Social (in)Security and who did what.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

But a certain basic level of health care should be a right.

That I agree with -- the question is the definition of basic. And folks get that now through the requirement that every emergency room treat people whether they have money or not.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

That I agree with -- the question is the definition of basic. And folks get that now through the requirement that every emergency room treat people whether they have money or not.

So, I take it you would exclude citizens with catastrophic diseases from "basic health care?"

Diseases such as cancer, heart disease, kidney/liver failure? Anything that costs a lot of money...?

[nevergaveitathought]

can a right be dependent on someone else?.... shouldnt a right be unalienable and not dependent on anyone elses ability to provide?


societies can and do provide social or legal conventions or some construct that legally binds others to do this or that for another (other than human compassion that compels), and perhaps there well should be, but i prefer greatly that it not be called a right and leave the word "right" for what are and should be rights. calling things by proper names informs the uninformed, can limit their overuse by stimulating thought, and can aid in changing thought patterns into more self reliance.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Diseases such as cancer, heart disease, kidney/liver failure? Anything that costs a lot of money...?

So are you going to exclude self induced diseases: e.g., cancer from smoking; heart disease from over eating; liver failure from drinking too much?

If I have to pay for your shit, I get a say in your lifestyle. IMO, that is a BIG step down a slippery slope that is worse than the problem it cures. You would think this group would be more sensitive to the lifestyle police issue.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

can a right be dependent on someone else?.... shouldnt a right be unalienable and not dependent on anyone elses ability to provide?


societies can and do provide social or legal conventions or some construct that legally binds others to do this or that for another (other than human compassion that compels), and perhaps there well should be, but i prefer greatly that it not be called a right and leave the word "right" for what are and should be rights. calling things by proper names informs the uninformed, can limit their overuse by stimulating thought, and can aid in changing thought patterns into more self reliance.

In a sense I agree...in a sense I don't. For instance, certain classes of people are protected against discrimination by law. However, it has become very common for someone to say, "I've been discriminated against" because of such and such. And they don't even belong to any protected class (say smokers).

Unfortunately, "rights" are subject to interpretation (mostly by courts). There are express rights in the Constitution. But most things we now consider rights have grown out of case law (Miranda warnings; abortion). Since "rights" are always a work in progress, it is really hard to create a list, so I think we are stuck with the present system.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

So are you going to exclude self induced diseases: e.g., cancer from smoking (just looking at your avatar...); heart disease from over eating; liver failure from drinking too much?

If I have to pay for your shit, I get a say in your lifestyle. IMO, that is a BIG step down a slippery slope that is worse than the problem it cures. You would think this group would be more sensitive to the lifestyle police issue.

For once we agree. I hate the idea of the thought police. I think, however, that how we judge people should not carry over into whether or not health issues should be treated.

For instance, I have a friend who was on dialysis until she got her organ transplant. She went through a wrenching divorce, and the stress of that caused her to lose the transplanted organ. She is again on dialysis, and on the transplant list.

I don't think she should be judged for that.

And BTW, as far as I know, the feds pick up all costs of dialysis & transplants (Medicare program, I think) b/c no insurance will...it is too expensive. I'd be curious to know your position on that.

[pjorourke]

Whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

The exception is the taxpayer. They always pay and never call the tune.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

For once we agree. I hate the idea of the thought police. I think, however, that how we judge people should not carry over into whether or not health issues should be treated.

For instance, I have a friend who was on dialysis until she got her organ transplant. She went through a wrenching divorce, and the stress of that caused her to lose the transplanted organ. She is again on dialysis, and on the transplant list.

I don't think she should be judged for that.

And BTW, as far as I know, the feds pick up all costs of dialysis & transplants (Medicare program, I think) b/c no insurance will...it is too expensive. I'd be curious to know your position on that.

I think you are hitting on the difficulties of each individual case...and PJ is leading you right to the "thoughtful" conclusion...which is, "You can't determine all of that. You either cover it, or you don't."

But I think you also have to be more realistic in your review...and step back from your individual circumstance. For instance, you state as fact that her organ loss was due to stress. Everyone knows that is supposition, not fact. Doctors are good, but they aren't that good. An evalution of every facet of her life would have to be undergone to really determine the cause of the organ loss...and even then it would still be supposition.

The public health care debate must center on "How much will we spend on public health care?" and "What will be covered?" Should we cover treatment for pancreatic cancer if the survival rate is 15%? What about when something hits a 50% survival rate? Should we spend the money on a test to determine an illness that is less than 50% likley to occur in the first place? What about 40%...or 30%...etc?

It sounds very noble to say we want to cover all these things...but for every example given for some person who might be a great person that we would all love to help...there are hundreds of examples of wasted expenditures on folks who brought it on themselves...and for illnesses that are unlikely diagnosis. So, you have to take the "good person" versus "bad person" out of the equation...and just say what you will cover out of the pot of resources we have to spend. Doing so puts the entire society on the death panel...cause we are all telling someone we are not going to even try to save them. Your friend would then not be being judged. She would either fall within the coverage window...or not. Good person or bad...it would not matter.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

You would think this group would be more sensitive to the lifestyle police issue.

You'd think. But this site and posting are mostly Southern based, a GOP strong hold. As we all know lifestyle issues are exactly wedge issue that they thrive on.

Death Panels are another good example of a wedge issue the Tea Party folks and their mantra of less government don't really make a lick of sense about. "Smaller government, but let's spend millions on grannies last three months!" Makes no sense.

Good intentions aren't enough, getting educated on the issues is critical. The first thing people from both sides need to realize is that they are going to have to give up on an issue near and dear to their heart if they want/expect the other side to do the same.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by WTF

"Smaller government, but let's spend millions on grannies last three months!" Makes no sense.

If its your money you are spending on your grannie, who cares hom much you spend. If it is mine, not so much.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by WTF

You'd think. But this site and posting are mostly Southern based, a GOP strong hold. As we all know lifestyle issues are exactly wedge issue that they thrive on.

Agree with the southern based...less in agreement of GOP stronghold...but that is just a diversionary comment...so not worth arguing. Lifestyle issues are pretty universal issues for all ends of the spectrum. The differences are the "lifestyle issues" that the right percieve as valuable...and "lifestyle issues" that the left percieve as valuable.

Originally Posted by WTF

Death Panels are another good example of a wedge issue the Tea Party folks and their mantra of less government don't really make a lick of sense about. "Smaller government, but let's spend millions on grannies last three months!" Makes no sense.

Again, "death panel" discussions are not a right (or Tea Party) issue or a left issue. The right may talk about it more...simply because it is the required outcome of a public health care system. Unless the left is proposing to pay all health care, for every human that exists, no matter the costs (Grannies included)...then how it is going to be decided who and what gets "covered" is a valid question. The left seems to just gloss over that.

Personally, I think the grannie who has spent a lifetime contributing to the "pot" that pays all the costs, has a bit more validity to ask the question about her last three months than the baby, who hasn't done "jack shit" for the "pot" for its first three months. Even so, I believe that most of the grannies (if asked) would want to allocate a much larger portion of the pot to the babies first three months than to their last three. But it is those grannies gift to society...not the babies entitlement.

Originally Posted by WTF

Good intentions aren't enough, getting educated on the issues is critical. The first thing people from both sides need to realize is that they are going to have to give up on an issue near and dear to their heart if they want/expect the other side to do the same.

Can't argue with that.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

If its your money you are spending on your grannie, who cares hom much you spend. If it is mine, not so much.

I agree. That is why the likes of Sara Palin and her Tea Party folks need to learn where the money is coming from. You can't have it both ways. Smaller government AND more government money for Granny.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

.
Again, "death panel" discussions are not a right (or Tea Party) issue or a left issue. The right may talk about it more...simply because it is the required outcome of a public health care system.

Obama nominated a guy that had a record of talking about end of life care. The right opposed him for even daring to discuss it, that is where the Death Panel chant came from, the Tea Party folks.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

.
then how it is going to be decided who and what gets "covered" is a valid question. The left seems to just gloss over that.

Yes but as a Tea backer, I will not give you a free pass. Which is it? Cut government services or give granny an unlimited health care card? That is among many issues that they make no sense on.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

.
Personally, I think the grannie who has spent a lifetime contributing to the "pot" that pays all the costs, has a bit more validity to ask the question about her last three months than the baby, who hasn't done "jack shit" for the "pot" for its first three months.

Let's take a closer look at that. First I do not agree that granny contributed by way of contributing to SS fund for the most part. My mother did not work, she volunteered and did God's work but lets get real here. Not only that her mother and father did not pay into near what they got out of SS. So from a family tree standpoint most are ahead of the curve as far as SS goes

I'll let PJ explain how from an economic standpoint a baby is worth way more to society than an elder. We might not like to hear such things and I realize that there are other things beside economic but if we are talking about budgetary concerns..... granny is indeed lucky she votes and a baby does not.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

.
. Even so, I believe that most of the grannies (if asked) would want to allocate a much larger portion of the pot to the babies first three months than to their last three. But it is those grannies gift to society...not the babies entitlement.

You'd think....but no they are crying the loudest about Death Panels. Old southern white women love them some Sara Palin.

[Rudyard K]

You keep jumping back and forth between the new health care and SS/Medicare. Guess your ADD is having trouble keeping you linear.

Cutting through all the crap though, SS and to a large extent Medicare, was sold to the public based on a “You pay in now during your productive years, and we’ll take care of you, outta what you paid in, during your declining years.” That’s the overall pitch that was put forth. And your Pappy was told that his paying in was going to take care of your Mammy too…cause at that time, that’s the way a family looked. As usual though, it is the fine print that gets you…and making a deal with the devil (aka the government) will always get you in trouble.

Miss Grannie is up in arms because 1) she and her hubby were sold that bill of goods and now you’re reneging, and 2) part of your reneging process is to bring some yokel in who wants to talk about limiting “end of life” care…and not talk about limiting all kinds of care. Put it all on the table. Let’s put the unwanted children, the obese, the smokers, the pot heads, the drunkards, the criminals, the illegals, the too lazy to work, the high risk lifestyle livers…on at least the same step of the ladder as the Grannie. When measured against the productive members of society (you know, those folks who go out and pull their oar each and every day), that old southern white woman will throw a lot more of her lagniappe on the table than the rest of ‘em. She’s been doing that all her life. But to serve her up as the first piece of fat to cut is insulting.

But the new health care really didn’t have a lot to do with Medicare…cause Medicare was really mainly for the old folks. Trying to slop the Medicare problems…which she or her hubby have been kicking money into for several decades…into the new healthcare programs is trying to pull the wool over a bunch of eyes that have been mending wool suits for more years than you’ve been wearing ‘em.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Let’s put the unwanted children, the obese, the smokers, the pot heads, the drunkards, the criminals, the illegals, the too lazy to work, the high risk lifestyle livers…on at least the same step of the ladder as the Grannie.

Lets not forget the politicians and government employees.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Lets not forget the politicians and government employees.

the unions? no wait ..their cadillac health plans were excluded from taxation