A 7th advertiser pulls out of Limbaugh's show

[WouldaShoulda]

You know, I was at the Giant getting my $9 RX and there was also a 4-pack of Guinness there.

If you paid for my RX I could have gotten the Guinness too.

Damn those Repblican Bastards.

They aren't going to tell me what I can do with my body!!

Obama 2012.

Where's my free **** at??

 

[TomS]

Doctors already prescribe what they want. But then, how many of us get to the pharmacy and receive a generic version? What about "it's not covered by your insurance"? You call the doctor's office and tell them, then they prescribe something else. If not you have to pay.

Perhaps I should add "...with the reasonable expectation that their patient can get hold of whatever it is they are prescribing and without the interference of a market economy between the writing of a prescription and the delivery of it."

 

[WouldaShoulda]

Perhaps I should add "...with the reasonable expectation that their patient can get hold of whatever it is they are prescribing and without the interference of a market economy between the writing of a prescription and the delivery of it."

Free **** for everybody, Comrade!!

No one desreves to be shackled by the burden of free enterprise!!

 

[Bjorn]

This is frequently misunderstood.

Outside of programs to promote smoking cessation, weight control or flu shots, which my employer does completely voluntarily, employers do not provide health care.

They provide health insurance.

My doctor provides health care.

You doctor does not 'provide' health care. He offers health care services. You employer 'provides' it.

Verb:
Make available for use; supply.
Equip or supply someone with (something useful or necessary): "we were provided with a map".
Synonyms:
supply - furnish - purvey - stock - equip

So there...

 

[Bjorn]

The issue isn't access to birth control pills - it's the cost of BC. As TomS said; it's cheaper to provide women with free BC than to pay for the cost of raising an unwanted child. As I'm sure you know; healthcare costs have gone through the roof, and individuals are having difficulty paying the expense; hence the need to pool resources into an insurance pool to spread the cost around.

Know how I dealt with the high cost of individual health insurance when I was in my 20's? I didn't have any. Now (I'm 53)? My employer only covers short-term disability expenses up to $800 per month. Not enough to meet my monthly living expenses. So I shell out $117 per month to Mutual of Omaha for a short-term disability policy that pays me $1,800 per month for living expenses if I'm out of work for medical reasons.

Has to be really hard for people who get sick. That's a lot to sacrifice on the bonfire of free commerce.

It's a little funny some seem to regard social insurance and public health insurance as socialism. It clearly isnt. Google Bismarck...

In 1884, conservative German politician Otto Von Bismarck declared:
"The real grievance of the worker is the insecurity of his existence; he is not sure that he will always have work, he is not sure that he will always be healthy, and he foresees that he will one day be old and unfit to work. If he falls into poverty, even if only through a prolonged illness, he is then completely helpless, left to his own devices, and society does not currently recognize any real obligation towards him beyond the usual help for the poor, even if he has been working all the time ever so faithfully and diligently. The usual help for the poor, however, leaves a lot to be desired, especially in large cities, where it is very much worse than in the country."

He then went on to create German social insurance. And incidentally:

"The social legislation implemented by Bismarck in the 1880s played a key role in the sharp, rapid decline of German emigration to America. Young men considering emigration looked at not only the gap between higher hourly 'direct wages' in the United States and Germany but also the differential in 'indirect wages,' that is, social benefits, which favored staying in Germany. The young men went to German industrial cities, so that Bismarck's insurance system partly offset low wage rates in Germany and furthered the fall of the emigration rate." (Wikipedia)

 

[WouldaShoulda]

You doctor does not 'provide' health care. He offers health care services. You employer 'provides' it.

Verb:
Make available for use; supply.
Equip or supply someone with (something useful or necessary): "we were provided with a map".
Synonyms:
supply - furnish - purvey - stock - equip

So there...

SWING!! And a miss!!

 

[WouldaShoulda]

Has to be really hard for people who get sick. That's a lot to sacrifice on the bonfire of free commerce.

Damn that free commerce!!

BTW~Why do they call it free commerce if it isn't free??

Shouldn't it be "on the backs of decent working people" commerce??

 

[TomS]

Free **** for everybody, Comrade!!

No one desreves to be shackled by the burden of free enterprise!!

If you can't see that market economics in healthcare serves to massively inflate costs at no measurable benefit to service, we'll be going round in circles for some time yet.

I'm going to try this again. The OECD data on healthcare spending:

The same data tells us that US life expectancy in 2006 was 78 years, roughly the same as Cuba and less than all the countries that fit on the graph.

You spend more, you get less.

 

[Jovan]

I blame fast food! :icon_smile_big:

 

[Bjorn]

Damn that free commerce!!

BTW~Why do they call it free commerce if it isn't free??

Shouldn't it be "on the backs of decent working people" commerce??

In this case, on the backs of decent sick people.

 

[Apatheticviews]

In this case, on the backs of decent sick people.

That's a bad assumption. A lot of health care costs are paid by perfectly healthy people. A lot of said health care costs also go directly to overhead (like $25M salary to the CEOs of Insurance companies).

 

[Regillus]

Free **** for everybody, Comrade!!

It isn't free. You pay for it with your income taxes. Everybody pays into a pool. Medical expenses are paid for on an as-needed basis.

TomS is right - see post #88. We (the USA) pay far too much for far too little health care. The system is being forced to change because too many people can't afford decent health care. That makes it a political issue. Hence Obamacare.

From Post #88: "If you can't see that market economics in healthcare serves to massively inflate costs at no measurable [improvement in] service,...."
Exactly!

 

[Bjorn]

That's a bad assumption. A lot of health care costs are paid by perfectly healthy people. A lot of said health care costs also go directly to overhead (like $25M salary to the CEOs of Insurance companies).

I simply meant that the risk of hardship and suffering due to spotty or nonexistent coverage due to employment situation is born by everybody, and that the downsides of the system (spotty coverage) is born primarily by people who get sick.

What is it exactly that insurance companies bring to the system that offsets the lack of a basic coverage for all? There should at least be some economic efficiencies that other countries with full state issued coverage would not have?

 

[WouldaShoulda]

If you can't see that market economics in healthcare serves to massively inflate costs at no measurable benefit to service, we'll be going round in circles for some time yet.

I appreciate that the American system needs reform.

I contend that Obamacare is the wrong reform.

 

[WouldaShoulda]

I blame fast food! :icon_smile_big:

I blame my parents!!

 

[mrkleen]

I blame my parents!!

me too.

 

[Regillus]

...the downsides of the system (spotty coverage) is [borne] primarily by people who get sick.

An important point. It's a known fact that for decades now; people in the U.S. with no health insurance wait until their medical problems become so severe that they have to go to the emergency room for treatment. Emergency rooms, by law; have to treat anyone who shows up. Meaning that people wait until their medical problems become life-threatening and possibly cause long-term damage to their bodies before they seek treatment. They can't afford preventative treatment that would have prevented their medical condition from becoming so severe in the first place. With a single-payer national healthcare system; people could go to the doctor at the first sign of illness, and receive health services at an early stage when the medical problem is easier and CHEAPER to deal with.

I appreciate that the American system needs reform.

I contend that Obamacare is the wrong reform.

"...needs reform." Yes! Score one for our side.

"...Obamacare is the wrong reform." And your proposal is? The fact that you admit there's a problem and only object to Obamas solution without addressing the problem itself only serves to illustrate the intellectual vacuity of the conservative position.

Ah! Found it. THIS is your proposal?:

From Post #42: "I'd like to think that the compassion displayed by organizations like the NAACP before they simply [became] a political tool, Or Planned Parenthood prior to becoming an abortion mill, or the Salvation Army and Goodwill, would be expanded upon to provide the needed services they offer with neither Federal interference or funding, for the benefit of the needy."

So you think that the services offered by the Salvation Army and Goodwill should be expanded upon to include health care and/or health insurance for the uninsured? Am I reading you right? Just one problem. How are these additional services going to be paid for? Private donations? What's wrong with this idea is that donations to these organizations can rise or fall considerably from year to year. Health care insurance needs a reliable source of funding. Paying for such insurance via your income taxes and everyone must pay in is a much more reliable and effective way to create a large pool of insurance money out of which health care costs are paid.

Re Post #54: "In the US our States and Counties have public health facilities. ...Here, an underserved public regularly receives [affordable] services including BC."

You clearly have had no personal experience with such "public health facilities." I have. They get a yearly budget. When the money runs out - the services stop until next years budget shows up. So if you show up needing help near the end of the fiscal year and they're out of money for your particular problem then you'll just have to endure the problem for a few more months until the new budget comes in. At whatever personal cost to your health that may entail.

"The only value I'm interested in 'pushing' is that of independence and self reliance...."

Independence and self reliance for who? How many tax credits do you take on your 1040? As many as you can? Some "self-reliance" that is. The rich get more money via gov't subsidies i.e. tax credits than the poor ever did.

"...it is counter to American ideology (at least until recently) to have a central governing authority running them...."

Define "recently." The "ideology" that you refer to was discarded by the American public when they elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. And reinforced when they re-elected FDR three more times. Remember the WPA, CWA, and CCC? They all had a "central governing authority running them" and they worked great until the recovering economy made them unnecessary.

_________________

Oh, and by the way. Why should the federal gov't get involved in health care on a national scale? To avoid unnecessary duplication. The problem of skyrocketing health care costs is a nationwide problem affecting tens of millions of VOTERS. We already have an organization that deals with nation-wide problems. It's called the federal gov't.

 

[WouldaShoulda]

Oh, and by the way. Why should the federal gov't get involved in health care on a national scale?

Involved??

Maybe.

Impose participation??

That's to be determined.

 

[Regillus]

Involved??

Maybe.

Impose participation??

That's to be determined.

"Impose participation?" The federal gov't already imposes participation in a lot of things. Whether people want to or not their income taxes pay for the military (any conscientious objectors or Quakers here?); F.B.I; D.E.A. (any members of NORML here?); F.D.A.; F.T.C.; F.C.C. (see Howard Stern) and a long list of other federal agencies. Last but not least; everyone except the self-employed is required to participate in Social Security.

A recent article in Slate magazine addresses this:

The Wisdom of the Ailing
The real reason health insurers won’t cover people with pre-existing conditions.
By Ray Fisman|Posted Monday, March 12, 2012, at 6:10 PM ET


An intriguing answer to that question comes from Nathaniel Hendren, a graduating Ph.D. student at MIT,.... According to Hendren’s argument, not only are sick people a lot more expensive to care for, but they also know a lot more about what their cost of care is likely to be in the future. And it’s this inside information that makes the market for covering pre-existing conditions break down.
To understand Hendren’s theory, it’s useful to think about an extreme case. Consider the agonizing decision of whether or not to treat terminal cancer with costly and painful chemotherapy, which often provides only a small chance of remission. If you ask me what I, a healthy 41-year-old, would do, I have no idea—I’ve never really thought much about it, and in any event I have no real basis for weighing the costs and benefits. How painful would treatment actually be? And how would I face my own end-of-life decision?
Someone who already has cancer, by comparison, has a much greater appreciation for the treatment options available and presumably he has a much clearer sense of how far he’s willing to go for a chance at survival. Different people will have reached different decisions after going through this difficult calculus, and the outcome has significant financial implications for any insurance company that’s agreed to provide coverage.
So now let’s consider the problem facing an insurance company, say a Blue Cross, that wants to offer coverage to cancer patients with similar diagnoses. While they may look similar to the company’s statisticians, different patients may choose very different courses of treatment. Some may decide to pursue aggressive options. Others may opt out of what’s expected to be a long and painful fight. The patients’ medical expenses will be drastically different, despite their similar prognoses.
Now suppose the Blue Cross offers them all the same policy for, say, $10,000 per year, based on data showing that the annual medical costs of cancer victims is about $8,000 on average. Who is going to take the insurer up on the offer? A patient who expects his expenses to cap out at just a few thousand dollars won’t sign up—for him, the coverage isn’t worth it. But the patients who have already decided that they’ll take advantage of aggressive and expensive treatments will enroll. The cost per person of all patients with a cancer diagnosis may be $8,000, but if the only patients who enroll are the ones who expect their costs to be more than $10,000, that’s a money-losing proposition for the insurer.
Suppose the Blue Cross goes through with higher-priced coverage for cancer survivors anyway, and finds that the policyholders end up with medical expenses of $15,000 per year on average—could it solve the problem simply by raising the price to, say, $20,000? It can’t, because that would only make the problem worse by getting rid of the relatively cheap-to-insure customers who were willing to pay $10,000 for coverage but no longer find it worthwhile at a price of $20,000. Each time it raises the price, the insurer gets stuck covering an ever more expensive set of cases. It's a no-win situation for insurers, so they choose not to offer coverage at all.
Hendren didn’t invent the idea of markets falling apart because customers know something that companies don’t. Nobel prizes were awarded to a trio of economists in 2001 for developing this idea of adverse selection in the 1970s [i.e. George Akerlof, Michael Spence, and Joseph Stiglitz].
Come 2014, the Affordable Care Act will prevent insurers from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions: cancer victims and stroke survivors will be able to buy insurance at the same price as otherwise similar applicants. Insurance companies may take a hit to profits, but part of the cost will surely be passed on to the lower-cost counterparts to this high-cost pool. Healthy people might be tempted to opt out, but under the new law, they’ll be required to have insurance. This individual mandate is a natural fix to the problem of adverse selection in health insurance: It keeps the lowest-cost participants from opting out, and as a result the market doesn’t unravel.
------------------------
It always works better when we stand together. A single-payer healthcare system does that.

 

[WouldaShoulda]

"Impose participation?" The federal gov't already imposes participation in a lot of things.

It always works better when we stand together. A single-payer healthcare system does that.

1) It has not previously compelled me to buy a product from a private company, however.

2) That's not what Obamacare is.

Look, if Americans want to consign the thoughts of "That government is best which governs least" to the scrap heap of outdated ramblings of hateful former salveowners, I'll get by.

I think they are wrong, but I'll get by!!