| Author | Message | ||
     Ft_bstrd |
You no read good. For BUSINESSES, the single largest itemized expense is taxes. Period. For INDIVIDUALS, the single largest impact on an individual's discretionary income is taxes (business taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes). We spend more per capita on healthcare because we have the money to spend, and we have more to spend it on. I seriously doubt other countries advertise the newest and best drugs on television like we do in the united states. Our lack of health has nothing to do with the system. It has everything to do with our lifestyle. I'm pretty sure we invented the all you can eat food bar, the La-z-boy recliner, and the Big Gulp. We are fatter than any other nation. This isn't due to our health care system. This is due to the discretionary income we have. Our poor are the fattest on the planet. There is nothing proposed that will increase the quality, decrease the cost, or improve access. The American people know it. The American people reject it. | ||
| Conchop |
This is so good. America consists of groups of competing ideas. It seems to be OK if the conservatives heap trash on liberals but turn around is heresy. I'll be your heretic. Even though I'm not a liberal, I am certainly not a conservative, I cannot agree with a lot of what you guys on the right say, the ethics of your presentation, not to mention your solutions. Let me throw another rock into your placid pond of right wing conservative love and togetherness. I raised a point which I think we can agree on. A return to majority rule in the senate goes back to the original plan. The need for a supermajority has proven to be contrary to the original intent of the founding fathers. What do I see as replies???? More right wing opinions!!! Want to see evidence???? Research and study it for yourself. Might just learn something! So much for intellectual discourse! Oh oh! I seem to be off message. We need to discuss things y'all are comfortable about. I better tune in Beck and Rush so I can become "enlightened" [LOLOL] | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
No. None of us could figure out what the hell you were talking about. I still don't understand your point. | ||
| Pso |
Conchop: I agree about the filibuster rule, and supermajority rule. It will huant any party that is in control period. I am also disappointed with the supreme court being so activist and legislating from the bench. I was hoping with the Roberts court w/ Aleto, mad man Scalia et al. that we could get away from such stuff that was placed upon us by the Warren court. | ||
| Hootowl |
Remember that the 60 vote cloture rule is exactly that: A rule. A rule imposed by the Senate upon itself. The majority party can waive the rule any time they want. To date, neither party has done so, because they both view it as a necessary tool for the time when, inevitably, they are in the minority. | ||
| Blake |
Why all the whining and personal attack? Impossible to simply stick to discussion of issues? The rest is just irritating nonsense. As to the singular issue raised amongst your diatribe, I agree with Jeff (Hootowl). I also suppose that were your political opposition in power in the Senate, that your tune would immediately change on the issue. | ||
| Madduck |
To any Democrat wishing for a simple majority rule in the Senate: Think Sarah Palin as our president and 53 Tea Party Senators. Now we could really get this country rolling. This is clearly possible. | ||
| Reindog |
Actually, all you need to do is read Glenn Beck's book, "Arguing With Idiots, How to Stop Small Minds and Big Governments". Glenn and his contributors offer counter arguments to the weird, misguided world view of the BHL. Instead of castigating Beck out of ignorance, read his book. You very well might begin the path of changing your mind about many contemporary topics. Seriously, check it out before hurling epithets. It is a fun read even if you disagree with him. | ||
| Moxnix |
Those on the Left who think they know everything are particularly annoying to those of us in the Middle and on the Right who do. | ||
| Sifo |
I raised a point which I think we can agree on. A return to majority rule in the senate goes back to the original plan. The need for a supermajority has proven to be contrary to the original intent of the founding fathers. Actually the original ideas was to strike a compromise that would get a majority vote from a number of political parties. Right now the Democrats are wielding their majority like a clumsy sledgehammer. This isn't the kind of majority that leads to good governance, but rather to tyrannical oppression and corruption. | ||
| Aesquire |
M2me, I quite agree that healthcare costs ( and other programs, like the Ponzi of SSI ) are, if not today, in the near future going to be the driving issue of all budgets. Socialized medicine, ( defined as costs & fees determined by the State, for this discussion. We'll skip the more authoritarian issues of where you are allowed to work ( if a doctor ) or what doc to see. ) has proven to be higher cost with worse results, in most cases. A doctor in a command economy job is going to have a quota for work, and that's bad. Being paid the same for working 70 hours as another who only puts in 40, or less, is not a performance incentive. See the first year of the Plymouth Colony for the real world results of a pre-marx commune. Now it's not that the doctor doesn't care, If he's a medicine guy, he cares about people. But would you work harder than the guy in the next office/cubicle/ward? When it gains you nothing? The result of that, and the ever growing Bureaucracy that human nature & government produce, health care has no choice but to be rationed. Always. I know you've heard great stories of American tourists in Canada getting prompt, efficient & FREE care in case of need, It's true. Canada's system is one of the best in the world, but it pales next to our current one, warts & all. If you are between 7-50 and in reasonable shape without genetic issues, you seldom need a doctor. most costs in health care are with the elderly. And half in the last 6 months of life! We are still the innovators & advancers of modern medicine in large part because the evil greedy pharma/medical folk have a vested interest in seeing us live longer so they can sell us more stuff. In a socialized medicine country, there is negative feedback on keeping the old alive. In Holland, they are very aggressive about increasing the drip on the morphine to humanely end expensive people. For their own good of course. Where I live, a guy with no money can walk into a ER with a heart attack, get very effective drugs pretty fast & even get stented in hours. Modern heart drugs have made bypass surgery far less common than 20 years ago, and survival rate is going up. In England you may have to wait days, even a month for a stent, and the drugs are just not as good. last I read ( could be off on this ) 35% of patients die waiting for surgery. So I'm against that solution. Now that guy who gets the heart fixed right away? He's got a mother huge bill he'll never pay. ( he's had a lot of help from the hospital at forgiveness of debt, but cost, for life-long medicine requirements are still a major issue in his life. Insurance is a good thing. Govt. already has a restrictive and controlling role in health insurance. That's about half the "real high price" we pay for health care. The way Medicare etc. are set up, docs & such are paid less than retail for their work. That means retail has to go up to compensate. Medicines are expensive. Because of 200 compounds tested in rats, ( 100's of millions$$) perhaps only 10 make to human trials, ( way more hundreds of millions ) and each of those 10 will cost a total of a Billion $$ to run through testing. Only 1 drug of 200 on average makes it into use. And profits for the company. That's about half the "real high price" we pay for health care. Then there's liability insurance. Each doctor has to pay 100's of thousands of dollars a year to keep a lawsuit from wrecking his life, even if he wins. That's about half the "real high price" we pay for health care. SO We need tort reform that does not screw people who deserve recompense, but cuts the need for legal protection for health care folk. We need insurance reform so that companies can compete in the marketplace, with the lowering of costs that gives, and eliminates bars to getting insurance for the "prior condition" people, etc. We need a system that gives health insurance to people who cannot afford it at the lowest cost to those who do, either by taxes or higher insurance costs. ( today it's both ) You must then eliminate Medicare/medicaid/other govt. health programs, since they will then be redundant. ( except VA & military hospitals, CDC etc, that serve a specific role ) I know that this "medical dole" is a socialist concept, but it's expected in "liberal" western societies, and one can actually argue that public health in general will benefit. Any suggestions on how to do these things that I contend would be good? Or do you disagree with any of my points? Be specific, and enlighten me please... | ||
| Sifo |
I know you've heard great stories of American tourists in Canada getting prompt, efficient & FREE care in case of need, It's true. Canada's system is one of the best in the world, but it pales next to our current one, warts & all. Seems Canada's leaders think we have the best health care in the world. "I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics." Medicines are expensive. Because of 200 compounds tested in rats, ( 100's of millions$$) perhaps only 10 make to human trials, ( way more hundreds of millions ) and each of those 10 will cost a total of a Billion $$ to run through testing. Only 1 drug of 200 on average makes it into use. And profits for the company. That's about half the "real high price" we pay for health care. And how much of this kind of research is even going on in socialized medicine countries? It is the need for profits that promotes companies to lay out this sort of R&D cash. The socialized countries better their medicine on the backs of the US companies that are doing the R&D work. Who will do this when US medicine is socialized? | ||
| Aesquire |
There are some European countries working very hard on new drugs, but mostly for sale to us. There is little incentive to use new, better meds in socialized medicine. I highly recommend the story "Positive Feedback" by Christopher Anvil. It's been recently republished by Baen Books in "RX for Chaos", a collection of short stories. Almost every story is a gem, Anvil is a master, and it's a good read, both funny and thought provoking. | ||
| Blake |
"Health care outcomes? We're mediocre at best." John, you are once again proved a liar who only cares about badmouthing America in favor of your pro-Socialist political views. Even the OECD, the very organization you reference though not one I'm sure I'd trust out of hand for reporting honest unbiased information, states the following: The United States stands out as performing very well in the area of cancer care, achieving higher rates of screening and survival from different types of cancer than most other OECD countries. Cancer is quickly becoming THE leading killer of people in America, nearly tied with cardiovascular disease which is becoming less and less a threat every year thanks to our amazing new treatments and technology. Ya think when discussing health care we might take a look at how we do versus the most prevalent threats to our health here in America and abroad? Ya reckon that might be pertinent? The United States stands out as performing very well in the area of cancer care, achieving higher rates of screening and survival from different types of cancer than most other OECD countries. But in the "Progressive/Socialist" world of self-delusion where America automatically sucks, when it comes to health care outcomes "we're mediocre at best." The truth is that America leads the world in Health care quality and technology. We have no rival. That is not without cost. More from the OECG...
So to recap, we have the OECD itself reporting the following: The United States stands out as performing very well in the area of cancer care, achieving higher rates of screening and survival from different types of cancer than most other OECD countries. But if you are a Socialist apparently that translates to "mediocre at best." We lead the world in curing and treating the top two killers of humans, cardio-vascular disease and cancer; we lead the world in availability of life saving technology and medical science and pharmaceuticals; we lead the world in health care research and education, but we are "mediocre at best." Unbelievable. | ||
| Indy_bueller |
But if you are a Socialist apparently that translates to "mediocre at best." That's what socialism is all about in the end. Lowering everyone to the lowest common denominator. Mediocre rules, excellence is out. | ||
| Blake |
The OECD report actually nails the reason for excessively higher cost of health care in America. They accurately report the following: This is one of the major reasons why costs are high: the US system leaves patients largely indifferent to the price eventually charged for a medical good or service. Those who have insurance know that their costs will be covered. Physicians know this, and furthermore have an incentive to offer services as they are, largely, paid on a fee-for-service. In addition, ‘defensive medicine’ due to the threat of litigation, gives a further reason why physicians might suggest an additional diagnostic test, even if the medical benefits are likely to be limited, and the costs of malpractice insurance pushes up the prices that doctors charge. That is what we need to address, the disconnect between the customer (patient) and the service provider (doctor/clinic/hospital). How to do that? Exceedingly simple.
Those four principles put into action would absolutely solve the problem of excessive health care costs in America. But they don't put more Socialists in power and massively expand our federal government, which is the true goal of the socialists. Freedom over nanny state! Give me liberty or give me death! | ||
| Blake |
Pictures are worth a lot of words, from the OECD itself: Survival rates for breast and colon cancer in America vs others & OECD nations on average  I'd hate to have to be subject to the Socialized health care of the UK or France. | ||
| Blake |
It's lie that cost of health care exceeds taxes. Not even close. Average total tax burden is roughly 50% of the average American income. Forgot to post a link to the OECD report referenced above... http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/34/43800977.pdf | ||
| Hootowl |
Historically, countries have counterfeited US drugs that were not sold to them on the cheap. This is the reason drug companies are willing to sell at a lower price off shore. This must be addressed in any price leveling plan. | ||
| Blake |
Could not the State Department address that problem by bringing to bear the immense leverage of American economic power. Is it really that big of a problem or are we talking about a minor factor? I'd sure like to know the statistics. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Thats a nice summary Blake. I think 4 may need a little more work, but it is on the right track. The other "real problem" that I would love to see managed is the theoretical ability of an insurance company to drop you if you suddenly get expensive. So they make you pay for risk until you get a bad roll of the dice, then drop you like a rock. I'm sure it's not as easy as that, but there is probably room for improvement. The other side of the coin of course is that individuals can't abuse the system in the other direction... betting they will be lucky and reaping the benefits of low cost / low benefit insurance... then buying better insurance after they know they need it. My life insurance solved this problem. I bought a lifetime mutual policy at the age of 23. I was paying through the nose relative to 23 year olds, and have been paying since then, but now at 40+ it is starting to get relatively cheap, and at the age of 60 it will be a smoking good deal. Maybe "banding" of plans (bronze, silver, gold) that vendors categorize their plans into. The plans would have mandated coverage and service levels. If you can demonstrate that you have been covered by a particular band (or better) for 90% of the previous 5 years, you can't be refused for another plan in that band from another company. But if you didn't carry the coverage, sorry, but you carried and own the risk. Being poor is dangerous for a bunch of different reasons, this is just one of them. | ||
| Spike |
Regarding the original post about rebuilding the WTC towers: http://www.pjtv.com/v/3115 | ||
| Conchop |
OK - then why is the USA's health care ranked 37th in the world? http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html That doesn't quite reconcile with all the bleating from the holier than thou right wing. What a pathetic ranking from the worlds richest nation. We can do better than that. | ||
| Rainman |
The best health care in the world don't mean crap if you have no access to it. I have four friends in their 50s who spent 20 years or more apiece working hard only to get laid off because they made the most money (no union so no seniority rules). Their cost for COBRA? $3,000 a month. They're all four working three part-time jobs, 12 hours a day six days a week to make mortgage, food and costs for their families. They and their families have no health care coverage and cannot afford it. They aren't indigent, so they cannot get free care. Again, what good is the best care in the world if you can't access it? Or do we really care? Maybe it's just their hard luck and, if they die because they don't have access to $300 antibiotics, well, that's just the free market working. (Political disclaimer: I voted for McCain in 2000 and 2008. I used to be GOP until they kicked all moderates out.) | ||
| Hootowl |
Read the report, not just the rankings. Look at the criteria. They aren't "percentage of patients cured of cancer" they're things like "Health expenditure per capita in international dollars" and "Fairness in financial contribution". That "study" is nothing of the kind. I can produce a report that says my toenails grow better than yours if you're willing to overlook the criteria upon which I base my findings.. And it's 10 years old. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Rain. I was in a similar position several years ago. For the full boat my previous employer offered, the COBRA premium (actual plan cost) was $1500/month. I bought a short term high deductible stop loss policy for $120/month. There is access. You just don't get the subsidized benefit package. | ||
| Sifo |
The best health care in the world don't mean crap if you have no access to it. I have four friends in their 50s who spent 20 years or more apiece working hard only to get laid off because they made the most money (no union so no seniority rules). Their cost for COBRA? $3,000 a month. They're all four working three part-time jobs, 12 hours a day six days a week to make mortgage, food and costs for their families. They and their families have no health care coverage and cannot afford it. I really don't see the problem here. They used to have top of the line health care as part of their compensation plan. They became too expensive to employ and had to be let go. We should feel sorry for them because they are unwilling to pay for top notch insurance on their own and feel too good for insurance that gets the customer involved in keeping costs down? They are in my situation. I don't feel for them. The platinum insurance plans they had are one of the reasons that the health care industry doesn't feel pressure to control costs. Don't get me wrong here, I have no problem with people getting the best insurance they can afford, but please don't whine when the gravy train has finally dropped you off. Just so everyone knows where I'm coming from I made good money with great benefits for close to 25 years in the computer industry. I got laid off some years ago and had to figure out where I was heading. It can be hard, but it gets easier when you accept that I am responsible for myself. Affordable insurance is available and would be more available if insurance companies could compete across state lines. That is one of the core issues that need to be addressed in health insurance. | ||
| Aesquire |
Can't stand those holier than thou right wingers myself.  I really respect the work the WHO does. Hard, dangerous stuff a lot of times. The statistics on that web site, though...I don't get the assumptions on a lot of the predictive stuff. # of muslims in 2050? Population projections? and the "health ranking" dates from 2000, so we get no feel for a trend. Is the U.S. doing better? in absolute or relative terms? I don't know. Hootowl, are you records for toenail growth peer reviewed? ( did the dog sniff them? ) If you buy ( if your employer "gives" it to you you just get paid less, so you are buying it ) a health care plan that covers accupuncture, aromatherapy, and breast ( or penis) augmentation, then expect to pay more. Duh. Many states make it mandatory that you pay for that coverage, use it or not. If you figure you only need coverage mostly for a few routine health maintenance visits a year, and in case of accident or unforseen health issues, ( heart attack, stroke, cancer, etc ) and never plan to get aromatherapy at a uber-high price, why pay for it? In NY you do, and have no choice. You can't buy Insurance from PA, since it's illegal in NY. So perhaps, just perhaps, we need federal regulations that permit a variety of plans to better match people's needs with more competition across state lines. Does anyone think that creating a new medicare system on top of all the existing systems in govt. is a GOOD idea? Please give examples. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Hootowl, are you records for toenail growth peer reviewed? ( did the dog sniff them? )" I peer over my knees when I clip them. Does that count? | ||
| Hootowl |
Note that I also did not define "better". That way I can draw my own predefined conclusions from the data. |
