Slashdot Mirror
Discuss the US Presidential Election & Health Care
Yesterday we discussed the war and how foreign policy will matter in your decision next Tuesday. Today our series of election discussion pieces continues with Health Care. With an obesity epidemic, a failing economy, and ballooning health care costs, which candidate has the best answers to making sure that Americans are able to stay healthy without America being bankrupted in the process?
One of the better arguments I've seen for fixing the current health care crisis can be seen here
Of course, the insurance companies (who have very powerful lobbies) will attempt to shoot this plan down as they stand to lose. Though it really can be forcefully argued that insurance companies really do bring nothing to the table in terms of health care. Fundamentally, the idea is a good one when constrained. However, insurance companies have become too powerful and they now function as parasites on the system, making it less efficient and more expensive for the end user. Ask yourself: "what product do insurance companies offer in terms of health care?" What do they create? How do they contribute to health care? When it comes down to it, health insurance companies are not in business to provide health care or help you pay for health care. They are in business to provide insurance, collect money, minimize any payout and answer to their shareholders who expect the system to turn a healthy profit. Any reduction in what they have to pay out is money earned for them.
Which candidate will be better positioned to answer the problem? It will be the one who is able to make some hard decisions and stand up to powerful lobbyists. It will be the candidate who is able to apply creative thought and novel solutions to problems that we've been creating for ourselves for decades now. it will be the candidate who is able to rationally apply logic and recruit, retain and manage in their administration, unbiased and reasoned people who are willing to work hard on solutions that will benefit Americans and the wider global population.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Alright, after reading a bit on both their websites, I'm going to try to state the facts and my opinion.
McCain : Actually puts numbers out there on how much you're going to "save" according to your tax bracket. But it's confusing to me how one column is showing a flat tax credit of $5,000 for this and then another column (after factoring something called "Income Tax Liability") showing what you save. He concentrates on guaranteeing me a "Better than Congressman" health care plan when I have no idea in hell what kind of health care they get. He also spends more time talking about Obama's health care plan than his own--which I would prefer to read myself and draw my own conclusions. I guess he focuses more on "net tax benefit" to each tax payer which sounds very enticing from a utilitarian standpoint.
Obama : First off, his health care page has a lot of really bland generic bullshit slurry--quite different from his Iraq withdrawal plan. While he doesn't spend anytime attacking McCain's plan, I don't see how some of these bullets are going to do anything for Health Care. Every talking point sounds good but nowhere do I see a plan of A) how/when this will be implemented or B) what the net effect will really be. For example: "Reduce the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees." What is a "catastrophic illness"? Reduce by how much? Who's footing this bill? What percentage is going to the employer Vs the employee? While he offers some lengthy PDFs on his site (that I don't have a lot of time to read), I'm skeptical he has any objective, measurable, attainable goals.
So that's my quick take on this topic. Honestly, I'm not impressed with either candidate. I give a nod to McCain for actually throwing some numbers out there and wonder where the $2,500 per family figure is coming from in Obama's promises. This isn't going to factor into my voting because the roots of this. I grew up on MinnesotaCare so I'm probably going to lean toward the plan that makes the most of providing basic health care to those who can't afford it. My parents never could have afforded vaccinations and I don't think I ever went to the hospital aside from that. Others aren't so lucky. Call me biased or misinformed but I don't see either candidate really doing anything creative/ingenious with health care to the point of it being worth arguing over.
My work here is dung.
Kodos wants us all healthy, for various reasons.
With an obesity epidemic... which candidate has the best answers?
That isn't something that the government should be dealing with, or even give a damn about. If people (and this includes me, I'm a big guy, so I'm not just picking on others here) are too damn stupid or lazy to manage their weight properly, that's their own fault. Our government has WAY more important issues to deal with than trying to coax some fat Americans into improving themselves.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
All I can really say is the obvious: That people don't believe that government is there mostly to just protect rights anymore (if that ever was really the case), so socialized healthcare will be a reality whether we (or I) like it or not,
and that once you get government in healthcare, the incentives to cut costs in places that aren't immediately visible and to pass laws that limit what we can do (and eat, and so forth) are even more likely to go into effect to keep costs low. Expect more restrictions on things like fast food if this goes into effect. People, apparently, cannot take care of themselves, so we need "Democracy" and mass opinion to do it for us. Some people might get the shaft and lose things they love, but in a democracy you sometimes gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette, right?
can someone tell me how BO's health care is not going to turn out like Cuba?
SO, he's going to add healthcare to 41 millions americans. That's 10million illegal immigrants to many.
But anyway, Cuba's healthcare was a failure, how is this going to be different.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
It's not really even close here... McCain wants to privatize and deregulate. Imagine your social security benefits in the hands of the people McCain trusted so much that he felt that less scrutiny and transparency was necessary. Now imagine your health care benefits managed the same way.
Universal Coverage
Cost Containment
Unlimited Services
Pick 2. Period. That's it.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Walk into any Emergency Room lobby and you'll see a sign saying "you will be treated regardless of your ability to pay" or some such.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Currently, the US health-care system rations health care somewhat arbitrarily, based on personal wealth and, failing that, photogenicity.
Under any nation-wide system, rationing will be handled by government functionaries of one kind or another. Often (see UK, Canada) this will be accompanied by rigid rules that brook of no exception -- except that rich folks can go to the US for their care.
Neither McCain nor Obama ever mention rationing, though it is clear that everyone cannot receive every medical procedure or drug available. Until there is some realistic discussion of the economics of full-scale care for the entire population, it's foolish even to consider any large-scale reform.
Moreover, it is hard to see what country will be capable of filling the role the US currently plays in the world's health-care system once the US adopts a government-based health-care program. Where will one go for high-end care? Where will new drugs be developed?
We can be sure of one thing, though: members of Congress will never use the same health-care system that hoi polloi do.
In 2006, BBC flagship news programme Newsnight featured Cuba's Healthcare system as part of a series identifying "the world's best public services". The report noted that "Thanks chiefly to the American economic blockade, but partly also to the web of strange rules and regulations that constrict Cuban life, the economy is in a terrible mess: national income per head is minuscule, and resources are amazingly tight. Healthcare, however, is a top national priority" The report stated that life expectancy and infant mortality rates are pretty much the same as the USA's. Its doctor-to-patient ratios stand comparison to any country in Western Europe. Its annual total health spend per head, however, comes in at $251; just over a tenth of the UK's. The report concluded that the population's admirable health is one of the key reasons why Castro is still in power.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
I'll take some health care. It wasn't affordable until I got a real job and now I don't have to pay for as much of it because my employer provides...
Obama has decided that health care is a right. I completely disagree with this position. People need to be responsible for themselves. The government should not forcibly take wealth from responsible individuals to pay for health care for irresponsible citizens.
Who gets to decide on the definition of health care? Is the government going to take my money and use it to buy Viagra and give it to the homeless? Will my tax dollars be used to pay for abortion services?
Sorry, health care is not a right, keep the government out of it.
If we take a look at the costs of manufacturing in the US, there is one expense that manufacturers (such as the auto makers) pay here that they don't pay pretty much anywhere else - health insurance. For every new American-built car sold, a staggering portion of the price of the car goes to cover health insurance.
Yet our country spends more per capita on health care than just about any other country on the planet, thanks at least in part to our for-profit system. In other industrialized countries, the workers are still paying for health care, but it comes out of their paychecks in the same way taxes come out. And in the end those other countries can make similar products at a lower final manufacturing cost (even after paying to export to the US).
If people are so certain that the US system is great, then please answer one question. How can we make American manufacturing competitive on the world market again while paying the highest health care costs in the world?
If you look at our top trading partner (that would be Canada), you'll see that their workers make comparable wages for equivalent jobs to those in the US. Yet numerous auto manufacturing facilities have been moved to Canada to save money. Where is the savings if the workers make similar wages? It is in health care and pensions, both managed by the state.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The states are "Laboratories of Democracy" and it should be left to them to serve their individual citizens needs. Different demographics, cultural mixes, economic situations, cost of living, and cost of health care mean that a one size fits all federal program is doomed to fail. Both McCain and Obama are trying to make a massive government entitlement to fix a problem with local scope.
I spoke to my mother in New York State yesterday, you know the state which is now forecasting a 40 billion dollar deficit. They would love to scale back medicare during this time to remove things like Dental care and some of the truly luxury services but there is a problem, federal law prevents the removal of services. So even though NY provides services that a ton of other states do not *federal* involvement keeps the state from acting in a way to keep from piling debt on their kids. This is a prime example of why the federal government should not be involved in any way shape or form.
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
There seems to be something of a misconception amongst most Americans that I speak to, that your only options are the current system or some kind of filthy commie healthcare system where government employees carry out open heart surgery with rusty cutlery.
The current system in the UK, for example, offers both private and state healthcare, with the NHS free for all and private healthcare available if you want to pay a bit of money for a TV in your hospital room and a shorter wait for your elective surgery.
If you don't want or can't afford private healthcare then you can use the NHS, which is perfectly adequate for most people and certainly doesn't have huge waiting lists for essential treatment as some people seem to believe. Yes, there are the fringe cases, but for the mostpart the NHS is no worse than any of the private medical services when it comes to patient care.
As a result of this system, the private healthcare providers have to charge reasonable rates, because they know that people will simply abandon them for the NHS if they don't appear to be offering good value for money any more.
Americans seem to be terrfied of any kind of government provided or subsidised healthcare at any level, almost as if they see it as a "gateway drug" to communism - as comical as that appears to the rest of the world.
Disclaimer: I currently contract for the NHS, making me far more cynical about it then I might otherwise be.
Create a UK NHS equivilent in the US with the principles of "Free at the point of use, based on need, not ability to pay.".
Yes, it's funded by taxes, but you never have to worry that your private insurer won't pay out or won't insure a pre-existing condition.
The biggest problem with the health care market today is lack of price discovery. Consumers don't see the prices they are paying, so there is no direct competition and no pressure on prices. And the numbers on the bills don't actually reflect the price of most things, since most things are paid for by insurance, and insurance companies have "negotiated discounts." But to me, when the "discount" is applied to 90+% of the units, that's the real actual price. So we need to have a way to directly connect consumers to the actual prices of things.
That would provide direct price pressure on the most common products of the health care industry. For instance, a strep test. Or common drugs. Or an MRI. I have heard people say this won't work for medical items, but just look at laser eye surgery for example--this is a product marketed directly to the public and in most cases paid for directly by the public. Price discovery works (the price advertised is the price most commonly paid), and competitive pressure has driven technological advancement and price declines.
Insurance should be reserved for the most catastrophic and expensive problems...chemotherapy, car accidents, etc. I don't pass my home or car maintenance payments through my home or car insurance. Why should I pass all my health maintenance payments through my health insurance?? The most fundamental mistake made in discussing health care in this country is to center it on "who has insurance." Catastrophic-only coverage is not expensive and not hard to get...almost everyone can afford it. What is expensive and complicated and hard to get is the "comprehensive coverage" policies in which every cost is passed through the insurance company. We need to break that.
Finally, no private market solution will cover everyone. That's not what private markets do...they provide an optimal solution, but optimal always means discarding the outliers. But as a democratic nation of equals, there are no outliers. So we need to have a government-provided backstop for those who the private market does not serve adequately. But I think we should have a target percentage of service. If the backstop is serving more than 20% of the population, say, then it's time to review and readjust.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
which candidate has the best answers to making sure that Americans are able to stay healthy without America being bankrupted in the process?
Please point out to me where in the Constitution it says the government either has the right or duty to have a "best answer" to anything to do with my personal health? The answer is: it doesn't, nor should it.
My personal health is my responsibility. If I want to smoke, drink, and eat fatty foods until I die of a massive heart attack, that's my business. Nobody else should be concerned with it. If it can't afford to pay for the health problems I've brought on myself, nobody else should be required to pay one red cent to cover me.
For crying out loud, we're becoming (or have already become) a nation of I-want-my-Mommy groupthinkers, where government is expected to make life simple, easy, safe, and rewarding. Government is a necessary evil that does nothing particularly well and many things quite badly. Those of you who are about to vote for it to take care of your health, your retirement, your jobs, or your finances are about to be grossly disappointed.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Or we have people who have money/insurance get the first priority.
Unfortunately the decision comes down to this. It certainly isn't pretty: but we don't have enough of it to go around.
If I were in charge, I would open up more medical schools to increase supply.
I shudder to think of a hospital that's run like a DMV, Post Office or courthouse -- a bunch of apathetic state/federal employees with no motivation. In my time overseas (in countries with socialized medicine) I met many people who often came to the US and paid cash for their procedures rather than letting the gov't determine their spot in line, and ultimately, who lives or dies.
Huh? Since when it it a Constitutionally delegated power of the Executive branch to "make sure" that Americans are "able to stay healthy," while also meddling in their finances?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
please, someone point out the fault in my logic:
everyone should have healthcare insurance, correct or no?
you would be ok in a society where some people died of preventable issues simply because their finances were not in order?
ok, now that we all agree healthcare insurance is something we should all have, then one way to do it is what we have now: the rich have it (because they are rich), the poor have it (because the poor are supported by the government), and the middle class are screwed: money is tight, rules are arcane, and what happens is the guy between jobs has to declare bankruptcy in order to get his cancer treated, or dies while filling out paperwork
this is better than nationalization? really?
i know the arguments against nationalization: lower quality, lots of waste
as if the current system doesn't have lots of waste? you ever deal with an hmo?
as if quality isn't low in the current environment with hospitals scrambling to stay open and doctors pressured by hmos to get in the door and out the door?
nationalization seems like such a nobrainer to me, but you have this loud vocal opposition to the idea of nationalized healthcare in this country and i honestly can't understand the reasons for it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Wow - you criticize Obama for not providing the details, but when you remark that he has lengthy PDFs you don't want to bother to read. Either you've already made up your mind and are just rationalizing your opinion, or you don't really care enough about the topic to do your research.
At least you admit to having bias, but then I fail to see anything meaningful at all in what you wrote. At the very least, you should said that you don't have enough information to make a sound judgment on the topic, which is fine. Unfortunately, the norm is that people don't want to admit that, and would rather just make up some reasons for their opinions rather than admit they don't know.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
Most non-working people I know have gotten their medical treatment for them and their children free.
The ones that are always hurting, are the "working poor" who bust their butt but always make just enough "too much" not to qualify for free school lunch, section-8, etc.
And the self-employed who are left on their own to gain coverage.
***
Haven't seen much from Obama that'd really do anything. I did like McCain's idea to let insurance companies compete across state lines. (ie: An insurance company in Arkansas could sell in to the much higher priced market in NYC.)
Using your imagination is the plan that congress has for realizing the promise of you getting an actual payout from their ponzi scheme.
Not about fat, but about smoking or drinking or some such -- stop or you don't get the care you need.
please, someone point out the fault in my logic:
everyone should have healthcare insurance, correct or no?
The answer here is no. Everyone should not have health care. Health care is not a right.
Nigger nigger!
How's privatization and deregulation worked for the stock market? Even Greenspan admits this was doubleplus ungood.
How's privatization and deregulation worked for the public with energy companies? [cough]Enron[/cough].
We are better off trusting Congress than health and insurance companies - because the damage doesn't come from Congressfolk not being "experts" in medicine and medical billing. They can hire experts. No, the damage comes from companies hiring experts in BS to rip us off.
And Congress simply has less of a vested interest in ripping us off on health care. That's the simple reality of it.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
"Yet, we already spend more money per student in public school than nearly all other Western nations. Specifically, we spend 35% more than the Germans. "
And yet we still fall behind...
It's not a money problem, I'll agree. It's a cultural thing. There are some smart black people (think like Malcolm X and MLK types) around today, it's just that they tend to be the ones who actually lived through the Civil Rights era. I admire any smart person, whether black, white, or whatever.
Modern youth culture is, itself, a detriment to education. Instead of "work hard!" it's "fuck the right people over!"
Speaking as a 19 year old college student.
You just proved that nationalized health care would be better than state-based right after saying state-based would be better.
New York's current problems come from a heavy reliance on NYSE for income. If health care were nationalized rather than localized, New York would be weathering this problem a lot better. It would be nice to have our federal taxes come into our own state rather than go to another state for once.
And FYI, you have to be pretty broke or in trouble to get Medicare.
I deliminate with tabs. Get used to it.
it is acceptable that people not have healthcare in this society, please move to the third world, where you routinely see people dying on the street of diseases and conditions requiring 50 cents and fifteeen minutes of medical attention
i mean, by saying you think some people should not have healthcare, you are openly saying you don't care baout your society
and if you don't care boaut your society, why do you expect to continue deriving benefits from it? you don't care baout society's health. ok
well then, we should stop caring about you
get off our roads
stop using our currency
stop using our electricity
stop using our transportation
oh, what? these are magical things that exist outside of a society that cares about itself and takes care of itself?
no, the truth is, your a blind selfish fuck, who wishes to deny that which takes care of him
you don't have a valid opinion or point of view, because you have no logical coherence or moral integrity
you are talking about issues you don't care about. in which case you should prove how much you really don't care, and SHUT UP
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Here in Aus we have both nationalised AND privatised healthcare. Yes we are the country of moderation, never going to one extreme or the other.
I've made use of our public hospitals in my life for:
1. A severely broken leg (emergency).
2. A radio frequency ablation (serious but not urgent) in and out in a day, by one of the leading heart specialists in the world.
3. My sons birth...single room for the Mrs, very quiet, great midwives and a nice experience. Funnily my other half is from the UK and MUCH prefers our system and hospitals. Though more stuff is covered over there apparently.
All of these cost me nothing up front, service in all cases was great.
That includes the midwives, the bulk billed GP visits, etc.
Now the cost. I pay ~$600 a year on the 'medicare levy', that's how much it costs me in taxes. That's full cover (except dental, public doesn't cover most of that) for $600 a year for top notch service. There's more than that, but as a tax paying citizen, I'm happy for a portion of my taxes to be alloted to public healthcare.
My mate pays a little more than that for private health insurance. He fell off his ladder a few years ago and totally mangled his wrist, nasty business, many breaks. After years of putting into his private insurance...he ends up in the public system anyway. There was nobody available to operate on him in the private hospital we took him to. Total waste of money.
My father had his ankle fused in the private system, his treatment was no better than the public system. Except he got to pay a $3000 premium for the effort.
I'm happy to pay ~600 a year to the government for 'health insurance', it's money well spent.
I hear of Americans paying in the thousands a year for cover, I have to ask...why? Surely your hospitals can't be that inefficient, or are you all just very sick?
I like our system, it works well. You can have the best of both worlds if you find the right balance point, going to one extreme or the other with total nationalisation or total privatisation seems silly.
please, someone point out the fault in my logic:
everyone should have healthcare insurance, correct or no?
NO, actually, no one should have health insurance. If people paid for the cost of their health care out of their own pockets, market forces would come to bear on the price of health care.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
In Europe (western) this not even a subject for discussion.
Of course there is universal health care, of course they are trying to make it more efficient, of course this is not even a subject for debate.
People pay taxes and they dont have to worry.Ever.
all of them.
I cant believe how closed-minded you americans are. You (your ancestors) supposedly left Europe because it was too...stagnant for your taste. You didnt like the kings and queens, nor the old feudal system, and you wanted something better.Some place where you can be free.
Well...what happened to those ideals?
You have become closed-minded, your leftist politician is considered a right-wing extremist anywhere in europe, you want to let people die yet you are hitting everyone over the head with the bible and how Christianity is better and stuff.
You said everyone should be free, and yet you are the first ones to enslave somebody (and yes, being tied to a insurance company, without the ability to break free, means slavery).
You have become a mockery of yourself.Destroyed your ideals.
How can you even look in the mirror and say "I aint paying for him to get better"?
Shame, shame on you.
I find it strange that the people most upset by the governments listening to phone calls of foreign origin or destination are the same folks most anxious to see the government take over and manage every health care decision in our lives.
The alternative to limited government is unlimited government.
Mobility among states is common now. It's not unusual for someone to grow up in one state, go to another for college, go to another to find work, and retire to another. People expect things to be basically the same across states. It's not like it was 200 years ago when few people moved out of their county.
1ST, 2ND, AND 10TH amendments are in danger if BamaBiden are elected.
This election has come down to freedom vs. fascism/marxism.
We could be in a lot of trouble.
Even in this age of non socialized medicine, your care provider can AND WILL fire you as a patient if you routinely disregard or go against medical advice. It's nothing new and certainly won't change if health care becomes nationalized, might it become more prevalent if those providers aren't compensated for their care? More than likely...
However, health care really isn't any different than any other profession. If I were to hire one of you to maintain my network and *CONSTANTLY* went against your advice and did things like, opened up the firewall so that my data got hijacked, let viruses propagate across the network, screwed something up so that the system routinely crashed simply because I was too stubborn to follow your advice, how long would you keep me as a client?
However their governments regulates they must offer a single price without age or pre-existing considition differentials. This pretty much how US employer insurance operates. Seems to work OK.
Government should get completely out of health care. Period.
Most of the mess that health care has become is because of Government interference in the first place. More of the same is NOT going to make anything better.
Therefore, from a health care perspective, Bob Barr is the only reasonable candidate in the race.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
Side A : Let's give healthcare to all of you so that the tens of millions of you who can't afford one can have one rather than work two jobs while you're dying of a cancer you can barely afford to cure.
Side B : OMG no don't you understand! The world divides in two sides, the capitalist side, and the communist side. Universal healthcare is socialism, and socialism is in our minds some sort of watered-down communism, which is anti-capitalism, therefore universal healthcare = anti-American!
God I'm glad we still get to choose between our Cold war-era ideological remanents of antagonisms vs. black babies dying. God bless our ideological free-for-all that is Capitalism as American conservatives and libertarians see it! The bad guys are commies, and the good guys are capitalists, therefore it's perfectly safe and healthy to be as capitalist as we possibly can!
You just got troll'd!
They are shit holes, in shambles, unsanitary. These are the ones normal Cubans get to visit as opposed to the nice hospital for the party elites and foreigners with cash that you saw in Sicko. Trying to sneak photos of them out of the country can get you arrested, but some have succeeded. I like the guy taking his sick father to the hospital in a wheelbarrow because there were no ambulances. If I go to a pharmacy here I have to pay, but I can get my drugs. There you will see a sign saying there are no prescriptions available.
You forget this is a communist totalitarian state we're talking about. They never tell the truth, just like the Soviet Union was broadcasting about record wheat harvests that'll feed everybody while we were sending them the millions of tons of grain they needed to actually do it.
the figures back it up.
go to the third world. see people dying of diseases and conditions 50 cents and 15 minutes of a doctor's time woudl cure
your ignorance is huge
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Health and Insurance industries have to many laws on the books that keep the status quo. When it doesn't work, the politicians create an equal number of laws to counter-act the same laws they voted for to get Insurance money. How about get rid of all of them and return to the days when I could walk into the Doctor's office any time. Pay my $6 for the appointment and the medicine kept right there in the office. Government do-gooders and greedy industry have TOGETHER to create this mess.
If govt. can lower the price of health care by a single payer system, it should also introduce a single payer system for food.
"People expect things to be basically the same across states. It's not like it was 200 years ago when few people moved out of their county."
Then people have a piss poor understanding of US civics, it does not mean we should change the role of government to cater to their ignorance. Do you really think people move from one state to another expecting everything to be the same? Having live in three states I can tell you that is most certainly not true.
Hell look at the ages of people in states:
West Virginia, with a median age of 38.9
Utah, with a median age of at 27.4.
These states are going to have different needs and a system which caters to them is best..
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
Funny how these types of silly posts seem to be exclusively against Obama.
You can almost smell the fear on this AC post!
My first reaction is surely no in is stupid enough to swallow this crap,
then I remember that 85% of people are idiots. )-:
after the Gov't screwed it up in the first place...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Am i the only one or does this whole line of articles seem off topic for slashdot? I mean there just isn't enough that is geeky about politics that it seems like it belongs here.
Sure politics is important and all. But if we are going to discuss healtcare , shouldn't we be discussing the security aspects and privacy aspects of the tech involved?
If we are discussing war why aren't we talking about the robots and the tech. I thought this was a tech web site.
There are two main factors undermining affordable health care in the United States:
Finally, it is not a right - or at least it is not my responsibility to pay for your kids. I'm single, in excellent health, never smoked and I eat a good diet containing antioxidants. Do not make me pay for your indulgences. But I do believe that emergency care including surgical reattachments from accidents should be a minimal level of care anywhere in this country.
But if we have the government run it then we find ourselves in in the debate of what the government should cover - viagra and/or birth control. Abortion (aside from rape)? My answer to all that is all of that is voluntary. The minimal level of case should to protect the physical body, anything past that is optional. Life isn't all roses. I've developed several lasting injuries, no amount of insurance or rehab will fix them. Its just something I have go live with. So my next question is how to we set the national expectations for "standard of health care" when we feel so damn entitled?
Under the German state health care you never get a bill, never see what is being charged to your doctor.
Here I get a statement from my insurance company stating what I paid, what they paid and whatever discount the doctor gave to the insurance company.
I'm a health care provider. I've been in the field in various capacities since 1981 and as a licensed professional since 1990.
When we talk about the "health care system" in America we have to be very clear about what we are talking about. There are two halves to this system- health care providers and health care finance. The main problems in the US health care system are in health care finance, since this is what determines access to health care.
National health care insurance is an inevitability and IMHO will be driven from the Right not the Left. The driving force will be lobbying from large businesses (GM, for example) that will be rendered noncompetitive by health care costs; they will either go bust or leave the US for countries with a national health care plan. IIRC nearly $1500 of a GM auto's sticker price is health care costs for current and pensioned employees. The creation of a national health system would allow GM and other large companies to offload much of the cost of health care insurance for current employees but also for retirees. This would be a major gain in the bottom line for companies struggling under these costs and other market forces, and would put them on a more-equal footing with most European and some Asian competitors. It would also be a major gain for small businesses (like my Dad's, like the company I work for, etc.) as it would reduce payroll costs. The losers, of course, would be private insurance companies and their CEOs, employees and shareholders.
For the individual, national health care coverage would mean greater freedom to move between jobs to improve one's lot in life and greater flexibility in managing care for children or dependent adults (e.g., aging parents).
The creation of a national health care finance plan would be able to leverage economies of scale unavailable to private insurance companies. The removal of the profit motive would reduce overhead from an industry average of 10-30% to closer to Medicare's 2%- a savings of hundreds of billions of dollars per year right there. With universal coverage, every person in the US could obtain preventive, clinic based care (which is the least expensive way to receive care) rather than letting problem go unaddressed and eventually seeking care in an emergency room (the most expensive way to receive medical care). With universal coverage, health care providers would not face defaults on payments for services which would allow a reduction in the cost of care. Rationing of health care would be reduced through the elimination of provider networks and access restrictions imposed by insurance companies. And finally, authorizations for services would not be influenced by the need to protect the profit margin.
From the provider side, it costs money to get paid. Someone has to prepare a bill and send it out. For many of my patients, payment comes from two to four sources and I have to send a bill to each in turn according to an order of precedence. Each bill costs $3-5 to send, and then there are the costs of tracking reimbursement to collate all the payments, figuring out who gets money back if the bill gets overpaid (which happens frequently because the insurance companies don't understand their own systems very well). Being able to do single payer billing would save an average of $10 per patient in my clinic, which means either more profit or the ability to lower costs for services. Imagine the cumulative savings if the cost of every health care service in America could be reduced by an average of $10.
That all sounds like a panacea and of course no such thing exists. Every health care finance system would have problems. People worry about where the money would come from and the only possible answer is taxes, since that is the only source of government revenue. However, we already pay that tax and then some. Like most people, I get my insurance through my employer. I chose the cheapest plan, which is a high-deductible plan. It costs $512 per month, 50% out of my po
An American collegue (Living in the UK) was visited by her father this year. While here he broke his arm, which was reset by the NHS (who would later bill him). His opinion of the treatment he got was excellent, couldn't fault it.
He was shocked by the bill... He expected $5000 the actual bill was £175 ($300 - $350 depending on the exchange rate).
In UK we have a health care system that is not very efficient but it helps poor to get health care without any bias. Can this system be implemented in US with all the lessons learnt from UK and bringing more accountability to health care system (this is not present in UK and consequently spendings is hugh but not advantages of spending is not reaching comman man). This will be the idle public health system which will have efficiency of private sector and social security of Public sector. Any more ideas ?? and comments on this ??
Insurance companies suck, I'd love to find one that acknowledges that there is a difference between a 2 person family and a 6 person family.
As of right now if I wanted employer healthcare for me and my spouse it would cost me exactly the same as my co-workers healthcare for him, his spouse, and his 3 children.
As two generally healthy adults we cost a lot less to cover than 3 children. But we pay the same amount. That sucks.
Of course, healthcare isn't the governments business any more than housing, cars, or clothes are. If you believe the government should be providing you healthcare then you should also believe that the government should feed, clothe, and house you since those are more fundamental needs than healthcare.
So, please stop your dirty socialist whining.
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
One could argue that much like the way that that making student loans more easily accessible has caused the cost of a higher education to shoot up, making easier accessibility to health insurance will raise the overall costs that someone will have to pay, whether it be the patient at the time of service, at the time their taxes are taken out or out of someone else's pocket.
Based solely on performance: Does anyone want the morons in Washington to have a say in your health care? That is one scary thought and very appropriate on Halloween.
Remember, I have renamed Congress the "Thundering Herd of Dumbass" for a reason (19% approval rating shows I'm not alone).
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
I can't tell from your post whether this is your opinion, but I keep hearing this mantra: "the government wants to regulate things and take away your freedom." (I'm a Brit living in the US.) In this case, it's: "the government wants to prevent you from eating the food you like".
Frankly, this argument is weak. Regulation and freedom are not opposed, nor are they aligned - they are different things. Regulation can sometimes lead to loss of freedom, and can sometimes protect and enshrine freedom.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the reason that many people like fast food is that fast food corporations are currently free to bombard 4-year olds with the message that if they have a Big Mac, they will be happy?
There are many ways to tackle the obesity/fast food conundrum at the supply side. Now there's an argument that should appeal to Reaganites.
People talk about health care. Those who want a nationalized system ask, "What are you going to do when you get cancer or have a heart attack?". Those who want a privatized system ask, "Why do you want the government getting between you and your family doctor?"
We won't get a solution, until we settle on what the question is!!
Insurance isn't designed as a medical maintenance plan. Never was and never will be. It is a financial instrument where party A pays party B to assume a liability. It is a formalized gambling system.
The medical maintenance plans that many of us have with our employers are not insurance plans, though nearly all do incorporate insurance. They are medical maintenance plans whereby you pay someone on an installment plan, so that they will pay for you to periodically see a doctor. I don't carry 'insurance' for my weekly grocery bill, or for when I have to stop at the gas station. Though, I can have a rate-leveling plan that will take the 'risk' out of getting an extra large electricity bill if we have a really hot month during the summer.
For a sane discussion, just state if your for nationalize insurance, nationalized health maintenance programs, or some privatized version of either.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
When was the last time you just walked into your doctors office and he was sitting around with nothing to do? More likely, you had to make an appointment, and be put on the waiting list. With public healthcare, I am going to be taxed to put more people on this list?
I am not a big fan of the government taking my money and giving it to someone else, but it seems inevitable in the US.
If my money is going to go for something, I'd rather it go toward creating more "fisherman", rather than just giving away "fish" and driving up the price.
Maybe some of the healthcare money should go towards creating more doctors. The deal would be to put volunteers thru medical/nursing school, for which they are then obligated to provide the "government healthcare" for some number of years. This way, you create the supply of providers to satisfy the demand.
But the NHS _is_ filthy. See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/mrsa
There's an epidemic of iatrogenic infections in NHS hospitals because of lax hygiene standards.
Sure, you may be fine with it (you may find rotting teeth sexually attractive, too), but we're a bit more obsessed with avoiding infections here in the US (also with perfect teeth).
please, someone point out the fault in my logic:
everyone should have healthcare insurance, correct or no?
No. It is not your place, or mine, or the Government's, to decide for other people what they "should" or "should not" do, or have, etc.
It's THEIR business, not yours.
you would be ok in a society where some people died of preventable issues simply because their finances were not in order?
Absolutely. It's not society's responsibility to enable other people's irresponsibility. If someone dies because s/he can't make rational choices between health care and the other things s/he is spending money on, that's zir own business, not yours, or mine, or society's.
If you believe that someone should help them, then either do it with your OWN money or start a charity. Don't show up at my doorstep with a gun telling me that I have to pay for someone else's healthcare expenses.
ok, now that we all agree healthcare insurance is something we should all have
No, we don't. That makes the rest of your argument invalid.
...you have this loud vocal opposition to the idea of nationalized healthcare in this country and i honestly can't understand the reasons for it
It's real simple. SOME of us don't believe that armed robbery is a solution -- to ANYTHING.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
"If you are a worker in the campaign of either Hillary Clinton or John McCain, please feel free to use any of my references in your campaign."
Thank you David Duke. We will be sure to give you full credit when we use your incendiary hate speech. Thanks again and keep America White!
I read an article in the Wall Street Journal a few years back that a substantial portion of the US health care dollar goes to just two areas:
1) Malpractice insurance / lawsuits - including malpractice insurance overhead, lawyers, and "defensive" medicine.
2) "Final" care - medical care (usually in a hospital) during the last few weeks of someones life.
Neither candidate is addressing either of these issues.
[Insert pithy quote here]
healthcare != health insurance
gee thanks, i had no idea
WHO PAYS FOR IT OH GREAT SWAMI
THUS THE ISSUE AT HAND
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I've been watching commercials from the AARP Divided we Fail campaign http://www.aarp.org/issues/dividedwefail/ for more than a year now, and I really have to commend them to trying to elevate the health care argument above partisan politics, and paint it as an issue for all, not just for one ideology. In fact it is an issue that hits everyone except the ultra-wealthy, so should be a big part of the national dialog.
Personally I think that the GOP stance would be to do nothing (let the market keep doing whatever it wants, no matter who dies) so I do firmly believe that a democratic candidate would do far better than the republican that started us down this path some 30 years ago (that's Nixon, BTW).
This topic is one close to my heart... in several ways. I have very personal experience with Socialized Medicine. You see, I'm Canadian, for those of you not familiar with your neighbours to the north, we have a Socialized Medicine system. I've lived under it's jack boots all my life. I have too many stories to cover in this one post. In Canada socialized medicine is an unmitigated disaster. Unless you live in a large population center or in one of the richer areas in Canada you won't get good care. Myself I live in a rural area in New Brunswick, and the 'health care' that Canada offers hear is unacceptable. I actually got a job in the US 'just' to get health insurance. Where I live the closet Canadian hospital is over an hour and fifteen minutes away, there is 1 medical center in my area, open 2 days a week. Only one of those days does a doctor actually operate out of the clinic. I'll give you my own most recent experiences with that system. I was rushed to the near by US Hospital (thank you US Health Insurance), with heart issues a while back. Treated and released for my condition (Aterial Fib as it's called) a day later. I was instructed to see a Cardiologist ASAP to figure out what causes the issue. I contacted Canadian medicare and was told that the closest appointment they could give me was EIGHT MONTHS away. It would be another SIX MONTHS after the consult to have any testing I needed done then another SIX MONTHS to see the doctor for my results. Realize at this point I had no idea what was wrong with me... I could've been dead the next day from it. I promptly hung up the phone and contacted the nearest Cardiologist in the US. This was a Thursday... I was scheduled for the following Monday @ 8:30. I was taken care of and all prudent testing was done over the span of that week, and the week following. My condition identified and treatment was rendered. I encourage people to debate me on Socialized Medicine, I'm all too well versed in it's use. Frankly I can see how on the surface Socialized Medicine would look appealing to people, but once you get underneath to the meat of the matter... it becomes a scary reality. The simple fact of the matter is in a socialist health care system you are at the mercy of the government in terms of your overall health care. I know too many friends and family that have been mistreated, and some killed by negligence on the part of the state in these matters. It is NOT a good system, in practice.
Americans seem to be terrfied of any kind of government provided or subsidised healthcare at any level, almost as if they see it as a "gateway drug" to communism - as comical as that appears to the rest of the world.
They sure do, yet Medicare (a federal organization) already spends the same $ per capita on health care in the US serving only some of the population as the NHS does on serving an entire country!
Americans might be scared of subsidies, yet they're already wasting as much as we do and get very little for it. At least I don't have to pay a single penny if I get injured in a road traffic accident. Sure, I'm paying in taxes, but UK taxes are barely any higher than those in the US except on VAT.
Our health care system is only good for emergency care, you know things like cit off fingers...etc. As for long term preventative health care we need to get rid of drug company and insurance company lobbies. Their interest is purely $$$. We also need to get rid of the AMA's long-reaching influence. Tye also are only in it for the $$$. Cancer industry, heart accociation what a load of crap. They are interested in keeping Cancer and Heart disease an epidemic. Alex
"The Brady Bunch is back...working homicide"
I think the primary flaw in your thinking is that you are seeing the results of government intervention (well over 50% of healthcare spending is from/through the government, and it is heavily heavily regulated), and instead of understanding that the chaos and dysfunction is a result of government intervention, your conclusion is that more intervention is needed. This is how the snowball got started, and it's still rolling along, crushing anything in its path.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
On July 1, 1966, millions of Americans lost all financial responsibility for their health-care decisions thanks to Medicare and Medicaid. In 1973, Senator Kennedy said 'I believe that the HMO is the best idea put forth so far for containing costs and improving the organization and the delivery of health-care services.' You can see the result of twenty-five years of government intervention into the health insurance/health care market. The 110th Congress just performed the same type of market manipulation on our financial system. You do not have to be a laissez-faire economist to realize that the government should stay out of markets.
Until very recently health care costs were growing at several times the rate of inflation (inflation has increased a lot) and the US is spending much, much more per capita on health care than other western countries while covering a smaller portion of its population. The uninsured still receive care but they get emergency care and that is a very expensive way to treat most conditions. The cost of that is ultimately passed on to the insured and/or taxpayers so we're currently paying for insuring the rest of the country but at an inflated price and getting poor results now.
There are serious problems with care for the insured. Contracts and billing between hospitals and payors are a terrible mess and administrative costs are a big part of hospital bills with private insurance. Medicare and the medicaids cost a lot less to administer so more of the public health care dollar goes to care than the private counterparts.
I don't think the Canadian or British models would fit America very well but the German system with multiple non-profit payors or the Australian system with national health care and an option for a private premium insurance is something I think we should explore as they tend to keep choice in the equation.
Obama's plan seems like it would be expensive but we're already paying for everyone to get health care now in some form so for the most part this is just shifting money around in an effort to provide better care. I think a lot of the savings with this plan from increased efficiency of care and cutting some of the cost of caring for the uninsured that is currently passed on to the insured is going to be eaten up by the hospital and insurance companies. It doesn't fix problems with private insurance but that's too big of a problem to tackle now.
McCain's plan will cause some employers to drop insurance and make modest increases in cash wages for their workers because it will cost more to insure them and they can just let their employees buy insurance with a tax credit paid by other employers who provide insurance to their workers and some of their fake raise. It creates a competitive disadvantage to offer insurance because you'll be paying more to insure your employees and your competitors while they are probably paying a bit less than they were before. The insurance they'll be able to buy probably won't have group risk built into it so you'll see a lot more medical underwriting so healthy people can get good insurance cheaply and sick people will still have problems getting insurance.
If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
the neo conservatives are trying to scare us away from real health care reform. I've been part of a socialist healthcare system and I love it. Many health issues that I put off because of cost under a privatized system have been addressed. I am healthier now and finally able to afford treatment for hearing loss.
This socialized medicine is provided by the Veterans Administration. The problems brought on by the bush administration's draconian cuts have been addressed.
photosMy Photostream
Wasn't seeing my posts; perhaps it was some caching issue.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
you think that everyone makes their choices in a vacuum, that the consequences of their action affects no one else. if someone makes a bad choice that has a negative consequence on those around them, then you have reached the limit of free choice
everyone has the right to make their own decisions, unless the decisions they make adversely affect others in society
for example: a drug addict. a drug addict, by making their own choices, has wound up in a situation where they place a drag on those around him, by becoming someone who cannot support himself and requiring others to support him. in this case, the drug addict has relinquished the right to make their own choices and must have treatment forced upon him against his will
likewise, if someone does not get their child innoculated against diseases, they become disease spreading vectors. not all innoculations work 100%. so even if you innoculate your child, that child can still get sick, and die, due to the irreponsibility of others. in which case, the healthcare of those aorund you becomes your business
you have an unsupportable assumption in your ideas, that you make decisions in a vacuum, and it affects no one else. this is obviously false, and you need to rethink your ideas about how the real world works. there are real and genuine limits on free will in this world. not because i say so, but out of simple logical consequence
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Hell look at the ages of people in states:
West Virginia, with a median age of 38.9
Utah, with a median age of at 27.4.
These states are going to have different needs and a system which caters to them is best..
That's a very good argument in defense of a national health care system... Unless you want to spread old people across the nation of course...
OK so for me it boils down like this:
McCain: $5,000 is not enough for proper health coverage for most of the population. On top of this, this gives companies the chance to be rid of dealing with health coverage altogether. The reason healthcare is even at or around $10,000 per individual right now is because the group rates these big companies deal in keep them even that low. When you are all of a sudden an individual, especially someone with some health issues you can now be singled out easier and either have your rates raised or dropped totally. It is actually much harder now because of everyone being lumped in one group and it is bad now.
Obama: Keeping the onus on companies and offering tax breaks and incentives keeps the system working pretty much as-is with a few more getting coverage when they wouldn't have otherwise. Costs stay the same if not drop for many individuals and companies. It may also help keep companies like Wal-Mart from abusing the welfare system by not supplying healthcare and keeping wages low to skirt around it, this would actually free up a lot of funds which are *our* tax dollars.
My View: I'd love to pay 2-3% more in taxes to turn it into a universal government system as long as healthcare/insurance lobbyists are kept the fuck out of it. Which will never happen in this great country. The average individual is not equipped to take on healthcare individually and when sick or in need of care even those of us who are should be focused on recovery and health over filling forms and sitting on hold fighting faceless corporations.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
"There are some smart black people (think like Clarence Thomas and Walter Williams types) around today...."
There, fixed that for you.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
it doesn't take government for people to have financial difficulties and be unable to take care of themselves and to be irresponsible. which is all you need to understand to understand why we are in this mess. nice try, but you have either a massive logic failure or are heavily propagandized
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
America is already bankrupt. Ethically & financially at least.
There is a war going on for your mind.
You know, I'm fairly conservative leaning, preferring government not to meddle in the affairs of ordinary citizens. Sadly, though, I'm the poster child for health care reform. You see, neither of my two sons' deliveries were covered by my health insurance.
I'm an engineer; I make good money. I can actually afford health insurance. But there's little point in doing so, because the only way in which I can get a substantial claim paid is to bring suit against the insurance company. And before I do that, I must exhaust their appeals process, which can take several years.
In my case, the insurance companies attempted to use loopholes to deny coverage for my sons. In the first case, the company failed to mail the enrollment forms until after the enrollment deadline had passed. In the second case, the deadline passed when my wife was mourning her late father, and prior to this, was actually told that my son would automatically be enrolled. But, alas, rules are rules, and even though I'm slaving away working overtime to meet a deadline, the insurance company my employer uses won't make an exception for a late enrollment form.
The notion that having health insurance means your medical expenses will be paid is laughable. Sadly - even though I really don't like the idea - I have to concede that the government would do a better job providing health care than private insurance. A company which won't pay for a routine expense like child birth isn't going to cover any really expensive incident, like cancer, or heart attacks.
So where am I now? I'm paying about a grand a month for family health insurance which won't even cover the birth of my sons - a routine medical expense. I'm fully convinced that if they won't pay for this, they're not going to pay for a heart attack or cancer without me suing them. I'm convinced that revoking the corporate charter for health insurance companies and divesting their assets would be a step forward. Making it illegal to profit from health insurance would be even better.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I'm a Canadian who was lucky enough to spend 8 months living in the US.
During that time one of my co-workers was in her early twenties and she had a boyfriend of about the same age who was in the transition between jobs.
She was terrified. During that time he would have no health insurance.
Now this gets me thinking. These are both very healthy people. Is this a big concern among many young people in the US? When I was that age (and in Canada), having a job meant more than paying the bills. When I thought about my current job and future ones I was thinking about career growth, experience, and opportunity. Never once did it cross my mind that I must stay with my job otherwise I lose my health insurance.
Is it possible that some people are stuck in shitty jobs because maybe they're sick or their spouse or child has a 'pre-existing condition' and leaving is not an option because of health insurance?
If that is the case then the lack of job mobility is a huge barrier to being truly competitive.
if people didn't have health insurance
durrrrrrrrr
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I wish your mom had advocated infanticide.
Where in the US Constitution is the Federal Government empowered to manage health care for US citizens?
Because if it's not enumerated,
The 10th amendment to the Constitution is crystal clear on this point:
And yet you put up with a public police and fire service... remarkable. How do you sleep at night, paying for all those fires to be put out, all those criminals to be arrested?
Ingredients: Turkey, Mechanically Separated Turkey, Water, Salt, Flavour.
in here, france, we have this thing called universal healthcare system, where everyone is entitle to healthcare for free... For Free !!!
The bushies would argue, since they prefer failures
then improvements (wmd, katrina, 9/11, global warming and subprime).. that it always cost, through taxes. Yes it does, unless for some reason, you lost your job, then you get it really for free.
On the other hand, if you lose your job and your health, i am still not sure bushies will offer you a pistol for free..
Other then that the french healthcare system works through Unions. Union of managers and Union of employee, meet each year, and have to reach an agreement on what to do with those taxes, and / or raised them up, or lower them down. If they can't reach an agreement, gov works as a referee.
So far at time of high level of unemployment, the system face deficit, and sometimes make profits at time unemployment is getting low.
Now france is not the only country to have "decent" healthcare solution. I mean what points does it make to have the more modern, best, powerfull, wealthy nation on earth, when one is to tell you, you are too poor, to get decent healthcare.
Well france, is not the only one, english system have vastly improved in recent years, and sweden, danmark, finnish.. norway etc.. plenty nations have a good healthcare system, helping most citizens, but the US can't afford according to bushies.. (looking for some more disasters)
Conservative Republican US Senator Bill Frist argued that the free market will keep costs down, because individuals who have to pay for their own health care will make wiser decisions and not spend money on unneeded or inefficient care. A deregulated free market, Frist argues, will also encourage efficiency and innovation. The US currently (2007) has the most expensive health care of any OECD country and also has the highest percentage of costs paid privately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care -- see economics, pretty interesting and curious.. US spending are double france and germany.. but life expectancy is below them, and infant death rate higher..
When people have to choose between their mortgage, car payment or health insurance the health insurance comes in last.
Why is this the case? What prevents one from moving the family to a smaller residence closer to work, thereby eliminating much of the mortgage and all of the car payment?
You think that obesity is none of the government's business, but it is(given our current policies) Right now if you have a heart attack, the government is not going to deny you emergency health care:
1. Even if YOU decided that you don't care about your weight.
2. Even if YOU have no health insurance to cover your care.
But there is COST associated with care, where is the money going to come from? You have profit base organization up and down the ladder in health care from hospitals to doctors to insurance companies. A Coronary bypass surgery, or even stent placement is going to cost at least ten thousand dollars.(not even considering the extra costs)
http://www.ajmc.com/Article.cfm?ID=2733
Who is going to suck up the cost? Government of course. Who funds the government? You the Taxpayer.
(I am going to push the envelope and do a bit of devil's advocacy here): Why should I(the health conscious taxpayer with insurance) pay for the health care of someone who has no insurance, don't take care of their own health, and end up in this kind of mess?
The problem with health care is that we have not decided on how to treat health care(as a right or as a privilege). people want care, but no one wants to pay for it. In the end a decision needs to be made in order for the system to not collapse.
1. Healthcare is not a Right, it's a privilege. Which means you need to be okay with people without insurance dying on the streets because they can't afford the care. If you have an Health care emergency, you are not covered and you can't afford it...You die, and that's that.
2. Healthcare is a Right, it's not a privilege. At which point there entire health care system needs to work hard on PREVENTATIVE CARE! Prevent and treat high blood pressure, diabetes, and obesity before it gets to end stage disease where it's going to cost an unbelievable amount of money to treat(not event cure, just treat!).
Now I also acknowledge that the system could be more efficient, and there needs to be less corruption..etc. But I think this is an important point.
From personal experience, that's not really all that true. I attended an Obama rally with my wife (both of us white) and we got there early enough to sit behind Obama. The racial makeup of the crowd in that section was mostly reflective of the racial makeup of the country. In fact, we sat next to a very nice African American couple.
The Internet is generally stupid
They will present you with a bill.
As well they should!
If YOU can pay YOUR bill, then why should I be compelled to pay it?
I'm willing to help those who TRULY cannot pay for basic emergency care, but if you can pay SOMETHING then quit whining and do what you can to care for yourself.
As for non-emergency care, you can plan for it; there are few who, budgeting accordingly, cannot pay for their own routine medical care; a minor impact on your chosen standard of living is not my problem.
As many note, and are roundly ignored: if you can't pay your own medical bills but you have a big mortgage, an HDTV, $100/mo cable bills, etc. then you CAN pay your own medical bills - get your priorities straight and your hand out of my wallet!
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
and that's because americans actually care about the health of other americans
which is why we need nationalized healthcare
can you walk by a guy dying in the street like in a third world country?
no?
well, you just told me health care should be optional. what do you think that really means? the real implications of that idiotic point of view?
so you go and work out the contradictions in your own idiotic point of view, and get back to us
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Health insurance companies provide that, if I got cancer, tomorrow, I would be able to pay bills that I could otherwise not pay... *IT AN INSURANCE POLICY*
If you got cancer you would get a mountain of insurance claims and a lot of messy paperwork, the insurance company will constantly try to get you off the program or have you pay for part of their costs. They also will probably raise premiums for everyone else in your company the next negotiating round to make up for the costs your cancer incurred. Nothing new on those tactics though.
Insurance is a lottery companies are taking in money form a large group of people and paying out to the select few, while scraping a sizable profit for themselves. Now if everyone (or over 30% or so) on their coverage gets sick, do they take a loss? No, more than likely they will either find an excuse to drop clients coverage, bump up the premiums, reduce the payout/raise the deductible, or file for bankruptcy (seems the do that regularly nowadays, eh?). What it boils down to is ALL the people who paid into the insurance plan were not really covered at all. That is what's wrong with insurance.
And what really pisses me off is that the government is increasingly mandating we participate in such corporate lotteries without ensuring that we will see the benefits we mus secure.
If medicine were socialized, it may be similar but the playing field is level, there is no corporate greed going on, everyone is covered and there probably would be no inflated big payouts to drug companies or other greedy corporations massively profiting on the poor health of US citizens.
The other alternative is to ban insurance all together and live in a world of reality for a change it would certainly disrupt the corporate greed.
Though I think socialized medicine is a better model, pay in to it while healthy use it as you get sick or older, never have to worry about any unexpected cost or not being cared for. If you haven't seen Michael Moore's documentary, Sicko, you should take a look, certainly puts a perspective on how the US government thinks of its citizens.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
To learn why drug companies corruption is bad, read this article and other articles on this website.
I wonder if this will even be read being this far down. Most of my family is in the healthcare field. Here's the problem.
There are essentially 2 kinds of healthcare that need to be provided.
1. basic/primary care. This is relatively cheap to provide. Treat common condition, vaccinate people... Stuff you could generally get a nurse practitioner to do. You can also lump in emergency room care and basic surgery that need doctors.
2. advanced/chronic care. This includes things like advanced cancer therapy, triple bypass surgery...
Basic care should be universal with minimal costs. It is what 99% of people need 99% of the time. If you're a statistic person, most of the life expectancy and quality of life is dependent on basic/primary care.
http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/165/6/750
Here's some statistics for you. 78% of Medicare costs come in treating people in their last year of life. By any measure, this is a waste of money. People are dying and we're throwing all our resources in a failed effort to keep them alive. a lot of other research shows the same thing.
Advanced/chronic care should NEVER be universal. It creates a system of infinite demand for highly trained professionals and resources. Does it mean if you get diagnosed with cancer that maybe you don't have enough money to be treated? Maybe. But getting treated for cancer is expensive. In the end, you're going to die of something. If you provide universal advanced care, everyone will want to try everything to preserve their life. We face this problem in Canada with universal healtcare. We've had cases where people fly to the US to get some advanced treatment which doesn't cure them, but only extends their life for a year, then they sue the government for treatment. The reason? If its universal and you're sick, you want everything done to you or your loved one. This is the infinite demand equation. People cannot accept death and so will try everything to save themselves/family. In other countries this is contained by costs.
Theoretically, doctors should be the guardians and should be responsible for best allocation of health resources. However, doctors can't even refuse to give patients anti-biotics when the know its not effective. Doctors give in to patient demands. So there has to be a monetary cost to getting advanced treatment. It's a cold reality.
So what would I like to see from a candidate. Universal basic care. Advanced care must be kept private or it WILL bankrupt any country. Unfortunately, North America is a consumer culture. We want things now and we want things our way. We care much more about the advanced care than the real primary care that would make our living life much better. We don't deal well with death.
As is usual in totalitarian states, there are different health-care systems for the nomenklatura and the unprivileged. The former get state-of-the-art care; the latter are lucky to get aspirin.
You should have seen the cardiology institute in Moscow during the last years of the USSR. It was gorgeous!
Of course, the State also controls both the gathering of data and the dissemination of statistics; anyone who tells the truth about the Cuban system from inside Cuba is likely to have his life expectancy significantly reduced.
Everyone in Cuba can read, too -- if you believe their government's statistics -- but all they're allowed to read is Castro, Marx, and Lenin. (Yes, I exaggerate, but not by much.)
The phenomenon of Western liberals sucking up to totalitarian dictatorships has long been noted, despite volumes and volumes of revelations of the actual deeds of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, &c.
Perhaps someday they'll learn -- or perhaps we can, as was done with the Nazi case, relabel left-wing dictatorships as right-wing. Then it would be safe even for liberals to disparage them and we will no longer hear that it is possible to have excellent <whatever> if only we relinquish our bourgeois affection for individual liberty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States the United States government is currently spending at the rate of approximately $1 trillion per year for all defense-related purposes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States In 2007 the U.S. spent $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person
Where's the proof of all those "facts" cited in this post.
I mean, I've only gone Bankrupt once so far due to Medical reasons. All because Mental Care was not considered Health Care by my previous Insurance (which I promptly lost due to my Business going bye bye, as the investors fled with Enrons collapse.)
Or my non-snark post. Having Health Care tied to Job Employment is completely nonsense. That has to change, the people who need it most won't have a job. Sadly neither Candidate wants to go the distance here, even if large Corporations all back the idea of Universal Government backed Health Care.
The New England Journal of Medicine (the pre-eminent general medical journal in the US) has a recent, thoughtful, neutral analysis of the competing plans: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/8/781
As a physician who as practiced in Infectious Disease, Internal Medicine, and Emergency Medicine, I have experienced first hand how dysfunctional is the US system of healthcare financing. Although I am not thrilled with either candidate's plan, I am convinced Obama's plan would do much more to ensure that Americans have access to affordable healthcare. This is especially true for those people (and I am guessing no small number of young-adult Slashdotters are in this category) who are currently uninsured, just gambling that they can stay healthy. Get out there and vote, folks, this is a big one.
he is suffering from a condition that can be treated with 50 cents worth of effort and 5 minutes of a doctor's time
if you let him die in the street, you are a true libertarian
if you won't let him die in the street, then you must accept nationalized healthcare. because every half-assed measure in between results in someone somewhere suffering needlessly due to the inablity of the selfish to accept the consequences of their selfishness
a healthy society is a society that takes care of itself. and a healthy society is also a rich society. in many large and small ways, it adds money in your pocket if the people in society around you are healthy
nationalized healthcare is a nobrainer. i don't even no why its a debated, its beyond obvious
there exist in this world people who are best described as free market fundamentalists. like any other fundamentalist, they only cause harm to their world in their adherence to simplistic ideas about how their world really works
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Government programs tend to work well in small groups. For example, Canada has about the same number of people in the whole country that the state of California does by itself. I don't have an issue with universal health care but it'd be better it if were administered by the states with minimal federal involvement. However, none of the current politicians seem to want that.
As an example, do any of our Massachusetts readers have experience with their new Commonwealth Care http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/? There's about the same number of people in MA as there is in a single province in Canada so it should be a good example.
Start offering NURSES to deal with the daily care of regular patients, directly. Let them prescribe certain classes of meds for common problems.
It appears that not all U.S. states allow nurse practitioners with an MSN degree to open their own clinic. So I'd guess we should bring that up with state, not federal, legislators.
Forget theorizing. Look at reality.
Most European democracies and Canada have universal health care. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than what we have? Yes.
Or at least most Europeans I know who've experienced both systems would say that their system is better.
Any disputes from Europe?
"If health care were nationalized rather than localized, New York would be weathering this problem a lot better."
If you look *only* at the financial implication than sure we can ask the people of Buffalo County, South Dakota (avg income $5,000) to help pay for dental care in NY.... However if you *don't want to ignore the point of my argument which is people and states will have less control over their health care under either plan and, frankly, Im more interested in freedom than free healthcare..
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
Comment removed based on user account deletion
like any other fundamentalist, you adhere to the wording of a revered document, rather than the spirit of it
the founding fathers did a great job, but they were not perfect. were the founding fathers privy to this little thread between us, they would be on my side. nationalized healthcare is a no brainer, and it is it stopped by those, like you, who are confused as to the whole purpose of a society and a nation and what its role is supposed to be in your life
something the founding fathers understood, better than you, and something they would understand about this debate about nationalized healthcare, better than you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Umm no, thats a good argument for WM and Utah having different plans... (hint: that's not national)
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
In my opinion, healthcare does not belong to the "electable" rights you get as a human.
There is no liberty in playing with your _life_, just to have an economic advantage over your competitor.
I live in Austria, a small european country not featured by Michael Moores Sicko. For us, healthcare isn't "free" as such - of course it isn't, it never is. But let me explain. (I will use national healthcare instead of social service/socialist healthcare/ ...)
There are mainly four big groups which have access to healthcare:
* Employees and Workers. They *must* be insured by their employer, who immediately cuts taxes + social insurance from your paycheck. The latter goes into the state pension fund and the state health insurance. It is a criminal offense for an executive at a company to (silently or openly) not insure her employees.
* Freelancers. They *must* be insured too, though they have to do it on their own. There are fines to pay if you don't.
* Students, children. They are, up to an age of 27, automatically insured with their parents. If ones studies take longer (or begin later), a student can (but does not need to) insure herself for 23EUR / month as long as she earns less than 8000EUR / year, 46EUR / month if she earns more.
* Unemployed people. They get their health insurance automatically with their unemployment money.
> So, you say, you don't have a choice?
Well, you do! You can insure yourself privately, which will certainly give you some benefits over the national healthcare. Think along the lines of your own room (instead of 1-3 other inmates) at the hospital, perhaps the possibility of going to a private rehabilitation facility, money if you don't spend your hospital stay in the first class rooms, shorter waiting periods/faster appointments for non-emergency treatments, stuff like that. You do NOT necessarily get better treatment, though you can choose the surgeon who operates on you. But more about choice in the national healthcare later.
> So, you say, by being insured with the national healthcare, I need to wait?
Not in emergency cases. Not when something is deteriorating. If you need your appendix removed, no wait at all. If you want to have a joint replaced by an artificial joint, you might need to do another three weeks with painkillers.
> So, you say, I can not choose my doctor?
Well, you can! We have a small, credit card sized chipcard, with the social security number on it and a cryptographically elegant authorization system. With this card, you can walk into any doctors office or hospital and get treatment. You can, of course, choose the hospital or doctor you want to go to. You can even walk right into a specialists office and get treatment.
This model is restricted to making that choice every three months. This is done due to billing reasons with national healthcare (the doctor bills them every three months for all treatment in that time). This is NOT done to prevent anyone going to see a second doctor. In fact, the overwhelming lot of the doctors will treat you even if you are registered with another doctor of that specialty for the current three month period, stating to the health service that it was an emergency, or the "other" doctor wrote a prescription for getting a second opinion (which every good doctor will do if you ask)
There is another caveat with that: Not every single doctor coming from med school gets a contract with the national healthcare. Those who don't operate privately. But those are very, very few. The overwhelming lot of doctors who practice privately do that in addition to their job in a hospital where you can go to. So this is actually a service for people who are insured privately and want to have some sort of special treatment, like fresh flowers in the waiting room, more time to talk to the doctor and such.
> So, you say, doctors need to work privately if they want to earn bigtime?
No. No. NO. N O doctor refuses a contract with the national
I've been undecided for a long time but I have decided. And the reason I've been undecided is I didn't want to get HATED on by everyone.
See I'm a conservative and I agree with McCain. I even like Joe the Plumber. But I can't stand their sleaze. McCain is running on a platform of fear and frankly I'm sick of being afraid of every damn thing.
Obama supporters that shout epitaph after McCain... get quieted down. Not McCain so at McCain rallies. It's scary and I know I'll hear more from the pulpit about any of us who voted McCain are being bad Christians... if it gets out that I crossed party lines and voted for a non-Republican I know that my Republican church will probably kick me out.
This is a troll. Mod me down.
Neither candidate has the solution.
The solution to America's HUGE healthcare problem is the people. Candidates can't instill common sense in human beings.. Not by far.
Until idiots stop eating at McDonalds two to three times a day, until stupid people stop believing in a "fourth meal", etc., there will be no healthcare, since healthCARE actually requires CARING about onesself.
Not to mention, NOBODY can help someone take responsibility for their own actions. Something which the mass of Americans have NOT been doing since we have started the slope towards becoming third world.
Nothing is going to change until the general populace stops asking themselves "where is my bailout for my mortgage" (that I couldn't afford in the first place, and was too (niave / stupid / disconcerned) to be bothered with reading the contract before hand. "where is my healthcare", while they sit on their asses doing little to nothing.
The people bitching about not having healthcare are (for the most part, majority rules) the same ones sitting at home doing NOTHING. ALbeit, there are a LOT of people sitting at work with no bennies, either, but the non-working FAR outshine those working.
Again, nobody that's running for president can fix the current quagmire we are in until the general population can figure out they are just as responsible (actually moreso) as the people elected.
--Toll_Free
Does the New England Journal of Medicine have an analysis about which plan is better for victims of medical malpractice or human rights violations?
I read a quality review at a hospital that found that people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in their medical records going into an unrelated physical surgery had twice the probability of ending up with a deep vein blood clot and twice the probability of becoming infected and dying. What recourses would the victims or their families have?
If health care is free, you feel like you don't need to take care of yourself because someone else will?
The cost of controlling a chronic condition such as diabetes mellitus or a mood disorder can still easily exceed the portion of income not already allocated to other necessities such as rent, food, clothing, and utilities. Should people who can't afford to pay out of pocket just let the disease run uncontrolled to the point where it does require an ER visit, such as a diabetic in danger of losing his sight and limbs?
but better an arrogant dick than a blind fundamentalist
if it makes sense, agree it makes sense. what is the point in wallowing in the mechanics of an amendment process?
do you have an opinion on nationalized healthcare or not? if you do, put it forth, if you don't, hide behind the mechanics of the amendment process. your point that it needs an amendment is pointless. what about the issue at hand? is it right or wrong? who cares about the legal mechanics needed to implement it? the legal mechanics are cut and dry
do you really think a discussion about the legal mechanics is any more useful than a discussion of the real issues?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Because I work in a downtown area of a city that has no effective public transportation... only a few city buses with routes that are just barely enough to claim they have a bus system at all. There is no residential infrastructure in our downtown area, except for a very limited number of luxury apartments, which one month's rent equals almost two months of my pay. All the grocery stores are on the opposite side of town from the downtown area. Yes, there are public trans bus routes to the shopping district, and I currently live very near those, but have you ever tried carrying several bags of heavy groceries onto a bus?
There is only one right solution to this problem: OUTLAW HEALTH INSURANCE.
If you make people pay for care out of their own pocket and to an actual doctor/hospital, then you will receive the best care for the money. period.
No middle men, no admin overhead, no formularies, to kickbacks, none of this b.s. Insurance companies have become a form of corporatized communism --the worst of both economic systems.
Our State governments could then provide cost effective universal life-and-limb coverage, which is the only condition under which insurance is required or effective.
:T:R:A:N:S:
Make any government health care program optional. If you want to be a member, you can pay and be subject to the program's rules and regulations. If you don't want to be a member, you don't have to pay and aren't subject to the rules and regs.
It seems as if I only ever hear about how good this will be for all. Or am I just too cynical in wondering if it wouldn't?
The core of the problem with the U.S. Healthcare System is that we Americans don't purchase our own Health Care and Coverage, someone else does, and costs are then heavily shifted to those who cannot get someone else to cover them. The U.S. is already subsidizing Healthcare, besides Medicare and Medicaid, there is a huge tax break to affluent and middle class Americans derived from Employer Provided Healthcare. The very structure of this subsidy is sick, the affluent are subsidized while working people who don't have good employers pay through the nose.
I do not believe that either Barrack Obama or John McCain is going to do a good job, other than that the system is so screwed right now (by the Government, not just in its crazy subsidy schemes but by the imposition of the Medicare reimbursement system and the requirement that the lowest rates go to Medicare instead of Payment at Time of Service Customers) that it is nearly impossible to make it worse.
The best choice for fixing Healthcare is Bob Barr. He will push for a return to a real Free Market System which will improve choice and efficiency. The Democratic Congress will insist on a subsidy for the poor. You'll choose your own Health Insurance and your own Providers. If your response is Bob Barr can't win, well neither can John McCain at this point. I've never considered McCain or Obama an option. The Libertarian Party Candidate (Barr) getting %5 of the popular vote is the best option we have.
minds, get scrambled like eggs, abused and erased. Hard Hearted Alice is who you want to see.
Using that logic: I should start smoking weed and bangin' hookers two-at-a-time because I want to, even though it's illegal. Hey, "it makes sense", so why the hell not? The police won't throw me in jail because it makes sense! Why get caught up in the legal mechanics needed to implement it? I want to bang hookers now, damnit.
My stance on socialized healthcare: I am against it, but if it is implemented it should be done at the State level, not at the Federal level. The intent of the framers of the Constitution (you know, that intent you spoke of before!) was to keep the Federal government limited in many ways so states can decide on their own on certain issues. A broad, sweeping Federal decision regarding socialized medicine is not the answer.
The Constitution is very clear in this regard. The issue should be one for the States, not Congress. That's the way it was written, and that was the framers' intent.
We didn't do it to the USSR, as I said we shipped them corn. The embargo is driven by a spiteful, although spiteful with damn good reason, Cuban exile lobby here.
If one person eats too much, doesn't exercise enough, and gets fat, well, you've got a lazy fatso. ... something else's gotta be wrong. And that doesn't preclude any of those users from being a moron.
But when you have millions of people getting obese, well, right wingers can call them all lazy fatsos, but that's missing a pattern. You can blame them, individually, but you can't blame them all at once. It doesn't make any sense. And it's just pointless.
Let's have a computer analogy. Say you write this nifty program, and people start using it. And one user's complaining that your program reformatted his hard drive. He might just be completely retarded. But when the second and third users complain of reformatted hard drive
Whatever. The supporter of the weaker candidate always, always says this. "It's just a popularity contest." "They're both full of shit anyways." I have a Republican acquaintance who is exactly like this. If there's the slightest unfounded negative rumor about Obama or Biden, he won't shut the hell up about it. Yet if McCain or Palin does something he can't defend, he stammers and claims he hates them both anyway. Fuckin' hypocrite.
(Dropped the 'g' for those who can only read Palinese.)
In Cuba you will land in jail for doing so.
Well. You have a Right to Free Speech, and you can direct your speech at a doctor, and request that he heal your sick body. As a professional the doctor will do his best to accommodate you.
What you do NOT have a right to do is take your Bill, hand it to your neighbors, and force them to pay the bill. That's theft.
It's YOUR bill; you should pay for it yourself. Same as when you buy a Lexus, you pay the bill yourself; you don't make your neighbors pay for it.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
i'm posting this in half-seriousness. maybe.
could cubans be healthier partially because an abundant, rich, fat and cholesterol laden, luxury-fastfood type diet is outside of the average cuban's budget?
The problem is the same in Utah as it is in WV... The cost may be different, but the real problem (making sure people are healthy) is the same... By making different plans you are basically advocating that young tax paying people move out of WV because it costs too much to pay for their retirees...
That would be a genius plan...
Look, Presidents don't make laws, congress does. Presidents sign laws. That's it. It is FAR more likely that president X will have to make a decision in a time of crisis than will influence law making. Therefore, we should be discussing who would be the better decision maker given some totally unexpected condition. What happens in a stump speech, or what is in the party platform is completely meaningless. Look at GW, go back and look at stump speech and party platforms. What is generally now thought about him is a result of decisions about the unexpected: 1) 9/11 2) Iraq 3) world perception of US 4) Katrina and so on.... Once again, I implore any serious voter to consider how his/her presidential candidate will address the UNKOWN.
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
Better or even 'fixed' healthcare doesn't mean less obesity. If healthcare can't handle the strain of an obesity epidemic and the effects of obesity, then fight the obesity epidemic. If you want to reduce America's obesity, get America to exercise regularly and eat healthier.
I know that's not true for everyone: some people have medical or genetic problems that require solutions regular exercise and medicine can't solve. If every last obese person were incapable of correcting it themselves, we would be forced to rely on healthcare. This is simply not the case - as much as nobody wants to hear it, I posit that the obesity epidemic is primarily due to a lifestyle change away from the very healthy habits I've pointed to already: eating right and exercising regularly. 150 years ago, there was no obesity epidemic. There also weren't uiquitous fast food restaurants or a sedentary lifestyle in front of televisions and computers and consoles and 9-5 desk jobs. Now that all those things are here, there's rampant obesity. Correlation or causation? You decide. Either way, it makes more logical sense to correct our lifestyles than it does to connect mass obesity to the healthcare system as a justification for changing healthcare.
Often I stay away from political arguments on Slashdot given that they get out of control pretty fast, and opinions on either side are heated.
Regarding healthcare, most people actually *agree* on more than they disagree on. That our healthcare system as a whole sucks, it costs too much, and a lot of people get screwed because of it.
I have a little experience in dealing with multiple forms of healthcare systems, through what my mother has gone through as I was growing up. It all started with a doctor giving her too much anesthesia during my birth, and she had a heart attack from that. Being new to the country, she didn't sue as the hospital was taking care of her immediate bills, and checking up with her -- right until the statute of limitations was reached and they dropped her like a bad habit. Her heart problems continue, and it's caused my 67 year old father to continue to work until this day, for nothing more than health coverage, because my mother is not in the age range of Medicare yet.
First off -- medical bills tear families apart. When you have a sick family member, there is nothing you won't do to get them fixed and this was the case for my mother. Over the years my parents came close to bankruptcy multiple times, especially when my father was laid off from his job. If he hadn't filed a suit against his employer for discrimination (which was pretty much a given, since they settled very quickly) he would not have made it through a trying time and I may not be in the position I am today.
People with healthcare always tell others that it's 'earned', it's 'not a right'. But they quickly forget that we ALL pay (as taxpayers) when somebody walks into an emergency room for a sickness, rather than into the doctor's office when they first get sick to get some simple medication and treatment. It usually spirals out of control, and the ER is forced to take in the patients regardless. In a sense, making healthcare available to everybody is something that will lower the cost to the rest of the country, and also allow for us to spend less over the course of a person's life due to increased longevity and overall health.
I had an idea a while ago, and I'll share it again here in as simple terms as I can. There are a few things to take into consideration first -- we need to provide healthcare for patients, ALL Americans. We need to ensure that being a doctor is a field that people still want to pursue and is lucrative to be in. We need to reduce problems with litigious people who are "sue happy" and drive up the cost for doctors, who then pass it on to the patients. And also, we have to ensure patients don't go to the doctor because they are lonely. I have ideas that address all these issues.
First, we have to nationalize healthcare. Yes, socialize, nationalize, whatever evil word you want to call it -- take the *money* out of the paperwork. There should be no profit incentive for just filing paperwork and essentially it boils down to our HMOs and PPOs out there living in that role. Taxes would be taken out from EVERY person's paycheck (much like they are for schooling, roads, etc). This is not a number I can give you, but I imagine it would probably be less than what your employer pays since we are including everybody into the mix here. There would be a tiered plan that you'd have to file for every year, just like your employer makes you do. You have TWO options -- one is a high copay plan that takes out less cash from your paycheck, and the other is a LOW copay plan that takes out MORE money from your paycheck. If you're a sick person, or like to go to the doctor, you essentially pay an increased monthly fee in order to keep your doctor visits and their costs at a minimum. If you don't go to the doctor that often, it pays for you to go with the cheaper plan, and the high copay keeps you from going to the doctor and just sitting and chatting with them because you're lonely. You pay for that privilege, but not enough to break your back or make you bankrupt.
Next, we have to address
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
...set of laws and programs to create this kind of scenario:
Start a federal medical training program, wherein college-age students could sign up for a federally funded medical school that would train NP/PA types... a lot like an Army medic or a lightweight DO. The student would get this training for free BUT would sign a chunk of his life away, much like joining the military. After graduation, he would be obligated to work for something like at least 5 to 8 years in a federally run Doc-in-a-Box clinic, at a fixed govt salary schedule, and be able to treat minor illnesses and injuries just like any typical Doc-in-a-Box. His medical license would not be a full-fledged M.D. or a D.O. but would bear the weight of something between NP/PA and a DO, and since it would be a federal medical license, would trump any state medical practice or medicine prescribing laws.
People could have the choice to get treated for their strep throats, minor broken bones, injuries needing stitches, hemorrhoids, whatever, for FREE at these govt-run clinics or they can choose to pay or use their privately (employer) funded healcare insurance to go to a conventional doctor's office.
The federal employee-docs-in-a-box would, after their "tour of duty" is up, be then be free and eligible to apply their training and experience towards becoming a full-fledged MD or DO in private practice.
The two primary-care healthcare systems (govt and private) would co-exist side by side in the marketplace, if you choose the free service, or cannot afford a private doc, you go to the govt free clinic. If you can afford it, you go see your private doc and pay him.
Of course, this does not address advanced healthcare needs like hospitalization for serious illnesses, etc, but would work great for the bulk of primary healthcare of minor illnesses and injuries.
in order for people to stay healthy Gov should
1. Ban all fast food and companies that produces them
2. Ban all Candy unless it's made from natural ingredients that has not been transformed.
3. Ban transgenic food.
4. Reduce pollution
5. Ban fucking Smoking of all sorts and the companies
6. Ban Deep frying anything, it's unhealthy anyway
7. If all else fails nuke the US, that shit i just mentioned comes from there anyway (except smoking).
8.Free healthcare is coslty and does not work, look at canada, you cannot get a family doctor.
must be somewhere in between.
then there is legal and illegal
two different things
by all means, do something right if it is illegal
but don't do something wrong, legal or illegal
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I suggest a hybrid of "government run" and "privately executed".
My solution would be to do all of the above bullets, and then force individuals to contribute 2% of their income to health insurance. If they don't spend it, they lose it. They can then use it on any insurance company they want with any plan they want.
You could see some really cool plans develop. For example, an insurance company might say "average rate for ACL surgery is $10k. If you get it done for less than that, we'll give you a 10% discount on your premium for a year. If you want the best, that's fine too.
http://images.google.com/images?q=join%20or%20die
"extreme government intervention"
right. got it. paying for all of our healthcare out of our pool (which we do now anyway in insurance) is EXTREME. like forced labor camps it is! please pull your head out your ass
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"for married couples with incomes of $50,000, two children and both parents working, income taxes would be cut by $284 more under Mr. Obama's plan -- by $1,005, compared with $721 under Mr. McCain's plan"
"From $100,000 to $250,000, they'd be fairly even under Obama and McCain."
"For married couples with incomes of $500,000 with two children and both parents working, the Tax Policy Center found that Mr. Obama would raise income taxes by $3,363, from $110,955 now, while Mr. McCain's plans would leave taxes unchanged."
Please note that the tax INCREASE for those making $500,000.00 per year is less than 3%, or only 0.6% of their total income, hardly an incomprehensible burdon!
So, McCain and the Republican machine continue to use scare tactice to convince the middle class that democrats will raise their taxes to provide welfare for the poor, but these numbers show that is patently false (surprise!). The middle class bears NO weight of the tax cuts. The only people impactd are the really rich people who control the Republican party and want the middle class to vote for their interestes instead of their own.
It boggles my mind how many in the middle class believe them every four years!
Keep passing the open windows...
For that matter, are the sick automatically irresponsible? Sure, some illnesses are due to one's own actions. Others we are born with. Still others are come from one's environment. Many combine all these and other factors.
I am not a crackpot.
(or rather, you're 1/100000th of a cent as a taxpayer), you are richer, because you live in a society that cares for its people
if you deny that you should pay for his healthcare, your entire society is filled with rot, moral, and financial rot. a guy who can't work here, an orphan on the stree there whose parents died of that preventable illness there.
do you understand that? you are poorer for your opinion, financially, and morally. you are not an island. you live in a society. you need to contribute to it. if you don't understnad or beleive that, you don't understand how being a memebr of a rich society enriches you as well. and we all suffer, for your poverty of the mind
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
We seem to be reaching the point where elective euthanasia (Soylent Green style) would be socially beneficial. The most expensive medical treatments that make up the majority of healthcare spending generally only extend life for a few miserable years. Euthanasia is the only preventive care that will reduce future costs while improving quality of life. The Shiavo case demonstrated that the Republican party is too averse to reality to consider this treatment option, although their support of the accessibility of handguns guarantees that euthanasia can continue to be privately, if inefficiently implemented. On the other hand the Democrats promisingly support abortion, yet their false humanism is unlikely to support the individual right to die peacefully. Neither ideology will accept this solution to expensive healthcare, and no politician will accept the reduction of profits for the healthcare industry.
Health care is a privilege, not a right, just like voting.
and we continue to break the concept continually today as well
where? how? when?
when common fucking sense demands it
such as with interstate commerce (where we have gone beyond the founding fathers)
or with a common military (where the founding fathers themselves broke the concept)
do you want more examples? there are dozens
healthcare is just another one of those no brainers where the federalist loses out on the common sense part of things
federalism is a fine idea. within a limited scope. what trumps federalism? gee, i dunno: common fuckign sense maybe?
is federalism the only concept your mind can understand?
that's certainly not the case with the founding fathers
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Here in Ontario, Canada (don't know about the other provinces), socialized health care seems to be of good quality and fairly speedy for important needs. There was a point in time when a premier named Mike Harris tried to kill public health care by cutting funding (part of his "common sense revolution")... so there was a time when the health services were really bad... and we still in recovery mode. Of course socialized health care is not going to work if you don't fund it. Otherwise, it is free, it is great and I believe it's a fundamental right!
the foundign fathers constantly broke the concept of federalism
and we continue to break the concept continually today as well
where? how? when?
when common fucking sense demands it
such as with interstate commerce (where we have gone beyond the founding fathers)
or with a common military (where the founding fathers themselves broke the concept)
do you want more examples? there are dozens
healthcare is just another one of those no brainers where the federalist loses out on the common sense part of things
federalism is a fine idea. within a limited scope. what trumps federalism? gee, i dunno: common fucking sense maybe?
is federalism the only concept your mind can understand?
that's certainly not the case with the founding fathers
you need to actually juggle more than one concept in your mind at a time to come to a policy in this world which is fair and makes sense
you simply can't lockjaw grasp on a single concept like federalism with a pit bull's bite, and exclude all other guiding principles, and think you are ever going to say anything valuable, useful, or even sensical
the founding fathers understood that. every supreme court justice who ever served, living or dead (even scalia, the federalist fundamentalist), understands that
do you understand that? that there is more than federalism as a guiding principle on good governance?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
All of those examples that you cite are explicitly given in the Constitution:
Again, the Constitution is expressly clear on what powers the Federal Government has, and that all other decisions (such as Socialized Medicine) are to be left up to the States. You did make one valid point--that the Commerce Clause has been exploited to allow Congress to do whatever they want. That does not, however, make it right.
You can keep spouting off your rhetoric to try to back up your claims, but both the Constitution's wording and intent are very clear on this matter.
The NHS is underfunded, but it's not inefficient, by far. Compared to the US system, it's awesome, ... in that respect.
Of course I'm implying that you mean inefficient when you write inefficient. In physics, it's defined as
efficiency = useful_output / input
Usually input is the raw energy, such as the chemical energy in the gasoline, and the useful_output is the energy you can actually put to use. IIRC a typical gasoline engine is at 0.20 efficiency while a combined cycle gas turbine can reach 0.70.
BTW a heating system (not heat pump) can be seen as having 0 efficiency or 100%, or NaN.
For health care costs, all depends on what you mean exactly. You could define the useful output as the money that gets in the pocket of health professionals and pharmaceutical companies, and the input as the premiums and out of pocket expenses.
With that definition, having no insurance at all is 100% efficient: you pay exactly what gets to the doc/pharmacy. But obviously you probably don't want that. The private US system is at 0.70 efficiency basically, with 30% going to advertising, buying out congresscritters, CEO yachts & country club memberships, suing customers and armies of claims-denying call center drones. Public systems, including the NHS but also Medic(aid|are), are at about 97% efficiency.
That's not the end of the story, obviously. Some advantages can be argued for a private system; such as a more rational allocation of ressource, better handling of fraud and such. (The truth is, the more a health insurance market is regulated, the less the insurers get to waste money on useless advertising and such. ) But that's not part of the efficiency equation.
Neither plan addresses victims of malpractice. The McCain plan mentions Malpractice Reform, but this is mainly about protecting doctors against abusive lawsuits. The interplay between medical and psychiatric illness is difficult and complex, and probably way beyond the scope of this thread, but in a general sense, the Obama plan's emphasis on disease prevention, health maintenance, and electronic medical records would be expected overall to decrease complication rates for people with chronic conditions such as schizophrenia. For specific suggestions on recourses, I better leave that to any lawyers reading along here. Good luck.
Nice idea. Not bad. NO points. Most of the Big Money goes to the specialists, the specialist procedures and the hospitals that benefit from that. NPs / PAs don't do that sort of thing.
And, unfortunately, it won't work for the "bulk of primary healthcare". I do Family Practice / ER. The bulk of my patients are wildly complex folks with multiple illnesses. In an urban care setting, these are handled by multiple specialists (which isn't a very good way of doing it, but that's another discussion). In a rural environment, we're the cardiologists / pulmonologist / $_random_ologist. Sure, the PAs / NPs can handle basic stuff, but that's not where we spend the money.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
that the constitution can do no wrong?
that makes you a constitutional fundamentalist: you adhere to the wording of a document, rather than the spirit of the document
you don't think that perhaps in 200 years the constitution needs some changes? that there were issues even when written with the document? (such as on the issue of slavery and women and voting)
societies change, in bad ways... and in GOOD ways. you don't see something like nationalized healthcare as a good development? you have to adhere to the constitution in kneejerk fashion without thinking independently and critically on your own?
the constitution is a stellar document, for its time, and most of it is still stellar. but its not perfect and unquestionable. your adherence to it like some sort of religious text makes you a fundamentalist
no, fundamentlaist assholes: the koran, the bible, the constitution: these are human docuements. useful, but imperfect. to not question them and use your mind critically, and see where these documents are imperfect, is to be an unthinking zombie, tools for interests and causes which violate the spirit in which these documents were written
with absolute certainty, if the founding fathers could here the argument going on in modern society about nationalized healthcare, i am certain they would side with nationalized healthcare, in the spirit of a more perfect union, defending the common good. all concepts they knew and understood well
and even if they didn't agree with nationalized healthcare, if they would hear you use your mindless unthinking adherence and devotion to their stale document from times long past as a reason to abandon nationalized healthcare, they would disapprove of you. they would ask you to think critically and use your mind independently. signs of the greatest americans who ever lived, our founding fathers. but not a sign of how you act and think. you're a zombie
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Absurd. Can I nominate invoking slavery as the next iteration in Godwin's Law?
It is disgusting to think that the parent would even dare to compare socialized health care--health care!--to be a crime comparable to the horrific systematic abduction of people, and generations-long forced labor, rape, abuse, and murder, applying to an entire continent of races and peoples. That's slavery.
And this is somehow the same as paying for the well-being of your society? Insane! Shove your selfish, destructive nonsense up your ass, troll, and wear it for a hat.
Why is it that all of the solutions to "The Health Care Crisis" involve Health Insurance? OK, let's follow this problem to the root.
1) Health insurance is expensive ...
2) Health insurance has to be expensive to cover high health care costs
3) Health care costs are high because research is expensive and because, health care companies want to make
4) Profit (sorry)
So, instead of throwing government money at Health Insurance, why don't we throw government resources at Health CARE RESEARCH? Give government grants to health care companies or better yet, to other experts to solve the problems of the day. When the problem is solved, the solution is owned by the public. No more protectionist policies. No more overpricing a technology to make a profit before the generics come in. Research is done on the areas that need to be researched, not just the ones that will make a profit.
The net result? Lower health care SHOULD mean lower health insurance premiums. That will save
money for the government (Medicare/medicaid), big business and small business, and joe blow who buys is own insurance. No one seems to be bringing up this approach. What am I missing?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
Parent should be modded up. Many are screaming that any kind of progressive change to the health care system would be socialistic. Yet they all refuse to recognize that nearly the entire system we have is already heavily regulated and in no way represents any kind of free market. I assert that excessive regulation and the insurance companies are a huge part of the problem. Unless a new adminstration is willing and able to tackle these issues nothing will change.
One of my job responsibilities is to support a Home Health Care system's application and I have a lot of experience with supporting them. The percentage of effort and expense put into keeping up with constantly changing regulatory mandates is truly staggering. I personally don't understand why people continue to get in the business anymore because they are constantly squeezed between increasing costs, and shrinking revenues. A major portion of the cost increases are due to administrative overhead a substantial portion of which is dedicated to ensuring regulatory compliance. I'm not generally a proponent of deregulation, but in the case of health care the government and industry both have made a huge complicated mess of the entire system.
The problems with our current 'private' insurance system have already been well articulated in other posts here. There's also the topic of legal liability which I won't even start in on. Bottom line is that we all need to be willing to start rebuilding the system from the ground up if we truly want change.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
The first thing we could do to solve the health care crisis, is stop using the word "crisis". Factually, about 16 percent of the population doesn't have health insurance. Some percentage of them are VOLUNTARILY without insurance, choosing not to pay for it because they are young and healthy (and arguably stupid). Some other percentage are between jobs or coverage periods. Some remainder amount are involuntarily without coverage...except that doesn't mean "without healthcare". That's the suggestion we're supposed to believe, but it's a lie. If you lined up the 100 staunchest supporters of nationalized healthcare from this thread, and quized them, I bet you'd find about 99 people saying they're very happy with their OWN healthcare, but are worried about other people. The fact is, the VAST majority of Americans have healthcare insurance, and are very satisfied with it. I'm not sure how you consider that system to be broken without betraying and underlying agenda or ignorance.
It isn't about McCain's health care plan vs Obama's healthcare plan.
It's about Obama's plan vs what we hav enow. Now matter which one gets elected, the senate and house are going further left. As such, John McCain will not get his plan passed, but will be able to veto anythign coming out og Congress. Which means no change.
Obama will have that left congress and Universal Health Care will sail thru, and then we are all screwed. I think I might file an attempted murder charge against Pelosi if it does pass.
For know this, I have seen enough to know that the passage of universal health care *WILL* kill people who could be cured.
Because none of the people making the decisions for treatment are directly paying for it.
Doctors do more tests because they get paid per test and they are worried about getting sued if they miss something. Patients accept more tests because they aren't paying for it. And the insurance companies raise premiums because suddenly everyone who has a tummy ache is sent in for an MRI (yes, this happened to one of my co-workers - $10k bill that his insurance paid, of course).
People in the US get 30% more treatment than those in western Europe, but do not have a corresponding increase in quality of life.
Very good article on this here.
http://www.aarpmagazine.org/health/health_care_costs.html
Before you put faith in the Government to handle something as critical as health care, give me one Government program that isn't in a shambles? All of them are wastefull, corrupt, and provide substandard services.
Despite Barack Obama's statement that health care should be a right, it is not written in the Constitution that it is. I am with the Constitution that it isn't a right. If it is, then access to anything is a right. Nobody has a right to anything like a TV, stereo, car, food, house, dog, cat, etc.
I am a very healthy guy and live a healthy lifestyle. I do have health care, but it is a choice for me. If the Government controls health care, then the healthy will be paying the price for the non-healthy, and being healthy or non-healthy (most of the time) is a choice of lifestyle.
As Barack Obama wants to reward people for doing nothing by taking away from people that work two jobs like me, so as to provide a better life for me and the family, then he will reward people who make bad choices and lead un-healthly lifestyles.
Government health care is like a tax on the wealthy, instead, it is a tax on the healthy.
I am not weathly, but will probably be defined as wealthy by Obama if he gets elected. Trust me, if he is elected, he will redefine wealthy at $150,000 or less. I work work hard and choose to spend time away from my family, with maybe two days off a month. I don't work hard to support somebody who chooses not to better themselves.
As a healthy individual, by making choices to live healthy, eat healthy, and exercise regularly. With Government health care, I will be paying higher taxes so I can take care of those that don't live a healthy lifestyle.
Most of the time, being poor is a choice. Most of the time, being un-healthy is a choice.
Don't punish me for making good decisions, as Obama wants to do. Don't reward me for making bad decisions, as Obama wants to do.
Whoever is advocating free health care, should start advocating free food . All of the pro- free healthcare arguments apply to food, they are just more obviously ridiculous:
You can expect charity from fellow citizens, but you have no right to force them at gun-point to pay for your health-care. If a stranger "on the side of the road" tried to do that to you, you'd be absolutely correct considering it highway robbery. Why do you propose the government should do it?
There is no right to healthcare (or food, or shelter, or sex, or a nice stereo). The only rights we have in a free country, are those, protecting us from the government taking something away. There is nothing in the Constitution (or the Declaration of Independence, for that matter), regarding the government's obligation to give the citizens anything.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The liability for an Anesthesiologist is extremely high. Thier annual malpractice insurance premiums typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's no wonder that few carriers want to deal with their compenstation and try to leave the patient on the hook.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
It's a specious argument that could be equally applied to every government function.
You have a Right to Invade Iraq. What you do NOT have is a right to force others to pay for it.
You could say the same thing about schools, roads, police, firemen, missile defense, water quality, nuclear non-proliferation, and every other function the government performs. Anarchism doesn't work. We all need government and it's only fair that everyone pays for it. Blasting taxes as inherently evil just makes you look naive and infantile.
America is about individual effort toward success. The federal government's job is to act as the mortar that keeps the states together, and to handle international affairs. The government's job is not to be a charity. Charity is the job of the church and other non-profits. The federal government should do the minimum required, and the leave the rest to the state and local governments, and to private institutions.
Insurance rates are high because people who have the insurance don't use it properly. Why go to the clinic for the ear infection when you can just go to the nearest hospital emergency room and pay the same price? When the individual does not feel the price difference, that person does not make smart financial decisions.
Where is the incentive to go to college for eight years, internship, residency, fellowship, etc., when the prospective doctor knows that he will be told by a bureaucrat for the rest of his career what services he will perform for who, and how much money he will get for it. Where is the incentive to work hard and become the best surgeon alive, when he gets paid the same amount for the procedure as the next doctor? If you think HMOs are bad, just wait until you are dealing with the government!
How many here like going to the Department of Motor Vehicles (or equivalent name in your state)? Long lines, stupid people and rules, little individual attention? That's what your health care would be like, an assembly line. You get the same services as the next guy, unless you happen to know someone important.
For those that think we need a socialized public health care system, just look at the VHA. The federal government can't handle health care for veterans, how would it take care of every American?
I mean, why shouldn't the government take over basic healthcare---look at the spectacular job they did with military healthcare! The quality of medical oversight and access to the proper treatment and care as discovered by the average enlisted man is just amazing without par.
Who among us hasn't heard about the world class great treatment of our soldiers returning from Iraq with injuries? Who here hasn't seen first hand the all-hands-on-deck attitude of the military health care system when a seaman's wife is diagnosed with cancer? Or the legendary medical expertise brought to the table for the many ailments of our slowly dying "Greatest Generation"?
I, for one, welcome our new misdiagnosing, apathetic overlords.
-Tom
federalism is a useful concept. it isn't the end all be all of guiding concepts in forming a valid and coherent government policy
you're a fundamentalist idiot. federalism is just one toy in your sandbox. but you apparently think its the only valid concept to consider. amazing!
this makes bizarre, alien, and stupid
and please do not think in any way the constitution or the founding fathers somehow support your megalomania. in historical, legal, moral, and logical terms, you are absolutely wrong on that count
please, use your mind critically, and stop using the constitution and the founding fathers as a (logically and historically invalid) crutch for your monomaniacal obsession with federalism. you have a one track mind. barking "federalism" to every question is stupid beyond belief
what an idiot
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yo this is a shout out to my EBT. You stamps were there for me when I was down and out! Man, nothing takes the edge off of being broke and unemployed like the US government food assistance program. Once you have access to the food you need, you can focus on other things like getting a job.
The Brian Lehrer show, a popular New York City talk show, had a program on health care in the election, and they invited the listeners to post suggestions to a Wiki.
The Wiki came out pretty good http://issues.wnyc.org/wiki/index.php/Health_Care:_Whose_Plan_Rules%3F (and the subsequent radio program was also pretty good).
The best part is a lot of links to the New England Journal of Medicine http://www.nejm.org/ which has lot of (free-access) articles on health care in the elections in the recent editions.
If you want to read one good article to understand the health care system, I'd recommend http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/358/6/549 7 Feb 2008, 358(6):549, Perspective: Market-based failure -- a second opinion on U.S. health care costs.
A lot of people thought that both Obama and McCain were missing the point -- we need a Canadian-style, single-payer, Medicare for all system, which would cost 1/2 to 2/3 as much as our current insurance-based system (depending on how you calculate it).
One of the people who argues for single-payer is Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Princeton University economics professor who just won the Nobel Prize in economics.
It's not even a post. It's copypasta from political email spam.
organic human foibles that i have listed as examples are all you need as a precondition to validate my point
so the whole issue of government being the source of the problem that needs fixing is an absurdity. it simply isn't. its a lie or an ignorant misconception
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Right now, for most Americans, their employer decides, who their health-insurer will be, which, by extensions, decides, who their doctors will be.
McCain's plan is to give kill that setup for good by removing the tax-breaks employers currently get for providing it — Obama was right to comment, that McCain's plan would destroy the current arrangements. Where Obama is mistaken (or misleading) is in implying, that would be a bad thing, for some reason. Instead, McCain wants each of us to be free to buy health insurance wherever we want — if we want it. He'll compensate for the loss of health-related tax-break to businesses with tax-credits directly to us, and we'll no longer have to associate changing (or loosing!) a job with changing (or losing) health-care coverage. The Illiberals hate that plan for (I kid you not): leaving the decision-making process up to individuals.
Obama's desire, even if it is not immediately obvious to an untrained eye from his public speeches, is to have a Single-Payer health-plan, where the government will be making the payments, and thus, automatically, the decisions. The current employer-selected plan will die just as surely as in McCain's plan (what Obama does not tell you), but it will be replaced by something far worse, not better.
So, here are the choices:
Make your pick...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
As human beings, we are social creatures. We live in a society. We are successful as a species because we've cared for each other and dominated our environment for eons. The stronger our society gets and the more technological advances we make, the more we can afford to care for each other. I'm not sure whether or not it's time for health care to be nationalized or not, and I wasn't saying it should or shouldn't be. I was merely pointing out that your argument about "leaving it to the states" is highly flawed.
I deliminate with tabs. Get used to it.
#1: it helps when criticising someone for being a child, to not engaging in the same behavior in the same post
#2: you have demonstrated a monomaniacal obsession with federalism. you besmirch the constitution and the founding fathers by thinking they share your insanity. this means i have no reason to respect you in a calm and rational tone, since you have already abandoned rationalism. demonstrate that you appreciate that there are more guiding principles than federalism in good governance, and my low opinion of you is reversed. demonstrate that you understand the constitution and the founding fathers don't support your monomania, and my name claling of you is undeserved. until then, my disrespect of you and name calling of you is completely warranted
oh sorry, almost forgot:
you fucking moron
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If you look *only* at the financial implication than sure we can ask the people of Buffalo County, South Dakota (avg income $5,000) to help pay for dental care in NY....
As an addendum...
The people of Buffalo County, South Dakota already pay for the health care of people in Buffalo NY. That is, if they can afford health insurance.
I deliminate with tabs. Get used to it.
you sir, are a fucking moron
normally i'm accused of being too inflammatory and harsh in my language. i think the majority of slashdot would say to me at this point my language is too soft
go, moron, go sit with the creationists
ignorant retard
"So long as you're willing to help bear the load and cost of the impact of those vaccinations, you can support this position"
yes, that's called nationalized healthcare, which i'm arguing in support of
FACEPALM
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Start a federal medical training program, wherein college-age students could sign up for a federally funded medical school that would train NP/PA types... a lot like an Army medic or a lightweight DO. The student would get this training for free BUT would sign a chunk of his life away, much like joining the military. After graduation, he would be obligated to work for something like at least 5 to 8 years in a federally run Doc-in-a-Box clinic
At least the veterans' hospital in Fort Wayne, Indiana, already does this for some medical technician positions. The student gets a loan, which the VA repays in full after the technician has worked x years for the VA.
"i argued incorrectly and using an incomplete understanding of the concepts, but why use that as a reason to disagree with me?"
pffffffffffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"I was merely pointing out that your argument about "leaving it to the states" is highly flawed."
Are the sates not societies? trying to have your cake and eat it too are we?
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
Socialized Healthcare is better and how? The data on that is where? And is the data objective meaning, 3rd party data, not provided by "the system"?
Here in the US were talking about insuring 300 million people, 20 million illegals and not paying into the system. There can be no scientific comparison without the inclusion of this critical data for starters.
From what I have heard/read about socialized healthcare here are some clues-
-an american woman married a brit and started her married life in the UK had 2 kids and what did she experience with socialized healthcare, nothing short of having to birth 2 kids with 5 other women sharing the space in both instances meaning, noise, interruption and maybe even increased risk of infection ultimately
- then there are the national health horror stories and they are plentiful and from what i have read the recurring theme is that not for profit socialized systems end up mirroring other govt bureacracies and staffed with uncaring, unskilled if not indifferent civil servants just doing time until they hit retirement and ultimately the real talent goes to where they're success will not hit some govt mandated ceiling, thats why the US has the best doctors from all over the world!
-medical talent, who has the best, hmmm, if you consider that medicine is probably the most difficult course of study and requires great personal sacrifice, the reward should be greater and in socialized systems its not, once again civil servant doctors who were in the bottom half of their classes, thats the UKs National Health, I mean where do you think that commonly known cut on Brits Teeth is from, they all had national health meaning, not covered, its for the peasants.
I will bet the wealthy in the UK buy their healthcare
Socialized Healthcare really means inefficient, ultimately rationed and less than sympathetic Government Bureaucracy given additional control over citizens lives!
I should think that the health of the electorate falls under the "general welfare" clause. Not everyone takes the hyper-minimalist view of it. And they've always had the ability to tax you (even income tax, which they amended the constitution to add), so I don't understand why you don't think they can "meddle" in our finances?
Now I know you have a certain opinion of what the Constitution should be, but it's at odds with how the Constitution is, at least from the point of view of the courts and the law for the past two hundred or so years.
But it is what it is. And if you don't like it, you'll have to repeal or amend it.
is not the guiding philosophy that is correct on the topic of nationalized medicine. within the range of the topic, then i call you monomaniacal for seeing only federalism as a valid concept
you accuse me of going beyond the subject matter. all of my criticisms fall naturally within the subject matter. so, when i call you an idiot, consider it shorthand for you being an idiot on the subject of nationalized healthcare
does that make you feel better?
you don't have to take the abuse you know. you obviously can't handle it
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Because I work in a downtown area of a city that has no effective public transportation
In a recent Slashdot story about "green" measures, I found a user who claimed that anybody who isn't car-free isn't trying hard enough. (No, it's not on Google, and I'm not ready to subscribe to Slashdot just to see enough of my posting history to dig up a reference.) In your case, he'd probably recommend that you find a job in a different city with a lower cost of living.
This is my biggest issue with the whole health care discussion - a tax credit doesn't help a poor person. If I don't make enough money to NOT receive all of my taxes back at the end of the year (maybe I don't make enough by myself, maybe I have a few children to get tax credits for them) then an additional tax credit gives me.... nothing. Sure, if I am single and well-employed (making plenty of taxable income above and beyond any deductions) then a tax credit is great for me, but I'm already well-employed, and likely have health care coverage already from my employer. So I agree with the people above who say this is really a question of the Obama plan vs. the status quo. Sure, some of McCain's changes are handy for some people, but its not really a change. Poor people still won't have coverage, and they need it more than anyone else because preventative care is cheaper than emergency care, and if I have coverage from my employer I can go get preventative care whenever I want. I don't know the details of the Obama plan - I won't pretend to be an expert on either one, actually. But a tax credit doesn't help the people who need the help, so if the alternative can, I'll take the alternative.
get me far in real life
slashdot comment boards is training grounds for real life?
i'm just arguing issues i care about. what are you doing? parenting? can i borrow the car keys dad?
you're 20 levels in in a comment thread on slashdot, and you think you're going to lecture me on what it takes to make it in real life
GOTCHA
this retarded thread is no substitute for a real life argument. AGREED
issue #2: on common sense approach to nationalized healthcare, your appeal to federalism is FUCKING STUPID
anything else i can help you with today? or do you want to make fun of someone's student movie as you concurrently lecture someone on being childish ;-)
what a retard
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
... in the form of emergency room visits by uninsured obese people for heart attacks and other obesity related health problems. Then they end up on medicare or state sponsored health programs because they are no longer insurable in the private sector after that happens.
The way the health care system works now, people's bad health habits eventually become a public cost issue. In my view, we have only two paths... 1) we go full on libertarian and take the government entirely out of the picture in the hopes that will lower costs(I think it would, but I'm not sure if it would be enough) or 2) we go nationalized health care.
Given that the party that pays lip service to the libertarian view and gets its members pretending that they have such free market views was also the party that brought us the medicare prescription drug benefit and also marginalized, ridiculed, and utterly rejected Ron Paul(the only one with integrity in that party at the national level), I think we need to push for nationalized health care.
The Libertarian ideal will never be realized, so we might as well get big government spending that at least attempts to care for our people, rather than the phoneys in the republican party who engage in big government spending to line the pockets of supposedly "free market" corporations while they run around calling everyone who disagrees with their idiocy "socialists".
And yet you put up with a public police and fire service... remarkable. How do you sleep at night, paying for all those fires to be put out, all those criminals to be arrested?
Troll. Don't expect me to believe that you honestly don't know the difference between a legitimate government service (none of which mentioned above are at the Federal level, and therefore are Red Herrings to this discussion) and wholesale redistribution of wealth.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
The problem with health care in America is that it is too expensive. The actual cost of health care -- doctors visits, hospital stays, operations, emergency room visits -- is too expensive. This in turn raises the cost of health insurance to the point that many people cannot afford it. The high cost of American health care cannot be solved simply by changing which pocket pays for it. Changing the payer from the individual (through out-of-pocket or insurance premiums) to the "government" -- i.e. taxpayers -- will do nothing to solve the fundamental problem: that health care services are too expensive. To solve the problem, we must understand WHY our health care costs so much.
Reason #1: The Legal System: Medical Malpractice Lawsuits
1a: Doctors' and Hospitals' skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums
Medical malpractice insurance premiums have skyrocketed over the last 20 years. Doctors and hospitals must compensate for this by charging more for their services. The cost of malpractice insurance has increased because overly-aggressive law firms (and their clients) regularly sue doctors and hospitals for any perceived mistake or even just bad luck, and the defendants are forced to settle for hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. There are of course legitimate cases of medical malpractice: if a surgeon removes the wrong kidney, for example. However, the vast majority of malpractice lawsuits are baseless, stemming from common incidents such as misdiagnoses, ineffective treatments, or missed diseases during screenings. These incidents are not criminal or negligent in nature, but are simply results of the unfortunate nature of the medical profession: that it is as much an art as a science. Our legal system must be reformed to protect doctors and hospitals from the deluge of unjust malpractice lawsuits that is destroying health care in America.
1b: Unnecessary and medically-unjustified tests performed by doctors and hospitals to protect themselves from lawsuits
The threat of malpractice lawsuits does far more harm than simply increasing the cost of health care services. In fact, an even bigger consequence is that doctors and hospitals now perform billions of dollars in unnecessary tests and examinations, for the sole purpose of protecting themselves from lawsuits. For example, I once went to my doctor because I had ringing in one ear after a loud rock concert. The doctor recommended an MRI scan, because there was a very small chance the ringing could be caused by a tumor. The odds of a tumor were one in a thousand, and recommending a very expensive test based on such odds was medically justified. However, if the doctor does not recommend an MRI to every patient, over time one patient might actually have a tumor with no symptoms except ringing in the ears, and if not given the MRI scan, he will surely sue the doctor when the tumor is discovered later. Similar medically unnecessary tests are administered a thousand times over every day throughout the country. Unnecessary tests, administered by doctors and hospitals to protect themselves from lawsuits, contribute greatly to the rising cost of American health care.
Reason #2: Over-regulation of insurance industries by the States
Each state has a different set of regulations regarding health insurance policies. The result is that no single health insurance policy is available in all 50 states. State regulations have severely limited the number of insurance companies and policies that are available in any given state. The result is a lack of consumer choice, lack of competition, and lack of market forces to keep prices down. Compare it to buying a car, in an alternate universe in which States have imposed over 1000 regulations on cars - required fuel mileage, safety features, performance, number of seats, number of cup-holders, etc. - and each state has different regulations, so that in any given state only 4 cars meet the requirements to be sold. The consumer would be left with the following choice: 4 cars from 4 differe
I'm a med student. Single Payer Universal Health Care for the win. http://www.pnhp.org/
Not to condone obesity or bad lifestyle decisions, but seriously, have you spent much time reading ingredient labels in the US? The number of items that have high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) added to them are simply staggering. It's actual work to try to avoid HFCS. So simply saying, no one forces them to eat corn syrup, is somewhat disingenuous. Sure, no one's holding a gun to their heads and handing them a bucket of HFCS and a spoon, but it's not immediately easy to get away from the stuff, either.
(My wife has a form of systemic candidiasis compounded by hypoglycemia and a family history of diabetes. She's tiny to begin with at only 4'10", but once we discovered that her real issue was sugar / HFCS related and started really clamping down on our intake, she lost 30 lbs in a month -- and also became the bitch from hell for the first few weeks while going through what was effectively withdrawal. Getting away from HFCS and excessive added sugars helped immensely, but it was no easy matter. We read ingredients labels before buying anything these days, also avoiding any added yeast [which is also in a heck of a lot where you wouldn't expect it], and our shopping habits have changed quite a bit.)
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
So out of curiosity from someone else who is motivated to do some country shopping, where did you go? Comparing the Japanese and US social services is depressing; I seriously tried to fit into that box, living and working there for several years, but as a honkey gaijin with an independent cuss of a honkey wife (whom I love dearly), good ol' Nihon just wasn't it, despite all the positives. (And yes, we both speak Japanese, so linguistic issues weren't really the problem so much as the social scene and incompatible cultural attitudes.)
So spill, where'd you go, and how does it stack up to the US in other areas aside from health care? :)
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Two patients limp into two different medical clinics with The same complaint. Both have trouble walking and Appear to require a hip replacement. The FIRST patient is examined within the hour, Is x-rayed the same day and has a time booked for Surgery the following week. The SECOND sees his family doctor after waiting 3 weeks For an appointment, then waits 8 weeks to see a specialist, Then gets an x-ray, which isn't reviewed for another week And finally has his surgery scheduled for a month from then. Why the different treatment for the two patients? ......
The FIRST is a Golden Retriever.
The SECOND is a Senior Citizen.
I didn't say they weren't societies. It was a general comment about how we help each other. When one state is having trouble, the other states chip in. New York, being of high income and mild climate, does its fair share when other states need help.
I deliminate with tabs. Get used to it.
I had a friend who had a difficult pregnancy that would have cost her over $100,000 dollars if she had to pay it herself. Without the insurance she would never have had a child. The Federal government does things to keep insurance and health care expensive: you are only allowed to buy health insurance from your own state which increases cost because low cost insurance is illegal in some states. Many things are regulated in a certain way to make health care more expensive. For example, prescriptions have to be obtained from and maintained by a doctor. If the goal was most health care per dollar spent pharmacists would be able at least maintain a prescription after a diagnosis is made. There are hundreds of ways that health care could be improved and costs reduced if the government wasn't blocking progress. Most of the nasty side of the health care industry, including insurance, is a product of bad law.
Here, let me translate for you...
I live in a rural area in New Brunswick
I live in the middle of nowhere; think Landusky, Montana.
the 'health care' that Canada offers hear (sic) is unacceptable
Despite living in a town with a population of 35, I feel the other 34 people should be highly trained medical professionals at my beck and call.
the closet Canadian hospital is over an hour and fifteen minutes away
I don't want to live in a city, but want to have all the benefits of one.
Treated and released for my condition (Aterial Fib as it's called)
I have a generally treatable and usually benign condition that millions of other people also have
I contacted Canadian medicare and was told that the closest appointment they could give me was EIGHT MONTHS away
You would have been better to contact a Doctor. "Canadian medicare" (aka Department of Health, NB) is the government agency responsible for reimbursing health professionals for the costs of providing health care. Asking them to schedule an appointment is like asking a bellhop to design a skyscraper.
I had no idea what was wrong with me... I could've been dead the next day from it.
The American hospital released me. For liability reasons, they wouldn't have done that if I was still at risk. But I am a hypocondriac, and I want attention NOW!
in a socialist health care system you are at the mercy of the government in terms of your overall health care.
As opposed to a for-profit health care system, where you are at the mercy of companies whose goal is to increase their profits.
I know too many friends and family that have been mistreated, and some killed by negligence on the part of the state
Some of my overweight, alcoholic, crackhead bungee-jumping buddies have died. I blame the medical system.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the upcoming election:
For the life of me, I can't figure out how any intelligent person can back that Monkee. A Monkee is handpicked by the Hollywood Elite, and selected purely because of his acting ability and his capability in front of a camera and a microphone. Sure there's A LITTLE talent there. Sure, the ability to get a crowd screaming "I'm a Believer" is amazing in itself. But is there really any substance? Can you look back to ANY RECORD prior to the Hollywood selection? No. The crowd of believers will soon be discovered to be "Daydream Believers" and the Monkee's rise to fame and glory will quickly fade as people realize that they fell for the Hollywood hype and a fraud with no substance. Then weâ(TM)ll be heading onto that "Last Train to Clarksville".
I don't think you should dismiss John just because he hung out with George for years. John's got some great experience (military, under "Sgt. Pepper"; foreign policy, when he was "Back in the USSR" and also part of the British Invasion; even strong fiscal policy experience, with "Taxman"). He has an amazing ability to work across the aisle ("We Can Work It Out"). He even has the experience! A Monkee can only dream about "When I'm Sixty-Four" while John knows what it's like. He doesn't have to "Imagine". Does it really matter that John has that funny haircut?
No, I won't fall for the Hollywood hype. I'd go with Lennon over Lenin. I know you need more substance.
I have health insurance, and from my own personal experiences plus what I've heard from others, the entire thing is one big scam.
Long story short: they sent me the wrong medication (as in, not what I ordered) and when I called to get the error corrected, they basically told me "Too bad, that'll be $400."
For-profit health care is a seven-layer bullshit burrito, and the people actually responsible for it being that way should be dragged out into the street and shot.
I use Windows... like a two dollar wh.. why don't I just go ahead and not finish that sentence.
We need to
Private health insurance companies would continue to exist but would do so only above the level that nationalized insurance provides.
The AMA would object to the restructuring of medicine as taught and practiced today but it is necessary to reduce the cost of medicine. You would go see a doctor who specializes in your particular problem, he would be paid through the national insurance plan and his success with your treatment rated and available online.
Seriously.
When our govt stops this farce and starts letting their citizens use natural medications instead of pharmaceutical concoctions, a HUGE number of medical problems will go away.
When you have millions on opiates prescribed by doctors that could quit by switching to a simple marijuana tincture, it makes our doctors look insane.
Get a grip people, marijuana is medicine.
Legalize it and start seriously continuing the studies that have begun in the basements of america.
The country is basically flat fucking broke.
Healthcare is indeed a massive fuckup.
Any, and I mean any action the government takes to fix healthcare is going to be monumentally expensive.
I suspect that the economic situation dictates that neither candidate will be able to do anything more than *maybe* get the ball rolling on some very minor refinements before having to deal with an out-of-control global economy.
I remember Bill Clinton being elected the first time 'round in a weak economy (and not nearly as bad as what we're stewing in here). Remember all those healthcare promises and tax reforms he proposed from the stump? They were altogether canceled or put on hold until the much stronger (economically) second term. Even then, not nearly what he promised came true. We just didn't care because the stock market was printing us vast sums of money.
Frankly, while I don't think we're on the precipice of a Great Depression Pt. 2 and a dust-bowl to boot, we really need to get the economy in shape. If people can't feed themselves (and especially their children) a good diet, or are working 60-80 hours a week under high stress to do so, what is the point of having a stellar insurance plan? After all, at that point, we go back to dying at 65.
Food affordability is also critical. As much as we joke about lazy, fat Americans, people aren't only eating at McDonald's 7 times per week (hey, moderation is OK in my book) because they're lazy and like it. It's because they can feed themselves a lot of food for $3.
A family of 4 can have their "big meal" of the day for under $10 by eating off the dollar menu. And that's a lot more flavorful (despite being nutritionally bankrupt) than eating redbeans and rice instead.
Couple that with the fact that running a household is a full-time job, and with two parents working, all the 'extra' money goes to daycare for the little ones and sports clubs/activities for the older ones. The time used to shop frugally and prepare a nutritious meal is lost to overtime, commute, and schlepping the kids all over God's green earth.
Yes, the individual American needs to put down the nearly maxed-out Visa and be better about how he spends his money, so that he can focus on the core familial needs. But the government needs to enable us to find ways to put more money in our pockets.
The middle class needs the most access to affordable, reliable healthcare. The poor/working poor (in every place I've ever lived) generally have acceptable to great access to free health care, and the richest demographic can afford (under less-than-ideal-cirucumstances, albeit) to largely self-insure.
Until we can get the middle class fiscally healthy, physical health will be put mostly on the back burner.
But when things do turn around (hey, it's the USA; things ALWAYS turn around), let's remember to actually, really fix healthcare.
It's really just that when things are good, we're all too busy consuming and enjoying it to help build stability and (expensively) revamp the systems that need it.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
You push for a national health program and say it would save tons of money.
B.S.! Anything the govt does INCREASES waste. Takes more people and materials to get the same job done and less effectively.
Keep things private or the healthcare industry will stagnate.
I admit that SOMETHING needs to be done but a national healthcare program is not it.
People need empowerment programs, not socialist programs.
Yet, we already spend more money per student in public school than nearly all other Western nations. Specifically, we spend 35% more than the Germans.
population of the USA:300 M
population of Germany: 82 M
you think spending 35% more on schools means you should be better educated, even though you have more than 3x the population? I guess I shouldn't be suprised... you're just a product of the shithouse US education system
In the beginning, there was only insurance. Think about it--what other insurance (car, house, life) do you buy where you typically *save* money every year? None.
Insurance is about paying money in order to manage risk, not about saving money. Every other type of insurance is there to protect you against catastrophes.
So, you see, the dirty little truth is that on average, you will have to pay more, a lot more, for coverage than you receive, so that the money can be paid out to those with the biggest bills. But the problem is that it seems the likelihood of having a medical problem is either far more likely than other events (like a house fire), or more costly than other frequent events (like a car crash), or both.
And because of this, (2) came into being--cutting costs. So now there's questions about whether this or that is covered, and PPOs/HMOs where there's circles of physicians who've agreed to negotiated rates--sometimes 50-75% of what the "cash" rate is. And guess who gets stuck with the non-discounted rates? That's right--those who can't afford coverage!
In the end, it doesn't matter if the coverage is paid for by an employer, the person, or the government--it all comes out of the economy somehow, and so we all pay for it. The only question left is how that cost is distributed.
But it's hard to talk honestly about that.
We can question, we can challenge, we can bring the truth to light. People can sue for information they're trying to hide, and succeed.
Try questioning in Cuba. I don't think Castro will be so beloved to you after that.
1.Change the tax system and other laws so that you can switch away from employer provided health funds and get the same tax benefits. Make it simple to shop around and find the health fund that is offering the best coverage for their needs and encourage consumers to do so.
2.Get rid of any red tape and make it easy for new players to enter the market.
3.Require health funds to be more up front with regards to what you do and dont get coverage for.
4.Prohibit health funds from dictating what treatments get used. They would be allowed to continue specifying which providers (hospitals etc) you go do and could set limits on how much they will pay out but they cant dictate treatment (e.g. situations where the fund has mandated option X even when option Y is not only better for the patient but CHEAPER)
and 5.Prohibit any conflict of interest or cross-ties between health funds and health providers. Health funds would be prohibited from owning any kind of health care provider.
These measures would hopefully lead to insurance companies doing more to compete with each other since if consumers are unhappy with the level of coverage at fund A, they can switch to fund B very easily.
That's can't happen because we need other things to live. The price will go up and up until people can't afford it any more, then it will stop rising. The only real solution to to try to increase the availability of health care. This can be done by either allowing more people to become doctors or allowing lower-level staff to carry out routine procedures, or allowing less time intensive procedures to be used in place of more time intensive, higher quality procedures etc. . . .
The point is that government financing will do nothing to solve the basic problem, which is inadequate supply. But, that doesn't mean we're all screwed. We just need to increase supply and there are a lot of ways to do that.
I see you are intrigued by my ideas, want to subscribe to my newsletter?
You can't handle the truth.
The reality is that countries with single-payer plans compare favorably to the US in objective measures such as lifespan and infant mortality. The difference is that they do not have what has become a common pattern in the US:
1. You get seriously ill
2. Your employer lets you go (generally on some other pretext) because you are missing so much work for sick days, doctors appointments, or hospital stays.
3. Without the income, you can't maintain your insurance (whether private or employer sponsored).
4. You can't get another job because you are spending too much time standing in the charity line at the emergency room to get the care you need to stay alive, or at least not die in too much pain.
5. If you do somehow get another job, you can't get insurance that covers your illness, because it is now excluded as a pre-existing condition.
6. After depleting your savings (nobody but the very wealthy can afford to cover a serious illness from savings), you end up homeless, dying on the street.
A single payer plan won't cover everything. There will still be a role for private insurance for well-to-do people who want greater coverage or faster service for elective procedures, but it will provide a minimum standard of care for all citizens.
A famous science fiction writer worked this out, and started a church. That church is now very rich and well-known, and doesn't pay any tax.
Mohamed?
I read many of the arguments "against" and they all fall under the same tired "why should I pay for someone else's healthcare" totally false argument.
The thing is, this is not about paying for someone else's healthcare, but for universal insurance. A totally different thing.
We don't hear those bitching against "paying for someone else's healthcare" when they pay (an arm and a leg though the nose) for "their" private insurance (or paying for other people's car accidents for car insurance, or other people's fires for fire insurance).
The idea of universal insurance is for it to be, well, universal (duh?). To spread the risk amongst the whole population. And with this comes tremenduous economies of scale: since everyone has the same coverage (that's the meaning of "universal"), there is no time wasted by doctors dealing with private insurance red-tape, nor the need for zillions of insurance company worker bees to sift through contracts to figure if such-and-such procedure is covered or not.
Everyone got the same treatment, so administrative overhead is at minimum.
In Canada, the government health insurance overhead is less than 5%. Compare this to the "ultra-efficient, competition-driven, frea-mahkit, don't-thread-on-me" 35% overhead of the US private health insurers!
* * *
In the US, the right is vehemently opposed to universal public insurance (like every OTHER industrialized country has) because it actually **WORKS**, and it would convey to the sheeple the heretic notion that the Government can do something that works well and is efficient (hint: who did send men to the moon and safely brought them back to earth, 40 years ago? It wasn't a conglomerate of private companies and/or foundations...), so the people would be more enticed to vote for politicians that actually look after their own interests, which would mean more taxes for the filthy-rich.
In Kentucky, hillbillies are voting en masse for the very same (spit) republicans who deny them the most basic health-care; they have had the wool pulled over their eyes by useless "wedge issues" (abortion, gay marriage) that have absolutely no impact whatsoever on their own lifes (no one is forcing them to abort nor to marry their own sex), all this in the name of maximum wealth for the maximally rich.
..then poor and sick.
What is this thing with corn syrup being so evil?
Corn Syrup is like pure glucose. Glucose, which can be used as fuel by every cell in our bodies. Glucose which crosses over the blood-brain barrier, and provides a very minor but noticeable cognitive improvement.
Now fructose, that's nasty! It has to be processed by our liver into something we can use. In large quantities it causes liver disease.
Or sucrose, that "cane sugar" you folks keep talking about. That's a disaccharide of glucose and fructose. It breaks down into a 50/50 mix of glucose and fructose when we eat it.
High fructose corn syrup comes in three varieties: 90/10, 55/45, and 42/58 (fructose/glucose). 55/45 is what you see in soft drinks. 42/58 in foods & baked goods.
A 50/50 mix is metabolically indistinguishable from sucrose. (Our bodies excrete sucrase in the small intestines to break down sucrose into glucose & fructose.)
.
Our obesity problems stems more from drinking 3+ liters of Coke/Pepsi a day (reportedly at 97 calories per 8oz) rather than 3 liters of water. That's an extra 1164 calories a day coming from these sugars. Out of a 2000 calorie a day diet.
That's not 1164 calories of starch. It's not 1164 calories of protein. It's not 1164 calories of vegetable nutrients. It's just 1164 empty calories of sugar.
Add in a couple of McDonald's Double-Quarter-Pounders with Cheese at 740 calories apiece (380 from fat)! Plus some fries at 500 calories apiece (220 from fat)!
Eat 3 meals a day.
It all adds up.
.
On the other hand try cooking your own meals from scratch. No pre-prepared "instant" foods. Drink water instead of sugar-drinks. Avoid deep-frying. Buy flour, sugar, eggs, and so forth at the store. Cook! Eat rice, potatoes, bread, soup, salads, etc.
It's healthier for you. It's cheaper. (I can eat homemade pancakes every day for a month for the price of a single McD's meal. So there is an advantage in this economy!)
But you'll starve trying to break 2000 calories a day. Without the fat and sugar, you have to eat so much food to hit 2000 calories...
I agree with you. I don't mess with corn syrup or cane sugar. The only things I normally drink are water and milk.
Gone!
There is a very simple solution. It should be a crime to profit from someone who needs medical attention. Just like war profiteering which is already illegal. In 100 years historians will look back at these times as barbaric. Allowing someone to profit from another's misfortune is quite simply immoral if not outright insane, and its fundamentally the root of all problems we have related to healthcare system--from out of control costs, insurance brokers to lobbyists and corrupt politicians.
Thanks to Michael Moore for putting this idea forth succinctly in his 2008 voter's guide...
Funny thing I've noticed. (I'm a US citizen, grew up in Oz, also an Australian Citizen). The US has the worst health care system on the planet... bar none. Why? It's not for the people. And stuff socialism. The US appears to be so scared of the communist block (that collapsed) it won't accept any concept that is at it's core, helping each other. Lets go over a few things. 1. Market freedom does not intrinsically create better products on offer. Or necessarily any real choice. 2. Your health is not a product to bargin. 3. No private health insurance company will flat out cover your health, unless it's profitable. 4. Countries such as Australia and Sweden have public health systems and aren't communist or socialist. Examples. My partner recently found out she could have had certain medical problems, won't explain that's her business. When she found out what the condition might be she did a search for it and found an example of a woman with the same condition in the U.S. This woman detailed her traumas, which as it had turned out had nothing to do with the condition, just with getting some one to recognise it and have the insurance company pay for an operation to diagnose it. This particular condition requires surgery to diagnose. There is no way around it, there is no other definitive method. This woman's doctor referred her to a specialist who decided that they needed to perform the operation to get a diagnosis. When she took it to the insurance company who wanted a separate (one of their own) specialists to confirm. This specialist was in a related field, but not the same one. She had a meeting, he decided there was something else wrong with her and after some arguing between them admitted that in addition to what he thought was there she could well also have this condition and approved the surgery. Compare with my partner's experience. She went to her G.P. for a standard exam. G.P. noted a problem. Referred her to several specialists. The specialist took her on and examined several of the problems she was displaying. Within about two months of consultation (not one off visits) he arranged for a surgeon to see her and surgery was booked, she was given a time. We turned up, booked her into the hospital. By midday she was done, an hour later she went home. And the kicked. She DOESN'T have health insurance and didn't pay for it. What do I pay for this? about 1.5% medicare level on my income, 2.5% when I start earning a lot more. Sorry I'll take the tax imposition. Why? Because when my Aunt got breast cancer, she was covered. When I turn up a emergency, I don't need worry about having the money to get looked at. When my mother came off a horse she was taken to hospital and we could worry about her not paying for it, when my partner needs surgery she gets it. We don't have a full cover health system, but it's enough that when I start looking for work I stop considering the U.S. even though the incomes are higher. Why? Essential because you get taxed less, and that means the government has less money to SPEND ON YOU. Free markets don't care about citizens. They care about consumers. Big difference. Get a little socialist and you might get a little healthier.
Public health care implements quotas.
1994, I was on insurance. I spent 60 days going from test to test to test. 3, 4 and 5 tests a day. Finally on Nov 10, they diagnosed my cancer (with all the wrong symptoms). The doctors told me I would have been dead by Christmas without treatment.
Under Universal Health Care, I would not have been able to get the battery of tests approved before Christmas.
Thus, Universal Health Care would have killed me.
Nobody gets screwed by big insurance anymore? How about screwed by the government? For my cancer care, I spent $1700 out of pocket, plus my normal premiums. But, how can I save $400 per month when I don't pay that much? And someone has to pay for it, so my TAXES go up, by way more than $400 per month.
So, let's see. Health care goes down, save $100 per month. Add $1700 onetime fee for Cancer. That year = $2900 saved.
Taxes go up, around $3000 that year to pay for health care - whoops - where's the savings now?
And finally, when big insurance tries to screw me, I have the government to complain to and to try and get to fix the issue. When Big Government IS the insurance, what happens then? You do know tha tyou have to get permission from the government to sue the government don't you?
So, crawl back under your rock and take your Universal Health Care with you. And maybe next time I will discuss the other time UHC would have kille dme.
I'm a nurse. Why is the idea of universal healthcare a bad idea? One, it won't work. Liberals will run it like the public school system, the worst in the world, incredibly expensive loaded up with "liberal school officials" and no discipline, no incentive to learn. Two: It will bankrupt the economy. Half of the out-of-control costs, are lawsuits. The other half is primarily pointless diagnostic procedures on people who won't stop doing drugs, or won't lose weight, or won't stop aging. Real healthcare would include nasty boot camps, and people are too weak willed for that. Want to save the economy? Abolish lawsuits against hospitals and doctors, abolish medicare and medicaid. Can't do that? Become a slave to liberal democrats, then. It's called communism. Already been tried in Russia. It bankrupted Russia and now Russia is a hell hole. Chrisberg (mensunion.org)