Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Possible 2012/16 Republican candidate?

24

Comments

  • #32
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Amerika wrote: »
    Lets say with the current economy I believe it will be some time before I can again find employment at my desired level. I temporarily decide to make the choice of paying my mortgage and electric (in order not to lose the house), food and clothing, auto and gas, and of course taxes. There is no money left for anything else, and it is my choice not to pay other bills... as is my right. Why is it constitutional for the IRS to impose the pain of conviction upon me, because I choose not to pay for medical insurance to a private company?
    Let's take a step back. Do you understand the reasoning behind the move to require universal health coverage?


  • #33
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Let's take a step back. Do you understand the reasoning behind the move to require universal health coverage?

    You've got me a bit gun shy and feel I must be careful how to answer the question, or be hit with a gotcha. I understand the reasoning to find measures to reduce costs and make health care affordable, but not to require universal health care coverage.


  • #34
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Overheal... again all besides the point. It is my right to do with my money as I see fit, as long as it is legal.


  • #35
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Amerika wrote: »
    You've got me a bit gun shy and feel I must be careful how to answer the question, or be hit with a gotcha.
    You can answer the question any way you want, within the forum rules. If I see what I feel is a flaw in your reasoning (or your research), I'll call you on it. Fair enough?
    I understand the reasoning to find measures to reduce costs and make health care affordable, but not to require universal health care coverage.
    How do you propose to reduce costs and make health care affordable without requiring universal insurance?


  • #36
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You can answer the question any way you want, within the forum rules. If I see what I feel is a flaw in your reasoning (or your research), I'll call you on it. Fair enough?
    Fair enough, as long as we don't dwell on the minutiae.
    How do you propose to reduce costs and make health care affordable without requiring universal insurance?
    Several methods including Tort reform... Not requiring doctors to purchase malpractice insurance (let the patients decide if they want to see doctors that don't have it)... Allow healthcare insurance to be sold nationwide... Make pensions more reasonable in hospitals (big problem).... Less paperwork for doctors and hospitals... Make it so Hospitals can't upcharge you for other debts, etc...

    And it has been reported that Obama's health care reform will actually increase costs, not reduce them.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    kev9100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,271 ✭✭✭kev9100


    Amerika wrote: »
    And it has been reported that Obama's health care reform will actually increase costs, not reduce them.

    It may have been reported, but that doesn't make it so. As far as I'm aware, the CBO said it would reduce costs.


  • #38
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    kev9100 wrote: »
    It may have been reported, but that doesn't make it so. As far as I'm aware, the CBO said it would reduce costs.

    I stayed away from a right leaning sources and went with a left leaning source for you.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/23/politics/main6423757.shtml


  • #39
    MCMLXXXIII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 412 ✭✭MCMLXXXIII


    Amerika wrote: »
    Oh yes it can! The US Surpeme court says so in the case I mentioned above. And the ruling has been abused by cities ever since. They can take your land and home and give it to Walmart claiming it will generate more revenue to the area and more taxes... all for the greater good Comrade.
    Wow. Yes. I know they can. I'm saying that I agree with you...I think it's wrong for the government to take land and give it to anything private.


  • #40
    kev9100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,271 ✭✭✭kev9100


    Amerika wrote: »
    I stayed away from a right leaning sources and went with a left leaning source for you.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/23/politics/main6423757.shtml


    Well, that is definitely worrying. Still, we really should wait a few years before passing judgement over such a huge and complicated piece of legislation.


  • #41
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    kev9100 wrote: »
    Well, that is definitely worrying. Still, we really should wait a few years before passing judgement over such a huge and complicated piece of legislation.

    Let’s face it, this health care reform bill is a nightmare. Due to the payment cuts in the bill, doctors are already dropping medicare patients. Hospitals will stop taking medicare patients except for emergencies or go bankrupt. The only way to reduce costs under Obama’s plan is to reduce services and have death panels – or as Obama said take the red pill instead of the blue pill. Scary I know but true… looks like Palin was right. I know this, and deep down I think most of us know this. We can candy-coat it all we want, but we have no other options under this plan, and Obama has already spent the next several generation's money IMO. I have already accepted the fact that if progressives stay in control, when I actually do get to retire and end my usefulness to the state, I'm on my own - both financially and medically. But with the benefits of dual citizenship... EU here I come.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Amerika wrote: »
    The only way to reduce costs under Obama’s plan is to reduce services and have death panels...
    The very use of a loaded phrase like that is so utterly partisan as to render discussion meaningless.

    Please, please tell me you're sufficiently capable of even-handedness to be aware that "death panels" were invented as a bogeyman to avoid having to have a rational discussion about healthcare reform.
    ...looks like Palin was right.
    If Sarah Palin has ever been right about anything, it was by accident.


  • #43
    MCMLXXXIII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 412 ✭✭MCMLXXXIII


    Amerika wrote: »
    ...Not requiring doctors to purchase malpractice insurance (let the patients decide if they want to see doctors that don't have it)...
    Doctors are forced to purchase malpractice insurance to protect them. The theory of giving them "freedom from insurance" might sound great on paper, but I don't think it would work in real life. A large part of the problem we have right now is that there are a lot of uninsured people that require medical treatment. The law requires (public) hospitals to treat them - so those of us with money, insurance, etc. end up footing the bill. The people with money or insurance would flock to see insured doctors, leaving the underprivelaged people no choice but to see the cheaper, uninsured doctors. Then, if the doctor makes a mistake, people would have to sue the doctor, and people without money can't afford a lawyer. But if one of them do actually take a case to court and win, that doctor would most likely be put into bankruptcy and not be able to practice anymore.
    Amerika wrote: »
    ...Allow healthcare insurance to be sold nationwide...
    Nationwide healthcare would make all healthcare companies move to South Dakota - the state with the most lax healthcare laws. Then, each state's healthcare laws and regulations would be obsolete since the services are being purchased in another state. People vote for some laws, and they vote for other people to make other laws to protect the public. Industialized states such as Pennsylvania have very different laws than states like Wyomg with mostly farms and cattle ranches. Then you have states like Conneticut with mostly office-type jobs or California with a mixture of everything. Each state has different laws to suit their public. Also, there are plenty of options already, and any insurance company can set up shop in any state as long as they follow the local laws and regulations. Making healthcare companies nationwide is a big job killer.
    Amerika wrote: »
    ...Make pensions more reasonable in hospitals (big problem)...
    Again, that shold be left up to the hospitals. Just as you are saying you should be able to do what you want with your money, and if hospitals want, or agree to, pensions then that's going to be part of their cost structure. It really doesn't have anything to do with government regulations. A hospital with a good pension will attract good doctors and nurses, etc.
    Amerika wrote: »
    ...Less paperwork for doctors and hospitals...
    I agree. ...and I think part of the healthcare overhaul is to have all records computerized by the 2014 date. Most of the hospitals around here are already computerized.

    Amerika wrote: »
    ...Make it so Hospitals can't upcharge you for other debts...
    Going along with what I was saying before - if everyone is insured, then hospitals won't need to upcharge to make up for any losses associated with treating the poor and uninsured.


  • #44
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The very use of a loaded phrase like that is so utterly partisan as to render discussion meaningless.

    What was that about opinions? We're in US Politics... most in the US know what death panels mean. Most in the US, I would gather, have never heard of the NICE guidelines.


  • #45
    MCMLXXXIII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 412 ✭✭MCMLXXXIII


    Amerika wrote: »
    We're in US Politics... most know what death panels mean. Most I would gather have never heard of the NICE guidelines.
    Really, Amerika? Death panels were going to be other services that would be covered under the health insurance plan such as creating and maintaining wills, trusts, etc., and making sure someone is held responsible for anyone that has problems with diseases like alzheimer's, demensia, etc. Also, there are always cases where someone gets hit by a bus and no one knows who to ask whether or not they should "pull the plug."

    So, while the government wants to make sure there is someone there to make those decisions, the government itself will not be responsible for those decisions in the very least.


  • #46
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    MCMLXXXIII wrote: »
    Really, Amerika? Death panels were going to be other services that would be covered under the health insurance plan such as creating and maintaining wills, trusts, etc., and making sure someone is held responsible for anyone that has problems with diseases like alzheimer's, demensia, etc. Also, there are always cases where someone gets hit by a bus and no one knows who to ask whether or not they should "pull the plug."

    So, while the government wants to make sure there is someone there to make those decisions, the government itself will not be responsible for those decisions in the very least.

    Would Obama's grandmother have gotten that hip replacement under the NICE guidelines? Would Ted Kennedy have gotten that brain operation?


  • #47
    MCMLXXXIII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 412 ✭✭MCMLXXXIII


    Amerika wrote: »
    Would Obama's grandmother have gotten that hip replacement under the NICE guidelines? Would Ted Kennedy have gotten that brain operation?
    I don't know.

    But, I'm not really worried about it either. This isn't Great Britain, we didn't adopt NICE, and I don't necessarily agree with the goals of NICE. I think that if/when we actually implement any legislation - it should be all or nothing. I think everyone should be required to have health care, but I don't think employers should be the ones to supply it. I also know it's hard to enforce - it would be much easier to enforce if it was run by the government, but somewhere down the line (at least two generations from now) the possibility of adopting our own version of the NICE guidelines would be inevitible...people will look at the money and they won't understand where we have come from and why we didn't have it in the first place.

    However, Medicare has been run by the government for years without denying anyone any care. So, I will repeat myself: I don't know.


  • #48
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    MCMLXXXIII wrote: »
    However, Medicare has been run by the government for years without denying anyone any care. So, I will repeat myself: I don't know.
    Sorry, but Medicare denies more medical procedures as a percentage of requests, than any private health care insurance carrier.
    http://www.patientpowernow.org/2009/10/12/medicare-denies-most-claims/


  • #49
    MCMLXXXIII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 412 ✭✭MCMLXXXIII


    Amerika wrote: »
    Sorry, but Medicare denies more medical procedures as a percentage of requests, than any private health care insurance carrier.
    http://www.patientpowernow.org/2009/10/12/medicare-denies-most-claims/
    Well, like I said, I think it would be better if everyone were forced to have some form of health insurance (such as car insurance if you have a car), but it shouldn't be provided by an employer, nor by the government. If everyone is on their own, there won't be a disparity when it comes to pricing (vs. group pricing).


  • #50
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    Using death panels when trying to make a serious point in August 2010 :eek:


  • #51
    evenmicheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 57 ✭✭evenmicheal


    George P Bush. Nephew of George W Bush. Think he is a serious contender in the future. Is Hispanic, got the Bush political machine behind him, an attorney and is a US Navy Reserve officer. Only a matter of time before a Bush is president again.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    To be honest, I will give anybody from any party a look in 2012 if they can:

    1. Articulate where they want the country to go in the next 20 years in terms of education, infrastructure, and jobs

    2. Acknowledge that real fiscal reform means not giving the elderly and the Pentagon whatever they want in every budget cycle; most non-discretionary spending growth is tied up in senior entitlements and the military.

    3. Acknowledge that not all government spending is bad, and that investment spending can be positive, i.e. roads, transport, education, etc. Spending millions of dollars so public employees who worked 35 hours a week can retire at 50 is NOT investment.

    I am currently travelling around Asia, and I am truly worried for the future of the US. These governments are investing in infrastructure, alternative energy, and education, and the three are inter-related. At home, state and local governments are tearing up roads because they can't afford to maintain them, and we're arguing about creationism and Obama's birth certificate. We have no political leadership who can put the national interest ahead of partisan politics or big donors - or for that matter, can even articulate what is in the national interest (beyond platitudes and cheap jingoism).

    America isn't veering towards socialism, it's veering towards relative irrelevancy, both as a civic idea and as an economic powerhouse. And nobody in Washington gives a ****.


  • #53
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Unfortunately, I don't think we can convince Jeb Bush to run in 2012.


  • #54
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Amerika wrote: »
    Unfortunately, I don't think we can convince Jeb Bush to run in 2012.

    Why do you think Jeb Bush would do anything different? I lived in Florida when he was the governor, and although I would give him a lot of credit for handling hurricane emergencies quite well, Florida's schools and infrastructure are absolutely dreadful, and developers controlled Tallahassee. At a time when the economy was booming, there seemed to be no vision for the state except figuring out how to build more golf courses and pave over more of the Everglades.


  • #55
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    When are FL schools not in the local news for underfunding and overcrowding. And you don't need any qualification to drive around the state and see that schools are largely composed of Prefab trailers. A ****ing mess.


  • #56
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Overheal wrote: »
    When are FL schools not in the local news for underfunding and overcrowding. And you don't need any qualification to drive around the state and see that schools are largely composed of Prefab trailers. A ****ing mess.

    I guess the way I see it is that the economy was so strong, it was really a moment where the state could have made institutional changes to better support education and, at a minimum, water and energy conservation. Now the moment has passed, and the state is in worse shape than ever. When I lived there, I always felt like it was a great place if you were under 26 or over 56, but I couldn't imagine trying to raise a family there.


  • #57
    loveissucide
    Closed Accounts Posts: 469 ✭✭loveissucide


    Amerika wrote: »
    Unfortunately, I don't think we can convince Jeb Bush to run in 2012.

    Considering the bad experience the US public had under the other two Bushes who were in power, really think they'd want to endure a third? The name has by now been fully discredited, as have the policies in an age of high unemployment and disastrous foreign intervention.


  • #58
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Why do you think Jeb Bush would do anything different? I lived in Florida when he was the governor, and although I would give him a lot of credit for handling hurricane emergencies quite well, Florida's schools and infrastructure are absolutely dreadful, and developers controlled Tallahassee. At a time when the economy was booming, there seemed to be no vision for the state except figuring out how to build more golf courses and pave over more of the Everglades.

    and remember terry schaivo.

    He plunged into supporting the absolutely wrong side on that miserable affair.


  • #59
    kev9100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,271 ✭✭✭kev9100


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    and remember terry schaivo.

    He plunged into supporting the absolutely wrong side on that miserable affair.

    This, and the fact that the Bush name is tarnished, really does make Jed Bush unelectable.


  • #60
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    kev9100 wrote: »
    This, and the fact that the Bush name is tarnished, really does make Jed Bush unelectable.

    I hope you're right.

    the american electorate isnt very clever, especially the ones that voted for bush.

    Even now they're probably looking back at the bush years as a golden age, or just tell'em that a few times and they'll believe it anyway.

    And i'm sure some fundamentalist protestant preacher will "forgive" him for the schiavo incident. I have no doubt their propaganda machine can spin that so he comes out smelling of roses.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Why do you think Jeb Bush would do anything different?

    Well, as governor, Jeb cut the red tape of government and wastefulness of the public monies into a smaller, business-friendly administration which needed fewer tax dollars to run upon. He championed school vouchers, tax cuts that benefited business, trimmed the state's payroll, stripped job protection from many civil servants, and gained more power over the judiciary. He helped make Florida a biotechnology center, and led the nation in job creation. He also battled against government intrusion into private lives. Sounds pretty presidential to me... Much better than the guy playing president at the moment.


Advertisement