Theory of "Odious Debt" should be applied to Iraq War and saddle GW Bush with the debt, not us.

32 posts / 0 new

In international law, odious debt is a legal theory which holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, such as wars of aggression, should not be enforceable. Such debts are thus considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state.

I declare that the debt incurred for the invasion and occupation of Iraq should be assigned to the Bush/Cheney Families and not the people of the United States.

matmar83's picture
matmar83
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Comments

So Obama gets the Bill for ObamaCare? Being that it's not in the best interest of the Nation.

A. Tytler's picture
A. Tytler
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 7:51 am

Wondering were all the money is going? How Much Is Enough? America's Runaway Military Spending.

http://www.hnn.us/articles/130258.html?source=patrick.net#hnn

robertstock99's picture
robertstock99
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2010 8:06 am

1) It's not in the interest of the nation that the citizenry have healthcare?

2)How many Billions is Obamacare adding to the national debt?

3) Obamacare addressed a REAL issue that effects the citizens of America - Affordable healthcare access that makes America a stronger nation. Whereas the Iraq War was a lie from the start, served the interests of a select greedy few and has made America less safe and weaker.

Looks like 3 strikes and your out, clown.

matmar83's picture
matmar83
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
1) It's not in the interest of the nation that the citizenry have healthcare?

The majority of the citizenry already had healthcare. No no, it not in the best interst of the Nation. It's in the interest of the few.

2)How many Billions is Obamacare adding to the national debt?

At last guess $1,500,000,000,000 in 10 years. and growing.

3) Obamacare addressed a REAL issue that effects the citizens of America

"attempted" to address the REAL issue. Irrelevent to what is actually is doing.

Affordable healthcare access that makes America a stronger nation.

Any they failed. Sort of like the Iraq War was supposed to be over in 1 year.

A. Tytler's picture
A. Tytler
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 7:51 am

According to the CBO, the legislation will reduce the deficit by $143 billion[4] over the first decade and by $1.2 trillion in the second decade...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Where does your number -$1,500,000,000,000 in 10 years- come from? Glenn Beck's ass?

I'd have preferred Single-Payer, Medicare-For-All but this is what happens when corporations run government....

matmar83's picture
matmar83
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
According to the CBO, the legislation will reduce the deficit by $143 billion[4] over the first decade and by $1.2 trillion in the second decade

How does it feel being lied to by Government? CBO Gave you an account with only the numbers they were provided. No administrative cost, No Medicare "Doc Fix" Add those in. Your 1.2 trillion becomes 2.5 trillion.

You probably assumed Medicare Part D was only going to Cost 700 billion. Because the CBO said so. 1.5 trillion later.

A. Tytler's picture
A. Tytler
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 7:51 am

Your 1.2 trillion becomes 2.5 trillion.

Tytler, why are you against reducing the deficit?

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Tytler, why are you against reducing the deficit?

On the contrary, I all for reducing the debt. Obamacare will not reduce the debt by $.01. Will in fact add Billions if not trillions to the Debt.

Which... by the opening post. We should hold Obama Personally accountable for.

A. Tytler's picture
A. Tytler
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 7:51 am

Speaking of health care and 'the debt' it is bringing up, a few specifics on what we mean by 'application of health care' need to be addressed--and I would like to address that to rbs's new side-kick, A. Tytler, if he/she/it would be so kind. Please address these:

1) Should everyone in the United States have access to health care? That's a 'yes' or 'no' answer--and, depending upon your answer, I'd like a couple of other questions addressed:

2) If 'yes', how do you propose 'we' should pay for it?

3) If 'no', how do you propose 'we' should turn people away that ask for care (in places like the 'ER'--and, remember, once a person presents to that 'ER', they do now have the right to have whatever degree of care is required to address their problem at that time--which can mean heart procedures or any other extremely costly maneuver as their condition warrants--whether, by the way, 'they' pay or not--that's been in force in U.S. medicine for decades--so, if your answer is 'no', how are you to address this?)?

In the U.S. right now, we have a 'split decision'--government pays for some at little to no cost to them, others have to risk bankruptcy or 'buy into the corporate-based insurance system'--others come with no financial backing--but, as it is right now, they still have the right to obtain the level of care that their presentation warrants at that time--that has been 'the law' for decades. So, if your answer is 'no' on this 'right to access health care', please explain how you would resolve the descriptions in the legal right to health care vs. the financial ability to pay for it that is going on in American medicine right now....or, not, as the case may be.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Speaking of health care and 'the debt' it is bringing up, a few specifics on what we mean by 'application of health care' need to be addressed--and I would like to address that to rbs's new side-kick, A. Tytler, if he/she/it would be so kind. Please address these:

Kerry,,, your trolling again. You derailing threads is against the rules. At least the written rules. Not the second set of rules that is arbitrary and unwritten. So no Kerry I will not fall for your troll bait. So no, I will not address your concerns because it is not germane to the thread topic.

BTW I’ll be gone here momentarily anyway which is problematic to having a discussion beyond one liners and platitudes. Which seems to be where this forum is heading.

A. Tytler's picture
A. Tytler
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 7:51 am

What 'one liners and platitudes'? It's great how you--just like your mentor and confidant, rbs--get to profess a 'philosophy' that you don't even have to apply to reality--and, then, complain about how 'everyone else doesn't see it'. However, THE REALITY, in the United States as it stands right now and has done so for decades, is that everyone has the right to access to health care and the right for that access to include whatever degree of care is needed as their condition warrants right now in the United States. That's not 'one liners or platitudes', that is the reality of American health care as it today--and has been for decades. And, if you are giving yourself the right to complain about how much that costs, then, you should be adult enough to, also, take the responsibility of coming up with a solution to your complaint. Can you do that? Address my questions....

And, we really wonder why 'our system' is going to hell...in a handbasket.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

How does your post have anything to do with "odious debt"?

Take your question somewhere other than Thom's and I'd be happy to discuss it with you. I am not getting vested into a discussion with someone just to have a retard come by and drop a hammer on my head. I was having a wonderful, polite, civil, in-depth discussion with Art on "general Welfare clause" when I got the hammer dropped on my head, so we never got the opportunity to finish.

A. Tytler's picture
A. Tytler
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 7:51 am

It has to do with your expression of how much 'Obamacare' will cost--that is here, is it not? So, what's your beef in principle about 'Obamacare'? Do you think that people have the right to access to health care--or not? It really is a straightforward question. Then, depending upon your answer, you need to qualify it a little for me to believe that you really have something 'in depth' to say on the issue. If you do, how do you propose to pay for it? If you don't, then, what are you proposing that we do with the law that says everyone has the right to health care access and the right to health care application as their condition warrants at the time? That's all I'm asking--and all those questions are directly related to the reality of health care in America as we have it now.

More to the point, we for decades have had the legal right to that care and its extent of delivery as is warranted by the condition upon presentation--it's the financial support of that legal right that has always screwed up American medicine since some get it for little to no cost to them, some have to risk bankruptcy for the service or tap into the 'corporate health care scheme', some don't pay at all. How do you suppose to correct that? But, I believe as the first question to address in answering that you need to address is 'Do we have the right to health care or not?' It's a very straightforward, honest, and in depth, position to start with--otherwise, you're left with the 'split decisions' that have created this debacle we are in today to begin with appearing to offer medicine 'only if you pay for it' but, actually, requiring that any one that needs health care is to get health care (just like any 'universal health care system'--but, without the rather mature responsibility of actually paying for it other than, of course, through a 'corporate-government collusion' that, in many ways, has government 'pay for the costliest' if they get paid at all--and corporations to sap up the 'profits' on those they can, again, extract from that already pay their taxes on the government part for others) .....can you make a stand on whether we have the right to health care, or not? Otherwise, your position is just so much pontifications that have nothing to do with the reality of America medicine as it is applied and approached today....and as the costs of health care keep escalating.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
It has to do with your expression of how much 'Obamacare' will cost--that is here, is it not? So, what's your beef in principle about 'Obamacare'?

The Topic of the Thread is regarding Odious debt. And under the posters theory is that the debt incurred by Bush during the Iraq war should be shouldered by Bush Personally because it was not in the best interest of the nation. Obamacare is also not in the best interest of the Nation so under the same theory Obama going to have to shoulder the burden of the Debt Personally. As far as your other questions, still not going to answer them, Because the Key Stone Cops will be by eventually.

My beef with Obama Care is that it is built on a lie. Not a single penny will pay of the debt.

Granted I was hoping someone other than me would mention that it was Bush’s war. Because Bush doesn’t have the Power to Start Wars. It was Congress’s War. But maybe Government 101 is too advance for some people. Noting of course that applies to Obama also. The educational value of this board is in a free fall.

As far as your Rights issue.. Take it somewhere else.

A. Tytler's picture
A. Tytler
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 7:51 am

Typical spin from the con-jobs. Complain about how an issue is being addressed--but, not offering a solution in the meantime. What is that saying? Giving themselves the right to have an opinion--but, not the responsibility of offering a solution. Everybody has 'opinions'--only those that actually are trying to face reality are offering solutions. Personally, I don't agree with 'Obamacare', either--but, that's not the point. I don't agree with our mismatched, piecemealed, disjointed, system, either--one where everyone has right to access but nothing actually pays for all of that. THAT'S fiscally irresponsible--and is one of the main reasons why American health care costs twice as much per capita as any other country (and, really, not getting any better--and, in some cases, worse--results) but, you don't hear the pontificators addressing that. Just 'Obamacare'.......

It's frankly disingenuous to talk of 'being against universal health care' when, legally, we've had 'universal access to health care' for decades by law--but, we play roulette with the financing of it. 'Gaming the system' comes to mind. And, that is why this is taking us to hell in a handbasket--we can't even have a mature conversation over it and come up with some consistant conclusions....

Quote A.Tytler:

As far as your Rights issue.. Take it somewhere else.

You aren't addressing the point with that little quip--but, why should I be surprised by now? The point is, and let me reiterate for you for you to have this sink in, is that access to health care with the right to have whatever needs to be done to have it resolved as the condition warrants IS A RIGHT to everyone now. Please let that sink into your con-job, pontificating, head because it is important to note that. It's been a right to everyone in America for decades. What hasn't been addressed is how to consistantly pay for it. Or, if you don't think it as being a right, what hasn't been addressed is how to remove it. That, of course, would be the adult, responsible, thing to do--but, then, why should we believe Americans can be adult and responsible about this at this point?

Again, hell in a handbasket comes to mind....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The answer to one administration running up the dept, is for the next administration to run up more dept?

Will that dept also be applied to those representatives who gave their OK to the Invasions?

You can call it a "regime" all you want doesn't make it true. Considering the "regime" left office when their time was up, without incident, Hardly a tyrant.

Don't let ideologies define your perceptions of events, it will make you intellectually dishonest.

Theodwulf's picture
Theodwulf
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 12:16 pm
Typical spin from the con-jobs.

You’re so cute Kerry. Stupid, but cute. I know you have the sense that rules dont apply to you. How could you. You bluster about like a drug induced moron and nobody of authority ever yanks your chain. You and jeff serve a similar purpose here. Getting other people banned. You say stupid shit and even the most restrained conservative has to call you out on your bullshit. Which tips their hand that they are conservative and usually get banned for making you look stupid.

You trolled this thread, I know it, you know it, everyone that is watching this knows it.

I really do not care about your opinions on the state of our healthcare. I've seen it before, your not saying anything new. Every conservative that has addressed this issue with you has offered many many solutions that you quibble about because of your ridiculous "Healthcare is a Right" argument. They get banned and you continue about like a bull in a china shop thinking your argument has prevailed. Let’s just Agree to disagree.. Works for me.

Now if you want to address why everyone on this board get arbitrarily banned, great. If you want to find a place and have a serious discussion without retards deleting, editing and banning people. Even better. I hate thinking that Thom has become a Intellectual coward afraid of his own convictions. But now that I know it’s true, you can actually hear it on the radio.

You aren't addressing the point with that little quip--but, why should I be surprised by now?

Of course I am not going to address it. It will take too long, It would require a vested interest on my part and this environment is not conducive to such tasks. Healthcare is not a right. For all the same reasons that many other people have already told that you, that you have already summarily dismissed. Other than that your boring me. Where did your brother run off to? He get banned too?

A. Tytler's picture
A. Tytler
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 7:51 am

Boy, a lot of talk--but very little substance there, A. Tytler. But, I will respond to the one point you claim:

Quote A.Tytler:

Healthcare is not a right.

You can say that all you want--health care IS a right. THAT'S the problem--it is NOT PAID AS A RIGHT (do I really have to put it in capital letters to get you to note it?). I'll even agree with you--'Obamacare' WON'T PAY IT AS A RIGHT. But, as I have been trying to say to you all along, in the United States right now as has been the case for decades, access to health care CANNOT BE DENIED once someone presents to the ER--whether they can pay or not. I know that must be hard for you to fathom in your cloud of con-jobbing pontifications but your answer really doesn't address the problem (you have learned well from your mentor and confidant, rbs, haven't you? You read that post on the other thread. I had nothing to do with rbs being 'banned' if he is 'banned'--in fact, like you, I would like rbs to conform his little thesis to reality--but, that seems to be a hard job for the con-jobs, no?)--but, access to health care in the United States CANNOT BE DENIED. THAT is THE REALITY of American medicine as it stands right now--and has done so for decades.

Now, think this through for me since you've claimed to be such an 'in depth thinker'. You say it's not a right. Walk me through that. Give me an example and I'll even start you off--a man with chest pain comes to the ER without a cent on him and no paying source. Now, you tell me how that is to be resolved as 'not a right to health care'. Walk me through what you would do with this man--step by step--just like you would have to face it in the real world. Also, walk me through how you are going to have any legislators face this fact that health care CANNOT BE DENIED--and it not be a 'right' at the same time. I'll wait with baited breath over your 'in depth' analysis....otherwise this is just any con from the 'corporate-government colluders'....that, by the way, is from both sides of the aisle...

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Boy, a lot of talk--but very little substance there, A. Tytler.

You’re finally able to recognize vacuous postings. Perhaps you should re-read your posts before hitting send. I imagine it would be enlightening for you.

You can say that all you want--health care IS a right.

And you would still to this day be completely wrong. I don’t pay for my right to free speech, I don’t pay for my right to assemble, I don’t pay to carry a gun. Nobody pays for those rights. Someone, somewhere pays for the healthcare. Your confusing charity with Rights …. AGAIN.

Still can't get out of your comfort zone.

A. Tytler's picture
A. Tytler
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 7:51 am

The "Stimulus" bill caused more debt for the US than the Iraq liberation.

Coydog's picture
Coydog
Joined:
Aug. 27, 2010 6:22 pm

Iraq is not a war, nor is it a liberation, you can't go to war with a tactic, and 50,000 combat personnel at a million a year per, behind a green zone wall doesn't sound like liberation and they will want money every day, every year, so the amount it contributes to debt cannot be ascertained and therefore cannot be compared to anything else not paid for. You might still be thinking Iraq pays for itself because of oil, and all the capital investment the worlds investment class are showering them with.

Any military action outside the US ought to have a matching financial commodity, whether called freedom bonds, war bonds, patriot bonds, battalion bonds, international service bonds, veterans bonds... they would all be ways to get revenue and give the opportunity for hawks to put their wallet where their mouth is.

I was having a wonderful, polite, civil, in-depth discussion with Art on "general Welfare clause" when I got the hammer dropped on my head,

Ball peen or claw, or maybe the other half--the sickle--is hanging over your head now, like the sword of Damocles.

Paygo was the premise that Clinton worked under, spending increase had to have matching revenue increase. Revenue cuts had to have matching spending cuts. Accounting 101 balance sheet.

Clinton also tried line item veto, but the republican SCOTUS didn't want a democrat to have it, W should have tried again, he got anything he wanted, even the job.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote A. Tytler:

Your confusing charity with Rights …. AGAIN.

No, it is you that is confusing a right as charity. Read that again. The access to health care CANNOT BE DENIED. How is that different from a right, exactly, A.Tytler? And, it is not 'charity' because, eventually, someone is paying, or compensating, for it somewhere.

See, since you all like to talk in 'market terminology', the 'product' of health care is available to all--there is no 'limiting it with respect to payment' once someone presents with a condition that warrants being addressed. Now, I didn't say it was 'free'--that would 'charity'. In fact, in the roulette manner in which it is paid, as I also said, that results in us Americans paying twice per capita more for it than most any other country in the world. And, 'we' really aren't getting our money's worth when that 'undeniable access' is the most expensive place to get it--the ER. And, since it's the preventive medicine that isn't getting paid for, that helps double the cost....

It's really a glaring defect in our system that no one seems to want to address--or resolve. Why?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

They must have read your post and decide now was the time to ban me. I told you having discussions on Thom’s is problematic. But such a idiotic post begs to decimated

No, it is you that is confusing a right as charity. Read that again. The access to health care CANNOT BE DENIED. How is that different from a right, exactly, A.Tytler? And, it is not 'charity' because, eventually, someone is paying, or compensating, for it somewhere. .

Rights can’t be given and taken away by stroke of a pen, Rights are older the 24 years, Rights are not dependent upon the acceptance of government funding. You can say “access to health care CANNOT BE DENIED” Yet you are wrong and you damn well know it. A hospital/doctor is not under EMTALA obligations if they do not accept federal money. So you’re health care CAN BE DENIED and is increasingly being more denied by the day. Seems you need to look up the definition of Charity. Even in charities someone, somewhere is paying for it. The Different between private charity and public charity is private charity is done by goodwill. Public charity is forced on you by the barrel of a gun.

With any luck your mommy will be by to save you from the scary boogyman and his scary words.

Croft's picture
Croft
Joined:
Sep. 5, 2010 10:12 am
Ball peen or claw, or maybe the other half--the sickle--is hanging over your head now, like the sword of Damocles..

Can't really say, they are always sneaking up behind you and hititng you. They'll never stand in front you. It's the cowards way.

Clinton also tried line item veto, but the republican SCOTUS didn't want a democrat to have it, W should have tried again, he got anything he wanted, even the job.
.

I've read the case. It doesn't get any more unconstitutional than line item veto.

Croft's picture
Croft
Joined:
Sep. 5, 2010 10:12 am
I declare that the debt incurred for the invasion and occupation of Iraq should be assigned to the Bush/Cheney Families and not the people of the United States.

How much responsibility does Congress bare for this Debt?

Caesur Rodney's picture
Caesur Rodney
Joined:
Sep. 7, 2010 7:32 am
Quote Croft:

Rights can’t be given and taken away by stroke of a pen, Rights are older the 24 years, Rights are not dependent upon the acceptance of government funding. You can say “access to health care CANNOT BE DENIED” Yet you are wrong and you damn well know it. A hospital/doctor is not under EMTALA obligations if they do not accept federal money. So you’re health care CAN BE DENIED and is increasingly being more denied by the day.

First off, while I am not sure if EMTALA is limited to 'only government aided funding in hospitals', I am sure that most hospitals, one way or the other, accept government funds. I know of no hospital in my extended region anywhere that doesn't, one way or the other, accept government funding in some respect. I know how the con-jobs like to quote Mayo Clinics supposed 'recent statistics' that show how much money they are losing, but, then again, is that Mayo Clinic saying they won't accept government funding in any way (you cannot charge a Medicaid patient at all, for instance)--nor, does that address what the Mayo Clinic had been doing for the past thirty years in which DRG's have been used (even at the Mayo Clinic) to mandate reimbursement amounts dependant upon diagnoses made to any government-subsidized patient.

In short, Croft, it is you who is misrepresenting the facts of the application of medical care through hospitals as has been practiced in a majority (if not ALL) hospitals in the United States today.

And, every time someone likes to misdirect this to only 'government subsidies and how cheap they are', I would like them to explain how a medical system based ONLY on the 'profit motive' were to work. In other words, how does ONLY the 'profit motive' ever NOT ration health care like the con-jobs like to blame 'government' as doing? Any ideas, Croft? Or, more unrealistic and unreasonable platitudes having to do with 'private industry' and 'profit motives' coming out of your con-jobbing mouth?

Quote Croft:

Seems you need to look up the definition of Charity

Seems like you do--especially if you are of the libertarian mind that all this is by 'voluntarism'--as if 'we' have agreed upon it. I know of no institution that WANTS to give away their medical care. I know of no doctor that wants ONLY to give away medical care--and many have a problem with many of those that get it at little to no cost to them (many seeing no need to have any 'personal responsibility' to affect their care if they have an administrator telling them that 'the customer is always right' and a lawyer telling them 'if something goes wrong, we'll sue them'). So, as I said before, as far as 'limited to no payment' goes with respect to these patients, the institutions compensate that in other ways--so do the doctors. Now, as far as clinics go, so far, doctors can refuse to see patients. But, I'm not talking about that--I'm talking about the patient finding an ER to have anything seen and THAT CANNOT BE DENIED. How that differs in substance in any way from a 'right', I have no earthly idea. The problem with it in a society that supposedly has a 'government of equal access to the law' is that such a 'right' is not extended to the same degree to every person. If this were anything else other than medicine, I believe many would already be claiming 'civil rights violations'--why not medicine?

But, it appears that many don't want to address that little nuance because they would rather spout off some bullshit they claim represents 'the profit motive in medicine'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Probably corporate string pullers of Congress...including the 6 corporations that control nearly everything Americans see, read or hear, should be saddled with the debt as well...and the Congress Critters thrown in jail. However, since bribery under the guise of "campaign contributions" isn't illegal, that probably will never happen.

Corporate America's hands are clean. Their lackies did it. They just reaped the profits.

Besides, the 6 corporate media mougels sounded the drums of war and blew the bugle...what's a mere Congress to do? G.E., an armements supplier and owner of a major TV network licked its chops over the possibilities.

Send 'em a bill.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

He says he'll Respond to your posts there and you can work a cross forum communication from a safe (for you) enviroment. He not going to waste his time posting things that are going to be edited and deleted by the secret police

You can deal with the personal shame on your own accord.

Caesur Rodney's picture
Caesur Rodney
Joined:
Sep. 7, 2010 7:32 am

Well, this started here and if whoever FunnyBunny is is 'banned' here, you can act as their go between, Caesur Rodney, because I'll keep posting here until I am banned. Here's FunnyBunny's post as Caesur Rodney sites above:

I seems unfortunate that I going to have to move this discussion to a place more suitable to having open dialog. Thom’s, while entertaining has become an insufferable enemy of free thought with images of Stalin secret police spreading their propaganda and using assassination to silence the opposition. O how the progressive icons have fallen.

While I have both watched and participated with Kerry on many Healthcare issues. Kerry’s singular talking point is that Health care is a Right. He refined it off and on over time but essentially boils done to this point for everything from free Emergency Care to Obamacare to Universal Health care. Whenever Kerry starts to get cornered he repeatedly switches to emotional argument to provide cover for his lack of conviction that Healthcare is a RIGHT. But by that time, (assuming Kerry is spamming the Report button until carpel tunnel sets in) Management ( Keystone Cops) are Editing and banning to save their most fervent propagandist. Come on Poly, I bet you never thought to yourself that one day I would grow up to be a Nazi to my corporatist master.

So Kerry, if your Man enough to come out of your mommy’s protective womb long enough to have a real straight up discussion. I would like to settle this talking point once and for all. This place has no moderators, no editors, no bannings. You’ll be given complete artistic control of your material. Which is just like Thoms, except your now on a Libertarian Board. We are not one-sided asshats.

Since Poly (assuming) so rudely edited my posts. I’ll cover the main points of that post.

• If you were to read the EMTALA you would note that there is a section regarding what is a “Participating Hospital” it describes that the act only covers those hospitals accepting federal payments in the form of Medicare and such.

So as such, Hospitals that don’t accept Medicare patients are exempt from having to supply free medical care under EMTALA obligations. If this was a “RIGHT” there would be no need for an exemption and a Blackmailing via Federal funds.

•While you claimed to not know of any such hospital doing that. And the Mayo Clinic is no longer a trustworthy source for you, even though Obama loved them. A little research proved you were either ignorant of your surroundings or lying. Since Texas is at the heart of the “Freestanding ER’s”. They are calling it a “National Trend” in medicine, to the point that Texas has the “Freestanding ER Act”

For those who don’t know. Hospitals have begun spinning off their ER rooms into freestanding ER’s separate from the Main Hospitals. Why you would ask? Isn’t it obvious, to circumvent EMTALA obligations? Freestanding ER’s do not have to take Medicare patients. So there is no way you can proclaim Healthcare is a Right. A Right can’t be granted to you be legislator pen 24 years ago on the condition of blackmail and then have it slowing go away because nobody going to give it to you.

Perhaps by addressing these points, Barring you don’t have some Magic Bunny in your hat that comes in a form of knowledge that I do not possess ( As unlikely as that is) We might be able to have a decent discussion on Healthcare. But as long as your bound and determine to cling to this ridiculous notion that Healthcare is a Right your forever going to be stuck in a myopic telescope and blind to the world around you.

*** This is an Open Challenge to Kerry and woud appreciate some restaint if/while he engages. ***

-------------------------
I am really cute

Glad to hear that you're cute. However, if you would have actually read my remarks, I'm telling you that I don't know of any hospital in this region that doesn't, one way or the other, take government payments. So, I suspect that your 'Participating Hospitals' is almost every hospital. Can you name the hospitals that aren't? Is the Mayo Clinic one of them? Interesing that the Mayo Clinic is cited as being one of the more 'cost effective' medical facilities in its use of Medicare funds per capita--and McAllen, Texas, for instance, is cited as the most expensive per capita place for Medicare funds--wonder if Mayo Clinic is 'comparing its losses' up against the per capita expenses of McAllen, Texas (which, if I recall, is about twice as much)....

The hospitals that don't take any federal funds are probably so few that it doesn't even matter with respect to this issue. ER's are mandated to accept and evaluate any and all patients that presents to them--and have been doing so for decades. It CANNOT BE DENIED. How that is any different in substance from a 'right', I still don't know. And, as I've also said, it doesn't stop just in the ER. If that chest pain patient that doesn't have a cent on him and doesn't have a paying source ends up with an acute heart situation that requires catheterization and/or surgery, they'll get it. It CANNOT BE DENIED. There is an undeniable and universal access to American health care right now--and that is most ER's--and their associated hospitals and specialty call requirements so mandated.

And, this goes even further. If that patient that doesn't pay a cent or have a paying source has some bad outcome out of either not getting the care that they needed or even in getting the care they needed and it had a bad outcome, they also have the right to sue for medical malpractice (doctor and hospital) to include possibly millions in settlement even if they don't pay a cent or have a paying source ever. Sounds like a 'right' to me. What does it sound like to you? That is the way it is. What other way would you want it--and, in whatever that is, how do you propose to go about changing it to that?

I don't know of any hospital that is 'spinning off their ER's to avoid the EMTALA regulations' (besides that, EMTALA is pretty strict, if that hospital accepts ONE payment from a government source, they are under EMTALA--I suspect any ER that is even related to hospitals will be under that same requirement--and, if they aren't, I suspect that EMTALA will just change the law to cover them)--I do know of some hospitals now setting themselves up as 'specialty hospitals' that handle only one major medical issue--such as 'heart hospitals' or 'stroke hospitals'--that may be trying to have those specialists not have to cover for the 'general hospitals'--but, I really don't think that it has worked out that well. I still can get a non-paying customer the services that I think they need--one way or the other (I can think of only two exceptions where it wasn't a 'hospital to hospital transfer'--an alcoholic GI bleeder that just had to stay in our ER for over 36 hours to stop the bleed and transfuse him with the family threatening 'to sue me if something goes wrong'--I document quite well--and a HIV/AIDS Honduras illegal alien in one of our illustrious Texas 'private prisons' with rampant diarrhea that no one would take and he kept coming back after spending hours to stabilize him until he finally had to be in the hospital--at which time, the one on back up call in the hospital that I was in was kind enough to take him--and leave him in our hospital for 6 weeks before having the man stabilized enough for them to transfer him back to Honduras--with someone paying for that) . So, sometimes it's a pain in the ass, to be sure--but the gist of the law is certain--no one can be denied. Actually, as with my two examples above, the most common way that a hospital can skirt the EMTALA regulations is just by claiming 'they have no beds' (which, in reality means most of the time that they don't have enough nurses to cover any more patients--and that's if they are actually telling the truth to begin with).

But, I don't guess you have to let those little nuances sway you from your platitudes. If, like most of the con-jobs, you think that medicine is 'just a product', I would like you to name any other 'product' that is treated this way. However, we certainly now have a roulette wheel of ways in which this 'undeniable access product' is paid for--ranging from partial government payment to full government payment to a rare completely self-pay to various forms of insurance payments to no payments at all....what other 'undeniably accessed product' is paid this way? Even the 'right to legal counsel' is paid one way or the other....as is the 'right to education' (you don't think that's a right, either?).

So, the problem is the method of payment. And, if you are to suggest that all that is to be done by 'the free market' with 'private pay', then, as I've asked, I would like to hear how you explain how any proposed all private pay medical industry is NOT going to ration medical care--and, of course, that's IF you believe 'rationing medical care' is a problem. Do you? That is one issue the con-jobs seem to have against 'government medicine'--but, they don't ever explain how 'private-pay medicine' wouldn't ration medical care (of course, in the 'scarcity creates value' claim of some here, if they didn't 'ration it' in such a 'free market', it wouldn't be worth as much)--perhaps even worse rationing than government (as my example with kidney dialysis has shown in the past discussions on this).

Guts or not, I'd like some honest answers to this issue...where it actually addresses American medicine as it is being instigated today....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Well, again, I wished editing the post didn't pull it out of sequence--but, realize that I edited that post, Caesur Rodney--and, also, please address all the points--including if you think rationing is a good or bad thing in medicine (some con-jobbers seem to be against 'government rationing' but say nothing about what an 'all private industry' would do) and what are your proposals in changing the system if you don't even like the EMTALA 'undeniable universal access' regulations (I doubt you will get any politician to address this squarely on--they don't want to alienate those that get it all paid for now by government--AND they don't want to alienate those that think this 'all should be private industry in the free market'--although, addressing this squarely on is exactly what I think is needed to solve how this 'split decision' is costing us more than twice as much per capita for basically the same stuff barring a few 'scarce exceptions' than any other country in the world ).

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The original post was about the "odious debt" left us by the Bush/Cheney criminal acts in Iraq. The conjob spin equated "Obamacare" despite the fact that it cuts costs overall in its incremental progress away from the really terrible past. Oh, and Obama really increased the debt by putting the war budget on budget instead of hidden. Now we know what the wars are costing us and we must become deficit hawks while still funding the wars.

We get to defend Obamacare instead of debating who owes us our treasury. We can't get the productive lives of injured and dead soldiers back, and paying for the care of the injured is going to mean paying taxes. I happen to think that the rich should show their patriotism and support equality and fairness, but I suspect they will need to be forced to do the right thing.

I have no problem forcing them to be good neighbors and responsible citizens. As citizens, they are one of many and not our bosses. Their wealth ought to have zero political impact, but in the real world it gets thrown around and they pout about democracy and paying for others. The Middle Class Dream, not the Tycoon's, is the American Dream of substance and realism. It fits a world of indigenous development, local control and green practice rather than the huge industrial models and top down central command structures. This is the Left Progressive option to the Corporate Globalism of the DC Consensus. It has nothing to do with Wall St., but lots to do with ownership of the Commons and the smart use of the tools of democracy.

People with too much money for their own good screw up lots of stuff for the rest of us. The Koch Brothers are traitors for what they have done with their inheritances. They are hardly alone, but there is no moral or social justification for their corrupt practices. Freedom is not defined by property or wealth. If it were, we would need to distribute both to citizens to insure their freedom. The point is that "taking" for the provision of decent living conditions for all is the price of belonging to a society that values individual dignity and liberty. It is for all, or none. The complainers want it to be for them no matter what it means for others.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Can Democrats Set Out a New Path?

Democrats must embrace a pro-government platform, not run away from it.

Those were the sentiments of Senator Chuck Schumer today, in a speech given at the National Press Club. Talking about the reasons for Democrats’ losses on Election Day, Schumer said that those losses were proof that the American people and middle-class want a government that will work more effectively for them.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system