Zach F Wrote: Listening Wrote: Zach F Wrote: Well the Mayo Clinic is a non-profit organization, I do not think they are the best example to use for businesses losing money. But lets try and toss around some ideas for reducing costs on the Mayo Clinic. In the spirit of the thread, this seems to be getting ahead of things. To respond to this point, what I would say is that Mayo has been held up as one of the near "ideal" cost models that GRHC advocates hold up as an example of how things should be done. That is what makes this so damning. If Mayo runs such a tight, low cost ship and still can't get by, what does that tell you about others ? It says the cost of healthcare is absolutely ridiculous. A reduction in the underlying costs of basic health would qucikly reduce that huge loss.
Listening Wrote: Zach F Wrote: Well the Mayo Clinic is a non-profit organization, I do not think they are the best example to use for businesses losing money. But lets try and toss around some ideas for reducing costs on the Mayo Clinic. In the spirit of the thread, this seems to be getting ahead of things. To respond to this point, what I would say is that Mayo has been held up as one of the near "ideal" cost models that GRHC advocates hold up as an example of how things should be done. That is what makes this so damning. If Mayo runs such a tight, low cost ship and still can't get by, what does that tell you about others ?
Zach F Wrote: Well the Mayo Clinic is a non-profit organization, I do not think they are the best example to use for businesses losing money. But lets try and toss around some ideas for reducing costs on the Mayo Clinic.
Lori Wrote: Well, let me begin by saying I am probably in over my head on this website and do not plan on making a lot of posts. But here goes... I am not proud of Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh. While I agree with some of their points, their emotional sensationalism is almost an embarrasment. They should just present the facts (as they seem them) and leave the emotion aside. Now I understand that they are not the republican party - but they do present the views of the party. If I were a democrat trying to understand the views of the "other side" I would only become more cemented in my democratic views. I do like the idea of the tea parties. As long as they stay peaceful, then more power to them. I even attended one gathering. I do not like the push to intertwine church and state. I am a Christian. However, I believe in the separation of church and state. That is one thing that makes this country great. (Let me say, however, that I firmly support "under God" in the pledge of allegiance and do not want "God" removed from public buildings.) I do not support Sarah Palin or her current PR escapades. I do like Mike Huckaby - very much. I do not agree with the whole phone-tapping (etc.) spy techniques to weed out terroists. Now - I know the world is now a more dangerous place and that takes more drastic measures to stay safe. And I don't even have any suggestions to replace those methods. But one of our basic freedoms as Americans is being taken away when we begin to allow that. Once we cross that line, who is to say where the invasion of privacy ends and keeping us safe begins. Who is in charge of that line that can't be crossed? Just my current views...
Schmidt Wrote: Thomas Walcom, writing for the Toronto Star on February 21st asks" "Is Obama a Closet Conservative?" Obama's visit to Canada appears to have been capitulation to Harper on climate change. And as Walcom points out, "Obama isn't backing away from Bush's decision to define terrorism as war, a crucial label that gives the president constitutional authority to operate with few Congressional constraints. The key difference is that the new president wants to shift the focus of that war to Afghanistan." Furthermore, the Obama administration has "quietly indicated that it plans to continue the practice of so-called extraordinary rendition: capturing suspected terrorists anywhere in the world and shipping them off to countries such as Egypt to be tortured." Obama will be under the microscope in the next four years and these are some of the issues that he should be judged on.
Lori Wrote: Let me just say I agree. Please keep this site respectful of each other's viewpoints. I joined this website - also a moderate republican. I have always been republican and do believe in their basic priciples - although I am beginning to question some of their methods. I joined this website to try to understand the "other side." I don't pretend to be knowledgeable enough to add very many in-depth viewpoints. But I am watching and "mulling over" the posts. I have, thus far, enjoyed the to-the-point and un-sensationalized postings here. Thanks - and keep 'em coming.
My brief and unhappy experience with the hate and vitriol of bloggers on the liberal side of the aisle comes from the last several months I spent campaigning for a longtime friend, Joe Lieberman.
This kind of scary hatred, my dad used to tell me, comes only from the right wing--in his day from people such as the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, with his tirades against "communists and their fellow travelers." The word "McCarthyism" became a red flag for liberals, signifying the far right's fascistic tactics of labeling anyone a "communist" or "socialist" who favored an active federal government to help the middle class and the poor, and to level the playing field.
I came to believe that we liberals couldn't possibly be so intolerant and hateful, because our ideology was famous for ACLU-type commitments to free speech, dissent and, especially, tolerance for those who differed with us. And in recent years--with the deadly combination of sanctimony and vitriol displayed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage--I held on to the view that the left was inherently more tolerant and less hateful than the right.
Now, in the closing days of the Lieberman primary campaign, I have reluctantly concluded that I was wrong. The far right does not have a monopoly on bigotry and hatred and sanctimony.
Zach F Wrote: Listening Wrote: I daresay it is terrible, lousy, awful process to pass a bill and then figure out what it means. The whole concept in unconstitutional and the GOP should have been spreading that message as well as working on alternative solutions for sixteen years. They didn't and look what happened. True, passing lesgislation annd then figuring out what it means is very dangerous. Just look at the PATRIOT Act and what a horrible train wreck that has been. The difference between the PATRIOT Act and the Health Care Act is that there is healthy oppisition to the Health Care Act, enough to where, I assume, enough people have read it to get a basic understanding of the information in the act. While complete understanding with the ability to foresee every loophole and exploitation of any legislation is near impossible, I feel this act is understood well enough to be passed. In what way is government offering health care unconstitutional? I have heard this claim many times with no arguements to back it.
Listening Wrote: I daresay it is terrible, lousy, awful process to pass a bill and then figure out what it means. The whole concept in unconstitutional and the GOP should have been spreading that message as well as working on alternative solutions for sixteen years. They didn't and look what happened.
Zach F Wrote: It seems that you are trying to argue that legislation and government action should only occur when someone's rights are being jeapordized. This is not the case at all. Government does not have a sole purpose of protecting rights. They have many other responsibilities. Just because government offered health care is not a right, does not mean it shouldn't exist. People do not have a right to roads or speed limits. People don't have a right to public parks or recreation centers. Despite the absence of the right to have these things available, they have all be established through some form of legislation because of they benefit society as a whole without inffringing on the rights of the people.
I am going to ask people to look at the opening post again and consider the process of holding this discussion. There is nothing new here that we have not heard before. My point is that once we have established a few ground rules and defnitions, we might actually have a good discussion. Just coming on with the same left wing or right wing talking points does nothing. I can get that watching MSNBC or Fox.
Schmidt Wrote: Our Constitution contains several legal rights, but a guarantee to health care is not one of them. But absence of a specific right does not mean that there aren't moral rights or obligations of our society. The abolition of slavery and women's suffrage were two amendments in which moral rights became legal rights within the Constitution. Social Security and Medicare were enacted as laws because our society decided to legalize what we saw as our moral obligations to take care of all of our senior citizens. We have enacted state laws and regulations protecting the handicapped and the blind because it was the right thing to do morally. And in most states the rights of non-smokers to breathe clean air are now protected with bans on smoking in public places. In Colorado and several other states, laws have been enacted that require emergency rooms to care for patients regardless of ability to pay. These state laws were enacted because a majority of our elected representatives felt it was the right thing to do, much like Obama said, "it's the right thing to do" on passing the current health care legislation.
Our Constitution contains several legal rights, but a guarantee to health care is not one of them. But absence of a specific right does not mean that there aren't moral rights or obligations of our society. The abolition of slavery and women's suffrage were two amendments in which moral rights became legal rights within the Constitution. Social Security and Medicare were enacted as laws because our society decided to legalize what we saw as our moral obligations to take care of all of our senior citizens.
We have enacted state laws and regulations protecting the handicapped and the blind because it was the right thing to do morally. And in most states the rights of non-smokers to breathe clean air are now protected with bans on smoking in public places. In Colorado and several other states, laws have been enacted that require emergency rooms to care for patients regardless of ability to pay. These state laws were enacted because a majority of our elected representatives felt it was the right thing to do, much like Obama said, "it's the right thing to do" on passing the current health care legislation.
Schmidt Wrote: "It's the right thing to do." Just Google that expression along with any President's name and you'll find it used again and again. Bush used it to justify taking out Saddam Hussein, Bill Clinton used it on numerous occasions, and so has Barack Obama on health care.
"It's the right thing to do." Just Google that expression along with any President's name and you'll find it used again and again. Bush used it to justify taking out Saddam Hussein, Bill Clinton used it on numerous occasions, and so has Barack Obama on health care.
Zach F Wrote: J.D. Hayworth, the Republican running against Senator John McCain for the Arizona Senate seat, said during a radio interview on WORL: "You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage -- now get this -- it defined marriage as simply, 'the establishment of intimacy. Now how dangerous is that? I mean, I don't mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point -- I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse. It's just the wrong way to go, and the only way to protect the institution of marriage is with that federal marriage amendment that I support." The only thing that makes sense with this argument is that he admits that it is absurd. It’s hard to believe there are people who think like this. Is this really the best argument there is against gay marriage?
J.D. Hayworth, the Republican running against Senator John McCain for the Arizona Senate seat, said during a radio interview on WORL: "You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage -- now get this -- it defined marriage as simply, 'the establishment of intimacy. Now how dangerous is that? I mean, I don't mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point -- I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse. It's just the wrong way to go, and the only way to protect the institution of marriage is with that federal marriage amendment that I support."
The only thing that makes sense with this argument is that he admits that it is absurd. It’s hard to believe there are people who think like this. Is this really the best argument there is against gay marriage?
Zach F Wrote: Listening Wrote: In the first place, do we know how many of those 30 million want coverage ?I have never seen a definitive discussion on that topic. I know lots of young people who are not interested in paying for health care.In other words...they don't want it.Being 26, and without health insurance, I thoght I would comment on this. I just missed the age cutoff for being able to be covered by my parents and I currently can't afford to pay for health insurance. Having a cheaper coverage option is an oppurtunity that I would like to take advantage of. There are a few fun, high risk, things that I no longer do, such as playing sandlot football at the high schoolI understand that this might not be the same choices that most people my age may make, but saying that young people don't want health care is just as wrong as saying that all young people want health care.
Listening Wrote: In the first place, do we know how many of those 30 million want coverage ?I have never seen a definitive discussion on that topic. I know lots of young people who are not interested in paying for health care.In other words...they don't want it.