Getting to the heart of healthcare reform

[Coyote]

Health reform debate is about values....

The bottom line is that we face a brutal choice.

Reform would make us a more decent society but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we've already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one.

We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history: vitality or security. We can debate this or that provision, but where we come down will depend on that moral preference. Don't get stupefied by technical details. This debate is about values.

Difficult choices.

 

[PixieStix]

It is about control, who will control our healthcare? Us or Them (big daddy government)

The meaning of the word "choice" has been stolen and murdered by the left

 

[Coyote]

It is about control, who will control our healthcare? Us or Them (big daddy government)

The meaning of the word "choice" has been stolen and murdered by the left

Actually, that argument is typical of rightwing deception.

IF it's about "choice", it's about the choice between control by insurance companies or control by the government. It's an illusion propogated by the right that we have any more control in the current system then we would in their Orwellian vision of a public option.

It's values plain and simple and unfortunately the rugged individualism that has made us an economically creative and vibrant country leads to the same sort of selfish individualism that questions why we should be our brother's keeper.

 

[dilloduck]

Health reform debate is about values....

The bottom line is that we face a brutal choice.

Reform would make us a more decent society but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we've already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one.

We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history: vitality or security. We can debate this or that provision, but where we come down will depend on that moral preference. Don't get stupefied by technical details. This debate is about values.

Difficult choices.

Agreed--we are facing our mortality. Neither the government nor insurance companies can afford to keep us alive and well forever.

 

[code1211]

Health reform debate is about values....

The bottom line is that we face a brutal choice.

Reform would make us a more decent society but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we've already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one.

We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history: vitality or security. We can debate this or that provision, but where we come down will depend on that moral preference. Don't get stupefied by technical details. This debate is about values.

Difficult choices.

Yes, they are, and it would be a particular shame if they were not false choices.

The debate in the Congress right now has nothing, NOTHING, to do with reforming Health Care. They are only debating reforming the method of payment for healthcare and the restrictions on availability.

Has anyone defined who the uninsured are? How the best system to deliver care to this group might differ from the traditional system? If the group would take advantage of the care if offered? Why they have opted to not have care at the present?

Is there any talk of mobile care units, like an RV with a doctor's office inside? How about clinics that are set in inner cities and manned by those who are paying off loans for their education? Teaching clinics that have Residents in the last year or so of residency with hi-tech comminication to that central teaching Administration for them?

Might not these approaches invigorate the inner cities and rural areas and help pay for medical educations while also invigoating the public service sectors?

How about simple triage procedures at E-Rooms that re-direct those who come in seeking a walk-in clinic to go to a very close walk in clinic?

I'm just some guy who wonders about this stuff and don't know the ins and outs, but it's obvious that the crackpots we have in Congress are clueless on this and are trying to change the whole financial deal when what they need to do is conjure creative remedies for the actual, real problems..

I don't think they know what problem(s) they are trying to solve. If they did, they would define it and solve it. Because they are only talking about money, it leads me to believe that they only care about money.

Go figure. Money grubbing thieves who are only talking about money. Who could have called this one?

 

[Truthmatters]

The rest of the western world has universal healthcare.

They are going to get their asses kicked by the foreign corps who are not burdened with the inflated cost of healthcare the US burdens under today.

How well do you think they could compete in a global market if they were freed of the burden?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Health reform debate is about values....

The bottom line is that we face a brutal choice.

Reform would make us a more decent society but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we've already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one.

We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history: vitality or security. We can debate this or that provision, but where we come down will depend on that moral preference. Don't get stupefied by technical details. This debate is about values.

Difficult choices.

Yes, they are, and it would be a particular shame if they were not false choices.

The debate in the Congress right now has nothing, NOTHING, to do with reforming Health Care. They are only debating reforming the method of payment for healthcare and the restrictions on availability.

Has anyone defined who the uninsured are? How the best system to deliver care to this group might differ from the traditional system? If the group would take advantage of the care if offered? Why they have opted to not have care at the present?

Is there any talk of mobile care units, like an RV with a doctor's office inside? How about clinics that are set in inner cities and manned by those who are paying off loans for their education? Teaching clinics that have Residents in the last year or so of residency with hi-tech comminication to that central teaching Administration for them?

Might not these approaches invigorate the inner cities and rural areas and help pay for medical educations while also invigoating the public service sectors?

How about simple triage procedures at E-Rooms that re-direct those who come in seeking a walk-in clinic to go to a very close walk in clinic?

I'm just some guy who wonders about this stuff and don't know the ins and outs, but it's obvious that the crackpots we have in Congress are clueless on this and are trying to change the whole financial deal when what they need to do is conjure creative remedies for the actual, real problems..

I don't think they know what problem(s) they are trying to solve. If they did, they would define it and solve it. Because they are only talking about money, it leads me to believe that they only care about money.

Go figure. Money grubbing thieves who are only talking about money. Who could have called this one?

 

[California Girl]

The rest of the western world has universal healthcare.

They are going to get their asses kicked by the foreign corps who are not burdened with the inflated cost of healthcare the US burdens under today.

How well do you think they could compete in a global market if they were freed of the burden?

Come live in the UK, under their 'healthcare' system for a little while - see how it works in practice.

 

[code1211]

The rest of the western world has universal healthcare.

They are going to get their asses kicked by the foreign corps who are not burdened with the inflated cost of healthcare the US burdens under today.

How well do you think they could compete in a global market if they were freed of the burden?

The reason that this or any product costs too much is that there are too many dollars chasing too few oulets of service.

What will adding more dollars to the game produce? Hint: Adding to "too many dollars" without adding to "too few outlets" will increase the inflated cost.

Addtional hint: Limiting the potential income for doctors by capping fees will further reduce outlets. The only possible result of this fiasco is that even more dollars will chase even fewer outlets.

This whole plan is a fluster cuck with absolutely no understanding of anything except the potential graft that can be claimed by politicians.

 

[Coyote]

Health reform debate is about values....

The bottom line is that we face a brutal choice.

Reform would make us a more decent society but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we've already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one.

We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history: vitality or security. We can debate this or that provision, but where we come down will depend on that moral preference. Don't get stupefied by technical details. This debate is about values.

Difficult choices.

Agreed--we are facing our mortality. Neither the government nor insurance companies can afford to keep us alive and well forever.

That reminds me of a quote I heard somewhere, but I don't know who said it....the British are fatalistic when it comes to dying (stiff upper lip and all that) - Americans feel death is negotiable.

Think about it....death (like pregnancy or menopause too) is treated like a disease rather than a process of life.

 

[Coyote]

The rest of the western world has universal healthcare.

They are going to get their asses kicked by the foreign corps who are not burdened with the inflated cost of healthcare the US burdens under today.

How well do you think they could compete in a global market if they were freed of the burden?

Come live in the UK, under their 'healthcare' system for a little while - see how it works in practice.

Yet, when looking at an alternative like ours - they have no desire to change it. Must not be that bad.