Monday Open Thread
The House health care bill has been released. It creates an opt-in government health insurance plan, individual mandates to have coverage, and subsidies for poorer Americans who cannot afford coverage.
Sorry about the lack of links; I gotta get to work!
Submitted by stinerman on Mon, 2009-06-22 07:47
Tags:
Comments :
Goody.
Now let's see how it survives Senate markups.
I hope all you free-marketers out there are OK with corrupt inefficient beaurocratic unresponsive government competing with the best health care in the world*. I'm sure the self-employed and chronic sufferers will stay the hell away from this awful public plan and keep their $800/month premiums (premia?), huge deductibles and paperwork.
Because curing and preventing sickness and injury is just like wanting an iPod.
Geez, I'm heavy on the sarcasm this morning. Probably because of all the Baucus/Konrad mealy-mouthed nonsense.
* It's actually not, by any non-sociopathic measure. But let's play along with the phrasing for once.
Obama's evolving opinion
This diary
over at dKos provides quite an interesting summary of the evolution of Obama's stance on healthcare, from unequivocal support of universal coverage to clever deflection of queries about a single-payer option.
But of course, feel free (not you, specifically corph) to say it's all the Republicans' fault.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
It's not all their fault
but as far as I can tell all of them are at fault (except maybe Snowe). Economic conservatives have had their day and failed miserably with healthcare. It's time to give at least a public option a go. And so far nearly every R senator has come out against it with scary buzzwords and catchphrases. Even if I were inclined to support their ideology the jingoistic simplisticness of their leading voices would sicken me (and yes, I wasn't too fond of "yes we can" either).
Polls are saying what, 75% of the people wants a public health care option? It's half of the Republicans who should be the party defectors, not 23 Democrats who have refused thus far to cosponsor. If they want to be total cowards, they can at least pull a Robin Hayses and pretend to vote against the bill by pushing the "wrong' button.
It is the best care in the world
Provided you have the money to pay for it. That is why Canadians come here for some medical procedures; you can't jump the line in their system, no matter how much money you have.
If you can't pay, you get the bare minimum care that they legally have to provide and then they get you out the door as fast as they can, because they know they'll never collect on the services they rendered.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Americans Travel to Mexico for Health Care
Medical Tourism is catching on especially for dentistry. I believe you can get many medications in Mexico, over the counter, that you need a prescription for in the US.
So that traveling goes both ways.
Not sure about your statement on jumping the line in Canada. If you need heart surgery you don't have to jump the line. You go to the Dr. and then you go to the hospital. Non-emergency medical procedures might be different.
Pretty sure doctors in Canada make a decent living.
http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/People_with_Jobs_as_Physicians_/_Doctors/Salary
Bottom line, is do you think hard working folks in this country, those who work 40 to 50 hour work weeks should be denied health care?
If the public option is available the law of supply and demand will encourage more folks to go to medical school to become regular doctors, instead specialists.
People with good intentions used to go to medical school, to heal the sick. Now folks go to medical school to become specialists because it is the only way they can make 'enough money' to pay off their student loans, afford liability insurance, and be able to make a reasonable upper middle class living.
I'm only half stupid
Jumping the line
If you have a condition that isn't an emergency, you end up waiting awhile. If you don't want to wait, tough cookies. Obviously, acute emergency conditions are treated immediately.
I don't even think lazy, voluntarily unemployed people should be denied health care. We cover murders and rapists in prison. We cover terrorists (suspected and otherwise) at Gitmo. I don't think it is too much to ask to cover law-abiding citizens.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Yeah....
I think you have to wait for non-emergency type procedures in the US also. If you want a hip or a knee replaced, you have to schedule the surgery and there is often a waiting time.
I just wanted to clarify, because the way you worded your post, it sounded like *horrors* people weren't being treated for their chronic emergency conditions in a timely fashion in the Canadian Health Care system. I believe it is paid for with a sales tax.
As I am sure you are aware, we end up paying for the lazy, voluntarily unemployed people in most cases, because they go to the emergency room. The overall cost of health insurance is then driven up, by the under insured.
Our system of health care is imho irrational. The profit motive rewards insurance companies for denying care. It's crazy non-sense.
I'm only half stupid
We're agreeing
A friend of mine needed to see a specialist for a particular condition that might be cancer (we still don't know). This friend was told that the specialist was booked solid until September. Luckily the friend was able to get in a few weeks back due to a cancellation and will require a surgery in about a month.
I remember when they told me that they had to wait 5 months to get an appointment with a specialist. I said "isn't it great that you don't live in Canada where you'd have to wait months to get an appointment!". We shared a chuckle over that.
This friend of mine has insurance, but I know they will have difficulty paying for the procedure, as it can easily run to $15,000 and the 20% coinsurance is going to be a hefty hit to their pocket book. And if they have cancer...well, you know where that road lies.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Sad.....
I don't think people really understand the gravity of the financial burden of health care for a serious illness until it happens to them.
I'm only half stupid
Have you seen Michael Moore's film "SICKO"?
It's a good film, worth seeing, because it touches on the big problems with healthcare here in the United States. You might want to rent the DVD of "SICKO", if you can find it.
I have
It is very one-sided, and Moore has done better work.
There are problems with Canada's system and problems with ours. I don't think any serious commentator is saying otherwise. Frankly, I think the British system is the *fairest*.
If we went the route of Canada or Britian or whomever, we'd be trading one set of problems for another. However, I tend to think the problems Canada has are of lesser severity than the ones our system has. I'm sure I could find a conservative or two who would disagree. The disagreement would come from the fact that a conservative (or mainstream libertarian) would have different ideas about what a health care system should do and what are necessary trade-offs to implement that system.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Most Americans want single payer govt. health care.
n/t
Depending on how you ask the question
I happen to think the best tradeoff is an NHS-style system (the government doesn't provide the insurance, it actually provides the care) with *reasonable* deductables and/or co-pays. Obviously subsidies for the poor and infirm.
The nice thing about the NHS system is that if you don't want to wait on an NHS physician or dentist, you can go to a private one. IIRC, Canada has single payer and there is no provision for paying out of pocket. You must use the provincial health insurance and every doctor must take payment from that insurance. That's a bit heavy-handed for me.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I disagree, stinerman.
The single-payer system, which Obama and his Healthcare advisor, Kathleen Selibus, are both deadset AGAINST, is, imho, the best system, and costs the least. The healthcare plan that Obama's Administration plans to pass is sure to leave people inadequately insured at best, and in a position, where, if they become seriously ill or injured and require hospitalization and special procedures such as surgery, etc., will end up losing half, or all of any savings they may have because of it. Inotherwords, it's a good way to get people on welfare/SSDI and increase the roles. Obama betrayed everybody on this, as well as other things.
Having said all of the above, garbage is garbage, whether it be from the G. W. Bush Administration, or from the Obama Administration.
Hmmm...
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
I have no problem with the government getting into ...
the medical insurance game ... as long as they are disbarred from using any form of public revenue to subsidize their activities (including administration of the program), or use any form of legislative action to create mandates.
In other words, as long as they actually have to compete on a level playing field I don't care. I doubt that this is what they have in mind.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Is it just me
Or it is rather sad to hear Congressmen and Senators say "twEEter"?
Please send these geezers home next election. Please. They have no business making law for a world they no longer bother to understand.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Oops, oh my
I'm getting old too, this is what of I think when I hear "tweet."
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Oh my!
Don't share that with the good Senators. It would not be good for their blood pressure.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Getting decent healthcare in the Obama Administration:
Here's a suggestion: Don't hold your breath(s), because we're not going to get any such thing. Obama's lousy on the healthcare subject, and he hasn't even committted to STARTING to pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. While Obama didn't start all the stuff, he's allowing it to continue.
Moreover, Sebelius is dead-set against single-payment healthcare.
Such a shame...
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Krauthammer's an idiot
He wants an American president to insert himself into Iranian internal affairs for what reason? To make this into an America vs. Iran conflict? So that the Iranian regime could then have the extra ammunition of painting the people's resistance as a pro-America phenomenon? That would give them all the more reason to simply crush it. Yeah, great idea, Charlie.
Zbigniew Brzezinski
has this to say about Obama's reaction to Iran:
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Yeah...He's an idiot, and you're the genius. Hmmm....
He never advocated inserting himself into Iranian internal affairs, he just wants him to make a statement supporting the principles America believes in, not take some ambivalent position.
What would Ronald Reagan say?
...Oh, by the way, Brzezinski is the idiot... He's a favorite with the Mullah's
!
Or don't you read the Tehran Times?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Ambivalent position?
Here's what Obama said:
Yeah, too bad he didn't say anything supporting American principles. What a shame!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Oh ya right, in a cursory way, just before sitting with a...
...foriegn leader, he makes some off the cuff remarks...very moving.
Come on?
With people dying in the streets, and the whole future of the middle east in the balance, that is pretty lame.
Imagine if the Mullahs were gone, it would trnsform the whole dynamic of the region.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
What are you talking about?
My quote was from an official statement
released by the White House, not an "off the cuff remark." What exactly would you and Krauthammer have him say? Do you want him to explicitly take sides in the internal politics? Do you want him to threaten invasion if they don't straighten up? That's probably what a President McCain (***shudder***) would be saying right now. Egad.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
What, are you doing an ML impression?
Your "Official Statement" was taken verbatim from those comments.
Who's saying anything like taking sides on internal affairs, people rioting after being subjected to a rigged election is not "Iranian Internal Affairs", it is far from that, it is about making clear our support for those seeking freedom from the bondage of a despotic government, and being steadfast in the face of evil, it is the right thing to do.
In terms of taking sides, sure we should take sides, it is evident these people are being manipulated by a terrorist sponsoring, oppressive, corrupt regime.
But here you go on with your sophistic rantings alluding to invasions and the like, of course those tactics are just so typical of liberal fanaticism.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Rhetoric
What you want:
What Obama said
Again, what would you have him say, exactly? Is it just that the words weren't aggressive enough for you? You like the old "axis of evil" rhetoric, is that it? Well, standing against that kind of rhetoric is a big part of the reason that Obama was elected, so get over it. It is not what the American people want, and it is not good policy at all, imho. What do you honestly think would happen in Iran if the government were able to successfully paint the demonstrators as pro-American rebels?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Why shouldn't we take sides?
It's not like they didn't in our election
.
The only thing that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. That's just what Obama is doing. Nothing.
I don't want him to SAY anything. I want him to ACT.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4That's a fair point
What would you have him do?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
My good friend Kant
I think the disconnect is that you think we should do what is right, regardless of the consequences.
I happen to agree with that idea in most cases. This is not one of them. Allowing the hard-line elements in Iran to hang themselves is the proper course of action:
1) Moderate elements cannot be credibly painted as American Imperalist StoogesTM.
2) We don't have to expend any resources to overthrow a corrupt regime. Not to mention it is not our job to overthrow corrupt regimes. It is the job of the people living under the regime to overthrow it.
The Iranian people are not children we need to save from the big bad Ayatollah. They are big boys and girls and can do it themselves, when they see fit -- just as they overthrew the Shah back in '79. They did it then; they can do it again.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Sorry to burst your bubble, Spiritual Lefty, but
Obama's statement there, as well as his other speeches, sound little, if any different than what most politicians, be they Democratic or Republican would say. That's my take on it.
You haven't been listening
to John McCain, and a few others who are trying to put the President in a box, insisting that he is timid, for not 'acting'.
The neocons are drooling over the prospect of a war with Iran trying to push Obama in that direction by calling him 'weak'.
I'm only half stupid
Obama has been voting present as is his M.O.
But today he FINALLY tried to come thru and make some unequivocal statements on behalf of freedom.
When we're a week behind the french taking a stand on this, it's sad.
Well, better late than never I suppose...
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
He has said the same thing
since the start of the Iranian protests. How on God's Green Earth you have decided that what he said now is tougher than what he said last week is strange to say the least.
If you want to make an argument, then you shouldn't twist the facts.
If you believe in self-determination than I don't see how it is ethically consistent to advocate for government intervention in Iran, for the sake of liberating the Iranian people, when at the same time you are dead set against any type of government intervention in your own self determination.
To put it more simply you believe that the government should stick their nose in everyone's business when it comes to foreign affairs, but on domestic issues not so much?
Given how much you personally resent the federal government sticking its nose into what you perceive as your business. because we as a society should advocate for self determination, and paying for your neighbors for the sake of the greater good is too much to ask, well, that seems like a huge contradiction.
I'm only half stupid
He did use a couple of new words
"Appalled" and "outraged." If that's all it takes to make the Republicans happy, then it's fine by me. I was fine with the concern and mourning, and the explicit statements of what was wrong with what the Iranian government was doing, but real Americans like them actiony words better, I guess.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Sitting, in an unrelated photo op, making some casual comments
...and standing at the official podium behind the seal of the POTUS emblazoned on it, using the tone, terminology and emphasis he used yesterday, are decisively two different things.
At least to the discerning observer who appreciates the stratagem involved in foreign policy.
(...and the people being beaten, imprisoned, and murdered by the Mullahs by snipers on rooftops in Tehran.)
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
and people being beaten and murdered
in Peru, China, Nepal, Thailand, Africa, Darfur, Somalia.
Where do you draw the line? Why stop with the Iranians, or is your concern exclusive to just the country of Iran.
I'm only half stupid
You are just like that teacher in Charlie Brown....
....wah wah waaah, wah wah, waah waah waaah...
Not to mention your sense of foriegn policy is about as acute as a bowling ball.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
You are just like
a person without an answer, who can't defend their position.
There is no substance in your answer, except mockery.
I'm only half stupid
Again, I disagree with you, missliberties.
One doesn't have to be constantly watching and listening to the news to be aware of what's going on.
I saw the writing on the wall well prior to last fall's POTUS Election, when, while still a Senator, Obama voted for the FISA Bill, which would expand the powers to illegally spy on ordinary American citizens, and to continue funding our war on Iraq, even AFTER having gone on record as opposing our Iraq war. I was sort of leaning towards Obama until that point, at which point I figured that no matter which one of the POTUS Candidates got in, we'd continue to get screwed. I don't think I'm wrong.
You see no difference
between John McCain and Obama.
That's a bit hard to swallow. McCain would have already invaded Iran and North Korea, if he held true to his rhetoric, we would be headed for another World War. McCain solutions always involve military force.
I'm only half stupid
He's lying. It is a hollow statement from him.
What is he doing to "stand with them"? Nothing. He's gonna let them be slaughtered.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4He's going to 'let them'?
What are your motives for this over the top saber rattling?
Is it for the greater good of the Iranian people, the national interests of the US, or is your motivation more devious. I seriously question your motives.
I suppose he could have continued along the path of the past with a policy of total disengagement and maintained the status quo and the world would not know that the people of Iran want to join with the rest of the world.
The right wing in Iran is making up the same kind of hysterical rhetoric, misrepresenting the position of the demonstrators for political gain, much the same way you are misrepresenting Obama's intentions.
I'm only half stupid
Krauty
You obviously aren't counting all the time Krauty has called for us to invade/bomb Iran.
probably something along the lines of "Help! Help! I'm trapped in this box!"
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
On Revolution
I don't have any problem with us taking sides, so long as our soldiers aren't in harms way.
We can (and should) provide dissident, democratic elements in other countries financial and military support. This is, of course, if the country isn't Iran.
They hate us enough over there. We already overthrew their government once, so any intervention on our part will remind them of the 1951 coup. We need to stay hands off on this one.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Gov. Mark Sanford, MIA
Gov Sanford reportedly has decided he needed time alone to write something, away from the distraction of his wife and kids. He has not had contact with his family since Thursday.
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/836552.html
Sanford’s last known whereabouts had been near Atlanta because a mobile telephone tower picked up a signal from his phone, authorities said. His office now knows where he is, Adams said.
The governor’s office issued a statement Monday afternoon: "Gov. Sanford is taking some time away from the office this week to recharge after the stimulus battle and the legislative session, and to work on a couple of projects that have fallen by the wayside. We are not going to discuss the specifics of his travel arrangements or his security arrangements."
I'm only half stupid
Just imagine Nancy Pelosi
leaving her home in a black suburban, the Thursday before Mother's Day, and not telling her family where she was.
Then imagine that her staff claimed she was hiking the John Muir trail, to clear her head and do some writing.
Then imagine that instead of hiking, she was actually in Brazil, claiming she needed time to clear her head, and was touring on the Brazilian highway, alone, to think. Then you find out the Brazilian highway is exactly two miles long.
I frankly don't see how Mark Sanford survives this 'incident' with any credibility left in tact.
I predict that he will retire early as Governor and relocate himself to his beloved Argentina, where he can take long drives on that wonderful two mile stretch of roadway.
The right wing would be ruthless in it's assault on Nancy Pelosi, in spite of their claims at compassionate conservatism.
I'm only half stupid
God is Moody
An interesting interview with Robert Wright, describing the changes in God's moods changes and ties it to materialism geopolitical events.
http://www.salon.com/env/atoms_eden/2009/06/24/evolution_of_god/
I'm only half stupid
I forgive you Mark Sanford
for being human and applaud you for your courage to face the press with the difficult details of your personal life even though I still think your political ideology is rotten eggs.
I do think for his own mental health and for the sake of his state of South Carolina, Mark Sanford should resign as Governor.
I'm only half stupid
I'd forgive him too... if he wasn't a pious "Promise Keeper"
...who wants to legislate "family values" on the rest of us (while secretly, hypocritically, ignoring them).
The sooner the GOP abandons their puritanical need to legislate what other consenting adults can do, the better.
This is another nail in the coffin for that part of their platform. And that's good for America.
I survived the Bush Administration
His position is evolving....
and hopefully he will come to a place of more tolerance in his personal views. If he doesn't perhaps it will lead the religious right in that direction.
I really do wish folks would learn that you can't judge a man until you walk a mile in his shoes. That goes for the right smelling Monica Lewinski's underwear, and it goes for the left's sanctimonious vengance for those who fall from grace.
ON a political level the hypocrisy is stunning. ON a personal level, well we are all human.
I think moving to Argentina would be his best option.
As far as his platform for America, I personally find his political philosophy odious.
I'm only half stupid
Okay on that family values front
While he was busy denying stimulus money to folks that were unemployed in So. Carolina have a harsh impact on struggling families, was he using tax payer dollars to fly to Argentina?
I'm only half stupid
I wasn't aware he was
I thought he was Ron Paul lite. I think he was against the drug war, IIRC.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I'm stunned
You just can't make this kind of stuff up and have it be any better. Pass the popcorn.
However, the display of humanity does please me too. The emails are priceless. It's so Cage Aux Folles sometimes with the GOP.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I think its kind of sad
I am guessing that his wife is the one who pushed him into politics and was after the glory and the fame.
Sanford seems like a fairly humble man who isn't all that comfortable in the limelight.
I support men's rights too. A man or woman will often seek support outside of marriage if there is already trouble, and it does take two to make it work. So we don't know what a domineering wife may have turned him off over the years.
I'm only half stupid
GOP?
According to Fox News, he's a Democrat
! :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I don't know
Should he resign? Only if he thinks he can't carry out his oath of office anymore.
Should he be impeached? Nope. Censured? Yes, for leaving the state without letting anyone know where he's been.
The fact that he's been getting his pewter polished by someone other than his wife isn't of consequence in the political arena. It shows serious hypocrisy, but I've come to expect that of people with Ds or Rs after their names.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I think he should
resign, mostly because it looks like he is going to have a nervous breakdown, in other words for his own mental health.
Move to Argentina and have the kids visit in the summer.
I'm only half stupid
The government is bloated......
This tweetering quote from malacandra, is too good to pass up.
http://twitter.com/Malacandra/statuses/2312089606
Nice!
I'm only half stupid
The best reason for a Government option is it'll be cheaper.
You know why American manufacturing ain't happening any more? Business' here have to cover exorbidant health care costs. No other country in the first world does that.
Every one of you who has/buys healthcare pays not only for yourselves/families but also for all the people who go to the emergency room for a headache and don't pay the bill. It's common for some to use the Emergency room as their only medical option. They have to take & treat you whether you can pay for it or not.
Our trading partners aren't burdened by this. They cover their citizens. The UK spends 1/3 less per person as an average with just as good statistics.
I don't get that those who kvetch loudest about 'freeing' american business don't want to lower their costs dramatically. When the model is driven by for profit entities, you get the vicious cycle we have now.
but but but
if we have a public option and health care reform, every citizen will become a ward of the state and the collektive will eat you alive.
Never mind that if you have a drivers license, you are already a ward of the state.
The argument from the right seems to be that the world will literally end if we have health care reform. The sky is falling. The sky is falling.
Never mind that the cost of health care has doubled over the last decade and that businesses that offer health care can't give you a raise, because that money has to go to the insurance industry.
I'm only half stupid
Ya, it'll only cost 1.6 TRILLION +, we can pay for it with...
...with...um with...profits from GM...LOL...oh well, we're already basically bankrupt as it is, why not pile it on and go down in glory.
Please if you want UK health care, move to the UK. IT SUCKS!
You want lower health care in the US while perserving the finest standard of care on the planet, call your representatives and tell them to pass tort reform, because it is the enormous outlays health care providers must pay to protect themselves from fraudulent and over zealous legal actions that keep prices where they are.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Make a value judgement.....
Yes or No.
Do people in America deserve to have affordable health care, yes or no?
If the answer is yes, then you find a way to do it, because it can be done.
If you are going to nitpick and whine, and find every excuse in the book, about the cost of saving lives and preventing sickness, then your answer is no.
I don't see how you can be pro-life and anti-health care reform.
We already implicitly provide health care (or more aptly crises care) to all in the most expensive possible outlet: The Emergency Room
You or your employer end up paying higher costs for health care because folks that don't have it go to the hospital.
There is no tort reform involved in the simple process of giving people open access to doctors, that would prevent kidney failure and the hugely expensive dialisos treatments, saving medicare, and insurance companies billions perhaps trillions of dollars per year.
I'm only half stupid
ML, please do a minimum of research before you begin...
...your ubiquitous sophistic pontifiction.
Research Report
Congressional Joint Economic Commitee Policy Brief
JEC Study
Saving Estimates
JEC Study
Liability & Malpractice - Issues and Evidence
JEC Study
Relief For Business and Consumers
JEC Study
Impct On Cities and The Poor
JEC Study
Benefits and Savings
JEC Study
Improving The American Legal System - The Benefits of Tort Reform
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Yeah all those high insurance
costs, add to the overall cost of health insurance.
Bottom line, is you have to make the value judgement, that Americans deserve health care and proceed from there.
All I hear from you is 1,001 reasons why we shouldn't.
If Americans decide they want to make health care affordable, and provide real heatlh care for all Americans, then there are a lot of big industries that will have to make adjustments.
I'm only half stupid
You have heard no such thing from me!
Why do you talk so much junk?
I am fine with ensuring all Americans have health care, I just do not want the government providing it.
So lets see, Congress is broke, dead, flat, broke, and they have no idea how they will rob peter to pay paul in order to pay for this, we see Kennedy's version exempts congress from this nightmare because they already know what a crappy deal it is, Obama wants to, get this, tax our health care benefits - to pay for health care, they're going to reduce medicare payments to those who are already on the dole, they will force employers to pick up the tab for health insurance costs for low-income workers, will penalize those who choose care above the government standard...it goes on and on and on.
It's a very poor solution, the alternatives are preferable.
...and knock off the embellishment and distortion.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Who?
And just who is it you think will provide universal coverage? Certainly not for profit insurance companies. There's a reason they don't insure those people- they can't make money off of it and that's all a for profit business gives a damn about. NGOs? Where are they going to get the cash?
The only actor capable of providing universal coverage is the very one you don't want doing it. And why? Because of outdated and disproven theories about the inadequacies of government compared to private industry.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Idiotic
Dispel the likes of M. Freeman, Hayek, or Mises, I think not.
The free market has worked so well as to make America the leading economic engine on the planet for generations, whilst the government has failed utterly in every endeavor it has undertook outside it's constitutional role.
Education is amongst the worst among industrialized nations, SS is unsustainable and bankrupt, the Fed fiddles secretly with monetary policy, is printing money like Zimbabwe that will soon cause unprecedented calamity in the economy, the tax system and the IRS is one giant cluster f___, welfare has institutionalized generations of otherwise capable Americans, and robbed them of their incentive to participate in the economy, we're suffering through the worst economic conditions we've had in 80 years due to government meddling in the economy and social engineering, shall I go on?
But now we're entrusting that same government to run our banks, our insurance companies, and even GM. Ha!
Let alone them managing the most important thing in the world to me, my health!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
You again have it backwards....
Your claim is that the government is bloated, wasteful and ineffective, yet we see health insurers making the claim that they can't compete with the government???!!!
Private insurance companies are making huge profits by denying people coverage.
------ What you say makes zero sense _____
The government has failed at every endeavor (except for the programs you support), while out of the other side of your mouth you claim our form of government should be imposed on Iraq, Iran and any other country that wants 'freedom'.
The US is the best country ever, if we could just wipe out the government?
Just ignore that all this 'US greatness and wonderfulness' happened under our form of government, and ignore that the prosperity that occurred over the last 80 years, while the government that you claim is so awful was providing lots of opportunities for Americans to get ahead, with scholarships, affordable education, and all the other benefits that our country used to provide for it's people.
I'm only half stupid
Whatever, I'm so tired of your pathetic...
....mischaracterizations.
As I have told you over and over again, I do of course support our government, so long as it is constitutional.
There is a very good reason why the founders set the government up as a restrained body, but you are evidently too Obama crossed to understand any of that.
So be it.
Read Capitalism and Freedom or something, then get back to me.
Until you put forth a modicum of effort to understand what you're talking about, and stop with the dramatic misrepresentations of what I post, I think we're done.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
You can't handle the truth =)
I do understand what I am talking about. We have a difference of opinion.
And of course yours is wrong!
The thing is that IF the wealthy hadn't screwed the country in the years prior to the great depression, then we wouldn't have all this grizzly backlash against unethical business practices.
An over reaction to the great depression that imposed too many rules and seemingly petty regulations on business led to a backlash against regulation generally.
Now it swings the other way. It would be nice if the swings weren't so dramatic. Sensible rules make the normal upturns and down turns of the economy less steep.
I'm only half stupid
Ah, so you;re historically illiterate.
Gotcha. Now that we've settled that I guess I can explain some of these things you should have learned in school.
The US has never had a free market, nor will it. Actual free markets are inherently unstable and collapse almost instantly. What propelled the US to such dominance was a fortiuitous position in terms of natural resources, association with the last major empire (the brits), our isolation from serious enemies, and the fact that we are a young country and didn;t have time to build a lot of infrastructure prior to the industrial revolution. Whereas Europe had to figure out how to fit modern infrastructure into cities built for medieval purposes, we were able to make cities to match the modern world.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
At least my history is not redacted just to suit my agenda...
As far as our education goes, and the ability to retain what we were exposed to, it seems you payed a little too close attention, to the wrong people! LOL!
In terms of your pitiful lecture on the free market, I used the term liberally, just as Milton Friedman did, or any free market economist would when describing the American economy.
Your attempt at "educating" me amounts to nothing more than an intellectually insecure persons petty attempt at blogging one-up's-man-ship.
It failed miserably.
Though much of what you allude to is certainly true, it is merely circumstantial as opposed to being a factor in the actual causation of America's greatness.
The real root of America's economic predominance is the Constitution, and the freedom it ensures the free man to participate in the economy unfetter by government intervention.
Government never did anything momentous economically speaking, it did not invent the cotton gin, it did not cure polio, it did not develop the PC, or the automobile, or the airplane or little of anything else for that matter. It has been free men, who without the benefit of, or being hindered by government, acted as constitutionally protected free men do.
It has been only in times of an extordinary common national interest, as in during WW2, when free men came together to do great things for the country, (and as soon as they could then went back to their lives and careers), when government has done anything worth noting.
If your inadequate assertions were true, China, Mexico, India, Russia, much of Africa, or any number of other countries would have naturally followed our path, they have not, not because they didn't possess the qualities you claim, but because they lacked the founding documents that paved the road to greatness, the same documents we sadly find ourselves trampling all over today!
Well, now that we got that straight.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Yeah except
that the unregulated free market has been an epic FAIL, at providing affordable health care.
The alternatives haven't worked, and will never work precisely because of the profit motive. If your goal is to make a profit, by providing people health care, the best way to make a profit is to keep people sick.
I will say this again. You claim that government health care just *can't* work because the government is bloated, ineffective and wasteful yet the market based health insurance companies are claiming that they can't compete with a government run option?
The obvious conclusion is that the market based health insurance is even more bloated, more wasteful and more ineffective, if they say they can't compete with a (sloppily run) government plan.
I'm only half stupid
The free market never failed Missy...
Your beloved Federal Governments epic attempt to meddle in the economy as the social engineer is what failed, and it took us all along for the ride.
Well maybe health care will be different, huh?
NOT!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Really?
Actually seems like the free market has never succeeded seeing as how truly free markets implode pretty much instantly. It is only with heavy intervention that capitalism functions.
The most recent meltdown is traced to a housing bubble (a function of the market) and the unregulated Credit Default Swap idiocy (also a function of the market). Both could have been prevented with better regulation.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Double Wrong
That's hysterically and historically Wrong!
Enron, Worldcom, Silverado Savings and Loan Crises, the First Great Depression.
These were all the governments failures??
These are all examples of wealthy folks trying to force the government NOT to regulate capitalism.
Ultra Rich Unethical businessmen using their money and sway to take away the rules of commerce. That is exactly what the investment banks did in the Bush years. The rules were suddenly deemed 'voluntary' and the government institutions were neutered, with lack of funding and enforcement capability.
Markets need tempering because pure unadulterated unregulated capitalism has a down side.
Free markets don't care how old a girl is, because in a pure unregulated market system a nine year old can make a lot of cash, selling her body. That's freedom baby, with no pesky damn government intrusion.
Is it ethical for a nine year old to be a prostitute? Who cares. It's the free market at work. Freedom baby. No damn government intrusion.
Free markets don't have ethics.
I'm only half stupid
Please note...
I did not say there is anything wrong with being rich or making money.
The key word here is unethical.
I'm only half stupid
Tort reform
If tort reform is the solution to higher health care costs, then how come the dozens of states that have set legal limits on punitive damage have seen no health care cost benefit at all compared to states that have not?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
It's a component
Your observation is correct; Texas, for example, has caps on pain and suffering amounts, yet some cities have extreme Medicare costs. But tort reform is just part of the problem.
Doctors practice "defensive medicine" for a couple of reasons. One is certainly lawsuit avoidance. Which, if we go with a NHS-style plan, should be eliminated, IMHO, because the ability to sue the government for damages should be severely limited in a government-provided healthcare option.
The other reason is that patients demand it. We expect Rx's, tests, X-rays, MRIs, etc. We rail at our doctors if they say "wait 36 hours and then we'll see." We expect to be able to run to the doctor for anything and have it covered. Taking a risk or treating common conditions at home using OTC stuff seems anathema to our current attitudes towards medicine. For instance, there is no absolute proof that many common and expensive drugs and treatments are effective in prolonging or improving life. And most childhood colds can be successfully managed the old-fashioned way: at home, with decongestants and cough medicine, chicken soup, and Mom.
Our attitudes have to change, also.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Defensive medicine
Another reason that doctors will do this is because it makes them money.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
In most cases
However in the case of Medicare the fee schedule is barely enough to break even. I hear sometimes it is less than break even.
The reason it makes them money is because the person who pays for the service is not the person who receives the service. This is the part that the Republicans latch onto. They believe that if there is more of a market aspect (higher deductables, copays, etc.) costs will go down. This is a sound belief. However...
The end game of market-based health care is that people will be required to die if they cannot afford to pay for services. That's a corollary of a free market. If the market price for a plasma screen TV is more than you can afford to pay, you don't get a plasma screen TV. Substitute for heart, lung, or kidney at your leisure. Health care costs will go down if more people don't get service.
As we all know, the plurality of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. Needless to say these businesses are writing off these people as unrecoverable debt. Therefore they must charge the next guy even more to break even.
Then, of course, we have the problem that health care (much less health insurance) is simply not a free market. Price inelasticity is huge. Information about the products and services one is buying is skewed sharply toward the seller.
Capitalism is great when certain preconditions and assumptions are met. Adam Smith explains them at length in The Weath of Nations. When these preconditions and assumptions are not met, the free market system fails spectacularly.
There are two fixes:
Fix 1 is not palatable for the simple fact that we as a country generally believe that people should not die of an illness for want of money. Creating a free market in health insurance would necessitiate that.
So we have Fix 2. Full steam ahead.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Well, let's be honest
The reason any of us get up, get dressed, go to work every day, and put up with the stuff we put up with is because we need the money. Otherwise, we'd just head for the beach.
But the "piecework" aspect of medical care is part of the problem. If a doctor was paid a steady salary, he'd have much less incentive to order higher-fee tests, etc.
I don't know why we don't leverage technology better. Doctors (like lawyers) memorize a lot of *stuff* so they can apply it to the situation at hand. Machines can do that today. Why do we insist on keeping the 1950's style paradigm of "Doctor knows best" in the age of cheap and easy computing? Most of us can easily diagnose (and determine the proper course of treatment for) a wide variety of common ailments and injuries using information already available online. Britain's NHS has some great stuff online, probably because they are nationalized and are trying to both support and educate their citizens with everyday health issues. Skilled specialists and surgeons are always needed, but for basic healthcare, can we not be given more direct control?
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Yeah it's crazy
My husband had a lung scan, and paid for it out of pocket, even though he has insurance. Why? Because he wanted direct control. Going through insurance would have required a battery of tests and procedures that meet insurance company protocols, not doctors protocols.
The odd thing was his out of pocket cost without insurance was about $400. For the exact same scan, the insurance company's price was about $800.
I see the public option as spurring the law of supply and demand. There will be more demand for general doctors, so the supply will soon follow.
I swear health insurance companies have more influence and money in the US than god.
I'm only half stupid
Agreed
I wasn't trying to make a moral judgment or anything, re: doing it for the money. I was just trying to provide another reason why tort reform won't necessarily stop "defensive medicine" from happening.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
You remind me
Of the doctor I had to see for a work physical. He said, and I quote, that I was the "healthiest 24-year old in all of Sandusky".
That was on March 24th, 2008. I have not seen a general practitioner since then, and I had not seen one since 2002. So I'm going on 7 years of not seeing a family practice-type doctor. I'm in ship shape.
I will comment on one other thing.
I think most of us are ok. However many employers (not mine, thankfully) require a doctor's excuse for an absence to be excused. Even if all you have is a bout of the flu, you're expected to go to the doctor. "Yep, you've got the flu.", he says. You pay your co-pay and he bills you for an office visit to tell you something you already knew.
Really, you're paying for the note that the doctor writes to get you off work.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Nobody's referring to the common cold here, Purpleface.
There are certain ailments (i. e. cancer, leukemia tumours, etc., as well as various bacterial infections; i. e. strep, tuberculosis, to name afew) that really CAN'T be managed the old-fashioned way with chicken soup, lots of sleep and "mom", but must be treated with anti-biotics, chemotherapy and more expensive and intense drugs, not to mention surgery and/or hospitalization.
Of course
But, just to pick on the common one in your list --- strep. How often does a doctor actually bother with a culture to determine if the infection is really strep? 99% of them don't. They just write the script for antibiotics, whether or not those antibiotics will be effective, and move on.
The rest of your list doesn't fall under my defintion of "common" ailments.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Regarding strep:
Doctors can and often do take a throat culture, but they can often tell by looking at a patient's throat with a light and sees off-white patches, if a person has a wierd smell to his/her breath, or, for instance, a person has a high fever of 101 degrees F or higher, or all three of these things. My personal experience has been that a doctor will look down the throat with a flashlight, take a throat culture and then prescribe antibiotics for strep. It usually takes 24-48 hours for the results of the culture to come back, and, if the culture for strep comes up positive, then the antibiotics have to be taken by the patient exactly as directed, every single day, until they're all used up. Strep is extremely dangerous to take chances with, as it can and often enough will lead to dire complications in a matter of days, weeks, or even months down the road if untreated or inadequately treated. It's better to play it safe, which doctors often do in the case of Strep.
Please clarify
What particularly sucks about it? Provide examples. Do you think there is anything better about it?
Define "standard of care". Would you agree or disagree that all Americans receive the same "standard of care" regardless of their means? If you disagree, let me know if you believe that is a problem.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Which is less than it costs us now
it's just that the cost now is hidden by acting as a tax on employers.
Ultimately it comes down to this- do you think that the health of your fellow man is something to make a profit off of? Personally I say no.
The UK system is horrible for a government insurance system, and yet it is still substantially better than our system. Other countries have systems that are better models. Our system is enormously expensive, and yet delivers worse care than the median for and OECD country.
"Finest standard of care" should read "finest standard of care for those wealthy enough to afford it and really poor care for everyone else." If you think that the rich should be taken care of while everyone else suffers, that's your right, but I suggest you don't expect it to make a very good campaign slogan.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
A National Health plan would offer the same medicine private
plans offer for less. Standards of care in all the European & Canadian systems are just as rigorous as ours. Acute injuries are treated immediately. Same as here. It's the elective surgery that you get put on a waiting list. Even then though, they all & we would still allow you to pay cash to someone & skip to the front of the line. Same as here now.
So what you all who are against National Health really support is other faceless insurance techies & accountants come between you and your doctor for even more money...same as here now...
Nonsense
n/c
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Double Fake Out
This is just choice.
Those who promoted the War with Iraq claiming that Saddam Hussein had WMD, are now saying that Saddam Hussein was 'just saying that', not to warn the US not to attack Iraq, but but to fake out Iran.
Nice. So now 'they' finally admit that the US was fooled by Saddam Hussein false WMD claims but are using this information to suggest that the nation we really should go to war with is Iran, because Iran's has an arsenal of weapons, just like we thought Saddam Hussein did. Wow.
Saddam claims that if UN inspectors that discovered and announced that Iraq had no WMD, that would have left Iraq vulnerable to attacks from Iran. If such an announcement had transpired, claims Saddam, he would have asked President Bush to help Iraq defend itself from Iran. Just Wow.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/24/2009-06-24_former_ir...
IN other words Saddam Hussein fooled the US, but it was Iran's fault.
That is double speak on steroids. Using a dead dictators words to push the case against Iran, while at the same time making the case that the US attacked the wrong country?
I'm only half stupid
A number of us
pointed out that this was likely way back in 2002. It was also quite possible that Saddam genuinely thought they had a weapons program because his generals were too afraid to reveal that it had decayed into uselessness.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yes I remember
but no one in the media or in charge of the debate every mentioned this.
Now suddenly it seems as though 'they' are using this (not new) info to make a case against Iran.
I'm only half stupid