Printable View
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]Walley, please rent sicko and watch it.[/QUOTE]MB,
With all due respect, every Michael Moore movie I've seen was about as factually accurate as "Shrek", so why would I want to see another of his liberal propaganda pieces?
In fact, the only reason I might even consider watching it is because it was [u]YOU[/u] that suggested it, but I'd still have my reservations.
Thanks,
Jackson
Wild Willyeye-
What you are forgetting to mention, and where you are totally and completely factually inaccurate is the concept of US hospitals as market driven businesses. The FACT is that US hospitals operate as NOT FOR PROFIT (the same as a religious entity or charity) organizations which means they DO NOT have to pay taxes on any services they provide or revenues they generate. US hospitals are classified as such because they must provide treatment to all who come seeking it regardless of one's ability to pay. SOME hospitals do generate a profit and this money goes as bonuses to the top level directors and executives of the hospital or corporate entity. I worked in the accounting / billing department of a major US hospital owner / operator for a year back in 2000.
For all your claims about the US having the best medical care in the world, the FACT is that US citizens do not rank among the top 10 in the world in life expectancy, happiness, or commonality of disease, despite the US spending more than any other country by far on health care (17% of GDP I believe) The fact that you think paying $10,000 per year ($800/ month) should tell you something. What is you were only making $30k per year (pre-tax) How could you possibly afford that number?
Suerte,
Rock Harders
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]What you are forgetting to mention, and where you are totally and completely factually inaccurate is the concept of US hospitals as market driven businesses. The FACT is that US hospitals operate as NOT FOR PROFIT (the same as a religious entity or charity) organizations which means they DO NOT have to pay taxes on any services they provide or revenues they generate.[/QUOTE]Me thinks you are party correct. 'Not for Profit' is a legal designation for certain types of organizations that are exempt from certain taxes. Where you seem to have missed the point is the this designation does provide magical pixie dust that will instantly turn losses into break even or better. If a hospital or any company loses money, it loses money. If it does it long enough, it will be bankrupt. It doesn't matter if the money is spent on taxes, gauze bandages or chicas. If revenue is less than expenses, you lose money.
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]For all your claims about the US having the best medical care in the world, the FACT is that US citizens do not rank among the top 10 in the world in life expectancy, happiness, or commonality of disease, despite the US spending more than any other country by far on health care[/QUOTE]My statement of my well-founded opinion stands. I do not consider most of those items to be the single determinant of quality of care, nor do I believe that 'happiness' can be scientifically measured for apples:apples comparisons.
[QUOTE=Rock Harders](17% of GDP I believe) [/QUOTE]Under the proposed Obamacare plan, it will be much, much more than 17%. Do you think that will increase our standing in the global list of happy countries?
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]The fact that you think paying $10,000 per year ($800/ month) should tell you something.[/QUOTE]It does. I thought you said you worked in accounting and billing? It says to me that I am saving $12k / year and having greater control over my health care expenditures.
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]What is you were only making $30k per year (pre-tax) How could you possibly afford that number? [/QUOTE]I would chose a different plan.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]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)[/QUOTE]A-FREAKING-MEN! (as in amen!)
I'm not getting into that 'Obama is a Marxist' crap, but I couldn't resist replying to this.
"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."
I know thousands of Brits; rich, poor, middle-class, fit and healthy, and near death. All my family, friends, business associates. I don't know a single one who'd prefer the UK to have the US system rather than the National Health Service. And when I go back to visit family and need to see a doctor, I can, if not the same day, then the next. Nobody waits a month. Nobody. And the receptionists don't ask 'Public or Private'; not sure who told you that, but obviously someone who doesn't use the service. I'm not saying its perfect, but I know which one I'd prefer to rely on. And it doesn't cost 17% of GDP either (according to Rock Harders)
Just for information.
[QUOTE=SteveC]I know thousands of Brits; rich, poor, middle-class, fit and healthy, and near death. All my family, friends, business associates. I don't know a single one who'd prefer the UK to have the US system rather than the National Health Service. And when I go back to visit family and need to see a doctor, I can, if not the same day, then the next. Nobody waits a month. Nobody. And the receptionists don't ask 'Public or Private'; not sure who told you that, but obviously someone who doesn't use the service. I'm not saying its perfect, but I know which one I'd prefer to rely on. And it doesn't cost 17% of GDP either (according to Rock Harders)
Just for information.[/QUOTE]Absolutely spot on, Steve C.
[QUOTE=SteveC]I'm not getting into that 'Obama is a Marxist' crap[/QUOTE]My personal opinion. I am not looking to convert anyone to my perspective, time and the destruction of the US economy and way of life will be far more effective 'visual aids.'
[QUOTE=SteveC]I know thousands of Brits; rich, poor, middle-class, fit and healthy, and near death. All my family, friends, business associates. I don't know a single one who'd prefer the UK to have the US system rather than the National Health Service.[/QUOTE]You are obviously much more likable and outgoing than I am (at least 10X so) You know lots of Brits. I qualified my statement to include Brit's that I have come across (I. E. That I know, which number around 100) The Public / private experiences includes my first hand experience and those of family and friends seeking immediate care for non-life-threatening, minor emergencies.
As for Michael Moore, on further reflection, we should all go back and watch Roger & Me and remind ourselves of what he as advocating then. I think that worked out pretty well for GM. We should all feel comfortable that this time, with Sicko, he might be right. Unless he is wrong, again.
Great posts, Walleye. You've laid out in plain terms the reasons the system costs what it does. The biggest factor, in my opinion, is that hospitals will not refuse treatment to anyone. Now, that's a bit of an overstatement, but it is the reason there is such a high cost for acquiring care if you are not already in an HMO or eligible via medicare.
But, I don't see the issue going away. Those that can't afford coverage will still get treatment. Those who are in plans (HMO, PPO or medicare) will still get discounted coverage because their providers have negotiating leverage, either because they are the government or because they have a large volume of subscribers.
There is another problem, I believe, and it is that the cost of HMOs and PPOs is still out of reach for many who otherwise might elect it. My company has over 700 employees. We pay 80% of the HMO premium for any full-time equivalent employee who wants coverage. Still, less than 50% elect the coverage. Indeed, one of our clients even picks up half of the remaining 20% and we still have just slightly over 50% of the employees assigned to that client who opt for coverage. There are two reasons for this: (a) many still can't afford the premium; and / or (be) many think they're bulletproof and just won't opt for coverage that they might not need.
So, what's the solution? I don't know. I do think the Obama plan is a step in the wrong direction. Arguably, I should favor his plan because most of our competitors don't offer any health care coverage, so his plan might even the playing field by a small measure. But, my principal opposition is that I think his plan will not reduce costs and, even worse, he wants to add 5% to may tax bill to help pay for it even though we're already offering coverage to all of our full-time employees. How is that fair?
So, I don't know what the solution is. I do know that health insurance is not my biggest headache -- that would be worker's comp, which costs even more. The current health care system is far from perfect, but I haven't heard a better plan. In some ways, it's like Democracy: It's the worst form of government except for all others that have ever been tried.
Admittedly, that last point is debatable. But, I do think it speaks volumes when many who seek critical care flock to the U. S. Even though they are covered under a system that is arguably "better."
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]Great posts, Walleye. You've laid out in plain terms the reasons the system costs what it does. [/QUOTE]Thanks. I believe that it is a lack of understanding regarding the cost side of this issue that leaves most people scratching their heads. If lots of people pay nothing or less than the costs incurred treating them, the money has to come from somewhere.
You raise many excellent points.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]The biggest factor, in my opinion, is that hospitals will not refuse treatment to anyone. Now, that's a bit of an overstatement, [/QUOTE]No, it isn't. Anyone, please cite me a situation where someone has been refused urgent medical care at a US hospital.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]but it is the reason there is such a high cost for acquiring care if you are not already in an HMO or eligible via medicare.[/QUOTE]The reason it is so expensive is that the average person is not paying for what they are getting. They are paying for what they are getting plus they are paying for those who do not pay.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]But, I don't see the issue going away. Those that can't afford coverage will still get treatment. Those who are in plans (HMO, PPO or medicare) will still get discounted coverage because their providers have negotiating leverage, either because they are the government or because they have a large volume of subscribers.[/QUOTE]Correct you are, the issues will not be going away but your choice will be. The current House plan will eliminate your private plans and will make the cost of doing business for private insurers unbearable and they will leave the market. The only choices that will be left are the government plan and paying cash.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]There is another problem, I believe, and it is that the cost of HMOs and PPOs is still out of reach for many who otherwise might elect it. [/QUOTE]Why not have insurance for major medical and pay out of pocket for everyday medical expenses?
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]My company has over 700 employees. We pay 80% of the HMO premium for any full-time equivalent employee who wants coverage. Still, less than 50% elect the coverage. Indeed, one of our clients even picks up half of the remaining 20% and we still have just slightly over 50% of the employees assigned to that client who opt for coverage. There are two reasons for this: (a) many still can't afford the premium; and / or (be) many think they're bulletproof and just won't opt for coverage that they might not need.[/QUOTE]
Unless your company is paying slave wages, these people are electing not to participate for one of two reasons: 1) they are covered by another plan (spouse, domestic partner, family pet, whatever) or 2) the chose to spend that money on something else which they deem to be more important than a health plan (flat screen tv, latin pussy, you name it) I do not know what plans your company offers but with the very generous contribution of 80% , there must be a plan that is affordable (I. E. Less than $1.5k per year in employee contribution for basic coverage)
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]So, what's the solution? [/QUOTE]
Evolve to a more market driven system (improve what we currently have) that offers a variety from health plans to health insurance. Give people the option to have insurance for major medical and pay out of pocket for everyday medical expenses. People have to pay for what they consume. For those that cannot (not those that chose not to have coverage) get coverage due to hardship we already have a safety net (which is in need of improvement)
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]I don't know. I do think the Obama plan is a step in the wrong direction. [/QUOTE]
I am inclined to agree with you here.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]Arguably, I should favor his plan because most of our competitors don't offer any health care coverage, so his plan might even the playing field by a small measure.[/QUOTE]
Yes it will. Your company will ultimately stop offering health benefits so the field will be level with your competitors and your company will have one less attractive benefit with which to woo the best and brightest employees. Yes, this includes your personal benefits too.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]But, my principal opposition is that I think his plan will not reduce costs and, even worse, he wants to add 5% to may tax bill to help pay for it even though we're already offering coverage to all of our full-time employees. How is that fair? [/QUOTE]
Fair? Who said anything about fair? Bend over.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]The current health care system is far from perfect, but I haven't heard a better plan. In some ways, it's like Democracy: It's the worst form of government except for all others that have ever been tried.[/QUOTE]
Right you are. Why should we destroy the system that currently covers 84% of all Americans to address the 16% (most of whom chose to forgo coverage)
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]But, I do think it speaks volumes when many who seek critical care flock to the U. S. Even though they are covered under a system that is arguably "better."[/QUOTE]
Whenever we, i. e. The United States, is acting as stooges for Chavez, Norega, Castro and the idiot despots from Boliva and Ecudaor I wonder what our fucking government, under the Rhodes Scholar wantabe Obama, is thinking.
We impeached Nixon because he violated our Constitution.
The Honduran government impeached their Hondorun president ie. Kicked the fucking despot out for violating the Hondoran Constitution.
What type of of pseudo intellectual imbecile do we have sitting in the White House of the United States (a clue for peope recovering from brain removals or hundreds of electro shock treatments. We have the second coming of that idiot Jimmy "shit for brains" Carter.
Another possiblity is that Obama is trying to wrangle blow jobs from Chavez and Castro. On the other hand, perhaps Obama is hoping to give Chavez and Castro blow jobs.
The Carmel One is going to make Jimmy (shit for brains / I only lusted in my heart) Carter look GOOD in retrospect!
[QUOTE=SteveC]I know thousands of Brits; rich, poor, middle-class, fit and healthy, and near death. All my family, friends, business associates. I don't know a single one who'd prefer the UK to have the US system rather than the National Health Service. And when I go back to visit family and need to see a doctor, I can, if not the same day, then the next. Nobody waits a month. Nobody. And the receptionists don't ask 'Public or Private'; not sure who told you that, but obviously someone who doesn't use the service. I'm not saying its perfect, but I know which one I'd prefer to rely on. And it doesn't cost 17% of GDP either (according to Rock Harders)
Just for information.[/QUOTE]How does the Dental care system work? I'm pretty sure after living in Wales that it is a very low percentage of GDP.
Not sure of % of gdp, but for my dental care I'm glad I live in Argentina. In the UK they tell me these days its expensive and difficult to get easy access. It was a lot better 10 years ago but I've had no recent experience so I'm not the best source on this.
[QUOTE=Sidney]And Bush as well![/QUOTE]Hey Sid,
Just out of courisity, what was the last US President that you actually liked?
Thanks,
Jackson
because you are intelligent enough to look beyond the propaganda and see the human stories that get lost. WE do not have great health care in the usa, we have expensive healthcare and more expensive equipment--that's it. The abuse of the power grabbed by the industry is shocking--In the USA we let this happen. WE don't regulate. WE don't have an equitable system. Walley can pay us$1800 per month for insurance, 90% can't.
Seperate the propanda and Michael More's personal style or lack of style to watch some of the human stoies that he tells: they are shocking. Based upon my personal and professional experience--there is quite a bit of truth in these stories. I could spell out hundreds of these stories from my old files. I have virtually stopped representing individuals experiencing medical misadventures--but I still do some. Because it is the right thing to do. Because of the abuse of basic human dignity based upon dollars. I enjoy suing health insurance companies--they are abusive bullies who have paid off congress: both the rebublicans and the democrats.
I've seen Walley give money to the little professional beggars on junin based upon his sense of passion and compassion. Walley what we are doing now is just plain wrong. WE are number 37--it's not fantacy. WE reward profit and not quality. WE fail to regulate and there is only a fantacy of any type of free market.
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Wild Willyeye-
What you are forgetting to mention, and where you are totally and completely factually inaccurate is the concept of US hospitals as market driven businesses. The FACT is that US hospitals operate as NOT FOR PROFIT (the same as a religious entity or charity) organizations which means they DO NOT have to pay taxes on any services they provide or revenues they generate. US hospitals are classified as such because they must provide treatment to all who come seeking it regardless of one's ability to pay. SOME hospitals do generate a profit and this money goes as bonuses to the top level directors and executives of the hospital or corporate entity. I worked in the accounting / billing department of a major US hospital owner / operator for a year back in 2000.
For all your claims about the US having the best medical care in the world, the FACT is that US citizens do not rank among the top 10 in the world in life expectancy, happiness, or commonality of disease, despite the US spending more than any other country by far on health care (17% of GDP I believe) The fact that you think paying $10,000 per year ($800/ month) should tell you something. What is you were only making $30k per year (pre-tax) How could you possibly afford that number?
Suerte,
Rock Harders[/QUOTE]Rock Harders --
Some American hospitals are non profit and others are for profit. The non profit operate in almost the exact same profit driven fashion, except they are required to give some form of charity.
In addition US hospitals are required to provide emergency treatment and that's it. Follow up care is not required.
The AMA has recently announced it's support of the Public Health Insurance option. Why? Well, doctors do not exactly have the power they think themselves to have.
The real sticklers are Pharmaceuticals the Insurance industries. But even those with terrific coverage face a disappointment when faced with submitting large claims for serious issues.
He was a true believer in the power of the invisible hand of the free market. Let companies fail if they aren't competetive. Up-tick rule---let short sellers have the freedom in an unregulated market to destroy capital without messy government interference. Now that's true freedom.
I asked him when my last Miami root canal costs us$1300. He has a degree from NYU and owns an implant clinic in LA. His response was greed. I asked why in Miami it took three visits and lot's of pain and a big production. His assisatant did it in 10 minutes and I did not realize that they had actually done the root canal. DR Lee said that he could not imagine that the North American dentist would intentionally put on a big show to justify the price, but that more than 90% of the root canal are simple basic and quick.
DR Lee's clinic in LA charges 50% of the going price for implants in LA. HE is making a lot of money based on volume and is very happy. I am not saying that North American dentists are evil or thieves, just what DR Lee tells me. He could adopt the us model and move to LA to maximize his profit, but prefers the quality of life in BA and takes lot's of vacations. During the last farmer's crisis he was buying quality farm land and leasing it back to the farmers.
It says they count on grassroots supporters "just like you." Me, them, who? Took me a few minutes to, "get it."
Unless they are dealing with cash-only patients. If there is any kind of health plan, dental plan or insurance the price for most all procedures is "pre-negotiated" (I. E. Set) by the large, monolithic insurance company and the service provider can take it or leave it.
In most service businesses, you develop a service that people want. You figure out how much that service costs you to provide and you add a margin on top of that cost that will provide you with a positive cash flow after taxes.
If you are a private practice dentist, for example, you have cover all of the start-up costs and overhead in order to deliver service.
Let's look at a basic practice in a suburban area (nice urban area would be more expensive) with a 2,000 sqft office, 3 admin staff (receptionist, billing / accounting, office manager) four hygienists / assistants (5 chairs, doc + 4) The first day the dentist opens his door for business, he is potentially $250K in debt ($100k school debt, $150K start-up costs if he rents the space) Monthly operating costs would be about $62K (rent, salaries, benefits, insurance, interest and principal on loans) before the dentist makes a dime. Therefore, he needs to make $62K plus a reasonable margin upon which he can live, feed his family and put some money away for a rainy day. How much should a dentist make? All that school, time, talent? Lets be cheap and say he only deserves to make $240k per year (pre-tax) or $83/ hr (assuming he does 20 hrs of work related to running the business per week in addition to the dental work) Therefore, he needs to make $82K per month or $4,100 per day or $512.50 per hour to make ends meet (based on 2 weeks vacation and 10 holidays per year) That is $102.50/ chair / hour. Now we all know that he isn't going to have all five chairs occupied 8hrs / day so let's say he is very popular and has a 65% occupancy, so his cost is $788 per hour for the office ($157/ hour / chair) before he takes any x-rays, uses any technology or runs any tests on you.
If for some reason the office is closed for a day, the cost goes up to $165/ chair / hour, and so on.
If the insurance company sets the price for a cleaning at $100, then he has to make up the other $57 somewhere else. If 75% of his normal monthly business is cleanings, the other 25% have to include larger margins to cover his overhead.
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]Herbert Hoover--was a true free market kind of guy
He was a true believer in the power of the invisible hand of the free market. Let companies fail if they aren't competetive. Up-tick rule---let short sellers have the freedom in an unregulated market to destroy capital without messy government interference. Now that's true freedom. [/QUOTE] So we should assume you are calling for an end to the free market and a move to socialism?
IMHO Hoover's economics were statist.
Did you know Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republicans of "leading the country down the path of socialism’?
New Dealer Rexford Tugwell later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, [b] "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."[/b] Who was Rexford Tugwell?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rexford_Tugwell[/url]
We may have had Hoovervilles in the thirties but I suspect Obamas [b][i]"trickle up poverty"[/b][/i] is going to give us years of high unemployment, deflation and/or stagnation, we could see the S&P with big swings for several years, going possibly as low as 500, if not outright total collapse of our economic system.
We need to stop spending money we don’t have and stimulate job creation, if we don’t the question becomes:
Will Obamavilles be any better that Hoovervilles?
Great job, again, Walleye. It's good to put these things in context, and the best way to do that is with numbers. Thanks
Mongers,
This thread has become so pathetic (even worse than Fox News, the National Enquirer, Sean Hannity and Jackson Limbaugh combined) and bankrupt on new ideas (much like the Republican party) that I have decided to stop posting here.
Reasonably intelligent dialogue clearly is not possible when the participants keep posting this rubbish.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
I was very resistant to accept this concept. I want to thank you for the effort that you made to explain the hows and why non-socialized medicine will never provide any type of human result. I owe both Stan and yourself a thank you for forcing me to clarify my thinking on this set of issues. I want the public option now and I am going to make the contacts to do volunteer work and make financial contributions to back-up my newly found convictions. If the private sector can compete, let them survive, else let them go the way of buggy whip factories. I consciously chose to have quasi-competent public employees in the drivers' seat, rather than B-school grads making the tough decisions on rationing health care motivated 100% by profit. I never thought that I could accept the concept of a governmet run system, now I see that there is no other moral option.
90% of the USA will benefit from socialized medicine and Stan and your and I can readily afford to share the cost. I don't really care what any of you think of the policy decision, because you all have a religious zeal for a fantasy of a free market universe which only exists in a set of assumptions that are accepted the same way the one makes a religious leap of faith.
Healthcare should not be approached as a first year B-school case study. I love you on a personal level Walley, but I now will just agree to disagree--morally you are on the wrong side of this issue.
Sid--keep-up the long cut and paste jobs. It makes it more difficult to follow the thoughtful commentary that Walley and Stan spend time composing. Whether I aggree or disaggree with him, but Walley devotes real time and thought to his postings and tries to make them both educational and fun. I appreciate your right to post, but a summary and link would do the job quite effectively so that the thoughtful original anaysis of some of the others posting would be more readily available.
AS an intelligent man who I respect--I would like to see more of Sid's thoughts and analysis--not ranting or mere re-prints of long articles.
ROCK--don't stop participating. The only people who can afford to spend significant mongering time in BA are either wealthy people motivated to protect that wealth for the seed of their seed; people doing business in Argentina like Walley and myself; retired people or ex-expatriates who have decided not to live in the usa any longer. I am not including argentines who read this site nor other nationalities, because they really don't participate here. Most are right wing Wall Street types who can pay cash for medical care if needed; don't need Medicare or Social Security and do belive in class war fare---I don't give a shit about poorer people and their lives--I've got mine and I want to protect it. In life you will deal with many different types of people. You should have in your skill-set the ability to converse with people with whom you disaggree. This is important in life.
Obama is not an effective political leader at this point and will not likely pass the public option at this point in time. Becuase of the financial mess today--it might really not be the right time to spend the money. The back and forth with Walley has convinced me and changed my mind on the subject. I will get involved and worked towards a future time when we will have a public option. If I did not have diolog with people with different points of view, I would not not been able to comfortably make such a decsion.
[QUOTE=Miami Bob] I never thought that I could accept the concept of a governmet run system, now I see that there is no other moral option.[/QUOTE]Please show me one historical example of moral socialism.
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]90% of the usa will benefit from socialized medicine and stan and your and I can readily afford to share the cost. [/QUOTE]Under the current house plan, 84.3 million Americans will lose their private health care. I didn't realize that there are 843 million Americans. You, Stan and I can only subsidize others up and to the point that we run out of money.
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]you all have a religious zeal for a fantasy of a free market universe which only exists in a set of assumptions that are accepted the same way the one makes a religious leap of faith.[/QUOTE]There may be zeal but not for fantasy (except when pondering nights out in Bs As) There are facts such as 1+1=2 and if you don't bring in more money than you spend, you lose money. There is a relatively finite supply of money (despite BHO's US Government is printing mass amounts of currency) once you take it all, there is no more to take.
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]Healthcare should not be approached as a first year be-school case study.[/QUOTE]Not sure about that. One of the first things they tried to teach me (my parents beat them to the punch by about 20 years) was that a company (with any prayer of sustainability) needed to bring in more money than it spent.
The sources of cash for a company can take different forms (on the cash flow statement they are classified as income from operations, investing activities and financing activities) but at the end of the day, in the real world, sources of cash must be greater than uses of cash.
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]I love you on a personal level walley, but I now will just agree to disagree--morally you are on the wrong side of this issue.[/QUOTE]Bob, I have great respect for you, your opinions and your right to express those opinions, even when the are wrong. If I limited my circle of friends to just middle-of-the-road independents like myself, life would be pretty boring. This is one issue where I am on the morally superior side. Don't let emotions and hope for a Utopian solution cloud your vision of what will produce the best result.
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]Most are right wing wall street types who can pay cash for medical care if needed; don't need medicare or social security and do belive in class war fare---I don't give a shit about poorer people and their lives--I've got mine and I want to protect it. In life you will deal with many different types of people. [/QUOTE]I thought you said you loved me? In 1990, before becoming a heartless denizen of Wall Street, I was for all intent and purpose homeless as well as unemployed and destitute. Were it not for the kindness of friends and family, I would have been on the street. I knew that I needed to improve my chances for getting ahead so I borrowed $50K (I was fortunate that I could do this) to go to a top 10 US be-school, graduated with a 3.5GPA (despite my learning disability) and ventured forth into the worst hiring market in years. There were no jobs, so I made one. In my first year I made about $50K (less than half of what the first year investment bankers made) Year 2 about $75K and in year three I made enough to retire on at age 32. I didn't retire, I kept pouring the funds back into building business and creating jobs and opportunities for others as well as myself. In '98 the Asian Flu did some real damage, the contested election of '99 and the dotcom bust nearly killed me. I started over again. There were no bailouts no assistance and I didn't want any. I am responsible for making my own way. I have no expectations that social security or medicare will be solvent when I reach that age, therefore, any payments into them are just taxes to be pissed away by the government. If some day I retire, it will be based upon being able to afford retirement and private health insurance (if such a thing still exists) If not in that position, I'll keep packing my lunch pail and heading to the salt mines.
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]You should have in your skill-set the ability to converse with people with whom you disaggree. This is important in life.[/QUOTE]Agreed. Although, I still respectfully disagree with you on almost all the other points.
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]Obama is not an effective political leader at this point and will not likely pass the public option at this point in time. Becuase of the financial mess today--it might really not be the right time to spend the money.[/QUOTE]Here's my editorial contribution: Obama has jumped the shark. The reality of it is that he is an excellent performer / actor (so was Reagan) however, he has never done anything other than school, community organizing (whatever that is) run for office and spend 160ish days in the Senate. He benefited from a blindly devoted press that has never once asked him a hard question or sought the truth on any number of important issues. He has never made a payroll, never studied economics, never read a bill (either as a senator or president) The press conference last night (if the press did its job) was an unmitigated disaster for BHO. In fact, as I was hearing it, I was thinking that it could possibly be the nail in the coffin for Obama care. In the Q & A, while he only got softball questions, he couldn't even answer them. He sounded like a rambling drunk. He could not articulate what the plan is, how it is going to make things better, how it won't make things worse or how it is going to be paid for.
Do you really want the government running healthcare in the US?
Consider this; Medicare is a government run healthcare system. The government makes the rules, determines the benefits, determines payment for services and administers the entire system. Just in case you didn't notice Medicare will be BANKRUPT in a few years. When first funded it cost $3 Billion a year with a projected cost $12 Billion in the mid 1990's, but the cost by then had ballooned to over $200 Billion. (Funny how when government gets involved in anything the cost seems to go through the ceiling) So the government has been in defined segment of healthcare for years. Based upon governments past 40 year track record in management of this segment of healthcare I ask you again;
Do you really want the government running healthcare in the US?
[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Do you really want the government running healthcare in the US? [/QUOTE]Find the argument of how Medicare costs have exploded over its lifetime as an example of Government's inability to manage health care is flawed. The whole point of the national debate on health care is its high cost as a whole: Medicare / private. Every sector is out of control. There are many reason for the increased costs, the primary ones are technology and the other is the physchy of the American people. I particularly wish to pick on the American women. They seem to have a penchant for visiting doctors and beg to have the doctor find something wrong with them. They visit doctors for everything and anything. Like weighing three hundred pounds has nothing to do with eating too much.
[QUOTE]Many physicians believe that demanding patients are the reason they are delivering so much unnecessary care.
Perhaps the most significant reason Americans are drowning in health care debt may shock you: Americans are getting far too much unnecessary care. Of our total $2.3 trillion health care bill last year, a whopping $500 billion to $700 billion was spent on treatments, tests, and hospitalizations that did nothing to improve our health.[/QUOTE][url]http://www.aarpmagazine.org/health/health_care_costs.html[/url]
Another area where Medicare takes it in the shorts is when it becomes the primary carrier. I do not know all the terms, but when a person turns 65, Medicare becomes the primary insurer and the citizen's private insurance becomes the secondary provider. Basically, Medicare is on the hook for the majority of the tab and the private insurer is suppose to pick up the remainder. In the beginning, Medicare was never designed to be the primary carrier for the insured. However, through lobbying and Ronny boy, the private insurers got their way, unload the higher risk clients on the Government: 65+. Good deal if you are an insurer. BTW, the clients private insurance premiums do not change. It makes no sense to me.
Like to consider myself a free market guy, but there are areas when Government control / regulation has its place: utilities. Think health-care's time has come.
I never thought I would say this, but the United States might benefit by taking a page out of the Argentine playbook.
This may have been mentionned on this thread before. I am not sure.
However, most prescription medications, except scheduled or controlled substances, should not require a doctors signature. If you want to treat your cold with an antibiotic, which is a completely useless therapy for colds, go ahead. Skip the $100 to $5000 office/emergency room visit you would otherwise drop on society.
When you want your allergy medicine or viagra prescription refilled, skip the expensive trip through the doctors office.
In fact, we are going in this direction with medicines such as Prilosec, Tagamet etc. which are now over the counter.
Who opposes this. You guessed it. Doctors, physician assistants and nurse practionners who would have to trade in their BMW's for clunkers.
Thanks for making my case for me. Medicare and Medicaid as well as Social Security have morphed from the helpful programs they were designed to be into cash guzzling monsters by the very political machine poised to take over all healthcare.
Just who do you think is going to "take in the shorts" when there are no more private health insurers and only the government plan. (A plan I might add Congress is not on - sort of like social security Congress is not on it either - they the priviliged few have a private health care and retirement system)
Perhaps you don't realize it but most Americans consume over 80% of their lifetime healthcare spending in the last years of their lifes. Under this plan you better die young or when you hit your 60's your wonderful government healthcare plan is going to tell you to go home and die - got no money for you. Don't belive it? If not why does this new healthcare need a government board to determine what services are needed, what services are not and who gets those services.
I'm not saying our current plan is all roses but it is a hell of a lot better than most. The truth is brutal - you want the most expensive healthcare with the least results - go with goverment.
Even the Obama Times (formerly known as the New York Times who's tag line is "All the Disinformation Fit to Print") savaged him over the colossal failure of the press conference last night. Fortunately, a guilty conscience is emerging, at least with one reporter, on the willing participation to the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.
His ineptitude last night highlighted that he is out of his depth. It was similar to Toto peeling back the curtain on 'the man behind the curtain' to expose a hapless fraud. Hopefully, it isn't too little too late.
It isn't about talking points or playing to polls. At some point, a man has to say, this is what I believe in, and this is what I am going to do (of course this doesn't just apply to internal conversations in one's head whilst standing at the bar in Newport)
I get loads of shit from friends and family about my hard-line stance on certain subjects. They ask me "why can't you just compromise?" To which I respond, "if I know that I am right, how can I agree to accept something that I know to be wrong?" (again, please see prior caveat)
I've witnessed you show compassion. I know that there are items that you place value on that exist in a sphere outside of of analysis of cash flow: family, truth, human kindness and compassion. There are times when one makes a decision: this is just wrong and we may have the capacity to make it right. You consider the wars in the middle east in that framework irregardless of cost and other choices that could have been made.
Western europe and scandinavia have socialized medicine, longer life expectancies and higher rates of satisfaction with health care than we have in the usa. Their higher tax structures has had consequences of the types you suggest. I now accept that trade off because there is no moral way[based upon my view of what is right and wrong that has almost zero to do with economics] to allocate basic healthcare to the private sector's control unless they can be so cost effective to compete with the public option.
Our views on these subjects may be so different that dialog is not possible because we are looking at the issues from completely different places--we are talking about different things--our basic values on these issues may differ even if we may have overlaps on other subjects. Eg I refuse to discuss politics with my friend Jackson--whose company and friendship I enjoy and value.
I dout that you consider western europe and scandinavia is be at root completely amoral based on policies decisions and generally accepted social values which might differ from your basic point oif view. FDR's move of the usa into might might be labled "socialist type policy decisions" to help the usa through the great depression. Nixon's decision to support medicare--socialized medicine-- Eveything in life of value cannot only be seen as a be-school case study.
YES, I aggree that many policy decisions need more care, scrutiny and analysis. All of economics makes basic assumptions which might may be useful to assistance us with analysis and planning. But those assumptions are still assumptions, not facts nor universal truths. There are times and places when you might say it is just wrong despite the analysis of cash flows. Not in making an investment decision generally--but maybe making decions about the basic value of a human being--life, death, suffering, pain, family and whatever spiritual beliefs that you might have nor not have.
WE are talking about different things. My remarks directly to ROCK--were not intended to be insults directed to you. I respect and like you and hopefully eventually I will call you a friend, but we will disagree about politics and values related to health care.
Barack Obama was out jogging one morning when he tripped, fell over a bridge railing and landed in the creek below.
Before the Secret Service guys could get to him, 3 kids who were fishing pulled him out of the water. He was so grateful he offered the kids whatever they wanted.
The first kid said, 'I want to go to Disneyland.'
Barack said, 'No problem, I'll take you there on my special airplane.
The second kid said, 'I want a new pair of Nike Air Jordan shoes.'
Barack said, 'I'll get them for you and even have Michael Jordan sign them!'
The third kid said, ' I want a motorized wheelchair with a built in TV and stereo headset!'
Barack was a little perplexed by this and said, 'But you don't look like you're handicapped.'
The kid said, 'I will be after my dad finds out I saved your ass from drowning.'