Indeed.

And why is this man a good choice for the House of Representatives? I heard some lovely rhetoric, but in the 5 plus minutes he spoke he didn't outline one contentious stance he would take.

Take a look at his statements about health care and let me know if you think he is being completely honest.

He sure does give a pretty speech, but I'm afraid that he is all hat.

Accepted that it is a speech meant to rouse support from the troops for the long hard battle ahead, but his website is the place to present a cohesive review of policy, and although the battle plan never survives the opening salvo, I'd expect him to be a little more forthright.

If the VA is a piece of crap as he seems to believe, then scrap it, and give each veteran a lump sum of cash each year to competitively purchase their own private health care.

It isn't the government's job to do provide health care for all, but with the largest medical center in the world in my home state, I'll be the first to admit that although we do a terrific job of treating exotic and horrible diseases and medical conditions for those that can afford it, we do a crap job compared to many other 1st and 2nd world nations when we look at issues of public health.

Again, give every senior citizen and medicaid recipient a cash sum each year and let them attempt to purchase private health care insurance. I understand why health insurance companies want to exclude people with preexisting conditions, they are run for a profit. It is the same reason that banks redline neighborhoods, they don't generate revenue.

It would not surprise me to see that soon the role of epigenetics will at some point come into play for preexisting condition exclusion. Mum was a smoker and overweight during her pregnancy, well the health insurance provider wants to exclude you from their pool.

I am amazed that I can competitively purchase almost any product in the USA except for health care. It is in the best interest of the corporations involved to keep the billing systems byzantine in nature.

If one wanted to really reform health care and lower costs, might I suggest that we yank the licenses of the bottom 10% of doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, and pre-hospital care providers. They always seem to be responsible for the worst and most costly errors. I happen to know of to many physicians in my state that switch malpractice insurance companies every year. Sure they pay a huge premium, but by the time the malpractice suit roles around, the insurance company is off the hook, because of the time that has passed since they serviced that policy.

Could we be honest about the invasive procedures we do on the elderly which keep them alive but add nothing to the quality of life. Could we bring back the mandatory autopsy for all in hospital deaths.

I love that you are so honest about better patient care, but it is possible that political rhetoric has blinded you to fear of real and useful reforms that need to be made?

Appreciate your thoughts,

a Texas dad

Where'd you see that, Tim?

And why is this man a good choice for the House of Representatives? I heard some lovely rhetoric, but in the 5 plus minutes he spoke he didn't outline one contentious stance he would take.

Take a look at his statements about health care and let me know if you think he is being completely honest.

He sure does give a pretty speech, but I'm afraid that he is all hat.

Accepted that it is a speech meant to rouse support from the troops for the long hard battle ahead, but his website is the place to present a cohesive review of policy, and although the battle plan never survives the opening salvo, I'd expect him to be a little more forthright.

If the VA is a piece of crap as he seems to believe, then scrap it, and give each veteran a lump sum of cash each year to competitively purchase their own private health care.

It isn't the government's job to do provide health care for all, but with the largest medical center in the world in my home state, I'll be the first to admit that although we do a terrific job of treating exotic and horrible diseases and medical conditions for those that can afford it, we do a crap job compared to many other 1st and 2nd world nations when we look at issues of public health.

Again, give every senior citizen and medicaid recipient a cash sum each year and let them attempt to purchase private health care insurance. I understand why health insurance companies want to exclude people with preexisting conditions, they are run for a profit. It is the same reason that banks redline neighborhoods, they don't generate revenue.

It would not surprise me to see that soon the role of epigenetics will at some point come into play for preexisting condition exclusion. Mum was a smoker and overweight during her pregnancy, well the health insurance provider wants to exclude you from their pool.

I am amazed that I can competitively purchase almost any product in the USA except for health care. It is in the best interest of the corporations involved to keep the billing systems byzantine in nature.

If one wanted to really reform health care and lower costs, might I suggest that we yank the licenses of the bottom 10% of doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, and pre-hospital care providers. They always seem to be responsible for the worst and most costly errors. I happen to know of to many physicians in my state that switch malpractice insurance companies every year. Sure they pay a huge premium, but by the time the malpractice suit roles around, the insurance company is off the hook, because of the time that has passed since they serviced that policy.

Could we be honest about the invasive procedures we do on the elderly which keep them alive but add nothing to the quality of life. Could we bring back the mandatory autopsy for all in hospital deaths.

I love that you are so honest about better patient care, but it is possible that political rhetoric has blinded you to fear of real and useful reforms that need to be made?

Appreciate your thoughts,

a Texas dad

I think the government does a great job of running things and I can think of many that are shining examples:

1. US Military
2. FAA
3. Rural electrification
4. Our elections
5. US Military
6. The Federal Highway system
7. Americans with Disabilities Act
8. The US Supreme Court
9. The Constitution
10. The Peace Corps
11. FEMA USAR teams
12. The Coast Guard
13. Our system of National Parks
14. Clean Water Act
15. Secret Service
16. FBI
17. NSA
18. Winning WW II
19. The GI Bill
20. Louisiana Purchase
21. The purchase of Alaska
22. Land grant colleges and universities
23. I can go on all day

If you want to say the government can turn a profit doing these things, you are right, and so is LawDog, but it isn't the role of the government to turn a profit. I look at that list and I see a government that has done things well, and will continue to do some things well.

National parks don't turn a profit, but their cost benefits this country. The cost of our US military could be reduced, and we could rid each branch of their own separate air wings and reduce costs, but the system is run at a loss, but it is still well run. The ADA Act actually costs American businesses more money than it generates for them, but we happen to be a nation that believes that no one should be barred from giving the chance to succeed. The 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution cost private citizens money and forced businesses into bankruptcy, and yet the nation still went ahead with it.

I'm all for our leaders being good fiscal stewards of the nation's finances, but I am don't expect every government program to make money. They are often in place to benefit society, and the greater good sometimes means that individuals must make sacrifices.

TD – The government isn't profit motivated – true. But this health care bill is designed to put the government in direct competition with profit motivated insurance companies. Since the government doesn't have to make a profit on its coverage, it won't. It will sell it cheaper than the insurance companies can provide, and they will go out of business.

All governments are instituted to provide what the people cannot provide for themselves. That means protection (military, police, fire, etc), infrastructure (utilities, roads), maybe education (and they do a piss-poor job of that). That is it. End of list. The federal, state and local governments have been sticking their collective noses in where they don't belong almost since the very beginning.

Is our health care system broken? Maybe. Could it be better? Sure. Does the federal government have the solution? Not no, but hell no!

Dear Steve,

Thank you for taking the time to respond. We both agree that the governments

Both political parties have had the opportunity to address any of the issues that would reduce costs and increase positive outcomes, and both parties found it easier to debate issues like a giant wall in Texas, banning burning the American flag, and banning gay marriage. Industry had the chance to reduce costs and they ignored the opportunity because they had no economic incentive.

If the threat of government sponsored health care is what it takes for their to be any changes, than so be it. The only ones who are excited about the prospect of change are those who want it. Why aren't insurance companies permitted to provide coverage to clients in different states? You would think that the corporations would welcome the competition. What I don't understand is how with all this unfettered competition in the insurance industry my costs rise about 8-12% per year. The real price of food, cars, airline travel, electronics, etc. have all dropped with improvements in quality. But that hasn't happened in health care, and I have to ask why not?

The system has serious flaws and needs to be fixed, but no one wants to make the difficult choices. The current administration is forcing the discussion.

Private insurance companies are run for a profit, and as a result they exclude entire groups of prospective clients. I think we should eliminate all government sponsored insurance (Medicaid, Medicare, and the VA), and give those patients cash grants to purchase private insurance from private providers. I think all the people who moan about the loss of efficiency and choice by being forced into government insurance would be begging to be let back into the government sponsored programs 5 minutes after they found out they were denied for pre-existing conditions or their real costs was much higher than what the government was able to negotiate.

The best insurance plan in the world is the federal government's insurance plan. It has the most enrolled members of any plan, has a variety of coverage options, and because of its size is able to negotiate the best rates from private insurance companies it contracts with.

If the federal government doesn't stick its nose into this issue who will. Remember it took a federal white paper to create modern ems services. If we don't want the federal government to stick its nose into health care we better get together as a nation and solve the problems for them.

Dear Rogue,

I can imagine lots of employers who wouldn't want to hire employees that fall under the protection of the ADA, and even before it was law didn't hire them. Accommodations, reasonable and otherwise cost money, and for the employee must have increased productivity when compared to an employee that isn't protected by the ADA to merit the extra costs the employer faces in accommodating the employee.

I'm sure if physically and mentally challenged citizens didn't face discrimination in hiring practices, the government wouldn't need to pass the law, and we could actually repeal the act.

I would guess that the largest employer of physically challenged employees is indeed the US federal government, and the agency with the most ADA qualified employees is the VA. The federal government makes sure that their buildings are ADA compliant. They have bathrooms that are accessible. They can make accommodations that private sector corporations don't want to make, even before the law.

I'd ask you this rogue: How do you feel about eliminating medicare and medicaid and giving each person who qualifies a lump sum of cash each year to purchase their private medical insurance. According to what I read here, that would be a better system than the socialized medicine they have currently.

The employer with the best and cheapest insurance plan for its employees is the US federal government. They are so large they can negotiate the best deals. Insurance companies flock to provide them with coverage because of the size of the annuity they provide.

Dear Rogue,

I can imagine lots of employers who wouldn't want to hire employees that fall under the protection of the ADA, and even before it was law didn't hire them. Accommodations, reasonable and otherwise cost money, and for the employee must have increased productivity when compared to an employee that isn't protected by the ADA to merit the extra costs the employer faces in accommodating the employee.

I'm sure if physically and mentally challenged citizens didn't face discrimination in hiring practices, the government wouldn't need to pass the law, and we could actually repeal the act.

I would guess that the largest employer of physically challenged employees is indeed the US federal government, and the agency with the most ADA qualified employees is the VA. The federal government makes sure that their buildings are ADA compliant. They have bathrooms that are accessible. They can make accommodations that private sector corporations don't want to make, even before the law.

I'd ask you this rogue: How do you feel about eliminating medicare and medicaid and giving each person who qualifies a lump sum of cash each year to purchase their private medical insurance. According to what I read here, that would be a better system than the socialized medicine they have currently.

The employer with the best and cheapest insurance plan for its employees is the US federal government. They are so large they can negotiate the best deals. Insurance companies flock to provide them with coverage because of the size of the annuity they provide.

Is the US government subject to penalties for violations of what bureaucrats decide is reasonable?

Unintended Consequences of State and Federal Antidiscrimination and Family Medical Leave Legislation on the Employment Rates of Persons with Disabilities
Lehmann, Ilana; Crimando, William
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, v51 n3 p159-169 2008
Abstract

I'm sure if physically and mentally challenged citizens didn't face discrimination in hiring practices, the government wouldn't need to pass the law, and we could actually repeal the act.

So, because the law was passed, it must have been needed?

And because it hasn't been repealed, it must be effective?

I am glad I was not drinking anything when I read that.

I have not made any statement about the health care reform, so don't drag me into that. I was only pointing out that the ADA was not one that should be listed as an atta boy for the government.

Dear RM,

According to the abstract of the article the ADA did work, and the loss of jobs and the difficulty in achieving employment among those covered was attributable to the Family and Medical Leave Act.

I still contend the ADA is a good law and was needed. I hope I wasn't engaging in the fallacy that all laws that are passed are needed, nor if they exist they must be needed. In fact when I look at what I wrote, it doesn't seem to state that at all, but you are free to interpret what I write in any manner you wish.

We continue to keep the 3rd Amendment as part of the Constitution, and I don't worry that the Federal government is going to quarter troops in my home at any point in the future. And I guess this proves your point that silly laws still exist.

Happy Holidays,

Texas Dad

Well, then I totally missed the point. Sorry for the rant.

Dear Tim,

Thank you for the time and attention to detail in your response. I only posit the idea of giving lump sums for the private purchase of insurance on the open market to point out the fallacy that anyone can purchase private insurance and that the private sector can be counted on to solve the problems that plague society.

The Federal government does a great job of offering their employees a variety of plans to chose from, and by not paying the entire cost, they are allowing their employees to decide how much insurance and compensation they want. But the reality is that the government can negotiate the best deals because of the size of their employee pool.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Texas Dad

According to the abstract of the article the ADA did work, and the loss of jobs and the difficulty in achieving employment among those covered was attributable to the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The abstract stated – This study is an attempt to demonstrate that, in fact, the dismal labor market experience following passage of the ADA was an unintended consequence of other factors–namely, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 and similar state legislation–even though such legislation was not originally meant as disability legislation.

In other words, some say it is the ADA that led to decreased employment, they claim that it is other legislation designed to protect employment, that led to decreased employment.

We continue to keep the 3rd Amendment as part of the Constitution, and I don't worry that the Federal government is going to quarter troops in my home at any point in the future. And I guess this proves your point that silly laws still exist.

Quartering of British troops was one of the reasons for revolution.

Repealing Amendments to the Constitutional is entirely different from repealing regular laws. This has only been done once and we still have not learned from the mistake that led to the 21st Amendment.

RM,

I must be missing something, the lead to the article states,

“Although some writers have suggested that the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), contrary to its intent, was responsible for a decline in employment for persons with disabilities, there is little strong empirical support for such an assertion.”

The authors don't believe that the ADA was responsible, but they do point to other legislation with unintended consequences for those covered by the ADA. That doesn't mean that the ADA was a bad law. That does mean that further state and federal laws impacted on those covered by a Federal law.

In a democratic republic people must make compromises. We don't live in a totalitarian regime, and as a result there are some laws that benefit some at the expense of others. I happen to like the freedom to worship G-d in the manner I see fit. This does allow for a host of religions that I think are false, wrong, immoral, dangerous. I don't happen to like Scientology, evangelical TV ministers who live in mega-mansions, or the Moonies. I think they do more harm to society than good, but that doesn't mean that because the 1st Amendment doesn't work perfectly that I think we should abolish it, or point to it and say that the bureaucrats in Washington messed it up.

The ADA was a good law. My guess is that we will see more and more American veterans who are covered by that legislation. We've become very good at treating battlefield traumatic brain injuries and what were once non-survivable combat trauma wounds. I am all for those individuals receiving reasonable (and the legislation does a very good job of defining this) accommodations to be part of the workforce.

Thanks for taking the time to respond and think about it.

Happy Christmas