American Politics during the Obama Presidency

No need to get riled up fellas.

No one takes whats written on this board seriously. At least as far as anything non sex or Argentina lifestyle related.

That's just a simple fact. This thread is nothing but a rant thread for the right wingers. Let them have it. It's all they got left.

I Lol every time I hear Sid say Obama wants to destroy the US. He's a smart enough guy that he doesn't really believe that. But being sensational sells and he knows it. Only problem is, no one on this board is buying it, well except a few tards, but who really cares what they think?

Lets all take a deep breath.

Regards,

BM.

Sid--I enjoy your company and in person conversation--clean-up your act. It is a high quality act and you are better than this. MB.

Ps if sid is auditioning for a job on conservative talk radio is the usa because of recent trading losses, I take back everything--Everyone needs to make a living. I see Rush as an entertainer. Sid just follws walley's example and be more entertaining.

The last few post are typical attack the messenger tactics of the left. If you can’t defend your guys’ actions, attack the messenger.

If you don’t like what’s posted on this thread I don’t think you’re required to read it.

And if you don’t like what Sid post you have the option of putting him on your ignore list.

[QUOTE]I Lol every time I hear Sid say Obama wants to destroy the US. He's a smart enough guy that he doesn't really believe that. But being sensational sells and he knows it. Only problem is, no one on this board is buying it, well except a few tards, but who really cares what they think?[/QUOTE]I also don’t think we need personal insults and name calling. (of members)

If you want to debate then debate, but leave the moderating to Jackson.

Bob:

I wouldn't send my kid to an MBA program that doesn't include hardcore finance classes as part of its core curriculum.

I know you directed the radio host comment to Sid because you know I yearn for higher office, like governor of SC.

One man's monotony is another man's consistency.

I hope to see you in a few weeks.

[QUOTE=Sidney]As an example, when I resigned from my GM division, 12,000 were employed. At the nearby C plant, 6,000 were employed. As of early 2009, 2/3 of the employees were eliminated. And under O, they will decline much more! This senario is being repeated all over America. Buy that!----------------- Sensational Tard Sid-----------------[/QUOTE]I don't really want to stir the pot on this, but: When has it been the government's "responsibility" to prop up failing businesses?

Now, I realize that we have started to do this with the too-big-to-fail bailouts initiated by Bush and continued under Obama. I also think there's a good argument that some of this may have been necessary.

But, it should be the rare exception and not the rule. The preferred position should be no government intervention unless absolutely necessary, and even then it should be criticized and frowned upon.

We've proven for 30 years that we suck at making cars. I wish it weren't true, but anyone who has owned a Toyota or Honda vs. A Ford or Chevy can tell you this -- at least if they don't have a hidden agenda. So, let the Japanese and Chinese make cars. We're good at a lot of other things that they're not good at. Our child molesting singers make better music than their artists -- at least most folks seem to think so.

There will be pain in this whole business failure process. Let's get on with it. If the alternative is to have government propping up everything -- or propping up those with the most political influence -- then I say let them fail.

[QUOTE=Sidney]The Privado needs business or they will go out of business and all suffer. The AR government prefers all be working, not on welfare. They pay the Privado 50 pesos, you pay 100 pesos. All are employed, and you are happy! In the long run, the government is better off. OR the government could disparage, etc all Privados and put them out of business. Then you would need to visit other countries.[/QUOTE]Thanks, Sid, but I personally don't believe in such a system. The suggestion is that, if the government doesn't step in (or if it "disparages") then everyone becomes unemployed permanently.

Instead, I believe that people will eventually find a way to be gainfully employed as long as the government doesn't stand in their way -- e. G. By giving them handouts that create an incentive to stay unemployed. But, I'll go with your metaphor. This, in my opinion, is the true example of the privados: The government doesn't provide a sufficient handout to let everyone lay around on their duffs doing nothing. So, the pretty girls who can, do. And, since the government hasn't made their occupation illegal, they are able to earn a decent living.

Indeed, I think if you talked to the privado owners and to some of the girls, you'd find that the situation is just the opposite than in your example: Every once in a while a government inspector, licensing official, police officer or fire marshall sticks their hand out and expects the privado owners (and sometimes the girls) to put a little something in it. By so doing, they are allowed to stay in business. The subsidies aren't flowing the other way and they never have. I know you weren't suggesting that the government was subsidizing the privados, but it was your example. And, of course, there is then the small matter of taxes.

By the way, what is the "disparage"ment you refer to? If it's the government disparaging American car companies, I submit this is just a distraction. Our car companies' problems started long, long ago. No recent disparagement did them in. The government didn't harm them by questioning their viability certainly. That issue has been around for quite a long time. Likewise, it's not just American car companies whose sales are suffering. Talk to Honda, Toyota, BMW and Mercedes. They may be better able to weather this crisis, but their sales have likewise fallen off a cliff.

If disparagement refers to something else, then I'm just too thick to understand. I do appreciate your perspective, Sid. I just part company with you on this one issue.

Should be strictly limited to only those things that the government can (need some empirical proof here) do better than private industry. These activities would include standing and army and a limited few other things.

Taxes levied in the USA for the most part are extraconstitutional. The constitution limits what the legislature can do visa vi levying taxing on the populace. My question is, when is someone going to test the constitutionality of these obscene seizures of private property in the court system and bring the legislature back into check?

On the subject of government subsidies of privados, I'm all for it! Fuck yeah, let's nationalize prostitution! It is everyone's right to get fine ass at a reasonable price.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]On the subject of government subsidies of privados, I'm all for it! Fuck yeah, let's nationalize prostitution! It is everyone's right to get fine ass at a reasonable price.[/QUOTE]I am against nationalization of prostitution, now, with privados in private hands you get fine ass, of young age at affordable prices. Plain and simple: supply and demand.

If they are nationalized, then you will have to fill a form to get your service, get 4 copies, deliver it to the madam 72 hours prior to your service, naturally you will have to bribe her in order to get someone who is not older than 55 and with a waist smaller than 120 cm. Actually the new measurements of the "social workers" will be 90-120-120 courtesy of the agreement of the legislators and the leaders of the "sindicato nacional de prostitutas, putas, jineteras, peteras, similares why conexos" (national union of hoes, putes, peteras and workers of similar and related jobs) which allows them to charge you $500 usd for 30 minutes and getting 2 days rest after providing you with her company.

BTW you will have to pay their vacation through the new "Impuesto especial sobre colas suntuarias" (Special luxury ass tax) which amounts to another $250 usd which will go directly to Mrs K pocket -and I don't mean Kellog's special K-, naturally condoms are not just mandatory, they will be a matter of life and death, since social services won't test the hoes for STD's so the clap, AIDS, et al are going to be rampant.

So, what will it be, private or nationalized sir?

[QUOTE=Whiskas]I am against nationalization of prostitution, now, with privados in private hands you get fine ass, of young age at affordable prices. Plain and simple: supply and demand.

If they are nationalized, then you will have to fill a form to get your service, get 4 copies, deliver it to the madam 72 hours prior to your service, naturally you will have to bribe her in order to get someone who is not older than 55 and with a waist smaller than 120 cm. [/QUOTE]For a vivid example of what happens when the government gets involved in supporting prostitution, just go to Nevada. For anyone that's been to one of these places, nothing more needs to be said.

You are both gentlemen who permitted me to rant and came up with more entertaining material. Reading my rant post again: Sid--I'm sorry--I was inappropriate and too hard for public conmsumption--I sould have sent you an email. Please forgive me. You know me well enough that it is not generally my style.

I'm just really frustrated with the whole of the usa political situation now. O is not the top of my list, but he is on the list. I would still vote for him again.

I also made money during the no-regulation governmet of and fore the corporatations period that we just left behind. That type of easy capital will never be available again--personally it will cost me money; but as a citizen of a great country --our politics and regulatory system were too out of wack. Generally markets and politics over-Correct when they swing back from one extreme to another. Jackson would call it a dialectic--because of political theory backround and that does not make anyone a socialist nor communitist---it will verify that it is basic trading folk law--the swingS back and forth over do it---too much pain and many trading opportunity with mis-priced items in the market over reactions. I made money when cooper and oil were mispriced. My goldman sacks holdings surprised the living day lights out of me--now those guys are really the cream of the crop traders.

BOYS--THANKS FOR PERMITTING MY RANT WITHOUT FLAMING ME BACK WHEN I DESERVED IT --ESPECIALLY FROM SID--SID I'm SORRY.

Next election day, I'll pick you up.

Stan and Whiskas, great points on nationalizing prostitution. I was really just supporting the fantasy of free awesome pussy as an analogy to the awesome free medical care that we are promised under Obamacare. The reality in both cases is very, very ugly (like Checkers Pub.)

Florida might be atypical--the instrusty actually writes the legislation here. Rate setting is different than in 48 other states. I applied to 6 health insurance companies and all six will not write me health insurance of any type. I do not have any serious illnesses, but a number of common problems for my age.

I could no longer afford the group insurance that I had for my 6 employees and now I know that I cannot buy individual coverage. It is impossible.

I still have a couple of things that I can try by having emloyees under a couple of different corporate employers and becoming a group of one or three is absolutely necessary. There is a real serious problem here in Florida. Many other states might be more consumer friendly and not have the same problems.

Group health insurance is exempt from contract law suites under state law.

Under an individual policy, if the carrier doesn't pay a bill, you can go down to the state version of the people's court and sue them and when maybe even without an atty. Group insurance is control by the US Dept of labor and it's administrative code--basically the group carrier can do anything that it wants as long as it does not violate it's own rules or committ an intentional tort like fraud. The USA Supreme Court criticized this system as Congress permitting the wolf to guard the hen house.

During the Bush years wealth became much more concentrated in the top 1% and / or 5% of the population--a number of which are members of this site [and might include me].

Rolling back the percentages to the State of the Union at the end of the clinton administration is not communism, socialism; but a reversal of a social policy that permitted a reorganization of the distribution of wealth. I am not going to take the time to look up the numbers.

If O could balance the books by me paying 1% more taxes, I would gladly do it. I would love to buy the same insurance that Congress gets. My last policy cost about us$900 permonth and did not really provide any non-catastrophic coverage. I purchased my drugs overseas or with a walgreens discount club card--cheaper than my insurance coverage.

This is my real story. If my income was us$100,000 and I had kids, then I would be in real trouble. free hookers, how about basic health care?

I appreciate the humor which my brothers approach the health issue and recognise that there will be some sort of health rationing in the future based upon wealth, but this is not a happy situation.

Per Miami Bob's report, the healthcare situation is one of the main reasons I continue to live in Argentina. Being self employed and living in Florida is an absolute nightmare regarding cost (not to mention the haphazard HMO sanctioned care provided for your mega bucks) Despite the premiums of Swiss Medical coverage escalating over the past few years, the cost is nearly a drop in the bucket compared to what would be similar coverage in Florida. In contrast to what my situation would be like in Florida, in BsAs I pay out of pocket to see cream of the crop physicians, who do not accept Swiss Medical (usually between 200 and 300p an office visit) and then let Swiss Medical cover any testing ordered at 100%. I could do it all through Swiss Medical covered Docs for close to nothing, but prefer to see very competent, well established physicians who have opted out of insurance plans.

The same thing is true in New York. The only way I could get insurance, was to form a business with 2 or more employees. Otherwise I could not get any, or I had to pay between 1500-2000 dollars a month. With the business I pay about 700.

Something needs to be done about health care in the US. I have a friend who spent 9 days in the hospital without insurance in NY, and his bill was over 30 thousand dollars. All they did was give him intravenous antibiotics, since he had a bad infection in his foot. 4 years ago I met a guy in Mexico, who told me he got sick in Mexico with pneumonia and had to spend 2 weeks in the hospital there. His bill was 2000 dollars. Why the difference in price? The treatment was the same, antibiotics. Why the difference in price. Something really wrong with our heath care system. If your are poor, the government gives it for free, if you are over 65 you can get Medicare, otherwise unless your employer give you healthcare, you are screwed.

If you have a heart attack in the US, and you do not have insurance, and they do a bypass, expect a bill between 200,000 and 250,000 dollars. Why do things cost so much more in the US than in other counties? Does it really cost us more to do they same thing? Something is not right.

Did you guys shop around?

I just did a quick search for individual health insurance for Florida and New York.

I used my mothers’ zip code in Orlando with my D. O. B. For Florida, and for NY I used my D. O. B. And a zip code of 11211. Oh I’m 57 years old.

I got quotes starting as low $150 depending on the company and type of coverage.

One of the links doesn’t offer NY coverage but the other one offers both.

[url]http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/individual-health-insurance.ds[/url]

[url]http://www.assuranthealth.com/corp/ah/default.htm[/url]

If you have pre existing condition or bad habits I’m sure the quotes would be higher.

It would be very interesting to see what kind of quotes you guys get.

I don't know what those plan cover, I looked at it quickly the cheap plan said no office visits. I guess it cover some hospital emergency or something. The other plans 350 and up looked like HMO, still a good price, some said had to be sole proprietor.

This is a link to the State of New York web site with prices for different health plans, for New York City. These are the prices the insurance companies file with the State of New York. These prices are for individuals, not businesses

[url]http://www.ins.state.ny.us/hmorates/html/hmonewyo.htm[/url]

There was nothing below 754 a month and that for an HMO, where they control who you can see. I have a PPO, which let me see doctor outside a clinic. The price for a PPO, which I have GHI, is $2,654.91, on the State web site. I pay a little over 700 because I am a business.

When I called different insurance companies, they all quoted me the prices on the NY State site. The prices on that ehealthinsurance are better. Are this prices on ehealthinsurance real? Has anyone tried them? Or are they trying to suck you in, then give you very little coverage, or tell you later you have to pay more?

I’m sure the cheap plan is junk, but the others look like they may be some good companies, but they would need to be investigated more.

I’m retiring the end of this month and will have to start paying the full cost of my insurance next month. My cost to stay on the same group plan I’m on now will be between $315 and $435 depending on the option I take.

Considering the difference in the cost of living between New York and Indiana $700 may not be that bad of a price.

But whatever happens I hope we can agree we don’t want Mexican class health care.

What I don't understand is why it cost 30,000 dollar to spend 9 days in a hospital in NY? It does not cost the hospital that much to keep you in a bed, and give you antibiotics. The prices are out of control.

I agree with you completely, but I don’t see how the current proposed legislation will correct the problem.

[QUOTE=Tessan]Why do things cost so much more in the US than in other counties?[/QUOTE]Medical malpractice lawsuits and medical malpractice insurance premiums, in part.

It's interesting how The Messiah's health reform doesn't even address tort reform. Could that be because the vast majority of litigation lawyers are Democrats?

Thanks,

Jackson

What gets me about the whole health insurance thing is that health insurance is not to be used for health disaster, but rather for every little thing. People search for the lowest deductible possible, lowest co-pays, lowest contribution for medicines. It has become a "known thing" that we can't possibly have good medical care wihtout paying thousands of dollars a year in CASE IT'S NEEDED. To go to the doctor for a cold, for a rash, what have you - they sell insurance for every little thing and actually make you feel good about it because wow! Your co-pay is only ten dollars! Your prescriptions are free! Better use the a lot to make it worth the hefty price tag you're paying in case something BAD actually happens to you.

Why can't people pay their own everyday expenses out of their own pocket? Why can't people have a disaster policy instead of a policy that pays for their trips to the doctor for a checkup, instead of thinking that the latest headache is a brain tumor and going to have a bunch of tests that yes, the insurance companies pays for - but who the hell is paying for it? Everyone who pays these outrageous premiums! I mean, really, how many times have you really had something so bad that, although it might have left you strapped, you couldn't have put all that money in an investment instead of in the insurance companies' pockets?

When I lived in Houston I rarely had insurance. I did when I worked for a big company, but the truth is, I would have MUCH rather had the $800 a month they were paying to cover my family. That's almost $10K a year!

I was later (and still am) self-employed. I have three children. When we got sick, we went to a small clinic down the road and paid something like $60 to go see the doctor. Sometimes we paid as much as $100 for one or more prescriptions. It was a nice place, modern, clean, professional. The trips to the doctor for a family of 5 cost me far less than the $800 or so a month that I would have had to pay for "full" insurance coverage.

We kept ourselves in decent health and didn't have a whole lot of problems.

Sure, there are reasons to have insurance. I finally bought a disaster policy for my kids, just in case. I am paying about $200 a month for the three of them. But the individual deductible is $5,000, with total out-of-pocket yearly expenses for three people at $10,000. The lifetime limit is $1,000,000. This is in case something BIG happens.

For the small things, we have become dependent on the health INSURANCE system. It is rife with the desire to make money (as most enterprises should be) Doctors love to order unneccesary tests, hospitals love to overcharge for everything, because the two together (the medical providers and the insurance providers) have managed to become very close - there's a lot of money to be sucked out of the suckers who have become hypocondriacs and need to maintain this level with what the insurance carriers offer.

My grandmother, about a year before she died (she lived to be 92 and smoked for almost 50 years before quitting) told me a story about her life in the 50's, when health insurance started being a big thing. A doctor's visit cost her about $5. Shortly after she got health insurance through the bank she worked for, the doctor told her she didn't have to pay any more, and don't worry, because he was going to be able to charge the insurance company twice what she used to pay.

Things change. The founding fathers of the US knew that and hoped that the Constitution they put together would hold things together, along with education and understanding.

But what happened is that people voted themselves other people's money. It starts with things like insurance - people in general are ignorant and salesmen have been looking for ways to sell them things they don't need, until all of the sudden there is a very large group of people, all the way up to the president of the US (plenty of them, not just Obama) who is either convinced that this paradigm "is right" or are in the pockets of the very people trying to sell things.

Health coverage for everyone? Let's get doctors and insurance companies and the court system under control instead of figuring out a way to get the government to prop up a system that makes way too much money for those who don't even touch patients.

[QUOTE=Jackson]Medical malpractice lawsuits and medical malpractice insurance premiums, in part.

It's interesting how The Messiah's health reform doesn't even address tort reform. Could that be because the vast majority of litigation lawyers are Democrats?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Jackson,

He did addess it. He said he is against award limits. I remember him saying this in front of a physicians group which was followed by a loud groan from the audience.

Change you can believe in!

[QUOTE=Jackson]Medical malpractice lawsuits and medical malpractice insurance premiums, in part.

It's interesting how The Messiah's health reform doesn't even address tort reform. Could that be because the vast majority of litigation lawyers are Democrats?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Hi Jackson,

I agree the need for tort reform is part of the problem and it’s a good place to start. However I’m not convinced it’s the whole problem.

For example I currently have prescription drug coverage with staggered co-pays, depending on the drug. I have found that I can buy these drugs in Argentina or the Philippines for about the same over the counter price as my co-payment here, depending on the exchange rate on any given day.

Now in Argentina they produce drugs so you could possible explain it away, but in the Philippines the drugs are imported and I’m buying the exact same brands and the over the counter cost is roughly the same as my co-payment. How is that possible?

I think we should consider reducing the prescription requirement for many drugs, why should I have to see a Doctor and get a prescription to buy antibiotics, vitamin V, and a lot of other drugs? I’ve heard all the arguments for this, but I see it as just another unnecessary costly regulation. Look at what you can walk in and buy in BA.

My plan for retirement is to carry the cheapest coverage as I can, which is a high deductible major medical plan, and I may dump that at some point considering I will be out of the USA most of the time. My worst nightmare would be to have a major problem while in the USA.

I tend to agree with El Queso, we do abuse the health system, and insurance companies abuse us, but as for the currently proposed legislation,
Well I vote [b] “Present” [/b]!

Everyone is ignoring the BIG benefit to a health insurance plan, besides the catastrophic coverage. The plans get a big discount from the doctors and hospitals. Even if you pay the entire bill yourself, the discount often saves thousands of dollars. Hospitals justify charging uninsured patients a huge markup as a means to pay for those on a plan or just plain destitute. This to me is patently unfair and a justification for some kind of national health insurance. I don't understand why this topic gets no coverage in the press.

1. The advertised rates are not binding and the carrier does not have to offer you any insurance at all--this is for individual policies and a simular set of rules that are more liberal apply to groups of less than 50. The check your medicaL HISTORY BASED UPON THE MEDICAL INDEX BUREAU--another sesspool of misinformation and coruption which is not regulated.

2. In Florida, there are no longer run of the mill medical malpratice claims--they have been legislated out of existance for some time. The only malpractice claims left are catastrophic and clear -cut negligence that runs outside of known risks and the attorney is personally libel for the costs and atty fees otherwise. At one point I did malpratice defence as a substantial part of making my living. Malpratice is dead in florida with very limited exceptions.

-the rate setting in Florida for malpracice insuranace has very little to do with the claims paid, the way it is in most states. Florida is controlled by large corpations.

There are almost no consumer rights groups that have any say and organized labor has been lesgistlated out of existance.

3. Healthcare is broken here because it is 100% controlled by huge unregulated oligopolies---simular to the unregulated boys who brought you the mortgage industry w / o regulation. The only other group who has any real say is the AMA--medical doctor's lobbying group--which is highly political--one specialty gets rich and other has it's income cut in half.

Eg I needed an epidural block last year. It is a procedure that takes less than 5 minutes, but must be done under a floriscope. I wait for my block --ten men where lined up in the doctors's office. He did 10 at maybe an average of 5 minutes each. My insurance paid him US$875 for this 5 minute procedure.

-the primary care doctor sent me for some physical therapy--6 sessions and my problem was 80% cured. The primarly care doc and my neurologist both told me not be get another block--the blocks offer not permanent benefit and they are designed to stop inflamation enough to start other types of treatment.

On my return visit to the doc who gave me the block, the doc told me that I needed a series of nine or I could end up paralyzed. I got up and walked out the door and never went back. This doc was motivated by greed, not good medical practice. I called my cousin who is the same specialty as the doc giving the block--my cousin said blocks are a cash cow and I did not need another block and in fact recomended an acupuncturist.

My cousin is a medical school professor and not a businessman. Since seeing the acupuncturist have have not need any medication nor additional medical care. A broken sick system wherein each player with power is grabbing for $$$ like greedy pigs. The invisible had of the market needs help of some sort.

[QUOTE=BA Luvr]Everyone is ignoring the BIG benefit to a health insurance plan, besides the catastrophic coverage. The plans get a big discount from the doctors and hospitals. Even if you pay the entire bill yourself, the discount often saves thousands of dollars. Hospitals justify charging uninsured patients a huge markup as a means to pay for those on a plan or just plain destitute. This to me is patently unfair and a justification for some kind of national health insurance. I don't understand why this topic gets no coverage in the press.[/QUOTE]Reminds of a woman telling me how much she saved because she bought everything on sale. Of course, she didn't really need those things.

What I do not understand in all of the debate concerning healthcare / insurance is politicians are able to find the bucks to fund a trumped up war in Iraq and yet cry like hell when they are asked to fund / reform a broken health care system. It just seems our priorities are all screwed up. The whole bunch of them (Democrats / Republicans) are a disgrace.

It is pretty simple, really.

You get what you pay for and you are also paying for someone else.

To understand the US healthcare system and its pluses and minuses you need to throw out your preconceived notions about it and the misinformation that you have been fed by the media and the left for the last 50 years. You need to understand a few simple facts about the current state of the industry and some basic business principles (this is an apolitical overview)

First, the facts:

1. The quality of health care (the care itself, not the system) available in the USA is the best in the world,

2. Much (not all) medical and pharma innovation occurs in the US and by US companies,

3. It is available to all (yes all) and if you can't pay for it, it's "free" (just walk into any emergency room and see for yourself)

4. Government intervention and interference in: a) the delivery of services, b) the third-party payer system / insurance industry, and c) the macro-level machinations of the marketplace, drives up the cost of services and products,

5. Our ever increasingly litigious society, characterized by bums like John Edwards making tens of millions by suing doctors and winning based on junk science, puts an enormous burden (read 'cost') on care providers (malpractice insurance, legal fees, etc) pharma and device companies (product liability, legal fees, etc)

6. Only about 35% of the 'customers' are paying full freight, therefore they must help to underwrite the care of th3 65% who do not.

7. The cost of the drugs is higher in the US than many places around the world.

Now business 101:

In order to have a sustainable business in a free market (and I am still using that term loosely for some US markets) one needs to collect more money than one expends, during the course of business. That means that in the case of a provider of services, it needs to be able to sell those services for an amount that exceeds all of the direct and indirect costs, related to the delivery of the specific service.

Direct costs are pretty straight forward they include the drugs, artificial hips, titanium pins, prosthetic peckers and saline D-cups as well as the time of the staff when they are actually working on the patient case.

The indirect costs are where it gets confusing. The indirect costs are innumerable, but include things like: a) overhead (admin staff, rent, utilities, maintenance, garbage collection, computer networks, software licenses, etc) be) medical equipment (monitors, surgical tools, IV pumps, lights, incubators, MRI machines, etc) c) regulatory compliance (all costs for compliance with things like JCAHO, OSHA and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") which often include additional staff just to administer compliance) d) many different types of insurance (covering the facilities, the caregivers, the employees, the patients, the equipment, the directors and officers of the corporation, etc) and e) many different taxes (on services, products, profits, etc)

Oh yea, I left out one particular little indirect cost, that is the cost of paying for all of the people who pay nothing or who pay an amount less than the actual cost of the delivery of services (this includes all Medicare and Medicaid transactions)

Hospitals have to make money to stay in business. When 65% of the customers do not cover the cost of services, the other 35% and benefactors (I. E. The government, err. I mean the tax payer) have to make up the difference.

The drug companies need to make a profit and earn back the R & D dollars sunk into developing, producing and selling the drug. Otherwise, they can't keep the lights on and pay the smart people who come up with this stuff. They also pay more for regulatory compliance and insurance in the USA. Further, many countries do not let them charge market rates or do not protect their intellectual property, so they cannot charge prices that enable them to make enough profits to generate the returns that they need.

Both providers and product makers have every right to sell the products and / or services drug for a price that the market will bear and make a profit (IT'S CALLED FREEDOM!

OK, we are on a roll now, so let's look at an example. Let's say that an unlucky monger goes to Checker's Pub and a few days later, back in the states find some sort of gangrenous infection in / on his pecker. He winds up in the hospital and gets a series of treatments for hi maladies.

While in the hospital, he is a) tended to by a staff of doctors, nurses, orderlies and administrators (all of whom need to get paid for working at the hospital, otherwise, they would have to do something else or starve) b) comfortable in a nice room, c) fed and watered, d) administered drugs, e) subject to many tests (probably more than necessary, but healthcare providers must over-test to mitigate legal liability. Hopefully, his infection goes away and the medical staff is able to save his pecker to monger another day. In order for the hospital to be a sustainable business (that means make a profit and keep the lights on and doors open) they need to collect revenue from someone that exceeds the direct costs incurred while delivering services to that patient and the associated indirect costs allocated to that patient. Depending upon 'who' is paying, the answer will vary. Let's look at how the current system pays:

1. If the monger walked in the emergency room and declared that he was destitute or an illegal alien, his care is "free." Err, by free, I mean that the person receiving the care pays nothing—but here's the little secret – SOMEBODY ELSE HAS TO PAY FOR IT.

2. If the monger is covered by Medicaid or Medi-care, the government 'reimburses' the hospital a set amount for the treatment. This amount has historically averaged 35% of the costs of treatment (the actual costs, not the billable revenue that a paying customer would be charged) That is right, the hospital just lost 65% of the costs incurred while caring for that patient. So if the hospital lost that money, how are they going to stay in business? SOMEBODY ELSE HAS TO PAY FOR IT.

3. If the monger has medical insurance, he pays the deductable or co-pay and the insurance company pays the hospital a pre-arranged amount for the services rendered. Depending upon the specific procedure and the health care plan, the hospital may break even or maybe they might make one of those evil profit thingamagiggies (but not the type of profit margin that can sustain all of the non-payers and other costs that the hospital must absorb over the course of a year) Where does that money come from? SOMEBODY ELSE HAS TO PAY FOR IT.

4. If the monger has the money and pays out of pocket when in need of medical care, he will receive a bill for the services render which will include the direct costs, the indirect costs and a profit margin that is mostly dictated by market forces. He can then look in the mirror, admire his health Johnson and see one of the people who is paying for all the other people and all of the 'extra' burdens the health care industry is under.

You, the out-of-pocket payers and the tax payers are the 'somebody else.' Under the proposed Obama-care, everyone (except Congress) will be forced into category #1. Someone please tell me how that will sustain itself?

[QUOTE=Damman]What I do not understand in all of the debate concerning healthcare / insurance is politicians are able to find the bucks to fund a trumped up war in Iraq and yet cry like hell when they are asked to fund / reform a broken health care system. It just seems our priorities are all screwed up. The whole bunch of them (Democrats / Republicans) are a disgrace.[/QUOTE]Hi Damman,

With all due respect, the Democrat's stimulus plan (AKA "The State and Local Government Employee Job Security Act") cost more than the Afghanistan invasion, the liberation of Iraq, and the Hurricane Katrina cleanup combined.

The various proposed health care bills all will cost five times as much in the first 10 years than the total cost of the liberation of Iraq alone.

Do you think that the cost of the liberation of Iraq is the important issue now?

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson]Do you think that the cost of the liberation of Iraq is the important issue now?[/QUOTE]Jax:

You hit the nail on the head. I haven't heard anyone, particularly any of the drones on the left, complaining about the cost of the war in Iraq, since. January. I wasn't paying attention back then, did something happen that made the war more affordable? Is there some other explaination?

I'm lost on this one.

Jackson.

According to the LA Times (4/11/09) Iraq war cost about $694 billion and still counting. It will pale in comparison to any health plan when it is all said and done: veteran benefits and such over the next 50 years. These things do not end in some BS ceremony. For health care, a conservative estimate is $1 trillion over ten years: BBC. The numbers are mind boggling either way. The Iraq War is a tragedy and should never of happened. Of course, Iraq is my personal view and perhaps that is where we disagree. Guess my whole point is that we can always find the bucks to fight and perpetuate these trumped up wars, but never a buck for something domestic. For myself, our priorities are skewed. Iraq over health care, a no brainer in my view. Anyway, the whole issue is moot, the country is overextended and the money is spent. We are F....d.

And please, do not get me going on Katrina. A National embarrassment by the brain trust in Washington.

[QUOTE=Jackson]Hi Damman,

With all due respect, the Democrat's stimulus plan (AKA "The State and Local Government Employee Job Security Act") cost more than the Afghanistan invasion, the liberation of Iraq, and the Hurricane Katrina cleanup combined.

The various proposed health care bills all will cost five times as much in the first 10 years than the total cost of the liberation of Iraq alone.

Do you think that the cost of the liberation of Iraq is the important issue now?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

This health care abomination is not just costly in terms of dollars (it will bankrupt the country) There is a cost that is priceless and that it our freedom. The House bill makes private insurance illegal for anyone who changes any part of their plan, after the grace period is over. You have no choice regarding your coverage. You will not have choice regarding your care.

If you think that they will stop at taking your health care choices away from you, you are wrong. You will not be able to chose the car you drive. You will not be able to chose to smoke. You will not be able to chose to run our business free of government interference. You will not be free.

For the party that claims to be for choice, I'm stumped at why they want to take all of our choices away from us and make them for us.

The costs and benefits of the Iraq war cannot be measured in dollars either. It was the right thing to do. We did it because we alone had the ability and fortitude to do it. We are losing on every international front under Obama. He is a child when it comes to international issues. Unfortunately, he is a full grown Marxist on internal affairs. Yes I said Marxist, I mean it, it is not hyperbole. I have a copy of Das Capital on my desk (the same one I read for the first time 25 years ago) and will bring it to Newport next time and let any of you read it for yourselves.

Insurance is not subject to price fixing regulation and anti-trust. When we were childern, the insurance industry lobbyists sold us a bill of goods that the dr's were making too much money---so we need managed care to control the evil doctors and hospitals. Now we are controlled by Huge powerful Health Carriers--w / near unlimited lobbying $$$ and the resultant political power.

Why do I buy my prescription drugs in BA instead of the USA? At 7% of the cost in the USA manufactured by the brazialian branches of the same companies that market indentical drugs for 15x's more in the USA. Is there a middle ground? I would know that there must be one.

What drug industry exerts it's influence so that the bushies make it illegal for medicare to even attempt to negotiate a bulk discount--this is not free market capitalism. There is no free market. You are an intelligent man and you are repeating the drug industry's corporate PR. Which is another incidental cost like the administration of huge managed care companies; drug companies and their lobbyists.

I truly believe that this is a broken system and that we have all been hoodwinked. What goes along with this is that the USA has the most expensive health care in the world by far and we are number 37 by other standards. Yes, we may have to make hard discissions about what we spend money on in the health care arena. How long does a brain dead human being with no chance of having a functioning brain spend in the ICU? God I don't know the answer, but delegating these choices to executives at a managed care organization not the answer.

The brits I know--not too many--like their national health care system and the people I know with money also have a secondary insurance to by pass the state or pay out of pocket if they don't want to wait.

WE don't have free market capitalism in health care in the usa--it might be offensive to your basic world view---but take a look at the movie sicko--yes sicko is loaded with over statement, but there is some truth there.

WAlley, please rent sicko and watch it. Forget your business education and work for a second and think from a policy perspective. We are #1 in spending and # 37 in quailty of care. Something is wrong

We can certainly agree to disagree.

However, there are only two classes of Brits, that I have come across, that like the nationalized health system 1) those that are healthy and don't need it and 2) those who profit financially from that behemoth. The secondary system to which you allude is called CASH. When you call for an appointment, the receptionist will ask if you are a Public or Private patient. If you say Private, come on in. If you say Public, we'll see you in a month.

Rather than looking at some ranking that places our health care at #1 or #37 (which I doubt) answer me this, how many people leave the US to seek care vs. Those that come here for care?

The problems in health care started long before the Bushies got to DC.

Michael Moore is a whole other story. I would not knowingly put a dime in his pocket (or piss on him if he were on fire) There are plenty of credible sources for information, he is not one of them.

There is a difference between health insurance and a health plan. When we were kids, most people paid out of pocket for regular medical expenses and carried major medical insurance coverage for big, unexpected stuff. I think we should go back to those days. With free market solutions, there would be choices for those who wanted coverage for visits, etc and they would be appropriately priced. Today, everyone thinks that doctor visits should be $20 and drugs should be $5-15 dollars (health plan)

Think about your car. You carry insurance for accidents and you pay out of pocket for oil changes, tune ups, gas and wiper blades (unless maintenance is included in your deal with the car company - not the insurance company)

As for having difficulty finding a plan (as you mentioned earlier) I had a similar experience a year or so ago. At first, no plan seemed available with preexisting conditions (nothing serious) Finally, I found one that was much cheaper ($800/ mo) than what I was paying ($1800/ mo or so) that gave me all of the coverage I wanted but with higher out of pocket costs. That's fine with me. I keep $12k in my pocket. If I spend more out of pocket for doctor visits and drugs, I am still not going to spend $12K in the course of a year.

You have probably already tried healthplanone. Com if not, give it a try. Also, as you mentioned previously, it is easier to get a specific individual covered through a group (benefit companies look to bury the couple of un-insurable people within a group to slide it by the underwriter)

There is also a big reason that the government wants to destroy private health insurance, money. Think about the cash reserves that the private insurance industry has to keep in order to underpin their policies. Where do you think that money is going to go? What do you think the government will do with it? Put it in a "Lock Box?" I doubt it. They will squander it (think medi-care, medicaid and social security) If you thin Madoff was bad (I do) he only stole $50B in one ponzi scheme. The government will steal many times that through these three ponzi schemes.