Conservative Explanations

[Woodruff]

Finally, I agree with VOL - What was the point Woodruff? Why does a conservative need to be the one to point out the problems with the article? We hear a lot of talk on this forum about being nonpartisan and about how the conservatives on this forum use ridiculous statistics. How is this any different? This is weird coming from you Woodruff, unless I'm mistaking the intent.

You are.

Cool. Whenever you deign to, please let us know your intent.

Oh, sorry...since I replied to VOL with my intent, I didn't think I needed to again...I thought you'd see it, considering it was IN THE POST JUST BEFORE THE ONE YOU REPLIED TO HERE. Sorry about that.

So here's what I said to VOL: No, there's no reason a liberal COULDN'T...but from my experience in these fora, a liberal likely WON'T (because, my God, I can't work against my team!). Plus, conservatives would have a far more vested interest in doing so.

[Woodruff]

The Republicans weren't just playing on fear when they stated that Obamacare literally picks who lives and dies.

<laughing> Sure, they were. Aside from that, insurance companies are now doing exactly this same thing, as far as the decision-making process goes (when they're not outright rejecting claims for no reason).

People that work for a means to health should be allowed to use their means for survival. That is a right that I don't want the government taking.

I don't believe the system was ever going to require that an individual with the wealth could not get treatment on their own. Are you actually aware of that requirement and if so, could you point it out to me?

[Woodruff]

Well, I sit here shocked. For me, the claim of the 99% was THE LEAST of the claims made in that article as far as nastiness, and yet...no conservative (or anyone else) has broached those others. So I ask again...are they accurate?

Still nothing? So the conservatives (and everyone else) involved in this discussion all agree that those claims are valid then. If that's the case, then the Republicans really are the outright assholes that others are claiming they are.

[ViperOverLord]

My brother lived in Japan__ He definitely disagrees with your summary of Japanese care. He recounted that it was 6 to 10 hours of waiting just to fulfill an appointment for antibiotics for the common cold b/c it was free and everybody felt the desire/need to take full advantage.

The US military uses this type of system. I did not experience these problems on any sort of a consistent basis.

The US military has the unique incentive to keep their soldiers in peak condition and to offer quality that inspires them to re-enlist.

I know what you are talking about for sure. When I lived in TX, I had some military friends and thus access to some of the amenities and it was freaking fabulous. My uncle was in the military and he stated that he was going to miss the amazing values on food (can't remember what they called the name of the store).

Well__ I think it is possible for liberals to be honest and step up and say yea this is wrong__ that's not right. I think the liberals who stick to their philosophies rather than seeing everything as an us vs. them scenario would look at the unfairness of the article and say something. But those types of libs seem few and far in between.

I agree. The same can be said for those types of conservatives, as well.

Yes__ but not in nearly the same percentage though imo.

As for the article__ I think it goes beyond flawed logic. It's just a hit piece built upon lies to suit that group's agenda.

Well of COURSE it is. That's what I've been HOPING to be shown! And yet, I'm not seeing your refutation of the statements made.

Seemed like an exercise in futility to weary myself with that hit piece. But perhaps if the convo dulls I could visit some of the poor claims in the article.

The Republicans weren't just playing on fear when they stated that Obamacare literally picks who lives and dies.

<laughing> Sure, they were. Aside from that, insurance companies are now doing exactly this same thing, as far as the decision-making process goes (when they're not outright rejecting claims for no reason).

They most certainly were not. Efficiencies will dwindle and systems will be put in place to inhibit procedure times and decide who is worthy of procedures. We do have that to a great degree now; but at least the dollar speaks and anyone with means can get the procedure that he/she needs.

And I'm not defending the insurance companies. I think American health insurance is a scam. But replacing a scam with a bigger scam is not the solution.

People that work for a means to health should be allowed to use their means for survival. That is a right that I don't want the government taking.

I don't believe the system was ever going to require that an individual with the wealth could not get treatment on their own. Are you actually aware of that requirement and if so, could you point it out to me?

Off the top of my head__ no. But I do know that the govt. is taking a lot of control that they did not have. The more control that they take, the less medical freedom patients will have.

Well, I sit here shocked. For me, the claim of the 99% was THE LEAST of the claims made in that article as far as nastiness, and yet...no conservative (or anyone else) has broached those others. So I ask again...are they accurate?

Still nothing? So the conservatives (and everyone else) involved in this discussion all agree that those claims are valid then. If that's the case, then the Republicans really are the outright assholes that others are claiming they are.

I don't believe the 99% figure is accurate at all. I think it's a completely made-up number designed to appeal to the OWS crowd who are motivated by the 1 vs 99 concept. That is why 99 is being spouted but without any source whatsoever. It's a PR ploy devoid of ethics b/c so many Americans have no ethics and they buy these ploys.

I heard one analyst state that abortion is becoming a losing battle for Democrats so they are shifting the onus to contraception. I tend to agree. Right now, there's an erroneous campaign being waged against Republicans that they are somehow anti-contraceptive and that is what that is really about. The reality is__ they are defending religious freedom as they should and shame on the Democrats for spitting on the Constitution.

[Woodruff]

Well__ I think it is possible for liberals to be honest and step up and say yea this is wrong__ that's not right. I think the liberals who stick to their philosophies rather than seeing everything as an us vs. them scenario would look at the unfairness of the article and say something. But those types of libs seem few and far in between.

I agree. The same can be said for those types of conservatives, as well.

Yes__ but not in nearly the same percentage though imo.

But you might be biased. <smile>

People that work for a means to health should be allowed to use their means for survival. That is a right that I don't want the government taking.

I don't believe the system was ever going to require that an individual with the wealth could not get treatment on their own. Are you actually aware of that requirement and if so, could you point it out to me?

Off the top of my head__ no. But I do know that the govt. is taking a lot of control that they did not have. The more control that they take, the less medical freedom patients will have.

So your argument isn't against what the system is defined as, but rather what you fear the system will become.

[ViperOverLord]

People that work for a means to health should be allowed to use their means for survival. That is a right that I don't want the government taking.

I don't believe the system was ever going to require that an individual with the wealth could not get treatment on their own. Are you actually aware of that requirement and if so, could you point it out to me?

Off the top of my head__ no. But I do know that the govt. is taking a lot of control that they did not have. The more control that they take, the less medical freedom patients will have.

So your argument isn't against what the system is defined as, but rather what you fear the system will become.

Well one item I'm remembering now__ Is the concept of paying the govt money or facing a fine. The government has no business telling people what they should spend their money on. That is damn unconstitutional.

But yea, I feel that socialized medicine will create huge problems and inefficiencies that we do not have (as is the case in other countries). Also, since it's not really even free (the so called right) then I especially don't want to pay a bunch of glorified con artists to f*ck up the system further. How is medicare working? It's supposed to be bankrupt in about a decade. The govt has already raped us. It's like we're asking for another helping.

[PLAYER57832]

Even if 100% of women or men (by whatever parameter chosen) chose to use contraceptives, that wouldn't mean that the government could mandate that it be provided free of charge to the user. These arguments about "everyone does it" has exactly no bearing on a country that is governed by the rule of law provided by our Constitution.

Which might be why no one is voicing that argument.

And why are you STILL arguing the "it shouldn't be free" bit when that is not even part of this particular debate?

Because there is more than 1 thing wrong with the mandate. And this one just happens to expand beyond just religious organizations. Just because the major problem with this mandate is its assault on religious freedom doesn't mean there aren't other problems that affect all the other employers and organizations.

THIS rule does not mandate that birth control be free. That was set up earlier, by the judiciary. Ignoring that means you have no real interest in debating this.. you are, once again, just touting garbage in the attempt to claim it is a reason to dispute this.

And THAT is the biggest problem with this. Many of the people pushing against this have no real and true care about the Roman Catholic Church, they just want to poke holes in anything to do with healthcare coverage as if denying people access health care insurance is some great triumph of freedom.

[PLAYER57832]

If 99% of women have used contraceptives then it doesn't appear that there is any problem at all with access to contraception.

So what's the government's real angle? It's can't be to provide access since it's apparent that nearly every woman already has access.
So I ask, which of you is going to reach into your wallet and give me money so I can get condoms and get my multiple girlfriends free prescriptions for the pill. All donors PM me please. I expect every liberal to contribute from their own pocket. I don't want any babies don't ya know. So gimmee gimmee gimmeee!!!!

Women have access NOW because insurance is required to provide it, without copay. Other women get it becuase they are on Medicaid, etc. Most states, even those parsimonious with other care offer this coverage either free or at very low cost.

And you can be that this state coverage is next in line. After all, if Roman Catholics should not have to pay the pittance part of the insurance coverage that might be said to be tied to birth control, then why should they have to contribute to Medicaid, either? This is, after all, the primary argument against government subsidies for abortions.

[thegreekdog]

Finally, I agree with VOL - What was the point Woodruff? Why does a conservative need to be the one to point out the problems with the article? We hear a lot of talk on this forum about being nonpartisan and about how the conservatives on this forum use ridiculous statistics. How is this any different? This is weird coming from you Woodruff, unless I'm mistaking the intent.

You are.

Cool. Whenever you deign to, please let us know your intent.

Oh, sorry...since I replied to VOL with my intent, I didn't think I needed to again...I thought you'd see it, considering it was IN THE POST JUST BEFORE THE ONE YOU REPLIED TO HERE. Sorry about that.

So here's what I said to VOL: No, there's no reason a liberal COULDN'T...but from my experience in these fora, a liberal likely WON'T (because, my God, I can't work against my team!). Plus, conservatives would have a far more vested interest in doing so.

Ah, I obviously didn't read that one. For some reason, when threads get long (more than 2 pages), I tend to just read the posts that respond to mine.

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah, well, probably they knew that antibiotics can't treat a common cold. And it's also not free- just heavily subsidised. Your brother fed you a bit of BS. If he wanted antibiotics, and he told you it was for a common cold, likely it was a case of the clap.

That's just semantics. The point is that the system has created undue bottlenecks and a generation of hypochondriacs.

You are VERY misinformed. Japan spends most of its money on preventative care.

And, yeah, like Symmetry stated, the reason they don't leap up to give antibiotics is because most Americans WAY overuse them. I had that experience in Europe myself. My aunt had to attest that I actually had real symptoms for a few days before I would get any medication. (most virus disappear after 3 days or so on their own.. the REAL reason so many people think antibiotics and whatever else are "working").

That's the point dude. The point is not whether the doctor should be treating it. The point is a person in Japan coughs and they are at the doctor. And I'd trust my brother 100 times out of 100 times vs you. So there's no point in having that argument. He didn't f'ing lie to me when he told me about the waits.

And I have a brother dude. What the f*ck is your deal? You really couldn't think of anything better to call me out on? And I already showed you that you were wrong about vernacular as well so bringing that baggage up just makes you look foolish.

The POINT is that your brother was seeking care that the Japanese doctor knew was not needed. In Japan, see, doctors don't get paid to give out medicine. They get paid for keeping people WELL. So, they work to make sure that people only go to the doctor when they really and truly NEED it.

Like symmetry stated, your brother is lying or an idiot or both.

[PLAYER57832]

The Japanese might have longer life spans than everyone else but they don't like living in Japan very much. Japan is losing population at an alarming rate, even before their recent earthquake/nuclear/tsunami disaster. Japanese are leaving the country in droves. Having universal health care does not necessarily translate into making for a great place to live.....
Food for thought maybe.

Except their healthcare system is not why people are leaving, not even adding to it.

That is like claiming people moving from the fire-ridden mountains in California are leaving because the police are not able to control gangs in LA.

[Baron Von PWN]

lol yes they were. Longer wait times for non-time critical surgeries/treatments turns into choosing who lives and dies!!!!! Goodness you're absurd, try and have reasonable conversation and you just go all crazy. You're such a waste of time.

Source

My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.

I decided to write about what I saw. By day, I attended classes and visited patients; at night, I worked on a book. Unfortunately, statistics on Canadian health care’s weaknesses were hard to come by, and even finding people willing to criticize the system was difficult, such was the emotional support that it then enjoyed. One family friend, diagnosed with cancer, was told to wait for potentially lifesaving chemotherapy. I called to see if I could write about his plight. Worried about repercussions, he asked me to change his name. A bit later, he asked if I could change his sex in the story, and maybe his town. Finally, he asked if I could change the illness, too.

If that's the price of free and/or so-called affordable health care, I don't want it. Keep the government dumb f*ck bureaucrats as far away from my treatments as possible.

Is your problem with Canadian healthcare that you can actually see the problems at the hospital? In the US you don't see the problem at the point of care because they know they won't get it due to lack of funds. I could post stories about people in the US going bankrupt for surgery, or being denied care due to lack of funds, or people being denied coverage by insurance companies for bs reasons.

Both systems have their issues. If you're ok with people getting 0 care so that those who can get it wait less, then ok that's on you.

I like that anyone here has access regardless of pocketbook issues. I would hate it if my family members were to go bankrupt just to live or worse couldn't afford to pay for necessary care and as result were denied.

[comic boy]

Well, I sit here shocked. For me, the claim of the 99% was THE LEAST of the claims made in that article as far as nastiness, and yet...no conservative (or anyone else) has broached those others. So I ask again...are they accurate?

Still nothing? So the conservatives (and everyone else) involved in this discussion all agree that those claims are valid then. If that's the case, then the Republicans really are the outright assholes that others are claiming they are.

We have had pages of healthcare and contraception ( which is basicly a religious not political issue ) yet nothing about the claims that republican conference organisers invited a White Supremacist yet banned a moderate Gay organisation.......Amazing !

[Night Strike]

Even if 100% of women or men (by whatever parameter chosen) chose to use contraceptives, that wouldn't mean that the government could mandate that it be provided free of charge to the user. These arguments about "everyone does it" has exactly no bearing on a country that is governed by the rule of law provided by our Constitution.

Which might be why no one is voicing that argument.

And why are you STILL arguing the "it shouldn't be free" bit when that is not even part of this particular debate?

Because there is more than 1 thing wrong with the mandate. And this one just happens to expand beyond just religious organizations. Just because the major problem with this mandate is its assault on religious freedom doesn't mean there aren't other problems that affect all the other employers and organizations.

THIS rule does not mandate that birth control be free. That was set up earlier, by the judiciary. Ignoring that means you have no real interest in debating this.. you are, once again, just touting garbage in the attempt to claim it is a reason to dispute this.

And THAT is the biggest problem with this. Many of the people pushing against this have no real and true care about the Roman Catholic Church, they just want to poke holes in anything to do with healthcare coverage as if denying people access health care insurance is some great triumph of freedom.

So now the judiciary is setting up our laws and mandates? Sheesh. It's bad enough when the executive branch passes all the regulations. About 5 weeks ago, Sebelius announced that because of the healthcare law, all employers would be required to cover every contraceptive for the purpose of preventing pregnancies free of charge to the employee. First, religious organizations came out and demonstrated how this government mandate infringes on their first amendment rights and, more importantly, goes against their religious tenants. Secondly, the argument has been made that nobody should be given contraceptives free of charge. You have to pay at least a portion of every other medicine you take, so why should this one group be special and handed out for free? This part of the argument extends even beyond religious organizations because it's mandating coverage without compensation. Or ALL premiums will just go up to cover the additional mandatory expenses.

And this argument has absolutely nothing to do with "denying people access [to] health care insurance". It has 100% to do with the government arbitrarily picking and choosing which medicines are favored to be mandated for free and ultimately which ones will be denied coverage because they are too expensive. And it also expands into the government unconstitutionally infringing on the rights or religious organizations and individuals to worship as they please.

[ViperOverLord]

Is your problem with Canadian healthcare that you can actually see the problems at the hospital? In the US you don't see the problem at the point of care because they know they won't get it due to lack of funds. I could post stories about people in the US going bankrupt for surgery, or being denied care due to lack of funds, or people being denied coverage by insurance companies for bs reasons.

Both systems have their issues. If you're ok with people getting 0 care so that those who can get it wait less, then ok that's on you.

I like that anyone here has access regardless of pocketbook issues. I would hate it if my family members were to go bankrupt just to live or worse couldn't afford to pay for necessary care and as result were denied.

People keep bringing up American health care like I think it was/is great (from a cost standpoint). It wasn't/isn't. The truth is that insurance companies and the govt. got involved and created all sorts of artificial costs and priced poor people (and even the lower middle class) out of the market.

I'm for free market solutions. A patient/patron should know the costs of procedures in advance and be able to shop like they do for any other product/service. What we have now is insurance companies playing the puppet masters both in our lives and at a lobbying level and it has completely shattered what health care should be. Obamacare only takes that inefficient system to the extreme.

Take something as simple as getting penicillin. In the final analysis__ a generally healthy patient will have often paid hundreds (even thousands) of dollars by the time he/she gets that one bottle of pills.

[PLAYER57832]

And we hear horror stories from the US of A. We hear what we want to hear.

Not so much regarding the things I mentioned like timely surgeries and access to procedures like MRIs. We do need tort reform so that doctors aren't as handcuffed, but that is hardly an argument for socialized medicine.

There are 6 month to 2 year waiting lists for procedures in Canada that get performed in days (even same day) or weeks in the USA. My contention is that that is too high of a cost to pay for the so called right to universal health care. Other than that, my point is not at all to defend everything about our system.

The reason for your same day procedures is pricing out the wait list. Can't afford it? no surgery. Cuts down on wait times.

I agree, wait times for certain procedures is a problem in Canada. One I think we could stand to look south of the border for improvements. Such as allowing private clinics, while maintaining our public system. especially for non life threatening procedures, like MRIs or hip replacement surgeries. (these tend to be the things we have long wait times for, the whole system works on triage)

Yea__ Triage. Great for war. Not great for a national medical system. The Republicans weren't just playing on fear when they stated that Obamacare literally picks who lives and dies. People that work for a means to health should be allowed to use their means for survival. That is a right that I don't want the government taking.

How about an honest comparison to the US. In our area, don't even THINK about seeing anyone but the emergency department at the hospital in less than 3 days. The urgent care facility is billed as an emergency service ... costing over $85 a pop copay. (a copayment not deducted from teh 1500 per person deductable).

If you need chemotherapy, anything more than an appendectomy, you have to go 2-3 hours away.

[thegreekdog]

Well, I sit here shocked. For me, the claim of the 99% was THE LEAST of the claims made in that article as far as nastiness, and yet...no conservative (or anyone else) has broached those others. So I ask again...are they accurate?

Still nothing? So the conservatives (and everyone else) involved in this discussion all agree that those claims are valid then. If that's the case, then the Republicans really are the outright assholes that others are claiming they are.

We have had pages of healthcare and contraception ( which is basicly a religious not political issue ) yet nothing about the claims that republican conference organisers invited a White Supremacist yet banned a moderate Gay organisation.......Amazing !

Hi, I'm classified by others as a conservative.

I don't know any white supremacists. I do know some gays, but none of them are Republicans.

Do people classify you as a liberal? Would you like to discuss Robert Ayers, the birthplace of the president, the fact that two Black Panthers were not prosecuted for voter intimidation in Philadelphia, etc.?

[Woodruff]

Ah, I obviously didn't read that one. For some reason, when threads get long (more than 2 pages), I tend to just read the posts that respond to mine.

Ok, stupid question here...how do you know if a post is a response to yours without reading the post? Is there some "search for responses" thing I haven't seen? This is a serious question here...I would LOVE THIS.

[Woodruff]

Well, I sit here shocked. For me, the claim of the 99% was THE LEAST of the claims made in that article as far as nastiness, and yet...no conservative (or anyone else) has broached those others. So I ask again...are they accurate?

Still nothing? So the conservatives (and everyone else) involved in this discussion all agree that those claims are valid then. If that's the case, then the Republicans really are the outright assholes that others are claiming they are.

We have had pages of healthcare and contraception ( which is basicly a religious not political issue ) yet nothing about the claims that republican conference organisers invited a White Supremacist yet banned a moderate Gay organisation.......Amazing !

Hi, I'm classified by others as a conservative.
I don't know any white supremacists. I do know some gays, but none of them are Republicans.
Do people classify you as a liberal? Would you like to discuss Robert Ayers, the birthplace of the president, the fact that two Black Panthers were not prosecuted for voter intimidation in Philadelphia, etc.?

Is this your effort at distracting from his point? This is the only way you can see to avoid having to admit that what he says is true? I am sincerely trying to gain information here (everything I've found points to the likelihood that this is true), but you just want to obfuscate?

[Aradhus]

I do know some gays, but none of them are Republicans.

Yeah, but what self respecting gay would admit to being a republican? And what self loathing republican would admit to being gay?

Maybe you do know some gay republicans. You just don't know that you know.

[natty dread]

Is it kind of like why black people rarely are members of the KKK?

[ViperOverLord]

I do know some gays, but none of them are Republicans.

Yeah, but what self respecting gay would admit to being a republican? And what self loathing republican would admit to being gay?

Maybe you do know some gay republicans. You just don't know that you know.

That's pretty self serving, even offensive to suggest that a gay person that votes Republican is self loathing.

Is it kind of like why black people rarely are members of the KKK?

One third of gay voters voted Republican last election.

Source

[Woodruff]

One third of gay voters voted Republican last election.

It makes you wonder what they would think about the information in the OP article.

[comic boy]

Well, I sit here shocked. For me, the claim of the 99% was THE LEAST of the claims made in that article as far as nastiness, and yet...no conservative (or anyone else) has broached those others. So I ask again...are they accurate?

Still nothing? So the conservatives (and everyone else) involved in this discussion all agree that those claims are valid then. If that's the case, then the Republicans really are the outright assholes that others are claiming they are.

We have had pages of healthcare and contraception ( which is basicly a religious not political issue ) yet nothing about the claims that republican conference organisers invited a White Supremacist yet banned a moderate Gay organisation.......Amazing !

Hi, I'm classified by others as a conservative.

I don't know any white supremacists. I do know some gays, but none of them are Republicans.

Do people classify you as a liberal? Would you like to discuss Robert Ayers, the birthplace of the president, the fact that two Black Panthers were not prosecuted for voter intimidation in Philadelphia, etc.?

Greek
Im simply posting on topic , did you even read the article refered to in the OP

[thegreekdog]

Ah, I obviously didn't read that one. For some reason, when threads get long (more than 2 pages), I tend to just read the posts that respond to mine.

Ok, stupid question here...how do you know if a post is a response to yours without reading the post? Is there some "search for responses" thing I haven't seen? This is a serious question here...I would LOVE THIS.

I quickly scan posts that have stuff in quotes that say "thegreekdog wrote." Seriously, that's what I do. I bet there is a search function of some kind, but I'm not as computer savvy as most.