DailyTech - AAA Seeking One Week Ban of Texting While Driving

Submit News

Auto AAA Seeking One Week Ban of Texting While Driving
Michael Barkoviak - September 30, 2009 9:16 AM

108 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Oct 3 at 4:28 PM

AAA wants drivers in the U.S. to avoid chatting on the phone and texting while driving for one week

The American Automobile Association (AAA) wants a nationwide one-week ban on text messaging and cell phone communication, urging drivers to limit the amount of distractions they have to deal with while behind the wheel.

"Try it for a week; that's all we ask," AAA spokesperson Matt Skryja said in a press statement. "It only takes an instant for a crash to occur. We hope that by driving distraction-free for a week people can pick up the habit for life."

Specifically, Skyrja, who represents AAA of Northern California, Nevada and Utah, said drivers will "pick up the habit" of safe driving if they have to do it for seven days. AAA hopes drivers will listen -- and the event will take place from October 5 to October 11 -- but it's unknown how many drivers will actually listen to the plea.

In addition to texting and talking, AAA also lists eating, reading maps or the newspaper, writing, personal grooming and talking with passengers as other activities that could lead to crash risks.
Later this week, the Department of Transportation plans to hold a meeting to find new ways to publicize the dangers of distractions while driving. A handful of states now have laws in place that prohibits texting and driving without a hands-free handset -- though the actual enforcement of such laws has been rather disappointing -- with legislators considering a nationwide ban on texting while driving.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I'll not text for a week, but I won't stop talking

By tayb on 9/30/2009 11:41:40 AM , Rating: 3

I drive better on the phone than most people do on their best day. Why? Because the vast majority of drivers are guilty of a serious driving crime, driving while being a moron. Just yesterday an 18-wheeler turned right on red and caused me and several other drivers to slam on their brakes. I was on my cell phone (hands free). Reaction time is not an issue. No accident but we were all very lucky. Same day a guy makes a right turn all the way across traffic from the far left dedicated turn lane, there were two left turn lanes and a dedicated right turn lane. That is five lanes of traffic. There is no possible way he could have made sure no one was coming before pulling that stunt but, luckily, no one innocent was hurt. If we are trying to make the roads safer what we should REALLY do is have a five year competence and skills test that you have to pass with a 90 or above to remain a licensed driver. There are millions, literally millions, of American drivers that have absolutely no business sharing the road with people that do know how to drive. Ticking time bombs just waiting to smash into someone's rear end at a red light, run a red light, merge into someone, etc. These idiots are much more dangerous than people talking on their cell phone. The problem gets exponentially worse when these idiots start yapping on their cell phones or texting. You take awful driving, incompetence, and stupidity and then you add in a mental distraction and take their eyes off the road. Dear god.

Back on subject....I usually don't text while I drive because it requires me to take my eyes off the road for extended time periods and I really do consider it dangerous but I'm not going to stop talking on my phone while I drive, ever.

RE: I'll not text for a week, but I won't stop talking

By EasyC on 9/30/2009 12:39:23 PM , Rating: 1

Can I get an AMEN???

Parent

RE: I'll not text for a week, but I won't stop talking

By Cypherdude1 on 10/1/2009 12:38:06 AM , Rating: 4

quote:
I usually don't text while I drive because it requires me to take my eyes off the road for extended time periods and I really do consider it dangerous

NO ONE SHOULD BE TEXTING WHILE DRIVING AT ALL. It is extremely dangerous. While siting in front of a red light, I saw a car hit from behind by a minivan going 40 MPH. Both vehicles were totaled. The minivan driver had a cellphone which I am sure he was using.

Parent

RE: I'll not text for a week, but I won't stop talking

By Moishe on 9/30/2009 1:39:33 PM , Rating: 2

And why are people morons?

1. LACK OF TRAINING
2. LACK OF REAL ENFORCEMENT

We need intensive training like you'd get for operating a forklift or a tractor-trailer.

We need to make it hurt when people f*&$k up. Automatic heavy fines and license suspension for causing an accident. Make people fear.

Parent

RE: I'll not text for a week, but I won't stop talking

By tayb on 9/30/2009 2:06:08 PM , Rating: 4

Definitely need more training. It is way too easy to get a license, at least it is here in Texas. A teenager can pretty easily get a license without ever getting behind a vehicle as long as they can pass a pathetically easy written exam with a 70 or above and their parents fill out enough paperwork.

Every prospective driver should have to enroll (and pay out of their own pocket) in a MANDATORY driving instruction course that tests your knowledge of driving, ability behind the wheel, and mental aptitude before certifying you to receive a drivers license. You don't want to pay to take the course then you must not want a drivers license. If you can't pass the course (and it shouldn't be easy) then you don't get a license. Re-take it three times and fail three times you are out of luck for 12 months, try again in a year. Sounds harsh? It should. Driving is dangerous especially with all the single women who feel that they need to drive a bigass GM Yukon to be safe.

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege.

Parent

RE: I'll not text for a week, but I won't stop talking

By mindless1 on 10/3/2009 3:35:53 PM , Rating: 2

They don't have a driving test down in TX, JUST a written exam?

I can't agree that they should require teenagers to pay for driving courses, some simply don't have money to do so, until they have the ability to drive to work and earn some money, remember not everyone lives walking distance from work nor has parents that can afford to be around carpooling their kids on a consistent basis needed to hold employment and further, lots of kids are better off putting more of their free time into their education rather than prolonging their low paying servitude.

The problem isn't as much lack of course training, it is lack of discipline, the feeling of invincibility, and driving a lower value car they don't really care much about.

IMO, the majority of accidents aren't due to lack of instruction and experience, they're due to people who are overly confident and in a hurry, or impaired by drugs/alcohol, emotional issues, or distracted.

You can tell someone a thousand times not to do XYZ while driving but it all comes back to their overconfidence that they are the exception to the rule, that they are a "good" driver.

Any time someone says they can do xyz because they drive better than others that don't, I want to stay the heck away from them on the road because everyone that wrecks felt they were ok, or else they would've taken avoidance steps just prior to that wreck.

The key thing is, it is irrelevant how good a driver someone thinks they are because physics applies, you can drive perfectly and some dumb move by someone else, vehicle malfunction, road conditions, many things can cause an accident.

A truly good driver is one that puts ALL of their attention on it.

Parent

RE: I'll not text for a week, but I won't stop talking

By Samus on 9/30/2009 5:03:57 PM , Rating: 2

Did I read that right? Did she really just ask people to stop talking to passengers while they're driving? Where in the hell does she think we live, the USSR?

Parent

RE: I'll not text for a week, but I won't stop talking

By mindless1 on 10/3/2009 4:25:40 PM , Rating: 2

Ask != Command

I "ask" you to remember that.

Parent

RE: I'll not text for a week, but I won't stop talking

By ElderTech on 9/30/2009 7:07:03 PM , Rating: 4

"I drive better on the phone than most people do on their best day."

taby, your attitude is typical of the ego-centric behavior that causes major accidents and road rage in this country. Having driven about 2 million miles over most of this country and a couple of foreign ones, I've seen many like you. Simply put, you're a "clear and present danger" to yourself, your family and anyone close to you, as long as that attitude prevails. Settle down, grow up and realize the statistics coming out on driving distractions of all kinds are real. We need a change in behavior before we lose more valuable human resources to the ever increasing distractions of the fast expanding technology world.

Parent

RE: I'll not text for a week, but I won't stop talking

By hyvonen on 10/1/2009 7:58:57 PM , Rating: 2

ElderTech: who are you to evaluate taby's driving skills, or his/her own assessment? I'm pretty sure (s)he knows how good a driver (s)he is much better than you do. I have no reason to think that his/her statement is in any way incorrect.

Moreover, your attitude ("I've seen many like you. Simply put, you're a 'clear and present danger' to yourself, your family and everyone close to you...") is really unfair - you don't know this person at all. You shouldn't be making such blanket statements.

I think you're the one who should grow up and realize that you can't apply statistics equally to everyone - some people are better drivers than others, as simple as that. They can afford to take the slightly increased risk of talking on the phone - the risk of an accident is still well below that of a bad driver who's not talking on the phone.

I'm pretty sure some 80% of the accidents are caused by the worst 10% of the drivers. Saying that a good driver is a big accident risk just because (s)he knows (s)he is a good driver is plain stupid.

Parent

RE: I'll not text for a week, but I won't stop talking

By tmouse on 10/2/2009 7:46:20 AM , Rating: 4

Your statement loses most of its impact because of taby's statement:

quote:
....I USUALLY don't text while I drive because it requires me to take my eyes off the road for extended time periods

Anyone who would consider themselves a good driver and EVER text someone while driving is seriously deluded. It is NEVER good to text and drive, unless you are some form of mutant who can use their eyes independently (one on the road and one on the phone) like some kind of lizard. While I agree blanket statements are not always justifiable I feel it is fair to have less confidence in someone who admits they do stupid things while driving and still consider themselves better than 80% of most drivers.

Parent

RE: I'll not text for a week, but I won't stop talking

By mindless1 on 10/3/2009 3:45:52 PM , Rating: 2

It's simple. Driving "skills" includes the discipline not to engage in distracting activities. Ask most people who have been in wrecks, I'm pretty confident they thought they were good drivers too.

It's totally fair to say the problem is people who insist they are better than (most) everyone else and that excuses their choice to devote attention to something other than driving.

The blanket statement is true! You can't selectively decide you are great so common sense doesn't apply.

"Better drivers" Includes the aspects of being "better" which is by necessity paying the most attention possible to driving rather than trying to multitask.

You wrote "they can afford" but you aren't grasping that it's not just their life or property they are risking. The risk of an accident by someone confident in their driving ability enough that they let other things impair it, are exactly the people who cause accidents, not "everybody else that's not as great as me".

Saying that someone overconfident in their driving ability enough that it's an excuse to not be the most attentive driver possible at all times, is not at all stupid.

It might be fairer to say that someone thinks others are bad drivers because their driving is effected by distractions, then that someone uses that as the excuse to distract themselves too. Viscous circular argument, especially when if you claim others drive badly, it is all the more reason YOU have to be as attentive as possible to avoid getting caught up in their mistakes.

Parent

RE: I'll not text for a week, but I won't stop talking

By Shadrack2 on 10/1/2009 9:39:16 AM , Rating: 3

quote:
I drive better on the phone than most people do on their best day.

Although I have to agree with most of your post, I wanted to rate you down on this statement alone. We all encounter those horrible drivers every day, sometimes their horribleness is consistent, perhaps sometimes we are just in the wrong place at the right time to witness an occasional slip up. But, I'm pretty sure they are all thinking that they drive better than most, even while they are doing stupid things.

Parent

Give them lead

By Beenthere on 9/30/2009 11:05:43 AM , Rating: 1

Every crackhead that texts or talks on their cellphone or drives DUI deserves a bullet to the head to cleanse the gene pool.

RE: Give them lead

By robertisaar on 9/30/2009 1:12:28 PM , Rating: 2

while that would remove texting and talking while driving, its a bit too far according to........ well, everyone.

easier just to fine them, revoke their license or something slightly less permanent than death...

two different means to the same end, yet this one doesn't involve pointless death.

Parent

RE: Give them lead

By frobizzle on 9/30/2009 8:22:21 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Every crackhead that texts or talks on their cellphone or drives DUI deserves a bullet to the head to cleanse the gene pool.

Fit? is that you?

Parent

RE: Give them lead

By mindless1 on 10/3/2009 4:28:05 PM , Rating: 2

Pretty senseless comment considering the whole point is to reduce harm to humans, even those that make mistakes.

Why do I get the feeling you are probably prone to road rage which is in itself a dangerous distraction?

Parent

No hot chicks are allowed to walk outside either

By jimbojimbo on 9/30/2009 3:34:11 PM , Rating: 2

To curb accidents caused by gawking male drivers women will be forced to wear burkas when outdoors.

New car accessory

By frobizzle on 9/30/09, Rating: 0

Not nanny state

By mdogs444 on 9/30/09, Rating: -1

RE: Not nanny state

By tastyratz on 9/30/2009 9:34:03 AM , Rating: 2

and I prefer stupid teens to not send text messages while driving. Dialing a phone is bad enough, and people will argue about the distractions of conversation while on a phone... but nobody can argue that if your sending a text message your not looking where you should be and the line should be drawn.

In a perfect world text messages would never be sent by people when driving. For a perfect law they would be illegal to send while driving a car and it would be easily enforceable... the only problem is that its really not something you can practically enforce.

I support choice and freedom if it mostly directly impacts just you such as drug laws, etc. Meaningless text messages are not one of those freedoms I support.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By FITCamaro on 9/30/09, Rating: -1

By FITCamaro on 9/30/2009 9:50:33 AM , Rating: -1

Where does he say he's against banning them while driving? He's saying it should be a state choice. And not one forced on them to get highway funding like the drinking age is.

Freedom isn't a when its convenient for you idea. It either exists or it doesn't. The other day at work we were even having a discussion on whether a private business should be allowed to discriminate on who can come in/do business with them. The argument was if you run a private restaurant, and you want a family atmosphere, you might not want to allow outwardly gay people to come in. And that that should be your choice. But the freedom to do that also allows someone to discriminate based on race.

Now no one at the table advocated racial discrimination. Just that you have to allow all or nothing. The argument for this was that businesses which discriminated on race or something else people largely disagreed with would, by and large, go out of business because most people wouldn't want to do business with a company like that (I know I wouldn't). But I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who'd like a restaurant that was family friendly and didn't have to worry about flamboyant gay couples coming in. I personally have nothing against gay people but don't want to see them being outwardly affectionate in public and certainly wouldn't around my kids. But then I really don't want to see straight couples being overly affectionate in public either.

And that since a private business SHOULD be considered private property like your home, this should be allowed. I know personally, if I owned a business, I would want the ability to chose who comes in or who works for me. Personally I wouldn't want to hire anyone of the liberal mindset because why do I want to employ people who want to vote to make my business less profitable or possibly even lose my business?

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Brandon Hill

(blog) on 9/30/2009 10:17:28 AM , Rating: 2

Do you have ANY friends that are liberals? What's the fun in hanging out with people that are like-minded ALL the time? When people of like minds get together (at least with politics), all they do is sit back and agree on how bad/good the current person in office is.

When there's mixed company, there's usually a lively debate when it comes to political commentary -- or at least that's what I'm most often witnessed.

That being said, I don't know how to classify myself in the political spectrum...

I'm against abortion (except in the cases of rape/incest/mother's health), I'm against illegal immigration, I'm pro death penalty. I was also against the bailout of the Chrysler and GM. However, I don't see what anyone needs with assault weapons or machine guns for personal use. I'm also for a national health plan. Most other issues I could go either way on.

As for your comment on flamboyant gays, don't ever go to San Francisco. When my wife and I went there for our honeymoon, it was a culture shock at first (we're both from North Carolina), but we got over it pretty quickly.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By FITCamaro on 9/30/2009 10:30:48 AM , Rating: 1

Yes I have a few friends who are liberals. One of which I argue with all the time on how little he makes sense.

And I've visited SF. Just for a day though. Went on a bus tour, visited Alcatraz, walked around a bit near the harbor. Didn't notice anything really(I did see a homeless guy in a wheelchair disguised as a robot). But maybe just was the part of town we were in. But yeah I could never live there.

Heh, my first day of work ever when I was 16 was the unofficial Gay Day at Universal Studios Islands of Adventure when the park first opened. I didn't see any dudes kissing but just thought the whole day there were a lot of European tourists since all the dudes were pale and had short shorts on. I actually didn't learn that that's what day it was till a year later. At that age I really didn't pay attention to something like that.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 9/30/09, Rating: 0

RE: Not nanny state

By Moishe on 9/30/2009 1:43:01 PM , Rating: 2

You are absolutely correct. The anti-gun stuff is pretty much purely an effort to remove that freedom.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By MrBlastman on 9/30/09, Rating: -1

By MrBlastman on 9/30/2009 11:12:24 AM , Rating: -1

Well said about the mixed company. One branch of my family tree is comprised of nothing but liberals. Every single one of them on that side to be exact. To be fair, they are all extremely bright people, with most of them being scientists in academia in genetics, biology, physics etc., and a few other of them being engineers. However, we don't hate each other at all.

It is well known among the family that at least my portion is very conservative--though, I myself am a conservative moderate (I no longer align myself directly with any party, but generally vote Republican). This does not distract from our family gatherings at all. Rather, it adds a great deal of interest to them. While we might all disagree on a number of points, these contrasting views as you mentioned, foster a great deal of interesting conversation.

It is always a very enjoyable and insightful experience when we all gather.

Now, to further discussion here a little... ;) Assault weapons or machine guns are quite okay for the populace to own. Believe it or not, there are a large number of hoops someone must go through to own a fully automatic weapon--the biggest one being cost. It is very cost prohibitive. Not only that, but in order to possess such a license you potentially open your home to random searches by the Federal government at any time. This is a bit too invasive if you ask me but, that is the law.

The majority of firearm crimes though, are committed by not by assault rifles. In fact, only about 4% of all mass murders by firearm is played out with an assault rifle. The remaining 96% of these murders are enacted with handguns, shotguns and other forms of firearm.

sources: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html (a rather pro-gun source)

According to the U.S. Government's Department of Justice, over three-quarters (75%+) of all guns used in crime were handguns.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

I don't see the threat here. Assault Rifles, if you've ever shot one or spent extensive time with one, are:

a. Far more accurate
b. Far easier to prevent from misfiring (with locking bolts, safeties, etc.) in some configurations
c. Harder to conceal
d. Are more intimidating

The accuracy alone goes a long way towards reducing collateral damage. It is much easier to to selectively aim at a specific target and put your round on just that target. Not only that, but the most common round, the .223, has less of a tendency to penetrate walls, ceilings and floors--and exit through the other side into the adjacent room than a standard 9mm round. The .223 round actually tends to fragment and break up upon impact.

The fact that they are intimidating is what scares everyone. After using one, you'll find that they are far more preferrable to use than a handgun for many reasons.

I just don't see any solid reasons as for people to _not_ own one. Yes, they have high capacity magazines--mine has 42-round mags and I could get a 200-round drum if I wanted. I don't plan on sitting in a pillbox holding a front line anytime soon so I haven't bothered with that. These high-capacity magazines, as those who are against them argue, give people more of a reason to shoot up a crowded place. As the statistics show though, this is not the case.

No, I think it is okay to own assault weapons. They send a clear message to our government. It tells them, yes, we are citizens and yes we care about our Nation. It also tells foreign countries that if they were to invade, they'd have one heck of a harder time succeeding with the citizens armed with potent weaponry. Most everyone I've met with an assault weapon is very level-headed and they are pretty darned good people.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By MrBlastman on 9/30/2009 11:13:22 AM , Rating: 2

Oh, and back on topic--I'm for this week long AAA ban on cell phones and texting during driving. If people can't give it up just for a week to see how it is, then they seriously need to seek treatment for their addiction.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By MrBlastman on 10/1/2009 11:07:21 AM , Rating: 1

I love how some chickens rate me down on this post but don't even have a big enough pair to try and contest my point of view. I was simply adding to the discussion that Brandon started.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Kurz on 9/30/09, Rating: 0

By Kurz on 9/30/2009 11:32:31 AM , Rating: 0

Personaly the problem that I have with my liberal friends is they never look at the broader picture.
They tend to see an issue only one way.

There tends to be disconnect on that.
I try to view the issue from all sides like with Universal health care. On one hand I feel truly bad for those without health insurance. Then on the other hand who is going to pay for all of it? The government is going to pay a bit. (The government is inefficient). Then I look at our outstanding debt and threats of other countries (China) droping our Currancy. That will decrease the value of our currency drastically. In this case who will benefit more?

The 250 million have insurance, 50 million don't. Is it fair to potientially exculate debt for just 50 million people? Potientialy losing the value of our currancy? Sending us into a nose dive into a depression? This is how I think.

There has to be a balance.

Things I would change in the current Healthcare system.

For one I think by allowing employee's the choice of health coverage regardless of their employers (Give Employee's premium credits). Since we are restricted on which insurance we can buy.

Also allowing me to buy insurance from any health provider in the country not just the ones in my state.

Outlawing preexisting conditions since in many cases its not fair. I for one have a issue with my ear I need to see a specialist once a year and surgery when it becomes an issue again.

Overcharging of tests/Ordering tests not required are big ones. Crazy expensive. Not sure about the solution for this one.

All these changes would drive health care costs down (except for preexisting conditions).

In a capital society there will be winners and losers.
But, with capitalism we have increased our standard of living and our place in the world.
Socialism never works out prime example Russia no one wanted to work. There was no incentive to produce.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By FITCamaro on 9/30/2009 12:06:00 PM , Rating: 2

Very well put.

If nothing else, all Democrats are talking about is the common sense sides of reform, but then pitching the solution to that being government run, government mandated health care. If we can save billions through the elimination of waste and fraud....why don't they do that? They don't need to pass a law to do that. They talk about all this money we can save that needs to be saved but don't want to just save it. They want to spend vast sums more.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 9/30/2009 4:30:42 PM , Rating: 3

Because the primary impetus for most of us in favor of health care reform isn't saving money, that's just a side benefit with evidence of the results pouring in from most other rich countries.

No, the primary reason is because we believe the current system is insane. We provide emergency services (when intervention is least effective, most invasive and most costly) regardless of ability to pay, but we don't make sure people can stay healthy. It makes no sense, if you really wanted the free market to work, then you must be willing to let people die. Otherwise, you need to work much harder to make sure people don't fall through the cracks.

PS My wife and I both have preexisting conditions that we can't afford to deal with on our own. We risk everything we own and our well being for the remainder of our lives if for some reason we cannot maintain coverage without exclusions. For this reason alone, I've turned my back on conservatives. I still agree with them more often then not, but the free market is not my god.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 9/30/2009 5:19:45 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
if you really wanted the free market to work, then you must be willing to let people die.

Not at all. I'm not sure why people fixate on this false dilemma. Yes, free market theory is opposed to forcing one man to give up his earnings for the benefit of another. But free market theory is not opposed to the concept of charity.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 9/30/2009 5:38:13 PM , Rating: 3

Please explain to me how it's not a false dilemma (I think dichotomy is the word you are looking for). The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.

Thus people by choice (young and invincible) or by situation (poor) rely on the emergency room. This massively distorts any effect the free market can have. Frankly, it's the most expensive and least sensible solution. We insure cars and inspect them yearly; I think requiring the same of our people is a fair trade for guaranteed emergency care.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 9/30/2009 5:44:50 PM , Rating: 2

Err, dilemma, not false dilemma.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 9/30/2009 6:12:29 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
Please explain to me how it's not a false dilemma (I think dichotomy is the word you are looking for).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

quote:
The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.

Your earlier statement :

quote:
if you really wanted the free market to work, then you must be willing to let people die.

can effectively be summarized as: either you are for free markets or you are for helping people. As such, I would classify it as a false dilemma.

As to the rest of your post: I agree that health care needs massive reforms; however, I don't put blame for the problems on the free market. I put blame on government intervention for screwing things up. You note one example of EMTALA. There are others, as I've noted on another post in this thread.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 9/30/2009 6:38:08 PM , Rating: 3

My apologies for the unneeded correction.

Anyway, I don't put blame on the free market, it's just a concept, a tool used to societies benefit. But it's not a perfect view of the world or the way things work. I have no love for or faith in economic theories.

quote:
Your earlier statement :

quote:

if you really wanted the free market to work, then you must be willing to let people die.

can effectively be summarized as: either you are for free markets or you are for helping people. As such, I would classify it as a false dilemma.

Nope, no logical fallacy because that's not what I said. I said you (not you personally, but our society) must be willing to let people die.

Remove EMTALA and people will die, every day, on the streets of our country. Be it pre-existing conditions or lack of employment or just plain poor judgement, it will happen. Charity can't cope with that. People in this country die because the can't afford to manage their health, pre-existing conditions or lack of employment or just plain poor judgement, it happens. Charity can't help everyone.

Just wanting to help doesn't solve the problem.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 9/30/2009 7:06:26 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
But it's not a perfect view of the world or the way things work.

Who said it was? It simply happens to be an efficient and equitable way of doing many things.

quote:
Nope, no logical fallacy because that's not what I said. I said you (not you personally, but our society) must be willing to let people die.

It is still a logical fallacy in my book. Society can operate on free market principles and still have compassionate members who are willing to help others. Love, compassion, and charity are not mutually exclusive with free markets, no matter how you try to spin it.

quote:
Remove EMTALA and people will die, every day, on the streets of our country....Charity can't cope with that.

Baloney. Before EMTALA was passed, the needy got charity care. There was no epidemic of people dying in the streets because ER's refused to treat them. From a practical standpoint, all EMTALA did was make it easy for people to abuse the charity of emergency rooms. Guess what happened then? ERs closed and costs rose, making less health care more expensive.

quote:
Charity can't help everyone.

But forced charity can, right?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: reform health care. Don't try and force charity (EMTALA, community rates, etc). Don't have government favoring one kind of insurance (employer sponsored versus individual) over another. Don't have government pretend to provide care to the poor, but in reality provide a plan that pays providers next to nothing (medicaid). Let people pick plans that are appropriate for their situations and their pocket books and let insurance companies compete for their business. Do that and costs will fall.

Will there still be unfortunate people that can't afford care? Of course, but with costs lowered and more people able to afford insurance, the strain on charities will be far less than you think.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 9/30/2009 8:41:35 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Who said it was? It simply happens to be an efficient and equitable way of doing many things.

Efficient maybe, equitable only based on your definition of equitable.

quote:
Love, compassion, and charity are not mutually exclusive with free markets, no matter how you try to spin it.

You're spinning my comments. I never claimed a mutual exclusion. Love, compassion and warm fuzzy feelings are not solutions. Even if most hospitals didn't turn people away, some would at an advantage to those that do the right thing. People would die. The 'invisible hand' would truly be in effect and people capable of future thought might make healthcare decisions with an honest fear of death.

quote:
Baloney. Before EMTALA was passed, the needy got charity care.

All of them? Timely care? Did they go to the nearest hospital? Regardless, I believe EMTALA is indeed insanity, as I said in my first post. Perhaps your solution is to remove it and and leave charity as the safety net. I don't believe that will work and I believe our society can do better (and I say that as someone who gives a significant portion of our household income to charity).

quote:
But forced charity can, right?

If you want to call government forced charity that's your problem. Do you call the roads you drive on charity? Do you thank charity for the levees that keep the Missisipi at bay? Do you call the military protecting your freedom charity? You pay taxes, poor people pay taxes, illegal aliens pay taxes, people with pre-existing conditions pay taxes and we all have opinions on how those taxes should be used.

quote:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: reform health care.

I agree! I wan't sane healthcare reform too. We have differences of course, but you don't get everything you want in a democracy, just the best you can push through congress.

In my mind, the best solution is to cover everyone. Mandatory health insurance for those who can afford it and a safety net for those who can't or fall through the private insurance cracks. After that, promote the free market as much as possible, make sure people have a motive to keep there care low cost when possible, etc, etc.

I truly believe that we can improve the economy by allowing people to focus on providing the best they can for their families instead of worrying about healthcare.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 9/30/2009 9:54:00 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
equitable only based on your definition of equitable.

A free market is inherently mutually beneficial. Do you have a better definition?

quote:
Even if most hospitals didn't turn people away, some would at an advantage to those that do the right thing. People would die.

Maybe, but probably not. Charity is good PR, and a hospital that regularly turns away the needy would face quite the media firestorm. Is it possible one person could fall through the cracks? Sure. But nothing in this world is 100%.

quote:
If you want to call government forced charity that's your problem.

Depends.

Citizens paying for national defense, infrastructure, law and order, etc is not charity: everyone directly benefits from their contribution.

On the other hand there are proposals like yours. You stated above that you and your wife have a pre-existing condition and that you cannot afford. Legislating that you have an inherent right to care on another man's dime most certainly is forced charity, and of course presents other problems (is that an unlimited right? what say does the public get on how you live your life if they have to cover the bill for your health care?).

In any event, I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on the topic. I don't believe a system can succeed long term if people don't pay in what they get out. I don't believe it is particularly moral to tax one man to pay for the care of another.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 9/30/2009 11:04:50 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
A free market is inherently mutually beneficial. Do you have a better definition?

Equitable generally means fair; life isn't fair. Your health isn't equitable, nor is the economy. As with most things it's part hard work, part luck.

quote:
Citizens paying for national defense, infrastructure, law and order, etc is not charity: everyone directly benefits from their contribution.

I don't see the distinction. If the government takes my land (at "fair market value") for a road I don't want, do I benefit? Did I benefit from the trillion dollar (so far) war on terror? I could go on all day.

quote:
On the other hand there are proposals like yours. You stated above that you and your wife have a pre-existing condition and that you cannot afford.

We have conditions that could be exempted from coverage or preclude us from getting coverage if we change jobs, lost a job, etc. IF their was a problem and we weren't covered, we could go bankrupt. A lot of IF's, that's why people buy insurance, and insurance needs to be dependable or productive citizens risk going bankrupt and depending on society to survive.

quote:
Legislating that you have an inherent right to care on another man's dime most certainly is forced charity, and of course presents other problems (is that an unlimited right? what say does the public get on how you live your life if they have to cover the bill for your health care?).

We've already legislated that right with EMTALA. You would repeal it, I would work to make it unnecessary. Of course it will be limited, it's insurance. Some things won't be covered and that point will need to be determined, but I don't see those limits as some intractable problem.

quote:
I don't believe it is particularly moral to tax one man to pay for the care of another.

I don't think a lot of things our government does with my tax money are moral, let's tear the whole thing down!

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 9/30/2009 11:43:14 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Equitable generally means fair

A transaction that is mutually agreeable is as fair as life gets. I get something of value to me and you get something of comparable value to you. If it were not the case, one party would not agree to the terms.

quote:
I don't see the distinction. If the government takes my land (at "fair market value") for a road I don't want, do I benefit? Did I benefit from the trillion dollar (so far) war on terror? I could go on all day.

I'm curious where I said the government taking your land at a price it decides was OK in my book??? Of course, its this same government that you for some reason trust with your health.

quote:
We've already legislated that right with EMTALA.

And I disagree strongly that it is a right. Health care is a need to be certain, but in world of limited resources, you simply cannot give people the right to the work of others.

quote:
I would work to make it unnecessary.

It was never necessary and it has only served to hamper our health care system.

quote:
Some things won't be covered and that point will need to be determined, but I don't see those limits as some intractable problem.

I bet you would if those limits affected you or your wife. I don't want or need some bean counter in Washington determining what kind of care I get.

quote:
I don't think a lot of things our government does with my tax money are moral, let's tear the whole thing down!

You won't get much of a fight from me. Both parties make me sick. There seemingly isn't an honest man in the bunch.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 10/1/2009 12:00:35 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
A transaction that is mutually agreeable is as fair as life gets. I get something of value to me and you get something of comparable value to you. If it were not the case, one party would not agree to the terms.

The truth. As fair as life gets, or in other words, not fair. I believe society should progress from that.

quote:
I'm curious where I said the government taking your land at a price it decides was OK in my book??? Of course, its this same government that you for some reason trust with your health.

The point is no government is perfect. I guess you wan't no government. I don't, I'll put up with the occasional imperfection.

quote:
And I disagree strongly that it is a right. Health care is a need to be certain, but in world of limited resources, you simply cannot give people the right to the work of others.

You don't like the word right, how about a privilege of citizenship. Just like national defense, public roads, public utilities, public libraries, etc.

quote:
It was never necessary and it has only served to hamper our health care system.

Maybe a conservative should have done something about it in the last 23 years.

quote:
I bet you would if those limits affected you or your wife. I don't want or need some bean counter in Washington determining what kind of care I get.

So get private insurance, I'm not arguing for single payer. Just remember that some bean counter will make the decision, whether it's the government, your insurer or your next of kin.

quote:
You won't get much of a fight from me. Both parties make me sick. There seemingly isn't an honest man in the bunch.

We'll, you can spend your life trying to change humanity, or you can make the best of what you have. Politics has never been pretty.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 10/1/2009 9:16:13 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
I believe society should progress from that.

Unfortunately you can't progress from that without making the ultimate sacrifice in freedom. Personally I would rather be a poor but free man than a well off slave.

quote:
I guess you wan't no government.

Nope. I simply want a government that sets and enforces laws that (practically) every man it governs can agree upon: laws against murder, against fraud, etc; I want a government that is equal in its treatment to everyone. I don't want a government that decides I'm too rich and takes the wealth I've earned and gives it to others for no better reason than it makes them feel good.

quote:
You don't like the word right, how about a privilege of citizenship. Just like national defense, public roads, public utilities, public libraries, etc.

Depends: How is the privilege earned? What responsibilities come with the privilege? How are those responsibilities enforced? Who is going to pay for this privilege?

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 10/1/2009 10:04:20 AM , Rating: 1

quote:
Unfortunately you can't progress from that without making the ultimate sacrifice in freedom. Personally I would rather be a poor but free man than a well off slave.

You believe taxes that take from one and give to another are the ultimate sacrifice? This country has already made that sacrifice a million times over. Perhaps you should consider starting your own country. As I said, I am a slave to a country that spent at least $1 trillion dollars on a global war on terror, there by transferring my money to people I may not want it to go to or who even deserve it. It's unfortunate, but in order for more than one person to be a part of this country, compromises will be made.

quote:
Nope. I simply want a government that sets and enforces laws that (practically) every man it governs can agree upon

Good luck with that, unfortunately you'll have to carefully select the members of your society, otherwise you might find there isn't a lot everyone agrees on.

quote:
I don't want a government that decides I'm too rich and takes the wealth I've earned and gives it to others for no better reason than it makes them feel good.

Because you are a self-made man and you owe nothing to society, right? Because the lowest tax rates on the rich since the Great Depression aren't low enough. If that's what you want then quit letting society baby you. Stop paying taxes and live apart from any of the benefits a government that taxes it's citizens may offer.

You stand on the backs of giants in this country, you have more privileges than you can count, yet you make a distinction on healthcare for some strange reason I can't comprehend.

quote:
Depends: How is the privilege earned? What responsibilities come with the privilege? How are those responsibilities enforced? Who is going to pay for this privilege?

By simply being born in this country, you were granted some of the greatest privileges this world has to offer. The blood of our ancestors breaking from the world of monarchs and tyranny, the best their intellect could offer, packaged and taught to you, a massive infrastructure that allows almost everyone physical and economic mobility and a standard of living that utterly dwarfs anything in history.

What did YOU do to deserve that? Jack shit.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 10/1/2009 10:44:22 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
You believe taxes that take from one and give to another are the ultimate sacrifice?

No, I simply find that unethical. The ultimate sacrifice is our loss of freedom that would necessarily occur if we moved away from free markets. Free markets center on the fact that people will of their own choosing enter into agreements that are mutually beneficial. Moving away from that means loss of freedom, even if you seemingly gain a benefit. That is arguably the greatest sacrifice, and one that countless men have given their lives for.

quote:
otherwise you might find there isn't a lot everyone agrees on.

That is kind of the point. Everyone can agree on a law against murder for the simple fact that they themselves would not like to be murdered. Not everyone is going to agree that we should take all of your money and use it to feed starving children in Africa, although a democratic vote on the subject could well see you penniless for the simple fact that it is easy to spend other people's money.

quote:
Because you are a self-made man and you owe nothing to society, right? Because the lowest tax rates on the rich since the Great Depression aren't low enough.

Nah. I don't have a problem paying taxes that are commensurate to the benefit I receive from government. Heck, I'd even agree that the benefit the rich receive is greater than the benefit the poor receive by virtue of the fact that they have more to lose, which justifies that the rich pay more in taxes.

What I can't justify is that the rich have an enforceable obligation to pay for the care of everyone else. This is both for practical reasons (you eventually run out of rich people) as well as moral reasons (government sponsored theft is still theft: see tyranny of the majority, an example of which being that democratic vote I mentioned above).

quote:
By simply being born in this country, you were granted some of the greatest privileges this world has to offer.

By being born in this country, I was granted the ultimate privilege, and really the only one that matters: freedom. It isn't one that I'm willing to give up because you happen to think that everyone is stupid and uncharitable, and thus must be forced according to how you believe.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 10/1/2009 12:05:11 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
That is arguably the greatest sacrifice.

I'm sorry, but the ultimate sacrifice is your life. And yes, people make that sacrifice for certain freedoms for their descendants and countrymen, but it's hardly absolute freedom. A free country can agree, through our representatives, to sacrifice some freedoms for the good of our society. You are trying to make something black and white when it isn't. As I've said time and again, everybody will pay for something with their taxes that they don't agree with.

You've dodged this question too long. Why do we spend $1 trillion on GWOT when not all of us agree with it? How is this different than health care?

quote:
What I can't justify is that the rich have an enforceable obligation to pay for the care of everyone else.

That's why those who can afford to pay, will pay. Far fewer would fall through the cracks, and, we could end up with a more productive society that doesn't worry as much about health care costs - sorta like other rich countries of the world.

If we "run out of rich people", the apocalypse comes, etc, we can take up repealing such laws then.

quote:
a democratic vote on the subject could well see you penniless

quote:
tyranny of the majority

A democratic vote on war in 2003 probably would have resulted in war, the same result our representatives came to, "stealing" my money and my children's for something I don't want. That's the price we pay in society.

quote:
I was granted the ultimate privilege, and really the only one that matters: freedom.

Freedom is not absolute and freedom means nothing to the dead. There can be balance, I truly hope one day you can see that.

quote:
because you happen to think that everyone is stupid and uncharitable

I haven't said that and I don't think it. I see your point of view and I decided to engage you on it. If I thought your were stupid and uncharitable, I wouldn't be having this conversation.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 10/1/2009 12:32:41 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I'm sorry, but the ultimate sacrifice is your life.

As one of our fellow countrymen put it: give me liberty or give me death. Without liberty, you have no life.

quote:
You've dodged this question too long. Why do we spend $1 trillion on GWOT when not all of us agree with it? How is this different than health care?

I've dodged it because ultimately, it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. As I've noted previously, I'm not exactly thrilled with our government and the bulk of its actions. I've never once mentioned my opinions on the global war on terror and I'm not sure what makes you think that I support it one way or the other. But since it seems to bother you, my stance is comparable to Ron Paul in that regard.

quote:
That's why those who can afford to pay, will pay.

But at some point you still think the rich have an enforceable obligation to pay for those that cannot afford to pay. I disagree. And given that Americans give hundreds of billions of dollars a year in charity, I'm not convinced that enforcing an obligation upon them is necessary. On the other hand if you enforce it, you invite abuse, much like how EMTALA is abused and has caused more than a few ERs in the country to shut down.

quote:
That's the price we pay in society.

And like you, I demand better.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 10/1/2009 12:58:48 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
give me liberty or give me death

Are you not represented? I doubt Patrick Henry would give his life to defend us from the tyranny of the programs implemented by our elected leaders, but I suppose he's not here so you can ascribe to him whatever views you like.

You place markets, money and property as what defines liberty. I don't, I believe free people have basic human rights and representation to work out the rest.

quote:
I've never once mentioned my opinions on the global war on terror and I'm not sure what makes you think that I support it one way or the other. But since it seems to bother you, my stance is comparable to Ron Paul in that regard.

At some point, you as a hypothetical leader, would spend money that I don't agree with, to enforce some right you believe the country must enforce for it's people. Defense, police, infrastructure, whatever, it will happen.

I could complain, I would do what I can, but as long as I'm represented, I won't call it tyranny.

quote:
On the other hand if you enforce it, you invite abuse.

People can abuse anything, people choose to stay in jail to receive health care! Children abuse education, people abuse the privelege of driving, etc, etc. Punish the abusers, but I don't think we must punish mistakes (ie losing coverage) with people lives or livelihood.

quote:
And like you, I demand better.

Every honest and caring citizen demands better. Some just see the world, liberty, injustice, equality and all these other ideas differently than yourself.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 10/1/2009 1:32:38 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
You place markets, money and property as what defines liberty.

If you don't have the right to freely enter into agreements with other people (pretty big in free markets I hear), you have no liberty, period.

quote:
Are you not represented?

To borrow a wrongly attributed but still relevant quote: A lamb can represent itself in a vote on what to have for dinner against two wolves. That doesn't mean the outcome is just or a victory of liberty. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.

quote:
At some point, you as a hypothetical leader, would spend money that I don't agree with, to enforce some right you believe the country must enforce for it's people. Defense, police, infrastructure, whatever, it will happen.

Probably. You can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time. However, the laws and policies that a government puts in place should come reasonably close to doing so. Those laws that favor one group over another are inherently unjust.

quote:
Punish the abusers

Easier said than done, especially after you've gone and declared health care a basic human right.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 10/1/2009 1:57:07 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
If you don't have the right to freely enter into agreements with other people (pretty big in free markets I hear), you have no liberty, period.

Of course you can freely enter into agreements, no one is trying to take that away. Governments do however mandate some things in exchange for citizenship: taxes, selective service, rule of law, etc.

quote:
To borrow a wrongly attributed but still relevant quote: A lamb can represent itself in a vote on what to have for dinner against two wolves. That doesn't mean the outcome is just or a victory of liberty. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.

Yes, the tyranny of the majority is an interesting problem, but I don't think it's entirely avoidable accept in basic human rights. The spending of tax money, as our elected representatives see fit, isn't an abridgment of your freedom.

So you don't agree with much in this country ruled by elected leaders. You are quite right, you have a way out. Do as your forefathers and take up arms against it. I just don't think the cause is really anything like theirs.

quote:
Those laws that favor one group over another are inherently unjust.

If you say the government can build infrastructure, someone, perhaps even a "rich person", will not benefit from that expenditure. They didn't need the road, they could have built their own, etc. A poor person may even use that road free of charge. They are treated differently, and thus unjustly by your definition.

quote:
Easier said than done, especially after you've gone and declared health care a basic human right.

I never declared it a basic human right. I said we should mandate and provide for it. Roads aren't a basic human right, levees aren't a basic human right, and yet our government pays for these things for the benefit of all.

Civilized society is ripe for abuse, some level of trust is required for society for function and some will break that trust. This has been true for all of human history.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 10/1/2009 2:24:10 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Of course you can freely enter into agreements, no one is trying to take that away.

Curious because what I see is you professing how unfair the free market is (which last I checked is based on people freely entering into agreements), and how we as a society should progress away from it. If that is not the case, there isn't much else to talk about in this regard.

quote:
Governments do however mandate some things in exchange for citizenship: taxes, selective service, rule of law, etc.

I don't recall saying otherwise (although I might disagree with selective service, but that's neither here nor there). I simply say that the things they mandate should be agreeable and beneficial to everyone. Taxing me to pay for your health care doesn't qualify.

quote:
but I don't think it's entirely avoidable accept in basic human rights. The spending of tax money, as our elected representatives see fit, isn't an abridgment of your freedom.

It most certainly can be. Suppose our elected representatives say you, glennpratt, are among the wealthiest men on the planet (which is more than likely true). Because of this, we are going to take most of your income and assets and provide care to those needier than yourself. Is that an abridgment of your freedom? If it is for you, why is it not for someone wealthier than yourself?

quote:
If you say the government can build infrastructure, someone, perhaps even a "rich person", will not benefit from that expenditure. They didn't need the road, they could have built their own, etc. A poor person may even use that road free of charge. They are treated differently, and thus unjustly by your definition.

Of course you and I both know that absolutely everyone benefits from infrastructure; with out it the flow of goods and services would halt, and society would crumble. And as I've said before, it can be easily argued that rich people do benefit from government services, even infrastructure, more than the poor, so I don't have any objections to them paying a commensurate amount more in taxes. However, I do not see any tangible benefit by being forced to pay for your health care via taxes.

That said, roads should be, and generally are, a local affair to be handled by regional governments, for the simple reason that a man in Idaho shouldn't be taxed for a road in Alaska.

quote:
I never declared it a basic human right.

The open ended privilege that you describe has the same effect.

quote:
Civilized society is ripe for abuse, some level of trust is required for society for function and some will break that trust. This has been true for all of human history.

Certainly. But I can't call a law whose potential for abuse is obvious, particularly intelligent. This is compounded when there is no real way to curb said abuse. Take EMTALA: how does one curb that abuse exactly? Turn people away from the ER? Call the cops if they show up too often?

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 10/1/2009 3:54:36 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I see is you professing how unfair the free market is

Who cares? Life isn't fair and the free market isn't fair. What I want is better.

quote:
I simply say that the things they mandate should be agreeable and beneficial to everyone. Taxing me to pay for your health care doesn't qualify.

Says you. Unfortunately, you have yet to point out how it violates your basic rights anymore than any other government appropriation.

quote:
Of course you and I both know that absolutely
everyone benefits from infrastructure

No I don't. I live in a land of urban sprawl and bridges to almost-nowhere. You think that's good, but that doesn't make it just and equitable. Any infrastructure you build will help one group more than another based on simple geography. That's unjust according to you.

quote:
The open ended privilege that you describe has the same effect.

Says you. Laws change, our country has completely transformed in the last 100 years and I imagine it will in the next.

quote:
Certainly. But I can't call a law whose potential for abuse is obvious, particularly intelligent. This is compounded when there is no real way to curb said abuse. Take EMTALA: how does one curb that abuse exactly?

So your primary fear is poor, lazy people will get health insurance? Require them to work, actively search for work, get diagnosed with a disability or get booted out. I'm fine with punishing people who are actively subverting the system. If they want back in, they can pay a fine.

If you want a religious exception, that's fine, but don't expect a free ride at the emergency room when you get in a car accident.

These problems are not intractable.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 10/1/2009 5:12:44 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
free market isn't fair.

Says you. Life certainly isn't fair. Two people freely entering into an agreement sans force and fraud, the hallmark of the free market, is my definition of fair. I'm not sure what you believe is fair, and from your commentary, I don't think I really want to know.

quote:
Unfortunately, you have yet to point out how it violates your basic rights anymore than any other government appropriation.

Says you. Fact of the matter is I did address that; you just chose to ignore the question. To sum it up: most people wouldn't be happy if the government appropriated a significant percentage of their income to help the less fortunate. If in addition to the taxes you had to pay now, you personally had to pay an additional 50% because you were deemed to be too successful in life, I suspect you'd consider that a violation of your rights.

quote:
No I don't. I live in a land of urban sprawl and bridges to almost-nowhere.

Then I'd recommend writing to your representatives. If people actually got involved, you might actually see intelligent infrastructure planning instead bridges to almost-nowhere. Of course,

quote:
Require them to work, actively search for work, get diagnosed with a disability or get booted out.

Then people will die. That's unacceptable, remember?

In any event, at this point I'll have to excuse myself from this conversation. From what I've seen, I doubt the gap between us is going to be bridged; I certainly strongly disagree with your opinions, and I'm sure you strongly disagree with mine. Have a nice day.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Kurz on 10/1/2009 4:30:33 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
In my mind, the best solution is to cover everyone. Mandatory health insurance for those who can afford it and a safety net for those who can't or fall through the private insurance cracks. After that, promote the free market as much as possible, make sure people have a motive to keep there care low cost when possible, etc, etc.

Mandatory?! Why does it have to be Mandatory?
The issue I have with that is the lack of choice.
If I don't want Health insurance I should have the right not to have it.

Who decides if I can afford it?

Sorry I wouldn't want you writing policy in washington.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 10/1/2009 8:35:20 AM , Rating: 2

Well people a lot more aggressive than me are writing policy already. Conservitives should have tackled this issue when they had power and could frame the debate, but they didn't.

Why does it need to be mandatory? Because right now the majority of ER visits are written off as bad debt. Either we shut the door to those people or we try to get them insured. It also needs to be mandatory because people like yourself think you are invincible, then get cancer or lupus or AIDS or some other chronic illness that will bankrupt you, take your health and send you to the ER to die at massive expense to society.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Kurz on 10/1/2009 4:44:19 PM , Rating: 2

Lol I don't consider myself invincible.
I've been near death multiple times.
In fact I probably will be on Health insurance for the rest of my life.
However, just because I need health insurance doesn't mean we impose the doctrine of health insurance on everyone.

I believe in a thing called choice.
I don't need a government to become an omnipotent and decide whats good for me and society.
If I decide one day I can't pay for it for a short period of time I should be able to drop it.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 9/30/2009 6:19:23 PM , Rating: 2

FWIW...

quote:
We insure cars and inspect them yearly; I think requiring the same of our people is a fair trade for guaranteed emergency care.

Similar to my train of thought.

In my ideal world, health insurance would be for catastrophic events with a reasonably high deductible to prevent people from abusing the ER.

Insurance companies would provide a discount for yearly checkups to maintain health, as it is in their interest as well as your own that you stay healthy.

No government intervention needed except to prevent the breaking of contracts.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Kurz on 10/1/2009 4:37:19 AM , Rating: 2

Why does the government need to be in our personal lives?
Seeing to make sure we insure ourselves?

In my state we pay a yearly fee *VA can't remember the amount* if we don't want to pay car insurance.

The reason why we pay for car insurance is because the fact we are driving 2 ton vehicles with the chance of hurting each other.

Personal health and vehicle health isn't the same thing. Since Personal effects yourself only. Vehicle problems can effect you and 30 people in a highway pileup.

quote:
Insurance companies would provide a discount for yearly checkups to maintain health, as it is in their interest as well as your own that you stay healthy.

I like this if companies provided this incentive themselves that would be a cost reducer.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 10/1/2009 8:28:54 AM , Rating: 2

Your health does have a negative externalities.

When you, young and invincible, skip insurance, get sick and go broke, you will fall on the mercy of the state or society. Instead of being a productive citizen, you may leave your family in poverty as well. And when all else fails, you'll end up in the ER, where you will be treated at massive expense and society will flip the bill.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By FITCamaro on 10/1/2009 10:41:38 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
We insure cars and inspect them yearly; I think requiring the same of our people is a fair trade for guaranteed emergency care.

Wow.....and people say conservatives view people as objects. You're honestly going to compare people to cars?

By the way, the entire country DOESN'T require yearly inspections. And mandatory auto insurance is to cover the other person, not yourself. Personal coverage is optional.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 10/1/2009 11:14:30 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Wow.....and people say conservatives view people as objects. You're honestly going to compare people to cars?

We don't really insure cars as much as we insure drives, require them to pass tests and maintain a safe vehicle. We do this because there is a chance a mistake could cause damage or injury that the operator can't afford and society will be forced to cover it. Much the same with health care, you don't decide to be healthy, you live your best and hope for the best. If you get a serious illness and are uninsured, you fall on the mercy or society or die alone. I think it's time to move on from that paradigm, and I feel the best way to do that is require everyone to be insured.

As I said:

quote:
I think requiring the same of our people is a fair trade for guaranteed emergency care.

The point is, I'm not happy with the status quo and neither are you. Your solution is to tear down protections we have and trust the free market, mine is to get everyone involved because everyone will have to deal with their health on day, and they don't get to decide how serious it will be or how much it will cost.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By FITCamaro on 10/1/2009 10:19:21 AM , Rating: 2

So you don't think decreasing costs can help make it so that you and your wife can afford coverage?

Where are the republicans or conservatives saying "f*ck the poor and sick"? Nowhere. They're saying let competition thrive and lower costs. Then for those who are still left out, we can try to help. No system will ever be perfect. But I have far more trust in the free market system than government employees.

I'm all for TRUE reform. The government taking over isn't reform. Nor is it legal under the Constitution(the general welfare clause does not give the government a free ticket to do whatever it wants. Madison even states this). But hey don't let them stop you.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By FITCamaro on 10/1/2009 10:38:44 AM , Rating: 2

Oh and by the way, which group leads the charge in denying coverage for certain medical problems, private industry or medicare/medicaid? The latter. Private companies follow medicare and medicaid when determining what to cover and what not to cover.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 10/1/2009 10:48:14 AM , Rating: 2

Not to mention the fact that Medicare and to a greater degree Medicaid pay providers so poorly that many have opted to drop patients with those forms of insurance...

But perhaps doctors should be forced to accept those forms of insurance. After all, they're relatively well off. They should have to sacrifice for the good of the poor. /sarcasm

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 10/1/2009 11:44:56 AM , Rating: 2

Again, I'm not pushing single payer. I want you to be able to buy as much coverage as you want. I'm not even stuck on the public option, do away with it if you must.

I'm not defending Medicare/Medicaid, but I don't ascribe to them all the problems that exist with health care today. It's an awfully one-sided view.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 10/1/2009 11:32:21 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
So you don't think decreasing costs can help make it so that you and your wife can afford coverage?

We can and do afford coverage. We are young, highly educated, in shape and otherwise healthy so odds are we will maintain that coverage. But people like us can and have lost coverage against their best efforts, then gotten sick and un-insurable. After they go bankrupt, they fall on the mercy of society, unproductive and broke. This is an unacceptable outcome to me - you disagree, as is your right.

quote:
Where are the republicans or conservatives saying "f*ck the poor and sick"? Nowhere. They're saying let competition thrive and lower costs. Then for those who are still left out, we can try to help. No system will ever be perfect. But I have far more trust in the free market system than government employees.

I never said any of that. I don't want to tear down the free market, I want to require everyone to get involved in it! I don't want single payer and I honestly believe a system where everyone is involved (including the presently healthy) could become even more competitive and efficient.

I do believe we need a public insurer, but it can coexist with private insurers, just like public colleges, public education, public postal service, etc.

quote:
The government taking over isn't reform.

I don't want the government to take over, I want them to build a floor.

I'm not going to argue the Constitution with you. Everything is probably going to fall under the Commerce Clause. Frankly, health care is easier to paint with that brush then many of the other things the federal government does.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 10/1/2009 12:49:54 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
We can and do afford coverage. We are young, highly educated, in shape and otherwise healthy so odds are we will maintain that coverage. But people like us can and have lost coverage against their best efforts, then gotten sick and un-insurable. After they go bankrupt, they fall on the mercy of society, unproductive and broke. This is an unacceptable outcome to me - you disagree, as is your right.

FWIW, I agree with the sentiment. I disagree with how you go about changing things.

Mandates that everyone must have insurance won't change much of anything. Relatively speaking, few people are running around without insurance because they are convinced of their invulnerability. But perhaps I'm wrong, and there are large numbers of morons out there willing to risk bankruptcy if they don't have to?

A public option always starts out as a nice idea. But unfortunately people have a point when they say it is an unfair competitor in the market place. The reality is that even a if public option goes into the red, it won't die like a normal company. That makes it unfair. The only way it could be fair is if it was forced to operate like any other business, and if it failed, be allowed to die. That won't happen for the reason they won't kill Medicare as it sinks into the red: it's political suicide.

quote:
I don't want the government to take over, I want them to build a floor.

This I can agree with. The government's job is to provide a framework, not to micromanage people's lives and get into the insurance business.

If you want my general opinion, we need a new breed of insurance companies. Instead of the plans we have now, a more practical solution be a long term contract with insurance companies. When you're born, your parents pay your premium and it goes into your pot which accrues interest. If you get sick or incur expenses, it comes out of that pot. When you get old enough, you pay for the contract yourself. By contract, you cannot be dropped and your policy cannot be rescinded, although for practical reasons there would be contractual limitations on maximum payout which would largely depend on your age and the amount in your pot: eg a newborn could get more care than he had in the pot, but a 90 year old couldn't. Contracts should be portable from one company to another, kind of like rolling over your 401k. You should be able to monitor your pot like a 401k also. Rates will be on an actuarial basis: if you don't take care of yourself and don't see a doctor, your rates go up. If you have pre-existing conditions, your rates would necessarily be marginally higher to cover your higher expected costs.

No need to make it mandatory: I have faith that few people are dumb enough to run around without insurance if they can at all afford it.

Taxing the haves to provide for the have nots is also not necessary. This country gives hundreds of billions of dollars a year in charity. If you want to increase that, give doctors better incentives to perform charity care, eg tax breaks.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 10/1/2009 1:14:54 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Relatively speaking, few people are running around without insurance because they are convinced of their invulnerability.

17.6 million are working adults with a household income above $50,000.

Wikipedia:

quote:
The Census Bureau reports that in 2007 nearly 37 million of the uninsured were employment-age adults (ages 18 to 64) and more than 27 million worked at least part time. Approximately 61% of the roughly 45 million uninsured live in households with incomes under $50,000 (13.5 million below $25,000 and 14.5 million at $25,000 to $49,000).[3] And 38% live in households with incomes of $50,000 or more (8.5 million at $50,000 to $74,999 and 9.1 million at $75,000 or more.

quote:
If you want my general opinion, we need a new breed of insurance companies.

And how would we do that?

If change is going to happen, it will take a miraculous change in public opinion and habits or government intervention. And if it take government intervention, someone, maybe you, won't be happy with the details.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 10/1/2009 1:48:03 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
17.6 million are working adults with a household income above $50,000.

No. If you check the quote again it states 17.6 million of the uninsured live in a household with an income above $50000; of that figure, not all are working adults.

In any event, there are two problems:

1. 50k a year can be a lot of money or very little money depending on where you live. This is particularly the case in urban environments. Try living in NYC with a family of 4 on 50k a year. I guarantee 50k won't sound like a lot of money to you anymore.

2. 17.6 million people is not a massive portion of the population. Mandating that these people get health insurance isn't going to magically fix anything.

quote:
If change is going to happen, it will take a miraculous change in public opinion and habits or government intervention.

Ultimately it takes the former; you can't have government intervention that works in any meaningful manner without public opinion and habits firmly behind it.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 10/1/2009 2:25:50 PM , Rating: 2

To add:

quote:
And how would we do that?

Ultimately all it takes is a willing entrepreneur, some investors, and a good marketing strategy. A well executed contract handles the rest.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 10/1/2009 2:39:05 PM , Rating: 2

Yes, ultimately it relies on a bunch of random events that may, but probably wont, happen. And even then millions will fall through the cracks. All the better for our independent heroes who rely on no one. They will use their earnings for charity and magically take care of everyone in their time off...

I don't buy it.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 10/1/2009 3:05:31 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Yes, ultimately it relies on a bunch of random events that may, but probably wont, happen.

See that's the beautiful thing about the free market. When people see problems (like poor options for insurance coverage) they figure out mutually beneficial ways of fixing those problems.

quote:
They will use their earnings for charity and magically take care of everyone in their time off...

I don't buy it.

Americans give hundreds of billions of dollars a year in charity. Hospitals and even entire health systems exist not for profit, but to help people.

But you're right, millions will die on the streets because humanity is known for its indifference to those suffering in front of them, even if it is in their power to help. You have destroyed my faith in humanity, happy now???

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 10/1/2009 3:29:40 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
See that's the beautiful thing about the free market. When people see problems (like poor options for insurance coverage) they figure out mutually beneficial ways of fixing those problems.

Again, I'm not opposed to the free market. I'm opposed to letting millions fall through the cracks.

quote:
Americans give hundreds of billions of dollars a year in charity. Hospitals and even entire health systems exist not for profit, but to help people.

That's great, but that still leaves us in the situation we are in today. I never said millions would die on the street, but a Harvard Medical Study said 45,000 die per year because of a lack of health insurance.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 10/1/2009 3:59:57 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I'm opposed to letting millions fall through the cracks.

Curiously, I'm not inclined to let millions fall through the cracks either. I simply believe in alternative methods than you do.

That's great, but that still leaves us in the situation we are in today.

No, it doesn't.

I advocate actual health care reform that will bring the actual costs of care down. I advocate health care reform that will reduce the inefficiencies in the system without resorting to issuing mandates.

Allow doctors and nurses to do their jobs without fear of being sued for the smallest detail. Reform malpractice, and the costs resulting from defensive medicine will drop (measured in hundreds of billions of dollars).

Allow hospitals do do business in a manner that is beneficial to themselves and their patients, and have some faith in their discretion that they aren't turning away tens of thousands of people to die in the streets.

If you're bound and determined to offer them, try properly funding Medicare and Medicaid. Instead of cutting how much they pay to primary care doctors, try increasing the amount. As a result you'll find more doctors willing to accept those patients, and they won't have to end up in the ER for basic treatments.

If those things get done, health care costs will drop significantly, which means more and more people can afford if. For those few that are left: I still hold that charity will do the job without mandates.

quote:
Harvard Medical Study said 45,000 die per year because of a lack of health insurance.

Funny, since at the moment emergency services are available to all regardless of ability to pay. So thousands of people die regardless of forced charity. Interesting.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 10/1/2009 4:27:45 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Curiously, I'm not inclined to let millions fall through the cracks either. I simply believe in alternative methods than you do.

I don't think you are inclined to, but you are willing to let it happen if people don't make the "mutually beneficial" contracts on there own accord.

quote:
Allow doctors and nurses to do their jobs without fear of being sued for the smallest detail. Reform malpractice, and the costs resulting from defensive medicine will drop (measured in hundreds of billions of dollars).

Tort reform is important, it will lower the overall cost. That's not really what I'm arguing about, nor is it mutually exclusive to other proposals.

quote:
Allow hospitals do do business in a manner that is beneficial to themselves and their patients, and have some faith in their discretion that they aren't turning away tens of thousands of people to die in the streets.

They can, just don't accept government insurance.

quote:
If you're bound and determined to offer them, try properly funding Medicare and Medicaid. Instead of cutting how much they pay to primary care doctors, try increasing the amount. As a result you'll find more doctors willing to accept those patients, and they won't have to end up in the ER for basic treatments.

As usual, conservatives are now the champions of our old safety nets, that they never wanted in the first place. The next conservative president will happily veto legislation to increase doctors pay, just like the last one. Yes, imperfection will continue, regardless.

quote:
Funny, since at the moment emergency services are available to all regardless of ability to pay. So thousands of people die regardless of forced charity. Interesting.

No, people die because they cannot afford to manage chronic illness, lose their health and then go to the ER for life saving procedures, that ultimately fail and get added to the statistics.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 10/1/2009 2:28:49 PM , Rating: 2

Yes, I read it wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that a significant percentage of the uninsured could afford insurance. The problem I'm talking about is the danger and burden of the uninsured. It doesn't matter how small it is relative to the US population, but rather the uninsured population (nearly 45 million).

Here's another quote:

quote:
It has been estimated that nearly one-fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, almost one quarter is eligible for public coverage, and the remaining 56% need financial assistance (8.9% of all Americans). An estimated 5 million of those without health insurance are considered "uninsurable" because of pre-existing conditions.

quote:
Ultimately it takes the former; you can't have government intervention that works in any meaningful manner without public opinion and habits firmly behind it.

I assume we should have just left that whole slavery/segregation/racism thing alone until the public supported it. That's a matter of human rights you say? Separate but equal they say.

Sorry for the hyperbole, but the idea that the government can't get out in front of an issue is ludicrous to me. I presume you would do away with requirements for emissions, fuel economy, seat belts, airbags and ABS too.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 10/1/2009 2:58:23 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
It doesn't matter how small it is relative to the US population

Of course it matters. We're talking about 3% of the population here that can theoretically afford health insurance, but chooses not to get it for whatever reason. The influx of money the health care system will see from them being mandated to carry coverage is insignificant. Of course, I say theoretically because I think you can afford to give 90% of your assets to charity and still have a standard of living superior to most of the rest of the world. You might not agree with my assessment.

This isn't to say those people shouldn't carry insurance; I think it's wholly irresponsible not to carry it if you can. But I don't believe issuing mandates is going to solve much either.

quote:
but the idea that the government can't get out in front of an issue is ludicrous to me.

Our leaders can suggest ideas. But if those ideas don't have a fair amount of public support behind them, it's political suicide to ram them through. If they don't have a fair amount of public support, they won't be especially effective.

Take your slavery argument: it took a bloody war to end it. Even after that, it has been more than another hundred years and more than a few African Americans would say they don't have true equality with whites.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 10/1/2009 3:21:58 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Of course it matters. We're talking about 3% of the population here that can theoretically afford health insurance, but chooses not to get it for whatever reason. The influx of money the health care system will see from them being mandated to carry coverage is insignificant.

I doubt the money will be insignificant, but what will be truly significant is uninsured no longer distorting health care costs. ERs write off over half their patients and they must make up the difference somewhere. They do it by charging as much is they can, orders of magnitude more than things cost, then seeing what sticks. Insurance companies and the government negotiate or mandate most things at a lower cost. Good luck to the individual.

As I've said from the beginning, this is the insanity you trust the free market to fix, I prefer everyone share the burden, since everyone is susceptible to disease and injury that will render them a burden on society (or dead).

quote:
Our leaders can suggest ideas. But if those ideas don't have a fair amount of public support behind them, it's political suicide to ram them through. If they don't have a fair amount of public support, they won't be especially effective.

Fair amount of public support? Perhaps your plan of everyone just being smarter, richer and better doesn't have the support. According to a CBS poll a majority of Americans have supported the government guaranteeing health insurance for all since at least 1996. 72% support a public insurance option today.

Yes, I agree, many people in our society aren't doing the best job of managing their own health, but that doesn't mean reform doesn't have public support. It's just that many people, whether living in the moment or just scraping by, don't make the best decisions with their health and society bears the burden for it.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 10/1/2009 3:40:28 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I doubt the money will be insignificant

Adding insurance premiums from 9 million people isn't going to solve America's problems with health care. Sorry. In an industry that is measured in trillions of dollars, the 50 billion or so a year (9 mil x 6k a year (500/mo) those people might add to the pot isn't going to solve squat.

quote:
ERs write off over half their patients and they must make up the difference somewhere.

Having spent a few years actually working in a hospital and seeing the people that pass through the doors, I'd be willing to bet the people that are racking up the bulk of those bad debts aren't 20 somethings that can afford to get insurance but think they're invincible.

quote:
According to a CBS poll a majority of Americans have supported the government guaranteeing health insurance for all since at least 1996. 72% support a public insurance option today.

As long as "someone else" is paying for it, sure.

quote:
It's just that many people, whether living in the moment or just scraping by, don't make the best decisions with their health and society bears the burden for it.

I see the light.

Indeed. They must be forced to take responsibility for their lives as you and I see fit (we're the smart ones). Those dolts don't know what is good for them. I would also make an exercise routine and a strictly vegan diet mandatory: all those obese people are more of a burden on society than us skinny people after all. If they refuse, perhaps we can send them to re-education camps?

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 10/1/2009 4:09:50 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Having spent a few years actually working in a hospital and seeing the people that pass through the doors, I'd be willing to bet the people that are racking up the bulk of those bad debts aren't 20 somethings that can afford to get insurance but think they're invincible.

Anecdotal evidence is the answer! Do you mean the bad debts are from the elderly or poor children that are mostly eligible for government benefits anyway? 75% are working age people.

I never said the bulk of them were 20 somethings. Most people don't think their invincible, I was referring to the conservatives on this board that think living without insurance is a reasonable risk to take without owning a crystal ball and a magic wand.

quote:
As long as "someone else" is paying for it, sure.

We all pay taxes. Rich invariably pay more under our system for anything our government does. As you've said, you have a problem with our country that is no where near restrained to health care.

quote:
If they refuse, perhaps we can send them to re-education camps?

What happens if you refuse to pay taxes? Refuse selective service (without making up an excuse anyway)? Refuse to obey the police? How exactly is this any different other then your gut feeling about it?

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By croc on 9/30/2009 7:49:17 PM , Rating: 2

US health care costs, $6300/per yr/per capita.

Australian health care costs, $2300/per yr/per capita. US has many uninsured, Aus. has almost none. Health care outcomes, US 23rd in the OECD. Aus., consistently in the top 10. My employer pays none of my health benefits... Now do we want to discuss out-of-pocket expenses?

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By tayb on 9/30/2009 11:50:05 AM , Rating: 1

I always ask people who are for a national health care plan three questions.

1. Have you ever been to Canada, spoken to Canadians, or had to go to the doctor/emergency room while in Canada?

2. Our deficit is currently over 11.7 trillion. That is a 11 following by 12, count them, 12 zeros. Who pays for universal health care when our current budget for 2010 is over a trillion in the red?

3. Why do people from all over the world fly to America to get medical attention? Have you ever flown to another country to get medical attention?

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By omnicronx on 9/30/2009 1:49:45 PM , Rating: 2

1.I love the Canada argument, as though the proposed Universal Health Care plan is anything close to what Canada has.. I assure you its not even close. We have full public health care, and no private health care, everything is funded by the government.

2. While certain aspects such as wait times could increase, it has been shown that in countries with similar systems (similar to the proposed system)could actually cost less per person. France is a perfect example of this, they pay something like 600 dollars less per person per year than the US. Now I am not saying its feasible for the US to cut their costs that much, but if done right, it should not necessarily cost more than it does now, if done correctly that is..

3.Universal health care will not stop this, private health care will still exist, and thus those wishing to pay for better care will still get it. For the average person, US care is under par compared to other nations. As you used Canada as an example, it has a higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate, higher physicians/nurses per 1000 people. In terms of GDP, health care costs only consist of 11% compared to 16% in the US. The US system is inefficient as it stands, how Healthcare only consists of 11% of Canada's GDP yet they fund 70% of healthcare compared to the US 45% is a big question that needs to be answered.

The rich will always be able to afford healthcare, no Universal healthcare system is going to change this.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Moishe on 9/30/2009 2:02:40 PM , Rating: 2

Canada's plan is not good enough for me, and this PLAN will not be as well done as Canada's plan.

When the country is hemorrhaging money, it's not wise to spend trillions more on anything, much less something that has very little public support.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By glennpratt on 9/30/2009 6:00:16 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
much less something that has very little public support.

Maybe in your conservative echo chamber. In a CBS poll, 72% of Americans said they would support paying more in taxes for universal health coverage and 85% of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed.

Looking forward to a comment on the accuracy of polling.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By FITCamaro on 9/30/2009 2:44:55 PM , Rating: 2

1) Yes but the initial bill after 5 years moves to that. All private plans after 5 years would be brought in line with the government option. Even if they weren't another provision was that they couldn't sign up any new customers. So given time the private companies would die out.

2) France's health care system is broke. And I prefer speedier service to less expensive service when it comes to my life.

3) Can you get better care in Canada than the public system? Largely no(I've heard they've started letting dentists operate outside the public system). You come to the US. Why would that be any different here when the day comes that the US system mirrors your own? Which is exactly what certain politicians and our president want. Regardless of what they claim now. Some still brag about wanting a single payer system. Obama doesn't anymore because it would look bad but when he was a Senator he advocated for one. Are we supposed to believe that he has had a change of heart? He claimed that he doesn't believe that those against him are motivated by race too but Monday at a speech to a black group he claimed that colored children, no matter how hard they work, won't be able to succeed and prosper as much as others due to racism.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 9/30/2009 3:20:52 PM , Rating: 2

But there is no question that significant reform is needed in health care.....

....because the government screwed it up.

They tied health insurance to your employer by giving tax breaks for offering coverage. That distorted the market and had the effect of destroying consumer choice in the market.

They force emergency rooms to accept any and all patients that present, as if previously ER's were turning away the needy. Not shockingly, that policy gets abused right and left, and hospitals have to recover costs somehow.

They put out plans like Medicare and Medicaid which theoretically help the elderly, disabled, and the poor. What they don't tell you is that Medicare pays far less than the average insurance company to its providers. Medicaid pays even less. As a result, more and more primary care doctors opt not to see those patients, which means they end up in the ER to get treatment.

Then there are other little details like abuse of the malpractice system, which has a wonderful cascade effect. Yes, the amount of doctors that get successfully sued and the awards against them are relatively small in comparison to the size of the health care system, but the indirect effects are larger. Doctors have to pay ever increasing malpractice insurance premiums, and worse, they have to practice defensive medicine by ordering numerous, typically unnecessary, tests to shield themselves against lawsuits.

Of course, one thing I wonder is why people want insurance coverage for a yearly checkup. I mean, the only thing it can do is increase costs because it increased the doctors cost of doing business by dealing with the insurance company, and you have to pay the insurance company for paying the doctor for you. Yeah, the government had their hand in that too by offering preferential treatment to Blue Cross & Blue Shield long ago.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By FITCamaro on 10/1/2009 10:21:47 AM , Rating: 2

Well for elderly care, all doctors are pretty much forced to take Medicare. Because its either that or don't treat the elderly at all. There's no market really for coverage for the elderly because Medicare has a monopoly on it.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 10/1/2009 10:53:07 AM , Rating: 2

All hospitals pretty much have to accept Medicare because the elderly are going to come one way or another.

Primary care doctors are another story. Many do in fact limit the number of Medicare patients they will accept for the simple fact that Medicare pays much less than other insurers and there is no shortage of other patients for them to see.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By omnicronx on 9/30/2009 4:01:46 PM , Rating: 2

1)I'm not talking about private vs public payers, but the delivery system.. In Canada, there are no private institutions, the government acts as the payer and the provider.

2) France was just an example, just go look at the top 10 countries that make use of universal healthcare (not necessarily single payer either) , on average they pay out 50% less per person. (ex. Canada, Australia, Germany, etc etc)

3. Hey I'm not here to say the US should copy Canada's system, nor is that the intent of Universal healthcare in the US. Heck I'm not even sure a single payer is the only option. I'm a real advocate of a split system, in which public options only exist to keep costs of private care down (i.e care for all, but anyone can opt for a private plan should they see fit, most likely with more coverage). People always seem to use money/quality of care as a reason against healthcare reform, and I just wanted to outline why for the most part, this is untrue.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Moishe on 9/30/2009 1:55:50 PM , Rating: 2

That argument won't work and here is why.

The person you're talking to doesn't care how much it costs because *THEY* will not be paying for it.

We talk about deficits and "trillions" so often and for so many years that people simply see that the government, hospitals, and businesses never stop running. So what if it's 11 trillion or 1 trillion? It's just a number too large to comprehend.

Add to that the fact that most people have no clue about economics, they are lazy, they are uneducated, and they just want stuff to work. Say in 10 years the world were to rid themselves of their stock in the USD. If the economy truly tanked. If another country invaded and we became a portion of Russia. Politicians would simply pass the blame. It's all too complex for the average Joe to understand, which is why we have people in charge. As a country we hire "experts" and we elect people who tell us that they will work in the best interest of the citizens. We trust that they will be wise with our money, keep us safe by having an effective military and foreign policy, keep our economy running by not overburdening us with taxes or regulation.

We have self-serving, short-sighted people with a serious lack of integrity and they are seriously screwing up our future peace, economy, and safety for their own self-interests.

The only way to get Joe Dumbass to make any difference is by throwing a fit everytime a politician is caught not serving the citizens.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By FITCamaro on 9/30/2009 2:52:58 PM , Rating: 2

This is exactly why I might consider running for an elected position at some point. I'm tired of seeing others run things poorly. So while I hate politics, I might at some point get so fed up with others to try and do it myself.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By FITCarnaro on 10/1/2009 12:02:42 AM , Rating: 1

My platform would be "A Ponticrap in every garage" and "Inbreeding, its not just a right, its the law!"

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By FITCamaro on 10/1/2009 10:20:03 AM , Rating: 1

You truly are a f*cking idiot.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By FITCamaro on 9/30/2009 9:36:37 AM , Rating: 1

Respecting the 10th Amendment really isn't a high priority for this administration or Congress. Getting the Olympics in Chicago, ignoring constituents, and ignoring commanders in Afghanistan are far higher on their to-do lists.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Moishe on 9/30/2009 2:05:29 PM , Rating: 1

Hey, don't tell the truth or rock the boat... the raters don't like it :)

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Kaldor on 9/30/2009 2:38:49 PM , Rating: 2

No kidding, I ran out of ups or I would have voted Fit up for a change, lol.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By FITCamaro on 9/30/2009 2:46:44 PM , Rating: 2

Heh. Like I care. And unlike some others on here, I don't have multiple accounts to rate up my comments.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By vandalizer on 9/30/2009 9:37:05 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
I prefer 50 smaller forms of government creating such law, than I do 1 large form creating such law without a national vote.

The national vote happens every other November.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By FITCamaro on 9/30/2009 9:53:23 AM , Rating: 3

Uh yeah for 1/3 the House and whatever Senators are up for re-election. How is that a national election to vote on a law that will effect the entire country?

This is a local issue, not a national one. State legislators far better represent the people than those in Congress. As such they should decide what the people of their state can and can't do on their roads.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By kattanna on 9/30/2009 10:27:45 AM , Rating: 2

honestly, whether its at a state or federal level, it doesnt matter because most people simply choose to ignore it.

its been against the law to talk while holding the phone and driving for some time now here in CA, but i see people all the time doing it anyways.

honestly.. we dont need another pointless law that does nothing more then allow some politician to then use it as an example of how they are working to make our lives better.. ;>)

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Moishe on 9/30/2009 2:07:09 PM , Rating: 2

They choose to ignore it because the punishment isn't strict enough.

If I knew that being caught texting while driving would result in a 10 day license suspension and $200 fine... and if I knew the cops were really watching. I'd stop.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Helbore on 10/1/2009 11:07:34 AM , Rating: 2

Isn't the fact that it's bloody stupid and could end up with you dead and splattered all over the road reason enough to stop?

The possibility of 10 days without your car and $200 less in your bank account concerns you more than the possibility of killing someone or being killed?

I just can't get how anyone can think that driving whilst typing on a phone is a sensible thing to do! what ever happened to common sense?

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Moishe on 9/30/2009 1:36:32 PM , Rating: 2

I agree. This would be better as a state law.

I have a problem with these kinds of laws anyways. It seems like the line of thinking is "If we keep making rules, eventually there will be no more accidents and no more death." Since this concept is absurd (there will always be death and accidents) I believe the laws should find an appropriate balance between keeping us reasonably safe and letting us still have freedom.

The problem is that the "for your own safety" argument is purely a means of convincing people to grant control to a group of elites (the government).

Safety is not more important than freedom.

I believe that if you make laws that are common sense and then enforce them rigidly, it would do more than making 50 highly specific laws that are weakly enforced.
Example: the use of <INERT OBJECT NAME> can be legally considered driving recklessly *IF* the cop deems it so. It would apply to cell phones, hamburgers, dildos, etc. Basically... don't drive like a fool and we won't smack you down. If we make the punishment severe and the enforcement very strong, the incentive to drive safely will be very high.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Steve1981 on 9/30/2009 3:53:46 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
I believe that if you make laws that are common sense and then enforce them rigidly, it would do more than making 50 highly specific laws that are weakly enforced.
Example: the use of <INERT OBJECT NAME> can be legally considered driving recklessly *IF* the cop deems it so.

I agree with this notion, which is notable simply for the fact that I would have disagreed a few months back.

The prime reason for this, which more or less reiterates what you say, is that it is far more useful, efficient, and effective to rely upon the judgment call of a police officer to determine a course of action in individual situations than to try and follow a rulebook that paints with a broad brush. Its akin to letting a doctor do his job of diagnosing a patient as opposed to having him follow a predefined set of rules like a machine.

Few think driving and using a cell phone at the same time is the smartest idea. But if the resources don't exist to really make a dent in speeding, its unlikely the resources exist to make a dent in cell usage.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/2009 1:44:19 PM , Rating: 1

This is such a moot point. Because, and please listen very carefully, because I'm going to say this once....

YOU CANNOT ENFORCE A NATIONWIDE BAN ON THIS.

Thank you.

Parent

RE: Not nanny state

By MrBlastman on 9/30/2009 2:11:57 PM , Rating: 2

Unless of course you legislate that all cell phones have a gps tracking chip that interfaces with a car to determine if the cell phone is in a moving vehicle. If it is, the chip would shut off the phones capability of sending or receiving text messages while the car is in motion.

The only problem with this is--older vehicles wouldn't have a way to interface with the phone. The only other option would to be to disable texting if the phone computes that it is moving at say over 20 mph which would potentially not require a vehicle interface.

Parent

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins