Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Boortz on ObamaCare

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about a year ago

User Journal 22

Highly realist
While I agree that the Democrats are really only pursuing the demolition of our existing system, to pave the way for Single Prayer, the Dems may not want to look too incompetent while blowing up what used to be a world-class system.
To keep the mask in place a little longer, the Dems may want to bump a year to the right, or risk too great an economic blowback. The Dems need to hurt the electoratHighly realist
While I agree that the Democrats are really only pursuing the demolition of our existing system, to pave the way for Single Prayer, the Dems may not want to look too incompetent while blowing up what used to be a world-class system.
To keep the mask in place a little longer, the Dems may want to bump a year to the right, or risk too great an economic blowback. The Dems need to hurt the electorate, but can't afford to enrage voters.
Thus we get all of this dishonest theater, but with a reasonable end: the voters get to figure out for 2014 if they are dumb enough to trust and empower the GOP to stake that vampire in the heart.

And here is a link to the competing GOP proposal, which, per the Holy Narrative, does not exist. If you're one of those who needs to maintain the fiction that there are no other ideas besides ObamaCare afoot, do not click that link. I do not want to be responsible for any injuries incurred while encountering truth.

cancel ×

22 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Reality vs wishes (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44932667)

Once again you and I are not that far apart...

While I agree that the Democrats are really only pursuing the demolition of our existing system, to pave the way for Single Prayer

Here what you perceive to be the reality of the situation is close to what I wish were the case. However there is no good reason to believe that any democrat is still trying to get a single payer (was that "r" that you included in payer on purpose or not?) system. The democrats are still the same legislative cowards that they have been ever since being labeled "un-American" after 9/11, they are more concerned with how the media portrays them than they are concerned with getting actual work done.

, the Dems may not want to look too incompetent while blowing up what used to be a world-class system.

The chance to not look incompetent is long gone. The democrats are clearly incompetent just as much as the republicans are clearly favoring the current stacked system. That said, your notion of "world-class system" is boggling; unless you are evaluating only the system that the top 10% of wage earners honestly can afford access to.

Re:Reality vs wishes (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44933721)

Do you really want Single Prayer? It's a proven historical failure in the USSR and England.
And, given the non-scalability of people, we can expect to explore new realms of suck in such an environment.
Then again, maybe Logan's Run was actually a prophecy.

Re:Reality vs wishes (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44943577)

Do you really want Single Prayer?

I'm going to guess you didn't make the same typo twice.

To answer your question, yes, I do want single payer. You know, like the rest of the industrialized world. I'm tired of being repeatedly fucked over by for-profit ventures who seek to deny me what I paid for. I'm tired of seeing premiums go up, services go down, co-pays go up, and available options go down, all while CEOs of health insurance companies continue to reap annual "bonuses" that would make a professional baseball player blush.

It's a proven historical failure in the USSR

The government in USSR failed because of the fact that people like power and when they have it unchecked they will go nuts. The same thing would happen in any system when the leader is beholden to nobody.

and England

There are millions of people in the UK who would disagree with your assesment of it as a "proven historical failure". They have a lower infant mortality rate, higher life expectancy, and lower annual cost of care per capita than the US. They have preventive care that actually works. Their wait lines are no worse than ours. Nobody in the UK has gone bankrupt over medical bills in decades.

Re:Reality vs wishes (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44947257)

Yeah, my German wife will cheerfully explain that The. Grass. Isn't. Greener, in Germany or the UK, where she worked for extended stretches.
Your attention is drawn to the brilliant Daniel Hannan [amazon.com] .

Re:Reality vs wishes (1)

Arker (91948) | about a year ago | (#44934007)

I am certainly not one of these semi-mythical elites you are worried about, and I never was. But I had much better access to health care in 1975 paying myself than I do today with a plan. I dont want Obamacare and I dont want some look-alike plan cooked up by the RINOs either, I want my basic human right to seek health care without interference.

Re:Reality vs wishes (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44939929)

Why do you H8 fairness? If the government isn't making everyone not in the government club miserable, then how can it be fair?

Re:Reality vs wishes (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44943609)

I want my basic human right to seek health care without interference.

If you mean you want to be able to purchase health care without having to purchase health insurance, you'll have to go live in another country. No government in this country will ever, ever shut down the insurance industry. The industry that has the largest number of lawmakers on their payroll isn't defense, banking, automotive, entertainment, or pharma. The industry that has paid for the largest number of lawmakers is the health insurance industry. They buy lawmakers from both sides of the aisle in every election and keep paying for them every year.

That is a big part of why we ended up with the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010; the lawmakers had to pay the piper.

Nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44932793)

Glad to see you conservatives are coming out from your caves, and are getting on the central planning bandwagon! There is hope for our country after all :)

Bureaucratic pink slime (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44936839)

This is what you cough up? Your side disinfects it with chlorine, and the other side with ammonia. Not very 'small government' of you... What do you offer to the uninsured? Community service? Hard labor? Chain gang? Your republican sect would have done much better if they had kept the evangelist dixiecrats out after the passage of the voting rights act. That Southern Strategy just won't do. I do have to admit, your illusion of opposition is still very effective at keeping the present power structure in place.

Re:Bureaucratic pink slime (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44939945)

I know, the whole notion of the government responding in any way to the people is anathema to you, but there it is.

Re:Bureaucratic pink slime (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44940859)

I don't know where you get that idea. That's not what the people want. Obama was voted in under the premise we would get a better system, but once again the government ends up responding to the industry with the deepest pockets. If the government responded to the people, we wouldn't be in this predicament of giving 85 bil a month to Wall Street, and big time fraudsters would actually be punished instead of rewarded. Your GOP plan is hardly different at all from the the dems. Both plans exist to protect existing monopolies, any benefit to us is entirely ancillary.

Re:Bureaucratic pink slime (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44942419)

Obama was voted in under the premise we would get a better system

A litmus test for any notion, irrespective of party, is whether the proposal redistributes power, or wealth.
Anything useful falls in the former category, in line with the ideals upon which the country is founded.
Anyone who thought blending academic Marxism with proven Chicago thuggery WASN'T going to suck stands revealed as simple.

Re:Bureaucratic pink slime (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44942995)

Wealth is power. You can't have one without the other. And concentrated wealth/power is theft.

Re:Bureaucratic pink slime (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44947133)

I guess if your focus is solely on money, you might say that. This may be the ultimate expression of poverty.

Re:Bureaucratic pink slime (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44947769)

Same goes for natural resources. Concentrated ownership is what creates a serfdom. We can't have one guy owning everything and charging the rest of us rent. You are still more than welcome to enjoy the fruits of your labor, but it is wrong to allow a guy to go around planting flags and marking their territory.

Re:Bureaucratic pink slime (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44948175)

So, you seem to H8 private property?

Re:Bureaucratic pink slime (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44951845)

Nope. The previous post explains it perfectly well. You own what you make, not what you claim.

Re:Bureaucratic pink slime (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44953937)

So, you do hate real estate?

It hasn't been a world class system (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year ago | (#44937283)

For my entire lifetime of 42 years. I fail to see how state sponsored monopolies will improve that.

Re:It hasn't been a world class system (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44939957)

I guess the people who historically came here from elsewhere for treatment don't exist, then.

Re:It hasn't been a world class system (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year ago | (#44949631)

Historically they existed; but not in the last 20 years. Most of the medical tourism today goes to India, where better care is available for half the cost.

What kind of alternative is this? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44943683)

I clicked the link to your GOP alternative proposal. Color me unimpressed.

First of all, I will point out that the Health Insurance Bailout Act of 2010 was passed in 2010. The republicans have had more than 3 years for a do-over and this is all they can come up with?

That said, it doesn't really do much. Much of what is in this is already in the bill that they so desperately want to kill.
  • Article 1 - just kills the Bailout Act, and does nothing else.
  • Article 2 - is a tax cut for buying health insurance, which we already have in the Bailout Act. It adjusts a few other things like HSAs but that isn't anything that rocks the earth.
  • Article 3 - Only removes a COBRA requirement for people who are high-risk and currently unemployed. Being as the coverage is - to be kind - extremely biased, I'm not convinced that such a requirement actually exists but we'll let them claim it to be so for now.
  • Article 4 - Is about "purchasing across state lines". This is at best massive window dressing, and at worst could make health care far more expensive. First of all, in the majority of situations nothing currently prevents people from purchasing health insurance from other states whcih makes this window dressing. However, if they want to make it law then they will force health care providers to accepts any number of crazy plans and train their staff to work on this, which will massively increase the cost of running a health care office.
  • Article 5 - is about medical liability law. Sounds great, except in reality it has little to do with the cost of health care beyond what providers pay for malpractice insurance; which is a cost that is only minimally passed on to the consumer. In particular this targets the attorney's part of the take (while placing no limit on the patient's award) whch should tell you enough of what this proposal's author is after.
  • Article 6 - an anti-abortion statement. This really doesn't have shit to do with this and doesn't belong here.

In other words, the parts of this that are not obviously partisan attacks on conservative boogeymen are taken from the Health Insurance Company Bailout Act of 2010. I will love to see what they say when the CBO evaluates the cost of this proposal.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>