Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Healthcare Industry Thread (merged)

Discussions related to the physiological and psychological effects of peak oil on our members and future generations.
Post a reply

Re: America's Health: We're #1 In Cost. We're #37 In Care.

Unread postby Magus » Wed 23 Apr 2008, 21:33:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')
1. Actually, there is universal health care in the US now. Most people are covered by medical insurance. Those who are indigent and are not insured can receive free medical treatment in hospitals under the 1986 Federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. The free medical care is available to everyone, including people who aren't even US citizens. This law is well known among illegal aliens, who regularly get free medical care at hospitals in the US. Curiously, many Americans seem to be ignorant of it, and continue to claim that the US does not have universal health care.


Most, but not all. And the number of uninsured is steadily increasing. Also, about that [/quote]Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act...that is only for urgent, llife-threatening conditons, is it not? Not exactly conducive to maintaining long-term health. By portraying this provision as a comprehensive health care program, you yourself misrepresent the facts. :roll:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')EMTALA was passed to combat the practice of "patient dumping", i.e., refusal to treat people because of inability to pay or insufficient insurance, or transferring or discharging emergency patients on the basis of high anticipated diagnosis and treatment costs. The law applies when an individual with a medical emergency "comes to the emergency department." The U.S. government defines an emergency department as "a specially equipped and staffed area of the hospital used a significant portion of the time for initial evaluation and treatment of outpatients for emergency medical conditions." This means, for example, that outpatient clinics not equipped to handle medical emergencies are not obligated under EMTALA and can simply refer patients to a nearby emergency department for care.[7]

An emergency medical condition is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs." For example, a pregnant woman with an emergency condition must be treated until delivery is complete, unless a transfer under the statute is appropriate.[7]

Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA:

1. Individuals requesting emergency care must receive a medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. Examination and treatment cannot be delayed to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage.

2. The emergency room must treat an individual with an EMC until the condition is resolved or stabilized. If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability.

3. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers.


Also, about illegal immigrants...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ccording to the Census Bureau, some 10.2 million of the nation's 47 million uninsured people are non-citizens.[12] Access by illegal immigrants to U.S. health care through EMTALA remains a source of controversy. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 contains a provision for $250 million per year for fiscal years 2005-2008 in payments to eligible providers for emergency health services provided to undocumented aliens and other specified aliens.

According to a 2007 analysis by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, uninsured low-income non-citizens were the least likely to use emergency rooms, with only about one in ten reporting a visit in the past year.[13] Illegal immigrants most often rely on clinics and health centers, many of which are funded by charities as well as hospitals seeking to unburden their emergency rooms.[13]


So, no, it seems that more Americans are using the emergency rooms these days.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '2'). There is a naive belief among Americans that "universal health care" is an unqualified success in other countries. In fact, most countries with universal health care have severe problems with keeping doctors and providing enough care. In essence, they ration health care by not providing it..... In Canada, there are complaints about the extreme delays for surgery and medical care above the minimum.....its very common for Canadians to have to wait a very long time in pain for surgeries that would be scheduled immediately in the US. Thats why numerous Canadians come to the US and pay for their health care rather then wait and receive no care in Canada. Same deal in Britain, where a better private system exists alongside the overcrowded inefficient government NHS. The NHS dental system in Britain is especially bad, to the point that "British Teeth" are now a world-wide joke....government ministers in Britain are regularly assaulted in public by people who have had to pull out their own teeth with pliers because no NHS dentist was available in their area at all, or the next appointment was over a year away.

Of course the US system can be greatly improved. But it doesn't help to misrepresent the basic facts. 8)


Do you have a source for this information that other countries are having a problem retaining doctors? Since you seem to be so knowledgeable in this subject, enlighten me.

Who are these numerous Canadians you refer to who are flocking to the United States for health care, hmm? I don't know of them, myself.

Also, something I found about "British Teeth" (which I have never heard of until your post, by the way).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ritish teeth are not bad, but irregular by American standards. American middle class children are normally tormented with gratuitous cosmetic dentistry to make them look like Stepford wives, so that any dental individuality is regarded as strange. An American woman I know whose parents resisted this fashion was bullied at school for her "bad" teeth, although she doesn't have a filling in her head at the age of 45.

Christopher Young, Sheffield England

I don't know the basis for it but it is definitely a stereotype the Americans have about us. I was talking to an american woman recently, and in the middle of the conversation she broke off to exclaim at what "remarkably white teeth" I had.

Peter, London England

Surely this stereotype has arisen out of the American preoccupation of spending large amounts of money on having their teeth done, a pastime which, like cosmetic surgery, the British find too vain to become involved in.

Clive, Sydney Australia

Its not that ours are bad but that Americans are obsessive about their's. Its catching on here too with just about all kids getting fitted with braces. Don't remember anyone at my school who had a brace. Notice that Austin Powers has snaggly teeth reflecting the American view of a Brit.

George, Edinburgh Scotland

Japanese culture has a stigma attached to teeth. Women cover their mouths while laughing because of this. Fortunately this also helps to cover up their awful teeth. An attractive girl will quite often be ruined by a horrifying set of gnashers. In my opinion free dental care for children on the NHS gives us far better teeth than the Japanese and leaves us with more natural smiles than our American cousins.

John Mullen, Kitakyushu Japan

When i was in Britain I didnt see any bad teeth, just some crooked like mine. But when i was in the USA people had all prefect straight teeth but they had a lot of fillings.

Paul, Bremen, Germany

I think it's an interesting point that the person made about "if the American dental standard is because of "health concerns", why is America so record-breakingly unhealthy on so many other fronts?" It strikes me that it's to do with spending money, and the American cultural attitude towards that. It costs lots of money to have the regimented, flawless teeth of an American. It costs hardly anything to eat healthily and not be fat. In fact, it costs MORE to be fat. Therein seems to lie the truth; in America's spend-happy, consumer culture, anything which is cheap is avoided and anything on which vast amounts of money can be spent is gravitated towards - irrelevant of health issues. So dental care is costly and coincidentally it's good for you. Eating to the point of weighing literally twice as much is also expensive and coincidentally it's bad for you. Buying a huge, inefficient car is expensive and coincidentally it's bad for everyone. The average American spends way more on items related to in-active entertainment, such as home cinema systems and video game consoles, than any other person in the world; conversely they spend far below average on sports equipment and things such as bikes. The former things are far more expensive (afterall it costs next to nothing to play a game of football, whereas a HDTV can cost $1000s) and is, coincidentally, unhealthy. If you think in terms of Americans being "preyed" on by people wanting their money - whether it be food companies or dentists - then it all starts to make sense.

Will Ondore, Milan Italy

I grew up in England but now live in Colorado. Just about EVERYONE I know in the States has had braces and has had their wisdom teeth pulled out, even when they were not causing a problem. Part of this is that dentists, like doctors here, make enormous profits from the procedures they do. I admit that in general, Americans care more about their teeth and certainly floss more, but in fact most young people I know in the States simply don't go to the dentists anymore because they simply cannot afford it....

Laura, Yorkshire USA


That last point I would agree with personally. Americans today put a high premium on dental care, but it's starting become priced out of their budget. On the topic of health care, most providers don't even provide dental unless an extra premium is payed. What is increasingly clear is that many Americans are still obsessed with appearances to the detriment of all else.

jlw61, I'm not ignoring you, but this post is big enough and I have other stuff to do, so I'll reply to you later. I find that we don't entirely disagree on everything, but there is still some points I want to iron out.
User avatar
Magus
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat 18 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Earth
Top

Re: America's Health: We're #1 In Cost. We're #37 In Care.

Unread postby jlw61 » Wed 23 Apr 2008, 23:05:14

Some interesting information on the Canadian Health system. Emphasis is added by me.

Access to a waiting list is not access to health care

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin for the 4-3 Court last week. Canadians wait an average of 17.9 weeks for surgery and other therapeutic treatments, according the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute. The waits would be even longer if Canadians didn't have access to the U.S. as a medical-care safety valve. Or, in the case of fortunate elites such as Prime Minister Paul Martin, if they didn't have access to a small private market in some non-core medical services. Mr. Martin's use of a private clinic for his annual checkup set off a political firestorm last year.



When you are sick, the United States is the place to be.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')omparing the outcome for specific diseases like cancer or heart disease, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the world. Take prostate cancer, for example. American men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than men in other countries, but we're less likely to die of it.

Fewer than one in five American men with prostate cancer will die from it, while a quarter of Canadian men will, and even more ominously, 57 percent of British men and nearly half of French and German men will.

Similar results can be found for other cancers, AIDS and heart disease. When former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi needed heart surgery last year, he didn't go to France, Canada, Cuba or even an Italian hospital - he went to the Cleveland Clinic.



The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux—a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body—and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin’s insurance didn’t: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies—in the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada.


10 Myths of Canadian Healthcare

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')anadians are a down-to-earth, non-ideological, practical people. They are interested in what works and they are interested in real solutions to the growing evidence of the accelerating decline of the health care system.

So, in response to questions from the commission's people, they indicated that they were open to a wide range of options that needed to be tried if they might improve things. They were open minded about things like user fees, allowing more private sector involvement in health care provision, and allowing people to buy health care in circumstances in which they are not permitted to do so today.
When somebody makes a statement you don't understand, don't tell him he's crazy. Ask him what he means. -- Otto Harkaman, Space Viking
User avatar
jlw61
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon 03 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Sunny Virginia, USA
Top

Re: America's Health: We're #1 In Cost. We're #37 In Care.

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 24 Apr 2008, 02:00:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Magus', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')
1. Actually, there is universal health care in the US now. Most people are covered by medical insurance. Those who are indigent and are not insured can receive free medical treatment in hospitals under the 1986 Federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. The free medical care is available to everyone, including people who aren't even US citizens. This law is well known among illegal aliens, who regularly get free medical care at hospitals in the US. Curiously, many Americans seem to be ignorant of it, and continue to claim that the US does not have universal health care.


By portraying this provision as a comprehensive health care program, you yourself misrepresent the facts.


Nope...it is you yourself who are misrepresenting the facts.

I suggest you re-read my post (or based on your lack of comprehension, perhaps it would be a first reading). I did NOT portray the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act as a "comprehensive" health care program. I said it was a universal health care program that will pay for medical emergencies. Thats what is is. It is available to anyone.....thats what universal means.

Its far from perfect, but health care options do exist for the uninsured in the U.S. Just ask the Mexicans who cross the border and enter US hospitals to take advantage of the free health care in the U.S.

Mexicans come to US for free US healthcare

8)
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: America's Health: We're #1 In Cost. We're #37 In Care.

Unread postby Magus » Thu 24 Apr 2008, 08:08:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')
Nope...it is you yourself who are misrepresenting the facts.

I suggest you re-read my post (or based on your lack of comprehension, perhaps it would be a first reading). I did NOT portray the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act as a "comprehensive" health care program. I said it was a universal health care program that will pay for medical emergencies. Thats what is is. It is available to anyone.....thats what universal means.

Its far from perfect, but health care options do exist for the uninsured in the U.S. Just ask the Mexicans who cross the border and enter US hospitals to take advantage of the free health care in the U.S.

Mexicans come to US for free US healthcare

8)


Watch your tone there, you're starting to come off to me as somewhat arrogant. Let's try to be civilized here, if you want me to continue to even bother responding to you.

The way you stated it, you seemed to believe as if it covered anything. Perhaps there is something wrong with my reading comprehension, but that is the impression I got.

The fact that Mexicans are sneaking over the border for medical care speaks more for the complete lack thereof in Mexico, than the actual quality of American health care. If it were France or Germany next door, the Mexicans would be doing the same exact thing.

I'm glad you admit it's far from perfect, that means we actually agree on something.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jlw61', 'I') agree! National priorities are important. Universal health care is far lower on my scale than protecting our borders, eliminating failed programs, scaling back the size of government, and getting the people more involved.


I have no problem with eliminating failed programs, and of course protecting our borders is absolutely necessary. That's the only thing the army should be dong right now, instead of having little misadventures in the Middle East.

The argument about to what scale the government should be involved in health care seems to be the real issue here.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f you can come up with a paradigm that puts state/local government in charge of handling health care for its citizens, I would have absolutely no problem with that, provide the citizens voted it in. Local governments have to listen to its citizens much closer than the feds. I would of course prefer the locality in charge, but I have fewer complaints about the state governments than the federal.


I would possibly add that at the Federal level, the government would need to ensure the state/local governments to achieve at least some minimal of assistance to all, within the localities means. It's not humane, otherwise.

I still don't see the problem with more federal involvement, though.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ard core? No, that's someone who memorizes it and carries an annotated federalist papers in their hip pocket. I spend a lot of time in activism and it's really handy to have for the not-so-occasional reference.


I guarantee you, that compared to most Americans, your activism probably far above what most would consider conceivable. Not that I agree with that sentiment. It's a good thing to not be apathetic.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')No, or if they are (defrauding people), it is in collusion with the state and federal governments who oversee the running of their operations.

When one places a premium on saving lives, I begin to question whether ones priorities are truly in order. Just my humble opinion...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') can only pay so much which is why I have health care and want to find catastrophic health care for my wife. But where we live, such health care essentially does not exist due to state mandates and so the version they can offer is full of extras we don't need and thus have to pay for, if we want it.

If there was a subsidized health care system, you would not have to pay anything for "insurance." That would be taken care of by taxes. As for extras, if you use the bare minimum necessary to live, that's your prerogative. Even then, I'm almost positive it would be less a financial burden to you than any insurance plan available to you.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') understand your concern and I've feel your concern because I've felt that way. I've found that it is a racket, but not like you think. Consider, why does the government demand control over non-narcotic drugs? Is someone going to buy that topical medication to get high? Are they going to rob a bank with it? What is so special about that tube of cream that government has to control its distribution? Such controls limit its use, and keep prices artificially high.

I've always thought that stores do that to prevent some dumb bozo from buying strong medication and accidently killing themselves with it. Then their family could possibly sue the store for gross negligence.

I don't really see any correlation with price, especially if the system were to become socialized. That would eliminate any point for keeping prices artificially high, as everyone would pay the same in taxes, anyway.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') have a skin condition, the doctor says to use xyz cream and gives me a prescription for 2 tubes. The skin condition does not completely clear up and I have to go back to the doctor to get another prescription. Why? If the condition comes back two years later then why should I have to go back to the doctor again?


I agree that it is completely unnecessary to go back to the doctor for a certain number of prescription refills. The internet could do wonders for that. Actually, that's one thing my doctor's office did right, as apparently I don't need to physically visit to get a refill on the ointment I have to use.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f my neighbor gets the same condition, why should he have to go to the doctor when a word of what happened to me can probably take care of it. If it doesn't, he can then go have the doc check him out.

I would think that your neighbor would want to see the doctor, just to be sure they really do have the same condition you did. And what if it didn't, but instead ended up killing him instead? That would not be a good situation.

If you are saying that there are some prescription medications that are safe enough that they should be sold over the counter instead, that is a completely different argument, that need not be got into here.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ntrusive government oversight over things that they should have no concern over keeps prices artificially high.

A government sponsored health care system would make it so that the price would be absolutely nothing, unless cosmetic.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy does the doctor have to see me to let me get something for my sinus infection. Why can't he ask me a few questions over the phone and decide if he needs to see me or just send a prescription to my pharmacy and charge me $20 instead of $75?

I don't know. Why don't you ask him?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f I send a letter, I put it into an envelope. If I send a picture, I put it into a padded envelope with cardboard backing for protection. If I ship a computer, I guarantee you can fumble it and I'm not going to worry about the contents because I package it really well.

Oh, and the US mail has no better shipment record with me than UPS seems to have with you.

Eh, I've had good experiences with UPS, to be sure. It's just that last one that really pissed me off. To be fair, it could have been packed better (was not personally packed by me). The hole in the box was pretty conspicuous, however. At least they did pay me the shipping insurance I put on it.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es, that and several other passages really needed some notation on what the hell they meant. I'll see if I can find a relevant note in the federalist papers but until modern history, that meant keeping peace amongst the people and a common defense from all aggressors, foreign and domestic. It did not mean setting up a nanny state or a welfare state. It did not mean arresting and jailing people who happened to be enjoying a recreational drug.

Back then, "all men were created equal" apparently didn't apply to Blacks, women, and non-property owners. Times have changed.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')lackwater is in a foreign country in a time of war (which of course WE started). They do what the government tells them, for the most part. They do not provide a service to the american public on american soil. The parallel here is very weak and I'm not at all sure there is a valid point to be made.

But they have been active on American soil, during Katrina. Maybe you forgot that.

Private Security Company Creates Stir in New Orleans

When mercenaries are allowed to roam the streets of a major city for "security," how long is it before the government considers using them for other purposes, like, for say, "riot control."

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')orrect! Exactly right! So in the meantime if we limit government, we limit the damage it can do. If government is regulated to oversight and punishing wrong-doers then when somebody, say, defrauds a customer by promising to pay for a certain procedure and then refuses later, the government can step in and rectify the situation, punishing the wrong-doer (hopefully in a way that makes them never to want to do anything like that again).

When government takes over an industry, you no longer have an easay or quick check and balance system. The checks and balances then become the people who have short memories and poor judgement in groups larger than 2... however if you have government watching over and punishing companies for doing something illegal, you have checks and balances. So having the government watch over health care providers, insurers, and manufacturers and not actually try to become one provides the checks and balances for a system to work effectively.


Conversely, with too little oversight, insurers start to charge whatever they like, and people start to die. The check and balance over the government is supposed to be the citizenry themselves. If that does not happen, then there is no one else to blame but ourselves. Taxes are, ultimately, still our money, after all.

I'm not disagreeing with everything you say here, in principal. I think we have two very different beliefs in just how much involvement the government should have in health care, obviously.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m sorry, I thought I was quite clear. It's proven time and again that competition drives down cost and tends to improve service. I don't have much choice here as I have blue cross/blue shield or blue cross/blue shield or a non-blue cross/blue sheild provider. All of which compete for a 55% share of the market controlled by the very entity that handles the other 45% of the market AND makes many of the rules. I don't call that competition.

Since the government's purpose is not to make a profit, but provide services to the citizenry, overcharging would not be an issue at all. If it ever did become that way, then the people have every right (and the responsibility) to throw the bureaucrats out on their collective asses!

As for the service, that could be handled in a similar fashion.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')erhaps I should have said "I'm glad you think that is a choice. I for one would never think of leaving the US unless it got much worse than it is. We (so far) still have a pretty decent voice in the affairs of government, we just don't have enough people agreeing to what that voice should say. I have the ability and right to protect myself and I can travel around with one type of money and no papers (if i don't drive or fly) and nobody can say much (except for the nice federal government that can throw me in jail for no cause and no reason, if someone felt like it).

If the economy here plunges as many are predicting, then you have to keep every option open. That includes leaving the United States, although possibly only as a last desperation move if you are very committed to staying here.

I was born here in the US; I like it well enough...but I don't like it so much as to get myself killed by not leaving, if a situation arises where that becomes necessary to my survival.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')O! I do not disagree, my point is that it would have to get much worse than it is before I would consider the shedding of blood to be a proper response. Remember, the founding fathers were fighting some terrible injustices. No right to represent themselves. No right to redress wrongs. Military forcibly being housed and fed by the people. No right to a day in court. No right to jury by their peers.... the list goes on. These people were almost saintly in their patience and desire to reconcile with their masters and stood up only after a long line of abuses which rivaled that of some of the worst dictators in history.

We're far from that my friend. If a significant number of people of this great country stand with one voice, I can promise you things would change overnight. That is far from the government that Misters Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Washington were up against.

I hope that you are right in your assessment. It has been my experience that many people are all to willing to give up their freedom if it means a little more security and/or convenience.

We shall have to see.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou want a government sponsored, controlled and taxed system that will be a one-size-fits-all that will require people going to court to get problems solved. You want a single entity that has no interest except in perpetuating itself to control almost 20% of the economy.

What I want is health care accessible to everyone, from Bill Gates to that beggar I saw sleeping in a tent the other day. If the people cannot control their own government anymore, then we have deeper problems to worry about than whether or not the government is running health care.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') want a free market system that allows people to have a selection of companies and choose the one that provides the insurance they need at the time. I want doctors to be able to streamline their business and see more patients and not have to hire a bevy of clerical workers to fill out the paper work! I want to be able to go to the pharmacy and get a muscle relaxer for my pulled back if I worked too hard during the weekend. And I want the government to come running if somebody cheats me or steals my hard earned money by promising me something they will not provide as written in the contract.

How can you ever be sure exactly what kind of health care you personally need? Unexpected complications always arise under the best of circumstances. You may find that the one insurance option that you dropped is exactly the one you need the most. Also, insurance companies can be very good at finding legal technicalities to deny your claim ("prior health conditions," perhaps), and you just may find yourself in court, anyway, just like you mentioned would happen if government had control of health care above. Where does that leave you?

Is this more a matter of you not wanting to pay for anyone else through taxes? If you do, state so now. That is basically the same thing you do through insurance anyway, except the companies are aiming to make a profit for their shareholders, so I see little point to this argument. Not that you hold it, but some people with a similar viewpoint to yours seem to.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') also believe you'd find more free clinics under my solution since drugs would be cheaper and doctors a little less worried about where their next student loan payment is coming from. Unreasonable regulations limits supply and that makes things more expensive.

With socialized health care, both clinics and drugs would be free, anyway, so your point is moot. Doctors, in addition to having educations subsidized by the government, could be payed by the government through taxes. We're still paying; there is simply less of a burden on the poor. Efficiency is of course always an ever-present issue, but one that could be handled by able leaders.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ure it's a problem... but why did it happen? While I think this would make a very interesting thread, I'll take a short stab at it.

Corporate taxes, property taxes, warped economy due to subsidized freeways at taxpayer expense but railroads that have to pay for everything they use. Mandated government social programs that force me to eventually spend nearly 50% more on every one of my employees. Encouraging ever-lasting economic growth with artificial inflation due to economic and money policies.

Don't blame all the taxes for forcing businesses overseas. The only reason it is cheaper elsewhere is because some countries, such as China, act very negligently towards their ecosystem and even their own populace. Therefore unethical corporations exploit these lack laws to their own advantage. Basically, slave labor.

I'm sorry that you have to spend more on those employees, but there is a reason those programs are in place, arguments about effectiveness and efficiency aside.

However, I agree with you completely on the obsession with ever-lasting growth (doesn't everyone on this forum?), and the railroads. So many people and goods could be transported much more economically if the United States had a better railroad system. You can thank the misguided transportation policy makers of the 50's and 60's for that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')When given the choice to a widget costing a $1 buck to make and get to market because of all of these policies and mandates, or 10 cents from China to the market, what is the good capitalist going to do? Especially if he's in competition with someone who makes a similar product for $1.

Of course, the good capitalist is going to produce the widget in China, probably through child labor. The real question one should be asking here is, what would the good human being do in this situation?

Tariffs on international trade is one possibility, but no, that would go against "free trade."

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd yes, in the end, it is going to work out even with all of what has happened, but because of the stupid growth-at-all-costs policy of the US government, a lot of people are going to get hurt in the process. I have more to say on this, in other threads, to the problems of corporations which are created by the government, but that's a digression; we're talking about health care. Which I guess is a digression from the stated topic, but at least a related digression.

The problems with corporations not born of the government are just as great, if not greater. It is very pertinent to this discussion, at the core of it, as a matter of fact.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ome interesting information on the Canadian Health system. Emphasis is added by me.

Access to a waiting list is not access to health care

Quote:
"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin for the 4-3 Court last week. Canadians wait an average of 17.9 weeks for surgery and other therapeutic treatments, according the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute. The waits would be even longer if Canadians didn't have access to the U.S. as a medical-care safety valve. Or, in the case of fortunate elites such as Prime Minister Paul Martin, if they didn't have access to a small private market in some non-core medical services. Mr. Martin's use of a private clinic for his annual checkup set off a political firestorm last year.



Some responses to that first article, emphasis mine.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')orking on the Flaws
Michael Foley - Portland, Maine

So, Canada has flaws in its system. They appear to be addressing one of them. Attempts to equate the botching of national health care on the part of other nations with the inevitability that we would do the same is illogical and could not stand as a winning point in any decent high school debate. The fallacy is one of false dilemma. The argument is not one of their current way verses our current way; at issue is what is best for the nation. Thousands of insurers and HMO's, each with their administrative cost add-ins, are not efficient. A healthy population is a healthy work force. We are smart enough to trim the fat and devise an efficient single system. The administrative overhead for the average HMO is about 18%. The administrative overhead for Medicare is about 3%. Elimination of this excess cost alone would be more than enough to insure all who are currently without coverage.

By the way, I've had the experience of having to wait for care in the good ol' US of A, as well. For my last doctor visit, I had to wait six months to see a dermatologist. So private health care seems to have the same issues. So it's not like that never happens here, at least from my experience.

Here's another response to that article.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e Have Our Own Problems
Andre Radnoti - Los Angeles

My sister spent a year and half haggling with her HMO to see a doctor that would remove a growth the size of her thumb from her nasal cavity. I have just started to make some real income as a self employed contractor but am in no position to afford health care. I am one accident away from complete financial disaster. My neighbor who can't afford health insurance spent 15 hours in line at a clinic to have his broken finger attended too. I would suggest that instead of looking for weaknesses in other systems that conservatives come up with real solutions other than tort reform for addressing the health needs of this country.

Before you cast stones at others problems, please try looking to your own. Moving on...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')url=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8483]Access to a waiting list is not access to health care[/url]

Quote:
Comparing the outcome for specific diseases like cancer or heart disease, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the world. Take prostate cancer, for example. American men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than men in other countries, but we're less likely to die of it.

Fewer than one in five American men with prostate cancer will die from it, while a quarter of Canadian men will, and even more ominously, 57 percent of British men and nearly half of French and German men will.

Similar results can be found for other cancers, AIDS and heart disease. When former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi needed heart surgery last year, he didn't go to France, Canada, Cuba or even an Italian hospital - he went to the Cleveland Clinic.

The Cato institute is a Libertarian think tank. The other institutions you cited are not exactly unbiased, either. Just felt like making that clear.

These statistics, even if true, mean absolutely nothing without any evidence supporting an underlying cause. Simply spewing out this random information does little to convince anyone with half a brain, even if the statistics are "true." Perhaps there are other factors going into these fatalities other than a socialized medical system, hmm?

It was stated that more American men were diagnosed with prostate cancer. How many more, and when that figure is taken into account, what is the actual amount of men in America dying of prostate cancer, instead of simply the ratio of diagnosis/cure?

I'm glad that Italian prime minister Berlusconi can afford American health care; I most certainly cannot.

But since we all love statistics so very much...

Deaths from coronary heart disease

Heart Disease Facts and Statistics

Statistics for Heart Disease by Country

By the way, don't many people with heart disease die on the way to the hospital, anyway? Hmm...

Once sharp decline in cancer death rates easing

Death from Cancer by Country
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
') Showing latest available data.
Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Netherlands: 433 deaths per 100,000 people
#2 Italy: 418 deaths per 100,000 people
#3 Hungary: 411 deaths per 100,000 people
#4 Luxembourg: 409.7 deaths per 100,000 people
#5 Slovakia: 405.3 deaths per 100,000 people
#6 Ireland: 357.6 deaths per 100,000 people
#7 Czech Republic: 335.4 deaths per 100,000 people
#8 New Zealand: 327.3 deaths per 100,000 people
#9 United States: 321.9 deaths per 100,000 people
#10 Australia: 298.9 deaths per 100,000 people
#11 Norway: 289.4 deaths per 100,000 people
#12 France: 286.1 deaths per 100,000 people
#13 Austria: 280 deaths per 100,000 people
#14 Sweden: 268.2 deaths per 100,000 peopl
#15 Finland: 255.4 deaths per 100,000 people
#16 United Kingdom: 253.5 deaths per 100,000 people
Total: 5,350.7 deaths per 100,000 people
Weighted average: 334.4 deaths per 100,000 people

As it turns out, if you try hard enough you can throw together enough statistics and articles to support almost any conclusion.

And now for something completely different!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare

Quote:
Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux—a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body—and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin’s insurance didn’t: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies—in the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada.

Insurance? Why does insurance even still exist in their system? The medicine should be prescribed by the doctor and that should be it. Oh, wait, there's more after that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen Aucoin appealed to an official ombudsman, the Ontario government claimed that her treatment was unproven and that she had gone to an unaccredited clinic. But the FDA in the U.S. had approved Erbitux, and her clinic was a cancer center affiliated with a prominent Catholic hospital in Buffalo. This January, the ombudsman ruled in Aucoin’s favor, awarding her the cost of treatment. She represents a dramatic new trend in Canadian health-care advocacy: finding the treatment you need in another country, and then fighting Canadian bureaucrats (and often suing) to get them to pick up the tab.

That clears it up quite a bit. She went to another country, and then expected the Canadian government to pay for it? That doesn't sound very ethical to me.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y book’s thesis was simple: to contain rising costs, government-run health-care systems invariably restrict the health-care supply. Thus, at a time when Canada’s population was aging and needed more care, not less, cost-crunching bureaucrats had reduced the size of medical school classes, shuttered hospitals, and capped physician fees, resulting in hundreds of thousands of patients waiting for needed treatment—patients who suffered and, in some cases, died from the delays. The only solution, I concluded, was to move away from government command-and-control structures and toward a more market-oriented system

Or, perhaps, to remove those cost-crunching bureaucrats and replace them with someone who will do what is apparently necessary from that account, like raise taxes? Perish the thought.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')url=http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/hl856.cfm]10 Myths of Canadian Healthcare[/url]

Quote:
Canadians are a down-to-earth, non-ideological, practical people. They are interested in what works and they are interested in real solutions to the growing evidence of the accelerating decline of the health care system.

So, in response to questions from the commission's people, they indicated that they were open to a wide range of options that needed to be tried if they might improve things. They were open minded about things like user fees, allowing more private sector involvement in health care provision, and allowing people to buy health care in circumstances in which they are not permitted to do so today.

If Canadians, as this article seems to claim to speak for, really want to get rid of their current health care system, they should feel free to adopt our own here in the United States. Then they will be able to experience the joys of $500 doctor visits and $20 topical creams.
User avatar
Magus
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat 18 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Earth
Top

Re: America's Health: We're #1 In Cost. We're #37 In Care.

Unread postby jlw61 » Thu 24 Apr 2008, 10:27:29

I'm cutting out statistics and stories since you are right that we can both find either to support some claim and it will just go on forever. If I need to do something like that, I will post it in a separate message.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Magus', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jlw61', 'I') agree! National priorities are important. Universal health care is far lower on my scale than protecting our borders, eliminating failed programs, scaling back the size of government, and getting the people more involved.


I have no problem with eliminating failed programs, and of course protecting our borders is absolutely necessary. That's the only thing the army should be dong right now, instead of having little misadventures in the Middle East.

The argument about to what scale the government should be involved in health care seems to be the real issue here.


This, I think is the primary point of contention.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f you can come up with a paradigm that puts state/local government in charge of handling health care for its citizens, I would have absolutely no problem with that, provide the citizens voted it in. Local governments have to listen to its citizens much closer than the feds. I would of course prefer the locality in charge, but I have fewer complaints about the state governments than the federal.


I would possibly add that at the Federal level, the government would need to ensure the state/local governments to achieve at least some minimal of assistance to all, within the localities means. It's not humane, otherwise.

I still don't see the problem with more federal involvement, though.


The federal government, IMHO, should maintain oversight. Outlining basic standards? I'm open to that but that is dangerous territory as specific one-size-fit-all solutions seldom work. But since it's a waste of time to hammer out such specifics, there is probably no reason to continue to hammer on this point.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') guarantee you, that compared to most Americans, your activism probably far above what most would consider conceivable. Not that I agree with that sentiment. It's a good thing to not be apathetic.

Thanks, I wish more people were less apathetic.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o, or if they are (defrauding people), it is in collusion with the state and federal governments who oversee the running of their operations.

When one places a premium on saving lives, I begin to question whether ones priorities are truly in order. Just my humble opinion...

Saving lives? Health care's primary job has nothing to do with saving lives, it has to do with maintaining health. Saving lives, as in heart attacks, cancer, trauma and such are the extraordinary measures and secondary to inoculations and preventative care. The extraordinary measures are for a fairly small percentage of the population, at any one time.

Now before we get into any hypotheticals about "aging population and such", companies plan for that. They can read and think very well because they hire the best to figure it out and it is their job to figure it out. If they don't then their business is destroyed and if the laws are properly framed, people go to jail.

What does government do when they realize they have an aging population for a government program? They tax us just a little more well in advance of the need to save the system, then the congress takes that money leaving IOUs, uses the money on roads and social programs, and hopes it can pay for it. Want to know what a pretty good chunk of the national debt has gone towards? Yep, Social Security! Your government tax dollars at work. Notice how the bums have gotten thrown out on that issue?

Government controlled health care has to do with pointing a gun a people and saying "give us more tax money so that we can force you into our idea of a health care system". This is the few forcing the many to do something the many may not want.

Health care run by companies is "here is a contract of what we cover, this is how much it costs, please let us serve you".

Do you see the difference in approaches?

This is my point. When you allow government to dictate how you will live you give them power over your lives and you don't have any way to simply say "I'm going with the other guy".

Want roads? Give the feds money and power to create freeways! If they don't like something your state is doing, they hold back road money. Checkmate. They control your drinking age and other parts of your life.

Want better schools? Why not take it to the local level and force the issue? Oh, the feds want to do it, OK, give them more money and power! Then when the state wants to try something that shows promise, such as teacher incentive pay or privatized schools, but the feds say "nope, if you do that, we cut your school funding". Checkmate. The feds control your schools.

Some idiot from Texas convinces 51 senators and 218 representatives that he can improve the schools. Adds a whole bunch of new mandates and makes things worse. What might the next president do? Denounce scientific reasoning that goes against God's will? If the state does not like the idea, they have a choice of losing a lot of money and possibly facing federal sanctions, or they can go along. Very few states have told the feds to go jump.

Now the real kicker... the people have to wait until the next election cycle, typically two years, before they can actually do anything about the bums. And if the bums can create some side issue to ban guns, target gays, protect marriage, ban abortion or some other "hot issue for the masses", then the real problems are ignored and the bum gets back in. Your sheeple at work.

When you give a twice-removed person power over your lives, you make it exponentially harder to get the right thing done and the wrongs they commit upon you corrected. At the very least it's a matter of empathy and response time. At the very worst it's a matter of marketing and promotion to a large population. Unfortunately the saying "... you can fool some of the people all of the time ..." has more truth to it than I care to comment upon.

However, to maintain a checks and balance system (since one can argue that all men have the seed of evil in them), a federal government that maintains and enforces rules regarding the rights of it's citizens, supporting state government that guards the rights of it's citizens and supplies specifics for the state, supporting a local government that does the same provides three very good layers of protection for the citizen.

Companies would then provide services based on these rules and some common sense laws would make it virtually impossible to create a contract that provides for "technical" exceptions. Hard to read contracts, IMHO, are for weasels and fools to sign.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') can only pay so much which is why I have health care and want to find catastrophic health care for my wife. But where we live, such health care essentially does not exist due to state mandates and so the version they can offer is full of extras we don't need and thus have to pay for, if we want it.

If there was a subsidized health care system, you would not have to pay anything for "insurance." That would be taken care of by taxes. As for extras, if you use the bare minimum necessary to live, that's your prerogative. Even then, I'm almost positive it would be less a financial burden to you than any insurance plan available to you.

OK, here is another very basic point of contention. I pay taxes, a lot of them, so do you. The difference is that when a program does not work, the government tends to want more saying they need more to make it work. The programs almost never get fixed in any way and they just grow because there is very little incentive to make it work. The government doesn't "go out of business" and it does not have a powerful entity watching over it. The only time the people are powerful is when they unite with one voice.

Make it possible so the people do not have to get on their hind legs to get a failed program fixed or ended, and we can talk about adding programs. When we can shut down the war on drugs and the war on poverty for the failed programs they are (I'll let you keep any sub program that provides some real bang for the buck), then we can talk about if it's possible to make a workable government sponsored universal health care coverage.

Until then, history says this is a foolish thing to pursue. It's my money and I want to have say on how it's spent. Is this selfish? Yeah, it is! Is there a problem with wanting government to do what it's good at and admit when it can't fix a problem? Is there a problem with demanding that I get the service I pay for? Is there a problem with me keeping as much of my money as possible and giving me credit with having the desire to help my fellow man on my terms?

Forcing me to pay for another person's health care is fairness only in the Marxist sense. In the world I grew up in, people pay for their wants AND their needs. In the world I grew up in, when someone points a gun at you and says "give me your money", that person is called a thief.

After universal health care, what's next? Universal food care, universal house care, and universal utility care? Then the government can give everyone the same 1800 calories a day, everyone lives in the same 1 bedroom style apartment, and everyone gets enough electricity for their electric skillet and five light bulbs. Oh,wait, they did that in Russia...

See? When you take something to it's next logical step, and the one after, and end up with a mess, this is the road you are on. I my scenario of company run health care, you have checks and balances which have a much greater chance to prevent any such runaway scenario.

As imperfect as a private system may be, I have history on my side to show that a government run system will only make it worse. If we had a private system that had failed (we don't, and for all intents, have never had a true private system), then I would be on the defensive. As it is, the government health system is the one on trial.

============

One final note regarding Blackwater. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Blackwater and the people who authorize, control and run it should all be tried as criminals. The US hasn't employed a significant number of mercenaries since the early 1800's, if my historical memory is correct. Mercenaries are the bane of any society and we maintain the existence of Blackwater at our peril.
When somebody makes a statement you don't understand, don't tell him he's crazy. Ask him what he means. -- Otto Harkaman, Space Viking
User avatar
jlw61
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon 03 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Sunny Virginia, USA
Top

Re: America's Health: We're #1 In Cost. We're #37 In Care.

Unread postby vision-master » Thu 24 Apr 2008, 10:45:32

Healthcare insurance is NOT insurance.

It's nothing more than a service/ maintenance plan. Similar to the warranty you get on yer car.
vision-master
 
Top

Re: America's Health: We're #1 In Cost. We're #37 In Care.

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 24 Apr 2008, 19:39:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Magus', '
')If there was a subsidized health care system...


The US ALREADY has at least three distinct subsidized federal health systems.....these include systems run by Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans administration. None of these are known for their great quality of care.

Which of these crummy subsidized health care systems do you propose expanding? Which one do you want to be part of?
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: America's Health: We're #1 In Cost. We're #37 In Care.

Unread postby vision-master » Thu 24 Apr 2008, 20:53:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he US ALREADY has at least three distinct subsidized federal health systems.....these include systems run by Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans administration. None of these are known for their great quality of care.


an those great State run programs. Generic Meds for $1.00, fancy lables $3.00. Besides you can see any Doctor you want - no co-payment either. Yeah, crappy care. What a stoogie..........
vision-master
 
Top

Re: America's Health: We're #1 In Cost. We're #37 In Care.

Unread postby jlw61 » Thu 24 Apr 2008, 22:11:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he US ALREADY has at least three distinct subsidized federal health systems.....these include systems run by Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans administration. None of these are known for their great quality of care.


an those great State run programs. Generic Meds for $1.00, fancy lables $3.00. Besides you can see any Doctor you want - no co-payment either. Yeah, crappy care. What a stoogie..........


Do you have anything constructive to say or do you just come here when you are bored?
When somebody makes a statement you don't understand, don't tell him he's crazy. Ask him what he means. -- Otto Harkaman, Space Viking
User avatar
jlw61
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon 03 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Sunny Virginia, USA
Top

Re: America's Health: We're #1 In Cost. We're #37 In Care.

Unread postby Denny » Fri 25 Apr 2008, 00:22:52

Wow, some really long winded posts here. I have lived in the U.S.A. and in Canada. In the U.S., I was covered by a pretty decent health care program, just a few minor deductibles.

I was lucky enough in the States to be pretty healthy, but did see doctors twice and made one emergency hospital visit for a cut.

In Canada, I have lived here much longer and have had a couple of hsopital tests and one emergency surgery, removal of my appendix.

I found I had to wait similar amounts of time for doctor visits. For two more intensive tests, not emergency ones, I had to wait about 4 to 8 days for an opening. For the appendectomy it was about 18 hours. That was concern to me. But, I live in a really fast growing area, and hospital services do not seem to grow here as fast as the population. I'd guess if the hospitals were privatized and had a profit opportunity, they would expand faster, it seems to work that way for Home Depot and Canadian Tire, they are faster on the draw to match up with new consumer demands. Similarly with more advanced equipment. It took a few years for our local hospitals to get funding for MRI equipment, whereas Buffalo hospitals were quicker to be equipped, and many people from here went there for treatment and testing, but most covered by our Ontario Health Insurance plan.

But, overall, I think the Canadian system is pretty good. My mother-in-law had an emergency heart bypass seven years ago. Within three hours of getting to the hospital. And, more efficient. For instance, my doctor's clinic has just two or three administrative types, booking appointments and doing insurance paperwork for a staff of 11 doctors. I guess it makes it much easier to do insurance paperwork when there is just one insurance carrier and everything does not need to be itemized or pre-approved to the nth degree as is the case with U.S. medical insurance providers.

The way I look at it, health care should be socialized to a large extent. Why do we have "socialized" police and fire departments? Same thing, we are a part of society and these services cannot be reasonably saved ahead for and the need for them is generally not up to the discretion of the user.
User avatar
Denny
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sat 10 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada
Top

Re: America's Health: We're #1 In Cost. We're #37 In Care.

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 25 Apr 2008, 02:31:03

The ugly truth about Canadian healthcare

the ugly truth about Canadian healthcare

"...if we measure a health-care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50 percent; the European rate is just 35 percent. Esophageal carcinoma: 12 percent in the United States, 6 percent in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2 percent here, yet 61.7 percent in France and down to 44.3 percent in England—a striking variation."

:)
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: America's Health: We're #1 In Cost. We're #37 In Care.

Unread postby Magus » Fri 25 Apr 2008, 04:45:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he federal government, IMHO, should maintain oversight. Outlining basic standards? I'm open to that but that is dangerous territory as specific one-size-fit-all solutions seldom work. But since it's a waste of time to hammer out such specifics, there is probably no reason to continue to hammer on this point.


I agree with that sentiment. It certainly is an arduous task, and we aren't going to solve all the nation's problems right here, for sure. I think we'll just need to respectfully disagree for now, which is acceptable to me.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') guarantee you, that compared to most Americans, your activism probably far above what most would consider conceivable. Not that I agree with that sentiment. It's a good thing to not be apathetic.


Thanks, I wish more people were less apathetic.


As do I...as do I.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')aving lives? Health care's primary job has nothing to do with saving lives, it has to do with maintaining health. Saving lives, as in heart attacks, cancer, trauma and such are the extraordinary measures and secondary to inoculations and preventative care. The extraordinary measures are for a fairly small percentage of the population, at any one time.


No need to get technical here. I consider "preventative care" to be saving lives as well, or at least prolonging them.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ow before we get into any hypotheticals about "aging population and such", companies plan for that. They can read and think very well because they hire the best to figure it out and it is their job to figure it out. If they don't then their business is destroyed and if the laws are properly framed, people go to jail.

Ideally, yes.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat does government do when they realize they have an aging population for a government program? They tax us just a little more well in advance of the need to save the system, then the congress takes that money leaving IOUs, uses the money on roads and social programs, and hopes it can pay for it. Want to know what a pretty good chunk of the national debt has gone towards? Yep, Social Security! Your government tax dollars at work. Notice how the bums have gotten thrown out on that issue?

It is an absolutely unacceptable for Congress to be taking money away from Social Security that they very well know that will never payed back. Even without all the other crap being ignored today, this along is reason enough to throw all the politicians out to the streets with those very same bums. They don't deserve any better, in my mind!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')overnment controlled health care has to do with pointing a gun a people and saying "give us more tax money so that we can force you into our idea of a health care system". This is the few forcing the many to do something the many may not want.

The government only does what the people allow it to. If enough Americans wanted to stop something, it would damned well be stopped. I think you already said something similar to this earlier, if I'm not mistaken.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ealth care run by companies is "here is a contract of what we cover, this is how much it costs, please let us serve you".

Do you see the difference in approaches?

The only problem with your idea is that is not what health care companies are doing. The only people they are interested in serving is their shareholders and themselves. After all, to them it is simply yet another money-making venture. If there is any loopholes to be found, any way to exploit the system and get away with doing something crooked, these companies will find it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is my point. When you allow government to dictate how you will live you give them power over your lives and you don't have any way to simply say "I'm going with the other guy".

As I already said, we only give the government as much authority over us that we allow. If abuses start to arise, action can and should be taken.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ant roads? Give the feds money and power to create freeways! If they don't like something your state is doing, they hold back road money. Checkmate. They control your drinking age and other parts of your life.


The states still control most roads, last time I checked. But I agree, the legal drinking age of twenty-one is idiotic and definitely needs to be lowered to eighteen at the very least.

Why is it that at eighteen you are somehow magically enabled to vote, or fight and possibly die for your country, yet for some reason you are denied the right to drink, even socially? Does that segment of the population constitute some sort of sub-citizenry that don't have the same rights? Anyway, I need to get back on topic.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ant better schools? Why not take it to the local level and force the issue? Oh, the feds want to do it, OK, give them more money and power! Then when the state wants to try something that shows promise, such as teacher incentive pay or privatized schools, but the feds say "nope, if you do that, we cut your school funding". Checkmate. The feds control your schools.

I am not sure as to the extent of control the federal government has over schools today. I thought that states had most of the control over primary and secondary schools at least.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ome idiot from Texas convinces 51 senators and 218 representatives that he can improve the schools. Adds a whole bunch of new mandates and makes things worse. What might the next president do? Denounce scientific reasoning that goes against God's will? If the state does not like the idea, they have a choice of losing a lot of money and possibly facing federal sanctions, or they can go along. Very few states have told the feds to go jump.

First off, if the president tried to do something as retarded as denounce scientific reasoning, there would be a flat-out revolution by dawn the next day. As for policies that are simply bad, that is why presidents can only remain in office for two terms, right?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ow the real kicker... the people have to wait until the next election cycle, typically two years, before they can actually do anything about the bums. And if the bums can create some side issue to ban guns, target gays, protect marriage, ban abortion or some other "hot issue for the masses", then the real problems are ignored and the bum gets back in. Your sheeple at work.

That is a problem with our society, not our system of government. People need to wake up, stop acting like naive fools, and take more direct action.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen you give a twice-removed person power over your lives, you make it exponentially harder to get the right thing done and the wrongs they commit upon you corrected. At the very least it's a matter of empathy and response time. At the very worst it's a matter of marketing and promotion to a large population. Unfortunately the saying "... you can fool some of the people all of the time ..." has more truth to it than I care to comment upon.

Unfortunately, I can't really disagree with you there.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')owever, to maintain a checks and balance system (since one can argue that all men have the seed of evil in them), a federal government that maintains and enforces rules regarding the rights of it's citizens, supporting state government that guards the rights of it's citizens and supplies specifics for the state, supporting a local government that does the same provides three very good layers of protection for the citizen.

Absolutely. That is one of the very foundations that this republic was built upon.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Companies would then provide services based on these rules and some common sense laws would make it virtually impossible to create a contract that provides for "technical" exceptions. Hard to read contracts, IMHO, are for weasels and fools to sign.

If only that were possible, I might agree with you. But it seems that these companies are exceeding good at what they do, and that is getting you to give them your money, though whatever means possible.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')K, here is another very basic point of contention. I pay taxes, a lot of them, so do you. The difference is that when a program does not work, the government tends to want more saying they need more to make it work. The programs almost never get fixed in any way and they just grow because there is very little incentive to make it work. The government doesn't "go out of business" and it does not have a powerful entity watching over it. The only time the people are powerful is when they unite with one voice.

Which is not necessarily a completely bad thing. The people should have to unite with one voice sometimes to make any major changes. However, a combination of an apathetic population and opportunistic "leaders" has caused many of the problems we are having now.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ake it possible so the people do not have to get on their hind legs to get a failed program fixed or ended, and we can talk about adding programs. When we can shut down the war on drugs and the war on poverty for the failed programs they are (I'll let you keep any sub program that provides some real bang for the buck), then we can talk about if it's possible to make a workable government sponsored universal health care coverage.

Absolutely, those programs are just wrong in so many different ways that I won't even go into here. They definitely need to go, and I'm very disappointed that there is not much outcry about them.

One of the problems may be that there are still people so uninformed that they still believe that the "war on drugs," "war on terror," or war on poverty" are actually working. Same problem of apathy, which we have already gone over.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')ntil then, history says this is a foolish thing to pursue. It's my money and I want to have say on how it's spent. Is this selfish? Yeah, it is! Is there a problem with wanting government to do what it's good at and admit when it can't fix a problem? Is there a problem with demanding that I get the service I pay for? Is there a problem with me keeping as much of my money as possible and giving me credit with having the desire to help my fellow man on my terms?

No, you make your own decisions. I'm not here to personally persuade you to my particular viewpoint. I'm more having this conversation here so I can understand the other side of this issue better.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Forcing me to pay for another person's health care is fairness only in the Marxist sense. In the world I grew up in, people pay for their wants AND their needs. In the world I grew up in, when someone points a gun at you and says "give me your money", that person is called a thief.

The idea is that everyone pays a smaller amount over time, so that no single individual is overwhelmed with the burden of paying off a huge medical bill. At least, that's how I see it.

If the majority of the people decide that a government health care system is for the best, that is not a thief robbing you. That is democracy at work.

If you disagree with the majority decision, you have every right (and I would in fact encourage you) to voice whatever qualms you have with a universal health care system, as I have the right to complain about the lack of said system.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')fter universal health care, what's next? Universal food care, universal house care, and universal utility care? Then the government can give everyone the same 1800 calories a day, everyone lives in the same 1 bedroom style apartment, and everyone gets enough electricity for their electric skillet and five light bulbs. Oh,wait, they did that in Russia...

The slippery slope argument does not hold up here. There are already programs in place to help people who cannot not afford basic necessities, is there not? Food stamps, welfare, and all that?

I don't see the need for nationalization of any of those things...that of course, being my own opinion! I'm sure you can find someone else who would disagree with you there, even.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ee? When you take something to it's next logical step, and the one after, and end up with a mess, this is the road you are on. I my scenario of company run health care, you have checks and balances which have a much greater chance to prevent any such runaway scenario.

Reducto ad infintium, huh? I'll say again; any new law or program would only be allowed if the people allowed it. Otherwise, those things you listed above will never happen.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s imperfect as a private system may be, I have history on my side to show that a government run system will only make it worse. If we had a private system that had failed (we don't, and for all intents, have never had a true private system), then I would be on the defensive. As it is, the government health system is the one on trial.

The history of government run health care is rather short, as far as I can tell.

It seems to me that both systems have their imperfections. It may very well be that the solution will be found in some sort of alchemical fusion of these two systems. But I don't think we are going to find that solution here and now. I'm happy to see that we are both trying to find that solution, however.

============

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ne final note regarding Blackwater. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Blackwater and the people who authorize, control and run it should all be tried as criminals. The US hasn't employed a significant number of mercenaries since the early 1800's, if my historical memory is correct. Mercenaries are the bane of any society and we maintain the existence of Blackwater at our peril.

Absolutely agreed. There are disturbing parallels that can be drawn today between present American society and the fall of Ancient Rome. The recruiting of barbarians and foreign mercenaries into the Roman legions was one catalyst of that fall.

I just hope I end up in the eastern part of the empire instead of the west, if you know what I mean...
User avatar
Magus
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat 18 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Earth
Top

Healthcare recession proof?

Unread postby frankthetank » Wed 15 Oct 2008, 11:09:35

Health care is on the list of things that people will start to question. So many are uninsured right now, whats the difference if another 10 or 50 million more add to the list. Premiums, deductibles, etc have went through the roof. Maybe employers can off some sort of cheap "Catastrophic Coverage"...for major medical emergencies.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')ost-Bulletin, Rochester MN
Rochester's economy is built largely on health care, a sector that some say is recession proof. But if patients feeling the squeeze during an economic slowdown decide they can't afford as much health care, Mayo Clinic and Olmsted Medical Center will feel the pain. OMC is worried patients may need to give a higher priority to things like gasoline and groceries, thereby neglecting their health-care needs, said spokesman Jeremy Salucka.

"... We are concerned by patients who, in an unfavorable economic climate, may opt to cut preventive-care expenses and may not feel or be as able to afford insurance co-pays or pay for the care they need," Salucka said. Some patients getting care in Rochester say they're already reviewing which health care they can, or will, pay for.

"If you can afford it, it's great. But it's getting to the point where you can't afford it," said Armand Panetta of Long Island, N.Y., who was in Rochester last week for diagnosis at Mayo. "I think something needs to be done about it. Exactly what, I don't know. I think that's up to our leaders. Back where we come from, a good chunk of your income goes toward health care. Back home, you've got people who are trying to decide whether to buy groceries or buy gas. It's scary."

The problem isn't unique to New York. Sue Armitage, who works in downtown Rochester, said the country's economic problems have already hit home. Rising costs mean she won't be able to get the same level of medical care she has had in the past. "There's definitely going to have to be some changes, simply because I can't afford it any more," she said.

At a time when many Americans must balance food, transportation and medication against preventive health care, insurance premiums might be the next to go. "What they're taking out of our paychecks, I need that to get back and forth to work," Armitage said.

link
Last edited by Ferretlover on Mon 23 Mar 2009, 23:47:49, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with THE Healthcare Thread.
lawns should be outlawed.
User avatar
frankthetank
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6202
Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Southwest WI
Top

Re: Healthcare recession proof?

Unread postby Ainan » Wed 15 Oct 2008, 11:14:40

Fortunetly I live in evil socialist Europe so I won't have to cut back on healthcare. Nice to see capitalism alive [s]and well[/s] in America though.
April 2008 Global Population: 6.8 billion
April 2010 Global Population: 7 billion
April 2012 Global Population: 7.2 billion
User avatar
Ainan
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon 18 Feb 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Healthcare recession proof?

Unread postby Eli » Wed 15 Oct 2008, 11:22:01

Healthcare is recession resistant not recession proof.
User avatar
Eli
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: In a van down by the river
Top

Re: Healthcare recession proof?

Unread postby wisconsin_cur » Wed 15 Oct 2008, 11:24:44

Two big healthcare systems in the metro where I work have announced layoffs, including the place I work...

We expect those jobs not directly involved in patient care to be hit first.
http://www.thenewfederalistpapers.com
User avatar
wisconsin_cur
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4576
Joined: Thu 10 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: 45 degrees North. 883 feet above sealevel.
Top

Re: Healthcare recession proof?

Unread postby frankthetank » Wed 15 Oct 2008, 11:36:41

Wisconsin-

I'm sure you've been to LaCrosse, but this town's largest employers are Gunderson and Mayo... I'll be keeping my ears open since i know a ton of people that work at both. Only good jobs left in this town.
lawns should be outlawed.
User avatar
frankthetank
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6202
Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Southwest WI
Top

Re: Healthcare recession proof?

Unread postby Fishman » Wed 15 Oct 2008, 11:50:10

Ainan
I think you'll be quite surprised. Universal health care in a bad economic time will entail longer lines, fewer drugs on the formulary and less access to technology. Health care will always require resources to be used, if less resources are available less care is given. Your system will ration care your way, ours will do it differently. I think your system is better but certainly not immune to economic bad times.
User avatar
Fishman
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Thu 11 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Carolina de Norte
Top

Re: Healthcare recession proof?

Unread postby emeraldg40 » Wed 15 Oct 2008, 13:12:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('frankthetank', 'W')isconsin-

I'm sure you've been to LaCrosse, but this town's largest employers are Gunderson and Mayo... I'll be keeping my ears open since i know a ton of people that work at both. Only good jobs left in this town.



Im seeing very busy bean counters lately at my hospital.
User avatar
emeraldg40
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat 24 May 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Forced healthcare...how will it all come down?

Unread postby allenwrench » Thu 24 Sep 2009, 09:58:54

Apparently, the 'Imperative Mandate' (forcing Americans to buy health insurance or be fined) has been in the works for a long time.

I recall something about forced healthcare back in the pre elections with McCain talking about it. In any case, here is something about forced health insurance back in May of '09. way before Baucus brought it up

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1222

There are many other factors at play to drum up new 'forced biz' for the HMO's.

Some companies are now starting to limiting med insurance to 'actual employees' and not family members. So insurance would be mandated for every family members not covered under the employees plan.

Companies are trying to fill jobs with part-time workers so they do not have to offer med benefits. So the old full-time now converted to the part-time workforce will be in the forced healthcare camp.

And once the forced healthcare plan goes through, the HMO's will have a captive audience to raise fees on a continual basis, just as your cable provides raises fees every January like clockwork.

The trend with your average health plan is to make it so the insured never uses it. The deductibles are in the multi thousand dollar range and will continue to rise. So the insured pays for the majority of the med bills other than catastrophic hospital stays. And there are so many loopholes that excuse the insurance companies from having to pay claims.

But, isn't that the dream of every insurance company? To collect premiums, yet never have to pay out any claims?

I was curious how much a healthcare plan would cost me and my wife. I have not had med insurance since the late 1980's since I can't afford it. Back then it cost about $75 a month for Kaiser in L.A. Although my wife has had med insurance off and on with jobs she had.

I called BlueCross Blue Shield, whose slogan is "Be part of the solution - Support healthcare reform"

http://www.bcbs.com/

This was the quote I received for a husband and wife age 55.

$500 deductible. After deductible BCBS pays 80% and insured pays 20% for doctors visits. And CO-pay for doctor visits is $25 after deductible.

Yearly premium: $14,490.84

same plan as above with $5000 deductible

Yearly premium: $9778.20

I can see why BCBS supports the mandatory health insurance proposal.

One other interesting tidbit...

http://www.justgetthere.us/blog/archive ... ounts.html
.
User avatar
allenwrench
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed 23 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Medical Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests