PDA

View Full Version : The official Election 2012 discussion thread...


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9

That One Guy
02-23-2012, 07:20 PM
I can only speak to what I read on the forums, and a lot of Paul people are getting elected as delegates. I'm actually going to a meeting this weekend with Paul supporters for caucus training. I'm going to run as a delegate in my county so that I can vote for Paul. I don't know if other candidates are having formal pre-caucus meetings to get to know eachother and plan on how and who they will vote for in the caucus delegate process, but I do know that this is happening all over the nation for Paul. I expect I'll get elected as a delegate for the county convention easily.

If only Paul were young enough to realize the potential in another election or two. He's finally get people rallying but he could bite it any day. He's like 75 or something, isn't he?

BroncoBeavis
02-23-2012, 07:28 PM
I've never said this. In fact, I don't understand why employers should have control over ANYONE's healthcare. I think healthcare should be a personal affordable choice, not one that is offered by an employer. This is the kind of **** that happens, when other people have control over someone else health. Its like saying your employer should have control over who you marry. Its simply stupid to me.


Contraception is something that Santorum and the extreme religious right would LOVE to regulate. If they had their way, there would be ZERO contraception in this country, and no choice for women to decide what happens with their sexual reproductive system. Thats MY problem with how the far right feels about contraception. This is THEM pushing their standards on other people.

Pretty broad brush you're painting with. I haven't heard a single reputable candidate taking about banning contraception. Far fewer than those who want to force it on others.

houghtam
02-23-2012, 07:50 PM
Pretty broad brush you're painting with. I haven't heard a single reputable candidate taking about banning contraception. Far fewer than those who want to force it on others.

Well we can start with Santorum flip-flopping on Title X...

Of course it doesn't really matter, because, just like the Obama-not-being-a-Christian issue we just discussed, the word's out, and it's not going away.

The GOP is coming for your birth control, folks...whether they are or they aren't.

Works both ways :)

Dexter
02-23-2012, 08:30 PM
Pretty broad brush you're painting with. I haven't heard a single reputable candidate taking about banning contraception. Far fewer than those who want to force it on others.

I'm not talking about the whole GOP. Be careful with the words you are putting in my mouth. I really hope you're reading what I'm saying clearly. I'm talking about the extreme religious right. Its pretty well known about how they feel.

But here's some proof for you on Santorum in case that's not good enough for you.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9MBO9tNNejo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Quite honestly I find the video hilarious. Because he admits voting for it, but then bashes it. Hilarious!

"It goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that." he says at one point. Yeah because abstinence is a message that works with our youth. :kiddingme And isn't this the land of the free? Aren't we free to make whatever decisions we want regarding our life?

I mean, there is no way that birth control will ever be banned because this country would be so not okay with that. I'm just making the point that they sure would push their values onto every american if they could, and they may try through other laws.

That One Guy
02-23-2012, 09:23 PM
One day the country will realize responsibility again.

I just wonder if it'll be in my lifetime and whether it'll come by necessity or by choice.

Dexter
02-23-2012, 09:44 PM
One day the country will realize responsibility again.

I just wonder if it'll be in my lifetime and whether it'll come by necessity or by choice.

I'm not sure. It all depends what you mean by responsibility. Fiscal responsibility? That has to happen or this country is going to completely collapse. Americans have to be more wise with how we consume, and at the same time, there needs to be responsibility in Washington.

There are so many forms of responsibility, so who knows really.


On a side note, I think a legitimate third party would be a responsible thing to support in this country.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/23/huntsman-calls-for-third-party-the-system-is-broken/

BroncoBeavis
02-23-2012, 10:47 PM
I'm not talking about the whole GOP. Be careful with the words you are putting in my mouth. I really hope you're reading what I'm saying clearly. I'm talking about the extreme religious right. Its pretty well known about how they feel.

But here's some proof for you on Santorum in case that's not good enough for you.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9MBO9tNNejo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Quite honestly I find the video hilarious. Because he admits voting for it, but then bashes it. Hilarious!

"It goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that." he says at one point. Yeah because abstinence is a message that works with our youth. :kiddingme And isn't this the land of the free? Aren't we free to make whatever decisions we want regarding our life?

I mean, there is no way that birth control will ever be banned because this country would be so not okay with that. I'm just making the point that they sure would push their values onto every american if they could, and they may try through other laws.

And Obama's contraception mandate is the flip side of that same coin. Nobody would even be talking about contraception if not for that. Santorum is an idiot. But what about the President?

Dexter
02-23-2012, 10:49 PM
And Obama's contraception mandate is the flip side of that same coin. Nobody would even be talking about contraception if not for that. Santorum is an idiot. But what about the President?

<----- Not an Obama fan. He's just the lesser of two evils at this point for me. I'd vote for someone else if I felt there was a viable candidate. I'd vote for Ron Paul, but he wont get the nomination.

houghtam
02-23-2012, 10:50 PM
And Obama's contraception mandate is the flip side of that same coin. Nobody would even be talking about contraception if not for that. Santorum is an idiot. But what about the President?

Well, maybe it was a ploy to get the right's bat-**** crazy ideas about contraception out in the open.

If it was, it sure as hell worked.

BroncoInferno
02-24-2012, 06:30 AM
Pretty broad brush you're painting with. I haven't heard a single reputable candidate taking about banning contraception. Far fewer than those who want to force it on others.

You right-wingers are looking at this the wrong way. You want employers to make health care choices for their employees. Keep in mind that employers take money out of their employees checks to cover at least part of the coverage, so it's not like they are doing this out of pure charity. They shouldn't have the right to tell an individual that they can't get birth control if that's a standard part of the coverage. Why do you want corporations to make health care choices for individuals? That's the very definition of fascism.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 06:39 AM
You right-wingers are looking at this the wrong way. You want employers to make health care choices for their employees. Keep in mind that employers take money out of their employees checks to cover at least part of the coverage, so it's not like they are doing this out of pure charity. They shouldn't have the right to tell an individual that they can't get birth control if that's a standard part of the coverage. Why do you want corporations to make health care choices for individuals? That's the very definition of fascism.

No. No it is not.

fas·cism
   [fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

dictionary.com

BroncoInferno
02-24-2012, 06:42 AM
No. No it is not.

fas·cism
   [fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

dictionary.com

Corporations bascially rule the roost in Fascist states. Anyone who does not know that is quite simply ignorant.

But why not address the main point, which is that the right-wing supports corporations making healthcare choices for their employees?

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 06:47 AM
Corporations bascially rule the roost in Fascist states. Anyone who does not know that is quite simply ignorant.

But why not address the main point, which is that the right-wing supports corporations making healthcare choices for their employees?

"basically"

So you're trying to blur the lines when you previously were more definite and used the phrase "very definition".

So maybe you think it's a common aspect but it's not the very definition, is it?


As for the main point, I support personal decisions. If birth control is important to you, find a different job. If the premium is even slightly lower because it doesn't include birth control, I think that's a decision left to the organizer of the plan. The choices we make are about weighing one decision against the other. We live with those decisions. If someone would rather take the job than go get a different one where birth control is covered, they live with the repercussions.

BroncoInferno
02-24-2012, 06:53 AM
"basically"

So you're trying to blur the lines when you previously were more definite and used the phrase "very definition".

So maybe you think it's a common aspect but it's not the very definition, is it?


As for the main point, I support personal decisions. If birth control is important to you, find a different job. If the premium is even slightly lower because it doesn't include birth control, I think that's a decision left to the organizer of the plan. The choices we make are about weighing one decision against the other. We live with those decisions. If someone would rather take the job than go get a different one where birth control is covered, they live with the repercussions.

Wrong. Individuals should make healthcare choices for themselves, period. Especially when they are paying for it (as I said, most employers deduct from paychecks to help cover plans). You support corporate rights over individual rights. Why?

bendog
02-24-2012, 07:00 AM
I agree there's no problem with it but I don't think it's the biggest problem on the table right now. These people aren't offering much more than religious rhetoric when there's a time coming when decisions that could alter the country will have to be made and their politics revolve around abortion and contraception. It sounds like they have a preacher rather than a potential president and that's not what we need right now. That shows either an obsession with those topics or a disconnect from what really matters.

Well sure. I'm not about to vote for a guy who actually says sensuality is part of Satan's attack on America. The guy's nuts ... and he happens to as corrupt as former Senator Dodd and was voted out for the same reason Dodd chose not to run again. But I'm voting on the religion issue just like the loons, and the real difference is I'm not going to vote for a guy who thinks Jesus is telling him to not let rape victims get medication to prevent a fertalized egg from planting itself.

But the reason this loon is getting press and votes isn't because similar loons are coming out of the attic. They've always voted. The difference is that main street republicans don't see the party as serving their interests. I certainly don't. I voted for Poppy and Bushii the first time around, but at this point the gop is conducting class warfare on ME. The debt is going to cause some sacrafice, but the only people the gop is willing to gouge is guys like me who make too much for welfare and medicaid but not enough for off shore bank accounts.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 07:08 AM
Wrong. Individuals should make healthcare choices for themselves, period. Especially when they are paying for it (as I said, most employers deduct from paychecks to help cover plans). You support corporate rights over individual rights. Why?

Wrong. I support the rights of employers to set benefits and for employees to then decide whether the compensation is adequate or not. I think it'd be great for America if people started turning down these jobs every time an employer infringes upon generally standard benefits. We can't force the employers to raise the bar if people are lining up for the jobs and telling government to make rules for everything under the sun which we don't like is also not the answer.

Until we stop letting employers take advantage of us, we deserve the stagnating pay and decreased benefits. The worker just needs to change the mindset.

bendog
02-24-2012, 07:09 AM
"basically"

So you're trying to blur the lines when you previously were more definite and used the phrase "very definition".

So maybe you think it's a common aspect but it's not the very definition, is it?


As for the main point, I support personal decisions. If birth control is important to you, find a different job. If the premium is even slightly lower because it doesn't include birth control, I think that's a decision left to the organizer of the plan. The choices we make are about weighing one decision against the other. We live with those decisions. If someone would rather take the job than go get a different one where birth control is covered, they live with the repercussions.

There's a logical distinction here. Birth control is cost effective the same way blood pressure and cholesterol medication is cost effective. But, in the case of birth control we have employers of hundreds of thousands of women making healthcare decisions on religious ideology that is inconsistent with the majority of those employees. So, in this case, your analogy to "personal decisions" is illogical and not even relevant to the facts. And no one is making a church pay for contraceptives for people directly employed in churches.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 07:14 AM
There's a logical distinction here. Birth control is cost effective the same way blood pressure and cholesterol medication is cost effective. But, in the case of birth control we have employers of hundreds of thousands of women making healthcare decisions on religious ideology that is inconsistent with the majority of those employees. So, in this case, your analogy to "personal decisions" is illogical and not even relevant to the facts. And no one is making a church pay for contraceptives for people directly employed in churches.

Either the insurance plan offers contraception or doesn't. If it does offer it and the church enters, the plan covers it and it was the church's decision. If it doesn't offer it or they make up their own insurance plan, the employee has a choice. I think it is very much a matter of making a personal decision.

And birth control can be avoided simply by abstinence. If you choose not to be abstinent, you choose to either risk a child or use birth control. That makes it the conscious choice of two decisions. Maybe the cholesterol patient could've helped his cholesterol by picking a salad instead of a Big Mac but maybe it's purely genetic. It may not be a choice.

BroncoInferno
02-24-2012, 07:18 AM
And birth control can be avoided simply by abstinence. If you choose not to be abstinent, you choose to either risk a child or use birth control.

http://news.health.ufl.edu/2012/18504/multimedia/health-in-a-heartbeat/women-taking-birth-control-pills-for-reasons-other-than-contraception/

[...]more than 726,000 women who take birth control pills have never had sex. More than 95 percent of those users say they take the pill for reasons other than contraception.

The research was compiled by the nonprofit Guttmacher Institute, which used data from the National Survey of Family Growth. They found that 14 percent of all women who take the pill do so for reasons unrelated to controlling pregnancy.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 07:21 AM
http://news.health.ufl.edu/2012/18504/multimedia/health-in-a-heartbeat/women-taking-birth-control-pills-for-reasons-other-than-contraception/

The people I've known (small sample, I know) who did that used it for regulating blood flow but they were so nastily unhealthy, I don't know whether it was natural or not.

Either way, 95% of 700k people in a land of over 300 million? Should that really be the major defense of it?

BroncoInferno
02-24-2012, 07:26 AM
The people I've known (small sample, I know) who did that used it for regulating blood flow but they were so nastily unhealthy, I don't know whether it was natural or not.

Either way, 95% of 700k people in a land of over 300 million? Should that really be the major defense of it?

Please note from the study that 14% of all women use birth control for health reasons. The 726,000 number was strictly related to people who used birth control and were virigins.

It seems to me that you are arguing that sex should only be for procreation, and that birth control takes away that ultimate purpose and allows people to have sex consequence free. Is that accurate? If it's not, why are you arguing against birth control?

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 07:28 AM
You right-wingers are looking at this the wrong way. You want employers to make health care choices for their employees. Keep in mind that employers take money out of their employees checks to cover at least part of the coverage, so it's not like they are doing this out of pure charity. They shouldn't have the right to tell an individual that they can't get birth control if that's a standard part of the coverage. Why do you want corporations to make health care choices for individuals? That's the very definition of fascism.

No, actually most conservative types are looking to end employer involvement with health insurance. People need to see for themselves what it costs so they can start to weigh the cost of their own decisions.

Then none of this would even be an issue because it would all come down to your individual choice.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 07:35 AM
Either the insurance plan offers contraception or doesn't. If it does offer it and the church enters, the plan covers it and it was the church's decision. If it doesn't offer it or they make up their own insurance plan, the employee has a choice. I think it is very much a matter of making a personal decision.

And birth control can be avoided simply by abstinence. If you choose not to be abstinent, you choose to either risk a child or use birth control. That makes it the conscious choice of two decisions. Maybe the cholesterol patient could've helped his cholesterol by picking a salad instead of a Big Mac but maybe it's purely genetic. It may not be a choice.

Yeah, this is the best part. They act like if your employer doesn't give you free birth control, they're 'restricting access' to it.

Hey, we all know swimming 10 laps every morning is good for your health. Therefore, if my employer doesn't provide me with a free pool to swim in, they're restricting my access. I want a mandate.

Plus the whole thing is dumb because few things in American health care are cheaper or more available than birth control. There's no practical need for the mandate other than showing religious organizations who's boss.

BroncoInferno
02-24-2012, 07:37 AM
No, actually most conservative types are looking to end employer involvement with health insurance. People need to see for themselves what it costs so they can start to weigh the cost of their own decisions.

Then none of this would even be an issue because it would all come down to your individual choice.

A perfect argument for a single-payer system. I agree.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 07:42 AM
A perfect argument for a single-payer system. I agree.

Not really. There you just replace your employer's preferences with your government's. No individual choice involved at all.

BroncoInferno
02-24-2012, 07:46 AM
Not really. There you just replace your employer's preferences with your government's. No individual choice involved at all.

You would have the same level of choice with single-payer as currently exists. Actually, probably more. The government would have no profit motive to prevent an individual from getting needed care as do private insurers.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 07:54 AM
You would have the same level of choice with single-payer as currently exists. Actually, probably more. The government would have no profit motive to prevent an individual from getting needed care as do private insurers.

There is no one-size-fits-all plan. It just doesn't work. Ask around why so many Medicare beneficiaries get supplemental insurance. Because the government limits services based on cost. Routinely.

Ask a Medicaid patient how easy it is to find a doctor. They struggle doing so because Medicaid refuses to pay the market rate for heathcare to save $$$.

It's fool's gold to think you can just lump everyone in a big pool and everything will fix itself. The problem is people have no incentive to make cost-effective decisions when they're not directly responsible for the cost. So the insurer, whether employer based or government-based ends up making their decisions for them.

Dexter
02-24-2012, 07:59 AM
There is no one-size-fits-all plan. It just doesn't work. Ask around why so many Medicare beneficiaries get supplemental insurance. Because the government limits services based on cost. Routinely.

Ask a Medicaid patient how easy it is to find a doctor. They struggle doing so because Medicaid refuses to pay the market rate for heathcare to save $$$.

It's fool's gold to think you can just lump everyone in a big pool and everything will fix itself. The problem is people have no incentive to make cost-effective decisions when they're not directly responsible for the cost. So the insurer, whether employer based or government-based ends up making their decisions for them.

This the problem with health insurance in general. This is why there should be universal healthcare in this country. I don't understand how its that difficult. Everyone receives the same amount of healthcare. Reduce our spending on unnecessary wars, defense spending, and other wasteful programs, and take care of your people.

Isn't that what Jesus was about? He wasn't about nation building, or war mongering. He'd support healthcare coverage for all.

alkemical
02-24-2012, 08:03 AM
This the problem with health insurance in general. This is why there should be universal healthcare in this country. I don't understand how its that difficult. Everyone receives the same amount of healthcare. Reduce our spending on unnecessary wars, defense spending, and other wasteful programs, and take care of your people.

Isn't that what Jesus was about? He wasn't about nation building, or war mongering. He'd support healthcare coverage for all.

Depends on which Jesus you ask.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 08:08 AM
This the problem with health insurance in general. This is why there should be universal healthcare in this country. I don't understand how its that difficult. Everyone receives the same amount of healthcare. Reduce our spending on unnecessary wars, defense spending, and other wasteful programs, and take care of your people.

Isn't that what Jesus was about? He wasn't about nation building, or war mongering. He'd support healthcare coverage for all.

Problem is that it's utopian thinking. Let's use a different analogy. A car is a pretty necessary thing nowadays for working people, especially in many parts of the country.

Now imagine that the government said "Hey, we're going to go ahead and pay for 90% of whatever car you choose to buy"

Would you be driving the same car you are now if someone else paid for it? Unless you're loaded, odds are against that. Suddenly everyone would want $60,000 vehicles. Then the government steps in and says, sorry, we can only afford $15,000, so you'll take the car we give you. For some people that might be adequate. But for others, it won't work at all.

BroncoInferno
02-24-2012, 08:12 AM
There is no one-size-fits-all plan. It just doesn't work. Ask around why so many Medicare beneficiaries get supplemental insurance. Because the government limits services based on cost. Routinely.

Ask a Medicaid patient how easy it is to find a doctor. They struggle doing so because Medicaid refuses to pay the market rate for heathcare to save $$$.

It's fool's gold to think you can just lump everyone in a big pool and everything will fix itself. The problem is people have no incentive to make cost-effective decisions when they're not directly responsible for the cost. So the insurer, whether employer based or government-based ends up making their decisions for them.

I agree that there is no utopian, perfect system. However, I would rather the government, which has no profit motive, making those kinds of decisions than a private insurer which will routinely deny coverage to people based on loopholes, or not cover them at all based on pre-existing conditions, or not cover enough on a major operation. The latter thing is particularly problematic. You hear horror stories all the time of people who actually have coverage find out to their shock that their insurance will only cover $200 K of the $325 K costs of their cancer treatment. You don't have those problems with single-payer. And, contrary to right-wing scare tactics, you aren't made to wait for something major like cancer. You might have to wait a little longer for your knee replacement surgery, but I think that's a fair trade off.

alkemical
02-24-2012, 08:14 AM
The problem is: the gov't has a FOR profit motive.

We can't get a clear answer to the problem due to collusion between gov't & industry.

Dexter
02-24-2012, 08:22 AM
Problem is that it's utopian thinking. Let's use a different analogy. A car is a pretty necessary thing nowadays for working people, especially in many parts of the country.

Now imagine that the government said "Hey, we're going to go ahead and pay for 90% of whatever car you choose to buy"

Would you be driving the same car you are now if someone else paid for it? Unless you're loaded, odds are against that. Suddenly everyone would want $60,000 vehicles. Then the government steps in and says, sorry, we can only afford $15,000, so you'll take the car we give you. For some people that might be adequate. But for others, it won't work at all.

You're seriously comparing the necessity of a car to someone's health? How about public transportation, a bike, etc? Its not comparable, and I feel you're treating me like I'm stupid for even making such a comparison.

No its not a Utopian society, but universal healthcare WORKS in places like Canada and around Europe. Why can't it work here? This is a really weak argument against it.

Healthcare should be a right in this country, not something that is done FOR profit. For profit healthcare is immoral.

Drek
02-24-2012, 08:23 AM
Ask a Medicaid patient how easy it is to find a doctor. They struggle doing so because Medicaid refuses to pay the market rate for heathcare to save $$$.


This indirectly references the real problem with healthcare.

Our current system takes idealistic, highly intelligent, very driven people who just want to help others into medical programs. They teach them the Hippocratic Oath, teach them how to help people in a myriad number of ways, then even teach them even more specialties on how to help people along the way. All the time focusing on the really important issue, how to provide quality care.

Then we put them into a real world environment where they're forced into being an accountant/small business owner before using all the wonderful skills taught to them in medical school. Years of high level medical training being wasted because they've got to spend as much time knowing medicaid reimbursement rates and insurance company coverage policies instead of just treating the problems.

You take away the beurocratic bull**** from the medical profession and let them service the public like firefighters, police, etc. and you not only make for a healthier society, you reduce the costs associated with that care.

BroncoInferno
02-24-2012, 08:26 AM
This indirectly references the real problem with healthcare.

Our current system takes idealistic, highly intelligent, very driven people who just want to help others into medical programs. They teach them the Hippocratic Oath, teach them how to help people in a myriad number of ways, then even teach them even more specialties on how to help people along the way. All the time focusing on the really important issue, how to provide quality care.

Then we put them into a real world environment where they're forced into being an accountant/small business owner before using all the wonderful skills taught to them in medical school. Years of high level medical training being wasted because they've got to spend as much time knowing medicaid reimbursement rates and insurance company coverage policies instead of just treating the problems.

You take away the beurocratic bull**** from the medical profession and let them service the public like firefighters, police, etc. and you not only make for a healthier society, you reduce the costs associated with that care.

Well put. Good post.

Dexter
02-24-2012, 08:28 AM
This indirectly references the real problem with healthcare.

Our current system takes idealistic, highly intelligent, very driven people who just want to help others into medical programs. They teach them the Hippocratic Oath, teach them how to help people in a myriad number of ways, then even teach them even more specialties on how to help people along the way. All the time focusing on the really important issue, how to provide quality care.

Then we put them into a real world environment where they're forced into being an accountant/small business owner before using all the wonderful skills taught to them in medical school. Years of high level medical training being wasted because they've got to spend as much time knowing medicaid reimbursement rates and insurance company coverage policies instead of just treating the problems.

You take away the beurocratic bull**** from the medical profession and let them service the public like firefighters, police, etc. and you not only make for a healthier society, you reduce the costs associated with that care.

Yeah, maybe we should have police or fire fighter insurance. If you can't pay for the service, too bad. You're getting mugged or your house catches on fire because of a lightning strike, and you have no insurance? TOO BAD

bendog
02-24-2012, 08:29 AM
Either the insurance plan offers contraception or doesn't. If it does offer it and the church enters, the plan covers it and it was the church's decision. If it doesn't offer it or they make up their own insurance plan, the employee has a choice. I think it is very much a matter of making a personal decision.

And birth control can be avoided simply by abstinence. If you choose not to be abstinent, you choose to either risk a child or use birth control. That makes it the conscious choice of two decisions. Maybe the cholesterol patient could've helped his cholesterol by picking a salad instead of a Big Mac but maybe it's purely genetic. It may not be a choice.

WTF? Dude, the employer CHOOSES THE PLAN. The religious right employers CHOOSE A PLAN THAT PURPOSEFLULLY PROVIDES LESS COVERAGE PER DOLLAR. It's more expensive to deal with unplanned pregnancies than provide contraceptive service. You're trying to make a market argument when the market is intentionally non-competitive. And get a frigging clue on abstinance. You're so ****ing nuts, you're gone.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 08:31 AM
Healthcare should be a right in this country, not something that is done FOR profit. For profit healthcare is immoral.

Goes back to the discussion we had earlier. Capitalism isn't right. It just is. Health care is done for profit, because very few people would do it for NO profit. You can dress it up in the most byzantine payer system imaginable to try to hide that fact.

But at the end of the day, the person without money will do without some of the care that others have the money to pay for. Even if you force them to leave the country to get it, they will get better care than whatever you establish as their 'right'

And sadly, the less 'profit' you allow in your artificial rights-based healthcare, the more the best care providers will shift to treating the people who can pay extra.

Dexter
02-24-2012, 08:36 AM
Goes back to the discussion we had earlier. Capitalism isn't right. It just is. Health care is done for profit, because very few people would do it for NO profit. You can dress it up in the most byzantine payer system imaginable to try to hide that fact.

But at the end of the day, the person without money will do without some of the care that others have the money to pay for. Even if you force them to leave the country to get it, they will get better care than whatever you establish as their 'right'

And sadly, the less 'profit' you allow in your artificial rights-based healthcare, the more the best care providers will shift to treating the people who can pay extra.

Well the doctors have to make money. I'm not saying doing it for FREE. How about taking taxpayers money that is being spent on getting our service men and women maimed and killed, and paying our doctors legitimate high wages? What's wrong with tax payer funded health care?

We could cut enough wasteful spending to sustain such a system, and pay our doctors the salaries they deserve.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 08:41 AM
Well the doctors have to make money. I'm not saying doing it for FREE. How about taking taxpayers money that is being spent on getting our service men and women maimed and killed, and paying our doctors legitimate high wages? What's wrong with tax payer funded health care?

We could cut enough wasteful spending to sustain such a system, and pay our doctors the salaries they deserve.

More one-size-fits-all thinking. Doctors like making money. I've known quite a few of them. They like to earn as much revenue as possible. The idea that you're going to set them all down and give them a 'fair' wage doesn't work at all.

The good doctors will say, "Screw that, I can make more than you pay catering to individuals with money, and I don't have to deal with all your bull****"

And in the end money will still buy better care.

bendog
02-24-2012, 08:42 AM
This indirectly references the real problem with healthcare.

Our current system takes idealistic, highly intelligent, very driven people who just want to help others into medical programs. They teach them the Hippocratic Oath, teach them how to help people in a myriad number of ways, then even teach them even more specialties on how to help people along the way. All the time focusing on the really important issue, how to provide quality care.

Then we put them into a real world environment where they're forced into being an accountant/small business owner before using all the wonderful skills taught to them in medical school. Years of high level medical training being wasted because they've got to spend as much time knowing medicaid reimbursement rates and insurance company coverage policies instead of just treating the problems.

You take away the beurocratic bull**** from the medical profession and let them service the public like firefighters, police, etc. and you not only make for a healthier society, you reduce the costs associated with that care.

But the problem is that with medicare (which is univesal single payor) we still have docs being accountants. And there's no cost containment when docs are paid xdollar per procedure. Single payor just doesn't work. The brits are the only european nation still doing it, and it's not efficient. A system has to put pressure on individuals to use some cost/benefit analysis in electing what services to obtain. And employers (or whatever entity provides coverage) has to have pressure to engage in cost/benefit analysis.

I'd agree that, IF society could agree to spend a set % of gnp on healthcare, and then have JohnHopkins, or some other type expert, allocate the money to treat the condiditions that are most likely successfully treated (or prevented like pregnancy and colin cancer), single payor would be most efficient. But, politicians of all parties just can't be trusted not to spend more than the set % of gnp.

Dexter
02-24-2012, 08:45 AM
More one-size-fits-all thinking. Doctors like making money. I've known quite a few of them. They like to earn as much revenue as possible. The idea that you're going to set them all down and give them a 'fair' wage doesn't work at all.

The good doctors will say, "Screw that, I can make more than you pay catering to individuals with money." And money will still buy better care.

Like I said, it works in other countries. There is something seriously wrong with our culture if it couldn't work here. That's like saying its a miracle we have any police or firefighters, because they aren't "making as much revenue as possible".

Its a flawed argument in my opinion. Most doctors, dentists that I have met don't give a flying rats ass about money. They do the job that they do because they care about people. They are the purest people in society. There is no way, that if they got paid a good wage they'd quit their jobs.

I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement about the capabilities of people and such a system. My argument is supported through the places where it works.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 09:07 AM
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2010/03/15/gvsg0318.htm

This is from awhile back when Obama opted to get a fairly new procedure called a Virtual Colonoscopy. I'm using it because it's a good example of the kinds of decisions even government insurers make in the interests of $$$.

In medical circles the VC made news a few years back because it was fairly new and FDA approved. But the big question was whether CMS would cover the procedure instead of the traditional colonoscopy. Because CMS covers a large percentage of old people, and old people tend to get the lion's share of colon scopes, it was kind of a big deal as far as how quickly the new procedure could get rolled out.

Long story short, CMS declined to cover the new procedure, and for some pretty sketchy reasons. Because while the procedure itself is cheaper per procedure than using the old 'scope up the ass' technique, CMS was afraid that if they started allowing the non-invasive procedure, patients would be far more likely to start getting colonoscopies at the recommended interval, which would cause utilization and cost to go up.

In effect, they're intentionally scaring their patients into getting less colonscopies by mandating they still get the prod instead of a more comfortable procedure that would get more widely used.

The end result, as we can see... is that if you're the President, you get a comfortable couple of minutes laying down in a CT scanner and a "Have a nice day sir"

If you're a Medicare patient, you get 4 hours of anal probing, without even a glass of wine or dinner to show for it. :)

houghtam
02-24-2012, 09:07 AM
The good doctors will say, "Screw that, I can make more than you pay catering to individuals with money, and I don't have to deal with all your bull****"

That's simply false. There is no truth to it. Doctors in countries with universal and/or nationalized healthcare make very good money. Dexter is correct. Universal healthcare works in Canada, and it works in most of Europe. Conservative propaganda will tell you that most Canadian doctors come to the US for their procedures, and Canadian citizens have to wait years for MRIs. Not only is it not true, but it's also a distortion of the facts. Preventative medical visits keep the ultimate cost of expensive procedures down because there is not as much of a need for them.

Think about it. How many times have you or someone you know not gone to the doctor when you were sick because you didn't want to have to pay the bill? For me, I can count 10 or so times in the past 6 years, and that's when I've HAD health insurance.

I know this will go against your right wing conservative values and you'd probably rather eat a pube salad with taint juice dressing (that's another thread), but watch Sicko. It's not about the uninsured, it's about the people with perfectly good health insurance who get denied because they're simply too expensive to take care of. And this is not about people with type II diabetes who "did it to themselves", this is about, for example, people who worked on the 9/11 clean-up project, contracted respiratory illness, and were denied.

The moment you put my health in charge of someone who is trying to make a buck off me, you put my health at risk. In a perfect capitalist world, the medical industry would say "well, how will we profit most? By making/keeping the most people healthy that we can. The more healthy people = the more people paying for health coverage = profit." However, just like anything else in capitalism, they get bogged down trying to scrape every single cent they can out of the American public's bare, sickly, pale hands.

No thanks. Call it socialism. Call it giving handouts. Call it what you want, but I want universal health care.

Dexter
02-24-2012, 09:17 AM
That's simply false. There is no truth to it. Doctors in countries with universal and/or nationalized healthcare make very good money. Dexter is correct. Universal healthcare works in Canada, and it works in most of Europe. Conservative propaganda will tell you that most Canadian doctors come to the US for their procedures, and Canadian citizens have to wait years for MRIs. Not only is it not true, but it's also a distortion of the facts. Preventative medical visits keep the ultimate cost of expensive procedures down because there is not as much of a need for them.

Think about it. How many times have you or someone you know not gone to the doctor when you were sick because you didn't want to have to pay the bill? For me, I can count 10 or so times in the past 6 years, and that's when I've HAD health insurance.

I know this will go against your right wing conservative values and you'd probably rather eat a pube salad with taint juice dressing (that's another thread), but watch Sicko. It's not about the uninsured, it's about the people with perfectly good health insurance who get denied because they're simply too expensive to take care of. And this is not about people with type II diabetes who "did it to themselves", this is about, for example, people who worked on the 9/11 clean-up project, contracted respiratory illness, and were denied.

The moment you put my health in charge of someone who is trying to make a buck off me, you put my health at risk. In a perfect capitalist world, the medical industry would say "well, how will we profit most? By making/keeping the most people healthy that we can. The more healthy people = the more people paying for health coverage = profit." However, just like anything else in capitalism, they get bogged down trying to scrape every single cent they can out of the American public's bare, sickly, pale hands.

No thanks. Call it socialism. Call it giving handouts. Call it what you want, but I want universal health care.


Perfectly said. How about calling it the morally right thing to do? Take care of your brother, and your people. Love thy neighbor etc etc.

My mother who is nearing 60, was having problems with her heart racing. There is a family history of heart problems, so what does she do? She goes to the hospital worried about a heart attack. She HAS health insurance, what did she have to pay for a ONE night stay? $1460.

Most families are one medical tragedy away from bankruptcy.

houghtam
02-24-2012, 09:22 AM
Perfectly said. How about calling it the morally right thing to do? Take care of your brother, and your people. Love thy neighbor etc etc.

My mother who is nearing 60, was having problems with her heart racing. There is a family history of heart problems, so what does she do? She goes to the hospital worried about a heart attack. She HAS health insurance, what did she have to pay for a ONE night stay? $1460.

Most families are one medical tragedy away from bankruptcy.

Because the religious right wants to take the moral high ground, as long as it doesn't interfere with how much money they can make.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 09:25 AM
That's simply false. There is no truth to it. Doctors in countries with universal and/or nationalized healthcare make very good money. Dexter is correct. Universal healthcare works in Canada, and it works in most of Europe. Conservative propaganda will tell you that most Canadian doctors come to the US for their procedures, and Canadian citizens have to wait years for MRIs. Not only is it not true, but it's also a distortion of the facts. Preventative medical visits keep the ultimate cost of expensive procedures down because there is not as much of a need for them.

Think about it. How many times have you or someone you know not gone to the doctor when you were sick because you didn't want to have to pay the bill? For me, I can count 10 or so times in the past 6 years, and that's when I've HAD health insurance.

I know this will go against your right wing conservative values and you'd probably rather eat a pube salad with taint juice dressing (that's another thread), but watch Sicko. It's not about the uninsured, it's about the people with perfectly good health insurance who get denied because they're simply too expensive to take care of. And this is not about people with type II diabetes who "did it to themselves", this is about, for example, people who worked on the 9/11 clean-up project, contracted respiratory illness, and were denied.

The moment you put my health in charge of someone who is trying to make a buck off me, you put my health at risk. In a perfect capitalist world, the medical industry would say "well, how will we profit most? By making/keeping the most people healthy that we can. The more healthy people = the more people paying for health coverage = profit." However, just like anything else in capitalism, they get bogged down trying to scrape every single cent they can out of the American public's bare, sickly, pale hands.

No thanks. Call it socialism. Call it giving handouts. Call it what you want, but I want universal health care.

Tell it to the Canadian Quadruplets that had to be flown to Great Falls, MT (population 50,000) to be born because Calgary, AB (population 1+ million) nor anywhere in Alberta (population 3.6 million) had room for them.

http://mtstandard.com/news/state-and-regional/article_49ac1dc1-76b5-565d-971c-e669ebcc1ad3.html

Wait times in Canada are bad. The US often serves as a backstop for them when they run out of options. Who will be our backstop? Mexico? :)

And if wait times in Canada are no biggie, apparently the Supreme Court of Canada disagrees with you.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/

On June 9, 2005, the high court struck down a Quebec law that prohibited people from buying private health insurance to cover procedures already offered by the public system.

"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," two of the justices wrote in their decision.

Dexter
02-24-2012, 09:28 AM
Tell it to the Canadian Quadruplets that had to be flown to Great Falls, MT (population 50,000) to be born because Calgary, AB (population 1+ million) nor anywhere in Alberta (population 3.6 million) had room for them.

http://mtstandard.com/news/state-and-regional/article_49ac1dc1-76b5-565d-971c-e669ebcc1ad3.html

Wait times in Canada are bad. The US often serves as a backstop for them when they run out of options. Who will be our backstop? Mexico? :)

And if wait times in Canada are no biggie, apparently the Supreme Court of Canada disagrees with you.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/


You have a good solution. Let people die, that way there will be no line for the few that actually can afford it. I'll take the waiting in line option over the there is no line because you can't afford it option.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 09:29 AM
A long wait for hip replacement surgery was what prompted the Quebec case that wound up before the Supreme Court.

George Zeliotis argued his yearlong wait for surgery was unreasonable, endangered his life, and infringed on the charter's guarantee of the right to life, liberty and security.

Could you imagine waiting around for a year for a hip replacement?

Dexter
02-24-2012, 09:29 AM
Could you imagine waiting around for a year for a hip replacement?

Could you imagine going on for 10 years because its "elective surgery" and you can't afford it?

houghtam
02-24-2012, 09:33 AM
Tell it to the Canadian Quadruplets that had to be flown to Great Falls, MT (population 50,000) to be born because Calgary, AB (population 1+ million) nor anywhere in Alberta (population 3.6 million) had room for them.

http://mtstandard.com/news/state-and-regional/article_49ac1dc1-76b5-565d-971c-e669ebcc1ad3.html

Wait times in Canada are bad. The US often serves as a backstop for them when they run out of options. Who will be our backstop? Mexico? :)

And if wait times in Canada are no biggie, apparently the Supreme Court of Canada disagrees with you.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/

I know anecdotes are a no-no for you, but I lived in Michigan for 25 years. My mother is from Port Huron. We know scads of Canadians, and not only would not a single one of them get rid of their health care in favor of a for-profit system like we have, they constantly make fun of us for the crap system we have.

If our system were so great, you'd think everyone would adopt it...I wonder why we're one of the very few with this great system that consistently causes our citizens to be ranked as one of the least healthy nations in the civilized world. Maybe it's just TOO good? Maybe Jesus won't let them?

BroncoInferno
02-24-2012, 09:34 AM
Could you imagine waiting around for a year for a hip replacement?

Could you imagine not getting a needed hip replacement AT ALL because you don't have insurance, or because the co-pay is too high? Things like that happen here all the time.

Like I said earlier, I agree that there is no perfect system. It's about what trade-offs you are willing to make. I'd be willing to wait a little longer for a knee replacement with the knowledge that if something catstrophic happens to me (car accident, cancer, heart attack, etc etc), I'm not going to have to file for bankruptcy.

houghtam
02-24-2012, 09:34 AM
Could you imagine going on for 10 years because its "elective surgery" and you can't afford it?

Thank you. You should have just gotten better insurance. It's your fault.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 09:39 AM
I know anecdotes are a no-no for you, but I lived in Michigan for 25 years. My mother is from Port Huron. We know scads of Canadians, and not only would not a single one of them get rid of their health care in favor of a for-profit system like we have, they constantly make fun of us for the crap system we have.

Then again I've talked to medical professionals who've worked in Canada who talk about what hell it is, and that a lot of people think it's fine until something bad happens.

The majority of people don't use health care on a routine basis. I doubt I've been to a doctor in 10 years. Straw polls aren't really a valid way to measure access to health care when most people don't currently need it.

Meanwhile every province in Canada is struggling to reduce wait times. They all write about it. It's definitely a huge issue. Our system isn't perfect either. But you're only looking at the evils of one system while glossing over the problems with others. There is no easy solution.

If our system were so great, you'd think everyone would adopt it...I wonder why we're one of the very few with this great system that consistently causes our citizens to be ranked as one of the least healthy nations in the civilized world. Maybe it's just TOO good? Maybe Jesus won't let them?

A healthy lifestyle has little to do with Health Care. You know this, you're just trying to be cute.

Bronco Yoda
02-24-2012, 09:51 AM
Romney announces economic plan:

Marginal rate cuts
Low income goes from 10% to 8%
Middle income from 25% to 20%
High income 35% to 28%

Drunken.Broncoholic
02-24-2012, 09:54 AM
"I wonder why we're one of the very few with this great system that consistently causes our citizens to be ranked as one of the least healthy nations in the civilized world."




this has less to do with Health options, and more to do with Fat lazy people's bad habits.

houghtam
02-24-2012, 09:56 AM
A healthy lifestyle has little to do with Health Care. You know this, you're just trying to be cute.

Yes, I was being cute with THAT part of the statement. You still failed to address why we're one of the few with a whacked out system like this one, as well as the points the others brought up.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 10:07 AM
Yes, I was being cute with THAT part of the statement. You still failed to address why we're one of the few with a whacked out system like this one, as well as the points the others brought up.

It's easier to address points/questions one at a time. It's hard to respond to long posts with multiple points. I'm as guilty with those posts as the next guy.

I've never said our system is right. At the base I'm saying that what's wrong with our system is actually made more wrong by moving to what you're advocating. People having incentives to make the best cost/benefit healthcare decisions for themselves is the best goal.

There should be an insurance backdrop to this for cases of catastrophic expenses and emergencies. But the routine and month-to-month costs have no place in insurance because that's not what insurance is good at managing.

Like I said earlier, it would be like buying car insurance that covers 4 oil changes per year. All you're doing is adding overhead and ensuring that everyone would stop caring what the lube shop charges.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 10:12 AM
Or for the sake of argument, if I were king, this is what I would do:

1.Repeal any incentive for employers to offer health coverage.
2.Use the difference to fund tax credits for individual coverage.
3. Restructure health insurance to be more like life term life insurance...

With term life, you buy in at a certain age, you lock in for a certain number of years, and as long as you pay your bill, you have coverage, regardless of what happens to your health. The rate is set up front and can't be changed over your policy period unless you choose to change coverage levels. Insurers would have no incentive to drop you, because they would still own the liability either way.

Drunken.Broncoholic
02-24-2012, 10:16 AM
i have full health insurance...something happened where i had CalStar helicopter deliver me to a hospital....42,000 dollars for a 10 minute ride...my health insurance paid 750 dollars of that...which left the entire rest of the amount picked up by tax payers, due to the california victim of a crime act...people with health insurance are no better off than people without..

houghtam
02-24-2012, 10:29 AM
i have full health insurance...something happened where i had CalStar helicopter deliver me to a hospital....42,000 dollars for a 10 minute ride...my health insurance paid 750 dollars of that...which left the entire rest of the amount picked up by tax payers, due to the california victim of a crime act...people with health insurance are no better off than people without..

Same thing here, except since my health insurance was sub-par, I'm still paying on a bill from a hospital visit 5 years ago.

I went to RediCare because I was having chest pains and shortness of breath. When they asked about my medical history and found out that my uncle had had heart surgery at the age of 34 (I was 27 at the time), they called an ambulance and sent me to the hospital. 10 hours later I was stuck with a $6000 medical bill.

Why go to RediCare? Because I was hoping that it was going to end up being nothing, and I could get away with a $30 visit co-pay. If we'd had universal health care, I would have simply gone to the hospital.

And what about the uninsured? How often do you think people who go to the hospital now for seemingly trivial issues would clog our ER waiting rooms if they were covered and could simply visit a doctor?

I stand by my statement. Even with King Beavis' proposed system, I stand by it. Anytime you attach a dollar sign to health, it trivializes the sanctity of human life. One would think that the party of moral standards would be in favor of universal health care, and heathen liberals like me would just say kill em all.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 10:30 AM
Since we're into answering questions though, let me go back to the Virtual Colonoscopy thing.

Can the progressives accept a health care system that allows the President (or any rich dude) to get a 5 minute painless procedure done because he pays cash... while the others on the government program have to deal with a 4 hour anal session? Or should that kind of difference be outlawed?

Drunken.Broncoholic
02-24-2012, 10:34 AM
LMAO at 4 hour anal session..

i feel your pain about that 5 year payoff Houghtam...that sounds like a 5 year anal session.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 10:39 AM
I stand by my statement. Even with King Beavis' proposed system, I stand by it. Anytime you attach a dollar sign to health, it trivializes the sanctity of human life. One would think that the party of moral standards would be in favor of universal health care, and heathen liberals like me would just say kill em all.

Scarcity of resources applies to everything. In the end, there are dollar amounts attached whether you like it or not. That's just reality.

houghtam
02-24-2012, 10:49 AM
Scarcity of resources applies to everything. In the end, there are dollar amounts attached whether you like it or not. That's just reality.

And with re-allocating funds used for things that aren't necessary (defense spending?), some of that money becomes available.

We don't need to have a larger navy than the other top 5 nations in the world combined (we have 2,400 ships, the next closest has less than 1,000), especially when 2 of them are France and Sweden. We don't need a larger air force than the other Top 8 nations in the world combined (we have over 18,000 aircraft, the next closest has 5,000). We don't need to spend more on our military as a whole than the top 18 nations in the world combined (we spend almost $700B, the next closest spends $100B).

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 10:50 AM
WTF? Dude, the employer CHOOSES THE PLAN. The religious right employers CHOOSE A PLAN THAT PURPOSEFLULLY PROVIDES LESS COVERAGE PER DOLLAR. It's more expensive to deal with unplanned pregnancies than provide contraceptive service. You're trying to make a market argument when the market is intentionally non-competitive. And get a frigging clue on abstinance. You're so ****ing nuts, you're gone.

The rant is confusing me so I'll just restate my basic point and end it there:

If you don't like what an employer is offering, go elsewhere. Either private insurance, get a new employer, or just break open the piggy bank. We made choices and we live with them.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 10:52 AM
And with re-allocating funds used for things that aren't necessary (defense spending?), some of that money becomes available.

We don't need to have a larger navy than the other top 5 nations in the world combined (we have 2,400 ships, the next closest has less than 1,000), especially when 2 of them are France and Sweden. We don't need a larger air force than the other Top 8 nations in the world combined (we have over 18,000 aircraft, the next closest has 5,000). We don't need to spend more on our military as a whole than the top 18 nations in the world combined (we spend almost $700B, the next closest spends $100B).

So if we cut all that stuff, would we be able to cover the deficit?

No new plans or schemes need to be implemented until the deficit is cleared. If money is then raised, so be it.

houghtam
02-24-2012, 10:56 AM
The rant is confusing me so I'll just restate my basic point and end it there:

If you don't like what an employer is offering, go elsewhere. Either private insurance, get a new employer, or just break open the piggy bank. We made choices and we live with them.

Exactly as I thought. It's my own, Drunken Broncoholic's and everyone else's fault we owe money for medical expenses.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 10:57 AM
Same thing here, except since my health insurance was sub-par, I'm still paying on a bill from a hospital visit 5 years ago.

I went to RediCare because I was having chest pains and shortness of breath. When they asked about my medical history and found out that my uncle had had heart surgery at the age of 34 (I was 27 at the time), they called an ambulance and sent me to the hospital. 10 hours later I was stuck with a $6000 medical bill.

Why go to RediCare? Because I was hoping that it was going to end up being nothing, and I could get away with a $30 visit co-pay. If we'd had universal health care, I would have simply gone to the hospital.

And what about the uninsured? How often do you think people who go to the hospital now for seemingly trivial issues would clog our ER waiting rooms if they were covered and could simply visit a doctor?

I stand by my statement. Even with King Beavis' proposed system, I stand by it. Anytime you attach a dollar sign to health, it trivializes the sanctity of human life. One would think that the party of moral standards would be in favor of universal health care, and heathen liberals like me would just say kill em all.

To be honest, I'm against two things: People being allowed to go to the doctor for every sniffle or sneeze and old people milking the system for absurd amounts of money to buy themselves an extra year or two. Call it death panels or whatever you want but find a way to avoid those two things and I'm willing to get behind universal care because I think it could be treated responsibly. I think you'd have to have government takeovers and restructuring of a lot of things but I think you can make it work.

There's a few other things, I guess, I probably wouldn't support either but those are the bulk of them. Anything even remotely elective would probably not fall under my ideal coverage. A young person with a bump in the road which will otherwise lead a full life if they're cared for? I can get behind caring for that person. I just don't think it'll be used responsibly if they just open the doors.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 10:59 AM
Exactly as I thought. It's my own, Drunken Broncoholic's and everyone else's fault we owe money for medical expenses.

Do you regret having the medical procedures done? If not, what exactly is the issue? They saved your life (from the sounds of the severity). How can you bitch about the monetary cost?

Bronco Yoda
02-24-2012, 11:00 AM
I thought this guy's open letter was excellent. Worth a read. Yes, I'm a redditor.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/q0wzh/an_open_letter_to_the_republican_national/

FANTASTIC LETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^5

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 11:05 AM
FANTASTIC LETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^5

No... it was pretty lame. The guy is clearly playing up his "background" so as to have credibility and then attacking the Rs for many of the policies that the Ds are behind as well.

houghtam
02-24-2012, 11:08 AM
To be honest, I'm against two things: People being allowed to go to the doctor for every sniffle or sneeze and old people milking the system for absurd amounts of money to buy themselves an extra year or two. Call it death panels or whatever you want but find a way to avoid those two things and I'm willing to get behind universal care because I think it could be treated responsibly. I think you'd have to have government takeovers and restructuring of a lot of things but I think you can make it work.

Yeah the "death panels" was just one of those stupid ****ing buzz words that they used to get everyone behind their idea.

I completely agree with you there. What is wrong with your doctor sitting down with you at the age of 85 and saying "Look, you're 85...let's be realistic about things here..." As far as visiting the doctor for sniffles and sneezes, I don't think there's much that could be done about that, although I think King Beavis' statement about people inherently wanting to stay away from the doctor would probably help that in this country, at least somewhat. It would have to be a combination of several things, including regulating malpractice lawsuits and whatnot, but I think that could work.

On a related note, maybe my feelings will change down the road (which I doubt), but why are people so terrified of dying? When you're old, you're old. Your time is coming sooner than later...why not make peace with that and try to enjoy the time you have left? My parents are 73 and 68 (I'm the youngest of 7), and they're not getting any younger. They're at that point in their lives, and I feel like the entire family has kind of accepted it, including them. And they're actually fairly healthy for their age...BUT THEY'RE STILL OLD! "Death panels", or probably more aptly named "physician consultation for the elderly" are not a bad thing.

houghtam
02-24-2012, 11:11 AM
Do you regret having the medical procedures done? If not, what exactly is the issue? They saved your life (from the sounds of the severity). How can you b**** about the monetary cost?

No, actually they didn't do anything (which is another matter entirely). I was released from the hospital with "unspecified chest pain". So yes, I regret the procedures.

Drunken.Broncoholic
02-24-2012, 11:19 AM
Exactly as I thought. It's my own, Drunken Broncoholic's and everyone else's fault we owe money for medical expenses.

since i was a victim of a crime the bills got paid through other means...but not knowing that at the time, laying on that bed thinking i would have a half million debt? there was a part of me wanting to just die..

Dexter
02-24-2012, 11:21 AM
No... it was pretty lame. The guy is clearly playing up his "background" so as to have credibility and then attacking the Rs for many of the policies that the Ds are behind as well.

You can think its lame all you want, but truth of the matter is he's not the only one who has lost interest in the republican parties failed policies, and prehistoric social values.

I can agree the Dems aren't much better. But they don't have to be when the republicans are that bad. Republicans really need to either treat candidates like Huntsman and Paul with respect, or accept that they're going to keep losing elections getting behind politicians like Santorum, Romney and Gingrich that only appeal to the far right.

The republicans are losing the middle of the pack voters. The independents, and frustrated republicans.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 11:22 AM
No, actually they didn't do anything (which is another matter entirely). I was released from the hospital with "unspecified chest pain". So yes, I regret the procedures.

Well, that's a different story then. Just as it pisses me off when mechanics supposedly spend hours working on my car but can't find a problem, when airlines are unable to get me to place x in time for whatever I bought a ticket for, or your case - there's a lack-of-consumer-power problem in this country as well. The fact that they overreacted and charged you some insane bill shouldn't be your problem.

The point, however, was that we all have a choice in these matters. Until the price comes down, we have to recognize what it is. I'm of the theory that healthcare procedures would come down if noone could afford them at all. Insurance allows people to afford the insane prices but it limits how many can actually go because of the cost for insurance.

For example, my dentist charged something like $100-200 for a cleaning the other day. It's a new dentist for me and the ****tiest cleaning I've ever gotten in my life. If insurance wasn't paying the $100-200, do you not think they'd have done 30-45 minutes of work for $75? It was just a hygienist doing it so could it not have been done for $50? That'd still work out to $68-100 an hour. Take the amount a job like that should make in salary times the time and that's what you could reasonably expect to pay if insurance weren't involved. Of course, there's some overhead but that should be the bulk. Insurance inflates that. So, now, if I'm sick and just need a note to not go to class, it costs my insurance $100+ to go to the doctor and get a note that allows me to lay in bed so I'm not puking in someone's lecture hall. Should it really cost $100+ for him to tell me I'm sick? I told him that when I walked in.

These are the kinds of things that shouldn't be covered in insurance because someone would do it for a substantially lower amount of money. A niche will always get filled. Now, tasks that are just so time intensive that a single person could not reasonably be expected to cover the costs out of pocket is what insurance should cover. Maybe make it like a car where you don't even call the insurance until you've paid your first $500 or something. I don't know.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 11:23 AM
since i was a victim of a crime the bills got paid through other means...but not knowing that at the time, laying on that bed thinking i would have a half million debt? there was a part of me wanting to just die..

Yeah, because bankruptcy is worse than death. Uhh

A bit overly dramatic if you really were thinking that.

Drek
02-24-2012, 11:23 AM
But the problem is that with medicare (which is univesal single payor) we still have docs being accountants. And there's no cost containment when docs are paid xdollar per procedure. Single payor just doesn't work. The brits are the only european nation still doing it, and it's not efficient. A system has to put pressure on individuals to use some cost/benefit analysis in electing what services to obtain. And employers (or whatever entity provides coverage) has to have pressure to engage in cost/benefit analysis.

I'd agree that, IF society could agree to spend a set % of gnp on healthcare, and then have JohnHopkins, or some other type expert, allocate the money to treat the condiditions that are most likely successfully treated (or prevented like pregnancy and colin cancer), single payor would be most efficient. But, politicians of all parties just can't be trusted not to spend more than the set % of gnp.

Medicare is not a universal single payer system. It is just another form of insurance coverage that has to work within the structure of for profit/private enterprise health care.

We have systems in place for people who wantonly over use the police and fire department. They get hit with fines as a result. It isn't hard to do the same with health care.

Doctors should work for the local, state, and federal bodies just like the police, fire department, FBI, etc. do. Instead of protecting your car or your home they're protecting your health. You can opt to do stupid **** with your health just like you can opt to light your own house on fire. But if that choice impinges on others then you get hit with a penalty, just like if you run your body into the ground against advice of your doctors then you also pay a penalty in having higher co-pays for your medical coverage.

Nothing should be "free". It should all come with some form of co-pay and going outside the bounds of what your doctor recommends or what is industry standard should carry a steeper co-pay. But the notion that our government is responsible to protect the property of it's citizens through taxes but not the most important property of all, your life, is a fool's argument.

Doctors and nurses should be government employees, just like the police, fire department, and public school teachers. All the existence of private practice, just like we allow private schools and security services but at the individual's expense. All gov't. employed doctors work in not for profit hospitals and medical centers distributed throughout the country.

The problem with our government as a whole is encapsulated very well in the problem with our medical system. Instead of asking what the root of the problem is we keep trying to find superficial panaceas. Instead of the government pushing millions of dollars in support to a privately ran medical center in east bum**** why not instead have it be a not for profit facility that the government provide's staff for?

This is the same with trying to balance the budget. Instead of talking about what we need to cut we should be talking about what we absolutely need to keep. See how much that costs us first. Then we haggle over just how much taxes need to go up to provide all the other things we want.

bendog
02-24-2012, 11:23 AM
Yeah the "death panels" was just one of those stupid ****ing buzz words that they used to get everyone behind their idea.

I completely agree with you there. What is wrong with your doctor sitting down with you at the age of 85 and saying "Look, you're 85...let's be realistic about things here..." As far as visiting the doctor for sniffles and sneezes, I don't think there's much that could be done about that, although I think King Beavis' statement about people inherently wanting to stay away from the doctor would probably help that in this country, at least somewhat. It would have to be a combination of several things, including regulating malpractice lawsuits and whatnot, but I think that could work.

On a related note, maybe my feelings will change down the road (which I doubt), but why are people so terrified of dying? When you're old, you're old. Your time is coming sooner than later...why not make peace with that and try to enjoy the time you have left? My parents are 73 and 68 (I'm the youngest of 7), and they're not getting any younger. They're at that point in their lives, and I feel like the entire family has kind of accepted it, including them. And they're actually fairly healthy for their age...BUT THEY'RE STILL OLD! "Death panels", or probably more aptly named "physician consultation for the elderly" are not a bad thing.

The irony is that the Ryan plan actually has the death panels. If medicare is privtized, govt cost goes up less than medical inflation. The entire idea is to squeeze providers with the notion of they'll provide quality care for less money, and that's probably true. But the other concept behind the Ryan plan is that oldsters will use less procedures.

For example, colin and prostate cancer screening after age 65 isn't really cost effective because the cost of screening the entire oldster population is more than the cost of treatment plus the sad fact that the polip I have at age 65 won't become a cancer till I'm 75, and by then if the cancer doesn't kill me something else will. But as an individual, if a colonoscopy is available to me with medicare paying 80% and my supplemental paying the other 20%, I'm getting one at 65.

Rohirrim
02-24-2012, 11:26 AM
Medicare is not a universal single payer system. It is just another form of insurance coverage that has to work within the structure of for profit/private enterprise health care.

We have systems in place for people who wantonly over use the police and fire department. They get hit with fines as a result. It isn't hard to do the same with health care.

Doctors should work for the local, state, and federal bodies just like the police, fire department, FBI, etc. do. Instead of protecting your car or your home they're protecting your health. You can opt to do stupid **** with your health just like you can opt to light your own house on fire. But if that choice impinges on others then you get hit with a penalty, just like if you run your body into the ground against advice of your doctors then you also pay a penalty in having higher co-pays for your medical coverage.

Nothing should be "free". It should all come with some form of co-pay and going outside the bounds of what your doctor recommends or what is industry standard should carry a steeper co-pay. But the notion that our government is responsible to protect the property of it's citizens through taxes but not the most important property of all, your life, is a fool's argument.

Doctors and nurses should be government employees, just like the police, fire department, and public school teachers. All the existence of private practice, just like we allow private schools and security services but at the individual's expense. All gov't. employed doctors work in not for profit hospitals and medical centers distributed throughout the country.

The problem with our government as a whole is encapsulated very well in the problem with our medical system. Instead of asking what the root of the problem is we keep trying to find superficial panaceas. Instead of the government pushing millions of dollars in support to a privately ran medical center in east bum**** why not instead have it be a not for profit facility that the government provide's staff for?

This is the same with trying to balance the budget. Instead of talking about what we need to cut we should be talking about what we absolutely need to keep. See how much that costs us first. Then we haggle over just how much taxes need to go up to provide all the other things we want.

People think Medicare is unlimited care for the elderly. It's not. It has limitations on hospital time, specialist visits, etc. The elderly still have to balance their needs. It's not carte blanche.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 11:29 AM
You can think its lame all you want, but truth of the matter is he's not the only one who has lost interest in the republican parties failed policies, and prehistoric social values.

I can agree the Dems aren't much better. But they don't have to be when the republicans are that bad. Republicans really need to either treat candidates like Huntsman and Paul with respect, or they're going to keep losing elections getting behind politicians like Santorum, Romney and Gingrich.

I don't disagree with a thing you say. Just saying he wasn't being honest about something. War on drugs? Wars extending on? Troops stationed overseas? Which Ds are currently campaigning on a promise of ending any of these? Just a few months ago, we didn't know if we'd have a SOFA and a permanent troop presence in Iraq. This is a commonality between both parties right now.

Abortion? Contraceptives? He tries to lend himself credibility by claiming to be Catholic but then says he doesn't care about any of those. Those are pretty basic principles of Catholicism. To say you don't care about that is about the equivalent of calling yourself libertarian and claiming you don't care about personal freedoms. He may label himself Catholic in his daily life or he may do it just for the letter but he's not really in agreement with their principles.

It was that kind of stuff that jumped out at me throughout the letter. He was trying to attack one side deliberately and I thought it was artificially forced. If he were honest, it'd have had a different tone. Both parties are too similar these days in the matters he referenced to really act like one is evil and the other not.

If he'd merely said it was because the Rs keep parading clowns for elections, I couldn't have disagreed at all.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 11:35 AM
Medicare is not a universal single payer system. It is just another form of insurance coverage that has to work within the structure of for profit/private enterprise health care.

We have systems in place for people who wantonly over use the police and fire department. They get hit with fines as a result. It isn't hard to do the same with health care.

Doctors should work for the local, state, and federal bodies just like the police, fire department, FBI, etc. do. Instead of protecting your car or your home they're protecting your health. You can opt to do stupid **** with your health just like you can opt to light your own house on fire. But if that choice impinges on others then you get hit with a penalty, just like if you run your body into the ground against advice of your doctors then you also pay a penalty in having higher co-pays for your medical coverage.

Nothing should be "free". It should all come with some form of co-pay and going outside the bounds of what your doctor recommends or what is industry standard should carry a steeper co-pay. But the notion that our government is responsible to protect the property of it's citizens through taxes but not the most important property of all, your life, is a fool's argument.

Doctors and nurses should be government employees, just like the police, fire department, and public school teachers. All the existence of private practice, just like we allow private schools and security services but at the individual's expense. All gov't. employed doctors work in not for profit hospitals and medical centers distributed throughout the country.

The problem with our government as a whole is encapsulated very well in the problem with our medical system. Instead of asking what the root of the problem is we keep trying to find superficial panaceas. Instead of the government pushing millions of dollars in support to a privately ran medical center in east bum**** why not instead have it be a not for profit facility that the government provide's staff for?

This is the same with trying to balance the budget. Instead of talking about what we need to cut we should be talking about what we absolutely need to keep. See how much that costs us first. Then we haggle over just how much taxes need to go up to provide all the other things we want.

I cringe at the thought of government employees with little oversight such as doctors and nurses without the incentive of profit. In the army days, you could tell the ones that just got sick of dealing with crybaby soldiers. They didn't care, they were rude, they took 10 seconds to come to a conclusion on your ills and sent you on your way. I would fear that happening on a widespread level.

As for the rest, I was thinking earlier about how an incentive program could be put into place. Maybe one where you establish a record and your premium goes up if you go a lot or down if you don't - much like how auto insurance works. If you choose not to use your insurance for something, that's your choice and it'd keep your premiums lower. I can't state the specifics of how it'd work but it intrigued me until I saw something shiny...

houghtam
02-24-2012, 11:39 AM
Instead of protecting your car or your home they're protecting your health. You can opt to do stupid **** with your health just like you can opt to light your own house on fire. But if that choice impinges on others then you get hit with a penalty, just like if you run your body into the ground against advice of your doctors then you also pay a penalty in having higher co-pays for your medical coverage.

Yeah but then you get into people saying "it's my choice what I eat, you shouldn't be able to do that", while at the same time collecting those benefits.

I'm about as liberal as they get, so I'm sure very few people agree with me on this, but I'm willing to take it even a step further. As I said in a thread a few years ago, if the government regulates speed limits, traffic laws and vehicle safety standards in the interest of keeping people safe and costs due to accidents down, why can't it do the same for public health via the food we eat? I'm for the government regulating what can and can't be in foods, or at the very least, taxing unhealthy foods enough so that their consumption offsets the incurred health-related costs.

You guys don't want to know what I'd do if I were king. LOL

Dexter
02-24-2012, 11:40 AM
I don't disagree with a thing you say. Just saying he wasn't being honest about something. War on drugs? Wars extending on? Troops stationed overseas? Which Ds are currently campaigning on a promise of ending any of these? Just a few months ago, we didn't know if we'd have a SOFA and a permanent troop presence in Iraq. This is a commonality between both parties right now.

Abortion? Contraceptives? He tries to lend himself credibility by claiming to be Catholic but then says he doesn't care about any of those. Those are pretty basic principles of Catholicism. To say you don't care about that is about the equivalent of calling yourself libertarian and claiming you don't care about personal freedoms. He may label himself Catholic in his daily life or he may do it just for the letter but he's not really in agreement with their principles.

It was that kind of stuff that jumped out at me throughout the letter. He was trying to attack one side deliberately and I thought it was artificially forced. If he were honest, it'd have had a different tone. Both parties are too similar these days in the matters he referenced to really act like one is evil and the other not.

If he'd merely said it was because the Rs keep parading clowns for elections, I couldn't have disagreed at all.

I see what you're saying but:

The point I got from him when he was talking about not caring and being catholic is that, it doesn't matter what he thinks on those issues. What's important is getting the economy going, and there being equality for all people in america (gay marriage).

Personally, I think abortion is wrong except in cases of rape, incest, danger to the mothers health. However, I also think that a woman should have control over her reproductive system. And if you try to stop abortions completely, women who want to make that decision will end up trying to do it a more dangerous and wrong way.

So, from what I understand he's saying something like : I'm catholic, but people are free to make their own decisions.

There's nothing wrong with that stance. What's important in this country is the economy and health care. Gaining energy independence sure would help our economy.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 11:42 AM
Yeah but then you get into people saying "it's my choice what I eat, you shouldn't be able to do that", while at the same time collecting those benefits.

I'm about as liberal as they get, so I'm sure very few people agree with me on this, but I'm willing to take it even a step further. As I said in a thread a few years ago, if the government regulates speed limits, traffic laws and vehicle safety standards in the interest of keeping people safe and costs due to accidents down, why can't it do the same for public health via the food we eat? I'm for the government regulating what can and can't be in foods, or at the very least, taxing unhealthy foods enough so that their consumption offsets the incurred health-related costs.

You guys don't want to know what I'd do if I were king. LOL

I go the other way. I don't want speed limits. Let nature cull the herd.

I also laugh when idiots get themselves killed and at other times think people really deserve to die. It's all personal perspective.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 11:45 AM
I see what you're saying but:

The point I got from him when he was talking about not caring and being catholic is that, it doesn't matter what he thinks on those issues. What's important is getting the economy going, and there being equality for all people in america (gay marriage).

Personally, I think abortion is wrong except in cases of rape, incest, danger to the mothers health. However, I also think that a woman should have control over her reproductive system. And if you try to stop abortions completely, women who want to make that decision will end up trying to do it a more dangerous and wrong way.

So, from what I understand he's saying something like : I'm catholic, but people are free to make their own decisions.

There's nothing wrong with that stance. What's important in this country is the economy and health care. Gaining energy independence sure would help our economy.

Yeah, I didn't really read it like that, I guess.

Dexter
02-24-2012, 11:46 AM
Yeah, I didn't really read it like that, I guess.

I can see what you're saying definitely tho, so don't get me wrong. I just see what he's saying in a different way. I hope I'm interpreting it right.

houghtam
02-24-2012, 11:55 AM
Abortion? Contraceptives? He tries to lend himself credibility by claiming to be Catholic but then says he doesn't care about any of those. Those are pretty basic principles of Catholicism. To say you don't care about that is about the equivalent of calling yourself libertarian and claiming you don't care about personal freedoms. He may label himself Catholic in his daily life or he may do it just for the letter but he's not really in agreement with their principles.

A common "misconception" (get it? har har har) of Catholicism is that contraception is a sin. In order for this to be true, he needs to have stated it "ex cathedra", meaning invoking his papal infallibility. While the Catholic Church's official "stance" on contraception is that it is wrong, it's never been stated ex cathedra, and thus is not Law. In 1994, Pope John Paul II Electric Boogaloo said:

Unfortunately, Catholic thought is often misunderstood ... as if the Church supported an ideology of fertility at all costs, urging married couples to procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future. But one need only study the pronouncements of the Magisterium to know that this is not so. Truly, in begetting life the spouses fulfill one of the highest dimensions of their calling: they are God's co-workers. Precisely for this reason they must have an extremely responsible attitude. In deciding whether or not to have a child, they must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child. Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. However, there remains the duty of carrying it out with criteria and methods that respect the total truth of the marital act in its unitive and procreative dimension, as wisely regulated by nature itself in its biological rhythms. One can comply with them and use them to advantage, but they cannot be "violated" by artificial interference.

The last part is italicized because that is the stance of the Church, but it is not the Law of the Church. It is unfortunately misconstrued by many, both Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Wow, and I thought my 13 years of Catholic school would never come in handy. ;)

bendog
02-24-2012, 12:03 PM
People think Medicare is unlimited care for the elderly. It's not. It has limitations on hospital time, specialist visits, etc. The elderly still have to balance their needs. It's not carte blanche.

Medicare only has limitations on treatment per diagnosis. There's no incentive for patients or doctors to judge whether potential benefit is worth the dollar cost. It's exactly the opposite. The incentive for the docs is to make as many diagnostic findings they can, and individuals have incentive to seek as much care as possible to utilize their supplemental. That's why its broke.

houghtam
02-24-2012, 12:05 PM
Medicare only has limitations on treatment per diagnosis. There's no incentive for patients or doctors to judge whether potential benefit is worth the dollar cost. It's exactly the opposite. The incentive for the docs is to make as many diagnostic findings they can, and individuals have incentive to seek as much care as possible to utilize their supplemental. That's why its broke.

How much of that do you think has to do with the threat of a wrongful death lawsuit?

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 12:16 PM
How much of that do you think has to do with the threat of a wrongful death lawsuit?

That's part of it. But I know from experience that there are systems out there designed to tell you all the different tests you're allowed reimbursement for for any diagnosis. And because neither the doctor or patient have any incentive to save cost in any scenario, you can pretty much bet that every test reimbursable by Medicare will be run for any given diagnosis. Even if the Doctor already knows the answer. Lab and X-Ray is where the real money is made.

bendog
02-24-2012, 12:19 PM
How much of that do you think has to do with the threat of a wrongful death lawsuit?

Imo that's trying to disseminate. No offense intended. Sure, there's a cost of defensive medicine, but that's not really the topic. The FACT is that Medicare pays providers more if they make more diagnosis. Healthcare will always be a market. That's actually the legal basis for Obamacare. It's 20% of gnp, and beyond doubt congress has very wide authority to regulate commerce.

Whether you do single payor or do away with all insurance and make workers pay out of pocket (the Grover Norquist dream), it's still a market. What OneGuy cannot grasp is that the Bible Thumpers make market decsions on mythological beliefs that have nothing to do with cost/benefit. They can believe storks deliver babies, but if they are allowed to affect the cost of healthcare on irrational beliefs, they screw the market, and that cannot be allowed if the aim is an efficient market.

The aim of the Ryan Plan (and Wyden-Bennett for that matter) is to force consumers to make some cost/benefit decision before seeking treatment. The ScooterStore and Walkinbathtub folks oppose that. Hell, medicare provides for podiatry services. That's great, but the fact is we have a bunch of old people getting toenails cut by doctors who are billing the govt.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 12:20 PM
A common "misconception" (get it? har har har) of Catholicism is that contraception is a sin. In order for this to be true, he needs to have stated it "ex cathedra", meaning invoking his papal infallibility. While the Catholic Church's official "stance" on contraception is that it is wrong, it's never been stated ex cathedra, and thus is not Law. In 1994, Pope John Paul II Electric Boogaloo said:



The last part is italicized because that is the stance of the Church, but it is not the Law of the Church. It is unfortunately misconstrued by many, both Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Wow, and I thought my 13 years of Catholic school would never come in handy. ;)

Interesting. Splitting hairs but interesting no less.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 12:22 PM
Imo that's trying to disseminate. No offense intended. Sure, there's a cost of defensive medicine, but that's not really the topic. The FACT is that Medicare pays providers more if they make more diagnosis. Healthcare will always be a market. That's actually the legal basis for Obamacare. It's 20% of gnp, and beyond doubt congress has very wide authority to regulate commerce.

Whether you do single payor or do away with all insurance and make workers pay out of pocket (the Grover Norquist dream), it's still a market. What OneGuy cannot grasp is that the Bible Thumpers make market decsions on mythological beliefs that have nothing to do with cost/benefit. They can believe storks deliver babies, but if they are allowed to affect the cost of healthcare on irrational beliefs, they screw the market, and that cannot be allowed if the aim is an efficient market.

The aim of the Ryan Plan (and Wyden-Bennett for that matter) is to force consumers to make some cost/benefit decision before seeking treatment. The ScooterStore and Walkinbathtub folks oppose that. Hell, medicare provides for podiatry services. That's great, but the fact is we have a bunch of old people getting toenails cut by doctors who are billing the govt.

How are the stork believers impacting the market? Not getting the point there.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 12:24 PM
And I still have no answer to this fundamental question:

Is it ok for Richie Rich to reach for his wallet and get a 5 minute computer-aided CT Scan on his colon while Joe Average has to spend all morning with a metal scope up his ass?

I'm not just saying it because it's funny (although it is) But there's a fundamental issue here I want to get at.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 12:28 PM
And I still have no answer to this fundamental question:

Is it ok for Richie Rich to reach for his wallet and get a 5 minute computer-aided CT Scan on his colon while Joe Average has to spend all morning with a metal scope up his ass?

I'm not just saying it because it's funny (although it is) But there's a fundamental issue here I want to get at.

Whoever is choosing to stick with an insurance company that would do such things has to face the consequences or pay the cash for it. It's no secret that people with more money have more options.

At the very least guy laying on the table getting prodded should be thinking who he can contact to affect change. I don't think the government should be stepping in to fix the problem, though.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 12:30 PM
How are the stork believers impacting the market? Not getting the point there.

He's of the mistaken belief (as told by Obama) that if only contraception was universally covered, 'the system' would save money overall by dealing with less costs in pregnancy and other related issues.

That doesn't really make sense on it's face. Studies have shown that cost savings in preventative medicine are usually overstated. But that's not even the important part.

Access to low cost or free contraception is pretty widespread. Having insurance pick up the tab doesn't increase access. Other studies have shown that cost is rarely a determining factor in whether someone uses contraception. More often it's just that people don't take the time, don't want to see a doctor, don't plan ahead, or just plain don't want to use it.

And whether insurance pays for any of it has little to do with any of that.

TonyR
02-24-2012, 12:31 PM
I go the other way. I don't want speed limits. Let nature cull the herd.

I also laugh when idiots get themselves killed and at other times think people really deserve to die. It's all personal perspective.

You do realize that that "speeders" won't just kill themselves in a scenario in which your lawlessness prevailed, right? We should probably allow people to drive while intoxicated as well, right? "Cull the herd" some more? Hell, why not take it a step further and make it so that murder in general isn't a crime! The murderers will all kill each other, right?

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 12:35 PM
It's no secret that people with more money have more options..

That's the issue in a nutshell. I agree with you. But others hate that whole idea, and want to build a whole system around denying that basic reality.

But you can't stop it. Money will always bring other options. Even if it means leaving the country.

houghtam
02-24-2012, 12:41 PM
That's the issue in a nutshell. I agree with you. But others hate that whole idea, and want to build a whole system around denying that basic reality.

But you can't stop it. Money will always bring other options. Even if it means leaving the country.

If people with more means than I want to leave the country for procedures that aren't covered, they can go for it. I'm less concerned about those few cases than I am about the millions of uninsured or underinsured.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 12:47 PM
If people with more means than I want to leave the country for procedures that aren't covered, they can go for it. I'm less concerned about those few cases than I am about the millions of uninsured or underinsured.

So you would be willing to outlaw pay-for-service healthcare in the United States in the name of equality?

bendog
02-24-2012, 12:50 PM
He's of the mistaken belief (as told by Obama) that if only contraception was universally covered, 'the system' would save money overall by dealing with less costs in pregnancy and other related issues.

That doesn't really make sense on it's face. Studies have shown that cost savings in preventative medicine are usually overstated. But that's not even the important part.

Access to low cost or free contraception is pretty widespread. Having insurance pick up the tab doesn't increase access. Other studies have shown that cost is rarely a determining factor in whether someone uses contraception. More often it's just that people don't take the time, don't want to see a doctor, don't plan ahead, or just plain don't want to use it.

And whether insurance pays for any of it has little to do with any of that.

You think full contraception coverage will not reduce unwanted pregnancy, Beevis? Do you think?

alkemical
02-24-2012, 12:53 PM
http://www.dangerousminds.net/images/uploads/tooldkdkdkdkd.jpg

houghtam
02-24-2012, 12:55 PM
So you would be willing to outlaw pay-for-service healthcare in the United States in the name of equality?

I didn't say that. I'm of the belief that, at the very minimum, we need to protect the health of everyone in the country. Once that happens, then we can discuss how the 1% can spend their money on health care.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 12:56 PM
You think full contraception coverage will not reduce unwanted pregnancy, Beevis? Do you think?

Not significantly, no. Most unwanted pregnancy is a product of not planning, not a matter of people not being able to afford the pill or condoms. Both can be had freely at many County/City health departments.

It's mostly an issue of people planning ahead and seeking out a solution. There will always be a certain percentage of people who won't do that. Regardless of who's paying the bills.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 01:02 PM
I didn't say that. I'm of the belief that, at the very minimum, we need to protect the health of everyone in the country. Once that happens, then we can discuss how the 1% can spend their money on health care.

The problem is that 'minimum' has no realistic meaning. And once you bring politics into the decision-making process. "Minimum" will come to mean "Everything my neighbor who drives that Lexus gets"

But that model can't be sustained.

bendog
02-24-2012, 01:22 PM
here's a cyberquarter beevis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8886761

houghtam
02-24-2012, 01:26 PM
Here's an example of the disconnect many on the right have:

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/florida-congressman-upset-obama-70-fill-hummer-215636787.html

Florida Congressman Upset at Obama for $70 Fill-up of His Hummer

Here is the bottom line, last night it took 70 dollars to fill the tank of my 2008 H3 Hummer, what is it costing you? What does it cost the President to fill his gas tank?

LOL

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 01:27 PM
here's a cyberquarter beevis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8886761

Did you read the article.

Of U.S. women who use a reversible method of contraception, 24% each year obtain family planning services from a publicly funded clinic or a private doctor reimbursed by Medicaid.

I said that there are already publicly funded options available and you throw out an article that states what would happen if that were no longer the case.

Who's talking about cutting off public funding for contraception? We're talking about not forcing churches to pay for it if it violates their conscience.

bendog
02-24-2012, 01:29 PM
BEEVIS, try to read The article was only about MEDICAID beneficiaries.

Again, another cyberquarter. I used to get paid quite well for research, I won't waste much more on you.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2991605

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 01:47 PM
BEEVIS, try to read The article was only about MEDICAID beneficiaries.

Again, another cyberquarter. I used to get paid quite well for research, I won't waste much more on you.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2991605

No, read again

Of U.S. women who use a reversible method of contraception, 24% each year obtain family planning services from a publicly funded clinic or a private doctor reimbursed by Medicaid.

It's about anyone receiving publicly funded contraception. Your logic is not flowing for me.

"Many people use publicly funded birth control, therefore the Catholic church should be forced to compensate their employees with condoms".... does not compute.

bendog
02-24-2012, 01:55 PM
No, read again



It's about anyone receiving publicly funded contraception. Your logic is not flowing for me.

"Many people use publicly funded birth control, therefore the Catholic church should be forced to compensate their employees with condoms".... does not compute.

I realize it's not flowing on you. Not everyone is elegible for medicaid. You have to be poor or disabled. However, the two links should have shown to you that fully funding contraceptive care to women in ALL health delivery systems overall SAVES money, and there is no scientific proof to the contrary. So, if you want to argue against obamacare's move to fully cover it for every woman, there are only two intellectually honest ways to do it.

1) You believe in making healthcare market decisions on myths rather than any medical or economic reality.

2) You just don't think the govt has any role whatsoever in determining what is covered in private employer funded healthcare.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 01:59 PM
This whole thing is a super interesting concept. Everything that might help keep you healthy could reduce your health care costs. Therefore employers should pay for it.

Awesome.

Studies have shown that regular golfing can have lasting health benefits. Therefore my boss should pay my green fees, lest he deny me my 'rights' :)

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 02:04 PM
I realize it's not flowing on you. Not everyone is elegible for medicaid. You have to be poor or disabled. However, the two links should have shown to you that fully funding contraceptive care to women in ALL health delivery systems overall SAVES money, and there is no scientific proof to the contrary. So, if you want to argue against obamacare's move to fully cover it for every woman, there are only two intellectually honest ways to do it.

1) You believe in making healthcare market decisions on myths rather than any medical or economic reality.

2) You just don't think the govt has any role whatsoever in determining what is covered in private employer funded healthcare.

You're missing the "publicly funded clinic" part. I'm pretty middle class, but I could walk down to the Health Department today and get condominiums for free. My wife could get pills for nothing were we to go that route.

I wouldn't do that, because I can afford to take care of it. Of course if my insurance covered it, then everyone would get to pay for it instead of just me... the one making the decision.

I'm sure that makes sense to someone. But not me. :)

bendog
02-24-2012, 04:38 PM
Planned parenthood is not handing out free birthcontrol pills, Beavis. They means test. I'd explain the way around the logic implosion of the religious right, but not if you're going to be too lazy to actually find out what contraception costs, which btw one of the links provided. And condoms btw are a bogus answer. You may be a nice considerate guy, but not all guys, or husbands, are. Again you didn't even TRY to understand the links.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 07:28 PM
Planned parenthood is not handing out free birthcontrol pills, Beavis. They means test. I'd explain the way around the logic implosion of the religious right, but not if you're going to be too lazy to actually find out what contraception costs, which btw one of the links provided. And condoms btw are a bogus answer. You may be a nice considerate guy, but not all guys, or husbands, are. Again you didn't even TRY to understand the links.

LOL

WTF is that even trying to substantiate? We should pay for medical care because the guys are inconsiderate and make the woman assume the responsibility for birth control?

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 07:29 PM
You do realize that that "speeders" won't just kill themselves in a scenario in which your lawlessness prevailed, right? We should probably allow people to drive while intoxicated as well, right? "Cull the herd" some more? Hell, why not take it a step further and make it so that murder in general isn't a crime! The murderers will all kill each other, right?

Just like the legalization of alcohol instantly made everyone drink themselves to death, not having speed limits would force everyone to instantly drive like a maniac and kill everyone on the streets. True story.

SoCalBronco
02-24-2012, 08:51 PM
Even though I've got alot of issues with him, I have to give Romney some props for discussing specifics as to SS and Medicare reform. I'm not sure his plans are aggressive enough, but at least he's talking about it in specifics now. The idea of tying eligibility ages to increases in life expectancy is an idea that is well past due. That alone, won't be enough. The savings is just around 150 billion or so over 10 years, not really going to do much increasing the age one month per year. Something much more aggressive is needed. I like the idea of transitioning to a voucher payment over time, rather than a choice between that and Medicare. There's no choice, everyone would choose the better benefit, which is the opposite of what's needed. It will be a generous voucher payment to be sure, but still nowhere near comparable to Medicare, which is just too good of a benefit for our fiscal situation. Seniors will simply have to bear more of the burden of their health costs. Obama has also shown a willingness to give in on this issue during the grand bargain talks, which is a good sign, but we need something bold here. Even Wyden/Ryan isn't bold enough. Its hard to do politically because of the risks, but it has to be done someway somehow. Hide it in thousands of pages of stuff, call it something else, smoke and mirrors what have you, but its got to be done.

Rohirrim
02-24-2012, 09:07 PM
Want something bold? Single payer, universal coverage. Then you go ahead and close down Medicare and Medicaid, and Tricare. Everybody pays in. Guess what happens to the economy when employers are no longer on the hook for health care coverage? It would explode. No more staff at corporations and hospitals whose entire job is dealing with insurance company bs. Oh, and all those 20 hour a week jobs for our young people that don't give them enough money to live on their own, or pay for college? Suddenly, those are 40 hour a week, full time jobs. When employers no longer have to care about health care costs, they hire who they want, when they want.

Why won't we do that? Because there are some insurance billionaires out there who pay politicians to treat that obvious solution as some kind of third rail, and they pay a lot of money to keep the paranoia campaign going.

We should apply the laws of supply and demand, and profit, to selling widgets, but not to health care. One size does not fit all. Neither does one philosophy. As long as we continue to try and keep this monster of a health care system on life support, the longer it will suck the energy out of our society.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 09:14 PM
Want something bold? Single payer, universal coverage. Then you go ahead and close down Medicare and Medicaid, and Tricare. Everybody pays in. Guess what happens to the economy when employers are no longer on the hook for health care coverage? It would explode. No more staff at corporations and hospitals whose entire job is dealing with insurance company bs. Oh, and all those 20 hour a week jobs for our young people that don't give them enough money to live on their own, or pay for college? Suddenly, those are 40 hour a week, full time jobs. When employers no longer have to care about health care costs, they hire who they want, when they want.

Why won't we do that? Because there are some insurance billionaires out there who pay politicians to treat that obvious solution as some kind of third rail, and they pay a lot of money to keep the paranoia campaign going.

LOL

Isn't this about the equivalent to the "they'll hire if you lower taxes" that everyone on your side of the aisle screams as being false? What makes you think any jobs will boom just because more money is available? Then you also omit that those working the insurance thing will all be out of work. And, finally, suddenly all those jobs will change from part time to full time. But, guess what - they're running two people part time to replace a full time person. You'd have half as many full time jobs if the hours don't increase and there's no reason to believe they would unless there's currently just a shortage of workers.

I guess once you get behind an idea, you can convince yourself of its merits.

Rohirrim
02-24-2012, 09:16 PM
LOL

Isn't this about the equivalent to the "they'll hire if you lower taxes" that everyone on your side of the aisle screams as being false? What makes you think any jobs will boom just because more money is available? Then you also omit that those working the insurance thing will all be out of work. And, finally, suddenly all those jobs will change from part time to full time. But, guess what - they're running two people part time to replace a full time person. You'd have half as many full time jobs if the hours don't increase and there's no reason to believe they would unless there's currently just a shortage of workers.

I guess once you get behind an idea, you can convince yourself of its merits.

Employers split up jobs to save themselves health care costs. Rent a clue.

That One Guy
02-24-2012, 09:25 PM
Employers split up jobs to save themselves health care costs. Rent a clue.

But, still needing the work to be done, need twice as many employees at half the time. If you give one more hours, you take from the other.

Rent some logic.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 09:51 PM
Planned parenthood is not handing out free birthcontrol pills, Beavis. They means test. I'd explain the way around the logic implosion of the religious right, but not if you're going to be too lazy to actually find out what contraception costs, which btw one of the links provided. And condoms btw are a bogus answer. You may be a nice considerate guy, but not all guys, or husbands, are. Again you didn't even TRY to understand the links.

Argument by link bomb isn't one of my favorite techniques. If you think they say something useful, you should flesh it out at least a little bit. I took one look and saw that the article didn't say what you said it did.

Nobody said anything about planned parenthood. Plenty of city and county funded clinics offer free contraception. Some Planned Parenthood clinics offer it as well.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/nassau-county/free-birth-control-sti-testing-exams-21652.htm

If yours doesn't then I don't know what to tell you. But if you're complaining that they means test... cry me a river. If people can afford it, they should be adult enough to take care of it. $15 will easily buy enough condoms for a month, unless you're a rabbit.

Walmart and Target sell birth control for $9. Sounds like something that needs insurance.

BroncoBeavis
02-24-2012, 10:01 PM
Want something bold? Single payer, universal coverage. Then you go ahead and close down Medicare and Medicaid, and Tricare. Everybody pays in. Guess what happens to the economy when employers are no longer on the hook for health care coverage? It would explode. [/quotes]

Ah, the free lunch. Nobody's 'on the hook' anymore because health care is free so economy subsequently explodes.

[quote]No more staff at corporations and hospitals whose entire job is dealing with insurance company bs.
You'll find that a large percentage of that staff finds itself dealing with Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare/SCHIP bs. Few private insurers are more difficult to deal with than CMS. How would handing them the whole shootin' match make it any better?

Oh, and all those 20 hour a week jobs for our young people that don't give them enough money to live on their own, or pay for college? Suddenly, those are 40 hour a week, full time jobs. When employers no longer have to care about health care costs, they hire who they want, when they want.

There's nothing requiring them to pay full-timers health care costs now. They did so because they needed to to remain competitive.

We should apply the laws of supply and demand, and profit, to selling widgets, but not to health care. One size does not fit all. Neither does one philosophy. As long as we continue to try and keep this monster of a health care system on life support, the longer it will suck the energy out of our society.

Ah, it's up to us and our government overseers to decide when laws of supply and demand apply and when they don't. Why don't they repeal the laws of physics when required as well. Imagine the problems we could solve!

Taco John
02-24-2012, 11:04 PM
Want something bold? Single payer, universal coverage. Then you go ahead and close down Medicare and Medicaid, and Tricare. Everybody pays in. Guess what happens to the economy when employers are no longer on the hook for health care coverage? It would explode.



When you say "explode" you're talking into smithereens, right?

Taco John
02-24-2012, 11:09 PM
This is the problem in America today: the founders libertarian vision is running headlong into a european socialist vision. The problem is, the european socialist model only works because we are subsidizing their national defense with our military.

Since Woodrow Wilson, Washington DC has run a foreign policy that involves a massive wealth redistribution program that is being run out of the Department of Defense - sucking out money from the taxpayers wallets and funneling them by way of troops and military equipment to every corner of the globe. America is the only country in the world that subsidizes the national defense of nearly every nation in the world.

We spend billions of dollars running miltary bases all over Europe so that European socialists don't have to spend that money on their own defense, and instead use those resources to fund lavish social entitlement programs at the expense of the American taxpayer. Check the work week in France vs. the work week in the US, and check their benefits. They sit comfortably under our umbrella of protection and mock us for our lack of compassion for our own people while we go without these programs. Meanwhile, these subsidies to these European nations cause envy at home and cause our own populace to drift further leftwards as they see the relative "success" of these lavish social entitlement programs, while our own government overreach destroys our healthcare system back home.

Additionally, our overreach globally has caused the Republican party to turn Wilsonian as we push Democracy on Middle-Eastern nations and watch them democratically elect Muslim Brotherhoods, and turn them into surrogates of nations we don't view favorably (ie. Iraq/Iran). We're spending billions of dollars on these failed geopolitical social engineering experiments, and conservatives and Republicans can clearly see themselves that it's not working and we either need to double down or abandon these projects altogether.

And that's not mentioning the foreign aid, where we fund Israel as well as their enemies in hopes of being able to gain counter-leverage on either side.

We're running a geopolitical wealth re-distribution program disguised as national defense. I think that you're absolutely right that most Republicans are too busy waving the flag to recognize this situation for what it is, but that's neither here nor there. Our financial predicament is going to put it all to an end, and leave everyone who is extended in limbo. I think when this happens, we'll end up sacrificing a lot of our sovereignty to international bodies such as a world bank, and some form of globalized union of nations. They'll have us by the throat for our own over-reach, and we'll have no better solution but to merge currencies and hand over our sovereignty.

I think this is what the Democrats want. I don't think this is what Republicans want. But, history has shown that government will fight for the preservation of a union. Let's hope we don't get to find out if it will do so again.

People want to talk about being bold. There's only one solution being offered right now. Everything else is status quo - more of the same.

SoCalBronco
02-25-2012, 12:32 AM
Additionally, our overreach globally has caused the Republican party to turn Wilsonian as we push Democracy on Middle-Eastern nations and watch them democratically elect Muslim Brotherhoods, and turn them into surrogates of nations we don't view favorably (ie. Iraq/Iran). We're spending billions of dollars on these failed geopolitical social engineering experiments, and conservatives and Republicans can clearly see themselves that it's not working and we either need to double down or abandon these projects altogether.

.

See, that's the thing. There are those who would like to simply withdraw with the exception of trade (libertarians), there are those who want to pursue these social experiments of uprooting governments in order to spread democracy or other Western ideals (liberals and neo-cons) and then there are people like me who think we should play an active role...just not to promote democracy per se (incidentally, even if one adopted such a view, its clearly a fruitless exercise in a place like the ME, which lacks the strong political institutions anyway to promote a true, reasoned and reflective democracy), rather to promote stability and the protection of US political and strategic interests. It's a colder, more calculating outlook centered around national interest, not wrapped up in the pretty bows of idealism, but its a solid view, nonetheless. If that means supporting a strongman with unclean hands, that's how the chips sometimes fall. I'm looking at things realistically. I've never believed if you just leave them alone everything will be fine. It's well settled that political vacuums exist to be filled. There are many problems with the Pakistani leadership for instance, but if the US stopped supporting that government financially and politically and got out of there would everything be fine? Probably not. You'd have radical ISI factions taking over and it would be like Egypt, except with a nuclear aspect to it as well. I would rather have us fill these vacuums and bring some stability to the situation than more nefarious actors who would hijack the resources in the region as a political weapon against the whole western world. As between this result and propping up questionable characters, I will happily prop up a questionable character. Foreign policy in the real world is nothing more than an examination of a number of dismal choices to see which is the least problematic. This doesn't mean idealism has no place. We can slowly push these societies to more open, tolerant and beneficial systems for the benefit of their people, but its through a series of incremental carrots and sticks and a slow process of persuasion/social media, foreign aid etc. so these governments will have too much vested in the relationship with the US (and the stability of their own regime) to be too heinous in their actions.

Drek
02-25-2012, 12:59 AM
I cringe at the thought of government employees with little oversight such as doctors and nurses without the incentive of profit. In the army days, you could tell the ones that just got sick of dealing with crybaby soldiers. They didn't care, they were rude, they took 10 seconds to come to a conclusion on your ills and sent you on your way. I would fear that happening on a widespread level.

You could use this exact same anecdote about complacency and negligence with fire departments, police, teachers, and even the military as a whole. Do you think the majority of fire fighters, cops, teachers, and soldiers have no incentive as they don't see direct profit from providing services and therefore half ass their work day?

Obviously a system of oversight/user review would need to be in place. But that is a much easier system to figure out than forcing a for profit model into a climate in which service providers are professionally obligated to provide service regardless of payment.

If your roofer was obligated to give you a leak free home regardless of if you could pay what do you think his rates would be like for all of those who could?

If a landscaper was required to keep your yard mowed regardless of your financial ability to compensate what do you think your neighbors who could afford him would have to pay?

Health care can not function healthily as a true profit system because the service providers are under similar moral obligations as our police, fire fighters, and military. A cop can't look the other way during a mugging, a fire fighter isn't going to crack open a beer and watch his neighbor's house burn down, and a soldier isn't going to watch as someone violates the rights of U.S. citizens abroad. We don't expect any of those people to work within a for profit model where they then need to extract compensation for doing those things which we all find morally admirable. Why do we make doctors jump through these hoops instead? Because our government is enslaved to all of the private interests that have overrun health care with bureaucratic bull**** and bloat to protect their massively profitable shell game from simple, clean reform. The only solution now is to cut out that cancer and start anew.

Durango
02-25-2012, 01:37 AM
We spend billions of dollars running miltary bases all over Europe so that European socialists don't have to spend that money on their own defense, and instead use those resources to fund lavish social entitlement programs at the expense of the American taxpayer.



This is what grates on me. During the cold war, maybe it was a necessary evil to essentially 'pay-off' these bastards from turning to Soviet Russia.

Today, it's simply a waste of American taxpayer money. Beyond the fact that we provide for the defense of Europe, we also subsidize thousands of European private businesses that feed off the American presence.

67 years after the end of World War 2, and we're still subsidizing the defense of Europe and Japan. Imagine the savings if we greatly reduced our presence even 50%.And does anyone really believe China would allow N. Korea to attack S. Korea considering the trade relations with the U-S and other western nations. Why do we continue to provide the border security for S. Korea? In the event of attack, we could have boots on the ground in 48 hours, God forbid, but we could.

We have tens of thousands of troops in Japan. Why? Maybe the question should really be; why so many troops? A presence is great, but jiminey crickets, we're not planning a D-Day for the shores of China.

Taco John
02-25-2012, 02:17 AM
See, that's the thing. There are those who would like to simply withdraw with the exception of trade (libertarians), there are those who want to pursue these social experiments of uprooting governments in order to spread democracy or other Western ideals (liberals and neo-cons) and then there are people like me who think we should play an active role...just not to promote democracy per se (incidentally, even if one adopted such a view, its clearly a fruitless exercise in a place like the ME, which lacks the strong political institutions anyway to promote a true, reasoned and reflective democracy), rather to promote stability and the protection of US political and strategic interests. It's a colder, more calculating outlook centered around national interest, not wrapped up in the pretty bows of idealism, but its a solid view, nonetheless. If that means supporting a strongman with unclean hands, that's how the chips sometimes fall. I'm looking at things realistically. I've never believed if you just leave them alone everything will be fine. It's well settled that political vacuums exist to be filled. There are many problems with the Pakistani leadership for instance, but if the US stopped supporting that government financially and politically and got out of there would everything be fine? Probably not. You'd have radical ISI factions taking over and it would be like Egypt, except with a nuclear aspect to it as well. I would rather have us fill these vacuums and bring some stability to the situation than more nefarious actors who would hijack the resources in the region as a political weapon against the whole western world. As between this result and propping up questionable characters, I will happily prop up a questionable character. Foreign policy in the real world is nothing more than an examination of a number of dismal choices to see which is the least problematic. This doesn't mean idealism has no place. We can slowly push these societies to more open, tolerant and beneficial systems for the benefit of their people, but its through a series of incremental carrots and sticks and a slow process of persuasion/social media, foreign aid etc. so these governments will have too much vested in the relationship with the US (and the stability of their own regime) to be too heinous in their actions.

I see that view as a foreign policy based on dictatorship jenga. In the 80's Reagan advocated a foreign policy that armed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, who we now call the "Taliban."

Even if you want to make the argument that it was in the US best interest to arm the Mujahadeen - even in light of the consequences of 9/11 and the wars that followed - it still doesn't address why we're stationed in the Eurozone subsidizing their lavish social programs with our military strength, and all on the back of the American taxpayer.

alkemical
02-25-2012, 02:26 AM
http://m.reason.com/26821/show/cc223d521bf9c48eac04d7f066a1ed2a/

Bronco Yoda
02-25-2012, 02:49 AM
Want something bold? Single payer, universal coverage. Then you go ahead and close down Medicare and Medicaid, and Tricare. Everybody pays in. Guess what happens to the economy when employers are no longer on the hook for health care coverage? It would explode. No more staff at corporations and hospitals whose entire job is dealing with insurance company bs. Oh, and all those 20 hour a week jobs for our young people that don't give them enough money to live on their own, or pay for college? Suddenly, those are 40 hour a week, full time jobs. When employers no longer have to care about health care costs, they hire who they want, when they want.

Why won't we do that? Because there are some insurance billionaires out there who pay politicians to treat that obvious solution as some kind of third rail, and they pay a lot of money to keep the paranoia campaign going.

We should apply the laws of supply and demand, and profit, to selling widgets, but not to health care. One size does not fit all. Neither does one philosophy. As long as we continue to try and keep this monster of a health care system on life support, the longer it will suck the energy out of our society.

Good post. It's scary that so many people do not understand the game and how it's being played.

Rohirrim
02-25-2012, 06:54 AM
Now we're blaming the massive bloat in our own military/industrial complex on Europe's social system? Ha! That's a good one.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/fr-budget.htm

Given that the USSR fell perhaps the Europeans were smart enough to stop flushing the their GDP down the anti-Soviet defense hole and instead shifted over to more of an anti-terrorism footing? That seems to be the trend in the G-7. The idea that the intent of the U.S. massively bloated defense budget is the security of Europe is laughable. Do we flush billions down the Israel defense hole because we're nice guys, or because our oil interests demand it?

Our defense budget is bloated because a bunch of billionaires make a whole lot of money from it and they buy the politicians necessary to keep it going. We could be dumping all those weapons systems into the bottom of the ocean and it would still keep going. Every Senator and every Congressperson has some military spending in their district or state. The system is metastasized The bloat is going nowhere and it has nothing to do with Europe's social programs.

You can run around in circles all day regarding our illogical monster of a health care system. I don't care. I know it's going to crash. Why? Because the greed of the insurance industry will feast on relentless price gouging until it is totally unsustainable. And I know that eventually, we will evolve into smarter people and realize that for-profit health care is an oxymoron. It's going to beat us over our collective heads until we wake up. At the basis of our system is this axiom: Anybody who requires emergency care receives it, whether they can pay or not. At the same time, we tell our kids, "Go to school. Be a doctor. Make a lot of money." :rofl:

More Alice in Wonderland logic.

That One Guy
02-25-2012, 08:21 AM
You could use this exact same anecdote about complacency and negligence with fire departments, police, teachers, and even the military as a whole. Do you think the majority of fire fighters, cops, teachers, and soldiers have no incentive as they don't see direct profit from providing services and therefore half ass their work day?

Obviously a system of oversight/user review would need to be in place. But that is a much easier system to figure out than forcing a for profit model into a climate in which service providers are professionally obligated to provide service regardless of payment.

If your roofer was obligated to give you a leak free home regardless of if you could pay what do you think his rates would be like for all of those who could?

If a landscaper was required to keep your yard mowed regardless of your financial ability to compensate what do you think your neighbors who could afford him would have to pay?

Health care can not function healthily as a true profit system because the service providers are under similar moral obligations as our police, fire fighters, and military. A cop can't look the other way during a mugging, a fire fighter isn't going to crack open a beer and watch his neighbor's house burn down, and a soldier isn't going to watch as someone violates the rights of U.S. citizens abroad. We don't expect any of those people to work within a for profit model where they then need to extract compensation for doing those things which we all find morally admirable. Why do we make doctors jump through these hoops instead? Because our government is enslaved to all of the private interests that have overrun health care with bureaucratic bull**** and bloat to protect their massively profitable shell game from simple, clean reform. The only solution now is to cut out that cancer and start anew.

I guarantee you the military members are complacent in what they do. Unless they are looking to a promotion (and you know the timeline well ahead so as to plan), there's a lot of coasters and bad attitudes abound.

I haven't really been around them much but the idealist in me makes me hope police and firefighters aren't in the same boat. They do get to see how they're helping people directly.

Ultimately, policemen are trained to become police officers and paid while at the academy. Same with military. I don't know how firemen work. Doctors, meanwhile, often rack up $100k in loans to become a doctor. Maybe fix the educational system and see if more doctors helps solve the problem? More competition, lower prices.

SoCalBronco
02-26-2012, 11:34 PM
I'm not thrilled that Egypt is using those guys that work for those NGOs as hostages, trying to squeeze out concessions from the US (probably monetary) in exchange for their release. It's obvious that's whats being done, they keep saying they can't interfere with the "judicial process", just to keep getting more concessions. There's no judicial process, its a ****ing backward country with no sophisticated legal or political institutions. I'm confident that when push comes to shove, they'll release them (including Sec. LaHood's son). There really is no choice.

I think the bill proposing to withdraw the 1.3B in military aid is the wrong answer, though. I like McCain, but I don't agree with him on that. You've got to maintain some economic ties there to keep some influence, otherwise some other oil rich nation will fill the 1.3B void and we'll have nothing to moderate them with. If anything, they need to increase the aid and allocate more of it for domestic benefit, like bridges, infrastructure, food etc and publicize it heavily so the public knows where its coming from. The ruling elite will skim some off the top, which is fine, that's how its normally done and they won't agree to go along with the US's propoganda by way of money assault unless they got their share, that's how the chips fall, but if you can get through to the public that the Brotherhood and the Salafis (sp) are leading them into areas that they shouldn't be led into and then from there continue to have a pipeline to the country to broadcast social media and what have you from the US, maybe they can keep the popular sentiment from falling into the traps of the radicals.

The problem is mainly with the ruling generals. They're the ones holding the people hostage for concessions under the guise of "judicial affairs". You don't cut off the funds to the country, you go straight to the source. Hillary needs to let this douche know (albeit in an implicit, between the lines type of way that ensures plausible deniability) that it would be unfortunate if he ended up like Mossadegh...

EDIT: I just read an article updating the situation which indicates that the seven remaining Americans have sought refuge in the Embassy itself. We need to send a couple of heavily armed copters in there to pick them up from the Embassy and get them out.

SoCalBronco
02-26-2012, 11:52 PM
I see that view as a foreign policy based on dictatorship jenga. In the 80's Reagan advocated a foreign policy that armed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, who we now call the "Taliban."

Even if you want to make the argument that it was in the US best interest to arm the Mujahadeen - even in light of the consequences of 9/11 and the wars that followed - it still doesn't address why we're stationed in the Eurozone subsidizing their lavish social programs with our military strength, and all on the back of the American taxpayer.

It's important for the US to have listenings posts all over the world for intelligence and counter-terrorism purposes and we've got to have a foothold in every major area to respond to crises in any corner of the globe on a moment's notice. I don't believe we are subsidizing their lavish social programs. These countries have militaries, too, Taco. France, Germany and the UK are all in the Top 10 in military expenditures. Granted, its not on the scale of the US, but since our economy is much larger, even if the US spent the same percentage of GDP on military that these countries do, our spending would still be much higher than theirs.

bendog
02-27-2012, 08:01 AM
Want something bold? Single payer, universal coverage. Then you go ahead and close down Medicare and Medicaid, and Tricare. Everybody pays in. Guess what happens to the economy when employers are no longer on the hook for health care coverage? It would explode. No more staff at corporations and hospitals whose entire job is dealing with insurance company bs. Oh, and all those 20 hour a week jobs for our young people that don't give them enough money to live on their own, or pay for college? Suddenly, those are 40 hour a week, full time jobs. When employers no longer have to care about health care costs, they hire who they want, when they want.

Why won't we do that? Because there are some insurance billionaires out there who pay politicians to treat that obvious solution as some kind of third rail, and they pay a lot of money to keep the paranoia campaign going.

We should apply the laws of supply and demand, and profit, to selling widgets, but not to health care. One size does not fit all. Neither does one philosophy. As long as we continue to try and keep this monster of a health care system on life support, the longer it will suck the energy out of our society.

I would have done it differently, more in line with Bennett-Wyden. Estimate what amt of money employers (including states and the feds) pay for employee care. Allow people to get a tax credit for the pro-rated share per individual. And mandate some minimum of what must be covered in a plan to be eligible for the tax credit, and mandate everyone buy in.

There'd still be some necessity for medicaid for those who cannot work. And I don't think voters will ever accept an end to medicare.

bendog
02-27-2012, 08:18 AM
Santorum has to be the creepiest individual to run in some time. I'll grant him that no one should ever confuse him with JFK.

http://infousa.state.gov/government/overview/66.html

pricejj
02-27-2012, 08:49 AM
When you say "explode" you're talking into smithereens, right?

This.

As Europe crumbles into ashes, due to debt obligations from single-payor, Democrats love jumping on board a sinking ship. Europe has little military spending, yet still can't even come close to balancing their budgets because single-payor costs grow at a rate faster than inflation. Single-payor has been proven to reduce competition, reduce quality of care, and drastically increase costs.

More and more European countries are taking steps to privatize their healthcare systems, yet Democrats still carry their pie-in-the-sky fantasy of the old, unworkable European model.

BroncoBeavis
02-27-2012, 09:40 AM
This is the problem in America today: the founders libertarian vision is running headlong into a european socialist vision. The problem is, the european socialist model only works because we are subsidizing their national defense with our military.

Since Woodrow Wilson, Washington DC has run a foreign policy that involves a massive wealth redistribution program that is being run out of the Department of Defense - sucking out money from the taxpayers wallets and funneling them by way of troops and military equipment to every corner of the globe. America is the only country in the world that subsidizes the national defense of nearly every nation in the world.

We spend billions of dollars running miltary bases all over Europe so that European socialists don't have to spend that money on their own defense, and instead use those resources to fund lavish social entitlement programs at the expense of the American taxpayer. Check the work week in France vs. the work week in the US, and check their benefits. They sit comfortably under our umbrella of protection and mock us for our lack of compassion for our own people while we go without these programs. Meanwhile, these subsidies to these European nations cause envy at home and cause our own populace to drift further leftwards as they see the relative "success" of these lavish social entitlement programs, while our own government overreach destroys our healthcare system back home.

Additionally, our overreach globally has caused the Republican party to turn Wilsonian as we push Democracy on Middle-Eastern nations and watch them democratically elect Muslim Brotherhoods, and turn them into surrogates of nations we don't view favorably (ie. Iraq/Iran). We're spending billions of dollars on these failed geopolitical social engineering experiments, and conservatives and Republicans can clearly see themselves that it's not working and we either need to double down or abandon these projects altogether.

And that's not mentioning the foreign aid, where we fund Israel as well as their enemies in hopes of being able to gain counter-leverage on either side.

We're running a geopolitical wealth re-distribution program disguised as national defense. I think that you're absolutely right that most Republicans are too busy waving the flag to recognize this situation for what it is, but that's neither here nor there. Our financial predicament is going to put it all to an end, and leave everyone who is extended in limbo. I think when this happens, we'll end up sacrificing a lot of our sovereignty to international bodies such as a world bank, and some form of globalized union of nations. They'll have us by the throat for our own over-reach, and we'll have no better solution but to merge currencies and hand over our sovereignty.

I think this is what the Democrats want. I don't think this is what Republicans want. But, history has shown that government will fight for the preservation of a union. Let's hope we don't get to find out if it will do so again.

People want to talk about being bold. There's only one solution being offered right now. Everything else is status quo - more of the same.

I think there's maybe a kernel of truth in here, but I think that people opposed to America's foreign adventurism often exaggerate that kernel because it fits with their belief. But the scale of the SS/Medicare problem is far beyond what could've been overcome with some military belt tightening.

We'd have to disband the military entirely for 60 years just to cover the unfunded Medicare liabilities we've stacked up. Entitlements are the 800lb gorilla in the room.

Does that mean military spending shouldn't be cut? No. But there's never been enough military fat to trim to make up for the entitlement deficits we've set up for ourselves.

Rohirrim
02-27-2012, 09:47 AM
Santorum has to be the creepiest individual to run in some time. I'll grant him that no one should ever confuse him with JFK.

http://infousa.state.gov/government/overview/66.html

I can't think of a freakier ideologue who has ever gotten this far as a viable candidate for the office of president. Now he says that one of the founding principles of this country makes him "...want to throw up?" WTF?

Somebody should send a copy of this article to that zealot:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-True-History-of-Religious-Tolerance.html?c=y&page=1

snowspot66
02-27-2012, 09:52 AM
This.

As Europe crumbles into ashes, due to debt obligations from single-payor, Democrats love jumping on board a sinking ship. Europe has little military spending, yet still can't even come close to balancing their budgets because single-payor costs grow at a rate faster than inflation. Single-payor has been proven to reduce competition, reduce quality of care, and drastically increase costs.


And they STILL get better results than us.

BroncoBeavis
02-27-2012, 09:54 AM
And they STILL get better results than us.

Yeah, that's not really true by any objective measure.

pricejj
02-27-2012, 10:21 AM
And they STILL get better results than us.

Unlimited Medicare spending has had a price-setting effect, leading to ever-increasing prices...

Obamacare has ballooned healthcare spending even further.

Rohirrim
02-27-2012, 10:22 AM
Yeah, that's not really true by any objective measure.

Long, healthy, and productive lives:
The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of long, healthy, and productive lives. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2003 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Canada and Australia. Overall, Australia ranks highest on healthy lives, scoring in the top three on all of the indicators. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdf

While the United States often performs relatively well for this set of indicators, it is difficult to conclude that it is getting good value for its medical care dollar from these data. The huge difference in the amount the United States spends on health care compared with the other countries could very well be justified if the extra money provided extra benefits. Population surveys have shown that the extra spending is probably not buying better experiences with the health care system, with the exception of shorter waits for nonurgent surgery.30 Earlier studies have shown the United States to be in the bottom quartile of population health indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality.31 Our results also fail to reveal what the extra spending has bought, although there are many important places to look.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/23/3/89.full



I don't know why I bother. I know you'll just ignore it.

TonyR
02-27-2012, 10:27 AM
"Six months before this thing got going, every Republican I know was saying, ‘We’re gonna win, we’re gonna beat Obama.’ Now even those who’ve endorsed Romney say, ‘My God, what a f***ing mess,'" - Ed Rollins

http://nymag.com/news/features/gop-primary-heilemann-2012-3/index1.html

BroncoBeavis
02-27-2012, 10:27 AM
Long, healthy, and productive lives:
The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of long, healthy, and productive lives. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2003 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Canada and Australia. Overall, Australia ranks highest on healthy lives, scoring in the top three on all of the indicators. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdf

While the United States often performs relatively well for this set of indicators, it is difficult to conclude that it is getting good value for its medical care dollar from these data. The huge difference in the amount the United States spends on health care compared with the other countries could very well be justified if the extra money provided extra benefits. Population surveys have shown that the extra spending is probably not buying better experiences with the health care system, with the exception of shorter waits for nonurgent surgery.30 Earlier studies have shown the United States to be in the bottom quartile of population health indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality.31 Our results also fail to reveal what the extra spending has bought, although there are many important places to look.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/23/3/89.full



I don't know why I bother. I know you'll just ignore it.

Anything that relies on infant mortality or life expectancy as a measure of a health care system can be dismissed out of hand. Those measures aren't objective.

Infant mortality can't even be accurately compared between countries.

alkemical
02-27-2012, 10:44 AM
Perhaps Claudine had warned me of all this. I was no longer sure what it was she had been trying to tell me. In any case, intellectual arguments aside, it had now become painfully clear that my days of innocence were gone. I wrote in my journal:
Is anyone in the U.S. innocent? Although those at the very pinnacle of the economic pyramid gain the most, millions of us depend — either directly or indirectly — on the exploitation of the LDCs for our livelihoods. The resources and cheap labor that feed nearly all our businesses come from places like Indonesia, and very little ever makes its way back. The loans of foreign aid ensure that today's children and their grandchildren will be held hostage. They will have to allow our corporations to ravage their natural resources and will have to forego education, health, and other social services merely to pay us back. The fact that our own companies already received most of this money to build the power plants, airports, and industrial parks does not factor into this formula. Does the excuse that most Americans are unaware of this constitute innocence? Uninformed and intentionally misinformed, yes — but innocent?


Fantastic book - Gives some interesting insight as to "business".

Confessions of an Economic Hit man

Play2win
02-27-2012, 10:55 AM
Long, healthy, and productive lives:
The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of long, healthy, and productive lives. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2003 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Canada and Australia. Overall, Australia ranks highest on healthy lives, scoring in the top three on all of the indicators. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdf



We don't take enough vacations ;D

bendog
02-27-2012, 11:28 AM
I can't think of a freakier ideologue who has ever gotten this far as a viable candidate for the office of president. Now he says that one of the founding principles of this country makes him "...want to throw up?" WTF?

Somebody should send a copy of this article to that zealot:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-True-History-of-Religious-Tolerance.html?c=y&page=1

I think Mark Halprin just said on the mnbc (whatever) channel that there's no chance he could get elected. Halprin looked like he was gonna throw up on the spot just contemplating what will happen if that guy wins in Mich.

Rohirrim
02-27-2012, 11:45 AM
Anything that relies on infant mortality or life expectancy as a measure of a health care system can be dismissed out of hand. Those measures aren't objective.

Infant mortality can't even be accurately compared between countries.

blah blah blah. You pretty much have the same answer to anything that anybody puts up that doesn't agree with your ideologically based, preconceived notions. If it's not that it's this. If it's not this, it's that. The Right Wing in America lives in an alternate reality with its own alternate facts. Fine. Enjoy.

TonyR
02-27-2012, 11:47 AM
[Republicans] plant their flag in an uncompromising position, and wait for the world to come around – which, quite often, it eventually does. This is because in a media environment based on the ideology of "balance," in which anything one of the parties insists upon must be given equal weight to whatever the other party says back, the party that plants its ideological flag further from the center makes the center move. And that is how America changes. You set the stage for future changes by shifting the rhetoric of the present.http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/why-obama-needs-to-change-to-win-20120222#ixzz1nFwWl55j

bendog
02-27-2012, 11:49 AM
I saw this little snippit.

In recent weeks, the campaign has stepped up its fundraising to prepare for the possibility that the race continues until the party convention in August. Last week, Stevens complained about the proliferation of so-called super PACs that have raised millions of dollars to keep the Santorum and Newt Gingrich in the race—an odd gripe since Romney was the first candidate to open the door to unlimited fundraising by his supporters.

"A campaign never dies because a candidate wants it to die, it's because they run out of money," Stevens said. "What (super PACs) have done is allow these campaigns to have a couple of big donors to keep their campaigns alive."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/long-race-tests-mitt-romney-enthusiasm-very-grueling-153955090.html

Wouldn't it be ironic if the first effect of the gop's roll back of a hundred years of legal opinions on corporate rights to free speech was Rick Santorum taking down Mitt Romney

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/long-race-tests-mitt-romney-enthusiasm-very-grueling-153955090.html

I guess John "not Jay" Roberts didn't see that coming. lol

Rohirrim
02-27-2012, 11:54 AM
I saw this little snippit.

In recent weeks, the campaign has stepped up its fundraising to prepare for the possibility that the race continues until the party convention in August. Last week, Stevens complained about the proliferation of so-called super PACs that have raised millions of dollars to keep the Santorum and Newt Gingrich in the race—an odd gripe since Romney was the first candidate to open the door to unlimited fundraising by his supporters.

"A campaign never dies because a candidate wants it to die, it's because they run out of money," Stevens said. "What (super PACs) have done is allow these campaigns to have a couple of big donors to keep their campaigns alive."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/long-race-tests-mitt-romney-enthusiasm-very-grueling-153955090.html

Wouldn't it be ironic if the first effect of the gop's roll back of a hundred years of legal opinions on corporate rights to free speech was Rick Santorum taking down Mitt Romney

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/long-race-tests-mitt-romney-enthusiasm-very-grueling-153955090.html

I guess John "not Jay" Roberts didn't see that coming. lol

Neither did Alito. Ha!

bendog
02-27-2012, 12:00 PM
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/why-obama-needs-to-change-to-win-20120222#ixzz1nFwWl55j

I had a few problems with the facts and logic in that, but overall if the thinking is that the gop is down to the truly extreme views of Reagan on which he compromised, and the gop is no longer willing to compromise on stuff like ending Medicare and allowing women to have no charge access to contraceptives so they are free to conceive, or not to concieve, regardless of their male partners' wishes ... then I won't quibble. I think that is unfortunately the truth of the situation.

BroncoBeavis
02-27-2012, 12:20 PM
blah blah blah. You pretty much have the same answer to anything that anybody puts up that doesn't agree with your ideologically based, preconceived notions. If it's not that it's this. If it's not this, it's that. The Right Wing in America lives in an alternate reality with its own alternate facts. Fine. Enjoy.

All I'm saying is that the Proggies should know the full significance of the numbers they tout before they go about building entire support structures on top of non sequiturs.

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/does-the-us-lead-in-life-expectancy-223/

However, two economists have argued in a recent book that life expectancy is a lousy way to compare two countries. Murders, suicides and accidents can have a big effect on life-expectancy stats because their victims die younger, on average, than victims of disease. And, they argue, the health-care system can’t do much to prevent those kinds of deaths. After adjusting for those kinds of deaths, the U.S. ranks at or near the top of developed nations in life expectancy, health economists Robert Ohsfeldt (of the Texas A&M Health Science Center) and John Schneider (of Health Economics Consulting Group LLC) write in “The Business of Health,” a 2006 book published by the conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank.

The notion is politically significant. The U.S.’s poor ranking in life expectancy is a key tenet in filmmaker Michael Moore’s excoriation of American health care in “Sicko,” and in calls by reformers for broader access to medical care — calls being heeded by the leading Democratic presidential candidates. Yet the U.S. has an unusually high rate of deaths from accidents and homicides, compared with other developed countries. (For instance, transport-accident deaths are three times higher in the U.S. than in the U.K., according to the World Health Organization, while the murder rate is 10 to 12 times greater.) Subtract out these deaths and suicide — where the U.S. is at or below average — and the American health-care system doesn’t look so bad.

It's obvious on its face that it makes no sense to judge a health care system based on how many murders, suicides, and car accidents there are in a certain country. There are far too many factors involved in life expectancy to reliably pin it on health care.

Rohirrim
02-27-2012, 03:00 PM
All I'm saying is that the Proggies should know the full significance of the numbers they tout before they go about building entire support structures on top of non sequiturs.

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/does-the-us-lead-in-life-expectancy-223/



It's obvious on its face that it makes no sense to judge a health care system based on how many murders, suicides, and car accidents there are in a certain country. There are far too many factors involved in life expectancy to reliably pin it on health care.

To quote the article I posted: Compared with six other nations—Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom—the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives.

And we pay what, fives time more for these outcomes?

Perhaps it's because we've squeezed a multi-billion dollar for-profit insurance industry between ourselves and our doctors? Ya think?

BroncoBeavis
02-27-2012, 03:30 PM
To quote the article I posted: Compared with six other nations—Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom—the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives.

And we pay what, fives time more for these outcomes?

Perhaps it's because we've squeezed a multi-billion dollar for-profit insurance industry between ourselves and our doctors? Ya think?

See, that just proves my point. The progressive side always leans on definitions that don't really have much to do with ACTUAL HEALTH CARE in order to talk about how great other countries are:

efficiency, equity, and healthy lives.

Efficiency is obviously an issue, but that's essentially what you're complaining about.

Equity is no virtue in and of itself unless it's equitable excellence. A waiting list is equitable. But that makes for a pretty ****ty goal.

And as has been said time and time again, healthy lifestyles and health care systems have little to do with each other until it's often already too late.

Start to look at some hard comparative analysis of outcomes... say of a specific form of cancer over a specific timeframe, and you'll see a different story.

There's nothing scientific about leaping conclusions like "More people here die earlier, therefore the Doctors are to blame"

Some societies take more risks than others.

Dexter
02-27-2012, 03:39 PM
To quote the article I posted: Compared with six other nations—Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom—the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives.

And we pay what, fives time more for these outcomes?

Perhaps it's because we've squeezed a multi-billion dollar for-profit insurance industry between ourselves and our doctors? Ya think?

Don't bother. He's going to look for any and every excuse as to why our health care system is adequate.

The 45,000+ that die in this country each year due to bad health care or no health care at all don't matter. Neither do the people who go bankrupt trying to pay for a family member's cancer bills.

There's no point in arguing.

BroncoBeavis
02-27-2012, 03:45 PM
Don't bother. He's going to look for any and every excuse as to why our health care system is adequate.

The 45,000+ that die in this country each year due to bad health care or no health care at all don't matter. Neither do the people who go bankrupt trying to pay for a family member's cancer bills.

There's no point in arguing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-125860/Britain-trails-cancer-survival-rates.html

Researchers who studied data covering millions of patients in dozens of countries said their findings laid bare Britain's appalling record.

Five-year survival rates for early-stage breast cancer were only 78 per cent, against 97 per cent in the U.S. and 93 per cent across Europe.

Similarly, only 70 per cent of patients with early-stage colo-rectal cancer live for five years in Britain, against 90 per cent in the U.S. and 80 per cent in Germany.

The researchers blamed 'absolute minimum' spending on drugs in the NHS, shortages of cancer doctors and a lack of effective screening.

People die. Sad fact of life. Placing a patient name on a government wait spreadsheet first only consoles a certain segment, however. At the end of the day, our overall outcomes are often better, if more expensive.

Dexter
02-27-2012, 03:49 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-125860/Britain-trails-cancer-survival-rates.html



People die. Sad fact of life. Placing a name on a government spreadsheet first only consoles a certain segment of people, however. At the end of the day, our overall outcomes are often better, if more expensive.

For the people who can GET health care. I love that attitude "People die, fact of life". I'd like you to say that to people who can't afford health care. Just so we're clear.

You're sitting here trying to say that its no big deal that people who are perfectly treatable die due to lack of treatment. I don't get you. I hope people show you more compassion if something ever happens to YOU than you would show anyone else.

BroncoBeavis
02-27-2012, 03:52 PM
For the people who can GET health care. I love that "People die, fact of life". I'd like you to say that to people who can't afford health care. Just so we're clear.

Just as I'd like to see you tell a Briton on a wait list that "Hey, well the government pays (if you make it) so you shouldn't complain"

Five-year survival rates for early-stage breast cancer were only 78 per cent, against 97 per cent in the U.S

Yeah, sure, those lucky Americans got to live... but they had to GASP, pay for treatment!

Dexter
02-27-2012, 03:56 PM
Just as I'd like to see you tell a Briton on a wait list that "Hey, well the government pays (if you make it) so you shouldn't complain"



Yeah, sure, those lucky Americans got to live... but they had to GASP, pay for treatment!

There is no arguing with you. But I'll keep this in mind. You have no humanity on this issue. Money is all that matters to you, and a lot of the GOP, which is why your party is going to lose the next election, and even more until they can do what is morally right.

Funny how the GOP preaches good morals, and is focused around religion. Yet they don't ever live it.

Your party is all up in arms about the health care system being in hands of the government which should be controlled by the PEOPLE. But you're more than willing to have it in the hands of insurance companies whose primary goal is profit.

Health for profit is WRONG.

BroncoBeavis
02-27-2012, 04:02 PM
There is no arguing with you. But I'll keep this in mind. You have no humanity on this issue. Money is all that matters to you, and a lot of the GOP, which is why your party is going to lose the next election, and even more until they can do what is morally right.

Funny how the GOP preaches good morals, and is focused around religion. Yet they don't ever live it.

I've found Democrats are often most charitable with other people's money. Ballot box charity is the best kind.

But let's set up a theoretical public health option in the United States to go alongside our current private system.

Your dream program looks like NHS and achieves a 78 percent survival rate for early breast cancer treatment. Meanwhile, people with money go to their own doctors instead of waiting on your lists and survive 97% of the time.

Would you still be touting the performance of this public option? Or would you go the Canadian route and try to make it illegal for people to skip your "humane" waiting lists?

Archer81
02-27-2012, 04:06 PM
Don't bother. He's going to look for any and every excuse as to why our health care system is adequate.

The 45,000+ that die in this country each year due to bad health care or no health care at all don't matter. Neither do the people who go bankrupt trying to pay for a family member's cancer bills.

There's no point in arguing.

This is my stance on healthcare. For children, it should be free, from cradle to 18 or 24, depending on if the kid goes to college or not. As an adult, you should pay for your own healthcare. I should not be asked to pay for your healthcare, and you should not be asked to pay for mine.

Free healthcare for all is a great idea until you realize no two people are going to have the same health needs. To compensate, the government will ration what is available and make it harder for older people to get an adequate level of care. Why pay for a knee/hip replacement on an 80 year old? The 55 year old needs it, and the 55 year old will be more productive than the 80 year old will be. So give the 80 year old more pain medications to "manage" their ailment. A government does not need to make that choice. Its none of their business. Or the government will go further and ban foods or cigarettes or booze because of "healthcare costs". Its a form of tyranny, no matter how benign it looks.

I am not a fan of a single payer system at the federal level. It will not work. Costs will not be kept down, and what will we as a population will have to give up in order to make it work at all. In my opinion, the tradeoff is not worth the attempt.

:Broncos:

Dexter
02-27-2012, 04:06 PM
I've found Democrats are often most charitable with other people's money. Ballot box charity is the best kind.

But let's set up a theoretical public health option in the United States to go alongside our current private system.

Your dream program looks like NHS and achieves a 78 percent survival rate for early breast cancer treatment. Meanwhile, people with money go to their own doctors instead of waiting on your lists and survive 97% of the time.

Would you still be touting the performance of this public option? Or would you go the Canadian route and try to make it illegal for people to skip your "humane" waiting lists?

Yeah because the TRILLIONS of dollars spent by the GOP and Bush getting our troops killed in a futile effort for fossil fuels wasn't charitable to the pockets of the elites at all.

You act like the system would be EXACTLY like Canada's. You're taking ONE specific form of cancer, and applying that to a whole different potential system. Like I said, any excuse to tout your immoral health for profit agenda.

I'd rather live in a country where each person was treated as equal no matter their income in a health care system, than one that will only treat the lucky few who can pay thousands of dollars for a medical emergency.

BroncoBeavis
02-27-2012, 04:10 PM
But you're more than willing to have it in the hands of insurance companies whose primary goal is profit.

Health for profit is WRONG.

Hate to break it to you bud. But your doctor is in it for PROFIT. Nurses are in it for PROFIT. Those lab and xray techs are in it for PROFIT.

Every professional that works in and around health care, even those working for the government are in it for PROFIT.

To say you're going to build a system that doesn't work on PROFIT is pure Candy Canes, Puppy Dogs and Unicorns stuff. As soon as you start working for free, you can question this.

Rohirrim
02-27-2012, 04:11 PM
Don't bother. He's going to look for any and every excuse as to why our health care system is adequate.

The 45,000+ that die in this country each year due to bad health care or no health care at all don't matter. Neither do the people who go bankrupt trying to pay for a family member's cancer bills.

There's no point in arguing.

You got that right. :thumbs:

Dexter
02-27-2012, 04:12 PM
This is my stance on healthcare. For children, it should be free, from cradle to 18 or 24, depending on if the kid goes to college or not. As an adult, you should pay for your own healthcare. I should not be asked to pay for your healthcare, and you should not be asked to pay for mine.

Free healthcare for all is a great idea until you realize no two people are going to have the same health needs. To compensate, the government will ration what is available and make it harder for older people to get an adequate level of care. Why pay for a knee/hip replacement on an 80 year old? The 55 year old needs it, and the 55 year old will be more productive than the 80 year old will be. So give the 80 year old more pain medications to "manage" their ailment. A government does not need to make that choice. Its none of their business. Or the government will go further and ban foods or cigarettes or booze because of "healthcare costs". Its a form of tyranny, no matter how benign it looks.

I am not a fan of a single payer system at the federal level. It will not work. Costs will not be kept down, and what will we as a population will have to give up in order to make it work at all. In my opinion, the tradeoff is not worth the attempt.

:Broncos:

There is SO much we can give up in this country. We could reform our foreign interventionist polices, lucrative unnecessary military spending, the department of education, etc etc. If this country actually lived within its means, incredible things could be accomplished.

Archer81
02-27-2012, 04:13 PM
Yeah because the TRILLIONS of dollars spent by the GOP and Bush getting our troops killed in a futile effort for fossil fuels wasn't charitable to the pockets of the elites at all.

You act like the system would be EXACTLY like Canada's. You're taking ONE specific form of cancer, and applying that to a whole different potential system. Like I said, any excuse to tout your immoral health for profit agenda.

I'd rather live in a country where each person was treated as equal no matter their income in a health care system, than one that will only treat the lucky few who can pay thousands of dollars for a medical emergency.


Ah. The profit motive = evil argument. That's not an illogical position at all.

:Broncos:

Dexter
02-27-2012, 04:14 PM
Hate to break it to you bud. But your doctor is in it for PROFIT. Nurses are in it for PROFIT. Those lab and xray techs are in it for PROFIT.

Every professional that works in and around health care, even those working for the government are in it for PROFIT.

To say you're going to build a system that doesn't work on PROFIT is pure Candy Canes, Puppy Dogs and Unicorns stuff. As soon as you start working for free, you can question this.

You fail to see what I'm saying again. Bravo. I don't suggest we don't PAY people for work. I don't see any reason why we couldn't pay doctors great wages.

Insurance companies AREN'T doctors, and don't deserve the be SCREWING people over like they do. THAT's my point.


Ah. The profit motive = evil argument. That's not an illogical position at all.

:Broncos:


When it comes to someone's health or ability to get treatment, profit made by insurance companies most certainly is evil.

Archer81
02-27-2012, 04:14 PM
There is SO much we can give up in this country. We could reform our foreign interventionist polices, lucrative necessary military spending, the department of education, etc etc. If this country actually lived within its means, incredible things could be accomplished.


So giving up freedom of religion, speech, choice, privacy is ok with you, as long as the government pays the doctor for you?


:Broncos:

BroncoBeavis
02-27-2012, 04:16 PM
Yeah because the TRILLIONS of dollars spent by the GOP and Bush getting our troops killed in a futile effort for fossil fuels wasn't charitable to the pockets of the elites at all.

You act like the system would be EXACTLY like Canada's. You're taking ONE specific form of cancer, and applying that to a whole different potential system. Like I said, any excuse to tout your immoral health for profit agenda.

I'd rather live in a country where each person was treated as equal no matter their income in a health care system, than one that will only treat the lucky few who can pay thousands of dollars for a medical emergency.

Ahhh, yes. Can't get too specific with these guys or else they develop memearrhea and start talking Iraq and Bush lied and whatnot. I'm not going to bother with that level of thread mission creep. It's not a rational conversation at that point.

At the end of the day the problem is a mentality of 'equality at all costs'

As a hypothetical, you'd rather have 20% of people die based on a waiting list lottery instead of having 10% of people die based on any inability to pay.


You can call that many things. Humane isn't one of them.

Dexter
02-27-2012, 04:18 PM
So giving up freedom of religion, speech, choice, privacy is ok with you, as long as the government pays the doctor for you?


:Broncos:


This country has gotten LESS free, LESS private, with LESS choice after the poor choices following a national tragedy. At the hands of BOTH parties.

Patriot ACT, NDAA, attempts at extreme internet regulation through SOPA, PIPA.

Being energy independent, would grant MORE freedom. Its not hard to protect our borders. Invading IRAQ has nothing to do with America being free.

Archer81
02-27-2012, 04:18 PM
You fail to see what I'm saying again. Bravo. I don't suggest we don't PAY people for work. I don't see any reason why we couldn't pay doctors great wages.

Insurance companies AREN'T doctors, and don't deserve the be SCREWING people over like they do. THAT's my point.





When it comes to someone's health or ability to get treatment, profit made by insurance companies most certainly is evil.


We disagree on the term evil, here. Insurance companies are not charities. They are businesses like any other. Why should we expect them to behave contrary to what a business is and does?

:Broncos:

Rohirrim
02-27-2012, 04:21 PM
So far, Santorum thinks Satan is after America (in the guise of liberals), he wants a theocratic influence on government (the separation of church and state makes him puke) and now he doesn't want blue collar Americans to aspire to send their children to college.

This is the first presidential candidate I've ever heard of to run on the medieval platform. Ha!

Dexter
02-27-2012, 04:21 PM
Ahhh, yes. Can't get too specific with these guys or else they develop memearrhea and start talking Iraq and Bush lied and whatnot. I'm not going to bother with that level of thread mission creep. It's not a rational conversation at that point.

At the end of the day the problem is a mentality of 'equality at all costs'

As a hypothetical, you'd rather have 20% of people die based on a waiting list lottery instead of having 10% of people die based on any inability to pay.


You can call that many things. Humane isn't one of them.

Yeah because god forbid we admit we made a HUGE mistake. Lets not talk about it guys, because all of those american lives lost don't matter.

Oh, and I believe in a system that wouldn't allow 20% of people to die on a waiting list. Like I said, any excuse to admit the system we have now is broken.

Archer81
02-27-2012, 04:23 PM
This country has gotten LESS free, LESS private, with LESS choice after the poor choices following a national tragedy. At the hands of BOTH parties.

Patriot ACT, NDAA, attempts at extreme internet regulation through SOPA, PIPA.

Being energy independent, would grant MORE freedom. Its not hard to protect our borders. Invading IRAQ has nothing to do with America being free.


Invading Iraq also had nothing to do with the hunt for fossil fuels, either. Unless you are suggesting what happened in Libya was a pure humanitarian effort and had nothing to do with European oil interests in the Libyan oil fields.

I will not accept healthcare provided by a federal government. It will be substandard at best. And what I would have to give up to acquire "free" healthcare is not worth the tradeoff. You point out the Patriot Act, SOPA and PIPA as government wrongs but expect them to get healthcare correct?

:Broncos:

Dexter
02-27-2012, 04:23 PM
We disagree on the term evil, here. Insurance companies are not charities. They are businesses like any other. Why should we expect them to behave contrary to what a business is and does?

:Broncos:

EXACTLY!!!!!!! Which is why a person's health should not depend on a companies desire to turn a profit. They'll NEVER do what's right for someone's health when money is there to be made.

Thank you for agreeing with me!

Rohirrim
02-27-2012, 04:25 PM
Ah. The profit motive = evil argument. That's not an illogical position at all.

:Broncos:

My argument is that one size does not fit all. Apply the laws of supply and demand, and the profit motive, to where it applies; Planes, trains and automobiles, etc. We took the wrong turn when we bought into the idea that monetary value would guide everything in this country. Greed is not good. Someday, I hope a generation of Americans comes along and sees it for the bs that it is.

Archer81
02-27-2012, 04:26 PM
EXACTLY!!!!!!! Which is why a person's health should not depend on a companies desire to turn a profit. They'll NEVER do what's right for someone's health when money is there to be made.

Thank you for agreeing with me!


I wasnt. I do not blame an insurance company if I get sick. And no hospital will refuse to treat me. If I am not covered, then its more than likely my fault for not having catastrophic coverage. I wont blame the profit motive because I failed to forsee my health needs as I got older.

:Broncos:

Archer81
02-27-2012, 04:27 PM
My argument is that one size does not fit all. Apply the laws of supply and demand, and the profit motive, to where it applies; Planes, trains and automobiles, etc. We took the wrong turn when we bought into the idea that monetary value would guide everything in this country. Greed is not good. Someday, I hope a generation of Americans comes along and sees it for the bs that it is.


And I hope that generation realizes "it takes a village" is a nice way to say we will all be equally miserable together.


:Broncos:

Dexter
02-27-2012, 04:28 PM
Invading Iraq also had nothing to do with the hunt for fossil fuels, either. Unless you are suggesting what happened in Libya was a pure humanitarian effort and had nothing to do with European oil interests in the Libyan oil fields.

I will not accept healthcare provided by a federal government. It will be substandard at best. And what I would have to give up to acquire "free" healthcare is not worth the tradeoff. You point out the Patriot Act, SOPA and PIPA as government wrongs but expect them to get healthcare correct?

:Broncos:


I'm merely pointing out that your claim that we are " more free" because of the money invested in unnecessary wars and overreaction to 9/11. is ridiculous.

If the government would invest as much money into its people's health that it does into making destructive weapons and bases overseas we'd be a healthy country with PEOPLE as its resource.

Iraq had nothing to do with Oil? Yeah I believe it. Because we militarily intervened in Darfur like we did in Iraq right?

Dexter
02-27-2012, 04:33 PM
I wasnt. I do not blame an insurance company if I get sick. And no hospital will refuse to treat me. If I am not covered, then its more than likely my fault for not having catastrophic coverage. I wont blame the profit motive because I failed to forsee my health needs as I got older.

:Broncos:

This is where people drive me absolutely nuts. Is an insurance company at fault if I get cancer? NO. Where would I have ever said that. Are they a part of the problem in me getting AFFORDABLE coverage? YES.

Also you expect people to predict their health futures? Really?

Archer81
02-27-2012, 04:36 PM
I'm merely pointing out that your claim that we are " more free" because of the money invested in unnecessary wars and overreaction to 9/11. is ridiculous.

If the government would invest as much money into its people's health that it does into making destructive weapons and bases overseas we'd be a healthy country with PEOPLE as its resource.

Iraq had nothing to do with Oil? Yeah I believe it. Because we militarily intervened in Darfur like we did in Iraq right?


This says you believe the government knows better than I or you do what is good for me or you, or will work for me and you. Its also hard to take a government seriously when they have one set of standards for congressmen, senators and presidents as far as healthcare and retirement benefits and force horrid systems on everyone else.

And Iraq was not for oil. To say so trivializes the Americans and the Iraqis who died. And to say Iraq was for oil but Libya was for democracy is a laugh. Why did Libya get NATO no fly zones? Why not Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon or Syria? People agitating for the same things. What makes Libya so special?

:Broncos:

Rohirrim
02-27-2012, 04:41 PM
And I hope that generation realizes "it takes a village" is a nice way to say we will all be equally miserable together.


:Broncos:

Hopefully, by the time they show up, they'll find such extremist views counter-productive.

BroncoBeavis
02-27-2012, 04:41 PM
I'm merely pointing out that your claim that we are " more free" because of the money invested in unnecessary wars and overreaction to 9/11. is ridiculous.

If the government would invest as much money into its people's health that it does into making destructive weapons and bases overseas we'd be a healthy country with PEOPLE as its resource.

Iraq had nothing to do with Oil? Yeah I believe it. Because we militarily intervened in Darfur like we did in Iraq right?

I just said this earlier, but it bears repeating.

Medicare ALONE currently has $37 Trillion in unfunded liability. This year we spent $600 billion and some change on our military/foreign wars.

You'd have to fold the military entirely today and couldn't get it started again until 2072 in order to use our military budget to balance our CURRENT entitlement spending. Not to mention the new heights you'd like to take it with something like single payer.

Medicare is the biggest problem this country faces... by far. No amount of ill-informed anti-militarism can paper over that fact any longer. We're likely now less than 5 years away from Medicare insolvency. And yet the best idea the single pay people can come up with is "Medicare for All!"

Insane, when you think about it.

Dexter
02-27-2012, 04:41 PM
This says you believe the government knows better than I or you do what is good for me or you, or will work for me and you. Its also hard to take a government seriously when they have one set of standards for congressmen, senators and presidents as far as healthcare and retirement benefits and force horrid systems on everyone else.

And Iraq was not for oil. To say so trivializes the Americans and the Iraqis who died. And to say Iraq was for oil but Libya was for democracy is a laugh. Why did Libya get NATO no fly zones? Why not Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon or Syria? People agitating for the same things. What makes Libya so special?

:Broncos:

I never said anything about Libya. I was against getting involved in that too. And because I disagree with a war trivializes Americans and Iraqis who died? Really? This country is no more free or safe after removing Saddam.

You can't spread freedom with bullets, guns, bombs and military intervention. You only spawn hate. You CAN however secure your borders and be involved in other forms of aid.

This country is overstretched and in far too many conflicts, that have NOTHING to do with us being free. Yeah because Sadaam has the capability of enslaving the US and its allies.

Archer81
02-27-2012, 04:43 PM
This is where people drive me absolutely nuts. Is an insurance company at fault if I get cancer? NO. Where would I have ever said that. Are they a part of the problem in me getting AFFORDABLE coverage? YES.

Also you expect people to predict their health futures? Really?


Yes. Its called family history. My family has issues with high blood pressure and cancer. The fact 3 out of 4 of my grandparents had either cancer or complications from HBP means at some point I can expect the same. I would have to be completely clueless to avoid getting the correct coverage because of it. My mother has skin cancer. Because of that alone I have a 50% chance of developing some form of cancer in the future.

Of course if people were allowed to shop for insurances across state lines...the cost of insurance would drop. But heaven forbid we do that. Much easier to blame the convoluted system for being artifically convoluted than actually lower the barriers that raises costs.

Federal government to the rescue...yay...

:Broncos:

Archer81
02-27-2012, 04:44 PM
Hopefully, by the time they show up, they'll find such extremist views counter-productive.


I think everyone wants the Star Trek future. We disagree on how exactly we are going to get there.

:Broncos:

Dexter
02-27-2012, 04:46 PM
Yes. Its called family history. My family has issues with high blood pressure and cancer. The fact 3 out of 4 of my grandparents had either cancer or complications from HBP means at some point I can expect the same. I would have to be completely clueless to avoid getting the correct coverage because of it. My mother has skin cancer. Because of that alone I have a 50% chance of developing some form of cancer in the future.

Of course if people were allowed to shop for insurances across state lines...the cost of insurance would drop. But heaven forbid we do that. Much easier to blame the convoluted system for being artifically convoluted than actually lower the barriers that raises costs.

Federal government to the rescue...yay...

:Broncos:

Yeah because you know, someone who has a good driving history could in no way get T-boned by some moron running a red light.

Or someone who has NO history of strokes should be able to predict that.

And you know, honestly I can be okay with people who aren't in with a government healthcare system. The problem I have is with those that think the one we have is JUST PEACHY.

--Personally, still think insurance companies are immoral though

Archer81
02-27-2012, 04:47 PM
I never said anything about Libya. I was against getting involved in that too. And because I disagree with a war trivializes Americans and Iraqis who died? Really? This country is no more free or safe after removing Saddam.

You can't spread freedom with bullets, guns, bombs and military intervention. You only spawn hate. You CAN however secure your borders and be involved in other forms of aid.

This country is overstretched and in far too many conflicts, that have NOTHING to do with us being free. Yeah because Sadaam has the capability of enslaving the US and its allies.


I could care less if you were for or against going into Iraq. To sum it up being a war for oil is the trivilization. Its not only untrue, but slightly ignorant in light of current developments in NAfrica and the ME.

And the "you cant spread freedom with bullets" line is bull****. The revolutionary war, civil war, and WW2 disprove that most conclusively.

:Broncos:

Archer81
02-27-2012, 04:51 PM
Yeah because you know, someone who has a good driving history could in no way get T-boned by some moron running a red light.

Or someone who has NO history of strokes should be able to predict that.

And you know, honestly I can be okay with people who aren't in with a government healthcare system. The problem I have is with those that think the one we have is JUST PEACHY.

--Personally, still think insurance companies are immoral though



If someone in your family develops cancer, you have a chance of developing the same cancer. Its genetic. How could that NOT tell you to adjust coverage accordingly?

Insurance companies do what they have to to compete and stay solvent. I pay what I pay to them to pay what I cant when the time comes. I dont get mad because of it. Its the choice I made. The government telling me that by 2014 I either have an insurance they approve of, or I have to go on government rolls or face a fine/jail time? F them. They cannot compell me to buy something "or else". That I have a major issue with.

:Broncos:

Dexter
02-27-2012, 04:52 PM
I could care less if you were for or against going into Iraq. To sum it up being a war for oil is the trivilization. Its not only untrue, but slightly ignorant in light of current developments in NAfrica and the ME.

And the "you cant spread freedom with bullets" line is bull****. The revolutionary war, civil war, and WW2 disprove that most conclusively.

:Broncos:


All conflicts where we were FORCED into action for OUR country. And how did they turn out? Positive. We didn't jump right into WW2 did we? We should have knowing what we know today, but hindsight is always 20/20. Getting involved in IRAQ has been a complete failure. Its a mess, and we should have never gotten involved.

There was no basis for the claims that IRAQ had WMDs, and the public was LIED to by Washington. Like I said, if our intentions were pure in getting involved in that mess, why aren't we involved militarily in other regions with genocide?

Dexter
02-27-2012, 04:57 PM
If someone in your family develops cancer, you have a chance of developing the same cancer. Its genetic. How could that NOT tell you to adjust coverage accordingly?

Insurance companies do what they have to to compete and stay solvent. I pay what I pay to them to pay what I cant when the time comes. I dont get mad because of it. Its the choice I made. The government telling me that by 2014 I either have an insurance they approve of, or I have to go on government rolls or face a fine/jail time? F them. They cannot compell me to buy something "or else". That I have a major issue with.

:Broncos:

Insurance companies in order to turn a profit have no problem turning away people with pre-existing conditions. Or putting **** in fine print that allows them to get out of paying for someone to get treatment. Should prices go down through competition? Ideally yeah, but do they? No. We overpay for our medication and treatments in this country because of the current system.

BroncoBeavis
02-27-2012, 05:01 PM
Insurance companies in order to turn a profit have no problem turning away people with pre-existing conditions. Or putting **** in fine print that allows them to get out of paying for someone to get treatment. Should prices go down through competition? Ideally yeah, but do they? No. We overpay for our medication and treatments in this country because of the current system.

Insurance purchased after misfortune strikes isn't insurance, it's financing. And it involves paying MORE than the total cost of your services needed.

For the risk-transferring effect of insurance to work, it HAS to be purchased before you're sure you'll ever need it. The employer-based structure of our health insurance has obscured this from some people.

But buying health insurance when you're sick is no different than trying to insure your car after you just ran it into a brick wall.

Dexter
02-27-2012, 05:05 PM
Insurance purchased after misfortune strikes isn't insurance, it's financing. And it involves paying MORE than the total cost of your services needed.

For the risk-transferring effect of insurance to work, it HAS to be purchased before you're sure you'll ever need it. The employer-based structure of our health insurance has obscured this from some people.

But buying health insurance when you're sick is no different than trying to insure your car after you just ran it into a brick wall.

Clearly not my point, but of course you take it how you want it. And even If it is a case where someone gets cancer THEN wants health insurance, I wonder why they don't have it in the first place?

Perhaps because they couldn't afford it. This is where the argument goes back to "well if they can't pay for it tough luck, death happens" and this argument goes in circles. I'm an idiot for arguing, $$ will always win in your eyes.

BroncoBeavis
02-27-2012, 05:12 PM
Clearly not my point, but of course you take it how you want it. And even If it is a case where someone gets cancer THEN wants health insurance, I wonder why they don't have it in the first place?

Perhaps because they couldn't afford it. This is where the argument goes back to "well if they can't pay for it tough luck, death happens" and this argument goes in circles. I'm an idiot for arguing, $$ will always win in your eyes.

$$$ is important because Cancer doesn't cure itself for free. I just showed you an English article talking about how their NHS can't compete with the US because they don't have the money for Oncologists or the latest cancer drugs.

Don't tell me the $$$ doesn't matter. It absolutely does.

Dexter
02-27-2012, 05:17 PM
$$$ is important because Cancer doesn't cure itself for free. I just showed you an English article talking about how their NHS can't compete with the US because they don't have the money for Oncologists or the latest cancer drugs.

Don't tell me the $$$ doesn't matter. It absolutely does.

How does an insurance companies profit margins fund the cure for cancer? Please tell me. If I understand it correctly, a lot of medical research gets funding from tax payers, the government and donations. I didn't realize that the insurance companies making a profit had anything to do with it. :D

BroncoBeavis
02-27-2012, 05:19 PM
How does an insurance profit margins fund the cure for cancer? Please tell me. If I understand it correctly, a lot of medical research gets funding from tax payers, the government and donations. I didn't realize that the insurance companies making a profit had anything to do with it. :D

Cancer drugs are developed in the US for a reason.

Play2win
02-27-2012, 06:43 PM
Science and Technology are not the only areas we need advancement, progress, and innovation.

We also need these things in our self-governance, policies and legislature, and as a country as a whole.

We need to apply modern methods and techniques to complex problems that create effective, sophisticated and responsive solutions. In short, we need things designed, structured and built for the 21st century and beyond.

pricejj
02-27-2012, 11:46 PM
How does an insurance companies profit margins fund the cure for cancer? Please tell me. If I understand it correctly, a lot of medical research gets funding from tax payers, the government and donations. I didn't realize that the insurance companies making a profit had anything to do with it. :D

Pardon me, but you are aware of Europe's debt situation correct? You are also aware that Europe/Canada/Japan has little to NO military spending...right? As other posters have pointed out, healthcare spending crowds out all other public spending over time. Single-payor spending increases faster than inflation. In case you don't understand the exponential function...that means IT DOESN'T WORK.

The average life-expectancy is no different in the U.S., than in Europe...so let's say we all live an average of 77 years. Chances are, we will all mostly die of CHD or cancer. Single-payor does not prevent death, so which way is cheaper for me and society:

1. I go to the doctor once every 10 years for a checkup (paying out of pocket), get cancer when I'm 77 and die.
2. I go to the doctor once every year (while I pay for insurance every year), catch cancer when I'm 77 and die.
3. I go to the doctor every single time I have a fever, a cold, a back ache, a minor sprain, whenever I'm depressed, not eating right, not sleeping right, or generally in a bad mood, let the taxpayers pay for it, catch cancer when I'm 77 and die.

Why not just pay the doctors directly with tax-deductible HSA's? Let the people become responsible for their own healthcare dollars, choose their own doctors, and choose what treatments they want or don't want...it's called a free market, and it works.

pricejj
02-27-2012, 11:47 PM
Science and Technology are not the only areas we need advancement, progress, and innovation.

We also need these things in our self-governance, policies and legislature, and as a country as a whole.

We need to apply modern methods and techniques to complex problems that create effective, sophisticated and responsive solutions. In short, we need things designed, structured and built for the 21st century and beyond.

Yes, it's called "increasing efficiency"...and there is nothing efficient about government.

Dexter
02-27-2012, 11:56 PM
Pardon me, but you are aware of Europe's debt situation correct? You are also aware that Europe/Canada/Japan has little to NO military spending...right? As other posters have pointed out, healthcare spending crowds out all other public spending over time. Single-payor spending increases faster than inflation. In case you don't understand the exponential function...that means IT DOESN'T WORK.

The average life-expectancy is no different in the U.S., than in Europe...so let's say we all live an average of 77 years. Chances are, we will all mostly die of CHD or cancer. Single-payor does not prevent death, so which way is cheaper for me and society:

1. I go to the doctor once every 10 years for a checkup (paying out of pocket), get cancer when I'm 77 and die.
2. I go to the doctor once every year (while I pay for insurance every year), catch cancer when I'm 77 and die.
3. I go to the doctor every single time I have a fever, a cold, a back ache, a minor sprain, whenever I'm depressed, not eating right, not sleeping right, or generally in a bad mood, let the taxpayers pay for it, catch cancer when I'm 77 and die.

Why not just pay the doctors directly with tax-deductible HSA's? Let the people become responsible for their own healthcare dollars, choose their own doctors, and choose what treatments they want or don't want...it's called a free market, and it works.


We're in debt too. Trillions of dollars worth. Only it isn't because of healthcare. Its because of all of our other unnecessary spending.

The free market HASN'T worked with health care. Does it work for the upper class? Sure does, because they can afford almost anything. The middle class (what's left of it anyway) and the lower class have been screwed over by the health insurance companies so bad. I don't disagree with being able to CHOOSE your treatments, I just don't feel that the system as it is now is any good at letting the majority of Americans do that.

Rohirrim
02-28-2012, 06:53 AM
Pardon me, but you are aware of Europe's debt situation correct? You are also aware that Europe/Canada/Japan has little to NO military spending...right? As other posters have pointed out, healthcare spending crowds out all other public spending over time. Single-payor spending increases faster than inflation. In case you don't understand the exponential function...that means IT DOESN'T WORK.

The average life-expectancy is no different in the U.S., than in Europe...so let's say we all live an average of 77 years. Chances are, we will all mostly die of CHD or cancer. Single-payor does not prevent death, so which way is cheaper for me and society:

1. I go to the doctor once every 10 years for a checkup (paying out of pocket), get cancer when I'm 77 and die.
2. I go to the doctor once every year (while I pay for insurance every year), catch cancer when I'm 77 and die.
3. I go to the doctor every single time I have a fever, a cold, a back ache, a minor sprain, whenever I'm depressed, not eating right, not sleeping right, or generally in a bad mood, let the taxpayers pay for it, catch cancer when I'm 77 and die.

Why not just pay the doctors directly with tax-deductible HSA's? Let the people become responsible for their own healthcare dollars, choose their own doctors, and choose what treatments they want or don't want...it's called a free market, and it works.

:bs:

You obviously have zero experience in our disaster of a health care system. I worked for ten years in a hospital, assisting the newly disabled, uninsured and underinsured with government assistance. I used to be amazed at how unknowledgeable people were, even about their own coverage, like the poster above. I can't tell you how many times somebody would come in, a family member of somebody who had just had a stroke, or open heart surgery, or a major accident, and would smugly sit there and say, "We're fully covered with..." this major insurance or that. Then, I would inform them that, while 80% of their bill might be covered, the remainder will cost them $150,000 or $250,000 (or whatever) and they would just ****.

"How am I gonna pay that?!" They would scream.

Or there would be the guy who had been in an accident and was now paralyzed from the waist down and would say, "Well, I hate the government, but it looks like I'll have to fall back on it now." And I would inform them that , based on their work history, they could expect to get $1400 a month for full disability. They would **** their pants and cry, "How am I going to live on that?"

My answer is, you're not. And the further bad news is that $1400 a month is too much money for you to get food stamps. You're going to lose everything you own. You might even end up like the guy I saw yesterday on a freeway onramp, sitting in his motorized wheel chair, with no legs, holding up his panhandling sign.

Does that happen in the rest of the industrialized world? Why would it? They believe that people come before money.

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2012, 07:03 AM
We're in debt too. Trillions of dollars worth. Only it isn't because of healthcare. Its because of all of our other unnecessary spending.

The free market HASN'T worked with health care. Does it work for the upper class? Sure does, because they can afford almost anything. The middle class (what's left of it anyway) and the lower class have been screwed over by the health insurance companies so bad. I don't disagree with being able to CHOOSE your treatments, I just don't feel that the system as it is now is any good at letting the majority of Americans do that.

Take our normal 'general fund' national debt. Nearly triple it. That's how much Medicare is in the hole. And that's all health care.

The normal 'national debt' as people understand it is nothing compared to the entitlement debt. And with Medicare, time to pay the piper is fast approaching.

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2012, 07:11 AM
You obviously have zero experience in our disaster of a health care system. I worked for ten years in a hospital, assisting the newly disabled, uninsured and underinsured with government assistance. I used to be amazed at how unknowledgeable people were, even about their own coverage, like the poster above. I can't tell you how many times somebody would come in, a family member of somebody who had just had a stroke, or open heart surgery, or a major accident, and would smugly sit there and say, "We're fully covered with..." this major insurance or that. Then, I would inform them that, while 80% of their bill might be covered, the remainder will cost them $150,000 or $250,000 (or whatever) and they would just ****.

"How am I gonna pay that?!" They would scream.

Did you ever sit down with someone going into extended care and have them tell you "It's OK, I have Medicare."

Rohirrim
02-28-2012, 07:18 AM
Did you ever sit down with someone going into extended care and have them tell you "It's OK, I have Medicare."

All the time. Medicare has numerous limitations. Why do you think there is an entire wing of the insurance industry dedicated to Medicare supplements (for those who can afford it)? Your problem is you've been sitting in the Right Wing echo chamber for too long and envision old ladies rolling on the beach in Monaco with their Medicare and Social Security largesse. Ha!

Here, get out of the echo chamber: http://www.online-health-insurance.com/health-insurance-resources/HFHC/content/limitations-under-medicare.htm

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2012, 07:25 AM
All the time. Medicare has numerous limitations. Why do you think there is an entire wing of the insurance industry dedicated to Medicare supplements (for those who can afford it)? Your problem is you've been sitting in the Right Wing echo chamber for too long and envision old ladies rolling on the beach in Monaco with their Medicare and Social Security largesse. Ha!

Here, get out of the echo chamber: http://www.online-health-insurance.com/health-insurance-resources/HFHC/content/limitations-under-medicare.htm

I think you're missing my point. You're upset about bad things happening to good people while they were on private insurance, because private insurance makes decisions based on $$$.

I'm pointing out that bad things happen to good people on Medicare every day because their Government makes decisions based on $$$.

And making them a single payer monopoly would take away all other options.

bendog
02-28-2012, 07:52 AM
Why not just pay the doctors directly with tax-deductible HSA's? Let the people become responsible for their own healthcare dollars, choose their own doctors, and choose what treatments they want or don't want...it's called a free market, and it works.

no facts, just rhetoric. It is akin to the contraception "controversey," which is only a controversey to the radical right. Though conceptually (-: I'd agree with you if workers and their families could simply choose from a set of plans that covered a set of uniform benefits along with additional benefits that could be bargained and paid for, such as orthodontics. However, your notion of HSA's is naive, and would simply be another wealth redistribution by the govt from the middle class to the 1%.

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2012, 07:58 AM
no facts, just rhetoric. It is akin to the contraception "controversey," which is only a controversey to the radical right.

So extend your logic to it's natural conclusion. Despite the "Wall of Separation" we keep hearing so much about, if the gov't can force churches to pay for contraception, can it force the church to pay for abortions?

What's the difference?

pricejj
02-28-2012, 08:10 AM
We're in debt too. Trillions of dollars worth. Only it isn't because of healthcare. Its because of all of our other unnecessary spending.

The free market HASN'T worked with health care. Does it work for the upper class? Sure does, because they can afford almost anything. The middle class (what's left of it anyway) and the lower class have been screwed over by the health insurance companies so bad. I don't disagree with being able to CHOOSE your treatments, I just don't feel that the system as it is now is any good at letting the majority of Americans do that.

1. Military spending has increased $200B under Obama. If he were to end the war in Afghanistan right now, the FY2012 deficit would still be close to $1T dollars.

2. Previous to 1965 (Medicare Enactment) the healthcare industry was MUCH closer to a free market than it is today. Since then, healthcare costs have risen exponentially primarily due to the price-setting effects that government spending has on a private industry.

3. I am not promoting health insurance companies, however, if everyone bills their insurance company for every single medical transaction (tooth cleaning, routine check-ups, etc.), then of course their premiums will rise. Couple that with the cost shifting effects Medicare and Medicaid onto the rest of the population, and you have the high prices we see today. My dentist is attempting to charge me $273 for a tooth cleaning, so I will choose another dentist. Free market in action.

pricejj
02-28-2012, 08:24 AM
no facts, just rhetoric. It is akin to the contraception "controversey," which is only a controversey to the radical right. Though conceptually (-: I'd agree with you if workers and their families could simply choose from a set of plans that covered a set of uniform benefits along with additional benefits that could be bargained and paid for, such as orthodontics. However, your notion of HSA's is naive, and would simply be another wealth redistribution by the govt from the middle class to the 1%.

If I use my own money, to pay for my own healthcare, directly to my doctor...then the government isn't involved, and neither is the "1%". Making all healthcare spending tax deductible, puts less of a tax burden on me, and doesn't involve the government at all.

The simple patient to doctor transaction is the most inexpensive and efficient of all...no insurance companies, no government employees.

Why not have a set of defined-benefit insurance plans that anyone (banks, etc.) could administer? I guarantee you the plans with the least amount of administration costs would be the most popular. It's not like the insurance companies are "rating" individuals and making them pay according to health history (like car insurance).

Rohirrim
02-28-2012, 08:27 AM
I think you're missing my point. You're upset about bad things happening to good people while they were on private insurance, because private insurance makes decisions based on $$$.

I'm pointing out that bad things happen to good people on Medicare every day because their Government makes decisions based on $$$.

And making them a single payer monopoly would take away all other options.

No it wouldn't. Single payer would not automatically outlaw private insurance. Why would it? What it would insure is that nobody loses everything they own because of a medical emergency. There are many on the Right who disagree with this concept. They prefer the law of the jungle. If you fall, you die.

Funny thing. It reminds me of when I was in boot camp in the Army. If somebody fell, the rest of us had to pick them up and carry them. Even in the ****ing army we weren't so ****ing ruthless as the average Right Wingers. :rofl:

bendog
02-28-2012, 08:32 AM
If I use my own money, to pay for my own healthcare, directly to my doctor...then the government isn't involved, and neither is the "1%". Making all healthcare spending tax deductible, puts less of a tax burden on me, and doesn't involve the government at all.

The simple patient to doctor transaction is the most inexpensive and efficient of all...no insurance companies, no government employees.

Why not have a set of defined-benefit insurance plans that anyone (banks, etc.) could administer? I guarantee you the plans with the least amount of administration costs would be the most popular. It's not like the insurance companies are "rating" individuals and making them pay according to health history (like car insurance).

in large part I agree with you, but you are actually arguing that employers need not provide benefits and thereby increase profits, while workers will have the economic burden.

IMO, obamacare fell when Pelosi got to write the bill as a spending measure. There was room for compromise with federally funded tax credits that could be funded with taxing employers and healthcare providers. Then workers could shop for plans that fit their needs best, with cost differences, so long as basic care coverages were in place.

Your market place reliance also fails with the elderly and chronically ill because not only are they the least attractive to treat and least able to make informed decisions.

pricejj
02-28-2012, 08:39 AM
:bs:

You obviously have zero experience in our disaster of a health care system. I worked for ten years in a hospital, assisting the newly disabled, uninsured and underinsured with government assistance. I used to be amazed at how unknowledgeable people were, even about their own coverage, like the poster above. I can't tell you how many times somebody would come in, a family member of somebody who had just had a stroke, or open heart surgery, or a major accident, and would smugly sit there and say, "We're fully covered with..." this major insurance or that. Then, I would inform them that, while 80% of their bill might be covered, the remainder will cost them $150,000 or $250,000 (or whatever) and they would just ****. "How am I gonna pay that?!" They would scream.


I have worked in a pharmacy for over 10 years, so yes I have plenty of healthcare industry experience.

1. The costs are out of control. When you have the federal government jacking up prices, paying hospital's and doctors 15% of costs incurred, and allowing anybody from anywhere to go to the hospital at at will, forcing the hospital to treat them, and not holding the patient responsible for any of the costs...you have the system we have today. One of governments responsibilities is to make sure conditions exist in which a free market can flourish...that is not happening.
If the government would place taxpayer money into individual HSA's (for those who qualify), coming up with the deductible would be no problem. If people are signing up for plans thinking all they will have to come up with a deductible, when in fact they have to pay for the full amount, then obviously, more regulation is necessary.


Or there would be the guy who had been in an accident and was now paralyzed from the waist down and would say, "Well, I hate the government, but it looks like I'll have to fall back on it now." And I would inform them that , based on their work history, they could expect to get $1400 a month for full disability. They would **** their pants and cry, "How am I going to live on that?"

My answer is, you're not. And the further bad news is that $1400 a month is too much money for you to get food stamps. You're going to lose everything you own. You might even end up like the guy I saw yesterday on a freeway onramp, sitting in his motorized wheel chair, with no legs, holding up his panhandling sign.

Does that happen in the rest of the industrialized world? Why would it? They believe that people come before money.

1. The paralyzed guy you refer to would be paralyzed, either here, or in France. How much do you suggest the U.S. Taxpayers pay in disability, to those who are paralyzed if $1400 is not enough? $2100 per month? $5000 per month? My total monthly living expenses are $1200 per month, and that includes gas to get to and from my jobs...so I'm not sure what your dilemma is...

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2012, 08:41 AM
No it wouldn't. Single payer would not automatically outlaw private insurance. Why would it?

Why did the Canadians try it?

Simple. Because when the 'equal at all costs' crowd see certain people bankrupted because Medicare won't pay for extended care, while others could afford and purchased supplemental long-term care coverage, we'll be right back to where we are today."

This is why, in pure theory, I wouldn't be opposed to a basic floor level of coverage provided by the government. But in reality the "It's not fair" crowd will want to expand that coverage until everyone is treated like a billionaire who can pay out of pocket.

In the end, that just can't be sustained. If I thought the single-payer types understood reality going forward, I'd be more sympathetic. But then I hear pie-in-the-sky crap like "Let's take all the profit out of health care!" and I know it's nothing more than giving into a bunch of clueless "unicorns and rainbows"utopianists who think government writing nice things on paper solves problems.

In the end it would only make it worse.

pricejj
02-28-2012, 08:53 AM
in large part I agree with you, but you are actually arguing that employers need not provide benefits and thereby increase profits, while workers will have the economic burden.

IMO, obamacare fell when Pelosi got to write the bill as a spending measure. There was room for compromise with federally funded tax credits that could be funded with taxing employers and healthcare providers. Then workers could shop for plans that fit their needs best, with cost differences, so long as basic care coverages were in place.

Your market place reliance also fails with the elderly and chronically ill because not only are they the least attractive to treat and least able to make informed decisions.

1. Actually, I believe health insurance should be totally untied from the workplace. The people would be much better off if federal healthcare spending went directly to the individual's HSA, instead of towards tax credits for the company the individual works for.

2. For the elderly, federal HSA contributions to cover the individual's deductible and premiums, would put a cap on taxpayer liability, and remove any out of pocket costs for those who qualify.

3. If you are chronically ill and unable to work, then you are already covered under Medicaid. If you are chronically ill, and able to work, then you shouldn't be excluded from any set benefit plan that you choose. Of course, since you are able to work, you will be responsible for coming up with the deductible yourself.

Rohirrim
02-28-2012, 08:57 AM
I have worked in a pharmacy for over 10 years, so yes I have plenty of healthcare industry experience.

1. The costs are out of control. When you have the federal government jacking up prices, paying hospital's and doctors 15% of costs incurred, and allowing anybody from anywhere to go to the hospital at at will, forcing the hospital to treat them, and not holding the patient responsible for any of the costs...you have the system we have today. One of governments responsibilities is to make sure conditions exist in which a free market can flourish...that is not happening.
If the government would place taxpayer money into individual HSA's (for those who qualify), coming up with the deductible would be no problem. If people are signing up for plans thinking all they will have to come up with a deductible, when in fact they have to pay for the full amount, then obviously, more regulation is necessary.



1. The paralyzed guy you refer to would be paralyzed, either here, or in France. How much do you suggest the U.S. Taxpayers pay in disability, to those who are paralyzed if $1400 is not enough? $2100 per month? $5000 per month? My total monthly living expenses are $1200 per month, and that includes gas to get to and from my jobs...so I'm not sure what your dilemma is...

In the particular example I used, the guy had been making $6000 per month, had a mortgage, a wife, and three kids. He was not going to continue to sustain that lifestyle. He only gets $1400 (which is near the top in benefits) because he had enough years at that income. A guy making only $1200 per month and becoming disabled would get considerably less. Probably more like $600 or $700. Maybe even less than that.

As far as cost controls go, like I keep saying, the basis of our system is that anybody with an medical emergency will receive treatment whether they can pay or not. The entire system has to be jerry-rigged to adjust to that reality. Anybody who argues that placing a billion dollar insurance industry between the patient and the doctor does not affect cost is living in dreamland.

Rohirrim
02-28-2012, 08:58 AM
1. Actually, I believe health insurance should be totally untied from the workplace. The people would be much better off if federal healthcare spending went directly to the individual's HSA, instead of towards tax credits for the company the individual works for.

2. For the elderly, federal HSA contributions to cover the individual's deductible and premiums, would put a cap on taxpayer liability, and remove any out of pocket costs for those who qualify.

3. If you are chronically ill and unable to work, then you are already covered under Medicaid. If you are chronically ill, and able to work, then you shouldn't be excluded from any set benefit plan that you choose. Of course, since you are able to work, you will be responsible for coming up with the deductible yourself.

Most people who receive SSDI are deemed over income for Medicaid.

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2012, 09:22 AM
There's one example I remember of a situation I witnessed in an ICU.

There was a patient who was on Medicare and she was near the end. Everyone knew it. She'd been diagnosed with congestive heart failure but was in ICU because she had declined a little faster than they anticipated. I'm sure tens of thousands of dollars were spent.

Anyway, in the end, she died in ICU, but the doctor was curious about what might've brought this on faster than he had expected. So he told the family that for reasons of family history he wouldn't mind ordering an autopsy to figure out what was going on.

The family was fine with this idea. Said go ahead and didn't ask any questions. Then a few minutes later a nurse came in and told them that the Doctor forgot to mention that Medicare wouldn't pay for the procedure and it would cost them something along the lines $1500 to have it done.

Suddenly the family was much less interested in the procedure. But when someone else was cutting the check, money was no object, even for a patient that was already gone. But as soon as it's their money, decisions change in a hurry.

This, in a nutshell, is what's broken with health care. And why government systems always end up with wait times and rations.

pricejj
02-28-2012, 09:26 AM
A few basic facts about Singapore's healthcare system:

1. Healthcare spending goes directly into individual HSA accounts - Much like the private insurance system in the U.S, healthcare funds are deducted from employee paychecks, with an employer match. However, these funds are placed directly into individual spending accounts which can be used by the entire family.

2. In the U.S., all healthcare paycheck deductions either go directly to the federal government (Medicare 1.45%), directly to the state for Medicaid (4.63%), or directly to the insurance company (premiums) - NONE of the employer $'s, or the employee $'s goes into employee accounts, unless the employee witholds EXTRA from their paycheck to place into an HSA account.

3. No medical service is provided free of charge, to prevent overutilization of healthcare services. - Unlike the Socialist dream of "free" everything, where healthcare is rationed due to unlimited overutilization, by those not necessarily in need, and due to costs which rise faster than inflation.

4. There are 3 levels of subsidy - Costs are incurred by the individual, even with the largest subsidy. The most inexpensive subsidy for the individual is basically nonexistent, and people are treated like private patients.

5. For the most part the government does not directly regulate the costs of private medical care. - These costs are largely subject to market forces, and vary enormously within the private sector, depending on the medical specialty and service provided.

6. The Singapore government only spends 3%-4% of GDP on healthcare. - In the U.S., the government spends approximately 7.5% on healthcare, while costs continue to spiral out of control for individuals.



Singapore has PROVEN that placing federal healthcare funding into individual HSA accounts (that can be used by the whole family), and facilitating a free market healthcare system...is paramount towards achieving an inexpensive, and efficient healthcare system.

bendog
02-28-2012, 09:32 AM
1. Actually, I believe health insurance should be totally untied from the workplace. The people would be much better off if federal healthcare spending went directly to the individual's HSA, instead of towards tax credits for the company the individual works for.

2. For the elderly, federal HSA contributions to cover the individual's deductible and premiums, would put a cap on taxpayer liability, and remove any out of pocket costs for those who qualify.

3. If you are chronically ill and unable to work, then you are already covered under Medicaid. If you are chronically ill, and able to work, then you shouldn't be excluded from any set benefit plan that you choose. Of course, since you are able to work, you will be responsible for coming up with the deductible yourself.

I agree more than I disagree. In general I really agree with you that the inefficiency in our health care system stems from people being rewarded for obtaining and delivering more and more pay for individual diagnosis. There is no incentive to be efficient. However, in a perfect world there would be treatment everyone gets, such as cancer screeing ... and contraception for those not wanting to procreate at a given time. Things we know will save money if people use them. And there has to be a mandate that makes all people have access to stuff like getting treatment for cancer or strokes. **** that happens and **** that is expensive.

Germany's model has a base set of services, and then has workers, employers, docs and insurors all banding together to devise "supplemental" plans that better fit needs. And in some systems, if a person does not utilize the supplemental stuff, they get a check for their unused share.

But the democrats have dreamed for nearly a century about medicare for all.

pricejj
02-28-2012, 09:47 AM
I agree more than I disagree. In general I really agree with you that the inefficiency in our health care system stems from people being rewarded for obtaining and delivering more and more pay for individual diagnosis. There is no incentive to be efficient. However, in a perfect world there would be treatment everyone gets, such as cancer screeing ... and contraception for those not wanting to procreate at a given time. Things we know will save money if people use them. And there has to be a mandate that makes all people have access to stuff like getting treatment for cancer or strokes. **** that happens and **** that is expensive.

Germany's model has a base set of services, and then has workers, employers, docs and insurors all banding together to devise "supplemental" plans that better fit needs. And in some systems, if a person does not utilize the supplemental stuff, they get a check for their unused share.

But the democrats have dreamed for nearly a century about medicare for all.

I generally agree with you, but I don't think I should be forced to pay for designer birth control's that other people choose. Trinessa, Sprintec (and a few others) cost $9 at King Soopers. Nuvaring, and many of the brand names cost up to $80 per month. My wife and I don't use birth control, we have been together a couple years, and we don't plan on having our first child together for a few more years. There is no reason I should be forced to pay for anyone elses purchasing choice. $9 is not too much to pay. If you want to be on an insurance plan that will get you $80 birth control for $10, then you can pay for that plan...don't force me to. Never before has the federal government forced a private company to offer a product at a set price ("free"). Why not force insurance companies to offer all "preventative" medecine for free (Antiboitics, pain killers, anti-depressants, blood pressure meds, cholesterol meds, condoms)? I highly disagree that it is "cheaper" to the society-at-large to pay for "free" birth control. If someone can't afford $9, they can already get it for "free" at Planned Parenthood. That hasn't stopped the Medicaid and welfare rolls from expanding.

bendog
02-28-2012, 09:56 AM
I generally agree with you, but I don't think I should be forced to pay for designer birth control's that other people choose. Trinessa, Sprintec (and a few others) cost $9 at King Soopers. Nuvaring, and many of the brand names cost up to $80 per month. My wife and I don't use birth control, we have been together a couple years, and we don't plan on having our first child together for a few more years. There is no reason I should be forced to pay for anyone elses purchasing choice. $9 is not too much to pay. If you want to be on an insurance plan that will get you $80 birth control for $10, then you can pay for that plan...don't force me to. Never before has the federal government forced a private company to offer a product at a set price ("free"). Why not force insurance companies to offer all "preventative" medecine for free (Antiboitics, pain killers, anti-depressants, blood pressure meds, cholesterol meds, condoms)? I highly disagree that it is "cheaper" to the society-at-large to pay for "free" birth control. If someone can't afford $9, they can already get it for "free" at Planned Parenthood. That hasn't stopped the Medicaid and welfare rolls from expanding.

It is proven that paying for "free" pills reduce the overall cost of healthcare. It's not debateable. Your free speech, or economic rights, or religious beliefs stop where my pocket begins. I realize you seek more or less a libertarian approach to healthcare where every person bears the cost themselves, with some govt assistance in transfer of tax benefits. However, in reality, the libertarian notion is never realized. For better or worse, we're all in one boat.

gyldenlove
02-28-2012, 09:59 AM
A few basic facts about Singapore's healthcare system:

1. Healthcare spending goes directly into individual HSA accounts - Much like the private insurance system in the U.S, healthcare funds are deducted from employee paychecks, with an employer match. However, these funds are placed directly into individual spending accounts which can be used by the entire family.

2. In the U.S., all healthcare paycheck deductions either go directly to the federal government (Medicare 1.45%), directly to the state for Medicaid (4.63%), or directly to the insurance company (premiums) - NONE of the employer $'s, or the employee $'s goes into employee accounts, unless the employee witholds EXTRA from their paycheck to place into an HSA account.

3. No medical service is provided free of charge, to prevent overutilization of healthcare services. - Unlike the Socialist dream of "free" everything, where healthcare is rationed due to unlimited overutilization, by those not necessarily in need, and due to costs which rise faster than inflation.

4. There are 3 levels of subsidy - Costs are incurred by the individual, even with the largest subsidy. The most inexpensive subsidy for the individual is basically nonexistent, and people are treated like private patients.

5. For the most part the government does not directly regulate the costs of private medical care. - These costs are largely subject to market forces, and vary enormously within the private sector, depending on the medical specialty and service provided.

6. The Singapore government only spends 3%-4% of GDP on healthcare. - In the U.S., the government spends approximately 7.5% on healthcare, while costs continue to spiral out of control for individuals.



Singapore has PROVEN that placing federal healthcare funding into individual HSA accounts (that can be used by the whole family), and facilitating a free market healthcare system...is paramount towards achieving an inexpensive, and efficient healthcare system.

You know the biggest reason Singapore has such low expenditure on health care is that they use government enforced price control - proving that you can't have free market healthcare for cheap.

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2012, 10:22 AM
It is proven that paying for "free" pills reduce the overall cost of healthcare. It's not debateable. Your free speech, or economic rights, or religious beliefs stop where my pocket begins. I realize you seek more or less a libertarian approach to healthcare where every person bears the cost themselves, with some govt assistance in transfer of tax benefits. However, in reality, the libertarian notion is never realized. For better or worse, we're all in one boat.

And since fresh fruit is good for people. Free fresh fruit.
Fiber in your diet? Free breakfast cereal.
Broccoli's good for you. Free veggies.
Exercise is good. Mandated morning calisthenics programs.
I get eczema sometimes. Gummint should pay for my water softener.
I can't pay taxes if I don't have a car to go to work. Free car mandate.

pricejj
02-28-2012, 10:24 AM
You know the biggest reason Singapore has such low expenditure on health care is that they use government enforced price control - proving that you can't have free market healthcare for cheap.

"The government regularly adjusts policies to actively regulate the supply and prices of healthcare services in the country in an attempt to keep costs in check. However, for the most part the government does not directly regulate the costs of private medical care."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore

Drug reimportation would go a long way towards keeping prices in check...too bad it has voted down in the Democrat congress several times.

Is there a role for government in regulating the healthcare industry? Yes. Healthcare providers, and drug companies should be prevented from price-gouging, just like any other industry where a monopoly exists. Is governments ideal role to be the "single-payor" for all medical transactions? No.

Bronco Yoda
02-28-2012, 10:29 AM
Another thing we subsidize the world on is Pharmaceuticals. Most countries now have price controls in some form or another.

Of course somebody has to pay for the R&D and needed innovation in the drug industry. And guess who that is.... Americans. We almost single-handedly bare the brunt of these costs.

You and I are funding cheap drugs for the rest of the world.

That One Guy
02-28-2012, 10:32 AM
Another thing we subsidize the world on is Pharmaceuticals. Most countries now have price controls in some form or another.

Of course somebody has to pay for the R&D and needed innovation in the drug industry. And guess who that is.... Americans. We almost single-handedly bare the brunt of these costs.

You and I are funding cheap drugs for the rest of the world.

Interesting. Never thought of that one.

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2012, 10:34 AM
Another thing we subsidize the world on is Pharmaceuticals. Most countries now have price controls in some form or another.

Of course somebody has to pay for the R&D and needed innovation in the drug industry. And guess who that is.... Americans. We almost single-handedly bare the brunt of these costs.

You and I are funding cheap drugs for the rest of the world.

Yeah, that's why lifting import bans would spread the cost out more evenly.

Pfizer's not going to cut Canada any sweetheart deals knowing half those pills will end up back in the US undercutting the market. So they'll price the drug more evenly around the world.

pricejj
02-28-2012, 10:35 AM
It is proven that paying for "free" pills reduce the overall cost of healthcare. It's not debateable. Your free speech, or economic rights, or religious beliefs stop where my pocket begins. I realize you seek more or less a libertarian approach to healthcare where every person bears the cost themselves, with some govt assistance in transfer of tax benefits. However, in reality, the libertarian notion is never realized. For better or worse, we're all in one boat.

1. Show me proof that forcing all insurance companies to provide "free" birth control pills (at any cost) is more cost-effective for the society at large.

2. Your choice to purchase birth control, does not supersede my economic rights to my money. Not sure why you think my pocketbook exists to put money into your pocketbook. Isn't $9 cheap enough?

3. Not sure what libertarian approach you speak of. I realize there needs to be taxpayer support for healthcare spending, and I have outlined a somewhat successful approach used in Singapore, which places federal, employer, and employee healthcare spending into individual HSA accounts, rather than the pockets of insurance companies or government employees. I believe the U.S. could do even better.

gyldenlove
02-28-2012, 10:38 AM
"The government regularly adjusts policies to actively regulate the supply and prices of healthcare services in the country in an attempt to keep costs in check. However, for the most part the government does not directly regulate the costs of private medical care."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore

Drug reimportation would go a long way towards keeping prices in check...too bad it has voted down in the Democrat congress several times.

Is there a role for government in regulating the healthcare industry? Yes. Healthcare providers, and drug companies should be prevented from price-gouging, just like any other industry where a monopoly exists. Is governments ideal role to be the "single-payor" for all medical transactions? No.

Given that only 20-30% of health care in Singapore is private the limited price control of that segment is not that important.

pricejj
02-28-2012, 10:40 AM
Another thing we subsidize the world on is Pharmaceuticals. Most countries now have price controls in some form or another.

Of course somebody has to pay for the R&D and needed innovation in the drug industry. And guess who that is.... Americans. We almost single-handedly bare the brunt of these costs.

You and I are funding cheap drugs for the rest of the world.

You can thank the Democrats for denying the removal of the import ban on drugs. Just like the Medicare reimbursement costs in the U.S. (which the private sector has to pay for due to cost shifting), everyone elses "price controls", just jack up the prices for us. If you remove profitability from the Pharmaceutical industry, then there will be no incentive to create new drugs.

Cost shifting is fun, isn't it?

gyldenlove
02-28-2012, 10:40 AM
Another thing we subsidize the world on is Pharmaceuticals. Most countries now have price controls in some form or another.

Of course somebody has to pay for the R&D and needed innovation in the drug industry. And guess who that is.... Americans. We almost single-handedly bare the brunt of these costs.

You and I are funding cheap drugs for the rest of the world.

That is BS of the worst kind.

Of the 10 largest Pharma companies in the world only 4 are American, the subsidies you give to pharma companies is peanuts compared to what they spend on research.

pricejj
02-28-2012, 10:49 AM
Given that only 20-30% of health care in Singapore is private the limited price control of that segment is not that important.

Well, it is pretty ridiculous that I have to pay $273 for a tooth cleaning...not sure if that is due to cost shifting, price-gouging, or both...but it is pretty obvious that some price regulation for basic services could be easily implemented where it didn't strangle innovation and decrease competition. The healthcare industry has, in many cases, become a cartel.

Unfortunately that is not the route that this administration has taken.

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2012, 10:56 AM
I generally agree with you, but I don't think I should be forced to pay for designer birth control's that other people choose. Trinessa, Sprintec (and a few others) cost $9 at King Soopers. Nuvaring, and many of the brand names cost up to $80 per month. My wife and I don't use birth control, we have been together a couple years, and we don't plan on having our first child together for a few more years. There is no reason I should be forced to pay for anyone elses purchasing choice. $9 is not too much to pay. If you want to be on an insurance plan that will get you $80 birth control for $10, then you can pay for that plan...don't force me to. Never before has the federal government forced a private company to offer a product at a set price ("free"). Why not force insurance companies to offer all "preventative" medecine for free (Antiboitics, pain killers, anti-depressants, blood pressure meds, cholesterol meds, condoms)? I highly disagree that it is "cheaper" to the society-at-large to pay for "free" birth control. If someone can't afford $9, they can already get it for "free" at Planned Parenthood. That hasn't stopped the Medicaid and welfare rolls from expanding.

Or better yet, many people choose OTC contraception and will now be forced to pay for both other people's BC and then still pay separately for their own.

alkemical
02-28-2012, 11:29 AM
In the final analysis, the global empire depends to a large extent on the fact that the dollar acts as the standard world currency, and that the United States Mint has the right to print those dollars. Thus, we make loans to countries like Ecuador with the full knowledge that they will never repay them; in fact, we do not want them to honor their debts, since the nonpayment is what gives us our leverage, our pound of flesh. Under normal conditions, we would run the risk of eventually decimating our own funds; after all, no creditor can afford too many defaulted loans. However, ours are not normal cir-cumstances. The United States prints currency that is not backed by gold. Indeed, it is not backed by anything other than a general worldwide confidence in our economy and our ability to marshal the forces and resources of the empire we have created to support us.
The ability to print currency gives us immense power. It means, among other things, that we can continue to make loans that will never be repaid —and that we ourselves can accumulate huge debts. By the beginning of 2003, the United States' national debt exceeded a staggering $6 trillion and was projected to reach $7 trillion before the end of the year —roughly $24,000 for each U.S. citizen. Much of this debt is owed to Asian countries, particularly to Japan and China, who purchase U.S. Treasury securities (essentially, IOUs) with funds accumulated through sales of consumer goods — including electronics, computers, automobiles, appliances, and clothing goods — to the United States and the worldwide market.1
As long as the world accepts the dollar as its standard currency, this excessive debt does not pose a serious obstacle to the corpora-tocracy. However, if another currency should come along to replace the dollar, and if some of the United States' creditors (Japan or China, for example) should decide to call in their debts, the situation would change drastically. The United States would suddenly find itself in a most precarious situation.
212 Part IV: 1981-Present
In fact, today the existence of such a currency is no longer hy-pothetical; the euro entered the international financial scene on January 1, 2002 and is growing in prestige and power with every passing month. The euro offers an unusual opportunity for OPEC, if it chooses to retaliate for the Iraq invasion, or if for any other reason it decides to flex its muscles against the United States. A decision by OPEC to substitute the euro for the dollar as its standard currency would shake the empire to its very foundations. If that were to hap-pen, and if one or two major creditors were to demand that we repay our debts in euros, the impact would be enormous.

- Confessions of an economic hitman

bendog
02-28-2012, 11:29 AM
1. Show me proof that forcing all insurance companies to provide "free" birth control pills (at any cost) is more cost-effective for the society at large.

2. Your choice to purchase birth control, does not supersede my economic rights to my money. Not sure why you think my pocketbook exists to put money into your pocketbook. Isn't $9 cheap enough?

3. Not sure what libertarian approach you speak of. I realize there needs to be taxpayer support for healthcare spending, and I have outlined a somewhat successful approach used in Singapore, which places federal, employer, and employee healthcare spending into individual HSA accounts, rather than the pockets of insurance companies or government employees. I believe the U.S. could do even better.

I'm not sure I buy the singpaore model because beyond question the largest cost driver in the US is obesity, so dollars will never be equal.

However to answer your question. As I read it we both agree that as a society we have make some judgment as to % of gnp going to HC. I think our difference is that I was more in favor of Bennett Wyden which places the burden of finding a plan on the individual, though all plans would have to offer some common coverages. As I understand it, you would simply let individuals buy any treatment they thought was beneficial.

However, that allows individuals to make individual choices that may, or may not, benefit them, but will undoubtedly harm the overall society. They can choose to not elect coverage for some things we KNOW, as a scientific and econ FACT that cannot be disproved, save money. For example, if individuals make a choice to keep the money rather than getting a colonoscopy, a percentage of them will be more expensive to treat than had they gotten the medically accepted care, and overall that will increase the total dollars being spent of colin cancer than would have been spent had they gotten colonscopies. Then, they used up a greater share of the % of gnp than they should have, and there is less for those of us who made "the correct" decision.

Similarly, it's simply a fact that providing universal contraception for women, soem of whom are not in a relationship and don't use condoms, is CHEAPER than not providing it.

As a society we cannot force any person to accept any treatment unless they are legally proven to be mentally incompetent. However, we can make the most cost effective treatments available as broadly as possible, and we can mandate people buy in. (At least until the Supremes say otherwise, which I doubt they'll do)

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2012, 12:44 PM
That is BS of the worst kind.

Of the 10 largest Pharma companies in the world only 4 are American, the subsidies you give to pharma companies is peanuts compared to what they spend on research.

Where the companies are based is meaningless. Americans pay the R&D tab through higher prices while other countries fix their prices. If Americans could pay those foreign prices, Pharma would be much stingier in the discounts they give for foreign contracts.

pricejj
02-28-2012, 12:56 PM
I'm not sure I buy the singpaore model because beyond question the largest cost driver in the US is obesity, so dollars will never be equal.

However to answer your question. As I read it we both agree that as a society we have make some judgment as to % of gnp going to HC. I think our difference is that I was more in favor of Bennett Wyden which places the burden of finding a plan on the individual, though all plans would have to offer some common coverages. As I understand it, you would simply let individuals buy any treatment they thought was beneficial.

However, that allows individuals to make individual choices that may, or may not, benefit them, but will undoubtedly harm the overall society. They can choose to not elect coverage for some things we KNOW, as a scientific and econ FACT that cannot be disproved, save money. For example, if individuals make a choice to keep the money rather than getting a colonoscopy, a percentage of them will be more expensive to treat than had they gotten the medically accepted care, and overall that will increase the total dollars being spent of colin cancer than would have been spent had they gotten colonscopies. Then, they used up a greater share of the % of gnp than they should have, and there is less for those of us who made "the correct" decision.

Similarly, it's simply a fact that providing universal contraception for women, soem of whom are not in a relationship and don't use condoms, is CHEAPER than not providing it.

As a society we cannot force any person to accept any treatment unless they are legally proven to be mentally incompetent. However, we can make the most cost effective treatments available as broadly as possible, and we can mandate people buy in. (At least until the Supremes say otherwise, which I doubt they'll do)

1. I'm with offering non-mandatory standardized insurance plans...which pretty much exist today, albeit noncompetitively.

2. If you let people keep their health insurance dollars in an HSA, instead of paying the government and insurance companies, while at the same time lowering rates by allowing out-of-state competition, decreasing barriers to entry in the healthcare field, and controlling inflation. A large majority of the population will find it cost-effective to carry minimum coverage.

3. I dispute the claim that forcing insurance companies to offer "free" contraceptives (at any cost) to women is cheaper for the society at large.

4. I think the SCOTUS will find the individual mandate unconstitutional (10th amendment). All you have to do is look at Massachusetts to see that it is unworkable.

Bronco Yoda
02-28-2012, 01:19 PM
That is BS of the worst kind.

Of the 10 largest Pharma companies in the world only 4 are American, the subsidies you give to pharma companies is peanuts compared to what they spend on research.

Just thank us all for paying for your cheap meds and world police security and be done with it. :sunshine:

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2012, 02:24 PM
I'm not sure I buy the singpaore model because beyond question the largest cost driver in the US is obesity, so dollars will never be equal.

Better take that argument to Rohir for smackdown. Singapore has longer life expectancy than most his favorite places. Therefore their system is best. Any other demographic factors mean nothing.

Oh, and I think you just made the case for Employer-provided Slim Fast. It is my right.

pricejj
02-28-2012, 02:44 PM
It is my right for "free" lean fresh fish, "free" fresh brocolli, and "free" fresh pomegranate juice so that my life expectancy can be increased to the same as a woman. It is my right.

Archer81
02-28-2012, 02:45 PM
It is my right for "free" lean fresh fish, "free" fresh brocolli, and "free" fresh pomegranate juice so that my life expectancy can be increased to the same as a woman. It is my right.


Well, they live 4 years longer. We make $1 for every .75 they earn.

Fair is fair.

:Broncos:

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2012, 02:51 PM
Well, they live 4 years longer. We make $1 for every .75 they earn.

Fair is fair.

:Broncos:

True. And the gummint should start collecting higher taxes from women to set up a health fund for men, since women get to live longer on average.

Fair is fair.

pricejj
02-28-2012, 02:54 PM
Well, they live 4 years longer. We make $1 for every .75 they earn.

Fair is fair.

:Broncos:

Women have every right to forfeit most of their 20's and go $40G in debt to get a BSEE just like I did. Not to mention many more men have lost jobs to outsourcing/recession than women have.

I guess the moral of the story is, if your wife wants to be on birth control...pay for it...stay out of my pocket.

Baba Booey
02-28-2012, 02:56 PM
Congrats to Romney to winning Massachussets and all 2,000 of it's GOPers!

Archer81
02-28-2012, 02:56 PM
Politics = the death of a sense of humor.


:Broncos: