Play online chess!
| |
| From | Message |
|---|
|
 Truism
|
|
Another truism
3 + 5 = 8
|
|
liberal
liberal - favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
no wonder republicans hate liberals.
lol
|
|
Jeff
To some extents I agree with your definition but in other ways liberals are for big government which takes away the rights of the individual. Case in point the health care issue. Everyone keeps saying that conservatives are against health care. That isn't correct. Conservatives are against government forced health care. Let me keep mine, let the government do what it wants. This was not their plan.
|
|
stinky
conservatives are against health care for those who cannot afford it.
|
|
Jeff
That's completely not true. Maybe that's why the democrats ratings keep falling. If they are that out of touch and simply want to demonize conservatives rather than talk about issues it will just get worse for them. Do you really believe what you just said?
|
|
nah
republicans yes, conservatives, no.
|
|
z
There you go again... insulting an entire class of people. That just makes you look stupid. I know you don't really believe that, you're just being a smart axx once again. It just isn't funny. Stinky gave you a chance to redeem yourself. You should take it.
|
|
softie
it is true i was yanking his chain. but there is some truth to what i said. republicans claim to be for health care, but the poor cannot afford health care. and republicans are against the government covering them. ergo, they do not want the poor to have health care. or perhaps, more accurately, they are not against the concept of health care for the poor, as long as the poor pay for it themselves, which they cannot do. which amounts to the same thing. although i suppose they can feel better about themselves by convincing themselves that they are not against covering the poor.
|
|
Jeff
Simply not true. I cannot add anything to that.
|
|
stinky
i will take you at your word. convince me. how do republicans propose that the poor obtain
health care?
|
|
Zorro
We could start by getting rid of the fraud and wastes in Medicare today... you know, the stuff that Obama and company say they will eliminate just AFTER we spend $1.1 TRILLION dollars to reduce the cost of health care. The savings they say that are possible would cover most of the uninsured all by itself.
(IF they could actually do that, WHY are they waiting?)
Or, we could implement tort reform and give the reduced costs of litigation and frivolous lawsuits to group coverage plans for the poor.
Or, we could allow all insurance companies to sell insurance coverage across all states, thus reducing costs of coverage through competition between insurance companies so that many more poor could aford their own plans.
Or, we could enforce our existing immigration and employment laws so the burden of health care costs on the system would be reduced, especially in emergency room visits. Not only would costs go down in health care but also in social programs, welfare, social security, education, unemployment, incarceration and law enforcement.
Is that a good enough start on ideas for you?
|
|
Softy
I'm interested to know, do the republicans have any plans for health care themselves? Or are they just content to sit on the sidelines, doing nothing themselves? Did John McCain make any election pledges about healthcare?
|
|
i think mccaine was too busy hooking up with a barbie with a gun to have policies.. ;-D
|
|
softie
nope. not even close. your ideas make no sense.
<We could start by getting rid of the fraud and wastes in Medicare today... you know, the stuff that Obama and company say they will eliminate just AFTER we spend $1.1 TRILLION dollars to reduce the cost of health care. The savings they say that are possible would cover most of the uninsured all by itself.>
that is still the government paying and the republicans will not tolerate that kind of 'socialism.'
<Or, we could implement tort reform and give the reduced costs of litigation and frivolous lawsuits to group coverage plans for the poor.>
this makes even less sense. where will those savings be? 'give the reduced costs...?' huh?
<Or, we could allow all insurance companies to sell insurance coverage across all states, thus reducing costs of coverage through competition between insurance companies so that many more poor could afford their own plans.>
there is absolutely no evidence that this will do anything to reduce costs.
www.newamerica.net
<Or, we could enforce our existing immigration and employment laws so the burden of health care costs on the system would be reduced, especially in emergency room visits. Not only would costs go down in health care but also in social programs, welfare, social security, education, unemployment, incarceration and law enforcement.>
perhaps this might help a little, but it really does nothing to provide health care for the poor.
<Is that a good enough start on ideas for you?> no. i want to know how the republicans plan to provide health care for those who cannot afford it.
|
|
j2000
Yes, the Republicans do seem to have some real plans that they would like to have considered. However, they have been locked-out of meetings (literally) and ignored from any considerations. Most (all) of the ideas I just presented are included in those plans... you don't think I'm smart enough to think that up all by myself, do you?
This administration promised to open an era of cooperation yet the Democratic leadership is excluding all bipartisanship. There is a reason that ALL significant bills are being voted almost exclusively along party lines.
|
|
Zorro
Your comments are pretty lame. They also demonstrate the typical knee-jerk reaction from a far left liberal to any suggestions from the Right or Conservatives. Pretty much obstructionist and pretty lame arguments.
Regarding the help from tort reform... it WILL reduce the total overall cost of health care by reducing huge lawsuit payouts and mostly eliminating frivolous lawsuits. That cost saving will be reflected in reduced coverage costs to patients and reduced liability costs of insurance to medical providers.
Regarding "fixing" the fraud and waster in the current Medicare system, you are RIGHT... it IS the government running it. Obama says they will fix it and save nearly enough to cover most of that $1.1 Trillion to run their government option. The question is: "WHY are they NOT doing it now?" If the government is that incompetent now, "What makes you think they will be better after they spend $1.1 TRILLION to implement government control of the entire system?"
Regarding insurance companies being allowed access to selling in all states... it is a simple rule of law in Capitalism that competition increases efficiency, reduces costs, provides choices, creates better products. It is GOOD for the public. It may not solve the entire problem, but coupled with other solutions, it is clear that we don't need, nor want, government controlled health care.
YOUR unwillingness to discuss and consider any plan from a Republican or a Conservative is very telling... you'd fit in very well with Nancy Pelosi.
|
|
Softy ...
... I'm still waiting for you answer about how those who cannot afford health care will be able to buy it. No matter the "savings" here and there (yes, these are good ideas), even if health care cost less, millions could still not be able to buy it. What happens to these folks?
|
|
softie
i am not saying that doing most of that is bad... but it is not a plan to provide health care to those who cannot afford it.
that is all i am saying. your inability or unwillingness to answer the question is telling. you'd fit in very well with limbaugh, hannity, and beck... it is easier to skirt the issue and prech the evils of the left than to come up with a valid plan.
i stated the republicans have no plan to provide health care to those who cannot afford it. you have done nothing to convince me otherwise.
|
|
z- I see you and KOP have gone to the same school of retorts!
Chaz- I don't have all the answers but the ones I have given should help significantly, if ever implemented.
There DOES have to be a willingness by government to create and enact some type of group plan or policy that will let those who can not afford coverage but do want it, to be able to get it. What I am opposed to is government control of the entire thing... which is exactly what they are aiming for.
There are LOTS of possibilities. We do NOT need to implement government control. Government needs to allow discussion and include all the parties at the table... something they are NOT doing now.
This has become the most shoddy, most unconstitutional, most ethically challenged group of legislators in the history of the country. This is NOT the change I was hoping for.
|
|
softie
what is the republican plan to cover the poor?
it is very clear what you are against. do you stand for anything or are you just against stuff. as i said, it is easy to criticize.
what is the republican plan?
as far as my retorts, i am a bit confused what you have a problem with (other than an inability to answer the question). i agreed that most of your ideas are worth implementing. but that does not address the issue. i say the republicans have no plan to cover the poor. you disagree, but then go on to list a bunch of stuff they should do in other areas, but do not offer up a plan to cover the poor.
what is the republican plan?
|
|
jeff
What am I ... the Washington insider here?
The Democrats have shut out the Republicans from any bipartisanship discussion and/or developments. There has been NO discussion of Republican plans with Democrats that I know about. None of the plans are being considered for inclusion in any of the Democrats bills. So, no I can't explain what is in their plans in detail... but from what I hear and read, they are promoting the ideas I have mentioned, among other things.
And, doing those things WILL allow (at least some) of the people who are not now insured to become covered. As the costs of coverage go down, more people will be able to afford their own coverage and more employers will be able to afford covering their employees. That will leave a much smaller pool of "insured wannabees" to be covered by the government or whatever plan becomes developed for the insurance companies. In other words, use the best of PRIVATE enterprise to do most of the heavy lifting and use government, ONLY as necessary, to fill in the holes.
It certainly is a much better plan than a $1.1 trillion dollar boondoggle led by an incompetent and unethical government.
Can you tell me what the Democrats plans are? There are about one/half dozen plans with about 2000 pages of stuff in each. NOBODY can read all that garbage. It will include stuff that the President says it won't and it won't allow stuff he says it will. There "may" be some good in there also, but letting government control it... well look at the waste and fraud in Medicare. WHY would you want to expand on that?
|
|
softie
i challenge you to look at this thread (or any other for that matter) and show me where i said i like the dem's plan. you will not because i never said it. you assume SO much. here is what i said:
"republicans claim to be for health care, but the poor cannot afford health care. and republicans are against the government covering them. ergo, they do not want the poor to have health care. or perhaps, more accurately, they are not against the concept of health care for the poor, as long as the poor pay for it themselves, which they cannot do. which amounts to the same thing."
and you argued with me about it. i asked you to show me that it was wrong, and you listed a bunch of things which WILL NOT COVER THE POOREST AMERICANS. then you attacked the democratic plan. you think the democratic plan is a mess or worse. fair enough.
so i take it that you agree that republicans do not want to provide coverage for the poor? please remember, attacking the dems is not what i am looking for. remember, you attacked my statement. the burden of proof is on you to show where my argument is flawed. if you cannot tell me how the republicans plan will cover the poorest and most vulnerable populations, i can accept that. you as much as admitted you could not tell me the details. fair enough.
but then why are you arguing?
you complain about a 2000 page bill. imagine the amount of detail and thought and specifics that need to go into a national health care law. of course it is large. by the way, the republcans did just issue a plan. four pages of generalities and platitudes. seriously. 4 pages!!! it is full of such specific words as 'encourage,' 'promote,' 'help,' 'support,'ensure,' 'protect,' ... etc. but has absolutely NO mention of funding, implementation, oversight, etc... just a bunch of banalities, and truisms. easy to write a wish list. much harder to write a law.
here it is in all its glory:
House GOP Solutions Group Outlines Health Care Plan
to Increase Affordability, Accessibility, Availability
Commonsense Health Care Reform to Lower Costs and Increase
Access and Quality at a Price Our Country Can Afford
Republicans believe there are a number of potential areas for common ground to work
with President Obama to improve health care for all Americans. Republicans are
promoting commonsense reforms that make health care more affordable, reduce the
number of uninsured Americans, and increase quality at a price our country can afford---
while making sure that Americans who like their health care coverage can keep it.
The House Republican Health Care Solutions Group has been working for months on a
plan, listening to the American people, talking to doctors and patients, collecting input,
and studying and debating ideas. This process has resulted in the broad outline of a health
care reform plan that the solutions group hopes will receive bipartisan support.
The health care reforms outlined are designed to:
1. Make quality health care coverage affordable and accessible for every American,
regardless of pre-existing health conditions.
2. Protect Americans from being forced into a new government-run health care plan
that would: a) eliminate the health care coverage that more than 100 million
Americans currently receive through their job; b) limit your choice of doctors and
medical treatment options; and c) result in the federal government taking control
of your health care.
3. Let Americans who like their health care coverage keep it, and give all Americans
the freedom to choose the health plan that best meets their needs.
4. Ensure that medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not
government bureaucrats.
5. Improve Americans’ lives through effective prevention, wellness, and disease
management programs, while developing new treatments and cures for lifethreatening
diseases.
Making Health Care More Affordable for All Americans:
More Americans will gain access to quality health care once its costs are brought under
control. The first step in lowering health care costs is to eliminate the unnecessary overspending
in our current system.
Doctors order unnecessary tests to avoid being sued and every insurance company has its
own codes and forms patients and doctors need to fill out. The Chief Counsel to the
Health and Human Services Inspector General even went so far as to say that “building a
Medicare fraud scam is far safer than dealing in crack or dealing in stolen cars, and it’s
far more lucrative.”
To lower the costs of health care, the Republican plan:
• Brings greater fairness to the tax code by extending tax savings to those who
currently do not have employer-provided insurance but purchase health insurance on
their own. This provision would provide an “above the line” deduction that is equal
to the cost of an individual’s or family’s insurance premiums.
• Provides immediate substantial financial assistance, through new refundable and
advanceable tax credits, to low- and modest-income Americans.
• Recognizes that many Americans who have not yet hit retirement age but may be
changing jobs or have lost a job often face higher health care costs. To help those
aged 55 to 64, the plan increases support for pre- and early-retirees with low- and
modest-incomes.
• Recognizes that one of the largest obstacles for many small businesses when it comes to
retaining current employees or creating new jobs is the cost of health insurance. The
plan allows states, small businesses, associations, and other organizations to band
together and offer health insurance at lower costs.
• Implements comprehensive medical liability reform that will reduce costly,
unnecessary defensive medicine practiced by doctors trying to protect themselves
from overzealous trial lawyers.
• Provides Medicare and Medicaid with additional authority and resources to stop
waste, fraud, and abuse that costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year.
• Creates incentives to save now for future and long-term health care needs by
improving health savings accounts and flexible spending arrangements as well as
creating new tax benefits to offset the cost of long-term care premiums.
• Gives financial help to caregivers who provide in-home care for a loved one.
Making Health Care More Available & Accessible for All Americans:
The Republican plan reduces the number of uninsured Americans by wisely targeting this
population and helping Americans keep health care coverage regardless of a change in or
loss of a job.
To expand availability and accessibility of health care coverage, the Republican
plan:
• Makes it easier for Americans to keep health care coverage regardless of a change in
or loss of a job.
• Encourages states to create a Universal Access Program by establishing and/or
reforming existing programs to guarantee all Americans, regardless of pre-existing
conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable coverage.
• Strengthens employer-provided health coverage by helping the 10 million uninsured
Americans who are eligible, but not enrolled in, an employer-sponsored plan get
health care coverage. The plan does this by encouraging employers to move to optout,
rather than opt-in rules.
• Helps employers offer health care coverage to their workers by reducing their
administrative costs through a new small business tax credit.
• Recognizes that not all high school and college graduates are able to find a job that
offers health care coverage after graduation. By allowing dependents to remain on
their parents’ health policies up to the age of 25, the number of uninsured Americans
could be reduced by up to 7 million.
• Provides flexibility to Medicaid and SCHIP beneficiaries by allowing them to apply
the value of their benefit to a health plan that better meets their needs than the onesize-
fits-all government program.
Promoting Healthy Living and Quality Care for All Americans Now and
Tomorrow:
Innovations in treatment and access to quality health care information are critical to
ensuring Americans receive the best possible care. It’s no secret that patients in other
countries are often denied care or die waiting to get access to the top treatments.
To promote prevention and wellness while ensuring every American has access to
high quality health care, the Republican plan:
• Promotes prevention and wellness by giving employers and insurers greater flexibility
to financially reward employees who seek to achieve or maintain a healthy weight,
quit smoking, and manage chronic illnesses like diabetes.
• Rewards high-quality care, instead of encouraging health care providers to order more
and unnecessary services.
• Uses new and innovative treatment programs to better coordinate care between health
care providers, ensuring that those with chronic disease receive the care they need and
do not continue to fall through the cracks.
• Encourages the creation of health plan finders to provide patients with the tools to
easily find the right health plan that best meets their needs.
• Gives patients access to health care information so that they can identify and select
health care providers who deliver high-quality care at a lower cost.
• Makes health care more convenient by eliminating bureaucratic red tape to expand
access to Community Health Centers that are so critical to underserved areas, both in
large cities and in rural America.
• Encourages home care and independence for patients rather than forcing individuals
into institutionalized settings.
• Promotes seniors' access to the doctors they need by modernizing Medicare
reimbursements.
• Provides incentives to physicians who enter the field of primary care, helping to
ensure all Americans have access to the doctors they need.
you can download it here: www.cbsnews.com
|
|
Jeff
1. I don't remember accusing you of "liking the Dems plan"... When did I do that?
2. The Republican plan is to fix the parts of the current system that need fixing. It is NOT to redo the entire thing, throw out a system that covers 85% of the public now, and give control of 1/6 of our economy to the government. It would necessarily be small... possibly only a guideline for some board or committee to follow.
The fact that there have been Republican administrations and we still find ourselves in this fix is testament that government can not do a good job. Government should NOT have any say, or as little say as possible, in private enterprise.
Something like this that has been broken by all the administrations and never fixed by any administration should, at least, be discussed thoroughly by all sides in order to make the best possible decisions. WHAT is the rush? WHY do we have to pass the bill, this Saturday, without any Republican input. WHY would we not take some time, discuss it thoroughly, and come to a consensus? WHY do you think it should get RAMMED through by brute force alone?
3. With all due respect, the statement: "republicans claim to be for health care, but the poor cannot afford health care. and republicans are against the government covering them. ergo, they do not want the poor to have health care..." is just plain stupid.
|
|
softie
<The fact that there have been Republican administrations and we still find ourselves in this fix is testament that government can not do a good job. Government should NOT have any say, or as little say as possible, in private enterprise.>
um. have you forgotten the obvious? american health care has been in the hands of private enterprise forever, not in the hands of the government (other than vets and medicare). the mess we are in must be laid at the feet of the health care system of the last 50 years, which has been massively controlled by private enterprise. they cannot do a good job, as evidenced by the mess we are in.
|
|
also
<3. With all due respect, the statement: "republicans claim to be for health care, but the poor cannot afford health care. and republicans are against the government covering them. ergo, they do not want the poor to have health care..." is just plain stupid.>
so you have said. but you still have not refuted it in any meaningful way. saying it is stupid is easy. once again, show me the plan that shows the repubs support health care for the poor.
|
|
Part
of the problem is health providers too. My gf needs a gall bladder operation. Her insurance (a crappy one) will only cover 2000 dollars of it. Her surgeon is only charging 6-800 dollars. The hospital cost is going to be about 8000-10,000 this is completely ridiculous and unacceptable. So WITH insurance its still gonna cost her the price of a small car. I am for people like her having affordable insurance but also insurance that is decent and health care providers not over charging. It's a racket! Am I for the government taking over everything and forcing private out? No. I was never against providing health care for the poor but the dems MUST work with the republicans and get the wording right. People with private care should be able to keep theirs. I don't know much about the new bill but the old bill would have destroyed private health care. I don't want waiting list and things like this. My gf is from Australia and is still covered by her government health plan. She said it would most likely take a year of waiting to get this done. We will probably end up paying the big money. It can't wait a year. The problem she has back home is something I feel will occur here. It has in most places with government run health care. I have decent insurance, a small copay and I am done. Something does need to be done. I don't know why no one is looking at these big wig hospital administrators that make such big money. There are lots of problems tho.
|
chessnovice
06-Nov-09, 14:34
|
...
It's sort of unfair to demand the "Republican plan" is for healthcare, especially right now since the party is pretty fragmented. There is no "Republican" plan for healthcare any more than there is a "Democrat" plan for healthcare. You can see plainly in the news how upset Democrats are at one another because they disagree on just how much government involvement there ought to be in the system. But no matter what, to suggest that anyone actually WANTS any particular group to be deprived of health care is pretty dishonest smearing.
I think one of the issues here is that universal healthcare is creating the facade of an easy solution, and as such you're demanding an easy solution from any opposition. The reality is that a government-funded healthcare system won't have an effect on costs -- it's not really a "solution" to the problem. The system simply will make the costs less visible. Regardless of how medicine is insured, that kind of approach is only going to encourage hospitals to maximize their prices -- rather than minimize prices if they were left to compete.
And that doesn't even go into the fact that the poor will disproportionately suffer the inflationary byproduct of deficit spending that goes into financing such a thing, or the fact that further government control in healthcare permits for further corporate influence in healthcare. While the wealthy may be focused on in terms of taxes, the cost will end up translated onto the less wealthy as the wealthy try to recoup those extra costs. It seems contradictory to the disgust of the "poverty begets poverty" phenomenon shown in previous posts to support such a thing.
I don't really trust much how the Republican party approaches healthcare, but it seems to me personally that the wise approach is to focus on what bloats the costs, rather than what entity will pay for it. Actual cost can be brought down by allowing a growth of care providers by lightening the artificial choke on supply of doctors imposed by the AMA (we currently rely on foreign graduate doctors to comprise 25-33% of the field), lessening the restriction on nurses to provide care in certain areas (for example, in administering a drug like Methotrexate for women with ectopic pregnancies), decreasing the frivolous lawsuits that skyrocket malpractice insurance costs (which are costs that are inevitably reared back to the consumer), etc. Those are just examples off the top of my head, and I'm certain there's more imposed inefficiencies that could be focused on. I'd love to offer more thoughts with some time, but like you mentioned, approaching the problem legitimately isn't something that's going to be perfectly spelled out in a 4-page summary... let alone a reply on an online forum.
|
|
Chess
Wow... good one!
|
|
>>>t's sort of unfair to demand the "Republican plan" is for healthcare, especially right now
since the party is pretty fragmented. There is no "Republican" plan for healthcare any more
than there is a "Democrat" plan for healthcare. You can see plainly in the news how upset
Democrats are at one another because they disagree on just how much government
involvement there ought to be in the system. But no matter what, to suggest that anyone
actually WANTS any particular group to be deprived of health care is pretty dishonest
smearing. <<<
Poor little republicans. Their thought processes are so disorganized that can't come up
with anything. Should we just say: "Hey, let's not do anything because the republicans are
confused?" Surely, you can come up with something better than this drivel.
>>>I think one of the issues here is that universal healthcare is creating the facade of an
easy solution, and as such you're demanding an easy solution from any opposition. The
reality is that a government-funded healthcare system won't have an effect on costs -- it's
not really a "solution" to the problem. The system simply will make the costs less visible.
Regardless of how medicine is insured, that kind of approach is only going to encourage
hospitals to maximize their prices -- rather than minimize prices if they were left to
compete. <<<
I don't know whether you are just dumb or ignorant. Every other Western country has
universal healthcare that costs less and people live longer than in the US.
>>>And that doesn't even go into the fact that the poor will disproportionately suffer the
inflationary byproduct of deficit spending that goes into financing such a thing, or the fact
that further government control in healthcare permits for further corporate influence in
healthcare. While the wealthy may be focused on in terms of taxes, the cost will end up
translated onto the less wealthy as the wealthy try to recoup those extra costs. It seems
contradictory to the disgust of the "poverty begets poverty" phenomenon shown in previous
posts to support such a thing. <<<
Explain the "inflationary byproduct" poor people in other Western countries suffer from
their healthcare systems? Now this is one of the more amazing oxymorons I have seen
you express among many "further government control in healthcare permits for further
corporate influence in healthcare". You going to have to rewrite those last two sentences,
since they make no sense.
>>>I don't really trust much how the Republican party approaches healthcare, <<<
You said earlier they had no approach because they are confused.
>>>but it seems to me personally that the wise approach is to focus on what bloats the
costs, <<<
I hate bloated costs and even worse is a bloated cow about ready to burst.
>>>rather than what entity will pay for it. Actual cost can be brought down by allowing a
growth of care providers by lightening the artificial choke on supply of doctors imposed by
the AMA <<<
So, the idea is to increase the number of doctors so much that we can pay them
only minimum wages. Brilliant and thoughtful idea. Keep them coming!
>>>(we currently rely on foreign graduate doctors to comprise 25-33% of the field),
lessening the restriction on nurses to provide care in certain areas (for example, in
administering a drug like Methotrexate for women with ectopic pregnancies), decreasing the
frivolous lawsuits that skyrocket malpractice insurance costs (which are costs that are
inevitably reared back to the consumer), etc.<<<
All idiotic republican talking points. One thing the AMA does like do wrong is
make it very difficult for foreign doctors to practice here, which likely would reduce costs
somewhat. Tell me about these frivolous lawsuits? This is something repeated over
and over again, and is simply just made up.
>>> Those are just examples off the top of my head, <<<
Instead of off the top of your head (if you have had a lobotomy, there wouldn't be much
off the top of your head).
>>>and I'm certain there's more imposed inefficiencies that could be focused on.<<<
Now, that is the first correct thing you have said!
>>> I'd love to offer more thoughts with some time, but like you mentioned, approaching
the problem legitimately isn't something that's going to be perfectly spelled out in a 4-page
summary... let alone a reply on an online forum. <<<
Maybe you will have a dream about it tonight, and you can tell us your dream?
|
| |
GameKnot: play chess online, monthly chess tournaments, chess clubs, Internet chess league, chess teams, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.
|
Please log in to your account to play chess online!
