Vote today... Mitt Romney or Barack Obama

[NorthStar]

Hospitals are supposed to make profits. So, those two pills that cost virtually nothing when you are on the outside suddenly cost 50 dollars when you in the hospital. This has nothing to do with the cost of delivering health care services, unless you are talking about the person who writes the thing in your chart, the hospital pharmacy that dispenses it, the runner that picks it up from the pharmacy and delivers it to the floor, and the nurse or assistant who takes it into your room and gives it to you. Oh, and the little paper cup for the water. And, if you are on a prescription med when you check into the hospital, my recollection is, you can't bring yours in, you have to buy it from the hospital. I can't remember how much they mark up aspirin or Advil.

---- Perhaps hospitals are there first to help sick and injured people?
...The people who work there; doctors, surgeons, nurses, etc.

But the people behind the curtains who are pulling the strings of the marionettes,
they are the ones who are exploiting the system, who corrupt it for financial gains, and not for the well being of humans.

I think.

 

[NorthStar]

If given the resources an opportunity, which one of you could have run against president Obama and win? How popular will your suggestions be with the voters whom you need to get you elected?

---- Wow, Amir! ...Obama is just fine by me, I would/am 100% behind him; he has my full support and commitment as a Canadian neighbor living in my igloo. :b

The guy is not perfect because of some bad republicans in his entourage.
But he has the most important ingredients; heart and understanding, plus a good team.
I truly believe.

He reaches the 'people', and not the material 'robots' of the USA.

His plan is smart and sound. ...He only needs an army of true and honest supporters to implement it properly. And I'm talkin' from all parts of the various classes (republicans included).

Are we working all together for the common goal (happiness, freedom, liberty, equality, respectability) of only one party, or for the 'all people'?

 

[Andre Marc]

Karl Rove wouldn't be in the list of guys I respect.

I believe some of you guys have made the mistake of confusing me with what you define as a conservative. Maybe, just maybe, I am someone who isn't married to either ideology. I am more of a pragmatist who isn't afraid to deconstruct either side, and it is my honest opinion that both are equal culprits when it comes to selling snake oil. The sad fact, however, is that the side that won this time has a non-solution that will further take the country down a path to ruin. Neither side is willing to face the sad truth that we have spent more than we can repay. Instead, one side promises more than ever while the other side promises to take us back to sweeter times while maintaining the status quo. Neither option is viable.

From a purely fiscal standpoint, all the push-button social issues are moot ones because the wolf is at the door. That fiscal cliff they keep talking about is very real, and neither side has an acceptable answer. So, now what?

I'm reminded of the Pogo quote, "We have met the enemy, and they are us."

To my mind, this the typical False Equivalency tactic used by so called "moderate" conservatives. Does not fly.

 

[Mosin]

To my mind, this the typical False Equivalency tactic used by so called "moderate" conservatives. Does not fly.

Believe what you like, but I'm not drinking the Koolaid of either side.

If you want to go issue by issue, we can do that. I promise that I'll offend not just you, but every "moderate" conservative who reads the posts.

 

[Bill Hart]

Jazdoc

I respect your point of view. I disagree with a good portion of it , a matter of opinion. Some of the views I find condescending like the notion of "populace" for people who have lost their jobs and find themselves in dire predicament but let's put this aside, let it pass. What is the Alternative? What is the socially conscious thing to do? A civilized society has a responsibility for the welfare of those with less than ideal life conditions don't you think? As a matter of fact the stability of any nation requires a certain level of well-being of most of the citizen.. What to do then? Do we let them die if they lose their job? Not go to school if their parents are unfortunate enough to not being able to pay the dear tuition we see across the US? What to do.. I don't proclaim that you and I have the answers but understanding the severity and the difficulties may sharpen our ways to vote out of this situation ... So as a good audiophile I am all ears.

Franz- I think the responsible thing to do is to create jobs, rather than offer welfare. Clinton managed to cut back on the 'dole' and I don't remember him being hammered too badly at the time, although he was a little pre-occupied with other matters.
I think the good Doc's perspective is valuable. O-Care did very little to address the rising costs of the healthcare, all it did was guarantee that everyone would have access to it. I'm good with providing basic healthcare for those that can't afford it (and addressing pre-existing condition disqualifications, letting college age students stay on their parents' policies, etc) but failing to address the more fundamental issues of cost does nobody any good. Add to that, the legislative process by which it was passed- it was pretty disgusting.

 

[NorthStar]

Believe what you like, but I'm not drinking the Koolaid of either side.

If you want to go issue by issue, we can do that.
I promise that I'll offend not just you, but every "moderate" conservative who reads the posts.

----

 

[Bill Hart]

From a letter sent to our newspaper by a local physician:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) began with the back-room deal-making, last-minute arm-twisting, the unprecedented distortion of congressional procedure and the final vote of 219 to 212 in the House - a relatively narrow margin considering the total Democratic control of Congress at that time. Obamacare survived a Supreme Court challenge by an even narrower 5-to-4 vote, on the basis that the individual mandate is a tax, despite the president's insistence that it is not a tax.

I wonder if any legislator actually read the entire 2,700-page monstrosity before passing the law. Buried within it is the requirement that all doctors enrolled in Medicare must re-enroll. One of the conditions of re-enrollment has chilling Orwellian overtones - the government must have direct access to the medical practice's bank account. I pleaded with Medicare for an exemption. Since the clinic was "nonparticipating" with Medicare, we received no payments from the government but instead collected from patients, using the discounted Medicare fee schedule. Medicare then would reimburse patients. Since the clinic did not deal directly with the government, why should the government have access to its account? I was told there would be no exceptions.

Further complicating the situation is the facts that the clinic sees a lot of visitors and that some people over 65 continue to work and have commercial insurance in addition to Medicare. It would be so simple if, in cases of dual insurance, the commercial insurance comes first. But it depends on the size of the patient's company. If the employer has more than a certain number of employees (40, I believe), then commercial insurance comes first. Below that number, Medicare comes first.

Too often, a problem arises when a patient mistakenly tells us that the commercial insurance is primary and is given the insurance claim form to send to his or her insurance. The insurance company, not being the primary carrier, then forwards the claim to Medicare for processing. This automatically generates a letter from Medicare threatening the clinic with a $2,000 fine since regulations - Section 1848(g)(4) - dictate that the claim must be sent directly to Medicare by the clinic.

I have always ignored those threats because in order to collect the government will have to take me to court and I will prevail since it is not my fault that the clinic was provided with the wrong information. But can you imagine if the government had direct access to my account? $2,000 would be taken out each time an inadvertent mistake is made. I will not be able to pay the clinic's rent or meet my payroll. I may have to close the clinic and lay off all my employees.

I refused to re-enroll. In January, I received a letter saying that my Medicare billing privileges had been deactivated. This meant that Medicare patients no longer would be reimbursed. Consequently, I have referred all Medicare patients to the a Medical Group, which owns its facilities and is large enough to afford to participate in Medicare. Broken is Barack Obama's campaign promise of four years ago that you can keep your doctor.

Politicians and bureaucrats have managed to subdue and subjugate what was once a respected and noble profession. The threat of fines and sanctions for any infraction of the myriad government regulations has essentially criminalized the practice of medicine. In the depersonalized jargon of the bureaucrats, a physician is not a doctor but just a provider; a patient is not a patient but a covered life. The sacred doctor-patient relationship is split asunder when the government wedges itself between the doctor and the patient. The danger here is if the physician places the interests of the government before the interests of the patient. With Obamacare, the government's desire to be in control pre-empts the individual patient's right to choose between various treatment options.

This is disturbing, what is the justification for 'having access' to your bank account and what does 'access' mean in this context, the ability to review without the need for a subpoena?

 

[Bill Hart]

To my mind, this the typical False Equivalency tactic used by so called "moderate" conservatives. Does not fly.

One of the refreshing things about this thread is that virtually everybody has been trying to address the issues, rather than simply bashing away- just look at the comments on any 'news' site and you know what i mean.

 

[RBFC]

I've operated the heart/lung machine for open heart surgery for 32 years. With current tax rates, when I perform more than 2 operations per week, I make a net of $45-$50 per each extra case (professional fees) due to tax bracket applications. In contrast, the administrator of a local hospital reportedly claimed an estimated $12 million bonus for the second half of last year. Where do you think your health care costs are centered? How carefully do you think the accountants adjust the books before presenting information to auditors?

Lee

 

[Mosin]

One of the refreshing things about this thread is that virtually everybody has been trying to address the issues, rather than simply bashing away- just look at the comments on any 'news' site and you know what i mean.

Our commonality, I believe, is that we all want to see people better off, but the problem is that none of the solutions proposed by politicians really work. Face it guys, we're in trouble.

 

[DaveyF]

Our commonality, I believe, is that we all want to see people better off, but the problem is that none of the solutions proposed by politicians really work. Face it guys, we're in trouble.

Certainly IF everyone believes that way, we are. However, IMHO that's not constructive or positive thinking and while this may be naive, I happen to believe that we can and will do better.

 

[NorthStar]

I've operated the heart/lung machine for open heart surgery for 32 years. With current tax rates, when I perform more than 2 operations per week, I make a net of $45-$50 per each extra case (professional fees) due to tax bracket applications. In contrast, the administrator of a local hospital reportedly claimed an estimated $12 million bonus for the second half of last year. Where do you think your health care costs are centered? How carefully do you think the accountants adjust the books before presenting information to auditors?

Lee

---- Exactemente! ...We have to abolish this system of great deterioration, and until we do this country will still be doomed! ...Well, your country actually. :b ...But mine ain't any better; we have tons of our own corrupted people running the cities at the highest echelons.
Just as we speak, it's making the news all over (from Montreal and adjacent cities). ...And it goes to Toronto, and New York, and Florida, and Texas, and ...

In Quebec, our Liberal party was 'tres' corrupted. ..They don't rule anymore now, thanx god! ...Now it's the PQ (Party Quebecois), with Pauline Marois, the Premier of Quebec.
But the Liberal party is still the one in power in the Federation of Canada though. ...Some bad people there, and lots of mismanagement (financial and moral). It is incredible how they treat mentally handicapped people in our institutions! ...You have to see it to believe it; and we did see it!

And what's going on behind closed doors (illegal money exchanges from high corrupted officials) is sickening!

No wonder this world is in deep chaos!

 

[FrantzM]

Certainly IF everyone believes that way, we are. However, IMHO that's not constructive or positive thinking and while this may be naive, I happen to believe that we can and will do better.

+1

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

When your politicians have proven to be empty suits and have been summarily rejected, all politicians become as empty, as unworthy. I recognize the defense mechanism. Been there. Done that. Same as it ever was.

But it's not. Not this time. We're witnessing the end of an era in America and the end of a political movement that has dominated our politics for years. Tax-cutting, hawk-spending, corporate welfaring, bedroom-snooping, science-denying, gay-baiting, top-down economic politics had their day. America followed that path for 30 years, with not much of a break from William Jefferson Clinton, perhaps the best Republican president of my lifetime, certainly the most effective one. America's tax rates are their lowest in decades. Regulatory agencies and laws have been gutted or simply left unenforced. Conventional military spending has gone through the roof with the justification of no conventional threat. Private money and public policy are almost indistinguishable. The whores on K street are in charge of the pimps on the hill.

We veered far to the right of our fathers, our forefathers, and every other first world nation on the planet; the result of those decades is right in front of us to see. America has seen it. Finally. The modern American conservative movement is eviscerated and exposed. It will take years for it to bleed out, but it is mortally wounded, and if the GOP's answer, again, is to decide they didn't go far enough, they will fade away. It's really that simple. It's over. Let the healing begin.

Tim

 

[jazdoc]

Jazdoc

I respect your point of view. I disagree with a good portion of it , a matter of opinion. Some of the views I find condescending like the notion of "populace" for people who have lost their jobs and find themselves in dire predicament but let's put this aside, let it pass. What is the Alternative? What is the socially conscious thing to do? A civilized society has a responsibility for the welfare of those with less than ideal life conditions don't you think? As a matter of fact the stability of any nation requires a certain level of well-being of most of the citizen.. What to do then? Do we let them die if they lose their job? Not go to school if their parents are unfortunate enough to not being able to pay the dear tuition we see across the US? What to do.. I don't proclaim that you and I have the answers but understanding the severity and the difficulties may sharpen our ways to vote out of this situation ... So as a good audiophile I am all ears.

Frantz-

As I respect your point of view. I applaud the WBF membership for their (mostly) civilized discussion which is fundamental to a healthy republic.

For the rest of this post, I'll disregard the both socialist fringe of the Progressive left and the Libertarian fringe on right. Given that, conservatives (albeit some grudgingly) recognize the duty to those less fortunate in our society. Where we diverge is how to best accomplish this within limits. Conservatives tend to want to set limits on how much government we are willing to pay for and setting services accordingly. Progressives tend to find problems to solve and promise to find a way to pay for it later. The problem with this approach from a conservatives' point of view is that:

1) There is always "mission creep" and no matter how much money we spend the problems are never solved and invariably new problems arise that require additional government intervention, i.e. spending. By any measure our country is much richer than in 1960, including the bottom quintile. One would think that the demand for government services would be lessened, yet the per capita demand for government services rises insatiably.

Inevitably, entitlements are increasingly directed to the middle class and not the poor.

2) if you heavily subsidize behavior you inevitably get more of it. Medicare is a great example. When passed in 1965, the government estimated that the program costs in 1990 would be $12 Billion. In actuality, the cost in 1990 was closer to $100 Billion. I know everyone will be shocked to learn that cost estimates for Obamacare are rising daily and instead of the promised $2,500 per family savings for private health insurance, costs have risen by nearly $2,500 since Obamacare passage.

3) As government enlarges, it tends to encroach upon the voluntary organizations that traditionally are mediators of "social justice"; what Tocqueville termed "associations". These voluntary associations also serve as a buffer between the populace and government. Conversely, the "Life of Julia" is a perfect example of the opposite point of view. Julia doesn't have parents, friends, spouse or church; just government.

So what to do?

1) First I think all entitlements including Social Security and Medicare should be means tested.
2) One way to slow healthcare spending is to incentivize people. We expect all drivers to go into the market and purchase car insurance, can we not trust everyone to do the same with their health insurance? I would covert a means tested Medicare system into a voucher system with a HSA component. I would also allow health insurance to be sold across state lines like auto insurance and I would eliminate costly state mandates. I would eliminate the business tax deduction for health insurance.
3) All welfare programs should be time limited and each program should have a set of deliverables. A work program that doesn't lead to long term employment for participants is a waste of money.
4) Certainly we should look at defense spending and I agree that if wealthy Europeans are unwilling to defend themselves, we should no longer do so. However, IMO, its naive to think we don't have enemies, just friends who's grievances we haven't addressed. I would submit that the world would be a much better place, not perfect, but better with a strong America. BTW, why is defense spending the only part of government that Progressives believe doesn't have a Keynesian multiplier effect?

 

[Bill Hart]

When your politicians have proven to be empty suits and have been summarily rejected, all politicians become as empty, as unworthy. I recognize the defense mechanism. Been there. Done that. Same as it ever was.

But it's not. Not this time. We're witnessing the end of an era in America and the end of a political movement that has dominated our politics for years. Tax-cutting, hawk-spending, corporate welfaring, bedroom-snooping, science-denying, gay-baiting, top-down economic politics had their day. America followed that path for 30 years, with not much of a break from William Jefferson Clinton, perhaps the best Republican president of my lifetime, certainly the most effective one. America's tax rates are their lowest in decades. Regulatory agencies and laws have been gutted or simply left unenforced. Conventional military spending has gone through the roof with the justification of no conventional threat. Private money and public policy are almost indistinguishable. The whores on K street are in charge of the pimps on the hill.

We veered far to the right of our fathers, our forefathers, and every other first world nation on the planet; the result of those decades is right in front of us to see. America has seen it. Finally. The modern American conservative movement is eviscerated and exposed. It will take years for it to bleed out, but it is mortally wounded, and if the GOP's answer, again, is to decide they didn't go far enough, they will fade away. It's really that simple. It's over. Let the healing begin.

Tim

Tim: you are old enough to know that the pendulum swings both ways. Our way to the center is always by adjusting to the perceived extremes of the past.

 

[NorthStar]

-- I feel it is very liberating to talk politics and expose the corruptions and all those 'bad deeds stuff jazz', and also propose some positive suggestions. :b

And, what's going on in America affects us all in the entire world. ...So it is part of all of us.

* Let's get rid of all the corruption, injustices, money laundering, loopholes for the riches, and expose the diseases that are running unchecked and widely rampant across the board in our societies, our cities, our towns, our schools, our colleges, our universities, our governments, our industries, our oil companies, insurance companies, justice systems, laws, inequalities, racial prejudices, alienations, fanatic cults on anything that is wrong and bad, our infrastructures from all parts of the global composition, our systems of pollution, our mega corporations, and redistribute our resources equitably for a 'happy people' all over. ...All countries of the world working together for the common goal of serving ourselves with real values.
...To serve and protect the innocents. Let's reborn again and restart over with better beliefs in the service of ALL. ...But only by getting rid of the BAD we can do GOOD. :b

Is that the true goal of our garden, Earth? ...And the people taking care of it?
...It certainly should be.

A garden needs care to fructify properly, and it is our garden to us ALL.
Kill the bad plants, the bad bugs, proone, thin, irrigate/arouse with sun and clean water, and give 'semence' to only the very best plants that produce the best vegetables and fruits.

Take truly care of people, of nature, of oceans, of our mountains, trees (plant more of them too for future generations), forests, wildlife, air, water, ...

 

[rbbert]

Medicare's administrative costs are about 3%; the private health insurance industry's administrative costs are just over 20%. I don't think the problem here is with Medicare.

 

[rbbert]

As far as returning upper-income income tax brackets to those of the Clinton years, I'm not sure I see the objection (other than greed)? The longest peacetime period of continued economic growth (although admittedly slow economic growth) of the 20th century?

 

[NorthStar]

-- When I'm 99 years old, and in my bed somewhere, or in my chair outside,
and that I think about my life and the world I live in, what do I truly wish for?