So, a patient just called me...

soulsinging · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

cincy, thats nonsense. there are no problems under soul's plan. its flawless besides, you can't talk about what COULD happen. because its hasn't happened. :roll:

I have not said this, I have said you cannot talk about what might happen as if it is a foregone conclusion. I have also said there are plenty of potential problems with my ideas, but that by being aware of them we can take steps to prevent them and minimize their impact. I have also said that just because there is a potential problem is not a reason not to do something, especially if there are ways to avoid those pitfalls. That is where naysayers like you come in handy... since you are incapable of any original contributions to the solution, you can sit there safely and pick at all the problems you want to make yourself feel smarter and more right, while those of us willing to work towards a workable solution will take that awareness and find ways to solve those problems before they become manifest.

soulsinging · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

And JLEW is the out-of-the-box thinker here?

are you having one of your studying for the bar asshole moments?

soulsinging wrote:

He's been advocating small scale tinkering under the same broken system since this debate started. Cover the uninsured, but leave the rest intact. Private health care is fine, just add the uninsured to unemployment benefits and tell people with jobs to buy health care on their own. I'm here saying outlaw private insurance, make doctors answerable to patients and create a national health care fund that covers everyone while still operating on free market principles on the individual transaction level... and you say HE is the one thinking out-of-the-box? My whole argument against jlew this whole time has been that he's only proposing ideas that treat the symptoms, not the underlying issues of our health care system... which is a for-profit industry dictating costs and coverage that leaves citizens and doctors at the mercy of people who have no interest in providing good care, only maximizing their profit.

thats fucking bullshit. and I'm not in the mood right now to deal with more of your asshole moments. man you sure can be a complete dick sometimes. maybe you can go on telling us all how it should be and we'll just follow all your posts and tell you how fucking all knowing god like you are.

Maybe I am. What's your excuse? You can't deny that all of the things I mentioned are solutions you advocated, none of which is an out of the box solution and all of which are very much "let's keep the same system because I can't think of anything better."

jlew24asu · July 2009

soulsinging wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

cincy, thats nonsense. there are no problems under soul's plan. its flawless besides, you can't talk about what COULD happen. because its hasn't happened. :roll:

I have not said this, I have said you cannot talk about what might happen as if it is a foregone conclusion. I have also said there are plenty of potential problems with my ideas, but that by being aware of them we can take steps to prevent them and minimize their impact. I have also said that just because there is a potential problem is not a reason not to do something, especially if there are ways to avoid those pitfalls. That is where naysayers like you come in handy... since you are incapable of any original contributions to the solution, you can sit there safely and pick at all the problems you want to make yourself feel smarter and more right, while those of us willing to work towards a workable solution will take that awareness and find ways to solve those problems before they become manifest.

dude, take a fucking break from studying and chill the fuck out. I've offered many ideas and potential solutions and discussion.

just because you think you are some intellectual superior to everyone here doesnt make you right and me wrong.

soulsinging · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

cincy, thats nonsense. there are no problems under soul's plan. its flawless besides, you can't talk about what COULD happen. because its hasn't happened. :roll:

I have not said this, I have said you cannot talk about what might happen as if it is a foregone conclusion. I have also said there are plenty of potential problems with my ideas, but that by being aware of them we can take steps to prevent them and minimize their impact. I have also said that just because there is a potential problem is not a reason not to do something, especially if there are ways to avoid those pitfalls. That is where naysayers like you come in handy... since you are incapable of any original contributions to the solution, you can sit there safely and pick at all the problems you want to make yourself feel smarter and more right, while those of us willing to work towards a workable solution will take that awareness and find ways to solve those problems before they become manifest.

dude, take a fucking break from studying and chill the fuck out. I've offered many ideas and potential solutions and discussion.

just because you think you are some intellectual superior to everyone here doesnt make you right and me wrong.

No, what makes me right is that you see a problem with something and say "there's a potential problem, let's just give up on this idea because it will never work." I say "yeah, that's a problem, let's figure out a way to get around that."

jlew24asu · July 2009

soulsinging wrote:

No, what makes me right is that you see a problem with something and say "there's a potential problem, let's just give up on this idea because it will never work." I say "yeah, that's a problem, let's figure out a way to get around that."

who are you quoting? because I never said that. I never said give up on anything. I want a system that works best, provides best care, and is cost effective. based on my research, I believe it can be done without the government controlling the show. and you take that as giving up. well I have news for you, there are more ways to do something, then your way.

cincybearcat · July 2009

soulsinging wrote:

[The TV thing was a fine analogy. But no I don't trust you with my credit card, which is why I have never proposed that we give people credit cards to do with as they please and tell them only to use them for doctors. Where have I ever said anything approaching this? Do you truly not see a difference between reimbursement/bill payment after the fact and handing people money up front and hoping they spend it well?

The government also could NOT limit choice. What is your point? As I've acknowledged, there will need to be people holding reps accountable to ensure that the government doesn't overstep itself. That is our duty as citizens. Step one of this is getting special interests out of governance, which is a whole other issue I've touched on before elsewhere. I haven't said my plan is perfect, but there are ways to design it to protect abuse.

And JLEW is the out-of-the-box thinker here? He's been advocating small scale tinkering under the same broken system since this debate started. Cover the uninsured, but leave the rest intact. Private health care is fine, just add the uninsured to unemployment benefits and tell people with jobs to buy health care on their own. I'm here saying outlaw private insurance, make doctors answerable to patients and create a national health care fund that covers everyone while still operating on free market principles on the individual transaction level... and you say HE is the one thinking out-of-the-box? My whole argument against jlew this whole time has been that he's only proposing ideas that treat the symptoms, not the underlying issues of our health care system... which is a for-profit industry dictating costs and coverage that leaves citizens and doctors at the mercy of people who have no interest in providing good care, only maximizing their profit.

Of course, out of the box for you is whatever delusion you can sell yourself that profiting off people's sickness is a good thing and an American tradition... anything that threatens private profit is too outside the box for your liking... you want people safely inside that profit-dominating box.

#1) I was joking about getting you to buy a TV for me, it was all just a joke, I thought you would see that. When you didn't, I added a winky. Since that didn't work, I'll add this text. Done now?

#2) For my out-of-the box comment, if you read back, jlew used "out-of-the-box" in a post and I agree with him that we need more change then just covering evryone and letting the gov't run it while taking more and more tax $.

#3) I hope you have health care, because you need to be seen for your bi-polar disorder. You can be one of the best posters on the board, with some really interesting points and certainly well-thoughtout...and then you do stuff like this..

"Of course, out of the box for you is whatever delusion you can sell yourself that profiting off people's sickness is a good thing and an American tradition... anything that threatens private profit is too outside the box for your liking... you want people safely inside that profit-dominating box"

And then your attacks on Jlew. Relax.

Gern Blansten · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

cincy, thats nonsense. there are no problems under soul's plan. its flawless besides, you can't talk about what COULD happen. because its hasn't happened. :roll:

I have not said this, I have said you cannot talk about what might happen as if it is a foregone conclusion. I have also said there are plenty of potential problems with my ideas, but that by being aware of them we can take steps to prevent them and minimize their impact. I have also said that just because there is a potential problem is not a reason not to do something, especially if there are ways to avoid those pitfalls. That is where naysayers like you come in handy... since you are incapable of any original contributions to the solution, you can sit there safely and pick at all the problems you want to make yourself feel smarter and more right, while those of us willing to work towards a workable solution will take that awareness and find ways to solve those problems before they become manifest.

dude, take a fucking break from studying and chill the fuck out. I've offered many ideas and potential solutions and discussion.

just because you think you are some intellectual superior to everyone here doesnt make you right and me wrong.

actually it does

soulsinging · July 2009

cincybearcat wrote:

#1) I was joking about getting you to buy a TV for me, it was all just a joke, I thought you would see that. When you didn't, I added a winky. Since that didn't work, I'll add this text. Done now?

#2) For my out-of-the box comment, if you read back, jlew used "out-of-the-box" in a post and I agree with him that we need more change then just covering evryone and letting the gov't run it while taking more and more tax $.

#3) I hope you have health care, because you need to be seen for your bi-polar disorder. You can be one of the best posters on the board, with some really interesting points and certainly well-thoughtout...and then you do stuff like this..

"Of course, out of the box for you is whatever delusion you can sell yourself that profiting off people's sickness is a good thing and an American tradition... anything that threatens private profit is too outside the box for your liking... you want people safely inside that profit-dominating box"

And then your attacks on Jlew. Relax.

1. Missed that, figured you were trying to lure me into some classic "lazy welfare abuser" statement. My apologies.

2. The entire point I and others have been making, which you and jlew continue to willfully ignore is that government funding does not inevitably mean government control. While you talk about out of the box thinking, you refuse to step out of the "anything government does is bad" box and consider any solution that does not protect the possibility of a private, for-profit insurance industry. We have proposed a number of ideas involving little to no government involvement in health care at all, other than writing checks, and others have addressed the cost issues endlessly.

3. Otherwise reasonable people responding to "really interesting points and certainly well-thought out" ideas with dismissive regurgitations of "I will not consider or respond to any suggestion that involves the government because it is inherently wrong" causes a lot of frustration. And my attack was on you, not jlew, for the absurdity of dismissing out of the box solutions without a thought while saying you want to hear them and giving props to someone who has offered no out of the box solutions yet.

jlew24asu · July 2009

soulsinging wrote:

2. The entire point I and others have been making, which you and jlew continue to willfully ignore is that government funding does not inevitably mean government control.

but it can, can it not? typically the person paying the bills gets to the call the shots. with UHC, thats the US government. excuse our utter ignorance for not having such enthusiasm trusting the government to run things how we expect them

soulsinging wrote:

While you talk about out of the box thinking, you refuse to step out of the "anything government does is bad" box and consider any solution that does not protect the possibility of a private, for-profit insurance industry. We have proposed a number of ideas involving little to no government involvement in health care at all, other than writing checks, and others have addressed the cost issues endlessly.

3. Otherwise reasonable people responding to "really interesting points and certainly well-thought out" ideas with dismissive regurgitations of "I will not consider or respond to any suggestion that involves the government because it is inherently wrong" causes a lot of frustration. And my attack was on you, not jlew, for the absurdity of dismissing out of the box solutions without a thought while saying you want to hear them and giving props to someone who has offered no out of the box solutions yet.

neither cincy or myself are claiming to be the know all out of the box thinkers. all I said is we NEED out of the box thinking for the best solution. cincy agreed. calm the fuck down with this already.

soulsinging · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

but it can, can it not? typically the person paying the bills gets to the call the shots. with UHC, thats the US government. excuse our utter ignorance for not having such enthusiasm trusting the government to run things how we expect them

neither cincy or myself are claiming to be the know all out of the box thinkers. all I said is we NEED out of the box thinking for the best solution. cincy agreed. calm the fuck down with this already.

Just as long as that out of the box thinking doesn't involve government and stays safely in the private, for-profit insurance box, right?

I have acknowledged that it can, if we do not take steps to ensure that it does not. But rather than even considering that such steps might be possible, you latch onto the possibility that government could end up in control and refuse to entertain another thought. It's not a lack of enthusiasm, which is justified, it's a complete unwillingness to consider it as an even remotely viable option under any circumstances.

jlew24asu · July 2009

soulsinging wrote:

Just as long as that out of the box thinking doesn't involve government and stays safely in the private, for-profit insurance box, right?

wrong. I support alot of government involvement, I just do not support getting rid of the insurance industry. I want it to be reformed. your genius solution of adopting single payer UHC is not even close to thinking outside of the box. its riddled with potential problems. but please go on telling us all how it should be. you can do no wrong.

soulsinging wrote:

I have acknowledged that it can, if we do not take steps to ensure that it does not. But rather than even considering that such steps might be possible, you latch onto the possibility that government could end up in control and refuse to entertain another thought. It's not a lack of enthusiasm, which is justified, it's a complete unwillingness to consider it as an even remotely viable option under any circumstances.

are you describing yourself? you think there is no other possible solution other then to get rid of the insurance industry. sounds like you are the one with complete unwillingness to consider other viable options under any circumstances

cincybearcat · July 2009

soulsinging wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

#1) I was joking about getting you to buy a TV for me, it was all just a joke, I thought you would see that. When you didn't, I added a winky. Since that didn't work, I'll add this text. Done now?

#2) For my out-of-the box comment, if you read back, jlew used "out-of-the-box" in a post and I agree with him that we need more change then just covering evryone and letting the gov't run it while taking more and more tax $.

#3) I hope you have health care, because you need to be seen for your bi-polar disorder. You can be one of the best posters on the board, with some really interesting points and certainly well-thoughtout...and then you do stuff like this..

"Of course, out of the box for you is whatever delusion you can sell yourself that profiting off people's sickness is a good thing and an American tradition... anything that threatens private profit is too outside the box for your liking... you want people safely inside that profit-dominating box"

And then your attacks on Jlew. Relax.

1. Missed that, figured you were trying to lure me into some classic "lazy welfare abuser" statement. My apologies.

2. The entire point I and others have been making, which you and jlew continue to willfully ignore is that government funding does not inevitably mean government control. While you talk about out of the box thinking, you refuse to step out of the "anything government does is bad" box and consider any solution that does not protect the possibility of a private, for-profit insurance industry. We have proposed a number of ideas involving little to no government involvement in health care at all, other than writing checks, and others have addressed the cost issues endlessly.

3. Otherwise reasonable people responding to "really interesting points and certainly well-thought out" ideas with dismissive regurgitations of "I will not consider or respond to any suggestion that involves the government because it is inherently wrong" causes a lot of frustration. And my attack was on you, not jlew, for the absurdity of dismissing out of the box solutions without a thought while saying you want to hear them and giving props to someone who has offered no out of the box solutions yet.

2) I've seen your point. And it's a fair statement to say I'm having a hard time seeing the governemnt being more involved as a good thing. But I'd be more in favor of a system mentined by know1 and you in another thread where you remove the insurance for basic health care and have the patients deal directly with the medical care providers, paying them (except for catastophic care).

3) I meant your attacks on Jlew that came later. read back, you attacked me for sure and I pointed that out and then attacked jlew. One thing though, you use a direct quote from me (with quotation marks) and then make up a statement that you are saying I said using quotes...a bit misleading. I'd like it stricken from the record.

I guess it can be confusing, I don't type, respond to everything and not everything I'm thinking. I'm reading the posts and then when I want to ask a question or add a concern I post it. It doesn't mean that I don't agree with other things or other points that I'm not addressing. I've not completely dismissed any ideas on this one. I'm leary of more gov't control. I've said that the system now isn't working and needs changed. As for solutions, I'm still trying to form my opinion. What made you think I was dismissing your solutions completely? Just because I raised my concern over part of it?

cincybearcat · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

but it can, can it not? typically the person paying the bills gets to the call the shots. with UHC, thats the US government. excuse our utter ignorance for not having such enthusiasm trusting the government to run things how we expect them

neither cincy or myself are claiming to be the know all out of the box thinkers. all I said is we NEED out of the box thinking for the best solution. cincy agreed. calm the fuck down with this already.

This is exactly what I was trying to say.

I don't want to just look at another country's UHC and try to reapply. Certainly we should look at what's working elsewhere and take the best for what will work in our situation.

soulsinging · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Just as long as that out of the box thinking doesn't involve government and stays safely in the private, for-profit insurance box, right?

wrong. I support alot of government involvement, I just do not support getting rid of the health care industry. I want it to be reformed. your genius solution of adopting single payer UHC is not even close to thinking outside of the box. its riddled with potential problems. but please go on telling us all how it should be. you can do no wrong.

soulsinging wrote:

I have acknowledged that it can, if we do not take steps to ensure that it does not. But rather than even considering that such steps might be possible, you latch onto the possibility that government could end up in control and refuse to entertain another thought. It's not a lack of enthusiasm, which is justified, it's a complete unwillingness to consider it as an even remotely viable option under any circumstances.

are you describing yourself? you think there is no other possible solution other then to get rid of the insurance industry. sounds like you are the one with complete unwillingness to consider other viable options under any circumstances

I assume you meant you don't support getting rid of the health insurance industry, which is my point... you want to protect private, for-profit insurance above all else. That is hardly out of the box thinking to my mind. Any solution that upsets that apple cart too much is out the window instantly.

And I am open to other solutions, but none of the anti uhc/single-payer people have offered any other than small band-aid regulations on health insurance practices... all of which I agree with but none of which address the underlying problems that you and cincy mentioned as requiring out of the box thinking... thinking which you both say you don't possess.

cincybearcat · July 2009

soulsinging wrote:

[I have acknowledged that it can, if we do not take steps to ensure that it does not.

Forgive me if you posted it already, but what are those steps?

_ · July 2009

cincybearcat wrote:

2) I've seen your point. And it's a fair statement to say I'm having a hard time seeing the governemnt being more involved as a good thing. But I'd be more in favor of a system mentined by know1 and you in another thread where you remove the insurance for basic health care and have the patients deal directly with the medical care providers, paying them (except for catastophic care).

How would people without money get care?

cincybearcat · July 2009

soulsinging wrote:

that you and cincy mentioned as requiring out of the box thinking... thinking which you both say you don't possess.

I certainly never said I don't posses outside-the-box thinking, don't think jlew did either. I've said I don't have the answer...because I'm still thinking about it.

You really have quite the ego.

_ · July 2009

cincybearcat wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

[I have acknowledged that it can, if we do not take steps to ensure that it does not.

Forgive me if you posted it already, but what are those steps?

For the government to take over the healthcare delivery system, wouldn't there have to be some group that actually wants this to happen? Is there such a group? Not that I know of.

cincybearcat · July 2009

scb wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

2) I've seen your point. And it's a fair statement to say I'm having a hard time seeing the governemnt being more involved as a good thing. But I'd be more in favor of a system mentined by know1 and you in another thread where you remove the insurance for basic health care and have the patients deal directly with the medical care providers, paying them (except for catastophic care).

How would people without money get care?

It's a good question. I've just recently been reading the arguments made by know1 so I don't have a fully formulated opinion on everything. But, I'd assume that it be part of the welfare program. Food stamps and medical stamps maybe, this is where it's appropriate for the government to play a part. Anyhow, haven't thought enough about it yet and I'm sure someone will try and use my words against me.

jlew24asu · July 2009

cincybearcat wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

that you and cincy mentioned as requiring out of the box thinking... thinking which you both say you don't possess.

I certainly never said I don't posses outside-the-box thinking, don't think jlew did either. I've said I don't have the answer...because I'm still thinking about it.

You really have quite the ego.

unbelievable. this reminds me of Ahimus from the old board. he just snapped one day and told everyone to fuck off. I'm done with this, its pointless.

So, a patient just called me...

Comments

Categories