McDonalds Threatens to Drop Insurance

[OSU Beavers]

That is the stupidest post I've ever read on this forum.

Well **** you too then!

 

[Big ole Boy]

Spoken like a true member of the "Haves"

Access to health care is a right and the ability to purchase affordable health insurance will be a right after 2014.

... the only thing I have is the ability to think .....

... and I think ... that I would rather see myself, my wife and my daughter rot and starve to death ..... and die of an easily curable sickness than to have myself in bondage to any central authority on the planet .....

...that kind of of authority belongs in the hands of an eternal realm ......

 

[The Warrior Monk]

I agree 100%. And I would add that the pharms have to much money at stake. Treating symptoms is sooo much more profitable.

As one of many examples, my ex-wife had a female issue where the doctors keep doing more and more invasive and expensive testing. After thousands of dollars of expense and weeks worth of testing, I finally insisted that she see a particular doctor, who was very well versed in western and holistic medicine. For less than the cost of the next invasive test recommended by her prior doctor, the new doctor found the source of the problem: a chromium deficiency. She was permanently cured the next day. In all probability, the western doctor wouldn't have found that cause, since they don't associate that deficiency with that problem.

 

[Mr Rex]

I highly doubt that, we, as citizens, will ever have the concerted power to make the changes that are needed. We will continue down this path, nibbling at the edges of the issues. Corporations have gotten too large and the manipulation of masses has become a proven science. That combined with our own faults will keep things basically as they are.

The biggest corporation that needs downsizing is the US Government and the sooner the better.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

... the only thing I have is the ability to think .....

... and I think ... that I would rather see myself, my wife and my daughter rot and starve to death ..... and die of an easily curable sickness than to have myself in bondage to any central authority on the planet .....

...that kind of of authority belongs in the hands of an eternal realm ......

And do you do stand-up comedy on the weekends? This is hilarious (assuming you can't be serious as the thought is ridiculous)!

Please, give us a few more riffs on the whole "bondage to any central authority" thing? That should be good for a few laughs!

 

[George Hatch]

George,

All very good issues and worthy of discussion. I don't disagree with you on most of it. Regarding Europe and Japan and their systems...the neat part is that we do have the chance to develop a system that works, economically and ethically. The process is not always pretty.

Will all due respect, and it is significant, you must feel very strongly about this subject. In all of your prior post that I have read, you always maintain such a high level. I am suprised to see you sinking to the "you guys" and "grow up" level.

I am not sure what OTHER side of the fence special interests you are referring.

For the record, I am not anti corporations. I also do not think that corporations are the be all, end all of the world. In my opinon, there is an inherant conflict between corporations and humanity. Corps are here for a very specific reason...to make money. That is all fine and dandy. Sometimes that intersects with what is best for us as humans, often, it does not.

First off and for the record I have little but contempt for the western Euros, hence my disdain for when they're held up as an example.

As for the special interests, I'm talking about dismantling the influence from both sides of the fence. So many people have singled out the insurance corporations as Public Enemy #1 with little more than lip service being paid to rein in all the other special interest groups, like the doctors who own the hospitals and labs they refer their own patients to, or the lawyers, or the government bureaucrats, or the unions, or the retirees, or the power users of medical care. Too many to count. If we're going to do one we should be prepared to do them all without regard for whose ox is getting gored.

Wanna nationalize health care? Then do it all the way. Sponsor the medical and nursing students so as to remove the risks involved in setting out in those occupations. Let them graduate with zero debt. Remove or reduce their exposure to civil litigation. Same with all the manufacturers and suppliers of medical equipment and fungibles and everyone else involved in the situation.

If you get sick and have to seek medical care under such a system you should start off recognizing that there are risks involved with getting sick and there are no guarantees.

Sure, such a system is a recipe for mediocrity. But if social justice and imposing an artificial equality on everyone is the thing then what's wrong with lowering the bar in order to extend those benefits further?

As for social justice, that's an artificial construct, too. It's easy to poll for approval of social justice, just like it's easy to poll for approval of cute little kittens. Everyone loves kittens; only an anti-social troll hates kittens. Yet, lots of people are smart enough to recognize that actually adopting and raising kittens is incompatible with their own lifestyles. Polling for who declines to own kittens does not justify characterizing the naysayers as all being trolls. Yet that's exactly the situation we have with nationalized health care. In the abstract everyone wants "free" healthcare, but lots of people recognize that the real costs of "free" to them grossly exceeds the benefits. That opinion doesn't make them a troll.


We have fixated on how to "pay" the costs without giving serious attention to "reducing" those costs. How much easier would it be to extend coverage if we could reduce the costs? A cost reduction @ 10% would enable the extension of coverage well in excess of 10% more people - at the same gross cost - because the overwhelming majority of the people who haven't been paying so far don't actually use health care services every year. It's arguable that the single most effective means of extending coverage is via the reduction in costs.

There are way too many people who believe that we can have it both ways; Cadillac care for the masses. The reality is that we can have one or the other, but probably not both. Leastwise not in the beginning.

Most people don't need the extremes that are possible under our current system. If we're really trying to act in the interests of the masses then I think we should acknowledge that fact and act accordingly.

As for health care being a right, I'd like to see the reference for that in our Constitution or the Bill of Rights. If we as a society agree that we want to do that going forward then that's great; but so far I'm not seeing much in the way of that type of consensus. The only reason the HCR bill got passed (barely) this time around is because Obama isn't Bush. If your celebrating the passage of the HCR bill then you should be sending Bush-43 a thank-you note for being a knucklehead because his follies had a lot more to do with the DNC domination of Congress than anything Pres. Obama did.

Redgardless of what should be, I believe that we are all just along for the ride. The politicians will all invariably do what their various special interest bribes pay them to do. Very few people are willing to put their own oxen into the barber's chair for a haircut.

 

[Green Hornet]

First off and for the record I have little but contempt for the western Euros, hence my disdain for when they're held up as an example.

As for the special interests, I'm talking about dismantling the influence from both sides of the fence. So many people have singled out the insurance corporations as Public Enemy #1 with little more than lip service being paid to rein in all the other special interest groups, like the doctors who own the hospitals and labs they refer their own patients to, or the lawyers, or the government bureaucrats, or the unions, or the retirees, or the power users of medical care. Too many to count. If we're going to do one we should be prepared to do them all without regard for whose ox is getting gored.

Wanna nationalize health care? Then do it all the way. Sponsor the medical and nursing students so as to remove the risks involved in setting out in those occupations. Let them graduate with zero debt. Remove or reduce their exposure to civil litigation. Same with all the manufacturers and suppliers of medical equipment and fungibles and everyone else involved in the situation.

If you get sick and have to seek medical care under such a system you should start off recognizing that there are risks involved with getting sick and there are no guarantees.

Sure, such a system is a recipe for mediocrity. But if social justice and imposing an artificial equality on everyone is the thing then what's wrong with lowering the bar in order to extend those benefits further?

As for social justice, that's an artificial construct, too. It's easy to poll for approval of social justice, just like it's easy to poll for approval of cute little kittens. Everyone loves kittens; only an anti-social troll hates kittens. Yet, lots of people are smart enough to recognize that actually adopting and raising kittens is incompatible with their own lifestyles. Polling for who declines to own kittens does not justify characterizing the naysayers as all being trolls. Yet that's exactly the situation we have with nationalized health care. In the abstract everyone wants "free" healthcare, but lots of people recognize that the real costs of "free" to them grossly exceeds the benefits. That opinion doesn't make them a troll.


We have fixated on how to "pay" the costs without giving serious attention to "reducing" those costs. How much easier would it be to extend coverage if we could reduce the costs? A cost reduction @ 10% would enable the extension of coverage well in excess of 10% more people - at the same gross cost - because the overwhelming majority of the people who haven't been paying so far don't actually use health care services every year. It's arguable that the single most effective means of extending coverage is via the reduction in costs.

There are way too many people who believe that we can have it both ways; Cadillac care for the masses. The reality is that we can have one or the other, but probably not both. Leastwise not in the beginning.

Most people don't need the extremes that are possible under our current system. If we're really trying to act in the interests of the masses then I think we should acknowledge that fact and act accordingly.

As for health care being a right, I'd like to see the reference for that in our Constitution or the Bill of Rights. If we as a society agree that we want to do that going forward then that's great; but so far I'm not seeing much in the way of that type of consensus. The only reason the HCR bill got passed (barely) this time around is because Obama isn't Bush. If your celebrating the passage of the HCR bill then you should be sending Bush-43 a thank-you note for being a knucklehead because his follies had a lot more to do with the DNC domination of Congress than anything Pres. Obama did.

Redgardless of what should be, I believe that we are all just along for the ride. The politicians will all invariably do what their various special interest bribes pay them to do. Very few people are willing to put their own oxen into the barber's chair for a haircut.

That is the common sense and insight I am used to reading from Mr. Hatch. Thank you

The preamble to the constitution does mention "promote the general Welfare" "welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD"

"Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

As with gun rights. individual vs militia and other definition discussions about the Constitution, this, also, could be used to argue the point that universal healthcare is a right.

 

[George Hatch]

"Providing for the general welfare" doesn't even come close to charging the government to provide us with nationalized health care any more than it does for the government providing us all with food and water.

Gun rights are indeed specifically mentioned with the clause "the right of the people to bear arms" in the 2nd ammendment and yet that issue STILL is not universally recognized one way or the other.

The point is that, having not previously established nationalized health care as either a human right or a constitutional right it has become a hotbutton issue amongst a divided electorate. If the electorate decides to install it at some later date then the will of the people will prevail. Short of that the ends don't justify the means.

 

[Green Hornet]

"Providing for the general welfare" doesn't even come close to charging the government to provide us with nationalized health care any more than it does for the government providing us all with food and water.

Gun rights are indeed specifically mentioned with the clause "the right of the people to bear arms" in the 2nd ammendment and yet that issue STILL is not universally recognized one way or the other.

The point is that, having not previously established nationalized health care as either a human right or a constitutional right it has become a hotbutton issue amongst a divided electorate. If the electorate decides to install it at some later date then the will of the people will prevail. Short of that the ends don't justify the means.

2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I do not have a problem with gun ownership. I do think that ownership of a weapon carries a higher level of responsibility.

For the sake of discussion, my reading of the 2nd amendment places gun ownership in the context of a well regulated militia. This was during a time when there really were no standing police and military forces and it was necessary for the citizens to be able to organize and have weapons, as part of a well regulated militia.

I think that the structure of the sentence is part of the reason that it is still discussed. It would have been much clearer if the amendment had simply said, "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." Instead, the preamble qualifies the statement and puts boundaries around the right.

Regarding health care, the definition of "welfare", which I included in the post, includes Health. I know it is a bit of a stretch, but, in my mind, so is the reading of the 2nd amendment only focusing on the second part of the sentence.

 

[Big ole Boy]

Decentralized authority

.... some kind of decentralized authority with a comedy club on each corner ...

... or ...

... a fresh start ...