Will Obama pay a political price for his lies?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

name one and what exactly are these "inevitable gaps"?


brilliant.. http://www.nationalreview.com/node/362922/print

I personally know people who have had to sell their homes and rent crappy apartments because of medical bills. It should never, ever happen.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I personally know people who have had to sell their homes and rent crappy apartments because of medical bills. It should never, ever happen.

I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons, should we create an "EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government program" for each of those as well because "it should never, ever happen"??

you just provided the rationale for every massive bureaucratic transfer system that we have, please name one that is EFFECTIVE and EFFICIENT.......one that did not start from sentiment like the one you expressed only to grow exponentially beyond it's promised purpose and cost....one that is not unsustainable and headed for disaster as you've pointed out countless times....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons, should we create an "EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government program" for each of those as well because "it should never, ever happen"??

you just provided the rationale for every massive bureaucratic transfer system that we have, please name one that is EFFECTIVE and EFFICIENT.......one that did not start from sentiment like the one you expressed only to grow exponentially beyond it's promised purpose and cost....one that is not unsustainable and headed for disaster as you've pointed out countless times....

In my opinion, which you disagree with...I'd rather have some kind of public program that levels the playing field to lessen the financial impacts of catastrophic health costs which (1) those afflicted have zero control over, and which (2) could happen to any of us at any time. I'd rather have it at the local level than in DC.

"I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons"

Me too. I'm not talking about allowing people to avoid responsibility for bad decisions. I'm talking about helping those who did absolutely nothing to contribute to their predicament. If someone could devise a well run program to achieve that goal, I'd support it. Maybe you wouldn't.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In my opinion, which you disagree with...I'd rather have some kind of public program that levels the playing field to lessen the financial impacts of catastrophic health costs which (1) those afflicted have zero control over, and which (2) could happen to any of us at any time. I'd rather have it at the local level than in DC.

We already have a system wherein it can and must be had at the local level--the governmental structure prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. Having it at a centralized national level destroys the constitutional structure. It's not a question of "rather" having it at the local level. It either "must" be there or it entirely changes the political structure and the relationship of the individual to the government.

"I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons"

Me too. I'm not talking about allowing people to avoid responsibility for bad decisions. I'm talking about helping those who did absolutely nothing to contribute to their predicament. If someone could devise a well run program to achieve that goal, I'd support it. Maybe you wouldn't.

Many of those reasons Scott was talking about also involve situations where the individual has, as you put it, "zero control over". Two that I mentioned above, growing old and in need of 24/7 care and the loss of job and income. Their is no such thing as a well run "government" program to solve them without changing the nature of our society. If you think a "safe" government manipulated society is better than one of individual choice fraught with messy problems, than we differ in more than minor preferences.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons, should we create an "EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government program" for each of those as well because "it should never, ever happen"??

you just provided the rationale for every massive bureaucratic transfer system that we have, please name one that is EFFECTIVE and EFFICIENT.......one that did not start from sentiment like the one you expressed only to grow exponentially beyond it's promised purpose and cost....one that is not unsustainable and headed for disaster as you've pointed out countless times....

It seems that government programs are most effective in creating a greater need for their service than existed before the programs started. That appears to be the nature of providing "help". The appearance is that they are "working" because more seek the help. So the "help" expands and the cost gets larger not only because of larger numbers to be "helped" but because the large pool of govt. money also raises the cost of the "help".

In reality, people become less "efficient" in solving their own problems because it is easier to let government do it.

It is such an obvious circle of events. But the allure of easier living is too great to resist. That it is heading toward a collapse of a system of individual responsibility to one of government dependence appears not to be a problem. It can all be replaced with an effectively efficient system of total government control. That such systems have not worked due to that mysterious desire in human nature to be free of them is not a problem. Our way will be better.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I personally know people who have had to sell their homes and rent crappy apartments because of medical bills. It should never, ever happen.

Would it have been possible for those people (how many?--I don't know any--is this a rampant problem?)--would it have been possible for them to refinance their home for a loan to pay off their medical bills? And if, after paying the medical bills they couldn't afford to rent "nice" rather than "crappy" apartments, were they already in financial difficulty? If not, couldn't the money they paid for an apartment been used to pay notes on the refinanced house? Lots of questions to be answered here before government mandates that everyone else should pay for their medical bills.

Should old folks be able to keep or pass on all of their assets to family (homes, cars, bank accounts, etc.) and still have the "government" pay for their expensive care in nursing homes?

Should people who lose a job have the "government" subsidize their house notes so they can stay their rather than move to crappy apartments.

There are so many situations which affect millions of people from which they have to extricate themselves that could easily be "fixed" by the "government" paying for the fix.

Sorry Scott--posted this while you were posting yours.

[Fly Rod]

All one has to do to see how poorly government runs it health program we just have to look at how the VA treats its wounded soldiers....it is socialist medicine

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Would it have been possible for those people (how many?--I don't know any--is this a rampant problem?)--would it have been possible for them to refinance their home for a loan to pay off their medical bills? And if, after paying the medical bills they couldn't afford to rent "nice" rather than "crappy" apartments, were they already in financial difficulty? If not, couldn't the money they paid for an apartment been used to pay notes on the refinanced house? Lots of questions to be answered here before government mandates that everyone else should pay for their medical bills.

Should old folks be able to keep or pass on all of their assets to family (homes, cars, bank accounts, etc.) and still have the "government" pay for their expensive care in nursing homes?

Should people who lose a job have the "government" subsidize their house notes so they can stay their rather than move to crappy apartments.

There are so many situations which affect millions of people from which they have to extricate themselves that could easily be "fixed" by the "government" paying for the fix.

Sorry Scott--posted this while you were posting yours.

"And if, after paying the medical bills they couldn't afford to rent "nice" rather than "crappy" apartments, were they already in financial difficulty?"

No. The family I know, had medical bills that ran in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not mane people can write a check for that amount and not see a big downward shift in their standard of living, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they were in "financial difficulty" to begin with. They weren't uber-rich, but they were not in financial difficulty by my standards.

I'm not naïve enough to believe that the feds could pull it off without waste and abuse. Nor am I so cynical and callous that I'm willing to say "tough cookies" to people who are so afflicted.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"And if, after paying the medical bills they couldn't afford to rent "nice" rather than "crappy" apartments, were they already in financial difficulty?"

No. The family I know, had medical bills that ran in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not mane people can write a check for that amount and not see a big downward shift in their standard of living, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they were in "financial difficulty" to begin with. They weren't uber-rich, but they were not in financial difficulty by my standards.

I'm not naïve enough to believe that the feds could pull it off without waste and abuse. Nor am I so cynical and callous that I'm willing to say "tough cookies" to people who are so afflicted.

Now you're really losing me. We need a government program to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars? If there were such a program, don't you think there would be a lot more cases of such need as exist now? And if the government was willing to pay for them all, wouldn't that even raise the cost of the medicine even more? It sounds like the prescription for more of the same escalating costs we are experiencing now--on steroids.

Wouldn't it be more effective, and more economically reasonable for the rest of society, if the individual negotiated those prices rather than the government either just paying them or instead controlled them.

If your friends could not afford to pay, the medical providers could not collect. Either negotiation or default would occur. Third party has distorted this into a spiral of higher costs, government intervention, and unsustainable debts.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Now you're really losing me. We need a government program to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars? If there were such a program, don't you think there would be a lot more cases of such need as exist now? And if the government was willing to pay for them all, wouldn't that even raise the cost of the medicine even more? It sounds like the prescription for more of the same escalating costs we are experiencing now--on steroids.

Wouldn't it be more effective, and more economically reasonable for the rest of society, if the individual negotiated those prices rather than the government either just paying them or instead controlled them.

If your friends could not afford to pay, the medical providers could not collect. Either negotiation or default would occur. Third party has distorted this into a spiral of higher costs, government intervention, and unsustainable debts.

"We need a government program to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars?"

Our consciences should demand that we need something to lessen the burden tee people face. In the absence of private programs providing the safety net, the gubmint could do it.

"If there were such a program, don't you think there would be a lot more cases of such need as exist now?"

Yes. Detbuch, you and Scott are sharp enough to play devil's advocate, where you could articulate dozens of potential pitfalls and abuses. In the meantime, innocent decent people are suffering for things they could not possibly control. If we can split an atom, perhaps we can figure out a way to address this too.

"If your friends could not afford to pay, the medical providers could not collect."

These are dear friends. They could afford to pay most of it, and it cost them everything they had. They had a child born with leukemia and bad kidneys, and they were absolutely wiped out by the bills. Household income was about $125k, and they had decent insurance.

They had decent insurance, they got help from family and friends, our town had fundraisers, they relied on charities like Ronald McDonald House. And still, they got wiped out. Every cent of home equity, gone. Every cent they had saved since they started working, gone. Credit cards maxed out. Every cent was for medical expenses.

I don't claim to be able to answer any of the "well, what about THIS" gotcha arrows you can sling my way. But my claim is that we can do a little better in this area.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"We need a government program to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars?"

Our consciences should demand that we need something to lessen the burden tee people face. In the absence of private programs providing the safety net, the gubmint could do it.

"If there were such a program, don't you think there would be a lot more cases of such need as exist now?"

Yes. Detbuch, you and Scott are sharp enough to play devil's advocate, where you could articulate dozens of potential pitfalls and abuses. In the meantime, innocent decent people are suffering for things they could not possibly control. If we can split an atom, perhaps we can figure out a way to address this too.

"If your friends could not afford to pay, the medical providers could not collect."

These are dear friends. They could afford to pay most of it, and it cost them everything they had. They had a child born with leukemia and bad kidneys, and they were absolutely wiped out by the bills. Household income was about $125k, and they had decent insurance.

They had decent insurance, they got help from family and friends, our town had fundraisers, they relied on charities like Ronald McDonald House. And still, they got wiped out. Every cent of home equity, gone. Every cent they had saved since they started working, gone. Credit cards maxed out. Every cent was for medical expenses.

I don't claim to be able to answer any of the "well, what about THIS" gotcha arrows you can sling my way. But my claim is that we can do a little better in this area.

so if your friends had "decent insurance" and still got wiped, what would the government do or how would the government prevent that?....would decent insurance purchased through government exchanges rather than decent insurance purchased through the private market or provided by an employer have been any different?

you are going through all sorts of emotional gymnastics without any solid point or explaining exactly how this should work.... and ignoring your own repeated mantra....I feel like I'm listening to Obama or Hillary during their primary... "we should do something....anything...our consciences demand it...innocent decent people are suffering for things they could not possibly control".....GOOD GRIEF...WHAT????? WOULD....YOU....DOOOO


wait...I think I've got this....from what I can discern from what you've written....you'd like to create a efficient and effective benevolent government program run from a benevolent government office that will be efficient and effective...and filled with benevolent government officials and underlings who will likewise be efficient and effective and what?...non-union?...and whose job it will be to decide who gets assistance from their benevolent budgets despite your railing against and pointing out the problems with all of this benevolence for quite some time....so that things like what happened to your friend will never happen to anyone again because that is the only way to prevent such things from happening....

sadly...the only thing that skirts reality in all of that is the story about your friend........

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

so if your friends had "decent insurance" and still got wiped, what would the government do or how would the government prevent that?....would decent insurance purchased through government exchanges rather than decent insurance purchased through the private market or provided by an employer have been any different?

you are going through all sorts of emotional gymnastics without any solid point or explaining exactly how this should work.... and ignoring your own repeated mantra....I feel like I'm listening to Obama or Hillary during their primary... "we should do something....anything...our consciences demand it...innocent decent people are suffering for things they could not possibly control".....GOOD GRIEF...WHAT????? WOULD....YOU....DOOOO

Scott, the difference between me and them, as that I wouldn't mandate that we all pay for the voluntary, sometime-unethical choices that we make. I'm not saying you pay for my drug needles.

I'm not saying I have a vision for how this would work. I am saying that we can do better, in my opinion. If you need some details, I'd say that we all pay some amount into a pool, that could be tapped into to ease the burden of catastrophic and uncontrollable medical expenses.

I'm glad you weren't in the Army Chief Of Staff in 1938. You want to increase the military tenfold? Impossible. Stop showing news reels of European Jews being gassed, I'm not persuadable by such 'emotional gymnastics'. How can we fight on 2 fronts? Why should we have to sacrifice to save Europe and China from enslavement?

Obamacare, clearly, is about much more than helping our neighbors. It's a vehicle to fund a whole liberal wishlist like contraceptives, and to increase the scope of the feds - that's the goal. I'm talking about things, I think, that are more vital to the human condition.

That something is hard, or will be flawed, doesn't necessarily mean it's not worth doing.

[justplugit]

Jim, I understand how you must feel, especially being these people are friends of yours and a child is involved. I don't think there are any answers at this time to pay for such an event that no one could predict. Any Govt. program would be a losing proposition with waste fraud and the usual incompetency.

The only thing I could think of would be some kind of a catastrophic insurance policy, similar to an Umbrella Policy which you can add to a Home Owners Policy,added to a medical insurance policy to cover those kind of medical issues. The cost, I am sure would be very expensive, but the cost of medicine, which will never go down, and is now a fact of life. As our technology's progress costs will continue to rise and everyone wants the best. The days of Doc Adams getting paid with vegetables are long gone, although I do know of some Docs who do NC work for those who can't pay, but that's not the big costs of high tech and hospital costs.
Competition is the only way to keep things some what in check, and the Govt. is unwilling to do what they could do to reduce costs by allowing Interstate Competition and Tort Reform.
I feel for this family as they are truly between a rock and a hard place.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"We need a government program to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars?"

Our consciences should demand that we need something to lessen the burden tee people face. In the absence of private programs providing the safety net, the gubmint could do it.

When you say "our" do you mean that everybody has the same "conscience"? That we all march to the same drummer? You are free to demand things because of your conscience, but not mine. I do not say that to be callous nor that my conscience is different than yours. In general, individual ethics, moralities, matters of conscience, differ in large, diverse societies. In them, there will be no consensus, much less unanimity, on how to achieve a perfect safety net--that is, if those societies are based on free association and liberty. Totalitarian societies are a different matter. Nor does government have a conscience. At least according to my understanding of conscience being the recognition of right and wrong in respect to one's own conduct. Asking government to replace conscience is a negation of conscience. Only private entities comprised of like minded individuals, or even just single individuals, can act on matters of conscience.

"If there were such a program, don't you think there would be a lot more cases of such need as exist now?"

Yes. Detbuch, you and Scott are sharp enough to play devil's advocate, where you could articulate dozens of potential pitfalls and abuses. In the meantime, innocent decent people are suffering for things they could not possibly control. If we can split an atom, perhaps we can figure out a way to address this too.

If you choose to live in a collectivist, totalitarian type of society it can see to it that you are relieved of those burdens--that is if it agrees with your conscience--that is, it replaces your conscience with its mandates. It will control the things which you could not possibly control--as well as those you could.

If on the other hand you choose to live in a society of free wills in free association, coercing everyone into the same patterns of conscience is not possible, nor desirable. You are required to find your way out of situations you could not avoid. Even to seek or accept the help of those who are sympathetic to your plight.

Now, splitting an atom, is not analogous to finding a way out of your plight, nor concerned with escaping plights. It can lead to ways that make your plights easier. But its intensions are to discover realities not to escape them. Its solution requires curiosity rather than conscience.

"If your friends could not afford to pay, the medical providers could not collect."

These are dear friends. They could afford to pay most of it, and it cost them everything they had. They had a child born with leukemia and bad kidneys, and they were absolutely wiped out by the bills. Household income was about $125k, and they had decent insurance.

I sincerely hope that their child was cured. Not just because of the terrible financial cost they bore, but far more importantly because who they love is with them, which is indescribably greater than that cost. But here's a catch about their not possibly being able to avoid what happened to their daughter--there is a way of avoiding the cost without asking the rest of us to be coerced into donating. Don't by a "decent" insurance policy, buy the absolutely best available--if such one exists that covers all possible medical catastrophes. If such a one doesn't exist, how could a few extra tax bucks confiscated from all of us make one come to be? Or must we be satisfied that gold Cadillac government mandated policies will cover this with a few extra bucks per person?

They had decent insurance, they got help from family and friends, our town had fundraisers, they relied on charities like Ronald McDonald House. And still, they got wiped out. Every cent of home equity, gone. Every cent they had saved since they started working, gone. Credit cards maxed out. Every cent was for medical expenses.

I don't claim to be able to answer any of the "well, what about THIS" gotcha arrows you can sling my way. But my claim is that we can do a little better in this area.

I don't know if "we" can do a little better. I'm sure philanthropic donors could. Voluntary free hospitals could. Pro-bono services by other hospitals in rare cases. Various children's charities, even ones for specific diseases such as leukemia and cancer. There is something called Catastrophic Illness in Children Relief Program that's sponsored by individual states. Connecticut had such a House Bill 5498 proposed in 2008. I don't know if it was passed. Massachusetts and New Jersey have versions of it. Even other local and state government assistance and regulations where such is closer to the people to approve at ballot boxes. But if you let the federal gvt. stick its nose in the door, it will soon walk in entirely and add your problems to its unsustainable budget as well as regulating it in ways that you may not like, and for which you will have no control. And that will be precedence to expand to other peoples various personal catastrophes. Not just the rare ones in which we could do a little better.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

But if you let the federal gvt. stick its nose in the door, it will soon walk in entirely and add your problems to its unsustainable budget as well as regulating it in ways that you may not like, and for which you will have no control. And that will be precedence to expand to other peoples various personal catastrophes. Not just the rare ones in which we could do a little better.

it was fascinating to watch him roll through just about every classic modern liberal reasoning/argument and mode of argument for a federal government program to cure an ill or correct a societal wrong.... thought he was being possessed by Spence after a visit to the witchdoctor or something

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not naïve enough to believe that the feds could pull it off without waste and abuse.

that's a relief

Nor am I so cynical and callous that I'm willing to say "tough cookies" to people who are so afflicted.

that statement presumes that the only option for "those so afflicted" is assistance from some benevolent government entity or death in the streets, which I think would fit quite nicely into an Obama campaign speech