Poisoned Paradigm

well, at another thread, I gave Redeemer my comment that if I was President Obama, I would issue some statement to the effect that I was taking my health care bill 'off the table', that I would appoint a bipartisan committee to discuss and study health care, and that their results would be published to the public in 30 days.

I said that was the action of a Leader, to me. Recognize that nothing is going to happen if he continues on 'his' agenda or path for health care, acknowledge that the 'other Party' and the public, even, surely do not seem real keen on the 'public option' with some of course committed to no government involvement at all, and come right out and say "Look, People, we're not going to get anything done, so let's go back and start over...together...because the cause is a necessary one for our Citizens."

I'm not sure anyone agreed with me. Someone suggested I email the suggestion to the President. I told him it had already been sent.

Reactions on the Board were minimal, but people felt it was political suicide, and/or that he 'could not' back away from one of the core items from his campaign.

I vigorously disagree with that. I said so.

Yesterday, the President reached out to the GOP.....whose Members have to date a large number that are absolutely committed to voting for NOTHING that is an initiative of this President. That's awful, should be illegal, and shows a totally un-American attitude of 'our way only, no compromise allowed'.

The President wants a TELEVISED, bipartisan discussion on health care.

I say....and every American AND Congressman should say:

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get them together, in PUBLIC, on TV.....and it will be obvious who wants to get something done, and who wishes to only be obstructionists (GOP) or who wishes to only insist on their way only with the public option (Democrats)...or whatever. Let the PEOPLE see, and watch, their process, their faces, etc.

And such a forum would require (though they won't do it) a very heavy-handed Moderator who forces them back to the issues every time a Mr. or Mrs. Gibroni Congressperson makes it political.

Here is today's article describing the initial stance of the GOP. There SHOULD be only ONE initial stance, which is "Of COURSE we will get TOGETHER to discuss this!".

Their initial reaction does not exactly show that level of cooperative DESIRE, even:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100208/ap_ ... ealth_care

I'm not sure when the Democrats would 'give up' from their initial plans, nor where there can be agreements at first, but there is a 100% chance of no success if the attitude is anywhere near 'cool' toward the idea from the GOP.

um....somewhere....there's a "United" in these States....I think. Or...at least there was.

and needs to be, of course.

Sandi

Unfortunately, Sandi, none of what's going on is about what is supposed to be a hallmark and part of the genius of the U.S. system -- compromise.

Instead it is all about what will win elections for the respective parties.

I lean towards the President's articulated views in large part, but he is not immune from the same thing as the GOP.

And, on health, the idea the anyone was going to ram 2,000 pages of leguslation only fed to the fears.

Your idea is a fiine one as was the President's for bipartisan getgogether.

The problem is the debates up to now focus on fears and not on jointly seeking any successful reform.

And it won't until people start proposing simpler clear plans rather than tearing down the perceptions of complicated unclear plans.

Republicans stand for 'no change' in health care. Democrats stand for more government involvement. I see a bipartisan effort as being simply an effort to have a 'little bit more' government involvement in health care, just not as much as a full blown public health care system.

I do not want to see 'no change' as clearly the system is broken. The Republican's basic opposition to all change would leave the broken system in place, and maybe discuss tweaking the broken system in some later decade when the Republicans are back in charge. The Democrats desire to get the government more involved, to have more regulations and bureaucrats managing the system, is in my opinion simply doing more of what broke the system in the first place.

How about this for health care reform: "Human beings are allowed to visit veterinarians for their health care."

There are virtually no regulations on veterinarians. The free market rules that health care system. If you need a vet in the middle of the night, you can get one. And the costs for health care have been coming down while the quality has been going up, just the way everything does in a free market when the government is not involved.

In all markets where the government is not involved, improving technology and other investments result in being able to do more with less, it raises quality while reducing prices. This is an immutable law of progress. It is only government, government regulations, government subsidies, government tariffs, government monopolies, government taxes, government licenses, all manners of government interference that stop this immutable law from functioning.

I do not want to see a bipartisan effort to 'do something'. Government 'doing things' is what fucks everything up. If there is to be a bipartisan effort it should be an effort to 'stop' doing things. I guess maybe Tort reform would be a good thing if they have to 'do' something. But the Democrats will oppose that because they get gigatons of money from the trial lawyer's lobby groups SO THAT they will oppose tort reform. Another thing that they could 'do' would be to force the states to eliminate their own laws restricting interstate commerce when selecting insurance programs, that being one of the few powers that the Federal government is actually 'mandated' to have by the US constitution. One of the main reasons the Federal Government exists is to see to it that the states do not pass trade barriers to commerce between the states, so that the free market can do it's job. And the states have all sorts of anti-free market 'regulations' and licenses on health care. No wonder prices go up in violation of all market logic.

A perfect case in point is the CON (Certificate of Need) laws that require any state that receives Federal funds for health care, to review and approve any major capital expenditures that private industry wishes to make in health care. So if someone wants to build a new hospital, they have to get permission from government bureaucrats. And of course those bureaucrats will be heavily lobbied and influenced by the existing hospitals because those existing hospitals don't want the extra competition. And the end result of course is to inhibit competition and reduce the supply of medical facilities. (And most politicians haven't the slightest clue why costs go up in health care, this being just 'one' example!) You do not lower costs by reducing supply and competition!

Unfortunately I do not know enough about all the details to give a specific list of all the things the government should stop doing. I do know that government 'doing things' is the cause of the mess and getting the government to 'do things' in a bipartisan fashion doesn't much help. The problem at the root is the very notion that government 'should' do things. It should not. The free market does things. The government only gets in the way.

It works for pets. It can work with humans.

Panpiper....

I disagree.

You in Canada have a completely different system, and the 'average' Canadien citizen does not seem upset and angered by the 'health care' system. Maybe my feel for the pulse of your citizenry is wrong, and I freely admit that.

Here, capitalism was permitted to do its thing....and the market set this and that. And unchecked growth and obscene profits and price-fixing and gouging and heavy Washington-lobbying and all have made our entire health care system not 'popular'.

I think I can say that about the American people. We know we are 'paying too much'. There are major inconsistencies in terms of treatments and doctors to use and such, and the cost of medicines has become so obscene that many are buying their drugs (medically needed ones) from Canada.

Taking into account Big Oil and the old days of the 'muckrakers' in this country, and Big Steel and what it was allowed to do to an entire ethnicity of people even after slavery was 'abolished' in 1865........well, Peter, though I am all for 'capitalism' and individual choice and surely saw the flaws in the old Soviet system and all, unchecked capitalism, without some sort of 'watchdog' or 'regulation', has not worked, either.

Yes, that comment that I make as a statement is arguable, of course, Panpiper. And also of course, as soon as we philosophically open the door one half a smidgen for any 'government control' in any area, we face the possibility that certain winds could blow that door wide open and we could be living under Orwell's Big Brother concept, where 'they' control everything.

But since 'they' is 'us', the Voters, in effect, until some sort of armed 'control' is sought or utilized, it seems to me there has to be some controls or watchdogs or regulators of certain 'things'.....what about the 'financial crisis'? With Regulators doing their jobs and not hushing it all because they were in bed with the banks or whatever, or their supporters were who were high in Congress and/or the White House, we would have at least ameliorated some of the effects of things, one would think.

So 'government control' can stop even the watchdogs! Or, not implement, on purpose, true and impartial watchdogs to being with....of course.

Our medical costs are out of control. Our pharmaceutical lobbies squashed the first true attempt to address 'needed changes' in 1993 as Clinton's first term began with their avowed mandate to 'reform health care'. 15 years later, the next attempt is being squashed just as effectively. Some of it is related to the 'government control' issue, yes, Panpiper....but one hell of a lot of it has to do with the fact that the same ones supporting 'pure capitalism' are the ones profiting the most from the current system.

It's not fair, nor right, that retired persons in this country should worry about medical care, or have significant portions of their life savings ripped away by emergencies....or, worse, entire life savings.

We have Social Security here. People forget that we not a purely 'non government-control' economy and society.

To be effective, Panpiper, my argument here should be buttressed by 'the details'....the areas in which our Citizens are placed in horrible or untenable or impossible situations, either for care not available or high costs, or whatever.

But I'm not going to go back to all of those issues, but the simplest ones come under the obvious categories of cost and availabiity of treatment and consistency, etc. Cost for drugs, costs because of the 'paperwork trail'......and of course, because of the malpractice concerns of doctors that drive up costs phenomenally for everyone.

We're not pure here. We need improvement. There are socialized systems in 'the free world', even, that work, witness Canada and England. So somewhere, there has to be a compromise that works here, but to deny categorically any 'piece of the solution' as coming from 'government', will not work either, in my opinion, because that's what has gotten us to the current point.

Unchecked capitalism unfortunately equates to unchecked greed for The Few. There has to be a watchdog to insure that The Few do not control The Many, as they are doing.

I am not recommending some totally socialized system....I'm just want our eyes open to pieces of all ideas that we can blend together to make something that works better than our current system that has our citizens paying a far higher percentage of their income for health care than they should....or than they can afford.

Sandi

Few of the worst points to this all.

The idea in itself has merit.

YET the way this has been handled is a fallacy, and travesty.

Instead of listening to the people, and trying for a workable solution. They just had taken the stand. We do not care what the people think or feel on this.
(Yet umm you are supposed to be working for and representing them, not dictating to them.)

Things had been presented and done in a way. To spite a political party, and in the way they handled things both in the open, towards Dec. and in the games played.
It became more, we RULE now, have the power and are going to RAM this down your throat. Here is the bill pay it, and shut up.
All the while the free spending across the board, more like alcholics on a binge, with a found wallet, full of cash.
This administartion at the start, had the chance to make some serious starts at changes.
Yet they have focused energy on making threats, and bullying another party, because they can.
Basically romping around like a bunch of college freshmen on a road trip.
The outcry from WE the people saying for the most part NO not this way. While they just tried to pretend not to hear, and to as a last ditch effort to force it. Make individual deals.
WE know your constituants do NOT want this. So let's pimp them out.
What PET project or issue can we deal with for you. To get you to join the club??

I am so sick of the us versus them, mentality our government has become. It is no longer about serving the people. It is more reflective of the diversion of the country, more akin to the civil war. Than we realize.

We no longer have statesmen ... we have shyster lawyers, back street slicksters.
THE founding fathers did NOT get along, did NOT see eye to eye. Fact some of them hated one anotherwith a passion.
YET they had to work together to make something that would stand the test of time. TO STAND TOGETHER or fall together.
THEY DID IT. the men today are no more intelligent then these men.
YET they whine we do not like the consitution it stops us from doing what we want to do. (THIS MEANS it is either illegal, unethical or simply against what they should be doing.)
PART of the presidential acceptance speech is to uphold and defend the constitution of the United states.
THIS Protects us, from such men, as we have today. From being able to just say. WE WANT more of your money, to play with. We will pass this and make it legal for medical insurance to charge you anything they please. (We hope they will make it cheaper for all of you, but we all know they will not, set up this way.)
YOU will just have to deal with it, and the other party can stew on it because we SHOVED it down their throats, and proved we are superior, in numbers.
With all of us caught in the crossfire.
It is maybe for a good idea.. yet the way things handled terrible.
I think everyone of these that happily voted for it, REp or DEm while their voters called and said no do not do this polls said, not this way please. Should all happliy get VOTED out as soon as possibe I do not care how long they have benen in office. THEY decide not to listen to the people. They should lose their jobs, just like we have to worry about, while they sit and try to pass things in this way.
This has been thug polotics at it's best.
Storm