the new health care?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i would be willing to give this a try. there is no way any insurance company should have the right to tell someone what they can, and cannot do

You really think that goverment run health care plan will just give doctors unlimited access to try and medical procedure they want to try? There is a reason that ins co. have restrictions on procedures and one of them is to reduce cost and if anything it might even be worse under a federal program.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You really think that goverment run health care plan will just give doctors unlimited access to try and medical procedure they want to try? There is a reason that ins co. have restrictions on procedures and one of them is to reduce cost and if anything it might even be worse under a federal program.

agreed. but what gives them the medical "expertise" to make those calls? pricing? the person making those decisions is about medically qualified as i am

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

I believe we should collectively pay for it just like we pay for defense. Some of us more so than others (progressive tax). If you want to make the argument that young adults should have a choice in whether they want participate or not I can also make similar argument with respect to whether or not I want to contribute to defense spending. This matter should not be open to choice IMO because man is inherently selfish and will always do what is best for him. Also, when this young man doesn't have 30K for a broken foot surgery who will pay for it?.

You're right, this bill should take more than 30 days but our politics is so adversarial that one must get their punches in before the round is over. If anyone truly believed Republicans would be interested in exploring the possibility of a universal heathcare solution I truly believe they would have taken their time. The Republican and lobbyist game is delay, and the Democrats game is get it passed ASAP. Personally, I would have commissioned a one year study whose goal is to do full analysis on how to best implement universal healthcare and put out a plain english and public proposal.

I am a Republican. I am not in favor of delay for the sake of delay or (as I believe you have intimated elsewhere) for retaining wealth out of greed. I am interested in gaining and retaining wealth so that (in part) I can obtain high quality care for my wife and children. While willing to make sacrifices to my personal lifestyle so that others may receive basic needs, I will not sacrifice anything I provide to my family other than outright luxuries (of which I provide few) unless it is required to address the dire, life threatening needs of those who cannot help themselves. I do not believe this position to be "selfish" - you may disagree.

While I think the defense spending v. UHC spending is not a perfect analogy, I agree that, similar to defense spending, a universal health care system can "protect" the entire society. The difference, IMO, being that spending on the armed forces bears a much more direct relationship to the constitutional requirement that the Federal government "provide for the common defense" than the funding of a UHC bears to the constitutional requirement that the Feds "promote the general welfare". I say that b/c w/out a national armed force there simply is no "common defense" whereas it is debatable that a federally funded UHC will actually improve in any signicant way the "general welfare" of society. [Yes.- We can debate the amount to spend on defense and how it is used, but under the express intent of the Constitution, the Feds must provide "defense" funding. This is simply not true of UHC.]

If a federally created UHC directly increases the welfare of ~5 - 10% of the population by providing HC coverage for those who desire it but cannot afford it BUT decreases the welfare of ~50% by increasing their costs and decreasing their quality of coverage, does it actually "promote the general welfare"?? [the 50% is a number pulled from my ass to represent people like me who can afford good coverage and pay for it but any cost increase, even minimal, will require me to choose between less good coverage or changes to my most assuredly not luxurious lifestyle]??

Clearly, you say yes it does promote the general welfare. Many others say it does not. I would suggest each has a valid, reasonable argument.

Contrary to your continual "you folk" references, I would also assert that those who disagree with your position are not necessarily acting out of personal selfishness or even direct self-interest. As one example: "It is better for society, as a whole, if the vast majority have very good health coverage even if a some 'fall between the cracks', then to lower the quality of care for all but a small minority." I don't personally ascribe to this reasoning but I understand it and can accept it as a view held by reasonable people.

[BTW -Your constant insinuation that those who don't agree with your guiding principles are all fools, acting out of selfishness, or are driven by something less than your morally pure motives is incredible (and unwarranted) intellectual and moral arrogance. To me, it appears that you have no capability for real spiritual or moral self-doubt and thus no capacity for real self-examination (Yes - on a rare occasion, you will acknowledge differing intellectual proofs or admit factaul errors. Not quite the same thing, though, as questioning your beliefs). It is why I believe you to be one of the most insufferably self-righteous individuals with whom I have ever dealt. -- Rant Over]

Further, when determining if creating a UHC system will "promote the general welfare", I would also suggest many many of all but the "truly uninsured" would say it really depends on what the actual facts are as to the numbers: Is the number of "true" uninsured 5% of the population or 10%? What impact, if any, will cost increases have on lifestyle -- (What real sacrifices will I have to make? Can I still provide for my kids supplemental education/ recreation needs? Will I have to take a long weekend at the beach instead a full week rental for my annual vacation? Can I take a vacationat all? etc.)? Is a decrease in quality of care inevitable? If inevitable, how much of decline? What will the relationship between increased costs, decreases in quality of care be and the amount of "true" uninsured be -- High cost with significant decrease in care with an extension of coverage to a small population of "true uninsureds"? OR Low cost, minimal affect to care, and an extension of coverage to a large population of "true uninsureds".

Simply put - a lot of people are willing to make sacrifices to provide for others, but, before they do, they want to make sure it is a sacrifice they can bear and that the sacrifice required bears some rationale relationship to the good being provided. Again, IMHO, this is a perfectly reasonable expectation.

And just so we are clear, I absolutely agree with you on one point: If we are going to provide UHC within the current multiple insurer framework, then mandatory participation is a must. The only way to even begin to offset the cost of insuring the "truly uninsured" is by making the "uninsured by choice" pay for the societal benefit they reap from insuring the "truly uninsured" (To me, the market benefits to having no uninsureds are similar and analogous to those resulting from the alleviation of mass poverty. A healthy society is a productive society thus benefitting all).

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

agreed. but what gives them the medical "expertise" to make those calls? pricing? the person making those decisions is about medically qualified as i am

Thats not true. Health Ins. Co. have on staff doctors that review whats been done and what the doctor is requesting. In most cases like my daughter if the her doctor can show why the plan B (the more expensive plan) is the best route to take then in most cases the ins. co. will allow them to skip plan A because in the long run it will save them money. If the doctor is lazy and just writes up a two sentence request then most of the time the Ins. co. will say no start with plan A.

I'm sure Sneed can give more details on this works. One thing to remember alot of people throw in to the mix expermental treatments which is tough to get the ins. co. to approve.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Thats not true. Health Ins. Co. have on staff doctors that review whats been done and what the doctor is requesting. In most cases like my daughter if the her doctor can show why the plan B (the more expensive plan) is the best route to take then in most cases the ins. co. will allow them to skip plan A because in the long run it will save them money. If the doctor is lazy and just writes up a two sentence request then most of the time the Ins. co. will say no start with plan A.

I'm sure Sneed can give more details on this works. One thing to remember alot of people throw in to the mix expermental treatments which is tough to get the ins. co. to approve.

Well, I just have to throw in a personal anecdote at this point:

My son was born May 8th, 1997. We had a very good BCBS employer sponsored Health Care, a caring employer, solid doctors etc. My son came 4 weeks early - unexpectedly, and had a perfect apgar for the first test, but quickly went into respiratory distress. We nearly lost him that night and several times over the next 3 weeks while he was in the NICU, the neo-natal specialist was called in made several visits and over time the medicines and treatments, and basically nature all kicked in. My son is in very good health at the age of 12, and has not even a clue of this, except what we tell him. Great story. Love US medical care.

A year later we were still disputing with Blue Cross about the neonatal fees, as they said that he was to be paid according to the fees for west of the Rockies (we lived in Colorado Springs, which is east of the Rockies, and close to Denver like Baltimore is close to Washington). The Doctor, who was the only specialist available for the period when my son needed his services charged the fees based out of his Denver practice. In the end the insurance commission sided with BCBS (my wife fought them tooth and nail) and we were stuck with major (to us at the time massive) bills. Thankfully, my company(not the govt) helped us, and we paid the fees, and in the end the system worked. The whole total was near 100,000 dollars I think, and we-with my companies help paid maybe 4-6 thousand, I don't remember the exact numbers.

That's my anecdote. I probably pull almost all of my healthcare beliefs from the interactions from those days.
No government UHC was going to help that situation, the good will and charity of my employer, the doctor's abilities, and even the insurance companies overall management all made my son's life possible. And I believe with all my heart that in Canada, Germany (this one I know, as I was told by native Germans), and other UHC countries, my son would have died that night, or up to 3 weeks later when he wasn't given the medicines he needed for the extended time. Every one draws their beliefs from something or some events, this happens to be mine.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Well, I just have to throw in a personal anecdote at this point:

My son was born May 8th, 1997. We had a very good BCBS employer sponsored Health Care, a caring employer, solid doctors etc. My son came 4 weeks early - unexpectedly, and had a perfect apgar for the first test, but quickly went into respiratory distress. We nearly lost him that night and several times over the next 3 weeks while he was in the NICU, the neo-natal specialist was called in made several visits and over time the medicines and treatments, and basically nature all kicked in. My son is in very good health at the age of 12, and has not even a clue of this, except what we tell him. Great story. Love US medical care.

A year later we were still disputing with Blue Cross about the neonatal fees, as they said that he was to be paid according to the fees for west of the Rockies (we lived in Colorado Springs, which is east of the Rockies, and close to Denver like Baltimore is close to Washington). The Doctor, who was the only specialist available for the period when my son needed his services charged the fees based out of his Denver practice. In the end the insurance commission sided with BCBS (my wife fought them tooth and nail) and we were stuck with major (to us at the time massive) bills. Thankfully, my company(not the govt) helped us, and we paid the fees, and in the end the system worked. The whole total was near 100,000 dollars I think, and we-with my companies help paid maybe 4-6 thousand, I don't remember the exact numbers.

That's my anecdote. I probably pull almost all of my healthcare beliefs from the interactions from those days.
No government UHC was going to help that situation, the good will and charity of my employer, the doctor's abilities, and even the insurance companies overall management all made my son's life possible. And I believe with all my heart that in Canada, Germany (this one I know, as I was told by native Germans), and other UHC countries, my son would have died that night, or up to 3 weeks later when he wasn't given the medicines he needed for the extended time. Every one draws their beliefs from something or some events, this happens to be mine.

god bless your son, but he might have had major issues if this were to happen today. would your employer today go above and beyond? i know for a fact mine wouldn't

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by dmek25

god bless your son, but he might have had major issues if this were to happen today. would your employer today go above and beyond? i know for a fact mine wouldn't

Actually, my employer today would also, I am sure of this. But I also don't work for a true corporate structure, moreso a small business. And, I am not quite sure what that point is, do I think there are other charities, churches, or family that would strive to help me, yes. Do I think I could ever ask a government employee to look at a situation and use charitable discretion, no.
I think if you go to a NICU, you will see so much charity and compassion at work, you will be blown away. I think of the St. Jude's foundation. I can name lots of charitable organizations striving to make a difference, the Red Cross, with their blood drive. After 9-11, the Red Cross was in Colo Springs looking to help those affected. Would I have considered asking the IRS for a little compassion or charitable moment, hell no, and they shouldn't because the government has a purpose. It is not to be in the hospital room with a grieving father, it is to protect the shores, etc. ah well, that would lead to another rant. I'm done.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by dmek25

god bless your son, but he might have had major issues if this were to happen today. would your employer today go above and beyond? i know for a fact mine wouldn't

I would also tell you to keep looking for employers who care and value their employees. I know not every one does, but I, thank God, have never worked for one like that. (maybe the military, but even the good NCO's/Officers demonstrate compassion)

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by dmek25

god bless your son, but he might have had major issues if this were to happen today. would your employer today go above and beyond? i know for a fact mine wouldn't

Has the medical field declined in the last 10years? I don't think he would have, but I am not quite sure how you mean the bolded part either.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

Joe, i long or the day that any American that is sick, or needs medical attention, can visit the doctor, and be helped. not worrying about co pays, referrals, or if the have enough money to meet their deductibles. it shouldn't matter if your rich, or poor. i know im living a pipe dream. but i see dozens at work every day, that are of retirement age, that are afraid to go, because they are worried about paying for their health care. in my book, its just not fair. to answer you, i don't know the answer. and sorry it took so long to reply. im working 3-11 this week

That health care when they retire is medicare and medicade a GOVERMENT program and cost are rising faster then private coverage but great point.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

god bless your son, but he might have had major issues if this were to happen today. would your employer today go above and beyond? i know for a fact mine wouldn't

No. Survival rates for neonates have improved drastically over the past 20 years. 20 years ago, if a baby was born 8 weeks early he/she was more likely to die than live. Now the likelihood of survival is 80%+.

[dmek25]

it seems as though your employer went above and beyond, which is great. i meant would they extend that far today? i have always worked for big time outfits. and you are always treated as a number. and they don't let you forget it, too

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I am a Republican. I am not in favor of delay for the sake of delay or (as I believe you have intimated elsewhere) for retaining wealth out of greed. I am interested in gaining and retaining wealth so that (in part) I can obtain high quality care for my wife and children. While willing to make sacrifices to my personal lifestyle so that others may receive basic needs, I will not sacrifice anything I provide to my family other than outright luxuries (of which I provide few) unless it is required to address the dire, life threatening needs of those who cannot help themselves. I do not believe this position to be "selfish" - you may disagree.

Oh jeez Joe, this whole post would be one big rant/whine fest if it weren't for the last few paragraphs. You are selfish animal Joe and so I'm I. This is the reality of our world and the nature of man. We are a "me, myself and I" creatures. There's nothing particularly wrong with being selfish and voting with your interest in mind. You're free to make decisions that are best for your family and I expect others to do the same. This is what is meant by selfish not the colloquial sense of the word.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

While I think the defense spending v. UHC spending is not a perfect analogy, I agree that, similar to defense spending, a universal health care system can "protect" the entire society. The difference, IMO, being that spending on the armed forces bears a much more direct relationship to the constitutional requirement that the Federal government "provide for the common defense" than the funding of a UHC bears to the constitutional requirement that the Feds "promote the general welfare". I say that b/c w/out a national armed force there simply is no "common defense" whereas it is debatable that a federally funded UHC will actually improve in any signicant way the "general welfare" of society. [Yes.- We can debate the amount to spend on defense and how it is used, but under the express intent of the Constitution, the Feds must provide "defense" funding. This is simply not true of UHC.]

Your opinion and discursiveness of "promote the general welfare" is duly noted. Your implicit suggestion that the subject can be debate but not really has also been noted.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

If a federally created UHC directly increases the welfare of ~5 - 10% of the population by providing HC coverage for those who desire it but cannot afford it BUT decreases the welfare of ~50% by increasing their costs and decreasing their quality of coverage, does it actually "promote the general welfare"?? [the 50% is a number pulled from my ass to represent people like me who can afford good coverage and pay for it but any cost increase, even minimal, will require me to choose between less good coverage or changes to my most assuredly not luxurious lifestyle]??

I don't deal in hypotheticals and I am well trained in the art of seeing right through fallacious arguments presenting fictitious numbers. You're at the grown up table Joe, don't swing your dangling legs - it's impolite. I will grant you that wait time will increase and I have suggested that this is a problem we'll faces with or without UHC. Note to all "you folks," the above quoted text is a perfect example of an ignorable argument each and every time.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Clearly, you say yes it does promote the general welfare. Many others say it does not. I would suggest each has a valid, reasonable argument.

Implicitly implying that the subject of general welfare is debatable but common defense is not? Perhaps you also think it's reasonable to argue against common defense?

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Contrary to your continual "you folk" references, I would also assert that those who disagree with your position are not necessarily acting out of personal selfishness or even direct self-interest. As one example: "It is better for society, as a whole, if the vast majority have very good health coverage even if a some 'fall between the cracks', then to lower the quality of care for all but a small minority." I don't personally ascribe to this reasoning but I understand it and can accept it as a view held by reasonable people.

When you say "I will not sacrifice anything I provide to my family" you're acting selfishly. Selfish is not limited to the realm of what you do for yourself. In action you are one with yourself, your family, your community, your nation, and your planet. Hearing this constant false choice and deference given to the current system is so tiresome and ignorable.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

[BTW -Your constant insinuation that those who don't agree with your guiding principles are all fools, acting out of selfishness, or are driven by something less than your morally pure motives is incredible (and unwarranted) intellectual and moral arrogance. To me, it appears that you have no capability for real spiritual or moral self-doubt and thus no capacity for real self-examination (Yes - on a rare occasion, you will acknowledge differing intellectual proofs or admit factaul errors. Not quite the same thing, though, as questioning your beliefs). It is why I believe you to be one of the most insufferably self-righteous individuals with whom I have ever dealt. -- Rant Over]

Sticks and stones may break an ordinary man's bones but I'm Superman, Robin Hood, and Genghis Khan all rolled into a single Superforce. Calaacal na ga dhaaf.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Further, when determining if UHC is an impovement of the general welfare, I would also suggest many many of all but the "truly uninsured" would say it really depends on what the actual facts are as to the numbers: Is the number of "true" uninsured 5% of the population or 10%? What impact, if any, will cost increases have on lifestyle -- (What real sacrifices will I have to make? Can I still provide for my kids supplemental education/ recreation needs? Will I have to take a long weekend at the beach instead a full week rental for my annual vacation? Can I take a vacationat all? etc.)? Is a decrease in quality of care inevitable? If inevitable, how much of decline? What will the relationship between increased costs, decreases in quality of care be and the amount of "true" uninsured be -- High cost with significant decrease in care with an extension of coverage to a small population of "true uninsureds"? OR Low cost, minimal affect to care, and an extension of coverage to a large population of "true uninsureds".

Simply put - a lot of people are willing to make sacrifices to provide for others, but, before they do, they want to make sure it is a sacrifice they can bear and that the sacrifice required bears some rationale relationship to the good being provided. Again, IMHO, this is a perfectly reasonable expectation.

And just so we are clear, I absolutely agree with you on one point: Ifwe are going to provide UHC within the current multiple insurer framework, then mandatory participation is a must. The only way to even begin to offset the cost of insuring the "truly uninsured" is by making the "uninsured by choice" pay for the societal benefit they reap from insuring the "truly uninsured" (To me, the market benefits to having no uninsureds are similar and analogous to those resulting from the alleviation of mass poverty. A healthy society is a productive society thus benefitting all).

Nice recovery. All great questions requiring answers. Of course these same questions are not limited to UHC. I'm not for single payer, I'm for covering the uninsured not by any means necessary as you make it sound but by reasonable means. There are many factors that aught to be considered but unlike you there are "many folks" who just don't care to explore the subject to begin with. I don't care for these people at all.


p.s. "You folks" membership is an open membership. You're free to join or leave as you please. You're not required to play ping-pong, swim, or box if you don't wish to do so.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Oh jeez Joe, this whole post would be one big rant/whine fest if it weren't for the last few paragraphs. You are selfish animal Joe and so I'm I. This is the reality of our world and the nature of man. We are a "me, myself and I" creatures. There's nothing particularly wrong with being selfish and voting with your interest in mind. You're free to make decisions that are best for your family and I expect others to do the same. This is what is meant by selfish not the colloquial sense of the word.

Selfish: (adj) 1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others ; 2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

Self-interest (n): 1. regard for one's own interest or advantage, esp. with disregard for others; 2. personal interest or advantage.

I disagree with you conclusion that we are "selfish" creatures. It is not our doom to be "devoted to or caring only for oneself". Perhaps it is your choice to be so, it my desire not to be so. (See my thread on selfishness and human nature - I await with interest your response to the questions posed).

"Selfish" is the word you chose and it has a specific meaning. "[V]oting with your interest in mind." is different than voting selfishly. I agree that it is appropriate to "vot[e] with my [personal interest or advantage] in mind" as, hopefully, I am in the best position to understand my own interests. It is inappropriate for me to vote selfishly and in a manner that promotes my "personal interest or advantage" "regardless of [the interests of] others[.]" You want to play with the big boys little man, say what you mean and mean what you say.

Originally Posted by saden1

Your opinion and discursiveness of "promote the general welfare" is duly noted. Your implicit suggestion that the subject can be debate but not really has also been noted.

Then let me simplify the error in your imperfect analogy that you attempt to assert as a truism. – In setting forth the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution, the express language of the Preamble explicitly states that the Federal Government must “provide for the common defense”. It is impossible for the federal government “to provide for the common defense” if it does not fund defense spending. No such express language exists for UHC. Thus, no mandate for such spending exists unless it can be determined that UHC would “promote the General Welfare.” Whether a system of UHC would, in fact, now “promote the General Welfare” is debatable. As such, whether enacting a UHC system in the US may or may not be within the origin, scope or purpose of the Constitution while defense spending most certainly is.

Originally Posted by saden1

I don't deal in hypotheticals and I am well trained in the art of seeing right through fallacious arguments presenting fictitious numbers. You're at the grown up table Joe, don't swing your dangling legs - it's impolite. I will grant you that wait time will increase and I have suggested that this is a problem we'll faces with or without UHC.

You don’t deal in hypotheticals?? You’re entire belief system is based on hypotheticals which you assert as truisms… but I digress [and before you go all kettle/pot ranty – I acknowledge that this is true of my belief system as well].

Well, despite you’re oh so extensive training, you seem unable to recognize a predicate to an argument. The numbers in the predicate question are irrelevant and used only to roughly reflect what everyone with any actual knowledge of the current health care system seems to expect as the likely effect of UHC on that system. -- But fine, I’ll try to walk you through again. Now pay attention -- and remember THIS IS NOT THE ARGUMENT but simply the predicate to it: If an action by the federal government increases the welfare of a small group of society by some degree while at the same time decreasing the welfare of a much larger group of society by a some degree, has the federal government “promoted the general welfare”? Still with me? Good. Carefully read the next paragraph in my original post. … Back yet? Okay, this next part is tricky so stay with me --- Did you notice how the following paragraph made an assertion rather than posing a question. That’s called an “argument”.

Argument (n) … 4. A statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.

The argument I assert, for which the question is predicate, is that reasonable people may disagree over whether an action that has positive effects for one portion of society but negative effects to others “promotes the general welfare”.

To be clear - I agree that, as a practical matter the ultimate answer to the predicate question turns on correctly identifying the groups affected and the actual degrees of change (which in turn requires further definitions). The fact that so many variables exist in the predicate question only reinforces the validity of the actual argument presented.

Originally Posted by saden1

Note to all "you folks," the above quoted text is a perfect example of an ignorable argument each and every time.

Next time, try actually getting to the argument before you ignore it.

Originally Posted by saden1

Implicitly implying that the subject of general welfare is debatable but common defense is not? Perhaps you also think it's reasonable to argue against common defense?

“Implicitly implying” ?? ---- Digging deep for a non-existent meaning within the statement aren’t we. I’ll give you a pass on this because you’re still working on basic concepts and your training apparently didn’t equip you to follow multi-sentence arguments.

Quick follow-up lesson: whereas my predicate question did not contain the assertion of truth being argued, your leading questions incorrectly assert that I assert (1) the general subject of general welfare is debatable but the general subject of common defense is not; and (2) Somehow I think it’s reasonable to argue against a common defense. See how my question was not an argument but yours are? Awkward and sloppy arguments, but arguments nonetheless. I guess it’s a first step.

As to (1): Providing funding for the common defense is not debatable. Providing funding for the general welfare is not debatable. What constitutes each is debatable. Given the costs, coverage and care provided by the current system and the costs, coverage and care expected to be provided by a UHC system (particularly as proposed by Obama), it is a reasonable position to hold that implementing UHC will not “promote the general welfare”.

As to (2): wow, just wow. I concede, I cannot see how this assertion is “implicitly implied” by my assertion. I mean, seriously, you got me. See, to me, this is the classic example of an ignorable argument – it is so unrelated to any point made in my assertion that, even if I could figure out your logic, I wouldn’t bother to refute it.

Originally Posted by saden1

When you say "I will not sacrifice anything I provide to my family" you're acting selfishly.

Again, sloppy, sloppy argument and English. Preliminarily, you only quote the assertion but ignore the included disclaimers. I said: “I will not sacrifice anything I provide to my family other than outright luxuries (of which I provide few) unless it is required to address the dire, life threatening needs of those who cannot help themselves”

First, there was no qualification at all on my willingness to sacrifice the few luxuries I am able to provide my family. To be clear, I am willing to sacrifice these luxuries for the needs of others if it can be shown that the need is real, my family’s sacrifice will help alleviate the need, and the sacrifice made bears some reasonable relationship to the need. Further, in terms of sacrificing things beyond mere luxuries, I made it very clear to everyone but you, apparently, that if the need is dire and those in need cannot help themselves, I will place the needs of others over the needs of my family. In each case, I made it clear that I am willing to place the interests of others over my own.

Selfish means what it means: “devoted to or caring only for oneself”. Unlike you I understand words have defined terms and I strive to use words within the context of their definitions. When I say I am unwilling to sacrifice anything I give to my family, I meant just that. I strive to give selflessly to my family always. In determining whether I will give selflessly to others, my first consideration is the needs of my wife and children. Thus, in giving selflessly to my family, and not as selflessly to others, I am not acting selfishly. I am simply prioritizing the needs of others.

Originally Posted by saden1

Selfish is not limited to the realm of what you do for yourself. In action you are one with yourself, your family, your community, your nation, and your planet.

NO. You’re just so wrong. Given your sloppy use of it, please don’t lecture me as to what English means. I am not “one” with these things. I am individual within the various corporate wholes and, as such, I am responsible for my actions within those entities. If an entity acts selfishly, I may be complicit in the entity’s selfishness but not necessarily so. If I am tirelessly working to change the selfish attitude of the corporate whole, am I selfish? By definition - No.

Originally Posted by saden1

Hearing this constant false choice and deference given to the current system is so tiresome and ignorable.

It is only a “false choice” because you disagree with the precept. As you have stated many times – you assert there is no justification for failing to cover all people. You can argue this point, but it is not, in and of itself inherently true or false. The statement I indicated seems to be held by many reasonable, good people. Because it is a choice contrary to your beliefs, however, you deem it “false”. Prove it as false. No matter how hard you argue it, however, it will always be an opionion not a fact.

Originally Posted by saden1

Sticks and stones may break an ordinary man's bones but I'm Superman, Robin Hood, and Genghis Khan all rolled into a single Superforce. Calaacal na ga dhaaf.

Hence reinforcing the quote to which you respond. Very convincing. Rag tag lama dhago ee wuxuu ku tago ayaa la tusiya.

Originally Posted by saden1

p.s. "You folks" membership is an open membership. You're free to join or leave as you please. You're not required to play ping-pong, swim, or box if you don't wish to do so.

No. It's not an open club. It a label you mockingly apply to individuals who disagree with you and is appplicable as you see fit. Ultimately, it applies to anyone who does not see the brilliance of saden and buy into his leap of faith.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Nice recovery. All great questions requiring answers. Of course these same questions are not limited to UHC. I'm not for single payer, I'm for covering the uninsured not by any means necessary as you make it sound but by reasonable means. There are many factors that aught to be considered but unlike you there are "many folks" who just don't care to explore the subject to begin with. I don't care for these people at all.

And now in the spirit of constructive dialogue rather than argument, I am going to try and make sure I understand your position and see if there is common ground with mine that can be expanded.

I agree with you as to single payer option. Taking a market that has already got market flaws and basically remove any market controls is a recipe for a decline in quality and rise in cost.

I, too, am for covering the uninsured. I just don't know if it can be done "by reasonable means".

"Reasonable" is a fudgy undefined word that means different things to different people. Again, I and my wife are willing to make sacrifices both personally and as a family, to address the needs of others who cannot help themselves. I think most on the forum would take that position. Yes, there are some truly selfish individuals who would refuse to even consider the needs of others - but, let's start from an assumption that if we could reach a consensus on "reasonable means" the vast majority of americans would be happy to fund UHC. I think its safe to say your definition of "reasonable" is much broader than mine and many others.

As to my understanding of "reasonable means", I think I have already stated that, although I am willing to bear some increased cost to address the health needs of the truly uninsured, I will not accept any decline in quality of care for my wife and children as "reasonable". I understand you believe the current system is headed for a decline in quality as it currently exists - I am not sure that is true but would be willing to defer to a Schneed call on that one (he may have already been addressed this point but, again, I just don't know). Also, if it can be demonstrated to me with a high degree of certainty that a real life saving benefit will accrue to those who cannot help themselves, then I think I could agree to some marginal decrease in the quality of care for my kids (for that one you need some damn solid proof and not merely anecdotal crap - as I would hope for all parents, the interests of my children are paramount and I will defend them to the death as they cannot do so for themselves). Also, in terms of increasing the federal deficit to create or fund UHC, I oppose it, unless it is a moderate one time expenditure, as I don't think creating a system that cannot fund itself is "reasonable".

Honestly, I am not exactly sure what you consider "reasonable means". I am not trying to pick a fight here, I am trying to understand - I think I have pretty well spelled out what I consider "reasonable". In the spirit of finding common ground, tell me the impact (in terms of cost and quality of care) you would expect me to bear as "reasonable" in return for implementation of UHC. If you have already explained your definition in this manner, please, humor me and do so again as I simply do not recall you doing so.

I also think we agree that the current system is flawed for any number of reasons. Because the flaws and their solutions are so complicated, I whole heartedly agree a commission should be created to brutally analyze the system and find creative solutions to the burgeoning health care problems.

I think we both agree that the pending legislation shouldn't go through before the recess. Maybe I am wrong on that because, while you indicated you would rather have a commission study things for a year and then issue a report (a principle I agree with), you have also indicated that you believe something/anything is better than nothing. Can you clarify - would you rather the current legislation pass without your study being done or would you be willing to call you legislator and ask him to table the current bills and commission a study.

I am afraid that the "anything/something" will result in a excerbating the ills of an already flawed infrastructure and that we, as a country, probably only have one shot at this issue b/c once something is done no one will be able to muster the political will to open it back up again. I like your idea of a study, but how to keep the fire under it and political will alive to effect real change would be a challenge. Got any suggestions?

[In order to address your anything/something immediacy goal, I wonder if there is a way to create a short term legislation while a study was conducted("Be it enacted that this bill expires in 3 years unless reenacted by two thirds majority of both houses" or something like that). Not sure it could be done given the incredible market realignment that is going to happen regardless of what legislation eventually passes.]

So, it seems to me that the main hurdle we have to clear as a preliminary matter is to define "reasonable means" in a manner that a majority will support. Also, can we agree that the current legislation should be tabled and figure out a way to get the government to focus its resources on really breaking down the current system and come up with creative solutions to fix it.

Not sure if we can reach common ground on this but I (and I imagine many others) would be willing to try IF you will agree to question your assumptions as to right/wrong and not simply dismiss ideas that don't fit within those presumptions.

And this next part is argument -- Hopefully, you can find a way to turn it into constructive dialogue: You state "unlike you there are 'many folks' who just don't care to explore the subject to begin with. I don't care for these people at all." I assert that many of the people you dismiss as not wishing to explore the subject have actually done so and run into the same wall mentioned above - but that their resolution of these roadblocks involves assumptions (as pointed out in my prior post) that run contrary to your belief system and so you dismiss them. Perhaps if you engaged in a less dismissive fashion, questioned your assumptions, and sought common ground you might actually find a creative solutions that had not appeared to you or the "many folks" you so casually dismiss.