Why not Universal Healthcare?

[Smokey]

For the life of me, I don’t understand why so many people are against a public health care bill that is being kicked around Washington. Most people I see protesting against the public health care seem to be middle age to older folks, and the reasons they give as to why they are against it seem to be that they don’t want government get involve.

And to me that seems like a very selfish reason where it is “Me First”. IMO public health insurance is more of a moral issue than anything else where all citizen chip in to help one another, and get those folks that don’t have insurance-or can’t afford it-into the health system.

Last night was watching C-Span, and five of top CEO and VP from medical insurance companies were testifying in front of a committee. One congressman ask them how much compensation (beside salary) they are getting and non of them would say anything. So he asked them again. Finally when push comes to shove, one lady VP said she get $700,000, and another said $500,000.

Now, how that would set with a family that is losing their house (or declaring bankruptcy) because of medical bills they can’t afford. Or a guy that don’t have insurance but is badly in need of medical care.

[atomicAdam]

with all the fuss lately you want to start a thread like this? oh dear me.....

[bobsticks]

Well, first off I'd say that this is a complex issue. Hats off to Smokey for doing the right thing and posting this in OT...'

...I'll respond later with something that'll be sure to enrage everyone...

[Smokey]

with all the fuss lately you want to start a thread like this?

As Bobsticks would say, "That's how I roll..."

I just hope this thread doesn't get too many responses from Foxnews watchers :D

[thekid]

I am game for a thread war.... :Yawn:

Try any or all below;

- We no longer have a sense of community
- Gutless politicians (on both sides of the aisle) who talk about fiscal responsibility except when it comes to bringing home the "pork"
- Our definition "of the people for the people" does not include people of all race,gender,class or ethnic origin
-We are do not see ourselves as Americans except in extreme crisis - the rest of the time we are Liberal-Conservatives-Democrats-Republicans-Libertarians.....etc
-Sacrifice is for sissies or an abstract term used on Sundays
-Entrenched Money that makes a profit in the status quo
-Lobbyists
-Money and Lobbyists
-Money,lobbyists and the endless political campaign
-Talk radio
-24hour cable news
-Gutless Media that give opinions towards a targeted demographic rather than report facts
-Dismal education system (I include parents in this) that produces a population without the ability to engage in critical thinking for greater than 30 sec-wait what was I saying......
-Sound bites
-Short term thinking for long term objectives

How's that for a start...............
BTW you can apply that list to almost any problem in America at this time.

[bobsticks]

Last night was watching C-Span, and five of top CEO and VP from medical insurance companies were testifying in front of a committee. One congressman ask them how much compensation (beside salary) they are getting and non of them would say anything. So he asked them again. Finally when push comes to shove, one lady VP said she get $700,000, and another said $500,000.

Now, how that would set with a family that is losing their house (or declaring bankruptcy) because of medical bills they can’t afford. Or a guy that don’t have insurance but is badly in need of medical care.

500k to 700k ain't really nothin when compared to the average CEO package...but then again, why would anyone look at the perspectives of the issue...it's easy just to rail against perceived inequity...I wonder, how much in insurance premiums does the average doctor pay.

Bottom line, if you are 40 or under and a citizen, you are misguided if you support the current health care reform initiatives.

[Smokey]

Bottom line, if you are 40 or under and a citizen, you are misguided if you support the current health care reform initiatives.

Given that majority of those who are uninsured fall under that catagory, what would be more misguided than not being insured?

The real question probably is how it would effect those that are insured. May be you can shed more light on that.

[thekid]

The real question probably is how it would effect those that are insured. May be you can shed more light on that.

To me that's the million (or billions) dollar question........

I have always argued that by default we already have a type universal health care in this country only it is called medicare/medicaid. It only kicks in when you are in the poor house and in an emergency situation and is the most expensive type of care given and in an inefficient manner. If you in effect eliminate this form of universal health care and replace it with a true universal health care system you will, in theory, eliminate a good deal of costs associated with the current application of medicare/medicaid. However the problem IMO of the proposed health care reforms is that they talk about adding coverages but none of them talk about cutting costs or reforming inefficiences. Administrative costs for healthcare in almost all of the rest of the world run on average around 4%-7% in the US they average around 17%. Now remember this is just admin costs-no real heath care is being provided/affected in this area. Congress could/should mandate a limit on admin fees which could mean an immediate 10% reduction in costs and (again in theory) help allow for the absorption of the additional insured under a universal health care system. Passing a law like this however would be viewed by many as socialist or smack of the government running health care. What is the role of government when an industry or the marketplace fails to work efficiently?

Our current system allows for inefficiences to exist and be passed onto to the consumer. Now some here will argue that the marketplace will take care of that because someone else will come along with a more efficient-cost effective plan and replace the costlier less efficient plan. But the reality is that the health care companies, like alot of other business' where competition was supposed to lower cost, have just carved up the business and a few major and regional players reap the rewards. This segmated market allows for costs to be increased disproportionate to inflation and results in either benefits being cut or more uninsured hitting the streets.

The way I see it we need to reform health care now only if it includes serious efforts to cut/control costs. The alternative is to wait until the current system produces so many uninsured that they completely overwhelm medicare/medicaid at a cost 10 times higher than the cost of reform. Since meaningful reform will require hard choices and intelligent thinking by our politicians and the proposed reforms just rearrange the status quo which one do you think will get passed?

[Smokey]

Thanks Kid for a thoughtful post which I also agree with. The theme of universal health care should be cost cutting (as you said it is rising exponentialy), and if that is not the goal, then why bother.

[GMichael]

IMO it seems to boil down to two major categories
1) There are those who have worked their butts off to get ahead. They have been paying high insurance bills for years and don't like the idea of having to also pay the bills of people who opt not to buy insurance, or wait until they are sick to want to join in.
2) People who also work their butts off, but still can't afford insurance.

Then you get the sub categories:

1b) People who are so filthy rich that they could afford to chip in for the people who don't have as much.
2b) Lazy ass people who could have worked for a living but choose to work the system instead.

The people in cat 1 always point to cat 2b.
The people in cat 2 always point to the people in cat 1b.
The people in 1b and 2b don't give a rats ass about anybody else. They just want what they want when they want it. Screw everyone else.
And nobody is willing to listen to anything said by the other side.
Nothing gets done, or worse, the wrong thing gets done.

Do I seem a little bitter today?

[Rich-n-Texas]

No. You seem logical today. :idea:

[GMichael]

The way I see it we need to reform health care now only if it includes serious efforts to cut/control costs. The alternative is to wait until the current system produces so many uninsured that they completely overwhelm medicare/medicaid at a cost 10 times higher than the cost of reform. Since meaningful reform will require hard choices and intelligent thinking by our politicians and the proposed reforms just rearrange the status quo which one do you think will get passed?
Your whole post was great, but I singled this part out because it's an actual solution. Profits need to be cut to a reasonable percentage.

[markw]

I'd vote for GM as president based on these two posts alone. so far, he's pointed out the various camps better than anyone else so far.

But, think there should be a sepatate category for those that can afford insurance (either filthy rich or work hard) and simply choose to not jump into the insurance pool because they can't see themself needing it.

It should be looked upon as an expense like auto insurance, rent, food, etc...

Personally, we're in category 1, but barely, and we pay a premium through work, but it does provide quite well for us. I don't want to sacrifice quality to save a few $$ and, my spidey sense telle me that this as-yet-proposed plan will do the former and exactly the opposite of the latter.

[3LB]

Well, I live 25 minutes from the Canadian border, and those Canucks that can afford better, won't touch Canada's public healthcare with a ten-foot pole, medical or dental...why? I can assume a lot of things, but you know what they say when you 'assume'...you get a new national monument. But the fact that Canadians are coming to a free market, non-controlled environment for healthcare when they're supposed to have free healthcare at home...well, that's very telling to me.

I had free healthcare in the Navy...dear gods, I hope that's not the template...

[GMichael]

I'd vote for GM as president based on these two posts alone. so far, he's pointed out the various camps better than anyone else so far.

.


Thanks for your vote, but I won't run. Mostly because I don't want to get my name drug through the mud in public. I have a record, and I inhaled.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Thanks for your vote, but I won't run. Mostly because I don't want to get my name drug through the mud in public. I have a record, and I inhaled.
Does Medicare/Medicaid pay for "Medical Marajuana"? :idea:

[ForeverAutumn]

Well, I live 25 minutes from the Canadian border, and those Canucks that can afford better, won't touch Canada's public healthcare with a ten-foot pole, medical or dental...why? I can assume a lot of things, but you know what they say when you 'assume'...you get a new national monument. But the fact that Canadians are coming to a free market, non-controlled environment for healthcare when they're supposed to have free healthcare at home...well, that's very telling to me.

I had free healthcare in the Navy...dear gods, I hope that's not the template...

I've been following this thread because I knew that, at some point, someone would drag Canada into this.

The Canadian healthcare system is largely misunderstood by Americans from what I can tell. And if you think that you’re going to learn about it by watching a Michael Moore movie, think again.

Dental is not covered by our public healthcare system (with the exception of Quebec, I think). And I seriously doubt that there are any Canadians that “won’t touch Canada’s public healthcare with a ten-foot pole”.

Our system is far from perfect. And there are extreme cases where Canadians may hop the border and pay to have certain tests run or receive certain treatments faster than they can be done here. In fact, I'm even aware of a few situations where Canadians have been sent to the US for treatment and our gov't paid for it (usually it's to receive a drug or treatment not yet approved here...red tape). But, for the most part, our public system works. In 43 years, I have never had to pay for a doctor’s appointment or trip to the emergency room. I can see my doctor as often as I need (currently weekly, while I recover from bronchitis) and never have to worry about how the bill will be paid.

I am free to change jobs and not worry about losing my medical insurance (although we do have employer sponsored insurance that covers prescription medication and other items that our public health care does not cover).

I can see any doctor that I want to. No one tells me where I can and can’t get treatment.

If I need a specialist, I see a specialist. I don’t worry about how to pay the specialist.

If I need surgery, I get surgery. I don’t worry about how to pay for the surgery.

I don’t have to designate any of my income to paying for medical insurance. Yes, I pay taxes but I’m willing to bet that the per cent of my tax going to medical coverage is less than many of you pay for private insurance.

I admit that I don’t know a lot about your private health care system or the proposal being put forward for a public system. And if I've said anything here that is incorrect, I apologize and welcome the correction. But don’t bad mouth the Canadian system with anecdotal bull****. 3LB, if you have specific examples then lets hear them. But so far your post sounds like nothing more than the ignorant fear mongering that I’ve been hearing in your media.

I’d be very interested in hearing opinions from someone who's lived with both systems (Kex?).

P.S. If you have any questions about living with universal health care in Canada, I'm happy to answer them to the best of my knowledge. Also, this post is not intended to be interpreted as an opinion for or against whatever happens in the US. I don't really care what y'all do. I just had to respond to 3LBs post.

[3LB]

And there are extreme cases where Canadians may hop the border and pay to have certain tests run or receive certain treatments faster than they can be done here.

Specifics? Well, according to sources at three different medical providers in my area, they said Canadian patients account for a quarter of their clients...now maybe these are extreme cases, I dunno, but I have talked to Canadians who weren't pleased with the quality of care they were recieving in Canada, or waiting for care, etc. Maybe they were being picky. One of these places I actually worked for and they were, for the most part, a medical center (not a hospital).


But so far your post sounds like nothing more than the ignorant fear mongering that I’ve been hearing in your media.I don't know what media outlet you're referring to...these are my own observations based on my own experiences, so there is no one to quote, no links to post, no anecdotes, and no reason to doubt what "people from that country tell me about that country". Perhaps its wrong to quantify or qualify their remarks as consensus, or anyone elses for that matter. All I said was it was telling for me that people who could get free mecial care (there) were eschewing it for care for which they had to pay out of pocket - since these were the only Canadians I met at (then) Madrona Medical, my perception could be ascew.

Again, this was an observation, not an opinion. I've not recieved medical care in any other country but the US, so I can't make direct comparisons to refute what I've heard from those who have.

[3LB]

IMO it seems to boil down to two major categories
1) There are those who have worked their butts off to get ahead. They have been paying high insurance bills for years and don't like the idea of having to also pay the bills of people who opt not to buy insurance, or wait until they are sick to want to join in.
2) People who also work their butts off, but still can't afford insurance.

Then you get the sub categories:

1b) People who are so filthy rich that they could afford to chip in for the people who don't have as much.
2b) Lazy ass people who could have worked for a living but choose to work the system instead.

The people in cat 1 always point to cat 2b.
The people in cat 2 always point to the people in cat 1b.
The people in 1b and 2b don't give a rats ass about anybody else. They just want what they want when they want it. Screw everyone else.
And nobody is willing to listen to anything said by the other side.
Nothing gets done, or worse, the wrong thing gets done.


While at work for a small telecom company, one of my co-workers chimed in a conversation being bantied about the need for national healthcare in the US. This conversation had started about the same time the E-coli outbreak occured in the early '90s - in my very own neck of the woods, Bellingham WA, a small child succumbed to e-coli poisoning from Jack In The Box. I fergit all the particulars, but this family became a sort of poster child for healthcare (guess which political party). Of course they were interviewed ad nauseum regarding their terrible loss and of course hospital bills came up and everyone watching knew they were going to sue the piss outta J-N-B. (of course I know this was of little consolation to them). Anyway, this former co-worker of mine chimes in and says that if this underclassed family did without medical insurance during their pregnancy or anytime afterward, it was due to their own lack of initiative. He then told us that both his kids' births were covered by situational welfare, something which he said he had to do his own legwork for, but nonetheless was qualified for and did recieve. He also divulged that he had welfare-paid health insurance on his kids. He said it took some effort, lots of paperwork before during and afterward, but he didn't pay anything for his kids insurance. He lived in a house with an FHA assisted loan. He found some sort of gov't assisted loan for a car (still never understood that one). The job where we worked at the time (DBA Communications - David Bensted & Assc) did not offer healthcare, or much in the way of pay either, FWIW.

No, the situational welfare I touch upon above is certainly not as convenient as having an institution in place, but it does exist; its just that there is no one is there to lead one by the hand...I guess whether or not that's a bad thing is totally subjective.

[3LB]

I've been following this thread because I knew that, at some point, someone would drag Canada into this. it was inevitable, given Canada's proximity to the US and status as 'developed nation with large land area and population' who also has national healthcare. If Canada's healthcare is the success story you say it is, then a comparison is all the more warranted.

I can't make an assessment of how Canadian gov't is percieved within its own borders regarding its own tax revenue, but we here in the US have every reason to believe that our own gov't could screw up anything, no matter how noble and/or basic it seems. I personally do not like the notion that healthcare is considered a fundimental birthright rather than the financial sacrifice that it seems it going to be...on someone's behalf. Of course, it ain't like we haven't spent the same amount money elsewhere on other uhh, stuff. Just to pile on, our national security is provided by a publically funded gov't entity, and lord knows how efficiently they spend money :rolleyes:

[dean_martin]

props to Smokey for having the guts to pose the question.

My views are very narrowly defined by what I see in my profession and what I've experienced personally. In my profession I constantly see medical bills, particularly hospital bills that vary widely based on whether the patient is insured. Typically, the person who is NOT insured is billed 3X the amount that the hospital accepts from the health insurance carrier of the person who is insured for the same services. This may make sense from a bean counter's perspective based on number of patients insured by the carrier with whom the hospital has a contract (but I can't explain it), but from the consumer's standpoint paying 3 times the amount an insured is billed (the insured doesn't actually pay the one-third bill, but pays a deductible based on a percentage of the reduced bill) is a ticket to bankruptcy. A person working a manual labor job that doesn't offer health insurance (we have a lot of those in my area) could actually afford health services if he or she was billed the same amount that an insured person's health insurance company is billed for the same service, albeit the manual laborer may need to pay off the bill over time. Is the actual value of health services closer to what the health care provider accepts from the insurance company or is the value closer to what the provider bills the uninsured individual? If we address health care costs, I think we need to start with establishing the true costs.

On a personal level, my effin credit report is littered with medical charges for miniascule amounts (after insurance has paid its share) because I get the hospital and related bills from radiologists, doctors groups, etc. (for my kids mostly) many months after the service and I can't remember what the hell they're for so they go in a drawer that rarely sees the light of day. I need a personal bookkeeper, bad.

[3LB]

On a personal level, my effin credit report is littered with medical charges for miniascule amounts (after insurance has paid its share) because I get the hospital and related bills from radiologists, doctors groups, etc. (for my kids mostly) many months after the service and I can't remember what the hell they're for so they go in a drawer that rarely sees the light of day. I need a personal bookkeeper, bad.funny, I spent the better part of my day putting out little medical bill fires - we have a flexible spending account (which is deducted monthly from my wife's paychecks) that we use to suppliment our insurance, i.e., whatever the insurnace doesn't pay, we can use the flexfund to cover. But the company providing the service needs the actual bill to pay out the charges, and the providers won't double bill. Sometimes our flexfund will reject a charge because they didn't get the right info, the right code, the right form, blah blah blah, so I spend a day on the phone trying to fix it...what would we do if I actually worked and didn't have all day to fuss with this stuff?

[GMichael]

props to Smokey for having the guts to pose the question.

My views are very narrowly defined by what I see in my profession and what I've experienced personally. In my profession I constantly see medical bills, particularly hospital bills that vary widely based on whether the patient is insured. Typically, the person who is NOT insured is billed 3X the amount that the hospital accepts from the health insurance carrier of the person who is insured for the same services. This may make sense from a bean counter's perspective based on number of patients insured by the carrier with whom the hospital has a contract (but I can't explain it), but from the consumer's standpoint paying 3 times the amount an insured is billed (the insured doesn't actually pay the one-third bill, but pays a deductible based on a percentage of the reduced bill) is a ticket to bankruptcy. A person working a manual labor job that doesn't offer health insurance (we have a lot of those in my area) could actually afford health services if he or she was billed the same amount that an insured person's health insurance company is billed for the same service, albeit the manual laborer may need to pay off the bill over time. Is the actual value of health services closer to what the health care provider accepts from the insurance company or is the value closer to what the provider bills the uninsured individual? If we address health care costs, I think we need to start with establishing the true costs.

On a personal level, my effin credit report is littered with medical charges for miniascule amounts (after insurance has paid its share) because I get the hospital and related bills from radiologists, doctors groups, etc. (for my kids mostly) many months after the service and I can't remember what the hell they're for so they go in a drawer that rarely sees the light of day. I need a personal bookkeeper, bad.

Hey Dean, Good to see ya.

When my wife had our baby, the hospital billed the insurance company over $98,000. The insurance company paid them $17,000. We ended up paying a little over $5,000. Then we got reimbursed for about $3000 of it. The system is a little strange fo sure.

There went my upgrades:prrr:

[dean_martin]

Hey Dean, Good to see ya.

When my wife had our baby, the hospital billed the insurance company over $98,000. The insurance company paid them $17,000. We ended up paying a little over $5,000. Then we got reimbursed for about $3000 of it. The system is a little strange fo sure.

There went my upgrades:prrr:

Yeah, I don't really get it.

I was a gov't employee (clerk for the FBI) when my son was born. All the health insurance plans we could choose from offered maternity coverage even though my (first) wife was pregnant when I signed on. My son had complications at birth, was sent to Virginia Commonwealth University Hosp. and had what was at the time an experimental procedure performed which saved his life. (He's been fine since.) Needless to say, all of that was expensive and my annual salary at the time was $12,500. I was able to set up payments on the balance that I owed after insurance which I paid off when my son was about 3 years old. I have to remind him on occasion that he could've been repo'ed at anytime between birth and 3.

[ForeverAutumn]

it was inevitable, given Canada's proximity to the US and status as 'developed nation with large land area and population' who also has national healthcare. If Canada's healthcare is the success story you say it is, then a comparison is all the more warranted.

I can't make an assessment of how Canadian gov't is percieved within its own borders regarding its own tax revenue, but we here in the US have every reason to believe that our own gov't could screw up anything, no matter how noble and/or basic it seems. I personally do not like the notion that healthcare is considered a fundimental birthright rather than the financial sacrifice that it seems it going to be...on someone's behalf. Of course, it ain't like we haven't spent the same amount money elsewhere on other uhh, stuff. Just to pile on, our national security is provided by a publically funded gov't entity, and lord knows how efficiently they spend money :rolleyes:

I understand that. And I don't blame you for your suspicion about having the gov't run your health care. But having been raised with public healthcare, I just can't imagine not having it. As I said, our system is not perfect. There can be long waits for treatment sometimes if your need is not critical. Critical needs are always taken care of quickly. But if I was told that I had to wait for a test to confirm an illness, I'd be in Buffalo the next day...for sure. So, is it really that much different than the US system in that respect? Those who can afford it get better treatment...they just don't get it here. I'm not disagreeing with you in that respect. Its the day to day and emergency treatment that I was referring to.

If it makes you feel any better, I've been told by the elders that we had the same resistance here when universal health care was first introduced in the 50s and 60s.

Personally, I think that there can be a happy medium between the two systems. But for now I'll sit back and let you all fight it out in your own country.

[dean_martin]

...what would we do if I actually worked and didn't have all day to fuss with this stuff?

get on one of those freecreditreport.com commercials?

I guess the trick is to do what you're doing - get on it before it goes to "collections" because those folks are nasty and either don't know what the bills are for or just won't tell you.

[thekid]

Your whole post was great, but I singled this part out because it's an actual solution. Profits need to be cut to a reasonable percentage.

Well its good to see this thread heating up a bit.......

G- Thanks for summarizing some of my points in half the time...

Well you do know that when you start talking about cutting/limiting profits to a "reasonable percentage" that people start socialism or worse. Of course most of these people are in some way associated with the status quo but they drape themselves in the flag and talk of the founding fathers but I digress.....

I guess it comes down to whether something as basic to our survival such as healthcare should be subject to the same market forces that determine the type of refrigerator or other common object that is bought in the marketplace. If someone was lying on the operating table just before that emergency surgery procedure the doctor leaned over and said "Now let's talk price" most people would be appalled. But how much profit would you consider "reasonable" at that point?

[nightflier]

All this an no one's brought up single-payer health care....

As someone having lived in both socialized-medicine systems and private systems, I can sum it up pretty simply: Under socialized medicine, everyone gets covered but the quality is not as good - in the private system the care is very good, if you can afford it. My guess is that for every household that makes less than 125K a year, this is going to lower expenses, and for the people above that it will be more expensive.

But that is only if (and that's a big IF) the system is well managed, and I also share the skepticism other have since our track record of other socialized programs, the ones we still have (after 40+ years of chipping away at them), is hardly exemplary. There is another factor to consider here: while we pay more in taxes than most other industrialized nations, we also spend more of our tax dollars on military pork than any other nation. Last I read we were spending something like $1.2T a year on the military. Care to guess how much we spend on Medicare/Medicaid? Education? Social Security? All of these combined?

[Smokey]

But, for the most part, our public system works. In 43 years, I have never had to pay for a doctor’s appointment or trip to the emergency room. I can see my doctor as often as I need (currently weekly, while I recover from bronchitis) and never have to worry about how the bill will be paid.

I am free to change jobs and not worry about losing my medical insurance (although we do have employer sponsored insurance that covers prescription medication and other items that our public health care does not cover).

I can see any doctor that I want to. No one tells me where I can and can’t get treatment.

If I need a specialist, I see a specialist. I don’t worry about how to pay the specialist.

If I need surgery, I get surgery. I don’t worry about how to pay for the surgery.

If you listen to some of our media, those are the things they say we can not do with public health coverage. And to make it even more scary, linking abortion and illegal aliens issue to the mix.


In my profession I constantly see medical bills, particularly hospital bills that vary widely based on whether the patient is insured. Typically, the person who is NOT insured is billed 3X the amount that the hospital accepts from the health insurance carrier of the person who is insured for the same services.

Wow, I din't know that.

GMichael said that his hospital bill was $100,000 for his child birth with insurance. So you are saying that an uninsured person might have to pay $300,000 for same service?

Talk about headed to the poor house and ruin lives.

[02audionoob]

The insurance companies have set in advance what they will pay for a given service and it's well below what the doctors, labs, etc. would charge otherwise.

[thekid]

The insurance companies have set in advance what they will pay for a given service and it's well below what the doctors, labs, etc. would charge otherwise.

Lower insurance costs compared to the average Joe is a common practice in other idustries that involve insurance. In the auto collision industry the hourly rate and parts mark-up for the person walking in off the street is considerably higher than the rate of someone going through their insurance company. On the mechanical side of it the "warranty" labor rate at a dealership is also lower than the labor rate for the same operation. There are some legitimate reason's why a gap should exist but those reasons do not justify the large gap that does exist.

This discrepancy is another example of why the system is broken and why at least when it comes to something as important as healthcare we should not let the traditional "market" forces determine cost and availability. Unfortunately the current political debate does not address the cost but on availability which is why both sides are retreating to their tried (tired) and true base positions. Republicans= universal healthcare will cover criminals,the lazy and promote a liberal agenda. Democrats=universal healthcare is the right thing for government to do lets pay for everyone and somehow the cost will figure itself out. What does it say about our current system when out of 100 Senators there are only about 7 (and even less in the 350+ member House) who are willing to sit down in a room together and try and solve a problem rather than run around to the talking heads screaming that the sky is falling. I know Obama wanted to avoid the mistakes of the Clinton's on this issue but to basically say to the Congress you work out the details ignores the totally disfunctionally environment that exists. He is a little late to the table about spending some political capital but he is still not addressing cost containment. If the Administration would just start putting some serious cost cutting proposals on the table such as limiting admin fees or excessive medical testing (because the doctors own the majority of the labs conducting the tests-solution prohibit doctors from owning labs...) they might start to make some headway. Without addressing cost we are just arranging chairs on the Titanic.....

[dean_martin]

If you listen to some of our media, those are the things they say we can not do with public health coverage. And to make it even more scary, linking abortion and illegal aliens issue to the mix.



Wow, I din't know that.

GMichael said that his hospital bill was $100,000 for his child birth with insurance. So you are saying that an uninsured person might have to pay $300,000 for same service?

Talk about headed to the poor house and ruin lives.

Without insurance, GM would've been on the hook for the entire $98,000 bill. His insurance company paid only $17,000 which was accepted by the health care providers. GM had to pitch in $5,000, some of which was reimbursed to him. Therefore, with health insurance the cost was approximately $20,000. Without health insurance the cost would've been $98,000, i.e., the full amount of the bill. The amount of the bill doesn't change, but the amount the health care provider will accept from a health insurance company is much lower than the actual bill. What was the true cost of the service provided to GM? If you go through the itemized bill, you'll probably find something like a $6 charge for a single Tylenol.

[ForeverAutumn]

Without insurance, GM would've been on the hook for the entire $98,000 bill. His insurance company paid only $17,000 which was accepted by the health care providers. GM had to pitch in $5,000, some of which was reimbursed to him. Therefore, with health insurance the cost was approximately $20,000. Without health insurance the cost would've been $98,000, i.e., the full amount of the bill. The amount of the bill doesn't change, but the amount the health care provider will accept from a health insurance company is much lower than the actual bill. What was the true cost of the service provided to GM? If you go through the itemized bill, you'll probably find something like a $6 charge for a single Tylenol.

How is this practice not, somehow, criminal?

No insurance? Oh, so sorry, forget about a college fund for that new baby of yours. You can pay us all that money instead.

Oh, you say you have insurance? That will only be $20,000 and will be covered by your insurance company. Enjoy Harvard.

[3LB]

abortion

I'd like to see a gov't sponsored program to provide abortions for anyone who wanted one.

[markw]

I'd like to see a gov't sponsored program to provide abortions for anyone who wanted one.I'm all for it as long as they tie the breeder's tubes at the same time if they had one before or have kids paid for by the taxpayers.

[basite]

Hey Dean, Good to see ya.

When my wife had our baby, the hospital billed the insurance company over $98,000. The insurance company paid them $17,000. We ended up paying a little over $5,000. Then we got reimbursed for about $3000 of it. The system is a little strange fo sure.

There went my upgrades


Without insurance, GM would've been on the hook for the entire $98,000 bill. His insurance company paid only $17,000 which was accepted by the health care providers. GM had to pitch in $5,000, some of which was reimbursed to him. Therefore, with health insurance the cost was approximately $20,000. Without health insurance the cost would've been $98,000, i.e., the full amount of the bill. The amount of the bill doesn't change, but the amount the health care provider will accept from a health insurance company is much lower than the actual bill. What was the true cost of the service provided to GM? If you go through the itemized bill, you'll probably find something like a $6 charge for a single Tylenol.


You paid WHAT?
GM, If I might ask you, could you give us an idea of how much you pay for your insurance, monthly, or annual?


Here in belgium (yes, we have healthcare organized by the government, and a pretty good system, I do have to mention that)

well, If you were to have your baby here in Belgium, it'd be free. only thing you would have to pay is if you used your phone in the room, and extra drinks you order apart from the ones you already get (except water - that's always free), or when you insist on having a bigger, more comfortable, maybe a single-bed room.
and on top of that, the mother gets a paid 'parental furlough', and this for a couple of months, and the father gets a paternity leave, for a shorter period, also paid.

If I were to visit a doctor, I'd pay him like, 20 or 25 euro's, but the health insurance refunds most of it, so eventually, I end up paying 2 euro's. Pretty much every medication is refunded to a certain percentage of the original cost (pretty much most of it).

basically every necessary surgery, or visit to the hospital is refunded, and costs us basically nothing. Plastic surgery is almost never refunded, because, let's be honest, even though your your nose can be pretty big, and your breasts might be too small, and that little bit of fat that disturbes you, won't actually kill you.

ok, no, not all this comes free.
here's what my dad, for example pays for himself, my brother and me (parents divorced)

€6 a month for each kid, which makes €12 a month for hospitalization insurance, he has this insurance sponsored by his employer, so he gets it for free.
a small amount (a couple of euro's I don't exactly know how much, but really, it's not much.) for the health insurance, also organized by the government.

and every working citizen here in belgium pays a percentage of taxes on his monthly loan, The government uses this money to pay the pensions for the retired, benefits for the workless and disabled, and the health bills (hospitals are also government sponsored here)

But, and this is a major concern:
As dean martin pointed out, what's the actual cost of the service provided to GM?
Indeed, much less (and very very much less) than that $98.000 bill. Most of it is pure profit, profit to such degree that those who demand such sums of money should be ashamed to ask it.

Universal healthcare is a must, not just in the USA (even though you're basically the only 'rich western country' that doesn't supply it to it's citizens), but everywhere in this world.
but maybe you should start by pointing towards the doctors, specialists, as well as the insurance companies. If they'd ask reasonable fees, you'd be better of already.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[dean_martin]

How is this practice not, somehow, criminal?

No insurance? Oh, so sorry, forget about a college fund for that new baby of yours. You can pay us all that money instead.

Oh, you say you have insurance? That will only be $20,000 and will be covered by your insurance company. Enjoy Harvard.

All I can say is thanks to GM for providing this real-world example. When you hear about sky-rocketing health care costs, it should raise an eyebrow. When you hear about the cost of a universal health care plan in Congress . . . well, you get the point.

The parent with no health insurance will more than likely get the service for delivery of the baby, but it will be on an emergency basis and the mother will more likely than not have had little or no prenatal (is that the word?) care which in turn increases the likelihood of complications with the mother and/or child at delivery which in turn increases the cost.

The hospital is never going to get its $98,000 out of the family with no insurance, but the bill will follow them the rest of their lives. And, the $98,000 (rather than the $20,000) will be used to the advantage of the medical community and others (including politicians) in statistics.

Any health care reform plan must address and establish the TRUE cost of health care. If everyone is covered, then it doesn't matter what the health care provider bills, the cost will be what the insurance company (and/or government) is willing to pay for the service and the provider is willing to accept.

[basite]

I'd like to see a gov't sponsored program to provide abortions for anyone who wanted one.


we have one.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I'd like to see a gov't sponsored program to provide abortions for anyone who wanted one.
:yikes:

It's gonna get ugly!

[ForeverAutumn]

I'd like to see a gov't sponsored program to provide abortions for anyone who wanted one.


we have one.

So do we.

[kexodusc]

I
I’d be very interested in hearing opinions from someone who's lived with both systems (Kex?).

What do you want to know? I've made good use medicare...concussions, broken hand, herniated disc, muscle tears...I don't have any complaints - had to wait a few hours in the emergency room to get stitches once.

I got a $1700 bill for food poisoning my last year in Bangor (ultrasounds aren't cheap I guess)...they sent me home with some antacids...was glad I had insurance. Other than that eye-opener, I can't say I had any horrible experiences with private health care. I was fortunate to get employment with health insurance though...I kind of took it for granted maybe.

My family has a long military history so my values lean more towards "no man left behind" rather than "every man for himself". But, I guess there isn't a more socialist concept than military so I'm probably not the best person to ask.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I've been following this thread because I knew that, at some point, someone would drag Canada into this.

The Canadian healthcare system is largely misunderstood by Americans from what I can tell. And if you think that you’re going to learn about it by watching a Michael Moore movie, think again.

Dental is not covered by our public healthcare system (with the exception of Quebec, I think). And I seriously doubt that there are any Canadians that “won’t touch Canada’s public healthcare with a ten-foot pole”.

Our system is far from perfect. And there are extreme cases where Canadians may hop the border and pay to have certain tests run or receive certain treatments faster than they can be done here. In fact, I'm even aware of a few situations where Canadians have been sent to the US for treatment and our gov't paid for it (usually it's to receive a drug or treatment not yet approved here...red tape). But, for the most part, our public system works. In 43 years, I have never had to pay for a doctor’s appointment or trip to the emergency room. I can see my doctor as often as I need (currently weekly, while I recover from bronchitis) and never have to worry about how the bill will be paid.

I am free to change jobs and not worry about losing my medical insurance (although we do have employer sponsored insurance that covers prescription medication and other items that our public health care does not cover).

I can see any doctor that I want to. No one tells me where I can and can’t get treatment.

If I need a specialist, I see a specialist. I don’t worry about how to pay the specialist.

If I need surgery, I get surgery. I don’t worry about how to pay for the surgery.

I don’t have to designate any of my income to paying for medical insurance. Yes, I pay taxes but I’m willing to bet that the per cent of my tax going to medical coverage is less than many of you pay for private insurance.

I admit that I don’t know a lot about your private health care system or the proposal being put forward for a public system. And if I've said anything here that is incorrect, I apologize and welcome the correction. But don’t bad mouth the Canadian system with anecdotal bull****. 3LB, if you have specific examples then lets hear them. But so far your post sounds like nothing more than the ignorant fear mongering that I’ve been hearing in your media.

I’d be very interested in hearing opinions from someone who's lived with both systems (Kex?).

P.S. If you have any questions about living with universal health care in Canada, I'm happy to answer them to the best of my knowledge. Also, this post is not intended to be interpreted as an opinion for or against whatever happens in the US. I don't really care what y'all do. I just had to respond to 3LBs post.

Thank you for this FA. I go to Hawaii every year for one of my vacations. Every Canadian that I have spoken to on this issue (very friendly and kind people, and they come to Hawaii by the droves) have said this very thing.

[GMichael]

I've spent most of my day in meetings so I haven't been able to comment as much as I'd like here. Looks like we are changing insurance companies so everything I knew will be changing.

[3LB]

My family has a long military history so my values lean more towards "no man left behind" rather than "every man for himself". But, I guess there isn't a more socialist concept than military so I'm probably not the best person to ask.

My only experience with "socialized medicine" is the US Navy, but that particular branch of service has the most stodgy cast system in place of any of the other branches, so my feelings on that are prolly too skewed to be subjective. My experience was, in the Navy, that the system bred complacency and incompetence...coulda just been a Navy thang.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have a very strong opinion on this issue, because somebody very close to me doe not have very good insurance, and a major illness almost killed him twice.

I am very angry at what I am hearing from the news, and on blog sites as well. One of my buddies company was doing very well financially, but the BOD and stockholders wanted more money to line their already rich pockets. So they decided to make almost everyone in the company part-time so they could kill their benefits package. My friend has a pre-existing condition, so combined with a major cut in salary, and the fact he could not obtain a reasonably priced insurance(or nobody would cover him) he developed a major illness that almost killed him, something that with insurance he was able to afford the meds to control it. After being in the hospital for two weeks, he was promptly sent a bill for over 100k, something he would not have faced when full time employed.

I have seen my health insurance premiums go up about 7% a year for the last 7-8 years. This coincides with the explosion of the salaries of the CEO's of the health insurance companies. Over the last 5 years, one particular insurance company has made $300 million for dropping people when they get ill. I imagine their are other that have had the same result from doing the same thing. Insurance providers raise premiums at will, drop folks at will, sponsor too many expensive employee junkets, line too many politician pockets, and pay their CEO's far too much money with insurance premiums that I pay. They turn around and say they cannot compete with a not for profit government insurance plan, so why are they just not allowed to fail if they cannot? The major cause of bankruptcy in this country comes from medical bills. One county in the bay area where I live has one emergency room in the entire county because the others have all been closed as they were losing too much money.

I was watching television the other day and I heard this gentleman(a rather selfish one at that) say that he does not want to pay for somebody elses insurance. This man lives in tornado alley, and his house has been destroyed several times. I do not want to pay for this man's to rebuild his house after a storm if that is the attitude he is going to take. Things the way they are is going to bankrupt this country, and the free market way of handling insurance is just not working. In this world, everything needs checks and balances and ying and yang. A very strong public option goes a long way to providing a balance, and if the private insurance companies cannot compete, allow them to fail. Isn't that the Republican way? The fact they are afraid of this option, shows that they are not willing to check CEO's salaries, and tackle the waste that permeates throughout their system. If this is the case, they should fail.

What I find ironic about this whole thing, is that the very people who are the most uninsured (the south) are the very people that rile against the public option. How stupid are you to protest against the very thing you need the most? When are people going to stop supporting parties that work against their best interest?

I could go on forever on this, but when fear makes you selfish and paralyzes a process that would actually help millions of Americans, then the country itself deserves to fall from grace into a third world country.

So folks understand. I have a GREAT health insurance plan, and I would gladly pay more in taxes to cover others that are either under-insured, or have none at all.

[nightflier]

The above post notwithstanding, this question needs to be asked: why do we need an overhaul of the health care system in this country at all? We're so damn proud of our privatized system, why don't we fix it so that we don't have the kinds of abuses we are all too familiar with ($98K for a pregnancy - are you friggin' kidding me?).

I'm not saying our system the best system, but we sure as hell can make it better. And frankly, I don't have any faith that the politicians in Washington are going to be able to hammer out something actually useful; there's just too much money passing hands for that to happen. So instead of going at this with a blunt ax, why not use the proverbial scalpel, apply some judicious rules curbing abuses (from doctors, insurance companies, and patients), and follow that up with appropriate enforcement? The system needs to be fixed, no doubt, but an overhaul? Good luck getting Republicans and Democrats / progressives and conservatives to agree on anything meaningful - that's just not our way of doing things, unfortunately.

[nightflier]

When are people going to stop supporting parties that work against their best interest?

...they stop being one-issue voters. Apologies for being crass about this issue, but the formula is very clear: anti-abortion politicians are against the national option. So while it defies logic, those voters will be anti-national-option too. It's what's the matter with Kansas, remember? Free, fair and public education is one generations-long way out of this quagmire, but who's got the time to wait that long? Certainly not the stock market.


I could go on forever on this, but when fear makes you selfish and paralyzes a process that would actually help millions of Americans, then the country itself deserves to fall from grace into a third world country.

I disagree with that sentiment. We should never wish for the sky to fall, because it could fall, and then it won't be health coverage we'll be fighting over anymore.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...they stop being one-issue voters. Apologies for being crass about this issue, but the formula is very clear: anti-abortion politicians are against the national option. So while it defies logic, those voters will be anti-national-option too. It's what's the matter with Kansas, remember? Free, fair and public education is one generations-long way out of this quagmire, but who's got the time to wait that long? Certainly not the stock market.

It's not just Kansas, it's the entire south. The most Ironic thing is I hear people on Medicare and Medicaid saying keep the government out of my health care.




I disagree with that sentiment. We should never wish for the sky to fall, because it could fall, and then it won't be health coverage we'll be fighting over anymore.

Then so be it. It's about time this country pays for its ignorance and backwards thinking. Part of the reason we are in this mess is because we haven't had to pay the price of our bad collective decisions.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The above post notwithstanding, this question needs to be asked: why do we need an overhaul of the health care system in this country at all? We're so damn proud of our privatized system, why don't we fix it so that we don't have the kinds of abuses we are all too familiar with ($98K for a pregnancy - are you friggin' kidding me?).

Fixing the private systems is also labeled as a government instrusion. They are certainly NOT going to fix themselves, ask the workers in the stock market about that!


I'm not saying our system the best system, but we sure as hell can make it better. And frankly, I don't have any faith that the politicians in Washington are going to be able to hammer out something actually useful; there's just too much money passing hands for that to happen. So instead of going at this with a blunt ax, why not use the proverbial scalpel, apply some judicious rules curbing abuses (from doctors, insurance companies, and patients), and follow that up with appropriate enforcement? The system needs to be fixed, no doubt, but an overhaul? Good luck getting Republicans and Democrats / progressives and conservatives to agree on anything meaningful - that's just not our way of doing things, unfortunately.

The thing you seem to forget is it will take Washington's might to fix the current system. Do you really believe they (the insurance companies) will respond to the private citizen? We have been howling over the continued increases for years, has that stopped them from increasing their rates?

If we did what you propose, it would just be called another government instrusion.

[nightflier]

Call it what you will, but something clearly needs to be done. To be honest, I don't know why the insurance companies are so successful in challenging change. It's either reform yourself or the government is going to do it for you.

Right now, Obama's efforst are dead in the water. And this is a big problem because his opponents are saying this is the line in the sand - if he fails here, it will be curtains for the filibuster majority in the midterm elections, and quite possibly his second term. I don't see this passing, and I think Obama should just drop that anchor and move onto calmer waters where he has firm command of the ship like foreign affairs.

[02audionoob]

Right now, Obama's efforst are dead in the water. And this is a big problem because his opponents are saying this is the line in the sand - if he fails here, it will be curtains for the filibuster majority in the midterm elections, and quite possibly his second term. I don't see this passing, and I think Obama should just drop that anchor and move onto calmer waters where he has firm command of the ship like foreign affairs.

I count at least six metaphors in that paragraph. Quite a roll.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Call it what you will, but something clearly needs to be done. To be honest, I don't know why the insurance companies are so successful in challenging change. It's either reform yourself or the government is going to do it for you.

I actually agree with you. You need to know that the insurance companies have been so successful largely to the credit of the Republican Party. It is their support, and their propagation of misinformation to senior citizens and the ignorant that has been key to dealing common sense a blow.


Right now, Obama's efforst are dead in the water. And this is a big problem because his opponents are saying this is the line in the sand - if he fails here, it will be curtains for the filibuster majority in the midterm elections, and quite possibly his second term. I don't see this passing, and I think Obama should just drop that anchor and move onto calmer waters where he has firm command of the ship like foreign affairs.

Don't be so quick to say his efforts are dead in the water. Things are FAR from over.

[nightflier]

I count at least six metaphors in that paragraph. Quite a roll.

That is how I rock and roll.:3:

[thekid]

Well it took longer than I thought to start talking about this topic along political party lines. The soundbites from Congress today were filled with a lot of circular arguments spinning around like cr*p in a flushing toilet...... How's that for a metaphor.......

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well it took longer than I thought to start talking about this topic along political party lines. The soundbites from Congress today were filled with a lot of circular arguments spinning around like cr*p in a flushing toilet...... How's that for a metaphor.......

Isn't this how this is breaking down? It certainly isn't by logic that is for sure.

[GMichael]

Well it took longer than I thought to start talking about this topic along political party lines. The soundbites from Congress today were filled with a lot of circular arguments spinning around like cr*p in a flushing toilet...... How's that for a metaphor.......

I like it. Reminds me of a water park I once went to in NJ.

Both sides are too busy sticking their tongues out at each other to notice that we're taking on water. It seems that you either have to be on one side or the other. You are not allowed to believe in middle ground. (i.e.: If you are anti-abortion, then you have to be on this side and believe everything from this side. If you are pro-choice, then you fit on that side and must agree with everything that party says) I call BS on the whole shooting match. Tell them to get up off their asses, shake hands, and work together before it's too late. The water keeps rising and no one is even looking for the buckets. Both sides just keep saying that the other side is hiding them.

[markw]

Like it or not, both sides are feeding off the trough and neither cares about the common guy. They say they do to get elected and fool a lot of people, but remember, this is a republic, not a democracy.

Those in the "in crowd" have more than what they want and need and their only goal is preserving that. They won't give anything up personally but always expect their lessors to do the sacrificing.

We've seen this with the banking and finance industry.
Who really sacrificed anything real, aside from the lowest people on the rung, the common man who bought the houses? I do believe that those above who were insturmental in creating this mess still got their obscene bonus', no?

Do you expect any different from the medical industry?

If progress is to be made here it will only be when the ruling class is forced to use the same health plan as joe sixpack.

So, unless the veiled intent of this thread was to instigate yet another pissing contest, why not concentrate on what's wrong with the health system and how to correct it. Here'e a few offhand sugestions:

"defensive medicine" adds to the cost of health care. It's a shame that a whole battery of unnecessary tests need to be used just to stave off a lawsuit when a trained doctor can many times arrive at a solution without redundant tests.

A little something to ponder... (http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home6&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=27797)

Face the fact that, given the sheer numbers of people, someone, somewhere will have an adverse reaction to some medicine. No amount of testing will guarantee 100% safety for 100% of the people. Huge lawsuits tend to make the lawyers rich and inhibit the big companies from releasing new drugs and obviously add to the costs. **** happens. Deal with it. You don't like it? Then don't take any drugs at all.

Doctors are only human and sometimes even the best can make honest mistakes. How woulf you like to face a huge lawsuit if you make one, and I'm sure every honest person will admit to this. Why peanilize them and induce them to leav ethe profession?

Hospitals bang the local and state governments for indignint treatment. Make it a federal cost and let's see how they handle it.

Add to this list...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Like it or not, both sides are feeding off the trough and neither cares about the common guy. They say they do to get elected and fool a lot of people, but remember, this is a republic, not a democracy.

Those in the "in crowd" have more than what they want and need and their only goal is preserving that. They won't give anything up personally but always expect their lessors to do the sacrificing.

We've seen this with the banking and finance industry.
Who really sacrificed anything real, aside from the lowest people on the rung, the common man who bought the houses? I do believe that those above who were insturmental in creating this mess still got their obscene bonus', no?

Do you expect any different from the medical industry?

If progress is to be made here it will only be when the ruling class is forced to use the same health plan as joe sixpack.

So, unless the veiled intent of this thread was to instigate yet another pissing contest, why not concentrate on what's wrong with the health system and how to correct it. Here'e a few offhand sugestions:

"defensive medicine" adds to the cost of health care. It's a shame that a whole battery of unnecessary tests need to be used just to stave off a lawsuit when a trained doctor can many times arrive at a solution without redundant tests.

A little something to ponder... (http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home6&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=27797)

Face the fact that, given the sheer numbers of people, someone, somewhere will have an adverse reaction to some medicine. No amount of testing will guarantee 100% safety for 100% of the people. Huge lawsuits tend to make the lawyers rich and inhibit the big companies from releasing new drugs and obviously add to the costs. **** happens. Deal with it. You don't like it? Then don't take any drugs at all.

Doctors are only human and sometimes even the best can make honest mistakes. How woulf you like to face a huge lawsuit if you make one, and I'm sure every honest person will admit to this. Why peanilize them and induce them to leav ethe profession?

Hospitals bang the local and state governments for indignint treatment. Make it a federal cost and let's see how they handle it.

Add to this list...

Mark, I agree with your assertions except one. Nobody wants this to be a pissing contest, so get your self out of that Islamic mindset! This is worth discussing, religion is not. It's a terrible subject to discuss live, and on a forum, as it is easy to get baited into saying something that get's you labeled a this, or a that.

[markw]

Mark, I agree with your assertions except one. Nobody wants this to be a pissing contest, so get your self out of that Islamic mindset! This is worth discussing, religion is not. It's a terrible subject to discuss live, and on a forum, as it is easy to get baited into saying something that get's you labeled a this, or a that.Well, re-read the previous posts and you'll see that, aside from GM, it sure seems to be gleefully headed towards a partisan pissing contest, not to mention your lead here. ...and that includes your last one liner. Now, stick it back in your pants, and let's see what you have to offer on the subject at hand.

So far, it seems that the only creative observation came from my last post.

Where do you see direct issues that should be addressed, and perhaps how?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, re-read the previous posts and you'll see that,aside from GM, that sure seems to be where it was gleefully headed, not to mrntion your lead here.

Now, stick it back in your pants, and let's see what you have to offer on the subject at hand.

Where do you see direct issues that should be addressed, and perhaps how?

My comments, a pissing contest? Mark, really.......are you attempting to re-defining what a pissing contest is?

[dean_martin]

Like it or not, both sides are feeding off the trough and neither cares about the common guy. They say they do to get elected and fool a lot of people, but remember, this is a republic, not a democracy.

Those in the "in crowd" have more than what they want and need and their only goal is preserving that. They won't give anything up personally but always expect their lessors to do the sacrificing.

We've seen this with the banking and finance industry.
Who really sacrificed anything real, aside from the lowest people on the rung, the common man who bought the houses? I do believe that those above who were insturmental in creating this mess still got their obscene bonus', no?

Do you expect any different from the medical industry?

If progress is to be made here it will only be when the ruling class is forced to use the same health plan as joe sixpack.

So, unless the veiled intent of this thread was to instigate yet another pissing contest, why not concentrate on what's wrong with the health system and how to correct it. Here'e a few offhand sugestions:

"defensive medicine" adds to the cost of health care. It's a shame that a whole battery of unnecessary tests need to be used just to stave off a lawsuit when a trained doctor can many times arrive at a solution without redundant tests.

A little something to ponder... (http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home6&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=27797)

Face the fact that, given the sheer numbers of people, someone, somewhere will have an adverse reaction to some medicine. No amount of testing will guarantee 100% safety for 100% of the people. Huge lawsuits tend to make the lawyers rich and inhibit the big companies from releasing new drugs and obviously add to the costs. **** happens. Deal with it. You don't like it? Then don't take any drugs at all.

Doctors are only human and sometimes even the best can make honest mistakes. How woulf you like to face a huge lawsuit if you make one, and I'm sure every honest person will admit to this. Why peanilize them and induce them to leav ethe profession?

Hospitals bang the local and state governments for indignint treatment. Make it a federal cost and let's see how they handle it.

Add to this list...

Medical errors are devastating and add to the overall cost of healthcare. Only 2 to 3% of medical errors result in medical malpractice lawsuits. The DIRECT cost of medical malpractice lawsuits is one-half of one percent of the total cost of healthcare - that's 0.5%. This figure represents jury verdicts, settlements and costs of litigation. Again, that's 1/2%.

The estimated cost of "defensive" medicine in the U.S. (not just Mass.) is $60 billion which represents roughly 3% of the total cost of healthcare. This is an area that can be improved upon, but to devote all efforts on 3% doesn't get you very far in savings.

I've represented only one plaintiff against a doctor. A medical device manufacturer was a defendant as well after a piece of the device broke off into my client's spine and couldn't be safely removed. The jury found that the doctor misused the device and returned a verdict against the doctor, but in favor of the device manufacturer. It cost over $80,000 to bring the case to trial which is actually not as much as most medical malpractice claims. My firm carried these expenses. Obviously, it has to be more than a close call before pursuing one of these cases.

Almost every state in the U.S. has special laws applicable to medical malpractice lawsuits. In my state we have to hire an expert or experts practicing in the same field as the defendant doctor who can testify that the defendant doctor breached the applicable standard of care. The opinions of these experts have to be presented in affidavits first, before the case goes to trial and then again live at trial. Some states require that expert affidavits be attached to the complaint. In my state, most med mal cases are thrown out before reaching trial not because there was no error or injury, but because the only expert that was willing to testify didn't meet the strict requirements. Most plaintiff's lawyers have stopped taking med mal cases altogether. In fact, most of the injured patients who come to us are referred to larger firms who can afford to have the case reviewed by doctors. The remainder are screened out because the particular problem or injury was a known risk of the procedure or the injury was so minimal that the potential damages don't justify the cost.

You're more than welcome to chip away at your right to a trial by jury in civil cases, but I will continue to fight for it. Spend a few days in the trenches and you might change your mind. I will admit that the system is not perfect (let's shed some light on medical malpratice insurers). But there's no way I'm going tell somebody "sh*t happens, deal with it" even if I don't think they have viable claim. Many injuries or diseases can occur without error or negligence on the part of the doctor and are part of the known risks of certain procedures. It's unfortunate if they occur but I don't think it's worthy of a "sh*t happens" response and we all have to "deal with it" because it requires more care and more cost.

[markw]

It's too bad the doctor misused the article, but was that the manufacturer's fault?

Did you go after the doctor himself, or the manufacturer's deep pockets?

Is this the same as an unintended or unexpcted drug interaction, which was the main thrust my original statement?

Re-read my article about extra MRI's, othe rredundant tests, and hospital admissions instead of worring about your own profession's livelihood. That may be a part of the problem.

Not all lawyers are as altrustic as you. If you've got a TV, you can see tons of seedy lawyers advertising for anyone and looking for any angle to bring a lawsuit against anyone with money.

When you read the article, you'll see that "protecting" oneself from possibly malicious and invalid malpractice suits does add considerably to the cost of medical treatment. From the article:

"In a study published last year by the Pacific Research Institute, the total impact of the current tort system on medical expenditures was estimated to be $124 billion annually, with an additional $38 billion in reduced access to health care.6 A study conducted as early as 1987 estimated that expenditures resulting from defensive practices comprised over 15% of all health care dollars spent."

There's a lot more there.

[nightflier]

If progress is to be made here it will only be when the ruling class is forced to use the same health plan as joe sixpack.

...and let them eat cake?

So far the only two real options that anyone has proposed are:

1. Do nothing and let the sky fall (and maybe then someone will do something).
2. Revolution / off with their heads and all that ensues.

Neither of these is realistic or desirable.

[dean_martin]

It's too bad the doctor misused the article, but was that the manufacturer's fault?

Did you go after the doctor himself, or the manufacturer's deep pockets?

Is this the same as an unintended or unexpcted drug interaction, which was my original statement?

Re-read my article about extra MRI's, othe rredundant tests, and hospital admissions instead of worring about your own profession's livelihood. That may be a part of the problem.

I went after both (which I thought was clear from my third paragraph). The doctor obviously misused the device, but I thought the device was defective. And we had enough evidence for the judge to let the question go to the jury. It was a "fad" device that isn't used anymore. Believe it or not there are devices and drugs that come and go based on hype from the manufacturer. Obviously, the jury found that the device wasn't defective, but that the doctor misused it causing it to break. In simple terms, we won against the doctor but lost against the manufacturer. I accept the jury's decision. It's done. My client got her day in court.

You can re-read my post. I rarely handle med mal claims. I'll add that I rarely handle medical device claims and I've never handled a drug claim. I'm often concerned about my personal livelihood, but I'm concerned about my clients too. If my "worry" has ever caused you a problem, then I apologize for not being able to apologize. I usually try to respond to shots taken at our (not "mine" but "ours") civil justice system. There are forces like the US Chamber of Commerce that constantly barrage the public with misinformation using catch phrases like "lawsuit lottery", "jackpot justice", "tort hell" and the like. If you don't like our civil justice system then amend the Constitution, the Constitutions of all 50 states and disregard 400 yrs of common law going back to England. If you want to scrap it that's fine, but I think it's a fair and noble system.

I admit that statistics show that health care providers spend too much on defensive medicine, but the GAO's report on this problem says that the data is mostly inconclusive and unreliable. The $100 billion reported for Mass. is inconsistent with other reports that say $60 billion NATIONALLY which of course would include Mass. That's as far as I got with your article with the limited time I have.

I'll read yours and exchange links to articles with you if you're interested and don't mind waiting closer to the weekend. In the meantime, here's a link to an article that has internal links to some studies that may or may not pass scrutiny.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/business/economy/23leonhardt.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%2b%22American+Medical+Association%22&st=nyt

[markw]

...and let them eat cake?

So far the only two real options that anyone has proposed are:

1. Do nothing and let the sky fall (and maybe then someone will do something).
2. Revolution / off with their heads and all that ensues.

Neither of these is realistic or desirable.Nice, catchy rhetoric. What else do you have to offer?

[markw]

I went after both (which I thought was clear from my third paragraph). The doctor obviously misused the device, but I thought the device was defective. And we had enough evidence for the judge to let the question go to the jury. It was a "fad" device that isn't used anymore. Believe it or not there are devices and drugs that come and go based on hype from the manufacturer. Obviously, the jury found that the device wasn't defective, but that the doctor misused it causing it to break. In simple terms, we won against the doctor but lost against the manufacturer. I accept the jury's decision. It's done. My client got her day in court.

You can re-read my post. I rarely handle med mal claims. I'll add that I rarely handle medical device claims and I've never handled a drug claim. I'm often concerned about my personal livelihood, but I'm concerned about my clients too. If my "worry" has ever caused you a problem, then I apologize for not being able to apologize. I usually try to respond to shots taken at our (not "mine" but "ours") civil justice system. There are forces like the US Chamber of Commerce that constantly barrage the public with misinformation using catch phrases like "lawsuit lottery", "jackpot justice", "tort hell" and the like. If you don't like our civil justice system then amend the Constitution, the Constitutions of all 50 states and disregard 400 yrs of common law going back to England. If you want to scrap it that's fine, but I think it's a fair and noble system.

I admit that statistics show that health care providers spend too much on defensive medicine, but the GAO's report on this problem says that the data is mostly inconclusive and unreliable. The $100 billion reported for Mass. is inconsistent with other reports that say $60 billion NATIONALLY which of course would include Mass. That's as far as I got with your article with the limited time I have.

I'll read yours and exchange links to articles with you if you're interested and don't mind waiting closer to the weekend. In the meantime, here's a link to an article that has internal links to some studies that may or may not pass scrutiny.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/business/economy/23leonhardt.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%2b%22American+Medical+Association%22&st=nytYour particular instance actually doesn't fit into my scenario. Since the doctor used the product improperly, either intentionally or not, your client deserved a remedy.

My main gripe is those that go fter a drug company that afer rigirous study and testing and FDA approval, find themselves at the mercy of a law firm that's heading a class-action suit against an heretofore unsuspected reaction and where the acual "victims" get a pittance and the lawyers get a fortune.

If the company did it's due diligence and FDA signed off on it, then the company should be free and clear, unless it's proven they intentionally withheld info.

[nightflier]

Nice, catchy rhetoric. What else do you have to offer?

...you haven't offered anything tangible, either. The problem is that our politicians are not willing to sit down and hammer something out. How do we solve that problem? We can all stand around and complain ad infinitum, but this reform bill is languishing in Congress, now.

[thekid]

Some good points made here today. i would like to add that i have tried to stay non-partisan in this and believe blame is to be laid at the feet of both political parties.

I am not buying the arguement that alot of the medical testsare "defensive' because of the fear of malpractice suits. I think it is a redherring to deflect the fact that alot of the labs who conduct these tests are either directly or indirectly owned by many of the doctors who use them. They are just lining their pockets further.

[markw]

...you haven't offered anything tangible, either. The problem is that our politicians are not willing to sit down and hammer something out. How do we solve that problem? We can all stand around and complain ad infinitum, but this reform bill is languishing in Congress, now...that it seems that all you want to do is hammer politicians here. That's pretty much what's going on in Washington, isn't it?

As far as tangible, I think I've offered some positive input into the discussion as opposed to simply *****ing about it.

Unless, of course, you simply want to admit that all you really want to do here is have a pissing contest, and I think I brought that up earlier. Thanks for proving my point.

What, exactly does that bill contain? Do you know? I don't, and I don't buy a pig in a poke. That's how the unions got control of GM and Chrysler and the rich bankers all got their bonus' while the rest of us suck wind.

Now, what else have you got... to contribute to the discussion.

[dean_martin]

Your particular instance actually doesn't fit into my scenario. Since the doctor used the product improperly, either intentionally or not, your client deserved a remedy.

My main gripe is those that go fter a drug company that afer rigirous study and testing and FDA approval, find themselves at the mercy of a law firm that's heading a class-action suit against an heretofore unsuspected reaction and where the acual "victims" get a pittance and the lawyers get a fortune.

If the company did it's due diligence and FDA signed off on it, then the company should be free and clear, unless it's proven they intentionally withheld info.

I really can't counter your main gripe. Class actions, mass tort suits, and multi-district litigation often have numerous problems and unfair results. Congress recently passed class action laws that address some of the problems in the federal system, but those laws don't effect lawsuits in state court except in limited circumstances. And you're right about the recovery and how it's split between class members and the lawyers representing the class. That's why there are "opt-out" procedures that may be best for the seriously injured.

Class action lawsuits were "designed" for large groups of people who suffered common injuries or damage where the damage is not enough to justify a single person bringing suit. For example, if all the customers of Bank X are suddenly and without notice deducted $5 per month as extra service charges that they didn't bargain for (nothing mentioned in their account agreement), a single customer wouldn't be able to get anyone to represent her. It wouldn't make economic sense. A class action could stop the conduct but it probably won't give everyone's $5 back. The lawyer's fee is going to be based on the value of the relief they obtained for the class. The fee will probably appear obscene compared to the relief of an individual class member, but the conduct is stopped.

As for drug companies, I think you covered both sides. Often it's discovered in the litigation context that drug companies have defrauded the FDA with biased studies, etc., but the US Supreme Court has said that individuals are preempted from suing drug companies for defrauding the FDA even where the particular fraud covered up the specific injury suffered by the individual. (The case can go forward in some instances. The plaintiff just can't argue, recover damages for or mention the fraud.) And, the Supreme Court has come very close to preempting all drug and device claims where FDA approval has been obtained. The current state of the law is in flux. A recent S.Ct. case involving Medtronics' pacemakers effectively shut down lawsuits over devices approved by the FDA (it came out after my case), but a more recent case against a drug manufacturer which seemed very similar was allowed to go forward. I don't have a firm grasp of the distinction yet.

The unforeseen interaction or reaction brings up an interesting and arguably esoteric point. The cornerstone of negligence is foreseeability. If you run a red light, it is foreseeable that you could hit someone and cause serious injury. However, lawsuits against drug companies are based on product liability laws. In some states, product liability is strict liability (meaning you put it out there and it did this therefore you're liable). Other states' product liability laws retain aspects of negligence law where the plaintiff has to prove a manufacturing defect or a design defect, etc. and then the law has to evolve to fit not just machines that the law was intended for during the industrial revolution, but also drugs and food.

We probably need to get back to health care reform before NF needs a healthy dose of health care. I went beyond the only point I really wanted to make which is medical malpractice lawsuits are not as big a problem as some interests make them out to be.

[markw]

Some good points made here today. i would like to add that i have tried to stay non-partisan in this and believe blame is to be laid at the feet of both political parties.

I am not buying the arguement that alot of the medical testsare "defensive' because of the fear of malpractice suits. I think it is a redherring to deflect the fact that alot of the labs who conduct these tests are either directly or indirectly owned by many of the doctors who use them. They are just lining their pockets further.Believe it or not, that's the only reason for defensive medicine. That's because some well-dressed, smooth-talking lawyer will play the shoulda/coulda/woulda card if something untowards happens. Didn't you read the article?

Malpractice premiums speak for themselves. In some cases they are getting lower, but they still can make up a sizable chunk of change and don't kid yourself, "defensive medicine" is a reality no matter who owns the labs.

Speaking of which, who should own medical testing labs? Accountants? Lawyers? Mechanics?

[dean_martin]

Believe it or not, that's the only reason for defensive medicine. That's because some well-dressed, smooth-talking lawyer will play the shoulda/coulda/woulda card if something untowards happens. Didn't you read the article?

Malpractice premiums speak for themselves. In some cases they are getting lower, but they still can make up a sizable chunk of change and don't kid yourself, "defensive medicine" is a reality no matter who owns the labs.

Speaking of which, who should own medical testing labs? Accountants? Lawyers? Mechanics?

C'mon, Mark. You know that medmal insurance companies took a hit in the stock market just like every other insurance company and that their rate increases can be attributed, at least in part, to their losses. In addition, many health care providers joined together and formed associations to become self-insured which put some regular insurance companies out of the medmal business which in turn eliminated competition and competitive rates. Read the Government Accounting Office report on Medical Malpractice Pressures on Access to and Cost of Health Care. You should be able to easily find it online. (I'm not suggesting it because it's favorable to my profession. In some respects it's not. In other respects no conclusions are reached which is frustrating.) Premiums don't always reflect risk.

Oh, lab technicians should at least run, if not own, a lab.

[thekid]

Believe it or not, that's the only reason for defensive medicine. That's because some well-dressed, smooth-talking lawyer will play the shoulda/coulda/woulda card if something untowards happens. Didn't you read the article?

MarkW

I looked at the article but I also consider its source-A medical group.....

I am not dismissing that some of the tests are not as result of the fear of a malpractice suit but my point is that alot of the overtesting is not for the reasons the medical community would have you believe. Some of it is greed and some of it is pure lazy medicine. I am fortunate to be in good health and do not need to see a doctor often. When I talk to those that do, their primary complaint is that they spend an hour in the waiting room-another 20 minutes sitting alone in an examine room and 5 minutes with the doctor who asks a few questions,perform a few range of motion tests or puts a stethoscope to the chest and then they order a battery of tests. After the tests are done a follow up phone call is made or worse an letter in the mail saying the tests (hopefully) were negative and to let them know if the problem persists. Later a letter is recieved that shows them that several thousands of dollars were spent on these tests and a couple of hundred for the doctor visit. In that all too common scenario that type "defensive medicine" IMO is just covering for the lack of time the doctor is actually spending with the patient. Now if you want to talk about why we have a system that encourages/promotes/limits the doctor to spend such little time with the patient then that is a different story. I just think it is a lazy arguement/excuse that lawsuits are a driving force in the cost of healthcare. Lawyers with frivilous lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits are a problem in almost any industry and affect the cost of the product. I don't think the medical industry is any different but they hide behind it more than any other group.

As for who should own the labs. I don't have an answer other than to say there are alot of industries where there are laws that prohibit a group that might have a conflict of interest from owning certain other business'. An easy fix IMO to the healthcare problem is eliminate doctors and hospitals from owning these labs and I bet you would see an immediate reduction in the amount of testing.

[markw]

MarkW

I looked at the article but I also consider its source-A medical group.....

I am not dismissing that some of the tests are not as result of the fear of a malpractice suit but my point is that alot of the overtesting is not for the reasons the medical community would have you believe. Some of it is greed and some of it is pure lazy medicine. I am fortunate to be in good health and do not need to see a doctor often. When I talk to those that do, their primary complaint is that they spend an hour in the waiting room-another 20 minutes sitting alone in an examine room and 5 minutes with the doctor who asks a few questions,perform a few range of motion tests or puts a stethoscope to the chest and then they order a battery of tests. After the tests are done a follow up phone call is made or worse an letter in the mail saying the tests (hopefully) were negative and to let them know if the problem persists. Later a letter is recieved that shows them that several thousands of dollars were spent on these tests and a couple of hundred for the doctor visit. In that all too common scenario that type "defensive medicine" IMO is just covering for the lack of time the doctor is actually spending with the patient. Now if you want to talk about why we have a system that encourages/promotes/limits the doctor to spend such little time with the patient then that is a different story. I just think it is a lazy arguement/excuse that lawsuits are a driving force in the cost of healthcare. Lawyers with frivilous lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits are a problem in almost any industry and affect the cost of the product. I don't think the medical industry is any different but they hide behind it more than any other group.

As for who should own the labs. I don't have an answer other than to say there are alot of industries where there are laws that prohibit a group that might have a conflict of interest from owning certain other business'. An easy fix IMO to the healthcare problem is eliminate doctors and hospitals from owning these labs and I bet you would see an immediate reduction in the amount of testing.You don't think it has a significant inpact on the cost of insurance. A lot of "small" things do add up to a big one.

Are you implying that doctors make or charge too much money? Perhaps they do make more than otners but when you take into account their responsibility and training (both initial and ongoing), what would you suggest they be paid? And, as for their charges, hav eyou ever checked their P & L to see exactly how much they really wind up with? After all, those clean offices, fancy equipment (which need maintenance) and staff cost money, too.

One would think you would want to attract the best and brigtest to the profession, no? How else would you attract them? Do you expect them to all do it for altrustic reasons devoid on any thought to monetary compensation?

Apparantly, the providers aren't exactly sitting pretty either (http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2547-Watchdog-Politics-Examiner~y2009m9d23-Doctors-Million-Med-March-protest-in-Washington)

Again, since you dn't want doctors and hospitals to own and operate medical labs, who do you have left? Plumbers? (not that there's anything wrong with that)

Ok, you've spent aq lot of time and effort to state you don't think my items amout to much. I disagree, but that's a valid opinion.

You say doctors charge too much and order un-necessary tests. Is that it?

What else do you have to add to the list of things that make up the high cost of medical care?

[3LB]

The cost of prescription drugs is astounding. Isn't there laws in place to prevent an industry from price gauging. Funny thing is, as soon as a drug becomes 'over-the-counter' its price goes down. I remember that about Motrin.

[markw]

The cost of prescription drugs is astounding. Isn't there laws in place to prevent an industry from price gauging. Funny thing is, as soon as a drug becomes 'over-the-counter' its price goes down. I remember that about Motrin.I understand recouping the cost of development, but I'm curious as to why they cost less in other countries.

This would be a good place to start. Let's see what happens here.

FWIW, many chains like Walmart (http://i.walmartimages.com/i/if/hmp/fusion/customer_list.pdf), Walgreens and many major food chains with pharmacies do offer many "$4.00" perscriptions for commonly perscribed generics. This doesn't require goverment approval to implement and is available now to anyone for the asking. It just takes a little looking or internet research.

These save me a decent amount of money and are worth looking into. ...but some that aren't covered still cost a lot.

[kexodusc]

I understand recouping the cost of development, but I'm curious as to why they cost less in other countries.

This would be a good place to start. Let's see what happens here.

FWIW, many chains like Walmart, Walgreens and many major food chains with pharmacies do offer many "$4.00" perscriptions for generics. This doesn't require goverment approval to implement and is available now to anyone for the asking. These save me a decent amount of money and are worth looking into. ...but some that aren't covered still cost a lot.
A terrible thing happens to the rational consumer when a medical device or drug is seen as a necessity. The laws of supply and demand fly out the window and people pay up to everything they have...particularly if the best product is monopolized by a single company. Good industry to be in.

I feel that anyone who's sick should hedge by buying stock in pharmaceuticals...

[markw]

A terrible thing happens to the rational consumer when a medical device or drug is seen as a necessity. The laws of supply and demand fly out the window and people pay up to everything they have...particularly if the best product is monopolized by a single company. Good industry to be in.

I feel that anyone who's sick should hedge by buying stock in pharmaceuticals...A lot of drugs are seen as maintenance, such as blood thinners, beta blockers, blood pressure ,and other drugs. For some, these are the key to living a life where before them people would have died years ago. One of the good thing is that many are avaialble as generics on the $4.00 plans

Would you rather they die rather than depend on them? I think you general opinon might change if it's you or yours in that operating room.

[kexodusc]

A lot of drugs are seen as maintenance, such as blood thinners, beta blockers, blood pressure ,and other drugs. For some, these are the key to living a life where before them people would have died years ago. One of the good thing is that many are avaialble as generics on the $4.00 plans

Would you rather they die rather than depend on them? I think you general opinon might change if it's you or yours in that operating room.

Huh? I pointed out the irrational behavior of consumers as an argument in favor of some sort of government involvement in drug pricing, and to partially answer why drugs cost more in the US than anywhere else in the world. Sometimes the free market doesn't play by the rules and consequences are far too great when it comes to health care.

Universal health care may or may not be a good idea, but it's a shame both parties can't realize there's lots of wiggle room left when it comes to drug costs and at least start working there.

[markw]

I thought drug prices were brought up in the previous posts and this was another issue.

And, yes, some sort of reform is needed in health care, but I'm not ready to just blindly turn it all over to the same people that put us in the banking/housing crisis without a damn good reason. And, yes the greed is on both sides, not just one.

[nightflier]

A lot of drugs are seen as maintenance, such as blood thinners, beta blockers, blood pressure ,and other drugs. For some, these are the key to living a life where before them people would have died years ago. One of the good thing is that many are avaialble as generics on the $4.00 plans

This is fine for the cheap stuff, but not all maintenance drugs are that cheap. One of my neighbors who is also into audio (well probably not for much longer), recently lost his job and his health insurance. He was on cancer medications that totaled some $14K a month! The insurance paid for most of it when he had a job, but now what? These aren't exactly $4 pills and... it's a matter of life & death.

Now along comes the new healthcare bill that over time should slash drug prices (through competition, no less - competition: that mainstay of capitalism) to 1/10th of that cost. So instead of $14K, he'll pay $1400, still a chunk of cash, but much more manageable, and if your life depends on it, you'll find a way to pay for it.

Then our local Republican blow-hard Cox says this bill isn't fair to the drug companies. WTF? We're talking about life and death here and Cox is saying that his campaign contributors Pfizer, Eli, Merck, & the rest of the gang's stock price could drop a little from competition in the market place? That's rich.

So my neighbor's been on this letter writing, email, and calling campaign over this, but nary a single response from anyone (Democrat or Republican). He's a big believer in single-payer, but heaven forbid if that should happen. That would mean an Australia / Canada styled "socialist" system here - and we all know how horrible that is because that's what Fox news & Limbaugh are telling us.

So what next? Revolution? A massive dying off of people? Pray and hope that Cox gets cancer? Yeah we can laugh about that last one, but personal involvement has actually been the one thing that has had a positive effect and changed a few of the more recalcitrant minds out there (Nancy Reagan and stem cell research, Ariana Huffington and gay rights, there's a long list...). But these about-faces are rare, so what does one do from a grass-roots perspective?

[markw]

"After the Democratic victory in November 2006, [the industry] had to scramble," says Ira Loss, a pharmaceutical analyst with Washington Analysis Corporation. "They had to hire more Democratic lobbyists." Ken Johnson, senior vice president of communications at PhRMA, acknowledged that the industry faced "a difficult political environment." But he maintained that PhRMA doesn't see having a Democratic Congress as a disadvantage. "We don't look at it through the prism of Democrats and Republicans. We look at it in terms of those who support free market policies and those who don't."

A review of campaign contributions reveals that the industry has dramatically increased donations to the Democrats since their victory in November 2006. In the current election cycle so far, for the first time on record, the pharmaceutical and health products industry has given slightly more money to Democrats than Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."

If you offer it, they will take it (http://projects.publicintegrity.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=985)

So much for dropping that one in the republicans lap. No, you don't want a pissing contest. do you? At least be man enough to admit it.

You make it sound like I'm against improved health care. I'm not. I just want to know what we're getting into. I just don't believe that only those making above 250k will wind up paying for it and that those of us with workable plans through the workplace won't be adversely affected to the point where we will have to give up what we have and lose our now adequate coverage, and still wind up paying more. You should study politics more.

Now, can you please provide more "facts" on this wondrous health plan you're referring to, or you just operating on blind faith, partisan politics, and anger?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If I was going to deal with this issue, I would start with Insurance companies administrative costs, and target CEO compensation and benefits packages. Let's take Aetna's Ron Williams. $1,091,764 in base salary, $13,537,365 coming from option awards, $6,456,630 in stock awards which totals to $24,300,112. On top of that 401k matching and access to a private jet kicks in an additional $101,487. This is outrageous for a single year salary.

H. Edward Hanway - CIGNA
Total Compensation: $30.16 million

Angela Braly - WellPoint
Total Compensation: $9,844,212

Dale Wolf - Coventry Health Care
Total Compensation: $9,047,469

Michael Neidorff - Centene
Total Compensation: $8,774,483

James Carlson - AMERIGROUP
Total Compensation: $5,292,546

Michael McCallister - Humana
Total Compensation: $4,764,309

Ladies and Gentlemen, these are the small potato health insurance providers. We have not even gotten into Blue Shield which is the largest carrier in the country.

When you look at the five year salary total compensation, it is over 14 billion dollar for 18 regional providers going back to 2003. If basic insurance costs $8,000/year for a family then taking 10% from just these CEO salaries would insure 35,000 Americans a year for five years. That is a lot of people that can be helped just by reducing these guys salaries to more realistic level. But we have not even covered the big boys, or even the waste that occcurs as a claim goes through the system. These salaries represent a pittance when compared to a company like Blue Shield.

We now understand that the administrative costs for Medicaid are 21 percent. However for the private for profit insurance companies it is 33 percent which is mostly attributed to CEO salaries and benefits. So while we have approximately 46 million AMERICANS (not including illegal immigrants, but counting the recently unemployed who have lost their insurance) who do not have insurance, these guys are making $400,000 per week, have the company pay for country club fees, private jet rides, sponsoring expensive company junkets, and having expenses on their housing paid for.

This is a big problem for me, and why I support a public option. The insurance companies must be forced into becoming more efficient and streamlined in their operational costs, and the best place to start is right at the top of the organization.

[nightflier]

"After the Democratic victory in November 2006, [the industry] had to scramble," says Ira Loss, a pharmaceutical analyst with Washington Analysis Corporation. "They had to hire more Democratic lobbyists." Ken Johnson, senior vice president of communications at PhRMA, acknowledged that the industry faced "a difficult political environment." But he maintained that PhRMA doesn't see having a Democratic Congress as a disadvantage. "We don't look at it through the prism of Democrats and Republicans. We look at it in terms of those who support free market policies and those who don't."

A review of campaign contributions reveals that the industry has dramatically increased donations to the Democrats since their victory in November 2006. In the current election cycle so far, for the first time on record, the pharmaceutical and health products industry has given slightly more money to Democrats than Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."

If you offer it, they will take it (http://projects.publicintegrity.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=985)

Totally moronic response. I mentioned Democrats and Republicans alike and didn't seek to single out either party. The only reason I picked on Cox (a Republican) is because he's done a piss-poor job on this issue, here - ask anyone in OC. And if you want to get into a political discussion (I really don't want to here, but we've opened the can of worms already), then why are Republicans calling this healthcare bill socialist? Isn't it about creating more competition in the market place? I thought competition was a Republican virtue?

Other than the Single-payer option, which has less than a snowball's chance in hell of being considered, the healthcare bill that's being floated around is one that includes both a private and public option: people get to choose. Why the heck are Republicans and their proponents (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilley, and the rest of the gang) calling this socialist? What the heck is socialist about this? It's competition, for chrissakes.

If you want to make this a political discussion, then let's dispense with the niceties. The Republicans have in the last 20+ years gone from fighting for competition in the marketplace to fighting for corporatism without competition, that is, unless they've been too busy encroaching in the bedrooms of ordinary citizens. The Democrats on the other hand (and I am equally critical of them), have been trying to get along with everyone (to no avail) or they've still standing around like deers in the headlights wondering what the hell happened in the Carter years.

Look, you can cite from conservative sources all you want, but that won''t change the fact that the Republican party is split 50/50 between the bible-thumping one-issue xenophobic voters who are hindering economic growth and progress, and those who still believe in competition, positive change, new technologies and to participate in a world economy. Unfortunately for the party, the latter group mostly voted for Obama in the last election. Fortunately for them, Obama's been a model Republican for the most part. As far as I'm concerned, the Republican party that I knew is no more.

As for the healthcare bill, the ones who have done more to hinder any meaningful progress than any other group are the right-wing Republicans. Yes, the far lefties have done their share, but they will go along with the middle-of-the-road Democratic majority when it's time. They are so insignificant in Congress that they have no choice but to go along. But the far-righties have the whole Republican party by the balls and they are holding up everything they can get their greasy paws into, including this bill.

Congressman Cox is in that category too - I know because I read about him regularly. But if he was a Democrat doing the same shenanigans, I'd be just as vocal about it.

[markw]

You can thank nightflier for taking what was turning out to be a real discussion into a partisan pissing contest.

Thanks for not disappointing me.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"After the Democratic victory in November 2006, [the industry] had to scramble," says Ira Loss, a pharmaceutical analyst with Washington Analysis Corporation. "They had to hire more Democratic lobbyists." Ken Johnson, senior vice president of communications at PhRMA, acknowledged that the industry faced "a difficult political environment." But he maintained that PhRMA doesn't see having a Democratic Congress as a disadvantage. "We don't look at it through the prism of Democrats and Republicans. We look at it in terms of those who support free market policies and those who don't."

A review of campaign contributions reveals that the industry has dramatically increased donations to the Democrats since their victory in November 2006. In the current election cycle so far, for the first time on record, the pharmaceutical and health products industry has given slightly more money to Democrats than Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."

If you offer it, they will take it (http://projects.publicintegrity.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=985)

So much for dropping that one in the republicans lap. No, you don't want a pissing contest. do you? At least be man enough to admit it.

You make it sound like I'm against improved health care. I'm not. I just want to know what we're getting into. I just don't believe that only those making above 250k will wind up paying for it and that those of us with workable plans through the workplace won't be adversely affected to the point where we will have to give up what we have and lose our now adequate coverage, and still wind up paying more. You should study politics more.

Now, can you please provide more "facts" on this wondrous health plan you're referring to, or you just operating on blind faith, partisan politics, and anger?

Mark,
Are you referring to contribution to the DNC or to individual Democrats. From what I understand, much of the contributions have gone to Blue Dog democrats, and far less to the progressives and libs as individual contributions are concerned. A Blue Dog Democrat is nothing more than a Republican in a blue suit. As far as individual contributions have gone, the last thing I have seen is the Republicans are getting the lion share in 2008, with that amount increasing as Republicans have stood against the public option. This is recent, and not in 2006. What you see here is the individuals that have received the most contributions, are the ones that are the most against a public option. That would be Blue Dog Demo's and the Republican party. The tide has definitely shifted as you see more Democrats supporting a strong public option. I heard this from my representative two weeks ago.

This does not have to degrade into a pissing contest if you don't want it to. But it is crystal clear that the Republicans do not want to see anything change from what it is, and the Democrats do. To be balanced, neither one is really being truthful or forthcoming when it comes to the facts, and both are beholden to campaign money the health insurance gives them. It is evident to me and many others that money is more important than you and I are.

[nightflier]

This is a big problem for me, and why I support a public option. The insurance companies must be forced into becoming more efficient and streamlined in their operational costs, and the best place to start is right at the top of the organization.

But how do we change this? The people in congress and those who influence them are all products of the proverbial revolving door. You're basically asking them to put a lock on it and cut all those lofty perks. Not going to happen - human nature is too greedy.

Even if Obama is the Mr.Smith-Goes-To-Washington type, he simply doesn't have the political power to change this system, even from the top down. He is surrounded by people who make up this system and he's been put up there by them on the promise that he wouldn't mess with the status quo. I still think (and hope) that he wants to do some good things, but the more he tries, the more he's finding out it's not going to come to pass. How many campaign promisses has he already had to abandon or "modify"?

We had another president like that once, his name was Carter.

[markw]

If I was going to deal with this issue, I would start with Insurance companies administrative costs, and target CEO compensation and benefits packages. Let's take Aetna's Ron Williams. $1,091,764 in base salary, $13,537,365 coming from option awards, $6,456,630 in stock awards which totals to $24,300,112. On top of that 401k matching and access to a private jet kicks in an additional $101,487. This is outrageous for a single year salary.

H. Edward Hanway - CIGNA
Total Compensation: $30.16 million

Angela Braly - WellPoint
Total Compensation: $9,844,212

Dale Wolf - Coventry Health Care
Total Compensation: $9,047,469

Michael Neidorff - Centene
Total Compensation: $8,774,483

James Carlson - AMERIGROUP
Total Compensation: $5,292,546

Michael McCallister - Humana
Total Compensation: $4,764,309

Ladies and Gentlemen, these are the small potato health insurance providers. We have not even gotten into Blue Shield which is the largest carrier in the country.

When you look at the five year salary total compensation, it is over 14 billion dollar for 18 regional providers going back to 2003. If basic insurance costs $8,000/year for a family then taking 10% from just these CEO salaries would insure 35,000 Americans a year for five years. That is a lot of people that can be helped just by reducing these guys salaries to more realistic level. But we have not even covered the big boys, or even the waste that occcurs as a claim goes through the system. These salaries represent a pittance when compared to a company like Blue Shield.

We now understand that the administrative costs for Medicaid are 21 percent. However for the private for profit insurance companies it is 33 percent which is mostly attributed to CEO salaries and benefits. So while we have approximately 46 million AMERICANS (not including illegal immigrants, but counting the recently unemployed who have lost their insurance) who do not have insurance, these guys are making $400,000 per week, have the company pay for country club fees, private jet rides, sponsoring expensive company junkets, and having expenses on their housing paid for.

This is a big problem for me, and why I support a public option. The insurance companies must be forced into becoming more efficient and streamlined in their operational costs, and the best place to start is right at the top of the organization.You bring up very good points. These people make obscene salaries, but so do people in the banking institutions, car companies and a lot of high tech industries.

The problem is that aside from the banking, heanth, and insurance industries, we all need these and they should be looked upon as a "regulated" industry, somewhat like public utilities are locally. I've seen the results of their stepping into the auto industry, and the only ones who came out ahead are the UAW (The secured bondholders got screwed!), and I'm still waiting to see the results of the banking/finance bailouts on the common guy but, so far, I ain't too impressed. So far, the rich are still getting richer and everyone else is on the outside looking in.

I'm not comfortable turning over yet another vital industry to their control.

But, how do we do this? It'll take a really good plan and I don't think anyone has come up with a ideas yet, at least that I've seen or heard. I'm not exactly sure what a "public option" (that's a very neblous term) entails but if it means dismantling a working, but extremely top-heavy system, I don't know if I can get behind that. I look at it like I would the difference between this doctor and a mechanic.

A mechanic was removing the cylinder heads from the motor of a car when he spotted the famous heart surgeon in his shop, who was standing off to the side, waiting for the service manager to come to take a look at his car.

The mechanic shouted across the garage, “Hello Doctor! Please come over here for a minute.” The famous surgeon, a bit surprised, walked over to the mechanic. The mechanic straightened up, wiped his hands on a rag and asked argumentatively, “So doctor, look at this. I also open hearts, take valves out, grind ‘em, put in new parts, and when I finish, this will work as a new one. So how come you get the big money, when you and me is doing basically the same work? ” The doctor leaned over and whispered to the mechanic ….. What did he say ???

He said : “Try to do it when the engine is running”.

This is gonna take a bit more planning than I think has been done, or at least presented to us.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You can thank nightflier for taking what was turning out to be a real discussion into a partisan pissing contest.

Thanks for not disappointing me.

Mark,
Let be truthful here, this has become a partisan issue hasn't it? As much as I loath defending NF, he is only reflecting the reality of the current climate that has surrounded this issue. Just like everything else, this has split down to partisan politics for sure.

[nightflier]

You can thank nightflier for taking what was turning out to be a real discussion into a partisan pissing contest.

I tried real hard to keep it non-partisan, but when the Republicans bare the lion's share of the blame for the standstill in congress, I'm not going to shy away from saying so.

Sorry if that doesn't jive with your political tendencies, but that's how things are.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

But how do we change this? The people in congress and those who influence them are all products of the proverbial revolving door. You're basically asking them to put a lock on it and cut all those lofty perks. Not going to happen - human nature is too greedy.

Even if Obama is the Mr.Smith-Goes-To-Washington type, he simply doesn't have the political power to change this system, even from the top down. He is surrounded by people who make up this system and he's been put up there by them on the promise that he wouldn't mess with the status quo. I still think (and hope) that he wants to do some good things, but the more he tries, the more he's finding out it's not going to come to pass. How many campaign promisses has he already had to abandon or "modify"?

We had another president like that once, his name was Carter.

You do not have to cap their salaries through legislation, you cap it through competition with a public option. You force them to reduce their overhead, so they can effectively compete with a public option. The most logical place is the place with the most waste, and that would start right at the top of the food chain - the part that seems to consume the most money.

I personally would not look at what Obama has had to abandon since he became President. I think every candidate has to face the realities of stepping into this office. I believe his intentions were pure and honest, but he has had to face a reality that is not pure or honest. Compromise is what makes a democratic engine turn. I just want to see how this all plays out. I am very worried for my kids though. With all that is going on, I get the feeling their quality of life will be far less than mine, and that bothers me a lot

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You bring up very good points. These people make obscene salaries, but so do people in the banking institutions, car companies and a lot of high tech industries.

Hence why we are in the mess we are in now. Our existence is based on a series of balancing events. When things get out of balance (like these guys salaries and benefits) the system seeks to correct itself. The problem is the system has gotten so grafty in favor of these guys, it will be a very difficult correction for the masses.


The problem is that aside from the banking, heanth, and insurance industries, we all need these and they should be looked upon as a "regulated" industry, somewhat like public utilities are locally. I've seen the results of their stepping into the auto industry, and the only ones who came out ahead are the UAW (The secured bondholders got screwed!), and I'm still waiting to see the results of the banking/finance bailouts on the common guy but, so far, I ain't too impressed. So far, the rich are still getting richer and everyone else is on the outside looking in.

Boy do I agree with this. However I think the UAW should come out ahead. They have taken hit after hit in favor of the stockholders, and there should be some balance in the mix. The more I look at this, the more I think things will end up like the Russian revolution of 1917.


I'm not comfortable turning over yet another vital industry to their control.

Since we see the results of unregulated control, I am more comfortable with seeing more a balance brought on by government control. I am no longer a believer of pure capitalism, but am leaning more towards a hybrid system of government and free market.


But, how do we do this? It'll take a really good plan and I don't think anyone has come up with a ideas yet, at least that I've seen or heard. I'm not exactly sure what a "public option" (that's a very neblous term) entails but if it means dismantling a working, but extremely top-heavy system, I don't know if I can get behind that. I look at it like I would the difference between this doctor and a mechanic.

A mechanic was removing the cylinder heads from the motor of a car when he spotted the famous heart surgeon in his shop, who was standing off to the side, waiting for the service manager to come to take a look at his car.

The mechanic shouted across the garage, “Hello Doctor! Please come over here for a minute.” The famous surgeon, a bit surprised, walked over to the mechanic. The mechanic straightened up, wiped his hands on a rag and asked argumentatively, “So doctor, look at this. I also open hearts, take valves out, grind ‘em, put in new parts, and when I finish, this will work as a new one. So how come you get the big money, when you and me is doing basically the same work? ” The doctor leaned over and whispered to the mechanic ….. What did he say ???

He said : “Try to do it when the engine is running”.

This is gonna take a bit more planning than I think has been done, or at least presented to us.

From what I HAVE seen on the public option, I like it more than all of the other proposals on the table. The idea of just giving tax credits so we can purchase on the free market is just not viable when there is no controls on the costs of insurance. I could see us down the line wasting a lot of tax money and still have a lot of folks that cannot get affordable insurance coverage because of a market where costs are just too high because of the greedy insurance companies.

While I agree legislators should take their time and get this right, I also think that giving more time just gives detractors more time to poison the atmosphere with misinformation and outright lies, just as we have seen as of late. Obama has it right on this point. When you have folks like Palin proporting death panels, and folks like Michael Steele saying the public option will steal healthcare away from seniors just to score brownie points, time is not on reforms side. My hero on this issue is Olympia Snowe. I feel she is VERY sincere in what she is trying to do, and she is getting clobbered for it by her own party.

The political climate right now is so full of poison nobody can get anything done. If nothing is done, the country goes bankrupt. So it seems to me the party that torts themselves as financially responsible should be taking the lead on this issue rather than impeding it. Perhaps public financing of political campaigns may not be a bad idea after all. Get the lobby and corporate money out of the way, and the private citizen becomes much more important, which is the way it should be

[markw]

You do not have to cap their salaries through legislation, you cap it through competition with a public option. You force them to reduce their overhead, so they can effectively compete with a public option. The most logical place is the place with the most waste, and that would start right at the top of the food chain - the part that seems to consume the most money.

I personally would not look at what Obama has had to abandon since he became President. I think every candidate has to face the realities of stepping into this office. I believe his intentions were pure and honest, but he has had to face a reality that is not pure or honest. Compromise is what makes a democratic engine turn. I just want to see how this all plays out. I am very worried for my kids though. With all that is going on, I get the feeling their quality of life will be far less than mine, and that bothers me a lotBasically, I said.

I understand compromise but so far I haven't seen any real issues brought up to either defend or contest, just neblous rhetoric.

Speaking from a personal standpoint, my plan through work is adequate. Not great, but adequate. I don't want anyone rocking that boat.

I would really like to see what that "public option" is before saying yea or nay on it. So far, I haven't seen too much on that, just demands that the representatives vote for it sight unseen.

...very scary...

Frankly, I'd have been very disappointed if they did. I think a lot of people would have been.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Basically, I said.

I understand compromise but so far I haven't seen any real issues brought up to either defend or contest, just neblous rhetoric.

While I haven't seen any details of the public option, the concept works for me. From what I have gleaned from the concept (nobody has really fleshed out details) the government would fund a startup plan which offered benefits like what is already offered to government employees which include house and senate members. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for the average American. That part is clear. What is not clear is how they are going to pay for it without adding to the budget deficit.


Speaking from a personal standpoint, my plan through work is adequate. Not great, but adequate. I don't want anyone rocking that boat.

The problem is that the boat may just get rocked whether you like it or not. The way things are going, insurance may become too costly for your employer to afford, and they may have to cut benefits so they don't go broke offering it to you. Since 2000, Disney has changed the plans they have offered to us because the current plan had become to expensive. Each time I have had to pay more to get less, and have had to pay even more to get what I had previously. At this rate they are going to bankrupt me on something I so desperately need to keep. I have lupus, and while I have been largely healthy and have had no real illnesses, no insurance company is going to sell me insurance if I had to purchase it outside my company. This has to change.


I would really like to see what that "public option" is before saying yea or nay on it. So far, I haven't seen too much on that, just demands that the representatives vote for it sight unseen.

...very scary...

Frankly, I'd have been very disappointed if they did. I think a lot of people would have been.

Nobody has been asked to vote on it, that is misinformation. They have not even been able to get to the point of providing details on it, they have just been saying they don't want it as it would bankrupt the private insurance companies, a point that has already been refuted by the Congressional Budget Office. So everyone is basically opposing the concept and not the details themselves. This is part of the problem.

[markw]

While I haven't seen any details of the public option, the concept works for me. From what I have gleaned from the concept (nobody has really fleshed out details) the government would fund a startup plan which offered benefits like what is already offered to government employees which include house and senate members. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for the average American. That part is clear. What is not clear is how they are going to pay for it without adding to the budget deficitThen let's see what happens when the crystal ball clears up. As far as I know, this isn't going to be quite the same plan as the ones our representatives get, or at least at a reasonable cost. I also understand they all voted to "opt out" of it anyway.


The problem is that the boat may just get rocked whether you like it or not. The way things are going, insurance may become too costly for your employer to afford, and they may have to cut benefits so they don't go broke offering it to you.Then I don't want it. They ar edoing the right thing opposing it then. I gotta do what's best for me and mine. I've got a health issue myself and would love a real,tangible, working, reasonable alternative but as it stands now, I'm on the same merry-go-round as you. We pay incrementally more for a little less each year, but It sure beats nothing.

I still want to see the alternative...


Since 2000, Disney has changed the plans they have offered to us because the current plan had become to expensive. Each time I have had to pay more to get less, and have had to pay even more to get what I had previously. At this rate they are going to bankrupt me on something I so desperately need to keep. I have lupus, and while I have been largely healthy and have had no real illnesses, no insurance company is going to sell me insurance if I had to purchase it outside my company. This has to change.I feel for ya, but you don't think it's going to cost you more in the long run anyway?


Nobody has been asked to vote on it, that is misinformation. They have not even been able to get to the point of providing details on it, they have just been saying they don't want it as it would bankrupt the private insurance companies, a point that has already been refuted by the Congressional Budget Office. So everyone is basically opposing the concept and not the details themselves. This is part of the problem.That's the point, Nobody knows the details. Come up with a plan, run it up the flagpole, and then we'll see who salutes it.

I've been around too long to trust a politician who says "Trust me. I've got your best interests at heart".

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Then let's see what happens when the crystal ball clears up. As far as I know, this isn't going to be quite the same plan as the ones our representatives get, or at least at a reasonable cost. I also understand they all voted to "opt out" of it anyway.

I actually read it, and it is the same type of plan.


Then I don't want it. They ar edoing the right thing opposing it then. I gotta do what's best for me and mine. I've got a health issue myself and would love a real,tangible, working, reasonable alternative but as it stands now, I'm on the same merry-go-round as you. We pay incrementally more for a little less each year, but It sure beats nothing.

I think you misunderstood me. What I am saying has nothing to do with the public option, but more to do if they do nothing at all. Unfortunately the end result of paying incrementally more and getting less is the less ends up being and expensive nothing at some point. Less and less does eventually lead to nothing.


I still want to see the alternative...

The alternative to a public plan is a co-op plan. This may work for electricity and food, and in less populated areas, but it does not work for those living in high density areas. Stupid idea out of the gate.


I feel for ya, but you don't think it's going to cost you more in the long run anyway?

It will if we don't get a public option on the table. Something has to slow down if not bring down that cost of private insurance, and the only way that will happen outside of plain legislation(which nobody wants) is strong competition from a public option.


That's the point, Nobody knows the details. Come up with a plan, run it up the flagpole, and then we'll see who salutes it.

We could get to that point if the Washington idiots would stop arguing over the concept and get to figuring out the details.


I've been around too long to trust a politician who says "Trust me. I've got your best interests at heart".

Yeah, we have heard that argument before in the name of the war against terror. We have spent enough money on that project to fund the startup of the public option.

[thekid]

Sir T-Some great points in your posts1
Mark W- My main point was that high health care costs are not driven by the legal system and that abusive testing is not in most cases as a result of "defensive medicine". I am not against doctors earning a living but you seem to imply that only the "best and the brightest" are attracted to the medical profession because of the lure of high salaries. that logic was/is used by Wall Street to justify those ridiculous bonuses and we all know how that worked out....

Other suggestions to lower health care besides eliminate doctors from owning medical labs (and lawyers BTW whose use medical labs to generate bills in automobile accident cases)

Review patent laws that lead to drug monopolies for a drug specific period of time.
Cap administrative costs at both the provider and the insurance level

Limit the pay of hospital executives and health insurance executives to no more than 10 times the average salary of their employees

Allow people to reduce their health care premiums if they are part of a regularly monitored wellness/excercise program

Put price controls on certain basic health care items-syringes,bandages,swabs etc

How's that for a start??
A bit socialistic?? Maybe but the current market based system is a mess.....

[GMichael]

Sir T-Some great points in your posts1
Mark W- My main point was that high health care costs are not driven by the legal system and that abusive testing is not in most cases as a result of "defensive medicine". I am not against doctors earning a living but you seem to imply that only the "best and the brightest" are attracted to the medical profession because of the lure of high salaries. that logic was/is used by Wall Street to justify those ridiculous bonuses and we all know how that worked out....

Other suggestions to lower health care besides eliminate doctors from owning medical labs (and lawyers BTW whose use medical labs to generate bills in automobile accident cases)

Review patent laws that lead to drug monopolies for a drug specific period of time.
Cap administrative costs at both the provider and the insurance level

Limit the pay of hospital executives and health insurance executives to no more than 10 times the average salary of their employees

Allow people to reduce their health care premiums if they are part of a regularly monitored wellness/excercise program

Put price controls on certain basic health care items-syringes,bandages,swabs etc

How's that for a start??
A bit socialistic?? Maybe but the current market based system is a mess.....

Oh look, details! Thanks Kid. These are some great ideas. Keep them coming. Maybe somebody in DC will pay attention.
Ok, so they won't, but at least it would be good to see a plan that could work if they did.

[markw]

Sir T-Some great points in your posts1
Mark W- My main point was that high health care costs are not driven by the legal system and that abusive testing is not in most cases as a result of "defensive medicine". I am not against doctors earning a living but you seem to imply that only the "best and the brightest" are attracted to the medical profession because of the lure of high salaries. that logic was/is used by Wall Street to justify those ridiculous bonuses and we all know how that worked out....Sorry, I can't quite let go the fact that tort reform should be a major part of this issue. Maybe where you're from it's not an issue,but it does seem to have a profound effect, at least here.

"The cumulative effect of medical malpractice claims on the health care system is staggering. A 2007 study by the Pacific Research Institute estimated that 3.4 million Americans have been added to the rolls of the uninsured because of medical liability concerns. According to several estimates, 10 cents of every dollar spent on health care can be attributed to the costs of medical liability and defensive medicine. That is as much as is spent on prescription drugs — an expenditure that actually treats patients."

Here's the link if you're interested (http://1209739777s20721.typepad.com/njlra/weblogs/)


Other suggestions to lower health care besides eliminate doctors from owning medical labs (and lawyers BTW whose use medical labs to generate bills in automobile accident cases)I don't necessarily have problems with doctors owning medical labs, but don't you sort of reinforce my statement about needing some sort of tort reform here?


Review patent laws that lead to drug monopolies for a drug specific period of time.They do. IT costs a heckuva lot of money to develop, test, and get FDA approval for new drugs and they want to make that money back. They expire after a period of time after which generics can be made. I can't find an exact number but here's how the whole scenario plays out if you're interested. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_drug)


Cap administrative costs at both the provider and the insurance levelGreat in theory and it would be great if it can be done. It should be tried.


Limit the pay of hospital executives and health insurance executives to no more than 10 times the average salary of their employeesI think 10 x is a bit unrealistic. Nobody will go for that. These are huge corporations that require a really, really high quality level of administration just to keep the company running. I believe the Japanese used to cap it at about 100 X the lowest salary, which might be a little more realistic.


Allow people to reduce their health care premiums if they are part of a regularly monitored wellness/excercise programThat works for me. Why not add not smoking to that list?

Unless one comes in through a workplace paid plan, I do believe they have to go through a physical where their personal traits are "rated" before the final rates are specified. Getting it through work means that they have to accept everyone.


Put price controls on certain basic health care items-syringes,bandages,swabs etcUnless the government controls the entire supply chain, distribution, and labor costs, this isn't really do-able. The people at Walmart don't make a heckuva lot to begin with and, face it, their pharmacy is greatly used for a lot of these.


How's that for a start??Not bad. A little more thought might be called for some of them but you've got the spirit.

Actually, I'd like to see a tax credit, preferably refundable, for the cost of premiums but that would cost the government too much. But, it might them inspire them to acting on lowering the costs.


A bit socialistic?? Maybe but the current market based system is a mess.....A free market society can have some portions are socialistic, particularly when it comes to keeping the infrastructure needed for commerce. Public utilities are regulated, public schools are "supposed to" be geared towards the common good (but I think they are failing and moving more towards indoctronation) and the police and fire departments reek of socialism (which is a necessary thing here). But all are needed and can work well in this country.

But, to let it get too socialistic, like this takeover of GM and Chrysler scares the hell outta me.

[thekid]

MarkW-I appreciate your posts and since I am home sick today.....

Trust me I am no fan of lawyers but in general tort reform IMO is an easy prop that is used to supposedly cure alot of ills. Tort Reform IMO would allow business to in effect pre-determine the fine(s) they would recieve for illegal or immoral acts and then they would just make a CBA decision and build the cost model into their pricing. But that is probably another topic...

Specific to your position regarding malpractice costs/testing. If doctors order tests so as to prevent them from being sued but malpractice lawsuits/premiums remain high then isn't the purpose for the test pointless? Is the real culprit for the abusive tests the doctors faulty logic that the tests are preventing malpractice claims? I would also again caution you on your source material and understand the agenda behind it. The PRI you quote is a right leaning conservative think tank with a pro-business agenda and as such has been promoting a tort reform agenda.

Again I do not understand your seeming reluctance to such a simple solution to reducing costs by removing the conflict of interests that exists with doctors who order the tests and the labs owned by the same doctor who owns the lab. Its like handing them a key to their own money making machine. My position here is not inconsistent because I don't think it is actual malpractice claims that drive these tests but simple greed and the misplaced fear I cite above.

Regarding the patent reform I admit I am no expert here (or anywhere if I think about it..) but I do understand the tremendous cost to developing an effective drug to market. What I am saying is lets look at the system that appears to cause a drug company to grab all the money they can before their patent expires or results in increased costs associated with protecting their patents. If we can increase the number of "authorized generics" which would allow the original drug maker to at least recoup most of their costs through increased license fees we would free up millions of dollars for additional R&D and lower the cost of prescription drugs.

Limiting the pay to 10 times the salary of the average salary does not seem to me too far fetched. I really do not quite understand your logic when you imply that smart people only go to where the money is and that some how limiting income limits your ability to attract talent. I would agree that capping pay in only the healthcare field might create the brain drain you fear but I think given the excesses of Wall Street it is time to limit executive pay in a whole host of industries. A level playing field in the area of compensation may benefit us in many areas and end this ego driven thirst for higher and higher pay that is disproportional to the returns these supposed business genius produce. Anyone who is not motivated to earn 10 times more than the average worker is probably not really motivated by money at all in any case.

Price controls might be drastic but I am talking about a systemic approach at all levels. One of the reason I think costs have risen so much is that market forces are not really being applied here. Costs are just being passed on through the chain and only ends with higher premiums passed on to business and when they no longer can afford it people find themselves uninsured.

[dean_martin]

Sorry, I can't quite let go the fact that tort reform should be a major part of this issue. Maybe where you're from it's not an issue,but it does seem to have a profound effect, at least here.

"The cumulative effect of medical malpractice claims on the health care system is staggering. A 2007 study by the Pacific Research Institute estimated that 3.4 million Americans have been added to the rolls of the uninsured because of medical liability concerns. According to several estimates, 10 cents of every dollar spent on health care can be attributed to the costs of medical liability and defensive medicine. That is as much as is spent on prescription drugs — an expenditure that actually treats patients."

Here's the link if you're interested (http://1209739777s20721.typepad.com/njlra/weblogs/)



The PRI ranks states for businesses based on which states businesses can go to and kill, mame, injure and defraud citizens without being held accountable. To the PRI, every lawsuit brought by an individual against a business (or professional, like a doctor) is a "frivolous" lawsuit. They don't give you any stats on how the judicial system is clogged with lawsuits among and between businesses, especially the federal courts. Those same businesses that bankroll tort reform efforts wouldn't think twice before suing another business, or taking your *ss to court. There's quite a lot of hypocracy going on.

One of the most beloved legal minds in our state (he's a professor and author of the "bible" on our state's evidence law) was a featured speaker at our state bar's annual meeting this summer. His first comment was to ask the audience, "How many of you are making a living on filing frivolous lawsuits?" Think about it. For every frivolous lawsuit a lawyer files he or she is subject to monetary sanctions. No truly frivolous lawsuit survives a motion to dismiss. Motions to dismiss must be filed within 30days of getting served with the complaint. A lawyer files a frivolous lawsuit and spends up to $500 or more on the filing fee and then after the defendant is served, the defendant's lawyer files a motion to dismiss, the suit is thrown out in less than 60 days and the lawyer who files the suit is hit with sanctions. This same lawyer keeps filing frivolous lawsuits and is sanctioned each time and then he is turned into the state bar and his license is suspended. Yeah, it sounds like you can make a lot of money filing frivolous lawsuits.

Frankly, I've been practicing law for 11 years and I've NEVER seen a frivolous lawsuit, don't know anybody who has filed a frivolous lawsuit and don't know anybody who has defended a frivolous lawsuit.

Mark, you say you want to eliminate partisanship and politics from the healthcare debate but all you site is partisan bunk. Like I said, lawyers have ignored this public relations crap for too long and have taken a huge hit. Our public reputation has suffered and much of it is "our" own doing (e.g., tasteless advertising). But these "think tanks" and "grass roots" anti-lawsuit "abuse" groups have sprung up on the national and state levels well funded by big business with an agenda. My challenge to you is find a study without an agenda behind it. We have to cite the facts from our state's administrative office of courts everytime the "grass roots" tort reform group in our state throws out made-up numbers. It's propaganda warfare. Someone has to be on it 24/7. People take the bait, hook, line and sinker. Hell, I had to call into a sports talk radio show one time because they were going through the made-up list of Stella award cases on the air as if they were true! (see http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp)

After landing Mercedes, Hyundia and Thyssen Krupp plants, our state was ranked in the top 5 for business by an unbiased source. Right away, our own state's anti-lawsuit "abuse" group came out with its rankings saying we were 49th just ahead of Mississippi. It was believable by the masses because Alabama is always close to last in everything that matters like education and just ahead of Mississippi. You know it's bullsh*t when the PRI ranks Mississippi tops for business because of its tort reform efforts, but its sister state's anti-lawsuit "abuse" group says it's worst.

The last real study done on medical errors found that on average 98,000 patients a year DIE because of medical errors in this country - the USA - which was the worst among "western" nations. Stop medical errors and you will stop medical malpractice lawsuits (and save lives as an incidental benefit).

[markw]

No-one disputes that errors are made and redress is not due, but at some point protecting oneself from "possibilites" becomes more of the goal of the doctor than treating the patient.

"The study is based on a survey – believed to be the first of its kind – that was completed by more than 900 physicians in Massachusetts. It asked about their use of seven tests and procedures: plain film X-rays, CT scans, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasounds, laboratory testing, specialty referrals and consultations, and hospital admissions.

About 83 percent reported practicing defensive medicine, with an average of between 18 percent and 28 percent of tests, procedures, referrals, and consultations and 13 percent of hospitalizations ordered for defensive reasons."

I'm pretty sure these costs do add up...

And, as far as the careful vetting of malpractice cases, how can this be justified?

"A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 analyzed more than 1,400 malpractice claims and found that in almost 40 percent of cases, no medical error was involved"

So, it looks to me there's a bit of a "hail mary" approach to a lot of these lawsuits.

Here's the teaser article. There's a link to the full study in there. (http://advance.uconn.edu/2009/090223/09022302.htm)

[dean_martin]

No-one disputes that errors are made and redress is not due, but at some point protecting oneself from "possibilites" becomes more of the goal of the doctor than treating the patient.

"The study is based on a survey – believed to be the first of its kind – that was completed by more than 900 physicians in Massachusetts. It asked about their use of seven tests and procedures: plain film X-rays, CT scans, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasounds, laboratory testing, specialty referrals and consultations, and hospital admissions.

About 83 percent reported practicing defensive medicine, with an average of between 18 percent and 28 percent of tests, procedures, referrals, and consultations and 13 percent of hospitalizations ordered for defensive reasons."

I'm pretty sure these costs do add up...

And, as far as the careful vetting of malpractice cases, how can this be justified?

"A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 analyzed more than 1,400 malpractice claims and found that in almost 40 percent of cases, no medical error was involved"

So, it looks to me there's a bit of a "hail mary" approach to a lot of these lawsuits.

Here's the teaser article. There's a link to the full study in there. (http://advance.uconn.edu/2009/090223/09022302.htm)

It was not the first of its kind. See the GAO report from 2003 that discredited the AMA's attempted use of similar surveys that were determined to be less than reliable.

For the GAO report of 2003, the AMA did not identify Mass. as a problem state. What happened between 03 and the release of this study? What's going on in the Mass state legislature? What are the political winds in Mass?

If it's so bad in Mass, why did less than 25% of doctors respond to the survey?

Why does the study start with reliance on PRI findings?

Go here and read this report prepared under a Republican Administration:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03836.pdf

[thekid]

Dean- Thanks for introducing facts into a aruguement I was trying to make just based on common sense.

Think tanks and talking heads on both sides of the political spectrum IMO exist because the media has abidicated its responsiblility of researching the facts and instead relies on groups like the PRI or its left leaning twin to supply them. This is in part because the networks especially the 24-hour news channels have turned news into a entertainment product rather than a public service. We select the information we get from the source that already supports/reinforces our value system. What makes it worse is that the people who do this really do not understand that is what they are doing-they honestly believe they have all the facts to make a decision. The politicians exploit this and that is how in this particular issue, healthcare, something like the talk of "death panels" actually gets traction. How else to explain that two of the biggest voices on the right Glen Beck and Rush are failed Top Forty DJ's and have no actual journalistic credentials. I am sure there are similar examples on the left as well its just in my area they are not any stations that carry them.

[nightflier]

GAO? Sounds kind of funny when you sound it out, doesn't it?

Just kidding.

Hey kid, I would say that the media, because of it's penchant for infotainment and kow-towing to their advertisers, have much more of a conservative bent these days than they did in say, the Nixon or Reagan years. This is largely why they are not reporting accurate information on the healthcare bill now, it angers all their advertisers, from Bayer, to Aetna to Pfizer.

There was a time when the media was affectionately referred to as the 4th branch of government, but that is not at all the case anymore.

[thekid]

GAO? Sounds kind of funny when you sound it out, doesn't it?

Just kidding.

Hey kid, I would say that the media, because of it's penchant for infotainment and kow-towing to their advertisers, have much more of a conservative bent these days than they did in say, the Nixon or Reagan years. This is largely why they are not reporting accurate information on the healthcare bill now, it angers all their advertisers, from Bayer, to Aetna to Pfizer.

There was a time when the media was affectionately referred to as the 4th branch of government, but that is not at all the case anymore.


Night-You are probably right the networks would sell their mothers into slavery and then report on it if they thought it would get them ratings.....

Interesting that you mentioned Nixon. I was listening to someone tick off some the acts/laws passed under Nixon and you would think he was a liberal. Amazing how times change... In many ways I do not think Lincoln would even recognize the party he helped create.

[markw]

It was not the first of its kind. See the GAO report from 2003 that discredited the AMA's attempted use of similar surveys that were determined to be less than reliable.They don't really discountthe findings of my report.


For the GAO report of 2003, the AMA did not identify Mass. as a problem state. What happened between 03 and the release of this study? What's going on in the Mass state legislature? What are the political winds in Mass?I'm not from Massachuttes so I can't really say. Are you saying the report was bogus?


If it's so bad in Mass, why did less than 25% of doctors respond to the survey?Dunno. MAybe they don't have the time to respond or they don't want to admit practicing "defensive medicine"?


Why does the study start with reliance on PRI findings?gotta start somewhere...


Go here and read this report prepared under a Republican Administration:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03836.pd***ain, from a brief skim, they really don't go against the other report.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you so vehemently argue that this one component of what must be looked at when it comes to cutting costs should be overlooked. I guess you see it as simply a cost of doing business for the medical profession, eh? Well, just as in shoplifting, that "cost of doing business" gets passed on to the consumers.

You make it seem that this is the one and only cause of the problem. IT's not, but maybe it's the only one that affects you?

Remember, I was talking issues. You played the "partisan" card. Bully for you!

I thought this wasn't a "partisian" thread but, from your recent posts, it sure looks like it is, or is it simply because you're a lawyer and take offense when it's pointed out that it's your profession caused this situation.

You do realize that it's this "keep your hands off my stash" attitude that constipates real compromise and progress, not just here, but in Washington, too. Y'all are sure doing a good job of proving that and all I can say is thank God for the blue dog democrats.

Congratulations! You have just answered, by example, the question posed in this thread "Why not Universal Health Care"..

[dean_martin]

They don't really discountthe findings of my report.

I'm not from Massachuttes so I can't really say. Are you saying the report was bogus?

Dunno. MAybe they don't have the time to respond or they don't want to admit practicing "defensive medicine"?

gotta start somewhere...

Again, from a brief skim, they really don't go against the other report.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you so vehemently argue that this one component of what must be looked at when it comes to cutting costs should be overlooked. I guess you see it as simply a cost of doing business for the medical profession, eh? Well, just as in shoplifting, that "cost of doing business" gets passed on to the consumers.

I thought this wasn't a "partisian" thread but it sure looks like it is, or is it simply because you're a lawyer and take offense when it's pointed out that it's your profession caused this situation.

You do realize that it's this "keep your hands off my stash" attitude that constipates real compromise and progress, not just here, but in Washington, too. Y'all are sure doing a good job of proving that and all I can say is thank God for the blue dog democrats..

I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be looked at or factored into the overall resulting plan. My position is that medical malpractice liability is not as big a problem as some interests make it out to be. But limits on medical malpractice liability is the only thing some interests hope to achieve in this process. Medmal fears do not account for the uninsured being charged $98,000 for the same procedure that costs the insured $20,000, most of which is paid by their insurance company. It doesn't fully explain why medmal premiums are so high. Please don't think I'm anti-doctor. I like my doctor a lot. I like many of the doctors who've treated my clients. Interestingly, the only time I feel resentment from doctors (and I get frustrated with them) is when I'm deposing a doctor who's treated a worker's comp client. It amazes me because workers' comp insurers micro-manage the care and don't pay the doctors much at all. I'd much rather have doctors on my side than against me. I always treat them with respect and I know their opinions carry great weight. But that doesn't mean I think they should be above the law or have special protections, privileges and immunities from lawsuits.

If there is a medical liability act included in the healthcare plan, it will have to include a provision that, although this new federal law will apply to the case, the case can be filed in state court. The federal court system is overloaded with civil and criminal cases that used to be state cases but have become "federalized" because Congress stepped in. My state's medmal act that was last amended in the early 90s is pretty tough on plaintiffs (but not as tough as some like Texas's). If a Federal medical malpractice act is passed as part of a national health care plan, my specific recommendation is that plaintiffs be allowed to file in state court. And if the act is as tough on plaintiffs as my state's law but not as draconian as some of the toughest in the country, then I can live with it.

One of the reforms pushed hardest is caps on noneconomic damages which include pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress, and disfigurement. But compare the case of a 40 year old professional entitled to damages for lost wages in addition to noneconomic damages to the case of the child or retired elderly who has no claim for lost wages. If noneconomic damgages are capped at $250,000 and it costs $125,000 to try a medmal case, my recommendation to the parents of the child and the elderly person would be to apply for social security, medicare and medicaid. We'll all pay for it rather than the doctor's medmal insurance carrier.

[dean_martin]

They don't really discountthe findings of my report.

I'm not from Massachuttes so I can't really say. Are you saying the report was bogus?

Dunno. MAybe they don't have the time to respond or they don't want to admit practicing "defensive medicine"?

gotta start somewhere...

Again, from a brief skim, they really don't go against the other report.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you so vehemently argue that this one component of what must be looked at when it comes to cutting costs should be overlooked. I guess you see it as simply a cost of doing business for the medical profession, eh? Well, just as in shoplifting, that "cost of doing business" gets passed on to the consumers.

You make it seem that this is the one and only cause of the problem. IT's not, but maybe it's the only one that affects you?

Remember, I was talking issues. You played the "partisan" card. Bully for you!

I thought this wasn't a "partisian" thread but, from your recent posts, it sure looks like it is, or is it simply because you're a lawyer and take offense when it's pointed out that it's your profession caused this situation.

You do realize that it's this "keep your hands off my stash" attitude that constipates real compromise and progress, not just here, but in Washington, too. Y'all are sure doing a good job of proving that and all I can say is thank God for the blue dog democrats.

Congratulations! You have just answered, by example, the question posed in this thread "Why not Universal Health Care"..

Geez, Mark. I didn't realize what a personal attack your post was until I re-read it. I pointed out that some of the stuff you linked to promotes partisan agendas. That New Jersey tort reform website and the PRI I know from experience have to be watched like hawks. Maybe you didn't realize that and I apologize for accusing you of going partisan if you didn't know that these groups establish pre-determined outcomes for their "studies." I'm waiting for a real "fact check" website to tackle all the claims that come out of the healthcare debate. Again, Mark, my counter point is that defensive medicine/medmal reform is not a "MAJOR" problem. Your point is that it is. I disagree with the degree which you claim.

I'm not saying that it should be overlooked, but I certainly don't agree that my profession caused the problem as you say. Thanks a lot by the way. And thanks for equating my profession with shoplifting. I'm sorry you hate lawyers.

The GAO report doesn't come to many conclusions, but what should be taken away from it is that it's not easy to establish an accurate reliable number spent on defensive medicine. A later report that came to a more specific conclusion estimated that the number is $60 billion a year which is a lot but makes up only 3% of the total yearly health care cost. If we can cut some of that then I'm all for it, but cutting part of 3% is not going to save much. Thus my conclusion that this isn't as big a problem as some interests would have you believe. Did you look at the NY Times article I linked earlier? It came out this week. Again, I disagree with you that defensive medicine/medmal lawsuit reform should be a "major" part of the plan. Some interests want it to be the only part of the plan.

Personally, I'd rather have the extra lab test anyhow. My doctor wrote me an order to have my cholesterol checked because I'm 41 and have not had it checked before. He warned me that my insurance company might not pay for it. My thought was why would my insurance company not pay for something my doctor ordered? Do they know more than my doctor? Maybe I should see them instead of my doctor.

[Feanor]

If being trying to keep my mouth shut on this and issues in general. But I have speak out against the gross misrepresentation of the Canadian system I hear from south of the border.

Thank you, FA, for doing your part to rebutt the slander of the Canadian universal, single-payor system. It's not perfect and 3dB is correct that a few Canadians head south for various tests and treatments -- the usual reason is that they too impatient to wait the few weeks it would take to wait for the procedures here. Waiting lists happen but they are not arbitrary: if you case isn't deemed urgrent, you might have to wait. Problem is the "deemed" part: lots of people "deem" that theirs' is a special case and they demand immediate attention. There is no other form of health care rationing beyond the waiting lists for some procedures -- and there are definitely no "death panels".

When William Jefferson Clinton was diagnosed with partial cardiac artery blockage, he got his triple by-pass surgery 3 days later. When I was diagnosed with the same thing, I waited 5 months.

But lets keep a few of things in perspective:

My doctors told me that surgery was an option but so was drug treatment and that opting for the latter would only slightly increase my chances of heart attack. In other words, it was basically elective surgery. In fact the medication my cardiologist prescrible totally surpressed my symptoms during normal daily activities.
Throughout the interval and for the operation itself and follow up thereafter, I had excellent doctors. My surgeon, a professor at the University of Western Ontario, wanted to do a robotic procedure but decided he couldn't do a good enough job that was so did a standard sternectory (right word?); but he didn't have to stop my heart or use a heart-lung machine or transfused any blood.
I recently heard that typical by-pass surgery in the US run $168,000. I have no doubt about the quality of my treatment against the typical US standard so this is the kind of bill I would have got. Instead I was charged $800 for five days in a semi-private room (which my private insurance did pay).I know Americans resent it when anyone (especially me, I think) criticizes the US. Fine, what you do is up to you. But personally I would be ashamed to lived in the only country in the first world that won't (not can't) offer its citizens quality health care regardless ot their ability to pay.

Look, smarten up. And don't fret about the cost. The Canadian system delivers outcomes every bit as good as the US for about 65% of the cost.

[thekid]

Feanor

Nice to add a little different perspective.
I kind have always figured that if the Canadian system was the death trap it is often portrayed, people there would not put up with it. I also find it funny when people point to the evils of "socialized medicine" in a democratic system of government. If it was that bad you have to believe governments would rise and fall over the health care issue.

[bobsticks]

Given that majority of those who are uninsured fall under that catagory, what would be more misguided than not being insured?

The real question probably is how it would effect those that are insured. May be you can shed more light on that.

The majority that are uninsured do currently fall under that category but it won't be that way in three to five years. We can continue to argue the myopia, simplistically fight along party lines, and name-call or we can examine the root causes.

You wanna break this sum***** wide open? What happened on May 8, 1945?

This problem does not exist in a vaccuum, nor will the solutions be binary in nature.

[Feanor]

Feanor

Nice to add a little different perspective.
I kind have always figured that if the Canadian system was the death trap it is often portrayed, people there would not put up with it. I also find it funny when people point to the evils of "socialized medicine" in a democratic system of government. If it was that bad you have to believe governments would rise and fall over the health care issue.

Kid, the fact is that there is no Canadian politician anywhere in the country who could possibly be elected advocating a US-style healthcare system.

People always like to rant and rail about how terrible government is: incompotent, inefficient, serving only the self-interest of politicians, etc.. This is no different in Canada, but although everyone here has an opinion about how our healthcare ought to be improved, nobody wants to turf it for a fully private system.

[nightflier]

You wanna break this sum***** wide open? What happened on May 8, 1945?

I know you're probably referring to something else, but if not, what does the surrender of Nazi Germany have to do with this?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Kid, the fact is that there is no Canadian politician anywhere in the country who could possibly be elected advocating a US-style healthcare system.

People always like to rant and rail about how terrible government is: incompotent, inefficient, serving only the self-interest of politicians, etc.. This is no different in Canada, but although everyone here has an opinion about how our healthcare ought to be improved, nobody wants to turf it for a fully private system.

I have yet to meet a Canadian in Hawaii who thinks their healthcare is inadequate. I have heard nothing but a balance of compliments and some realistic negatives about their system. I think the Brits have also come out and railed against what the American politician is saying about their system as well.

Our politicians need to stop lying to the public about other countries healthcare system, and admit there is some merit to what these other countries are doing. Once again, I expect the party of fiscal discipline to step up to the plate on this.

[markw]

I have yet to meet a Canadian in Hawaii who thinks their healthcare is inadequate. I have heard nothing but a balance of compliments and some realistic negatives about their system. I think the Brits have also come out and railed against what the American politician is saying about their system as well.

Our politicians need to stop lying to the public about other countries healthcare system, and admit there is some merit to what these other countries are doing. Once again, I expect the party of fiscal discipline to step up to the plate on this.Before pushing a mandatory plan, I think we would be better served by looking into cost containment first. Where, exactly, are the extra costs we deal with coming from? More to the point, who is profiting from them?

Once that's been accomplished, I'll gladly back a well thought out "public" option but until that's done, all it's going to do is put more money into the pockets of those who already profit too much from the current system.

On a related issue, I see that thanks to our taxpayer money, the banks are well on the way to making record profits again and the biggies will be getting huge bonus' again. Too bad they don't have to put it back when they make bad investments. They can come to us for a handout...

This is essentially privatized profits and socialized losses. Is this any way to run a country?

[thekid]

This is essentially privatized profits and socialized losses. Is this any way to run a country?

Not that is related to this topic but you do know the bank bailout was engineered and recommended by a GOP administration...... so it is a little ironic that thesame supporters of that Administration are screaming socialism at the current Administration when it comes to reforming health care.

[markw]

Not that is related to this topic but you do know the bank bailout was engineered and recommended by a GOP administration...... so it is a little ironic that thesame supporters of that Administration are screaming socialism at the current Administration when it comes to reforming health care.Now, who can honestly say with a straight face this isn't really a thinly veiled pissing contest initiated for the lib's pleasure? Is that a turtleneck you're wearing, or is it your foreskin?

Those bonus' were paid out under Obama's watch, and so is this next round. If he could single-handedly wrest control of two major automakers and ignore the law to screw the secured bondholders, he could have easily stymied these bonus' if he really wanted to, particularly this second round.

You might be interested to know who some of those secured bondholders were, too.

[thekid]

Speaking of skin methinks someone's is too thin as in none of my threads have I resorted to name calling and have generally avoided labeling the poster by their political views.

I don't want to take this off-topic too much but you avoided my original point which was that people (on both sides of the aisle) who engineered and voted for the bank bailout during the bailout of Wall St. had no problem with the government getting involved in the financial system. The politicians (again on both sides of the aisle) basically protected the monied interests in that situation and that is what is occuring primarily with this so called health care reform. Only the hypocrisy is that politicians on both sides of the aisle are shrouding this protection within the usual political rhetoric of which cries of socialism is just one of them.

[markw]

Speaking of skin methinks someone's is too thin as in none of my threads have I resorted to name calling and have generally avoided labeling the poster by their political views.Deal with it. I called it as I see it. You asked for it, you got it.


I don't want to take this off-topic too much but you avoided my original point which was that people (on both sides of the aisle) who engineered and voted for the bank bailout during the bailout of Wall St. had no problem with the government getting involved in the financial system. The politicians (again on both sides of the aisle) basically protected the monied interests in that situation and that is what is occuring primarily with this so called health care reform. Only the hypocrisy is that politicians on both sides of the aisle are shrouding this protection within the usual political rhetoric of which cries of socialism is just one of them.Bullshiite. Your post was a cute little one-liner designed to trash the previous administration. At least be man enough to admit it.

[bobsticks]

Speaking of skin methinks someone's is too thin as in none of my threads have I resorted to name calling and have generally avoided labeling the poster by their political views...

I know you ain't callin' my name out, friend. You've made some eloquent points outta details, my friend, but I'm talking "macro", 'cuz the only viable solution is going to involve a "macro" solution and a reckonning from all sides...

[bobsticks]

I know you're probably referring to something else, but if not, what does the surrender of Nazi Germany have to do with this?

I am referring directly to the Nazi capitulation...it's the precursor to all this. What happened weeks later?

[Smokey]

I am referring directly to the Nazi capitulation...it's the precursor to all this. What happened weeks later?

To tell you the truth, I don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

I told you to post only when sober :D

[Cloth Ears]

As an Australian who has attempted to work out the US medical system through print and online media, I remain completely confused.
Here in Oz our public health system is paid for by a tax called the 'Medicare Levy' which is 1.5% of taxable income. Everybody pays it unless you have income less than about AUS$6,000 a year. Everybody is covered. If you earn more than AUS$100,000 a year you must take out private medical insurance and if you don't you have to pay a 'Medicare Surcharge' (which ends up being more than the insurance).
Therefore the public system only looks after people who can't afford medical insurance which keeps costs down. Your employer has nothing to do with your private medical needs or insurance. Therefore if you lose your job you don't lose your cover.
From the other side of the Pacific the American system seems very selfish. For a country with such a large Christian following it astounds me that you seem to ignore the bits of the Bible that relate to helping the poor and disadvantaged.
When I have travelled in the U.S. I see something that you don't see here in OZ - beggars!
For the richest country in the world - what is your problem with charity and chipping in to help???

[thekid]

Deal with it. I called it as I see it. You asked for it, you got it.

Bullshiite. Your post was a cute little one-liner designed to trash the previous administration. At least be man enough to admit it.

No it was not a cute little one-liner designed to trash the previous administration it was stating a fact. In the Summer and Fall of 2008 the sitting Treasury Secretary of a GOP administration called in the heads of the major banks and together with the Fed Chairman and others came up with the TARP program;

"On October 14, 2008, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson and President Bush separately announced revisions in the TARP program. The Treasury announced their intention to buy senior preferred stock and warrants in the nine largest American banks."

"On December 19, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program he personally deems necessary to avert the financial crisis, and declared Section 102 to be nonbinding. This has allowed President Bush to extend the use of TARP funds to support the auto industry, a move supported by the United Auto Workers."

I don't seem to recall people running around screaming socialism when a GOP president was doing this.

These moves were supported on a largely bi-partisan basis because members of both parties saw the need to do so and wrongly or rightly acted together to pass legislation that protected Wall St under the guise of helping Joe Six-Pack. When it comes to Health Care some of these same politicians are screaming socialism and wasteful spending. This to me is total hypocrisy and their (and apparently your) approach to health care "reform" is to use it as a policy device to promote a politics as usual agenda-lower taxes-tort reform etc. It is no different than what the Dems did during the recovery spending bills when they loaded it with pork for most of their traditional causes.

The very thing you complain about with the bank bailout is exacty what in many ways is going on in Health Care. Private Health Care companies rake in huge profits taking in premiums of the avergae American. When it becomes too costly to do so they raise premiums or deny coverage which eventually leads to that same average American's health care eventually being subsidized by the taxpayer in the form of Medicaid/Medicare payments. So can't the following quote about the banking system also apply to the current health care system?

" This is essentially privatized profits and socialized losses. Is this any way to run a country?"

[markw]

Your words:

"These moves were supported on a largely bi-partisan basis because members of both parties saw the need to do so and wrongly or rightly acted together to pass legislation that protected Wall St under the guise of helping Joe Six-Pack"

So, you still want to blame it totally on Bush and company, eh?

That was before the greed came through and the bonus' went out. Likewise, the bank's way of saying thanks to all the nice taxpayers is ti hit Joe Sixpack with tons of new fees and regulation changes that cost him more every time he turns around. Of course none of this became evident until the new guy took over.

Now that it'sapparant to all, what has he done about it? All I see is stuff where Joe will have to sacrifice his alrady stretched resources and the rich get richer. Until I see some action to help the working man, not just the rich guy, I just have to think that he's just the same old thing in a new suit. He knows which side his bread is buttered on.

I'll tell ya what. I'll repeat and paraphrase something I said earlier, hopefully so you can better understand it: This isn't a red vs. blue issue, it's a green vs Joe Sixpack issue, and I don't see where ole' Joe has any representation, either before or now.

So, this ain't a zoo. When you go flinging poo, you can expect it to be flung back at you.

[GMichael]

(Mike walks in and sees all the mud flinging around the room, shakes his head and turns to the door)

Business as usual I see. Maybe next year.

[Feanor]

...
From the other side of the Pacific the American system seems very selfish. For a country with such a large Christian following it astounds me that you seem to ignore the bits of the Bible that relate to helping the poor and disadvantaged.
When I have travelled in the U.S. I see something that you don't see here in OZ - beggars!
For the richest country in the world - what is your problem with charity and chipping in to help???

American church attendance is among the highest in the world. The area of highest church attendance is the south and lower mid-west sometimes called the "Bible Belt". Not entirely coincidentally, IMO, this area has seen a shift in the last 40 years of so stronger and stronger support for the Republican Party. In the same interval the Republican Party has become more and more doctrinaire with respect to right-wing economic ideology and conservative social ideals.

Not to tar all devout Christians with the same brush, but a high proportion of these Bible Belt Christians are actually not: they are modern-day Pharisees. As the Biblical Pharisees, they stressing their supposed personal virtues, ("Thank you, God, that I am not as other men"), and the letter of the law over charity and concern for others. If you have any Christian background, you will recall that Jesus condemned the Pharisees as hypocrites.

[nightflier]

I am referring directly to the Nazi capitulation...it's the precursor to all this. What happened weeks later?

One SOB of a hangover from all the partying?

[nightflier]

For the richest country in the world - what is your problem with charity and chipping in to help???

Not to beat the same drum as everyone else, but maybe an explanation is in order. To begin, Americans give more to charity than any other Western nation. The difference is that it is voluntary rather than through taxes. Ever since that infamous tea party, Americans have had a bit of a problem with taxes. (It's actually quite ironic that Americans now spend more on taxes than any other Western nation, but I digress). For better or for worse, our country is based on the fundamental belief that the individual, not the government, knows better what to do with the money that that individual earns. We believe that by doing what is best for the individual, that this then benefits society as a whole. It all started with this poignant little book called An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

I think this goes a long way in explaining why we have a bit of a problem with a government-run healthcare system - it goes against every fiber of our being. Essentially, it is again one way that the government is telling us what to do with our money. Our track-record with letting the government do things with our money isn't that good of late (bailing out AIG comes to mind). For many Americans, the only reason that individualism isn't working and spreading a thousand points of light to every dark corner is because it is hampered by socialist influences. If it were just left alone, in a completely deregulated free-market environment (no taxes, no government, no military entanglements... just ref. Ron Paul, and you'll get the idea...) then the invisible hand would ensure that there would be no beggars, no sick, no abortions, no foreclosures, no medicaire crisis, no Iraq war, no hunger, no terrrists, no oil embargoes, no bogeymen, and on down the yellow brick road....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As an Australian who has attempted to work out the US medical system through print and online media, I remain completely confused.

Yeah, so are we...


Here in Oz our public health system is paid for by a tax called the 'Medicare Levy' which is 1.5% of taxable income. Everybody pays it unless you have income less than about AUS$6,000 a year. Everybody is covered. If you earn more than AUS$100,000 a year you must take out private medical insurance and if you don't you have to pay a 'Medicare Surcharge' (which ends up being more than the insurance).
Therefore the public system only looks after people who can't afford medical insurance which keeps costs down. Your employer has nothing to do with your private medical needs or insurance. Therefore if you lose your job you don't lose your cover.
From the other side of the Pacific the American system seems very selfish. For a country with such a large Christian following it astounds me that you seem to ignore the bits of the Bible that relate to helping the poor and disadvantaged.
When I have travelled in the U.S. I see something that you don't see here in OZ - beggars!
For the richest country in the world - what is your problem with charity and chipping in to help???

While I agree with much of what you state here, Australia has it own issues that prevents it from taking the moral high ground. Your treatment of the Indigenous people would be one of them. Our beggars pale next to that.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

American church attendance is among the highest in the world. The area of highest church attendance is the south and lower mid-west sometimes called the "Bible Belt". Not entirely coincidentally, IMO, this area has seen a shift in the last 40 years of so stronger and stronger support for the Republican Party. In the same interval the Republican Party has become more and more doctrinaire with respect to right-wing economic ideology and conservative social ideals.

Not to tar all devout Christians with the same brush, but a high proportion of these Bible Belt Christians are actually not: they are modern-day Pharisees. As the Biblical Pharisees, they stressing their supposed personal virtues, ("Thank you, God, that I am not as other men"), and the letter of the law over charity and concern for others. If you have any Christian background, you will recall that Jesus condemned the Pharisees as hypocrites.

$100 to Feanor for this!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think this goes a long way in explaining why we have a bit of a problem with a government-run healthcare system - it goes against every fiber of our being.

Unfortunately greed goes against every fiber of my being. We have seen what the private sector has done, now it is time for some government intervention to balance this out.



Essentially, it is again one way that the government is telling us what to do with our money. Our track-record with letting the government do things with our money isn't that good of late (bailing out AIG comes to mind).

The government is in charge of Medicare, and I have yet to hear one senior complain about it. What I am hearing is seniors saying keep the government out of my medicare. I know I am alone in this, but I would hate to see how our economic condition would have played out if we didn't bail them out. From what I heard, it would have been an economic catastrophy.



For many Americans, the only reason that individualism isn't working and spreading a thousand points of light to every dark corner is because it is hampered by socialist influences.

Anyone who believes this is out of their crazy minds. It wasn't socialism that drained $33 trillion dollars out of the American economy these last two years, it was unregulated greed out of control, and a dose of entitlement to boot.



If it were just left alone, in a completely deregulated free-market environment (no taxes, no government, no military entanglements... just ref. Ron Paul, and you'll get the idea...) then the invisible hand would ensure that there would be no beggars, no sick, no abortions, no foreclosures, no medicaire crisis, no Iraq war, no hunger, no terrrists, no oil embargoes, no bogeymen, and on down the yellow brick road....

The name of this kool-aid had to be delusion.

[nightflier]

Whew! I was afraid everyone was wandering off to the emerald palace.

[thekid]

Your words:

I'll tell ya what. I'll repeat and paraphrase something I said earlier, hopefully so you can better understand it: This isn't a red vs. blue issue, it's a green vs Joe Sixpack issue, and I don't see where ole' Joe has any representation, either before or now.

That has been my point through predominantly through this whole d@#n thread!!

What I have been reacting to is that people who are quick to point out the shortcoming of the current administration seemingly have a short memory when it comes to the past administration or have been quoting sources with an agenda directed towards a political position rather than the issue of health care.

There is very little difference between the GOP and Dems in regards to serving the monied interests and that is again why we are facing gridlock in D.C. These proposed health care Bills are not reform but an expansion of benefits and reallocation of existing resources. Both of these are laudable goals (I agree with alot of what Cloth Ears posted) but we also need to address cost containment. Which neither side is making a serious effort at doing. All that was done this Summer was that members of both parties have made up issues not in the Bills or ignored things that are so that they could further their political agendas.

[markw]

That has been my point through predominantly through this whole d@#n thread!!

What I have been reacting to is that people who are quick to point out the shortcoming of the current administration seemingly have a short memory when it comes to the past administration or have been quoting sources with an agenda directed towards a political position rather than the issue of health care.

There is very little difference between the GOP and Dems in regards to serving the monied interests and that is again why we are facing gridlock in D.C. These proposed health care Bills are not reform but an expansion of benefits and reallocation of existing resources. Both of these are laudable goals (I agree with alot of what Cloth Ears posted) but we also need to address cost containment. Which neither side is making a serious effort at doing. All that was done this Summer was that members of both parties have made up issues not in the Bills or ignored things that are so that they could further their political agendas.Please note the following from post 57, posted on the 23rd.


Like it or not, both sides are feeding off the trough and neither cares about the common guy. They say they do to get elected and fool a lot of people, but remember, this is a republic, not a democracy.

Those in the "in crowd" have more than what they want and need and their only goal is preserving that. They won't give anything up personally but always expect their lessors to do the sacrificing.

We've seen this with the banking and finance industry.
Who really sacrificed anything real, aside from the lowest people on the rung, the common man who bought the houses? I do believe that those above who were instrumental in creating this mess still got their obscene bonus', no?

Do you expect any different from the medical industry?

If progress is to be made here it will only be when the ruling class is forced to use the same health plan as joe sixpack.

So, unless the veiled intent of this thread was to instigate yet another pissing contest, why not concentrate on what's wrong with the health system and how to correct it.
So perhaps now you understand why I responded like I did to your post 126, yesterday, which sure to me looks a cheap shot from out of the blue.


Not that is related to this topic but you do know the bank bailout was engineered and recommended by a GOP administration...... so it is a little ironic that thesame supporters of that Administration are screaming socialism at the current Administration when it comes to reforming health care.

Now, for the most part you've been pretty up and up while others try to add to the piss level here by dragging religion into this, which has no bearing at all on this matter except to publicly disparage something they disagree with in order to keep up the piss count.

That's why your post yesterday drew the response it did.

capice?

[Feanor]

$100 to Feanor for this!

How about a greenie?!! Some anonymous toad gave me a red one for that insight.

[02audionoob]

American church attendance is among the highest in the world. The area of highest church attendance is the south and lower mid-west sometimes called the "Bible Belt". Not entirely coincidentally, IMO, this area has seen a shift in the last 40 years of so stronger and stronger support for the Republican Party.

The stronghold the Republican party gained on the deep South is not related to Christians. It's the demise of the conservative Southern Democrat brought about by party realignment. The political ideology of Southerners was conservative half a century ago and still is today. It's just that those conservatives used to call themselves Democrats and now they call themselves Republicans.

I'm not saying this to jump in the fray...just reporting on how it is. The Democrats in the Texas state government were among the most conservative politicians in the country when I was a youngster. They've been increasingly replaced by Republicans at some levels, but the politics haven't really changed. Now when there's a Democrat in a high position in Austin it's generally a liberal. Back then, that wasn't necessarily the case.

[thekid]

How about a greenie?!! Some anonymous toad gave me a red one for that insight.

If I could ever figure out how to give those little chiclets I would have given you and several other members tons of them for all the help you all have given me since I stumbled into this hobby.... :smile5:

[Smokey]

How about a greenie?!! Some anonymous toad gave me a red one for that insight.

Don’t feel too bad Feaner. Somebody not only gave me a red one for posting this thread, but they also called me ignorant too :D

But it was well worth it as this has turned into an informative discussion thanks to all posters, views and counter views, and some that actually work in the field. And having opinions from Australia, Europe and Canada in the mix make it priceless.

[Cloth Ears]

Not to beat the same drum as everyone else, but maybe an explanation is in order. To begin, Americans give more to charity than any other Western nation.
I'm not sure whether you mean charity within the U.S or foreign aid.
If it is foreign aid then it depends on whether you count the total amount provided or the amount per capita. On a per capita basis you're actually one of the most miserly nations on the planet. If it is within the U.S. then it is clearly not enough to keep beggars off your streets.


Ever since that infamous tea party, Americans have had a bit of a problem with taxes.
My understanding of the history of the Boston Tea Party was the objection by colonists because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives (i.e. Government). Not taxes per se.


(It's actually quite ironic that Americans now spend more on taxes than any other Western nation, but I digress).
Not true - try living and paying taxes in any Scandinavian country! What is true is that you spend more on arms than any other nation.


For many Americans, the only reason that individualism isn't working and spreading a thousand points of light to every dark corner is because it is hampered by socialist influences. If it were just left alone, in a completely deregulated free-market environment (no taxes, no government, no military entanglements... just ref. Ron Paul, and you'll get the idea...) then the invisible hand would ensure that there would be no beggars, no sick, no abortions, no foreclosures, no medicaire crisis, no Iraq war, no hunger, no terrrists, no oil embargoes, no bogeymen, and on down the yellow brick road....
Not quite sure what you meant here - anarchy perhaps???

The view of the individuals right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is one shared by Australians even though we don't have a declaration stating such. We like to think we are distant cousins far across the sea who have always stood by the American people in war and peace.
So don't shoot me - I just have a hard time understanding your rejection of medical support for all Americans. I thought that was what a universal health care system was supposed to do.

Kind regards from Oz!

[Cloth Ears]

While I agree with much of what you state here, Australia has it own issues that prevents it from taking the moral high ground. Your treatment of the Indigenous people would be one of them. Our beggars pale next to that.
Not trying to take the moral high ground at all Terrence.
Both Australia and America have much to be ashamed about when it comes to the treatment of our indigenous populations. I dare say an Australian Aborigine and an American Indian would have quite a lively discussion about who's colonists were the biggest land thieves and murderers! But we have tried to repair the sins of our (fore)fathers with varying degrees of success.
And you're right, all the beggars I saw (and there were lots of them) were pale, drawn and desperate - the sort of people Jesus tried to help.

But this is about universal health care and not historical sins. Yes, Governments (both yours and ours) suffer from inefficiency and incompetence but that should not be the excuse for not providing universal coverage. If you can find a totally private enterprise mechanism that provides universal coverage then go with that. But invariably Governments have to intervene to avoid rapacious profiteering by the medical industry which after all is one business that is destined to grow both during and after the GFC.

Cheers from Oz.
:)

[thekid]

Don’t feel too bad Feaner. Somebody not only gave me a red one for posting this thread, but they also called me ignorant too :D

But it was well worth it as this has turned into an informative discussion thanks to all posters, views and counter views, and some that actually work in the field. And having opinions from Australia, Europe and Canada in the mix make it priceless.

Smokes- Don't worry- it was great idea for a thread since health care is dominating the news. I can't always be posting to talk about my latest $5 pair of speakers...... :D

[Feanor]

The stronghold the Republican party gained on the deep South is not related to Christians. It's the demise of the conservative Southern Democrat brought about by party realignment. The political ideology of Southerners was conservative half a century ago and still is today. It's just that those conservatives used to call themselves Democrats and now they call themselves Republicans.

...
You're right, of course. Christianity does not cause Republicanism.

Both the continued religiousity of the Bible Belt and the switch from "yellow dog" Democrates to Republicans are caused by narrow-minded, self-righteous conservative values founded on the American mythology of self-reliance -- and as well on an Old Testiment-biased, Pharisaic misinterpretation of Christianity.

The triumph of the Republican Party, for most of the 20th century a party of big business and elitists, has been to broaden its appeal to social conservatives whose inherent interests have little in common with those of the former group.

[ForeverAutumn]

Cheers from Oz.
:)

Cloth Ears,
I am enjoying your contributions to this thread. Your points are well made and well thought out. You seem to be able to stick to the facts and avoid some of the tangents that others on this board have a hard time avoiding. You seem like an intelligent man (I am assuming the 'man' part since I can't see you).

Welcome to AR. I hope you stick around.

Cheers from Canada!
FA.

[Feanor]

...
As the Biblical Pharisees, they stressing their supposed personal virtues, ("Thank you, God, that I am not as other men"), and the letter of the law over charity and concern for others. If you have any Christian background, you will recall that Jesus condemned the Pharisees as hypocrites.

By the way, I ought to apologize to Jews and those of Jewish background on behalf of the New Testement. The New Testement gives the Pharisees, that is, the Pharisee religious faction of Biblical Palestine, a worse rep than they really deserve.

Modern-day Judaism would not exist were it not the the Pharisee faction whose religious ideas were relatively progressive and which permited the Judaism to survive the Roman diaspora.

However I do agree with Jesus in his condemnation of the type of persons whom he equated, a bit unjustly, with the Pharisees.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I'm confused. Is this the Islam thread or the healthcare thread? I can't see through all the bullsh!t. :confused:

[ForeverAutumn]

I'm confused. Is this the Islam thread or the healthcare thread? I can't see through all the bullsh!t. :confused:

Neither. It's actually a movie review. :lol:

[GMichael]

Neither. It's actually a movie review. :lol:

Lex? Is that you buddy?

[3LB]

Before pushing a mandatory plan, I think we would be better served by looking into cost containment first. Where, exactly, are the extra costs we deal with coming from? More to the point, who is profiting from them?

Once that's been accomplished, I'll gladly back a well thought out "public" option but until that's done, all it's going to do is put more money into the pockets of those who already profit too much from the current system.
Nail, meet head. There is a sentiment in this country (a liberal one) that reform isn't more important than getting everyone free healthcare, then we'll hammer out all the imperfections later. Implementing a national healthcare system before solving the problem you just pointed out is a recipe for disaster.

As I pointed out before, there are already ways a person can seek public assistance for just about any need, especially medical, especially if income is a problem. Its harder for the middle-income bracket to afford medical care than it is for the lower-income bracket. This is because of the problem MarkW already described.



On a related issue, I see that thanks to our taxpayer money, the banks are well on the way to making record profits again and the biggies will be getting huge bonus' again. Too bad they don't have to put it back when they make bad investments. They can come to us for a handout...

This is essentially privatized profits and socialized losses. Is this any way to run a country?well, it might not be the best way to run a country, but if I ran my finances the same way, I'd wind up in prison.

[nightflier]

I'm not sure whether you mean charity within the U.S or foreign aid.
If it is foreign aid then it depends on whether you count the total amount provided or the amount per capita. On a per capita basis you're actually one of the most miserly nations on the planet. If it is within the U.S. then it is clearly not enough to keep beggars off your streets.

I meant foreign aid, total provided. And regarding domestic charity, the vast majority is going to religious institutions (I'm including tithes in this), for better or for worse.


My understanding of the history of the Boston Tea Party was the objection by colonists because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives (i.e. Government). Not taxes per se.

Yes, but there was also an underlying current in much of the published press, pamphlets and literature of the time (as much as was slipped by the Brits), representing a much more modern libertarian (that is, American Libertarian) stance questioning the need for taxes altogether. Many of the horror stories reported contrasted the taxes paid by colonists and the dearth of services received in return. Ironically, the popular criticism was that Britain was using the money to fight wars in Europe.


Not true - try living and paying taxes in any Scandinavian country! What is true is that you spend more on arms than any other nation.

I have. And it's still true. When you add up all the taxes we pay in addition to our income taxes, per capita, we pay more.


The view of the individuals right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is one shared by Australians even though we don't have a declaration stating such. We like to think we are distant cousins far across the sea who have always stood by the American people in war and peace.

I agree that both Canadians and Australians have stood by us and are standing still standing by us in Afghanistan and other places around the globe. However, your British ancestry (politically speaking) established a very different dynamic between governement and the individual. Ours stems from a very abrupt and violent split from Britain (aided by other world events, yes, I know) and a longer time apart, so to speak. During that time, our concept of individualism, especially as influenced by life on the frontier, grew in a different direction from yours (even though we do share many similarities there too). As an example, our rigid stance on having no foreign entanglements, is strikingly different from what you experienced as subjects of a British empire, and then as friendly participants with Britain in foreign affairs, after independence.


So don't shoot me - I just have a hard time understanding your rejection of medical support for all Americans. I thought that was what a universal health care system was supposed to do.

Shoot? I don't even own a gun, although that's a pretty unpopular perspective here as well.


Kind regards from Oz!

Hence my references to Baum's novel. I was being a bit facetious, I hope that was noticed.

[Cloth Ears]

Thanks for your comments ForeverAutumn.

Canadians & Australians are very similar in their views and definitely not as 'loud' as our American cousins. And yes - I am a male of the species!
Cheers
CE

[Cloth Ears]

Hey nightflier, thanks for the clarification.

"Well I was responding tongue-in-cheek, but let's discuss..." - sorry I'm a bit slow sometimes!

Regarding foreign aid - my point is that with 300 million people as opposed to our 20 million your capacity to generate funds through taxation and charity should not be measured by the total amount, but rather on a per capita basis. This gives a more accurate measure of the contribution of the individual (be they generous or selfish) and further, allows a comparison of relative contribution rates of charity, taxes, etc. When this view is taken you can see that some rather small countries (by population) really do punch above their weight.


Ironically, the popular criticism was that Britain was using the money to fight wars in Europe.
Yes it is ironic that the only thing that has changed is that the U.S. is using the money to fight wars in Europe and elsewhere! Here are some figures on your countries relative spend on the military.

Rank Country Spending ($ b.) World Share (%)
— World Total 1464.0 100
1 United States 607.0 41.5
2 China 84.9[54] 5.8
3 France 65.7 4.5
4 United Kingdom 65.3 4.5
5 Russian Federation 58.6[54] 4.0

So why would it be so bad to fund a universal health care system by taking from your military budget and applying it to your health care budget? Quite clearly you already have the funds to do that without raising taxes. Maybe a nuke less nurture more approach would be more humanitarian (and dare I say Christian).


When you add up all the taxes we pay in addition to our income taxes, per capita, we pay more.
Well I suppose it depends on were you get your information from. (Do you have a reference I could view supporting your statement?). I was referring to tax as a percentage of GDP. I use GDP because it represents the 'wealth or earnings' created that is then distributed amongst a population via the country's particular financial system. (The fairness of this distribution system is another topic altogether)! Here is a link to the figures stated in the "Economist" magazine which supports my position.
http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12480352


As an example, our rigid stance on having no foreign entanglements, is strikingly different from what you experienced as subjects of a British empire, and then as friendly participants with Britain in foreign affairs, after independence.
Well it is quite clear the rigid American stance has turned 180 degrees! Also Australians get dragged into foreign entanglements with America even though we are not subjects of the U.S. empire - or are we?


IShoot? I don't even own a gun, although that's a pretty unpopular perspective here as well.
We don't have a right in Australia to 'bear arms' as you do. Individual possession was banned here in 1997. Mind you we only have the cuddly Koala bear. No Grizzleys in this part of the world.


Hence my references to Baum's novel. I was being a bit facetious, I hope that was noticed.
I told you I was a bit slow - certainly no Wizard of Oz!!

In summary - America has all the funds it needs to provide every American with a comprehensive and world class universal health care system. You have the infrastructure, expertise, technology and population base to support this fundamental social objective.
It appears as an outsider that all you need to do is reassess your national priorities and spending without increasing the tax burden on anyone. The easiest way seems to be by moving funds from your death (and destruction) budget to your life (and health) budget.
I wish you every success in achieving this end.

Kind Regards
Cloth Ears
:smilewinkgrin:

[blackraven]

With my being an emergency medicine doctor I've been following this post in the back ground and trying to stay out of it. I would like to make a few points about some and I mean some of the problems and cost of our health care system presently and problems with universal health care WHICH I SUPPORT..

First off, our system is not that bad. If you have a medical problem, you can go to any emergency dept and get treatment, regardless of your ability to pay. The is a law called EMTALA and you cannot turn any one away for any reason period! we are not even allowed to ask if you have insurance or the abiltiy to pay. The government knows this and thats why nothing has been done sooner about health care because the emergency dept is the saftey net of health care in this country. If your having a heart attack and have no money, you will get state of the art care. You don't even have to pay. Last year our hospital collected only 28% of charges in our dept. That is one of the reasons that health care is so expensive because collections are low and the bills need to be paid. So prices are inflated to make up the cost of doing business so that the hospital can stay afloat and pay its bills and its employee's. Some one has to pay for the people that are not paying their bills.

Defensive Medicine- despite what the experts say about it being only a $60 billion dollar problem, I would bet my life savings that it is much higher. Every doctor I know practices defensive medicine several times a day for fear of missing something and harming a patient and being sued. That threat is always hanging over Dr's heads and unecessary tests such as CT scan, MRI's and Ultrasounds are ordered. Hell, people come in now and demand unecessary test's because of wrong information from a friend, relative, internet or nurse care line. The lawyers are playing this down because its money out of their pocket if major malpractice reform is passed. (as if they dont make enough money, many make $200-400/hr, but their in it to help the public). And if you don't think Dr's are worried about being sued, your wrong. There have been many Dr's that have commited suicide or gotten divorced because they lost a nusance suit when they were just trying to help a patient.

Product liability is another problem. Thats why drugs and new technologies cost so much.

End of life care is another big expense. In fact it is where most of our health care dollars are spent- the last 6 months of life (and this is a big issue with universal healthcare that no one wants to touch because it it political suicide if the right thing is done to limit end of life care for terminal illnesses) . Every one wants to live forever and families can't let loved ones die with dignity.

Every one wants to feel good all the time and few people know any basic healthcare concenring colds, fever, sprains, injuries and such. If they started teaching this now in grade school and every couple of years, in 10-15years we would see a decline in Dr. visits.

I could go on and on and delve into other area's but I wont.

As far as UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE is concerned, I am a supporter of it. I think we need to take care of people as a society, but health care is NOT A GOD GIVEN RIGHT. It is just the right thing to do morally. The problems facing Universal care is immense. First off, who's going to pay for it. They way medicine is practiced in this country and peoples expectations of medical care are going to have to change because we can't afford to pay for it in its present state. The Government will dictate to some extent how we practice medicine whether we like it or not. We will all be handing over 50% of our paycheck to the federal govt to pay for universal coverage. Your all kidding yourself if you think that this is not the case. I know some people who have been dealing with the issue with the gov't and its a multi trillion dollar issue that will break the back of the country. The Clinton's tried to tackle this issue and failed because of the cost among other reasons.

Currently, increasing taxes on the rich or top 1% of the earners (people making over $250,000 per year) will not pay for health care so the money has to come from some where.

People will not like the changes that will be made to the quality of care. It will go down as payments to Dr's are decreased. It will take longer to get in to see specialists. End of life care will have to be rationed. (for example, one of my partners is Canadian, his 82 y/o father who lived in Winnepeg had a heart attack. He was given a clot busting drug to try and abort the attack. They refused to do a life saving heart catheterization and angioplasty {which would have been done here in the U.S. because in people 80 and older the risk of having life threating intracranial bleeding is much higher in this age group} because of the cost. Well, needless to say he died of an intracranial bleed.) The clot busting drug cost $1,500 and a heart cath cost about $10,000-15,000.

We also run the risk of going broke and ending up wit a poor system like Austrailia's. They used to be a private system, but became a gov't run system. No they have one of the worst health care systems in the world. I won't go into the specifics about the system and its problems.

With all that being said. If we take our time and don't rush this change to a universal sytem through like Obama is trying to do in less than a year in office. We may be able to come up with a good plan to cover every one or at least have a good 2 payer system.

[Cloth Ears]

We also run the risk of going broke and ending up wit a poor system like Austrailia's. Broke! - heh you have a bad recession going on - we don't. Also you're already almost broke - just look at your deficit!


They used to be a private system, but became a gov't run system.No they have one of the worst health care systems in the world.
The worst in the world eh! Now that's a sweeping statement. (It's actually a private/public system that is sadly underfunded but at least it exists).


I won't go into the specifics about the system and its problems.
Gee - I wish you would - at least to support your sweeping statement.


Currently, increasing taxes on the rich or top 1% of the earners (people making over $250,000 per year) will not pay for health care so the money has to come from some where.
See my previous post for a worthwhile suggestion.

Good luck friends - you're going to need it.

CE
;)

[thekid]

Blackraven

Some good points and thank you for bringing some perspective from the medical community. I think one example you give cuts to the heart of the issue (no pun intended) regardless of what type of system we have. You used the term rationed when describing the what happened in the case of your partners 82-year old father and implied that the under the Canadian system the treatment given was the treatment chosen because of costs. Assuming that everything you say is correct what "reforms" do you think would be possible to narrow the gap between the $1500 treatment and the $10,000-$15,000 treatment? Is it possible through various reforms to be able to reduce the cost of (I am not saying make it equal) of the more expensive treatment to a level were it does not become such an obvious CBA decision resulting in the type "rationing" you described? Because IMO if you could do that then you can talk about expanded coverage(s) for everyone.

As I have stated the only thing that is really being debated is how do we get everyone into a system that produces the result you just described and IMO that is not reform just an expansion of benefits. To me reform implies change and all that is being discussed now is a rearrangement of the existing furniture.

[Feanor]

...
Yes, but there was also an underlying current in much of the published press, pamphlets and literature of the time (as much as was slipped by the Brits), representing a much more modern libertarian (that is, American Libertarian) stance questioning the need for taxes altogether. Many of the horror stories reported contrasted the taxes paid by colonists and the dearth of services received in return. Ironically, the popular criticism was that Britain was using the money to fight wars in Europe.
...

I agree that both Canadians and Australians have stood by us and are standing still standing by us in Afghanistan and other places around the globe. However, your British ancestry (politically speaking) established a very different dynamic between governement and the individual. Ours stems from a very abrupt and violent split from Britain (aided by other world events, yes, I know) and a longer time apart, so to speak. During that time, our concept of individualism, especially as influenced by life on the frontier, grew in a different direction from yours (even though we do share many similarities there too).
....

The way the text books in Canada tell it, the British taxes on the colonies were to pay for the French & Indian wars that were largely fought on the colonists behalf. So the colonists, by rejecting the taxes, were arguably showing ingratitude.

In fact the American Revolution (War of Independance) was a bourgeois i.e. middle class, revolution for which the stamp taxes and tea tax were merely a pretext. It really had a lot more to do with trade restrictions that affected mainly the wealthest classes of the American colonists. Wealthy Republicans today may truly be seen the decendants of these wealthy colonists. Bear in mind that many of these people were slaver owners and most felt strongly that only property owners ought to vote or had any reason to want to.

Yet it's certainly true that the "frontier" played huge role in developing the American sensibility. The mythology of self-reliance and "rugged individualism" evolved from the circumstances that affected all classes of Americans from before the War of Independance until well into the 20th century. The frontier days began to end as cheap land became scarce in the West. But In fact it might be said that the frontier days didn't entirely end until the US became increasingly reliance on foreign resources, above all oil, after WWII.

Its fair to say that both Canada and Australia developed a similar frontier ethos, but perhaps because of the continuing British influence, it had lessor and less persistent impact on the psyches of Canucks and Aussies.

However the frontier days are well and truly over for the US. Consequently one must ask whether Americans will continue be well served by the a frontier ethos.

[bobsticks]

One SOB of a hangover from all the partying?

LMao!!!....yup, yup...and a lotta ee-eerrr, ee-errr, squeeky beadsprings sounds as the largest generation of Americans was born....and for decades upon decades nobody ever spoke up about the obvious need for socialized healthcare...and now that that oldest, greatest generation is getting ready to face the twighlight and doesn't want to go gentle into that good night, the rest of us are expected to pay for it.

Within five years there will be more Americans not working than working. That means no employer-covered healthcare.

My objection to the current referendums presented by either side is that no plan is complete enough, no plan encapsulates the scope of the problem. Until there is a plan that involves an action plan against illegal immigration, a plan that affects true legal reform (specificaly against frivolous class-action lawsuits), and a plan that recognizes the need to extend the age limits for Social Security I'll never support any of the half-measures that are being put forth....

...Lotta good points, lotta good perspectives and, certainly, some excellent perspectives from members of this forum from other countries...but this current American perspective is unique...and disturbingly so, because the numbers add up badly...and there's no way mathematically to make it work out...

[GMichael]

Wow. The more I read here, the more it sounds like all Americans are scumbags. Past present and future. Not for nothing, but I live here. We're not as bad as we're being painted in this thread.

[bobsticks]

Broke! - heh you have a bad recession going on - we don't. Also you're already almost broke - just look at your deficit!


The worst in the world eh! Now that's a sweeping statement. (It's actually a private/public system that is sadly underfunded but at least it exists).


Gee - I wish you would - at least to support your sweeping statement.


See my previous post for a worthwhile suggestion.

Good luck friends - you're going to need it.

CE
;)


CE, I love the fact that you are posting...often and voraciously. I've read the description of your country's health plan, I've read Feanor's experience, and I respect both. The problem is we, in America. are facing demographics that are astoundingly different from the candygram and get-well card that y'all have embraced.

I'm glad that you all had the prescience to define the problem and find workable solutions within your existing systems. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that under the current set of circumstances we can accomplish the same feats...

[bobsticks]

Wow. The more I read here, the more it sounds like all Americans are scumbags. Past present and future. Not for nothing, but I live here. We're not as bad as we're being painted in this thread.


HEY?!?!... I represent that comment!!....

[Feanor]

Wow. The more I read here, the more it sounds like all Americans are scumbags. Past present and future. Not for nothing, but I live here. We're not as bad as we're being painted in this thread.

There's the danger, GM -- to reject all criticism of the US as anti-American bigotry.

The US is a great nation and American are not scumbags -- however the US is not above criticism. The US and Americans are they way they are because they have a history, but the world changes and Americans must ask themselves how they ought to respond to it.

[Feanor]

HEY?!?!... I represent that comment!!....

You, 'Sticks, are a conflicted person. :2:

[bobsticks]

You, 'Sticks, are a conflicted person. :2:

Absolutely my friend....and my conflict is such that it informs the American experience. We are completely and perfectly not beyond criticism...and because of the circumstances and the global implications I think that it is beyond crucial that we view this, the most important debate of our times, with the utmost severity.

You're right, Bill Bailey, I'm conflicted because there are multiple points of view within this line of argument...all need to be respected but all need to reconcile a certain degree of acquiescence in the ultimate search for a solution...

[ForeverAutumn]

First off, our system is not that bad. If you have a medical problem, you can go to any emergency dept and get treatment, regardless of your ability to pay. The is a law called EMTALA and you cannot turn any one away for any reason period! we are not even allowed to ask if you have insurance or the abiltiy to pay.

I didn't know this. It must put a terrible drain on your emergency room resources. I imagine that many people who don't have insurance must go to the emergency room for treatement of non-urgent ailments just to get treatment.



People will not like the changes that will be made to the quality of care. It will go down as payments to Dr's are decreased. It will take longer to get in to see specialists.

That is our experience in Canada. Although urgent and life-threatening cases are given the highest priority and don't have to wait. But waiting months to see a specialist and weeks for routine tests is the norm. Heck, I have to book my annual mammogram at least a month in advance...but I don't have to pay for it. And if there was any sign of a lump or any abnormalty, I would be booked for a test in days.


End of life care will have to be rationed. (for example, one of my partners is Canadian, his 82 y/o father who lived in Winnepeg had a heart attack. He was given a clot busting drug to try and abort the attack. They refused to do a life saving heart catheterization and angioplasty {which would have been done here in the U.S. because in people 80 and older the risk of having life threating intracranial bleeding is much higher in this age group} because of the cost. Well, needless to say he died of an intracranial bleed.) The clot busting drug cost $1,500 and a heart cath cost about $10,000-15,000.

Not that I doubt what you are saying, but I'm always a little sceptical when I hear stories like this. It's quite possible that money was the motivator here, but could it also have been that risk that you bracketed? If the surgery was only $15,000 at the high end, then why didn't your collegue fly his father to Minnesota or North Dakota for treatment if the Manitoba gov't was unwilling to pay?

[GMichael]

There's the danger, GM -- to reject all criticism of the US as anti-American bigotry.


I don't see where I've done that. Maybe the danger is in thinking that anytime an American sticks up for themselves that it makes us bigots.


The US is a great nation and American are not scumbags -- however the US is not above criticism. The US and Americans are they way they are because they have a history, but the world changes and Americans must ask themselves how they ought to respond to it.

Nobody criticizes Americans more than Americans do. But I'm not sure why it goes unoticed.

[kexodusc]

LMao!!!....yup, yup...and a lotta ee-eerrr, ee-errr, squeeky beadsprings sounds as the largest generation of Americans was born....and for decades upon decades nobody ever spoke up about the obvious need for socialized healthcare...and now that that oldest, greatest generation is getting ready to face the twighlight and doesn't want to go gentle into that good night, the rest of us are expected to pay for it.

Within five years there will be more Americans not working than working. That means no employer-covered healthcare.


Hmm, the only issue I can find with your very good point is that, as the "largest generation of Americans" (I assume you mean in numbers, not in weight) ages...they're already gonna get Medicare, no? A sunk cost. Hence, minimal impact on the debate going forward, the damage is already built in.

Then way I see it, the burden of aging society is going to be passed on to the public either through taxes, or as part of of the cost of goods sold if included in ER sponsored health-care. You can argue which side is more incompetent, how many excessive mark-ups and middle-men will drive up costs vs how much inefficiency and bureaucracy the government will deliver, but it boils down to the same pile of goo and ends where it begins...a debate over fundamental philosphy...public vs private.

Continue.

[kexodusc]

Wow. The more I read here, the more it sounds like all Americans are scumbags. Past present and future. Not for nothing, but I live here. We're not as bad as we're being painted in this thread.

The Canadians I live among are very pro-USA. They just like throwing shots once in awhile in a good neighbo(u)rly way (and accept the ones that are fired back in kind). But I kinda understand where they're coming from. If we accept that every country is represented by its most public ambassadors (politicians, singers, movie stars, etc) then the rest of the world see the USA as being somewhere between Bill O'Reilly, K-Fed, and Oprah.

We're guilty of it in the US too - I have yet to meet a single Canadian say "oot" or "aboot" and the majority of the population doesn't watch hockey, but perception lingers...

Think nothing of it.

[bobsticks]

Hmm, the only issue I can find with your very good point is that, as the "largest generation of Americans" (I assume you mean in numbers, not in weight) ages...they're already gonna get Medicare, no? A sunk cost. Hence, minimal impact on the debate going forward, the damage is already built in.

Then way I see it, the burden of aging society is going to be passed on to the public either through taxes, or as part of of the cost of goods sold if included in ER sponsored health-care. You can argue which side is more incompetent, how many excessive mark-ups and middle-men will drive up costs vs how much inefficiency and bureaucracy the government will deliver, but it boils down to the same pile of goo and ends where it begins...a debate over fundamental philosphy...public vs private.

Continue.


Yes and no, my friend. Until there's legal reform how many lawsuits are gonna be seen to fruition through simple greed.

Medicare is one thing but you and I both know that it's a simple matter of mathematics. There are two pies and they have a symbiotic relationship. One, is revenue, the other is taxation...ultimately you can't pull a piece out of one without effecting the other.

[bobsticks]

We're guilty of it in the US too - I have yet to meet a single Canadian say "oot" or "aboot" and the majority of the population doesn't watch hockey, but perception lingers...

Think nothing of it.


Yeah, but you're just an average man...with average carpentry skills...and no matter what you've parlayed that into...can we really trust your perceptions? :D

[GMichael]

Yeah, but you're just an average man...with average carpentry skills...and no matter what you've parlayed that into...can we really trust your perceptions? :D

I call foul. You take that back mister. Kex is much more than just an average man.

[bobsticks]

Clearly you didn't watch Kex's video...I understand and respect your willingness to stand up for our friend...none the less...

<object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mqOkKhEwqSk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mqOkKhEwqSk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>

[GMichael]

Clearly you didn't watch Kex's video...I understand and respect your willingness to stand up for our friend...none the less...

<object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mqOkKhEwqSk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mqOkKhEwqSk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>

Duh.... OK. I think I see your point. It was behind that huge average guy right?

[Feanor]

Believe me, BR, I respect you medical knowledge. But the you paragraph below reveals issues to be explored.


...
People will not like the changes that will be made to the quality of care. It will go down as payments to Dr's are decreased. It will take longer to get in to see specialists. End of life care will have to be rationed. (for example, one of my partners is Canadian, his 82 y/o father who lived in Winnepeg had a heart attack. He was given a clot busting drug to try and abort the attack. They refused to do a life saving heart catheterization and angioplasty {which would have been done here in the U.S. because in people 80 and older the risk of having life threating intracranial bleeding is much higher in this age group} because of the cost. Well, needless to say he died of an intracranial bleed.) The clot busting drug cost $1,500 and a heart cath cost about $10,000-15,000.
...

To be sure, I don't know or fully understand the circumstances of the case in question. (For that matter perhaps you don't fully either having received the info second hand for somebody who is biased to dislike the Canadian system, likely because he is earning 2-3x as much money in the US as he would in Canada.)

Yes, I don't doubt it's true that a "heart catheterization and angioplasty" would not be sanctioned in Canada. Not merely because an 82 year life isn't worth saving, but because an operation on a person that age under those circumstances is risky and higly uncertain as to outcome. In general, (I allow I can't judge the specific case), are the chances of saving the life about the same with the clot-busting drug as with the operation given the potential trauma of the operation itself? In Canada rationality tends to prevail and there is less grasping at (expensive) straws.

The question of cost of universal healthcare vis a vis mainly private healtcare is largely specious if you are expecting the equivalent outcomes -- if you are willing to let people die because they can't pay, then fine, that's another matter. Health outcomes in Canada are as good as in the US while the cost is approx. 65%. I believe there are two reasons, (1) the cost of administration on account of a one-payor system is in fact about 1/5 of what it is in the US, and (2) because there is a rational -- as opposed to an emotional but at the same time profit-driven -- approach to deciding with which procedures are appropriate and when. Call this socialism if you will.

[kexodusc]

Yes and no, my friend. Until there's legal reform how many lawsuits are gonna be seen to fruition through simple greed.

Medicare is one thing but you and I both know that it's a simple matter of mathematics. There are two pies and they have a symbiotic relationship. One, is revenue, the other is taxation...ultimately you can't pull a piece out of one without effecting the other.

I'm not sure I'm 100% clear on where you're saying here.

[bobsticks]

You're saying that, unabated, the system would continue on with taxation taking care of the bulk of Medicade cases. I'm saying that without reform the burden upon the taxpayer....a citizen that is already burdened with picking up the costs for the uninsured, the illegals, and now the multitudunous of the under-insured....that will bankrupt the citizen...

There needs to be a reasonable compromise...one that recognises that everyone has some juice, a bit of blood, in this one...

[kexodusc]

You're saying that, unabated, the system would continue on with taxation taking care of the bulk of Medicade cases. I'm saying that without reform the burden upon the taxpayer....a citizen that is already burdened with picking up the costs for the uninsured, the illegals, and now the multitudunous of the under-insured
My friend, no, that's not quite what I was saying (or at least not what I was trying to say)...in response to your comment on the aging population now looking for a hand-out, I mentioned that above age 65 people can qualify for Medicare anyway...so for a significant portion (if not the majority) of the elderly and soon to be elderly, there's not much incentive one way or the other now. My point was made just to merley point out that I don't believe the aging population is quite the driver for public health care that you suggested it was.


...that will bankrupt the citizen..

It has not been the experience of several other countries mentioned in this thread. I don't believe it would be for the USA either, there's no excuse for it and you shouldn't demand any less. I hope people don't evaluate based on that perception.



There needs to be a reasonable compromise...one that recognises that everyone has some juice, a bit of blood, in this one...

I've seen very little in the form of funding analyses on the proposal - I'm almost afraid to ask where I could get the short, sweet version...

[markw]

Wow. The more I read here, the more it sounds like all Americans are scumbags. Past present and future. Not for nothing, but I live here. We're not as bad as we're being painted in this thread.Only if you listen to the Canadians and Aussies. There's that classic delusion of moral superiority they suffer from.

Now, this does not apply to all. Most canadians and aussies who post here are cool, but that descriptiion certainly applies to a few posters, and those to whom I'm addressing.

Of course, when you consider that both Canada and Australia have a population roughly that of Texas, and a GDP to match, they don't really have to deal in the sheer numbers that the US has to deal with. Both countries comprise what is only one American state! So, to begin with, this country has to deal with numbers of such magnitude that your government's simply could not comprehend.

Likewise, they aren't the ones the world comes crying to when problems arise. Think Marshall plan to begin with. Serbia-Herzegovina, anyone? Who was Johnny-on-the-spot when the tsunamis hit, even though the locals fired upon us? I can go on.

Hey, you could take on Africa if you're really feeling froggy. As it stands it's mostly Pakistanis and Indians doing it now as UN peacekeepers. Don't you think you could do a better job?

Not to mention that neither has a real stand-alone military. They are great as helpers, but as a stand-alone unit, they don't make it. Canada has been dependent on us for so many years that they forget that. How many big icebreakers do they have? How many subs? Remember, the northern ice is melting and the Russians are sniffing around up there contemplaing the "new" internatonal waters that just happen to contain oil that Canada now, or at least used to, claim
.
Dunno about Australia, but I can't think of them taking the forefront in anything, aside from dropping another shrimp on the barbie.

And, yes, we do appreciate them being there in times of conflict but, in reality, while we might be the policemen of the world, I guess that makes them the meter maids of the world.

As for industries, I do believe neither has any "real" large industries of their own. How many drugs have they developed, tested and manufactured in a Canadian or Aussie initiated concerns? I do believe that GM, Ford and Chrysler are American companies, no? Is Toyota a Canadian car?

Face it, you've both got bucolic lives but you tend to forget that it's the big countries that allowed that by investing their money and plants in there and providing the protection that you seem take for granted.

So, kiddies, run along and play nicely Mommy and daddy have adult matters to deal with about which you have no concept.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

CE, I love the fact that you are posting...often and voraciously. I've read the description of your country's health plan, I've read Feanor's experience, and I respect both. The problem is we, in America. are facing demographics that are astoundingly different from the candygram and get-well card that y'all have embraced.

I'm glad that you all had the prescience to define the problem and find workable solutions within your existing systems. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that under the current set of circumstances we can accomplish the same feats...

This is what I was thinking, and I could not have said this better. While CE makes some good points, I think their perspective is a little pie in the sky for my taste. Just throwing away a few nukes, and transferring the money to health care just ain't going to cut it. We have a far larger population than both Canada and Australia put together times six. We are not concentrated in a few areas of our country, but spread out all over it. Our health care started as an employee based one, theirs on a universal based one. Our health care system basically worked well until most of our larger companies went multi-national, and the insurance companies went public and became more beholden to their stockholders than to the premium payers. Our health system has gotten sick, but when it was created, it fit the situation well. It just needs a major overhaul because what worked back in the Nixon days does not work now.

This issue is far more complex than that simple transfer of capital. Universal health care, while being the ultimate goal, cannot just be carved out of the present system. Many changes in perspective of the consumer side, structural changes on the employer/employee side, and many system wide structural and resource changes have to occur before universal health care can be put in place. This is a long term goal, but what I am interested in more is the short term goals implemented until we get there.

[bobsticks]

My friend, no, that's not quite what I was saying (or at least not what I was trying to say)...in response to your comment on the aging population now looking for a hand-out, I mentioned that above age 65 people can qualify for Medicare anyway...so for a significant portion (if not the majority) of the elderly and soon to be elderly, there's not much incentive one way or the other now. My point was made just to merley point out that I don't believe the aging population is quite the driver for public health care that you suggested it was.



It has not been the experience of several other countries mentioned in this thread. I don't believe it would be for the USA either, there's no excuse for it and you shouldn't demand any less. I hope people don't evaluate based on that perception.



I've seen very little in the form of funding analyses on the proposal - I'm almost afraid to ask where I could get the short, sweet version...


Let me first and foremost say that you and I, no matter the level vitriol that may encapsulate the arguments that are had on this forum, we will not be enemies. We may harbour differing viewpoints....I believe they are from differing perspectives.....it's a complex argument....

Ultimately, what you're talking about is a taxpayer bailout of the "average" person that proposses the need for governmental auspices...

I suspect what you're not taking into account is that this is not a certis paribus argument. Wholesale change has to made, everybody has to compromise, and everyone will have to make concessions for this to work...

...lotta feeelings gonna get hurt, lotta levels of "entitlements" gonna be foregone...but that's how it is......

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Let me first and foremost say that you and I, no matter the level vitriol that may encapsulate the arguments that are had on this forum, we will not be enemies. We may harbour differing viewpoints....I believe they are from differing perspectives.....it's a complex argument....

Ultimately, what you're talking about is a taxpayer bailout of the "average" person that proposses the need for governmental auspices...

I suspect what you're not taking into account is that this is not a certis paribus argument. Wholesale change has to made, everybody has to compromise, and everyone will have to make concessions for this to work...

...lotta feeelings gonna get hurt, lotta levels of "entitlements" gonna be foregone...but that's how it is......

I totally agree with this. If we begin with your last sentence, then figuring this out should not be that hard. It has been hard and ugly largely because the last sentence is exactly where we are now. The entitled are howling they don't want change, and the untitled are howling change.

[bobsticks]

I totally agree with this. If we begin with your last sentence, then figuring this out should not be that hard. It has been hard and ugly largely because the last sentence is exactly where we are now. The entitled are howling they don't want change, and the untitled are howling change.

Well, you and I, my brother, could negotiate it... but then again, we're not staunch in our political stances.

Bottom line, the Dems are gonna be pissed 'cause the retirement age is gonna have to go up....sorry, but no one envisioned peeps living this long...and this generation can't be left on the hook for science and technology's current capability of keeping people alive far too long...

Bottom line, the Repubs are gonna be pissed because we clearly have to re-evaluate the concepts that we chosen to enterprate as "holy"... the concepts that this society has embraced as controlling...

...15 milliion citizens made into felons because of Cannibus laws....not a slippery-slope, not arguing for Coca or that Heron...but Pot...a substance that I personally don't smoke but recognize as less toxic than the alcohol and tobacco that regularly enjoy...

...HHHmmmm.....tax...Make money instead of spending money.....

The era of the Body-Nazi's has to to be over...."Hope" is not up for debate, and the moderates of this country can no longer be pushed out....no need for a "revolution"...just common sense and accomodation...

[bobsticks]

This is what I was thinking, and I could not have said this better. While CE makes some good points, I think their perspective is a little pie in the sky for my taste. Just throwing away a few nukes, and transferring the money to health care just ain't going to cut it. We have a far larger population than both Canada and Australia put together times six. We are not concentrated in a few areas of our country, but spread out all over it. Our health care started as an employee based one, theirs on a universal based one. Our health care system basically worked well until most of our larger companies went multi-national, and the insurance companies went public and became more beholden to their stockholders than to the premium payers. Our health system has gotten sick, but when it was created, it fit the situation well. It just needs a major overhaul because what worked back in the Nixon days does not work now.

This issue is far more complex than that simple transfer of capital. Universal health care, while being the ultimate goal, cannot just be carved out of the present system. Many changes in perspective of the consumer side, structural changes on the employer/employee side, and many system wide structural and resource changes have to occur before universal health care can be put in place. This is a long term goal, but what I am interested in more is the short term goals implemented until we get there.

Big Daddy, this is what I've always respected about you...we can come from a completely different perspective, a different viewpoint but a respectable dialogue can be had...I know that your opinions, thoughts and instincts differ from mine greatly but, ultimately, the solution will be found through moderate and thoughtful discussion....and not polemics...

...as always, thank you...

[kexodusc]

Let me first and foremost say that you and I, no matter the level vitriol that may encapsulate the arguments that are had on this forum, we will not be enemies. We may harbour differing viewpoints....I believe they are from differing perspectives.....it's a complex argument....

Ultimately, what you're talking about is a taxpayer bailout of the "average" person that proposses the need for governmental auspices...

I suspect what you're not taking into account is that this is not a certis paribus argument. Wholesale change has to made, everybody has to compromise, and everyone will have to make concessions for this to work...

...lotta feeelings gonna get hurt, lotta levels of "entitlements" gonna be foregone...but that's how it is......

No worries 'Sticks, this issue isn't one I feel strongly about one way or the other. Web forums are clumsy for communicating sometimes. If we were speaking in person you'd pick up the level of indifference in my voice, though I do enjoy challenging some positions on both sides of the debate. I'm not a fence-sitter - straight up I prefer the system here in Canada, but I can't say I was horribly upset with my old plan in the US. But Canada's plan is vastly different than the system proposed by Obama, and it has its own slew of problems.

I've now lived as an adult under both systems and each has certain advantages. I don't know enough about either Canadian or US Health care funding to be much of an educated contributor here, I've only been involved at the user-level.

My only contribution to this debate, in this forum, is that so much of what Obama's opponents are passing off as arguments against his plan are just illogical and untrue and I fear too many red herrings and straw man arguments have been used at the expense of an opportunity for dialogue. My current perspective is biased by the Canadian media coverage which does a good job of pointing out the number of false statements made in reference to the Canadian system.

And to be fair, I'm equally critical of the rhetoric building the perception the rest of the world has that 46 million people are uninsured and horribly sick and dying because they're too poor or have pre-existing conditions, when many are eligible for medicaid or simply chose to have no coverage cause they're cheap. I could be wrong but that number might include the illegal aliens as well? So from this perspective, I can conclude with confidence that without some kind of magic fact-check system implemented, I don't see how anyone could make an informed decision on the issues here by listening to political interests.

That's not say there aren't good arguments against this proposal.

I don't fully comprehend a lot of the implications, but my limited understanding is that Obama is proposing the USPS of health insurance. That's completely different from what Canada has and certainly seems to be rife with potential for an inefficient system that pressures, maybe even punishes the few good insurance plans. I'm not convinced this won't lead to two very distinguished tiers of coverage in the future - the predominant governement plan, and a very expensive luxury plan that only the wealthiest could even consider. Which I think is the exact opposite of the goal is here? I'm also not convinced it will save any money, my guess is it just cuts coverage for people whose employers used to have plans...If that's the case, then soon you can add the public plan among jokes about public schools and public housing...

But it seems we're destined for a compromised solution regardless, and if the current system is as bad as everyone seems to agree maybe it's time to try something new? I guess I'm afraid if nothing is done now, it won't ever get done and too many people will get left behind.

Oh yeah...Good luck with all that guys...

[ForeverAutumn]

Only if you listen to the Canadians and Aussies. There's that classic delusion of moral superiority they suffer from.

Now, this does not apply to all. Most canadians and aussies who post here are cool, but that descriptiion certainly applies to a few posters, and those to whom I'm addressing.

Well considering there are only three Canadians and one Aussie posting here, would you care to get more specific? Obviously my previous comments to you had no effect and so I'm not going to waste my time responding to the rest of your post. But let's just say that you, personally, aren't doing anything to help disprove GM's concerns.

GM, I don't think that American's are scumbags. And I don't think that this thread makes it seem that way either. I think that this is a huge issue for any country, especially one with the population of the U.S. and I've found reading the different viewpoints here, quite fascinating and educating.


I do believe that GM, Ford and Chrysler are American companies, no?

Are you sure that's something that you want to be bragging about right now? Yeah, they're US companies...and you can keep 'em. Wanna buy my share of the bailout? I'll gladly sell it to you.

[markw]

There are other canadians on this forum. They just chose to not take sides in this fiasco, and those i salute.

It's a common thing on forums for canadians and aussies to try, for whatever reasons, to dig on America, the big guy that is pretty much responsible for their standard of living. And, every so often, a little restatement of the way things are is needed.

Again, there's no need to take it personally unless you threw in with those that are guilty of what I claimed.

Was what I said as far as facts inaccurate?

[GMichael]

GM, I don't think that American's are scumbags. And I don't think that this thread makes it seem that way either. I think that this is a huge issue for any country, especially one with the population of the U.S. and I've found reading the different viewpoints here, quite fascinating and educating.
.

Good, I'm glad that you don't think of us as scumbags. (I like you too) This thread however, has traveled down the anti-American road more than a few times. Huge issues like this need to be explored without that sentiment to be useful. Much of what has been said has been "quite fascinating and educating" (if you don't mind me quoting you), but some of it has just been kicking dirt.
To be fair, I have seen a few anti-non-American comments as well (not from me) and I apologize for those.
I usually stay away from these debates. The fact that I joined in this time should say something.

[ForeverAutumn]

There are other canadians on this forum. They just chose to not take sides in this fiasco, and those i salute.

It's a common thing on forums for canadians and aussies to try, for whatever reasons, to dig on America, the big guy that is pretty much responsible for their standard of living. And, every so often, a little restatement of the way things are is needed.

Again, there's no need to take it personally unless you threw in with those that are guilty of what I claimed.

Was what I said as far as facts inaccurate?

[sarcasm detector on] Yes, all bow down to the great United States of America. Leaders of the free world. Do gooders of all and wrongful doers of none. [positive hit. sarcasm detector off]

Do you have any idea at all (or care) how ignorant you sound?

[ForeverAutumn]

Good, I'm glad that you don't think of us as scumbags. (I like you too) This thread however, has traveled down the anti-American road more than a few times. Huge issues like this need to be explored without that sentiment to be useful. Much of what has been said has been "quite fascinating and educating" (if you don't mind me quoting you), but some of it has just been kicking dirt.
To be fair, I have seen a few anti-non-American comments as well (not from me) and I apologize for those.
I usually stay away from these debates. The fact that I joined in this time should say something.

I always look at the source of the comments and judge them accordingly. In fact, some people's posts I just skip because I know by now that they often aren't worth reading (markw is treading that line right now). But it really gets my goat when the person or people who seem the most offended respond with similar ignorance.

That's the last I'll say on this issue. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

[blackraven]

I knew I would catch some flac if I posted, and I'm sorry if I offended the Canadian and Austrailian members here.

In response to Cloth- One of my -ex-partners did some training in Australia in residency and eventually married an Austrailian medical student. They came back to the states to practice. They eventually went back to AUS for a couple of years to practice, moved back here again for 3 years when his father died and eventually moved back to AUS when his wife's parents became to old and frail. My partner stated that people SOMETIMES wait for 1-2 days in the ER to be seen. At night, some of the ER's are covered by residents, not attending physicians, the ER's are way under staffed and patients sometimes have to wait several hours to days to see specialists. Non life savings tests can take days to months to obtain. Part of this problem is that ER Dr's get paid about $40,000 USD by the gov't. I can tell you this. Dr's aren't going to work their asses off like they do here for $40K. My expartner states that the only benefit of working in AUS is that he doesn't have to work as hard and that he works no nights.

Feanor- I know you think I'm biased and don't like the Canadian system. You are off base here. I think the Canadian system is a good template for our system. But you are kidding yourself if you think it doesn't have its problems. (And what reason would my Canadian partner have to lie about the Canadian system and what happend to his father. He was an ER physician in Winnepeg for years and knows the system well from th inside as do many of the other Canadian Dr's that i have met over 25 years that I have practiced medicine.) That example I gave about the heart cath not being done and the patient dying is one example of its problems that would not be tolerated here in the states, And no, a heart cath is not more dangerous in an 82 y/o. It is the best way to treat a heart attack in progress. Studies have proven it. All it is, is a needle stick into the femoral artery ( which I do a few times a month to obtain arterial blood gases on patients) and inserting a catheter up the aorta into the heart and squirting dye into the coronary arteries to locate the blocked arterty, so a balloon catheter can be inserted to clear the blockage. Sometimes a stent is inserted as well to keep the artery open. Its a quick procedure most of the time. The major complication can be bleeding at the punture site which is easily dealt with. Here in the US, many hospitals have Heart cath teams on call 24hrs per day or they are in house 24hrs per day if they are a major heart center. Most people make it to the heart cath lab in 15-30 min as time is heart tissue. My partners father was very healthy and active for an 82 y/o and could have been saved if he had the heart cath vs dying from intracranial bleeding fromthe clot busting drug TPA which in this country has a relative contraindication for people in his age group do to the increased risk of having an intracrainial hemmorhage.

The bottom line is that there is no perfect medical system in the world. The US system is frought with problems but so is every one elses. When our medical system changes, it won't be perfect. Some people will like it and other's won't. We will all need to make major life style changes to pay for it. This will bring us closer to socialism which is inevitable. Government here will grow larger and intrude in our lives to the point that the founding father's of this country would be turning over in their graves. The US has grown too large and the gap between the haves and have nots is growing to wide.

[ForeverAutumn]

blackraven. Thanks for clarifying the heart procedure. I now have a better understanding of that situation.

I just looked a the bottom of this forum page and there are currently 12 members logged in right now. I can't remember the last time I've seen this much action here. Or such a heated and, for the most part, amicable discussion.

[blackraven]

One last comment. The US has about 300 million people to insure with health coverage and a large aging population, thanks to the baby boomers. The population of Canada is 33 million and that of AUS is 22 million. There's a big difference from the US's population and with our larger pop. comes larger hurdles to over come in providing universal health care to all.

[blackraven]

You're saying that, unabated, the system would continue on with taxation taking care of the bulk of Medicade cases. I'm saying that without reform the burden upon the taxpayer....a citizen that is already burdened with picking up the costs for the uninsured, the illegals, and now the multitudunous of the under-insured....that will bankrupt the citizen...

There needs to be a reasonable compromise...one that recognises that everyone has some juice, a bit of blood, in this one...


Well said Bobsticks! People will be turninig over 1/2 of their income to the gov't. It will affect every facet of life. People will have less money to pay for services. Just simple services like a lawn service or painting your house for example. People may elect to do these things themselves. Businesses providing goods and services will suffer. Businesses themselves may be taxed and will have to raise prices or lay off employee's.

[markw]

[sarcasm detector on] Yes, all bow down to the great United States of America. Leaders of the free world. Do gooders of all and wrongful doers of none. [positive hit. sarcasm detector off]

Do you have any idea at all (or care) how ignorant you sound?Nowhere have I ever said we're perfect, but sometimes the little countries don't realize just how much of the world depends on this big old lumbering country and how much of a responsibility it is.

I think we would be glad to see someone else step up to the plate but so far, no takers. Hello... EU, are you listening?

The more one does, the greater the odds that someone won't like it or mistakes will be mad. Then again, when one does nothing, they can do no wrong, and casting stones is fun and easy.

[Feanor]

....

Feanor- I know you think I'm biased and don't like the Canadian system. Yor off base here. I think the Canadian system is a good template for our system. But you are kidding yourself if you think it doesn't have its problems. That example I gave about the heart cath not being done and the patient dying is one example of its problems that would not be tolerated here in the states, And no, a heart cath is not more dangerous in an 82 y/o.
...

I must, of course, defer to you in the example, BR. And no, the Canadian system isn't perfect, merely damned good. I can't complain; I got a $100k operation whereas I might have been told that drug therapy was good enough.

The case you illustrated might have been a bad example for my point, however the fact is that any healthcare that is managed to deliver the best overall outcomes for the population as a whole is going to have to balance the cost of procedures against the probability of efficacious results. If much more costly procedures are permitted where the likelihood of a better outcome is only marginally better, then the overall cost of the system will go up -- QED. Of course, in publicly controlled system, this is possible if the people are will to pay higher taxes (or premiums as the case may be).

What I don't believe is that you can for very long is deliver good care to the poor while you permit better care to the rich. Human nature being what it is, the rich will do everything they can to fund their own care rather than that of the poor. A two-tier system will fail to ensure that everyone gets even good, much less excellent, healthcare.

[blackraven]

Feanor, I admire the fact that the CND system limits end of life care. The majority of our health care dollars are spent (most often, pointlessly) on end of life care, trying to sustain life on patients that have no quality of life and little hope of survival past 6 months. Believe me, most physicians here feel this way. All too often we will see an eldrly patient with Dementia from a nursing home who has had a stroke and the family wants every thing done to keep them alive. This is just one example of many that I could give.

Regarding your comment about marginally better out come. The clot busting drug is less effective than a heart cath, is of great risk to the patient in that age group and does not visualize the anatomy or look at any of the other blood vessels that could have blockages waiting to close off at a later date. (where there is one blocked artery, there are most often others that are partially blocked.) In addition, after TPA is given, the patient usually undergoes a heart cath a few days later to look at the anatomy and to treat the stenotic vessel. But all the clot busting drug does is disslove the clot that formed in the tightly stenotic blood vessel. It does not treat the stenosis and prevent the heart attack from occuring again.

[Feanor]

One last comment. The US has about 300 million people to insure with health coverage and a large aging population, thanks to the baby boomers. The population of Canada is 33 million and that of AUS is 22 million. There's a big difference from the US's population and with our larger pop. comes larger hurdles to over come in providing universal health care to all.

Sorry, this is a non sequitur.

The problem in the US is not the inability but the unwillingness to provide universal healthcare to its citizens.

[nightflier]

Regarding foreign aid - my point is that with 300 million people as opposed to our 20 million your capacity to generate funds through taxation and charity should not be measured by the total amount, but rather on a per capita basis.

Well I didn't say it was fair, I was just saying that this is how it added up. No argument from me. I personally agree that our (US) tax dollars aren't spent as wisely as they could be.


Here are some figures on your countries relative spend on the military.

Rank Country Spending ($ b.) World Share (%)
— World Total 1464.0 100
1 United States 607.0 41.5
2 China 84.9[54] 5.8
3 France 65.7 4.5
4 United Kingdom 65.3 4.5
5 Russian Federation 58.6[54] 4.0



Hey, wait a minute, there, I don't see Australia or Canada on this list. How convenient. And while you're at it, how about adding the per capita figures instead of % of world share. It's my recollection that Aussies are quite fond of their military too. Just because you're nuke free (that's OK, we'll protect you with our subs in the mean-time), doesn't get you off the hook, matey.


So why would it be so bad to fund a universal health care system by taking from your military budget and applying it to your health care budget?

Ah, yes that old yarn. Well a few decades back, we had a fellow named Nixon in the oval office who was faced with the same question. So when it came time to present the numbers to the people, he threw Social Security in the mix (he had a series of Perot-like charts to illustrate the point) and guess what? The military budget no longer looked so big and the people were sold (well for the most part).

Now with a universal healthcare plan, the number we spend on our military will look less daunting to be sure. Now throw in what we've spent on the bail-outs of businesses and banks, and pretty soon, you've got some pretty big numbers all around. And I'm not even going to broach the subject of graft, corruption, and mysterious accounting anomalies that occurs in those lofty circles. By the way, your figures are a bit old, I believe. The last time I saw a total of our military escapades, the number topped one trillion (American trillion).


Well I suppose it depends on were you get your information from. (Do you have a reference I could view supporting your statement?). I was referring to tax as a percentage of GDP. I use GDP because it represents the 'wealth or earnings' created that is then distributed amongst a population via the country's particular financial system. (The fairness of this distribution system is another topic altogether)! Here is a link to the figures stated in the "Economist" magazine which supports my position.
http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12480352

'Figures an Aussie would quote The Economist - are you sure you're not still Brits? But I'll grant that I do not have a source for my figure. I read it in the papers a number of times (I get my news from the LA Times, US News & World Report, and the Christian Science Monitor primarily - I know, not the most representative, but it's what I got). Perhaps the taxes we pay isn't quite what the Swedes pay - but even if it isn't, we're certainly paying a fair portion of our gross income to Ol' Sammy.


Also Australians get dragged into foreign entanglements with America even though we are not subjects of the U.S. empire - or are we?

Yes you are & thank you for noticing. That's for letting us always fight in the first wave, while ya'll are finishing up yer morning tea. OK, that wasn't exactly fair. Yes, we're very thankful you're still part of the coalition of the coerced.


We don't have a right in Australia to 'bear arms' as you do. Individual possession was banned here in 1997. Mind you we only have the cuddly Koala bear. No Grizzleys in this part of the world.

I hear you got some mighty mean spiders down under though, but I suppose a gun isn't going to be very helpful there. But don't you know, that's why we do need our guns here - grizzlies have long been sent packing. We'll use any excuse to own Uzis, conceal them, and shoot them off as often as possible, even spiders. After all, they could be socialist spiders spying for the feds, and we can''t have that, now. But that's a whole other discussion.


In summary - America has all the funds it needs to provide every American with a comprehensive and world class universal health care system. You have the infrastructure, expertise, technology and population base to support this fundamental social objective.

But we don't have the political will, and that counts more than all the infrastructure, expertise, technology, and people power in the country.


It appears as an outsider that all you need to do is reassess your national priorities and spending without increasing the tax burden on anyone. The easiest way seems to be by moving funds from your death (and destruction) budget to your life (and health) budget.

That is certainly the perspective of the vast majority of those who make up the lower and middle class in our country. Unfortunately, not many of them will ever make it to Washington. Even when a regular Mr. Smith does (Obama comes to mind), then they inevitably get hobbled at every turn by the stiffing infrastructure that is the stomping ground of our established revolving-door-taking political elite. Most of them are there because their plane tickets were bought by corporations like Amylin, Haliburton, Northrop-Grumman, Pfizer, ADM, and Dishwater, I mean, Blackwankers, I mean, Backwater, as one online poster so colorfully put it.

Now, all joking aside, I don't disagree with the basic sentiment that we could spend less on the military. Actually if we just did a better job of regulating the contracts that get rubber-stamped without scrutiny, we would have enough to fund K-12 public education at twice the current level according to FAIR. But again, the forces that would like to make this a reality, can't match the political contributions of the big corporations. It is actually a travesty that a moderate (some would say conservative) Democrat like Obama has to pander so much to the right, with so little thanks from them I might add, that he cannot enact meaningful change. It now is becoming quite clear that his whole presidency and the revitalized position of the whole Democratic party, rests so much on this wattered-down-to-morbidity healthcare bill. This is quite telling of our political structure.

One wonders if it would not have been better to elect a strong-willed, but reasonably righteous conservative who would make genuine and reasonable concessions to the left, instead of a progressive too busy trying to appease Republicans who then turn around and call him a socialist under their racist breaths. Unfortunately, there was no such choice this last election. Sorry, but senile, flip-flopping, ass-grabbing McCain and loony-tunes beauty-queen Palin was not a viable option - and most voters furtunately agreed. If only this country could find a fiscally conservative leader who doesn't fondle interns and keeps the church out of our bedrooms, our schools, and our government. But that is the dilemma of the Republican party - they are split 50/50 - the moderates there can't shed the conservative right-wing if they want to win any elections. It's a miracle that the Democrats won the last one with the lefties in tow - the previous administration must have really screwed up bad....

I think I share the pessimism of others here when I say that if a healthcare bill does get passed, it will be so white-washed as to be ineffectual in remedying the exiting healthcare problems we already have. There is some hope that it could be amended and given some teeth in the future, but that's a long shot. In the end, it's just business as usual in Washington.

[GMichael]

Sorry, this is a non sequitur.

The problem in the US is not the inability but the unwillingness to provide universal healthcare to its citizens.

But everyone here is getting healthcare. Even those who don't pay for it. Including illigals (or undocuments). The rest of us pick up the extra charges.
IMO our system could use an overhaul. What it should be is very complicated though. Not everyone wants the same thing.

[Rich-n-Texas]

blackraven. Thanks for clarifying the heart procedure. I now have a better understanding of that situation.

I just looked a the bottom of this forum page and there are currently 12 members logged in right now. I can't remember the last time I've seen this much action here. Or such a heated and, for the most part, amicable discussion.
What this thread needs is a good dose of pixel(Dumbass).

Lemme see if I can find him...



Oh Dumbass..... Where are you Dumbass.........................

[blackraven]

Sorry, this is a non sequitur.

The problem in the US is not the inability but the unwillingness to provide universal healthcare to its citizens.

How can you say that population has nothing to do with this. We have a large percentage of people who are unemployed or pay very little tax due to their low income in addition to the millions of illegal immigrants (thats one of the main reasons we need universal coverage in the first place becuase of peoples inability o afford health insurance). We have a much larger aging population who uses the majority of our health care dollars (young people rarely have chronic or life threatening illnesses) We have a larger population of smokers, alcoholics, obeise people, drug abusers and violent crime that eats up a large portion of health of health care dollars as well.

And yes, we do have a population that is unwilling to pay although I think that if you took a poll that most people would be willing to pay. We all don't make $150,000 plus in this country. People in this country do believe in "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness". That was what this country was founded on. We went to war with England to get away from taxation so that we may pursue our happiness and and personal freedoms and not have to give away our hard earned money. Unfortunately there is too much lack of work ethic in this country now. Our country is what it is and its not going to change over night.

Regarding our military and cut backs. I do believe that we spend too much on defense but we have to. The US has been relegated to being the world policeman. I wonder what the world would be like without our help which I admit, doesnt always make things better. But I guess the world would be a better place if we did not bring down the Iron curtain and let Russia rule the world.

I would like nothing better for the US to stop being the world police and to cut foreign aide and take care of its own people and crumbling infrastructure.

[3LB]

The problem in the US is the unwillingness to provide universal healthcare to its illegal aliens.

everyone gets healthcare, and everyone pays into the systems from which they get healthcare

sounds like a plan

[blackraven]

Illegal aliens do get healthcare. They just show up at the ER and free and low cost clinics and get the care they need. I see them almost daily and we do not descriminate or turn them away. We do not limit what tests or treatment they receive. We have a large illegal immigrant mexican population here in the Twin Cities and at least twelve free and low cost clinics that I know of, including dental care. Now you can go to Target or Walmart and get most generic medications for $4 for a 30 day supply with refills.

[nightflier]

What is this obsession with illegal immigrants already?

This really needs to be asked: Is it really be so costly to give healthcare to illegal immigrants? I mean, what if we turned them away? I'm not even going to ask who will do those jobs we typically don't want to do ourselves, but all we need is for these immigrants all around us to spread an epidemic.

And let's be honest, is that really such a drain on our healthcare? More so than the fat paychecks of drug company CEOs, their teams of lawyers and lobbyists, and their political contributions?

Ahem, weren't we all illegal immigrants at one point or another in our history?

[blackraven]

There are 11million illegal immigrants in the US, 1/2 the population of AUS and 1/3 that of Canada. Yes, it is alot of money! Whether they are covered under universal health care or not, they will still get medical coverage one way or another. a conservative figure would be about $6000 per year per family.

600x11,000,000= 66.000.000.000

[nightflier]

Those are some very conservative figures. I've seen others, but I don't want to split hairs. The real question is between what we pay now to provide healthcare for them and what it will cost with a public option. My guess is that with universal healthcare, costs will go down for everyone, including illegal immigrants.

[GMichael]

What is this obsession with illegal immigrants already?

This really needs to be asked: Is it really be so costly to give healthcare to illegal immigrants? I mean, what if we turned them away? I'm not even going to ask who will do those jobs we typically don't want to do ourselves, but all we need is for these immigrants all around us to spread an epidemic.

And let's be honest, is that really such a drain on our healthcare? More so than the fat paychecks of drug company CEOs, their teams of lawyers and lobbyists, and their political contributions?

Ahem, weren't we all illegal immigrants at one point or another in our history?

We filled out the paperwork and became immigrants instead of illegal immigrants. Don't you see the difference?

[nightflier]

We filled out the paperwork and became immigrants instead of illegal immigrants. Don't you see the difference?

It all depends how far back in history you want to look. Many of our ancestors came here without paperwork, stayed and became citizens over time. I'm guessing that is what these "illegal" immigrants are hoping to do too. There are a lot of barriers to filing paperwork these days, not the least of which is language. To become legal, one has to have no criminal record, but because they are here "illegally" that makes this a bit hard to begin with. And have you ever considered how much we have contributed to their countries being so miserable in the first place? Perhaps we should just quietly pay the bill before too many questions get asked, and that is what this is about:

What it is costing us now to provide healthcare for them is not sustainable, so something has to be done.

[GMichael]

It all depends how far back in history you want to look. Many of our ancestors came here without paperwork, stayed and became citizens over time. I'm guessing that is what these "illegal" immigrants are hoping to do too. There are a lot of barriers to filing paperwork these days, not the least of which is language. To become legal, one has to have no criminal record, but because they are here "illegally" that makes this a bit hard to begin with. And have you ever considered how much we have contributed to their countries being so miserable in the first place? Perhaps we should just quietly pay the bill before too many questions get asked, and that is what this is about:

What it is costing us now to provide healthcare for them is not sustainable, so something has to be done.
Sorry, gonna have to call BS on this.

I've been through the process. The forms come in 8 languages. Grab a pen and start filling it out.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sorry, gonna have to call BS on this.

I've been through the process. The forms come in 8 languages. Grab a pen and start filling it out.

Oh, and take out your pocket book and get ready to pay as well. Since I have seen several of my relatives go through the process, I have to agree with you.

[GMichael]

Oh, and take out your pocket book and get ready to pay as well. Since I have seen several of my relatives go through the process, I have to agree with you.

I posted a thread about it a couple years back. It detailed all that we went through. Whenever anyone talks about amnisty, my wife throws a fit. She hates the idea of going though all of that just so someone else can just pass through without at least applying.
And it does put a strain on any healthcare system when so many don't pay at all. At least put them in the system, even if they don't shell up as much as the Jones's, or at all in some cases.

[blackraven]

We are all immigrants except for Native Americans. This country was built by immigrants who came here wanting a better life. The 1800's and first 1/2 of the 1900's was a different time. The country needed people for a work force. Now we are over populated, there are no jobs and the crime rate is astronomical. The days of the streets paved with gold are over for this country and immigrants. We cannot take care of our own and we are supposed to take all comers as many as can cross the border. Its not bad enough that we can't seem to properly educate our children so that they can get good jobs and stay off welfare. Or that we can't keep young people on welfare or young teenage girls from poverty families from having children who most likely will go on welfare and be supported by the rest of the hard working citizens of this country. I'm not against welfare for those that truly need it. But every day I see young girls who have gotten pregnant and they say they are going to go on welfare. I see generations of families who have been on welfare and it will only get worse with the majority of the immigrant population. Because these days, even with a college degree its hard to find work.

[Cloth Ears]

I have never sought to offend American sensibilities just contribute a view from afar...


Wow. The more I read here, the more it sounds like all Americans are scumbags. Past present and future. Not for nothing, but I live here. We're not as bad as we're being painted in this thread.
A little less paranoia and a little more rationality would go a long way.
Let me make myself quite clear. I do not think Americans are scumbags - quite the opposite. I simply offer my view from across the ocean as a friend on this particular topic.


The problem is we, in America. are facing demographics that are astoundingly different from the candygram and get-well card that y'all have embraced.
Your demographics are no different to ours and in fact ours are slightly worse. Our aging population is rapidly accelerating past our working population. The common theme - the aging of the Baby Boomers.


Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that under the current set of circumstances we can accomplish the same feats...
Chin up bobsticks - I think you can. After all, you put a man on the moon!


There's the danger, GM -- to reject all criticism of the US as anti-American bigotry.
Thank you Feanor - it needed to be said.


I don't see where I've done that. Maybe the danger is in thinking that anytime an American sticks up for themselves that it makes us bigots.
Nobody criticizes Americans more than Americans do. But I'm not sure why it goes unoticed.
You don't need to stick up for yourself GMichael - nobody is attacking you (from Oz anyway). The discussion is about "Why not Universal Healthcare?". There is healthy and vigorous discussion going on that can improve everyone's insight on the issue especially mine, so I am totally aware of your self criticism as evidenced in this discussion.


... but it boils down to the same pile of goo and ends where it begins...a debate over fundamental philosphy...public vs private.
This is certainly a constant theme in this discussion but the system can exist working with each other rather than against. A term used here is public/private partnership. We in Oz and our Canuck cousins have systems in place (albeit not perfect by any description) but we wouldn't be without them. If we can do it I'm sure you folks can.

The other constant theme has been the cost of the system and a perception that it will send you broke and tax you out of existence. Yet there has not been a single response to my suggestion, that by adjusting your budget priorities from the military to healthcare, you could go a long way (if not all the way) to mitigating the cost. Would this not be a valid part of the discussion?

Cheers from Oz
CE

PS :thumbsup:

If we accept that every country is represented by its most public ambassadors (politicians, singers, movie stars, etc) then the rest of the world see the USA as being somewhere between Bill O'Reilly, K-Fed, and Oprah.
Unfortunately kexodusc, we're still trying to get over George Dubya Bush!

[02audionoob]

I have never sought to offend American sensibilities just contribute a view from afar...


Then why the comment about not being as "loud" as Americans?



I simply offer my view from across the ocean as a friend on this particular topic.


With friends like you, who needs enemies?



Thank you Feanor - it needed to be said.


Oh, please. Really?



we're still trying to get over George Dubya Bush


You think you are? What about us?


Broke! - heh you have a bad recession going on - we don't. Also you're already almost broke - just look at your deficit!

In one post we're broke and in another we're so wealthy we could finance a healthcare system by just skimming a little off the defense budget?

[Feanor]

....
in addition to the millions of illegal immigrants
...

Canada has similar demographics to the US in most respects.

Don't whine about illegal immigrants: they are in the US because employers want very low -wage labor -- and not have to provide a health insurance benefit.

Face up to your responsibilitiies with respect to your illegals:

Deport them, and/or
Provide them with health insurance.

[02audionoob]

Canada has similar demographics to the US in most respects.

Don't whine about illegal immigrants: they are in the US because employers want very low -wage labor -- and I might add, not have to purchase health insurance for them. They are your responsibility in very real sense.

So here's what to about illegals, (some combination of the two):

Deport them, and/or
Provide them with health insurance.

I say provide them with health insurance. I wonder what would happen to the construction industry without them. I also say give them a taxpayer ID number. I bet a large chunk of them would pay their income tax.

[Cloth Ears]

I'm sorry my previous post was a little dated - I was still responding to posts from page 7!

Well markw - you seem like a well balanced guy - a chip on each shoulder!


Only if you listen to the Canadians and Aussies. There's that classic delusion of moral superiority they suffer from. Most uncool and untrue.


So, kiddies, run along and play nicely Mommy and daddy have adult matters to deal with about which you have no concept. Your condescending tone and disrespect should cause you to reflect on your own delusions and ignorance.


It's a common thing on forums for canadians and aussies to try, for whatever reasons, to dig on America, the big guy that is pretty much responsible for their standard of living.Again - deluded and ignorant.
Markw - you are embarrassing your fellow American contributors who are having a civil and intelligent dialogue without the invective.

Onto a slightly more reasonable response.


Then why the comment about not being as "loud" as Americans?Because your voice is heard above all others in a geopolitical sense (and in a room full of other peoples as well). Don't tell me you haven't heard this description before.


With friends like you, who needs enemies?There you go again - paranoia.

It appears that some contributors to this topic are more interested in abuse than discussion and enlightenment. It also appears that some contributors have a view of the world that is so U.S. centric that it is impossible to have a rational discussion and an exchange of ideas without the overhang of paranoia and oversensitivity to international views. These rude and ignorant posters unfortunately contribute to some negative perceptions of the U.S. from abroad.

For those contributors that have been informative and civil in this discussion (with a friend), I thank you very much for your education and perspective on this issue and hope you succeed in finding an equitable system that works for all Americans.
Good luck.
CE

[blackraven]

Whose whining about illegal immigrants. They are here to stay and they fill an important role in society whether we like it or not. The problem with naturalizing them all is that they don't stop coming. Are we to keep making them citizens as they cross the border or enter illegally. There's no simple answer Feanor. The country needs tighter borders and security. Where's the money gonna come from to pay for that. Already the infrastructure of this country is crumbling. Roads, bridges and cities are falling apart and there is no money to repair them. Hell just look at Detroit.
Our schools across the country are failing and falling apart. This country is on the down hill slide while countries like China and India are up and coming.

I guess you expect us to change our way of life over night. Lets just give up on democracy and capitalism and go socialist. Lets tax the crap out of people so they can no longer afford vacations, cars, paying for their kids college, pay their mortgages and pay off their existing loans and credit cards. Lets tax the crap out of small business and put them out of business or make them pay for their employee's health insurance. Let them lay off employees to make ends meet.

People here are living on the edge. Most people can't even put enough or any money away for retirement because the cost of living is expensive and we waste our money on material things.

We cant change our way of life over night. It will have to be a gradual change. Right now Universal Health Care is being rammed down our throats. More time and thought needs to go into it. Obama is going to fast with this and already thinking about re-election. Whats the harm in taking it slow and coming up with a reasonable solution in 1-3 years. There will never be a good solution.

[markw]

You may consider it uncool, but it's most certainly true. There must be something like a Napoleon complex with you guys.

As for condescending, you either don't know what it means or you've never read your own posts. Obviously you have no idea of the meaning of the word demographics, but it looks kewl to throw it out, doesn't it?.

It's noticeable, and has been commented on by others on other sites on which I post. Buy, ya know, it's funny that it just popped up it's ugly head here since you've arrived.

And I haven't caught any flak for this line of discussion, only from differing ideas and that isn't really flak, it was simply discussion. Actually, most thik you're the dick setting fire to the small, perfect, british possessions vs the big, bad, USA discussion, er...., flame war.

I do notice that since your arrival here, (and it's funny that your only posts are here) is that tendency to dog-pile on the USA has ramped up significantly. Is that just a coincidence? I dunno know about that. Previously it was just one rancorous old man who was a site joke, but here you go, proudly flinging your poo like a monkey from a tree and drawing support from other heretofore nice, friendly, inncent, second-worlders where countries made no difference, at least until you arrived. And I'm not the only one who noticed that.

BTW, I notice you haven't disputed my facts either, but simply try to put me down for stating them. It ain't workin', mate. No apology.

So, deal with it. You're simply a rabble-rouser with really nothing to contribute to an audio forum except an ego and an attitude. You're just here for the fight.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Whose whining about illegal immigrants. They are here to stay and they fill an important role in society whether we like it or not. The problem with naturalizing them all is that they don't stop coming. Are we to keep making them citizens as they cross the border or enter illegally. There's no simple answer Feanor. The country needs tighter borders and security. Where's the money gonna come from to pay for that. Already the infrastructure of this country is crumbling. Roads, bridges and cities are falling apart and there is no money to repair them. Hell just look at Detroit.
Our schools across the country are failing and falling apart. This country is on the down hill slide while countries like China and India are up and coming.

You cannot dispute facts, so I agree with this.


I guess you expect us to change our way of life over night. Lets just give up on democracy and capitalism and go socialist. Lets tax the crap out of people so they can no longer afford vacations, cars, paying for their kids college, pay their mortgages and pay off their existing loans and credit cards. Lets tax the crap out of small business and put them out of business or make them pay for their employee's health insurance. Let them lay off employees to make ends meet.

Personally, I don't mind a little government intervention. I do not believe in a straight free market society, at least not anymore. I guess I am for a hybrid government/private kind of market instead.

You have to admit though, the average American spent way beyond our means. Everything in our society is telling us to shop, to buy buy buy. And we followed that advice and bought bought bought, until the debit brought us to our collective knees. And we don't think about where we purchase from, and if that entity supports us, or supports China (and I am speaking Walmart here). I think that we need to explore the correlation between Walmart getting bigger, and our manufacturing base getting exported off shore. We want cheaper and cheaper goods, but the irony is we have to replace it more often. This is the cycle that Walmart really likes, and what gets us into trouble. It is called the Walmart boob, and we just cannot stop suckling.


People here are living on the edge. Most people can't even put enough or any money away for retirement because the cost of living is expensive and we waste our money on material things.

Oh, and you didn't mention that our retirement went out the toilet with this last financial crises. Many saved, but most lost at least 20-40% before they knew what hit them. Even the wealthy took a hit on this one.


We cant change our way of life over night. It will have to be a gradual change. Right now Universal Health Care is being rammed down our throats. More time and thought needs to go into it. Obama is going to fast with this and already thinking about re-election. Whats the harm in taking it slow and coming up with a reasonable solution in 1-3 years. There will never be a good solution.

I don't think Obama is going too fast, I think everyone else is moving too slow. While I agree we have one time to do this right, if you wait too long, a certain party would have so demonized the subject, poisoned that atmosphere so bad, that change just would not, and could not happen. As you can see already, it took one month (August) and we had death panels, rationed care (as if we didn't already have it), we had the government pulling the plug on granny, and folks on Medicare saying keep the government out of my medicare (how is that for a ignorant comment). No, we need to put our collective heads together and get the best plan ASAP! I am for a gradual roll in of any plan, but not waiting too long to put it together.

[Cloth Ears]

BTW, I notice you haven't disputed my facts either, but simply try to put me down for stating them. It ain't workin', mate. No apology.
That's because your post contained no facts - just your (unfortunately ignorant) opinion.


I do notice that since your arrival here, (and it's funny that your only posts are here) ....
Yes I only just joined as a member and found the topic interesting as it is well covered here in our media and I have read most of the material available to me. Hence my involvement for the purpose of obtaining a deeper understanding of the issues.
Thankfully I have learned a lot from the other contributors and enjoyed the interaction, but now that I know the likes of you infest this forum I will gladly leave you to find another target for your vitriol.

Bye Bye
CE
:2:

[blackraven]

Sir T, I beg to differ about going to fast. I understand your concern about the republicans and losing momentum. I would rather go slower and have a program that works rather than one loaded with problems.

And there will be death panels, it's called the Medical Ethic's committee and there will be a national gov't run committee. Like it or not, gov't run health care will dictate to doctors and patients alike what tests and procedures will be allowed and who is eligible. This is not necessarily a bad thing. I am all for limiting tests, treatments and procedures on terminally ill patients. But a lot of people won't like it. Hell, I would welcome the gov't to protect me when a patient comes into the ER demanding unecessary antibiotics or unecessary cat scans when they bonk their head. (here's an interesting fact about cat scans- for every cat scan you have, there is a 1 in 2000 chance of developing cancer down the road. And the risk goes up with each scan. One Cat scan is the equivalent to receiving the radiation of 150-300 chest Xrays, depending upon the type of scan).

[thekid]

And there will be death panels, it's called the Medical Ethic's committee and there will be a national gov't run committee. Like it or not, gov't run health care will dictate to doctors and patients alike what tests and procedures will be allowed and who is eligible.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to mention death panels. NOTHING in the current proposals has anything even approaching what alot of irresponsible "experts" and politicians are throwing around regarding this term. The actual language in one of the proposed bills that got the most attention was actually written by a Republican as an ammendment to another piece of legislation. In a nut shell the requirment is that the patient or patients relatives will sit down with a doctor who will give them a list of ALL the treatment options. The options could be any type of additional treatment as well as possible euthanasia and will not favor any treatment option or be affected by the cost of the various options. A few nitwits have chosen this to mean that the government will be deciding on treatments for the patient. If you want to see a somewhat funny but informative discussion with the person who first coined the term "death panel" I suggest you watch these interviews

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-20-2009/betsy-mccaughey-pt--1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-20-2009/betsy-mccaughey-pt--2

[Feanor]

....

I guess you expect us to change our way of life over night. Lets just give up on democracy and capitalism and go socialist. Lets tax the crap out of people so they can no longer afford vacations, cars, paying for their kids college, pay their mortgages and pay off their existing loans and credit cards. Lets tax the crap out of small business and put them out of business or make them pay for their employee's health insurance. Let them lay off employees to make ends meet.

....

This is not the choice, BR. And you know it. Thinks are complicated as you say, so why misrepresent the options so simplistically -- it tends to reinforce the know-nothing opinions of people like, say, uhmm, markw.

[Feanor]

...

And there will be death panels, it's called the Medical Ethic's committee and there will be a national gov't run committee. Like it or not, gov't run health care will dictate to doctors and patients alike what tests and procedures will be allowed and who is eligible. This is not necessarily a bad thing. ...

Indeed, it might be a great deal better than the similar, profit-driven methods of the the HMOs who deliver most privately insured healthcare in the US presently. The biggest touted virtue of the American system, "choice", is almost completely illusionary.

Sorry, but I must offer this criticism of Americans in general: they have a fear of anything run by government that can only be described as pathological. People all over the world mistrust governments but few with the intense irrationality that afflicts a very significant portion of the US population.

[Feanor]

O Sir T, the world is releaved to know that rational Americans exist.

[GMichael]

I see that this thread hasn't gotten any better. Let me know when everyone is done sticking their tongues out at each other.

[ForeverAutumn]

You may consider it uncool, but it's most certainly true. There must be something like a Napoleon complex with you guys.

As for condescending, you either don't know what it means or you've never read your own posts. Obviously you have no idea of the meaning of the word demographics, but it looks kewl to throw it out, doesn't it?.

It's noticeable, and has been commented on by others on other sites on which I post. Buy, ya know, it's funny that it just popped up it's ugly head here since you've arrived.

And I haven't caught any flak for this line of discussion, only from differing ideas and that isn't really flak, it was simply discussion. Actually, most thik you're the dick setting fire to the small, perfect, british possessions vs the big, bad, USA discussion, er...., flame war.

I do notice that since your arrival here, (and it's funny that your only posts are here) is that tendency to dog-pile on the USA has ramped up significantly. Is that just a coincidence? I dunno know about that. Previously it was just one rancorous old man who was a site joke, but here you go, proudly flinging your poo like a monkey from a tree and drawing support from other heretofore nice, friendly, inncent, second-worlders where countries made no difference, at least until you arrived. And I'm not the only one who noticed that.

BTW, I notice you haven't disputed my facts either, but simply try to put me down for stating them. It ain't workin', mate. No apology.

So, deal with it. You're simply a rabble-rouser with really nothing to contribute to an audio forum except an ego and an attitude. You're just here for the fight.

Geez, no wonder this site is dying...with a welcome like that!

Mark, why don't you just go back to talking about the issue at hand instead of attacking the non-americans who are only trying to provide a different viewpoint.

If you stopped being defensive for five minutes, you might actually find something of value in our experiences with our own health care systems.

[markw]

But then this pipsqueak from a tiny country with less people than Texas and has about as much impact in world affairs as a fart in a hurricane comes on all superior and starts lecturing us from the POV of his tiny country.

Sorry, that don't sit too well with me, what with living in the greater NYC metro area which, surprisingly enough, has just about as many people as oz in it's entirety. Apparently it does with you, though.

And, I hate to say this, but I wouldn't be too quick to accuse others of being defensive.

[bobsticks]

Thanks for your vote, but I won't run. Mostly because I don't want to get my name drug through the mud in public. I have a record, and I inhaled.

Amen breh...and recently too...

[bobsticks]

This is what I was thinking, and I could not have said this better. While CE makes some good points, I think their perspective is a little pie in the sky for my taste. Just throwing away a few nukes, and transferring the money to health care just ain't going to cut it. We have a far larger population than both Canada and Australia put together times six. We are not concentrated in a few areas of our country, but spread out all over it. Our health care started as an employee based one, theirs on a universal based one. Our health care system basically worked well until most of our larger companies went multi-national, and the insurance companies went public and became more beholden to their stockholders than to the premium payers. Our health system has gotten sick, but when it was created, it fit the situation well. It just needs a major overhaul because what worked back in the Nixon days does not work now.

This issue is far more complex than that simple transfer of capital. Universal health care, while being the ultimate goal, cannot just be carved out of the present system. Many changes in perspective of the consumer side, structural changes on the employer/employee side, and many system wide structural and resource changes have to occur before universal health care can be put in place. This is a long term goal, but what I am interested in more is the short term goals implemented until we get there.

As always, elegant...and succinct. The point that I was trying to make...and did so rather inelegantly and inefficiently to Kex was just this...and the fact that, in reality, there are two pies...one that represents taxation and one that represents revenue. Whether everyone becomes elligible for "Medicaid" the bills will still come. Ultimately the solution will involve many of the suggestions posited here:

...legal reform, taxation, cost-cutting and accomodation on many, many sides...

[Feanor]

But then this pipsqueak from a tiny country with less people than Texas and has about as much impact in world affairs as a fart in a hurricane comes on all superior and starts lecturing us from the POV of his tiny country.

Sorry, that don't sit too well with me, what with living in the greater NYC metro area which, surprisingly enough, has just about as many people as oz in it's entirety. Apparently it does with you, though.

And, I hate to say this, but I wouldn't be too quick to accuse others of being defensive.

It's really too bad that you are incapable of reasoned arguement.

I'm afraid, "My dick (or country) is bigger than yours, so shut up", isn't very persuasive.

[bobsticks]

I'm afraid, "My dick (or country) is bigger than yours, so shut up", isn't very persuasive.

...that may depend on what locker room...or bath house...you're in...

[nightflier]

But then this pipsqueak from a tiny country with less people than Texas and has about as much impact in world affairs as a fart in a hurricane comes on all superior and starts lecturing us from the POV of his tiny country.

Mark, it's these kinds of insults that give your point of view the impact of "a fart in a hurricane."

I may not agree with ClothEars' point of view, but he's being a whole lot more civil in making it.

[markw]

It's really too bad that you are incapable of reasoned arguement.

I'm afraid, "My dick (or country) is bigger than yours, so shut up", isn't very persuasive.Anyhow, here's your "reasoned response" whe you're in informed that you're comparinng a plan for 300 million to a plan that has only has to cover 20 million.


Sorry, this is a non sequitur.

The problem in the US is not the inability but the unwillingness to provide universal healthcare to its citizens.

Actually, feanor, I don't think your dick is bigger than a chipmunks.

[bobsticks]

Actually, feanor, I don't think your dick is bigger than a chipmunks.

Seriously, now you're just out of line. There's room for alot of opposing points of view and, certainly, some disagreement but that was unnecessary...

[markw]

Mark, it's these kinds of insults that give your point of view the impact of "a fart in a hurricane."

I may not agree with ClothEars' point of view, but he's being a whole lot more civil in making it.Perhaps when these overly proud simpletons realize that it's a lot simpler to design a workable plan for 20 to 30 million in a few population centers as opposed to one for 300 million spread across an entire continent, and then some, then perhaps then I'll tone it down.

Until then, I'll just respond in the simplist manner since they obviously cannot grasp the big picture.

[markw]

Seriously, now you're just out of line. There's room for alot of opposing points of view and, certainly, some disagreement but that was unnecessary...I apologize to chipmunks everywhere.

[nightflier]

Watchdog Groups Expose Healthcare Industry Lobbyist Spending

New details have emerged about how the healthcare industry has been trying to sway the debate in Congress. A study by the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics has uncovered never-before-seen webs of campaign contributions from outside lobbyists and their clients to key members of Congress. Between January 2007 and June 2009, Max Baucus, the chair of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, collected contributions from thirty-seven outside lobbyists representing the pharmaceutical industry’s chief trade association, PhRMA, as well as thirty-six lobbyists who listed drug maker Amgen as their client. In all, eleven major health and insurance firms had their contributions to Baucus boosted through extra donations from ten or more of their outside lobbyists. Some thirty-two members of Congress got money from ten or more PhRMA lobbyists over the last two-and-a-half years. Amgen’s lobbyists did the same for twenty-four members.

[markw]

For the life of me, I've never understood who the practice of lobbying has been allowed to continue for as long as it has. And this has been going on for along time and both parties benefit from it.

So, hoccum it still thrives, and who is gonna stop it.

Like I said a long, long time ago here, cost contaimnent first, then worry about a plan.

[Feanor]

Watchdog Groups Expose Healthcare Industry Lobbyist Spending

New details have emerged about how the healthcare industry has been trying to sway the debate in Congress. A study by the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics has uncovered never-before-seen webs of campaign contributions from outside lobbyists and their clients to key members of Congress. Between January 2007 and June 2009, Max Baucus, the chair of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, collected contributions from thirty-seven outside lobbyists representing the pharmaceutical industry’s chief trade association, PhRMA, as well as thirty-six lobbyists who listed drug maker Amgen as their client. In all, eleven major health and insurance firms had their contributions to Baucus boosted through extra donations from ten or more of their outside lobbyists. Some thirty-two members of Congress got money from ten or more PhRMA lobbyists over the last two-and-a-half years. Amgen’s lobbyists did the same for twenty-four members.

Maybe this sort of thing is the bigger problem for the US than the size of the country.

[GMichael]

Maybe this sort of thing is the bigger problem for the US than the size of the country.
Don't think many will argue with you there. This is the main way that corruption affects laws here.

[markw]

Maybe this sort of thing is the bigger problem for the US than the size of the country.If you had read my earlier posts, you would know that I was way ahead of you.

economics lesson for the day: The larger the infrastructure, the larger the opportunity for corruption.

So, what would you recommend to solve it?

[dean_martin]

whew! after two weeks of being swamped at work (and trying to keep up with Mark last week), I've tried to catch up on this discussion. As I said from the outset, my views are limited to what I see in my profession, i.e., medical bills for the uninsured are 3 to 5 times higher than what health care providers will accept as payment from insurance companies of the insured and the constant wrangling between interests over the "real cost" of medical liability.

In catching up on this thread, SirT's suggestion of an incremental approach jumped out at me. Indeed, we are discussing a fundamental change without an historical model to follow. An example of just how fundamental this is can be seen in the law. In 1944, the US Supreme Court determined that insurance is a business that can be regulated by Congress pursuant to the commerce clause of the Constitution. In response, Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945 which essentially leaves the regulation of insurance to the states. This wikipedia link provides a very simple description of the Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran-Ferguson_Act

Any federal health care plan that incorporates private insurance will have to address the law as it stands now and change it with respect to health insurance which will most likely change 70 years of practice in that industry. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'm just saying that the magnitude of the task might require incremental steps. If step one is regulation of health insurance, then Congress could effectively regulate premiums, preexisting conditions and acceptance of coverage, and cancellation on the consumer side. On the insurance company side, it could regulate pooling, payments to health care providers for particular procedures and any other mechanism that could possibly defray the cost to insurance companies of added coverage up to and including subsidies. Of course none of this will result in "free" health care nor coverage for everyone and insurance companies won't have a huge profit incentive to stay in business. But, it could expand coverage to more people in "phase one" of a long-term or multi-step plan that could eventually include changes to medicare and medicaid for those who still can't afford private insurance because they're unemployed, disabled, etc.

My doctor told me last week that 80% of his income comes from government sources - medicare and medicaid. If private insurance coverage is extended to more, then it seems logical that medicare and medicaid payouts will go down. Strike a balance between federal subsidies to private insurance pools for expansion of coverage on one hand and medicare/medicaid savings due to more folks being covered under private insurance on the other, then we're not actually spending more on health care but we are covering more people.

[3LB]

What is this obsession with illegal immigrants already?

This really needs to be asked: Is it really be so costly to give healthcare to illegal immigrants? I mean, what if we turned them away? I'm not even going to ask who will do those jobs we typically don't want to do ourselves, but all we need is for these immigrants all around us to spread an epidemic.

And let's be honest, is that really such a drain on our healthcare? More so than the fat paychecks of drug company CEOs, their teams of lawyers and lobbyists, and their political contributions?

Ahem, weren't we all illegal immigrants at one point or another in our history?

All points true, especially the second point, which is why the system needs to be fixed before a plan is put into place. Trust me, Mexicans aren't coming up here for the prescription drugs, many of which are still cheaper there than they are here, and have been for decades. Amoxicillin is available over the counter.

Dental care is cheaper there as well (well, I should say, from the American perspective). I know a few people who live in Arizona who get dental work done in Mexico.

[3LB]

Sorry, but I must offer this criticism of Americans in general: they have a fear of anything run by government that can only be described as pathological. People all over the world mistrust governments but few with the intense irrationality that afflicts a very significant portion of the US population.

Government for the people, by the people, eh?

Mistrust of a government isn't altogether a bad thing, and in some circumstances, its a healthy thing - blind faith in a government usually just gets you killed.

I do find it ironic that with so many Americans who express distrust of their gov't, actually leave so much of their lives in the hands of the gov't, blindly. So few Americans vote or even try to educate themselves on the issues at hand. Why do we so distrust an entity which we ourselves are supposed to have power over? hhmmm...

All the issues we've discussed on these boards the last few weeks and the overlaying sentiment seems to be that we (us non-politicians) are without voice or recourse. We cannot continue to believe that a gov't whose pockets are lined by wealthy lobbies will ever do what is in the best interests of the people. We get the gov't we deserve.

Before we address jobs, immigration, healthcare...you name it, there has to be some major house cleaning in this country, and it starts with the lazy-arsed voters (yours truly included).

[GMichael]

I cast my vote, but unfortunately, it's always for the person I dislike the least. Never for anyone I actually think will help. I would if I could.

[nightflier]

Don't think many will argue with you there. This is the main way that corruption affects laws here.

...the party that takes the moral high ground so often (Republicans) are so entrenched in this corruption? I mean I can understand Democrats because they want to please everybody, but Republicans, especially those on the far right, are supposed to stand up to this, no?

During the Carter-Reagan years millions of Democrats switched parties because they thought that Republicans stood for something more respectable, and many of them did. But in the Bush 2.0 years, that same party has embraced doctrinaire corporatism at the expense of competition. Big pharma, Insurance, the HMOs, and the legal vultures that surround them could always rely on centrist politicians to get ridiculously one-sided bills and measures introduced, but with the help of the far right in recent years, they gained significant momentum to get them passed. It's pretty disgusting to hear these same politicians invoke godly virtues in one breath while being bullhorns for the big corporations. Maybe they are so owned that their religious fervor is merely to assuage their guilt.

On that small detail, ClothEars has made a legitimate point. One wonders why the far right is so vehemently opposed to universal healthcare, something good ol' JC would be all for if he were alive today. I know dragging religion into this is not to everyone's liking, but aren't we talking about taking care of the sick and unfortunate? I don't see how that can be done without invoking the one biggest moral influence in our society.

[Feanor]

Perhaps when these overly proud simpletons realize that it's a lot simpler to design a workable plan for 20 to 30 million in a few population centers as opposed to one for 300 million spread across an entire continent, and then some, then perhaps then I'll tone it down.

Until then, I'll just respond in the simplist manner since they obviously cannot grasp the big picture.

Mark, you seriously underestimate the complexities of governing in Canada. Being 10% the size doesn't make in 1/10 the problem. There are significant cultural, regional, and federal vs. provincial issues.

For starters, you might be interested to know, (or more you aren't), that there isn't a Canadian heathcare system; there are 10 provincial heathcare systems and they are definitely not identical.

[3LB]

I cast my vote, but unfortunately, it's always for the person I dislike the least. Never for anyone I actually think will help. I would if I could.

I have a simple plan...stop voting for the incumbant. Politicians need to answer to voters and not special interests. We as voters need to send a message, that if want to be re-elected you better jump through your ass for us. Of course, outlawing lobbies would also be a start, but we have too many stuffed suits in state and federal gov't that have made life long careers out of public service and the gov't was never intented to be an industry that propagates itself.

There are far too many crooks in office to even attempt to figure out who is a lesser crook than someone else. There are too many politicians that spend the majority of their terms working on the re-elections of themselves and others. A couple of elections with incumbants being bounced out on their asses would be the first wave. Far too many priviledges being doled out - lets stop those next. Why do politicians get such a greased sled? They get killer salries, let them spend Sunday evening paying bills and balancing their checkbooks. Then reforming salaries and pensions will be the next. Pensions should be earned, not a birthright.

But voting is the place to start. Its not reallistic to think everyone who can register to vote will, no more than its realistic to think voters will put down the remote and actually spend some time reading up on issues. The quickest way to change the face of Washington is to change the faces in Washington.