“…Just tell me what 'simple attempt' you are referring to here…” - DJ
In full context, I said: “The rest of your rhetoric is mostly unfounded, trite and misses the point greatly. Ideologically, you project all sorts of things on a simple attempt at helping citizens reduce their fear about health care in the USA. The evidence of how this works worldwide is obvious and shows that we have a lot further to go…regardless of the fears and polarizing going on. Some of the stuff on TV today harkened back to the Civil War! Hopefully, rather than looking for fights, we can find some sort of unity…no, not utopia, for clearly, you don’t want utopia.” – orn I was referring to the actual legislation compared to the numerous motivations you projected upon it. Compared to your, to me, very convoluted view of the legislation and its goal(s), the bill *is* simple. Of course, by itself, it is not that simple. In context, it was a comparison. “…But i figured you would see this as a step towards eventual single payer by default as companies abandon coverage and folks move to expanded medicare or the like.” – DJ Uhh, no, not at all. As I’ve made clear ( only to some people apparently) in the past, I saw that when the single payer option was abandoned, any other option would not succeed in the primary goal…more actual health care for people who cannot afford it. And, as I’ve historically said, once this failure became apparent, the entire idea of affordable health care would be rejected (more so than the propaganda by the insurance companies of today). And, since the actual bill as it stands legally *precludes* the right of individual states to institute a single payer option, well…no. I have seen for a long time, similar to Mr. Kucinich, the folly of bowing to a system that is bottom line based. As he has said, no time soon will the topic be broached again. We knew this long ago. Companies already “abandon coverage”…they have been doing so for years Don. The result is an entirely broken system. “…peripheral results are part of the unintended consequences I'm so worried about.” - DJ Perhaps you didn’t understand my words in context Don. I used the term ‘peripheral’ in the sense that those “unintended consequences” were already happening and had been for years. My attempt was to point out that the bill, compared to reality, will have little to no effect on what I was addressing. “This statement seems incoherent to me.” – DJ Then I will rephrase it. I will use a few questions to make my point. Do you know how much your insurance company will pay for *any* procedure? Do you know for sure what they will disallow? Do you know of any charts showing what sort of ‘protection’ your insurance will provide for you?...the actual dollars and cents? No, of course not. No insurance company lets any consumer know how much they consider is ‘acceptable and normal’ in any particular locality. We have to trust that the ‘product’ we purchase will be worthwhile. . . *without* knowing what we are in fact purchasing!!! The last part of my paragraph points out that “Health Insurance” companies are the *only* private sector businesses that are protected from *any* antitrust regulation at all. To me, this does not help gain trust. Now, as to what you said, I will say that I find much of it incoherent. Perhaps you will unpack it and put it in context of our current discussion. I mean the following: “ By purchasing AIG and in charge of medicare and medicaid and fingers through regulation in just about every insurance available to mankind the government basically already runs the insurance industry. They just do a piss poor job just like they do everything else. Mostly. How are you going to sue the overnment for anti-trust issues? I already own stock in the government, in a way. I have several thousand dollars in T-bills and more in inflation protected securities. The government is the best game in town. Guess where all the freakin' jobs are?” – DJ On the one hand, you equate the Insurance companies with the government. This is false. Even how you imply that the government “basically already runs the insurance industry” is so far off base that I’m at a loss as to how to respond. It just isn’t the case. And, the government can be sued. Again, all of this is classical red herring stuff Don. Perhaps your friends let you get away with it and/ or are not interested enough to correct you or even may share such beliefs. Others do not. On the other hand, you are criticizing the government…using the tried and false commentary about how poorly they run stuff…without addressing facts let alone your criteria. Then you close saying that government is the best game in town! I don’t know how things are in your state, but here government is closing down many services… libraries…schools…energy assistance for the indigent, infrastructure is being left to rot…all because of the gross intended mismanagement of the public wealth over the last decade or so. Oh, since the government is so “piss poor” at things, why would one want to invest in it???!!! I thought you were a private sector type of guy…instead, I now find out that you are a closet socialist!!! “… Really, Orn. Stop taking what I write so gpersonally. I know I'm frequently wrong and I don't mind being corrected…” – DJ You address me directly in your post, so I take what you write personally. I corrected you and you criticize me about doing so. In the next breath you say you don’t mind. Really Don, it is no accident that you are often misunderstood. “…Big part of the economy as well. [the military] Stands to reason it has the most fraud. I don't, however, want to out source the military…” – DJ So, you don’t mind the fraud here…where it costs the most? Or, are you actually against how we do business with the military? As to outsourcing the military, perhaps you didn’t know or wish to ignore the facts. Here is a 6 year old article about it. “IRAQ: Military Outsourcing” http://www.cfr.org/publication/7667/ Here is a 5 year old one. “…The military cannot continue without outsourcing and privatization of the defense infrastructure.” http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/priv/privat.htm And a 4 year old one from Business Week: “When Outsourcing Turns Outrageous Contractors may be saving the Army money. But fraud changes the equation” http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_31/b3995075.htm Back to a 6 year old one: “Outsourcing Blame” http://www.tompaine.com/articles/outsourcing_blame.php The fact is that the US military has been privatized for quite a while. Personally, I too am against it. But Don, instead of us being able to do anything about it, we are given false choices…over- simplistic labels and rhetoric to bandy about so that we can fight each other rather than join hands and forces to actually effect change! Now that you have defined what you think the ‘average citizen’ is, at least in economic terms, we could do an analysis on just *why* you feel the tax pressure you do today. It isn’t just a political issue. There are no accidents in politics I've heard Don. The reason you are paying more is that those with actual wealth have been paying less and less for decades now and the slack must be taken up some place. It isn’t a left/right issue nor a Democrat/Republican one. It is a have/ have-not and a powerful/not-powerful issue Don. As soon as more people recognize this and we stop fighting among ourselves, the better we all will be. Of course, it does appear to be far too late to do so, right? As an aside here, I find all of the talk about the ‘middle class’ to be obscene. I haven’t heard about the poor for years. “As far as being easy I think you are incorrect. You cheapen the hard work and sometimes serendipity involved in success.” - DJ Don, few of the wealthy say that they were just lucky in making their money (or inheriting it…which mostly is the case). Few say that they would have done anything other than their specific line of ‘work’…most say they love what they do. So, while your thought is noted, I listen to those who actually have wealth and find that I cheapen nothing… except perhaps the story of the mythical carrot …you know the one…it is held out to poor slobs thinking they will some day, with enough hard work become rich too. “So, how about a little cheese with that whine?” = DJ Uhhh, I point out a specific point that we agree upon and then share that I volunteer and that I’m looking for work…and assign the appropriate political blame (as you thought you did in the very paragraph preceding this)…and you suggest that I whine? In fact Don, I’m quite happy with my life…more than I thought I’d ever be. Work/no work, do/not-do, money/no money…I’ve lived long enough to know what is important and especially what is important to me. “I think I miss a lot of your points Orn. This blow by blow posting and replying shit is exhausting. I hope you appreciate it.” – DJ No Don, I don’t exactly appreciate it. However, IF “we” are ever going to gain clarity and understand each other and how things are in the world, just using the simple one liners and sound bites will never do. We are much more on the same page than you think we are Don…some ideological rhetoric tends to divide…actual life stories can unite. May we continue to learn from each other Don. “Last time I checked, the poor don't pay any taxes. Not income anyway. I'm pretty sure they make up in entitlements what they end up paying in fees or sales tax. If I'm not right about that I'm pretty close. The rich pay by far the most in taxes. As it should be.” – DJ I suggest that you study this a little more Don. People on unemployment pay income taxes (and others) on their unemployment checks…this started years ago. Perhaps you have never had to ask for food stamps…I have. I’ve also shared horror stories about ‘entitlements’ that just don’t work, are not dispersed and worse. Of course, taxes vary from state to state in the US…however, overall, the rich do NOT pay more proportionately than the rest of us do. In fact, the reverse is the case. I’m sure you remember my oft told story of how my dad paid 90% income tax and we were quite well off. Today, he would pay almost nothing. The use of amount rather than percentage of revenue is often used to make a point…but it doesn’t reflect the actual reality. IF you need resources for this and don’t wish to look them up yourself, I can provide many. I agree with you (again) that the rich *should* pay more (proportionately) but, sadly, they don’t… not any more. It has been slowly changing for quite a few decades now. “As for things becoming more difficult for those not in the upper crust over the last 30 years I totally disagree. Many, many have JOINED the upper crust during this time and many millions have come much closer then they dreamed possible due to the remarkable opportunities afforded them in our formerly booming economy. Vilify consumerism if you must but it does wonders for the economy. If we could just not have abused our credit we'd probably still be growing but at a slower and more measured pace. Irrational exuberance and easy money(fed. policies) greased the skids of our demise.” - DJ Of course your opinion is noted again Don. Sadly, the facts differ and by not a little either. In a way, I wish we could have a drink together Don…what I see here is a person who has been sold a bill of goods that he will never be able to collect upon…and I’m sad about that. I doubt that you wish my pity, but none the less…there it is. Again, we have much to share…even if it isn’t the capitalistic Kool- Aid. On Mar 24, 7:31 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 6:40 PM, ornamentalmind > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > “You think this bill is simple? It's a lot of things but simple isn't > > one of them....” – DJ > > > Uhhh, no. I haven’t mentioned the term ‘simple’ in this context > > *ever*. Where did you get that idea? > > Ideologically, you project all sorts of things on a > simple attempt at helping citizens reduce their fear about health care > in the USA. -Orn > > > It is comments like that which > > make it difficult to discuss such things with you Don. It’s beyond > > straw man argumentation, it is downright non-sequitur. > > I assumed 'simple attempt' referred to HCR. Apparently I made a mistake > but there's no need to be insulting about it. Just tell me what 'simple > attempt' you are referring to here. > > > > > “…What I'm getting from you is that you think this bill will be better > > then what we've had….” – DJ > > > Well, again, I’m not sure which set of people you include in ‘we’ > > here. I’m sure that the Insurance companies are giddy about it. I’m > > sure that others are too. “Better?”, I really don’t know. Long ago I > > said I was against it…back when the single payer option was ignored by > > the Democratic Party and it’s leadership. From that point on, I’ve > > been predicting an abject failure. I *do* say that “what we’ve had” is > > in general what one gets when they bend over….know what I mean? > > Yeah, I do. I remember you saying u wouldn't support anything less then > single payer. But i figured you would see this as a step towards eventual > single payer by default as companies abandon coverage and folks move to > expanded medicare or the like. > > > > > > > > > And, I guess I’ll take a moment to address a few of your opinions > > about the result of the bill. > > a) People will get health care who couldn’t afford it before. > > Agreed > > b) Millions of people will be paying for this and waiting in longer > > lines with less service. > > Well, *if* one assumes that someone hasn’t been paying for indigent > > care for decades, perhaps the first part is correct…otherwise, no, it > > isn’t. As to the last part, while I agree that there aren’t enough > > health care professionals available here in the USA, the list of > > reasons is available and often directly related to not being able to > > give quality care because of Insurance company bottom-line > > administration of what procedures will be covered and what will not. > > Yes, there are many others but that is another topic. > > So, “longer lines” will only peripherally be a result of this bill. > > peripheral results are part of the unintended consequences I'm so worried > about. > > > The long lines have been in existence for a long time and, as said > > above, partially caused by the for-profit nature of what is > > euphemistically called “health care” here. > > Will there be less service? Clearly not for those who prior to this > > had none at all. > > What about for the rest of the people? I doubt if > > > there will be much if any difference. The Insurance companies will > > find more ways to implement their fortune hunting ways as will big > > Pharma. The former will still be immune to anti-trust laws…the only > > industry here with that status. They have one of the few products > > (reimbursement for services rendered) where the consumer, you and I, > > have no way of knowing what we are purchasing and further know that > > they will make more money by denying such reimbursement. Any other > > business that had this model would be laughed out of > > existence!...except by the stock holders perhaps. > > This statement seems incoherent to me. By purchasing AIG and in charge of > medicare and medicaid and fingers through regulation in just about every > insurance available to mankind the government basically already runs the > insurance industry. They just do a piss poor job just like they do > everything else. Mostly. How are you going to sue the government for > anti-trust issues? I already own stock in the government, in a way. I have > several thousand dollars in T-bills and more in inflation protected > securities. The government is the best game in town. Guess where all the > freakin' jobs are? > > > > > “…I suppose you think this bill will help to reduce fraud…” – DJ > > > Uhhh, no. I haven’t said any such thing nor has any person who thinks > > at all that I know said let alone implied such a thing. Straw man? Or > > is it just your debate ‘style’…putting silly things in other people’s > > mouths? Either way, I don’t like it. > > Well excuuuuuuuuse me. It was a supposition, and apparently a wrong one, > not putting words in your mouth. Really, Orn. Stop taking what I write so > personally. I know I'm frequently wrong and I don't mind being corrected. > I assumed, wrongly, you were defending the bill I'm railing against. Sorry, > dood. > > > > > Perhaps you just use such deceptive tactics to bolster your position. > > Either way, it doesn’t work that way. > > > And, since my guess is that you have a list of acceptable and not > > acceptable ‘entitlements’, where do you think the most expensive fraud > > might be found? (rhetorical question) The answer of course rests in > > the most expensive part of the federal budget, the military > > (industrial complex). > > Big part of the economy as well. Stands to reason it has the most fraud. I > don't, however, want to out source the military. > > > > > > > > > “…I do not deny there is greed and avarice in this world. This new > > law isn't > > going to change that. All it will do is give the D.C. power brokers > > more > > power and influence to enrich themselves and their friends and make > > it > > HARDER for the average citizen to elevate themselves to a higher level > > of > > financial freedom…” – DJ > > > I never thought you would deny this. Nor did I even suggest that the > > new law would do any good when it comes to greed. Your words, not > > mine. And, if you think that “the D.C. power brokers” need more power > > and influence…I don’t. Here I’m guessing you mean lobbyists, right? > > And, so far, I’ve not found a definition for “the average citizen” > > Don. Are you average? Inquiring minds want to know. Am I average? Is > > Obama average? Who isn’t average? Oh, right, those who live on Lake > > Wobegon! > > No, they're above average and the men are all good looking. I think the > average household income is about 50k/yr and I'd consider anything between > 35k(low range, hope no kids live with them) and 120k(double income family) > to be average. sound right to you? I'm dead average. > > > > > IF it is your personal feeling that you already have to work too hard, > > quit whining about it and do something. IF you want to ‘elevate’ > > yourself to ‘a higher level of financial freedom’ (a euphemism if ever > > there was one), just do it! For those with the actual talent to make > > more money than they will ever need, such an end is easy. Ask them. > > Personally, since it is a pyramid scheme, only the wise know when to > > get off of the treadmill as well as the ideological teat of the ones > > holding the carrots. > > O, the humanity! *sniffle* I bare my soul and I am ridiculed! > Daaaaadddyyy!(begging for moderation, Orn is being mean);-) > > Ok I was whining. I admit it. It's a free country. For a while yet > anyway... As far as being easy I think you are incorrect. You cheapen the > hard work and sometimes serendipity involved in success. > > > > > “… You may call it unfounded if you want but it is inevitable…” – DJ > > > Again, I’m not sure if you are being disingenuous here or just on > > autopilot…what I said was: > > > “The rest of your rhetoric is mostly unfounded, trite and misses the > > point greatly. Ideologically, you project all sorts of things on a > > simple attempt at helping citizens reduce their fear about health > > care > > in the USA. The evidence of how this works worldwide is obvious and > > shows that we have a lot further to go…regardless of the fears and > > polarizing going on.” - orn > > > I repost in case you missed it the first time. > > Nah, I got it the first time. I just apparently took it out of context. > But not on purpose! > > > > > This next part is just plain incomprehensible to me. > > > “…A noble goal if it is your assets and the fruits of your > > labor that goes to do this. Not noble, IMO, when it's taken by force > > from > > one to be divided up to special interests by politicians. This is > > inevitable….” – DJ > > > Perhaps you would like to unpack what you mean here…thought by > > thought? As presented, it could mean anything. Tell us how you really > > feel Don, OK? ;-) > > It's inevitable that politicians will use legislation to benefit > themselves. The other is just standard anti-socialist rhetoric on my part. > Pretty self-explanatory I thought but maybe your being facetious, I can't > tell with you. > > > > > “…As I've said before, we can agree that some people need and deserve > > help but > > it should be voluntarily provided. America has long proved our > > generosity > > to needy peoples around the world…” – DJ > > > Hmm, a point of agreement…some people need *and* deserve help. Great! > > And, yes volunteering is a good thing. I volunteer 5 days a week at a > > non-profit, at least while I’m looking for a paid job in this economy > > that Wall Street brought us all…that along with the Bush mandated > > entitlement packages to the private sector. > > So, how about a little cheese with that whine? > > > > > Oh, I do notice that you ignore the vast majority of my major points. > > One can only assume that you agree with them. > > I think I miss a lot of your points Orn. This blow by blow posting and > replying shit is exhausting. I hope you appreciate it. > <---------------humor/sarcasm;-) > > > > > > > Skipping ahead since I don’t have all day to devote to this one post… > > > “… If they would just leave us alone I > > feel I could take good care of my family on my own but taxes are > > KILLING > > ME. Property, fees, energy bills, water bills, capital gains, > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
