# Why do we need Healthcare Reform?



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

Is anyone today denied treatment at a community hospital? None, especially if you ask the hospitals in CA who have had to close because of non-payers.

More explicitly does anyone have a right to healthcare? I think not, just as one does not have the right to food or a job or shelter. Those basic necessities of life should come from our labor. If one can work hard and buy a nice car or home, their priority should be also to provide for their healthcare insurance. The cost is close to a car payment, and can be scaled accordingly.

The government has welfare programs in place for those in poverty, why do we need to expand what is really a large scale welfare program? 

The Congressional Budget Office today wrote that government provided healthcare spending at the current rate or at an increased rate as a percentage of GDP will be unsustainable against revenues in the near future.

Why does the president want to push through a healthcare program? He has advocated pushing through so much overreaching legislation, and none of it has shown the least bit of promise in improving our economy.

For those of you who will argue that we should become some sort of egalitarian utopia, please remember that the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers contribute only 3% to the federal government's tax revenue, while the top 1% of income earners pay 39% and the top 5% pay 60%. 

Is the healthcare reform proposal fair and sustainable?


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

The argument runs something like this. It's just wrong to have poor people in our society without adequate on-going health care. I just googled it: 46 million people lack health insurance in the US, 18% of those under 65. That's a terribly large number; too many people are being hurt by this, too many going bankrupt paying their medical bills, too many dying before their time. It is bad for the whole of our society.

It is true that if you go to an emergency room bleeding from the head, the doctors and nurses are not allowed to stand idly by and watch you expire on the floor for lack of insurance. 

But that's not health care; that's triage. Health care is when you meet regularly with a physician, deal with any little problems that arise (hopefully) before they become big problems, and generally live as healthy a life as possible. Who knows, maybe such regular care will be more efficient ultimately than the late-stage emergency treatments you say are putting hospitals out of business.

As for it being a right or privilege or whatever, I don't care so much. I would just rather live in a society in which all people, rich and poor, had adequate health care, than in one--our own--in which a large part of the poorer population lacks care. I don't think there will be anything utopian about universal health care: I'm sure there will be many on-going problems with a universal system, as there are many on-going problems with our system now.

As for the rich paying more, that's the nature of a progressive tax system. I don't see any way around it. The people--like myself--who can afford to pay more will pay more. It's really just about what kind of society one wants to live in. I can understand those who feel indifferent or hostile about the needs of those who have less. But I guess I'm just not one of them.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Beau said:


> Why do we need healthcare reform? Is anyone today denied treatment at a community hospital? None, especially if you ask the hospitals in CA who have had to close because of non-payers.


I couldn't even make it past this first ignorant line before before I wanted to ball you up and throw you in the trash, but that's easier to do with paper than with a monitor. Maybe I'll read the rest tonight, after I howl at the moon.
​


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> I couldn't even make it past this first ignorant line before before I wanted to ball you up and throw you in the trash, but that's easier to do with paper than with a monitor. Maybe I'll read the rest tonight, after I howl at the moon.
> ​


Ignorant? No. Just facts which are hard to argue against. Please stick to facts, the question, and keep your insults to yourself.

The easiest tactic in any debate is to attack the other party and not argue the points. A classic liberal's tactic.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Beau said:


> Ignorant? No. Just facts which are hard to argue against. Please stick to facts, the question, and keep your insults to yourself.
> 
> The easiest tactic in any debate is to attack the other party and not argue the points. A classic liberal's tactic.


Remember now before you start in with me that I've only read the first line of your post and the rest could be brilliant, enlightening and compassionate...

...but based on your opening line you are not asking a question, you have made a rhetorical remark, as in Who Needs Healthcare Reform (Anyway)? and rhetoric of that sort is deemed by me to be ignorant and calling it so is not an attack. Settle down. I don't know you. I have no interest in attacking you. And there are no points to argue. We need health care reform period. What shape it takes is a viable discussion. But to say that we don't need it because emergency rooms cannot/will not deny anyone care is little different from (in the 30s) saying we didn't need Social Security because there were plenty of county poor farms.

I am ready to howl now. Where's my moon?
​


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

> It's just wrong to have poor people in our society without adequate on-going health care. I just googled it: 46 million people lack health insurance in the US, 18% of those under 65. That's a terribly large number; too many people are being hurt by this, too many going bankrupt paying their medical bills, too many dying before their time. It is bad for the whole of our society.


So we should put the whole country in the position to go bankrupt, too? Why did these people (please give me a true estimate of how many people) decide not to be responsible for their medical bills? Do they have cars and cell phones and iPods and cable television, beer in the refrigerator, cigarettes, and mortgages, too? All of those can be said to be luxuries. I was raised to be personally responsible for my debts.



> Health care is when you meet regularly with a physician, deal with any little problems that arise (hopefully) before they become big problems, and generally live as healthy a life as possible. Who knows, maybe such regular care will be more efficient ultimately than the late-stage emergency treatments you say are putting hospitals out of business.


We have urgent care centers, but you must be a paying customer. See my above response about what things most people prefer to purchase before healthcare.



> I would just rather live in a society in which all people, rich and poor, had adequate health care


The United States of America has the best healthcare in the world. We may not have the latest technology, FDA approvals are a quite a bit slower than the EU's. Everyone comes to the US to get fixed up. The only reason the truly wealthy healthcare consumer goes elsewhere is if his choice of product is not yet approved for use here.



> The people--like myself--who can afford to pay more will pay more.


If you are among the top 1% of income earners, welcome to the effective tax rate of 54.5%. Ouch. I'm not even close and I dread what an imputed income of $13,000 (the approximate total cost of my employer subsidized health plan) will do to my already too large income tax bill.

Lastly, why do you consider it hate if one thinks that increasing our federal debt load is too great a burden on our society. If the country goes broke, who will hire us?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lord Foppington said:


> The argument runs something like this. It's just wrong to have poor people in our society without adequate on-going health care. I just googled it: 46 million people lack health insurance in the US, 18% of those under 65. That's a terribly large number; too many people are being hurt by this, too many going bankrupt paying their medical bills, too many dying before their time. It is bad for the whole of our society.
> 
> It is true that if you go to an emergency room bleeding from the head, the doctors and nurses are not allowed to stand idly by and watch you expire on the floor for lack of insurance.
> 
> ...


I think it's a great question and Lord Foppington accurately presents an argument I hear quite often that I always see contradictions in; this insurance vs. care argument.

If health care is defined broadly as he says, meeting regularly with your doctor before you get big problems, then what's the issue about insurance?

I go to doctors that won't even take insurance. I pay cash. I do as you suggest - receive regular health care and live as healthy as possible.

Therefore if we take his scenario and the number out of the 46 million that will have a major medical problem that would bankrupt them is fairly small. It's only because those people that do not have health insurance ALSO fail to live healthy lives and receive regular health care to prevent small problems turning into big problems, but insurance according to the argument presented would have nothing to do with it - neither regular preventive care nor living a healthy life require insurance. Regular care is not cost prohibitive - it's frequently cheaper than insurance; especially with flex and other health/medical accounts. My doctors give me discounts for not using insurance. True these are available to people generally through their insurance, but there are many proposals to delink the various plans and type of HSA/MSA/FSAs. All the Republican Presidential Candidates had some form of this type of delinkage and McCain certainly had a workaround with the $2500/$5000 family/individual tax credit to buy insurance (which I think is too low). You can buy a really cheap insurance plan with an HSA option.

Regardless if we take the scenario as given; even if these people end up with big problems then what is "wrong" with triage as a rule?

I think we need some reforms related to health care to increase competition, increase information and transparency, reduce fraud and incompetence, but no one has proven or even presented a plausible argument that we "need" a government option. We may need a tax credit and to lower the threshold for out-of-pocket medical expenses; but this is the same in many industries including; like credit cards or mortgages.

If consumers choose to buy an i-pod instead of regular health care that's the American way. I am empathetic, but I don't feel obligated or empowered to dictate to other Americans how they should live and spend their money; nor assume their liabilities. Frankly, I'd like to see paystubs and budgets for these people. I bet you can't find me someone who can't afford regular medical care and I support a diabetic MIL and a BIL who live on a combined $1,100 SS, so I am not indifferent nor insulated from the cost of regular doctor visits and solutions for those with fixed incomes and tight budgets. For a long time we couldn't wait for the day the MIL got on medicare, but it has not been a cost saver for us - who are picking up the slack. I've been through several 911 calls because her sugar is too high where the ambulance checks her into ER because it's required by some BS redtape instead of slapping her in the head and sending her to jail for false 911 calls because she didn't take her insulin and ate cake in the retirement home she's not supposed to have.

I want to say I cannot be convinced a govt plan will work, but I'm actually open-minded as I would love a solution to my MIL and BIL who is a waste at 50. It's an unsolvable problem and causes my Wife much stress. The stuff I've heard so far is definitely not a solution from my perspective and just enables more entitled mentalities to abuse those of us that don't want to watch them self-destruct any longer - a luxury we cannot afford IMHO.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*upcoming failed social engineering program*

The liberal fantasy is that fat, stupid, irresponsible people will start being healthy, non-smoking, vegetarian joggers once we pay for their doctor visits.

This is idiocy. Fat stupid irresponsible people will become fatter, stupider and more irresponsible when they can get free drugs from the doctor on the dime of thin, smart, responsible people.

Anyone who is functionally literate can take care of their basic health. Graduate middle school and you've had a few health courses. Read the labels on foodstuffs, cigarette boxes, booze bottles. Brush your teeth, don't smoke, eat a fruit and veggie. Walk around a bit. People are indulgent, not ignorant.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Everybody wants the best care, but nobody wants to pay for it. A lot of people can't afford it.

So the government should pay everything, problem solved!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Everybody wants the best care, but nobody wants to pay for it. A lot of people can't afford it.
> 
> So the government should pay everything, problem solved!


Well sure ... if you want to reduce 1000 words of bloviating into two or three sentences :icon_smile_big:


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

I'd like to first know what exactly healthcare "reform" means. No one, including our new nanny in chief, has really explained what it is, how it will be paid for, how its efficacy will be measured, or how it will improve our lives. 

Lets assume though that it is some form of partially or wholly nationalized health service. The irony is that the high quality and accessability of healthcare now available to all is because we have a private system. Socialize it and we will see that availability and quality wither. Private insurance companies should actually get a break because they end up subsidizing the healthcare system for the cost of taking care of people on the public dole. Has anyone ever see the reimbursement schedule for medicare or medicaid? If that's all a hospital or practice had to depend on it would be bankrupt, or rather propped up by further taxpayer subsidies. 

Most of us have private health insurance and are happy with it. The more bells and whistles we want, the more we can pay. The less we want to pay, the more restrictions on our care. That's as fair as a plan can get. If we start fooling around with central planning for healthcare and I'm not sure anyone really knows what we will end up with. A simple analysis of the plight of medicare and social security will show this. Will we add a third rail to our social entitlement program. Are we ready to say hello to a marginal tax rate of 50-60%?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> I'd like to first know what exactly healthcare "reform" means. No one, including our new nanny in chief, has really explained what it is, how it will be paid for, how its efficacy will be measured, or how it will improve our lives.
> 
> Lets assume though that it is some form of partially or wholly nationalized health service. The irony is that the high quality and accessability of healthcare now available to all is because we have a private system. Socialize it and we will see that availability and quality wither. Private insurance companies should actually get a break because they end up subsidizing the healthcare system for the cost of taking care of people on the public dole. Has anyone ever see the reimbursement schedule for medicare or medicaid? If that's all a hospital or practice had to depend on it would be bankrupt, or rather propped up by further taxpayer subsidies.
> 
> Most of us have private health insurance and are happy with it. The more bells and whistles we want, the more we can pay. The less we want to pay, the more restrictions on our care. That's as fair as a plan can get. If we start fooling around with central planning for healthcare and I'm not sure anyone really knows what we will end up with. A simple analysis of the plight of medicare and social security will show this. Will we add a third rail to our social entitlement program. Are we ready to say hello to a marginal tax rate of 50-60%?


What really makes the head spin around is the self-fulling Obama-prophecy that companies, particularly small business, will layoff more workers because of the rising costs of healthcare. Gee, ya think so Mr. President? How's that economic plan workin' for ya?

Instead we have a "n*a*nny" and a "n*i*nny" = Obama/Biden

Somehow Obama remains somewhat likeable where Biden just makes Palin seem almost tolerable. It's beyond the pale now IMHO.


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

Well, there's a lot to answer all at once.

To Beau, I'd say that it wouldn't bankrupt the country. Every other developed country has universal health care, and it doesn't bankrupt them. And I really don't think hate is the most prevalent feeling towards the working poor who can't afford health care. It's probably mostly indifference and the feeling that the problems of the 46 million without it are their own fault. That 46 million, by the way, is the number offered usually. Of course I can't personally vouch for it.

As for ksinc's argument, that on-going care is cheap and should prevent the need for health insurance--is that it?--I'd reply that health care is complicated, and the circumstances of people coming to it vary widely. For some poor people, regular doctors' visits are indeed prohibitively expensive. And as we all know (to our pain and dismay), regular doctors visits don't always prevent all catastrophic or chronic illnesses. It's easy to imagine someone who goes to his doctor and catches skin cancer early, then develops something worse much later that preventative medicine didn't prevent.

The point is that on-going care is good, and some people don't get it. And bigger problems, which we all know arise sometimes even with regular checkups, are expensive and can bankrupt a person.

Here's a link that says 60% of US bankruptcies are from medical bills:

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

It's interesting: it says most of those bankrupt people had health insurance but lost it somewhere during their health problems--from losing their jobs, etc.

Anyway, I'm sure there are some who would say to a bankrupt, sick, poor person: "well, you really should have eaten better," or "why do you have a cell phone?" or "why didn't you walk around more?" or some such thing. Maybe they'd even say "all health care problems are your own fault, every illness is a testament to you poor choices," etc. (--though that's simply not true, I would add.)

Anyway, there's really not much to disagree about here. I think there should be a universal health care system because everybody should have health care, no matter how rotten we think they (or their parents, if they're children) are. Others here think only those who've had the personal or familial success or good fortune to be insured should have health care. Two different ways of looking at the same problem.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lord Foppington said:


> Well, there's a lot to answer all at once.
> 
> To Beau, I'd say that it wouldn't bankrupt the country. Every other developed country has universal health care, and it doesn't bankrupt them. And I really don't think hate is the most prevalent feeling towards the working poor who can't afford health care. It's probably mostly indifference and the feeling that the problems of the 46 million without it are their own fault. That 46 million, by the way, is the number offered usually. Of course I can't personally vouch for it.
> 
> ...


To clarify: I'm simply pointing out the reverse - lack of insurance need not equal lack of regular health care

I think there is a third way of looking at the problem. Only two buckets is too few and misrepresents the complications of the opposing views IMHO and one shouldn't need insurance to have health care (and many do not have insurance and receive health care.)

Regardless, I appreciate anyone with a substantiated view, but I wonder if since 2005 the majority of bankruptcies is housing related? Either way - I accept it is a significant/leading cause, but that is a false positive in the debate over regular health care and healthy living which I thought I was agreeing with you would prevent some percentage (I believe a large percentage) of these.

Portability is an important issue, but I don't think requires a government option either. And as previously said, most GOP proposals addressed this particularly McCain's idea (hedged for low figures again.)

The lady (I forget her name - can look it up - Elizabeth Warren) that oversees the TARP has a great book https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Mothers/dp/0465090826 on two income families as a leading cause of bankruptcy. Something like 1 out of 7 two income families declares bankruptcy every year.


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

Thanks ksinc, I see what you're saying. Good night, gents, I'm sure this one will go for a while.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Lord Foppington said:


> Good night, gents, I'm sure this one will go for a while.


Dear Lord Foppington,

I know you've retired for the night, but maybe you'll read this in your dreams.

Your points are far too reasoned for this bunch. Save your breath. We voted for Obama so he would shake up the system. He is. That's the end of it. Those to the right will always argue that universal care is not a right. And they are correct, which is why we want to make it a right: because it's not one yet.

New rights do spring up every once in a while. Like the right to vote, the right to be Black, etc. That's political evolution. And thank god for that.​


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

46 million *Americans*?... here are some relevant facts...

https://briansullivan.blogs.foxbusi...y-without-health-insurance-in-america-yes-no/

1. There is a difference between health care and health insurance. Everyone has access to health care. They may not have health insurance, but the law mandates everyone who shows up at emergency rooms must be treated, insurance or not.

2. 46 million in America lack health insurance. The "in America" reference, as opposed to writing "46 million Americans," is an important point because of those 46 million without insurance, an estimated 10 million or so are non-U.S. citizens, most living in this country illegally.

3. Millions can apparently afford health insurance but for whatever reason choose to not buy it. In 2007, an estimated 17.6 million of the uninsured made more than $50,000 per year, and more than 9 million of those made more than $75,000. According to researcher and author Sally Pipes, 38 percent of the U.S. uninsured population earn more than $50,000 per year.

3. Young workers often just don't think about health insurance. The Census figures show that 18.3 million of the uninsured were under 34 who may simply not think about the need for insurance.

4...


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Relayer's just cut and pasted the same load we've heard over and over. Guess I'll have to blow 'em apart again before I nod off.



Relayer said:


> 1. Everyone has access to health care. They may not have health insurance, but the law mandates everyone who shows up at emergency rooms must be treated, insurance or not.


...but you still receive an exorbitant bill from the ER. And if you can't pay (which is why you went to the ER), they'll dun and ding you forever.



> 2. Of those 46 million without insurance, an estimated 10 million or so are non-U.S. citizens, most living in this country illegally.


...so to hell with them. After all, they're like Mexicans or something.



> 3. Millions can apparently afford health insurance *but for whatever reason* choose to not buy it.


...and since you don't know the reason, why bring it up?



> 4. Census figures show that 18.3 million of the uninsured were under 34 who may simply not think about the need for insurance.


...so they're kind of like the Mexicans, to hell with them too.
​


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

There are many problems with the Government trying to reform health care, one of them is they want to run it. Ask a Vet what kind of health care they get at the local VA hospital.

The next problem is they have no idea how they will pay for it, tax your health benefits, tax the rich, tax the business owner. We all know how well additional taxes work for stimulating the economy.

Another problem is the lack of choice, the government will mandate what care you get, how often you get and from whom.

You can bet that the elected officials in DC won't give up their golden plans do you? A mandate of their efforts to force their care on us should be they have to use it.

Lastly, private health coverage as described on page 16 of the 1,018 page document will become illegal. https://www.examiner.com/x-2304-DC-...-bill-makes-private-medical-insurance-illegal

So, all you high and mighty thinkers who believe that NoBama won and we just have to shut up and take it, you are wrong. The Government still works at the leisure of the people who elect them to represent our interests, they who fail to do that face voter retribution at the ballot box.

NoBama has to cram this through while they believe no one is looking as his political capital is fading and by the mid-terms he'll be as good as a lame duck...


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

^You were humming along pretty good there until you started calling The President 'Nobama', and then you lost me in a swirl of lousy junior high memories, you know, little made-up names that dig and gouge. I've got one for you, but they'd shut me out of here if I used it. Guess I'm not above that either.​


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

Welcome to the entitlement culture. Medical rationing is what this amounts to. Has anyone else heard about the woman who in Oregon (which has socialized healthcare) who has terminal cancer and needed a perscription that would prolong her life and ease some of her suffering? Not only did the state deny her this perscription, but they also were kind enough to send her info regarding the states assisted suicide program. So there you have it in a nutshell. Having government healthcare will result in some bureaucracy deciding who lives and dies, taxes for everyone will go up sky high and doctors now not having to compete in the free market, will now become not unlike the drones one sees at the post office or DMV. If the government takes over healthcare, I'll go to part time work. Why work an extra 20 hours when it's just going to pay the medical bills for some overweight dufus who would rather stay at home drinking Bud and eating KFC while watching Springer instead of aquiring the skills and education that will make him more competitive in the market place so he can have his own insurance.
This used to be the country of self-sufficiency but no more. Thanks to the Democrats and their class warfare tactics, it seems more and more that many people just want their palms crossed with someone else's money.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

obiwan said:


> There are many problems with the Government trying to reform health care, one of them is they want to run it. Ask a Vet what kind of health care they get at the local VA hospital.
> 
> The next problem is they have no idea how they will pay for it, tax your health benefits, tax the rich, tax the business owner. We all know how well additional taxes work for stimulating the economy.
> 
> ...


The click through to the entire IBD editorial is a good read Thanks!

From that source: "The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because *nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs*. "


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

burnedandfrozen said:


> Welcome to the entitlement culture. Medical rationing is what this amounts to. Has anyone else heard about the woman who in Oregon (which has socialized healthcare) who has terminal cancer and needed a perscription that would prolong her life and ease some of her suffering? Not only did the state deny her this perscription, but they also were kind enough to send her info regarding the states assisted suicide program. So there you have it in a nutshell. Having government healthcare will result in some bureaucracy deciding who lives and dies, taxes for everyone will go up sky high and doctors now not having to compete in the free market, will now become not unlike the drones one sees at the post office or DMV. If the government takes over healthcare, I'll go to part time work. Why work an extra 20 hours when it's just going to pay the medical bills for some overweight dufus who would rather stay at home drinking Bud and eating KFC while watching Springer instead of aquiring the skills and education that will make him more competitive in the market place so he can have his own insurance.
> This used to be the country of self-sufficiency but no more. Thanks to the Democrats and their class warfare tactics, it seems more and more that many people just want their palms crossed with someone else's money.


SNL's in reruns so I'll read the above in full Saturday night.

Apparently the liberals have escaped from this forum and I'm all by myself here, so I'll trudge on while the rest of you keep talking to yourselves.

You won't be hearing this, but I'll give it a try: I think the basic difference between the well-heeled conservative and the well-heeled liberal is that the conservative often thinks _I worked hard, I got mine, now you get yours_ while the liberal thinks_ I worked hard, I got mine, now let me help you get yours_.​


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Young workers/50K*

Gentlemen

You have to understand the costs say 30 years ago. Rent, food, telephone.
Now back then one with 50 grand did well.
Now, rent is 50 times what it was. Gas. 100 fold. Food, family can spend most of their pay for just this.
Healthcare insurance costs is sad. It varies, but between 500-800 single plan.
What is happening is people can not do it.
I like the idea of taxing the wealthy for a change. Let the middle class relax for a change. A least over the past 25 years.
Actually, the big money makers, they should pay 75 percent taxes. Thise that make, say 50 million bonus for guiding a now defunct bank.
The wealthy should pay for the college education of all the middle class as well.
Nice day


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen
> 
> You have to understand the costs say 30 years ago. Rent, food, telephone.
> Now back then one with 50 grand did well.
> ...


I need a good Leftie back-up here, but not this guy. The emboldened points are ridiculous. Hmmmmmm. Wait a minute. You're really a Rightie masking as a Leftie to embarass me (and Duke), right?​


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> You won't be hearing this, but I'll give it a try: I think the basic difference between the well-heeled conservative and the well-heeled liberal is that the conservative often thinks _I worked hard, I got mine, now you get yours_ while the liberal thinks_ I worked hard, I got mine, now let me help you get yours_.​


I think you left out..."now let me help you get yours by getting someone else to foot the bill"

P&P I don't believe anyone should be denied healthcare, but I also don't believe we need a government run health plan in which everyone is required to participate. Plus it is most egregious that the tax burden will significantly increase on the top 5% of income earners. This is class warfare, and that is discrimination.

You wrote in an earlier post that you voted for Obama to bring change to this country. If you want to live in a socialist or communist society there are many other countries from which to choose. Why should the United States change to a system of government and taxation, which limits opportunity? Freedom and free markets made us great. Social programs are breaking us.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I'm sure most of us have seen this email humor before, but the tone seems to have Ebbed and Flowed again so I thought a chuckle might be good timing



> A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him,
> "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
> 
> The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.
> ...


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

But why should I be forced, with threat of prison, to pay for someone else's healthcare?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Beau said:


> .
> 
> The easiest tactic in any debate is to attack the other party and not argue the points. A classic liberal's tactic.


A classic tactic of both the left and the right. Sigh.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

norton said:


> But why should I be forced, with threat of prison, to pay for someone else's healthcare?


Exactly this. No one should have a "right" to a share of my earnings.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

norton said:


> But why should I be forced, with threat of prison, to pay for someone else's healthcare?


To expand upon my previous post, a couple years ago I was helping out at a Lions Club vision screening. School nurses had identified low income children with possible vision problems for screening and the school district sent them to the Lions Club semi trailer outfitted with an optometrist's office and trained staff. Lens Crafters was providing free glasses, made on the spot while you wait. Many of these kids had had vision problems for some years and it was negatively affecting their school work.

I was amazed though at how many of these kids were picked up by parents driving brand new expensive vehicles. The kids had cell phones, i-pods and handheld games and expensive but faddish clothes. The parents could afford glasses for their kids, that's just not where their priorities were.

Similarly, Ive seen people go without needed medical treatment because their insurance wouldn't pay for it. They could afford it, but they seemed to feel that it wasn't their responsibility to pay for their own health.

Now let me say it again, why should I be forced, with threat of prison, to pay for their healthcare?


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

norton said:


> But why should I be forced, with threat of prison, to pay for someone else's healthcare?


For the same reason you are forced to obey any law which our representatives have voted on and the courts have upheld.

In our republic, we vote for representatives. They pass legislation. Hence we must stop at traffic lights, refrain from murder, pay taxes, even if we don't like it.

If we don't like the legislation our representatives pass, we vote them out. So get busy! Vote in your candidate who promises to repeal the income tax. And good luck!


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*Pearls before swine*



norton said:


> The parents could afford glasses for their kids, that's just not where their priorities were.


Exactly. I know of no social experiment that has cured underclass irresponsibility, and this new scheme will be no different.
The dopes that don't care about their health until it is too late will not start caring even with mandatory free weekly doctor visits. They also won't care enough after it's too late, so don't bother.
The net effect is that a reasonably health conscious society will shift personal responsibility over to doctors in the same fashion that most parenting has been transferred over to public schools. With similarly poor results to follow.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Lord Foppington said:


> If we don't like the legislation our representatives pass, we vote them out. So get busy! Vote in your candidate who promises to repeal the income tax. And good luck!


Exactly, only instead of promising to repeal the income tax,which after all was finally allowed after ratification of the 16th amendment, only vote for candidates who promise to limit the powers of the federal government to those enumerated in the constitution, as provided for by the 10th amendment. I don't see providing for every resident's health care anywhere in there.

I just wish we could get our politicians and judges to follow the law of the land.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> A classic tactic of both the left and the right. Sigh.


Geesh!

Let's reflect upon the last presedential election. Pundits on the right told us that Obama consorted with communists such as Bill Ayers and we should be concerned that Obama is a clandestine radical. Those were not attacks on the man, but warnings as to the true character of the Democrat presedential candidate.

Obama told us he wanted to reshape America. He said McCain was old and out of touch with the needs of most American citizens. Those are name calling tactics.

The young and disenfranchised voted Obama into office. They still have not yet seen what socialism will do to our country; however, one day they may realize why they aren't enough menial jobs to go around. the government taxed their potential employers so much it became impossible to find credit or profits to reinvest and grow their businesses.

Now we see what it means to reshape America.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

The really strange thing about all of this is that its not new. Socialized medicine and a centrally planned economy have been tried many times over the past 100 years. I wonder what makes the Democratic leadership, and Obama, think that they have found the missing piece of the puzzle overlooked by everyone else.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Beau said:


> Geesh!
> 
> Let's reflect upon the last presedential election. Pundits on the right told us that Obama consorted with communists such as Bill Ayers and we should be concerned that Obama is a clandestine radical. Those were not attacks on the man, but warnings as to the true character of the Democrat presedential candidate.
> 
> ...


I'll stick with what I said. I'm no Obama fan, but maybe, just maybe if some of the folks on the right had been a little more civil and a bit more accomodating of anyone who does not walk lockstep with them, maybe some people would have listened to them and we would not have the mess we have now.

And if they had not ruined their credibility propping up a clearly unqualified Bush, we also might not have Obama with a clear majority in the house and a filibuster-proof majoirty in the Senate. I did not vote for any of the Democrats in question, for what it's worth.

Politics count. People's perceptions count. Where are all the folks on the right who were so proud of not supporting McCain now??

My honest opinion is that the folks out on the fringes of both the left and the right get too much attention, have too much power and are ruining the country. Honest discussion is out. "Win at all costs, even if intellectual dishonesty or outright direct dishonesty are necessary to win an election." is the rule of the day. Both Bush and Obama were dishonest about their intentions as to where they wanted to lead the country in order to be elected.


----------



## obxsouth (Mar 18, 2009)

*Our current crisis*



forsbergacct2000 said:


> I'll stick with what I said. I'm no Obama fan, but maybe, just maybe if some of the folks on the right had been a little more civil and a bit more accomodating of anyone who does not walk lockstep with them, maybe some people would have listened to them and we would not have the mess we have now.
> 
> And if they had not ruined their credibility propping up a clearly unqualified Bush, we also might not have Obama with a clear majority in the house and a filibuster-proof majoirty in the Senate. I did not vote for any of the Democrats in question, for what it's worth.
> 
> ...


Excellent post. As I've noted elsewhere, we need more relationships in governance like the work between the late President Reagan and the late House Speaker Tip O'Neill. While they would battle during the working day, after 5 they were able to lift a glass and have meaningful dialogue about important issues, and work toward some sort of consensus. Other presidents and congressional leaders of the past were able to do the same.
Now bipartisanship is dead, and as a conservative of the John French Kemp tradition, I mourn the fact that the political process has been hijacked by extremists on the left and right. As a result, it is as you said, it has become about winning elections, not about the good of the Republic.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Exactly. I know of no social experiment that has cured underclass irresponsibility, and this new scheme will be no different.


Precise and succinct. Makes me think of "Moynihan's Scissors" chart showing the more spent on social programs leads to diminishing returns. I would love to be demonstrated it would work out splendidly, but history has a way of repeating.


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> My honest opinion is that the folks out on the fringes of both the left and the right get too much attention, have too much power and are ruining the country. Honest discussion is out.


Agree with the second sentence, but not with the first. Republicans and Democrats, for all their bluster, really aren't that far apart. No Republican would dare repeal the income tax or scotch Social Security. No Democrat will seriously attempt to take on Wall Street and big business (let alone permanently nationalize large sectors of the economy; the government stakes in private business will end when the companies are righted).

But there is a lot of high-flown, exaggerated rhetoric, some of it in evidence on this thread.

For instance, Obama is a communist because he wants a universal health care plan. Therefore every European nation now (really every developed nation, because all except the US have universal health care) is a communist power. We thought Reagan saved us from the communist threat; how naive we were, we're surrounded!

Another example you sometimes hear: Obama's proposed tax increase on the rich is socialist class warfare. Hence the difference between 36% and 39% highest marginal tax rate becomes the difference between liberty and socialism. Shockingly, therefore, the United States was a socialist nation under Bush I, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower... really every Republican (and Democratic) president going back to Warren G. Harding.

I feel like I know what people mean when they say such things. They're elevating what they perceive to be tendencies into absolute descriptors. If you dip a finger in the water, you "may as well be" soaking wet up to your eyeballs. If you advocate an increase in military spending, you're a fascist militarist. If let your child go to an R-rated movie, you're committing child abuse. Etc. etc. But that's a cheapening of discourse, in my view, and gets us nowhere.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

norton said:


> But why should I be forced, with threat of prison, to pay for someone else's healthcare?


But why should I be forced, with the threat of prison, to pay for someone else's tanks?

My wife and I have the best insurance her company offers and we live in the 5th largest city in the country. It still takes us 3 months to see our primary care doctor. So instead, we always go to a specialist because we can see them on 24 hours notice and our insurance will pay for it.

I have terrible acid reflux. Walmart sells over-the-counter generic Zantac for $4 a bottle which lasts 2 months. Every time I see my doctor he insists on writing me a prescription for a brand name product that costs $90 for a month. I'm intelligent enough to tell him no thanks, the Zantac works fine, but I bet most people take the prescription.

The system is broken. I'm not saying Obama will fix it. But something needs to happen.

Canada's system works remarkably well. It's not perfect but it is better than ours for most people. Lots of medicines are over-the-counter so people can avoid doctors for minor issues. Because everyone is covered by insurance, there are lots of urgent care centers so people can be treated quickly for injuries and colds. The government bargains down the prices of brand name drugs so they cost less. And for some reason (I don't know the reason) Canada has all kinds of generic drugs that aren't available in America.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> But why should I be forced, with the threat of prison, to pay for someone else's tanks?


Because national defense is one of the enumerated powers of the federal government. Many of the founders were strongly against a standing army, but early in the country's history one was found useful, and kept.

As one of the other posters said, "If we don't like the legislation our representatives pass, we vote them out. So get busy! " Or work toward the repeal of the the 16th amendment.

But remember, the founding fathers' alternative to a standing army was a well armed and trained militia consisting of all adult males. Are you prepared to accept your neighbors owning and training with military grade full automatic weapons and combat vehicles? Are you willing to be a part of that militia?


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

In Australia we have our compulsory medicare contributions paid via tax and the supplementary health cover via private insurance.

For example on a combined income of $130,000 pa for financial 09, the wife and I will pay $1,300 Medicare levy. For that I go to a Doctors and pay $60 for a consolation and then get back $48. 

Also a new system is in place to get people assistance with mental health for example I have a Black Dog, had it since I was 19 mongrel of a thing, and I set up a Mental Health Care plan via my GP, that enabled me to see a psychologist for 12 visits, forget Zoloft I have found the talking cure works best for me. He charges $110 and I get back $75. I would not call this socialist medicine by any stretch, pensioners and others on benefits can be bulk billed. 

Our private insurance only covers extras eg Dental, Optical, Physio ect at $864 a year and this is with a $300 credit from the Government. So on a $800 pair of spectacles I got back $180, not great other funds pay more. Dental is good I went through the fund to get a crown done and its only costing $575 as opposed to $1300 at a private dentist.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Stringfellow said:


> But why should I be forced, with the threat of prison, to pay for someone else's tanks?





norton said:


> Because national defense is one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.


Norton, what you say is correct, but you may be taking Stringfellow too llitterally. Try this: why should I pay (through property taxes) for my neighbor kids to go to school? I don't think that's mentioned in whatever original document mentions that sort of stuff. But it did become a right in the 1940s.​


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Norton, what you say is correct, but you may be taking Stringfellow too llitterally. Try this: why should I pay (through property taxes) for my neighbor kids to go to school? I don't think that's mentioned in whatever original document mentions that sort of stuff. But it did become a right in the 1940s.​


Good point, however schools have traditionally been funded at the state level and educational requirements have traditionally been determined on the state level. I personally think that is a good idea, the states are free to experiment and people are free to choose their states of residence. I think most states would agree that it benefits all residents to have an educated workforce and the residents have some control over how much is spent. But there's no reason they would all have to come to that conclusion and some may choose no education or homeschool or web based learning only.

I don't think we should have a federal department of education and I don't think federal dollars should be used for state or local schools. Here's how it works. Your local government would have to raise taxes to pay your local teachers more. Local residents won't pass the tax hike. So your state asks congress for money. Congress gives it to them and local residents don't complain because its such a minor line item on a huge budget that is being funded by income taxes from the entire country. But it still costs just as much if not more. That's how it works with so many items that the federal government pays for. If we had to vote to fund them on a local level taxpayers would never agree, but when it gets included in the federal budget its such a small part that no one notices, but the cumulative effect is enormous.

By the way, I kept my two sons in public school through middle school because I felt that they needed to be exposed to people from different backgrounds. But I put them into private school for high school because I came to the conclusion that the public schools just weren't doing an acceptable job of educating, despite spending twice as much per student as a private school. It was the best parental decision I ever made.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Where are all the folks on the right who were so proud of not supporting McCain now??


All what folks? I've never met a Republican that voted for Obama despite the poll numbers. And I only know one Independent that did.

I showed up and voted for McCain as I think most on the right did as well.

As for the Primary; no I voted for Romney and I think circumstances have proven he was the right man for the job. Unfortunately, I hope and think by 2012 he won't be the right man for the job anymore. I think if he still is then we have a long, long terrible road to hoe; and I honestly hope we recover long before then.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

> For instance, Obama is a communist because he wants a universal health care plan. Therefore every European nation now (really every developed nation, because all except the US have universal health care) is a communist power. We thought Reagan saved us from the communist threat; how naive we were, we're surrounded!


Lord Foppington, it is amazing to me how many people think the Europeans have it right and we don't. Recently, I worked for a small Swedish company. The controller was over visiting our NJ office and we talked about the difference of life style between our two mother countries. He told me that the tax rate on individuals was about 45%, but that anyone who could get accepted to university would go for free - paid by the state. He also told me that property/land owners are in the minority. He knows what I made in total compensation and he was floored that my effective tax rate was less than 30% and I lived on 2.5 acres in a 3,000 square foot house, owned two cars, and paid for two kids in college.



> Another example you sometimes hear: Obama's proposed tax increase on the rich is socialist class warfare. Hence the difference between 36% and 39% highest marginal tax rate becomes the difference between liberty and socialism. Shockingly, therefore, the United States was a socialist nation under Bush I, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower... really every Republican (and Democratic) president going back to Warren G. Harding.


So you see, we've have it pretty good. When universal health care is enacted, we may become more like the Swedes, et al. A 39% top tax rate will be a fond memory.

What is most galling is that the House Democrats' plan calls for increasing taxes on the so called rich, cuts spending on Medicare and Medicaid by $500 billion over 10 years, and increases the entry level of eligibility for Medicaid for those making 133% above the federal poverty level ($14,404).

Their plan makes no sense. I know doctors who won't take Medicaid patients because they lose money providing care to those patients. Hospitals are facing the same challenge, too. That is fact, not fiction.

The system we have works. The proposed system will not. This issue of nationalized health care (universal health care sounds so much more friendly) is about class warfare, and those in the middle class do not yet realize the toll it will take on them. It is so easy to say "Soak the Rich; they can afford it." Remember, the tax rates on top income earners will be greater than 50%, and the economy will go in the tank; but, everyone will be able to get at least a pain pill instead of an expensive life saving treatment.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

ksinc said:


> All what folks? I've never met a Republican that voted for Obama despite the poll numbers. And I only know one Independent that did.
> 
> I showed up and voted for McCain as I think most on the right did as well.
> 
> As for the Primary; no I voted for Romney and I think circumstances have proven he was the right man for the job. Unfortunately, I hope and think by 2012 he won't be the right man for the job anymore. I think if he still is then we have a long, long terrible road to hoe; and I honestly hope we recover long before then.


I will admit that I am a Republican who voted for Obama, I based the decision sole-ly on the fact that the prospect of Sara Palin becomming the commander in cheif in the event of something happening to McCain was just too frightening for me to deal with.

I also supported Romney on the right, and I still do, I'd like to see the GOP start talking up some intellegent candidates as possible 2012 contenders, and stop all this Palin, Jindal, Rush speculation horse$h!t. All it does is hurt the party, and if they really do go with any of these jokers they've been suggesting we might as well get settled in for alot more dem control...

RE: universal healthcare...I think both sides of the debate have some valid points...I dont feel I should have to pay for the government to give free healthcare to those who arent willing to take care of themselves. But at the same time, the cost of healthcare has gotten more and more prohibitive for the working lower and middle class, as well as employers who need to provide healthcare to their employees. It's too bad there is no happy medium between universal healthcare and giving healthcare companies free reign to stick it to people without any consequence (sp?)...just my $.02...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I will admit that I am a Republican who voted for Obama, I based the decision sole-ly on the fact that the prospect of Sara Palin becomming the commander in cheif in the event of something happening to McCain was just too frightening for me to deal with.
> 
> I also supported Romney on the right, and I still do, I'd like to see the GOP start talking up some intellegent candidates as possible 2012 contenders, and stop all this Palin, Jindal, Rush speculation horse$h!t. All it does is hurt the party, and if they really do go with any of these jokers they've been suggesting we might as well get settled in for alot more dem control...
> 
> RE: universal healthcare...I think both sides of the debate have some valid points...I dont feel I should have to pay for the government to give free healthcare to those who arent willing to take care of themselves. But at the same time, the cost of healthcare has gotten more and more prohibitive for the working lower and middle class, as well as employers who need to provide healthcare to their employees. It's too bad there is no happy medium between universal healthcare and giving healthcare companies free reign to stick it to people without any consequence (sp?)...just my $.02...


So in hindsight do you think you did the right thing?

Is Biden more competent than Palin in your opinion? I think Biden is an embarassment. I understand the disappointment in Palin, but I can't see how whatever criticism Palin deserves she is worse than Biden. She did not exactly foul up Alaska.

I agree with you on Palin-Jindal that's a bad ticket.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I will admit that I am a Republican who voted for Obama, I based the decision sole-ly on the fact that the prospect of Sara Palin becomming the commander in cheif in the event of something happening to McCain was just too frightening for me to deal with.


Are you happy with the choice you made? Also, is Palin worse than the plagerizing, hyberbole laden, almost a bafoon Joe Biden?



> RE: universal healthcare...I think both sides of the debate have some valid points...I dont feel I should have to pay for the government to give free healthcare to those who arent willing to take care of themselves. But at the same time, the cost of healthcare has gotten more and more prohibitive for the working lower and middle class, as well as employers who need to provide healthcare to their employees. It's too bad there is no happy medium between universal healthcare and giving healthcare companies free reign to stick it to people without any consequence (sp?)...just my $.02...[/


I don't believe that small employers have too big a burden or no choices to provide healthcare for their employees. They make a choice to save money. Please read three examples which are real-life -- mine:

1. I worked for a small Swedish medical device manufacturer. Our United States sales arm generated approximately 18 million in gross sales. We had to cover the cost of payroll and benefits for 14 employess from our sales. All of us could choose a health insurance plan to cover ourselves and/or our families. My contribution to cover me and my wife was about $190 a month. We had 9 employees spread across the US and Aetna offered us a fine plan. I've never had a problem with access to the doctors or hospitals of my preference.

2. Three years ago my wife worked as a customer service representative for a small business . The company was family owned and operated and they employed a staff of five. This family owned business with gross revenues of $5-7 million also offered completely paid health insurance to its employees. Family coverage was offered at a reasonable cost. They still have the same plan in place.

3. My brother-in-law is an attorney. His practice is private and court appointed work. He does not have a mortgage on his 4,000+ square foot house. He paid cash for the four cars he owns. His wife does not work and they have three teenage boys. They have no debt and they only have catastrophic health insurance. He is a moderately successful attorney, yet chooses not to provide regular well-care coverage for his family. It is more important to him to spend his money on toys than on protecting his family's health. ( In fairness of disclosure, his brother is a physician/specialist and will provide care for the family, yet often refers them to specialists -- where the B-I-L pays cash for services rendered.)

Health care in this country is affordable.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

I would like to examine the notion of "controlling costs". This is a term bandied about by proponents of this so called reform. 

This has become one of those meaningless political phrases, like, oh....change! The only way this can happen with a combination of strict price controls and rationing. In fact, rationing will be even more important as when healthcare becomes "free" for those that don't pay taxes anyway, every little ache and pain will result in a trip to the doctor and physician's offices will become flooded. 

The other thing that many are missing is the impact on the quality of life most of us enjoy. Let's say you're an avid runner, tennis player or golfer. If your knee hurts, you go to the doctor. If you're in a PPO, which is an option for many of us, you go straight to an orthopedic surgeon, have an MRI/x-ray taken to rule out anything serious, perhaps receive in injection and physical therapy. All this usually within 1-3 days. 

How many of us don't appreciate having that luxury. Imagine if the government (me and your neighbors) were paying for your healthcare. I'll be damned if I pay money just because your knee hurts after you run 6 miles, or you have elbow pain after playing tennis all day. And rightly so. These quality of life issues are sometimes lost on many.


----------



## newtothis (Apr 13, 2009)

We're screwed.

The White people are older and not reproducing. We're importing millions of uneducated people from the third world to perform menial work and they have having dozens of kids at the taxpayer expense. Add in the ghettos with the people who leech off their 'earned' income tax credit, food stamps, etc...

We're all screwed.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

newtothis said:


> We're screwed.
> 
> The White people are older and not reproducing. We're importing millions of uneducated people from the third world to perform menial work and they have having dozens of kids at the taxpayer expense. Add in the ghettos with the people who leech off their 'earned' income tax credit, food stamps, etc...
> 
> We're all screwed.


All it takes is a little getting worked up and some folks show their true colors.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

newtothis said:


> We're screwed.
> 
> The White people are older and not reproducing. We're importing millions of uneducated people from the third world to perform menial work and they have having dozens of kids at the taxpayer expense. Add in the ghettos with the people who leech off their 'earned' income tax credit, food stamps, etc...
> 
> We're all screwed.


Not sure I share the same "state of paranoia" that you seem to be in, but in the end your conclusion is correct. As it relates to the way we do things with health care in this country, if we continue down the current path - we are all screwed.

This is exactly why we need a nationalized, single payer system. Period.

Whether we get it sooner and save more heartache and money, or not is immaterial. Before our children are grown, we WILL have socialized National Health Care - like they do in every other industrialized nation in the world.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Not sure I share the same "state of paranoia" that you seem to be in, but in the end your conclusion is correct. As it relates to the way we do things with health care in this country, if we continue down the current path - we are all screwed.
> 
> This is exactly why we need a nationalized, single payer system. Period.
> 
> Whether we get it sooner and save more heartache and money, or not is immaterial. Before our children are grown, we WILL have socialized National Health Care - like they do in every other industrialized nation in the world.


It's logical to say; if we continue down the current path we are screwed so we must seek a new path.

To say that's "exactly why we need a nationalized, single payer system. Period" is a non-sequitor.

To claim it will save both heartache and money is in error. Single payer systems save money. They do so in part by increasing heartache. Every industrialized nation with a socialized health care system seems rather open about this and the choice they have made; or their lack of choice. We may be the only people with the resources to create a single payer system that reduces heartache, but then it won't save money. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

I respect someone choosing to save money at the expense of heartache. I even believe in 'live and let die', but only if they admit they are choosing an alternative to saving heartache. However, it is a decision that prioritizes money over people. And people are owed full disclosure.

It is simply a fact; there are not unlimited resources and therefore there will never be universal access to quality anything (housing, food, healthcare.)

The only question is how are limited resources allocated; what is the most fair/just/moral (whichever word you like) way to do that?

Ceilings and floors have been tried before. They always create unintended consequences. Always.

To replace a "state of paranoia" with a "state of denial" is not a solution.

I think we could get a majority of opinion to accept a reasonable goal like reducing the rate of increase in healthcare costs and increasing access. That alone is a significant challenge. Reducing health care costs and universal access is not a realistic option. Especially with so many boomers who have been so irresponsible with their health, their finances, and their lifestyle choices. The cake is baked. You can eat it or you can have it, but I don't want any.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> It's logical to say; if we continue down the current path we are screwed so we must seek a new path.
> 
> To say that's "exactly why we need a nationalized, single payer system. Period" is a non-sequitor.
> 
> ...


It makes no difference whether you "want any" or not. The demographics of this country are changing and we simply need to move past the ancient, inefficient system run by big insurance and big pharmaceutical companies.

If you cant see that...no problem. Your children will, and their children will look back at all of us and wonder what took us so long.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> It makes no difference whether you "want any" or not. The demographics of this country are changing and we simply need to move past the ancient, inefficient system run by big insurance and big pharmaceutical companies.
> 
> If you cant see that...no problem. Your children will, and their children will look back at all of us and wonder what took us so long.


Yes; it's true the demographics require a change in the system.

However, it's untrue to say the required changes in the system are a single payer, nationalized health care system. That claim is unsubstantiated by facts. It also violates the nature of man and the principles of economics.

No example you can cite of such a system reduces *both* costs and heartache.

You may be right about the "state of paranoia" represented by one statement of the problem, but you are in a "state of denial" represented by one statement of the solution. If you can't see that ... you're part of a big problem. You and others like you will kill all of us inspite of your good intentions.


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

mrkleen said:


> Not sure I share the same "state of paranoia" that you seem to be in, but in the end your conclusion is correct. As it relates to the way we do things with health care in this country, if we continue down the current path - we are all screwed.
> 
> This is exactly why we need a nationalized, single payer system. Period.
> 
> Whether we get it sooner and save more heartache and money, or not is immaterial. Before our children are grown, we WILL have socialized National Health Care - like the *failed systems* in every other industrialized nation in the world.


There fixed that for you

If health care in these industrialized nations is so damn good, why do they come to the United States when they need real care?

Take for example the prime minister of Italy, he could have had free heart surgery at home, but he came here to have it. https://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/world_briefing_europe_italy_berlusconi_has_heart/

Why do so many Canadians spend their life savings to come to the United States and pay for care? Because their socialized medical system is broken.

You want universal coverage, move some place else, there are plenty of countries you can pick, don't let the door hit you on the way out...


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> It makes no difference whether you "want any" or not. The demographics of this country are changing and we simply need to move past the ancient, inefficient system run by big insurance and big pharmaceutical companies.
> 
> If you cant see that...no problem. Your children will, and their children will look back at all of us and wonder what took us so long.


The demographics are changing, more older people and fewer younger people. So by going to a single payer system, funded by income or employment tax, we'll have a system with fewer people paying for more. Health care will have to be rationed, and since prices won't be set in a competitive market, it will be rationed by government fiat. Congress will decide who deserves health care and what healthcare they deserve. We won't be getting the health care, because we'll no longer be working and our kids will be paying more for less healthcare.

We currently have the best health care system in the world. Some people don't get some health care they can't afford, but many more get healthcare that wouldn't be available in a single payer government run system. If you want to see what a U.S. government run system would be like do some research on the Veterans Administration system. They've been in the news recently for several major problems they've had and not fixed. How about we wait until they manage to fix the VA, Medicare and Medicaid before we let them provide health care for everyone else?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

norton said:


> The demographics are changing, more older people and fewer younger people. So by going to a single payer system, funded by income or employment tax, we'll have a system with fewer people paying for more. Health care will have to be rationed, and since prices won't be set in a competitive market, it will be rationed by government fiat. Congress will decide who deserves health care and what healthcare they deserve. We won't be getting the health care, because we'll no longer be working and our kids will be paying more for less healthcare.
> 
> We currently have the best health care system in the world. Some people don't get some health care they can't afford, but many more get healthcare that wouldn't be available in a single payer government run system. If you want to see what a U.S. government run system would be like do some research on the Veterans Administration system. They've been in the news recently for several major problems they've had and not fixed. How about we wait until they manage to fix the VA, Medicare and Medicaid before we let them provide health care for everyone else?


You're probably one of those people that think Social Security will go bankrupt too! Oh wait, bad example ... :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

It's so weird that health insurance is provided by employers. I understand the history of it after the Great Depression and WWII, but it's just weird! I don't buy car insurance through my employer or homeowner's insurance. In fact, I don't buy anything other than stock in my employer from my employer (I buy my employer's products, but I do that with my own money like everyone else).

It's Coase(ian) economics. We need poor people and it's good to have poor people. We need assistant managers at Walmart because we need Walmarts. We need used car salesmen because we need used cars. And people with poor health need jobs too. But those people can't buy insurance on their own. It's either too expensive (even before buying beer, new cars, and HDTV sets) or because people have pre-existing conditions and insurance companies won't cover them. Sometimes, sick people can't help it.

The cost of sick people should be spread among everyone, either by the government insuring everyone, or by insurance companies charging one price to everyone. Most people who are sick didn't get that way from eating too many Cheetos. Lots of people are born sick or become sick through no fault of their own. It's irrational that through the luck of the draw, a sick person cannot buy insurance on their own. 

And healthcare should not be a privilege. If I am a bad driver, I'm ok with paying more for car insurance. Afterall, I am the bad driver. But if I am born with a heart defect or diabetes, or I develop cancer, through the luck of the draw I have to pay a fortune for health insurance!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

That someone is drawing breath inside the territory of the United States means I should have to pay for their health care.

Why not?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> It's so weird that health insurance is provided by employers. I understand the history of it after the Great Depression and WWII, but it's just weird! I don't buy car insurance through my employer or homeowner's insurance. In fact, I don't buy anything other than stock in my employer from my employer (I buy my employer's products, but I do that with my own money like everyone else).
> 
> It's Coase(ian) economics. We need poor people and it's good to have poor people. We need assistant managers at Walmart because we need Walmarts. We need used car salesmen because we need used cars. And people with poor health need jobs too. But those people can't buy insurance on their own. It's either too expensive (even before buying beer, new cars, and HDTV sets) or because people have pre-existing conditions and insurance companies won't cover them. Sometimes, sick people can't help it.
> 
> ...


Your post seems reasonable if read as empathy, but the reality is that it is unsubstantiated and inaccurate.

I agree that health care shouldn't be a privilege; and it is not a privilege. It is a service.

Being a bad driver is not the only differentiating component in the cost of car insurance. The type of car, your location, your average mileage, and other factors (like do you rent or own a home, do you have multiple lines and policies, your gender, and if you are married) contribute to your risk premium.

You say "most and lots", but certainly many people that have heart defects, diabetes, and cancer did not develop these ailments through "luck of the draw." They got them from lifestyle choices, diet, and by choosing to forego appropriate and reasonable protection whether that be as simple as abstinence until marriage, condoms, or sunscreen. While these are all inconvenient and most people hate them - why should those who say no to themselves pay for those who indulge themselves freely in every hedonistic pleasure?

I do agree pre-existing conditions are an issue, but this can be solved by affordability and portability proposals that do not change the way we receive health care, but change what we pay for health insurance.

Confusing the two, again, does a disservice to all Americans trying to debate honestly and find solutions to real problems. I don't know why certain proponents persist in this, but I have my guesses.

How many of these poor can differentiate Coase's Theorem with the 'Coasian Economics & Law' as taught by the Chicago School? The difference between an initial and final distribution is not a social cost remedied by law; it's mirror image is a moral cost created by law. Even the poor and the sick see the distinction if they don't know what to call it. Social Justice requires Moral Injustice or what used to simply just be called Injustice.

If you really know these things already (which I accept at face value); then what is with the intentional blurring of the lines? It's the same with "efficiency." If there are CSEs that think the discussion with the American people really needs to take place at a level they don't understand - I'll take them at their word, but humor me and try using Cost per Outcome and see where you get first.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Being a bad driver is not the only differentiating component in the cost of car insurance. The type of car, your location, your average mileage, and other factors (like do you rent or own a home, do you have multiple lines and policies, your gender, and if you are married) contribute to your risk premium.


But these are all factors I can control. I can control where I live and how much I drive and if I get married, etc. But I can't help it that I came down with swine flu or colon cancer. Because it could happen to anyone and because it is beyond their control, the cost should be spread to everyone.

1/3 of America is overweight. Therefore 2/3 are not. Hence, most people who get heart disease are not overweight. By the luck of the draw, they got bad genes. Most people who get lung cancer were never smokers. But these people cannot buy private heath insurance for 5 years after their diagnosis - no one will insure them. And 99% of the population cannot pay for their own cancer treatment - it's more than they earn in multiple years.

These people should be insurable. Their cost of insurance should be the same as everyone else's. We should spread the cost among everyone, since the disease could happen tomorrow to anyone. It should be similar to homeowner's insurance. With homeowner's insurance, everyone in an area with a similarly sized house pays the same premium for insurance since it is equally likely that your house or your neighbor's house will be destroyed by a hurricane. They then deduct from your premium for precautions you take - installing an alarm, hurricane shutters, etc. Why not charge everyone one premium for insurance and then deduct for precautions they take - if they go to the gym, don't smoke, etc. That way, everyone can buy insurance and they are incintivized to be healthy and in the aggregate reduce the cost of insurance of everyone.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> But these are all factors I can control. I can control where I live and how much I drive and if I get married, etc. But I can't help it that I came down with swine flu or colon cancer. Because it could happen to anyone and because it is beyond their control, the cost should be spread to everyone.


Are you saying that it's the governments responsibility to insure all uncontrollable risk? I can't control if a tornado is going to hit my house, should the government provide me with insurance to buy a new house if one does?



Stringfellow said:


> 1/3 of America is overweight. Therefore 2/3 are not. Hence, most people who get heart disease are not overweight. By the luck of the draw, they got bad genes. Most people who get lung cancer were never smokers. But these people cannot buy private heath insurance for 5 years after their diagnosis - no one will insure them. And 99% of the population cannot pay for their own cancer treatment - it's more than they earn in multiple years.


Yes, sometimes bad things happen to good people through no fault of their own. If people want to donate to charities to help them that's fine, many do. My objection is that the current plan is to Force everyone else to cover their costs. You could donate 10% of your income to a charity that will provide health care for the needy, instead you want to use the government to force me to help pay for it. Maybe I have unavoidable costs of my own to pay for, but that wouldn't matter I'd still have to pay for someone else's health care first.



Stringfellow said:


> These people should be insurable. Their cost of insurance should be the same as everyone else's. We should spread the cost among everyone, since the disease could happen tomorrow to anyone. It should be similar to homeowner's insurance. With homeowner's insurance, everyone in an area with a similarly sized house pays the same premium for insurance since it is equally likely that your house or your neighbor's house will be destroyed by a hurricane. They then deduct from your premium for precautions you take - installing an alarm, hurricane shutters, etc. Why not charge everyone one premium for insurance and then deduct for precautions they take - if they go to the gym, don't smoke, etc. That way, everyone can buy insurance and they are incintivized to be healthy and in the aggregate reduce the cost of insurance of everyone.


Why should they be insurable? Insurance is provided by investors because they hope to make a profit. What investor is going to invest in providing health insurance to someone with 100% of incuring huge costs at a loss to the investor. Your solution is to force all taxpayers to be those investors and to cover the losses. Again, if it bothers you, you can donate to a charity to help pay for it, just don't force everyone else to do the same.

The second problem is that single payer (government) health care would be nowhere near as good as the health care most of us now enjoy.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

obiwan said:


> You *dont* want universal coverage, move some place else, there are plenty of countries you can pick, don't let the door hit you on the way out...


There, fixed that for you.

Watching dinosaurs like those on this board kick and scream as their opinions become more and more out of touch is one of the few reasons I continue to visit this fora.

Bunch of white, upper class, men - standing in a circle, patting each other on the back. Problem is, that circle that used to be in the center of the room - is now being formed way off in the corner. Before you know it, you will be OUTSIDE looking in. But somehow I dont think most of you will admit it until the door is locked behind you.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

norton said:


> Are you saying that it's the governments responsibility to insure all uncontrollable risk? I can't control if a tornado is going to hit my house, should the government provide me with insurance to buy a new house if one does?
> 
> Yes, sometimes bad things happen to good people through no fault of their own. If people want to donate to charities to help them that's fine, many do. My objection is that the current plan is to Force everyone else to cover their costs. You could donate 10% of your income to a charity that will provide health care for the needy, instead you want to use the government to force me to help pay for it. Maybe I have unavoidable costs of my own to pay for, but that wouldn't matter I'd still have to pay for someone else's health care first.
> 
> ...


Most of "us" don't enjoy "good" health care. Most of the rich enjoy good health care. Most Americans aren't rich.

As to your tornado example, I think it's PERFECT! If you and I own identical homes next to each other, we pay the exact same premium for homeowner's insurance. Why? We have identical chances of being hit by a tornado and tornados are unpredictable. The same should be true for health insurance. Disease is unpredictable. People should not be relegated to no health care or death because through the luck of the draw they came down with a disease.

We can predict the rate of disease accurately over a large population. We know X% of Americans will come down with Y disease next year. But we don't know which actual Americans will get it. Those costs should be spread among the entire population.

And lots of "investments" are regulated to provided limited returns. See student loans and utility companies. Somehow, I have access to water and student loans, and America did not end.

Lastly, are people who come down with serious disease just supposed to die? They literally can't buy insurance because no one will sell it to them. They can't pay for their own care because they earn $50k a year and their treatment costs $250k. So they die because they were unlucky? Yep, that's the BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE WORLD.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> There, fixed that for you.
> 
> Watching dinosaurs like those on this board kick and scream as their opinions become more and more out of touch is one of the few reasons I continue to visit this fora.
> 
> Bunch of white, upper class, men - standing in a circle, patting each other on the back. Problem is, that circle that used to be in the center of the room - is now being formed way off in the corner. Before you know it, you will be OUTSIDE looking in. But somehow I dont think most of you will admit it until the door is locked behind you.


You could help move it toward the center by providing some facts or well reasoned opinions for discussion, instead of your ad hominem attacks.


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

mrkleen said:


> There, fixed that for you.
> 
> Watching dinosaurs like those on this board kick and scream as their opinions become more and more out of touch is one of the few reasons I continue to visit this fora.
> 
> Bunch of white, upper class, men - standing in a circle, patting each other on the back. Problem is, that circle that used to be in the center of the room - is now being formed way off in the corner. Before you know it, you will be OUTSIDE looking in. But somehow I dont think most of you will admit it until the door is locked behind you.


Who says I'm white, male and middle class or is that just your racist ignorance showing its true colors?

I've worked hard all my life to support myself and my family, do the same and maybe you can make something of yourself too rather than relying on Government handouts. Doesn't that make you feel less of a man, less human to know you can't do it on your own you have to have a leg up, someone to support you because your a failure?


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

Stringfellow said:


> Lastly, are people who come down with serious disease just supposed to die? They literally can't buy insurance because no one will sell it to them. They can't pay for their own care because they earn $50k a year and their treatment costs $250k. So they die because they were unlucky? Yep, that's the BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE WORLD.


They will if they are elderly and it is determined that the cost to give them care is greater than the benefit of keeping them alive.

Obama admitted that care near end of life will bring with it hard decisions that someone will have to make, that someone is the federal government.

Sorry but I don't want anyone other than God making the choice of when I'm leaving this earth.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> Most of "us" don't enjoy "good" health care. Most of the rich enjoy good health care. Most Americans aren't rich.


Have you ever experienced health care in Europe. Believe it or not, everyone but the poorest american receives good health care in comparison.



Stringfellow said:


> As to your tornado example, I think it's PERFECT! If you and I own identical homes next to each other, we pay the exact same premium for homeowner's insurance. Why? We have identical chances of being hit by a tornado and tornados are unpredictable. The same should be true for health insurance. Disease is unpredictable. People should not be relegated to no health care or death because through the luck of the draw they came down with a disease.


Great idea, then I can pay homeowners insurance for someone with a $1 million house in the outer banks or florida keys. Heck why bother with insurance at all, lets just have the government reimburse every resident anytime they have any loss.



Stringfellow said:


> We can predict the rate of disease accurately over a large population. We know X% of Americans will come down with Y disease next year. But we don't know which actual Americans will get it. Those costs should be spread among the entire population.


Why? Maybe I have less need or risk for health insurance, but I do have other expenses I need to cover. Say I was unemployed for a year and ran up large credit card bills. Now I'm working but you're going to take my money to pay for someone else's health care even though I need it to pay off my credit card bills. You're saying you know how to spend my money better than I.



Stringfellow said:


> And lots of "investments" are regulated to provided limited returns. See student loans and utility companies. Somehow, I have access to water and student loans, and America did not end.


But your talking about about regulating an industry to provide negative returns, good luck with that.



Stringfellow said:


> Lastly, are people who come down with serious disease just supposed to die? They literally can't buy insurance because no one will sell it to them. They can't pay for their own care because they earn $50k a year and their treatment costs $250k. So they die because they were unlucky? Yep, that's the BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE WORLD.


Not meaning to sound heartless, but yes, we're all supposed to die, even sometimes when we do have insurance. The decision on what treatments to cover and how much to cover will still be made under a single payer system. We don't have unlimited resources. Only now the decision will be made by the government.

Several years ago we had some friends from France visiting, and the 70 year old grandmother had an attack of angina. Despite her family's objections that they knew she had a heart condition and that this was a relatively common occurrence, I took her to the nearest hospital. They checked her in and ran tests overnight. In the morning the said that she should rest for a while but that she would be o.k. If she wanted to stay in town they would look at possible treatments.

Her daughter, who was a nurse in France had stayed with her. In the morning she said that the hospital had done more tests overnight than they had in the 10 years she had the condition in France. You see, here the hospital does everything it can to make sure they don't end up on the wrong side of a malpractice law suit. In France the bureaucrats decide that since she's old and retired it doesn't make economic sense to spend too much on diagnosis and treatment. What is she going to do, sue the government? That's how healthcare will be rationed under Obama's proposal and that's what you're willing to condemn us all to.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Whatever kind of healthcare system congress comes up with for us, anyone want to take a bet that members of congress and their family's will be covered under something else? I'm still waiting for congress to scrap their pension and set up a 401K.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> But these are all factors I can control. I can control where I live and how much I drive and if I get married, etc. But I can't help it that I came down with swine flu or colon cancer. Because it could happen to anyone and because it is beyond their control, the cost should be spread to everyone.
> 
> 1/3 of America is overweight. Therefore 2/3 are not. Hence, most people who get heart disease are not overweight. By the luck of the draw, they got bad genes. *Most people who get lung cancer were never smokers.* But these people cannot buy private heath insurance for 5 years after their diagnosis - no one will insure them. And 99% of the population cannot pay for their own cancer treatment - it's more than they earn in multiple years.
> 
> These people should be insurable. Their cost of insurance should be the same as everyone else's. We should spread the cost among everyone, since the disease could happen tomorrow to anyone. It should be similar to homeowner's insurance. With homeowner's insurance, everyone in an area with a similarly sized house pays the same premium for insurance since it is equally likely that your house or your neighbor's house will be destroyed by a hurricane. They then deduct from your premium for precautions you take - installing an alarm, hurricane shutters, etc. Why not charge everyone one premium for insurance and then deduct for precautions they take - if they go to the gym, don't smoke, etc. That way, everyone can buy insurance and they are incintivized to be healthy and in the aggregate reduce the cost of insurance of everyone.


Stringfellow -

Here's my problem. I try to take your word at face value; and I get burned.



> In the United States, about 90% of lung cancer deaths in men and almost 80% of lung cancer deaths in women are due to smoking. People who smoke are 10 to 20 times more likely to get lung cancer or die from lung cancer than people who do not smoke.


https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm



> People who quit smoking have a lower risk of lung cancer than if they had continued to smoke, but their risk is higher than the risk for people who never smoked.7 As more people quit smoking, lung cancer rates will continue to fall, the percentage of lung cancers that occur in smokers will decrease, and *the percentage of lung cancers that occur in people who have quit will rise. *(my note: the predictive studies say to within a 10% gap why - other risk factors such as industrial chemicals and 2nd hand smoke)
> 
> *Smoking also causes cancer of the voicebox (**), mouth and throat, ** cervix, and stomach, and causes acute myeloid leukemia.*


Not only is your broader relative sentiment regarding "luck of the draw" incorrect, but smoking causes more than just lung cancer.

In addition; your absolute statement limited to lung cancer cases is also clearly incorrect. Most people who have lung cancer and/or die of lung cancer are smokers or former smokers. A lot of non-smokers have lung cancer, but they are a minority and have other factors like industrial chemical exposure at home or at work or 2nd hand smoke (which is the fault of the smokers.) Non-smokers are not most of the cases; they are the least - while eventually that spread will narrow to only a 10% gap; they will never be the majority of cases according to all clinical data available.



> Cancer epidemiologists estimate that 85%-90% of those who die from lung cancer in the United States were smokers. But what of the remaining 10%-15%? Some experts estimate that as many as 15,000 Americans die each year from lung cancer even though they have never smoked. If never-smokers' lung cancer were a separate category, it would be among the top 10 most lethal cancers in the country, ranking somewhere near ovarian cancer.
> Secondhand smoke is undoubtedly a factor in many cases. According to one estimate, every year about 3,000 Americans get lung cancer from breathing in secondhand smoke, although evidence suggests that exposure is declining as workplace and restaurant smoking bans become more common.
> Even when you factor in secondhand smoke, there's a sizable group of lung cancer patients whose disease can't be easily traced to tobacco.


If you remove factors in the remaining 12,000 for exposure to Radon gas, asbestos, chromium, and other toxic substances for example you're left with a very small number that has no other causation and they know there is a family history. That implies "genetics", but it could just as well be other environmental factors. Families share so much more than genetics: they breathe the same air, eat the same food, etc.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> President Obama has nominated Regina Benjamin for Surgeon General, but instead of people being totally psyched about her MacArthur genius award, her impressive charitable works, or her down-to-earth working-class background, . Some people think a country plagued with obesity should not have an obese person representing our nation's health care.


https://www.lemondrop.com/2009/07/1...6/should-health-officials-have-to-be-healthy/


----------



## obxsouth (Mar 18, 2009)

*Questions*

First, in the discussion of health care reform, isn't it worth a discussion on legal or specifically federal tort reform? Health costs are driven in part by the premiums doctors must pay for malpractice coverage.
And second, no one discusses the issue that is a genuine concern about those European nations with a national health service. Often in those systems, decisions on who gets priority is based on age. For example, if a 45-year-old and a 70-year-old both need open heart surgery, the 45-year-old gets priority, largely truth be told, because of societal benefit. (Frankly, I'm not sure this is completely accurate, but it's worth discussion).
I have a larger concern: Peter Singer, a Princeton faculty member, advocates giving parents who have disabled children the right to kill those children up to age 3 months. It's highly disconcerting that this idea has voice in one of our top universities. I support free speech, but that this idea has such a bully pulpit (like Princeton) is worrisome.
For the record, I'm not trying to make this about abortion. But when we discuss declining birth rates and their impact on health care and Social Security, it's pertinent.
And, secondarily, I have not made up my mind on health care reform, though I do have a real fear that this is yet another move toward the abdication of personal responsibility. (I do not oppose governmenmt help to provide health coverage for low income families. Programs like the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are vital).
This is agreat discussion, and I'd like to get a sense on how you all feel about the two questions I raised. Thanks.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

obxsouth said:


> First, in the discussion of health care reform, isn't it worth a discussion on legal or specifically federal tort reform? Health costs are driven in part by the premiums doctors must pay for malpractice coverage.
> And second, no one discusses the issue that is a genuine concern about those European nations with a national health service. Often in those systems, decisions on who gets priority is based on age. For example, if a 45-year-old and a 70-year-old both need open heart surgery, the 45-year-old gets priority, largely truth be told, because of societal benefit. (Frankly, I'm not sure this is completely accurate, but it's worth discussion).
> I have a larger concern: Peter Singer, a Princeton faculty member, advocates giving parents who have disabled children the right to kill those children up to age 3 months. It's highly disconcerting that this idea has voice in one of our top universities. I support free speech, but that this idea has such a bully pulpit (like Princeton) is worrisome.
> For the record, I'm not trying to make this about abortion. But when we discuss declining birth rates and their impact on health care and Social Security, it's pertinent.
> ...


Yes, tort reform should be addressed and programs like CHIP have their place, in fact that program is one reason I consider arguments for universal healthcare to be overwrought. However, these need to be addressed on a state by state basis. Tort cases are tried in state courts under state laws and programs like CHIP should be set up and paid for by the various states as needed. For my reasoning see the post #45.


----------



## obxsouth (Mar 18, 2009)

*Post 45*

I promise to go back and read post 45, but time prohibits at the moment. I know that torts (specifically medical malpractice) are tried in state courts. But as you know, certain states (like my native Alabama) are notorious for being regarded as pro-plaintiff. There have been discussions in the past on tort reform legislation federally, but they don't seem to get off the ground.
You make a valid argument concerning the existence of CHIP programs and their impact on arguments for universal care. 
Great discussion gentlemen.:icon_smile:


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

obiwan said:


> Who says I'm white, male and middle class or is that just your racist ignorance showing its true colors?
> 
> I've worked hard all my life to support myself and my family, do the same and maybe you can make something of yourself too rather than relying on Government handouts. Doesn't that make you feel less of a man, less human to know you can't do it on your own you have to have a leg up, someone to support you because your a failure?


I went to Boston Latin, Syracuse, Boston University and have a very well paying marketing job....but thanks for your concern. :icon_smile:


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

obiwan said:


> You want universal coverage, move some place else, there are plenty of countries you can pick, don't let the door hit you on the way out...


And if you don't want universal coverage, and the president's plan passes, I suppose you could leave too, though your choices would be more limited.

I believe Somalia doesn't have a universal health care plan. Heh.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Lord Foppington said:


> And if you don't want universal coverage, and the president's plan passes, I suppose you could leave too, though your choices would be more limited.
> 
> I believe Somalia doesn't have a universal health care plan. Heh.


Your concern should not be that americans move to somalia, but that they bring somalia here.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I don't see why Europe's model should automatically be ours.


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I don't see why Europe's model should automatically be ours.


I don't think anybody's said anything about "automatically."


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

Lord Foppington said:


> And if you don't want universal coverage, and the president's plan passes, I suppose you could leave too, though your choices would be more limited.
> 
> I believe Somalia doesn't have a universal health care plan. Heh.


The problem is MrKleen wants something that we don't offer here but can be had at other socialist centric countries.

I like my employer provided coverage even though it costs $200 per pay period and if the proposed bill becomes law, if I leave my employer and gain a position with another firm, I cannot take advantage of the plan they provide, I have to use the Government supplied plan which is not acceptable.


----------



## obxsouth (Mar 18, 2009)

*A matter of choice*



obiwan said:


> The problem is MrKleen wants something that we don't offer here but can be had at other socialist centric countries.
> 
> I like my employer provided coverage even though it costs $200 per pay period and if the proposed bill becomes law, if I leave my employer and gain a position with another firm, I cannot take advantage of the plan they provide, I have to use the Government supplied plan which is not acceptable.


This is a major concern for me. The freedom of choice --for those who have that option --should remain.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

"greater inefficiencies"

https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25165.html


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

Lord Foppington said:


> I don't think anybody's said anything about "automatically."


Tell me how we will pay for nationalized healthcare and not bankrupt our country? Please don't digress. Many have stated their ideas and opinions about how the new plan will be detrimental. I would love to hear how you think we're going to fund the new plan without a huge downside.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are social programs where everyone pays into the system. The only program where an individual might never qualify for eligibility is Medicaid. If one lives long enough, he should derive some benefit from the other two.


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

Beau said:


> Tell me how we will pay for nationalized healthcare and not bankrupt our country? Please don't digress. Many have stated their ideas and opinions about how the new plan will be detrimental. I would love to hear how you think we're going to fund the new plan without a huge downside.
> 
> Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are social programs where everyone pays into the system. The only program where an individual might never qualify for eligibility is Medicaid. If one lives long enough, he should derive some benefit from the other two.


Here is some opinion, from today's New York Times:

The contributors don't all say the same thing, and some stress the "downside" more than others. But several say the bills now being debated would not "bankrupt our country" if passed. Happy reading!

From the first contributor, Dean Baker, economist from the (left-leaning) Center for Economic and Policy Research:

"It is difficult to take the alarm over the projected cost of the health care bills being debated in Congress very seriously. In spite of the hyperbole, the sums are not very large in the terms of the overall budget or the economy and some of the alleged cost is simply an accounting question."


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Here are some facts from the congetional budget office February 2009 report:


Without changes in policy, a substantial and growing number of people under age 65 will lack health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the average number of nonelderly people who are uninsured will rise from at least 45 million in 2009 to about 54 million in 2019. That projection is consistent with long-standing trends in coverage and largely reflects the expectation that health care costs and health insurance premiums will continue to rise faster than people's income-making health insurance more difficult to afford.


Spending on health care has generally grown much faster than the economy as a whole, and that trend has continued for decades. The high and rising costs of health care impose an increasing burden on the federal government as well as state governments and the private sector. Under current policies, CBO projects, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid will increase from about 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2009 to more than 6 percent in 2019 and about 12 percent by 2050. Most of that increase will result from growth in per capita costs rather than from the aging of the population. In the private sector, the growth of health care costs has contributed to slow growth in wages because workers must give up other forms of compensation to offset the rising costs of employment-based insurance.
Spending on health care and related activities will account for about 18 percent of GDP in 2009-an expected total of $2.6 trillion-and under current law that share is projected to reach 20 percent by 2017. Annual health expenditures per capita are projected to rise from about $8,300 to about $13,000 over that period. Federal spending accounts for about one-third of those totals, and federal outlays for the Medicare and Medicaid programs are projected to grow from about $720 billion in 2009 to about $1.4 trillion in 2019. *Over the longer term, rising costs for health care represent the single greatest challenge to balancing the federal budget.*


The available evidence also suggests that a substantial share of spending on health care contributes little if anything to the overall health of the nation.
An expansion of coverage could be financed in a number of ways. One option is to limit or eliminate the current tax exclusion for employment-based health insurance. The savings from taking such steps would grow steadily because the revenue losses that stem from that exclusion are rising at the same rate as health care costs. The same can generally be said about using reductions in Medicare or Medicaid spending to offset the costs of expanding insurance coverage. Those methods of financing could adversely affect some people's current coverage, however, and other financing options that would either raise revenues or reduce other spending are also available.
Ultimately, this isnt going to be easy and if you are happy with your care and your doctors at this time, you will probably not be happy with a new universal health care system. But in the long run, the number of uninsured and under insured in this country will continue to grow -and the burden of dealing with them when they become sick will cost MORE than keeping them healthy in the first place with a universal plan.

I understand why people are reluctant to go along with this, as it isnt just a big change for them personally - but it is a major change in the direction of the country as a whole. But it is change that will be necessary for the country to remain solvent - and it is change that is coming sooner or later, whether people on this board like it or not.​


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

obxsouth said:


> I have a larger concern: Peter Singer, a Princeton faculty member, advocates giving parents who have disabled children the right to kill those children up to age 3 months. It's highly disconcerting that this idea has voice in one of our top universities. I support free speech, but that this idea has such a bully pulpit (like Princeton) is worrisome.
> For the record, I'm not trying to make this about abortion. But when we discuss declining birth rates and their impact on health care and Social Security, it's pertinent.


Some law enforcers should arrest the guy and the prosecutor should put him before a judge. If there is a time for capital punishment this is it. I believe that in Oregon they are now considering that others can choose whether you live or die undersomething under medical suicide. Others choosing would turn it from suicide to murder. But, that's ok in this world nowadays. After all, were just animals to be shuttled from government corral to government corral so the Democrats say. Government is responsible, not you! This is why I hate the Democrat party. They are thieves stealing away our freedoms bit by bit. One day people are going to wake up and realize they don't have any freedom anymore, and it will be to late to change it.



> And, secondarily, I have not made up my mind on health care reform, though I do have a real fear that this is yet another move toward the abdication of personal responsibility. (I do not oppose government help to provide health coverage for low income families. Programs like the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are vital).
> This is agreat discussion, and I'd like to get a sense on how you all feel about the two questions I raised. Thanks.


The Democrat party intends to take away your choices;That is not Democracy. One government healthcare leaves no choices. How is this government going to know what is a fair prices for every medical need? They can't! Competition usually sets better prices. It's not always right and there are problems sometimes, but government can't do better, because it doesn't have a clue what to pay for this or that. I wonder how many thousands of Canadians have died for no reason. And they come across the border by the tens of thousands every year for there medical needs because, government is not God. Charity has helped millions of people in times of need and worked best without government help. I do believe that government can help the poor pay for that which the poor can't pay for. But, one system for all is no good for anyone. And, the middle class who don't buy insurance, when they get hurt should get "burned" and, the rest of us shouldn't have to shell out to them.


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

A positive example from a industrialized country that has free health care;






Not my idea of care...


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

Poll shows 70% of Canadians think their health care system is working well, and 80% think it's better than that in the US (with 8% saying the US health care system is better):

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/...re-like-americas/?scp=1&sq=canada poll&st=cse


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Here are some facts from the congetional budget office February 2009 report:​
> ​
> 
> Without changes in policy, a substantial and growing number of people under age 65 will lack health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the average number of nonelderly people who are uninsured will rise from at least 45 million in 2009 to about 54 million in 2019. That projection is consistent with long-standing trends in coverage and largely reflects the expectation that health care costs and health insurance premiums will continue to rise faster than people's income-making health insurance more difficult to afford.
> ...


Since you are quoting CBO, you must also agree with the CBO that the proposed Nationalization plan will increase and could even "explode" costs at a time when rising costs are already the greatest challenge? 

Your degree in Marketing isn't from the 'Dick Cheney School of Cherry-Picking? is it? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Americans in Canada prefer US Healthcare.

https://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=c1c55309-756a-4c4a-a032-a1968442a1f7&k=77424


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

I just have the sinking feeling, 50 to 100 years from now, that this will be looked at as the Smoot-Hawley of our generation.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Since you are quoting CBO, you must also agree with the CBO that the proposed Nationalization plan will increase and could even "explode" costs at a time when rising costs are already the greatest challenge?
> 
> Your degree in Marketing isn't from the 'Dick Cheney School of Cherry-Picking? is it? :icon_smile_wink:


It is not the CBO's job to provide solutions. They clearly show positives and negatives and allow congress to make the final decision.

They clearly state that the rising costs of the current health care system *WILL* be the biggest challenge to balancing the federal budget. They also say that implementation of a national health care program *COULD* cause costs to rise.

Surely you know the difference between will and could.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> It is not the CBO's job to provide solutions. They clearly show positives and negatives and allow congress to make the final decision.
> 
> They clearly state that the rising costs of the current health care system *WILL* be the biggest challenge to balancing the federal budget. They also say that implementation of a national health care program *COULD* cause costs to rise.
> 
> Surely you know the difference between will and could.


You're right; they grade solutions. This one failed.

They said it could either be neutral or it could cause costs to rise; even explode (more likely because it increases the deficit and interests rates will be rising.) Common sense would demand a conclusion that if it could be neutral or could explode then it's definitely going to go up.

They did not say it could cut costs. There is no possibility it will cut costs; which was the requirement of the plan and how it was sold to the American people during the election.

Even in the best case scenario per CBO, simply being neutral is not a solution; we need to cut costs.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

From


Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and, as a consequence, about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.
About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.
Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately-insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

*Government medical care*

Just think, we could have this quality medical care for everyone.

https://cbs11tv.com/local/medical.mistake.military.2.1091010.html

maybe that's an isolated incident.

No,


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

Lord Foppington said:


> Poll shows 70% of Canadians think their health care system is working well, and 80% think it's better than that in the US (with 8% saying the US health care system is better):
> 
> https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/...re-like-americas/?scp=1&sq=canada poll&st=cse


I'll take actual event footage over a poll any day but, did you even watch the video?

Did you listen to the interview of the daughter whose mother had not just her bad leg amputated but the good leg too? This was due to the extreme wait she endured and the failure of the doctors.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

obiwan said:


> I'll take actual event footage over a poll any day but, did you even watch the video?
> 
> Did you listen to the interview of the daughter whose mother had not just her bad leg amputated but the good leg too? This was due to the extreme wait she endured and the failure of the doctors.


Thank God that does not happen in America! We have the best health care in the world!

And we kick ass and Obama sucks!


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> Thank God that does not happen in America! We have the best health care in the world!
> 
> And we kick ass and Obama sucks!


Well, that was constructive.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

ksinc said:


> So in hindsight do you think you did the right thing?
> 
> Is Biden more competent than Palin in your opinion? I think Biden is an embarassment. I understand the disappointment in Palin, but I can't see how whatever criticism Palin deserves she is worse than Biden. She did not exactly foul up Alaska.
> 
> I agree with you on Palin-Jindal that's a bad ticket.


"The Right thing"? Well that's tough to say...I will say that I stand by my decision. I'm not a huge fan of Biden, but I still think he's a bit less retarded than our esteemed former VP candidate. I just didnt understand why with all the capable runningmates McCain could have chosen (c'mon, this thing may actually have been close if he'd chosen somebody with an IQ in the tripple digits like, say a Pawlenty (sp?) or a Romney as his runningmate...) he had to go with that moron...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

The Gabba Goul said:


> "The Right thing"? Well that's tough to say...I will say that I stand by my decision. I'm not a huge fan of Biden, but I still think he's a bit less retarded than our esteemed former VP candidate. I just didnt understand why with all the capable runningmates McCain could have chosen (c'mon, this thing may actually have been close if he'd chosen somebody with an IQ in the tripple digits like, say a Pawlenty (sp?) or a Romney as his runningmate...)


It is a bit strange.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

The Gabba Goul said:


> "The Right thing"? Well that's tough to say...I will say that I stand by my decision. I'm not a huge fan of Biden, but I still think he's a bit less retarded than our esteemed former VP candidate. I just didnt understand why with all the capable runningmates McCain could have chosen (c'mon, this thing may actually have been close if he'd chosen somebody with an IQ in the tripple digits like, say a Pawlenty (sp?) or a Romney as his runningmate...) he had to go with that moron...


I'm betting that Palin was the choice to appeal to a strong conservative Christian base of voters, and they probably thought they'd get the support of women, too. What they failed to realize is that the Christian vote is vocal but maybe not so big, and women are jealous types and Palin's good looks alienated more women than she won over (that last part is my wife's theory).

Palin is not a moron. No governor of a state is a moron. She was not geniunely herself in that awful interview with Couric, and the rest of the liberal mainstream media eviscerated her. Today I heard that the voter turnout was very low among well-to-do upper middle class people.

Romney could never have been the running mate. McCain despised him, and his Mormon background probably wouldn't play with the general public, regardless that he was a former Mass. governor. He would have made a fine POTUS. You can ask yourself this question, if something appeals to the masses is it the best thing? Probably not. Obama appealed to the masses, and yet most people don't realize that he is dismantling our free society and increasingly subjecting everything to greater governmental control.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

The Gabba Goul- Palin certainly has a good record in Alaska, whereas, Biden hasn't a good record in, anything? So, who is the bigger moron? Looking like a moron and being a moron are not the same thing. Voting for somebody who doesn't look like a moron, but is, I don't see how you won. No doubt for big time she has a lot to learn. I don't think she will run next time. Besides, the media did their best to make her look like a moron. When you look at the two records of who did this country good Palin won and Biden is the moron.

I'm sure a new name will pop up and the race will be entirely different than we think.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I guess this won't get much play in the media.



> *How well do the current proposals deal with reducing costs?
> 
> *The legislation has almost nothing to do with cost reduction. Nothing I have seen in the bills that are being discussed by the Democratic leadership suggests that there will be a significant change in health inflation.
> 
> This is an extraordinarily important topic and one for which there is a great deal of information around the world. Normally, if this were private enterprise, you would spend a great deal of time with brilliant analysts, looking at alternatives, evaluating lessons from foreign places, and perhaps even experimenting with some alternatives before unleashing them on the entire US economy. Healthcare reform is a matter that should be focused on allowing our citizens to have better health at more reasonable cost, as opposed to being thought of as a political success or failure. We really can't afford a lot of trillion dollar mistakes.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

If Obama really wanted good health care for this country he would have everybody pay into their own health care fund, because over time it would build up. What is not used could be given away to whoever the person wants to give it to for their health care fund. Over time government reliance and insurance companies would be of the past. The funds would have to be tax free, which is better than being taxed for make believe health care.

Some how the Democrats have to tax everything. Lay claim to that which is not theirs. To bad some prosecutors don't take them to court. Start with Ted Kennedy. It would be nice to have some real law and order in this country.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

many happy health care reformers posting in the comments of this article ... and we thought the Interchange got rough sometimes.


----------



## FlowRate (Jul 9, 2009)

First off, I'll readily admit that I'm parroting the opinions of people much smarter than me. Albeit, with a grain of salt.

Under Austrian economic theory, the best market is a free market. Free markets allow the market to set prices. When prices are set based on supply and demand, you get the most equitable prices. When prices are fixed and protected and inflated (like by the US government via medicare and medicaid), you get higher prices. Higher prices are what we have now. When you get worse and begin to dictate treatment options (which is what the new bill proposes), you get worse care. Therefore, this bill will not only go against lower prices, but it will also decrease the quality of your care by limiting your doctor's options. Do you really think that "more tests" are JUST a ploy to "get money"? I have never thought that more information before making a diagnosis is a bad thing.

Furthermore, the 55% Tax rate on the $1M+ earners severely affects the employers of the country. With decrease of compensation for additional labor comes an increase in leisure time by these very pioneers of the economy.

Besides, who is going to pay for all of these extra "plans"? We're in the middle of an economic depression. Sounds like a ploy to tax the hell out of every American who still has a job, which leads directly to actual Socialism.

Unfortunately, Obama's media/advertising machine and his adamant supporters do a great job at making legitimate worries sound like "crazy conspiracy theories." And nobody wants to be the conspiracy theory guy.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

In The Economist there is a special report on "What happened to Economics" or words to that effect. They basically pretend Paul Krugman is the sane person sounding the alarm regarding bubbles and the business cycles. And that for 30 years Economists were enablers. They even blur the line between economists and finance professors. I just resubscribed last month and now I'm thinking, "what good is something called The Economist if it doesn't even understand the different schools of economic thought?" They do talk about Noriel Rabini and a few other economists, but they act like the asset bubble belied everything all economists knew. One passage says something about everything we learned over the last 30 years. I know a lot of the Austrians died around 92-95, but I think that comment is still a bit of a stretch. Hazlitt was 98 when he died. Rothbard wrote "the mystery of banking" only 25 years ago and he was not proved wrong, but proved correct.


I also thought the extra tests had more to do with liability claims and defensive medicine, not profiteering by doctors.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

ksinc said:


> In The Economist there is a special report on "What happened to Economics" or words to that effect. They basically pretend Paul Krugman is the sane person sounding the alarm regarding bubbles and the business cycles. And that for 30 years Economists were enablers. They even blur the line between economists and finance professors. I just resubscribed last month and now I'm thinking, "what good is something called The Economist if it doesn't even understand the different schools of economic thought?" They do talk about Noriel Rabini and a few other economists, but they act like the asset bubble belied everything all economists knew. One passage says something about everything we learned over the last 30 years. I know a lot of the Austrians died around 92-95, but I think that comment is still a bit of a stretch. Hazlitt was 98 when he died. Rothbard wrote "the mystery of banking" only 25 years ago and he was not proved wrong, but proved correct.


 Are you talking about their State of Economics article from the 07.16.09 issue that looks at where the field of macroeconomics? Here's a link.

I see Krugman quoted among many others, but it doesn't seem to really take sides to me. Just summarizes the assault that he and others take on the current mainstream.

Krugman's interesting - he's a highly respected trade economist, and a nobel prize winner. That's the good Krugman. I'm not certain what his bonafides are on macro though. I think he gets a pass due to the Nobel, but in truth thats like having a world renowned heart surgeon try to cure your cancer.

I know what I think of his political columns, though. :crazy:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

DCLawyer68 said:


> Are you talking about their State of Economics article from the 07.16.09 issue that looks at where the field of macroeconomics? Here's a link.
> 
> I see Krugman quoted among many others, but it doesn't seem to really take sides to me. Just summarizes the assault that he and others take on the current mainstream.
> 
> ...


No, not exactly. It's the cover story of July 18th-24th issue. "Modern Economic Theory - where it went wrong - and how the crisis is changing it" and the LEADER article on page 11. "What went wrong with economics; and how the discipline should change to avoid the mistakes of the past." https://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14031376

My point is that there is no single, monolithic, modern economic theory or school of economic thought and the Austrians in particular got it right. To imply the crisis is changing *all* modern economic theory is to mislead IMHO.

The article references people like Shiller at Yale, Krugman, and Roubini as "now famous for their prescience." Really? Because I think Menger, Mises, and Rothbard were pretty prescient too. It talks about Krugman, Krugman, Krugman, but does not mention Milton Friedman for example? It mentions Nobel Krugman and Sitglitz, but does not mention Nobel George Stigler. It's like Krugman is the only Nobel Economist they ever heard of or something. As you said it's sort of a pass and implied that he is "correct" because he won a Nobel.

It also implies that except for a few economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Andrei Shleifer the "efficient market hypothesis" has gone largely unchallenged and states "economists were hardly naive believers in market efficiency"..."so there are caveats" such as "two prominent hole pokers" and quotes a "newly prominent field, behavioral economics; concentrates on the consequences of irrational actions." And then transistions into "Finance professors should not be blamed for this" "the absurd assumptions added" and "cheered" by macroeconomists and "there were two few voices shouting stop."

I don't find that accurate unless you totally ignore an entire school (possibly two) of economic thought. Just my opinion. It's not even mentioned.

It has a statement such as this; "Macroeconomists, also had a blindspot: their standard models assumed that capital markets work perfectly. Their framework reflected an uneasy truce between the intellectual heirs of Keynes, who accept that economies can fall short of their potential; and purists who hold that supply must always equal demand."

That's not really an accurate assessment either IMHO. I would expect that sort of broad over-generalisation in say Time or WSJ, but not in something called The Economist.

The article you linked to is in special brief on the State of Economics starting on page 65-67. And an article on 68-69 on Financial Economics - Efficiency and Beyond. https://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14030296


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

The Economist has been worthless for years.

Maybe worthless is too strong a word, but the publication only provides value if you have the ability provide missing context and information. When I read a one sided article I find myself wondering what I am missing and so am unable to rely on anything they write.

So, worthless.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

norton said:


> The Economist has been worthless for years.
> 
> Maybe worthless is too strong a word, but the publication only provides value if you have the ability provide missing context and information. When I read a one sided article I find myself wondering what I am missing and so am unable to rely on anything they write.
> 
> So, worthless.


How about "an inferior good?" :icon_smile:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Beau said:


> I'm betting that Palin was the choice to appeal to a strong conservative Christian base of voters, and they probably thought they'd get the support of women, too. What they failed to realize is that the Christian vote is vocal but maybe not so big, and women are jealous types and Palin's good looks alienated more women than she won over (that last part is my wife's theory).
> 
> Palin is not a moron. No governor of a state is a moron. She was not geniunely herself in that awful interview with Couric, and the rest of the liberal mainstream media eviscerated her. Today I heard that the voter turnout was very low among well-to-do upper middle class people.
> 
> Romney could never have been the running mate. McCain despised him, and his Mormon background probably wouldn't play with the general public, regardless that he was a former Mass. governor. He would have made a fine POTUS. You can ask yourself this question, if something appeals to the masses is it the best thing? Probably not. Obama appealed to the masses, and yet most people don't realize that he is dismantling our free society and increasingly subjecting everything to greater governmental control.


Also, where else was the Christian vote going to go??


----------



## FlowRate (Jul 9, 2009)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Also, where else was the Christian vote going to go??


Good point. Most "conservative Christians" seem to blindly equate their beliefs to "The Republican Party" and would never think about voting otherwise. It's pretty sad. Also, this is true for homosexuals and the Democrats and other such group-party conflations.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574306533556532364.html

*Common Sense May Sink ObamaCare *
*It turns out the president misjudged the nation's mood.*
By PEGGY NOONAN


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

ksinc said:


> https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574306533556532364.html
> 
> *Common Sense May Sink ObamaCare *
> *It turns out the president misjudged the nation's mood.*
> By PEGGY NOONAN


Interesting read. I might rephrase and say the nation misjudged Obama's mood.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Interesting read. I might rephrase and say the nation misjudged Obama's mood.


I think your phrasing is more to the point. Well said.


----------



## SlowE30 (Mar 18, 2008)

Beau said:


> ...
> 
> More explicitly does anyone have a right to healthcare? ...


Of course everyone has a right to receive healthcare just like everyone has a right to buy a house, eat cherry cobbler, own a gun (if he's not a felon), etc.

Everyone has a right to purchase whatever healthcare they see fit. It's not the gov's responsibility to provide healthcare, nor a house, nor cherry cobbler, nor a gun.

The whole notion that basic primary care, routine visits, yearly physicals, etc should be paid by insurance is total lunacy. Insurance is supposed to pay for unforseen bad things. Insurance is supposed to be a pool we pay into in case one of us needs it, and those of us that don't need it, we get the assurance that it will be there. My car insurance doesn't pay for oil changes. I don't have insurance to pay my grocery bills, buy my toothpaste, and so on.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

Agreed.

If we give government the control over healthcare, they will then determine what services will be offered and the free market for healthcare will cease to exist.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

Fact: The Healthcare reform bill promotes rationing and will increase the death rate among seniors by limiting access to specialist care.

Read it here: https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574303903498159292.html

Kiss Grandma & Grandpa goodbye before it is too late!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Beau said:


> *Fact*: The Healthcare reform bill promotes rationing and will increase the death rate among seniors by limiting access to specialist care.
> 
> Read it here: https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574303903498159292.html
> 
> Kiss Grandma & Grandpa goodbye before it is too late!


I clicked on the link and all I found was this *Opinion*. We don't really have to blur the two to win this debate; so let's not.



> OPINION JULY 23, 2009, 12:09 A.M. ET
> GovernmentCare's Assault on Seniors
> 
> more in Opinion »


Here's another good Opinion piece '_Health Reform's Hidden Victims - Young people and seniors would pay a high price for ObamaCare' _by John Fund
https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574306303720472842.html


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

This is what I keep hearing;

We need health care reform now - but I haven't read the bill

This plan will be gold plated, the best - but I haven't read the bill

We need to do this now or terrible things will happen - but I haven't read the bill

Yes you can keep your current insurace - but I haven't read the bill

We won't raise taxes - but I haven't read the bill

We won't tax your current benefit plan - but I haven't read the bill

Federal employees are exempt from the plan - but I haven't read the bill

Your Grandmother might not get the care she needs - but I haven't read the bill

I’m rushed because I get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health care costs. - but I haven't read the bill

In case you are confused about who has not read the bill, it is the POTUS who demands we have this reform/change now but has no idea why we need it or what ramifications it will have on the people or the economy. Reminds me of an infant who must have his way even though they know not why and, if they do not get their way they throw a tantrum.

Comforting isn't it?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

-- Will health care reform require sacrifices? ABC's Jake Tapper asked a leading question, first stating that health care reform will require sacrifices in "tests, referrals, choice, end of life care," then asking whether Obama accepted that Americans will have to give something up to get better health care.

Obama basically rejected the question's premise. *"They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier," *he said. "And I, speaking as an American, I think that's the kind of change you want." He cited unnecessary duplication of tests that would be reduced with reform.
(copied and pasted from Huffington Post 7/22/09)

If the above exchange doesn't scare the hell out of anyone who has ever gone to a healthcare provider for some condition....

To think that controlling costs doesn't equate to rationing is intellectually dishonest. To think that _a cap on costs, but not on benefits_, to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, is to buy into pure pandering from people who haven't a clue as to how real people live their lives, their concerns and fears.


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

*So many things...*

Wow, this has become a complex thread! Leaving politics aside as much as I hate to I want to relate a very, sadly true story for an anecdotal reference. Bear in mind that it is generally agreed that here in the State of Texas we have made huge strides in health care (i.e., tort reform)

In April my wife's younger sister, age 41, was diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. She, the sister, is the mother of two small boys aged 10 and 7. She and her husband are the poster children for irresponsibility. In the ten years I have known them she is the only one to hold a job and that job has been quite menial. Her husbanc recently spent 14 months in prison for felony DWI or DUI. He was released in November of last year and as a condition of his parole he is supposed to get a job - it is August, still no job. They live in a converted store front with the plate glass windows covered with plywood, one room with barely space for two beds, one for the parents and one for the boys. They have literally NO money. Her husband, as an aside, stole one of her pain prescriptions and sold them on the street and bought lottery tickets and BB guns! These are the most irresponsible people on the face of the earth yet........

My sister-in-law has, at no charge to her, gotten amazing care. She has had multiple MRIs, CT scans, is on weekly chemo, has a home health nurse to supplement the care she is getting from her sisters. One of her brothers who lives in the northeast contacted Johns Hopkins about a program there and was told that they were very familiar with her doctor in the Dallas area and that he was 'one of the best. As we speak she is in the hospital dealing with an infection.

I promise you, she has gotten as good care as would you or I regardless of our insurance plans or lack thereof.


----------



## RobertAllen (Nov 11, 2008)

Survey after survey shows that when it comes to health care, Americans are concerned about COST rather than COVERAGE. That is where I think the Republicans are making a huge mistake. They are running out the same lines about a "tax credit" and "reigning in trial lawyers". Perhaps all good sentiments, but it does not address the real concern of Americans, which is how much they are paying for health insurance. And, there is no doubt or should be no doubt in any reasonable persons mind that if there was a reduction in medical malpractice recoveries or tax credits that insurance companies would not reduce premiums, but rather pocket bigger profits. On the other hand, Democrats are solely concerned with coverage, they want to hand illegals a health insurance card and a voters registration card as soon as they cross the border and give "free" health insurance to those who freely choose to spend their money on "things" other than monthly premiums because they prioritize other "things" rather than health insurance. I also suspect that a large % of the "uninsured" qualify for Medicaid or Medicare but are simply too lazy to enroll.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

RobertAllen said:


> Survey after survey shows that when it comes to health care, Americans are concerned about COST rather than COVERAGE. That is where I think the Republicans are making a huge mistake. They are running out the same lines about a "tax credit" and "reigning in trial lawyers". Perhaps all good sentiments, but it does not address the real concern of Americans, which is how much they are paying for health insurance.* And, there is no doubt or should be no doubt in any reasonable persons mind that if there was a reduction in medical malpractice recoveries or tax credits that insurance companies would not reduce premiums, but rather pocket bigger profits.* On the other hand, Democrats are solely concerned with coverage, they want to hand illegals a health insurance card and a voters registration card as soon as they cross the border and give "free" health insurance to those who freely choose to spend their money on "things" other than monthly premiums because they prioritize other "things" rather than health insurance. I also suspect that a large % of the "uninsured" qualify for Medicaid or Medicare but are simply too lazy to enroll.


I have doubts about that. I guess that makes me an unreasonable person and since I don't want to be that I will just embrace and accept. I see how spending money on preventative care or enforcing regulations to prevent industrial accidents and health consequences would not lower the cost of coverage either. So, we should probably stop wasting our time there too.

Armed with this new knowledge; it occurs to me that any effort to reduce any costs; such as in health care or energy will be fruitless. This is because businesses either directly or indirectly would just pocket those cost savings as additional profits.

Additionally, I cannot refute your point that many people are lazy or [stupid] - have inappropriate priorities. These people double-dip society as many of them gravitate towards large mult-national companies where they can R.I.P.!

Clearly, the only reasonable thing to do is get someone to regulate both the profits and the priorities of companies and individuals to find the optimum mix for the public and private sectors.

"power to the people!" :aportnoy:


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

ksinc

Everyone may not recognize sarcasm. You may want to make it more obvious. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

norton said:


> ksinc
> 
> Everyone may not recognize sarcasm. You may want to make it more obvious. :icon_smile_big:


"There is no doubt or should be no doubt in any reasonable person's mind..." :devil:


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

PetroLandman said:


> In April my wife's younger sister, age 41, was diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer.
> 
> My sister-in-law has, at no charge to her, gotten amazing care. She has had multiple MRIs, CT scans, is on weekly chemo, has a home health nurse to supplement the care she is getting from her sisters.
> 
> I promise you, she has gotten as good care as would you or I regardless of our insurance plans or lack thereof.


Under Obama's plan, he thinks your sister-in-law would perhaps have been better off just receiving pain medication.

I wish her a successful recovery, and hope that she will prosper some day.


----------



## RobertAllen (Nov 11, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I have doubts about that. I guess that makes me an unreasonable person and since I don't want to be that I will just embrace and accept. I see how spending money on preventative care or enforcing regulations to prevent industrial accidents and health consequences would not lower the cost of coverage either. So, we should probably stop wasting our time there too.
> 
> Armed with this new knowledge; it occurs to me that any effort to reduce any costs; such as in health care or energy will be fruitless. This is because businesses either directly or indirectly would just pocket those cost savings as additional profits.
> 
> ...


To be clear, I oppose a "public option" and certain the single-payer option. But I am also have a firm enough grasp on political reality to recognize that if the only two options are the status quo or the public option/single payer option, the latter has a much better chance of becoming law.

Not sure of your comment regarding those too lazy or stupid to sign up for Medicaid, but they are a significant chunk of the "uninsured". Similarly, another significant chunk of the uninsured are not American citizens, but that point is rarely brought up because, you see, the GOP doesn't want to lose the "hispanic vote" and what better way to get a portion of the hispanic vote than to not mention the fact that the Democrats plan would insure any Mexican with the gumption to illegally cross the border.

And while nothing gets my red and blue blood prouder than the ol' "by the boostraps", "Free market" and "entrepreneur" slogans, I believe that big business can be as bad as big government, and that the priority of the "plan" should be to lower cost for individuals and small (less than 100) businesses; if that hits the bottom line of the big insurance companies, I have full confidence they will survive and still see incentive to remain in business?


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

RobertAllen said:


> But I am also have a firm enough grasp on political reality to recognize that if the only two options are the status quo or the public option/single payer option, the latter has a much better chance of becoming law.


This is how Obama won in the first place. People like you think that the government is the solution and that corporations are bad.

If consumers (individuals, small business, or large corportations) do not like the price of a product, they can vote with their feet. The government won't give you that option, because you will become beholden to their single-payer plan. If the bill passes, then single payer could arrive in 1 - 20 years.

Government price controls are bad. What evidence exists to show they are good?


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

RobertAllen said:


> I believe that big business can be as bad as big government, and that the priority of the "plan" should be to lower cost for individuals and small (less than 100) businesses; if that hits the bottom line of the big insurance companies, I have full confidence they will survive and still see incentive to remain in business?


Both government and big business is made up of individuals making economic choices in their own self interest. In business it is relatively common for individuals who make poor choices to find themselves unemployed. In government it is much less common. What incentive do the bureaucrats have to please their customers?

The point that ksinc was making is that if costs are cut in a private system the company has the ability to lower its price to take business away from its competitors. The government has no such incentive, it can simply regulate its competitors out of business.

Why is a monopoly bad in the private sector but good if the government does it?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

RobertAllen said:


> To be clear, I oppose a "public option" and certain the single-payer option. *But I am also have a firm enough grasp on political reality to recognize that if the only two options are the status quo or the public option/single payer option*, *the latter has a much better chance of becoming law.*
> 
> *Not sure of your comment regarding those too lazy or stupid* to sign up for Medicaid, but they are a significant chunk of the "uninsured". Similarly, another significant chunk of the uninsured are not American citizens, but that point is rarely brought up because, you see, the GOP doesn't want to lose the "hispanic vote" and what better way to get a portion of the hispanic vote than to not mention the fact that the Democrats plan would insure any Mexican with the gumption to illegally cross the border.
> 
> And while nothing gets my red and blue blood prouder than the ol' "by the boostraps", "Free market" and "entrepreneur" slogans, *I believe that big business can be as bad as big government*, and that the priority of the "plan" should be to lower cost for individuals and small (less than 100) businesses; if that hits the bottom line of the big insurance companies, I have full confidence they will survive and still see incentive to remain in business?


Regarding specific highlighted statements of belief:

#1) It seems self-evident that if the future law will be either the status quo or a significant reform; that the status quo being the present law has an inherent advantage in becoming the future law.

#2) I'm simply accepting your premise that a large contributor to the problems of Cost and Coverage is a lot of people are too lazy, too stupid, or have so-called 'bad' or 'the wrong' priorities.

#3) Big government can enforce their priorities with guns; unlike big business.

No offense, these seem like unreasonable exclusions to your beliefs.


----------



## RobertAllen (Nov 11, 2008)

Beau said:


> This is how Obama won in the first place. People like you think that the government is the solution and that corporations are bad.
> 
> If consumers (individuals, small business, or large corportations) do not like the price of a product, they can vote with their feet. The government won't give you that option, because you will become beholden to their single-payer plan. If the bill passes, then single payer could arrive in 1 - 20 years.
> 
> Government price controls are bad. What evidence exists to show they are good?


No, Obama won because the Republican brand was so tarnished by Bush that an unqualified community organizer (i.e. hustler/shakedown artist) could win as long as he didn't have the -R next to his name; but that's a different issue.

To reiterate, I strongly oppose the so-called "public option" because the inevitable will be the "public option" will be legislated to become free or next to free to effectively run the private health plans out of business and backdoor the single-payer plan.

But, from a pure political standpoint (and it is the legislative branch that will decide the issue), I think the GOP is making a mistake playing along on the coverage issue when the people like their coverage but don't like the cost and the cost is in fact breaking small businesses who want to insure their employees and the "tort reform" and "tax credit" idea has merit, but does not resonate with the American people who do not believe that is the answer to the cost problem.


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

Beau said:


> Under Obama's plan, he thinks your sister-in-law would perhaps have been better off just receiving pain medication.
> 
> I wish her a successful recovery, and hope that she will prosper some day.


Thanks, I appreciate that a lot.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/


----------



## Nicesuit (Apr 5, 2007)

Beau said:


> Under Obama's plan, he thinks your sister-in-law would perhaps have been better off just receiving pain medication.
> 
> I wish her a successful recovery, and hope that she will prosper some day.


+1 on both accounts!

Stories like yours will vanish under this idiotic plan.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

CNN has been reported to the WH for "fishy" stories about Healthcare Reform! LOL :aportnoy:


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

ksinc said:


> CNN has been reported to the WH for "fishy" stories about Healthcare Reform! LOL :aportnoy:


This entire thread is being reported _comrade ksinc_. For the good of the state. The _Ministry of Truth _ will be contacting all of us soon to educate us as to the real plan.


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

I can't wait for my induction at the FEMA camp for re-education...


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

obiwan said:


> I can't wait for my induction at the FEMA camp for re-education...


See you there. "First they came for the Well Dressed...."

Hope we can avoid the medical experiments.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I'm one of the now infamous "brooks brothers" protesters.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Beau said:


> Government price controls are bad. What evidence exists to show they are good?


 
Before I get to my thoughts on healthcare, I wonder how many people watch _The Rockford Files_ or _The Mary Tyler Moore Show _and understand the scene in the opening credits where the title character picks up a package of meat in a grocery store, looks dejected and disgusted, and tosses it back into the case. (Hint - government price controls.)

Government-run anything has to be consistent across the board to get any efficiency. The human body is not consistent in its behaviors, and humans are not consistent in their choices, nor should they be. Within the "big tent" of liberalism you've got people who think that obesity is a "right" and those who want the government to reduce healthcare costs by effectively banning unhealthy eating habits. What happens when those two sides fight it out?

After watching allegedly-former-Republican Mike Bloomberg on the Sunday talk shows this week, I have no doubt that "Obama Care's" first goal is to give insurance to people who "can't afford it" and make people who are producing more for the economy pay for it.

How can the Administration say that this will limit costs and create efficiencies, but people will have to "sacrifice" and "contribute" to the system?

If we give this power to the government, we're giving it to every administration in the future, no matter who they are. The 20th Century is filled with tyrants who first gained power through legitimate democratic means. Just because the current Administration says that they won't create a government panel to decide who gets life-saving treatment and who doesn't, doesn't mean that they won't change their mind, or eventually have to cede power to someone who will.


----------



## RobertAllen (Nov 11, 2008)

For those against "government health care", join with libertarians in opposing medicare and medicaid. While I am not (yet) in that number (of libertarians), at least that political group is legitimate and consistent in their criciticsm of "government health care". Because I hear alot of my fellow Republicans roaring about GHC while praising or quickly "explaining" that they don't oppose medicare (in particular----i.e. seniors vote!).

But, I think vital to this discussion of Obamacare is to identify #1 how many people "do not have health care" and #2 who are these people? I have heard the 47 million "people LIVING IN AMERICA" number used by Obama. I emphasize/captialize LIVING IN AMERICA because it is important that term not be confused with AMERICANS. I think it important to determine how many of these 47 million (using Obama's number) are not American citizens, how many can afford some form of private coverage but would rather consider that an unncessary expense that they would prefer to use on other things and how many are people who would otherwise qualify for medicaid based on income or medicare based on age, but for whatever reason have not enlisted in those existing "government health care" programs.

But, again, I believe the issue is not coverage, it is cost. And, I don't hear either side/party with a legitimate and workable solution to the cost issue. Democrats care about covering people LIVING IN AMERICA and Republicans appear to care about protecting their dear friends in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Miket61 said:


> Before I get to my thoughts on healthcare, I wonder how many people watch _The Rockford Files_ or _The Mary Tyler Moore Show _and understand the scene in the opening credits where the title character picks up a package of meat in a grocery store, looks dejected and disgusted, and tosses it back into the case. (Hint - government price controls.)
> 
> Government-run anything has to be consistent across the board to get any efficiency. The human body is not consistent in its behaviors, and humans are not consistent in their choices, nor should they be. Within the "big tent" of liberalism you've got people who think that obesity is a "right" and those who want the government to reduce healthcare costs by effectively banning unhealthy eating habits. What happens when those two sides fight it out?
> 
> ...


Yep! Death panels are a comin'!!! Like in the U.S. Military where they have had government paid for and controlled health care forever. I can't tell you how many soldiers have complained to me about being forced to go before the Army Death Panel to plead their case for treatment. They just want treatment for their injuries, but the damn officers make them beg for treatment and then decide who should get what treatment. It's a shame.

Get a life.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Perhaps you should. Few in the military are nearing the stage where they would be considered for euthenasia.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Miket61 said:


> Before I get to my thoughts on healthcare, I wonder how many people watch _The Rockford Files_ or _The Mary Tyler Moore Show _and understand the scene in the opening credits where the title character picks up a package of meat in a grocery store, looks dejected and disgusted, and tosses it back into the case. (Hint - government price controls.)


Not that it matters, but - 

She doesn't throw it back, she throws it into her cart.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> Yep! Death panels are a comin'!!! Like in the U.S. Military where they have had government paid for and controlled health care forever. I can't tell you how many soldiers have complained to me about being forced to go before the Army Death Panel to plead their case for treatment. They just want treatment for their injuries, but the damn officers make them beg for treatment and then decide who should get what treatment. It's a shame.
> 
> Get a life.


Actually, you should see what a 60 year old cancer patient with the VA goes through compared to a 60 year old cancer patient in the private system.

Let's just say you might live in Orlando, and the only treatment available to YOU may be in Tampa. And you need treatment several times a week. So, you may need to choose between moving to Tampa or not getting your treatment. And that may involve the decision of losing everything you own because your house is worth less than the mortgage and you have a deficiency judgement against you so you have to declare bankruptcy.

Perhaps live a little bit more of your life before you tell others to get one. You will see more than you see today.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Perhaps you should. Few in the military are nearing the stage where they would be considered for euthenasia.


Lots and lots of Vets are, we see it down here in the Retirement State a lot.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> Yep! Death panels are a comin'!!! Like in the U.S. Military where they have had government paid for and controlled health care forever. I can't tell you how many soldiers have complained to me about being forced to go before the Army Death Panel to plead their case for treatment. They just want treatment for their injuries, but the damn officers make them beg for treatment and then decide who should get what treatment. It's a shame.
> 
> Get a life.


https://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions

This is a link to an article entitled "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions" written by Dr Ezekial Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel and a key Obama medical advisor, and published in January 2009.

If you institute a health care system that can't push down costs, but does limit government payment, the resulting limited services need to be rationed in some manner. This paper explains how to do so by using a procedure that could be called a "death panel" and approving treatment based on the patients worth to society. Pay particular attention to the sectioned beginning on page six entitled "The Complete Lives System".


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

I haven't read all the posts but some of these conservatives are making mad. All I want to do is play poker on the Internet and maybe make some sports wagers legally. And these guys are talking about freedom and choice and personal responsibility and how Democrats are taking them away. Damn hypocrites. The Republicans took away my freedoms to do the stuff I want to do! I went to public school so this health care stuff is a bit over my head, but all I ever hear watching my liberal news shows is Obama wants to give people a choice to pay for this government health care stuff. And when I think of fat people not being responsible for their health I think of Southern red states. Can we kick Texas out? That would save some money on health care right?


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

SkySov said:


> And when I think of fat people not being responsible for their health I think of Southern red states.


Not me, I think of Dr. Regina Benjamin, Obama's choice for Surgeon General.

Of course when I think of tax cheats I think of Timothy Geithner, Obama's choice for head of the IRS.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

norton said:


> Not me, I think of Dr. Regina Benjamin, Obama's choice for Surgeon General.
> 
> Of course when I think of tax cheats I think of Timothy Geithner, Obama's choice for head of the IRS.


Dr. Regina Benjamin? From Alabama? Southern fatty red state. Though I was just joking about kicking them out. Mary Tyler Moore used to be really hot too. That's not a joke. There will two Republicans on Bill Maher's show last week and they said they wanted to give people the option to buy into the same health care all federal employees use. Is that a better idea cause it comes from Republicans?


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

SkySov said:


> Dr. Regina Benjamin? From Alabama? Southern fatty red state. Though I was just joking about kicking them out. Mary Tyler Moore used to be really hot too. That's not a joke. There will two Republicans on Bill Maher's show last week and they said they wanted to give people the option to buy into the same health care all federal employees use. Is that a better idea cause it comes from Republicans?


I'm not sure. If they were paying the full cost I suppose it would be all right. It would be a matter of changing the federal employee system into an optional public system, which in general I could approve of. But then I think that the public employee's pension plan should be terminated and that they should contribute to 401k's like the rest of us too. In fact, I'd rather that the federal government just outsource federal employee's health insurance like any other large employer. They could require any outside insurer that wanted the contract to accept any individual who wanted to join the group.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

SkySov said:


> I haven't read all the posts but some of these conservatives are making mad. All I want to do is play poker on the Internet and maybe make some sports wagers legally. And these guys are talking about freedom and choice and personal responsibility and how Democrats are taking them away. Damn hypocrites. The Republicans took away my freedoms to do the stuff I want to do! I went to public school so this health care stuff is a bit over my head, but all I* ever hear watching my liberal news shows is Obama wants to give people a choice to pay for this government health care stuff.* And when I think of fat people not being responsible for their health I think of Southern red states. Can we kick Texas out? That would save some money on health care right?


Choice? There is no choice - that's the problem. If Obama put it to a referendum; it would lose about 70:30.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

SkySov said:


> Dr. Regina Benjamin? From Alabama? Southern fatty red state. Though I was just joking about kicking them out. Mary Tyler Moore used to be really hot too. That's not a joke. There will two Republicans on Bill Maher's show last week and they said they wanted to give people the option to buy into the same health care all federal employees use. Is that a better idea cause it comes from Republicans?


The FEHB program is an employer cafeteria style private insurance program. You can buy Aetna, Blue Cross or UHC among many others.

Here's the FEHB Program for my coverage - UHC FLorida.

High Deductible Plan ($2k Single, $4k Family)
United Health Care PPO + HSA PLUS DENTAL PPO at no additional premium. It also has an HRA backing up the HSA. It also covers 100% of preventative care.

It costs $38.17 Single or $85.26 Family bi-monthly

https://www.opm.gov/insure/health/s...defg&general=abcdefghij&emptype=a&payperiod=b&

https://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2009/brochures/73-845.pdf

The plan I get privately is a United Health Care HSA with a $5k deductible it's $267/mo with no Dental and no HRA, but does include Preventive Mammogram, Pap Smear, and PSA screening w/ $35 copay for other preventative office visits. https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/eh...id=3206&pid=96002&ehi.fromPage=carrierprofile

The dental PPO is another $60/mo, but our dentist doesn't take insurance and we use the HSA for that stuff.

Oh, and my plan has Zero Maternity coverage while the FEHB plan has 100% pre- and post-natal, delivery, and all family planning.

The FEHB plan is a "Family" plan. My plan is priced per person (2 adults 40M & 38F.)

FWIW a McCain style $3k or 5k tax credit would work out just fine, but why not let people buy into the FEHB plan?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> Yep! Death panels are a comin'!!! Like in the U.S. Military where they have had government paid for and controlled health care forever. I can't tell you how many soldiers have complained to me about being forced to go before the Army Death Panel to plead their case for treatment. They just want treatment for their injuries, but the damn officers make them beg for treatment and then decide who should get what treatment. It's a shame.
> 
> Get a life.


Have you ever tried to use the VA to obtain healthcare?


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> They just want treatment for their injuries, but the damn officers make them beg for treatment and then decide who should get what treatment. It's a shame.
> 
> Get a life.


Word of the day: Triage. In a combat setting, that's when the officers (with medical degrees) have to ignore people begging for treatment and then decide who should get what treatment, and in what order.

You're in Philadelphia - if you develop prostate cancer, I hope you don't go to the VA hospital there for help. Their aim at inserting radioactive pellets into a prostate is slightly worse than an eight-year-old at a rigged carnival game.

You also might not want to go to any of the several VAs that gave colonoscopies to multiple patients before sterilizing the equipment. No telling how many people have gotten hepatitis and HIV.

Fortunately, I've got a life. A very nice one. Not at all bitter and twisted.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

RobertAllen said:


> For those against "government health care", join with libertarians in opposing medicare and medicaid. While I am not (yet) in that number (of libertarians), at least that political group is legitimate and consistent in their criciticsm of "government health care". Because I hear alot of my fellow Republicans roaring about GHC while praising or quickly "explaining" that they don't oppose medicare (in particular----i.e. seniors vote!).
> 
> But, I think vital to this discussion of Obamacare is to identify #1 how many people "do not have health care" and #2 who are these people? I have heard the 47 million "people LIVING IN AMERICA" number used by Obama. I emphasize/captialize LIVING IN AMERICA because it is important that term not be confused with AMERICANS. I think it important to determine how many of these 47 million (using Obama's number) are not American citizens, how many can afford some form of private coverage but would rather consider that an unncessary expense that they would prefer to use on other things and how many are people who would otherwise qualify for medicaid based on income or medicare based on age, but for whatever reason have not enlisted in those existing "government health care" programs.
> 
> But, again, I believe the issue is not coverage, it is cost. And, I don't hear either side/party with a legitimate and workable solution to the cost issue. Democrats care about covering people LIVING IN AMERICA and Republicans appear to care about protecting their dear friends in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.


I don't think anyone is truly against Medicaid/Medicare. There are people who are truly needy in this country and lack resources for proper healthcare. It should be noted that if not for our private healthcare system, and the profit it generates, many of these people would go without anything. I often will do _pro-bono_ work which, quite frankly, is subsidized by my paying patients. Otherwise, they would have to go to public hospitals/clinics where the care is atrocious.

I'm glad you brought up the 47 million number, because it is quite distorted. It also does not take into account the many people who are between jobs or waiting for their insurance to kick in after starting a new job. A big chunk of that 47 million number is transient. But of course, it sounds good. Just like how the ice caps will melt next week unless we all stop driving.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Medicare need supplimentary insurance (on the side) to help pay many of the bills. If you don't pay for that extra insurance expect a shorter life. You or your wife get cancer- good bye.

Medicaid means they take everything you own...

A tax free trust fund that you set up when you step out of high school in about 30-40 years will have enough in it that you probably won't need to worry about money for health care. But the Democrats hate that because then they would have less control of your life. In other words you would have more freedom with a tax free trust fund. The Democrats do not give us a _Can Do Attitude_, instead they deprecate on us.

Trust in the Government or, Rightly don't. Take your choice. Like Canada and anywhere else, Government can not take care of all of your needs.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Too funny. The Democrats want to control you. Why is it alright for Republicans to tell me what I can and can't spend my money on but it's wrong for Democrats to say you have to spend money on health care? Republicans are the ones trying to control us because they believe they have better morals and know what's right for everyone. And you can probably say the same thing about Democrats thinking they know what's best for us when it comes to health care. But so what. Fair is fair. If you aren't going to care when Republicans say we cant spend our money on weed and abortions and gambling then I'm not going to care about Democrats spending our money on health care.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

SkySov said:


> Too funny. The Democrats want to control you. Why is it alright for Republicans to tell me what I can and can't spend my money on but it's wrong for Democrats to say you have to spend money on health care? Republicans are the ones trying to control us because they believe they have better morals and know what's right for everyone. And you can probably say the same thing about Democrats thinking they know what's best for us when it comes to health care. But so what. Fair is fair. If you aren't going to care when Republicans say we cant spend our money on weed and abortions and gambling then I'm not going to care about Democrats spending our money on health care.


I don't think its just republicans that won't let you smoke "weed" but go ahead and smoke up Johnny, if you like. I don't think republicans are denying you the right to gamble either, you can jump on a plane and head to Vegas, smoke some weed and gamble all you want. I don't think republicans are trying to deny you're spending money on abortions, they just don't want the public to finance it.

So, go ahead, get high, go to Vegas, gamble your life savings and get busy with some drunk honey you meet at the bar. If you get her pregnant, don't worry, take her to a clinic and pay to have it taken care of.

Now that we're straight on that, in what possible way do your comments add to the debate about publicly financed healthcare.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

SkySov said:


> Too funny. The Democrats want to control you. Why is it alright for Republicans to tell me what I can and can't spend my money on but it's wrong for Democrats to say you have to spend money on health care? Republicans are the ones trying to control us because they believe they have better morals and know what's right for everyone. And you can probably say the same thing about Democrats thinking they know what's best for us when it comes to health care. But so what. Fair is fair. If you aren't going to care when Republicans say we cant spend our money on weed and abortions and gambling then I'm not going to care about Democrats spending our money on health care.


So you're saying that republicans say there are some things you can't spend your own money on, and democrats are saying there are things you will be forced to spend money on, and that its the same thing?


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

WA said:


> Medicaid means they take everything you own...


Obamacare means they'll take everything I make.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

SkySov said:


> ... If you aren't going to care when Republicans say we cant spend our money on weed and abortions and gambling then I'm not going to care about Democrats spending our money on health care.





pt4u67 said:


> I don't think its just republicans that won't let you smoke "weed" but go ahead and smoke up Johnny, if you like.... Now that we're straight on that, in what possible way do your comments add to the debate about publicly financed healthcare.


pt, I'm not sure he should be smoking any more weed... :crazy:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Don't Step on the Grass, Sam!!!


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Goddammit gents! It seems like we have some cheap seeded low grade weed smokers in the interchange. Whatever happened to the high quality standard AAAC extols in everything? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Don't Step on the Maui Wowee, Sam.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Asterix said:


> Goddammit gents! It seems like we have some cheap seeded low grade weed smokers in the interchange. Whatever happened to the high quality standard AAAC extols in everything? :icon_smile_big:


And here I thought asking if people should be able to buy FEHB was a serious question.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Don't Step on the Maui Wowee, Sam.


Haven't you heard? MILF weed is the new thing, man!


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

An interesting opinion on Obamacare from an Obama fan.

_"Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government."_
_
"The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable "casual conversations" to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it."
_


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Wow. Just wow. 

Have these people no shame?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
The short answer to fenway's question would be... no!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Jovan said:


> Haven't you heard? MILF weed is the new thing, man!


I'm old (53) beyond the age of knowing what's currently happening in herbal-spice related circles any more. LOL.


----------



## RobertAllen (Nov 11, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm glad you brought up the 47 million number, because it is quite distorted. It also does not take into account the many people who are between jobs or waiting for their insurance to kick in after starting a new job. A big chunk of that 47 million number is transient. But of course, it sounds good. Just like how the ice caps will melt next week unless we all stop driving.


What has surprised and frustrated me is that there has been no discussion of who are these supposed 47 million people LIVING IN AMERICA. My strong suspicion is that this is a varied group, from illegals, to those who qualify for medicare or medicaid, to those who simply don't want health insurance because they would rather pay out of pocket, to those you mention who are in-between jobs/waiting for insurance to kick in. I don't believe there is a one-size fits all solution for those varied groups even IF the goal should be to provide/help everyone have health insurance.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Jovan said:


> Haven't you heard? MILF weed is the new thing, man!


Then that must be some good weed.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Howard said:


> Then that must be some good weed.


Want to try some?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Without incriminating myself further, let me just correct the record: other than the term there is nothing new about MILF weed; MILF weed is not new. :devil:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I think this is one of her best ... posted here for healthcare part and cross-posted for Obama-Gates-Sgt.Crowley part

https://dir.salon.com/topics/camille_paglia/index.html


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Reference to "Weeds"


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

KenR said:


> Want to try some?


No I'd rather not.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

You can see what the weed did to tailoring. Hippie clothes sure don't need to be tailored.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Obama caught dealing from the bottom of the deck; again. 

https://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/08/obamas-talking-about-his-grandmother-again.html


----------



## KennethB (Jul 29, 2009)

"*Why do we need Healthcare Reform?"

Industry lobbyist trick number one: deny there is a problem:

*


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

My guess is you didn't start reading from the beginning in this thread.

At the end of the day, those in favor of reform argue for price controls, coverage for everyone and delivery at reduced costs. 

The reality is that you cannot create a new entitlement class without destroying wealth and the economy by increasing taxes to fund such a system. These systems have not worked in other countries, so there is no reason to expect it will work here.

The healthcare system/market we have in the U.S. is pretty good now. Not everyone is covered; however, a new socialized healtchacare delivery system won't acheive that goal either.

It's nice to try and be glib, tear down the arguement, and make a point; but, you have not added anything to the discussion.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

I attended a townhall meeting on health care with a Representative last weekend. There were about 600 people there. It was about 50/50 for and against Obamacare. The pro-Obamacare faction was easily identifiable: They were all either wearing AFSCME of SEIU tee-shirts and were wearing stickers that had been handed out by Moveon.org activists who had been working the line prior to admission. (They left me alone because I was "well dressed.") The anti-Obamacare faction appeared to be, like me, just people who showed up on their own or in groups of two or three. Those in favor of Obamacare all had identical, professionally made signs that were handed out to them as they arrived. Those opposed had their own home made signs.

What was striking was the remarkable IQ gap between the representatives who spoke or asked questions. I'll guess on the average the gap was 30 points, maybe two sigma. In addition to being plain stupid, the pro-Obamacare faction simply did not know what the hell they were talking about, were uninformed, and unable to grasp fundamental business and economic basics. But they were loud and projected that clear sense of (undeserved) empowerment you see in professionally organized mobs. It was depressing to realize that should they be successful in bringing this nightmare into reality, they will be too stupid and ignorant to connect the dots and relate the cause (them) to the effect.

To think that these Orcs are having any influence whatsoever on the debate is deeply disturbing. The fact that they have been summoned by Lord Obama himself to promote his scheme should terrify us.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

*Roger Ebert's Journal*

I came across this yesterday.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Liberty Ship said:


> To think that these Orcs are having any influence whatsoever on the debate is deeply disturbing. The fact that they have been summoned by Lord Obama himself to promote his scheme should terrify us.


Yeah ! ! ! let the uninsured go the emergency room at the hospital and get treated for free like they have always done - hey thats been good enough in the past so why change things


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

young guy said:


> Yeah ! ! ! let the uninsured go the emergency room at the hospital and get treated for free like they have always done - hey thats been good enough in the past so why change things


Why not? I'll be paying for them either way.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

I very much like the idea of supporting the poor and assisting those who cannot afford health insurance.

I am very much opposed to the government using force to achieve those means.


----------



## KennethB (Jul 29, 2009)

Beau said:


> My guess is you didn't start reading from the beginning in this thread.
> 
> At the end of the day, those in favor of reform argue for price controls, coverage for everyone and delivery at reduced costs.
> 
> ...


Actually, the link I provided does add something to the discussion.

The health care system we have now is not that great: We spend far too much. Too many people are excluded from coverage. And, far too often, even those with 'good ' coverage are financially ruined after a medical 'event.'


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

https://www.changethecongressin2010.com/


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Perhaps the discussion should be expanded to consider how effective any health care reform effort can be, absent tort reform being accomplished in parallel. What percentage of today's health care dollar can be attributed to arguably frivolous law suits and unbridled (punitive) damage awards? How often are redundant diagnostics and elective treatments ordered, because a doctor wants to avoid the potential lawsuit?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

KennethB said:


> Actually, the link I provided does add something to the discussion.
> 
> The health care system we have now is not that great: We spend far too much. Too many people are excluded from coverage. And, far too often, even those with 'good ' coverage are financially ruined after a medical 'event.'


How did you determine that "we spend far too much?"

And "who is we, Kemosabe?"


----------



## sowilson (Jul 27, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Perhaps the discussion should be expanded to consider how effective any health care reform effort can be, absent tort reform being accomplished in parallel. What percentage of today's health care dollar can be attributed to arguably frivolous law suits and unbridled (punitive) damage awards? How often are redundant diagnostics and elective treatments ordered, because a doctor wants to avoid the potential lawsuit?


Malpractice accounts for roughly 2% of the nations healthcare spend , tort reform (or even total elimination of any lawsuit) wouldn't do much to alter health care costs. Of course we should continue to spend %30 of our health care dollars on insurance company paperwork and overhead.


----------



## KennethB (Jul 29, 2009)

Rushkoff weighs in:


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Liberty Ship said:


> To think that these Orcs are having any influence whatsoever on the debate is deeply disturbing. The fact that they have been summoned by Lord Obama himself to promote his scheme should terrify us.


To Obamamaniacs to Orcs is a stroke of genius.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

sowilson said:


> Malpractice accounts for roughly 2% of the nations healthcare spend , tort reform (or even total elimination of any lawsuit) wouldn't do much to alter health care costs. Of course we should continue to spend %30 of our health care dollars on insurance company paperwork and overhead.


That is false. One company here had over 40 doctors and they laid off all except one because the insurance against suing was to high. For doctors not think about not being insured against suing, as the way it is now, is pure foolishness. Caps on suing needs to be in place, which the democrats refuse.

The problem with the cost of health insurance began shortly after Bush jr. became president. Before that the monthly bill was for me $130- it is probably $500 now. So the problem can be fixed by undoing what the Republicans did that drove the prices up along with the sue problems. Anyway, that is the way I see it.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
The CBO referrence, while proving to be an interesting read, is potentially misleading in presenting the 2% figure that has been cited. It would seem that figure includes only court ordered awards and does not in fact include pre-trial settlements or even those legal costs associated with resolving and/or litigating such matters. The fact that so many prospective doctors are avoiding certain areas of specialization, would seem to indicate that those specialties carry substantial additional risk...no?


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

If this memo is true, it could be the beginning of end of government health care;

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> That is false. One company here had over 40 doctors and they laid off all except one because the insurance against suing was to high. For doctors not think about not being insured against suing, as the way it is now, is pure foolishness. Caps on suing needs to be in place, which the democrats refuse.
> 
> The problem with the cost of health insurance began shortly after Bush jr. became president. Before that the monthly bill was for me $130- it is probably $500 now. So the problem can be fixed by undoing what the Republicans did that drove the prices up along with the sue problems. Anyway, that is the way I see it.


WA, you do realize that the increased costs are mainly due the number of baby boomers past 60 now? Please don't euthanize yourself for the common good; we need you around here!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

obiwan said:


> If this memo is true, it could be the beginning of end of government health care;
> 
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html


HuffPo will burn in hell for questioning the Messiah.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

It amazes me how many proponents of a US universal healthcare plan cite financial ruin and exhorbitant cost as the reasons we need what will truly be "socialized medicine".

I am happy with my care and the cost. Last year at the ripe old age of 47 I had my tonsils removed. My out of pocket cost was about $1,500.

How many of you proposing change have spent real dough on your healthcare? How many of you have gone without treatment for a serious non-elective procedure because it wasn't covered or you simply don't have health insurance?

Also, how many of you proponents of "change" could have health insurance, but voluntarily opt out because you say you can't afford it?

Let's make our arguments for or against based on personal experience, rather than theories or anonymous third party anecdotes.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Beau said:


> It amazes me how many proponents of a US universal healthcare plan cite financial ruin and exhorbitant cost as the reasons we need what will truly be "socialized medicine".
> 
> I am happy with my care and the cost. Last year at the ripe old age of 47 I had my tonsils removed. My out of pocket cost was about $1,500.
> 
> ...


Beau, throat lozenges would have been more cost effective. You got off this time pal.

Your last statement is absolutely correct. Livy once observed that the people are always for something in general, but when the specifics are discussed they begin to oppose it. Nice to see that some things haven't changed in the past 2 thousand years.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

pt, I had my tonsils removed because of a chronic case of bad breath. It worked. Everyone is happy.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Beau said:


> pt, I had my tonsils removed because of a chronic case of bad breath. It worked. Everyone is happy.


Do you still have bad breath?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Your last statement is absolutely correct. Livy once observed that the people are always for something in general, but when the specifics are discussed they begin to oppose it. Nice to see that some things haven't changed in the past 2 thousand years.


At first I agreed with his observation, but the more I thought about it I decided he was wrong.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Beau said:


> I am happy with my care and the cost. Last year at the ripe old age of 47 I had my tonsils removed. My out of pocket cost was about $1,500.


MRI on just the head can run $5-6,000. But that is not a cure or a fix. To solve the problem might be $20,000 or more. Now if the gov. wanted to help they could buy a bunch of MRIs and upgrades and give them to medical centers, etc., that way we are just paying people an hourly wage. This is a far better way to help than to take over and, which would lower the cost of insurance. And if the gov. buys something it should not be borrowed money (why pay interest rates?).


----------



## pleaderwilliams (Aug 20, 2009)

Obviously I'm from the UK, and I can't really profess to know the detail of the current US healthcare system, or the exact implications of the proposed reforms, but a lot of the debate in this thread seems bizarre from a British standpoint.

Firstly, how can 'universal healthcare' really be a serious threat to the US economy? Apparently it could bankrupt the country, but we've had the NHS since 1946, and somehow avoided bankruptcy and chaos. Sure, the economy isn't in a great state at the moment, but its not really any worse than in the US at the moment either, and it definitely has nothing to do with our healthcare system.

I don't believe, from what I've read, that our taxes are that much higher either, here its roughly £7000 tax free, then £7000-£37000 at 20%, £37,000+ at 40%. I guess in the UK priorities are slightly different, maybe businesses are taxed more, as opposed to the US where it falls more upon the individual, although I'm not really sure? I know the big businesses and the industrialists seem to have a lot of power in US politics, more than they seem to here, with the Kyoto Protocol seemingly one example?

Unless US spending is far higher in other areas like the military or industry over schools and healthcare, I can't see how the world's largest economy couldn't afford it?

I know there has been a lot of suggestion that the US has the "world's best healthcare", but I was just wondering what the source for that was? I think Bush may have said that, but as president he would hardly have admitted otherwise?

I know the WHO produced a report in 2000, which rated the US healthcare system as 37th in the world:

https://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Although I'm not really sure of the criteria, there is another report here that explains a bit more of the reason behind some rankings:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html

It highlights the obvious problems, like the poor having much less access to healthcare, but also high child mortality, low life expectancy, high death rates from curable diseases, as well as high death rates through medical and surgical mistakes.

Obviously we know the NHS isn't too great either, coming in 18th, and suffering from notoriously long waiting lists, and according to the report probably lower levels of screening and survival of some cancers, which the US system is very good at.

However, those at the top of the table are generally countries that do also provide universal healthcare. Its generally acknowledged in britain that we need to learn from the best healthcare in the world, which is mostly western europe, and not necessarily the US. Maybe some of the fear that people in the US have about losing the "best healthcare system in the world" is actually slightly misplaced patriotism? There could even be a lot to gain from a single health service for the US, the resources available for research would be huge, and surely mass purchase of common supplies could reduce costs dramatically?

Those complaining that people choose not to spend their money on medical insurance would surely rather that these people are taxed, and thereby forced to pay for their own healthcare, rather than getting sick, losing jobs, homes and becoming a much larger burden on the state?

I'm no economics expert, but I would have thought that the government paying for peoples healthcare would be far preferable to people missing work, or claiming disability benefits, or ending up bankrupt and relying on unemployment and housing benefit?

It's very interesting to see this debate going on, especially causing such negative opinions, particularly being brought up in a country where we've had the NHS for such a long time, and it is such an accepted part of life that everyone has access to 'free' healthcare. Obviously I probably don't understand the whole situation, but it's really fascinating to see some of the arguments from either side, even if, as an Englishman I'm probably biased to the liberal side of arguement, having been brought up under "communism".


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

pleaderwilliams said:


> Obviously I'm from the UK, and I can't really profess to know the detail of the current US healthcare system, or the exact implications of the proposed reforms, but a lot of the debate in this thread seems bizarre from a British standpoint.
> 
> Firstly, how can 'universal healthcare' really be a serious threat to the US economy? Apparently it could bankrupt the country, but we've had the NHS since 1946, and somehow avoided bankruptcy and chaos. Sure, the economy isn't in a great state at the moment, but its not really any worse than in the US at the moment either, and it definitely has nothing to do with our healthcare system.
> 
> ...


The US has the highest survivability rates for diseases and major health issues like cancer or heart disease. The rankings go by life expectancy which is not a reflection of health care. For example, we have huge gang violence issues which take many children at 14-18 years old. That is not a reflection on health care quality, but on our larger cultural war.

If you get sick; you want to be in the USA.

We also have faster access to specialists and no ques or waiting list for things like MRI and other tests such as lab tests.

I saw one quote of 8 weeks for an MRI in the UK health system. We can get one here immediately or the next day by referal.

Most people don't miss work or go on unemployment because they don't have health care - most people that work have health care through their employer. There is an issue, a legitimate one with people that are not full-time employees with benefits that have no insurance. We need to make tax credits for individuals who need to buy their own care and we need to address portability and pre-existing conditions. However, health insurance is not health care. Lots of people with health insurance don't go in for health care and vice versa. There is a lot of misinformation - a lot intentional about the linkage and causation. Many of those without health insurance don't want to pay for it, or are illegals that should not be in a government insurance scheme anyway.

The Government doesn't pay for anything. Taxpayers pay for things. It is only preferable for other people to pay for someone's health care to that person.

It is preferable to me if you pay for my car? Are you going to do it?

The best health care in the world is in the US in terms of outcomes which is a measure of quality of care.

No there is not more resources under single payer and research dollars have nothing to do with health care premiums they are two different subjects.

Your view is biased only by a lack of good and freely available information; not by liberalism or being English. You're simply wrong on many basic facts. An English liberal is usually a classic liberal which is what we call a Conservative here. Liberals in America are more like Labour party I guess you would say.

You are correct it is fascinating how many people are generally misinformed about economics and other civic issues. It makes democracy much more difficult. At least you are trying where many are not. Cheers!


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

Howard said:


> Do you still have bad breath?


Howard, work on your reading comprehension. Funny retort by you none the less.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

pleaderwilliams said:


> Obviously I'm from the UK, and I can't really profess to know the detail of the current US healthcare system, or the exact implications of the proposed reforms, but a lot of the debate in this thread seems bizarre from a British standpoint.


I think most of us have several different objections about the healthcare plans. The first is that the quality of healthcare will suffer. I have a 71 y.o. friend that started losing weight in January. He delayed but in July finally agreed to an MRI. He had one within two days and was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, nearly always fatal in a relatively short time. After about a weak he decided to get a second opinion on any treatment options and called The Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, one of the top hospitals in the world. They set up an appoint for him within a week of his call. This is paid all paid for by medicare (government insurance for seniors) and a supplement that he buys privately. I think many seniors are concerned that these treatment options wouldn't be available to them under a government run system. How easy is it for a person over 70 to get a knee replacement in the UK? Here its routine. That's also why we spend so much on healthcare, but we're getting something for our money.

The other concern is that the government can't afford it. Taxes would have to be raised, the government is already spending more than what it takes in. I'd rather decide how to spend my money than let congress decide for me. You're probably right in that your taxes aren't that much higher than ours, but we do spend significantly more on defense than you. You're welcome by the way.

I have other concerns. We have a constitution that limits government powers. Its been stretched over the years by court rulings, but I still see nothing in the constitution that gives the U.S. government the power to control it's citizens' healthcare. That may be a small issue to many, but what's the point of having laws if the government is free to disregard them?

Many people don't realize how big this issue is here because it gets little news. Our conservative republican representative had a town hall meeting Wednesday evening. I arrived 30 minutes early and found that the 300 person meeting hall and an overflow room were already full, they had already run out of rainchecks for a second evening and were going to try to schedule a third in a larger venue. The crowd was extremely orderly, mostly senior couples, but there were younger people too. There were seven people outside holding handmade signs, all for universal healthcare. All the local network affiliates were there with cameras and crews. I heard one interviewer come outside saying she hadn't found anyone inside to interview that was for government healthcare. She was looking to people still arriving without any luck. I spoke to seniors who were afraid their medicare benefits would be cut or that their employer sponsored retirement healthcare benefits would end up being dropped. The truth is, the vast majority of people in the U.S. have some kind of health insurance coverage.

I flipped between all three networks for the 10:00 news. Not a one aired any coverage of the event so I guess it never really happened.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Norton, which right-wing extremist organisation told you to make those stories up? :devil:


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

I don't understand why healthcare has now become a right, but food isn't.

I'd rather have the right to food, and pay for my own healthcare.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

*Ian Birrell: Why I don't believe that the NHS is sacrosanct*
In this heartfelt polemic, based on his family's experiences in the health service, our writer argues that it suffers from deep flaws - and we are wrong to ignore them

https://www.independent.co.uk/opini...lieve-that-the-nhs-is-sacrosanct-1775088.html


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Norton, which right-wing extremist organisation told you to make those stories up? :devil:


The Grey Panthers?


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

fenway said:


> I don't understand why healthcare has now become a right, but food isn't.
> 
> I'd rather have the right to food, and pay for my own healthcare.


The new liberal constitution makes everything a right, especially the right to shut the **** up unless you are goose stepping with the whims of your empowered masters in Washington.

You also have the right to be taxed as much as needed, the right to be blind to current affairs, the right to not question legislation, the right to knod silently at town halls, and the right to blame GWB for everything you don't like in the world.

Anyone not exercising these rights will be persecuted publicly and privately until they learn to love Big Brother.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

norton said:


> The Grey Panthers?


ha! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

pleaderwilliams said:


> Obviously I'm from the UK,...


Don't know much about UK medical. Canada's is a disaster. A guy, Baker, who brings Canadians down for medical needs the gov. up there won't pay for or die first, says that the legislation for medical has probably killed more Canadians than any other legislation in Canada. Listening to the news, years ago, many doctors have left Canada and the ones up there can't take work on their own. In other words if you want to pay cash for something you have to go to another country because doctors up there are forbidden by law. There are things up there that are not regulated, but much is. Sometimes an area runs out of money, so don't get sick or injured until the new taxes come in, which might be a month or two. The Canadian system is an embarrasment to the world. I think it ranks as communism. They have the wool of "suppose to be the best" pulled over their eyes. I think this is quite accurate of Canada, having listened to there news for over 35-40 years. Heard Baker on C=SPAN. He also said, if American goes down the wrong path he will have no where to take his customers. The easy way is the hard way and, the hard way is the easy way- it is a choice, this or that.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

norton said:


> I flipped between all three networks for the 10:00 news. Not a one aired any coverage of the event so I guess it never really happened.


Truths is not what the three networks like. They like half truths, if you can say that much for them. Half truths are lies. Of course, no truth is a lie, too.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

pleaderwilliams said:


> Firstly, how can 'universal healthcare' really be a serious threat to the US economy? Apparently it could bankrupt the country, but we've had the NHS since 1946, and somehow avoided bankruptcy and chaos.


When there isn't enough money for the government to confiscate to pay for its programs, they are forced to reduce costs. Since efficiency doesn't improve "profitability" any more than providing less service and cheaper goods, the latter is the easy way out.

While it's no secret that Americans consider "British dentistry" to be an oxymoron, I'm curious about vision care. Under what circumstances does one end up with round-framed glasses? From John Lennon to Benny Hill to Harry Potter, they've developed a cultural stigma as the style worn by those who must accept the "free" option.

(And yes, I know that John Lennon was wealthy - he was issued a pair of glasses playing an enlisted man in _How I Won the War_ and he found the style to be flattering so he wore them the rest of his life.)


----------



## Nerev (Apr 25, 2009)

I didn't read the whole thread, but man, I had to look up something that really bothered me.

I just watched the Daily Show episode that had Betsy McCaughey on as the guest. Firstly, it is a comedy show that throws a spin on news so take the show with a grain of salt, and research further into the topics if you are interested. Well, the interview with Betsy McCaughey was very interesting. She was the one who started the "euthanasia for the elderly" claim (aka death panels). After listening to her and reading the bill myself, I can't understand how she got what she got out of the bill when I read it. It just boggled my mind that people will support and push this thought when it isn't correct. I think there is a disconnect between what people want and what people should do, and that whatever is needed to be done should be done. This seems to come down to what the American health care debate is about - two groups that read a piece of legislation (if they even bother to read it), and one distorts what is being said. Who is distorting this is a tough one to call out, but bullshit is bullshit and people need to provide some facts.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

norton said:


> I have a 71 y.o. friend that started losing weight in January. He delayed but in July finally agreed to an MRI. He had one within two days and was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, nearly always fatal in a relatively short time. After about a weak he decided to get a second opinion on any treatment options and called The Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, one of the top hospitals in the world. They set up an appoint for him within a week of his call. This is paid all paid for by medicare (government insurance for seniors) and a supplement that he buys privately.


I just got an update from my friend. He's been at the Mayo clinic for a week and a half an is under the care of a doctor who specializes in pancreatic cancer. Next week the doctor is going to use an arthroscope to inspect the area around his pancreas through a small slit in his stomach. If the cancer hasn't spread he'll remove the pancreas immediately. If it has spread all he can do is close him up and send him home. We're praying that it hasn't spread.

Any English or Canadian readers care to comment on how likely it would be to get such expeditious treatment under their systems?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Beau said:


> Howard, work on your reading comprehension. Funny retort by you none the less.


funny retort? I was just asking if you got it cured.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

norton said:


> I just got an update from my friend. He's been at the Mayo clinic for a week and a half an is under the care of a doctor who specializes in pancreatic cancer. Next week the doctor is going to use an arthroscope to inspect the area around his pancreas through a small slit in his stomach. If the cancer hasn't spread he'll remove the pancreas immediately. If it has spread all he can do is close him up and send him home. We're praying that it hasn't spread.
> 
> Any English or Canadian readers care to comment on how likely it would be to get such expeditious treatment under their systems?


I don't want to bump a dead thread, but I got another update from my friend. He was in surgery for ten hours tuesday and they removed his spleen and pancreas, but the cancer had not spread further. He'll start chemo in about 6 weeks but the prognosis is good.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

norton said:


> I don't want to bump a dead thread, but I got another update from my friend. He was in surgery for ten hours tuesday and they removed his spleen and pancreas, but the cancer had not spread further. He'll start chemo in about 6 weeks but the prognosis is good.


I wish your friend a speedy recovery.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Beau said:


> It amazes me how many proponents of a US universal healthcare plan cite financial ruin and exhorbitant cost as the reasons we need what will truly be "socialized medicine".
> 
> I am happy with my care and the cost. Last year at the ripe old age of 47 I had my tonsils removed. My out of pocket cost was about $1,500.
> 
> ...


Well stated, but the fault in this argument is that your experience doesn't necessarily encompass everyone's. What you seem to be saying is, "I like my health care and can pay the costs, so everyone else should."

I'm not saying Obama's plan is the best one. I see problems in it and hope they will be worked out. (The August deadline was WAY too optimistic.) But there are both Democrats and Republicans who agree that we need reform of _some_ kind.



Nerev said:


> I didn't read the whole thread, but man, I had to look up something that really bothered me.
> 
> I just watched the Daily Show episode that had Betsy McCaughey on as the guest. Firstly, it is a comedy show that throws a spin on news so take the show with a grain of salt, and research further into the topics if you are interested. Well, the interview with Betsy McCaughey was very interesting. She was the one who started the "euthanasia for the elderly" claim (aka death panels). After listening to her and reading the bill myself, I can't understand how she got what she got out of the bill when I read it. It just boggled my mind that people will support and push this thought when it isn't correct. I think there is a disconnect between what people want and what people should do, and that whatever is needed to be done should be done. This seems to come down to what the American health care debate is about - two groups that read a piece of legislation (if they even bother to read it), and one distorts what is being said. Who is distorting this is a tough one to call out, but bullshit is bullshit and people need to provide some facts.


Distorting the facts with pathos about death and other scary words has long been a tactic by certain opponents of change. For example, the "nuclear option."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Nerev said:


> I didn't read the whole thread, but man, I had to look up something that really bothered me.
> 
> I just watched the Daily Show episode that had Betsy McCaughey on as the guest. Firstly, it is a comedy show that throws a spin on news so take the show with a grain of salt, and research further into the topics if you are interested. Well, the interview with Betsy McCaughey was very interesting. She was the one who started the "euthanasia for the elderly" claim (aka death panels). After listening to her and reading the bill myself, I can't understand how she got what she got out of the bill when I read it. It just boggled my mind that people will support and push this thought when it isn't correct. I think there is a disconnect between what people want and what people should do, and that whatever is needed to be done should be done. This seems to come down to what the American health care debate is about - two groups that read a piece of legislation (if they even bother to read it), and one distorts what is being said. Who is distorting this is a tough one to call out, but bullshit is bullshit and people need to provide some facts.


There's a difference between distortion and context. This is the disconnect you are seeing. Do some research on QALYs and put the bill in perspective. "Death Panels" is shorthand. The distortion is people saying "there's nothing in there called a death panel" - it was never meant to be literal ala "cake or death."


----------



## Lancer (Jan 5, 2009)

*Bottom Line????*

I've read many responses both pro and con and one thing is certain - "Governments should not be getting into private business". Time and time again, it has been proven that government cannot run a business. For example, the post office. It's $7 billion in the hole. Look at Medicare and Social Security. Same thing. Hell, the president hasn't even read the bill and the same with most of Congress! Many of them have stated in public they haven't read it ---- But they voted for it!!!!! What makes anyone think that they can run an insurance business? Sheeesh!!!! LEAVE US ALONE!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lancer said:


> I've read many responses both pro and con and one thing is certain - "Governments should not be getting into private business". Time and time again, it has been proven that government cannot run a business. For example, the post office. It's $7 billion in the hole. Look at Medicare and Social Security. Same thing. Hell, the president hasn't even read the bill and the same with most of Congress! Many of them have stated in public they haven't read it ---- But they voted for it!!!!! What makes anyone think that they can run an insurance business? Sheeesh!!!! LEAVE US ALONE!


I agree with you, but you have to admit the people that say "tell the government to get their hands off my Medicare" is a bit disheartening. It just proves Bastiat and probably de Tocqueville right - unfortunately...


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I agree with you, but you have to admit the people that say "tell the government to get their hands off my Medicare" is a bit disheartening. It just proves Bastiat and probably de Tocqueville right - unfortunately...


Ksinc, 
What is disheartening is that there is even Medicare. However, it is here and millions depend upon it. Put aside the politics for a moment, it would be logistically chaotic, to put it mildly, to try to end it. Too many are locked into it and since it is funded by younger workers who support older retirees, we're locked into this cycle.

That's the tragedy of government intervention. Once it gets into something, it absolutely destroys the market for that service and takes sole ownership. The normal market mechanisms and adaptations are not allowed to evolve and develop.


----------

