Common Sense Debate

Got a show idea? Post them here!

Moderators: Loki, robroydude, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, Spinny Spamkiller

Re: Common Sense Debate

Postby Kath » Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:13 pm

Interesting experiment. Good luck, guys.

Harry has a good point. Nick's condition is an obvious yes, but it's a pretty big spectrum. On the other end, you have "my back hurts sometimes," peeps who spend their life fishing while living off the government.

Definitions going in would be a good thing.
If you believe you can't do something, you are absolutely right.
User avatar
Kath
Archon
 
Posts: 12474
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 7:42 am

Re: Common Sense Debate

Postby Harry K » Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:17 pm

I'm in the field, so if you have any question that I could answer or point you in the right direction shoot me a PM.
Some advice though, Henry (Harry) K is a sophisticated troll.

aaronparr
User avatar
Harry K
Archon
 
Posts: 12543
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: Common Sense Debate

Postby DrYouth » Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:30 pm

The gauntlet has been dropped...

Duelling with PM's at 30 paces...

(Clint Eastwood squint.... Eagle call....)

Will that dastardly Hondo make an appearance or quit this 2 horse town....

(tumbleweed)
"Trek requires no sunshine to be happy. He feeds off the despair of others like a dementor." e_room_matt

"Thank you so much for your assessment of my wickedness and the depth of my depravity and immersion in sin." drtrech

"You pansy-ass hippy utopian naive fool" coyo7e
User avatar
DrYouth
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:42 am
Location: Canadastan

Re: Common Sense Debate

Postby NickDupree » Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:44 pm

Kath wrote:Interesting experiment. Good luck, guys.

Harry has a good point. Nick's condition is an obvious yes, but it's a pretty big spectrum. On the other end, you have "my back hurts sometimes," peeps who spend their life fishing while living off the government.

Definitions going in would be a good thing.

I think people gaming the system in that way are rarer than you do, but I would have no qualms excluding people from the question if they are mildly or "sometimes" debilitated.
Nick

"Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any other controlling private power." – President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Simple Truths message to Congress (April 29, 1938)
User avatar
NickDupree
Resident Medicaid Wonk
 
Posts: 5737
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:30 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: Common Sense Debate

Postby NickDupree » Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:51 pm

DrYouth wrote:The gauntlet has been dropped...

Duelling with PM's at 30 paces...

(Clint Eastwood squint.... Eagle call....)

Will that dastardly Hondo make an appearance or quit this 2 horse town....

(tumbleweed)

"a burro wandered sleepily down the town's dusty street"
Nick

"Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any other controlling private power." – President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Simple Truths message to Congress (April 29, 1938)
User avatar
NickDupree
Resident Medicaid Wonk
 
Posts: 5737
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:30 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: Common Sense Debate

Postby Kath » Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:55 pm

NickDupree wrote:I think people gaming the system in that way are rarer than you do

Probably true. I grew up in Chicago where it was (then,) something I saw often. I wouldn't go a week without seeing someone buy something really expensive like lobster with food stamps or see them driving away in a fancy car or something.

My ex-sister-in-law got disability. She had home visits a couple times a year, because it was a back-related issue. Before they came, she had to re-arrange the house by getting stuff off the high shelves and such, since she claimed she couldn't stand up straight. She was not disabled. She had minor back pain at times, at best. She laughed about how she was getting away with it.

I don't see this in Florida nearly as much. I can't even remember the last time I witnessed abuse like I used to see in Chicago on a weekly basis.
If you believe you can't do something, you are absolutely right.
User avatar
Kath
Archon
 
Posts: 12474
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 7:42 am

Re: Common Sense Debate

Postby Atanamis » Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:21 pm

Harry K wrote:What are the parameters that would be considered "chronic debilitation conditions"?
I would say permanent disability, personally. Is there a good standardized definition you sneaky medical coders have that would be of good use? We are looking for a term to refer to a condition that will be expensive and chronic for life, and which will make the likelihood of being able to repay a medical loan at any point in the future difficult or impossible.

Most free market advocates are comfortable with saying that someone who incurs $250k of medical debt and then can rejoin the workforce can make regular payments throughout their life to repay the loan. I'm thinking of a person whose medical care throughout their life is likely to cost more on an ongoing basis than they will be likely to make to pay for it. A person who is merely crippled just needs a place to stay and food to eat. They might not be able to get a job and earn their own living, but their costs are not necessarily worse than that of an average person.

I'm thinking people whose ongoing medical bills will always be likely to be higher than their earning potential, unless they happen to be an extraordinary artist or thinker or something of the like. I'd probably also exclude those who inherit large amounts of money, since they can afford to pay for their own care. No pure market solution will help these people. Someone has to provide charity for them, whether family, friends, and religious groups or the government. Their costs are often far higher than what most charitable organizations can afford though.

Of course, determining criteria for identifying such people and preventing fraud could be part of the debate. I would say that if no consensus can be found, there needs to be a point when the discussion just assumes there is a way we can make such determinations and moves on. Unless one of the parties to the discussion disputes the existence of such a demographic, in which case the debate might first visit the question of whether it DOES exist before making the assumption that such people can be identified and digging into how their care should be funded. Both sides should present their views on how it should be funded, respond to the other sides views, and then make a final response to the criticism.

I'd lay it out something like this:
1a) Both sides write a post defining what they are addressing by "high cost chronic debilitating conditions".
1b) Both sides respond to the other persons initial post
1c) Both sides respond to 1b

2a) How a system would isolate legitimate cases from illegitimate (whatever kind of system is used)
2b, 2c) same as above

3a) How they would like to see treatment undertaken (hospitals, neighborhood organizations, etc)
3b, 3c) same as above

4a) How above treatment programs would be funded
4b, 4c) same as above

5a) Each person indicates what they think were the strongest points of their opposition
5b) response (no counter-response)
User avatar
Atanamis
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7965
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Common Sense Debate

Postby Harry K » Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:31 pm

Nice jab Antanamis! :lol:

Would you consider the costs of long term and often times multiple medication management? Chemotherapy treatments? Those that live in rural areas needing vital equipment at city hospitals? Organ transplants?

But it's up to those two to decide how far in depth they want to go.
Some advice though, Henry (Harry) K is a sophisticated troll.

aaronparr
User avatar
Harry K
Archon
 
Posts: 12543
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: Common Sense Debate

Postby hondo69 » Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:42 am

Well well well. Very interesting indeed.

The posts on this topic are obviously very positive, genuine and sincere. Can't beat that with a stick. It all sounds like a great idea well worth the effort so I'd love to give it a shot. Personally, I don't care too much which rules are arrived at, though a moderator like Harry sounds like a good idea. Seems that having someone with real-life first hand knowledge would be a big plus.

I will say going in that I am a strong believer in a solid safety net system. So you won't get much argument from me about having such a system in the first place. Also, I'm generous to a fault when you're talking about the most vulnerable among us. If a truly deserving person needs $50,000 a year to get by I'm likey to give them $100,000 just on general principles. So I may not be the best person for the job for those expecting a knock down, drag out fight.

But I'm pretty much game for any topic and any rules that you all think would serve the purpose. Sounds like fun to me and who knows, we just might learn something in the process.
Fugitive from the law of averages
User avatar
hondo69
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Common Sense Debate

Postby Harry K » Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:57 am

One source that should be helpful

http://www.cms.gov/



In general a chronic condition is

DEFINITION - A chronic health condition can be described as one that:

1. Lasts longer than 3 - 6 months

2. Is biologically based

3. Has a significant impact on the life of a person, and


4. Requires more than usual access to healthcare services for support.


Congenital - meaning a child is born with the conditions (eg Down syndrome; hypothyroidism)
Acquired - meaning a child develops the condition at some time after birth (eg Type 1 Diabetes; epilepsy)
Preventable - meaning the child could possibly not have acquired the disease if a specific action had been taken to stop it (eg HIV; traumatic injuries)
Non-Preventable - meaning there is nothing that could have been done (that we yet know of) to stop the child from having the condition (eg Autism; Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia)
Communicable - the chronic disease is somehow infectious (eg HIV, TB)
Non-Communicable - the chronic condition is not infectious in any way (eg Asthma and epilepsy)
Some advice though, Henry (Harry) K is a sophisticated troll.

aaronparr
User avatar
Harry K
Archon
 
Posts: 12543
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: Common Sense Debate

Postby DrYouth » Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:34 pm

hondo69 wrote:Well well well. Very interesting indeed.

The posts on this topic are obviously very positive, genuine and sincere. Can't beat that with a stick. It all sounds like a great idea well worth the effort so I'd love to give it a shot. Personally, I don't care too much which rules are arrived at, though a moderator like Harry sounds like a good idea. Seems that having someone with real-life first hand knowledge would be a big plus.

I will say going in that I am a strong believer in a solid safety net system. So you won't get much argument from me about having such a system in the first place. Also, I'm generous to a fault when you're talking about the most vulnerable among us. If a truly deserving person needs $50,000 a year to get by I'm likey to give them $100,000 just on general principles. So I may not be the best person for the job for those expecting a knock down, drag out fight.

But I'm pretty much game for any topic and any rules that you all think would serve the purpose. Sounds like fun to me and who knows, we just might learn something in the process.

The reply from the dark cowboy at the end of the dusty main street is heard...

"You wanna gunfight, you got one!"

(squint... another eagle cry...)

"Just thought I'd let you know, my 6-shooters loaded with blanks...

...but game on!"
"Trek requires no sunshine to be happy. He feeds off the despair of others like a dementor." e_room_matt

"Thank you so much for your assessment of my wickedness and the depth of my depravity and immersion in sin." drtrech

"You pansy-ass hippy utopian naive fool" coyo7e
User avatar
DrYouth
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:42 am
Location: Canadastan

Re: Common Sense Debate

Postby NickDupree » Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:00 pm

Maybe the biggest gap between hondo and me is tax policy and Reaganomics. I don't think supply-side economics works, and I think Congress has been (and continues to be) far too dysfunctional to constrain spending enough to make the tax cuts revenue neutral for the federal budget. If we wanted to afford the tax cuts while retaining our balanced budget and avoiding borrowing massive amounts of money from China and the Arab states, Congress would've had to refused President GWB the foreign interventions and never allowed the attendant hemorrhage of defense outlays. Instead, Congress demanded to have its cake and eat it too, and the Bush tax cut packages blew an enormous hole in our budget and put our whole federal government on an unsustainable fiscal path.

Given the irresponsible—even juvenile—behavior patterns we've proven again and again our Congress will engage in, plus the awful state we've put our deficit in, more tax cuts at this point would amount to a national suicide pact. Yet Gingrich and Santorum both insist on a new round of tax cutting that would leave a gap in the budget of over $1 Trillion, while Mitt Romney's proposal is only marginally less insane, adding $600 Billion to the deficit, according to Bloomberg Business News.
I see these proposals as synonymous with sovereign debt crisis, Greece style. Completely nuts.
Nick

"Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any other controlling private power." – President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Simple Truths message to Congress (April 29, 1938)
User avatar
NickDupree
Resident Medicaid Wonk
 
Posts: 5737
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:30 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: Common Sense Debate

Postby hondo69 » Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:31 am

I'd say you're right Nick, those are likely the most fundamental differences we have. And it seems to me it would be very difficult to have a back and forth on a single issue (such a safety net) without dragging in all the tangential arguments surrounding that issue.

We could start out discussing Kath's sister in law and how she's scamming the system and the next thing you know we're into States Rights and Reaganomics. The problem is these seemingly separate issues are all tied together and nearly impossible to tackle on their own. So I'm wondering what the best approach would be?

One idea is to narrow the focus and simply discuss Kath's sister in law, how she's scamming the system and how to prevent abuses in the future. As boring as this sounds I think it is a critically important topic that is never discussed in this country. Waste, fraud and abuse is taken for granted by most taxpayers since it just comes with the territory when your talking about anything government related. But then they turn around and bitch about the huge deficit. Uh, hello???

On the other hand we could just skip over the fine points and kick around Reaganomics vs. trickle up poverty. I'm just not sure we could win over any converts to either side since most people have great difficulty translating theory to real life results. Besides, their feelings on the subject are deep seated and not exactly open to either fact or theory.

But I'm good either way. You can decide on the direction or the other posters here can decide on the best approach. I've got an itchy trigger finger and it's ready to go off in any direction.
Fugitive from the law of averages
User avatar
hondo69
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Common Sense Debate

Postby DrYouth » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:22 am

How about:

"Be it resolved that Neoliberal (Reagonomics) style Tax cuts (we might want to be more specific here) are good economic policy."

Hondo on the Pro and Nick on the Con...

Bring in Kath's sister in law, if you think it makes a good argument or bring in any other info you want.

We'll should consider debating-style time limits, time for rebuttals etcetera. Keep some discipline in the debate.

It's good practice to take a poll before and after and see how much change occured in your listeners. Another good question is "How likely do you think the arguments are to change your viewpoint?" to assess how difficult an audience to influence you might have.

I'm stoked.
"Trek requires no sunshine to be happy. He feeds off the despair of others like a dementor." e_room_matt

"Thank you so much for your assessment of my wickedness and the depth of my depravity and immersion in sin." drtrech

"You pansy-ass hippy utopian naive fool" coyo7e
User avatar
DrYouth
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:42 am
Location: Canadastan

Re: Common Sense Debate

Postby DrYouth » Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:15 pm

Image
"Trek requires no sunshine to be happy. He feeds off the despair of others like a dementor." e_room_matt

"Thank you so much for your assessment of my wickedness and the depth of my depravity and immersion in sin." drtrech

"You pansy-ass hippy utopian naive fool" coyo7e
User avatar
DrYouth
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:42 am
Location: Canadastan

PreviousNext

Return to New Common Sense Show Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests