Medicare for all?

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs
Caught this on a t.v. show. How about making Medicare available to all Americans? Medicare has the lowest administrative costs of any health insurance program.
It wouldn't cost the taxpayers a penny and would enable individuals and companies to get the most health care coverage for their dollar.

Eh? Have you seen the projections for this program? It may have the lowest administrative costs but it certainly isnt cheap and dwarfs SS.

Well, I think the point was that people would no long er be paying private premiums so (given that medicare is more effeicient) their taxes to cover their participation would be less than what thier healtcare premiums use to be.

I would agree this oversimplifies a bit. As I understand it, the problem with Tennicare is that its using taxpayer money to provide health care to poor people (people that can't pay.) I think the idea from west wing last night was a little different. The idea was to allow people to up thier taxes (not a free ride for the poor like tennicare is) and thus get rid of thier private insuarnce if they want. The idea was to lower costs of healthcare for those currently using private health care plans, NOT have the tax payers pay for more people to get health care for free which is what tennicare does.

The OP came from something on the West Wing? :roll: Talk about living in an alterworld.

lol, you actually should have watched the episode. Like I said in the other thread, they have done a much better job portraying the repubs this time around. Alan Alda made a great case to defend the republicans decision not to allow imports of drugs form canada, how to deal with african poverty, why tax cuts were good (he likened it to starving the bureacracy to reduce spending), CAFTA, etc. I actually, think you would have enjoyed and would be using some of thier points in future debates on this forum. So don't be so negative all the time.

Sorry, I don't need hollywood fantasy to help me with politics or my ideals.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Starving the bureaucracy to reduce spending? Doesn't that basically mean the people imposing the starving (Congress/President) are too stupid to spend wisely? If that's the case we are likely to starve to death which I guess would reduce spending to nothing?

Doesn't it make more sense to elect/appoint people that will spend wisely? If you have enough insight to believe the institution itself can never be trusted, why not legislate away the government's responsiblities? Send them down to the states or local governments . . .

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs
Caught this on a t.v. show. How about making Medicare available to all Americans? Medicare has the lowest administrative costs of any health insurance program.
It wouldn't cost the taxpayers a penny and would enable individuals and companies to get the most health care coverage for their dollar.

Eh? Have you seen the projections for this program? It may have the lowest administrative costs but it certainly isnt cheap and dwarfs SS.

Well, I think the point was that people would no long er be paying private premiums so (given that medicare is more effeicient) their taxes to cover their participation would be less than what thier healtcare premiums use to be.

I would agree this oversimplifies a bit. As I understand it, the problem with Tennicare is that its using taxpayer money to provide health care to poor people (people that can't pay.) I think the idea from west wing last night was a little different. The idea was to allow people to up thier taxes (not a free ride for the poor like tennicare is) and thus get rid of thier private insuarnce if they want. The idea was to lower costs of healthcare for those currently using private health care plans, NOT have the tax payers pay for more people to get health care for free which is what tennicare does.

The OP came from something on the West Wing? :roll: Talk about living in an alterworld.

lol, you actually should have watched the episode. Like I said in the other thread, they have done a much better job portraying the repubs this time around. Alan Alda made a great case to defend the republicans decision not to allow imports of drugs form canada, how to deal with african poverty, why tax cuts were good (he likened it to starving the bureacracy to reduce spending), CAFTA, etc. I actually, think you would have enjoyed and would be using some of thier points in future debates on this forum. So don't be so negative all the time.

Sorry, I don't need hollywood fantasy to help me with politics or my ideals.

So you think of all your ideas on your own? You never hear an idea from a freind, or in a book or anything? There's never been an idea that you've heard that warranted further thought?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs
Caught this on a t.v. show. How about making Medicare available to all Americans? Medicare has the lowest administrative costs of any health insurance program.
It wouldn't cost the taxpayers a penny and would enable individuals and companies to get the most health care coverage for their dollar.

Eh? Have you seen the projections for this program? It may have the lowest administrative costs but it certainly isnt cheap and dwarfs SS.

Well, I think the point was that people would no long er be paying private premiums so (given that medicare is more effeicient) their taxes to cover their participation would be less than what thier healtcare premiums use to be.

I would agree this oversimplifies a bit. As I understand it, the problem with Tennicare is that its using taxpayer money to provide health care to poor people (people that can't pay.) I think the idea from west wing last night was a little different. The idea was to allow people to up thier taxes (not a free ride for the poor like tennicare is) and thus get rid of thier private insuarnce if they want. The idea was to lower costs of healthcare for those currently using private health care plans, NOT have the tax payers pay for more people to get health care for free which is what tennicare does.

The OP came from something on the West Wing? :roll: Talk about living in an alterworld.

lol, you actually should have watched the episode. Like I said in the other thread, they have done a much better job portraying the repubs this time around. Alan Alda made a great case to defend the republicans decision not to allow imports of drugs form canada, how to deal with african poverty, why tax cuts were good (he likened it to starving the bureacracy to reduce spending), CAFTA, etc. I actually, think you would have enjoyed and would be using some of thier points in future debates on this forum. So don't be so negative all the time.

Sorry, I don't need hollywood fantasy to help me with politics or my ideals.

So you think of all your ideas on your own? You never hear an idea from a freind, or in a book or anything? There's never been an idea that you've heard that warranted further thought?

I didn't say I came up with them myself, but they didn't come from a fantasy TV show.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs
Caught this on a t.v. show. How about making Medicare available to all Americans? Medicare has the lowest administrative costs of any health insurance program.
It wouldn't cost the taxpayers a penny and would enable individuals and companies to get the most health care coverage for their dollar.

Eh? Have you seen the projections for this program? It may have the lowest administrative costs but it certainly isnt cheap and dwarfs SS.

Well, I think the point was that people would no long er be paying private premiums so (given that medicare is more effeicient) their taxes to cover their participation would be less than what thier healtcare premiums use to be.

I would agree this oversimplifies a bit. As I understand it, the problem with Tennicare is that its using taxpayer money to provide health care to poor people (people that can't pay.) I think the idea from west wing last night was a little different. The idea was to allow people to up thier taxes (not a free ride for the poor like tennicare is) and thus get rid of thier private insuarnce if they want. The idea was to lower costs of healthcare for those currently using private health care plans, NOT have the tax payers pay for more people to get health care for free which is what tennicare does.

The OP came from something on the West Wing? :roll: Talk about living in an alterworld.

lol, you actually should have watched the episode. Like I said in the other thread, they have done a much better job portraying the repubs this time around. Alan Alda made a great case to defend the republicans decision not to allow imports of drugs form canada, how to deal with african poverty, why tax cuts were good (he likened it to starving the bureacracy to reduce spending), CAFTA, etc. I actually, think you would have enjoyed and would be using some of thier points in future debates on this forum. So don't be so negative all the time.

Sorry, I don't need hollywood fantasy to help me with politics or my ideals.

So you think of all your ideas on your own? You never hear an idea from a freind, or in a book or anything? There's never been an idea that you've heard that warranted further thought?

I didn't say I came up with them myself, but they didn't come from a fantasy TV show.

Which is a ultimately a work of fiction just like any book or play. So, have you never ever heard an interesting idea worthy of further consideration come from a work of fiction? Do you read books?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: PKing1977

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: PKing1977
If it costs nothing, then explain to me why Tennessee is having a very hard time funding Tenncare?

PKing

I don't know what Tenncare is. Nor do I care. Its not Medicare which I am talking about. Individuals and companies merely get the option to purchase Medicare with its amazingly how overhead versus high overhead private plans.

The purpose in opening up Medicare to all who want to purchase it is to force private insurers to compete. Private insurers have siphoned off billions each year to pay for overhead that is not necessary. Private insurers increase their profit by denying benefits not by any form of efficiencey (ok, some small efficiencies like putting pre-authorization into going to the ER) but by denying care.
Private insurers cannot negotiate effectively with hospitals and doctors due to their relatively small size. Medicare can and does.

I know of which I speak as a former administrator at a small healthcare company and upper level management at a large health care company (2 million subsribers)

Tenncare is an expantion of Medicare that is state funded, but I guess you do not care because it is the very type of plan you want. For "knowing" what you are talking about, you really simplify the issue greatly. But I guess you dont care about that either.

PKing

Why would I care about Tenncare? It has nothing to do with my post.
In fact there is so much nonsense being posted in this thread. People really don't understand Medicare nor have they read my post carefully.
I am asking why all Americans and all American companies shouldn't have the choice to VOLUNTARILY pay for Medicare instead of their current health plan.
It doesn't cost the government a penny. It allows people the option to purchase a health plan with amazingly low overhead that is translated into more services for the dollar.
This idea has been around for many years.
The ONLY people who seem to be against it are the insurance companies and right wingers who try to smear the idea with lies about how it will cost the government money, socialize medicine, etc.
What the idea really does is bring us back to a situation that existed in many states about 30 years ago. At that time many states had the "Blues". Blue Cross and Blue Shield. And in many states they were the only ones permitted plan to negaotiate with hospitals. (this plan doesn't call for that, it leaves current insurance plans as is). And they were amazingly effective in controlling hospital costs. It can be argued that because they didn't have any competition the Blues were inefficient but they still had overhead costs in the 3-4 percent range compared to current health insurance over head of up to 30 percent. How much leverage does a private insurer have with a local hospital? Not much when they may have only a few hundred people in that area covered under their plan. The current system has allowed hospitals to raise costs with abandon and not work to keep costs down.
Does anyone here know people on Medicare? Medicare satisfaction blows away private health insurance plans. Doctors have at times been unhappy with Medicare reimbursements but they love the single payer Medicare system.
More health care for the dollar. Simple and effective.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I didn't say I came up with them myself, but they didn't come from a fantasy TV show.

They come from a fantasy web site.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I know plenty of people on Medicare . . . despite the fact that I treat only children. It is true that people receiving Medicare report high levels of satisfaction . . . particularly in comparison to people with private health insurance.

But . . . and it's a big friggin' but . . . people on Medicare are not the primary payers of Medicare. Sure they pay premiums and copays but the bulk of their bill is paid by working Americans. It's hard to complain about something that's very near free!

On the flip side, people with private health insurance (employer paid or otherwise) have uniformly seen increases in costs and decreases in benefits.

We need to FIX our healthcare system . . . not go around in these endless circles about public versus private third-party payment systems.

TennCare failed b/c unlike Medicare . . . it was hard to hide the ridiculous year over year increases in costs. Fortunately, we've got a US Congress and President willing to obfuscate (Social Security), make matters worse (Drug Benefit), and then demogogue (blame Democrats).

Now if the OP was about buying into Medicare. I would endorse that . . . as long as we can kick people out when they:
1) get sick
2) lose their job
3) agree to forfeit eligibility for "free" Medicare until age 72

 

[HighCalibreHooch]

Canada has universal healthcare, and I don't understand how the United States gets by without.

It seems simple to me: Universal healthcare provides the backbone, and as for the expensive stuff, (drug perscriptions, etc). people get coverage through their employment benefits package.

I read about millions of Americans running around without healthcare coverage. That's supposed to be 3rd world country problem.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I know plenty of people on Medicare . . . despite the fact that I treat only children. It is true that people receiving Medicare report high levels of satisfaction . . . particularly in comparison to people with private health insurance.

But . . . and it's a big friggin' but . . . people on Medicare are not the primary payers of Medicare. Sure they pay premiums and copays but the bulk of their bill is paid by working Americans. It's hard to complain about something that's very near free!

On the flip side, people with private health insurance (employer paid or otherwise) have uniformly seen increases in costs and decreases in benefits.

We need to FIX our healthcare system . . . not go around in these endless circles about public versus private third-party payment systems.

TennCare failed b/c unlike Medicare . . . it was hard to hide the ridiculous year over year increases in costs. Fortunately, we've got a US Congress and President willing to obfuscate (Social Security), make matters worse (Drug Benefit), and then demogogue (blame Democrats).

Now if the OP was about buying into Medicare. I would endorse that . . . as long as we can kick people out when they:
1) get sick
2) lose their job
3) agree to forfeit eligibility for "free" Medicare until age 72

That is actually what the op was about. At least as defined last night on the show. You and your employer would pay it just like you do your private insuarance now.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yeah but my point is all that does is kick the can a few more years down the road. Then we would have employers saying healthcare is too expensive even when purchased through Medicare.

My post (at least that portion) was tongue-in-cheek. It would provide more healthy, working people to pay into the system . . . technically these people would be paying TWICE b/c they pay FICA AND a healthcare premium. Plus, it would delay eligibility for these people so Medicare would have fewer beneficiaries in the future.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Yeah but my point is all that does is kick the can a few more years down the road. Then we would have employers saying healthcare is too expensive even when purchased through Medicare.

My post (at least that portion) was tongue-in-cheek. It would provide more healthy, working people to pay into the system . . . technically these people would be paying TWICE b/c they pay FICA AND a healthcare premium. Plus, it would delay eligibility for these people so Medicare would have fewer beneficiaries in the future.

Well, then you're misunbderstanding the idea. As I read it, your saying that we would be paying for all these people that don't have healthcare (we supplement their cost through our taxes).

What was said last night (at least as I understand it), is slightly different. The only new people that would get onto medicare are those that can pay their own costs. For example, currently most private insurers have about 20% overhead. Medicare has 2% overhead. If you were to join medicare, your payment would be on average 18% less than it is now under private insurance. You and your employer would split the cost just like you do now for private health care. The general public's taxes would not go up to cover you, because you are paying a sufficient amount to turn a profit (or at least break even) for the government. They were not talking about expanding medicare to cover more people that can't pay. And they were not talking about making everyon join.

Can you clarify your points a little better for me. Maybe, I'm missing what you're getting at.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Yeah but my point is all that does is kick the can a few more years down the road. Then we would have employers saying healthcare is too expensive even when purchased through Medicare.

My post (at least that portion) was tongue-in-cheek. It would provide more healthy, working people to pay into the system . . . technically these people would be paying TWICE b/c they pay FICA AND a healthcare premium. Plus, it would delay eligibility for these people so Medicare would have fewer beneficiaries in the future.

Well, then you're misunbderstanding the idea. As I read it, your saying that we would be paying for all these people that don't have healthcare (we supplement their cost through our taxes).

What was said last night (at least as I understand it), is slightly different. The only new people that would get onto medicare are those that can pay their own costs. For example, currently most private insurers have about 20% overhead. Medicare has 2% overhead. If you were to join medicare, your payment would be on average 18% less than it is now under private insurance. You and your employer would split the cost just like you do now for private health care. The general public's taxes would not go up to cover you, because you are paying a sufficient amount to turn a profit (or at least break even) for the government. They were not talking about expanding medicare to cover more people that can't pay. And they were not talking about making everyon join.

Can you clarify your points a little better for me. Maybe, I'm missing what you're getting at.

That was almost exactly my point. The differences are in some of the numbers. Private insurance plans have up to about a 30 percent overhead compared to Medicares 2 percent. Plus private insurers cannot effectively negotiate with hospitals because they each have so few members compared to a hospitals total patient load. Large health plans (Medicare is the largest) have a lot of influence over hospitals and can get hospitals to keep costs down. In fact the rapid rise in hospital costs coincides with the demise of the "Blues" and their bargaining power.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The system you describe misses several integral elements of our current system:

1) Allowing people to "buy into" Medicare is an attempt to increase the pool of healthy people in the system. It increases revenue and decreases per capita costs. BUT . . . savings are only achieved if you limit enrollment to healthy people.

2) Allowing #1 would drain healthy, high premium paying people from the private pool of insurance purchasers. Private plans would either make enrollment criteria even more stringent or dramatically raise rates on people still in the private pool (healthy and sick alike).

3) In the short run, it might look like a cost saving for both employees and employers but the fundamental problems in our healthcare system would remain unaddressed.

One of the fundamental problems of this debate is that most people are proponents of piecemeal plans and say, "we can only do a little bit at a time." Yet all this tinkering around the edges is akin to using a Brita filter to clean Lake Pontchartrain.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs
Caught this on a t.v. show. How about making Medicare available to all Americans? Medicare has the lowest administrative costs of any health insurance program.
It wouldn't cost the taxpayers a penny and would enable individuals and companies to get the most health care coverage for their dollar.

Eh? Have you seen the projections for this program? It may have the lowest administrative costs but it certainly isnt cheap and dwarfs SS.

Well, I think the point was that people would no long er be paying private premiums so (given that medicare is more effeicient) their taxes to cover their participation would be less than what thier healtcare premiums use to be.

I would agree this oversimplifies a bit. As I understand it, the problem with Tennicare is that its using taxpayer money to provide health care to poor people (people that can't pay.) I think the idea from west wing last night was a little different. The idea was to allow people to up thier taxes (not a free ride for the poor like tennicare is) and thus get rid of thier private insuarnce if they want. The idea was to lower costs of healthcare for those currently using private health care plans, NOT have the tax payers pay for more people to get health care for free which is what tennicare does.

The OP came from something on the West Wing? :roll: Talk about living in an alterworld.

lol, you actually should have watched the episode. Like I said in the other thread, they have done a much better job portraying the repubs this time around. Alan Alda made a great case to defend the republicans decision not to allow imports of drugs form canada, how to deal with african poverty, why tax cuts were good (he likened it to starving the bureacracy to reduce spending), CAFTA, etc. I actually, think you would have enjoyed and would be using some of thier points in future debates on this forum. So don't be so negative all the time.

Sorry, I don't need hollywood fantasy to help me with politics or my ideals.

So you think of all your ideas on your own? You never hear an idea from a freind, or in a book or anything? There's never been an idea that you've heard that warranted further thought?

I didn't say I came up with them myself, but they didn't come from a fantasy TV show.

Which is a ultimately a work of fiction just like any book or play. So, have you never ever heard an interesting idea worthy of further consideration come from a work of fiction? Do you read books?

As I said - "I don't need hollywood fantasy to help me with politics or my ideals". The fact that I mainly read non-fiction books instead of fiction is because I don't read for entertainment - I read for knowledge. While fiction may provide one avenue for discussion, it is by no means the only one, nor should it be looked at as anything other than entertainment, unless we get into the activist portion of it all.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The system you describe misses several integral elements of our current system:

1) Allowing people to "buy into" Medicare is an attempt to increase the pool of healthy people in the system. It increases revenue and decreases per capita costs. BUT . . . savings are only achieved if you limit enrollment to healthy people.

2) Allowing #1 would drain healthy, high premium paying people from the private pool of insurance purchasers. Private plans would either make enrollment criteria even more stringent or dramatically raise rates on people still in the private pool (healthy and sick alike).

3) In the short run, it might look like a cost saving for both employees and employers but the fundamental problems in our healthcare system would remain unaddressed.

One of the fundamental problems of this debate is that most people are proponents of piecemeal plans and say, "we can only do a little bit at a time." Yet all this tinkering around the edges is akin to using a Brita filter to clean Lake Pontchartrain.

Very good points. In fact you bring up one of the real issues that would have to be dealt with. That is that the elderly are far greater utilizers of health care than the young and putting them all in the same plan and figuring out premiums would raise the rates for the young over what they should be.
Thats why the plan to allow everyone into Medicare actually proposes to separate everyone over 65 and keep them in the same pool as they were and create a new pool for everyone else.
As to fixing the fundamental flaws in our health care the fact that Medicare could then influence hospitals to aggressively keep costs down does address that major problem. Right now hospitals pretty much charge whatever they want with little impetus to keep costs down.
As to this being a piecemeal approach it has the advantage of using an in place, effective system with little start up costs, is voluntary, and its effectiveness could be measured without a massive change in the current system until its effectiveness and desirability is made. And it immediately puts downward pressure on private insurance fees and forces these same insurers to agressively cut costs while keeping the level of coverage equal to or better or at least in the ballpark as the very good Medicare plan.

 

[zendari]

One of the problems is that monthly insurance premiums don't reflect the risk of the patient as well as they do for other insurances like car insurance. Risky drivers, young males with sports cars, people with speeding tickets/accidents pay higher auto insurance premiums.

The smokers, fatties, druggies, elderly, and high risk patients need to pay much higher premiums than the young 25 year old marathon runner. Promote a standard of healthy living; which means laying down the french fries and potato chips.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
As I said - "I don't need hollywood fantasy to help me with politics or my ideals". The fact that I mainly read non-fiction books instead of fiction is because I don't read for entertainment - I read for knowledge. While fiction may provide one avenue for discussion, it is by no means the only one, nor should it be looked at as anything other than entertainment, unless we get into the activist portion of it all.

I didn't say it was the only avenue for discussion. I said it was an avenue for discussion. Something you seem to take issue with.

So, I take it then you believe that shakespeare has no relevant issues worthy of discussion that we can learn from. Poetry serves only as entertainment. The great works of fiction offer no insights? So, I take it you advocate banning all works of fiction from english classes? After all they serve only for entertainment and can teach us nothing.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

1) Allowing people to "buy into" Medicare is an attempt to increase the pool of healthy people in the system. It increases revenue and decreases per capita costs. BUT . . . savings are only achieved if you limit enrollment to healthy people.

This is the point of contention, right here. No one is saying the cost of medicare, per person, would go down under this plan. They would stay largely the same. Just that, the cost per person is cheaper under medicare than it is under private insurance right now. Medicare is offered to a group that tends to have just as high (if not higher healtcare costs than any other demographic). If you opened up medicare to all then the average heath care costs per person shouldn't go up and if they did, they have to go up by 20% to cost as much as private insurance.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: zendari
One of the problems is that monthly insurance premiums don't reflect the risk of the patient as well as they do for other insurances like car insurance. Risky drivers, young males with sports cars, people with speeding tickets/accidents pay higher auto insurance premiums.

The smokers, fatties, druggies, elderly, and high risk patients need to pay much higher premiums than the young 25 year old marathon runner. Promote a standard of healthy living; which means laying down the french fries and potato chips.

I'm amazed insurers don't allready do this. It seems so obvious. And I fail to see how there can be legal issues. After all car insuarnce companies raise rates based on a persons sex and age, which peolpe have a lot less control over than their health.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
As I said - "I don't need hollywood fantasy to help me with politics or my ideals". The fact that I mainly read non-fiction books instead of fiction is because I don't read for entertainment - I read for knowledge. While fiction may provide one avenue for discussion, it is by no means the only one, nor should it be looked at as anything other than entertainment, unless we get into the activist portion of it all.

I didn't say it was the only avenue for discussion. I said it was an avenue for discussion. Something you seem to take issue with.

So, I take it then you believe that shakespeare has no relevant issues worthy of discussion that we can learn from. Poetry serves only as entertainment. The great works of fiction offer no insights? So, I take it you advocate banning all works of fiction from english classes? After all they serve only for entertainment and can teach us nothing.

Nice try. I don't suggest banning anything. I do however believe in putting things in their proper perspective. Using entertainment to drive purely political discussion is activism and should be looked at that way. If Hollywood wants to drive political discussion then they shouldn't try to hide it behind this false entertainment front.

Your absurd leaps have no place in the reality of my post. English can be taught using whatever they want if it helps teach English or Literature. I did not say they don't teach us nothing - they teach us about literature and should be used in such a fashion. To try to inject that literature and fiction into the reality of politics or today's society is absurd because not only did it have the inherent bias of the author, it can be interpretted different ways by different people depending on their own bias. You see, I was my English professor's worst nightmare I was always showing a different interpretation or bias as given by the work. I would tend to play the devil's advocate roll and put myself in that author's opposite shoes and thus present a different view of whatever it was the subject was about. It made for some interesting discussion and I think even opened the professor's eyes to interpretation of literature.

So why all that? Well, because in this case we are discussing I think that it isn't good to use entertainment to drive social/political discourse without it be presented in the context of being activist entertainment. Without such designation, people will look to it for a reality when infact it's just fiction and loaded by the author's bias and views.

I'll let you get back to the fantasy medicare discussion though, it's providing me with a bit of entertainment!

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
As I said - "I don't need hollywood fantasy to help me with politics or my ideals". The fact that I mainly read non-fiction books instead of fiction is because I don't read for entertainment - I read for knowledge. While fiction may provide one avenue for discussion, it is by no means the only one, nor should it be looked at as anything other than entertainment, unless we get into the activist portion of it all.

I didn't say it was the only avenue for discussion. I said it was an avenue for discussion. Something you seem to take issue with.

So, I take it then you believe that shakespeare has no relevant issues worthy of discussion that we can learn from. Poetry serves only as entertainment. The great works of fiction offer no insights? So, I take it you advocate banning all works of fiction from english classes? After all they serve only for entertainment and can teach us nothing.

Nice try. I don't suggest banning anything. I do however believe in putting things in their proper perspective. Using entertainment to drive purely political discussion is activism and should be looked at that way. If Hollywood wants to drive political discussion then they shouldn't try to hide it behind this false entertainment front.

Your absurd leaps have no place in the reality of my post. English can be taught using whatever they want if it helps teach English or Literature. I did not say they don't teach us nothing - they teach us about literature and should be used in such a fashion. To try to inject that literature and fiction into the reality of politics or today's society is absurd because not only did it have the inherent bias of the author, it can be interpretted different ways by different people depending on their own bias. You see, I was my English professor's worst nightmare I was always showing a different interpretation or bias as given by the work. I would tend to play the devil's advocate roll and put myself in that author's opposite shoes and thus present a different view of whatever it was the subject was about. It made for some interesting discussion and I think even opened the professor's eyes to interpretation of literature.

So why all that? Well, because in this case we are discussing I think that it isn't good to use entertainment to drive social/political discourse without it be presented in the context of being activist entertainment. Without such designation, people will look to it for a reality when infact it's just fiction and loaded by the author's bias and views.

I'll let you get back to the fantasy medicare discussion though, it's providing me with a bit of entertainment!

Lol, all this and you haven't even seen the show we are discussing. Do you routinely post about topics when you're ignorant of the topic of discussion?

The simple matter, is movies, tv, books, are all just mediums for communication. If you believe that tv can teach us nothing then neither can books. That ultimately is the problem with your position.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: tss4
Lol, all this and you haven't even seen the show we are discussing. Do you routinely post about topics when you're ignorant of the topic of discussion?

The simple matter, is movies, tv, books, are all just mediums for communication. If you believe that tv can teach us nothing then neither can books. That ultimately is the problem with your position.

If the discussion is about Medicare, I certainly am not ignorant on the topic, however the discussion stems from the fantasy world of hollywood and I correctly put it in the proper perspective.
Again, I have not said they teach us nothing, those are your words. What I have said is that I don't need hollywood to help with politics as it is an entertainment industry. If they go beyond entertainment, it becames activist.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: tss4
Lol, all this and you haven't even seen the show we are discussing. Do you routinely post about topics when you're ignorant of the topic of discussion?

The simple matter, is movies, tv, books, are all just mediums for communication. If you believe that tv can teach us nothing then neither can books. That ultimately is the problem with your position.

If the discussion is about Medicare, I certainly am not ignorant on the topic, however the discussion stems from the fantasy world of hollywood and I correctly put it in the proper perspective.
Again, I have not said they teach us nothing, those are your words. What I have said is that I don't need hollywood to help with politics as it is an entertainment industry. If they go beyond entertainment, it becames activist.

Can a fictional book give you any insight into social policy, economics, the poor, racism, etc.? The answer is yes. And yet, the fictional book industry is an entertainment industry too, just like hollywood.

No one here "needs" exposure to new ideas from a media source (books included), but discussion of them is never-the-less a benefecial activity. Otherwise, we insulate our selves from new ideas and become closed minded.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: tss4
Lol, all this and you haven't even seen the show we are discussing. Do you routinely post about topics when you're ignorant of the topic of discussion?

The simple matter, is movies, tv, books, are all just mediums for communication. If you believe that tv can teach us nothing then neither can books. That ultimately is the problem with your position.

If the discussion is about Medicare, I certainly am not ignorant on the topic, however the discussion stems from the fantasy world of hollywood and I correctly put it in the proper perspective.
Again, I have not said they teach us nothing, those are your words. What I have said is that I don't need hollywood to help with politics as it is an entertainment industry. If they go beyond entertainment, it becames activist.

Can a fictional book give you any insight into social policy, economics, the poor, racism, etc.? The answer is yes. And yet, the fictional book industry is an entertainment industry too, just like hollywood.

No one here "needs" exposure to new ideas from a media source (books included), but discussion of them is never-the-less a benefecial activity. Otherwise, we insulate our selves from new ideas and become closed minded.

And fictional books give you insight into the author's view of those things, which may or may not reflect reality.

To suggest that one must or should draw out discussion from fiction, fantasy, or entertainment is incorrect. While you might do it, it doesn't mean I am close minded if I don't. I rather draw opportunities for discussion on the realities of every day, or on history. Discussion is good as I've already said but when one doesn't put the source of discussion in proper perspective it blurs the lines of reality.