T O P I C ��� R E V I E W
|
Kattus Magnus
Member # 411
|
posted
First, some background. Omega's definition of a liberal is someone for bigger government. Now, with George W. Bush and the GOP opposing lawsuits against HMOs (and the Dems on the opposite side), I find myself wondering ... Aren't the two ideologies taking stances opposing their ideology? I mean, one would think telling citizens who they can sue and for how much would be "big government", but the conservatives are backing it ... Just a thought.
|
Aethelwer
Member # 36
|
posted
I think we determined long ago that Republican!=conservative and Democrat!=liberal.
|
Kattus Magnus
Member # 411
|
posted
And ... ? But the Conservatives/Republicans want legislation which wouldn't allow citizens to sue HMOs ... a very "big government" ideology. Since when does government have the right to tell people who they can sue and for how much?
|
targetemployee
Member # 217
|
posted
Democrats are not simply liberals, and Republicans are not simply conservative. There are variations within each party. The variations are based on social and economical factors, regional factors, religious factors, etc.
|
Aethelwer
Member # 36
|
posted
Colin is correct. Don't assume the two major parties adhere to any fundamental philosophies, because they do not.
|
MeGotBeer
Member # 411
|
posted
Then why'd you post that, eh? quote: I think we determined long ago that Republican!=conservative and Democrat!=liberal.
|
TSN
Member # 31
|
posted
Because it's what he's saying. Republicans != conservative and Democrats != liberal. Although, granted, using the "not equal to" sign is a bit misleading. What's really needed is a "not necessarily equal to" sign...
|
Vogon Poet
Member # 393
|
posted
First off, what's an HMO?
|
MeGotBeer
Member # 411
|
posted
The system which runs our health care. It sucks.
|
Vogon Poet
Member # 393
|
posted
But since you have private health care, that means it's run by companies for a profit. The people who won these companies are more than likely to be Republicans and Conservatives. Therefore they'd want to support an initiative to stop the proles from suing their companies! QED! I'm getting the hang of this Omega Logic. . . 8)(sounds like some TOS/Vulcan/Spock novel. . . Star Trek: The Omega Logic)
|
First of Two
Member # 16
|
posted
Oh, this is easy.Conservatives believe (and I think rightly) that allowing unlimited lawsuits against HMOs is simply the first step in phasing out HM's altogether (death by lawsuit, in our highly litigous society), by driving the price of health care up again (as HMOs raise prices in order to purchase insurance against megamillion-dollar lawsuits, whether or not they're valid suits, and pass those costs along to the consumer), thus causing a public outcry, after which the government will be 'forced to step in,' and take over public health care entirely. Then, when you get inadequate care, you won't just be fighting a company, you'll be fighting the faceless bureaucrats in Washington.. and it's not likely they'll let you sue THEM. This would complete a process begun back in the days when Medicare and Medicaid were established. These programs were supposed to make health care affordable to the poor, but what they actually did is show the health care providers that they could raise prices as much as they wanted, because government would always pay for it. This made health care for regular folks more expensive, thus leading to the public outcry and mandated creation of HMOs... which only made the problem worse. See, conservatives believe that the more you rely on government, the more power it has over you, and the more your freedoms are eroded. Therefore the idea behind being against the bill is a preventative measure. Also, it could be partly because the bill's strongest supporters are not in health care, but are actually the Trial Lawyer's Association. (Need I mention that they're mostly Democrats?) They're the ones who stand to get much richer if the bill passes.
|
MeGotBeer
Member # 411
|
posted
But, correct me if I'm wrong here ... Isn't it very "big government" to tell people who they can sue and for how much ... ?
|
Omega
Member # 91
|
posted
It's also very "big government" to force healthcare prices up, and to take over the entire system. You make do with what you have. I say we just ditch medicare all together, 'cause it really sucks. There are exactly two possibilities: you have people ripping the government, and thus everyone else, off; you have the government dictating prices. Neither is acceptable. Design a better system, 'cause this one was flawed from its inception.
|
First of Two
Member # 16
|
posted
No moreso than defining the 'infield fly rule' in baseball is 'big management.'And I'm not against allowing people to sue their HMOs... just suing them for far more than is reasonable.
|
Vogon Poet
Member # 393
|
posted
Define 'reasonable.' Can a price be put on human suffering?
|
Omega
Member # 91
|
posted
Yes.Tell me: if the amount that a health-care provider is sued for is so high as to drive the HMO out of business, then what happens? Well, first, the insurance companies go down, due to the overabundance of claims. Second, the HMOs go down, because they don't have insurance. Third, the government "reluctantly" is "forced" to take over medicare for the entirity of the country, ala Hillary Clinton, thus outright destroying a massive portion of our economy. They'd probably take over insurance, to boot. We lose our freedom, and our independance of the government. I'd call that price too high, wouldn't you? [ August 02, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]
|
First of Two
Member # 16
|
posted
Sure! Wanna know what your life is worth?http://www.humanforsale.com/
|
MeGotBeer
Member # 411
|
posted
quote: It's also very "big government" to force healthcare prices up,
Which means that it's also very big-government to tell people who to sue and for how much. Ladies and gentlemen: take note. By his own definition, a liberal is someone who favors "bigger government." So, by his own admission, Omega has just admitted to being a liberal ... [ August 02, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
|
Omega
Member # 91
|
posted
Ah, but if you'll notice, I said that my prefered solution was to axe medicare all togethter. That was just my secondary solution.
|
The_Tom
Member # 38
|
posted
quote: Third, the government "reluctantly" is "forced" to take over medicare for the entirity of the country, ala Hillary Clinton, thus outright destroying a massive portion of our economy. They'd probably take over insurance, to boot. We lose our freedom, and our independance of the government.
As someone whose dinner is put on the table by the Canadian medical system, I must take issue with the gaping splotch of negative intelligence present in this comment.
|
First of Two
Member # 16
|
posted
Okay, you've taken issue with it.Now, for the hard part. Why?
|
Sol System
Member # 30
|
posted
I don't know about human suffering, but human feet seem pretty cheap.
|
First of Two
Member # 16
|
posted
quote: `This is not a patient bill of rights. This is an HMO and health insurance companies' bill of rights,' said House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt. His voice rising and his face growing red, he added, `In the name of God ... vote against this bill.'
Sounds like Mr. Gephardt needs to relax a bit. Apparently, the current compromise being pushed for is largely due to Georgia Rep. Charles Norwood, a leading Republican supporter of patients' rights legislation who had long aligned himself with Democrats on the issue.
quote: Republicans heaped praise on Norwood -- and defended him from criticism by Democrats who had worked closely with him for years. Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., reading Democrats' earlier glowing statements of praise for Norwood, added sarcastically, `That's yesterday. Today they'll have you think he's become Dr. Kevorkian,' the suicide doctor.
That sounds about right. [ August 02, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
|
MeGotBeer
Member # 411
|
posted
I love how First of Two doesn't even discuss the merits of either side's arguements, he just resorts to the same mud-slinging he's criticizing the Dem's about. Good work boyo.
|
First of Two
Member # 16
|
posted
Hey, FLAME-board, remember?Anyway, I already discussed the merits, or at least, what I see as being wrong with the idea. This must have been while you had your fingers in your ears and were shouting " Is not isnotisnot! Omega sucks!"
|
MeGotBeer
Member # 411
|
posted
Just pointing something out is all. And I don't remember every saying that. Hmm. Maybe I should sue for slander or something.
|
|