GeorgiaDon

Exactly...My wife is an admin at Childrens Hospital, (Yes a brain married a lowlife biker) , she started there over 20 years ago as an ER nurse, they have never once turned anyone away...I'm not sure why so many worry about health insurance, it doesn;t seem to be needed other than for every day health care...If yer hurt, yer covered... Payment ...is a noen issue, ask any illegal ..... How about this idea. Let's pass a law that bans hospitals from passing unrecovered bills on to paying customers. I'm sure your family, and everyone else who works at/for the hospital, won't mind paying for all that care by working for free, any more than all the paying patients mind (or can afford) to pay for it. [/sarcasm] Or just maybe people and politicians could get serious for once about trying to figure out a solution that will work. One thing for sure, the current limitations to the debate (no mandate to buy insurance, no taxes, and no change to EMTALA allowed) leaves us with nothing but a shit sandwich. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Agreed. I didn't disagree with the post itself, only pointed out that the 'leave them to die in the parking lot' scenario would be illegal under EMTALA. How is this different from the current situation under EMTALA? Mike, you're a smart guy, I'm sure you clearly understood my post. Still, I'll spell it out hopefully a little more clearly. Under current law (EMTALA), people have the option to not pay for insurance, then go to the hospital when severely sick or injured, get patched up (save their life type care, not cosmetic surgery), then not pay for that either (perhaps by declaring bankruptcy). Since hospitals, doctors, nurses etc must get paid, the costs of this care are passed on to those of us who do have insurance or other means to pay. This is unfair in itself, and it drives up the cost of care for those who do pay including insurance companies. The result is higher premiums, which results in even more people "opting out". This is the status quo, and in the long run it is probably unsustainable given the fact that health care costs are escalating faster than growth in the ability to pay. How can this problem be fixed? 1. Require everyone to "opt in". Make it illegal to not be insured. This is the approach that was ruled unconstitutional today; eventually the supreme court will have the final say. Let's assume this one won't fly. What else is there? 2. Repeal EMTALA. If you can't pay, and didn't have the foresight to get insurance, too bad so sad. Personally I think this would be uncivilized in the extreme, as there are many circumstances aside from shortsighted greed that can lead to people being uninsured. As well, as I explained earlier, requiring proof of ability to pay before treatment is offered will result in many thousands of people who in fact are insured being denied treatment. I think this one is a non-starter too. What else? About all I've got right now is to fund trauma centers and emergency departments through a sales tax on something everybody buys, such as food or clothing. If you taxed alcohol and cigarettes I bet many of the "poor" would end up putting as much into the system as better off people who choose healthy lifestyles. You can't do it based on income tax, as too many people don't pay income tax so they would still be freeloading. Then, if you have an accident or need emergency care, you can go to one of the tax-funded treatment centers. At least a nominal copay will have to be charged, to discourage trivial use of the resource. If you want longer term care, physical therapy, anything more than life-saving treatment you'd better have insurance or be able to pay for it. Anybody got a different idea? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I can definitely see the reasoning behind this decision. I can also see the reasoning behind the requirement that everyone have some form of health insurance. It will be interesting to see how the SC (Supreme Court, not Speaker's Corner) eventually rules on this. What I wonder about is, people can currently choose to "not participate" until they have an accident or serious illness, when they suddenly become "participants". At that point they are uninsurable, so they have to bear the full cost of care out of pocket. Many cannot pay, so after being treated they declare bankruptcy and pass the bill on to those of us who do have insurance. This seems to me to be unfair. What to do? One solution might be to demand payment/proof of insurance up front, and refuse to treat the "indigent", but that has perils too. When an ambulance responds to someone having a heart attack, or to a car accident with unconscious or critically injured patients, the priority is to get the patient to the hospital, and they don't waste time searching the house or the accident scene for a wallet or bank statement. I once asked a former student, who had become an EMT, how common is it for them to transport patients who don't have ID, and he said it's quite common, maybe 10% of his calls overall. A rule that says "don't begin treatment until proof of insurance or funds is secured" would condemn tens of thousands of people who actually have insurance to be left to die outside the emergency department door, just because their wallet with their insurance card was lost at the accident scene. I wonder if you, or anyone, can see a solution that preserves peoples freedom to "opt out" without sticking those of us who "opt in" with the bill, or creating a situation where many people who have paid in are denied care when they most need it. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Sometimes you don't have the luxury of taking care of one problem at a time. If you're half-way across a train trestle and you see the train coming, the fact that you have cancer won't change the fact that you have to get off the trestle before the train gets there. Of course population is an issue, you yourself expressed skepticism about reducing population size. The most effective tool we may have to do that is economic development, due to a phenomena called "demographic transition", which is the easily observed correlation between economic wealth and reduced population growth rates. As societies and individuals become better off economically, they tend to reduce the number of children they have. In the developing world children are cheap labor for the family farm, and your retirement plan, and you better have a bunch of kids because some will die of disease and most won't make much money, so you better have a lot of surviving kids to take care of you when you get too old and frail to work. In the developed world we have pension plans, social security, etc, and on the other hand kids cost a lot to raise and educate, so they become a net financial liability (they do have other things going for them fortunately). As a result, people voluntarily reduce the number of kids they have, to the point where several countries now have net negative population growth (discounting immigration). If you really want a lower population, you should support economic development in the so-called 3rd world countries. Of course the process takes time, a few generations at least, for cultural attitude about family size to change. However, if that economic development means that people in developing countries increase oil consumption and CO2 output to match our American prodigious levels, we will still have a huge problem. CO2 output will just be a part of it, all those people will be competing with us for oil and other resources, driving up prices. Better for us if we can reduce our own dependence on fossil fuels, so we won't have to compete to buy an ever scarcer and more expensive resource. Even better if developing countries could by-pass dirty fossil fuel based technologies, and go straight to energy efficient technologies. It could be in our long-term interests to help them do that, even if it costs us up front. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Absolutely! What could be worse than the prospect of countries actually cooperating to solve common problems? Much better they resort to the old tried-and-true ways: war, or ignoring problems until they become insurmountable. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs, eh comrade? So do you object to international negotiation instead of conflict as a general principle, or only in this specific instance? When the US negotiated an agreement with Canada to curb acid rain, was that "communism" or was that two countries recognizing that pollutants don't respect national boundaries? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Absolutely! What could be worse than the prospect of countries actually cooperating to solve common problems? Much better they resort to the old tried-and-true ways: war, or ignoring problems until they become insurmountable. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Congratulations! It does get better after this hurdle is passed. For a while. I think I get as nervous when my students are up for their oral and written prelims as I was for my own. And here's something worth knowing: faculty hate the process as much as the students do. Don't you have to do a few years worth of experiments before writing the dissertation? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

How about if the "job" is more than just a "paycheck". Have you ever experienced a career that you are personally invested in for more than the money? Sure doesn't sound like it. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Back to your initial post about student loans, and according to the article you linked: "The average debt load is $24,000, according to the Project on Student Debt." So, it seems the majority of students are able to keep their loan to an amount similar to a car loan. While a college degree is no guarantee of a high-paying job, most professional careers do require extensive education beyond high school. Without a degree, good luck landing a job as a doctor, engineer (of any sort except "sanitation"), scientist of any description, teacher, or in marketing, management, and on and on. Even bank tellers require a business degree these days. What a college education offers is a shot at an interesting career, one that can (hopefully) motivate a person to head off to work every morning and feel good about it, all for the cost of a new car. Of course high school grads or even dropouts might be able to attain the same thing, as long as they have no desire to be an architect, doctor, or find a cure for cancer. Getting rid of student loans would limit such careers to students who come from situations where they already have in place the resources to pay all the costs up front, which for all intents and purposes means wealthy families. Aside from the issue of stifling the ambitions of all but the progeny of the wealthy, do you really think the USA could be economically competitive with the rest of the world under such conditions? You would have this country reduced to hewers of wood and drawers of water. Of course, I recall your disdain for anyone who has actually completed college from another thread; maybe that's the real reason you'd like to see student loans eliminated. Would you also like to see mortgages eliminated, so only the people with cash in hand could buy property? Mortgages are by far the largest single debt source for the vast majority of people. Hey, if we restrict home ownership to the rich, and voting rights to property owners, maybe we could get closer to your vision of the perfect state. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

+1 This is the real heart of the problem. If American/NATO/Pakistani forces could operate in the tribal areas capture would not be such an issue. Posing the problem as a choice between being allowed to use torture and indefinite detention or having to kill people is a false dichotomy. The real problem is the Pakistani government and military, which for political reasons has never had real authority in the tribal areas. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thank you for the link. Thomas Aquinas is essential reading for anyone who wants to actually think about these issues. I agree with you about "common sense". I know people for whom "common sense" has led them to religion, and people who have had the opposite experience. RonD1120's intentional rejection of "common sense" on the grounds that it won't lead to "salvation in Jesus Christ" seemed to me to be an outrageous (although unintentional) condemnation of religion. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

A fine Christian artist of our time. I went through this guy's web site (thanks Quade) and aside from a lot of motel-room type art (artists blow-out sale! nothing over $10!!), there are some that depict his vision of America as a Christian theocracy, and President Obama standing on the Bill of Rights. Apparently he has bought into the notion that trying to save the economy from a complete meltdown, and trying to ensure that people have access to medical care, represent un-Christian values. Curiously, I found no such paintings criticizing any policies of the Bush administration, which leads me to conclude that he has no problem with endless wars of opportunity, warrantless surveillance of the American population, indefinite detention without charges or trial, or any of the other unconstitutional outrages perpetrated by the previous administration. I wonder if that's because Bush makes such a big deal of being "born again"? Don't know anything about that. American entrepreneurship for sure. But, is he trying to make a buck or a political point, and if the latter what point is he trying to convey? I'm more impressed by another guy I heard about who is making beautifully framed copies of the Declaration and giving them for free to local schools. OK, in a Mom-and-apple-pie kind of way, but the devil is in the details. Is your vision of "strong, nurturing, and safe" a militarily aggressive fundamentalist Christian theocracy where diversity of thought, scientific literacy, and even "common sense" is suppressed? My vision of "nurturing and safe" is more along the lines of a society where creativity and curiosity are supported and encouraged; society as a whole benefits because many ideas are put forth and the most useful ones can be selected and developed. A strong society is one that has confidence in its resilience and its people, not one that has the military might to impose its will on others. Militarism weakens society, because it tempts countries into trying to solve problems by force, which cannot be sustained indefinitely. Fundamentalism weakens society by robbing it of the diversity of ideas needed to apply to solving problems, and by robbing people of freedom of thought and expression. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

now listen up buster, and listen up good stop wishing for bad luck and knocking on wood _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The Bush administration is done. Get over it already! Don (edited to add link to 2005 posting) _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

right wing conservative christian opinions are without common sense..... Intentional. Common sense will not lead you to salvation in Christ Jesus. However, not on topic. So, despite supposedly being "created" with the unique ability to reason (according to the bible you follow), you turn your back on reason and logic and instead advocate blind acceptance of whatever "truth" the conservative blog-o-sphere (or minister, or whatever authority figure feels correct today) vomits up. Too bad we don't have the technology for you to donate some of your cerebral hemispheres to soldiers who have suffered brain injuries, as it seems you don't care to use what you have. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I wonder how long we will have to wait for the "traditionalists" here to condemn Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and their idol Regan. I for one am not holding my breath. Of the presidents in the last 60 years, if we exclude the above who apparently also had no respect for tradition, we are left with Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Bush 1, and Bush 2. Apparently no Medals of Honor were awarded during the Carter years when weren't actually at war with anybody, and the two that were awarded in the Clinton administrations were posthumous so I'm not sure if the salute/did not salute question is applicable. So apparently at least 50% of American presidents in the last 60 years don't respect tradition. Or, maybe, this is another one of those "traditions" that aren't really traditions. Just because Bush did something doesn't make it a tradition. Edited to add: apparently no Medals of Honor were awarded during the Bush 1 years either. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks for posting an interesting article. So what is the take-home message? Some will say that the government should stay out of medical care altogether. If you can't afford dialysis out of pocket, you die, too bad so sad. (Dialysis is not something you can get routinely by showing up at a hospital emergency room, so the "solution" some propose of waiting until people are critically ill, then having them show up at emergency, get treated, then leave without paying is not applicable to such a large patient population.) The article points out that the dialysis treatment field in the US is dominated by two hugely profitable companies that have used their financial/political clout to keep regulatory oversight to a minimum. Profits are maximized by using poorly trained technicians; rarely is a doctor or even a certified nurse available on site. Facilities are supposed to be inspected and recertified regularly, but in fact many years go by between inspections (in some cases no inspections in seven years!). I think a big part of the message is the danger of unregulated capitalism in the health care "marketplace". Combine lack of competition with lack of incentive to maintain quality control (no regulatory oversight, so no meaningful enforcement of already minimal safety standards), and add in pressure to maximize profits, and this is what you should expect to get. I think it's instructive that every other developed country manages to provide this care, at lower cost and with better outcomes. Despite the knee-jerk American reflex to automatically assume all things American are the best possible way of doing things, it would be instructive to look at how other countries manage to out-perform us in every measure except profit to private cororations. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I agree that the way this case was prosecuted seems absurd, and I hope that this conviction is vacated and charges dropped (assuming the facts are as the article states). I am curious about your assertion that the law presumes guilt, though. It seems to me that Mr. Aitkin admitted that the gun in the car was his. Having stipulated to that fact, what else remains except to determine if he met the legal conditions for transporting the gun? How else could the case possibly have gone? Now if he had denied the gun was his, I'd expect (or hope) he'd be "presumed innocent" and the State would have had to prove he knew about the gun and was intentionally transporting it. I'm having a hard time seeing how this "presumes guilt". Otherwise, you could say that any time you are questioned about any activity that requires a permit or license, such as driving, hunting, fishing, or piloting a plane, you are "presumed guilty" until you can prove your innocence by showing your license. If, for example, game wardens had to presume everyone out hunting had a license, and could only ask to see a license if they already had evidence that a particular hunter did not, enforcement of hunting regulations would be impossible in any meaningful sense. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I suspect $15,000 would just cover the cost of the funeral these days. If they were really suing for punitive reasons I'd expect the amount would be a lot higher. $15,000 is a lot of money to be out of pocket for someone else's criminal act; if the at-fault party has been tried and convicted, why shouldn't he be made to pay? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

OK, since you (and Turtle) apparently consider highlight/copy/paste to be providing a meaningful representation of YOUR thoughts on the subject, could you 1) indicate which of the following points you posted as defining a liberal apply to the "lawyer" in question (the one that doesn't actually exist), and more interestingly 2) let us know which points you find so repugnant about "liberals". From your "answer": Are you sure you are against political reform? I'm surprised you are so happy with the government as it currently exists. How can you find this objectionable? Seriously, who could be against freedom of action with respect to personal belief? Do you honestly want to force everyone to be just like you? Can't have any of that evil "representative democracy", can we now. I can see where you guys would have a problem with this one. Is this why you hate liberals so much? Again, would you really want everyone to be forced to conform to "traditional or conventional ideas"? Nothing but classical music on the radio, can't allow any of that new-fangled rock 'n roll. If it was good enough for your great-great-great grandfather, it's good enough for you right? Is there a problem here? Same as above. Maybe this is why you hate liberals? But of course this is exactly what you advocate when it concerns a rule you happen to not like (such as gun control laws). circular definition. Not relevant to US posters. Again, since you posted these points as your concept of a "liberal", which points do you personally find so repugnant? Personally, I prefer to live in a representative democracy with maximum freedom to follow my personal beliefs, and give generously to support causes I believe in. How, exactly, does that make me evil? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Skyrider, How do you answer Lawrocket's point that the contrail should be getting brighter if the source is gaining altitude and climbing to where the sun still appears well above the horizon? If anything, the contrail is darker close to the source, consistent with the source flying level in a direction opposite to the movement of the terminator (the boundary between day and night). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yes, they did. However in a constitutional democracy (or republic for the nit-pickers) the constitution takes precedence over the "voters beliefs". Otherwise, minorities would always be threatened by the whims of the majority. Who knows, in Georgia we might still be living with Jim Crow if it wasn't for the US Supreme Court, if the state flag controversy was anything to go by. Hope you're doing OK Andy. I'm going to try to get up your way one of these days. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

No I am saying it shold not be in force That is why I stated that there is an argument to stop the state from marrying same sex couples At least until it passes another law aimed at fixing what the SC said was broken Firstly, the law (any law) is proscriptive in that it delineates what might NOT be done. Things that are not forbidden are by definition allowed. The law, for example forbids murder; there is no need to write into the law a requirement that you have to allow people to live, even if you happen to not like them. In this case there is no constitutional basis for forbidding same-sex marriage, and so by definition it is permitted. If the court rules that a law is unconstitutional and strikes it down, but (according to you) that unconstitutional law stays in effect until the legislature fixes it, then what incentive would the legislature have to ever re-write the law? They could more easily achieve their original unconstitutional aim by never taking up the law again, and just leave things in the unresolved state. Also, what about a situation where there is no way to rephrase a law to make it constitutional, if the whole purpose of the legislation is in itself unconstitutional? Your view effectively gives governments free reign to commit unconstitutional acts and deprive people of their legal rights. I'm surprised you would want to allow governments the power to ignore the constitution. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Guilty of perpetrating political speech! Apparently an offense warranting being physically assaulted in Skippy's version of America! "Land of the free" indeed. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Speaking as a college professor who most here in SC would consider to be "liberal" (meaning I don't automatically hate all muslims), I don't have any big concerns against allowing concealed carry on campus. However that's not the opinion of the higher administration, who I expect will do whatever they can to resist it here in Georgia. Interesting how this varies from state to state. In Georgia there is absolutely nothing required in the way of "training". Any legal resident over 21, with a clean criminal and mental history, can get a concealed carry permit. There is no requirement to show proficiency with the weapon, nor any instruction or test of knowledge of applicable laws. Still, we don't have an epidemic of crime committed by permit holders, and there's no good reason to expect that to change if those students who do have a permit could carry on campus. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)