|
|
Re: let's get political
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Re: let's get political - October 9, 2004 5:59:00 PM
|
|
|
chiroortho
Posts: 655
Joined: February 18, 2004
Status: offline
|
Julie, Diane,
How do you feel about socialized medicine?
How do you feel about abortion on demand?
Greg
_____________________________
Greg Priest, DC, DABCO
|
|
|
|
|
Re: let's get political - October 9, 2004 7:41:00 PM
|
|
|
coloradojulie
Posts: 413
Joined: November 10, 2002
From: colorado usa
Status: offline
|
What Kerry is proposing is NOT socialized medicine. Comparing it to the Canadian system is pointless. Most Americans under his plan would keep the same health plans they currently have. The involvement of government is only involved in catastrophic situations, when certain dollar amounts are reached. The result of which reduces premiums, deductibles, copays etc. for insured Americans for everyday health care. Republican propaganda is again trying to drive fear into Americans by labelling this plan as socialized medicine when it is nothing of the sort.
Socialized medicine is completely funded by the government and regulated by the government. There are provincial plans which may vary but there are not private policies such as those offered in the US. Some Canadians may hold supplemental insurance but the primary reimbursement is from the government.
In Kerry'e plan you would still shop and purchase whatever insurance you want, with whatever company you want, at whatever coverage level you want...and you could even elect not to participate...if you wanted. Premiums are reduced because the government subsidizes catastrophic care.
Abortion on demand...I don't think you listen to what Kerry actually says. He has stated that he is against partial birth abortions. He has stated that he would like to increase efforts at education, adoption, prevention to reduce the incidence of abortion. He states that as a representative of an entire nation, who have a diverse belief system, he must represent the whole, not one group's interests over another's. Meaning that pro-choice (which is NOT the same as pro-abortion) satisfies both camps. He is not advocating abortion. He in fact is from a Catholic background and on a personal level is most likely opposed to abortion. He however possesses the open-mindedness that allows him to realize that his beliefs ought not to be forced onto other people and the fact that they don't share his beliefs doesn't make them or him right or wrong.
With regards to embryonic stem cell research, Kerry is supportive of this form of research but is looking towards donated embryos, or embryos who are frozen in fertility labs as their parents decide whether to use them (implant) or destroy them. Bush funded this same program with a total of 40-50 lines (from embryos), but pulled funding. His rational was suspect as he had allowed it, yet some imaginary border had been crossed into how many lines were acceptable...if you allow one, how can you then change your mind?
Your arguements lack any factual basis and are based on pure media and republican spin. You are speaking in half truths.
_____________________________
PRC
|
|
|
|
|
Re: let's get political - October 10, 2004 1:57:00 AM
|
|
|
Jeep
Posts: 353
Joined: March 28, 2003
From: USA
Status: offline
|
Monday, September 20, 2004
by John C. Goodman
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba486/
In the history of the U.S. presidential elections, there has never been a clearer contrast between the candidates with respect to health care policy. President Bush and Sen. Kerry have endorsed sharply different visions of how to reform the American health care system and both have put forth specific proposals to implement those visions.
Under Sen. Kerry’s vision, government would play a vastly increased role, with millions of middle-income families enrolling in Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor. Most other families would participate in a national system of managed competition, organized and regulated by the federal government. We have analyzed this proposal extensively. [See “The Case against John Kerry’s Health Plan,” http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st269/.]
President Bush, by contrast, has firmly endorsed the vision of consumer-directed health care. Whereas Kerry’s approach would further insulate people from the economic consequences of their choices, Bush’s approach would empower patients — allowing them to reap the benefits and bear the costs of the decisions they make.
Establishing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). As of January 1, 2004, all nonelderly Americans in principle have access to tax-deductible HSAs, from which they can pay incidental medical expenses directly. These accounts must be combined with high-deductible health insurance, with patients typically paying expenses before the deductible from their HSA and relying on third-party insurance to pay costs above the deductible. Employer contributions to these accounts are excluded from employees’ taxable income and individual contributions are tax deductible. HSAs are the property of the individual, and unspent funds remain in the HSA account and grow tax free.
Deducting Premiums for HSA plans. Under current tax law, insurance premiums paid by employers are excluded from their employees’ taxable income. This tax break is estimated to be worth about $190 billion annually. Individuals who buy their own insurance, however, generally receive no tax relief. This discriminatory tax treatment can double the cost of health insurance for a middle-income family.
President Bush has proposed to substantially remove this inequity by making individually-paid premiums for HSA plans tax deductible. Since individual deposits to HSAs are already tax deductible, the net result will be a more level playing field between individual and group insurance.
Making Insurance Available to Low-Income Families. One problem with exclusions and deductions is that their value depends on the worker’s tax bracket. Low-income families facing only a 15 percent payroll tax get a 15 percent subsidy. By contrast, people facing a 40 percent marginal tax rate get a 40 percent subsidy.
In his 2004 State of the Union message, President Bush proposed tax credits of up to $1,000 per individual and $3,000 per family for low-income purchasers of health insurance. These tax credits would be refundable — meaning that families would get the full value of the subsidy even if they do not owe any income taxes.
Making HSAs Available to Low Income Families. More recently, the president proposed allowing one-third of the tax credit for low-income families to apply to HSA deposits. This means, for example, that families qualifying for the maximum credit of $3,000 could apply $2,000 to premiums for the HSA plan and use the remaining $1,000 to fund the HSA account. With this important reform, low-income families would have access to the same health plans now popular with many middle-income families.
Making HSAs Available to Small Business. Although small business employers can currently make tax-free deposits to HSAs (just as large employers can) administrative costs tend to be higher (per employer). Moreover, many low-income workers currently work for small businesses that do not offer health insurance.
Recognizing the small group market as an opportunity to expand the number of people with health insurance, the president has proposed a tax credit (a dollar for dollar rebate) for small businesses that contribute to the HSAs of families (the first $500) and individuals (the first $200).
Establishing a National Market for Health Insurance. President Bush also supports the creation of a national marketplace in insurance, allowing consumers to shop all over the country to get the best coverage at the most affordable prices. This would especially help small employers and individuals in states where onerous regulations have driven up premiums. Insurers and consumers would have two ways to pursue this option. Under “federally chartered health insurance,” insurers could meet one set of federal regulations and offer their products to individuals and firms in all 50 states rather than having to meet a different set of regulations for each state in which they do business. Under a state-chartered approach, consumers in any state would be able to buy insurance approved for sale in any other state.
Expanding his previous proposal for Association Health Plans (AHPs), the president proposes allowing small firms to band together and buy health coverage in the national market through their associations (e.g., the National Restaurant Association), as well as through civic and religious organizations.
Advantage: Insuring the Uninsured. The White House estimates that between 11 and 17 million people will become newly insured (on net) under the president’s plan. Like the projections of Kerry’s health advisers, this estimate may be too high. However, recent experience suggests that Bush may have the stronger argument for his estimate. A recent study by the health insurer Assurant (formerly Fortis) found some 43 percent of HSA applicants were previously uninsured. Earlier Internal Revenue Service data, from the medical savings accounts (MSAs) pilot project, indicate that in 2001 as many as 73 percent of new MSA holders were previously uninsured.
Advantage: Controlling Costs. Prior to this year, the tax law generously subsidized third-party insurance premiums (paid by employers) but penalized self-insurance by taxing deposits to HSAs. This encouraged people to rely on third-parties (employers, insurance companies and government) to pay every medical bill. For example, on the average, people pay only 15 cents out-of-pocket for every dollar they spend on health care. That means they have an incentive to consume medical care until the last dollar spent is only worth 15 cents to them. Not only is third-party insurance extensively subsidized under the tax law, the subsidy is open ended. In principle, employees can always lower their taxes by buying more health insurance — no matter how wasteful.
People now have another option. Instead of over-insuring, and over-consuming, they can get the same tax advantages if the funds are deposited in a savings account.
Advantage: Restoring the Doctor-Patient Relationship. Patients will make better choices if they can rely on doctors who put their interests first. In a managed care world, doctors too often look to employers and insurers for guidance in practicing medicine. In a very real sense, providers view insurers rather than patients as their customers. With HSAs, however, physicians will be free to act as the agents of their patients.
Advantage: Encouraging Portability. Studies suggest that many people stay in jobs solely because they want continuity of health benefits. The number of people experiencing “job lock” may be a high as one-in three males between the age of 25 and 55. HSAs would reduce this number because balances built up over the years would follow workers from job to job. Older workers would have less to fear when starting a new job with fewer health benefits if they have built up balances for use when health needs are greater.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: let's get political - October 10, 2004 9:23:00 AM
|
|
|
chiroortho
Posts: 655
Joined: February 18, 2004
Status: offline
|
Julie, although we don't agree on much I will say that you explain Kerry's point of view better than Kerry himself.
Kerry voted against the partial birth abortion ban. His rationale for doing so was clearly to allow him to straddle both sides of the issue.
As for the health insurance plan, with all due respect the government will be much more involved in the administration of the plan than you seem to think, simply because the government cannot control costs or delivery of health care without mandates from the legislature. It simply cannot be done. Furthermore, I cannot think of a single government program, no matter how altruistic in origin, that has gotten smaller with time; on the converse, the government tends to seek to control more and more of any program that it initiates.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Greg
_____________________________
Greg Priest, DC, DABCO
|
|
|
|
|
Re: let's get political - October 10, 2004 10:31:00 AM
|
|
|
coloradojulie
Posts: 413
Joined: November 10, 2002
From: colorado usa
Status: offline
|
I don't think Kerry's motivation for voting against the partial birth abortion ban in any way clearly indicates his desire to straddle issues. You are assuming that Kerry agreed with the bill as it was put forth in it's entirity. I think what you may want to begin to consider that some senators do not vote for bills or legislation because they want further elements added or changed from the bill as it is first presented. When the bill is re-presented with agreeable changes, clarifications etc. then the senator may vote for it. This may be what we saw with the Kerry so called "flip-flop".
Jeep thanks for you comments as well, you provided a very thorough description of Bushs' plan. I disagree with the first few paragraphs though that provide blanket statements about Kerry's plan. The wall street journal estimates that 97% of Americans would keep their current health care plans under his "plan". Government regulation on an industry that is spiraling out of control and out of reach of 45 million Americans is never a bad thing...but don't think for a minute it is one drop in a very large bucket like socialized medicine...that is simply not true. I question the bias of those sources and how complete they are in their reporting.
I think MSA's are a great idea...and I know they are available now. I have not heard anything in Kerry's plan that would suggest middle income families using medicaid...under his proposed plan (the reduction of premiums etc) health insurance would be more affordable than it is now for middle income and lower income families, therefore making it easier for these families to buy private health insurance. Also many employed families would have better and more group health options, especially if they worked for small businesses...as these businesses could afford to offer health care to their employees.
_____________________________
PRC
|
|
|
|
|
Re: let's get political - October 10, 2004 11:06:00 AM
|
|
|
chiroortho
Posts: 655
Joined: February 18, 2004
Status: offline
|
Do you really believe that President Bush is a 'simple simple man'?
And if it had been President Bush that said that he had voted for a bill before he voted against it, would you have in likewise fashion explained it away? Or would you have called him out on it?
What would happen to the 3% of people that would lose their health plan under Kerry (assuming that your conclusions are correct)? Would they be forced into a government plan, or would they simply lose their coverage?
Lastly, about your comment: [QUOTE]Government regulation on an industry that is spiraling out of control and out of reach of 45 million Americans is never a bad thing[/QUOTE]Oh yes it is!
_____________________________
Greg Priest, DC, DABCO
|
|
|
|
|
Re: let's get political - October 10, 2004 11:22:00 AM
|
|
|
Jeep
Posts: 353
Joined: March 28, 2003
From: USA
Status: offline
|
Per above:
"Government regulation on an industry that is spiraling out of control and out of reach of 45 million Americans is never a bad thing..."
What government(medicare, medicaid) doesn't control, the insurance industry does. The consumer(whose money it is in the first place) has no control. And the businesses they work for have little to no choices of insurance options to offer employees. Of this 45 million, how many are self-employed or dependents of self-employed? Insurance premiums for the self-employed are beyond obscene. It is time that consumer's healthcare dollars are spent on healthcare and the type of healthcare that They find most beneficial to them, not what is most beneficial to an insurance co/government and their payroll and profits. Administration of healthcare dollars takes 20% off the top. The last thing we need is to pay for more "administration".
|
|
|
|
|
Re: let's get political - October 10, 2004 7:37:00 PM
|
|
|
coloradojulie
Posts: 413
Joined: November 10, 2002
From: colorado usa
Status: offline
|
Chiroortho...I thought I had given you several reasons why I am not in favor of Bush...we are returning to the simple simple man comment...yes Kerry said something funny...once...how many times has Bush been caught saying something funny?
Currently 15% of Americans are uninsured. If we reduce that to 3% not too shabby. And what industry does not have to conform to rules and regulations that are set forth by the government? Is is wise to let health care companies be unmonitored, unregulated, and unaccountable? Administration has alot more to do with factors such as claims processing, denials, high employee turnover (retraining), etc. than it has to do with following regulations.
Again note the previous post...all Americans will still have the choice of what coverage they want...and if they want to participate in the plan or not...including small businesses.
_____________________________
PRC
|
|
|
|
|
Re: let's get political - October 11, 2004 8:32:00 AM
|
|
|
chiroortho
Posts: 655
Joined: February 18, 2004
Status: offline
|
I think I understand your viewpoints, and I don't have anything else constructive to offer at this point.
Thanks again for your thoughtful input,
Greg
_____________________________
Greg Priest, DC, DABCO
|
|
|
|
|
Re: let's get political - October 11, 2004 11:58:00 AM
|
|
|
Alex Brenner PT MPT OCS
Posts: 1057
Joined: February 29, 2004
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
|
[QUOTE]Hurray for Michael Moore.
Diane[/QUOTE]Very disappointing to read this from you Diane.
Army
_____________________________
Alex Brenner, PT, MPT, OCS
|
|
|
|
|
Re: let's get political - October 11, 2004 1:55:00 PM
|
|
|
ericdmb
Posts: 14
Joined: May 1, 2003
From: East Falmouth
Status: offline
|
quote:
Hurray for Michael Moore.
Diane
Very disappointing to read this from you Diane.
Army
--------------------
Captain, U.S. Army
Army Medical Specialist Corp
Why ? He has criticized the administration's decisions; not the soldiers who are carrying out those decisions. His new book is entirely letters sent to him by soldiers in Iraq. Just because we are involved in a military event doesn't mean dissent goes on vacation. Otherwise what are we fighting for, why we should we spread "liberty" if it means taking some of it away here.
Eric
_____________________________
Eric D. Wheeler,
MSPT, MPE, CSCS
|
|
|
|
|
Re: let's get political - October 11, 2004 3:34:00 PM
|
|
|
chiroortho
Posts: 655
Joined: February 18, 2004
Status: offline
|
Eric,
You might be interested in this website:[URL=http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm]www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm[/URL]which outlines nearly 60 deceptive comments made by Moore in his propaganda 'documentary'. The list is now up to 59, and the site also includes his rebuttals.
Thought you might like to see an opposing viewpoint.
Of course dissent doesn't 'go on vacation', but there are legitimate questions about his motives as well as the possibility that his apparent abject hatred for President Bush and all things conservative might just have jaded his 'facts' just a tad. He's free to say what he wants, no doubt about it, but I think his complaining about partisanship rings a bit hollow in view of the fact that he's as partisan as they come.
_____________________________
Greg Priest, DC, DABCO
|
|
|
|
|
Re: let's get political - October 11, 2004 3:40:00 PM
|
|
|
chiroortho
Posts: 655
Joined: February 18, 2004
Status: offline
|
Julie,
By the way, my questions in my earlier post asking you where you graduated and if you had a Masters were not meant as a personal attack, but rather as rhetorical questions to illustrate that most of us, myself certainly included, have not obtained degrees from Yale and Harvard. This would at least suggest that President Bush is intelligent, if not necessarily articulate. I have no doubt that you are highly intelligent and principled.
It would be sad indeed if we disqualified candidates for the Presidency simply because of the fact that they're not elegant public speakers. One might say that if the candidate fumbles over some words or uses malapropisms, or even pronounces some words incorrectly (as in President Bush's inexplicable pronunciation of 'nuclear' as 'nucular') that he wouldn't communicate well with other world leaders, but I disagree. World leaders are intelligent enough to evaluate what's being said, as opposed to how it's said. Would I like President Bush to be as eloquent as Senator Kerry? Of course. But that is very unlikely. But as I said earlier, I'm convinced that he is a very bright man, and in addition he's surrounded himself IMO with other extremely bright individuals.
As far as your comment about not wanting to reply to my posts, I would be disappointed if you chose not to add your comments regarding my posts simply because of our past arguments, as your comments are provocative (in the good sense), interesting and welcome. We can disagree in a civil fashion, and I assure you that it is my intent to do so.
My best,
_____________________________
Greg Priest, DC, DABCO
|
|
|
|
|
Re: let's get political - October 11, 2004 4:39:00 PM
|
|
|
chiroortho
Posts: 655
Joined: February 18, 2004
Status: offline
|
I readily acknowledge that there is spin on both sides.
That said, and in reference to comments made on the Michael Moore website about how President Bush waited 7 minutes before leaving the room, I suppose one might consider that in view of what happened on 9/11, that there was a desire not to alarm students about what was happening, and I'll even allow for the possibility that President Bush may have taken a few minutes to give thought to exactly what he should do at that moment in time. Seven minutes is seven minutes, but it's not a very long time. An event of that magnitude had never occurred before other than Pearl Harbor. Just a thought.
_____________________________
Greg Priest, DC, DABCO
|
|
|
|
|
Re: let's get political - October 13, 2004 10:45:00 AM
|
|
|
Alex Brenner PT MPT OCS
Posts: 1057
Joined: February 29, 2004
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
|
Eric D. Wheeler,
I don't agree with the way Moore criticizes. Making a propaganda movie that shows people being blow up is not criticism. There are many reasons to criticize this administration but his way is not right. The man has no heart. Maybe you like watching American soldiers being blown up. I don't.
_____________________________
Alex Brenner, PT, MPT, OCS
|
|
|
|
|
Re: let's get political - October 14, 2004 3:32:00 AM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1205
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
ArmyPT, that's what I would call a low blow. No-one has mentioned anything against the soldiers - no-one has said that soldiers are to be blamed or blown up - b****t. I appreciate your vim and vigour for the army, but that has nothing to do with criticising who sends the army and where and for what reasons. Do not agree with the WAY Moore criticises - but look beyond the WAY - look at the criticisms themselves. They may have some value after all.
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
|
Re: let's get political - October 14, 2004 4:08:00 AM
|
|
|
Jeep
Posts: 353
Joined: March 28, 2003
From: USA
Status: offline
|
I agree that it is not what you say, or your right to say it, but how you say it. For that reason I find Mr. Moore's methods appalling and disingenuous. I think he craves the element of "celebrity" and the $$ it puts in his bank account. His claim of a "noble" motive is unbelievable and opportunistic. He is doing what he is doing for one reason and one reason only: $$$$$. I have absolutely NO respect for that man.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: let's get political - October 14, 2004 5:43:00 AM
|
|
|
Diane
Posts: 1507
Joined: March 9, 2001
From: Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Status: online
|
I wonder if Jeep and Army have actually watched Farenheit 9/11 and can offer an actual artistic critique. The film did win the Cannes film festival award, and started a huge tidal wave of documentaries all over the world regarding the same subject matter.
Perhaps their comments about Michael Moore's "style" of commentary are based more on disagreement with/condemnation of his daring to ask the hard questions the film asks. Perhaps their minds are too reluctant to go there in even the slightest way, so they condemn the messenger.
I smile at Jeep's comment about Michael Moore being an opportunist. I should think that the biggest opportunists in the world are the ones who at the moment steer US foreign policy. Michael Moore questions the ethics and morals of declaring war (paid for by all US citizens, by some with blood) to create wealth for the few which Bush refers to as his "base." It's a valid question. All he does is ask it.
I saw the film in June, admittedly a while ago, so I may not remember every detail, but I don't recall much in there about soldiers being blown up... There were other bits, far more shocking, that stuck in the mind much more firmly, like the evacuation that took place, of all the Bin Ladens and other Saudi friends of the Bush family, (before they could be interviewed or questioned) out of the US by private jet, which flew all around the country and picked them all up, wherever they were living or staying, while all other air traffic was grounded.
That is just shocking, a shocking abuse of privilege and power. Looking after one's personal buddies ahead of looking after one's country that one is supposedly charged with the responsibility of doing. Isn't that treason-esque?
Michael Moore wants citizens to take back their country, by caring enough about it to vote. Which is still an option. Yes, he wants to see someone different come to power, uses his (still available so far) right to creatively lobby and persuade, in accordance with traditional American values.
Diane
|
|
|
|
|
Re: let's get political - October 14, 2004 5:53:00 AM
|
|
|
Alex Brenner PT MPT OCS
Posts: 1057
Joined: February 29, 2004
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
|
Sebastian Asselbergs from Canada,
I did not say anything about blaming soldiers. He uses pictures/videos of civilians and soldiers being blown up to criticize the current administration. THAT is the low blow.
_____________________________
Alex Brenner, PT, MPT, OCS
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
0.125
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Open Forum >> Re: let's get political 
