Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The Right criticizing the Right....
Author Message
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #1
 
I heard on the news today that the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute are officially rebuking the GOP for out-of-this-world spending, thus increasing the U.S. federal debt more than any other administration in our history.

The GOP holds majority positions in the House and Senate, have more GOP judges on the Supreme Court and the Chief Exec. is of the GOP breed. All of these people (with exeption of the justices, who were appointed) ran on the platform to reduce federal spending and to decrease the national debt. What they have given the American people is the exact opposite--more spending and more debt, all in the name of a counter-terrorism and nation-building--two other aspects to the GOP that most of their elected officials held disdain for prior to their election.

Last night I heard of a contingent of Republican senators and congressmen gearing up for a no-holds-barred fight with the White House over current federal spending practices. They are teaming up with Democrats! My God man, what is the world coming to?

Seriously speaking, I think the two parties (ha! as if there are two) are shifting ideology. It happens over time as values change in our society. The GOP of Lincoln's day was much different than the GOP of today and Wilson's Democrats of the early 20th century were much less liberal than the Dems we see today. The parties shift every so often and I think we are seeing that now.
When I was a kid (in the 1980s) the GOP was all about fiscal responsibilty. Kind of makes you wonder what happened to all that rhetoric!
12-05-2003 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Wryword Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 974
Joined: Aug 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #2
 
Well, Dio, those of us who are Conservatives, as opposed to those of us here who are Repubs, will applaud this rebuke to George II.

What I think George II (or should it be George III?) is doing is spending like a Democrat in an effort to buy votes in the next election. The last one was as close as it gets, what with all the morons in Florida and dead people elsewhere who voted, and this George expects the next one to be close too. So, just as the Democrats have been doing for years, he's throwing open the doors of the treasury. Hell, its just the younger folk who will have to pay the bill, so who cares, right? By taking away the prescription drug thing from the socialists and doing other stuff, and fighting a war too, he risks becoming the Repub version Lyndon Johnson, he of damnable memory.

Once again, we are seeing the true legacy of the New Deal. With utterly no meaningful limits on the power of the federal government, those noblemen in Washington do as they see fit.

Consequently, Dio, since there is going to be a huge bill to pay you need to get started and make lots and lots of babies.
12-05-2003 07:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #3
 
Wryword Wrote:Consequently, Dio, since there is going to be a huge bill to pay you need to get started and make lots and lots of babies.
Fock that!










I can't even afford my own existence, how the heck could I possibly pay for kids?
12-05-2003 08:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Wryword Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 974
Joined: Aug 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #4
 
KlutzDio I Wrote:
Wryword Wrote:Consequently, Dio, since there is going to be a huge bill to pay you need to get started and make lots and lots of babies.
Fock that!










I can't even afford my own existence, how the heck could I possibly pay for kids?
Ooooooh, Dio doesn't like kids! How unAmer'can can you get.

And look at that selfishness. I don't know why you couldn't be satisfied with subsistence living. Democrats want you to live that way.
12-05-2003 11:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #5
 
Subsistence living would be more feasible if I didn't have to buy so much g-damn insurance.
12-06-2003 01:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joebordenrebel Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,968
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #6
 
You gotta love capitalism!

Bleeding us with more leeches
Geov Parrish - workingforchange.com

10.08.02 - Here in Washington State, amidst the port shutdown and the Great War Debate, a different story slipped through the news last week: Premera Blue Cross wants to become a for-profit company.

Uh-oh.

Our state's largest health insurer wants to raise money by selling shares, and the state government is salivating at the chance to collect extra taxes (back and future) from a for-profit corporation. Democratic Gov. Gary Locke and lots of Olympia legislators love the idea, just like they did when the state's second-largest insurer, Regence Blue Shield, proposed the same thing a few months back. Nobody will suffer but us customers -- which is to say, everyone who needs health care at one time or another -- which is to say, most everyone.

That's not the official line, of course, which enthuses about improved service and rates and blah blah blah. Bullfeathers. As with most privatization schemes, this has been a trend sweeping the country, and it's been a disaster everywhere it's been tried. On this score, consider those flaming Bolshies, the Washington State Medical Association. WSMA's CEO, Tom Curry, notes dryly of the idea that "We're not aware of any place in the country where these conversions have improved things for plan subscribers, patients, doctors, or hospitals... The experience nationally is that plans that convert to investor-based operations use their capital to acquire other plans."

This can't be all that surprising. How much rocket physics do you need to understand that when more parasitic, profit-seeking middle people are plunked into our hemorrhaging health care system (insurers, drug companies, medical suppliers, hospitals, docs, etc., etc., etc.), we patients lose more blood and bleed to death even faster? When a company like Premera calculates that all that money will be available to pay those extra state taxes, and they still expect to come out way ahead, that tells you all you need to know about how much of your health care costs would be reimbursable in the future.

Premera, of course, claims that when their share prices go up, everyone will benefit. Two problems: one, their share prices might not go up. Second, there are other companies swimming in these waters, and they are, in fact, constantly eating each other. In Maryland, a massive grass roots advocacy movement is fighting a proposed buyout of a local nonprofit by a big for- profit chain. In Kansas, the state attorney general has turned down a bid by another large national for-profit company to buy the nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield; the state's Supreme Court will hear the company's appeal early next year. In California, activists are fighting off a bid by Regence and a Chicago-based insurer, Health Care Service Corp., which operates in Illinois and Texas. Combined, they'd form the nation's largest nonprofit health insurer -- but if they jointly switch to for-profit, activists charge, it may enable them to evade the extra taxes budget-crunched states like Washington (and dozens more) are dreaming of. The worst of both worlds.

I don't care about the suffering of budget-stressed legislators; I care about the suffering of people with health problems, minor or severe. I'm a bit sensitized on this issue. As regular readers may know, I've had two organ transplants, a stroke, and a permanently compromised immune system, and that means prescription drugs. Expensive ones. Last week, the same day this hit the news, I wrote a check to my local independent pharmacy (bless them for carrying me through this mess) for $11,986.05.

That staggering total -- a fair chunk of my annual income -- is what we know so far of the extra bill for the five months when my previous insurance carrier terminated my policy without notifying me, my discovering it, and my being able to get into our state's high-risk pool (since private carriers now, thanks to these same state legislators, deny coverage to people who are actually at risk of getting or staying sick). Mine is a convoluted story, involving settlement of a previous class-action lawsuit for breach of contract; I had no legal resource when my insurer screwed me, thanks to the settlement negotiated by the then-sitting state Insurance Commissioner, a woman who traded on her largely unearned reputation as a "consumer advocate." (In most states, the Insurance Commissioner is an insurance industry hack; it doesn't take much advocating to stand out in this field.) Pay up.

Fortunately, I have enough healthy days that I can (obviously) at least work part-time from home. Many chronically or seriously ill people cannot, and they, like I, will die without their drugs or labs or treatment or whatever. And we're the minority; far more common are people being nickeled and dimed and dollared out of health care they thought they were covered for, thought they were insured for, thought they'd paid for, and discovered that the fine print ruled otherwise. Those big marine critters like blood. Ours.

It's been a full decade since the Democrats abandoned national health care reform, and after 9/11 they've essentially given up as well on the farcically ineffectual Patient's Bill of Rights. However, there are, in the absence of national leadership, rumblings of state-by-state reform. Both Maine and Vermont are in the process of fighting off industry court challenges to plans that would offer deep discounts on prescription drugs to those in need. After years of frustration trying to get versions of comprehensive health care reform through lobbyist-dominated state legislators, activists In Oregon have put a universal health care proposal on the ballot next month, Measure 23 would essentially create a single statewide health plan for virtually all residents, including those now with inadequate or no insurance. The biggest obstacle: the price tag, estimated at a whopping $20 billion per year for a state with only 3.5 million residents.

Thing is, the price tag for the current, open market approach to health care is far higher; the United States spends far more per person on health care costs than any other Western democracy (all of which have some combination of subsidized, public-private health care systems). What we get for all that money is a wildly uneven distribution of services. Some folks get state of the art health care, and others get none; how folks manage to negotiate the system depends on education, income, your job, whether you're sick or not, personal support systems, and, sometimes, pure luck.

None of that should matter, but it does. A seriously ill octogenarian shouldn't have to be able to jump through endless bureaucratic hoops and legalese to get health care; many can't, and many people die in this country unnecessarily because they can't afford preventative care, they can't get access to acute care services, or they can't figure out how to get services they're actually entitled to. Parasites like Premera and Regence make millions by threading such loopholes; transforming such outfits into shareholder- driven corporations can only make a horrid situation worse.

How telling is it that state legislators, faced with for-profit conversion schemes by health insurers, seem to care more about quick budget fixes than peoples' lives -- now and for the indefinite future, on this and any number of other issues? Anyone who works in health care -- the provision of it, not the necessitating of it -- can vouch that inserting more pressures for profit into the system is a bad idea. The AMA and state medical associations were once the most radically conservative of health care advocacy groups. A decade's worth of doctors no longer being allowed to practice medicine changed all that.

Bills like Oregon's Measure 23, with some form of universal health care, have to be the way out, but by all appearances it'll be a long time before such systems become a national standard. Too many politicians can still be bribed. As a consequence, our bodies are reduced to business opportunities. Some of us have better payoff potential than others. For the ones whose illnesses don't promise lucrative returns, well, I guess we'll just go away and die now.
12-09-2003 11:35 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.