Now hitting the political theatre by storm is Paul Ryan's "The Health Care Games."
Seemingly set in a post-apocalyptic America comes a horrendous tale in which a hostile government has taken-over and allowed a for-profit health care system leaving only well-to-do Americans the opportunity for necessary preventative care while the vast majority of Americans beg, borrow and steal for their health care.
"The Health Care Games" is the brain-child of Republican Paul Ryan who envisions a future in which we cut just as much from health care programs for the poor and disabled as he gives back in tax breaks for the wealthy.
In this destitute and depressing tale that Mr. Ryan envisioned we follow the lives of three main characters:
- Dolores, an 81 year old Alzheimer's sufferer who (when she remembers to) spends her free time shopping for affordable health care coverage that her social security will cover.
- Edwin, a 37 year old father of two and part time forklift operator who has just lost food stamp eligibility.
- Isabella, a four year old disabled pre-schooler who thanks to Ryan's cuts to Medicaid, must sell crack to seventh graders to cover her medical expenses.
Veteran budget-slasher Ryan has crafted a well-written tale, but the main antagonist (Ryan himself) is a person void of any real humanity and hard to relate to as a human being. The main antagonist, the young Isabella, is easy to warm up to as we find ourselves rooting for her survival as she wheels herself around her crumbling inner city school, trying to raise enough money for another operation on her legs as she sells crack, dope and black market skittles to the older children.
The supporting cast in this epic fight for health care survival is also well-acted - The seniors who tool around town looking for good insurance deals, driven by their grandchildren and helpful neighbors is painstakingly, but purposefully slow and realistic. And when Dolores meets an untimely doom due to health care complications that went un-treated because she couldn't afford the out-of-pocket expense after her Medicare allowance ran out is simply tear-jerking.
This film is sure to get a lot of attention this Fall during the Presidential election and I recommend familiarizing yourself with it, especially if Mr. Ryan is your "representative".
Bring tissue.
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/27/149456514/the-nation-paul-ryans-gift-to-america
http://www.epi.org/publication/paul-ryan-budget-cuts-taxes-for-rich/
What fifteen person panel of experts are you talking about? Under current Medicare, you and your doctor decide what treatment you get, within reason. Something like Cheney's heart is decided by a transplant committee, which has nothing to do with Medicare. I'd believe Paul Ryan gave three shakes about the future of Medicare if his plan weren't coupled with even more tax cuts for the upper brackets.
Hoffa is actually favoring the Rand Paul budget over the Paul Ryan budget - funny how you guys on the left are so willing to ridicule Ryan, and yet don't even mention Paul, but I digress. Typical of liberals - only criticisms but never offering any viable solutions!
To be sure, crony capitalism is bad but will not stop until a majority of citizens stop voting for candidates that promise to “bring home the bacon”. Yet that is exactly what you two (and President Obama) advocate. The problem with shoveling tax dollars at poor people is you only get more poor people and the pie shrinks relative to what it could be. People have to understand that they cannot get free money from the government. It is not sustainable. To help all citizens we need to allow the economy to grow, a lot.
And unlike you, I also believe health care is a right, not a privilege that only those with sympathetic employers are lucky enough to have. We should all have a VA-type universal health care coverage. It has over a 90% approval rating among vets. But it's all about your precious little property taxes isn't it? And let's look at West Germany, the Netherlands, and Finland - their Social Democratic economies are very strong.
**************************** I'll pass. I've dealt with the VA. If you have all day to do nothing but stand around waiting in line, if you don't mind having your prescriptions substituted with something similar because they no longer warehouse what you were taking, if you don't mind seeing a "physician's assistant" instead of a Doctor, if you don't mind risking being prescribed something that could kill you and that any first year medical student would know was contradicted based on medical history, hope for a VA-style medical plan. Unless the vets were doing a head-to-head comparison and were told to put aside cost as a consideration, I'm not sure I'd take that 90% approval rating to mean anything other than they were happy to be getting cheap healthcare.
Could I convince you to go along with Jason's VA idea if I told you that such a system would be fully integrated with and run by the Postmaster General? Think about it!
On the downside, limited office hours with threats of further reductions, elimination of facilities due to budget constraints and the ever-present fear of medical personnel going "postal". Overall, a wash. I'll stick with what I've got currently, thanks.
You better watch out - it appears as if Jason's twisted sense of humor is starting to rub off on you ;-)
Obviously, this doesn't concern you, other than the fact that you think that by forcing these folks into some sort of pool along with you and applying the penalties assessed against these companies to the cost of being in that pool, you'll be able to obtain health insurance for yourself. It's to your benefit if what I'm describing actually happens. I'm not sure it's going to work out that way, but I know that's what you're banking on.
Or are insurance companies using this as an excuse to raise rates yet again, in which case we should look at the insurance companies.
As I noted in the other thread, this was pretty much the concern expressed to me by that business owner that I spoke to today. He felt it was going to considerably add to his costs. A law that, all of the sudden, includes a significant portion of the population that wasn't included before is more likely to raise costs more significantly at a faster rate than do births, injuries, etc. that would expect to follow a pattern that's existed for years. Again, this is one example I'm using here. Swithin was the one who envisioned "several problems" with ACA. I'd be interested in hearing what those problems, specifically, are. If they're significant enough to result in people effectively being dumped into the ranks of the uninsured or that could potentially harm small businesses in some fashion, then, again, perhaps an imperfect ACA isn't better than nothing at all when one is looking at the total picture. The argument seems to be that something is better than nothing. We've had other "somethings" that were touted as being better than nothing that haven't necessarily turned out that way (McCain/Feingold being one of those). Nobody seems satisfied with ACA as is. The assumption those who support it seem to be making is that it will, eventually, force a move to something better. The question is who, ultimately, ends up paying the price for it's implementation in its imperfect form.
"The new Ryan budget is a remarkable document—one that, for most of the past half-century, would have been outside the bounds of mainstream discussion due to its extreme nature. In essence, this budget is Robin Hood in reverse—on steroids. It would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times (and possibly in the nation's history)." Ryan's budget proposes new tax cuts that would cost $4.6 trillion over the next decade while at the same time At the same time, he does not provide any details of how he would scale back the tax credits, deductions, and other preferences, known collectively as "tax expenditures" that the plan says it would use to finance those tax cuts. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/03/22/paul-ryan-budget-wont-solve-deficit-crisis
Just as tasteless and I could easily post some "facts" and "opinions" to back it up. The Patch is a joke.
You do realize that when individuals like me receive a refund check, that's also not "free money," right? It's the result of tax overpayment. I also use or know people who use a variety of government services. Highways, schools, IRS customer service hotline...all privileges of citizenship. Thank you for making these possible at a reasonable cost to me, Uncle Sam! I believe healthcare management to be a legitimate service of government because similar to highway usage it is a universal need. The current status of healthcare management as a for-profit industry ensures successful revenue generation/profit. The downside is that this industry's client market is a "hostage audience." The industry has been gamed so that individuals who have been without insurance for an extended period can be denied; as can those with pre-existing conditions. In many circumstances, new employees must wait 3 months for coverage, ensuring months of double payments. Taking the for-profit middleman out of healthcare would drive costs down.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/20/lie-year-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/ Just yesterday, the Chicago Tribune came out in support of it. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-medicare-0405-jm-20120405,0,3031715.story
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/20/lie-year-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/ Just yesterday, the Chicago Tribune came out in support of it. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-medicare-0405-jm-20120405,0,3031715.story
HEALTH WARRIORS© is a 3D virtual reality game in which players counterattack enemy forces who deny care to patients. Players use Sun Tzu strategies to defend their lives, individually and in collaboration with other players. Government-enforced eradication of Hippocrates’ doctrine to “first do no harm” to American patients destroys the doctor-patient relationship to ration health care and rip-off taxpayers.