Has the new NHC plan collapsed?

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
I don't see how just being one voter absolves you of all responsibility for the unintended consequences of the policies you support with that vote. You want it both ways it seems. Why don't you quit doing this dance and just embrace the slavery concept that lies at the bottom of your slippery ideological slope?

I mean, I know slavery's had a bad rap a ...[text shortened]... nteed a job, food and shelter etc. Slavery is true freedom with the right people in charge.

I do embrace the slavery concept here.

I am proud of my country and it's system of laws (and the morality those laws represent). I could make a long list of all the things I don't like about it, but for each item, there'd be a dozen things that I'm thankful for.

As for the unintended consequence issue. This is the reason why we have a republic instead of a raw democracy. We elect people whose prime responsibility is to consider what the most appropriate legislation should be, and sometimes go AGAINST the wishes of the voters if the voters make emotional demands that would be unwise to implement - even if that voter is myself. That is why it's important to have representatives who don't just take a poll or follow orders from party headquarters when deciding how they should vote.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
The big challenge is to find a way to allow everyone to have access to the affordable health insurance.

I would say, 'No'. The big challenge is to allow the expansion of the supply of healthcare to the point where the price drops.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I do embrace the slavery concept here.

Well good for you. At least you're honest.

I don't.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Well good for you. At least you're honest.

I don't.

I can almost hear you thinking "but it was good for the economy!"

Originally posted by generalissimo
I can almost hear you thinking "but it was good for the economy!"

Sorry, I don't follow you. What was good for the economy?

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Sorry, I don't follow you. What was good for the economy?

slavery.

Originally posted by generalissimo
slavery.

Ah. No, I wasn't thinking that. Your opinion of me is apparently very low, and off the mark to boot, to ascribe such a thought to me.

Originally posted by spruce112358
I would say, 'No'. The big challenge is to allow the expansion of the supply of healthcare to the point where the price drops.

I agree. If there's going to be enough healthcare to go around as the population ages, a major expansion in the supply is going to be very important.

Are there any unnecessary roadblocks or misconceptions that deter people from pursuing a career in medicine? Do we need to create more med schools?

Or perhaps we need to develop technologies that will allow various conditions to be treated with fewer hours of doctor and hospital time -- allowing the same number of people to treat more patients.

Originally posted by monster truck
If you can't trust a man to help people in need how do you expect forcing him to do so through taxation is going to work?
It seems to me that most entitlement programs only serve to compound a problem rather than resolve it.

A perfect example is the local community kitchen. The more meals that the local foodbank hands out, the more people flock to ...[text shortened]... ect to see an improvement in the situation rather than exponential growth to the contrary?

Out of curiosity, are you for doing away with public schools?

"The Kitchen's website says that 11,000 people were served last year in a communtiy of 22,000. "

So did that kitchen check ID's and maintain a database of personnel being fed? Or did they just count heads each time, thus, counting the same people over and over again throughout the year?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Out of curiosity, are you for doing away with public schools?

"The Kitchen's website says that 11,000 people were served last year in a communtiy of 22,000. "

So did that kitchen check ID's and maintain a database of personnel being fed? Or did they just count heads each time, thus, counting the same people over and over again throughout the year?

I'm undecided on the public schooling issue.

Obviously the numbers from the Kitchen are skewed.
Are they inflated intentionally to increase the perceived need?
I have no idea.
I do know that I volunteered to do some constrution work at the facility pro bono 9 years ago and was turned down in favor of them accepting some grant money and paying to have it done. You know, to show the perceived need for additional funding at the state level. Pretty cool, eh?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Out of curiosity, are you for doing away with public schools?

"The Kitchen's website says that 11,000 people were served last year in a communtiy of 22,000. "

So did that kitchen check ID's and maintain a database of personnel being fed? Or did they just count heads each time, thus, counting the same people over and over again throughout the year?

It's possible that there were 110 really destitute individuals - each of whom were fed an average of 100 meals that year. I suspect that the great majority of those 11,000 meals went to a relatively small number of people.

Of course, there's only so much that a Kitchen can do by itself. It would be better to help the destitute individuals on a more comprehensive level. Some may be mentally ill and in need of treatment. Some might be addicts in need of rehab. Some might need a lot of help finding work. And most of them are probably desperate to have someone out there care about whether they're alive or not.

And yes, some are probably just leeches taking advantage of free food -- which is why over the longer haul it's better to focus on teaching people how to fish rather than just giving them fish.

Originally posted by generalissimo
when will you stop being so sensationalist?

"their waterloo"? are you kidding me?
also, people may disagree with the current bill but that doesn't mean they're against the original idea of universal healthcare.

Oh really? And how exactly will we insure both American citizens and illegals 100%? How will we pay for it? The options are, go into more debt, and/or rationing and/or find ways to reduce health care costs. So I suppose you are of the belief that we can find ways to reduce health care costs and, at the same time, cover anyone and eveyone indefinatly? I, however, do not.

Face it, Americans by in large are happy with their health care and very suspicious of government coming in and changing everything. Concerns about increased taxes and national debt and quality and availability are at the heart of these concerns, and with good reason.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If you think that if an opinion poll shows that more than 50% of the population is against a certain measure governments should never implement it you don't understand how democracy works.

Democracy? If it were a true democracy, that is exactly how it would work. A Republic, however, which is what the US is, affords its representatives the option of superceeding the will of the people. Then what little democracy we have to change things after they decide for us must be pursued.

Currently the will of the people is that their tax dollars not go towards universal coverage. So if their money is taken from them and used in such a way that they protest, then they must take action!!

Originally posted by Melanerpes
It's possible that there were 110 really destitute individuals - each of whom were fed an average of 100 meals that year. I suspect that the great majority of those 11,000 meals went to a relatively small number of people.

Of course, there's only so much that a Kitchen can do by itself. It would be better to help the destitute individuals on a more co ...[text shortened]... haul it's better to focus on teaching people how to fish rather than just giving them fish.

That's incorrect.
The alleged # of individuals served for 2008 is over 12K.
Number of meals served in 2008 is 952,700.

Originally posted by monster truck

I do know that I volunteered to do some constrution work at the facility pro bono 9 years ago and was turned down in favor of them accepting some grant money and paying to have it done. You know, to show the perceived need for additional funding at the state level. Pretty cool, eh?

Outrageous -- although it was probably motivated by a desire to get more money to do more good deeds. Nevertheless - they drove you away, when instead they should have been honoring you for your generosity.

It reminds me of when I was in college, I was in this club, and the club received $10,000 (or something like that) from the college to cover the costs of the activities the club was doing throughout the year. As it turned out, at the end of the year, we had about $1000 remaining - and the club president was joking about how we needed to come up with another activity to use up the remaining cash or else the club would only get $9000 for next year. It was like there was a major penalty in effect for being efficient.

Seems like this facility was in a similar kind of bind. I wonder if anyone has come up with a solution for this sort of thing.