Secrets of the City

Re: hearing more from “Shyest Violet” here on MNSpeak, I note that she describes herself as a “student of feminist philosophy and liberation theology.” Do you guys even try to find voices from the other side of the aisle?

with so many people in the US disagreeing with abortion, how can she expect that the package is ever passed w/ a public option supporting abortion coverage. Isn’t it unrealistic?

Jack, to be honest, I hadn’t even seen her description. What I did see, however, were a number of really well-done health care round ups. Isn’t that what matters? I am more than happy to hear from “the other side of the aisle.” In fact, I think it’s essential and will do my best to include both aisles in posts, regardless of my own position.

And on that note, Jack, ANYONE (anyone who is registered, that is) can post to MNSpeak, so if you’re concerned about any side not being heard, then I urge you to post away. Ball is in your court.

Thanks for the responsive, quick replies, Cristina, and I’m glad to learn that you’re interested in having posts made from across the political spectrum. I apparently misunderstood your original post, which I’d taken to mean that ‘ShyestViolet’ was going to be involved in an official capacity with the site. Rex and Matt and Steve and Max of course possess many virtues, but there hasn’t been much political diversity in evidence.

As to posting here myself, I’m interested, but there’s one embarrassing hurdle to clear: I don’t know how to incorporate an out-going link into the text of a paragraph. Is there some sort of posting primer available? Thanks….

Jack, we are working on a better (WYSIWYG) posting interface. In the meantime, you have two choices. Include links in parentheses, and I will correct prior to post approval. Or.. learn a little HTML. See the second example here.

As for ShyestViolet’s future role in MNSpeak, in an effort to promote more voices (via posts, as well as comments), I am indeed trying to recruit regular posters on a variety of important topics — people who are already writing on these subjects and hence are prepared to contribute regular posts that may serve to promote their own work. If you, or anyone else out there, are interested in doing something of this nature, please send me your suggestions/proposals.

Can we post pictures yet?

Thanks, Cristina! Learning is fun, kind of….

Guess not.

Have to do it via linkage, I guess: PIC

Damn. Even THAT doesn’t work.

Working on it, noodleman. Sorry. But your link does work now. (Just needed a word to link, silly.)

You need to put something for it to tag Noodles… That is something between the <A HREF="blah blah blah">link</a> Good picture though.

This time with new-window-opening-goodness — hey, this computer programming stuff is EASY!….

Folks, try to remember to add target=”_blank” after the URL, so that the link opens in a new page and doesn’t just pull you out of the SOC MNSpeak page.

If I am a heavy smoker, and develop lung cancer, should my chem and radiation be covered under a public option health care plan?

baker, of course it should be.

Agreed (says the heavy smoker)!

@DouglasG: When I posted the link, it didn’t show up right away. Now, it does. Yeah, that guy was funny. As the car is passing me by, he gives me the thumb and shouts “This is one for the refrigerator!”

@Cristina: We had a debate about new windows vs. none a couple of weeks. The consensus among the Internati (well, Ed, at least) was that opening a new window was bogus. So I haven’t been doing that since then. But if that is your preference, Ed can just go back to folding TP.

Are there any things that shouldn’t be covered under a public option?

Hmm.. Yes, I prefer to open a new window. But I don’t see any reason why my preference should supersede the Internati’s (even if it’s just Ed’s).

Are there any things that shouldn’t be covered under a public option?

How can you put conditions on things and not end up with millions of uninsured? It was filtering out those kind of things that shouldn’t be covered that got people to being uninsurable. (Pre-existing conditions and all that.) So, I do not see how you could have a public option without covering everything — or having “death panels”.

“So, I do not see how you could have a public option without covering everything — or having “death panels”

That’s what is scaring The Rat, DouglasG.

If smokers can’t get coverage, then neither should fast food eaters, rock climbers, skydivers, and the police. The latter three are in high-risk hobbies or occupations, and a bullet to the gut is probably more expensive in the long-run than a pair of blackened lungs. Heck, the disability pension given a disabled cop (who lives an additional 20 years) probably costs the taxpayer more than does a lung transplant.

Of course smokers should be covered. It’s my job to make sure fewer people smoke. It’s working. Hey, I’m saving tax dollars! Woot!

I am just wondering if you guys think there should be any exceptions…

If there is a public option, what sort of restrictions are placed on it?
I’m hearing none…

I am really just curious, I am not trying to make some passive statement.

What about a guy who illegally does a base jump off a building or a bridge, and breaks his back and is paralized? Surgeries, physical therapy, remodeling his house to be wheelchair friendly, Full coverage paid for by taxes?

I’d be hesitant to place those kinds of restrictions at all, due to the incredibly slippery slope – I don’t think it’s impossible to offer complete health coverage to all still not place strict restrictions on peoples’ behavior. Works in all these other countries.

I think the reason why is the difference between the principle of it and the practice of it. In some sense, it’s true that the base-jumper probably doesn’t deserve much in the way of coverage. But it’s also true that restricting is base-jumping choice by not covering could start to effect the next guy, who just likes to ride is motorcycle through the countryside on Sundays. So rather than go after Mr. Base Jumper, I try to change my perspective to practice: how many base jumpers are there? Fifty? A hundred? A thousand? Out of 300 million people? It’s water under the bridge; not worth restricting behavior over.

Fast food and smoking are way bigger problems because they’re a million times more pervasive. But you could do a better job with food, for example, by fundamentally changing the way that we regulate its production in this country rather than harassing individual consumers. The former would be effective and not invasive (it’s merely a CHANGE of already-existing government policy, not additional intervention) where the latter would be invasive AND ineffective.

The moral of the story, as I see it? Cover everything and fix the big costs in a more clever and fundamental way.

“Hey, I’m saving tax dollars! Woot!”

You rob from Peter to pay Paul, Bob.

Baker, no country or party that proclaims itself to be found as a Christian nation (or at least founded upon Christian ideals/beliefs/tradition what ever you want to call it) should be considering leaving people to die along the side of the road. Regardless of how they came to be there.

It’s pretty clear to me that Bachmann et al. are not the Samaritan, they’re all the other people that passed by.

“That’s what is scaring The Rat, DouglasG.”

Then you should already be terrified over our current system, rat.

Well, I’m not terrified. I’m lucky because I’m a pretty healthy guy. But the times we’ve needed insurance they’ve done right by us. If I were on a public plan, I would hope it would be the same, but I don’t know.

How about outlawing cigarettes, fast food, and base jumping?

You don’t think someone is thinking about it?

Well, I’m not terrified. I’m lucky because I’m a pretty healthy guy. But the times we’ve needed insurance they’ve done right by us.

Oh, what fun you will then have when dealing with a private insurer “death panel.” They exist, Rat. The “panels” are built-in as a profit center, and you will have less recourse for persuasion than one would with a publicly-funded option.

So you say.

My current health plan doesn’t ban claims on my own behaviors, so why should the public option?

Back when my Grandmother was still alive, she was admitted to the hospital for severe stomach pain, failure to thrive, and vomiting. The docs were stymied even though my mom suggested a bleeding ulcer (which she also suffers from). Rather than scheduling her for an upper GI endoscopy, like my mom suggested, the docs wanted to do an exploratory laparotomy (basically open her up and poke around), because Medicare wouldn’t cover the endoscopy. Oh, and my grams was in her mid 90’s then and weighed about 90 pounds. Basically, she wouldn’t wake up from that surgery. My mom had to sign paper work stating that she would pay out of pocket for the upper GI before the docs would even consider it. So, yeah, death panels do exist even now because why spend money for an expensive rad procedure on a 94 year old lady when she’s probably going to die soon anyway? This is often because payment is contingent on medical necessity and written into contractual agreements in the medical insurance policy, government or privately funded. Coding is king in modern health care. If people think their private insurance doesn’t affect the type of care they have access too, they’re not paying attention to their policy. Sure, you can get whatever you want, but be willing to pay out of pocket for it.

P.S. She did have an ulcer and lived another 5 years.

Oh, and some state government health insurance policies can dictate your behavior, but only by mitigating their risk by having you pay a higher premium and requiring yearly physicals. The state of SD stipulates that smokers pay a premium (SD state workers currently do not pay premiums and have a $500 deductible) should they choose to continue smoking.

“My current health plan doesn’t ban claims on my own behaviors, so why should the public option?”

Last time I checked, insurance premiums for smokers are significantly higher in many private programs.
How do you prose a private plan would handle this?

(via Minnesota Independent) “Though the Maine Legislature passed legislation to allow same-sex marriage, residents voted against the bill in a ballot measure on election day by a margin of 53 to 47 percent. The Catholic church was a major funder of the forces opposed to same-sex marriage, and as MPR’s Tom Scheck notes, Minnesota Catholic were among those funding the opposition. “