PROMISES, PROMISES: Indian health care needs unmet

[natty bumppo 297]

Natty - this has to be the most lame reasoning ever.

Totally discounting the unique problems that affect Native Americans, their under-representation in our political structure and the cultural barriers and practical barriers separating them from the rest of the country (all of this is addressed in the article BTW), there is no commonality between the deficient implementation of a legacy program based on a 200+ year old treaty to proposed healthcare reforms for the majority.

And again - European style "socialized" healthcare is not what is currently being proposed (nor is it what Obama proposed during the election campaign) so arguing against it is somewhat pointless.

commonality = the gov't implementing and operating the health care program for both population segments. the older implementation is a failure with a small segment of the population. how will this be different with the larger population? cause it will simply be a bigger failure?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Natty - this has to be the most lame reasoning ever.

Totally discounting the unique problems that affect Native Americans, their under-representation in our political structure and the cultural barriers and practical barriers separating them from the rest of the country (all of this is addressed in the article BTW), there is no commonality between the deficient implementation of a legacy program based on a 200+ year old treaty to proposed healthcare reforms for the majority.

And again - European style "socialized" healthcare is not what is currently being proposed (nor is it what Obama proposed during the election campaign) so arguing against it is somewhat pointless.

commonality = the gov't implementing and operating the health care program for both population segments. the older implementation is a failure with a small segment of the population. how will this be different with the larger population? cause it will simply be a bigger failure?

Ummm yeah - because it will be totally... like.. um.. yeah... the same plan.

But sure - if you want to use a badly served, underrepresented population of unique circumstances as an analogy to the rest of the country, go right ahead.

It may sound reasonable to you, but it sounds quite silly to me.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Natty - this has to be the most lame reasoning ever.

Totally discounting the unique problems that affect Native Americans, their under-representation in our political structure and the cultural barriers and practical barriers separating them from the rest of the country (all of this is addressed in the article BTW), there is no commonality between the deficient implementation of a legacy program based on a 200+ year old treaty to proposed healthcare reforms for the majority.

And again - European style "socialized" healthcare is not what is currently being proposed (nor is it what Obama proposed during the election campaign) so arguing against it is somewhat pointless.

commonality = the gov't implementing and operating the health care program for both population segments. the older implementation is a failure with a small segment of the population. how will this be different with the larger population? cause it will simply be a bigger failure?

Ummm yeah - because it will be totally... like.. um.. yeah... the same plan.

But sure - if you want to use a badly served, underrepresented population of unique circumstances as an analogy to the rest of the country, go right ahead.

It may sound reasonable to you, but it sounds quite silly to me.

They can't help it, remember Republicans are the masters of scaremongering....

[natty bumppo 297]

Tell me Natty, how exactly would private health care address a geographically isolated, extremely poor population and provide adequate, better yet excellent care?

the population in question already has gov't supplied health care that is not meeting the needs of the people. the private health care industry did not make an agreement with the tribes to supply health care.

your question is an attempted detour into obfuscation to protect today's responsible party (gov't) for their lack of providing health care to the tribes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually Natty - she said quite early on that she thought that the Native Americans haven't been a priority for governments "of any stripe".

As I say it's quite silly to use such a specific example as a case study for why government involvement for facilitating reform of the current system is a bad thing.

Its not even been defined what exactly is intended by "government involvement" in this context - its just been thrown out there for relativistic reasons based on that old party political soundbite that "big government is bad".

Hard to debate this subject if there is nothing tangible being offered. I'm quite happy to discuss the problems of the native american (and similar) populations, but without anything tangible - what reform proposals are currently studied and how (if at all) it compares to the provision of healthcare to Native Americans all you have is a relativist rhetoric.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Private Pike

[natty bumppo 297]

Natty - this has to be the most lame reasoning ever.

Totally discounting the unique problems that affect Native Americans, their under-representation in our political structure and the cultural barriers and practical barriers separating them from the rest of the country (all of this is addressed in the article BTW), there is no commonality between the deficient implementation of a legacy program based on a 200+ year old treaty to proposed healthcare reforms for the majority.

And again - European style "socialized" healthcare is not what is currently being proposed (nor is it what Obama proposed during the election campaign) so arguing against it is somewhat pointless.

commonality = the gov't implementing and operating the health care program for both population segments. the older implementation is a failure with a small segment of the population. how will this be different with the larger population? cause it will simply be a bigger failure?

Ummm yeah - because it will be totally... like.. um.. yeah... the same plan.

But sure - if you want to use a badly served, underrepresented population of unique circumstances as an analogy to the rest of the country, go right ahead.

It may sound reasonable to you, but it sounds quite silly to me.

so this badly served, small, insignificant, underrepresented population (the tribes) will receive under the "new and improved plan"?

a ) better health care than the population

b ) lesser health care than the population

c ) equal health care

Follow-up questions:

Why can't the gov't take better care of the small population today?

After all ... will it not cost the same to improve the tribes health care under a new "miracle universal plan" as it would to simply honor prior commitments and provide proper health care today?

Edited June 16, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[Empress of Groovy 373]

A more relevant comparison would center on Medicare and Medicaid, not the shortcomings of the Indian Health Service.

The thrust of the plan that Obama is pushing, and what will likely be his legacy on this issue (I think), is the addition of a public insurance option. The Indian Health Service (and indeed the VA) is a completely different and separate federal entity. No plan for a large-scale expansion of government-run health care is even on the table. In fact, it's not even close to the table.

Applying anecdotes of inadequate care delivered in remote areas by an underfunded federal agency to the current broader situation is more than a little clumsy.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Empress of Groovy

[natty bumppo 297]

A more relevant comparison would center on Medicare and Medicaid, not the shortcomings of the Indian Health Service.

The thrust of the plan that Obama is pushing, and what will likely be his legacy on this issue (I think), is the addition of a public insurance option. The Indian Health Service (and indeed the VA) is a completely different and separate federal entity. No plan for a large-scale expansion of government-run health care is even on the table. In fact, it's not even close to the table.

Applying anecdotes of inadequate care delivered in remote areas by an underfunded federal agency to the current broader situation is more than a little clumsy.

so under this new plan ... the tribes get nothing? no improvement in health care from the gov't?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Natty - this has to be the most lame reasoning ever.

Totally discounting the unique problems that affect Native Americans, their under-representation in our political structure and the cultural barriers and practical barriers separating them from the rest of the country (all of this is addressed in the article BTW), there is no commonality between the deficient implementation of a legacy program based on a 200+ year old treaty to proposed healthcare reforms for the majority.

And again - European style "socialized" healthcare is not what is currently being proposed (nor is it what Obama proposed during the election campaign) so arguing against it is somewhat pointless.

commonality = the gov't implementing and operating the health care program for both population segments. the older implementation is a failure with a small segment of the population. how will this be different with the larger population? cause it will simply be a bigger failure?

Ummm yeah - because it will be totally... like.. um.. yeah... the same plan.

But sure - if you want to use a badly served, underrepresented population of unique circumstances as an analogy to the rest of the country, go right ahead.

It may sound reasonable to you, but it sounds quite silly to me.

so this badly served, small, insignificant, underrepresented population (the tribes) will receive under the "new and improved plan"?

a ) better health care than the population

b ) lesser health care than the population

c ) equal health care

Follow-up questions:

Why can't the gov't take better care of the small population today?

After all ... will it not cost the same to improve the tribes health care under a new "miracle universal plan" as it would to simply honor prior commitments and provide proper health care today?

As with your previous questions - most of them are answered in the article, Natty - the problems with government, social barriers within the community, geographical barriers, underrepresentation in national politics, underfunding and outsourcing of health services and supplies.

As to your first (multiple choice) thingy - that can't be answered unless we establish exactly what we're talking about by the "new and improved" plan, or indeed how that compares (if indeed it does at all) to the current provisions.

A more relevant comparison would center on Medicare and Medicaid, not the shortcomings of the Indian Health Service.

The thrust of the plan that Obama is pushing, and what will likely be his legacy on this issue (I think), is the addition of a public insurance option. The Indian Health Service (and indeed the VA) is a completely different and separate federal entity. No plan for a large-scale expansion of government-run health care is even on the table. In fact, it's not even close to the table.

Applying anecdotes of inadequate care delivered in remote areas by an underfunded federal agency to the current broader situation is more than a little clumsy.

so under this new plan ... the tribes get nothing? no improvement in health care from the gov't?

I think, Natty, that if you were really genuinely interested in dicussing this topic - this is something that you could find out fairly easily for yourself; rather than jumping to unfounded conclusions based on a creative reading between the lines of other's posts.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Private Pike

[Empress of Groovy 373]

A more relevant comparison would center on Medicare and Medicaid, not the shortcomings of the Indian Health Service.

The thrust of the plan that Obama is pushing, and what will likely be his legacy on this issue (I think), is the addition of a public insurance option. The Indian Health Service (and indeed the VA) is a completely different and separate federal entity. No plan for a large-scale expansion of government-run health care is even on the table. In fact, it's not even close to the table.

Applying anecdotes of inadequate care delivered in remote areas by an underfunded federal agency to the current broader situation is more than a little clumsy.

so under this new plan ... the tribes get nothing? no improvement in health care from the gov't?

The proposed public insurance option is entirely separate from health programs that the federal government funds and operates (the VA, IHS, federal prisons, etc.). I haven't read anything suggesting that the general structure of these programs will change.

Just today I read an article about Sebelius's plans to improve Indian health care. But we're talking about two different things.

[natty bumppo 297]

As with your previous questions - most of them are answered in the article, Natty - the problems with government, social barriers within the community, geographical barriers, underrepresentation in national politics, underfunding and outsourcing of health services and supplies.

As to your first (multiple choice) thingy - that can't be answered unless we establish exactly what we're talking about by the "new and improved" plan, or indeed how that compares (if indeed it does at all) to the current provisions.

...

I think, Natty, that if you were really genuinely interested in dicussing this topic - this is something that you could find out fairly easily for yourself; rather than jumping to unfounded conclusions based on a creative reading between the lines of other's posts.

simplified ... the gov't made an agreement with a people and welched on the deal. the "problems/barriers/under_etc_etc" are just excuses.

[Peikko 1,575]

Tell me Natty, how exactly would private health care address a geographically isolated, extremely poor population and provide adequate, better yet excellent care?

the population in question already has gov't supplied health care that is not meeting the needs of the people. the private health care industry did not make an agreement with the tribes to supply health care.

your question is an attempted detour into obfuscation to protect today's responsible party (gov't) for their lack of providing health care to the tribes.

Absolutely not. Successive governments have indeed failed these people. Not only in health care, but in all areas most particularly education. What is disingenuous, in the extreme is to suggest that because of this failure, the government is incapable of providing health care for any disadvantaged group and that somehow private health insurance would SERVE THESE PEOPLE BETTER. Currently the disadvantaged of all kinds (and many, many people who indeed buy private health care) are badly served. Health care is a bloody mess and something sensible needs to be done.

In areas of geographic isolation, more money is required to provide the same needs as those in more populated areas. That is a fact. Providing excellent health care to these populations is necessarily disproportionately expensive, something the private provider would prefer to ignore completely because it is unprofitable, period.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

simplified ... the gov't made an agreement with a people and welched on the deal. the "problems/barriers/under_etc_etc" are just excuses.

That does seem to be your reasoning.

And I was right in mine - that you see nothing wrong with using this rather unique example as a relativistic argument to justify a party political soundbite.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Private Pike

[Peikko 1,575]

Worse really, is the pretense that somehow the people who object to government intervention in this issue some how care about these people. Really? How so? These people are in situations where they are not 'taking personal responsibility' (by the generally agreed definition) for their situation. After all, they can 'move to where the jobs are' or suffer the consequences.

The fact is that the government is providing some health care to these people. It isn't perfect by any means, and the areas where it is not working effectively should be taken seriously and addressed as best they can be. However, if the government did not do anything, these people would get no care at all. None.

[natty bumppo 297]

simplified ... the gov't made an agreement with a people and welched on the deal. the "problems/barriers/under_etc_etc" are just excuses.

That does seem to be your reasoning.

And I was right in mine - that you see nothing wrong with using this rather unique example as a relativistic argument to justify a party political soundbite.

I'm not promoting "party politics" as you infer.

the gov't agreement has crossed many party lines multiple times over the years and still is unresolved. the gov't needs to fix it's broken promises if it wants some margin credibility.