The best single item I've seen on the healthcare debate

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The Nazis were elected.

quoted for posterity

Quote this

From your link about the Nazis' plurality, less than a majority:

However, the Nazi Party had no governing majority either and both President Hindenburg and the other parties refused cooperation. Hence, Papen's minority government continued, leading to another election in November.

In fact, Hitler's real rise to power was primarily not through popular election, but through political maneuvering among top officials.

One in particular miscalculated his ability to keep Hitler under control by giving him a senior poition, and made a big mistake, as the officials largely saw him as a danger.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The Nazis were elected.

quoted for posterity

Quote this

From your link about the Nazis' plurality, less than a majority:

However, the Nazi Party had no governing majority either and both President Hindenburg and the other parties refused cooperation. Hence, Papen's minority government continued, leading to another election in November.

In fact, Hitler's real rise to power was primarily not through popular election, but through political maneuvering among top officials.

One in particular miscalculated his ability to keep Hitler under control by giving him a senior poition, and made a big mistake, as the officials largely saw him as a danger.

Nevertheless, the process was followed and they came to power. According to the "logic" displayed, the law is the law. If one has to sacrifice ethics and let a person die, then that person can console themselves that they followed the law. In your sig you talk about it being ok to kill someone because the government said it was fine. What in the case where the healer cannot heal because of poorly thought out and rushed laws which would violate some regulation? Sensamp is quite plain. The law is the law, and if someone need die to comply, so be it. Not only that, there need to be punishment for the act of saving a life.

UHC? I'll think you'll get it, but I'm not willing to support something that hasn't had the consequences thought out in advance. If that's the Progressive way I'm dead set against it. I cannot abide government rule over Hippocrates intent.

 

[FlashG]

John Holdren, President Obama's chief science adviser gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. Hes got the answer for population control. Brought to you by Obamacare.

John Holdren, director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, considered compulsory abortions and other Draconian measures to shrink the human population

a real nice average guy

But many of Holdren's radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,"

To help achieve those goals, they formulate a "world government scheme" they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty.

While Holdren and his co-authors don't openly endorse such measures on other topics, in this case they announce their disappointment -- "unfortunately" -- that women in the third world cannot be sterilized against their will, a procedure the International Criminal Court considers a crime against humanity.

Change

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Heh wait till Senseamp is the one asking why his significant other is dying and a person like you tells him "Sorry the law is the law". His view will change 180 degree's.

But this is a guy who believe the healthcare industry is some example of a "free unregulated" market. So what can we expect when discussing the real world like you describe?

Why is this even being argued. The privacy laws are part of HIPAA and apply to all providers. Public health insurance won't change that fact.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87
Heh wait till Senseamp is the one asking why his significant other is dying and a person like you tells him "Sorry the law is the law". His view will change 180 degree's.

But this is a guy who believe the healthcare industry is some example of a "free unregulated" market. So what can we expect when discussing the real world like you describe?

No it will not change 180 degrees. If my SO did not share something with me, it's not up to the doctor to do so. And if one tried, I'd ask for another doctor, because I wouldn't want my SO treated by someone so unprofessional that they would break the law like that because they think they are above it.

She's in a friggin coma and you can't even find out why? Awesome morality there.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy...aa/faq/notice/488.html

Example: A doctor may, if consistent with such professional judgment, discuss an incapacitated patient?s condition with a family member over the phone.

 

[shadow9d9]

"Last week, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., was quoted as telling fellow conservatives, "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it wi"

This is all a game. This is the Republican party. 14 years and no reform. Corporations control America.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87
Heh wait till Senseamp is the one asking why his significant other is dying and a person like you tells him "Sorry the law is the law". His view will change 180 degree's.

But this is a guy who believe the healthcare industry is some example of a "free unregulated" market. So what can we expect when discussing the real world like you describe?

No it will not change 180 degrees. If my SO did not share something with me, it's not up to the doctor to do so. And if one tried, I'd ask for another doctor, because I wouldn't want my SO treated by someone so unprofessional that they would break the law like that because they think they are above it.

She's in a friggin coma and you can't even find out why? Awesome morality there.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy...aa/faq/notice/488.html

Example: A doctor may, if consistent with such professional judgment, discuss an incapacitated patient?s condition with a family member over the phone.

That's awesome. Hopefully the inspectors will stop giving us shit for following the regs. You never know with them. In NY we sometimes have conflicting regulations and one will hit you for following one, and then you get hit for complying with the other.

At least Sensamp won't have the satisfaction of seeing health care providers punished for this

Now I want to see this kind of exemption explicitly spelled out so that if there is a conflict between regs and the good of the patient the practitioner won't be compelled to kill his patient if needs must in order to be obedient to the letter of the law.

So far I haven't seen that. Someone feel free to point that out as well.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"Last week, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., was quoted as telling fellow conservatives, "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it wi"

This is all a game. This is the Republican party. 14 years and no reform. Corporations control America.

Yeah, like everyone who wants to know what's going to happen before it's set in stone are owned by corporations.

Of COURSE the Reps are going to play games. That doesn't mean we give a shit.

 

[theeedude]

OK, stop trolling in this thread already. You whining about being fined for breaking some confidentiality rules has nothing to do with this PBS piece.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"Last week, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., was quoted as telling fellow conservatives, "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it wi"

This is all a game. This is the Republican party. 14 years and no reform. Corporations control America.

Yeah, like everyone who wants to know what's going to happen before it's set in stone are owned by corporations.

Of COURSE the Reps are going to play games. That doesn't mean we give a shit.

I am pretty sure the Reps don't give a sh!t about anything but having power. I think 2000-2006 demonstrated that spectacularly.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: senseamp
OK, stop trolling in this thread already. You whining about being fined for breaking some confidentiality rules has nothing to do with this PBS piece.

When you decided that the patients life needed to be sacrificed to comply with the law, you asked for it. You support health care at any cost, yet expect people to be sacrificed if it's wrong because it's the law.

As I've said elsewhere the Dems can hold hearings in advance of legislation to do what is prudent rather than dealing with horrific fallout that so many would justify as inevitable.

Well if you charge around like a bull in a china shop of course it's bound to have problems.

You may be extreme and atypical and certainly the system needs reform, but to be lazy and expect others to be burdened with the results is more than unreasonable.

You want real health care reform? Get off the internet and call your representatives and find out what they are doing in advance of writing a thousand pages, just what they did to make sure what's in them was done because of the public interest not because it's politically expedient.

If I've hurt your feelings, that's too bad. To advocate that someone needs to die because of a regulation is pathetic. Oh, yes you did.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp
OK, stop trolling in this thread already. You whining about being fined for breaking some confidentiality rules has nothing to do with this PBS piece.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Actually as a courtesy to Craig I'll leave it here. I don't always agree with his philosophy, but I believe he acts because he wants what's best for the general public. Others I have a lower opinion of.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"Last week, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., was quoted as telling fellow conservatives, "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it wi"

This is all a game. This is the Republican party. 14 years and no reform. Corporations control America.

Your quote got cut off - it's:

"If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

The sad fact is that politics plays a role in the policy that affects people.

Each side has its interests in having power - whether those interests are benevolent or selfish.

This is why you have things like where Republicans hate Social Security because Democrats get the political credit for it - even while they give other reasons.

This is not completely evil; it's natural for people to prefer to have political power than not to. The issue is how they handle that tradeoff when the other side wants to do something good. By analogy, this is the reason why many left-wing governments South of the US have had strong US opposition, such as Grenada - it wasn't that they had actually done something wrong to the US, it was the fear that they'd 'catch on' and hurt the economic interests of some US corporations who had influence with our government.

The flip side is true, too - *had* the Bush policy in Iraq been a great success, the Democrats would have been faced with the political price of his getting credit.

It's not that the people necesssatily just only care about the power involved, it's that they view it in the larger context. Once they're convinced that their side offers enormous advantage over the other, it becomes a tradeoff. Does a far-right winger vote for a good UHC program that will help Democrats keep power as they get credit, at the price, he thinkg, of their running the country into socialism and the ground? He might base his vote on the politics of wanting to give Obama his 'Waterloo'.

A similar debate happened in CA as Republicans were forcing the state into big problems by blocking the budget, and there were quotes from some about how they were ok with that because they felt the voter anger would be targetted at the Democrats for the problem the gridlock caused. A similar battle happened when a Republican Congress threatened to shut down the federal governmnet with Clinton - but Clinton manager to get that to largely backfire on them.

I do think it's valid and important to note the role politics plays and how the politicians don't necessarily just decide the issue on 'is this good for the country'.

There's a reason Socia Security "reform" was Bush's #1 domestic priority, and politics was not a small part of the reason.