Income inequality at an all time high

[Lorax]

I wish I knew.

But juicing the insurance is wrong, and I made sure the insurance was aware of it, so they can fight it out amongst themselves.

[ccbatson]

Sigh..unnecessary according to whom? and benefitting whose agenda if uncovered? Or kept quiet depending on the circumstances.

[cheddar bob]

I wish I knew.

But juicing the insurance is wrong, and I made sure the insurance was aware of it, so they can fight it out amongst themselves.

I wonder if ccbatson "juices" medicare and the insurance companies?

[ccbatson]

That is the point, you don't know...yet you proceed to lay blame, and, in Lorax's case, attempt to slander someone [[me).

[Lorax]

Let's see: My father's doctor ordered a whole host of individuals to "stop by" his room, while he was asleep, by the way- it was always off-hours. The reason he was in the hospital was for carotid artery surgery. He was visited by an oncologist, a neurologist, a physical therapist, among others. He's never had cancer, brain surgery or even an aneurysm. He would find business cards left for him in the morning.

Bear in mind, he has the best medical coverage money can buy, as a retired Chrysler executive, for 22 years now. Perfect target for a good juice job. Even the nurses agreed.

I joked to the doctor, he should have sent in a sculptor, a painter, and an interior decorator as well, for as much sense as this made.

[ccbatson]

The opinions rendered by these consultants [[for 150 dollars each) was/is far more valuable than any and all tests done. Try going without the redundant Physician consultation service availability on a large scale for a length of time if you want to experience what real consequences of diminished care are.

[Lorax]

So your response is, "so what?"

Let the juicing of the system continue? What do you think raises insurance rates?

Or could it be simple greed that raises insurance rates? Would United Health Scare simply continue with business as usual and pocket the savings? Probably.

That's why we need a government option to compete with the forces of fascism.

[vetalalumni]

You make an extraordinary leap to a conclusion unwarrented by the statement I made. I am not addressing public sector aid vs. private sector aid, though that seems to be where you want to take the conversation.

I am addressing what seems to be an axiom of the conservative right, which is that success is a pure function of individual effort and that equal opportunity exist for all, therefore if you are not successful it is because you lack the will or the capability to act on that opportunity. The "Any Kid Can Grow Up To Be President" axiom, if you will.

My position is that individual success is not purely the result of individual effort, but rather the combination of individual effort and the right combination of circumstances, be that communal support or being in the right place at the right time or whatever.

Opportunity is not equally distributed over the ground. Those with large extended families, affluent parents, networks formed by belonging to the "right" organizations, etc., have greater opportunities than those without these things. And these opportunities are correlated directly with money. In sum, those with money have more opportunites than those without.

The "self-made man" is a myth. I agree that nothing happens without hard work, but hard work alone won't do it except in the very rarest of cases.

I once had a "motivational" poster from Despair.com that said, "When you earnestly believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do."

Elganned, excellent effort at respectfully restating your own position after hearing it from someone attempting to put it in their own words [[unsuccessfully according to your restatements). Inaccurate parroting should be respectfully corrected [[restated again) by the offender upon notification [[you've served notice with your restatements). Hallmarks of discussion conducted well.

Encouraging a redoubling of efforts alone, when offered as pity, is often sublime cruelty. An embedded concept lacking provocations of wisdom or staid integrity. On a related note, many motivational speakers [[pastors, parents, SchoolTeachers) use similar general outlines, easily obtained independently.

[vetalalumni]

I am not an "Evangelical" but one of my kids was good friends with two brothers who were the sons of the local Pentecostal minister so I got to know that family pretty well. The parents did vote Republican as you might suspect. They lived in near poverty with side jobs necessary but they had enough to get by with junk cars and a lot of starchy food. TV's were not allowed. Their house was always open for anyone in their church who had marriage and other problems. They shared what they could. Often they were up late into the night helping people and then had to get up early to drive the school bus, sharpen saws, or whatever. In short, and to their credit, they were doing most of the things that Democrats want the government to do. Politics was not at the top of their agenda. Their three kids remained in the faith having married other evangelicals, work in computers, construction, and as a public school music teacher and produced 9 grandchildren.

Lot of generalizations in there. The underlined above should give many of the Democrat party pause. I know, if you are explaining, you are losing etc... But come on now.

[elganned]

How is it a question for anyone other than the individual themselves to question the income of another private individual?

Which goes straight to the heart of the issue.

So long as medical professionals are regarded [[and regard themselves) as trade service providers--like plumbers, electricians, or landscapers--rather that public service providers--like firefighters, police officers, and road workers--we'll never provide universal access to health care.

The current arguement is akin to a sinking ship where the debate is over whether to spend money on life preservers for all or on a large lifeboat that will only accommodate a limited number of the passengers where some will survive in comfort and the rest will be left to swim as best they can.

Our current system seeks to produce a public service outcome based on a trade service model. It is doomed to fail. The shifting of the discussion away from affordable health care to affordable health care insurance is merely tacit acceptance of the trade service model; it seeks not to lower the cost of medical services but rather to find a less painful way to pay for them. Insurance didn't even become a player in the mix until the cost of health care finally rose to the level where even the middle class couldn't afford it anymore.

The proposed bill will not solve the problem, even with the "public option". It will give no real relief since it fails to address the root of the problem. It will provide a stop-gap solution only until the cost climbs above the next threshhold.

Until we undergo a true paradigm shift in how we view medical service, we will be forced to revisit the question again and again in the future.

[Lorax]

Superb post, and right on the money.

I have been saying this as well- the only reason I support reform in the first place is the hope that with a public option, we will eventually convince the naysayers that we're already half-way to a single payer system, and can make that leap at a point in time in the future.

We already have a single payer system model in Medicare and Social Security. Obama should have framed the discussion as an extension of Medicare for all to start with, and then anti-forces would have had a more difficult time knocking it down. Certainly the debate has been tone-deaf on the Democratic side, and sheer lunacy on the Republican side.

Health care reform versus health insurance reform was the pivot the administration showed us this past month, and it's too little, too late, as there isn't the political will to change the current system, which will only spiral out of cost control and end up collapsing in on itself, much as Wall Street did- basically greed and corruption left unchecked.

The insurance and drug lobbies are simply too powerful, and have co opted our government. The money they spend in Washington is immoral, and frankly, renders us closer to a true fascist state than a democracy. Corporations control the agenda, as well as the outcome of legislation. This has been part and parcel to the way Washington works since the first years of Reagan.

Until the hard choices are made, which would render Obama a one term president, then there will be no real reforms of any kind. It's going to take a president and congress with a "take no prisoners" approach, which will include many in congress and the White House losing their jobs to make the difference.

[oladub]

vetalalumni, I was trying to put a human face on evangelicals who were being derided as something like brainless, vulgar pond scum. There is a lot more toleration here for venom directed at Evangelicals than at most other minority groups.

I am reminded of Robert Duvall playing an imperfect preacher in The Apostle.
A man of no means trying to help people out around him spiritually and materially without a thought of government solutions. Perhaps this is one of the reasons evangelicals are sometimes hated. Too independent to be useful to some in government. Too bad the other side took advantage of this by coopting and stringing them along as part of a coalition.

[Lorax]

Admirable to try and put a human face on a radical group, but they really are their own worst enemy.

They insist on blending church and state, and when living in a secular nation, it makes their efforts look like what they are- intolerant, fascist, and ill informed.

They would beg to differ, but the comparisons between all radical branches of all religions is nearly identical. The Taliban with Isalm and the Evangelicals in Christiandom are flip-sides of the same coins.

[ccbatson]

If current socialized medicine is a highly contagious terminally ill patient [[by analogy, and it is), then the last thing you do is purposely expose a healthy person [[or persons), later intermingling with the general population.

So, expanding socialized medicine will infect the the economy at large, and kill it shortly after it dies from the disease itself.

[Lorax]

Trust me, the Rethuglicans have already infected the economy, in case you've been sleeping, or like Batts, wafting through a field of daisies.

There isn't much more damage that can be done, other than pulling the life-support plug Obama had the intelligence to hook up in the first place.

So Batt's advice to the comatose: "I know you can hear me, so I'd like to say, you're gonna die."

[rb336]

If current socialized medicine is a highly contagious terminally ill patient [[by analogy, and it is), then the last thing you do is purposely expose a healthy person [[or persons), later intermingling with the general population.

So, expanding socialized medicine will infect the the economy at large, and kill it shortly after it dies from the disease itself.

that is, perhaps, the screwiest thing you have said all month. in fact, there is not one thing in it that is not twisted beyond any resemblance to truth

[ccbatson]

Yawn...did Rb say something? There is a post in the space as if he did, but it doesn't say anything in it. Oh well, I am very used to that by now.