POL: Stop the NAFTA Highway!!!

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Any "evidence" anybody puts forth in an argument is "biased" or somehow flawed to the point where you don't need to take it seriously.

Since when are personal anecdotes considered evidence?

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Since when are personal anecdotes considered evidence?

Enough anamolies to a given paradigm will eventually destroy the paradigm.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Enough anamolies to a given paradigm will eventually destroy the paradigm.

Granted, but it takes more than just a few personal anecdotes, which was my point. MrBigglesworth posted professional studies and asked for studies that refute his stance. What's wrong with that? If the VA system is as bad as the claims here have been, where are the studies to back that? I don't doubt that people have had horrible experiences with the VA system, but that doesn't mean the entire system is a failure.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Granted, but it takes more than just a few personal anecdotes, which was my point. MrBigglesworth posted professional studies and asked for studies that refute his stance. What's wrong with that? If the VA system is as bad as the claims here have been, where are the studies to back that? I don't doubt that people have had horrible experiences with the VA system, but that doesn't mean the entire system is a failure.

I've had searched high and low for some kind of research showing the difference of the timeliness of care, but have not found none yet. That tells me that they do not ask the right questions or intentionally left out that part. I did find one survey showing veterans' dissatisfaction with the long waits, but I don't think it would pass the sniff test so to speak.

If I rated the VA system now, I would rate it satisfactory. I would give it an excellent rating if the timeliness of care was much much better. No one should have to wait long periods of time to see a doctor. The average wait according to the VA is a little more than 3 days, but I have only been at or below that average twice ever. I would say the average for me has been 7-10 days, but I have times where I've waited 21+ days to see a doctor. There is no excuse for that.

Another story: My brother was denied care through the VA because of means testing (which I understand, but should have given him information to fight the determination, but didn't) even though he didn't held a job because he was too sick to. After some wrangling with VA offices and not the hospital itself, I was able to get him into the hospital system. He was able to see a doctor, but he couldn't do anything because of his condition. He was referred to another clinic. They told him that he was close to death, but he would have to wait 3 months to see a specialist. I was the one who had to help him to that appointment because he was too weak to go alone. My brother had lost 80 lbs in those 3 months.

3 different people and the same outcome: slow service. Like I said, they do good work when they get to you, but the waits are way too long compared to private sectors. If they want people to view this as the model for what universal healtchare system, they better get the waits down to 24-48 hours or people will not accept such a system.

[Galaxy]

Personally, when it comes down to me, surveys are worthless. An universal health care system would have to answer these questions:

1) What will be the overall tax burden of such system? Will higher taxes deter entreprenuers (would me) and reduce productivity in our economy (typcial rule of thumb and fact, the higher the tax burden, the lower the productivity)?
2) Will it restrict the salaries of doctors and nurses, even depressing them; if so, will it lower the quality of quantity of people wanting to become doctors? Plastic surgery is the big "profit" area right now due to not having to deal with medicaid, ect. Will it just deter doctors into those fields?
3) How will it effect financial support for research?
4) How can an universal health care system "control" costs as regards to drugs, equipment?
5) When will it infrigne on the free-market principles that this country is built and has prosper on?
6) What exactly will covered under a health care system?
7) How will it not raise Adminstrative costs due to the increase breaucratic, paperwork, ect?
8) How do you exactly shut-down hospital companies, insurance companies, who were built through the free-market principles? Do they and the thousands of the employees deserve a market value buyout?
9) Will the Gov't become liable to malupractice suits? Will doctors still have to pay for insurance?
10) What about the Hippa Law?
11) Should non-American citizens or legal residents be allowed access, free of charge?

Just a few of the questions off the top of my head.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Enough anamolies to a given paradigm will eventually destroy the paradigm.

Enough hot air will eventually fill a balloon.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by duckman

If I rated the VA system now, I would rate it satisfactory. I would give it an excellent rating if the timeliness of care was much much better. No one should have to wait long periods of time to see a doctor.

Is the long wait due to an insignificant number of doctors, or is it bureaucratic nonsense?

And I agree that no one should have to wait extended periods to see a doctor, but I also feel that your health insurance should not determine the quality of medical treatment you receive.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Note: I'm not a health care specialist, nor do I play one on television.

Originally Posted by Galaxy

1) What will be the overall tax burden of such system? Will higher taxes deter entreprenuers (would me) and reduce productivity in our economy (typcial rule of thumb and fact, the higher the tax burden, the lower the productivity)?

As opposed to paying exorbitant insurance fees? (Personal anecdote warning) My brother-in-law owns his own business and is barely scraping by because of the health insurance fees he has to pay. And remember, around 46 million Americans don't have any insurance and the ones that get stuck with the bill are you and me. If it's included in taxes, those 46 million pay up as well.

2) Will it restrict the salaries of doctors and nurses, even depressing them; if so, will it lower the quality of quantity of people wanting to become doctors? Plastic surgery is the big "profit" area right now due to not having to deal with medicaid, ect. Will it just deter doctors into those fields?

I don't know if it will lower salaries or not, but how many doctors get into the field primarily because of the money? Especially when they know how much work is involved and how long it will take before they even start to see any of that money in their pocket. The money is nice, but they enter the field for other reasons. If your goal is just to make money, there are better fields out there that require way less schooling and less working hours.

3) How will it effect financial support for research?

Since the federal government is the largest supplier of funds for research, I don't see anything changing.

4) How can an universal health care system "control" costs as regards to drugs, equipment?

I don't think it can control costs, but by buying in bulk it can lower the impact of these costs on everyone else.

5) When will it infrigne on the free-market principles that this country is built and has prosper on?

Who says it has to? If you want to go to a private hospital over a state run one, that's your choice. Just like you can use UPS or FedEx over the USPS.

8) How do you exactly shut-down hospital companies, insurance companies, who were built through the free-market principles? Do they and the thousands of the employees deserve a market value buyout?

Please forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the downtrodden insurance companies.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Is the long wait due to an insignificant number of doctors, or is it bureaucratic nonsense?

And I agree that no one should have to wait extended periods to see a doctor, but I also feel that your health insurance should not determine the quality of medical treatment you receive.

Isn't the waiting period a problem in Canada and England?

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Is the long wait due to an insignificant number of doctors, or is it bureaucratic nonsense?

And I agree that no one should have to wait extended periods to see a doctor, but I also feel that your health insurance should not determine the quality of medical treatment you receive.

It's a combination of undermanned staffs, not enough money put into the system, and bureaucratic red tape. The VA hospitals are undermanned with the current number of people using their services and have to recruit doctors from other countries to come here to make sure they have a sufficent staff or they use medical students to make up the deficency. My last two doctors were from the Ukraine and Iran respectively. They are both good doctors, but the language barriers are sometimes difficult. They went to medical school here in the US and stayed to pay off their loans through some kind of program that exchanges years in the system for forgiveness of debt. Not a bad thing at all, but not enough doctors take advantage of it because they make way below market value and pay off their loans in private practice. Who wants to lose nearly $100,000 a year in income?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Isn't the waiting period a problem in Canada and England?

Yes, but allowing the opening of private care as an alternative those who want to pay and start charging user fees (copays) for those who can afford them would go a long way to lessening the wait times.

But again, is it as good as private care if you have good job with a good medical plan here in the U.S. -no. Is it better than having no insurance or a really bad medical plan here in the U.s. - yes.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Note: I'm not a health care specialist, nor do I play one on television.




As opposed to paying exorbitant insurance fees? (Personal anecdote warning) My brother-in-law owns his own business and is barely scraping by because of the health insurance fees he has to pay. And remember, around 46 million Americans don't have any insurance and the ones that get stuck with the bill are you and me. If it's included in taxes, those 46 million pay up as well.




I don't know if it will lower salaries or not, but how many doctors get into the field primarily because of the money? Especially when they know how much work is involved and how long it will take before they even start to see any of that money in their pocket. The money is nice, but they enter the field for other reasons. If your goal is just to make money, there are better fields out there that require way less schooling and less working hours.



Since the federal government is the largest supplier of funds for research, I don't see anything changing.



I don't think it can control costs, but by buying in bulk it can lower the impact of these costs on everyone else.



Who says it has to? If you want to go to a private hospital over a state run one, that's your choice. Just like you can use UPS or FedEx over the USPS.



Please forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the downtrodden insurance companies.

Thanks for your views. I just guess it's a difference of opinions. Now, would you allow "vouchers" (up to the allocated state amount) to a surgery or carefor private care, if a patient has private insurance of pays for the remainder of the costs?

[clintl]

There are other models for universal health care out there other than England and Canada. France and Germany, for instance, both of which have systems that provide outstanding service at much lower cost than the US health care system.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Thanks for your views. I just guess it's a difference of opinions. Now, would you allow "vouchers" (up to the allocated state amount) to a surgery or carefor private care, if a patient has private insurance of pays for the remainder of the costs?

I don't see why not. The vouchers would come from taxes you pay, so why shouldn't you be able to use them as well? I would hope that the national system would be run so well that there wouldn't be any need or desire to go outside the system, but I'm not one to tell someone they can't go see a particular doctor, as long as they cover all additional costs.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Any "evidence" anybody puts forth in an argument is "biased" or somehow flawed to the point where you don't need to take it seriously.

A logical argument consists of a number of premises that lead to a logical conclusion. When someone presents such an argument, to prove it wrong you have to either attack the premises or the logic used to take the premises and arrive at the conclusion. In the case of this thread, I attacked the logic: a statistically significant set of examples do not prove a trend. When someone has good logic, but their premises are flawed, you attack the premises. In this thread, my logic was sound (i.e., every study says that the VA is better, so the VA is better), so my premises were attacked ('I don't believe in studies'). That's how it works.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by duckman

I've had searched high and low for some kind of research showing the difference of the timeliness of care, but have not found none yet. That tells me that they do not ask the right questions or intentionally left out that part. I did find one survey showing veterans' dissatisfaction with the long waits, but I don't think it would pass the sniff test so to speak.

If I rated the VA system now, I would rate it satisfactory. I would give it an excellent rating if the timeliness of care was much much better. No one should have to wait long periods of time to see a doctor. The average wait according to the VA is a little more than 3 days, but I have only been at or below that average twice ever. I would say the average for me has been 7-10 days, but I have times where I've waited 21+ days to see a doctor. There is no excuse for that.

If your biggest issue with the VA is the wait time, you may be right that it is substandard compared to private care. I haven't looked for that specifically, but I haven't come across anything that compares the two. I do know that I have to wait days to seem my dr's, and even longer to see specialists in non-emergency situations. I also know that the VA needs more funding and more infrastructure to start to give care to all of the new wounded from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Isn't the waiting period a problem in Canada and England?

I don't know much about the English system (what I do know about it I don't like), but the wait time in Canada I think can be attributed to an underfunding of the sytem (they would have to dump a *ton* more money into healthcare to equal what we are spending).

Originally Posted by Galaxy

2) Will it restrict the salaries of doctors and nurses, even depressing them; if so, will it lower the quality of quantity of people wanting to become doctors? Plastic surgery is the big "profit" area right now due to not having to deal with medicaid, ect. Will it just deter doctors into those fields?
7) How will it not raise Adminstrative costs due to the increase breaucratic, paperwork, ect?
8) How do you exactly shut-down hospital companies, insurance companies, who were built through the free-market principles? Do they and the thousands of the employees deserve a market value buyout?

I think you ask a lot of good questions that would need to be debated to come up with the best possible bill, but I wanted to focus on three of them:

2) What keeps doctors' salaries high are the AMA. They restrict the number of medical schools so that the demand vastly outweighs the supply (they also make the process of becoming a DR much more rediculous than it has to be, I have a lot of experience in this area, having been a premed major in college, scoring well on the MCATS, and still declining to go to med school). European countries have much lower doctor salaries, and yet their systems still produce better results. A universal system though doesn't have to lower salaries.

7) One of the big savings of universal care is the lowering of administrative costs. A big expense right now for the health care industry is to figure out who is on what insurance plan, billing the insurance plan, and then having the insurance plan go over the bill to make sure it is correct. Medicare, medicaid, and the VA produce the smallest overhead costs in the country. Also, putting everyone on one system would streamline things so that all of your health information would be available and transferable to any dr in the country. IT advancements that would be too expensive for a private hospital to fund on its own would be available in the new system.

8) Off the top of my head, comanies that are made irrelevant and can no longer compete should just be shut down, but that's the fiscal conservative in me. There may be overwhelming reasons why that is a bad idea, and some kind of compensation package should be in order.

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

For the love of jeebus, the word is spelled "ridiculous".

Thank you for your attention, and please carry on...

Don't be rediculous you looser!

[Cringer]

So, uh....the NAFTA Super Highway is going to go by the universal healthcare hospitals right?

Or is it we need the NAFTA Super Highway to bring supplies to the hospitals?

Or both?

Sorry, just trying to tie this together.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Well, once we get universal health care we can use those out of work insurance company employees to build the NAFTA highway.

[Galaxy]

So, is that NAFTA highway getting any air time with the election season?

[JPhillips]

This will surely explode Bubba's head. It seems that a group of evangelicals, now endorsed by Pat Robertson, see I-35 as a highway prophesied by Isaah, "And a highway will be there, it will be called the way of holiness."

From CBN:

A number of Christians have come to believe, because of recent prophecies, dreams, and visions, that I-35 is the highway spoken in Isaiah 35, verse 8: “And a highway will be there, it will be called the way of holiness.”

… [Heartland Ministries’ Hill] believes God has an awesome plan that starts along I-35. “Let’s draw a line in the center of America, set people on fire, get young people saved, get moms and dads saved, get churches on fire, get holy, and watch how it affects the rest of America.”

“What do we expect to see?” [said Cindy Jacob.] “We expect laws to be changed in cities. We expect righteous leaders. We expect a movement, a reformation that will literally sweep the face of the earth.”

[WSR]

I've heard of this highway on Talk Radio. Has it really already been designated as Interstate-35?

[Passacaglia]

Exit 8 is going to be a big fustercluck.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This will surely explode Bubba's head. It seems that a group of evangelicals, now endorsed by Pat Robertson, see I-35 as a highway prophesied by Isaah, "And a highway will be there, it will be called the way of holiness."

From CBN:

I just threw up in my mouth.

[JeeberD]

Hey! I live right off of I-35! They can't take my highway away from me!

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

Hey! I live right off of I-35! They can't take my highway away from me!

They won't, they will just make you part of the great I-35 Church.

[clintl]

So - are the "Highway of Holiness" signs up on I-35 yet?

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by clintl

So - are the "Highway of Holiness" signs up on I-35 yet?

Nope, but when they start showing up I will run over them.

[Toddzilla]

Does Isaiah 35, verse 55 mention anything about a speed limit perhaps?

[sterlingice]

No, only Sammy Hagar did

SI

[Cringer]

This semi-classic thread (to me anyways, for some reason) gets an update today.

The Trans-Texas Corridor is dead as of today.

I wonder if Bubba Wheels is happy in his bunker, or if he is spinning it into an even bigger threat to America? Will we ever know?

In the end, though I argued against Bubba's links years ago when this thing was started, I am glad it is dead. It started to become more and more clear it would be one massive network of toll roads, something I became more and more against. I think the toll aspect of this, along with the loss of land by farmers, is what made people fight this.

It is nice to see a public outcry be taken serious by the state government, I think that is what really makes this a good thing.

hxxp://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6196406.html

Trans-Texas Corridor is dead, TxDOT chief says

By ROSANNA RUIZ , JANET ELLIOTT and R.G. RATCLIFFE Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle
Jan. 6, 2009, 12:32PM

AUSTIN — In response to public outcry, the ambitious proposal to create the Trans-Texas Corridor network has been dropped and will be replaced with a plan to carry out road projects at an incremental, modest pace, a state transportation official announced today.

"The Trans-Texas Corridor, as it is known, no longer exists," said Amadeo Saenz Jr., executive director of the Texas Department of Transportation, at the agency's annual forum in Austin.

The state, he said, will carry forward with modifications to proposed projects and will rely heavily upon input from Texans through more town hall meetings and an updated Web site.

He also made clear that, should toll lanes be added to various roads, tolls will be assessed only on those, and not existing lanes.

The renewed effort now will operate under the name "Innovative Connectivity Plan."

The decision won applause from a number of officials and watchdog organizations. David Stall of the citizens' group Corridor Watch called it a major victory for Texans.

"We're real pleased that a project once described as unstoppable has now screeched to a halt," he said.

Saenz said the state will continue to pursue various projects, including the Interstate 69 project. If, however, more lanes are needed along U.S. 59, the state will simply widen that roadway, Saenz said.

Last January, town hall meetings conducted across the state drew huge crowds but few supporters for Gov. Rick Perry's Trans-Texas Corridor plan, particularly among rural property owners north and west of Houston.

TxDOT announced last summer that the corridor would stick to major highways for most of the route in southeast and South Texas.

The proposal called for a network of broad corridors linking major cities, with toll roads for cars and trucks, rail tracks for freight and passenger trains, and space for pipelines and power lines.

Thousands of residents crowded into public meetings to question and lambaste the plan, complaining it would take too much private land, and bring traffic and crime to small towns and rural areas.

Perry, who is visiting troops in Iraq, said today that the name Trans-Texas Corridor is dead, but that the state will still look at public/private partnerships to build roads, including toll roads.

"The name Trans Texas Corridor is over with. We're going to continue to build roads in the state of Texas," Perry said.

"Our options are relatively limited due to Washington's ineffectiveness from the standpoint of being able to deliver dollars or the Legislature to raise the gas tax," he said. "So we have to look at some other options."

Stall, the Corridor Watch leader, said his group understands that toll roads likely will be needed to address congestion. But he said those roads now will be built to meet local transportation needs rather than to allow a private company to profit from business development along new routes.

He said his group will continue to watch TxDOT to make sure new roads "meet the public's transportation needs and not Wall Street's profit needs."

Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Chairman John Carona said the announcement "should be of great relief to literally thousands of Texans we heard from who were opposed to the Trans-Texas Corridor as first envisioned."

It also removes a distraction for the Legislature, which will convene on Jan. 13.

"We can now focus on the real issue, which is additional road capacity and the means to finance the same," said Carona, R-Dallas.

He said his goals are to win passage of a proposed constitutional amendment that would, if approved by voters, dedicate all of the motor fuels tax to highway funding.

Additionally, he said, the Legislature should pass a bill that ties the gas tax to inflation.

"Operating off a 1991 motor fuels tax makes funding our transportation needs impossible," he said.

Carona said raising the gas tax will be politically difficult.

"I try to remind people, we're not just talking about the inconvenience of congestion," he said. "Insufficient road capacity affects the quality of life and economic development. It also effects air quality."

Rep. Patricia Harless, R-Spring, said she is glad that TxDOT is responding to people who were concerned that their land would be condemned to make way for the huge corridors — four football fields wide — envisioned for the TTC.
"I'm optimistic that they're going to continue to listen to the citizens and make sure that private property rights are protected," said Harless, a member of the House Transportation Committee.

Chris Lippincott, a spokesman for the transportation department, said the public reaction played a key role in dropping the TTC.

"As we evaluated these projects against the backdrop of public reaction and assessments of local leaders, we realized we could go forward with a more modest approach," he said.

[sterlingice]

Maybe I just don't see the whole story, but what was wrong with a big infrastructure project designed to connect major cities in Texas?

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Maybe I just don't see the whole story, but what was wrong with a big infrastructure project designed to connect major cities in Texas?

...and why the outcry against toll roads? I mean yeah, toll roads suck, but I've gotten used to them.

[Cringer]

Well, I think the big problems came when they started coming up with the routes for this stuff and it meant a LOT of people (including farmers) would lose 1200 ft. wide sections of their land as much of this was built from scratch. That is a lot of land taking by the government in one chunk, from a lot of people.

I would love to see something like they planned done. Mainly some kind of passenger/light rail system set up along the main highways, and a network of it. I would love to take rail from here to San Antonio or Houston. And something like that between San Antonio/Austin and Dallas/FW would be good I think.

[Toddzilla]

Ah...good times...