is change a comin

[wordslayer©]

the healthcare debate is going full storm. Obama is talking a good one, but will it go through?

The republican's, of course, are against any type of real reform and basically want to keep the money flowing into the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. I expect them to do this.

What I am surprised about is how the democrats are running scared. By the way, I have a newfound respect for Howard Dean since this debate has heated up. He may be one of the few democrats that actually has any balls.

But anyhow, some of the democrats are whining and complaining that they don't have the votes. Whining about how public option would ruin private healthcare. It appears that a few of them are being controlled by the AMA money on capital hill.

The democrats have a chance to shine here, and I hope they don't blow it. This could be the first real reform this country has seen in years, but if you listen to some of them, they are starting to sound like the republicans.

I'd like to see Obama get a little more control over his own party on this reform. This could very well be his defining issue.

[bravos4evr]

I have no idea what the plan is. if it's any sort of nationalized coverage it's doomed to fail due to the exorbitant costs that would put a huge drain on the budget. ( especially wiuth a rapidly aging population).

I just don't like the idea of govt running any sort of bidness. Heck, I don't like price controls, but compared to nationalized medicine, it's tolerable.

[wordslayer©]

As it stands right now, under my current coverage, the insurance controls the doctors I see. Translation: Fox guarding the hen house.

Think about it....who would have a more vested interest in your being well....a gov't controlled healthcare system or pharmaceutical company that you buys drugs from?

[BigWorm]

Word up wordslayer. It's sickening that it costs over 500 dollars a month for a family of three to have a decent health care plan. Anyone who's spouting the "big brother" nonsense obviously doesn't have to write that check every month. The system as it stands now is terribly wrong, and who else but the government can change it at this point?

[Freddy_Ballgame]

Before this breaks down I believe the first order of business is reform. The old system is so corrupt it would qualify regular citizens under the RICOH Act if we ran businesses like this. Somehow a separation of the insurance companies, MDs and the pharmaceutical companies seems mandatory to me. Smash that big cookie jar they continually filch from and bring prices back into the realm of reality. No more added on bill padding, stop the junkets provided druggists to push certain brands and types of drugs and find some way to manage medical charges not based on the doctor's ability to push operations on people. Before any national health care can even be considered, the corrupt union of these giants must be busted.

[bravos4evr]

By no means am I suggesting that the present plan is working. It isn't. However, nationalizing health care would more than double the nations budget! Which means that taxes are gonna shoot up, efficiency is gonna go to hell and the quality of care will go down.
I have experienced European health care, it's slow, sketchy and aggravating to deal with!

I think that there has to be a middle ground between govt control and what we have now.

[luvdembravos]

Reform is needed and I don’t know what the optimal solution is … but I sure as hell don’t want the government running healthcare in America.

One thing that really drives up the cost of healthcare in this country is medical malpractice insurance that doctors pay and their constant fear of lawsuits which makes doctors give test after test to cover their rears even though in many cases, the extra precautionary tests aren’t needed. MRIs and CT Scans are administered much more often than necessary.

I personally experienced this a few months ago when I was suffering through my first bout of hemorrhoids. I was pretty sure that I had a case of the ‘roids but instead of being examined by my doctor, he scheduled a CT Scan of my lower abdomen, which led to a MRI when they found something else unrelated. One month later, I wasn’t feeling any better so my primary physician scheduled me for a colonoscopy. To make a long story short, it was confirmed that I had h-roids and the total bill for these procedures was over $6,000 of which I paid about 20% of the tab. IMO, these precautionary procedures weren’t necessary but I’m sure what happened to me is happening thousands of times a day in this country (partly because doctors don’t want to get sued and also because it’s a great way to make extra money).

As a former member of the military, I could not sue the government for malpractice. While I’m not about to advocate that Americans shouldn’t be able to sue doctors for wrongful neglect, there needs to be lawsuit limits as part of healthcare reform in this country. Of course, greedy trial lawyers don’t want to hear this but they’re part of the problem along with insurance companies, big Pharma and the others that have been mentioned.

[The Rap]

"there needs to be lawsuit limits as part of healthcare reform in this country. Of course, greedy trial lawyers don’t want to hear this but they’re part of the problem along with insurance companies, big Pharma and the others that have been mentioned."

My mom collapsed at age 44 and was a clear victim of medical negligence and malpractice, She forever remained brain damaged and paralyzed. I don't have to go into how many lives were practically destroyed by this and the cost of care for her was huge and rising each year. We won the largest settlement in the history of New York State at that time (1974). So pray tell what limits do you have in mind?

[bravos4evr]

how about career wages? they take your age figure out what your average salary was multiply it until age 70 and there you go!( maybe add $100,000 for punitive damages.

[luvdembravos]

Whatever limits are determined, you'll have to mark 'em up 30-40% so the trial lawyers can get paid.

[The Rap]

100K for punitive damages? After destroying the lives of at least 7 people. I think not. Also I understand about the lawyers but they do work for the money they make on a legitimate case.

[argentina brave]

how about expanded medicare and all children under 18 and retirees over 65 have universal coverage across the board.

then, offer a government alternative plan for those between 19-64....as for 'paying higher taxes', we already are, in essence doing so, as real wages have stagnated over the last 30 years, after factoring in soaring health care. thing is, we earn more, true, but those increases have been offset by health care expenditures, not only by employees, but by the employers as well, tying up more and more assets in insurance coverage.

wordslayer said it best....government, for all its warts, would not be in it to turn record profits or deny coverage at every turn...

[bravos4evr]

That's not the job of govt tho. Look at our constitution!!! Heck health care was affordable until the govt got involed to dtart with ( reference the beginnings of medicare V the increase in health care costs graph anywhere) Govt can't build a bridge in Idaho under budget and on time, why would you expect them to pull this off?

I swear the country has become a nation of people who want daddy govt to make their lives perfect. Guess what it isn't perfect and it never will be. People are gonne die, and some people are gonna be undercovered and some people are going to go through hell. That's life. My life isn't all daisy's and happy go lucky come a courtin meetin's! Deal with it, and move along. Take a little personal responsiblity in yer life maybe?

[Andy G.]

I swear the country has become a nation of people who want daddy govt to make their lives perfect. Guess what it isn't perfect and it never will be. People are gonne die, and some people are gonna be undercovered and some people are going to go through hell. That's life. My life isn't all daisy's and happy go lucky come a courtin meetin's! Deal with it, and move along. Take a little personal responsiblity in yer life maybe?
Most people either have a unique perspective on life and/or political matters, or they don't bother with it at all. This is not a nation full of people with a common outlook on anything. Some people are whiners. Some people want everybody to just get along with themselves. Most people don't really think about it unless it's brought up to them.

[Hobbes]

Heck health care was affordable until the govt got involed to dtart with ( reference the beginnings of medicare V the increase in health care costs graph anywhere)
A civilized country with the wealth and resources of the U.S. cannot simply stand by and watch millions of elderly and indigent folks suffer and die from easily treatable ailments. It's all well and good to state that every person should fend for themselves, but that is simply not realistic in a modern society.

The reason that people band together and form goverments in the first place is to establish a governing agency devoted to the common good. Like it or not, the health care of the citizenry is a major component of the common good.

[Dreamscape]

Andy's right. I firmly believe most people in this country don't want anything handed to them. That's not the question and when it is made so, it only benefits the side who was making the point. What people do believe is that certain things should be easier. Sending your kid to college should be easier. Saving for retirement should be easier. And yes, affording health care should be easier. I know, I know, we hate to do anything like Europe does, but doesn't it mean something that we are the only industrialized Western nation not to have some system of health care for all? Now, there are completely understandable points for and against the system, but the belief that we are a nation that wants everything handed to us simply doesn't past the logic test to me. The vast majority of people are out there every day working or trying to find jobs, not waiting for the government to kiss their boo-boo. Refrain from trying to label an entire populace on the few who don't take the job at McDonald's just to have some work.

As for Constitution, I'm not sure what provision you saw that said the job of government would have nothing to do with providing health care. And why life should mean that some people are covered and can get admitted to a hospital and some people aren't and need a hell of an emergency to be admitted is beyond me. For that matter, in a triage unit, you can tell who has good insurance, who has poor insurance, and who has no insurance. That's of as much concern to who gets treated as symptons. That's just not acceptable to me.

[wordslayer©]

That's not the job of govt tho. Look at our constitution!!! Heck health care was affordable until the govt got involed to dtart with ( reference the beginnings of medicare V the increase in health care costs graph anywhere)

Just not so. Healthcare became unaffordable just as soon as it went to a third party payer. Then it was Katie bar the door.

[luvdembravos]

If the government takes over health care in this country, then expect long wait times…six months for routine exams, 18 hours in the emergency room, several weeks before you can see your doctor etc. … that’s what has happened in Europe and Canada.

Also, the option being proposed that a government-run health insurance program will compete with private health care companies just isn’t feasible. There’s no way private insurance companies will be able to compete with the unlimited resources of the U.S. government.

[wordslayer©]

Also, the option being proposed that a government-run health insurance program will compete with private health care companies just isn’t feasible. There’s no way private insurance companies will be able to compete with the unlimited resources of the U.S. government.

Why do you think this would be a bad thing? What do you see as the downside to this scenario?

I don't think this would happen, because I think that the private insurance companies would, magically, find that they suddenly found a lot of fat in their budgets of which they can cut out, when they are forced to be competitive.

[luvdembravos]

I don't think it will work because I'm no fan of the federal government. A single pay system with no competition will be slow, lazy and inefficient. At any given time, 900,000 Canadians are on a waiting list to receive health care. I can see the numbers multiplying ten fold in America.

[wordslayer©]

IF the numbers of people waiting for healthcare were as bad as the stories you hear, then there would be, without a doubt, people flooding into this country to get healtcare. The media would be filming it. Every news show would have cameras at the borders watching the people coming in to get treated. It's just not like some of the scare mongering you hear.

Realistically, there is an issue that canada faces that we don't face. They tend not to have the machines, such as MRI and some of the high dollar scanning machines in the amounts that we do, and this does tend to elevate the wait times.

But again, Canada spends half per person on healthcare than we do, so I would expect there to be some problems with their system.

I understand people being apprehensive of government, but as for me, I"m just as apprehensive of big business. Who is more corrupt? Your gov't or wall street? As for me, I'd trust the gov't to run the system just as much as I would corporate america.

[luvdembravos]

I understand people being apprehensive of government, but as for me, I"m just as apprehensive of big business. Who is more corrupt? Your gov't or wall street? As for me, I'd trust the gov't to run the system just as much as I would corporate america.

There are corrupt people in both the private and public sector. While corruption exists, I still believe in the free enterprise system. That's what made this country great - not socialism. I'm not comfortable with the government sticking its nose in the financial system, car companies and health care. The government's role should be to regulate - not run things.

The current administration is using the current economic crisis and majority in Congress to severely alter the course of America. You think we have a mess now? Just wait.

[wordslayer©]

Socialism exists now. When you have people that are afraid to leave their present jobs because of insurance reasons, then that is socialism. People are afraid to leave any job where they have insurance, and when you stay at a job for the benefits, then that is socialistic.

Government wouldn’t have to stick their noses in healthcare or the financial system IF the free market would have worked as intended. You have a point though…the gov’t should be nowhere near the car industry, but this is just an Obama payoff to the union that elected him.

Yes, Obama is using the crisis in America to alter the course of America, but if there weren’t a crisis, then he would never be able to make these changes.

[luvdembravos]

Government wouldn’t have to stick their noses in healthcare or the financial system IF the free market would have worked as intended.

I'll agree with you that greedy Wall Street types helped bring down the financial system in this current crisis BUT who set up the conditions for the downfall? It was the government.

The government was largely responsible for altering the free enterprise system (in this case, the normal supply and demand of the housing market) by changing rules/laws/policies which allowed unqualified people to get mortgages they couldn't afford. These no money down loans caused the run-up in housing prices until the bubble finally collapsed. In the meantime, executive bonuses at Fannie Mae, a hybrid public-private firm, were based on the quantity - not quality- of loans they could make.

I'm not trying to defend the crooks on wall street who took advantage of the situation...just saying Congress was culpable too even though to this day, those involved like Barney Frank continue to deny it.

...unhum....back on topic, healthcare :)

[The Rap]

Most of the complaints I hear against universal health insurance are the same baloney I have been hearing for decades and still the country plods on while the costs of health care go up dramatically causing a nearly non workable burden on businesses all over the country. Most of the deficit that exists can be related to the crazy rises in health care cost. Physicians are reluctant because they believe the propaganda being said by the insurance companies and carriers. 40 million people don't have coverage in the wealthiest country to ever exist on this planet. We are the only indiustrialized and civilized country in the whole world not to have universal coverage. Sending men on the moon we can do but we can't figure out how to cover everybody? The real problem is that there are specific groups like doctors, insurance companies, and pharmaceuticals, who are making a windfall and are fanatically resistant to making the change and it is they who lobby the hell out of receptive government officials and fill them with the same redundant bsh*t that we have heard for years.

[GeneGarberForPrez]

Reform is needed and I don’t know what the optimal solution is … but I sure as hell don’t want the government running healthcare in America.

One thing that really drives up the cost of healthcare in this country is medical malpractice insurance that doctors pay and their constant fear of lawsuits which makes doctors give test after test to cover their rears even though in many cases, the extra precautionary tests aren’t needed. MRIs and CT Scans are administered much more often than necessary.

I personally experienced this a few months ago when I was suffering through my first bout of hemorrhoids. I was pretty sure that I had a case of the ‘roids but instead of being examined by my doctor, he scheduled a CT Scan of my lower abdomen, which led to a MRI when they found something else unrelated. One month later, I wasn’t feeling any better so my primary physician scheduled me for a colonoscopy. To make a long story short, it was confirmed that I had h-roids and the total bill for these procedures was over $6,000 of which I paid about 20% of the tab. IMO, these precautionary procedures weren’t necessary but I’m sure what happened to me is happening thousands of times a day in this country (partly because doctors don’t want to get sued and also because it’s a great way to make extra money).

As a former member of the military, I could not sue the government for malpractice. While I’m not about to advocate that Americans shouldn’t be able to sue doctors for wrongful neglect, there needs to be lawsuit limits as part of healthcare reform in this country. Of course, greedy trial lawyers don’t want to hear this but they’re part of the problem along with insurance companies, big Pharma and the others that have been mentioned.

You stated my position on this issue much more eloquently than I ever could (well, maybe minus the hemorrhoid part, EW!). I would only add one additional component. I would like to see people required to pay a percentage of their health care costs rather than a deductible of a certain dollar amount. As it stands now, patients do not compare prices when choosing a doctor because most people have a co-pay of a certain dollar amount. To them every doctor charges $10 a visit, when in actuality the total bill is well over $100. Change it to a percentage, and patients would weigh the quality of care with the cost of that care, forcing doctors to compete with each other.

My bottom line is, I want to have as much control over my life as I can get. Universal health care does the exact opposite. It is my opinion that if people really want something to get done (for example, everyone to have access to health care or some sort of welfare system) it is best done at a very local level, and it is best done privately. That way conditions can be put on any assistance provided. For example, I would (and do) donate money to a local private organization that provides a temporary place for people to live as long as they have a job, or are training to obtain a marketable skill.


Socialism exists now. When you have people that are afraid to leave their present jobs because of insurance reasons, then that is socialism. People are afraid to leave any job where they have insurance, and when you stay at a job for the benefits, then that is socialistic.

Believe me, I am not trying to start a fight, but unless I am COMPLETELY missing the point, this makes virtually no sense.


Government wouldn’t have to stick their noses in healthcare or the financial system IF the free market would have worked as intended.

This is sort of a pet peeve of mine. The free market, by definition, does not have any intentions. The market aggregates the decisions of each of its participants. If the market doesn't do what you think it should, it is not the market's fault. It means that enough people don't agree with the way you personally think things should go. As callous as it sounds, I am perfectly fine with people slipping through the cracks of the market. The market is the most efficient way to allocate resources, far superior to any central governing body. Which is why government is the last entity I would want making health care decisions for me.

I guess you could call me a Libertarian with a mean streak.

[Freddy_Ballgame]

I'm pretty sure most here consider the U.S. to be the "greatest" nation on the planet. We're the best! That's a great attitude, but why do you sell it short? Whenever this topic of national healthcare is opened, the only pictures painted are the ones that suggest the "best" we could ever hope for with national healthcare would resemble one of those old Benny Hill skits. Why do you choose to believe we're not capable of doing better? I readily admit government red tape and the typical ham-handed management they have shown suggests abject failure, but isn't it just possible a workable program could exist? I understand there are many who don't want "their" taxes used to provide anyone other than themselves with anything, but that choice isn't theirs. I'm not a sharp as some of you younger folks, but I still believe this is something we can accomplish. I see breaking up the current health care rackets as the first step. No, check that. Electing people with enough guts to bust those rackets is the first step.

[GeneGarberForPrez]

I understand there are many who don't want "their" taxes used to provide anyone other than themselves with anything, but that choice isn't theirs.

What I don't really understand is, why SHOULDN'T the choice be theirs? I can allocate my dollars to what I think is important much more efficiently than the federal government can. Why do I need a government proxy to tell me the best way to spend my own money?

To continue the argument, maybe my government representative should make out my grocery list each week so I don't buy too much junk food or cigarettes or booze. Maybe my government representative should confiscate my 2003 Mercury Grand Marquis and replace it with a Toyota Yaris.

Granted the last paragraph is sort of ridiculous in practice, but it is meant to illustrate that it is only a point farther (further?) along the same government interventionist line.

Let adults make adult decisions, then live with the consequences of those decisions, whether positive or negative.

[Hobbes]

Let adults make adult decisions, then live with the consequences of those decisions, whether positive or negative.
Except that adults, in the macro sense, have proven continuously that they are shortsighted and selfish. Leaving things entirely in their hands will result in very little being done for the good of the country.

I have no children and will never have any, but a large part of my tax burden goes to public education. I could argue that I shouldn't have to pay to educate other people's kids, but I recognize that a good educational system is in the best interests of the country and is good for the future. If you stopped collecting taxes for the educational system and let me spend the money as I see fit, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't spend it on education.

[GeneGarberForPrez]

I could argue that I shouldn't have to pay to educate other people's kids, but I recognize that a good educational system is in the best interests of the country and is good for the future. If you stopped collecting taxes for the educational system and let me spend the money as I see fit, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't spend it on education.

Then I would submit that you don't think education is as important as you SAY you think it is. The way it sounds, you want other people to decide what to do with your money. I don't believe that gives you, or the government for that matter, any right to tell me what I should do with mine.


That doesn't mean that I wouldn't spend it on education or social welfare or elder care or health care coverage for the uninsured. It just means that I want to make the decision for myself.

[Hobbes]

Then I would submit that you don't think education is as important as you SAY you think it is. The way it sounds, you want other people to decide what to do with your money. I don't believe that gives you, or the government for that matter, any right to tell me what I should do with mine.


That doesn't mean that I wouldn't spend it on education or social welfare or elder care or health care coverage for the uninsured. It just means that I want to make the decision for myself.
It wouldn't be that I didn't think education was important, only that when choosing amongst the myriad services and functions the government provides, it is hard to believe I would apportion some amount of my money to all of those areas.

By choosing to live in our society and receive the benefits of a collective goverment, one chooses to allow that government (comprised of elected representatives) to assess taxes and make decisions about what to do with that money. Sure, folks can differ in their opinion of how far to take that, but your comment seems to indicate that you don't subscribe to the notion at all. Unfortunately, that is not the deal you sign up for when you live in this country, and it never will be.

[Chris_Moderato]

By choosing to live in our society and receive the benefits of a collective goverment, one chooses to allow that government (comprised of elected representatives) to assess taxes and make decisions about what to do with that money. Sure, folks can differ in their opinion of how far to take that, but your comment seems to indicate that you don't subscribe to the notion at all. Unfortunately, that is not the deal you sign up for when you live in this country, and it never will be.

That's the bottom line on the issue of taxation.

[luvdembravos]

Have any of you seen this (http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2009/) ?

No wonder we're have so many problems with healthcare in this country. So many people aren’t taking care of themselves.


Adult obesity rates now exceed 25 percent in 31 states and exceed 20 percent in 49 states and Washington, D.C. Two-thirds of American adults are either obese or overweight. In 1991, no state had an obesity rate above 20 percent. In 1980, the national average for adult obesity was 15 percent. Sixteen states experienced an increase for the second year in a row, and 11 states experienced an increase for the third straight year.

[GeneGarberForPrez]

It wouldn't be that I didn't think education was important, only that when choosing amongst the myriad services and functions the government provides, it is hard to believe I would apportion some amount of my money to all of those areas.

As a practical matter, I don't think you would have to. You could donate money to an organization that has the same philosophy you do. That may be a church, or a private charity, or a for-profit organization that aligns with your personal principles. These organizations would attend to multiple needs within the community, one of which could be access to health care (EDIT: for folks )that don't currently have access.

By choosing to live in our society and receive the benefits of a collective goverment, one chooses to allow that government (comprised of elected representatives) to assess taxes and make decisions about what to do with that money.

I don't ever remember making a conscious choice to live in our society. Don't get me wrong, I believe that this country affords me far more freedom than just about any other alternative. I understand the concept of a social contract. I understand that some taxes are inevitable. I just believe we as a society have gone WAY overboard with what we expect government to do. I believe socialized health care is just another step in the wrong direction.

[bravos4evr]

That's the bottom line on the issue of taxation.

Hmmmm, well sure, the problem is that we have increased govt services dang near every single year! That's the problem!

I would love to find a way that everyone got free healthcare., it would be good for the country (though an argument can be made for letting old people die so they will stop being a drain on the system.... amd yes my evil brain considers this sometimes. well that there is irony in living longer as it's good for the individuasl but bad for society...anyway) but paying for it without massive budget cuts and reduction in most govt services is going to be stratospheric.

medicare budget $250billion people on medicare 28 million.

so roughly 8 percent of our population uses up a quarter billion dollars....multiply that times 12 and that's a good ballpark for the costs. $3.5 trillion!!!!!!!!!!!! How do you pay for that?

I had a good idea a few years ago that would involve mandatory service in the military and/or peace corps. of 5 years to get free health care and either a free college education or at least like $25,000 towards college. I think a lot of people would be willing to sign up for that. Granted it would not affectthose of us between like 35 and 65, but it would be a start and kinda develop a little patriotic pride in our country among the young! Cus to be honest, I don't see how a drastic program like universal healthcare could ever work unless it was a gradual change over a few decades/

[ScooterBrave]

Have any of you seen this (http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2009/) ?

No wonder we're have so many problems with healthcare in this country. So many people aren’t taking care of themselves.


Adult obesity rates now exceed 25 percent in 31 states and exceed 20 percent in 49 states and Washington, D.C. Two-thirds of American adults are either obese or overweight. In 1991, no state had an obesity rate above 20 percent. In 1980, the national average for adult obesity was 15 percent. Sixteen states experienced an increase for the second year in a row, and 11 states experienced an increase for the third straight year.

To be fair, in that time they have also lowered the bar for what they classify as obese; that makes the number seem more significant. Not saying it isn't significant, obesity is definitely a problem, although I personally feel it is more global in scale and not just Americans. I am trying to move myself into the 1/3 that isn't obese. See me this time next year.

[luvdembravos]

To be fair, in that time they have also lowered the bar for what they classify as obese; that makes the number seem more significant.

I was under the impression that they have relaxed the standards (i.e., raised the bar) in recent years. When I was in the Army, they had to relax the height-weight standards because most soldiers couldn't meet the old standards that were based on how people looked in the 1950's.

[ScooterBrave]

I was under the impression that they have relaxed the standards (i.e., raised the bar) in recent years. When I was in the Army, they had to relax the height-weight standards because most soldiers couldn't meet the old standards that were based on how people looked in the 1950's.

Well, that was the military in desperation for warm bodies. The AMA, which identifies the semi-official markers, lowered the red line for obesity, high blood pressure, and other prominent health issues. Thus, many people who a year before that were not classified as obese now are.

[luvdembravos]

Well, that was the military in desperation for warm bodies.

The change I was referring to occurred in the 1980's ... and the Army definitely wasn't "desperate for warm bodies" back then. It changed the standards because kids were naturally bigger than those in the WW II era and 1950's. I believe they also changed the standards a few years ago to keep up with the times.

I don't think the military has been "desparate for warm bodies" since the Vietnam era. Sure, it's always tougher to meet recruiting quotas during war time but the military has always been able to fill the ranks.

[ScooterBrave]

Actually, recruiting has been steadily declining. I remember reading and hearing several news items on it for years.

[The Rap]

Nick, get a grip on yourself. You sound like you want us to build concentration camps for old people.

[luvdembravos]

Actually, recruiting has been steadily declining. I remember reading and hearing several news items on it for years.

Don't know what you mean by recruiting has been steadily declining? If you mean the military hasn't met its goals, you're misinformed. If you mean less recruits with high school diplomas, waivers for felons, etc., then yes, the "quality" may be down.

[The Rap]

Well the impression is that recruting is declining because otherwise why would our kids be serving 4 or 5 tours of duty in Iraq?

[luvdembravos]

Well the impression is that recruiting is declining because otherwise why would our kids be serving 4 or 5 tours of duty in Iraq?

Because there's a cap on the total number of soldiers who can serve in the active and reserve forces at any one time (i.e., the current cap on the active Army is around 547,000 soldiers). Also, the Army has a limited number of combat brigades (BCTs)... they're the ones who do the actual fighting. The Army has to rotate active brigades every 1 or 2 years because I believe we only have 48. In other words, the Army has overcomitted its available BCTs in Iraq and Afghanistan. It still has to have others available for other possible contingencies and in places like Korea.

These BCTs are at or near full strength so it has nothing to do with recruiting failures. We just need a bigger Army if we're going to be committed all over the world. We need a draft ;)

[Chris_Moderato]

Don't know what you mean by recruiting has been steadily declining? If you mean the military hasn't met its goals, you're misinformed. If you mean less recruits with high school diplomas, waivers for felons, etc., then yes, the "quality" may be down.

It seems that you can find articles online sort of insinuating both claims, that recruitment is down and that recruiters are meeting their quotas. That's what I've found, at least.

Do either of you guys have sources to cite, because I'm curious to know what the fact of the matter is here.

[luvdembravos]

It seems that you can find articles online sort of insinuating both claims, that recruitment is down and that recruiters are meeting their quotas. That's what I've found, at least.

Do either of you guys have sources to cite, because I'm curious to know what the fact of the matter is here.

Here is a place to start:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/2008recruitingstatistics/a/september.htm


I could probably get you something more official from DOD once the holiday weekend is over if you're that interested.

[ScooterBrave]

http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2009/February/20090202163221sjhtrop0.1622583.html

Article (unless I got the link wrong) saying that for the first time in over 4 years the military met its recruiting goals. They attribute it primarily to the economy.

What was I trying to prove again?

[The Rap]

Luvdem, thx for the info because I had no idea that there were set numbers of soldiers that the army could have or deploy or etc. I have been asking for the draft since 2003 because it was what is missing since the Vietnam War but the administration would never do it because the streets would fill up with protests.

[Hobbes]

The draft is only necessary when the need for soldiers dramatically exceeds the supply. Since we haven't been at that point, there is no reason to contemplate a draft. It isn't merely a fear of protests that prevents the institution of the draft.

[The Rap]

Sorry but I think you are kidding yourself if you believe that. Our troops are being re-upped again and again so there is a need for more but poltically the previous admin wouldnlt dare take that chance and have the country explode like it did in the 60's. Ask yourself why they disallowed pictures of coffins of our heroes when they returned from this war?

[Chris_Moderato]

This act is getting dull. Let's get back on topic, please.

[ScooterBrave]

This act is getting dull. Let's get back on topic, please.

Was there a topic?

[Chris_Moderato]

The potential changes to the health care system that are currently being considered.

[Chris_Moderato]

I think...

[bravos4evr]

Health care fer everyone is good...... Paying fer it is gonna be hard. I like right wing people, left wing people are bad!


I think that gets us back on topic!

[The Rap]

I have no idea what the debate is all about;

Currently we have this:

1) Businesses being ruined because the cost of health care has risen so much it has become non-profitable and prohibitive to have.

2) 45 million people in our country who have npo coverage at all thus costing us more than normal because they are pout of the mainstream and the cost has to be picked up by the government in a haphazard fashion.

3) In the midst of all this we have the pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies making windfall profits.

4) We also have a philosophy of health care that needs to be changed. Currently we have a system where you donlt feel good and the physician prescribes a medication for you to feel better. We don't pay enough attention to prevention not to finding cures to illnesses. Why? Simply because there is less profit taking that route.

5) This is the heart of the problem. I paid the price for smoking all those years but I am the last person who will stand up for everyone's right to light up. To me it is a given that anyone has the right to do anything they want to their own body. Still this is a country that allowed the tobacco industry to lie and commit repeated perjury about whether cigarettes were bad for you, while at the same time putting ingredients into their cigarretes to hook individuals into becoming smokers forever.

[GeneGarberForPrez]

To me it is a given that anyone has the right to do anything they want to their own body.

I think this is probably the first time I have agreed with you (at least politically) since I started to post on this board. However, I think this statement is generally inconsistent with the rest of your argument. If universal health care comes to fruition, others will then have a stake in what you do to your body. If I am paying for part of your health care, I don't want you smoking, because I have to pay more for you. I don't want you ordering the extra large Baconator combo meal at Wendy's 4 times a week either.

Some local governments have already banned trans-fats in restaurants. If health care becomes collectively funded, there almost certainly will be a clamor to outlaw as many unhealthy things as possible.

Which makes it a lot tougher to stand by your earlier statement.

It reminds me of an Eddie Izzard line from one of his stand-up shows:

"Certainly you haven't been smoking in a bar in California, that's for certain!" ‘Cause you can't! No, no smoking in bars now, and soon, no drinking and no talking!"

[The Rap]

Sorry but that to me that is one of the bs arguments always used by those who are against universal health care coverage. What do you think that there will be newfound food police or something? Besides if something is truly not good for you why not stop eating it? or smoking it?

[GeneGarberForPrez]

What do you think that there will be newfound food police or something?

In a word, yes, because there already are (http://www.nypost.com/seven/10112007/news/regionalnews/trans_fat_ticketers_leave_no_m.htm).

[bravos4evr]

Sorry but that to me that is one of the bs arguments always used by those who are against universal health care coverage. What do you think that there will be newfound food police or something? Besides if something is truly not good for you why not stop eating it? or smoking it?

It's called freedom of choice! It's kinda what makes our countries founding principles so dadburn awesome!

[The Rap]

I know about freedom of choice Nick. But what would you say if a guy sood on the corner and dared people to taste the poison in his hands? Is that freedom of choice so that the guy can get away with it?

[bravos4evr]

Hmmmmm, if people are:

A) stupid enough to do it
B)stupid enough to knowingly do something bad forthem and then somewhow think the poison giver is responsible... then yes!!!

It's all about responsibility of the individual to live up to his own actions. If you jump motorcycles over fountains for a living, guess what? Yer insurance is gonna be sky high or non-existent! if you smoke and drink and eat 5000 calories a day , yes , yer premiums should be higher than someone who doesn't! It's a simple cause and effect issue IMO!

[The Rap]

Surprise because we donlt disagree buyt the real difference is why shouldnkt there be something there to make it more difficult for an individual to kill themseles with?

[Chris_Moderato]

Perpetuating a culture of victim-hood diminishes the experiences of real victims.

If people have the information they need to make an informed decision, and they still choose to slowly kill themselves with cigarettes, whatareyougonnado?

[bravos4evr]

pssst, you gotta light?

[The Rap]

Chris, nothing you can do because they have the right to do whatever they want to do to themselves. And we have the right to make it more difficult for them to do it.

[bravos4evr]

I don't agree, in fact i think it's unconstitutional to legislate via taxation an industry out of business. If you want to make it illegal, than do that. But I don't agree with taxing smokers to death.

[The Rap]

Cigarretttes are a tricky subject because what the tobacco companies did for years was clearly criminal and they should all be in jail.

[Chris_Moderato]

Cigarretttes are a tricky subject because what the tobacco companies did for years was clearly criminal and they should all be in jail.

"Everything's a travesty with you, man."

[ScooterBrave]

Surprise because we donlt disagree buyt the real difference is why shouldnkt there be something there to make it more difficult for an individual to kill themseles with?

Because you can't save a drowning man who doesn't want to be saved. It's the same principal applied to dealing with alcoholics, drug addicts, etc. You do whatever you can to help and support those who need and want help, but you simply can't save people from themselves, despite our earnestness and good intentions.

Kinda like the slogan, "If butter were outlawed, only outlaws would have butter" though.

[bravos4evr]

Because you can't save a drowning man who doesn't want to be saved. It's the same principal applied to dealing with alcoholics, drug addicts, etc. You do whatever you can to help and support those who need and want help, but you simply can't save people from themselves, despite our earnestness and good intentions.

Kinda like the slogan, "If butter were outlawed, only outlaws would have butter" though.

They can have my butter when they pull my cold greasy hand off the churn!

[ScooterBrave]

Maybe we should rename this the Life Change thread and make it a sticky. Anyone who is making major changes in their life can post em here or come here for support.

I have lost 20 lbs so far on a plan that is incredibly easy and relatively inexpensive. Only 55 lbs to go to reach my ideal weight.

[Chris_Moderato]

Maybe we should rename this the Life Change thread and make it a sticky. Anyone who is making major changes in their life can post em here or come here for support.

I have lost 20 lbs so far on a plan that is incredibly easy and relatively inexpensive. Only 55 lbs to go to reach my ideal weight.

Which plan is that?

[ScooterBrave]

Which plan is that?

It's called Skinny Switch Secret. Yeah, the one they do the infomercials about. You pay $124, which you can spread out over 6 months, to get access to their web site for six months; but then they give you six more months for free. It asks you some questions and then builds weekly menus for you, most of it food you would probably buy anyway. The exception is that you buy low fat or low-carb or whole grain stuff. I eat 5 times a day and never get hungry; and I am known for eating.

Here's the thing: it's not designed to be super fast weightloss. It took me a long time to put it on, it will take a long time to take it off. That 20 lbs came over 8 weeks. Still good, but not super fast. I am healthier, more alert, less sleepy, and have to go buy a new belt because there are not enough notches on the one I have to fit my new waist.

I highly recommend it IF you are committed to losing weight and getting healthy.

[Chris_Moderato]

It's called Skinny Switch Secret. Yeah, the one they do the infomercials about. You pay $124, which you can spread out over 6 months, to get access to their web site for six months; but then they give you six more months for free. It asks you some questions and then builds weekly menus for you, most of it food you would probably buy anyway. The exception is that you buy low fat or low-carb or whole grain stuff. I eat 5 times a day and never get hungry; and I am known for eating.

Here's the thing: it's not designed to be super fast weightloss. It took me a long time to put it on, it will take a long time to take it off. That 20 lbs came over 8 weeks. Still good, but not super fast. I am healthier, more alert, less sleepy, and have to go buy a new belt because there are not enough notches on the one I have to fit my new waist.

I highly recommend it IF you are committed to losing weight and getting healthy.

Congratulations Scooter. I was asking because I've been using the Men's Health Abs Diet Online for a long while now. It sounds similar (you pay a monthly fee for access to their website), and it builds a meal plan and a workout plan for you on a weekly basis. It's fully interactive in that you report in each week, track body measurements, and you have access to a database of articles as well as their message board where you can interact with others on the weight plan.

I mostly use it as an exercise tool, because it's easier than calculating that kind of stuff yourself. I always tend to trim down when I stick to the menu plan, though. It's also a long-term plan.

Anyway, congratulations again. Weight loss/control can be really tough.

[The Rap]

Interesting but consider my situation:

I am disabled and take many drugs daily which saps my strength and makes me lethargic. My normal weight should be 170 but it rose to 200 based on what I just wrote. In the past few months I have gone up suddenly to 225and was puzzled as to why when nothing really changed. Then I realized that the only changes I have made is that my doctors changed my medications. It was then that I found out that 5 or 6 of the 15+ pills I take daily will cause one to gain weight. My waist size has gone from 36 to 42 and I am miserable and trying to figure out what to do.

[ScooterBrave]

Medications can always be a difficulty, especially if they affect your metabolism. You can try to hold it in check by watching diet and doing what exercises you can. I know it can be tough. I was on a medication once that had that affect on me and it can be frustrating.

[Chris_Moderato]

Interesting but consider my situation:

I am disabled and take many drugs daily which saps my strength and makes me lethargic. My normal weight should be 170 but it rose to 200 based on what I just wrote. In the past few months I have gone up suddenly to 225and was puzzled as to why when nothing really changed. Then I realized that the only changes I have made is that my doctors changed my medications. It was then that I found out that 5 or 6 of the 15+ pills I take daily will cause one to gain weight. My waist size has gone from 36 to 42 and I am miserable and trying to figure out what to do.

It's because you lack proper motivation.

[The Rap]

How would you know if I did or not? I am considering getting married to my girlfriend right now. I am 61 and she is 30. Isn't that enough motivation?

[wordslayer©]

How would you know if I did or not? I am considering getting married to my girlfriend right now. I am 61 and she is 30. Isn't that enough motivation?

You need exercise and you want to lose weight and you have a girlfriend 31 years younger than you.....this is pretty simple to solve.

Drop all your med's, other than the viagra. Problems solved.

[Chris_Moderato]

How would you know if I did or not? I am considering getting married to my girlfriend right now. I am 61 and she is 30. Isn't that enough motivation?

Oh, I knows...I knows.

[iChop2]

I believe this plan and driving focus was a back door deal for Hillary Clintons roll over and support - Her plan failed and it now has re-birth under the current President

[ScooterBrave]

I believe this plan and driving focus was a back door deal for Hillary Clintons roll over and support - Her plan failed and it now has re-birth under the current President

Heckuva a way to make your first post in a forum. Unless you are simply trolling.

[ScooterBrave]

BTW, I lost two more pounds this week! And I'm increasing all my weight settings on my circuit training.

[TB2]

If the government takes over health care in this country, then expect long wait times…six months for routine exams, 18 hours in the emergency room, several weeks before you can see your doctor etc. … that’s what has happened in Europe and Canada.

Also, the option being proposed that a government-run health insurance program will compete with private health care companies just isn’t feasible. There’s no way private insurance companies will be able to compete with the unlimited resources of the U.S. government.

Well I am from Canada and my wife is an ER nurse, so I can shed some light on these claims. Most routine exams can be done in a matter of days or weeks if it is important enough. Also we do have some private clinics for things such as MRI's you pay about 700 dollars and you get in within days , I didn't want to pay when I was dealing with left sided numbness so I waited for 4 months. If I drove to a different hospital a little further away it would have been 3 weeks.

Most ER waits are less then 8 hours many under 4. People that wait a long time go in with a cold and treat the ER as a doctors office even if they have their own doctor. Wait times also depend on if an ambulence arrives with a paitient. If this happens the ambulence gets priority.

As for seeing a doctor the national average for people having a family doctor in Canada is about 85-86% My province is 95%. I can make an appointment with my doctor for the next day. A majority get seen within a week.

The system is not perfect, but if I get sick anywhere in Canada I can get seen by a doctor and treated for free.

[GeneGarberForPrez]

The system is not perfect, but if I get sick anywhere in Canada I can get seen by a doctor and treated for free.

To be fair, you aren't really treated for free. Somebody is paying for it.

And that is one of the problems I have with the universal health care discussion in America. While I don't like the idea strictly on philosophical grounds, as a practical matter, nobody seems to be discussing how it would potentially be funded. As near as I can figure, the Obama administration hasn't even divulged how they propose to pay for it. I'm not sure how a grownup can be in favor of something without knowing how it will be funded. It's sort of like walking into a car dealership and saying "This is the best car for me." without looking at the sticker price.

[The Rap]

Maybe you aren't paying enough attention because it has been explained already in terms of funding and that is a point of contention. I am not an accountant or economist so I have trouble understanding all of it. I have no idea why you wouldn't be for coverage for all as the current system leaves 45 million people in the dark and will just continue to wipe out the economy by taking the rear ends out of small business.

[luvdembravos]

I have no idea why you wouldn't be for coverage for all as the current system leaves 45 million people in the dark ...


Many of those people are "in the dark" by choice.

It would be nice to cover everyone but that's just unrealistic. Healthcare reform should concentrate on reducing costs and creating efficiencies for the 80-85% of Americans who currently have healthcare.

[The Rap]

You have to be kidding if you believe that those people chose to not have health care. That is like a lot of the Republican gibberish being heard today.Truth is change will happen when we learn that profit is not the only driving force.

[wordslayer©]

You have to be kidding if you believe that those people chose to not have health care. That is like a lot of the Republican gibberish being heard today.Truth is change will happen when we learn that profit is not the only driving force.

People do make choices not to have it. They might rather have a boat or a nicer car, but people do choose not to have it. And this is why I think you should do it like car insurance and mandate it for everyone, so as to lessen the cost.

[GeneGarberForPrez]

You have to be kidding if you believe that those people chose to not have health care. That is like a lot of the Republican gibberish being heard today.Truth is change will happen when we learn that profit is not the only driving force.

After much contemplation, I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you. It is my opinion that you allow ideology to cloud your judgment to the point that objectivity for you is either undesirable or unattainable. While I like to hear differing viewpoints from my own, your rhetoric is so outrageous that I immediately discount anything you have to say out of hand.

I'm not trying to start a fight. I hope that you take what I said in the spirit in which it was intended. At least feigning objectivity might allow people to take you a little more seriously.

[The Rap]

I am offended because I have been saying what I think here for years. Instead of dismissing me deal with the issues my friend. Can you deny that the pharmaceauticals, insurance companies and many hospitals have made more money as possible even if it adveresly affects coverage for all Americans. You don't wonder how much money those opposing coverage for all are gettting from these places and if you do are you saying you do believe then it's ok? What about the posing by the Republicans , one after another, who cited the Lewin Group and not mentioning that it is solely owned by United Health Care?

[luvdembravos]

From what I've read, Republicans have mostly cited the CBO report issued last week as their main ammunition against the cost of the Dems' Healthcare package. I haven't seen or heard any news citing the Lewin Group (but I'll admit I haven't watched much TV news the past 10 days or so).

[Chris_Moderato]

After much contemplation, I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you. It is my opinion that you allow ideology to cloud your judgment to the point that objectivity for you is either undesirable or unattainable. While I like to hear differing viewpoints from my own, your rhetoric is so outrageous that I immediately discount anything you have to say out of hand.

I'm not trying to start a fight. I hope that you take what I said in the spirit in which it was intended. At least feigning objectivity might allow people to take you a little more seriously.

Welcome to the club.

[GeneGarberForPrez]

Nevermind. Forget I said anything.

[Middle Man]

Nevermind. Forget I said anything.

Too late. :D

Is Gene Garber a libertarian? Just wondering.

Did you know that Garber is second only to Smoltz in career saves for the Braves?

[TB2]

[quote=GeneGarberForPrez;6205]To be fair, you aren't really treated for free. Somebody is paying for it.

This is true we all pay for it, but I would rather pay higher taxes then out of pocket for a trip to the doctor. It just seems normal to me because I grew up with it. I may have a different view if this was not the case.

[luvdembravos]

I'm very disappointed with Obama who stated yesterday that AARP has endorsed his healthcare plan when in fact, they haven't endorsed anything yet. Bad misrepresentation, Mr. President.

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I don't want the "death boards" to exterminate my grandma when she gets heartburn, therefore I can no longer support this healthcare plan.

[Hobbes]

I don't want the "death boards" to exterminate my grandma when she gets heartburn, therefore I can no longer support this healthcare plan.

You should really do your research. The proper name is Death Panels.

[Dreamscape]

I don't know what they are officially called, but I want to know if they are hiring.

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I don't know what they are officially called, but I want to know if they are hiring.

I hear they will only be accepting applications for the "death panel/boards" from middle aged, racist, latino women and african american rappers who wear their pants around their ankles. Glen beck said it, so it must be true.

[wordslayer©]

if these old people are stupid enough to believe in the death panel, then we really do need death panels.

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Yea. It's pretty sad. But to be fair, they are being heavily manipulated into thinking these things. When you stop and think about that, it's really damn pathetic how working the elderly into a terrified and confused political mob is an acceptable tactic these days.

[luvdembravos]

Maybe if the President was able to honestly articulate his healthcare plan to the American people, there wouldn’t be so much confusion. The President says his plan will be more affordable (cheaper); efficient; have more options and will cover almost all Americans. Well, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is…

I want to hear some straight talk on how the administration plans to pay for healthcare reform. I want the President to provide more details about the public option and how it will be integrated with the current system. Tell the American people the pros and cons of the healthcare reform bill. Be honest and provide full and open disclosure.

No wonder Obama wanted to get the healthcare bill approved before the August recess because as time goes by, more people are realizing that his plan has a lot of holes which is generating more questions. Unfortunately, Obama and his crew have done a piss poor job so far in providing credible, honest answers.

[The Rap]

Whatever Obama does Luvdem will criticize. Obama isnlt ggiving enough detail because he honestly doesnlt know what the bill contains so until then he says what he believes will be in the final version. Also I think Obama said that the AARP supports the need for health reform and not necessarily his specific plan.

[Dreamscape]

Whatever Obama does Luvdem will criticize
To be fair...one could have said the same about you and Bush.

Well, many did say that, actually.

[wordslayer©]

Whatever Obama does Luvdem will criticize. Obama isnlt ggiving enough detail because he honestly doesnlt know what the bill contains so until then he says what he believes will be in the final version. Also I think Obama said that the AARP supports the need for health reform and not necessarily his specific plan.

I understand what you are saying, but honestly, Luvdem's criticism is very valid.

I am a huge supporter of Obama's health plan changes, but honestly, he has not gone out and sold it. In his efforts to not show how to pay for it, he has given the right wing all the ammunition they need to come in and scare the hell out of a lot of these old people.

Obama should have been on the offensive and not look like he was trying to hide something or omit things he didn't want to talk about. If it is going to cost more, then tell people that it's going to cost more and then tell them how you are going to pay for it. He was slow to act on this and because of this, he has been eaten alive by the republican party.

When you come in on a platform of change, then you need to be forthwright in what you believe in. If it is a great idea and you can show the benefits, along with the costs, and if the people like it, they will support it, but you can't be unclear on a lot of things like he has been.

Sometimes I think the democrat party can't function unless they can have a villian. They have some good ideas.....talk about them honestly.

[luvdembravos]

Obama isnlt ggiving enough detail because he honestly doesnlt know what the bill contains

LOL! Your candid reply is what many Americans are afraid of ...

Michael, if Obama doesn't know what's in the bill, then why is he the stumping across the country selling it? :confused:

And while it's very true that I'm no fan of Obama, I haven't criticized everything he's done. He's been a good Commander in Chief so far ... I give him high marks there. But in most other areas I give him a BIG :thumbsdown:

[luvdembravos]

Whatever Obama does Luvdem will criticize.

To be fair...one could have said the same about you and Bush.

Well, many did say that, actually.


But we must all remember that Rap now likes Bush.

[The Rap]

1. I didn't say Obama doesn't know what the reform is but that all the specifics haven't been determined yet. One thing I do know is that idiots like Behner and Grassley are speaking out of their asses and have no idea what they are talking about.

2. If you remember correctly it was the Bush administration that changed aspects of prescription coverage under Medicare leading to the now existing "donut" I talked about already. Now ask yourself why the donut? Obviously the pharmaceuticals but especially the insurance companies are mamking a killing. This is par for the Bush administration always having the goal of making windfalls for those corporate and wealthy people.

So I ask, am I supposed to like Bush? Keep in mind that he was always getting up and citing the changes I cited as a great achievement and a plus when it came to coverage.