PDA

View Full Version : Some conservatives talking about health care


JonIrenicus
10-25-2009, 02:46 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWXFywU3k9c


Part of the Uncommon Knowledge show. The host is sort of a more conservative Charlie Rose, and the show takes on a similar format, but he likes to go a bit more than skin deep.

It is a good operation. Though I know it may not be the sort of thing some on here would like watching, no mouth frothing from the characteristic and pervasive conservative roob. Sorry for linking something that does not sate the fetish a lot of you have of highlighting mental cripples and fools.

But for the rest, it may give some insight into where they are coming from, and where they may be wrong.

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-25-2009, 03:03 AM
This is great, thanks!

rfrobison
10-25-2009, 10:14 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWXFywU3k9c


Part of the Uncommon Knowledge show. The host is sort of a more conservative Charlie Rose, and the show takes on a similar format, but he likes to go a bit more than skin deep.

It is a good operation. Though I know it may not be the sort of thing some on here would like watching, no mouth frothing from the characteristic and pervasive conservative roob. Sorry for linking something that does not sate the fetish a lot of you have of highlighting mental cripples and fools.

But for the rest, it may give some insight into where they are coming from, and where they may be wrong.

Will give it a look later. Thanks.

BTW, it's rube, not "roob."

Lyle
10-25-2009, 05:29 PM
Thanks for the link Jon. Good stuff. I think you put one up with Hitchens in it a while back and that one was good as well.

Whatfur
10-26-2009, 11:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWXFywU3k9c

But for the rest, it may give some insight into where they are coming from, and where they may be wrong.

Jon,

This was GREAT!! Watched this right when I saw you link to it but could not comment until now. ;o) Immediately after watching it I thought to myself..."there won't be many liberal contributors to this thread"...makes too much sense. Actually did get me rethinking the tax-exemption part of employer healthcare...I may have to go back and re-visit a conversation I had with Unit.

The stimulus description at the end is spot-on and should be an embarrassment to the left. Talk about deceptive packaging hiding a future calamity.

Starwatcher162536
10-27-2009, 03:50 PM
Seemed somewhat shallow to me. The majority of it was rehashing of thoughts I already had, am I am by no means an expert. Why did they not talk about tort reform and defensive medicine, or talk about the AMA, or talk about what % of money spent during a lifetime is spent on the last few weeks, or the lack of policy's operating across state lines, or what should be done about the pre-existing conditions issue,etc.,etc.,etc.

Every question I had about the conservative outlook on key issues that I went into this video unanswered, I left this video unanswered.

Just more vague philosophical trope.

JonIrenicus
10-28-2009, 06:51 PM
Seemed somewhat shallow to me. The majority of it was rehashing of thoughts I already had, am I am by no means an expert. Why did they not talk about tort reform and defensive medicine, or talk about the AMA, or talk about what % of money spent during a lifetime is spent on the last few weeks, or the lack of policy's operating across state lines, or what should be done about the pre-existing conditions issue,etc.,etc.,etc.

Every question I had about the conservative outlook on key issues that I went into this video unanswered, I left this video unanswered.

Just more vague philosophical trope.

I think Kessler, being an economist, was focussed more on cost.

http://www.amazon.com/Healthy-Wealthy-Wise-Better-Health/dp/0844771783/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256763496&sr=8-6

Kessler does touch on malpractice in one of the books he wrote, but again, his main focus is on cost and how to get that contained.


Another thing liberals tend not to bring up regarding cost, or not caring about cost as much in favor of increased coverage, is the cudgel thrown at Bush over wage stagnation.

I have heard at least two people bring up the increase in medical coverage as the cause of almost the entire wage stagnation phenomenon (Kessler & Frum). If people actually care about stagnant wage growth beyond just a tool to bash Bush with, it would seem to me to be something liberals would be concerned about long term on top of increased coverage. If wage increases and increased coverage have an inverse correlation, I wonder what people would deem more important?


For the people who want to increase coverage, I want to know the plans for increasing the supply of doctors (shouldn't our medical schools be able to increase the number of doctors produced? They are NOT hurting for VERY/overly qualified candidates that STILL get turned away).


On end of life cost, what is to be done about that? Yes a large part of medical costs tend to cluster around the end of days, so what is the solution? That is just a logistical reality of biology and our bodies degrading over time.

And as we increase our capacity to give people longer life and quality life, those newer technologies will often increase costs. But if people want that then let them spend more money on that. And if they do not have as much money to stay alive as long? Is that fair? No, it is not. How egalitarian do people want to be? I'd be willing to accept increased costs to insure people were not priced out due to pre existing conditions, but I am not sure I'd be so generous in terms of everyone in the nation having full coverage, basic medical, vision, dental, etc.

Should everyone have a "right" to the latest high end procedure that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to perform?


Is health care a right?

A right in the same way freedom of speech is a right?

Is having access to drinking water a right?

Does wanting people to have access to something mean you want them to have access to something for free?

Do I think access to drinking water or healthcare should be free?


This is a tiny list of questions, it's a broad subject, but if you want to know what some people think on other issues, and what trade offs they would be willing to make and live with, ask them, they probably have email.

What if the trade offs are not acceptable to some people? What if the only thing that is acceptable is 100% coverage for all people? Even if costs increase as a whole? Or wages stagnate? Or etc?

Then make your case, and see who is the most persuasive.


But the fact that most people in the country have health insurance already, including the young and poor, and the elderly, and the disabled, the majority of working people, at least full timers...

The constituency of the non covered is not a large one as far as I can tell. The constituency of those wanting lower costs, and if achieved, greater affordability for those who want healthcare but cannot afford it, is greater.