Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > February > 12 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USTime to cap gas-guzzling programs
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Almost seven years later, the warning issued by state Sen. Eric Johnson (R-Savannah) when the 2000 General Assembly expanded eligibility for PeachCare is seen as prophetic:
“The money from Congress [for PeachCare] is sun-setted,” Johnson warned as the state Senate considered expanding the household income eligibility. “So once we have everyone addicted to free health care, we may have to take it away from them.”
Not to worry, said then-Senate Majority Leader Charles Walker, an Augusta Democrat now serving more than 10 years in prison on a variety of charges, including evading the federal income taxes he was confident would forever flow. “We’re confident President Al Gore will continue it,” said Walker. On such assurances, the bill passed 51-0 to expand eligiblity from about $34,000 for a family of four to about $40,000, or 235 percent of the federal poverty level at the time.
Similar assurances were given in 2003 when the state passed the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council indigent defense system — one of which was that the cost would be $60 million to $80 million per year when it was up and running in 2005. The costs to counties and the state for indigent defense have topped $100 million, notes state Sen. Preston Smith (R-Rome), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
A nightmare murder case that has yet come to trial in Fulton County reveals so many flaws in the system’s design that it would be irresponsible for the Georgia General Assembly to go home this year without fixing them.
Legal fees in the Brian Nichols case in Fulton County had topped $1.2 million by the end of December. Nichols’ three private lawyers — he also has a public defender assigned to represent him — are paid fees of up to $174 per hour. To cover a projected $9.5 million shortfall in the council’s budget, fees paid to private lawyers in other death penalty cases were cut from $125 to $95 per hour last month.
The Nichols case is alarming to legislators and others concerned about runaway costs for entitlement programs. If every judge can generate bills to be paid by taxpayers as he sees fit, it’s Katie bar the door. It’s not entirely certain, says state Sen. John Wiles (R-Marietta), that judges have that authority — but legislation to clarify that gray area is among a number of bills being introduced. “If there’s no accountability to the fund, if the state is a blank check, then why should you limit your costs at all?” asks Smith. “If the Brian Nichols case can generate 4,000 hours of legal fees, then why can’t the same thing be done in Gwinnett County or Telfair County? Pretty soon, people will have the right to an O.J. Simpson defense on the taxpayers’ dime.”
Wiles and Smith have introduced another bill that would move the indigent defense system from the judicial branch into the executive, largely to get a handle on future costs. Now, says Wiles, the judiciary’s budget is routinely added into the governor’s request and passed along to the General Assembly. It should be measured in the executive branch against competing needs, he argues. He and Smith think taxpayers are providing sufficient funds. “It’s not a funding issue; it’s an expenditure issue,” says Wiles.
Smith believes a structural problem exists “that is going to lead to an inevitable recurrence of the same situation” the public is seeing in the Nichols case. “Attorneys are bound by oath to zealously represent their clients,” he says. “Now you have the state … picking up the bill, whatever that bill would be.” In the past, in both the state and federal system, judges controlled fees and hours in providing defendants what was affirmed to be a “constitutionally reasonable defense,” says Smith.
Because judges managed fees, hours and cases, lawyers had incentive to move them along and to settle. That incentive is gone, or at least considerably diminished, in the new system. Case volume generates state funding. And in court, lawyers and judges are relatively free to run up the tab.
While the General Assembly’s attention is repeatedly drawn this session to matters of little import — Sunday beer sales, for example — it should not leave town without substantially capping the growth potential of two spending programs, PeachCare and the Public Defender Standards Council, that have the potential to spin out of control.
Jim Wooten is the associate editorial page editor.
Permalink | Comments (94) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Comments
By CJ
February 13, 2007 08:10 AM | Link to this
I apologize for straying off topic so early today Jim, but there’s breaking news about an extremely serious issue – the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea (DPRK). You might recall when in 1994, the anti-Semite appeaser, former President Carter, negotiated an agreement with North Korea in which they, North Korea, agreed to shut down their existing nuclear power plant and halt construction of other nuclear facilities. In exchange, the U.S. would provide them with 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil per year — temporary aid until light water reactors could be built to replace the energy lost from shutting down the nuclear facilities. Of course Carter’s brother in appeasement and “Poll Mold”, President Clinton, agreed to this blackmail.
However, the bad a$$ Republicans in Congress would have none of it. They held hearings. They verbally b#tch-slapped members of Clinton’s State department. They raised holy hell — as warmongers generally like to do. Although the fuel oil was delivered for a time, the Republican-led Congress deliberately delayed these shipments, thereby breaking the terms of the agreement (known as the “Agreed Framework”). This Congress also broke additional terms of the Agreed Framework by refusing to phase out economic sanctions as required. Of course, North Korea read the writing on the wall, and restarted its nuclear program after the United States broke the agreement.
Subsequently, President Bush takes office in 2001, and as we know, he decides to govern by reviewing Clinton’s actions and decisions and then doing the opposite. Hence, the six-party talks with North Korea (none of this bilateral crap) are implemented, and the U.S. is determined to give nothing until the DPRK behaves as Mr. Bush expects. While these fruitless talks carried on (and off, and on again), North Korea became more and more dangerous. I anticipated more of the same until Bush left office.
However, when you’re wrong, you’re wrong. To my surprise, over six years into his Presidency, it is reported that President Bush and the other parties have reached a tentative agreement with North Korea. What are the terms of this agreement, several bombs and at least one nuclear test later? That we and our partners will provide $400 million per year in aid (i.e. approximately 1,000,000 tons of heavy fuel oil) in return for a nuclear “freeze”. Issues having to do with with removing sanctions and normalizing relations are on the table for the disarmament phase of negotiations.
So, after all this time, President Bush has tentatively agreed to terms, in principal, similar to those previously negotiated by Jimmy Carter and agreed to by Bill Clinton. This agreement is far more vulnerable, however, because the disarmament and dismantling phase of the agreement, yet to be negotiated, can be extremely complex because of the nuclear advancements made by North Korea in recent years. It’s also more vulnerable because one of the primary parties to the agreement is presided over by Mr. George W. Bush.
With that said – consider yourself warned that those on the far right will begin to raise hell again. Don’t let them get you down though. Such wailing and gnashing from this crowd is frequently a sign of progress. As I’ve said before, we usually have to bring these guys kicking and screaming to the correct position. For the sake of nuclear disarmament, with a Democratic Congress in place, there’s no reason why we can’t do it again.
I congratulate President Bush on his belated pragmatism. I sincerely hope it sticks.
By Jeff
February 13, 2007 08:10 AM | Link to this
Well Mr. Wooten, on this one we agree again!
Smaller government IS better government!
By Curious Observer
February 13, 2007 08:33 AM | Link to this
Wooten delivers a typical simple-minded neocon “solution”: simply cap the costs.
Presumably, once poor children are capped out of Peachcare, they have a patriotic duty to die of disease or trauma. I suppose they will have made Bad Choices by choosing to be born into a poor family. They must take Personal Responsibility for those choices.
And presumably, once an indigent defendant is capped out of legal expenses, the state has met its duty of providing a constitutional defense. The constitution thus becomes defined by available money. And the quality of legal representation becomes defined by available appropriations and whatever $95 per hour will buy. No doubt these defendants deserve no more. After all, if they have been arrested and put on trial, they are automatically guilty, right? The rest is a mere charade.
It’s no wonder that the right wing is on a downward slide into quaintness. Whatever humanity once existed in the Republican and Libertarian parties departed the premises long ago. The American people have come to understand that fact. Smaller government is not better government; a smaller Republican party is better government.
By Jim's a Parrott
February 13, 2007 08:35 AM | Link to this
Yawn
Republicans good, Dems corrupt, godless heathens.
Free markets good, government the agency of the devil, intent on destroying humanity.
Mix up your play list a bit Jim. This one it a little predictable.
Yawn
By KP
February 13, 2007 08:37 AM | Link to this
CJ,
Thank you for the research and explanation. Congratulations President Bush for buying the same car for double the price.
By Jeff
February 13, 2007 08:45 AM | Link to this
CO:
It is NOT a neocon solution. I personally don’t believe the government should be paying for healthcare or legal defense for ANYONE (other than its own employees, but it does that as an “employer”, not “the government”), and I am FAR from a neocon.
By Mid-South Philosopher
February 13, 2007 08:48 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim,
What galls me to the core is the fact that the medical industry (not the doctors and nurses, but the corporatists who are running the hospitals and drug companies) can’t see the writing on the wall. Increasing health care costs (much of which, the justification for, is questionable at best) are causing more and more working poor, middle class, and even upper middle class to look more favorably at socialized medicine or national health care. When that tragedy comes, as come it surely will if the corporatists don’t “get a grip,” they will have no one but themselves to blame.
By Corky Cobb
February 13, 2007 08:49 AM | Link to this
I totally agree with Jim on Peachcare. Lets dismantle the whole thing.
Lets start with those low life’s in Gwinnett county. They have a higher enrollment than any other county by far. Then Cobb County, we have the next most.
Isn’t it just like those two county’s to be milking the system? Booth counties are known for their mooching anyway, (Grady and MARTA.)
Please Gwinnett and Cobb, call your Republican Reps and let them know we want this welfare to end. WE ARE REPUBLICANS.
Its up to your Republican Representatives to stop this giveaway to our Republican citizens.
And don’t give me that single parent routine. Just because John Smoltz can afford to get a divorce doesn’t mean everyone else can. Stop divorcing each other.
By Brian Curtis
February 13, 2007 08:54 AM | Link to this
I wonder how many people will be outraged that Brian Nichols even gets a trial, since he’s “obviously guilty” and should’ve been gunned down to save costs.
Just wait—I’m sure some boneheaded wingnut will make that very comment sometime today.
By Jeff
February 13, 2007 09:00 AM | Link to this
BC:
I won’t go so far as to say he should’ve been shot on sight no matter the circumstances, but I WILL say that had he presented any danger at ALL to the arresting officers, I wouldn’t have had a problem with them putting a 9mm round (or whatever caliber Fulton uses) between his eyes.
And yes, the dude is obviously guilty. We truly do need to go back to public executions minus the drawn out appeals process we currently have.
By DebbieDoRight
February 13, 2007 09:11 AM | Link to this
So, after all this time, President Bush has tentatively agreed to terms, in principal, similar to those previously negotiated by Jimmy Carter and agreed to by Bill Clinton. This agreement is far more vulnerable, however, because the disarmament and dismantling phase of the agreement, yet to be negotiated, can be extremely complex because of the nuclear advancements made by North Korea in recent years. It’s also more vulnerable because one of the primary parties to the agreement is presided over by Mr. George W. Bush
What do you expect of an incompetent president who can’t even eat a pretzel without killing himself? Everyday I’m more and more awed that people not only voted for him once, twice, but are PROUD of that fact!! Stupidity knows no boundaries…..
By DebbieDoRight
February 13, 2007 09:16 AM | Link to this
Wooten forgot to mention in his sermon from top of Mount See No Republican Evil and Hear No Republican Evil, that Peach Care was working just fine UNTIL Gooberner Sonny Do decided to CUT funding!!! Pesky little thing those facts are for republicans.
**Funding was cut for PeachCare By Sonny Do then he had to go begging to Bush for money, (who promptly said NO to the man who helped him to make Georgia a Republican state), now he has to go with his hat in his hand to a Democratically Controlled Congress!!! HA HAHAHAHA!! Ain’t payback a b!t#h; now every time he looks at that PeachCare emblem, he’ll know that his own party wouldn’t support his initiatives!! Ironic.
By JK
February 13, 2007 09:18 AM | Link to this
BC, I usually agree with you. In fact, I think you’re one of the smartest people on any of the AJC boards, and a welcome voice of reason amid the incredible arrogance, ignorance, and double standards of the “wingnuts.” But Nichols was in the middle of GETTING a fair trial when he shot the judge, the court reporter, and several other people. To apprehend him alive was a mistake, IMO, as he was still in the midst of a killing spree. I don’t care what stupid book that girl read to him; she was saving her own life. His should have already been over. This case is not about justice for all, and the best possible defense for poor people — I’m all FOR that, and for rectifying the inequities in our system with regard to poverty. By his own hand, Nichols waived his right to another trial, IMO. Sorry.
By jm
February 13, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this
Interesting that Mr. Wooten would view the sixth amendment (right to counsel) as an entitlement.
By Rod
February 13, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this
C’mon, this gets old. Jim - do you ever have a new thought? Your column today gets back to your old ideas - kill off the poor people.
Brian Nichols is a bad example (which is why you used it). When someone is charged with a henious crime, they need to defend themselves. If they’re poor, they need the public defender. Just because someone’s poor doesn’t mean they’re guilty of every crime that can be thrown at them. Jim’s solution is whenever someone poor is accused of something, give them a crappy lawyer and let them get convicted. If they can’t afford real legal defense, tough. Doesn’t matter if they’re innocent or guilty - just kill them or throw them in jail. They can rot to death for all Jim cares.
Jim, you’re a truly pathetic, bigoted individual.
By Renee
February 13, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this
JK (re your 9:18 post) - you missed the point. We all know Nichols is guilty. But, the bigger issue here is the right to competent defense when you’re accused of a crime - whether you’re rich or poor. Wooten believes only the rich (since he is one) are “entitled” to adequate defense. Those without money, he couldn’t care less about and doesn’t want to help them get a competent lawyer. Wooten used Nichols in this argument because he knew he could get the sheep to follow along with him. It’s known as pathetic journalism.
By Dennis
February 13, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this
Well, what’s new in today’s column?
Here we have another typical call from the neo-con right to cap medical spending on the less fortunate so that those who have been blessed can continue to be blessed. (But don’t forget, Folks, us neo-cons, we all go to church on Sunday and sing “Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight” until it comes to money).
And having said that, let’s see who’s first to respond and say that those who need this Peach Care are all bad decision makers, lazy, etc.
Somehow, in their view, uncontrollable circumstances seem to make no difference.
Give’em time. As soon as the neo-cons can get private control of the hospital/medical industry as they now have of the pharmacutical industry (the Bush drug program is a joke) we will have “universal medical coverage”.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Southern Democrat
February 13, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
My problem with the Nichols case is not the spending, it’s that DA Paul Howard and Georgians refuse to have him plead guilty to the possibility of life without parole. As I’m sure Jbmlaw will agree, the death penalty has proven time and time again to be a completely ineffective deterrent to crime and costs more to implement to taxpayers than a life sentence without parole. Why not make Nichols suffer in prison for the rest of his life, reflecting on the horrible acts he did instead of wasting our time and money talking about his case and then killing him in a much more humane way than his victims?
By I Hate Israel
February 13, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this
Yo CJ, why is everything in the world colored by you pro israel fanatics in terms of what is good for israel? You love israel, so for balance, I hate and despise israel and I sure as hell hope someone nukes it from the face of the earth. Stick that in your yulmuka, clown. Now get your filty jewish hands off my wallet, out of my government, and out of my life, you ffuucckking theif.
By Repubicans ARE the Problem in Health Care
February 13, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this
Treating Health Care as a business like Home Depote is the problem. There are too gawd damned many none medical types sucking health care dollars down their fat gready republican throats. Fire all the lawyers, MBA’s, MHA’s, MPA’s, and everyone else who does not directly treat patients.
By getalife
February 13, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this
Way to support low income children Jim.
Shame.
By JoeD
February 13, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this
As they say, bad cases make bad law. When you start changing the law to fit specific situations, you are asking for trouble. The same is true with the idea of a less than unanimous decision for the death penalty. If you are going to have the death penalty, keep the unanimity requirement. Sure, sometimes a deserving defendant will escape lethal injection, but better that than making it easier for the state to kill someone. The recent spate of releases of long held defendants who were found to be not guilty should be all the proof we need that the death penalty should not be given out willy nilly, as one of my profs used to say.
By Redneck Convert
February 13, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this
Wooten is 100% right on the money. We need to stop using our tax money to pay for doctor bills of the shiftless kids of Those People. I pay my doctor bills, why don’t they pay for theirs. If Those People find out they have to pay their own doctor bills they will stop having so many kids that will grow up to be libruls anyway. We will get our two House seats back.
This guy that kilt all the people just needs to be took out and shot. Don’t waist money on lawyers for him. We could use that money for other things, like helping people buy guns they could carry in their car or maybe making some 10 commanddmint plagues we could put up in public. Far as I’m concerned, if they get arrested they are guilty. They don’t need lawyers.
I think its awful for the libruls on this blog to bring up Sonny cutting the Peachcare budget in the 1st place. Whats that got to do with anything? It tells me everything I need to know about them to see them gloating about Sonny having to go with hat in hand to that Pelousy woman for more money. Its just like a spiteful librul to like something like that. And I’m sure my Presadint looked real sorryful when he told Sonny no.
Is TFTT in jail yet for murder? I ain’t seen nothing by him for two days now. I told you oncet, I told you twicet, he’s got some loose screws rattling around.
By Jeff
February 13, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this
Why do so many people insist on keeping the nanny-state that robs us of both our freedoms and our money????
Why should I have to pay for YOUR medical problems and YOUR legal problems? I’m a healthy, law abiding citizen!
By JK
February 13, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this
Renee at 10:27, I agree with you! As you point out, Wooten uses Nichols as an example to bolster his “poor people don’t deserve better” position. Of COURSE poor people suffer the inequity of a system in which money buys quality defense and all the rest can just s-ck it up and plead! Nichols is not a good example; therefore the “conservatives” will fling it at us daily to “prove” a point they can’t make legitimately. The system is NOT fair.
By jm
February 13, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this
The bill passed 51 - 0, sounds like a few republicans decided to vote for a “feel good, pro-family” bill without calculating the costs. Kind of like when people voted for the one/two/three strikes your out crime bills, without realizing how much it would cost to build the prisons to house all the new inmates they were creating.
On a positive note, I do agree with Mr. Wooten on one thing. I do not like open ended committments. I believe in specific goals with measurable results.
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
February 13, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this
Jeff @ 10.57,
Why should I have to pay for YOUR medical problems and YOUR legal problems? I’m a healthy, law abiding citizen!
Thats precisely what all the state and local governments were thinking when they (and you, via taxes) got tired of paying for smoking related illnessess for all those lifetime smokers who can’t afford health insurance.
Funny thing is though, all “ya’ll” cast those efforts as big government restricting smoker’s rights.
What they were really trying to do was limit governments’ exposure to indigent healthcare and reduce your taxes.
By Mike
February 13, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this
Jeff,
Responding, in part, to your 10:57: “Why should I have to pay for YOUR medical problems…”
Let me start by pointing out that you might not always be healthy. To give you one example based on many true stories — you or somebody you love could have an aneurysm or stroke, suffer brain damage and require a lifetime of medical care and rehab expenses. In such a situation, you’re likely to incur costs not covered by the insurance and/or run out of health insurance entirely (with severe injuries and health care inflation — it doesn’t take long to blow through a $1 million or $2 million dollar policy limit).
So what do you do? Probably what millions of hard working Americans have done. Take out a mortgage on their home (maybe you’ve already paid it off), use credit cards, file for bankruptcy or quite possibly lose everything you own and end up impoverished to qualify for Medicaid.
Many who benefit from Medicaid are former “its MY money” middle class individuals (and their families) who found themselves relying on taxpayer support because of those of us who have a sense of obligation to our fellow citizens and who also realize that many of us are where we are, in large part, because of luck and many of the less fortunate are where they are, in large part, because of circumstances beyond their control. We also realize that circumstances change, and it could be us —or worse — a loved one who needs help one day that exceeds the resources of our family.
By Brian Curtis
February 13, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this
JK: I disagree. Nobody can ever “waive their right to a fair trail,” not as long we claim to have a just system. We don’t convict and punish based on what’s “obvious,” no matter HOW obvious that becomes. We convict based on evidence in a fair hearing.
As soon as we start making exceptions, we have a huge tangle of legal problems and the notion of equality under the law—let alone “innocent until proven guilty”—gets undermined. Plus there’s the concern for giving law enforcement greater discretion in the use of lethal force. Sure, this time it might be against someone like Nichols—but what about next time?
By Van
February 13, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this
the 51-0 vote sounds like the State government like spending other peoples monies.
To be fair, when the State for Federal government starts making promises that it can’t keep, like funding for PeachCare, I get an uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach.
It is so easy for people to become dependent on government giveaways when the base is 235% of the federal poverty level. It would seem that it is cheaper for the working family of four to turn to the PeachCare folks instead of the health care, if it is offered, offered by their employer or private health care. Do not get me wrong, I think that there should be a basic level of health care available for anyone that is in need.
My problem is the governments spending other peoples money as if it was play money, a million here, a billion there - almost sounds like real money. If the state is going to provide a benefit to the citizens of that state, then they should have to fund it without depending on the federal teat.
On a different note, how much would it cost to have the state pay the premiums for basic health care on a group policy of 100,000 people versus a state agency to run and fund PeachCare?
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
February 13, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this
Van,
It’s a shame that Georgia doesn’t have a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican Governor that can make this state the conservative utopia that I keep hearing so much about.
Maybe one day…
By time for the truth
February 13, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this
Watching the leftist afterbirth screech and puke up their usual deranged hateful bollocks on here is absolutely freaking hilarious. Like poisonous robotic mentally constipated parrots these unthinking doltish marixt lite knuckle dragging scum vomit up their cretinous ludicrous witless bile like a demented vapid energiser Osama Obama klone on real bad multi-culti acid.
Nary an original thought in their precious global whining bollock brained puss filled heads. Mass compulsory euthansia for hate filled liberals whilst obviously enormously tempting for the good of all mankind would undeniably just be much too kind (and painless) an option and selfishly deprive free original thinkers like us noble visionary truly wise secular conservatives their daily entertaining unconfined larffs at the legions of sullenly bewildered Castro worshipping wankers posting their ritalin inspired imbecilic moveon.org speak.
By Running the Numbers
February 13, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this
I also want respond to Jeff’s question on why he should pay for somebody else’s healthcare. I’m going to take the financial approach because he seems to care about his own piggy bank more than he cares about children.
I imagine that even a cold-hearted “conservative” like Jeff would recoil if he saw on the news that hospitals were rejecting children because their families don’t have the means to pay for their care. Even the cruelest Americans aren’t usually that cruel.
So, in line with the values of most Americans…people from low-income families will have access to health care. The question is what is the least expensive way to provide it?
Of course, we also have the option of just letting people die in the streets, but I really do hope that Jeff wouldn’t stomach that.
So, consistent with the idea that “an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure”, the last option is the least expensive option for all of us. That’s one reason we need to move toward universal health care (public, private or some combination of the two). It’ll be cheaper for everybody in the long-run.
With that said, PeachCare is a truly conservative program since reducing eligibility, as Glenn Richardson is proposing in the state house, will ultimately be more expensive to all of us in the long-run.
By Joe L
February 13, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
“On a different note, how much would it cost to have the state pay the premiums for basic health care on a group policy of 100,000 people versus a state agency to run and fund PeachCare?”
Considering that government run programs are infinitely more efficient and cost effective than private insurance, probably more. The best healthcare programs in the country right now are Medicare and the VA which blow the doors off any private company.
Because despite the beliefs of pure capitalists that read way too much Ayn Rand in HS and apparently never acquired more advanced education, private industries have no incentive to excel when they have a product people can’t live without (well unfortunately 45M Americans are trying to live without it) or need instaneously and without foreknowledge.
By jm
February 13, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this
Since the theme seems to be wasteful government spending. Here is one for you: Debt and the Bush Budgets
Note: that this took place during an “economic expansion”.
By Van
February 13, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
Joe L,
Being the true capitalists, I find it hard to believe that a government agency is more efficient than the private market. I can not think of any efficient government plan. If, as you say the “Best” is Medicare and the VA hospitals then I am sure that Congress would adopt the same plan for themselves.
In a group plan I pay about $270 a month and receive excellent health care for myself and my wife. How much does it cost for PeachCare a month per person?
By CJ
February 13, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this
Yo, “I Hate Israel” at 10:37. Thanks for the kind note. FYI, I was being facetious when I called President Carter an anti-Semite.
By Dennis
February 13, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this
Mike@11:37 said, “Many who benefit from Medicaid are former “its MY money” middle class individuals (and their families) who found themselves relying on taxpayer support because of those of us who have a sense of obligation to our fellow citizens and who also realize that many of us are where we are, in large part, because of luck and many of the less fortunate are where they are, in large part, because of circumstances beyond their control. We also realize that circumstances change, and it could be us —or worse — a loved one who needs help one day that exceeds the resources of our family.”
A typical neocon only looks at what he has and anticipates having more. Bad luck can’t happen to them. (But the middle class is beginning to have less and less, isn’t it)?
Van said @11:46, “My problem is the governments spending other peoples money as if it was play money, a million here, a billion there - almost sounds like real money.”
Wouldn’t it be a shock if Mr. Wooten opposed our federal government borrowing from India, China or Japan and called on our federal government to live like responsible people do, within the federal budget? (Ah, but now that social security and medical care is a bigger and bigger issue, the neocons suddenly want accountability).
But as long as possible, put it off on poor decision makers….
Typical neocon attitude.
Running the numbers said @12:07, “I imagine that even a cold-hearted “conservative” like Jeff would recoil if he saw on the news that hospitals were rejecting children because their families don’t have the means to pay for their care. Even the cruelest Americans aren’t usually that cruel.”
The typical American doesn’t have investments.
And, as many of us have seen on t.v., taking those who can’t pay in a cab or ambulance and dumping them on skid row (cold weather not impending).
Let us pray the neocon prayer, “God, bless me, my wife, our son Jim, his wife, we four, no more.”
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By jm
February 13, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this
Van@12:27 - congress health coverage Congress is covered under the same plan as most federal employees. It is one of the best insurance plans in the country. The government takes care of its own.
By Joe L
February 13, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this
Van:”Being the true capitalists, I find it hard to believe that a government agency is more efficient than the private market”
Yes because the private market worked so well at the turn of the century when our country nearly was torn asunder by class warfare. The market is a wholly imperfect system for most of the important things in the world. It’s rarely proactive and nearly always reactive.
For instance there is virtually no market force for energy efficiency. It’s a “product” that REDUCES profit so therefore it has no market force driving it. This is exactly why the big business toadies in the right wing have no desire to push efficiencies but just alternative products (biofuel right now).
Here’s some info on not just the fact that government programs are the most efficient, but it also shatters most of the myths perpetuated by the neocons about health care.
“4 Myth: Commercial health insurance plans are more efficient than government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
In no other country is the cost of administration as high as it is here. The administrative costs of Medicare and Medicaid are much lower than those of commercial health insurance plans.”
http://www.pharmexec.com/pharmexec/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=401659
By Joe L
February 13, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this
Van:In a group plan I pay about $270 a month and receive excellent health care for myself and my wife.
BTW I’m assuming you mean in an employer plan and if that’s the case the PREMIUM for that plan is most likely $750-1000 NOT $250. That’s merely your contribution. The total premium is much higher and greatly subsidized by your employer. For the government to pick up the entire cost of the care provided by Peach Care through premium payouts to private insurance would be much, much more that the figures you are looking at.
Oh and that employer subsidy is a huge tax break which means that they dodge paying taxes that you and I have to make up so you are essentially paying for other people’s care right now.
By time for the truth
February 13, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this
CJ
Carter is also a proven racebaiter (from years ago). Read the factual account of Carter’s despicable 1970’s GA election flyers in the excellent book The Real Jummy Carter by Haward. Carter is clearly an anti-semite as he is now massively funded by jew hating arab fascists from the Gulf. He’s also increasingly senile and thus unable to mask his deep antipathy to Israel and support of arab terrorism.
@ I hate Israel.
are you some racist arab/mohammedan type or just a white nazi?
By jbmlaw
February 13, 2007 01:00 PM | Link to this
Good afternoon all. As Van suggests @ 11:46 Jim uses two examples to illustrate an old economic principle, “It’s easy to spend someone else’s money.” PeachCare is simply a program where people who have made poor life decisions insist on their right to rob those who did not make bad decisions. No surprise that the leftists support the robbery. The death rate for all remains 100%, and any diversion of public resources into health care reflects impaired judgment – the doctors do not deserve corporate welfare.
On the criminal defense issue, my opinion is influenced by my conflict of interest, and I will attempt to control for the corruption. I have accepted such appointments, but never for anything more serious than an arguable-armed robbery. I have never done a murder case, and I deem myself incompetent for murder. Nevertheless, the Nichols case sounds as if it suffers a peculiar extravagance. I cannot envision a defense of wrongful identification, nor one that suggests that no crime was committed; neither defense would pass the “straight-face” test. Nichols’ attorneys surely will simply present mitigation arguments, which normally should not require substantial investigation. I suspect they bought a couple of psychologists, to pursue a mental illness defense, but that should not have cost anything close to the amounts spent, nor should it have required three attorneys. Of course, I also wonder how much the government has spent since the capture, exluding the security costs associated with such a mad dog killer.
In a rational economic world, we would not restrict the practice of medicine or law to those people who have passed board or bar examinations; we would allow the free market to allow free entry and exit. Board certification could be a reasonable marketing point for practitioners. There is no moral justification for constricting the supply of service, which by economic coincidence serves to increase the incomes of the anointed suppliers. There should be no such thing as “prescription” drugs, but anyone should buy what they need from their neighborhood pharmacist.
By Joe L
February 13, 2007 01:13 PM | Link to this
Jbmlaw - I hope you are being sarcastic in most of your points. Because otherwise we should scrap all services and make them “market forces”. Get rid of the FDA. Get rid of the military, just have mercenaries that individuals can pay to defend their own personal property. Let’s just take a step back to the way things worked in the medieval Dark Ages - or the “good ol’ days” as conservatives like to call ‘em.
By Curious Observer
February 13, 2007 01:14 PM | Link to this
No private insurer would want any part of a policy that covered Peachcare- or Medicaid-eligible recipients. It’s a simple fact that health insurance includes a risk-based premium plus a “loading”—the portion that covers profit plus administrative expenses. Poorer insureds are high-risk, not only because of lifestyle but also because of their tendency not to maintain their health by making regular visits to a physician. Moreover, they are less likely to be able to engage in coinsurance. Poor risk = high premium.
In case you haven’t noticed it, private insurers engage in their business for a profit, whether they are mutual or stock insurers. They want their group policies to cover groups that include many very healthy individuals, so as to minimize claims.
There is no question that government-funded and operated plans are more cost-effective for low-income groups. Don’t look for insurers to be lining up to acquire the Peachcare and Medicaid clientele. The neocons may wish that private enterprise were more cost-effective in all instances, but it ain’t so.
By jbmlaw
February 13, 2007 01:15 PM | Link to this
Error correction: “wrongful identification” should have read “error in indentification.”
By jbmlaw
February 13, 2007 01:16 PM | Link to this
Sorry Joe L - deadly serious in all today. Government is useful in killing people, depriving people of freedom, and in stealing wealth; it is incompetent for any other purpose.
By retired vet
February 13, 2007 01:18 PM | Link to this
Joe L, try accessing the VA for health care and you might understand why it doesn’t blow the doors off of anything. If civilian care was rationed like VA care, people would scream bloody murder. How about an hour wait for a blood draw? Several months for a CT scan? What a great standard of care.
And of course government programs like Medicare have lower admin costs—-unlike private insurance companies, there’s no one trying to control costs of procedures. How about you add back in all the billions of dollars in fraud to that low cost?
By Joe L
February 13, 2007 01:20 PM | Link to this
Observer - It’s not just low-income people government operated plans work better period.
I can tell you personally from working within the health insurance industry for many years that insurers have begun collecting info on “healthy” and “unhealthy” zip codes and are dropping companies with too many employees in the “unhealthy” areas.
Of course neocons will just say that the poor choices those people made about their health mean that they should have no or poor access to healthcare. Nevermind that we are talking about hard-working, non-poor Americans with families. That’s just good “family values” to them!
By Joe L
February 13, 2007 01:28 PM | Link to this
Retired vet - My father is also a retired vet and receiving excellent care at no cost for a complete degenerative knee. The VA is currently the most advanced health system in America in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, medical records, etc.
Several months for a CT scan may have been appropriate care. If you didn’t need it now what’s the issue? Of course the same people who complain about “waiting line” issues like this think that giving you more health info will enable you to control your care when you are in an ambulance on the way to the hospital. Because god forbid you wait a couple months for a CT (for what if you don’t mind sharing) but you should have no issue holding off on the broken arm until you can look up the info on a website.
“And of course government programs like Medicare have lower admin costs—-unlike private insurance companies, there’s no one trying to control costs of procedures. How about you add back in all the billions of dollars in fraud to that low cost?”
Actually Medicare delivers more services per dollar. That has nothing to do with “controlling costs”. Also nearly every insurance company uses Medicare cost guidelines in determining physician paybacks. Medicare is the gold standard in determining the costs that you maintain costs more to “control”. I have seen the ridiculous waste of private insurers from the inside.
By jbmlaw
February 13, 2007 01:29 PM | Link to this
Dear Joe L @ 1:20, you cannot be serious: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110003735
and especially
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002696
By Joe L
February 13, 2007 01:33 PM | Link to this
Jbmlaw - Great points, if reality hasn’t proven you completely wrong. I have provided concrete proof that government frequently does things better.
So you support disbanding the FDA and having no government inspections or food inspectors? Let “market forces” decide right? So market forces might work - except for the 100 people who die from E. Coli. Oh well, acceptable losses right? And I’m sure you won’t mind when a factory moves right next to your house or a loud nightclub. I mean “market forces” will just dictate you move to another house. No big deal right?
You are right though, CONSERVATIVE government is great at denying people freedoms. Thank god we got rid of the legislative portion of that recently and the executive isn’t far behind.
And why stop there, why not disband the military, the police, fire departments, etc. If the private market is ALWAYS better then you should support these ideas.
By jbmlaw
February 13, 2007 01:33 PM | Link to this
Dear Joe L @ various times, you assert a moral right to make me pay for your doctor bills. If you employ the Feds to do your stealing, how do you differ from a mafia boss?
By Joe L
February 13, 2007 01:36 PM | Link to this
Jbmlaw - Talk about non-sequiturs. The first column has about zero to do with this discussion and the second barely more. You would toss a supermodel out of bed because you found a freckle. Pointing out the flaws and extreme cases of a system does not invalidate the entirely nor mean that the alternative is better.
This is exactly along the lines of the bad journalism Wooten did above with Nichols.
By JK
February 13, 2007 01:37 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis, if I’m ever in a legal jam, will you defend me?
By retired vet
February 13, 2007 01:46 PM | Link to this
Joe L, if your daddy is happy, great. Waiting several months for a CT scan that’s related to something like a heart murmur is probably appropriate, but the fun factor just isn’t there while you’re waiting. Changing or losing a job due to insane wait times and scheduling is part of the hilarity of interaction with the VA.
Efficent, effective, etc. depends on your definition of those words. Part of the efficiency is a limited drug formulary, rationing of care, and other cost-cutting measures.
By the way…Did it ever occur to you that health care is so expensive BECAUSE government is so deeply involved?
By time for the truth
February 13, 2007 01:46 PM | Link to this
more scientific FACTS for the global whiners to choke on or just smugly ignore like a demented alBOre slumlord incessantly choking the skies with a Pelosibitch sized plane.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
By jbmlaw
February 13, 2007 01:57 PM | Link to this
Dear Joe L @ 1:36, I am comfortable asserting that only you find government control of your life as seductive as a super-model
By KR
February 13, 2007 01:58 PM | Link to this
I’m middle class, so I don’t qualify for Indigent Defense funds. Therefore I will get the best defense my money can pay for. After that, I’m out of luck.
I agree that indigent people should be provided legal counsel, but can someone please explain why Nichols rates a public defender and THREE private attorneys?
By jbmlaw
February 13, 2007 01:59 PM | Link to this
Dear JK @ 1:37, you are the only leftist on this blog with half a brain (and that is no slam - you have a full brain.) I also think Brian Curtis would be an effective criminal counsel.
By Joe L
February 13, 2007 01:59 PM | Link to this
Jbmlaw - Do you pay all your medical costs out of pocket? Because if you don’t, you are paying someone else’s bills. It’s called sharing cost to diminish it and it’s how all group plans work. But of course you are a typical self-centered egocentric conservative that can’t see past your nose and what small events you can perceive as affecting you.
I’m am asserting a right for my money to be used to create a system that I can use for free to access a necessary and efficient service. That has nothing to do with your sad assertions about paying my bills. But it’s small lies like that that allow selfish people like yourself to make it through the day.
By r
February 13, 2007 02:00 PM | Link to this
Afternoon all,
Jbmlaw, nice to see you’re ever the wild and crazy libertarian….
Seems as though lots of folks are absolutely obsessed with “their” money (hard working taxpayers that they are), I thought it might not be a bad idea to actually take out your money and look at it. I’ll wait….
That funky phrase, E Pluribus Unum, is actually not a misprint. As you know, it means “out of many, one.” The general sense then, and now, is that we stand a much better chance of making it through this thing called life if we, from time to time, pool our efforts and work together.
Enough with the kumbaya moment, and on to addressing your point. Unfortunately, quasi-anarchy (which is what you ultimately seem to espouse) seldom works in a household. I imagine the result would be even worse if applied on a national or even global scale.
As with any other field of human endeavor, competence (or lack therein) within government is a function of the abilities, priorities and available resources of the people who direct it (elected officials and ultimately the electorate), work within it, and receive services from it. PeachCare represents an effort to provide necessary services to children who would otherwise go without health care. But as “compassionate conservative” is an oxymoron at best, let’s remove any sense of nobility from the equation. Sick kids become even sicker adults. Treating a small cough today is better than an indigent with bird flu or tuberculosis exposing larger portions of the population to disease and using up substantial hospital resources tomorrow.
The thing about being a grown-up is that you have to look at long term impact, instead of what’s merely happening today. While in law school, I ran into any number of hyper-conservative dot-commers who, living in their mom’s basement, considered themselves bootstrap conservatives with no regard for sharing resources. After the bottom fell out, many of them changed their minds, often while standing in line to get their unemployment check. Unfortunately, it seems more conservatives will have to get sick without insurance coverage to understand the value of spreading risk and sharing common burdens.
By Joe L
February 13, 2007 02:06 PM | Link to this
Retired vet - If you are getting a CT scan for a heart mumur something is SERIOUSLY wrong as that is not an appropriate diagnostic. So the point is that you made that up out of thin air and it’s not based on anything concrete right?
So I see you are falling victim to the American belief that more money always gets you something better. Not true at all. And I hate to break it to you, but nearly all medical plans in the U.S. use exactly the things you are talking about like formularies, limited care options, etc.
HA! Government has NOTHING to do with inflated health care costs. Man you are completely bamboozled by the corporatists who are stealing your money while you defend them the whole time.
Not to mention on of the biggest issues with the VA is not process but FUNDING! And who has continually cut that funding, nobody else but the neocon corporatists’ boy Dubya.
By Joe L
February 13, 2007 02:12 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw - I would rather have the government of the people, by the people, and for the people “controlling” essential services than greedy profit-minded corporatists that would rape you over for another dollar. Don’t think you are “free” my friend, anarchy is the only true freedom. Anything else is measured gains against losses. You are more controlled than I will ever be and the sad part is you believe you are free.
By jbmlaw
February 13, 2007 02:15 PM | Link to this
Dear r @ 2:00, if I read your post correctly, you assert a moral right to steal my money to pay for whatever you deem appropriate? That if I disagree, I am to squashed like a bug? Is that not the core defect of socialism?
By jbmlaw
February 13, 2007 02:19 PM | Link to this
Dear Joe L @ 2:12. You tolerate my freedom only until it becomes inconvenient for you. I support your freedom even when it is not in my personal best interest to do so. That is the ultimate distinction between a leftist and a libertarian.
By jbmlaw
February 13, 2007 02:25 PM | Link to this
Dear r @ 2:00, on re-reading your post, maybe I over-read. How do you feel about charity as an alternative to government. I have no reservations endorsing truly voluntary contributions, but I oppose theft. Do you define charity as “quasi-anarchy?”
By Duke
February 13, 2007 02:31 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw —
You assert a moral right to steal my money to pay for whatever you deem appropriate. I’m against the war in Iraq, and I wish Congress would cut off funding. You support it and want funding to continue.
Just one example of your hypocrisy.
By Joe L
February 13, 2007 02:31 PM | Link to this
Hey jbmlaw if you have a problem with joining with other Americans in our elected government to decide that which OUR money should be spent on that you start your own nation and provide for all your needs independently. Otherwise all your hypocritical and self-righteous talk about YOUR money is just that - talk.
No far from it, I’m the one who will pick you up when you fall. YOU are the one who will spit on the downfallen and step over them. THAT is the difference between my freedom and yours.
You apparently don’t support my freedom to decide what our government does. That my friend is not libertarianism, it’s fascism. A pig by any other name.
By Joe L
February 13, 2007 02:33 PM | Link to this
Oh and jbmlaw since you “oppose” “theft” I suppose you don’t pay taxes, don’t use roads, don’t seek police or military protection right? Otherwise you just have hollow ideals.
By Dennis
February 13, 2007 02:35 PM | Link to this
By jm February 13, 2007 12:40 PM said, “Van@12:27 - congress health coverage Congress is covered under the same plan as most federal employees. It is one of the best insurance plans in the country. The government takes care of its own.”
Most people have forgotton, but during the three debates between Kerry and GWB, Kerry said several times that he thought all Americans should have health care equal to that of Congress - to which GWB NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED THE TOPIC.
A typical neocon stance.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By rarringt (was "r")
February 13, 2007 02:46 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
“Moral right.” “Steal.” “Squashed.” Such colorful language. I’m surprised we haven’t met at some bar function.
Taxation isn’t stealing. It’s paying for a share of the expenses of running a sophisticated society of 300 million allegedly independent minded folks. But you know that.
What I deem appropriate is not unilateral free spending, but the judicious expenditure of said taxes to support, improve, and promote said society. You knew that, too.
Any worthwhile endeavor must have aspects of capitalism and socialism to it. This nation is, by design, a capitalists dream. At the same time, many of the same architects of modern america realize the need for certain social nets, especially where children and the elderly are concerned. That you probably know, just disagree with.
Pure large-scale socialism subverts innovation, while pure capitalism has the hyper-Darwinist effect of undercutting progress by promoting a permanently disenfranchised underclass.
In English, that means that your theory of a capitalist utopia is just that - a dream for a land/society that doesn’t (and won’t) exist.
By Joe L
February 13, 2007 02:52 PM | Link to this
“Pure large-scale socialism subverts innovation, while pure capitalism has the hyper-Darwinist effect of undercutting progress by promoting a permanently disenfranchised underclass.”
Couldn’t have said it better. Of course the concept of anything that’s not black and white escapes too many.
By retired vet
February 13, 2007 03:05 PM | Link to this
Joe L, of course I made that up out of thin air, I’m not old enough yet to assume everyone around me wants to hear constant updates and details of my health.
I totally agree that more money doesn’t equal better health care. But you then negated your own statement by saying the problem with the VA is lack of funds. More money to pay more lazy VA employees to stand around the hospital halls and socialize amongst themselves…oh,that will improve patient care! You’re brilliant Joe!
Oh, and since I now have civilian health care through insurance the “greedy corporate minded capitalists” have provided me with far better health care than the Government of the people, by the people. I can work now, instead of hanging around the VA all day long.
Do you want to tell me more about the workability of a system where I have been a participant and you haven’t? Blogs are full of people who will tell you all about how your life is, aren’t they? And you’re just one of them, Joe.
By Lake Sinclair
February 13, 2007 03:08 PM | Link to this
I know of a real cash guzzler that ought to be capped. To date almost $1 trillion spent and no end in sight.
By catlady
February 13, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this
Please explain how the cut-off line for Peachcare went from $34000 to $48000 in 6 years!? I sure did not experience a $14000 increase in my pay. What started out as, perhaps, a good help for “working poor” was expanded into a benefit for middle class voters, it seems like to me. Each family should have to live within its means and prioritize its spending, IMHO. So if our state leaders got “generous” with the money, maybe they should reap the “benefits” of voter wrath when the benefits are cut. I would like to know at what level the other states receiving this money draw the line? 200?% 150%? of the poverty level? Are we out of whack with the states that are not running out of money? I am not for anyone being without health care, but at some point personal responsibilty and planning should be expected. At what point is Medicaid lost?
By Filster
February 13, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this
In the interest of encouraging rabid diatribes and mindless rantings, I want to address the issue of whether it is morally correct to steal from one to pay for what another deems correct. An excellent example of such a dilemna, and one that should be on the intellectual level of many who blog here, is found in the animated cartoon Frosty the Snowman. Certainly y’all recall how frosty hitched a ride (trespassing, breaking and entering, unjust enrichment) on a train to carry poor frostbitten little Karen South to warmer climes. Was he justified in doing so. Let the discourse begin!
By Joe L
February 13, 2007 03:16 PM | Link to this
“Do you want to tell me more about the workability of a system where I have been a participant and you haven’t?”
Actually I have been a participant since my father was a career soldier and most of my childhood was spent on military installations.
And I will take actual studies and evidence over slight (and in your case manufactured) anecdotal evidence. Nevermind that various publications and research groups have proven that the VA has the best and most effective model of any hospital systems in America today. So you may not be as much wrong as you just don’t appreciate how bad the rest of the system is. The VA was in shambles just 10 years ago, so you may also be biased based on the poor conditions that did in actuality exist in the near future. Again the process in place today is one of the best, but that is no good without the money to find it properly. I see you conveniently ignore this quite important fact.
By jbmlaw
February 13, 2007 03:17 PM | Link to this
Dear r @ 2:46, I do support charities; I know most leftists do not, preferring the involuntary nature of government to compel contribution to their unattractive pet projects. And on the personal matter, if we ever attended a bar function together – I don’t go to many - you would not even notice me; I am a wallflower and leave all social events as early as possible, preferring family to public.
To the substance of your post: taxation may or may not be stealing – I suppose the “involuntary removal of property from one by another by means of threat of deprivation of freedom” is more like “extortion” than “stealing,” but for most of our fellow bloggers that is a distinction without a difference. Of course the “theft” is the gasoline that feeds Leviathan. I think “running a sophisticated society,” as a euphemism for government is comparable to “evening companion” as euphemism for prostitution – does not change the nature of the activity.
To focus my point, at any time any society is moving toward more freedom (as most of the eastern bloc since the 1990s) or away from freedom (e.g., Russia during the Bush administration.) Where you are on the continuum is not irrelevant, but the direction you are headed is more important; which direction do you wish to go? Those who fear the rabble tend toward more control; those comfortable with the common folk tend to favor less government.
By rarringt (was "r")
February 13, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this
The question, Filster, is handling the equitably redistribution of the benefits realized through his magic hat….
Happy Birthday! :^)
By jbmlaw
February 13, 2007 03:22 PM | Link to this
Dear r @ 2:46, I am a bit more assertive on the evil of collectivism after reading Edmund Phelps essay yesterday, Entrepreneurial Culture: Why European economies lag behind the U.S. Mr. Phelps, a professor at Columbia University, is the 2006 Nobel Laureate in economics. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009657
By Joe L
February 13, 2007 03:24 PM | Link to this
” suppose the “involuntary removal of property from one by another by means of threat of deprivation of freedom” is more like “extortion” than “stealing,” but for most of our fellow bloggers that is a distinction without a difference.”
Actually THEFT would be using roads, fire services, police, military, health inspections, clean air and water without paying appropriate recompense. So unless you have a private army, roads, security, and grow your own food you are talking out of your derriere yet again.
Actually if you favor the common folk you would support a representative government over a plutocracy. Again you have it arse backwards.
By rarringt (was "r")
February 13, 2007 03:40 PM | Link to this
Hmmm,
Actually, as I’m more “leftist” than many on the blog, let me state that I do support charities. They are, however, not a substitute for government. As much as folks in New Orleans appreciated the Red Cross helping to rebuild after Katrina, what would have been more helpful were those 21,000 troops sent to help rebuild Baghdad.
To your point of taxation. It is not involuntary. By your continued presence on american soil, you acquiesce and ratify through your participation our system of taxation.
Were you to go somwhere else, I’m sure their tax collectors would be happy to educate you on their various methods of cost sharing as well. We may gripe, however righteously, but in general, we get a pretty good bang for our buck from our “governmental lady of the evening.”
That, my friend, is a difference without a distinction.
Your “continuum of freedom” argument is an interesting one. I would posit that absolute freedom is ultimately illusory. People don’t run towards freedom, they run towards security and organization.
That explains Madisonian democracy. And the Bolsheviks, as well as the Nazis. The one thing they all had in common was structure. What differentiated them was the extent to which people were willing to sacrifice liberty at the altar of an ordered society.
It really has little to do with being comfortable with the “rabble,” to use your word. Your “continuum” is really about fear, namely whether a society is willing to either master or be manipulated by it.
By sagegirl
February 13, 2007 03:47 PM | Link to this
For years, insurance and drug companies have decided who can live and who should die by raising premiums and prices to levels only the upper middle class to wealthy can afford…
and now the state is making a simular choice. All because of selfishness and greed. Let’s be real here — some children are simply not as fortunate as others.
I wonder if those who voted 51-0 and making such decisions for these precious children have ever had to go to bed without a meal and went to school without another… or heard —“No. We can’t go to the doctor” when they were sick. I wonder why they’re taking their social agendas out on the innocent. The children. I wonder what these children ever did to them… And I wonder how they manage to sleep at night.
By Joe L
February 13, 2007 03:53 PM | Link to this
Sagegirl - While I agree with much of what you said, we should be clear that this program is for children not covered by plans like Medicaid which treat the poor. It’s for the working poor or lower middle class that struggles to pay for adequate health care.
By retired vet
February 13, 2007 03:59 PM | Link to this
Joe, you’ve been a retired vet since childhood? Hm. I’m not talking about the military medical system, I’m talking about the VA system. But you conveniently ignore that fact.
Oh, research groups and reports. I can easily assemble 500 Bush advisors who say we’re winning the war in Iraq and just need to stay the course. And where are all these research groups? Standing in line at the VA pharmacy? I wish they had appeared when the pharmacist gave me the wrong prescription, then argued that it was correct, never mind that it was something that could have given me a fatal drug intraction. And no, that’s not made up. I have never had such an experience with any CVS. They’ve made mistakes, (rarely) but they didn’t refuse to correct them, and literally hid behind bulletproof glass. Those research groups sure aren’t using the computer-questionaire setup in said pharmacy, as it broke down after about 2 months and sat gathering dust ever afterwards.
So, the VA was in shambles 10 years ago, what makes you think it’s so great today? Or that it won’t be in shambles 10 years from now? I doubt those vets will appreciate the fact that 10 years ago everything was peachy keen—-according to the experts.
By Duke
February 13, 2007 04:14 PM | Link to this
retired vet,
The thing about authentic “research groups” is that they use scientific methodologies to conduct their research. They do not seek out those who provide the answers they seek — as in the bogus example you provided (“I can easily assemble 500 Bush advisors who say we’re winning the war in Iraq…”). We all know how much the Bush administration (and many of their supporters) hate science, but I thought I’d make the point anyway.
By retired vet
February 13, 2007 04:30 PM | Link to this
I think you hit the operative word “authentic”. I do see the value in actual data provided by valid research versus someone ranting on a blog. But there are plenty of research groups that exist to provide evidence to think tanks that are right or left wing. Or research that says peanuts are great for you that’s funded by the Peanut Growers of America. Or the entire Bush Administration, which you have so thoughtfully pointed out. I swear, if they produced a study saying the sky was blue I’d look outside to check. I’m not surprised that there are reports that the VA is so much better, if the Bush administration is studying itself.
And there’s also the idea that the VA being better is subjective. Having a computerized record system is better. Having lazy, untrained employees messing with them, and doctors who don’t know how to use or access them doesn’t necessarily mean better medical care.
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
February 13, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this
Retired Vet,
Let’s hear your suggestions on how to fix the VA’s health services.
I’m guessing that it involves private enterprise…so I’m interested to hear how the government sending huge sums of money to private contractors who have a proven record of lying, cheating and stealing will be better than the government giving huge sums of money to incompetent bureaucrats who aren’t qualified enought to find employment in the private sector lying, cheating and stealing.
And btw, there are plenty of people out there in HMOs who have to sit around just as long waiting for a doctor as you might have in a VA.
By Joe L
February 13, 2007 04:54 PM | Link to this
“I do see the value in actual data provided by valid research versus someone ranting on a blog”
Which is why I’ll trust the reams of data coming from numerous sources over your ranting. Oh of course only I’m ranting right? I know neocons keep trying but you can’t have it both ways.
When the VA was brought up you made up some scenario which was based solely on fantasy. Do you know how many incidents like the one you mentioned happen in every hospital every day? Way too many. So as I pointed out, you may not necessarily be wrong as much as you are not aware how bad our entire medical system is broken.
And how can you acknowledge that it was recognized how bad the VA system was 10 years ago and then act like it was not recognized? One of the reasons the system is better in the VA hospitals is that they scrapped much of the system and re-built it a much better way.
By Bart C, the man
February 13, 2007 05:12 PM | Link to this
“So tax cuts work? Since we cut taxes a second time in 2003, we’ve added 7.4 million new jobs. Tax cuts equaled new jobs.” — Dubya, who knows he’s lying
Bush borrowed from the Saudis to cut taxes for the super rich. He claims 7 million new jobs - over six years.
Clinton raised taxes on the super-rich and created 24 million new jobs. Bush wants you to think 7 is greater than 24.
Maybe for the faith-based, that’s a fact. For the rest of us, 24 beats 7 and Clinton didn’t force us to repay the Saudis.
By retired vet
February 13, 2007 05:34 PM | Link to this
Cherry Picker, that’s funny! And yes, I think more private contractors swindling us would be better than VA dregs getting paid for doing nothing. At least I wouldn’t have to dodge the private contractors as they clog the hallways. The swindling and cheating with privatization takes part at the top levels, and at least that way I’m more likely to deal with a competent employee.
Come to think of it, the doctors at the VA who are Emory or other hospital docs are the compentent ones. They’re contracted by the VA. Seeing a physician employed directly by the VA is scary.
Joe, I’m a neocon? Sorry, I don’t worship at the Bush altar. And I didn’t say I wasn’t ranting, I was simply acknowledging why someone would trust a published study more than me, since I could be anyone from Bill Gates to the guy who fixed your toilet last week. But I do think if you sit around and blather about studies you’ll end up one of those 500 dummmies I mentioned earlier who think we’re winning in Iraq. Go actually take a look at what’s happening, dude.
I have had incidents with private hospitals, pharmacies, and doctors. All systems are imperfect, and all humans make mistakes. But at the VA I encountered an astounding amount of incompentence and screw-ups, and way longer wait times than anywhere else.
To top it off, to get any problem corrected is near impossible. Correcting mistakes in my private health care is no picnic, but it’s a lot easier than at the VA. The system may have been re-built, but it still has the basic flaws that are part of a huge socialized medical system.
By Debbie
February 13, 2007 05:59 PM | Link to this
retired vet is clearly among the crowd that dismisses any information that doesn’t support their pre-absorbed conclusions.
A study shows that most patients are satisifed with the V.A.?
“Unlike me, those people are subjective. Those results indicate that the study was conducted by a Communist organization. Government is bad. Socialized medicine is bad. I don’t care how much people like their Medicare coverage and hate their HMO.”
By pattybeth
February 15, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
What a d_. Totally predictable, like his boy Bush - let’s balance the budget by screwing poor sick kids. God has a special reserved box suite in hell for these guys. They say a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged? Well, a liberal is a conservative who’s been downsized at age 50. If you’ve spent your lifetime “playing by the rules” and taking “personal responsibility” for yourself and achieving success after years of work … but got reamed by corporate America and now are scraping by on temp jobs, have two kids and pre-existing conditions, good luck finding health insurance, much less paying for it on 40K per year. You can consider yourself screwed. I now work three jobs to make ends meet. My husband had to drop me and the kids from his company’s insurance to pay the mortgage. Now our son’s running a high fever for the 5th day and the doctor says he needs expensive tests. My dream would be for Bush & Wooten, Hannity and Co. to wake up tomorrow with sick kids or their own health problems, without resources, family connections or a penny to their names, and try surviving a month or two with only their platitudes to sustain them. Let’s hear the responsibility speeches then. If you’re an a-hole, just admit it - don’t use the cowardice of an idealogical construct to justify yourself.