Health Care Info from CBS News

[rushmc 18]

i wonder it is true since CBS is reporting this?


http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/taking_liberties/entry5268079.shtml

Quote

Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data

(AP)One of the problems with any proposed law that's over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details. Take the Democrats' proposal to rewrite health care policy, better known as H.R. 3200 or by opponents as "Obamacare." (Here's our CBS News television coverage.)

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."

Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.

Over at the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank and presumably no fan of Obamacare), Tom Giovanetti argues that: "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."

I'm not as certain as Giovanetti that this represents privacy's Armageddon. (Though I do wonder where the usual suspects like the Electronic Privacy Information Center are. Presumably inserting limits on information that can be disclosed -- and adding strict penalties on misuse of the information kept on file about hundreds of millions of Americans -- is at least as important as fretting about Facebook's privacy policy in Canada.)

A better candidate for a future privacy crisis is the so-called stimulus bill enacted with limited debate early this year. It mandated the "utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014," but included only limited privacy protections.

It's true that if the legislative branch chooses to create "affordability credits," it probably makes sense to ensure they're not abused. The goal of curbing fraud runs up against the goal of preserving individual privacy.

If we're going to have such significant additional government intrusion into our health care system, we will have to draw the privacy line somewhere. Maybe the House Democrats' current bill gets it right. Maybe it doesn't. But this vignette should be reason to be skeptical of claims that a massive and complex bill must be enacted as rapidly as its backers would have you believe.

Update August 27 11 a.m: Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center says in e-mail: "We would oppose section 431(a) of the bill because it violates the intent of the Privacy Act which generally requires agencies to obtain information directly from individuals and not from other agencies." EPIC still hasn't updated their Web site to reflect this sentiment, but it's good to know that other folks have concerns too.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6092658/Cruel-and-neglectful-care-of-one-million-NHS-patients-exposed.html

Quote

'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed
One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today.

By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor
Published: 12:01AM BST 27 Aug 2009


One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today Photo: CLARE KENDALL

In the last six years, the Patients Association claims hundreds of thousands have suffered from poor standards of nursing, often with 'neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel' treatment.


Related Articles
Hospital care: Colin Purkiss Smith's wife forced to bring him blankets
I bet those old folk don’t #lovethenhs
Hospital care: Ann McNeill was called a drama queen
Hospital care: Florence Weston was left without food or drink
Hospital care: Pamela Goddard's bed sores were inadequately treated
'Appalling care' cost up to 1200 lives in Staffordshire The charity has disclosed a horrifying catalogue of elderly people left in pain, in soiled bed clothes, denied adequate food and drink, and suffering from repeatedly cancelled operations, missed diagnoses and dismissive staff.

The Patients Association said the dossier proves that while the scale of the scandal at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust - where up to 1,200 people died through failings in urgent care - was a one off, there are repeated examples they have uncovered of the same appalling standards throughout the NHS.

While the criticisms cover all aspects of hospital care, the treatment and attitude of nurses stands out as a repeated theme across almost all of the cases.

They have called on Government and the Care Quality Commission to conduct an urgent review of standards of basic hospital care and to enforce stricter supervision and regulation.

Claire Rayner, President of the Patients Association and a former nurse, said:“For far too long now, the Patients Association has been receiving calls on our helpline from people wanting to talk about the dreadful, neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel treatment their elderly relatives had experienced at the hands of NHS nurses.

“I am sickened by what has happened to some part of my profession of which I was so proud.

"These bad, cruel nurses may be - probably are - a tiny proportion of the nursing work force, but even if they are only one or two percent of the whole they should be identified and struck off the Register.”

The charity has published a selection of personal accounts from hundreds of relatives of patients, most of whom died, following their care in NHS hospitals.

They cite patient surveys which show the vast majority of patients highly rate their NHS care - but, with some ten million treated a year, even a small percentage means hundreds of thousands have suffered.

Ms Rayner said it was by "sad coincidence" that she trained as a nurse with one of the patients who had "suffered so much".

She went on: "I know that she, like me, was horrified by the appalling care she had before she died.

"We both came from a generation of nurses who were trained at the bedside and in whom the core values of nursing were deeply inculcated."

Katherine Murphy, Director of the Patients Association, said “Whilst Mid Staffordshire may have been an anomaly in terms of scale the PA knew the kinds of appalling treatment given there could be found across the NHS. This report removes any doubt and makes this clear to all. Two of the accounts come from Stafford, and they sadly fail to stand out from the others.

“These accounts tell the story of the two percent of patients that consistently rate their care as poor (in NHS patient surveys).

"If this was extrapolated to the whole of the NHS from 2002 to 2008 it would equate to over one million patients. Very often these are the most vulnerable elderly and terminally ill patients. It’s a sad indictment of the care they receive.”

The Patients Association said one hospital had threatened it with legal action if it chose to publish the material.

Pamela Goddard, a piano teacher from Bletchingley, in Surrey, was 82 and suffering with cancer but was left in her own excrement and her condition deteriorated due to her bed sores.

Florence Weston, from Sedgley in the West Midlands, died aged 85 and had to remain without food or water for several days as her hip operation was repeated cancelled.

The charity released the dossier to highlight the poor care which a minority of patients in the NHS are subjected to.

Ms Murphy said the numbers rating care as poor came despite investment in the NHS doubling and the number of frontline nurses increasing by more than a quarter since 1996.

The personal stories were revealed to prevent their cases being ignored as only representing a small portion of patients.

The report said: "These are patients, not numbers. These are people, not statistics."

Dr Peter Carter, Chief Executive of the Royal College of Nursing, said he was concerned that public confidence in the NHS could be undermined by the examples cited and it would affect morale in hardworking staff.

He said: “The level of care described by these families is completely unacceptable, and we will not condone nurses who behave in ways that are contrary to the principles and ethics of the profession.

"However we believe that the vast majority of nurses are decent, highly skilled individuals.

“This report is based on the two per cent of patients who feel that their care was unacceptable. Two per cent is too many but we are concerned that this might undermine the public’s confidence in the world-class care they can expect to receive from the NHS."

Barbara Young, Chairman of the Care Quality Commission, the super-regulator, said: “It is absolutely right to highlight that standards of hospital care can vary from very good to poor.

“Many people are happy with the care they receive, but we also know that there are problems.

“I am in no doubt that many hospitals need to raise their game in this area.

“Where NHS trusts fail to meet the mark, we have tough new enforcement powers, ranging from warnings and fines to closure in extreme cases. We will not hesitate to use these powers when necessary to bring improvement.

"We will be asking NHS trusts and primary care trusts how they are ensuring that the needs of patients and their safety and dignity are kept at the heart of care.”

Chris Beasley, Chief Nursing Officer at the Department of Health said the care in the cases highlighted by the PA was “simply unacceptable”.

She added: "It is important to note this is not representative of the picture across the NHS.

"The NHS treats millions of people every day and the vast majority of patients experience good quality, safe and effective care - the Care Quality Commission's recent patient experience survey shows that 93 percent of patients rate their overall care as good or excellent.

"We will shortly be publishing complaints data on the NHS Choices website and expect trusts to publish the number of complaints they receive, setting out how these are successfully resolved."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

i wonder it is true since CBS is reporting this?

no it's not.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

i wonder it is true since CBS is reporting this?

no it's not.

Soooo, CBS is lieing again?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

i wonder it is true since CBS is reporting this?

no it's not.

Soooo, CBS is lieing again?

"False, but accurate"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

i wonder it is true since CBS is reporting this?

no it's not.

Soooo, CBS is lieing again?

"False, but accurate"

You know what I find amazing is all of the topics that raise the eyebrows and created resistance have a common thread. That same thread is exactly what the libs bemoan when governement is supposedly sticking its nose into private affairs.

Yet they support goverement intervention if it helps them push their social agendas on those who do not think we should live as they think we should.

Heath care, environment, energy, auto mobiles, illegal imigration ALL have that same thread.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,635]

Here are a whole lot more LIES being circulated by opponents of HR3200.
www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/


And here are the "Pants on Fire" liars:

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/

If HR3200 was actually bad, the opponents would not have to lie about it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kbordson 8]

The reality is that we don't REALLY know what the motive or intent of this plan is. I have recently spent two weeks in a country with "free health care" and was saddened by what that truly meant. Policy and application are not the same thing. Even there politics plays a big role. I do NOT trust this administration and I also have no reason to trust you. Reading your (or dreamdancers or ...) opinion on what you BELIEVE wont change that level of suspicion. But just so you don't throw the "left wing" insults out there... I didn't believe what the prior administration "said" either.


There's a lot of good posts in this thread that deal with the side discussion of what should government PROVIDE. Is the American population desiring cradle to grave food, shelter, care? Or do "the People" want to independently provide for themselves?

It's easy to demonize those with the desire to take care of themselves by pointing out "you're a doctor" or "you're a lawyer.... what about the 'common' people." I held the same believes when I was "just" a nurse. And when I was in college and working a job to give my mom money so that she wouldn't lose the house. (why was the house at risk? Medical costs and Medicaid spend-down. Because my parents had the audacity to have have a house when my dad had a stroke and was admitted to a nursing home... in which he later died partially due to his lack of motivation for recovery and partially due to poor care resulting in bed sores progressing to sepsis. ) I didn't trust the care that he was getting, but I was brushed aside as a nosy lil 19 year old - I developed a distrust of caregivers then. And I didn't trust the government then either. Granted, I still went into the military in the medical field... and I learned different things there.

So... tell us kallend, what in your background give you such unwavering support for a government that you seem to think that everyone should "trust." Or .... are you getting kickbacks somewhere too?

[kallend 1,635]

If HR3200 was actually bad, the opponents would not have to lie about it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

If HR3200 was actually bad, the opponents would not have to lie about it.

[sarcasm]Oh well.... that covers it all then[/sarcsasm]

[TankBuster 0]

Lemme guess, you're an intelligent woman who's worked your butt off learning as much as you can and applying that knowledge to become as skilled practitioner of OB as ever lived. For that you ask whatever the market will bear for your superior service. You expect to keep all that you make, unless you choose how and when to part with it. I do the same, but in the realm of steel and machinery. How beautiful to some, how evil to others.

The motive of this plan is to sink one final nail into the coffin of the Americal ideal - which is to allow men and women to live as totally free individuals, pursuing only their own happiness and fullfillment. A grand experiment which is failing now. Here's a great article on the subject.

The Dollar and the Gun

By Harry Binswanger, as published in Why Businessmen Need Philosophy
This article was first published in the Objectivist Forum in 1983

To advocates of capitalism, the following scenario is all too familiar.

You are in a conversation with an acquaintance. The conversation turns to politics. You make it clear you are for capitalism, laissez-faire capitalism. Eloquently, you explain the case for capitalism in terms of man’s rights, the banning of physical force and the limitation of government to the function of protecting individual freedom. It seems clear, simple, unanswerable.

But instead of seeing the “light-bulb look” on the face of your acquaintance, you see shock, bewilderment, antagonism. At the first opportunity, he rushes to object:

“But government has to protect helpless consumers from the power wielded by huge multinational corporations.”

Or: “Freedom is impossible under strict capitalism: people must have jobs in order to live, and they are therefore forced to accept the employer’s terms.”

Or: “In a complex industrial society such as ours, government planning must replace the anarchy of the marketplace.”

These apparently diverse objections all commit the same logical fallacy, a fallacy grounded in the deepest philosophical premises of those who commit it. To defend capitalism effectively, one must be able to recognize and combat this fallacy in whatever form it may appear. The fallacy is equivocation—the equivocation between economic power and political power.

“Political power” refers to the power of government. The special nature of that power is what differentiates government from all other social institutions. That which makes government government, its essential attribute, is its monopoly on the use of physical force. Only a government can make laws—i.e., rules of social conduct backed up by physical force. A “government” lacking the power to use force is not a government at all, but some sort of ugly pretense, like the United Nations.

A non-governmental organization can make rules, pass resolutions, etc., but these are not laws precisely because they cannot be enforced on those who choose not to deal with that organization. The penalty for breaking the rules of e.g., a fraternal organization is expulsion from the association. The penalty for breaking the law is fines, imprisonment, and ultimately, death. The symbol of political power is a gun.

A proper government points that gun only at those who violate individual rights, to answer the physical force they have initiated, but it is a gun nonetheless.

Economic power, on the other hand, is the ability to produce material values and offer them for sale. E.g., the power of Big Oil is the power to discover, drill and bring to market a large amount of oil. Economic power lies in assets—i.e., the factors of production, the inventory and the cash possessed by businesses. The symbol of economic power is the dollar.

A business can only make you an offer, thereby expanding the possibilities open to you. The alternative a business presents you with in a free market is: “Increase your well-being by trading with us, or go your own way.” The alternative a government, or any force-user, presents you with is: “Do as we order, or forfeit your liberty, property or life.”

As Ayn Rand wrote, “economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman’s tool is values; the bureaucrat’s tool is fear.” (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 48)

Economic power stems from and depends upon the voluntary choices of the buying public. We are the ones who make big businesses big. One grants economic power to a company whenever one buys its products. And the reason one buys is to profit by the purchase: one values the product more than the money it costs—otherwise, one would not buy it. (The savage polemics against the profits of business are demands that the entire gain should go to one side—that “the little guy” should get all of the gain and businesses none, rather than both profiting from the transaction.)

To the extent a business fails at producing things people choose to buy, it is powerless. The mightiest Big Multinational Conglomerate which devoted its power to producing items of no value would achieve no effect other than its own bankruptcy.

Economic power, then, is purely benevolent. It does not include the power to harm people, enslave them, exploit them or “rip them off.” Marx to the contrary notwithstanding, the only means of exploiting someone is by using physical force—i.e., by employing the principle of political power.

The equivocation between economic and political power attacks capitalism from both sides. On the one hand, it blackens the legitimate, peaceful, self-interested activities of traders on a free market by equating these activities with the predatory actions of criminals and tyrannical governments. For example, the “power of huge multinational corporations” is thought of as the power to rob the public and to coerce employees. Accepting the equivocation leads one to conclude that government intervention in the economy is necessary to the protection of our freedom against economic power.

On the other hand, the equivocation whitewashes the interventionist actions of government by equating them with the benevolent, productive actions of businesses and private individuals. For example, when the government attempts to substitute arbitrary bureaucratic edicts for the intricately coordinated plans of individuals and businesses, this is referred to as “planning.” The systematic destruction of your savings through legalized counterfeiting is styled “managing” the money supply. Antitrust laws, which make it illegal to become too effective a competitor, are held necessary to preserve “free competition.” Socialist dictatorship is spoken of as “economic democracy.”

Americans have always held individual rights and freedom to be sacred and have looked with proper suspicion upon the power of government. The opponents of freedom have flopped grandly whenever their true colors have been perceived by the American public (e.g., the McGovern campaign). The victories of the statists have required camouflage. The equivocation between economic and political power, by reversing the meaning of all the crucial political concepts, has been essential to the spread of anticapitalism in this country.

The demagogic, rabble-rousing attacks on “Big Business” are the most direct example of the equivocation in practice. Whether it is multinational corporations or conglomerates or monopolies or “oligopolies,” the fear of “concentrations of economic power” is the theme played upon in endless variations by the left. The anti-bigness theme often appeals to the “conservatives” as well; the first serious breach of American capitalism, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, was and is supported by conservatives. Senator Sherman’s rationale for the Act is a classic case of the equivocation: “If the concerted powers of [a business] combination are intrusted to a single man, it is a kingly prerogative inconsistent with our form of government.” (emphasis added)

In today’s depressed economy where “obscene profits” have turned into (lovely?) losses, the anti-business theme is being played in a new key: the target has shifted to foreign businesses. The equation of the dollar and the gun remains, however. To wit: “Senator Paul Tsongas (D-Massachusetts) believes that the hightechnology challenge from Japan is as serious to the United States’ long-term security as the defense threat posed by the Soviet Union.” (Infoworld, May 30, 1983)

The Soviet Union threatens us with nuclear annihilation. The Japanese “threaten” us with the opportunity to buy cheap, reliable computer parts.

One could point out that the law of comparative advantage, a cornerstone of economic science, dictates that one country’s superior productive ability can only benefit all those with whom it trades; that if Japanese firms can produce computer parts at lower cost than U.S. firms can, then our firms will necessarily have a comparative advantage in some other area of production; that any government intervention to protect some U.S. firms from foreign competition sacrifices other U.S. firms and the public at large to inefficiency, lowering our standard of living. But all this would be lost on the kind of mentality that equates imports with bombs.

Anti-capitalists go through the most elaborate intellectual contortions to obscure the difference between economic power and political power. For example, George Will, a popular columnist often mistaken for a pro-capitalist, announces that we must abandon the distinction because “any economic arrangement is, by definition, a political arrangement.” He attacks the idea that “only people produce wealth; government does not” on the grounds that “Government produces the infrastructure of society—legal, physical, educational—. . . that is a precondition for the production of wealth.” (The New Republic, May 9, 1983)

It is true that laws protecting rights are a precondition for the production of wealth, but a precondition of production is not production. In enforcing proper laws, the government does not produce anything—it merely protects the productive activities performed by private individuals. Guns cannot create wealth. When a policeman prevents a mugger from stealing your wallet, no value is created; you are left intact, but no better off.

The absence of a loss is not a gain. Ignoring that simple fact is involved in the attempt to portray the government’s gun as a positive, creative factor. For instance, tax relief is viewed as if it were government encouragement. In reality, tax breaks for schools, churches, homeowners, etc., are reduced penalties, not support. But socialist Michael Harrington writes:

The Internal Revenue Code is a perverse welfare system that hands out $77 billion a year, primarily to the rich. The special treatment accorded to capital gains results in an annual government benefit of $14 billion for high rollers on the stock exchange. (Saturday Review, November 1972)
Harrington equates being forced to surrender to the IRS one quarter of your earnings (the tax rate for capital gains), with being given a positive benefit by the government. After all, the IRS could have taken it all.

Just as the absence of a loss is not a gain, so the absence of a gain is not a loss. When government handouts are reduced, that is not “balancing the budget on the backs of the poor”—it is a reduction in the extent to which the poor are balanced on the backs of the rest of us.

The distinction between economic power and political power—seemingly self-evident—is in fact premised upon an entire philosophic framework. It requires, above all, two principles:

that wealth is produced by individual thought and effort, and
that man is an end in himself.
From the standpoint of today’s philosophy, which denies both premises, the equation of economic power and political power is not a fallacy but a logically necessary conclusion.

In regard to the first premise, the dominant view today is that “the goods are here.” This attitude comes in several variants, and most people switch freely among them, but in every case the result is the idea that economic power is not earned.

In one variant, the production of wealth is evaded altogether; wealth is viewed as a static quantity, which can only change hands. On this view, one man’s enrichment is inevitably at the price of another’s impoverishment, and economic power is necessarily obtained at others’ expense.

For example: in a full-page advertisement run last year in the New York Times, a pornographic magazine promoted its series of articles on “Big Oil: The Rape of Free Enterprise.” The ad charged “the oil companies have a vise-like grip on the production and distribution of oil and natural gas—and set the market prices. These giants also own vast holdings of coal and uranium. . . . we’re over a barrel—and it’s an oil barrel.” (January 25, 1982)

Despite the ad’s use of the word “production,” the language conveys the impression that barrels of oil, stockpiles of gas, coal and uranium are not produced, that they were just lying around until—somehow—those demonic giants seized them in their “vise-like grip.” The truth is that finding, extracting, refining, delivering and storing oil and other energy sources is such an enormous undertaking that companies too small to be known to the general public spend more than $100 million each on these tasks annually.

The notion that wealth is a static quantity overlooks one telling detail: the whole of human history. If wealth only shifted hands, if one man’s gain were always at the price of another’s loss, then man could never have risen from the cave.

In other moods, people acknowledge that wealth is produced, but, following Marx, view production as exclusively a matter of using physical labor to transform natural resources into finished products. In the midst of the “computer revolution,” when technological discoveries are shrinking yesterday’s multi-milliondollar room-sized computer down to the size of a briefcase and making it available for the cost of a used car, people cling to the notion that the mind is irrelevant to production.

On the premise that muscles are the source of wealth, the accumulation of wealth by corporations is a sign of the exploitation of the workers: the economic power of those who do not sweat and toil can have been gained only by preying upon those who do.

In a final variant, people do not deny entirely the role of intelligence in production, but view wealth as an anonymous social product unrelated to individual choice, effort, ambition and ability. If today’s standard of living is due equally to the work of Thomas Edison, any random factory worker, and the corner panhandler, then everyone has a right to an equal “share of the pie.” Again, the conclusion is that any man’s possession of aboveaverage wealth means that he has exercised some magical power of diverting the “fair share” of others into his own pocket.

In any variant, the immortal refutation of “the goods are here” approach to wealth is provided by Atlas Shrugged. As Galt says in explaining the meaning of the strike he leads, “We’ve heard it shouted that the industrialist is a parasite, that his workers support him, create his wealth, make his luxury possible—and what would happen to him if they walked out? Very well. I propose to show to the world who depends on whom, who supports whom, who is the source of wealth, who makes whose livelihood possible and what happens to whom when who walks out.”

Once it is admitted that wealth is the product of individual thought and effort, the question arises: who should own that product? On an ethics of rational egoism, the answer is: he who created it. On the moral premise of altruism, however, the answer is: anyone who needs it. Altruism specializes in the separation of creator and his creation, of agent and beneficiary, of action and consequences.

According to altruism, if you create a good and I do not, that very fact deprives you of the right to that good and makes me its rightful owner, on the principle, “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”

On that premise, anyone who possesses a good needed by another must surrender it or be guilty of theft. Thus altruism turns businessmen into extortionists, since they charge money for relinquishing possession of the goods rightfully belonging to others. A government whose political power is directed to protecting business’s control over their product is, from the altruist standpoint, initiating physical force against the rightful owners of those goods. By this moral code, the economic power of business is political power, since the wealth of businesses is protected by government, instead of being turned over to the needy.

Altruism engenders an inverted, death-dealing version of property rights: ownership by right of non-production.

Is this an exaggeration? Look at the statements of those who take altruism seriously—for example, George Will, who lauds the “willingness to sacrifice private desires for public ends.”

Urging “conservatives” to embrace the welfare state, Will quotes approvingly from the 1877 Supreme Court case of Munn v. Illinois, in which the Court ruled that a State could regulate the prices of private businesses: “When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created.” (emphasis added)

One must submit to be controlled—why? Because he created a value. Controlled—by whom? By “the public”—i.e., by all those who have not created that value.

Philosophically, the equivocation between economic power and political power rests on the metaphysics of causeless wealth and the ethics of parasitism. Psychologically, it appeals to a fear of self-reliance, the fear that is the dominant emotion of the kind of dependent mentality Ayn Rand called the “second-hander.”

The second-hander feels that the distinction between the dollar and the gun is “purely theoretical.” He has long ago granted the smiles and frowns of others the power to dictate his values and control his behavior. Feeling himself to be metaphysically incompetent and society to be omnipotent, he believes that having to rely on himself would mean putting his life in jeopardy. A society of freedom, he feels, is a society in which he could be deprived of the support on which his life depends.

When you talk to him in your terms, telling him that we are all separate, independent equals who can deal with each other either by reason or by force, he literally doesn’t know what you are talking about. Having abandoned his critical faculty, any idea, any offer, any deal is compulsory to him if it is accompanied by social pressure. You may tell him that in order to survive, man must be free to think. But he lacks the concepts of independent survival, independent thought, and even of objective reality; his credo is Erich Fromm’s: “Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence.” (Man for Himself, p. 133)

I will conclude with another scenario. Imagine that you survive a shipwreck and have to steer your lifeboat to one of two desert islands where you will have to remain for several years. On each island there is one inhabitant. The western island is the property of a retired multi-millionaire, who lives there in high luxury, with a mansion, two swimming pools and all the accoutrements of great wealth. The eastern island is inhabited by a propertyless beachcomber who lives in rags and eats whatever fruit and fish he can scrounge up. Let’s add that the millionaire is an egoist and strict capitalist, while the beachcomber is a saint of altruism who will gladly share his mud hut with you. Would you, or anyone, head east to escape being “exploited” by the millionaire’s economic power?

So much for the idea that one is threatened by the economic power of others.

But one doesn’t have to resort to desert-island fables. The same practical demonstration of the life-giving nature of economic power and the fatal nature of unbounded political power is provided by the hundreds of thousands of people—Boat People, they are called—who cling to their pathetic, overloaded vessels, fleeing the lands of the gun and heading toward whatever islands of even semi-capitalism they can find left in the world.

If for every hundred refugees seeking to flee collectivist dictatorships we could exchange one intellectual who urges us to fear the dollar and revere the gun, America might once again become a land of liberty and justice for all.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

If HR3200 was actually bad, the opponents would not have to lie about it.

[sarcasm]Oh well.... that covers it all then[/sarcsasm]

Well, what's your explanation for the lying liars?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If HR3200 was actually bad, the opponents would not have to lie about it.

[sarcasm]Oh well.... that covers it all then[/sarcsasm]

Well, what's your explanation for the lying liars?

On which "side"?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Since you are one of the few people who post here who actually experience our health care system every day, I'd really appreciate it you would comment on:

1) is there a problem with how health care is delivered or paid for in the US?

2) if there is a problem in your opinion, do you have any ideas about what to do about it?

I know you're busy but I'd really like to hear your opinion.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If HR3200 was actually bad, the opponents would not have to lie about it.

[sarcasm]Oh well.... that covers it all then[/sarcsasm]

Well, what's your explanation for the lying liars?

On which "side"?

I'd suggest the side that has promulgated the vast majority of the lies accoording to the non-partisan Factcheck.org. That would be the side with Palin, Limbaugh, Beck and Boehner leading the pack of liars.

If HR3200 is really bad, they wouldn't have to lie about it, would they? So why are they doing it?

Maybe:

they are too stupid to understand it, or

they think their constituencies are too stupid to realize they are being lied to, or

they are just pathological liars and can't help themselves.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

neck hurt

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

neck hurt

I'm sorry to hear that. Have you spoken to a medical doctor?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dsandreas 0]

Just because factcheck.org states they are non-partisan doesn't mean its true. They certainly lean liberal.

The House bill is a monstrosity. Nothing in it prevents care being given to illegal immigrants nor does it prevent public funding of abortions. It will be construed however this liberal administration decides. For sure they will get into your bank account and they will have control of all your medical records. That is how they will determine who gets what care and what your financial contribution will be.

Whether you like it or not...this country can not afford it. We are already running deficits of 1,000 billion dollars a year. It will cost more than the estimates...government programs always do. There isn't enough money in the private sector to fund Social Security (already broke), Medicaid (already broke), Medicare (already broke), the annual spending bills and this new mandate. There simply isn't enough money...like it or not.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Since you are one of the few people who post here who actually experience our health care system every day, I'd really appreciate it you would comment on:

1) is there a problem with how health care is delivered or paid for in the US?

Delivered - yes and no. Yes, if you don't feel that you have the power or authority to have true medical emergencies addressed. Even without insurance, medical emergencies SHOULD be addressed. And should be handled EXACTLY the same as a patient WITH insurance. Sometimes that doesn't happen. But... you should get the proper counseling on what the illness/injury is and you should have access to care. How you decide to proceed is your choice. No, there isn't a problem with how it is delivered if you have the ability and knowledge to understand your rights.

Paid for - ABSOLUTELY. Insurance companies are VERY COMPLICATED and sometimes it can be quite challenging to understand. And... it's expensive. Unnecessarily expensive. What are the excuses for that expense: overhead - needed office staff to manage the billing and records, malpractice insurance which is HUGE in OB/Gyn, expense of education/credentialing, and the list goes on and on.

Quote

2) if there is a problem in your opinion, do you have any ideas about what to do about it?

I've stated on many occasions that I do not feel that I am smart enough to know how exactly to fix the problem that is truly such an important topic.

Issues that do need to be addressed:

1. Cost of Medical School


2. Cost of credentialing -
USMLE
Step 1 - $340 when I tested in 2000 (now at $855 by what I can find on the internet, I can't log into the official NBME site and get current fees)
Step 2 - $385 from 2001 (now divided to two separate tests, 2CS and 2CK at $875 and $1200)
Step 3 - $ can't find my cost from 2002 (now at $670)

ABOG
Written board ($705 to apply and $645 to sit for the exam in 2006)
Oral board ($1265 in 2008)

Maintenance of Certification (don't know... haven't yet had to pay)

3. Medical Malpractice. New article from 2003 on the Malpractice Crisis in Missouri

edit to add: Abstract from American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology


There are MANY other factors to consider as well, but these are the details that I am ACUTELY aware of.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

neck hurt

I'm sorry to hear that. Have you spoken to a medical doctor?

Not yet, but I suppose I should go while I still have the plan I want. Not Obamacare that you want.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Just because factcheck.org states they are non-partisan doesn't mean its true. They certainly lean liberal.

No, they lean HONEST. It was founded by a lifelong Republican and member of Reagan's cabinet.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dsandreas 0]

Doesn't matter who founded it or who does the work...their writings/opinions are liberal.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Doesn't matter who founded it or who does the work...their writings/opinions are HONEST.

Fixed it for you.

You're just pissed because the majority of LIES are coming from the non-liberals.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

If HR3200 was actually bad, the opponents would not have to lie about it.

if george w bush was actually that bad, the opponents would not have to lie about him.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[dsandreas 0]

The fact you believe them makes my point. They offer liberal opinions masquerading as non-partisan.