national healthcare

[shearload]

This is a reply to T-Cup's post today.  I normally read this forum using the "threaded" view, rather than the default "flat" view.  I see now that, in the "flat" view,  my response to an earlier post by North Pack appears directly below a post by TCups.  It was not intended to a reply to his post.  I will be more specific in the future.  

[North Pack]

Except to provide funding to maintain (not increasing)  necessary and on-going basic operations, - I'd be freakin' delighted to give our Congress a couple of years off. With pay of course, just NO more freakin' new laws, rules, taxes, bright ideas, - nothing - period!!!  Anything that will shut them up, and keep them "out of town".

[TCups]

Shearload:

Not to worry, sir. The context of your reply was quite clear.  

So, we right-wing political conservatives are the new, dissimilating 60's style radicals, now maliciously or deceitfully or unknowingly spreading miss-information about what is really a well intentioned, straightforward piece of legislation that is intended primarily to address widespread public grievances with our nation's current private health care system.  And by inference, if only we were more honest, better informed, less self-interested, more cool-headed and in fact willing to just take the time to read it more carefully, and just put more trust in our elected lawmaker's intentions and sound policy-making track record, then we would probably see the error in our ways and perhaps have a more favorable opinion of a state run socialized medicine system?  

Is that more or less the correct take, or do I exaggerate and agitate without sound reason?

I think not.

[TCups]

Well, in fact, you have already agreed to and guaranteed the latter payments via government pensions and medical benefits (and for life, not for a few years), without any restrictions whatsoever, whenever you elect a Senator or Congressman, I believe.

[North Pack]

TCup, - you obviously don't understand,  we're picking on their "hero & savor". Savaging Bush was A-OK, lotta fun truth be known - but don't touch the messiah. It's truly a heart breaking story, ...

[geiger]

TCups - 8/13/2009  5:03 PM

Hell, I'd respect you more if you at least clearly articulated a belief in some tangible political principle -- Socialism, or Marxism, or Communism, or whatever you perceive to be the better alternative to Capitalism, free market economy, and individual freedom and responsibility.  But Saul Alinsky had it right.  That is a debate the left will never have and can never win.

for a free market you need a totally elastic work force, perfectly informed consumers and no trusts and monopolies. this is not how it's working today.

as for what principle do i adhere to...i'm for public health (combined with the private sector, like in france), police, military, public roads, social welfare for the ones unable to work, schools, essential infrastructure,...

what i don't need is gov advertisements, public surveillance, bailouts, taxes that have no reasonable purpose (tax on uncultivated land ownership),...
this are just things that come to mind right now.

you see there is not one thing i can adhere to, i like some stuff and hate some other. do i have to be categorized in order to be credible?
i'd probably fall into some kind of libertine socialism. you see the point of taking a middle stance is that you have to constantly revision your ideas so that they are purposeful. that's why it's so hard and in my view the right way. it's alot easier sticking to one determined category and act upon those beliefs.
for example: if 40% of the population is unable to get basic health care obviously something somewhere is wrong and needs to be fixed.

i think being close to the middle way is possible, since most European countries still stand, maybe they're not as "high flying" like the US but stable is the word here. and besides even the bible recognizes some social aspects (give to the poor,...), so it's not the devil like portrayed in the USA.


edit: just recently i've read where the british gov paid 5 billion EU for new electronic ID cards, that some hacker broke into in just 12 minutes despite the official statement that they will be impenetrable. what did the gov do? they are going forward with them. because they paid so much to private firms for the whole process of making them that they don't want to go back. this is a case where the gov and private sector are screwing you. and ID cards are something that you can't just never use to spite the government that forced them upon you. so what should done in this case?

[triry]

in my own simple terms, ive got to say that although our current health care system and for that matter , our elected government in general leave much to be desired; ive seen far worse.
having travelled extensivelythroughout the world in my professional military and LE service days ,  ive seen both socialized (communist ) countries as well as socialized medicine first hand.

if anyone..............believes that our government; or any other government can reform healthcare in the manner that our current administration wants us to believe they can......then i strongly suggest that you try living in europe, canada or any other country where government healthcare is the "standard". see for your selves exactly what BO wants to do this country.

its sad enough that freedoms that we currently enjoy are quickly being buried or eroded,...sadder still that many americans choose to bury their heads in the sand and let the world pass them by.
mark my words,..............unless a strong opposition is mounted, the USA as we know it is marked for burial....

[shearload]

TCups - 8/13/2009 7:43 PM

Shearload:

Not to worry, sir. The context of your reply was quite clear.

I'm glad you appreciate context.

So, we right-wing political conservatives are the new, dissimilating 60's style radicals, now maliciously or deceitfully or unknowingly spreading miss-information about what is really a well intentioned, straightforward piece of legislation that is intended primarily to address widespread public grievances with our nation's current private health care system. And by inference, if only we were more honest, better informed, less self-interested, more cool-headed and in fact willing to just take the time to read it more carefully, and just put more trust in our elected lawmaker's intentions and sound policy-making track record, then we would probably see the error in our ways and perhaps have a more favorable opinion of a state run socialized medicine system?

Tell me about the "death panels", and how that provision came to be part of the bill. Since a conservative offered the consultation proviison in the beginning, does that mean that all conservatives are for killing off old people if they need expensive procedures? How about the TV ad we see constantly in our state, based on the same premise; health care reform will result in denial of care to old people.

The "summary" that North Pack offered for a section of one House bill is extracted, I think, from an e-mail that is circulating (both my wife and I got separate copies) that wildly distort a score or so of the bill's sections. The bill has its faults and they are significant. The e-mail list we received didn't address those faults, but instead made things up. Now the e-mail list has been quoted in this forum.

The ads, the e-mails, the screaming and chanting at town-hall meetings, all offer proponents of nationalized health care the argument that all opponents are irrational, uninformed, and anti-democratic. It offers proponents an opportunity to win an argument that they do not deserve to win. Our Blue-Dog Democratic Representative's recent statements and press releases condemn the tactics, and indicate that his support for health care reform is strengthened (Mike Ross, D-AR).

I don't know if you attend meetings in order to shout and chant, preventing anyone else from being heard. Or if you forward e-mails that exaggerate to the point of prevarication. Or argue, as others have in some forums, that the bank bailout, nationalization of automakers, nationalized health care, and Obama's Kenyan birth are all valid grounds for armed revolt. I doubt you do. Some self-styled conservatives do. I believed I was conservative until a few years ago. Somehow, conservatism was redefined, and I no longer fit the definition.

Is that more or less the correct take, or do I exaggerate and agitate without sound reason?

It is not a correct take, neither more nor less. Since I don't know the reason for the exaggeration, I don't know whether it is sound or not. I am opposed to single-payer health care, and dislike the bill that North Pack misrepresented for a lot of reasons. If you want to hear them, let me know. If not, I'll hush.

But I hate lying, and will continue to speak up when I see it.

I think not.

Then I've wasted both your and my time.

[North Pack]

Shear, I do understand and share your concern - about folks getting the truth. Back in the Stone Age, my father worked in a few campaigns, Tip O'Neill's to drop one name. Years ago, I had two "political" jobs, one with the state of Mass. - and one with Middle*_*_*_*_*_* County, - as a "thank you" for my efforts in campaigns. In a small way, I have seen how campaigns are run, - and BO is good, he really is, but he's NOT telling folks - "the rest of the story", even if you don't want to believe that. ... What he's trying to do is HUGE, - and it's going to be difficult. There WILL BE rationing, NO MATTER what is said today. ... There's NO WAY he can get this thing off the ground by saying anything about rationing, - he HAS to deny anything related to rationing, or this thing will be dead in 4.9 seconds - and he knows it. ... He wanted Tom Dashel to head this up, - things didn't work out for Tom, - lucky thing for the rest of us. Dashel is a HUGE fan of the British system - and good old Tom has stated his views on "cost effectiveness" studies. ... In health care - "clinical effectiveness & cost effectiveness" are often in conflict. ... I'm telling you, down the road there WILL BE rationing - its' unavoidable in this type of program - BO just can't run on that for obvious reasons.  BO is the type of politician that you have to learn to ignore what he says, - and watch what he does. ... His first choice on this was Tom Dashel - and that says it all.
.
UK Kidney Cancer Patients Face Toxic, Out-dated Treatments With Little Hope Of Change

ScienceDaily (Dec. 9, 2008) — Leading oncologist Professor Tim Eisen has expressed concerns that patients with advanced kidney cancer could be condemned to toxic, barely effective, 20 year-old treatments because the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is likely to rule out using all four of the new treatments it has assessed.
.

Science & Society

    * Public Health
    * Bioethics
    * Resource Shortage
.
Writing in the December issue of BJU International, Professor Eisen, from the University of Cambridge, points out that although NICE has put its findings out for consultation, its provisional decision is that sunitinib, sorafenib, temsirolimus and interferon plus bevacizumab are too costly.

A further review is due to be carried out in January 2009, but Professor Eisen fears that NICE - which advises the UK Department of Health - may confirm its provisional advice that none of these treatments should be provided by the UK's National Health Service.

"We had hoped that NICE would approve at least one of these drugs, as they represent a major breakthrough and there are no suitable alternatives for the large majority of the 4,000 or so patients who might be considered for these drugs in the UK" says Professor Eisen.

"Given that sunitinib was investigated as a first line option, it seemed most likely that it would be approved.

"Our hopes were dashed when NICE released its consultation document. It said that although the four drugs they looked at were clinically effective, they were not cost-effective.