny your claim if it's fraudulent or you've been negligent, or it is normal wear-and-tear, etc. It was never meant to cover the predictable.
Here's the kicker: the damage is not that insurance companies WON'T cover it -- the damage is that they WILL!!! They pass on the costs, and take a healthy percentage. The bigger the cash flow, the better off they are. But in this case, the third party has little incentive to try to bargain with a doc for a better price.