|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 7, 2010 12:36:33 GMT -8
And still no one gives any examples of how our government does ANYTHING efficiently or with a good customer service attitude. The government just spends a lot of money. They don't do it wisely or efficiently, and government agencies are a pain in the ass to deal with. It is a tough task to find efficiency in government. I also can offer my experience in Seattle area Valley View Hospital Complex. I was undergoing radiation therapy for Cancer. During the 36 days that I was there, about half the other patients in that Clinic were from Canada. The parking lot was full of cars from Canada. That must mean other clinics were also seeing Canadians. Perhaps the care in BC and Alberta are different that that described back east. These people were there at their own expense for the most part to get care that they could not get in Canada in a timely manner. |
|
|
|
Post by OCEOTL on Dec 7, 2010 13:46:11 GMT -8
Things the government does well:
1.) Provide electricity through regulated monopolies (when really regulated.
Anti-government people allowed ENRON to ride roughshod)
2.) Postal service is incredibly efficient.
3.) Secret Service mostly.
4.) F.B.I.
5.) USDA including USFS
6.) National Park Service is one of the best in the World.
7.) Social Security is very efficient. (Too many add-ons like the elderly refugees pretending their
Governments are oppressing them.)
8.) Medicare is excellent with ridiculously low taxes that make it look bad.
9.) The military is very good at fighting the Soviet Union but too much pork.
10) Roads and highways.
11) FAA
12) V.A.
13) NASA
14) FLETC (B-)
15) SEC when anti-government people don't emasculate it.
16) Water
17) TVA (remember when that was bad)
Limit government to things too difficult to have duplicate systems. We don't need duplicate competing sewer systems or water or electric lines or roads or private armies etc. i guess the government is like Ryan Lindley. You can pick at it but what's the alternative? Of course you can bitch and right to do so, but what is your alternative?
Now the easy part. Pick this apart without offering specific alternatives. Show another country that does better.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Dec 7, 2010 14:37:20 GMT -8
And still no one gives any examples of how our government does ANYTHING efficiently or with a good customer service attitude. The government just spends a lot of money. They don't do it wisely or efficiently, and government agencies are a pain in the ass to deal with. My experience with government agencies has always been favorable. If there is anything we need to do away with it is the military. Just dispense with it totally and tell Texas that they can annex Mexico if the Mexicans cause any trouble. You'd be surprised how well behaved Mexico will be. Even any aspiring Mexican dictators know that you do not Mess with Texas. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 7, 2010 20:46:19 GMT -8
Speaking of "death panels," I have a question. It's kind of a challenge to those who criticize the opponents of ObamaCare. Just how would you define a "death panel"? Now, think a minute before you answer. If you are so sure that ObamaCare does not in any way entail the creation of "death panels," you must surely know what a "death panel" is, if only in theory. So, tell me, what is a "death panel"?
(Here's the tricky part for you. If you say, "There is not such thing," that is equivalent to saying, "I cannot define the term." Now, if you cannot define the term, how do you know that ObamaCare will not, sooner or later, cause the creation of said panels?
Here's an example for you to ponder. If I say, "How do you define the term "Martian invader," and you reply that you cannot do so, how do know there are no Martian invaders in our midst? Don't like that one? Okay, how about this one. If I say, "Tell me where your cuencas are," and you reply that you don't even know what the word means, is that the same as saying that you do not have cuencas? Well, it is not the same.
In point of fact, cuenca is the Spanish word for, among other things, eye-socket. The fact that you could not define the word did not mean that you did not have cuencas.)
Go ahead. Accept my challenge. But remember, simply saying that there is no such thing is not enough.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by OCEOTL on Dec 8, 2010 9:29:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 8, 2010 17:38:34 GMT -8
Things the government does well: 1.) Provide electricity through regulated monopolies (when really regulated. Anti-government people allowed ENRON to ride roughshod) 2.) Postal service is incredibly efficient. 3.) Secret Service mostly. 4.) F.B.I. 5.) USDA including USFS 6.) National Park Service is one of the best in the World. 7.) Social Security is very efficient. (Too many add-ons like the elderly refugees pretending their Governments are oppressing them.) 8.) Medicare is excellent with ridiculously low taxes that make it look bad. 9.) The military is very good at fighting the Soviet Union but too much pork. 10) Roads and highways. 11) FAA 12) V.A. 13) NASA 14) FLETC (B-) 15) SEC when anti-government people don't emasculate it. 16) Water 17) TVA (remember when that was bad) Limit government to things too difficult to have duplicate systems. We don't need duplicate competing sewer systems or water or electric lines or roads or private armies etc. i guess the government is like Ryan Lindley. You can pick at it but what's the alternative? Of course you can bitch and right to do so, but what is your alternative? Now the easy part. Pick this apart without offering specific alternatives. Show another country that does better. This is just to hard to tackle. Take the Electric one topping your list. The US delivers a pretty good value, but France gives industrial power cheaper while Denmark and Korea both have cheaper rates for residential power rates. www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____21889.aspxSome of the things on your list would be just to subjective to disect. We are looking at the wrong question in the wrong way. What are the legitmate functions of government and how can those function be done better? The other question is why does goverment get involved and deliver poorer results in areas where they have no legitmate business to begin with. That would be like the Dept of Education. Education is a local issue for the most part. |
|
|
|
Post by OCEOTL on Dec 8, 2010 20:19:39 GMT -8
Things the government does well: 1.) Provide electricity through regulated monopolies (when really regulated. Anti-government people allowed ENRON to ride roughshod) 17) TVA (remember when that was bad) Limit government to things too difficult to have duplicate systems. We don't need duplicate competing sewer systems or water or electric lines or roads or private armies etc. i guess the government is like Ryan Lindley. You can pick at it but what's the alternative? Of course you can bitch and right to do so, but what is your alternative? Now the easy part. Pick this apart without offering specific alternatives. Show another country that does better. I thought about this after I posted and almost edited it. The challenge to show a better APPROACH would undoubtedly have to brag about a country more 'socialistic' than ours. I didn't want to provoke some crazy "socialism!-communism!' kneejerk diatribe. I believe: Limit government to things too difficult to have duplicate systems. (O.K. also lemonade stands. Kids should be taken from their parents and forced to enroll in government mind control camps in order to sell Lemonade.) |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 9, 2010 11:20:10 GMT -8
You have, of course, made my point. It is just this sort of thing that inevitably will occur under ObamaCare. Here's the problem. Health care costs have been going up for some time. The Left, in general, seems to blame those nasty health insurance companies for this. (They seem to forget that a hefty percentage of those companies, the majority, I think, are non-profit.) My view is that a huge amount of the increase in the cost of medical care is due to the fantastic, and costly, new techniques, devices, and medicines that have improved health care for everyone during the past century. Is it possible that waste, fraud, and abuse also account for much of the increase? Of course. The problem with ObamaCare is that it takes a meataxe approach to cost cutting. Cut the amount spent on Medicare . . . there, we've done it! Well, not so fast. It's a bit more compacted than that. As far as "death panels" are concerned, at some point, as has happened in Europe, the government suddenly realizes that it has promised too much to too many. Out comes the meataxe, consequences be damned! So one consequence is the technique of denying coverage for very costly procedures. The patient will die without that procedure? Well, that's a shame, but we must all share the sacrifice, right? With the government deciding who gets what treatment (younger patients having a better cost-benefit status that geezers such as your obedient servant, of course), some of the 150 new panels and committees created by ObamaCare will at some point say "NO" to a patient in critical need. That body then damned well becomes a "death panel"! AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by OCEOTL on Dec 9, 2010 14:18:37 GMT -8
Of course there COULD be 'death panels' in the future, but why lie and say they already exist in the existing bill. Why rename end-of-life counseling as something it isn't.
Actually private insurers already approve and disapprove care and end of life care. Blue Cross/Blue shield gives final approval for my dermatological prescriptions 'coming between me and my doctor.'
So actually I did not make your point. The Arizona case is PRESENTLY a 'death panel.'
Obamacare MAY BECOME a 'death panel.'
Even belief in God is a slippery slope; RE: SATAN V. JEHOVAH
Most of the cost of medical care is in the last gasps of life.
My concern is, why claim a falsehood in order to make a point and then lose all respect and credibility. If you claim Obamacare already has a 'death panel,' say so. If you think it may in the future, say so. Don't defend those who lied about its existence during the debate
I say it doesn't, but may in the future just as private insurers do now.
I say that at some point, a geezer who is failing (geezer being defined as some 20 years older than myself), public money (government or private insurance rates) should come out of the person's estate. Then let the family or their representative decide.
Go on the record, don't hide behind philosophical arguments. Did it contain 'death panels?'
Did the people who said it did, lie?
Its so easy to finesse a lie (or in this case someone else's lie) during a conversation and then move on to the next lie.
BTW I believe the government should subsidize insurance not control doctors, but I'm not going to make false claims about other options to win my case. I can live with Medicare also. I have no complaints with mine. It has been very cost effective despite rumors to the contrary.
I believe this is more important than the bill itself: Honest discourse, not hyperbole. It is the essense of democracy
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Dec 9, 2010 16:55:29 GMT -8
You have, of course, made my point. It is just this sort of thing that inevitably will occur under ObamaCare. Here's the problem. Health care costs have been going up for some time. The Left, in general, seems to blame those nasty health insurance companies for this. (They seem to forget that a hefty percentage of those companies, the majority, I think, are non-profit.) My view is that a huge amount of the increase in the cost of medical care is due to the fantastic, and costly, new techniques, devices, and medicines that have improved health care for everyone during the past century. Is it possible that waste, fraud, and abuse also account for much of the increase? Of course. The problem with ObamaCare is that it takes a meataxe approach to cost cutting. Cut the amount spent on Medicare . . . there, we've done it! Well, not so fast. It's a bit more compacted than that. As far as "death panels" are concerned, at some point, as has happened in Europe, the government suddenly realizes that it has promised too much to too many. Out comes the meataxe, consequences be damned! So one consequence is the technique of denying coverage for very costly procedures. The patient will die without that procedure? Well, that's a shame, but we must all share the sacrifice, right? With the government deciding who gets what treatment (younger patients having a better cost-benefit status that geezers such as your obedient servant, of course), some of the 150 new panels and committees created by ObamaCare will at some point say "NO" to a patient in critical need. That body then damned well becomes a "death panel"! AzWm All I know is that my Boxer went out peacefully with an injection... compared to 3 close friends that suffered unbelievably due to slow, but steady cancer deaths... they were kept alive long after they were shells of their former selves. I hope for a "God Father" in the garden for me. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Dec 10, 2010 8:06:14 GMT -8
You have, of course, made my point. It is just this sort of thing that inevitably will occur under ObamaCare. Here's the problem. Health care costs have been going up for some time. The Left, in general, seems to blame those nasty health insurance companies for this. (They seem to forget that a hefty percentage of those companies, the majority, I think, are non-profit.) My view is that a huge amount of the increase in the cost of medical care is due to the fantastic, and costly, new techniques, devices, and medicines that have improved health care for everyone during the past century. Is it possible that waste, fraud, and abuse also account for much of the increase? Of course. The problem with ObamaCare is that it takes a meataxe approach to cost cutting. Cut the amount spent on Medicare . . . there, we've done it! Well, not so fast. It's a bit more compacted than that. As far as "death panels" are concerned, at some point, as has happened in Europe, the government suddenly realizes that it has promised too much to too many. Out comes the meataxe, consequences be damned! So one consequence is the technique of denying coverage for very costly procedures. The patient will die without that procedure? Well, that's a shame, but we must all share the sacrifice, right? With the government deciding who gets what treatment (younger patients having a better cost-benefit status that geezers such as your obedient servant, of course), some of the 150 new panels and committees created by ObamaCare will at some point say "NO" to a patient in critical need. That body then damned well becomes a "death panel"! AzWm Death Panels are just slang for "I don't want increased taxes" from the "Ive Got Mine, So Fug You!" crowd. |
|
