WEAK MINDED CONSERVATIVES...
OR
How not to answer "Today's Toughest Questions"
Conservatives
PERSIST in letting Bleeding-Heart-LIBS change the meaning of simple
words and concepts, and thus miss-direct the Debates. IF we
Conservatives try to respond to these FALLACIOUS premises, we lose
before we even open our mouths. Our first action as a Conservative is to conserve the language.
Do You need
Examples???:
First
Example: NEITHER Obama-Care NOR Trump-Care address improving or even
maintaining our HEALTH CARE. The LIBS have changed the vernacular,
and they have won. Both Bills are only about the MONEY involved; "who
pays what, when, to whom, how much, and how often".
WAKE-UP!
They both are only "INSURANCE COST Bills" not "HEALTH
CARE Bills". So which "(fake) Health Care Bill is best?
Neither! They are simply not about HEALTH CARE !!!
This
should be our first response to any question about this legislation:
"These are INSURANCE Bills, not Health Care Bills. Now do you
want to talk about INSURANCE or HEALTH CARE?"
Anyone
should see that a REAL Heath Care Bill would be concerned with the
number of Doctors and Nurses vs the number of Patients. It should
also discus the expansion of acceptable (and proven) health care
methodologies and providers, like MD's, Nurses, Acupuncturists,
Physical Therapists, Nutritionists, Dentists, Chiropractors,
Pharmacists, Herbal Medicines, and many others. New Laws or
Government Research Grants for real Health Care should force (or at
least entice) these entities to cooperate with each other in both
research and patient treatment activities... instead of being at war
with each other over the MONEY. Only then do they deserve our
financial support.
{Where are
the voices of the AMA, the ADA, the ALS, .. and the hundreds of other
US Health Care organizations in these bills??? These are the entities
who should be called on the carpet in the oval office to provide a
plan for our future health. Very few Politicians (who are mostly
Lawyers) can dress wounds, or prescribe the best pill, or recommend a
diet change ... so why should they be expected to write a good first
draft of a real "health care' bill?}
Another
Example: Abortion. Here, the Libs ask us "When does LIFE Begin?"
We think it is a valid question, so we attempt to answer. However,
there is NO scientific or medical answer to that question... whether
you are speaking of a specific person's 'life' or of 'life' in
general... No One Knows! So the only valid response to that query is:
"No one Knows... what is your next Question?" If we even
try to answer that question, or even consider it as being valid or
even debatable, we automatically LOSE.
A related
REAL question (with REAL answers which often send LIBs running) is
"When does LIFE END?" "When does Death occur?"
Now, there IS an established scientific and medical ANSWER to that
question: Life Ends when the attending doctor or an M.E. "calls
it", and then writes down the date and time. Then, following the
"WHEN?" answer, there are more, related questions which
can, and often must, be asked ("Where?", "Why?"
and "WHO was involved with this Death?"). Much simpler
questions to answer, isn't it? Aren't they?
Conservatives,
you must THINK before you answer tough questions. And, don't even try
to answer FALLACIOUS questions. Instead, take a little time, look for
the converse to the FALLACIOUS question, then ask your opponent that
REAL question.
The result
is often Cryptic or sometimes even humorous; I find that watching a
opponent divert their eyes and start to stutter can be quite
entertaining. xxx
Actually, Obamacare directly addressed healthcare itself. Remember, I read a draft of the House bill, so I can confirm. That's one of the reasons it was so long.. it addressed many issues that healthcare professionals & experts had been complaining about for some time.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, one provision addressed issues of secondary illnesses in hospitals, that is, easily-preventable deaths that occurred due to things like infections and mixing up patient meds. The ACA outlines a procedure (see below) for identifying these preventable deaths and creating policies for all hospitals to follow. An article I linked on FB last year talked about 50,000 deaths prevented by the ACA, and you replied thinking it was talking about *all* the deaths prevented by the ACA, and I never got around to pointing out that the article was specifying this exact category of deaths: That is, procedures to prevent Patient A from accidentally getting Patient B's meds, or poor surgical procedures, etc. In 8 years, the ACA has directly prevented 50,000 deaths by directly improving healthcare in this way, NOT including additional lives saved by increasing access and other provisions, which has saved even more than 50,000 lives. Mine included.
The ACA also has provisions for creating new medical infrastructure, like educating & retaining doctors & nurses, etc. I forget the specifics, especially since I like my own idea better, so I only remember my idea. But I felt it was a good start, and it definitely included it, as you suggest it ought.
It also created a plan to streamline & standardize medical records. If you've noticed more of doctors using computers, this is why. This not only reduces costs, but helps provide better healthcare, in that your records can be more easily shared between your providers, to achieve a more holistic approach to care, fewer mix-ups on drug interactions, medical history, etc.
All of the above could be improved, and even supporters of the ACA felt it was just a "good start" but not the final deal. I fully support a rational look at improvements to the ACA, but first you need to start with what's actually in there, not what you might imagine is in there. :)
Also as you suggest, the ACA did address communication & cooperation between the medical lobbies.. like doctors, pharma, insurance, hospitals, etc. Moreover, medical organizations, like the AMA, did in fact weigh in on the bill, and the bill also gave them voice in the many hearings which both the House and Senate conducted. (NOTE: These hearings are NOT being conducted re: Trumpcare.) Lawmakers knew they weren't experts, so rather than address the details directly, Congress set up committees which were required by law to have representatives from various backgrounds to represent multiple interests. (See above.) Congress said, "Here's examples of things that need fixing (which we learned about from experts who testified in our hearings), so you figure out the specifics since you know what you're doing. This committee will be staffed by x doctors, y insurance reps, n hospital administrators, p Average Citizens, and will be run by the following parameters."
This thing you say you want is actually in the ACA.
Lastly, access to healthcare *is* healthcare. If you can't get access, then all the medical tech and doctors in the world won't save you.
Anyway, keep in mind that I actually read a draft of the ACA. So feel free to ask me what's in there. :) My memory might be hazy, but I can always go refresh my memory from my blog summaries of it. Moreover, the ACA is a public law, on the internet, and can be read by anyone. I'm not the only one who read it and made a summary. I'm sure someone has made a summary of the current law with references to each passage so you can look up the actual wording. You don't have to be a lawyer to do that. It's not much different from reading the scriptures. ;)
Wait, does ACA actually address the Provider/Patient ratio? What was it and how much better is it today, 8 years later? As an ACA reader and advocate you should be able to answer my burning questions. Do you have references to those parts of the ACA bill that provide these answers? Why have I never heard the P/P ratio mentioned by the media? They reveled in reporting other bottom line statements like 'your health costs are going to go down $2,500 per year'?
DeleteIs the AMA (or the hundreds of other medical Associations) on board with the needed increases in Doctors, or Chiropractors, or Homeopaths, or Acupuncturists? Is the FDA on board for fast-tracking practices that have been proven in Europe and elsewhere, without running redundant US clinical trials? Is Medicare/Medicaid set up to pay for these 'new' or "old' but useful as much cheaper procedures???
I have heard of none of this happening or even under discussion for the last seven years. There has been no positive effect on my health care options as a result and my cost has gone only up year by year. I feel like someone is blindsiding me while I can easily 'feel' their hand in my pocket. Who is that person???
How is the issue of adding millions of Patients offset by added medical resources by the ACA? (other than the increased premium rates... i.e., other than more insurance 'money'?)
I would like to challenge the SOURCE of the statement that 50,000 deaths were PREVENTED by the ACA... unless they also have information that somehow a similar number of deaths were CAUSED by side-effect of changes Wrought by ACA.
Delete50,000 deaths is about 2% of the annual death rate in the US. That would have the impact of decreasing the total death rate (which has actually begun to increase). Any such "Miracle advance in Medical care" would be first page news in every media outlet. It is the equivalent of wiping out all of the suicides in the US, or stopping 88% of all Influenza and Pneumonia deaths. I would even tout it highly.
Now, there may have actually been ~50,000 (newly insured) people who lived because another ~50,000 were deprived of (their old) medical care. Otherwise the statistic makes no sense at all. However, the ages of these "saved lives" would be an interesting set of data to examine ...