JoeUser Forums
campaign finance “reform”
healthcare “reform”
Seconded.
Interesting, when the word reform is used in something like "reform school" or "reformed in jail", those usually mean bad things.
Because something's wrong, and they have to do something about it?
Reform means a fundamental change in the general paradigm of a specific organisational sector. You effectively re-form the thing.
The politician's fallacy, from "Yes, Minister":
Is it just me or did you miss the point all together? It's not why it's called reform, it's why it's called reform when it isn't. You see, reform would indicate a change from bad to good but as we can all see today's use of the word reform is not for the better, otherwise Obama would not be offering to settle for a scaled back version of this Healthcare bill.
Washington often confuses the word "reform" with what it actual accomplishes... "deform".
Malform too.
Right! Who says we don't get choices any more. 
http://soviet-overlords.joeuser.com/article/374196/What_is_in_a_name
People have discovered that people are naive, trusting fools... you just need to frame something the right way to gain instant support.
This is why the american "creationist" movement have renamed themselves "intelligence design" and later "scientific critique"... (see the book "of people and pandas", the book on which the movement is based and the 3 crazy leaders of the movement. the book has had several editions where the term creationism was simply replaced with intelligent design).
Who in their right mind could ever oppose "scientific critique". after all, isn't that what science is all about?
Likewise, the tyrannical communist party calls itself the liberal (like liberty) democrat (like democracy) party. And calls their bills of pure unadulterated evil "(something) reform".
Similar things happen in the tech industry where they try to pass off "big brother" technology by constantly renaming it into more benign names (ex: trusted computing -> digital manners), and renaming the congressional bills they have bribed politicians to introduce to force the inclusion of said big brother chips in every machine.
Something I am all for is "healthcare reform", but the current bills in congress under that name are about health INSURANCEnationalization, not health CARE reform. The reforms we need include undoing a great deal of damage done by the tyrannical communist party of america of the past few decades... most of the problems with healthcare and health insurance stem from stupid government laws.
It is odd how people are so keen on latching on to a name with full unadulterated trust. Criminals should start calling themselves "volunteers"... who could possibly convict someone of the crime of "volunteering at the homeless shelter" (aka murdering homeless people).
People have discovered that people are naive, trusting fools... you just need to frame something the right way to gain instant support.
"freedom fighters" for people who murder, not just kill but murder, children
"lobbyist" for representatives of groups liberals disagree with
The list goes on and on...
Well, you think it's not a change for the better, but that's because you are on your side of the political ideologies. Would you say that the current U.S.'s healthcare system is proper, and should continue to run as is?
If no, then tell me how to change it for the better, in your own view. Afterwhile, please share with me why the republicans didn't try to solve the problem in their 6 years of unnopposed ownership of the House.
Too easy, they saw how unpopular it was when the Democrats tried it under Clinton. In case you didn't know, only 20% of Americans consider themselves as liberals and go for these massive entitlement programs. Just because you saw people cheer for it at Obama campaign rallies doesn't mean that's what most people want. People don't go to rap concerts if they don't like rap. What you saw were Obama ideologues and curious onlookers cheering him on. That, plus a little distraction called 9/11 played a role.
But let's put the question back on you, why didn't Democrats pass HC in the time prior to the last republican controlled congress? Democrats had control of the House from 1955 - 1995 (uninterrupted) and the Senate from 1955 - 1994 (with break from 1981 - 1987). I guess 40 years of House and 34 years of Senate control was not enough time for them. But they did get abortion!
Pretty easy when you're looking in from the outside, wouldn't you say?
I distinctly recall rebulicans trying to pass tort reform (limits on litigation in cases of malpractice)... something that is the #1 cause of high cost in the USA and that europe and canada all have... Did you happen to forget that bit? the democrats wanted none of that, and it just so happens that the obamacare bills didn't include that, and that when asked directly, obama flat out refused to support that... oh, and he got lots of money from the american trial lawyers associations.
How to fix the system?
1. allow buying of insurance between state lines; if you move you lose your insurance. What if you have cancer or other serious illness? if you try to get a new insurance, you either can't get any, or it is consider a preexisting condition and you do not get treatment; this means that anyone who is ill cannot move, and anyone who moves must find a new quality care provider... republicans are pushing for portability
2. decouple employer and insurance: democrats coupled them in the first place... and engineered the HMO while we are at it... it was touted as "compassion" to force employers to pay for insurance, but that means that people cannot afford such programs, because they are paid less money... so you are stuck with the insurance of your employer, and if you move or get fired or quit you lose insurance... This is another thing republicans are pushing
3. tort reform... limit the lottery of punitive damages for malpractice. Payment should be for medical treatments to fix the damage and maybe a minimal preset compensation fee, not a jury trial with an unlimited pot... Last I read, the average doctor pays more than 50% of their revenue to their malpractice insurance. That is... a doctor that pulls in 300k is putting more than 150k on malpractice insurance. Tort reform can easily cut down prices by nearly half (they still need malpractice insurance, but the premiums will be lower). - this is another thing republicans are pushing... even bush pushed it back when he was president.
there are a variety of other ways but i don't have all the time in the world to list them all. these above 3 should be a good start and massively reduce costs and improve coverage for all.
This is laughable, But not unexpected. Cykomyr after all is not an american (just 2nd best being an Aussie). But if you were here and had to go through the 4 years republicans had control (they did not have it from 2001-2002 as democrats controlled the senate, and did not have it after 2006), you would have read daily how when republicans tried to "reform" social security (an existing program) that is going bankrupt, they were vilified and sabotaged at every corner by the very liberals that want to change (not reform - again you miss the mark on why reform) health insurance. I for one am under the (apparent mistaken) belief that before you take on mountains of new obligations, you fulfill the ones you already have. No democrat has ever done that with Social Security OR Medicare (the current version of what you Aussies call Socialized medicine).
Both are going bankrupt, and now, medicare is being abandoned by major hospitals because of its inefficiency, fraud, waste and malfeasance. And you wonder why Americans dont want the same to happen to the rest of their health insurance?
I thought he was our northern neighbor?
I can never tell Canucks from Aussies. They all look alike to me.
I apologize to Cikomyr for my mis-representation of his nationality. Ok, 3rd best then.
I've got an idea. How about the peeps of USA work towards Gov't reform.
1.) Fire em all and start over. If you were in office you cannot re run.
2.) Term limits
3.) Congress cannot be expempt from the laws that they wish to impose upon the populace (ie health care, taxes,etc)
True, but if you're going to play US politics you better know the rules.
This is the very reason why I don't play Canadian politics.
I dont either (or Aussie politics), but I do like to watch. It is second only to the NFL for a spectator sport!
speaking of... how is the great firewall of australia coming along?
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
Stardock Forums