Sunday, February 3, 2008

Can we talk?

Richard Davis at Vermont Commons raises an interesting question. What if we could start a statewide conversation on just what it is we, the people, want out of government? Mr. Davis's example has to do with health care. What would government's role in a health care system be? Would we pay higher taxes to support it if we knew that we would not risk bankruptcy to pay medical bills? It is a thought-provoking piece.

How should we start this conversation, and where should it lead? Send me your comments!


Thomas Rowley said...

POI, Harold. There already is a statewide conversation going in Vermont about healthcare and has been for awhile. If you rely VTCommons for information on the status of current issues here, you'll start out behind the curve each and everytime.

There are plenty of blogs here that you can visit to get a sense of what's going on that run the gamut of political points of view, without having to wade through the conspiracism junk, misinformation (like the healthcare one that you cite), Lincoln historical revisionism, anti-voting rights law opinion and creation beam theories that constitute the bulk of the content at VTCommons.

Don't forget, there's a reason why the whackos all seem to post there.

Harold Thomas said...

The point of my post had less to do with the content of the conversation in Vermont than it did with the idea that such a conversation is taking place.

I think Vermont Commons has some useful content (particularly "Energy Optimist"), and I don't think it likely that you'll see the "whacko" stuff quoted here.

Perhaps you need to unwind a little...

Thomas Rowley said...

And my point would be that VTCommons has no role in it, and that's because they've marginalized themselves via the looniness.

Perhaps you might educate yourself a little more about the facts on the ground here before giving us the benefit of your insights and counsel on how we might best go about improving healthcare. Relying solely on the posters, some of whom don't even live here, at VTCommons, even the ones that seem not completely deranged, would be a mistake in pursuit of that.

If you don't care for response on your posts about Vermont, just say so. Smartass remarks are likely to get you the same.

Harold Thomas said...

Please reread what I have written. My point is that I did not express any opinion about the healthcare debate in Vermont, other than that having such a debate was a good idea.

As to the alleged "smartass remark," my concern is that you appear to automatically object to any favorable or even neutral reference to Vermont Commons.

In principle, I have no objection to your comments on any subject, but I would appreciate a more careful reading of what I wrote before before concluding that I was interfering in the internal affairs of the Vermont independence movement.

Thomas Rowley said...

Back at ya. What you say about the by now virtually non-existent secession crowd isn't so important as whether it is properly imformed. The blog entry you pointed to suggested that there wasn't much of a discussion on healthcare. Jeezum, Harold, that's all we've been hearing about since early December when the Governor and legislative leadership first started discussing legislative priorities for this session. There are stories in multiple papers and online everyday. Try here if you want something less skewed to crazy.

Certainly there's always a possiblilty that something that reflects the true facts on ground here may get published in VTCommons, but that'd probably be more likely at a blog staffed by 100 monkeys. I'd check there first in the future, Harold. Coupla days ago the editor reaffirmed a commitment to providing a platform to one of the biggest 9/11 headcases in the country. Remember, VTCommons has also committed itself to maintaing ties to the racist LoS. They even publish financial advice from an convicted LoS gold scammer.

Anonymous said...

TR needs to stop taking this conversation in circles. Let's talk about healthcare, please...

As far as healthcare goes, I want a system that's affordable and efficient, that actually puts people first rather than insurance and pharmaceutical company profits. I want a system takes a whole-systems approach which means not just prevention but also dealing with the problems in our food system, our transportation system, land use patterns, building design,and pollution.

Am I willing to pay for it? Yes, because if it wasn't for my employer benefits, I'd be screwed. I couldn't afford to buy insurance on my own under our current system. It's wasteful, inefficient, ineffective, and profits come before people.