Jump to content

Awesome


BengalBacker

Recommended Posts

Our system of government [b]IS[/b] desigend for a well educated populace.


Meanwhile....

Your Gov. Kasich said he would give more money to under performing schools and schools in higher income areas wouldn't see much increase. Well, Avon Lakes, Ohio, very wealthy area, gets a 84% increase in their budget.

He also said something very interesting, that when a person is more educated is less likely to be a person you have to pay to be on welfare or have to "protect" yourself from.

Seems to me I've been saying something similar for a while now....but hey we need to focus on the deficit and we have to cut these types of programs to help that right?


The rest of his ideas arent nessasarly biblically based, just republican.

Here is one for you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czs6EeAGCuI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course there is the topic of Jubilee...


[b] It Shall Be a Jubilee Unto You [/b]

Every complex society has a dilemma to solve—wealth and power tend to concentrate until the divide between haves and have-nots threaten the social fabric. Some Native American cultures have massive give-aways (potlatches) in which the giver is honored and all benefit from the largesse. The prophets of the Old Testament also cried out for redistribution


by [url="http://www.yesmagazine.org/@@also-by?author=Michael+Hudson"]Michael Hudson[/url]
posted Sep 30, 2002

Agrarian life is full of risks: drought, flooding, infestation, and other natural disasters, capped throughout antiquity by wars. Farmers must often borrow to get themselves through the lean months, while hoping that nothing prevents them from bringing in crops that will allow them to repay their debts. In ancient times, failure to repay loans could cost farmers their land, possessions, enslavement of family members, or their own freedom. For millennia, the problem confronting rulers was how to prevent the destabilization that occurs when large portions of the population are forced off the land or into debtor's prison for failure to repay loans.

[left]And so there developed throughout the ancient Near East a tradition of clean-slate edicts, which “proclaimed justice” or decreed “economic order” and “righteousness” by canceling debts and restoring forfeited land to farmers. Clean-slate proclamations date from almost as early as the first interest-bearing debt, starting in Sumer around 2400 years BCE. Eventually, the tradition became known as the Jubilee Year, but by that time it was taken out of the hands of kings and placed at the core of Mosaic law.[/left]

[left]Radical as the idea of the Jubilee seems to modern eyes, these “restorations of order” were a conservative tradition in Bronze Age Mesopotamia for 2,000 years. What was conserved was self-sufficiency for the rural family-heads who made up the infantry as well as the productive base of Near Eastern economies. Conversely, what was radically disturbing in archaic times was the idea of unrestrained wealth-seeking. It took thousands of years for the idea of progress to become inverted, to connote irreversible freedom for the wealthy to deprive the peasantry of their lands and personal liberty.[/left]

[left]The clean-slate tradition was so central to Israelite moral values that it framed the composition of both the Old and New Testaments. Yet so far has the modern idea of market efficiency and progress gone that today, although the Bible remains our civilization's defining book, its economic laws are rarely taken seriously. The Ten Commandments and Golden Rule have become so dissociated from the economic legislation of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy that whoever takes these laws in earnest is considered utopian and anachronistic. Yet these laws formed the take-off point for Jesus upon his return to Nazareth's synagogue and for his denunciation of the money-changers who had taken over Jerusalem's temple. As recently as medieval Spain, the tradition of the Jubilee Year was kept alive by the Jewish sages Maimonides and Ibn Adret. To dismiss these laws is thus to remove much of the Bible from the context of its times.[/left]

[left]Laws that periodically canceled debts, freed Israelite debt-servants, and returned lands to their traditional holders have confused Biblical students for centuries. They have long been virtually ignored by historians on the ground that, to modern eyes, they would seem to wreak economic havoc.[/left]

[left]Recent discoveries of Bronze Age Near Eastern royal proclamations dating from 2400 to 1600 BCE leave no doubt that these edicts were implemented. During the Babylonian period they grew more elaborate and detailed, capped by Ammisaduqa's Edict of 1646 BCE. Now that these edicts are understood, the Biblical laws no longer stand alone as utopian or other-worldly ideals; they take their place in a 2,000-year continuum of periodic and regular economic renewal based on freedom from debt-servitude and from the loss of access to self-support on the land.[/left]

[left]The revolutionary Israelite contribution to the tradition was its removal from the hands of rulers to become a sacred popular compact, to be preserved by the Israelites in memory of the fact that they had once been enslaved and must never again permit economic oppression to develop. The Israelites are portrayed as having made a covenant to protect the economically weak by holding the land as the Lord's gift to support a free rural population: “Land must not be sold in perpetuity, for the land belongs to me, and you are only strangers and guests. You will allow a right of redemption on all your landed property,” and restore it to its customary cultivators every 50 years (Lev. 25:23-28). Israelite debt-slaves likewise were to go free periodically in the Jubilee Year, for they belonged ultimately to the Lord, not to any person (Lev. 25:54).[/left]

[left]The Bible is a unique composite, embedding ritual traditions and laws of social behavior in a dramatic context of stories and legends intended to appeal to the widest possible audience. This popularization was greatly aided by the spread of alphabetic writing, which made documents accessible to the population at large, in contrast to cumbersome syllabic cuneiforms prevalent prior to the first millennium BCE. But the great innovation was to democratize liturgical texts that earlier Near Eastern societies had restricted to temple priesthoods. Deut. 31:10 directs that the laws be read aloud publicly every seven years, in the year of canceling debts (shemitta), so that all the population would know they were to be freed from bondage.[/left]

[left]Jesus later sought to restore the archaic ethic by overturning the banking tables in Jerusalem's temple and preaching anew the promise of Jeremiah to proclaim equity and liberty (deror) throughout the land. Indeed, it was specifically on this principle of restoring freedom to debt-slaves and unburdening the land that Christianity elaborated its ideas of redemption. In addition to redeeming souls, early Christians redeemed their co-religionists from worldly bondage. When Handel staged the first performance of his Messiah in Dublin in 1742, it was no coincidence that the proceeds were used to free debtors from prison. For thousands of years, redeeming people and land from debt was the primary and most concrete form of redemption. Indeed, when Christians pronounce “Hallelujah,” they repeat the ritual term alulu, chanted upon the freeing of Babylonian debt-slaves.[/left]

[left]Echoes of the doctrine can also be heard in American tradition. The Liberty Bell in Philadelphia is inscribed with a quotation from Leviticus 25:10: “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land, and to all the inhabitants thereof.” The Hebrew word translated as “liberty” is deror, cognate to the older Akkadian andurarum—to move freely as running water, as freely as debt-slaves liberated to rejoin their families. The full verse in Leviticus speaks of freeing debt bondsmen and freeing the land from debt generally:[/left]
[left]
“Hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land and to all inhabitants thereof; it shall be a Jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his family.”[/left]
[left]Rome was the first society not to cancel its debts. And we all know what happened to it. Classical historians such as Plutarch, Livy, and Diodorus attributed Rome's decline and fall to the fact that creditors got the entire economy in their debt, expropriated the land and public domain, and strangled the economy.[/left]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me say, I fucking love this idea:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/07/dr_benjamin_carson_addresses_national_prayer_breakfast_criticizes_obamacare.html

[i][color=#000000][font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif][background=rgb(245, 245, 245)]DR. CARSON: Here's my solution: When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account to which money can be contributed -- pretax -- from the time you're born 'til the time you die. When you die, you can pass it on to your family members, so that when you're 85 years old and you got six diseases, you're not trying to spend up everything. You're happy to pass it on and there's nobody talking about death panels.[/background][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif][background=rgb(245, 245, 245)]Number one. And also, for the people who were indigent who don't have any money we can make contributions to their HSA each month because we already have this huge pot of money. Instead of sending it to some bureaucracy, let's put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own health care.[/background][/font][/color][/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It ignores that this "huge pot of money" comes from our taxes.

Further an HSA does nothing to drive down the costs of healthcare in the first place. It's a glorified savings account for your healthcare. The whole purpose of a real public option is so that the private insurers dont collude and have to compete for fair prices when the government sets their price. It's still capitalism (for the OMG SOCIALISM!!!111eleven crowd), it's just that the state is a competitor now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1360381852' post='1213620']
It ignores that this "huge pot of money" comes from our taxes.

Further an HSA does nothing to drive down the costs of healthcare in the first place. It's a glorified savings account for your healthcare. The whole purpose of a real public option is so that the private insurers dont collude and have to compete for fair prices when the government sets their price. It's still capitalism (for the OMG SOCIALISM!!!111eleven crowd), it's just that the state is a competitor now.
[/quote]

No it doesn't take from our taxes... HSA accounts are paid for by each individual family and is associated with a high deductible plan. For this type of plan, gov't HDHP would be perfect I would think but I would be open to private insurance also. For those that can't afford to put in $30 a week or something for an HSA though, I would think we would give money to those accounts through our taxes. I would hope you guys wouldn't be opposed to helping out the poverty stricken people.

As far as not driving down the costs, that is completely wrong. It brings in the competition factor again. I have had one for a long time now and can say that I shop for doctors based on price and ratings. I do my research every time I decide to go to another doctor. I research pharmacies to find the best deals on medications. I don't go to the emergency room unless I have an emergency... I guarantee I have driven down costs for myself and can't think why on a larger scale this wouldn't help.

The problem with the state being a competitor is a.) they make the rules and can change them to benefit themselves and b.) they can take a lose and still stay in business.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol Rick you goof. The poverty stricken folks that we "have a big pot of money" is what he was talking about, using that money that we get from taxes to pay for it. And yes I'm ok with that because I'm not an asshole and yes I am calling anyone who is not ok with that an asshole.

Rick the insurance companies are in collusion (despite it being against the law, its hard to prove) to keep prices high. If you don't believe that you have no further to look that the prescription drug bill they fought to keep the government from competing in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1360430618' post='1213671']
Lol Rick you goof. The poverty stricken folks that we "have a big pot of money" is what he was talking about, using that money that we get from taxes to pay for it. And yes I'm ok with that because I'm not an asshole and yes I am calling anyone who is not ok with that an asshole.

Rick the insurance companies are in collusion (despite it being against the law, its hard to prove) to keep prices high. If you don't believe that you have no further to look that the prescription drug bill they fought to keep the government from competing in.
[/quote]

I realize that the insurance companies are keeping the prices high. To me, that would be a good reason why HSA plans are swept under the rug at every opportunity they come up. The insurance companies absolutely do not want HSA plans to take hold. It would force people to start paying attention to what the insurance was paying instead of what people's deductables are paying.

btw... Goof? Really?

HSA's would help EVERYONE out. Not only poverty stricken people. The point of them imo is that they force people to see what the actual prices of the services the get and making decisions on how to treat must effectively (literally effective and cost effective). Let's be real here, people aren't going to start paying attention to things until it hits their checkbooks.

I guess the alternative is that we should give over all this negotiating power to the government b/c they have proven time and time again that they are so good our money.....

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1360430716' post='1213672']
The pastor is well meaning but he hasn't put any kind of serious thought into this stuff.
[/quote]

Says the man that has no doctorate and doesn't work with health insurances on an everyday basis...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1360590258' post='1213865']
I realize that the insurance companies are keeping the prices high. To me, that would be a good reason why HSA plans are swept under the rug at every opportunity they come up. The insurance companies absolutely do not want HSA plans to take hold. It would force people to start paying attention to what the insurance was paying instead of what people's deductables are paying.

btw... Goof? Really?

HSA's would help EVERYONE out. Not only poverty stricken people. The point of them imo is that they force people to see what the actual prices of the services the get and making decisions on how to treat must effectively (literally effective and cost effective). Let's be real here, people aren't going to start paying attention to things until it hits their checkbooks.

I guess the alternative is that we should give over all this negotiating power to the government b/c they have proven time and time again that they are so good our money.....



Says the man that has no doctorate and doesn't work with health insurances on an everyday basis...
[/quote]

Goof is a term of endearment.

But the HSA isnt going to break the collusion Rick, only a public option in which the Goverment is a compeditor and can set a fair price against those colluding will do that.

Would you like me to find someone with a Doctorate that is in favor of the public option? ;)

[url="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112818960"]Most Polls find Doctors in favor of the public option[/url]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1360599958' post='1213890']
I disagree.

Explain to me how an HSA is going to force insurance companies to stop colluding. I dont see it, there is no honest compeditor for them to be forced to give fair prices.
[/quote]

The honest competitor would be all of us making better health decisions. As I said, I have had an HSA for a long time and I guarantee that if everyone actually shopped for cheaper medicine, better valued doctors and procedures, it would make a big difference in health costs.

Is it going to completely stop collusion? No but nothing will. Couple HSA's with government High deductible insurance though and you have the best of all worlds, right? Then you can start to legislate against collusion and start to beat it down, while having people work on reducing their own health costs. This crushes the insurance companies in every direction and forces them to shape up or ship out.

Honest question (assuming you don't have an HSA) do you pay attention to what you actually pay at the doctors and pharmacy or just what your deductibles are?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1360619714' post='1213942']
The honest competitor would be all of us making better health decisions. As I said, I have had an HSA for a long time and I guarantee that if everyone actually shopped for cheaper medicine, better valued doctors and procedures, it would make a big difference in health costs.

Is it going to completely stop collusion? No but nothing will. Couple HSA's with government High deductible insurance though and you have the best of all worlds, right? Then you can start to legislate against collusion and start to beat it down, while having people work on reducing their own health costs. This crushes the insurance companies in every direction and forces them to shape up or ship out.

Honest question (assuming you don't have an HSA) do you pay attention to what you actually pay at the doctors and pharmacy or just what your deductibles are?
[/quote]

No dont have an HSA, by advice of my physician assistant father, he said they serve the purpose of people who need extra (such as pregnancy) and that I would not need one.

This is the same argument that you conservitives tried with the housing crisis, the whole "you should know what your buying" argument, ignoring the fact that it's damned near impossible to have that kind of knowledge unless you are in the field.

You expect folks to know what health care is best for them? Like which procedures they need, ect...?

Rick this is just not realisitic. This is the purpose of the government, to force the private side to be an honest broker. And yes a public option will do that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I wonder if you read the posts or just pick out certain words and just go with it. No I don't expect people to know what procedures are best for them. I expect them to have these conversations with their doctors and then make educated decisions. Also I didn't ask if you have an HSA, I asked if you pay attention to the costs your doctors actually charge you, or do you pay attention to the deductibles you pay?


Not sure what your father meant by needing more money, like with things like pregnancy. I don't think we're talking about the same thing. My company offers a site that will break down our traditional plans versus HDHP with HSA's and the only time the traditional plan is better is when you take pregnancy out of the picture.

Are you talking about a MSA? They are completely different than a HSA.

MSA is like you described, basically if you need extra money on top of your traditional health insurance. So in this instance if you are paying $100 a month and you also think you will need more, then you can put more money in a MSA account. This money is not transferrable from year to year.

HSA is coupled only with High Deductible Healthcare plans and they are cheaper So you might only have to pay $50 for a HDHP and then the other $50 you put into a HSA. Then you get a debit card for your HSA and use that for doctor visits, etc. HDHP's do pay for any preventative health procedures and always have a cap of how much you pay. Mine has a deductible of $3000 (I pay 100% of everything up until this mark) then they pay 90% until I hit my out of pocket max of $4000. After that everything is paid for completely. I am also very fortunate that my company puts $1000 in there every year.

Also if you don't use all the money in the year, it carries over year to year. For someone that doesn't have a family, doesn't go to the doctor very often and doesn't have major health issues, it will save you literally thousands of dollars a year. And there is little risk to it because they cap how much you can spend a year.

The only time it has been somewhat of a burden was when my wife and I had our 2 children. But we had plenty of time to plan for that though when it happened so its not like it bit us in the ass. Just was nerve racking not knowing how it would all turn out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly believe your opposition to a public option is based in ideology and not math, because in every advenced country that has a public option the overall cost of healthcare is cheaper than what we pay, and they have better results.

I still fail to see how you think a savings account is going to drive down the insurance costs, unless you think its going to get rid of insurance all together, which to that I say good luck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly believe your opposition to a public option is based in ideology and not math, because in every advenced country that has a public option the overall cost of healthcare is cheaper than what we pay, and they have better results.

I still fail to see how you think a savings account is going to drive down the insurance costs, unless you think its going to get rid of insurance all together, which to that I say good luck.

Better results? Why do they come to our country for their procedures if they can afford it?

 

In my opinion, a public option would not solve the problem Jamie. It would eventually bleed out the insurance companies but to do that, it would take the states to make rules in their own favor for the sole reason of creating a state/federal monopoly on the health care industry. As you know, I have little faith that the state and federal governments can run an effective business and this is based on historical data. 

 

I won't respond to the HSA part you ended with. I have literally said it like 3 times in this thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better results? Why do they come to our country for their procedures if they can afford it?

 

In my opinion, a public option would not solve the problem Jamie. It would eventually bleed out the insurance companies but to do that, it would take the states to make rules in their own favor for the sole reason of creating a state/federal monopoly on the health care industry. As you know, I have little faith that the state and federal governments can run an effective business and this is based on historical data. 

 

I won't respond to the HSA part you ended with. I have literally said it like 3 times in this thread. 

 

Yes better results, the over all costs of healthcare in other countries is much much lower, and aside from wait time issues, which are never an issue when it comes to emergency procedures, the quality is just as good.

 

 

No it would not bleed the insurance companies out, it would force them to charge fair prices instead of raping their customers. The IC's would still exist because what happens is that companies would still get health insurance for their employees because to keep and attract quality employees they would have to provide those kinds of benifits. The PO would be for the poor and small businesses who cant afford HC for their employees at all. You mean things like the military or national parks or a number of other successfully run business the government is responsible for?

 

 

No you havent, you have not explained at all how an HSA is going to force ICs to give fair prices, that's what I'm trying to get you to explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it will force people to shop for better deals on perscriptions, better priced doctors, decide whether or not procedures that are cosmetic or not necessary are needed... This will bring in a competitive force that is sorely lacking because people don't see what the insurance companies are paying. They see what their copay was.
 
For instance, because people don't give a shit as long as their copay is $40, they don't look at possibly supplementing their $200 insurance with a generic that does the same thing. Because the big prescription companies do not have to worry about them, they have no competition and can continue to charge crazy high prices.
 
There are thousands of examples of where people don't care about how much is being paid, they care about how much they have to pay. And because of this, companies slowly keep rising prices and we only see the drip drip b/c our insurance keeps rising.
 
As I've said, I have personally lowered how much I pay tremendously since becoming more educated on how much I pay and how I can save costs. I actually go to yearly physicals now (where I didn't before HSA and HDHP) because it is paid for... All preventitive costs are paid fully so I feel like I should take advantage of those.
 
So that was my medium/long explanation... short answer though... It introduces competition to a market that has little to none forever. No wonder prices are crazy high.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it will force people to shop for better deals on perscriptions, better priced doctors, decide whether or not procedures that are cosmetic or not necessary are needed... This will bring in a competitive force that is sorely lacking because people don't see what the insurance companies are paying. They see what their copay was.
 
For instance, because people don't give a shit as long as their copay is $40, they don't look at possibly supplementing their $200 insurance with a generic that does the same thing. Because the big prescription companies do not have to worry about them, they have no competition and can continue to charge crazy high prices.
 
There are thousands of examples of where people don't care about how much is being paid, they care about how much they have to pay. And because of this, companies slowly keep rising prices and we only see the drip drip b/c our insurance keeps rising.
 
As I've said, I have personally lowered how much I pay tremendously since becoming more educated on how much I pay and how I can save costs. I actually go to yearly physicals now (where I didn't before HSA and HDHP) because it is paid for... All preventitive costs are paid fully so I feel like I should take advantage of those.
 
So that was my medium/long explanation... short answer though... It introduces competition to a market that has little to none forever. No wonder prices are crazy high.

 

 

And I go back again to the fact that your asking the patient to know what procedures are nessasary and what are not, the only way a patient can know that is if they are or know somebody they trust in the field. Its the same argument that you conservitives made about the housing crisis, despite Greenspan (at least I recall it being Greenspan) saying he needed a law degree to understand the language of these housing contracts.

 

This is the role of the government. It's role is to determine fair market value when industries are colluding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You liberals always seem to think that government should make all our decisions for us and we should just stay ignorant...

 

Sorry I couldn't help myself with all the 'you conservatives' stuff :265: :)

 

Again, all you have to do is talk to your family doctor and understand the decisions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You liberals always seem to think that government should make all our decisions for us and we should just stay ignorant...

 

Sorry I couldn't help myself with all the 'you conservatives' stuff :265: :)

 

Again, all you have to do is talk to your family doctor and understand the decisions. 

 

No I am completely ok with seeing more on our bills and allowing patients to make those kind of decisions to an extent, however when an entire industry is colluding I think having government as a compeditior makes the industry honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...