A Call For Civility
As anyone who follows the news has seen, we've seen an uptick in incivility in the political discourse over the last several years in this country. Lately, though, it seems to have gotten even worse -- now you've got U.S. Senators calling political opponents "Tea Baggers" (I wonder if they'd mind if their opponents started calling progressives "Rim-Jobbers" because of their new focus on jobs), and you've got a former Congressman wanting to bring back voting literacy tests because he thinks there are too many "multicultural" people voting. Nothing pisses me off more than people who try to take citizenship and voting rights away from American citizens.
No real suggestion on how to stop this trend here -- just a rant.
posted by Bubblehead at 8:15 AM
49 Comments:
Just because we guarantee a guy the freedom to speak doesn't mean he should take every opportunity to prove to us just how stupid he is. As the saying goes, "Never pass up an opportunity to keep your mouth shut." That's a heresy in Congress.
2/06/2010 9:58 AM
Concur with your rant, Joel.
2/06/2010 10:30 AM
I'm not convinced that things have gotten worse - only that the coverage and the speed at which that info is spread has increased.
Politics has a long history of slander, misdeed and puffery (is that even a word?) Fist fights on the floor of congress, dueling, have you read the headlines from some of the old races?
Jerry
2/06/2010 12:31 PM
Voting literacy tests were outlawed because they cheat legitimate citizens of their valid right to vote once per election.
Allowing "citizens" without a valid, government-issued photo identification card to vote absentee, in multiple precincts, after death, or under assumed aliases is equally unconscionable, and cheats an entire electorate of a fair process.
Any fair-minded American who disapproves of literacy testing should be equally in favor of discouraging fraudulent voting.
Penalties alone for the latter (misdemeanors) are an outrageous farce. As it now stands, even if we hanged violators, it would not stop the likes of Mickey and Donald Duck from voting again.
By the way, compared to the practice of politics in other first world countries, the U.S. still has a long way to go before "incivility" could become appropriate adjective.
What you are seeing, perhaps for the first time, is long overdue activism by the previously "silent majority" of voters from all parties.
It will only get worse until politicians subject themselves to the same laws as the people who elect them. Opposition to tyranny is an American birthright. Those who cannot stomach it or wish to relinquish it are free to emigrate.
Please write when you find a country that makes you feel more at home.
2/06/2010 12:32 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
2/06/2010 2:01 PM
Jim Hill,
First no one above said, "Don't like it here? Then scram!" - You did.
You also said, "...our countrymen are often doing just that"
You must have a good example in mind of an American who has given up his U.S. citizenship and moved permanently (otherwise, he would be taxed on his world-wide income by the U.S.) Perhaps you have listened to half truths from ill-informed socialist wannabes.
You also said, "Now we're losing the world's trust, friendship, admiration, and respect"
Well there are many countries in the world, and we have the respect of them all. Why would we want the admiration of a totalitarian, communist or anti-capitalist country?
Rex
2/06/2010 2:52 PM
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and for American citizens, they should all be worth exactly the same - one vote on election day.
But that's the crux of the matter, isn't it.
Voting should be limited to citizens only. And adult citizenship in good standing should be the *only* requirement.
Any time an illegal vote is cast, it cancels out the legal vote of an American citizen. I, personally, do not see why anyone would object to basic safeguards such as an ID check before allowing just anyone to vote. That's just basic common sense to me.
Now, having said that, I agree that there has been an uptick in political incivility *of late*. But compared to other times in our history, we're pikers in the incivility league. Just check some of the newspapers from the time of the founding, or the 1850's, if you don't believe me. At least nobody has been beaten with a cane on the senate floor lately.
And as far as "...losing the world's trust, friendship, admiration, and respect."
Who is this mysterious folk known as "the world" and when have we *ever* had their "trust, friendship, admiration, and respect"? The "world", in this context, simply does not exist because "the world" is made up of individuals with individual opinions, not some amorphous blob with a single mind.
And tell me: Is the friendship and admiration of a country such as Somalia or Libya the same as the friendship and admiration of, say, Japan? ...or Great Britain? ...or Australia? And how about Soviet Russia, or North Korea? During the cold war, was their friendship and admiration the same as that of Thailand or Germany or Spain?
I for one am getting heartily tired of this quixotic quest for the worlds "trust, friendship, admiration, and respect" because it's a fools errand. It simply does not matter what we do. We will never have it because there is always someone out there who is pissed off at us because of who we are.
2/06/2010 6:12 PM
There seems to be a lot of talk about 'socialism' these days. Is anybody ready to tell the unemployed that they're for eliminating the federal emergency unemployment compensation package because it smacks of socialism? Anybody for telling Mom and Dad that we're for putting an end to their Medicare and Social Security payments? Those are all 'socialist' type programs. When it comes down to looking somebody in the eyeball and telling them we're for removing the only support that keeps them and their families afloat in this crazy economy, well, I just don't believe anybody with a heart could do it.
I know there has been a lot of 'stimulus' money coming out of Washington, but the first stimulus was tried with $150Bn in the previous administration. Did anybody send those checks back to the treasury because they were against socialism? You might gripe about the expense of bailing out the banks, but they're back on their feet, wobbling, but paying us back so their CEO's can collect their $9M bonuses. That's capitalism, not socialism.
And I can appreciate how you might feel about trying to rescue the car companies. But let me just say, as a resident of Southeastern Michigan, if that hadn't happened, we would have been toast. As it is, things are pretty dismal here.
I am as worried about the national debt as the next guy. I have grandchildren too. But I don't think there's any risk of becoming socialists. There are too many capitalists interested in maintaining the status quo.
Look, I appreciate all of your continued service to the country; I sleep well at night knowing you have the watch. Stay safe and stay Navy as long as they'll let you!
2/06/2010 8:00 PM
Is anybody ready to tell the unemployed that they're for eliminating the federal emergency unemployment compensation package because it smacks of socialism? Anybody for telling Mom and Dad that we're for putting an end to their Medicare and Social Security payments?
Count me in! And end Medicare and SS NOW along with the confiscatory taxes going toward it. I've already paid into the system for 25 years, but if I could get out right now with no further confiscations and zero return, I'd take the deal. However, if I pay in for another 20-25 years I WILL get my money back from Uncle Sam - one way or another.
As far as the car companies and southeastern MI go, I say let 'em toast. Having lived in MI and knowing first hand how the unions effed up the car companies and the general welfare of the state, they deserve to go under. I for one, being a current owner of both a Dodge and a Chevrolet, will NEVER buy another gubment motors vehicle until every last penny is paid back. And don't think I'm alone. Look at other car comanies' sales figures compared to gubment motors. Sure, they are all bad, but GM is going tits up for a reason.
2/07/2010 10:52 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
2/07/2010 10:56 AM
No idea when the civility might come back. It seems that every issue is now a partisan one.
For the record, I claim to be the first to use the label "tea bagger." Took me months to start hearing that phrase widely. Just call it my own incivility. I get the fiscal responsibility, how can you be against it? But leave the nazi slogans, birther stuff and outright lies about 'socialist revolutions' on the fringe and out of discourse.
As to the Tea- leader, Palin, well, at least I didn't quit halfway through my last tour because it was hard. That's not uncivil, just the facts.
2/07/2010 10:59 AM
Anon@ 1252:
The only person that wins if we just outright dump medicare are those that die young. Without Medicare, who, exactly, do you think is going to insure retirees under the current system, and at what rates?!
I might see an argument for doing this if we have comprehensive health care reform, but I bet you are against that too...
2/07/2010 11:57 AM
Devil's advocate is one of my strong-points, so here goes: civility can also lead to complacency. When persons in powerful positions aren't held accountable and asked tough questions, they can get away with terrible things. When you ask these tough questions to powerful people, the perception of civility can be difficult to maintain.
The Brits have it right on this one with Prime Minister's Questions. Civility is non-existent during PMQ's, and that's exactly why it's so damn effective.
2/07/2010 12:26 PM
A history lesson from 50 + years ago. The China Lobby, the impact of Henry Luce and his media empire, the firing of Douglas MacArthur by President Truman and the General's triumphant return home, Senator Taft's "go-gettem" support for Senator Joe McCarthy's fictional anti communist purge of the government. Now there your talking real incivility in politics. Check it out!!!! in David Halberstams "The Coldest Winter".
As an old fart, (I'll be 69 this year) I do remember teacher purges in California when I was in High School in the mid-late 1950's. Many of our male teachers were WWII vets and were being charged by school boards with un-American activities, or being communist fellow travelers based on the flimsiest of reasons, or nothing at all. In particular Civics teachers and english teachers seemed to get a lot of attention in my high school. In my school district teachers were required to take loyalty oaths containing a lot of right wing mumbo-jumbo. Civics teachers opposed the loyalty oaths as injecting political indoctrination into school curriculums. some got fired for their opposition and went to court and won their case against right wing school boards.
The "communist boogy-man gonna get-ya" played well for the Republican right wing during the 50's.
Based on political quotes I've been reading from assorted opponents of the Obama administration, these people are the modern day equivalents of the "no-nothing" movement. They're pussy cats compared to the hard core right wing in the 50's.
My two cents, and keep a zero bubble................
DBFTMC(SS)USNRET
2/07/2010 4:50 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
2/07/2010 8:55 PM
Srvd_SSN_CO if I would you I'd think long and hard about bragging that you invented the calling Tea Partiers (or whatever they call themselves) teabaggers. It makes you, and people like you, look like idiots. I really have no idea why such 4th grade humor has gotten any traction. If you don't like their politics and think they are loonies then attack them on their policies. Because you don't agree with their politics you resort to accusing them of sucking on testicles? Nice.
2/07/2010 10:02 PM
I would point out that the "tea-baggers" actually have no actual political platform, except for a dislike of the establishment, thus it is not possible to attack them on their policies, because they have no unified policy positions. The closest they come is saying that they believe in Free Markets, States rights, and decreasing the deficit... So does everyone else, but the devil is in the details.
They do identify with Sarah Palin, however, which is enough to invite ridicule in my book.
2/08/2010 12:20 AM
I agree on your Sarah Palin remark. If she is the "leader" then there is no reason to call these people childish names because they will not be a factor.
I think you are right too in that the Tea Party movement is not a coherent unified movement. It is made up of all sorts of people with all sorts of ideas, the common thread being they are mad at our current government.
2/08/2010 6:21 AM
Where was the outrage when GWB and the Republican Congress was providing unfunded tax cuts, waging two unfunded wars, establishing an unfunded Prescription drug plan? The right wing and the Tea Baggers were silent. They sat back and apllauded the tax cuts and wars while the national debt skyrocketed and the economy plummetted. GWB left office with 1.2 trillion dollar debt. Are they really concerned about debt or do they just dislike the current President? It was Dick Cheney that proclaimed, debt doesn't matter.
Civil discourse is impossible because the order of the day is lies and spin. Americans no longer make decisions on fact or what is actually contained in legislation, instead most Americans formulate their opinion on distortions and outright lies fed to them by bloggers and a media with an agenda.
2/08/2010 8:05 AM
This thread demonstrates not necessarily how uncivil we've become, but how partisan.
Regarding incivility, consider the Burr-Hamilton duel.
2/08/2010 9:50 AM
. . . unfunded tax cuts . . .
It's called STOP SPENDING MY DAMN MONEY!
unfunded tax cuts - You can't fix stupid!
2/08/2010 9:52 AM
We should return to dueling...with 1911 Colt .45's
2/08/2010 9:53 AM
Rim-Jobbers... heh. I like that. I'm going to start using it. LOL!
I've been wondering if anyone else caught that about the term "tea-bagger".
I actually welcome the incivility. There should be a difinitive demarcation between the factions. Otherwise, if both parties are all cozying up to eachother, how do you stop them from steam rolling us?
Also, I'm for calling things as they are. If someone advocates the consolidation of the means of production under the control of the government, then that's socialism. And a communist is just a socialist in a hurry. and we're picking up momentum in that direction.
Another point to ponder is if Joe McCarthy was wrong, he would have been a hero.
2/08/2010 11:10 AM
Rim-Jobbers... heh. I like that. I'm going to start using it. LOL!
I've been wondering if anyone else caught that about the term "tea-bagger".
I actually welcome the incivility. There should be a difinitive demarcation between the factions. Otherwise, if both parties are all cozying up to eachother, how do you stop them from steam rolling us?
Also, I'm for calling things as they are. If someone advocates the consolidation of the means of production under the control of the government, then that's socialism. And a communist is just a socialist in a hurry. and we're picking up momentum in that direction.
Another point to ponder is if Joe McCarthy was wrong, he would have been a hero.
2/08/2010 11:11 AM
Positively hilarious- A comment about lack of civility results in many comments that go something like this:
NOT CIVIL!?!! WHAT A G@&D#*^ OUTRAGE!!! YOUR A F#$*@&! IDIOT FOR CALLING ME UNCIVIL!
Nothing at all wrong with spirited debate. It can be quite entertaining. It ceases to be entertaining when keeping it on topic gets supplanted with Well, you're a F-----g idiot (Neo-Con, tea bagger, liberal, socialist- insert your own slur here).
2/08/2010 11:12 AM
I remember tax cuts and then I remember two wars. I remember the prescription drug plan givaway, but, I can't remember any cuts to any federal programs. What exactly was their plan to keep the deficit from exploding??? The party of fiscal responsibility seems to have failed. The lesson, you can't cut taxes and wage two wars without cutting something.
2/08/2010 12:00 PM
Is Congress broken? This guy seems to think so...
http://www.fixcongressfirst.org/
2/08/2010 12:43 PM
There is no party of fiscal responsibility, just as there is no party for whatever the Democrats label would be. Both parties serve themselves and corporate moneyied interests, not the people.
Yes, it is funny that a call for civility results in name calling.
2/08/2010 12:45 PM
What boggles my mind 9on a routine basis) is that everyone agrees that Congress (The House of Representatives and the Senate) are part of the problem. Everyone agrees that they are a crooked group of individuals. The approval rating for those bodies is lower than that of either of our last two Presidents...
But they keep getting re-elected. I guess it is everyone else's Senator and Congressman that is crooked....
2/08/2010 3:18 PM
t.j. no need to be so sensitive, but when these idiots are trying to get headlines by 'birther' arguments, and calling the president a Nazi, they are just idiots...and they get whatever label fits.
2/08/2010 5:50 PM
Srvd_SSN_CO,
There is something very peculiar about your claim to be a former SSBN CO.
Frankly, it smacks of fraud.
Do you wish to keep up your unusual charade, or be exposed?
Rex
2/08/2010 6:14 PM
Rex, post @ 6:14,
What are you smoking in that pipe??
Your comments re:Served_SSN_CO sure don't make no sense and don't appear to have any connection to the thread......
DBFTMC(SS)USNRET
2/08/2010 6:26 PM
What really gets me steaming is this:
The Republicans are hot steaming mad about the deficit, debt, etc. The only real stab at looking future forward and trying to tackle these issues was health care reform. But it got whittle down by a thousand cuts that took the meat out of the bill, and looks like it will die on the vine. Hell, the final senate bill looks a heck of a lot like Mitt Romney's health care plan, which he liked until the democrats championed it, at which point he stopped liking it. From my point of view, the Republicans are for all practical purposes no better than the tea partiers. They've become the party of obstructionism for obstructionism's sake, and it's a damn shame.
You can't fix the deficit unless you do two things 1) raise tax revenue 2) fix medicare. Why can't everyone see this?
Tort reform won't cut it, cutting military expenditures will help, but it's not enough to close the gap and you can only cut so much out of the military budget anyway. What other monolithic programs are there to cut? Medicare is now about 7 years away from insolvency... 7 YEARS!!!! We need health care reform more than anything else, and the fact that we might not get I I pin firmly on the heads of the republican party.
2/08/2010 9:58 PM
@srvd, I am not being too sensitive. I was just trying to point out the absurdity of trying to call someone an idiot by acting like an idiot yourself.
I understand there are some people out there with some strange ideas and they are willing to put them on signs and shout them out for all to ridicule, but trying to insinuate acts they do in their bedrooms just lowers you to their level.
In short call them idiots for their ideas and not for their imagined sexual acts unless you want to act like them.
2/09/2010 6:20 AM
You can't fix the deficit unless you do two things 1) raise tax revenue 2) fix medicare. Why can't everyone see this?
The deficit can be fixed by ELIMINATING ALL SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS!
Q: Why can't YOU see this?
A: Because YOU are a FUCKING IDIOT!
2/09/2010 3:30 PM
anon 3:30 PM. Great Idea! We'll start with you, your wife and kids your parents, aunts uncles, anyone your related to. No more Social security for them, No MEDICARE for them, no nothin. No unemployment when they loose their jobs because of the Bush Administrations failure to regulate the financial markets. No retraining money when they want to learn new skills because their jobs going away and ain't coming back. Then we'll tell'em we're just doing what you want--F##k em!! Right???
Classic example of right wing screamer. Bet your part of that 34% of Republicans that believe the birther nonsense as well.
Sheesh......
keep a zero bubble............
DBFTMC(SS)USNRET
2/09/2010 5:24 PM
This thread has been a real eye-opener. It's hard for me to understand how any rational person, let alone a submariner (generally more savvy, and endowed with a healthy dose of cynicism) could believe that putting the federal government in charge of health care could result in anything but a much larger deficit. Also, there is ample proof, from both the Reagan and Clinton (with GOP Congress) years that reducing taxes increases tax revenues because of the benefits to economic activity.
2/09/2010 6:09 PM
DBFTMC(SS)USNRET
I'm all for cutting them all off ONCE THEY RECEIVE EVEREY DIME THEY'VE PAID IN. However, I'm willing to forego ALL future benefits if the gubment ceases stealing my earnings to cover said social welfare programs. However, as I said before, if I continue to pay in - I WILL get every penny back. And BTW, I'm one of those BHO considers rich in that I pay in the ever increasing max to SS EVERY YEAR. IMA GET MINE BACK!
2/10/2010 6:23 AM
Anon, 6:23AM,
The SSI withholding amount you are paying is because the Republicans beloved President Reagan signed into law the increases in withholding so as to "fix Social Security insolvancy forever". Only problem is, under three Republican and one Democratic administration, the money never went into a "locked box fund" as promised, it was "diverted" for "other spending priorities"!!! Now what the social Security administration has is a file folder with 25 annual federal IOU's in the "locked box". That is why Social Security is in trouble, the government can't payback what they stole from the Social security Administration.
Mark @ 6:09PM
Suggest you have a read up on supply side economics. Try wikipedia. No real proof that it had the desired effect as our economy is to complex. Intersting that you left of impact of GWB tax cuts on the economy.
RE: government provided health care programs. You need to have a rethink. TRICARE, VA, MEDICARE. All government provided health care programs. More efficent, more cost effective than For-Profit HealthCare Insurance. Patient comes first with these programs. Not so with For-Profit Healthcare Insurance. For them the stockholder and wall street are first in line for payouts. Example, rate increases of up to 39% just announced by a Blueshield for profit healthcare insurer for policy holders in California and announcement that they will increase rates whenever they desire vice once-a-year. Clear business strategy to get policy holders who are big $$$$ users out of the shared risk pool. TRICARE, VA, MEDICARE do not deny coverage due to pre existing conditions, or just cancel coverage because you are costing the company to much. Common practice with for-profit Healthcare Insurance companies.
You want only for-profit Healthcare insurance companies?? You better be prepared to pay for it, and don't get really-really sick because your coverage will be going bye-bye.
My two cents and keep a zero bubble...........
DBFTMC(SS)USNRET
2/10/2010 2:05 PM
The GWB cuts to tax rates also resulted in increased tax revenues. I don't believe it's possible to provide the sort of "proof" you are looking for if the available empirical evidence is not enough for you. Regarding Social Security, the government took the money out of the mythical "lockbox" because that is what governments do. GWB had what I thought was a good plan to fix SS, but the Democrats decided that he could not have a political success at that point, and ruthlessly demagogued the proposal, kicking the can down the road.
I don't understand how you can laud the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of Medicare when it is currently in dire need of a bailout, and many doctors refuse Medicare patients. Wonder if you happened to catch the item a week or so ago that the Premier of Quebec who had to get his heart surgery in the States. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/02/01/12699181-cp.html
Tort reform (CBO says $54B in savings) and allowing more competition by eliminating the prohibition of insurers to compete in other states would go a long way in controlling costs. Even Howard Dean conceded that the Democrats would not consider tort reform because of the influence of trial lawyers in the party.
2/10/2010 6:12 PM
I hate you all
2/10/2010 9:49 PM
Mark:
1) If you actually do the reasearch, the benefit of tax cuts on revenue is not nearly as clear cut as you think. Many economists (including incidentally, chief economists from the Bush administration, snf the Congressional Budget Office) claim that the Bush tax cuts did not increase economic activity enough to actually increase revenue and that further tax cuts would only recover about 10% of the revenue lost due to the cut over 10 years. Think about it, you're a smart guy I'm sure. It's self-evident that decreasing taxes indefinitely will not always raise revenue. If you reduce them to 0% obviously you raise 0% revenue. Many economists think that we are on the portion of the Laffer Curve where decreasing the marginal tax rates actually cuts into revenue. It's purely political showmanship, misguided intentions, and an attempt to buy out votes for the Republican party to continually hold up tax cuts as a way to fix the deficit. Of course, it's easy to do this, because the only way to absolutely prove that tax cuts are not the sole reason for increased revenue is through the use of a time machine.
2) While I agree that Tort reform is probably a good place to enact reform. You do realize that $54B is laughably small in the face of the $2 TRILLION dollars the US spends on health care every year. That 3% won't even make up the difference in cost of one year's growth in medicare costs.
If you want to start getting serious about health care efficiency, cost, and average health outcome, the conversation has to start with single payer. There are several countries that you would probably consider third world with better health care than the US, and most of them have single payer systems. Just because Rush and Glenn Beck say the current system is the best in the world doesn't make it so.
2/10/2010 10:53 PM
Single payer is not going to happen in this country, thankfully. How an I supposed to respond to the last paragraph? That isn't even a straw man argument; it's more of a ghost argument, if you don't even name the countries, or the basis for saying their health care is better. When I've seen similar claims, naming actual countries and statistics, they were easily exposed as specious, because they were making claims based on infant mortality rates (or similar), without mentioning the wildly different ways different countries get their stats. Some of the countries commonly used in that claim don't even consider a birth to be a "live birth" until 24 hours after delivery! Stats typically used to compare relative quality of nations' health care are more suspect than most, and I think most of us are familiar with Mark Twain's (and other's) thoughts on statistics. Can't say I'm a fan of either Rush, or Beck BTW, though they do have their occasional moments. Krauthammer is more my style.
2/10/2010 11:26 PM
There was no incivility in any of your debate (save a few childish words)... like a politcal tennis match really, with nothing solved -except speech and a game.
My 2 cents. Everyone here took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Are there enemies of the Constitution? Here and abroad? You bet your shiny Dolphins there are.
If the enemies are domestic, how would they try to attack the system? Take what actions to change our democratic republic established by the founding fathers into a socialist state? Since those are really the two choices in the world 1-Liberty and Freedom or 2-Sociliasim and Statism.
How would they do it? The would collapse the government on itself - until only the State had control- they would have to be in control - they will be holding all the power. But hey, I'm no genius nuke submariner... well at least not a nuke anyway!
Now you can bounce around your "R" side arguments and your "D" side arguements, and you can Bush bash and Obama birth - but the fact remains... why would we need to "fundamentally change our nation"?
What is fundamental change? That would be our current "system" of government changed?
Look around the world and you can see what every attempt at Socialist Utopia has achieved. Crap! Grey nations, where the population is painfully unwilled to achieve, because there is no individual reward. Where 60 percent (plus) of earnings, from your hard labor go to the State - who decides what is best, and when, and where and why? Does that sound like Freedom? Happiness? I think not.
And hey, great - if that is the system you want (soclialism), you should go partake of that system - in some "socialist" country.
Here, our Constitution was created on the principle that the government would be "minimally" involved in our lives. The founders were all brilliant scholars, they studied world history, they knew of monarchy, socialism, or freedom. They made a choice. They knew of the fall of Rome- of the Crusades, of every civilization and empire before they came here from Europe to escape "tyrannical rule" by the Kind and the State.
They set up this nation, that we would be free to pursue happiness without an oppressive government. That we would labor for "ourselves" our community, and our State (local). That the Fed would have defense of the nation and other specific powers an areas to maintain. It has become a bloated, festering, sewer of a shithole that burns money and wealth, faster than we can create it.
The Federal government can not run a post office system and make money- but FedEx does it every damn day! And better. While making hundreds of millions in profit that drives the economy and families and freedom! You want to hand the Fed a health care system. The Fed spends with reckless abandon, and drains the labor of the hard working people - like a vampire sucking blood from an Olympian! Until the Olympian collapses.
Keep your eye on the ball submarine warriors... and watch the tactical picture... the big picture!
Do you still support and defend the Constitution of the United States... or was that just to get a paycheck?
Read, educate, and keep your eye on the foreign and domestic enemies of our nation... they have been on the move for nearly a century... and I would suggest that when the system is overwhelmed by itself... you will find life here has irreversably changed.... and you watched it happen? Vote, vote, vote. (o.k. only vote once... but you get the point.
SS/SW/AW, Ret
2/11/2010 2:11 PM
If the free market regulates health care so well, than why are we here talking about the problems and how it needs to be changed. I don't see how anyone can expect for-profit insurance companies to treat people fairly when their best profits are made by overcharging as much as possible and providing as little coverage as possible.
Without government intervention the health care industry would be complete chaos. Keep in mind, that as members of the military we're completely isolated from these problems, so it tends to make most of less compassionate. But as soon as you see a relative get screwed over by their insurance company, or have a bad run of luck, lose their job, and get sick while unable to afford health care, you'll be outraged at the system too.
2/11/2010 3:38 PM
Mark 6:12 PM.
I can say TRICARE, VA, and MEDICARE are more efficient and cost effective because their administrative costs are under 9% of expenditures whereas For-Profit Health Insurance industry runs over 18% of their expenditures. All three public Health Care programs DO NOT put in-house insurance program administrators in between patient and doctor decisions for treatment along with the practice of pre existing conditions or denying treatment, whereas thats standard practice with For-Profit Health Insurance industry in order to reduce the amount of payout for policy holder healthcare services.
For-Profit Healthcare Insurance Industry has been on the federal dole to the tune of over 200 billion dollars in order to provide their so called MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANs. Thats 200 BILLION dollars out of the MEDICARE pot. Numerous studies have proven that MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANs are basically no different than regular MEDICARE. You must admit it doesn't pass the smell test. It's called corporate welfare for the For-Profit Health Insurance Industry. BTW, that MEDICARE payout to For-Profit Health Insurance Industry was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by GWB. It needs to stop.
You may not know much about MEDICARE. When you start MEDICARE at age 65 you have to pay your own monthly premium for hospitalization coverage until your Social Security starts. Mine was $130.00 a month. As I'm sure your aware the age to start drawing full Social Security is moving up in years based on your birth year. For example: my birth year was 1941. I could not start full Social Security until age 65 and 8 months. You should probably check out your own start age based on your birth year. After going on full Social Security I elected Part B of MEDICARE, hospitalization coverage, which costs me $103.00 a month. In order to qualify for TRICARE-FOR- LIFE, you have to renew your retired military ID Card at age 65 and prove you are on MEDICARE and selected Part B. If you don't no TRICARE-FOR-LIFE.
You are correct that there are areas of the USA where medical service providers do not accept MEDICARE. You are also correct that MEDICARE is running a deficit. I would argue that taking For-Profit Health Care Insurance Industry off the federal dole would do a lot to cut down on that deficit.
What does the For-Profit Healthcare Insurance Industry really do?? They are the middlemen passing policy holder dollars to the real Healthcare Service Providers, and most importantly paying dividends to shareholders and Wall Street, and spending big bucks on lobbyists. Thats it--nothing more.
The For-Profit Healthcare Insurance Industry provides no added-value to the delivery of healthcare services, in fact it's a big take away.
One last thing, If your on Active Duty you and your family are consumers of the Premier Public Pay Healthcare service.
My two cents.............
DBFTMC(SS)USNRET
2/11/2010 5:42 PM
Mark and Anon 10:53PM,
I'll go with Tort Reform, no problem as long as the Healthcare Insurance Industry Anti-Trust Exemption is repealed. Republicans will never go for it though, they're on the Healthcare Insurance Industry Payroll full time and they continue to be the Party-of-No.
My two cents and keep a zero bubble.....
DBFTMC(SS)USNRET
2/11/2010 8:42 PM
OK - health insurance reform is getting boring, and since it's dead as hell for at least twenty years (who knows - by then I may be old enough to want the government to take care of me, like a true Democrat) it's time to move on. What's up with Biden today, taking credit for saving the Iraq situation, when it was handed to them with a bow on it a little over a year ago. Especially ironic since Biden and Obama fought the surge every step of the way as Senators, and Biden (the noted foreign policy maven) brilliantly called for the partition of Iraq, around the same time as that weaselly little piss-ant from Nevada was saying, "the war is lost." There's some civility...
2/11/2010 9:38 PM
Mark,
I am a smart submariner... I have also been party to single-payer health care systems. I was a resident in both Great Britain and New Zealand. I also have close friends and relatives that utilize comprehensive health care systems in Switzerland, Italy, Canada, Brazil, and even Greece! None of them are willing to exchange what they have for what the US has. My next door neighbor of 15 years moved back to Greece (he immigrated here in 1972) precisely because he would have better health care. It is my well-informed and experienced opinion that the US would do well to adopt any one of these health care systems as they all deliver exceptional care to a far greater percentage of their respective population for far less.
I joined the US Navy primarily because I would benefit from a "single-payer" health-care system for the rest of my life and the life of my wife. I'm fairly certain that you also weighed that factor in your own decisions regarding military service. I'm surprised that you, a "smart" submariner, don't recognize that comprehensive, single-payer, health-care systems do work. What also surprises me is that you fail to recognize that about 30% of the US population are the beneficiaries of a single-payer, health-care system and are absolutely committed to keeping it that way.
With regard to "civil" vs. "incivil"; I agree with DBFTCM, pretty tame compared with half-century ago. Shoot, I remember the summer of 1968 -- Yikes! I thought the world was comin' to an end watching the riots in Watts, Chicago and Detroit.
WCC
2/18/2010 1:20 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home