Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by trzy
I was told that...

Is it true?

You have a reaction and a criticism based on "what you were told." The bill itself is publicly available; you can read it. You can even ask the person who told you such a thing to give you the page on which the excerpt occurred, so you could confirm it yourself without having to read the whole proposal. But you didn't. And the people who tell such things know that the fools who listen to them won't read the source material, but they'll get out there and rage anyway.

You are what is wrong with America.

Rather than being obnoxious and rude, you could have just asked about my source. Read it for yourself here.

Quote:
(f) EFFECTIVE CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION.--In carrying out this section, the Commissioner shall establish effective methods for communicating in plain language and a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner. SEC. 206. OTHER FUNCTIONS.

It is remarkably efficient to use the news and trusted sources/friends for information and analysis. I've got better things to do than parsing thousands of pages of legalese that I've got no freedom to modify or vote on.

I have a quick question. In a speech Obama gave, he promised that if you have insurance you already like you'll be able to keep it. And that this isn't a "single-payer" system.

How can he say something so completely illegitimate?

Isn't competing private insurance (has to make profit) with public (doesn't need to make a profit) going to eventually run private insurance out of business? Especially considering that employers are going to be punished unless they go with public coverage.

Is this bill not just a stepping stone to a single payer system? A way to fool people into thinking they will be able to keep their coverage when it's obvious that private insurance will not be able to compete?

What exactly is wrong with that? Are you worried you won't be assigned a "culturally-aware" communications consultant yourself? Here's a thought. How about we have a government system where people who despise government systems for cultural reasons are hired to provide services to other people who despise government systems for cultural reasons? Sounds great don't it?

Quote: Original post by trzy
Rather than being obnoxious and rude, you could have just asked about my source.

I wasn't criticizing your source, I was criticizing the entire mindset that allowed you to construct a critical paragraph that began with "I was told that," in effect implying (yourself) that you relied on mere hearsay from a third party. That you don't think that is a problem and now want to hastily furnish a "source" after the fact shows that you still don't get the inherent wrongness of a public that makes judgments - and potentially acts upon them - based on nothing more than word of mouth.

Now that you have furnished the source, however, let's examine it and your criticism. It reads:

Quote: (f) EFFECTIVE CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION.--In carrying out this section, the Commissioner shall establish effective methods for communicating in plain language and a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner. SEC. 206. OTHER FUNCTIONS.

You said:

Quote: I was told that one of the proposed versions of the bill contained language that said information had to be provided in a "culturally appropriate" manner, or some such nonsense like that. Queue the "culturally-aware communications consultants"

There is nothing nonsensical in that paragraph. What it is, is a recognition of the inherent diversity in America - the millions of people who don't speak English, or don't employ common metaphors and idioms. It is saying that ensuring patient comprehension of medical communications is a priority - that a person who might not know the term "diabetes" should be further explained to using terms he/she does know, such as "the sugars."

Your information, however it was originally presented to you, was inaccurate, and when called out on it you failed to actually read and comprehend the material in your fervor to defend yourself. Greater understanding of healthcare issues for everyone is something we should all be able to get behind.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
I have a quick question. In a speech Obama gave, he promised that if you have insurance you already like you'll be able to keep it. And that this isn't a "single-payer" system.

How can he say something so completely illegitimate?

Isn't competing private insurance (has to make profit) with public (doesn't need to make a profit) going to eventually run private insurance out of business? Especially considering that employers are going to be punished unless they go with public coverage.

Is this bill not just a stepping stone to a single payer system? A way to fool people into thinking they will be able to keep their coverage when it's obvious that private insurance will not be able to compete?

There's something to your point. Obama's public option could be the start of slippery slope towards single payer, but as it stands so far, the reforms aren't about single payer, so his remarks aren't "completely illegitimate" as you put it. Private insurance should have been run out of business 50 years ago (imo). Obama should have come out swinging with a big push for single payer, expanding medicare coverage (adding parts c & d to parts a & b) and phasing it in over time to cover everyone - first adding those over 55, then over 45, over 35, over 25. Children and those under 25 should have been added long ago. Obama shouldn't have started off with a compromise, compounded with further compromise. He totally blew the message. People are worried that health care reform will increase the deficit, as if they cared so much about the deficit that they are willing to pay more taxes, but it doesn't seem to have registered with them that no reform will increase the deficit more than reform.

Edit: the reason for the phase in is so that the public has time to adjust and health insurance companies have time to adapt to other businesses.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
...Obama ... promised that ... this isn't a "single-payer" system.

How can he say something so completely illegitimate?

...

Is this bill not just a stepping stone to a single payer system?

If it's a "stepping stone", then it isn't the actual end objective, is it?

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
...Obama ... promised that ... this isn't a "single-payer" system.

How can he say something so completely illegitimate?

...

Is this bill not just a stepping stone to a single payer system?

If it's a "stepping stone", then it isn't the actual end objective, is it?

Judging from previous Obama speeches where he called himself a "proponent of a single-payer system" and that this bill inevitably destroys private companies, I would assume this stepping stone very clearly indicates the end objective.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
I have a quick question. In a speech Obama gave, he promised that if you have insurance you already like you'll be able to keep it. And that this isn't a "single-payer" system.

How can he say something so completely illegitimate?

Isn't competing private insurance (has to make profit) with public (doesn't need to make a profit) going to eventually run private insurance out of business? Especially considering that employers are going to be punished unless they go with public coverage.

Is this bill not just a stepping stone to a single payer system? A way to fool people into thinking they will be able to keep their coverage when it's obvious that private insurance will not be able to compete?

There's something to your point. Obama's public option could be the start of slippery slope towards single payer, but as it stands so far, the reforms aren't about single payer, so his remarks aren't "completely illegitimate" as you put it. Private insurance should have been run out of business 50 years ago. Obama should have come out swinging with a big push for single payer, expanding medicare coverage (adding parts c & d to parts a & b) and phasing it in over time to cover everyone - first adding those over 55, then over 45, over 35, over 25. Children and those under 25 should have been added long ago. Obama shouldn't have started off with a compromise, compounded with further compromise. He totally blew the message. People are worried that health care reform will increase the deficit, as if they cared so much about the deficit that they are willing to pay more taxes, but it doesn't seem to have registered with them that no reform will increase the deficit more than reform.

Well I just hope that adding the 47 million uninsured won't clog the hospitals up too much (bad for everybody)

And that this plan won't get too bloated in the future from the uncontrolled population growth. America's population grows about 50 million every 15 years (which means insuring every one of them), so I would assume more hospitals would have to open up at some point to avoid the unethical waiting lines so many people are worried about.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Isn't competing private insurance (has to make profit) with public (doesn't need to make a profit) going to eventually run private insurance out of business?

This was pointed out earlier in the thread, but perhaps you missed it. In Australia, public and private health care co-exist perfectly happily, and have done so for a very long time. I don't see how the U.S. would be any different in that respoect.

Certainly, to assume that it's inevitable that the public system would run the private system "out of business" is a little premature.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Well I just hope that adding the 47 million uninsured won't clog the hospitals up too much (bad for everybody)

Wait. Are you saying that poor people should be denied hospital care so that they don't "clog up" the hospitals for rich people?