When the tea party guy does’t read what’s in his pockets, it really doesn’t affect anyone. When the well meaning donkey doesn’t read what doesn’t fit in his pockets it leaves quite a bit of damage in it’s wake.
The recent budget, passed by both parties, was about as long, and much less “read” as the ACA. And it had a lot more pork in it. The difference is that after months of discussion and debate, congress knew what was in the ACA before they voted. Yes, even Nancy Pelosi. WIth the budget, we got four different places banning Federal spending for ACORN (which hasn’t existed for four years), and a truly stupid ban on moving the Vatican embassy to a safer, cheaper, more spacious spot that’s closer to the Vatican. Because conservatives can’t pass budgets in a rational manner.
The duty of government is to promote the general welfare, not provide it. We need to hit the ‘reset’ button on our government because it is doing far more than it should be doing.
You would be wrong on the macro scale David. Being well read means you can often infer a correct set of conclusions without having to read some specific thing.On the other hand illiteracy leaves you also largely incapable of understanding anything other than the simplest ideas..Thus, someone well read doesn’t have to read the ACA in totality to be about to infer and determine that it is a disasterously bad piece of legislation.On the other hand, an illiterate who doesn’t understand much simply because of a lifetime of lack of exposure to ideas is likely to fall for the shuck and jive of the used car salesmen telling you Obamacare is a good thing.
I have yet to talk to a “dyed in the wool” TEA party person, or seen any of their writings, that indicate they can actually READ and UNDERSTAND that “slimmer” document.
Such a short document and yet the ninny can’t understand what it actually means. This is why we need to go into such detail on legislation these days — fools who have to have everything explained down to the last possibility..You have to remember that the Constitution was written by men who assumed anyone who was going to govern would have half a brain. They had not anticipated how Roger Ailes would empower himself through the use of morons.
I don’t think you understand how single-payer systems work. Perhaps you have never seen one in action. I live in Ontario, and we have single-payer. No one has to approve any treatment or procedure so long as my doctor and I agree on it. It is true, however, that not all procedures are approved. For instance, the so-called “liberation” therapy for MS was not approved. There were clinical trials of the therapy, and so far it hasn’t proved itself, so the province won’t fund it. But if a treatment has been approved in general, then it is available, and it doesn’t have to be approved for individual cases. That’s the way it works here, anyway. Perhaps you are thinking of the private insurance companies in the US, which I gather do make decisions on individual cases.
Physicians do okay here in Canada. Here is a reputable source, The Globe and Mail:
“The number of doctors in Canada and the amount they get paid by government health plans hit record highs in each of the past several years – and 2012 was no different.Canada had more than 75,000 doctors working last year, an increase of 4 per cent over 2011, and governments paid them $22-billion for their services, about 9 per cent more than the previous year, according to new data released Thursday by the Canadian Institute for Health Information.+Doctors earned more last year than ever before.The data show the average physician was paid $328,000 for clinical services last year, from a high of $376,000 in Ontario to a low of $258,000 in Nova Scotia.+Across the country, average income was 5-per-cent higher than in the previous year.”+http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-has-more-doctors-making-more-money-than-ever/article14562208/
So what’s the solution? I’m not a big fan of the ACA, and I’m not going to spend much time defending it. But most other developed countries have figured out how to insure their citizens — why does the US have so much trouble?
Your proposed system is worth a try. My own experience of a single-payer system has been generally positive.+You ask, “Why are people not allowed to decide for themselves what coverages they want to pay for and what risk; i.e. deductibles, they are willing to assume for themselves?” In the abstract that sounds like a good position, but in fact some people who don’t have a lot of money will be forced to forgo good coverage in order to feed and house themselves and their children. The single-payer system guarantees that no one will be denied coverage because they need the money for something else. I like that.+But there are a number of models out there, and I wouldn’t rule any of them out a priori — so long as they give reasonable coverage to everyone. I continue to be puzzled by the inability of the US to solve this problem, and others. Of course one can blame the politicians, and no doubt a lot of them deserve a lot of blame, but we can’t lay all the blame on a few hundred people in Washington. After all, they didn’t get there by accident. (Or did they?) Presumably we put them there.+On a related point, I am a big believer in the market — most of the time. I think that competition is a good thing, and I am wary of too much centralization. But I am also way of unregulated capitalism. I’m pragmatic — I prefer to take each problem on its own, to see what mixture of public and private will deal with that problem best.
echoraven about 10 years ago
When the tea party guy does’t read what’s in his pockets, it really doesn’t affect anyone. When the well meaning donkey doesn’t read what doesn’t fit in his pockets it leaves quite a bit of damage in it’s wake.
DaveBNM about 10 years ago
As long as you signed it into law before you read it, you’ll be OK?
ARodney about 10 years ago
The recent budget, passed by both parties, was about as long, and much less “read” as the ACA. And it had a lot more pork in it. The difference is that after months of discussion and debate, congress knew what was in the ACA before they voted. Yes, even Nancy Pelosi. WIth the budget, we got four different places banning Federal spending for ACORN (which hasn’t existed for four years), and a truly stupid ban on moving the Vatican embassy to a safer, cheaper, more spacious spot that’s closer to the Vatican. Because conservatives can’t pass budgets in a rational manner.
Mneedle about 10 years ago
Actually, He did. That is how he knows just how lawless this Administration is.
Dave Ferro about 10 years ago
The duty of government is to promote the general welfare, not provide it. We need to hit the ‘reset’ button on our government because it is doing far more than it should be doing.
ossiningaling about 10 years ago
Hope that constitution will get you medical coverage in the emergency room.
Enoki about 10 years ago
You would be wrong on the macro scale David. Being well read means you can often infer a correct set of conclusions without having to read some specific thing.On the other hand illiteracy leaves you also largely incapable of understanding anything other than the simplest ideas..Thus, someone well read doesn’t have to read the ACA in totality to be about to infer and determine that it is a disasterously bad piece of legislation.On the other hand, an illiterate who doesn’t understand much simply because of a lifetime of lack of exposure to ideas is likely to fall for the shuck and jive of the used car salesmen telling you Obamacare is a good thing.
Dtroutma about 10 years ago
I have yet to talk to a “dyed in the wool” TEA party person, or seen any of their writings, that indicate they can actually READ and UNDERSTAND that “slimmer” document.
lonecat about 10 years ago
How big is the stack of papers made up of court decisions clarifying the Constitution?
Don Winchester Premium Member about 10 years ago
I missed the part in the Constitution where it’s said that I’m forced to pay for other people’s health care…
Michael Peterson Premium Member about 10 years ago
Such a short document and yet the ninny can’t understand what it actually means. This is why we need to go into such detail on legislation these days — fools who have to have everything explained down to the last possibility..You have to remember that the Constitution was written by men who assumed anyone who was going to govern would have half a brain. They had not anticipated how Roger Ailes would empower himself through the use of morons.
lonecat about 10 years ago
I don’t think you understand how single-payer systems work. Perhaps you have never seen one in action. I live in Ontario, and we have single-payer. No one has to approve any treatment or procedure so long as my doctor and I agree on it. It is true, however, that not all procedures are approved. For instance, the so-called “liberation” therapy for MS was not approved. There were clinical trials of the therapy, and so far it hasn’t proved itself, so the province won’t fund it. But if a treatment has been approved in general, then it is available, and it doesn’t have to be approved for individual cases. That’s the way it works here, anyway. Perhaps you are thinking of the private insurance companies in the US, which I gather do make decisions on individual cases.
lonecat about 10 years ago
Physicians do okay here in Canada. Here is a reputable source, The Globe and Mail:
“The number of doctors in Canada and the amount they get paid by government health plans hit record highs in each of the past several years – and 2012 was no different.Canada had more than 75,000 doctors working last year, an increase of 4 per cent over 2011, and governments paid them $22-billion for their services, about 9 per cent more than the previous year, according to new data released Thursday by the Canadian Institute for Health Information.+Doctors earned more last year than ever before.The data show the average physician was paid $328,000 for clinical services last year, from a high of $376,000 in Ontario to a low of $258,000 in Nova Scotia.+Across the country, average income was 5-per-cent higher than in the previous year.”+http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-has-more-doctors-making-more-money-than-ever/article14562208/
lonecat about 10 years ago
So what’s the solution? I’m not a big fan of the ACA, and I’m not going to spend much time defending it. But most other developed countries have figured out how to insure their citizens — why does the US have so much trouble?
lonecat about 10 years ago
Your proposed system is worth a try. My own experience of a single-payer system has been generally positive.+You ask, “Why are people not allowed to decide for themselves what coverages they want to pay for and what risk; i.e. deductibles, they are willing to assume for themselves?” In the abstract that sounds like a good position, but in fact some people who don’t have a lot of money will be forced to forgo good coverage in order to feed and house themselves and their children. The single-payer system guarantees that no one will be denied coverage because they need the money for something else. I like that.+But there are a number of models out there, and I wouldn’t rule any of them out a priori — so long as they give reasonable coverage to everyone. I continue to be puzzled by the inability of the US to solve this problem, and others. Of course one can blame the politicians, and no doubt a lot of them deserve a lot of blame, but we can’t lay all the blame on a few hundred people in Washington. After all, they didn’t get there by accident. (Or did they?) Presumably we put them there.+On a related point, I am a big believer in the market — most of the time. I think that competition is a good thing, and I am wary of too much centralization. But I am also way of unregulated capitalism. I’m pragmatic — I prefer to take each problem on its own, to see what mixture of public and private will deal with that problem best.