Posted 5 months, 12 days ago in 
Loading ...
In a previous life, John Borgen may have traveled about selling snake oil. Now, instead of fishing for suckers singly he’s trying to catch them en masse with socialized medicine.
First, John tells us that it need not be socialized medicine, but could be run by a nonprofit not connected to government or politics. Come on. How is this massive nonprofit going to come into existence without government?
Second, he says there should be no refusal to participate because risk pool benefits are lost if people opt out. Who’s going to enforce that if not the government? Believe me, some patients and doctors will have to be forced to participate because it will soon be apparent that there is no incentive to stay in.
Third, he wants us to use the term “universal health care” not socialized medicine. Just remember that snake oil by any other name is still snake oil. Once you’ve found it doesn’t work, it’s too late for a refund.
RICK L. COLEMAN
Grand Junction
53 Responses to “Calling socialized medicine by another name doesn’t make it better”
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 9:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’m on the side that believes the government should not run the health care system as it does in countries like Canada and England. But I do believe that everyone must have health insurance and everyone with a pre-existing condition should be able to get health insurance. How that is accomplished, I don’t know. The bigger question is the escalating cost of health care. It seems to me that the cost of keeping people alive for relatively short periods of time, who have a terminal condition, using very expensive procedures and drugs, is one of the primary reasons for the skyrocketing costs. Doing something about this will be very difficult. But, at some point, it will have to be addressed.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 11:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
When you come to the problem with attitudes of “government can do nothing right”, any government action, by it’s nature is socialism–a naughty word–,and seemingly, what we have is the best solution, not much can change or improve. Government can initiate a universal program that has an independent board, operating at arms length fom the federal government, that operates exactly in the manner of any corporation with executives whose salaries are based on meeting objectives. The objectives are covering cost, current and projections for the future, but most importantly, measureable levels of efficiency and patient service and outcomes. The non-profit insurance corporation need not have any tax revenue stream but could be completely funded by periodic premiums paid by all individuals Although not initiated by govenment, St. Mary’s, for instance, is a non-profit and offers darn good service.
There is no way around not having health insurance for the majority of people in the US. Multiple health insurance companies having limited risk pools and causing providers a huge administration cost is just plain no longer viable for reasons of cost and complexity. No for-profit insurance company can operate with mandatory acceptance of all applicants and customers coming and going and have a manageable actuarial system without high pricing that tries to compensate for unpredictable risks and an unpredictable premium income flow and reserves.
At the root of assuming that multiple for-profit insurance companies ensures that there will be competition and prices can be kept lower is fallacious. Insurance companies “compete” with different levels of coverage and managing their limited risk pools by excluding people known, or assumed , to be high risk. The very people who need insurance the worst are ruled out except for huge premiums that must cover the expected costs that person will incur–and probably soon. In this age of computerization there is very little room for any insurance company to get a competitive advantage with lower administration costs. The “competition” is not competition that lowers costs to the insured. It is less insurance for less money and they all offer it. If you want insurance with minimal coverage, what happens if your costs exceed your insurance coverage and ability to pay? If you fall back on our current system some form of government program or mandates to hospitals will cover you.Isn’t that exactly what is one of the reasons for sky-high costs today and the situation we’re trying to avoid? Typically, younger people have lower health care costs and then have higher cost later in life. If you pay standard premiums early in life you are, in effect, building up reserves to cover your cost late in life. In addition you are insured for unexpected costs at any point in your life. You are contributing to a risk pool that depends on actuarial predictability and the fact that all are building up reserves for the possible and the inevitable costs that each member of the pool will incur. It won’t work at the lowest possible costs for everybody if people are free to enter and leave the pool by gambling on not needing insurance and then re-entering when the feel they do. Everybody permanently in the pool is building up reserves that are then used by new entries who have not been contributing.
Multple for-profit insurance companies, people trying to game the system by entering and leaving, and a governmental guarantee that those without insurance will be served anyway just will no longer work. All of those things are major contributors to our high and rising health costs. Single-payer, full coverage coverage insurance is the only rational way to improve the system. Those who cannot pay their premiums, temporrily or permanently, can be handled with a program through taxation or within the operation of the insurance company. Health care should not be free–misleadingly through taxation–but paid for by everybody through premiums from cradle to the grave. When a person reaches a point in life when he is assumed to be mature enough, he could opt out if he thinks he can do better outside the system. But there is no returning nor any public safety net. It has to be to make the system work. Doctors and providers are free to charge what they want but the system will only pay what has been computed as fair pay for particular services. That is little different from what insurance companies already do. If there is another way to include multiple for-profit insurance companies, coverage for everybody, encourage people to be cost-conscious and still lower costs and improve care, I’d certainly enjoy hearing details.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 12:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Golly John, all that typing must have worn your finger tips plum down to mere nubbins.
Now for one of those pesky facts that you guys don’t like much.
The United States Constitution,
9th Amendment: “The enumeration of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.”
10th Amendment: “The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.”
So, show me where medical care, insurance, or whatever name you plan on putting on this garbage in the future, is ENUMERATED to the federal government.
Now I know that you don’t much care for any limitations being placed on big government, but unless it is specifically enumerated, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
And I already know that since you cannot attack my positions, I’m gonna be called uneducated and everything else you can dream up in an attempt to deflect attention away from my FACTS.
Have a nice day, and tell yer buddy dave hi.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 2:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Does that mean the interstate highway system is unconstitutional? Or the internet we’re all using?
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 2:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well longjohn, I suppose you could actually READ the Constitution so you have some knowledge of what is, and is not enumerated to the federal government.
As to the internet, when did the federal government create and fund it?
If you thing algore really invented the internet, you need some remedial history.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 2:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, I guess the Fed, FHA, Sallie Mae and others are all illegal and unconstitutional? When the current “system” is unreasonably expensive, no longer rational and even results in a citizenry that is unhealthier than in most highly developed countries what is the answer? More of the same? If the government is the instigator of a system that is owned by it’s share holders/premium payers/all citizens and separate from any government intrusion or operational interference, that would be unconstitutional? Is the constitution something to protect us and make life more livable or is it a dead document based on 18th century knowledge and worldview and carries an omniscience that some people put in the Holy Bible as the absolute, unchanging document to live by in all ages? Or is this really argument and insinuation for the sake of argument? If you don’t like these ideas, what are yours? Anybody?
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes john, those you listed are indeed Unconstitutional.
I find the entire tone of this post to be deliberately rude and obnoxious, as well as an affront to the very basis this country was founded on.
And I also find it odd that one of my posts which was not argumentative, nor belligerent was removed but this one was allowed to stay.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 2:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Are all questions asked of Willis rude and obnoxious just because they’re asked? We’re on the one way street again.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 3:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dear john, instead of trying to be argumentative, why not actually read the Constitution and find out for yourself exactly what is, or in not, enumerated to the federal government so you will be equipped to discuss the issue rationally instead of your typical personal attack mode?
I could wait for you to ask about each individual federal program that you care to ask about, but it would be a lot easier for the other readers if you just did your own research.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 3:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Socialized medicine. There’s that term again, thrown out to cause fear and panic. The VA and medicare and medicaid are, by definition, socialized medicine, but we don’t hear call to take health care away from our vets, do we? Nor do we have protesters out in front of our VA here in Junction, with signs decrying the constitutionality of the system. So where’s the disconnect? Is it, as has been posted here before, that “lazy” people have no right to health care? Only the “producers” should have access to “socialized medicine?” What about the person who isn’t very smart and won’t ever make more than 12 bucks an hour, but they work hard and do a good job? Lazy? Should half of every paycheck go to health insurance? There are always going to be truly lazy people, and they are going to cost the rest of us, one way or another. In today’s “system” they go to the E.R. and then don’t pay their bill. Who pays? The rest of us, with higher costs, higher premiums and decreased availability of resources for true emergencies.
The VA seems to work, maybe with some problems, like the Walter Reed deal, but what if we made it mandatory that after H.S. graduation every kid put in a year of service–military, peace corps, nat. gaurd, etc? Expand the VA to cover those Americans?
It just seems that America, of all countries, could ensure that all citizens have access to good, cheap healthcare without compromising our freedoms and values…
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 3:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, you’ve said the existence of institutions with an arms length relationship to the federal government are illegal and unconstitutional. The issue is what to do about our broken health delivery and payment system. I suggested you explain what your ideas are that would assumedly be legal, in your estimation. Or is there a problem at all from your standpoint? This is not a quiz. It’s about ideas. I’ve offered mine. You can offer yours or choose to continue with the unconstitutional mantra. Your choice.I have read the constitution many times over through the years and I believe my ideas are within the constitution or I wouldn’t have offered them. Enlighten us all!
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 3:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
I just posed a simple question, and I never mentioned Al Gore. So why the insulting response?
My intent was to hopefully contribute to this discussion by illustrating that there have been some things initiated / funded / facilitated by the federal government which are generally acknowledged to have been beneficial, and that because we are 200+ years after the writing of the Constitution, there are bound to be some gray areas in interpreting its meaning with respect to modern events. I certainly respect the Constitution and the articles you cite, and I share your concern with government overreaching, but clearly there have been some instances where federal resources have enabled a broad public benefit. I believe it’s best to not be so black and white about such issues.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 3:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
For any serious discussion, proper terminology is essential. Anyone who knows anything about “socialized” medicine is aware that the term refers to a system in which the medical care that administered is done so by government employees, and that the facilities within which the care is administered are owned by the government. In our country, the major example of “socialized” medicine is the VA system. None of the health care remedies or systems currently being proposed by any politician or candidates for any public office meets the definition of “socialized” medicine. Mr. Johnson should become more informed before he attempts to pass himself off as being knowledgeable on this or any other subject.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 4:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Holy Moly!!! I really want to weigh in on this without bringing the constitutuion in on it!! The “lazy” people already have health insurance, its called medicaid!! That is NOT to say that everyone on medicaid is lazy, but the people who are also on welfare I would say ARE lazy!!!! I, however, am NOT one of the people that is lazy OR covered by any health insurance. I dont really have the answer, but I do feel that something needs to be done. I work every day just like most Americans and I pay taxes just like most Americans! Even if I could afford health coverage (at about $400 per month for myself) I cant get it because of pre-existing conditions (all of which, I have paid for myself). The company I work for doesnt offer health coverage because it is too expensive for small business. I have no idea what the solution is, but hopefully someone will come up with something soon. I am NOT looking for a hand out from the government, but some “healthy” plans would be a great idea!!
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 4:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Jen, your situation and whatever problems you have that might bankrupt you can only be solved by insurance that will probably cover more of your expenses than your contributions could pay for. That situation seems anathema to those like Willis. However, if you would have had the kind of insurance I’m proposing from birth you may have actually “paid your own way” until you leave this world, maybe not. It doesn’ matter since others would probaly paid in more than they get back over their lifetime. That seems to bother some tremendously but that’s the nature of all insurance of any kind. Is there a better way? I don’t know of any, but maybe Willis can put us on a more rational economic path. Your turn, Willis.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 4:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John B.- My limited reading of Mr. Johnson’s fractured and uniformed prose strongly indicates he may not be the best person to “put us on a more rational economic path.” He simply doesn’t exhibit the intellectual capacity to be credible. Simply put, he doesn’t appear to have what it takes to be a “player.”
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 5:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. If you don’t like what it says, there are provisions and process to affect change. Don’t you think it was nice of the founding fathers to include that. Maybe the Constitution or America isn’t such a bad thing after all, huh John.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 6:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Patriot,who said the constitution was a bad deal? As I mentioned, I have, indeed, read the constitution many times over and I fully understand that amendments can be made, but I don’t think they would be neccessary for the proposal I make, just as the institutions I mentioned seem, after many years, apparently are constitutonal since they have not been ruled otherwise. What is your proposal for health insurance improvements? That is the subject of this string. Or do you think improvements are neccessary? Lets hear from you with some concrete ideas. And tell us about your fascination with Dave Kearsley and how that relates to anything in any of the subjects you have commented on.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 6:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I answered your question, and you are the one who defined the Constitution as a “dead document, based on 18th century knowledge”.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 6:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Digressing a bit from the original letter but, damn, after reading these posts I started seeing large stars & stripes in the presence of so many self-professed Constitutional scholars. The supreme law of the land, fer sure. Usually only reserved for the largest carnivore. No matter.
But, what about the that little (overlooked) part of Article VI which clearly states: “… but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Do you reckon the founders were hoping to maintain a secular nation, as it was founded? Isn’t it high time to put an atheiest or Buddhist in the White House?
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 6:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Check again. I asked the question if it was a dead documet. How’s the speed reading class going?
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 6:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It seems to me that the posts always digress into picking apart spelling or other grammatical mistakes. The writer said you “referred to” which you did. When it reads like a duck etc. I notice that your supporters do not critique your spelling errors.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 7:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quote, from post #6: “Is the constitution something to protect us and make life more livable OR is it a dead document based on 18th century knowledge and worldview and carries an omniscience that some people put in the Holy Bible as the absolute, unchanging document to live by in all ages?” (emphasis mine)
Do you see the “OR”, there? It’s hard to make out, so I capitalized it.
That’s asking a question. That’s not ‘defining’ anything.
To put it in plainer terms, I think he was asking, “is it a living document, that changes with the needs of its people, or is it carved in stone, never to be changed, altered, or, you know….amended??”
Man, and you guys call us liberals hypersensitive about words……
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 7:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Golly John B,
Perhaps we could roll back all the liberal socialist programs instituted by an out of control congress and an out of control president during the 1960’s.
Prior to little brain johnson, one worker per family could support the entire family, with reasonably priced medical care.
The primary payer was the patient, not some “insurance” company, and costs were held to a minimum with the best care available.
It was called “capitalism” and “Private Enterprise”.
The vast majority of “welfare” was taken care of by the religious and other charitable organizations.
But, the corrupt politicians discovered they could buy votes from lower income people by raising taxes to pay for all sorts of government giveaways.
They include, but are not limited to, medicare, medicare, WIC, foodstamps, housing allowances, disability for children with made up diseases.etc.
Johnson, and his super majority congress broke the Social Security Trust Fund, and rolled hundreds of billions of dollars directly into the general fund to pay for all these new programs that never existed before.
And every “surplus” dime paid into Social Security now is routinely stolen from the future generations to continue buying votes from the uninformed.
And before you go complaining that I’m picking on democrats, the ‘republicans’, when they gained power in both houses in the 1990’s, did nothing to slow down, much less correct the situation.
In short, PRIVATE ENTERPRISE did very well prior to the 1960’s.
The private charitable organizations made sure nobody died for lack of medical care WITHOUT government intervention.
All your plan offers is ever increasing taxes, and ever decreasing quality of healthcare in this country.
But, this has all been covered in previous posts.
I might suggest that you copy and paste it into a word document for future reference.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 7:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
One.voice
I suspect that Johns’ supporters aren’t really looking for meaningless ways to put him down. The same can be said on the other side of rexall, willis leon johnson, american patriot, et al. If you are attacking someones’ spelling, you are most likely just a retired english teacher. It’s a thing with them, politics aside.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 8:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
There you go again, Willis, bringing up that whole capitalism thing. You really should try to be more considerate. You know the only people in agreement with that are strong, self reliant, intelligent Americans who are filled with entrepreneurial spirit and want to make their own choices. Try to remember that this is all about hearts and minds, and what kind of numbers can you expect appealing to those kind of people. Try to appeal to the mass with their hand out. Please stop espousing all those core values and stuff. Try to put yourself in their place. It’s all about winning, and it doesn’t really matter what you stand for as long as you win. You’ve got to start looking at the law as an inconvenience. I shudder to think of what you are going to come up with next. Probably some silly statement like “If you want the law to be there to protect the people, then the people must be there to protect the law”.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 8:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
See, there you go again, demeaning someone who doesn’t agree with your views. I CAN READ. I guess my point was that to even hint at the language used by John B. to describe the Constitution is foreign to me. To me, it is a marvelous, living document, amended only for purposes of inclusion. Our Forefathers were far sighted and gave us all the tools needed to maintain our freedoms, and thanks to the sacrifice of the many we are free. I don’t understand the personal attacks when a decent dialog would suffice.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 8:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If anyone would bother to read a history of our constitution they would find that it was written by a small, elite group of landowners and merchants for the benefit of same. Our founding fathers never envisioned the “rabble” being in charge.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 8:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OV - No, sorry, you keep missing the point of his question, almost willfully so. His question regarding the Constitution as a living document asserted that it was, rather than the dead one in the second part of the question. If you’re going to continue to trip yourself up by getting offended by statements that “even hint at” language you find “foreign”, you’re going to have a hard time finishing reading a sentence, much less engaging in a “decent dialog”.
For what it’s worth, I share your high opinion of the Constitution. I just don’t think it’s carved in stone, or unable to be altered for the greater good. Remember Women’s right to vote? Civil Rights? Were those “unnecessary” amendments?
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 9:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I didn’t even read the original posts or comments but something just jumped out at me by dc … “JUST” a retired English teacher (??!!)
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 9:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Proteus said:”Proteus
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 8:29 pm PM This User Report this comment
If anyone would bother to read a history of our constitution they would find that it was written by a small, elite group of landowners and merchants for the benefit of same. Our founding fathers never envisioned the “rabble” being in charge.”
Well, a cursory reading of the Constitution begins with;
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, Establish Justice, insure the domestic Tranquility, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty and Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
At no point in the Constitution does it mention that it only applies to the rich, or merchants.
Nor does it in any way require those “less wealthy” to abstain from acquiring wealth through their own devices.
Nor are there any roadblocks set in the body of the Constitution, that would preclude the “average” person from achieving greatness through hard work and self reliance.
So far, I have been unable to find any place that states the “wealthy” should pay “their fair share” which is in greater percentage of wealth than the ordinary citizen.
So proteus, I do not find any evidence of favoritism towards the wealthy.
However, I do agree that the “rabble” has been in control of the government for much too long.
It is past the time for the “rabble” to be replaced with “citizen legislators” as was originally intended by the framers.
The original intent was “Men of good stature and honesty” to be the elected from each district.
There is no difficulty in finding corruption in both houses, as well as a few felons, etc.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 9:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon
Try not to be so judgmental. I said amendments of Inclusion. They were added to include women’s right to vote, minorities etc.
Finding fault was the point of the last three posts I have put up. You don’t have to demean people to make your point or to debate an issue.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 10:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From reading Mr. Johnson’s comments on the constitution, I strongly suspect he is a person of the Libertarian persuasion. For those not familiar with this political “cult,” they are rabid followers of the late whacko author Ayn Rand and advocate, among a host of other bizarre things: the opening of all public lands (including the national parks) to private homesteading; prohibiting the federal government from printing currency or minting coinage and abolishing public education. They somehow think that if the government leaves people alone, people will always to the “right thing” - a foolish and naive notion.
Posted April 21st, 2008 at 11:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No offense to English teachers intended.
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 7:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Flashing the Constitution around as justification for everything does, in my mind show a great disrespect for it. Some have stated that the document is “simple.” The writing may be, and such is because that is the way it was intended. However, the ideas an concepts behind it are quite sophisticated and, in order for those to be understood, one must have a grasp of those, something which few bother to do. Having no idea of what those are, it is only the simplistic mind that would “flash it around” at every opportunity and for their selfish purposes, in the mistaken notion that they “understand” it.
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
This has been an interesting and instructive dialog, such as it was. It started with my clarification of ideas I expressed in a Letter to the Editors and then further explaining what I had in mind that was beyond the length allowed in a letter. The usual suspects weighed in with their personal animosities and ant-liberal, libertatrian–sort of–hatred dogma. The subject was improving our broken health care system and I asked all in “attendance” for their ideas. That is the reason for the Community.com site, is it not? A place for the discussion of ideas–ABOUT THE TOPIC that started the discussion? I don’t give a whit what my detractors think about me or my ideas when they can only spout off their doctinaire, stale rants and never touch upon the subject at issue, IMPROVING OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. I can only assume they have no ideas on the number one domestic issue of our day. This apparently is not on their pseudo-patriotic radar screens. Come on people. If you can’t , or won’t, carry on a rational discussion there are plenty of other places you can vent your spleen and elaborate on your hatred of those who don’t share your warped view of what the United States is all about.
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 8:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis you wrote: “Prior to little brain johnson, one worker per family could support the entire family, with reasonably priced medical care. The primary payer was the patient, not some “insurance” company, and costs were held to a minimum with the best care available. It was called “capitalism” and “Private Enterprise”.”———————With all due respect, as one who is a strong supporter of capitalism and private enterprise, reasonably priced medical care was available because cat-scans, MRIs, hip replacements, knee replacements, cancer cures, cures for Aids, etc., etc., etc., did not exist and people were dying a lot sooner. The cost of medical care today is much greater because there are ways to better diagnose and to keep people alive much longer. There is no way this country (for that matter any country) can afford to pay what it takes to keep the current system solvent. Medicare/Medicaid will become insolvent and the cost of private insurance will continue to rise to the point where only a tiny portion of the population will be able to afford it. Those who think that government can solve this problem by taxing and taxing are dead wrong. Government cannot tax enough to get there. The answer is not government run health care. The answer is going to be making the extremely difficult choice of having to deny certain procedures aimed at keeping old people, or to people who are already terminal with a very short expected life-span. It will also require allowing medically assisted suicide for terminally ill patients who want to take that route. Unfortunately, any politician who espouses this position, will not be re-elected.
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 9:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, we agree to agree on this subject Bullishfrog?
OK, I’ll try to deal with it.
What needs to be done is the weaning of people from the public teat.
Medicare and medicaid need to be reserved for the very few people that need “government help”.
We also need to cut ALL the government programs that are not specifically enumerated, and let the States, and private and religious charitable organizations regain their position in the charitable giving fields.
The government was not, and should not be in the “charity” business, since their only source of “charitable funds” is money from the People taken at gunpoint, or the fear of imprisonment.
According to the Grace Commission in the 1980’s, over 70% of the funds in government “charitable programs” was eaten up in the bureaucracies with less than 30% going to the “needy”.
Any private or religious organization with that record would have been put out of business by the government.
But the bureaucracies flourished and grew exponentially, filling the pockets of political appointees and others that helped the elected “representatives” get into office.
And I also agree that no person should be required to live beyond a “quality of life” level for the sole purpose of the medical community being able to state how good they are at “extending” life for profit.
St Marys may belong to a tax exempt charitable organization, but the hospital is very definitely “for profit” so the Sisters of Leavenworth can do good things for people outside this valley.
The tax exempt status of St Marys and every other “for profit” hospital should be repealed to get competition back into the medical field.
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 9:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Johnson - it would be helpful if you could enlighten we mere mortals by detailing (specifics, please) EXACTLY how removing St. Mary’s tax exempt status and other “for profit” hospitals will “get competition back into the medical field.” Most of your comments seem to be long on right-wing ideology and short on viable solutions.
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 10:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc … thanks for saying that. My dad is a retired English teacher, so sorry I got nervy about it!
Back to the originally scheduled program …
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Finally,on post#38 we get a civil look at what Mr.Johnson feels we should do to alleviate the health care crisis in this country. That’s his opinion and I respect it although I think it is totally unworkable and a series of sound-bite doctrinaire statements with no details of how it could possibly be done. It also harkens back to an idyllic time that never existed where men were men and mythically totally self-reliant.
I am intrigued in a previous post from Mr. Johnson, though, in his quoting from the Preamble to the Constitution words that included “, promote the general welfare,”. I’m not sure that the Preamble is law and part of the body of the constitution but it would certainly seem to be an “ideal” that was in the minds of the framers.
I don’t know where in the constitution having the federal government–or any government–is either enabled or precluded from being the instigator of a solution to our health care troubles and then stepping back for an independent organization implementing and operating such an organization without any interference from government, politically or otherwise, at any level. Seems to me that could be “promoting the general welfare”. But bringing the constitution into the discussion is a straw man. Mr. Johnson wants to go back to a day that was full of inequalities and insults to citizens brought about because our government WASN’T following the constitution. Or at least adhering to the general sentiments expressed in both the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. We now have an outline of Mr.Johnson’s solution to the problem at hand and we understand where it comes from. Let’s hear from others on critcisms of my IDEAS and alternative ideas.
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wow, are we really going to start getting along? Willis, your last post was thoughtful and by golly…civil. Are you feeling okay? Dang, I got more to say but gotta go to work.
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 1:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John,
The Preamble is, and has always been a part of the Constitution.
It was agreed to and ratified with the entirety of the Constitution.
And the terminology “promote the general welfare” is not the same as “provide the welfare”.
It is designed to “promote the general welfare” of the various State.
Not provide government largess to the population, either as a whole, or individually.
And as to your idea of a “separate organization” to administer to the “universal” medical system, it cannot happen without full government support to ensure full “compliance”.
The only way a private organization could “force compliance” would be to give that organization police powers, and full taxing capabilities.
“That’s his opinion and I respect it although I think it is totally unworkable and a series of sound-bite doctrinaire statements with no details of how it could possibly be done. It also harkens back to an idyllic time that never existed where men were men and mythically totally self-reliant.”
Yes, it is my opinion, and it’s far more “workable” than what you have proposed so far.
It is not a “series of sound-bite doctrinaire statements”, and I was not aware that I needed to present an eleven thousand page document for your approval of “how it could be done”.
Your comment about an “idyllic time that never existed” shows how little you know of the forefathers that settled and built this nation.
Would you please be so kind as to keep your political rhetoric to a minimum and deal with the subjects at hand and stop trying to play gotcha politics?
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 3:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ah, we’re back in gear! Thanks for the info. It’s a matter of opinion as to what is workable or not, isn’t it? You’ve expressed yours and I have expressed mine. I would say that “promote” is exactly what my proposal is, not “provide”. I will absolutey bow to your interpretation of the matter if you are a constitutional lawyer. Otherwise it’s just another opinion. If the issue of a better health provision system is not “political”, what is it? The people are involved and there are differences of opinion involved so the resolution is definitely of a political nature. If you are talking about my OPINION of what your solution of the problem is based on, I’ll remind you that every comment I’ve seen from you on any subject has been political, not to mention derogatory. But you just couldn’t resist the shots at the end, though, could you? Sad
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yep, he must be feeling better.
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 3:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Johnson - As you seem to be a self-styled expert on the constitution, please define what the Founding Fathers meant by the term “promote the general welfare,” and as a constitutional “literalist,” please enumerate specific articles and sections within the constitution to support your definition.
Willis,it’s time to “show us the beef.”
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 3:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now John, your “plan” would be to provide universal health care through forced membership at the point of a gun, or threat of imprisonment.
This has been covered many times and you have yet to refute that fact, nor explained how it will be “voluntary”.
You still have yet to explain how the medical system will be better with no “Free Market” incentives to draw highly skilled, intelligent providers into your system.
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Pay attention. I never said the PROVIDERS would be anything other than free market. This is insurance, not the dreaded totally socialist system that bothers you so. My guess is most Americans would embrace the system but there could be opportunities to pass when it would be introduced. There would, of course , be no more “free” services at the emergency room if you were down on your luck and unable to pay. You could opt out but you’d better have plenty of monetary reserves because providers would treat you on a cash basis. It is a single payer system. If you chose you could have a private insurance policy but providers would probably charge you extra for the additional hassle they’d have dealing with your isurance company. I realize you probably wouldn’t want insurance, though, since that involves the possibility of the danger of contributing to some one elses bill and, after all, you’re totally self reliant.No need for stinkin’ namby-pamby liberal crutches. Nevertheless, you can have the last word and a “win” with your admirers. I’m tired of wasting my time with your endless “yeah, buts”. Celebrate!
Posted April 22nd, 2008 at 6:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - your knowledge of medical and constitutional matters seems to be somewhat limited; and what you do know has obviously been polluted by Libertarian and John Birch Society ideology. So let’s move on to the really good stuff - what do you think you know about RELIGION?
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 7:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, there has never been any “free services” at the emergency room. The costs were picked up by the people that actually paid their medical bills.
I did notice one minor little problem with your post, no details of how your plan would be accomplished.
You required details from me, but not yourself.
Is this because you expect more of me becaue you know I can handle the load, or because you expect less form yourself because you know you can’t perform to the same standards you set for others?
From your earlier post: “I think it is totally unworkable and a series of sound-bite doctrinaire statements with no details of how it could possibly be done”
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 7:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, you gave an outline, not a plan. As to my plan, the devil, as always, is in the details. And there are numerous details. A plan like this requires hundreds of pages to set forth all of the things that have to be done. That can’t be done here as you ubdoubtedly know. As to free emergency treatment, when you make the obvious an issue, you’re obviously getting desperate to stay in the game–and that is what it has been for you. I said that you can have the “win” if that is what you so desperately need. Call it a win by default because I am tired of the back and forth. Your tactic of continual inane questions, assertions and shots just to stay in your little game of overblown ego is not worth anybodys time that can be used for more productive uses. Celebrate! High fives all around! You’re the man!
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 7:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, from post #2 in this thread;
“Government can initiate a universal program that has an independent board, operating at arms length fom the federal government, that operates exactly in the manner of any corporation with executives whose salaries are based on meeting objectives.”
So, it will be a government program under a series of dummy corporations?
It’s one of those details that causes devilish problems for you position that it will not be “government” running the show and forcing “mandatory” membership?
Posted April 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey all… take a little peek at this article in the Denver Post regarding health care in America.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_%3ca%20class=’srNewsTitleLink’%20href=’http:/www.denverpost.com/ci_9019724′%20onclick=’s_objectID=’News_ResultPG1_ResultPos3′;self.getUserType?getUserType(’Buyer-News’):void(0);var%20s=s_gi(s_account);s.linkTrackVars=’events,products’;s.linkTrackEvents=’scView’;s.products=’Search;’+this.hostname;s.events=’scView’;s.tl(this,’o');if(self.tagSearchIADID)%20tagSearchIADID(this);’%3e
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.