POTUS OBAMA could show some real leadership here but the devil doubts it. One can "hope" that BO does not implement ideas that pretend to make something better while making it far, far worse.
Obama Says Congress Must Act to Fix 'Broken' Health-Care System
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/06/obama_says_congress_must_act_t.html?wprss=44?hpid=sec-politics
'Single-Payer' Supporters Challenge Democrats
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/06/05/ST2009060504116.htmlDebunking Canadian
Just watch how bad the single payer brigade gets vilified in the media and on crapitol hill.
Health Care Myths
by Rhonda Hackett
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/07-0
It's shameful how effective the right wing hatchet job has been on Canadian health care. But it will be far worse if Congress and the administration fail to go single payer. If the idea comes from the health insurance industry sector, run.
I revised a key paragraph of that article:
"Speaking in his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said that the fast-rising cost of health care federal government is placing an unsustainable burden on personal budgets, small businesses..."
The government already spends an astonishing amount on health care. It's not about saving anyone money, it's about control and wealth-shift. They're coming for your stack of cash too, FOTD.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 08, 2009, 03:49:36 PM
I revised a key paragraph of that article:
"Speaking in his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said that the fast-rising cost of health care federal government is placing an unsustainable burden on personal budgets, small businesses..."
The government already spends an astonishing amount on health care. It's not about saving anyone money, it's about control and wealth-shift. They're coming for your stack of cash too, FOTD.
That's just wrong, Conan. First, the fast-rising cost of our federal government is a direct result of the past 8 years of bad governing. Secondly, the cost to America is far greater than to our government.
Keeping Them Honest
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Let me offer Congress two pieces of advice: 1) Don't trust the insurance industry. 2) Don't trust the insurance industry. It's a sign of the way the political winds are blowing that insurers aren't opposing new regulations. What's still not settled, however, is whether regulation will be supplemented by competition, in the form of a public plan that Americans can buy into as an alternative to private insurance. The "public option," if it materializes, will be just that — an option Americans can choose. And the purpose of the public option is to make sure that the industry doesn't waste another 15 years failing to make even the most obvious reforms — by giving Americans an alternative if private insurers fall down on the job. Be warned, however. The insurance industry will do everything it can to avoid being held accountable. Right now the health insurers are promising to deliver major cost savings. But history shows that such promises can't be trusted. As President Obama [has] said, we need a serious, real public option to keep the insurance companies honest.The devil does not want to start calling POTUS OBAMA the Bait and Switch President.
Any system that doesn't eliminate the morass of paperwork caused by having so many different insurers with differing requirements that cover different things for different amounts of money won't cut down on our single biggest waste of money.
This is one area where Medicare is a shining example. Their overhead cost is a third of most insurers. (About 5%, relative to the 15% most insurers have) Between the overhead at the insurance companies and the overhead at the doctor's office to deal with the insurance companies how is anyone surprised that our health care dollar doesn't go as far here as it does elsewhere?
The only good thing about the plan Obama has indicated he's for in the past is that it does help by increasing the size of the risk pool. It doesn't solve the health care expense that's putting US companies at a disadvantage relative to other countries, nor does it solve the paperwork problem. If it turns out to be what they have in Massachusetts, we'll all be required to buy health insurance, which is fine, but the lack of any resolution on the cost front will make it hard for many middle class families to comply with the mandate.
I'd be all for the NHS or Canadian style health care, so long as people continue to be allowed to contract for private supplemental insurance and extra services (private rooms in the hospital or whatever). Who employs the doctors makes no difference to me. Whether they get a government paycheck or they run their own practice and are reimbursed isn't really important. What is important is overhead be controlled.
It doesn't help that insurance companies make risky investments with their reserves and jack up the rates when they don't pan out to make up for it and when they do they take profits rather than lowering rates. Not all do, but most of the big ones follow this model. And given that insurance is bought all up the chain, by doctors, by their suppliers, by their supplier's suppliers, and by patients, when insurance costs go up, everybody's fees increase, eventually trickling down to my health insurance premium increasing twice because the doctor has to charge the insurance company more and because the insurance company lost money on their investments.
Quote from: FOTD on June 08, 2009, 04:09:58 PM
That's just wrong, Conan. First, the fast-rising cost of our federal government is a direct result of the past 8 years of bad governing. Secondly, the cost to America is far greater than to our government.
That's called retaliatory spending. Throwing more money in recklessly after bad money doesn't solve any problems. Nor does blaming the prior administration. The Bush administration has been out of office for almost five months now. The current Congress and administration are spending money like drunken Republicans now.
I'll grant that the Bush administration did a slap-dash job trying to cover the last recession that was cropping up toward the end of the Clinton administration with more discretionary spending and simultaneous tax cuts. That lasted for what, seven years? Trying to cover that obvious failure with more hyper-spending and dubious taxes in the forms of "permits" and "regulatory costs" is no solution if you really take a look at what mistakes the Bush admin made in looking for a long-term solution. All they were concerned about was trying to make an upbeat economy (or a close facsimile of) last until the '08 election.
All this round of insane spending
might do is create another temporary fix to the economy whilst incurring more debt and silently de-valuing the dollar. This is nothing more than the same broken government spending money we don't have at an ever-increasing pace. For some reason, it's not registering with the folks in DC that the reason so many companies and individuals have failed or are on the brink of it is due to spending borrowed money they could not afford to re-pay.
Blithely excusing current stupidity by blaming past stupidity is, well, just more stupidity.
Contact your rep and ask them to cosponsor hr 676. Single Payer.
Health Care Reform in the House - Committees & Contacts
http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/health-care-reform-house-committees-contacts
Never mind. Your rep is in Betty Ford utilizing his government sponsored health plan.
some more irony:
Health, life insurers invest billions in tobacco stocks
Life, health insurers invest big in tobacco
"Despite calls upon the insurance industry to get out of the tobacco business by physicians and others, insurers continue to put their profits above people's health," said Boyd, a faculty member of Harvard Medical School.
"It's clear their top priority is making money, not safeguarding people's well-being," he wrote.
http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=4484
Conan, Is this current stupidity or future stupidity?
We Need Single-Payer Hearings in the House
To: Rep. Henry Waxman CA-30 and Rep. Charlie Rangel NY-15
Started by: HEALTHCARE-NOW
The House will release healthcare legislation very soon, and the draft bill could even come out next week.
From there the bill will go to Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, and the Ways and Means committees for debate.
Rep. Miller has already agreed to hold a hearing on single-payer in the Education and Labor Committee.
We need you to contact the two other Chairperson's offices ASAP to make sure that they hold hearings on single-payer healthcare in their committees too.
http://www.change.org/healthcarenow/actions/view/we_need_single-payer_hearings_in_the_house
We rank in the high thirties as far as quality health care. Every nation that ranks above us has a national health insurance plan.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 09, 2009, 09:46:28 AM
All this round of insane spending might do is create another temporary fix to the economy whilst incurring more debt and silently de-valuing the dollar. This is nothing more than the same broken government spending money we don't have at an ever-increasing pace. For some reason, it's not registering with the folks in DC that the reason so many companies and individuals have failed or are on the brink of it is due to spending borrowed money they could not afford to re-pay.
Blithely excusing current stupidity by blaming past stupidity is, well, just more stupidity.
Not a fan of Keynes, I see.
As far as I'm concerned, what the Bush administration did wrong on this front was the simultaneous spending increase and tax cut. The tax cut reduced federal receipts significantly but wasn't significant enough to have much effect in propping up demand.
What I've yet to see is a competing solution from the right side of the aisle. I'm not sure whether the current Republicans just aren't on their game (highly plausible) or there just isn't a good way to navigate the problem in a conservative way. We already have a system that allows individual choice of insurance and care (conservative touchstone #1) in a free market context (touchstone #2). Government for the most part stays out of the market (touchstone #3) and the profit motive is alive and kicking (touchstone #4).
So if you're a conservative I'm not sure how you fix something that -- ideologically at least -- really ain't broke.
Quote from: we vs us on June 09, 2009, 07:30:46 PM
What I've yet to see is a competing solution from the right side of the aisle. I'm not sure whether the current Republicans just aren't on their game (highly plausible) or there just isn't a good way to navigate the problem in a conservative way. We already have a system that allows individual choice of insurance and care (conservative touchstone #1) in a free market context (touchstone #2). Government for the most part stays out of the market (touchstone #3) and the profit motive is alive and kicking (touchstone #4).
So if you're a conservative I'm not sure how you fix something that -- ideologically at least -- really ain't broke.
If the Pubs were smart, they'd let POTUS OBAMA hang himself. Instead, they got Tweeter Grasley hard at work on compromise. This is one issue that compromise won't work unless the insurance lobby is neutralized.
Just curious, but do you think we will hear about how Sully hates his government run health care?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23616.html
Dems vs. Dems on health bill
President Barack Obama's plan for a government health insurance program has touched off an increasingly fierce Democratic civil war on Capitol Hill, as liberals fearful about squandering the chance to achieve that goal are taking aggressive steps to keep moderates in line.
When Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) called the public plan a deal breaker, a progressive group co-founded by Joe Trippi launched a campaign in Nebraska accusing the senator of being a "sellout" for special interests.
After a strategy memo by the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way cautioned Democrats on overreaching on a public plan, Daily Kos bloggers went on the attack, and Third Way now faces a coordinated effort to pressure Third Way donors.
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) is the next target. On Tuesday, she said she opposed the public plan. By Wednesday, the liberal Health Care for America Now was drawing up a plan to change her mind.
"It is all about Democrats," said Adam Green, chief executive officer of Change Congress, which launched the Nelson campaign. "We only need 50 votes. We could conceivably have 60 votes on our own if we keep Democrats unified. It is a matter of convincing Democrats whose conventional wisdom is based on the old political order. This is an extremely popular proposal spearheaded by an extremely popular president, and it is OK to support it."
Amid the signs of party discord, Obama is stepping up his personal efforts to push a public plan, with his first health-care town hall event Thursday in Green Bay, Wisc. On Monday, he'll travel to Chicago to address the annual meeting of the American Medical Association, which is not on board with a government insurance program.
AMA President Nancy Nielsen has raised concerns that the public option would underpay doctors, and the group will tell the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee at a hearing Thursday that it opposes the proposal, which could deal a serious blow to Obama's effort to convince lawmakers and voters that a government plan is the way to go.
Still, the White House appeared to be testing out a new sales-pitch Wednesday, with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs saying of the debate on Capitol Hill, "You're likely to hear two very important words: choice and competition. A public option . . . is nothing more than the ability to provide more choice through competition."
Obama has talked repeatedly about securing Republican votes on health care reform, but he first has to win over the moderate Democrats who have refused to commit. The president could get around them by using the reconciliation process, which allows a bill to win passage on 51 votes instead of a filibuster-proof 60.
Yet this voting bloc still appears to matter, given the prolonged absences of Sens. Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, the vacant seat in Minnesota and the still-sizable number of undecided Senate moderates.
Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana is undecided but said he is keeping an "open mind." The same goes for Sen. Jon Tester of Montana. Interest groups are closely watching Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, and Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
Change Congress considers its effort with Nelson a success – and other wavering Democrats can expect the same if they don't back the public plan, Green said. Democrats in Nebraska encouraged the group to "kill him with kindness," but Change Congress decided open pressure was the better route, sending 3,000 direct mail pieces and placing $10,000 in Internet ads.
Nelson is no longer calling the public plan a "deal breaker."
"That is the model everyone should use to make sure Democrats follow Barack Obama's lead on the public option," Green said. "When Democratic politicians are siding with special interest contributors over constituents, we have to call them out on it."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23616.html#ixzz0IAAsk7UO&D
We spend more on healthcare than anywhere else in the world, by far. We spend 16% of GDP for healthcare, far and away the highest percentage in the world. The next highest spending nations in the world are France at 11% and Switzerland at 10%. But in spending almost 50% more than anywhere else we only cover 84% of our population whereas all other industrialized nations have national healthcare systems covering everyone. The average spending in the industrialized world on healthcare is 6.7% of GDP, and again every other industrialized nation has universal nationalized healthcare.
Even worse our spending is wasteful and our healthcare system is among the worst of any industrialized nation. Our life expectancy, infant mortality rates, and doctor error rates are either the worst or among the worst of any first world nation. Again, after spending dramatically more than anywhere else.
It's time to end insurance companies and go with nationalized healthcare. Our system now is expensive and broken and only functions well to enrich large medical companies and insurance companies.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html
http://www.dayontorts.com/medical-negligence-medical-error-rate-high-in-us.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2003832640_life12.html
http://www.gadling.com/2007/07/05/what-countries-have-universal-health-care/
http://www.gao.gov/cghome/healthcare/img41.html
http://genevalunch.com/2009/03/30/swiss-health-care-spending-third-highest-in-world-103-of-gdp/
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/03/05/global_health/
Quote from: swake on June 11, 2009, 07:00:06 PM
We spend more on healthcare than anywhere else in the world, by far. We spend 16% of GDP for healthcare, far and away the highest percentage in the world. The next highest spending nations in the world are France at 11% and Switzerland at 10%. But in spending almost 50% more than anywhere else we only cover 84% of our population whereas all other industrialized nations have national healthcare systems covering everyone. The average spending in the industrialized world on healthcare is 6.7% of GDP, and again every other industrialized nation has universal nationalized healthcare.
Even worse our spending is wasteful and our healthcare system is among the worst of any industrialized nation. Our life expectancy, infant mortality rates, and doctor error rates are either the worst or among the worst of any first world nation. Again, after spending dramatically more than anywhere else.
It's time to end insurance companies and go with nationalized healthcare. Our system now is expensive and broken and only functions well to enrich large medical companies and insurance companies.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html
http://www.dayontorts.com/medical-negligence-medical-error-rate-high-in-us.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2003832640_life12.html
http://www.gadling.com/2007/07/05/what-countries-have-universal-health-care/
http://www.gao.gov/cghome/healthcare/img41.html
http://genevalunch.com/2009/03/30/swiss-health-care-spending-third-highest-in-world-103-of-gdp/
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/03/05/global_health/
Absolutely!
1. Coburn was on CNN this AM talking about his plan.
2. I haven't studied any plan well enough to support one, but I don't think the system is fine the way it currently is. My fear is the government will make the system worse, more costly, less responsive, and "progressive." Meaning I pay for your bad health choices.
Which opens up another can of worms. Taxes on "evil" products in countries with State run healthcare are very, very high. A case of beer in Canada costs $50 (~$45 American when they rob you in exchange). And since the State is paying for your unhealthy decisions, they can pass laws more easily restricting activities on the basis that the taxpayers will have to pay for your stupidity.
I am leery of anything than can lead to more or easier governmental intrusion.
Quote from: swake on June 11, 2009, 07:00:06 PM
We spend more on healthcare than anywhere else in the world, by far. We spend 16% of GDP for healthcare, far and away the highest percentage in the world. The next highest spending nations in the world are France at 11% and Switzerland at 10%. But in spending almost 50% more than anywhere else we only cover 84% of our population whereas all other industrialized nations have national healthcare systems covering everyone. The average spending in the industrialized world on healthcare is 6.7% of GDP, and again every other industrialized nation has universal nationalized healthcare.
Even worse our spending is wasteful and our healthcare system is among the worst of any industrialized nation. Our life expectancy, infant mortality rates, and doctor error rates are either the worst or among the worst of any first world nation. Again, after spending dramatically more than anywhere else.
It's time to end insurance companies and go with nationalized healthcare. Our system now is expensive and broken and only functions well to enrich large medical companies and insurance companies.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html
http://www.dayontorts.com/medical-negligence-medical-error-rate-high-in-us.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2003832640_life12.html
http://www.gadling.com/2007/07/05/what-countries-have-universal-health-care/
http://www.gao.gov/cghome/healthcare/img41.html
http://genevalunch.com/2009/03/30/swiss-health-care-spending-third-highest-in-world-103-of-gdp/
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/03/05/global_health/
"Even worse our spending is wasteful and our healthcare system is among the worst of any industrialized nation. Our life expectancy, infant mortality rates, and doctor error rates are either the worst or among the worst of any first world nation. Again, after spending dramatically more than anywhere else.
It's time to end insurance companies and go with nationalized healthcare. Our system now is expensive and broken and only functions well to enrich large medical companies and insurance companies."
That's an odd conclusion, Swake. "Our healthcare system sucks, our country is un-healthy, let's blame it all on insurance companies and end them."
The biggest reason we have lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality is largely due to unhealthy, sedentary lifestyles. Take a look at other countries on the list of those with higher life expectancy and you likely won't see quite the addiction to fast food, gluttony, tobacco use, alcohol, stressful lifestyles, etc.
My belief is that our health problem starts with the individual, not the system as a whole. Many medical breakthroughs happen in this country. Much of the advanced diagnostic and surgical procedures have been developed in this country. We have some of the most advanced and modern healthcare facilities on the planet. As it is now, we do provide healthcare to citizens of all ages who cannot afford to pay for it. We provide healthcare to legal and illegal immigrants who cannot pay for it. Yes, there are even free clinics which do offer preventative healthcare to those who cannot afford it. The 50 million Americans who are shut out of the healthcare system is a total myth. Many of those people absolutely refuse to participate in it.
I fail to see how shifting all healthcare coverage (and the expense of it) to the government will modify the unhealthy lifestyle habits of individuals (mortality and infant mortality rates), modify the behavior of ill-trained or apathetic healthcare providers, or lower the cost of healthcare. This will require an increased bureaucracy to replace the insurance administration and claims industry. I really don't see the cost savings in this, for the simple fact that there will be a shift from private-sector to public-sector jobs. The net cost to the consumer is the same, if not higher, due to inefficiencies which seem to be indigenous to bureaucracy.
Even if the government takes over all healthcare, there is a segment of Americans who will continue to choose unhealthy lifestyles and who will be elligible for government-sponsored healthcare but simply will not take advantage of it. You cannot force people who refuse to take care of themselves to make better choices and force them to participate in preventative health care. Some people just simply refuse to see a doctor until there's a big growth under their arm or a bone sticking out of their arm. Changing the payment and fee arrangement system simply does not guarantee more people will take advantage of our healthcare system or take better care of themselves.
Government seldom runs things as efficiently as private enterprise. The only thing government can do that an insurance company can't is run on a deficit and survive a whole lot longer. I really don't see the government putting the medical insurance industry out of business, since so many members of Congress are on the take from insurance companies. I think what we will see is somewhat of a hybrid between government and private insurance, yet I don't see how it will lower the cost of healthcare if they wind up taxing healthcare benefits.
Finally, the last flaw I see in this idea that of government lowering the cost of healthcare, will the most talented and capable healthcare professionals care to continue to work in the industry? Will the most talented of our population still want to become healthcare providers? What are the healthcare professionals saying about this? The AMA does not seem to be too fond of this.
I'm open-minded enough to look into any government proposal to try and contain costs. I believe there's an over-simplification of what government healthcare for all of us would look like. I don't believe this is an issue which can effectively be dealt with when there's an arbitrary deadline to get a bill on the President's desk by October.
This is only the solution to a small part of the problem, but I think we need to punish people who go to the hospital excessively with jail time. Last time I had to visit a relative who was legitimately in the emergency room, there were tons of people around for very minor things. Rates would go down quite a bit at that point.
Quote from: brianh on June 12, 2009, 09:59:17 AM
This is only the solution to a small part of the problem, but I think we need to punish people who go to the hospital excessively with jail time. Last time I had to visit a relative who was legitimately in the emergency room, there were tons of people around for very minor things. Rates would go down quite a bit at that point.
I understand your rage on this, but your solution sounds a bit draconian...
Quote from: Conan71 on June 12, 2009, 09:42:15 AM
"Even worse our spending is wasteful and our healthcare system is among the worst of any industrialized nation. Our life expectancy, infant mortality rates, and doctor error rates are either the worst or among the worst of any first world nation. Again, after spending dramatically more than anywhere else.
It's time to end insurance companies and go with nationalized healthcare. Our system now is expensive and broken and only functions well to enrich large medical companies and insurance companies."
That's an odd conclusion, Swake. "Our healthcare system sucks, our country is un-healthy, let's blame it all on insurance companies and end them."
The biggest reason we have lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality is largely due to unhealthy, sedentary lifestyles. Take a look at other countries on the list of those with higher life expectancy and you likely won't see quite the addiction to fast food, gluttony, tobacco use, alcohol, stressful lifestyles, etc.
My belief is that our health problem starts with the individual, not the system as a whole. Many medical breakthroughs happen in this country. Much of the advanced diagnostic and surgical procedures have been developed in this country. We have some of the most advanced and modern healthcare facilities on the planet. As it is now, we do provide healthcare to citizens of all ages who cannot afford to pay for it. We provide healthcare to legal and illegal immigrants who cannot pay for it. Yes, there are even free clinics which do offer preventative healthcare to those who cannot afford it. The 50 million Americans who are shut out of the healthcare system is a total myth. Many of those people absolutely refuse to participate in it.
I fail to see how shifting all healthcare coverage (and the expense of it) to the government will modify the unhealthy lifestyle habits of individuals (mortality and infant mortality rates), modify the behavior of ill-trained or apathetic healthcare providers, or lower the cost of healthcare. This will require an increased bureaucracy to replace the insurance administration and claims industry. I really don't see the cost savings in this, for the simple fact that there will be a shift from private-sector to public-sector jobs. The net cost to the consumer is the same, if not higher, due to inefficiencies which seem to be indigenous to bureaucracy.
Even if the government takes over all healthcare, there is a segment of Americans who will continue to choose unhealthy lifestyles and who will be elligible for government-sponsored healthcare but simply will not take advantage of it. You cannot force people who refuse to take care of themselves to make better choices and force them to participate in preventative health care. Some people just simply refuse to see a doctor until there's a big growth under their arm or a bone sticking out of their arm. Changing the payment and fee arrangement system simply does not guarantee more people will take advantage of our healthcare system or take better care of themselves.
Government seldom runs things as efficiently as private enterprise. The only thing government can do that an insurance company can't is run on a deficit and survive a whole lot longer. I really don't see the government putting the medical insurance industry out of business, since so many members of Congress are on the take from insurance companies. I think what we will see is somewhat of a hybrid between government and private insurance, yet I don't see how it will lower the cost of healthcare if they wind up taxing healthcare benefits.
Finally, the last flaw I see in this idea that of government lowering the cost of healthcare, will the most talented and capable healthcare professionals care to continue to work in the industry? Will the most talented of our population still want to become healthcare providers? What are the healthcare professionals saying about this? The AMA does not seem to be too fond of this.
I'm open-minded enough to look into any government proposal to try and contain costs. I believe there's an over-simplification of what government healthcare for all of us would look like. I don't believe this is an issue which can effectively be dealt with when there's an arbitrary deadline to get a bill on the President's desk by October.
You have bought the line fed us for generations by Pharmaceuticals, Insurance Companies and Doctors about how great our system is and how we are the best in the world. It's simply not true. Sedentary lifestyles don't have any impact on infant mortality or doctor error rates. I have been through serious health issues with both of my parents, both with excellent insurance where cost has not been an issue. And the system sucks.
Most doctors are bad at their jobs and don't give a crap about anything except getting paid. Everything has devolved into specialization where doctors make the most money and have zero stake in the overall health of the patient. Doctors can plead povertey all they want, but I took my son to see his doctor last week and out the window was the doctors parking lot for the hospital where he's located and it was all Ferrari, Mercedes and BMW. And not just one Ferrari. I don't begrudge people doing well, but when did becoming a doctor mean being wealthy enough to drive a $200,000 car to work? Poverty my donkey. The reason doctors want lawsuit reform so badly is that so many of them are so bad at what they do and they are worried about being sued over it.
On the other side insurance companies have driven care to lowest common denominator where cost is the main driving factor in every decision. The administrative costs for insurance companies is much higher than the admin cost of Medicare for instance. Insurance companies are a layer of red tape (and large profits) that have no real reason to exist.
Pharmaceuticals spend as much money advertising products as they do developing products. And most of the products they do develop only are developed to replace effective drugs that happen to have expiring patents.
Cannon, you are worried about the cost of beer going up like in Canada? This is a non-issue, that's arguing how healthcare is going to be paid for. We are paying for it now. $16 out of every $100 dollars earned in this country goes to healthcare. Spending per capita in the US was $6,714 in 2006. In Canada it was $3,678. You are paying that difference right now. And Canada's healthcare system while not perfect, performs a lot better than ours does, at just a little more than half the cost per person. Half.
Cannon, I don't know how large a family you have, but if there are three of you, that's $10,000 a year out of your pocket vs Canada. You could buy a lot of $45 cases of beer for $10,000.
And again, 16% of Americans have no coverage at all, which is not the case in Canada.
Quote from: swake on June 12, 2009, 10:10:35 AM
You have bought the line fed us for generations by Pharmaceuticals, Insurance Companies and Doctors about how great our system is and how we are the best in the world. It's simply not true. Sedentary lifestyles don't have any impact on infant mortality or doctor error rates. I have been through serious health issues with both of my parents, both with excellent insurance where cost has not been an issue. And the system sucks.
Most doctors are bad at their jobs and don't give a crap about anything except getting paid. Everything has devolved into specialization where doctors make the most money and have zero stake in the overall health of the patient. Doctors can plead povertey all they want, but I took my son to see his doctor last week and out the window was the doctors parking lot for the hospital where he's located and it was all Ferrari, Mercedes and BMW. And not just one Ferrari. I don't begrudge people doing well, but when did becoming a doctor mean being wealthy enough to drive a $200,000 car to work? Poverty my donkey. The reason doctors want lawsuit reform so badly is that so many of them are so bad at what they do and they are worried about being sued over it.
On the other side insurance companies have driven care to lowest common denominator where cost is the main driving factor in every decision. The administrative costs for insurance companies is much higher than the admin cost of Medicare for instance. Insurance companies are a layer of red tape (and large profits) that have no real reason to exist.
Pharmaceuticals spend as much money advertising products as they do developing products. And most of the products they do develop only are developed to replace effective drugs that happen to have expiring patents.
Cannon, you are worried about the cost of beer going up like in Canada? This is a non-issue, that's arguing how healthcare is going to be paid for. We are paying for it now. $16 out of every $100 dollars earned in this country goes to healthcare. Spending per capita in the US was $6,714 in 2006. In Canada it was $3,678. You are paying that difference right now. And Canada's healthcare system while not perfect, performs a lot better than ours does, at just a little more than half the cost per person. Half.
Cannon, I don't know how large a family you have, but if there are three of you, that's $10,000 a year out of your pocket vs Canada. You could buy a lot of $45 cases of beer for $10,000.
And again, 16% of Americans have no coverage at all, which is not the case in Canada.
Care to provide proof that most doctors are bad at their jobs and don't give a crap? I would like to show that to my better half. My guess is that you can't and you are just running your ignorant and wealth-envy mouth once again.
By the way, if you want Canada's healthcare system, move there. Just don't make me have to put up with that piss poor system in this country. I am 100% happy with my family's health care.
We already know that RomneyCare (now rebranded as "Individual Mandate with Public Option") doesn't work. As the health mafia dumps sick patients into "Public Option" overall costs have risen even as hospital reimbursements have been cut. The State of Massachusetts is now dumping 28,000 patients from "Public Option" into "Nothing". And an amazing 200,000 Massachusetts citizens have already been branded as "tax cheats" and fined for failing to make regular payoffs to the health insurance mafia.
More evidence of how lousy Pelosi is at leadership. She needs to get the votes necessary to pass Single Payer.
Pelosi: Health Care Reform Can't Pass Without Public Option
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/11/pelosi-health-care-reform_n_214303.html
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the Huffington Post Thursday that a health care overhaul that did not include a public option wouldn't make it through the House because it "wouldn't have the votes."
Pelosi took impeachment off the table for political expediency (and probably to save her own donkey). Is this another dodge, this time to short-circuit Single Payer and to avoid showing REAL leadership and guts - and to save her Corporate donors? Don't trust her.
You will not find dumb and dumber, Baucuss and Grazley, signing on with HR 676...but here's a list of progressives leading the way.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00676:@@@P
Quote from: guido911 on June 12, 2009, 10:29:34 AM
Care to provide proof that most doctors are bad at their jobs and don't give a crap? I would like to show that to my better half. My guess is that you can't and you are just running your ignorant and wealth-envy mouth once again.
By the way, if you want Canada's healthcare system, move there. Just don't make me have to put up with that piss poor system in this country. I am 100% happy with my family's health care.
Proof? Again, the highest doctor error rate in the developed world. That's one.
Personally I have through my family and my parents dealt with probably at least 20-25 different doctors in the past 4-5 years. Most were terrible. In that time I have had three different personal doctors, two of the three sucked. Kings of the 40 second office visit. My mother has great difficulty getting around and is in a lot of pain and she's had multiple doctors that know her issues and force her to come in every six months for a 30 second office visit so they could write a bill to the insurance company. The pain an office visit causes her is of no concern to them. Getting paid is what matters. I don't mind taking her if they are doing her good but most don't even try. It's been hard to get her to drop these leaches and even harder to find competent replacements.
Of the 20-25 total doctors I have visited most were incompetent or indifferent, it can be hard to tell the difference. I would say I would rate three of them outstanding and three pretty good. So, only six total would I give a good grade, and half of the six are DOs and not MDs, by far most MDs are terrible, but that's an entirely different argument.
Swake, my experience is similar but the fact that doctors see so much mortality and poor health due to old age adds to their perceived indifference. This devil plans to check out if health care providers get worse in the years to come and he finds himself at their mercy and personal bankruptcy. Some of us take very good care of ourselves but realize living to 100 could be a nightmare.
Swake, I think there are a lot of doctors who would disagree with your assertion. Do understand that I share some of your reticence and cynicism about doctors, big pharma, and healthcare. It's simply a folly thinking that the government taking control of the payment system will somehow modify the behavior of doctors and get those apathetic to preventative health care to use the system. That's like putting down new carpet on your floors to cure wood rot on the exterior trim of your house.
There are a lot of very good physicians who don't fall into your paradigm of them all being greedy and incompetent. Certainly there are some who do fall into your description, but I'd argue that's a smaller percentage and I'd also argue that I don't think you'd want your whole profession labeled as greedy and incompetent due to the actions and attitudes of a minority.
Since we are down to the "I've got a family member..." game: I've got a close family member who has worked for a long time in a part of the healthcare industry which is almost entirely funded by Medicare and Medicaid. From that perspective, I assure you government is NOT the panacea for every problem with healthcare.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 12, 2009, 08:08:31 AM
I am leery of anything than can lead to more or easier governmental intrusion.
I am leery of everything that leads to easier governmental intrusion, but I don't think there's much chance of doing anything to promote private industries any more. Our new Czars will eventually become the heads of our Ministries.
The good news is that the Canadian health system is collapsing and private clinics are now welcomed in most provinces, so by the time we have a big mushy government health system, we may be able to go to Canada to get private care and diagnostics.
Interestingly enough, a whole new industry in marketing and advertising the private medical system in Canada has emerged, and the private funding for the construction of clinics all over Canada is in a boom.
Due to the shortage of physicians and diagnostic systems, the Canadian government has become very friendly to the development of such clinics and even invited them to coordinate with established government hospitals. So patients have a choice between free or fee.
The biggest shock is the creation of several private emergency medical clinics allowing patient choice in emergencies of going to a state hospital with long waits or paying cash for private care.
So the Canadian system is evolving/collapsing/changing, whatever, into a "class based" medical care system, where the wealthy receive good care provided by the best physicians, paid by private insurance or cash, and the poor and middle class receive state care (basically what we have now, except with higher taxes and less freedom). It looks like the Canadian government is just going to continue to allow the state health-care experiment to wither and the private sector to fill in the gaps.
Guess I'm a pragmatist/skeptic when it comes to single payer. I do not trust our government to properly administer an all encompassing single payer system for a country our size. IMHO, what works for Canada will likely not work here...
Since Oklahoma wasn't a battleground state, we missed this 30-sec ad about Obama's approach to healthcare reform...
Obama healthcare ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnk8minM3Qg
I've met enough Canadians over the past couple of decades to know that they don't have the same kinds of horror stories that we in this country have... I have several. We have an employer based system-- no job = no healthcare. I am grateful to have had a job that provided me healthcare options, the ability to tell a doctor my symptoms, and the access to life-saving laproscopic surgery I needed... I only wish my sister and her kids would have those options right now, but as much as I can try to help her, the scary part is that I wish I could marry my sister so she and her kids can have my health benefits until she's able to get on her feet.....
(http://www.yowazzup.com/blog/images/chuck-and-larry-movie.jpg)
Barack Obama Ad - "Mother"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aR3Gpsn4v4
I have a story of a friend of mine who was brutally raped in the 80s... she then was diagnosed with lupus.... she had a pre-existing condition, so after the rape... well, you can guess what happened. A year ago, I was diagnosed with colon cancer and my surgeon needlessly referred me to a "boutique" out of network hospital (talk about "class warfare")... he never gave me a choice of hospitals and it wasn't until after the surgery that I realized the hospital he chose for my surgery was a one he PARTIALLY OWNED!!!
....and who is THIS GUY? And where did he get the money to influence the public and politicians to air so many commercials against "socialized medicine"?
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/02/us/02scott.span.jpg)
Health Critic Brings a Past and a Wallet
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/us/politics/02scott.html
WASHINGTON — Richard L. Scott is unusual in these tough economic times: a rich, conservative investor willing to spend freely on a political cause.
Mr. Scott is starring in his own rotation of advertisements against the broad outlines of President Obama's health care plans. ("Imagine waking up one day and all your medical decisions are made by a central, national board," he warns in a radio spot.) He has dispatched camera crews to other countries to document the perils of socialized medicine.
Healthcare Enemy No. 1
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090330/hayes?rel=hp_currently
The name may not exactly be a household word, or it may ring a faint bell, but Politico recently reported that the millionaire Republican would be heading up Conservatives for Patients' Rights (CPR), a new group that plans to spend around $20 million to kill President Obama's efforts at healthcare reform.
Having Scott lead the charge against healthcare reform is like tapping Bernie Madoff to campaign against tighter securities regulation. By 1994, Columbia/HCA was one of the forty largest corporations in America, and Scott had acquired a reputation as the Gordon Gecko of the healthcare world. "Whose patients are you stealing?" he would ask employees at his newly acquired hospitals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By 1997 the FBI was investigating Columbia/HCA. Days after agents raided company facilities armed with search warrants, Scott was forced to resign. In 2000 the company pleaded guilty to fraud and agreed to pay the government $840 million. Other civil settlements would follow, ultimately totaling a staggering $1.7 billion, making it the largest fraud case in American history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want reform that puts costs on coverage on the right track; And I'll take "half a loaf" over Hillary Clinton's efforts in the 90s for "managed care".... resulting in NOTHING.
My fear about Obama is that he will over-compromise... taxing benefits was a McCain idea and requiring mandatory insurance was pushed by Hillary Clinton and done by Mitt Romney, yet both options Obama campaigned against seem to be on the table-- for now at least...
Election '08 / Obama Runs Constructive Criticism Ad On McCain ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPTB7-ecDC8&NR=1
Quote from: Gaspar on June 12, 2009, 12:29:41 PM
I am leery of everything that leads to easier governmental intrusion, but I don't think there's much chance of doing anything to promote private industries any more. Our new Czars will eventually become the heads of our Ministries.
The good news is that the Canadian health system is collapsing and private clinics are now welcomed in most provinces, so by the time we have a big mushy government health system, we may be able to go to Canada to get private care and diagnostics.
Could you please stop drinking the AMA koolaid, stop being an anti-government idealogue for a few seconds and ADMIT that the Canadian system has some advantages over our own "big mushy" Russian-roulette private for-profit system?
Geez.
Op-Ed Columnist
This Time, We Won't Scare By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: June 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/opinion/11kristof.html
Rick Scott, a former hospital company chief executive, leads a group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights. He was forced to resign as C.E.O. after his company defrauded the government through overbilling and is now spending his time trying to block meaningful health care reform by terrifying us with commercials of "real-life stories of the victims of government-run health care."
So here's a far more representative "real-life story."
Diane Tucker, 59, is an American lawyer who moved to Vancouver, Canada, in 2006. Like everyone else there, she now pays the equivalent of just $49 a month for health care.
Then one day two years ago, Ms. Tucker was working on her office computer when she noticed that she was having trouble typing with her right hand.
"I realized my hand was numb, so I tried to stand up to shake it out," she remembered. "But I had trouble standing."
A colleague called 911, and an ambulance rushed her to the nearest hospital.
"An emergency room doctor met me at the door, and they took me straight upstairs to the CT scan," she recalled. A neurologist explained that she had suffered a stroke.
Ms. Tucker spent a week at the hospital. "The doctors were great, although there were also a couple of jerks," she said. "The nursing staff was wonderful."
Still, there were two patients to a room, and conditions weren't as opulent as at some American hospitals. "The food was horrible," she said.
Then again, the price was right. "They never spoke to me about money," she said. "Not when I checked in, and not when I left."
Scaremongers emphasize the waits for specialists in Canada, and there's some truth to the stories. After the stroke, Ms. Tucker needed to make a routine appointment with a neurologist and an ophthalmologist to see if she should drive again. Initially, those appointments would have meant a two- or three-month wait, although in the end she managed to arrange them more quickly.
Ms. Tucker underwent three months of rehabilitation, including physical therapy several times a week. Again there was no charge, no co-payment.
Then, last year, Ms. Tucker fainted while on a visit to San Francisco, and an ambulance rushed her to the nearest hospital. But this was in the United States, so the person meeting her at the emergency room door wasn't a doctor.
"The first person I saw was a lady with a computer," she said, "asking me how I intended to pay the bill." Ms. Tucker did, in fact, have insurance, but she was told she would have to pay herself and seek reimbursement.
Nothing was seriously wrong, and the hospital discharged her after five hours. The bill came to $8,789.29.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Healthcare in this country is getting scarier and scarier and costs are getting higher and higher every year.... your answer is what? Dismantle medicare/medicaid? Continue to look the other way while greedy criminals like Rick Scott use millions of dollars they got bilking the system in the name of "for-profit hospitals"?
Quote from: Gaspar on June 12, 2009, 12:29:41 PM
I am leery of everything that leads to easier governmental intrusion, but I don't think there's much chance of doing anything to promote private industries any more. Our new Czars will eventually become the heads of our Ministries.
One thing that for some reason everybody that is anti-government involvement in health care insurance. Is that you already have a Czar. It is called the insurance company.
Quote from: Trogdor on June 12, 2009, 01:49:08 PM
One thing that for some reason everybody that is anti-government involvement in health care insurance. Is that you already have a Czar. It is called the insurance company.
Yes. The czar is crooked. He's in cahoots with Big Pharma and Doctors. He has little regulation.
Quote from: guido911 on June 12, 2009, 10:29:34 AM
By the way, if you want Canada's healthcare system, move there. Just don't make me have to put up with that piss poor system in this country. I am 100% happy with my family's health care.
I don't think anybody has a problem with letting those who desire and have the means to pay for private health coverage do so, so don't worry about getting piss poor health coverage. Why don't you just keep what you have since it's working so well for you and let the rest of us who want to do something about the problem get to work?
As far as doctors bucking up, one of my clients wouldn't be doing so well at suing them if they could manage to win at trial. Presumably they do try to defend themselves when sued.
What I find most amusing are the folks who go on about waits for care in canada or the UK, as if we get immediate service here. ER waits are regularly hours long at many hospitals, and if an ambulance doesn't bring you in, you get to talk to someone about how you're going to pay before you get treated unless it looks like you are literally going to die on the linoleum. And getting a doctor's appointment? Sure, sometimes it can be done quickly, but again there if you are using a highly recommended doctor, the next appointment may not be for weeks.
The difference is largely in how we ration care (largely by ability to pay), not that it is unrationed as some like to claim.
Hell Care: Health Care from Hell
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Hell-Care--Health-Care-fr-by-James-Dunham-090610-62.html
The insurance industry wants you in perfect health on the other hand. If you are sick, suffering, in pain, injured or have a disability----you are the enemy.
And death may be the only answer.
The real one and only long term solution is H.R. 676 - Single payer universal healthcare for all.
At the least, thank God Obama is finally mentioning the need for a government policy health option, along with Sen. Kennedy. I just hope in the details, the "conservative devil" is not lurking, waiting to turn it into a fiasco that favors the insurance and pharmaceutical industry. I shall keep my fingers crossed.
And I thank Howard Dean for continuing to sound the drumbeat, and of course Cong. Dennis Kucinich who has always been at the forefront of this important issue.
Clearly Profit Care is more important than Patient Care.
(http://www.annabelchaffer.co.uk/products/childrens_gifts/images/silver_frog_spoon_19L_APEN3.jpg)
Harry Reid compares the public option to the U.S. Postal Service. The quality of public health care is going to be the same as getting the mail. What a relief. I guess this is what we can expect:
Quote from: guido911 on June 14, 2009, 02:06:35 PM
Harry Reid compares the public option to the U.S. Postal Service. The quality of public health care is going to be the same as getting the mail. What a relief.
Are you living in the past? The mail is pretty darn reliable and reasonably quick and very inexpensive. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Quote from: guido911 on June 14, 2009, 02:06:35 PM
Harry Reid compares the public option to the U.S. Postal Service. The quality of public health care is going to be the same as getting the mail. What a relief. I guess this is what we can expect:
The quality of health care depends on the medical community.
The government eliminates the crooks in the insurance industry (who are in cahoots with litigators).
KISS
Quote from: nathanm on June 14, 2009, 03:49:28 PM
Are you living in the past? The mail is pretty darn reliable and reasonably quick and very inexpensive. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Have you been pounding aox's bong? The USPS is operating in massive deficits and has or is about to lay off 25K people. Doesn't sound like a very successful business model.
Play: You Bet Your Health - game
http://youbetyourhealth.com/
Warning: long post with actual facts.
Here's what we know:
1) Americans spend 50% more per capita than the next highest country. (http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2005/anderson_healthspending.html)
2) The US lead's "developed nations" in medical error rate. (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2005/Nov/International-Survey--U-S--Leads-in-Medical-Errors.aspx)
3) The US is 50th in the World in life expectancy. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html)
4) The US is 46th in the world for infant mortality. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html)
We have THE MOST expensive system in the world with the highest error rate rendering among the worst results in the developed world. How is that an acceptable system? Will the government do better as a single payer? Probably not, but at least admit the above is NOT acceptable.
Now lets bust some myths:
1) Malpractice suits are responsible driving up the cost of health care.
The United States spends about $2,500,000,000,000.00 ($2.5 TRILLION dollars) a year on health care. In a given year about 14,000 payments are made on judgments or to settle malpractice claims, totaling approximately $3.7 Billion (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?cat=8&ind=437). Or about 0.1% of the United States health care expenditures. (Kaiser Family Foundation numbers)
0.1%? Really? We are supposed to believe that the .1% is the driving force behind out health care cost crisis. I don't care if you argue twice, three times, or ten times that amount is spent to defend the suits - it still doesn't equal a meaningful portion of medical expenses in this country. Yet listening to the debate you'd think this is among the driving forces.
To say that again, insurance payouts for medical malpractice total 0.1% of total medical expenses in the United States.
2) Pharmaceutical costs are driving our expenses.
The cost of drugs represented 8.5% of our total expenses in 2006. (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/1/14) That is a lot and much of it was on "penis pills" and other non-essential medication. But certainly essential medications like HIV drugs, cancer drugs, and other required pharmaceuticals are very expenses.
However, at 8.5% of total expenditures it seems unlikely that such costs are the primary driver of medical costs.
3) Physicians are impoverished.
Medical doctors are represent 22% of all medical expenses (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/figsonly/27/1/14), or about $550,000,000,000.00 ($550 Billion) per year. The average MD makes $170,000 (http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_nat.htm#b29-0000).
For medical malpractice insurance the average MD pays just over 10% of wages for malpractice insurance (as low as 6% for family practice as high as 20% for anesthesiologists, also 5% of MDs are responsible for 54% of claims). That's a ton of money, but that leaves the average MD taking home $151,300 a year after insurance premiums, or 4.5 times the wage of the average patient.
Extrapolating those numbers out it leads to $55,000,000,000 a year in malpractice insurance, of which $3.7 Billion ends up in the hands of victims of medical malpractice (and their attorneys). Incidentally, Med Mal insurance is usually the most profitable division of an insurance company and Med Mal defense is among the most profitable practices of law. The insurance companies and defense firms are getting a TON more money (about 1200% more) than victims or Plaintiff's counsel. I'm not demonizing this division of wealth, but questioning why Med Mal plaintiffs are seen as the cost drivers when they end up with less than 10% of the pot.
Doctors have worked very hard to get into a good college. They compete strongly to get into medical school. Then they work for a decent wage for a few more years before they make "the big bucks." At which point they can pay off their school debts. They earn their money, but to pretend that they are somehow suffering financial difficulties when they make more than 4 fold the average wage earner is misleading.
Note: this is NOT an argument that MDs should earn less. But MDs salary constitutes 22% of the expense and malpractice payouts constitute 0.1% of the cost. Listening to the debate passively one would get the opposite impression.
As a side note, the AMA lobbied the government to pay medical colleges NOT to accept students in order to reduce the number of medical doctors in the 1990's. The feds agreed and dolled out tens of millions of dollars to medical colleges to reduce the supply of doctors. Predictably, the number of doctors dropped, competition among doctors was eliminated, prices went up, and quality (as measure by errors) went down.
Why are medical doctors the only field in which "qualified" doesn't mean qualified? A combination of politics, economics, and traditions determines how many medical doctors this country will produce and how many we will import - always insuring a shortage of Medical Doctors. Demand isn't a primary factor in the equation and competition is capped at the front end.
We have a system in which you need to have a man who makes $160,000 a year sign off on a piece of paper that your penis can't get hard in order for you to get a pill. Now, the nurse (if anyone) will be the one to look at your penis. To take down all your information and to do any other checks. Many MDs will come in for 40 seconds and chat, sign off and leave (not blaming them, in many instances their time is wasted on such things and they act more as a medical supervisor). It's a waste of resources when that MD could be doing something that utilizes and challenges his medical knowledge.
Then we have a system that highlights a division of labor. A patient typically has many doctors if something is actually wrong. It is amazingly difficult for a person, even a doctor, to keep track of that much information and do their job well. There are times when a specialist is needed for damn sure - but often a good GP will have more complete knowledge of the patient. But when a specialist can earn an extra $100,000 a year, GPs are fewer and fewer.
Add to that an insurance system that has, for some reason, become synonymous with "I don't have to pay my medical bills." It usually doesn't reward healthy lifestyles or annual checkups. It doesn't punish frivolous use most of the time. And with the employer pay system the cost is a sunk cost that Americans never see (hence: it doesn't exist). Unless you don't have insurance, then your screwed. Why not have a system with a 25% or even 50% copay for items less than $200 and major medical coverage with a 10% copay up to $10,000 and a 1% copay over that? Add an incentive for an annual (or every other year, or whatever is appropriate at your age/health). Add incentives for reaching certain health guidelines (weight, BP, cholesterol) by giving discounts just like car insurance (no tickets = good risk. Not obese = good risk). You know - encourage people financially to be healthier or pay the price.
Which brings us to the root cause: Americans are lazy. We are too lazy to be healthy. We are too lazy to pay attention to our health insurance cost (as long as the cost is/was hidden, we're fine). And our leaders are too lazy to actually address real problems.
Bah!
/frustration
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 15, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
Warning: long post with actual facts.
Here's what we know:
1) Americans spend 50% more per capita than the next highest country. (http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2005/anderson_healthspending.html)
2) The US lead's "developed nations" in medical error rate. (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2005/Nov/International-Survey--U-S--Leads-in-Medical-Errors.aspx)
3) The US is 50th in the World in life expectancy. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html)
4) The US is 46th in the world for infant mortality. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html)
We have THE MOST expensive system in the world with the highest error rate rendering among the worst results in the developed world. How is that an acceptable system? Will the government do better as a single payer? Probably not, but at least admit the above is NOT acceptable.
Now lets bust some myths:
1) Malpractice suits are responsible driving up the cost of health care.
The United States spends about $2,500,000,000,000.00 ($2.5 TRILLION dollars) a year on health care. In a given year about 14,000 payments are made on judgments or to settle malpractice claims, totaling approximately $3.7 Billion (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?cat=8&ind=437). Or about 0.1% of the United States health care expenditures. (Kaiser Family Foundation numbers)
0.1%? Really? We are supposed to believe that the .1% is the driving force behind out health care cost crisis. I don't care if you argue twice, three times, or ten times that amount is spent to defend the suits - it still doesn't equal a meaningful portion of medical expenses in this country. Yet listening to the debate you'd think this is among the driving forces.
To say that again, insurance payouts for medical malpractice total 0.1% of total medical expenses in the United States.
2) Pharmaceutical costs are driving our expenses.
The cost of drugs represented 8.5% of our total expenses in 2006. (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/1/14) That is a lot and much of it was on "penis pills" and other non-essential medication. But certainly essential medications like HIV drugs, cancer drugs, and other required pharmaceuticals are very expenses.
However, at 8.5% of total expenditures it seems unlikely that such costs are the primary driver of medical costs.
3) Physicians are impoverished.
Medical doctors are represent 22% of all medical expenses (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/figsonly/27/1/14), or about $550,000,000,000.00 ($550 Billion) per year. The average MD makes $170,000 (http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_nat.htm#b29-0000).
For medical malpractice insurance the average MD pays just over 10% of wages for malpractice insurance (as low as 6% for family practice as high as 20% for anesthesiologists, also 5% of MDs are responsible for 54% of claims). That's a ton of money, but that leaves the average MD taking home $151,300 a year after insurance premiums, or 4.5 times the wage of the average patient.
Extrapolating those numbers out it leads to $55,000,000,000 a year in malpractice insurance, of which $3.7 Billion ends up in the hands of victims of medical malpractice (and their attorneys). Incidentally, Med Mal insurance is usually the most profitable division of an insurance company and Med Mal defense is among the most profitable practices of law. The insurance companies and defense firms are getting a TON more money (about 1200% more) than victims or Plaintiff's counsel. I'm not demonizing this division of wealth, but questioning why Med Mal plaintiffs are seen as the cost drivers when they end up with less than 10% of the pot.
Doctors have worked very hard to get into a good college. They compete strongly to get into medical school. Then they work for a decent wage for a few more years before they make "the big bucks." At which point they can pay off their school debts. They earn their money, but to pretend that they are somehow suffering financial difficulties when they make more than 4 fold the average wage earner is misleading.
Note: this is NOT an argument that MDs should earn less. But MDs salary constitutes 22% of the expense and malpractice payouts constitute 0.1% of the cost. Listening to the debate passively one would get the opposite impression.
As a side note, the AMA lobbied the government to pay medical colleges NOT to accept students in order to reduce the number of medical doctors in the 1990's. The feds agreed and dolled out tens of millions of dollars to medical colleges to reduce the supply of doctors. Predictably, the number of doctors dropped, competition among doctors was eliminated, prices went up, and quality (as measure by errors) went down.
Why are medical doctors the only field in which "qualified" doesn't mean qualified? A combination of politics, economics, and traditions determines how many medical doctors this country will produce and how many we will import - always insuring a shortage of Medical Doctors. Demand isn't a primary factor in the equation and competition is capped at the front end.
We have a system in which you need to have a man who makes $160,000 a year sign off on a piece of paper that your penis can't get hard in order for you to get a pill. Now, the nurse (if anyone) will be the one to look at your penis. To take down all your information and to do any other checks. Many MDs will come in for 40 seconds and chat, sign off and leave (not blaming them, in many instances their time is wasted on such things and they act more as a medical supervisor). It's a waste of resources when that MD could be doing something that utilizes and challenges his medical knowledge.
Then we have a system that highlights a division of labor. A patient typically has many doctors if something is actually wrong. It is amazingly difficult for a person, even a doctor, to keep track of that much information and do their job well. There are times when a specialist is needed for damn sure - but often a good GP will have more complete knowledge of the patient. But when a specialist can earn an extra $100,000 a year, GPs are fewer and fewer.
Add to that an insurance system that has, for some reason, become synonymous with "I don't have to pay my medical bills." It usually doesn't reward healthy lifestyles or annual checkups. It doesn't punish frivolous use most of the time. And with the employer pay system the cost is a sunk cost that Americans never see (hence: it doesn't exist). Unless you don't have insurance, then your screwed. Why not have a system with a 25% or even 50% copay for items less than $200 and major medical coverage with a 10% copay up to $10,000 and a 1% copay over that? Add an incentive for an annual (or every other year, or whatever is appropriate at your age/health). Add incentives for reaching certain health guidelines (weight, BP, cholesterol) by giving discounts just like car insurance (no tickets = good risk. Not obese = good risk). You know - encourage people financially to be healthier or pay the price.
Which brings us to the root cause: Americans are lazy. We are too lazy to be healthy. We are too lazy to pay attention to our health insurance cost (as long as the cost is/was hidden, we're fine). And our leaders are too lazy to actually address real problems.
Bah!
/frustration
Ouch! Flashlight, can of Raid.
As usual you have to ruin a perfectly good thread with truth and statistics.
Unfortunately, reason is no match for "I want a pony!".
Nice try, but on this one I believe that we will all lose. This is about control, not health.
Straight out of the handbook.
The state must first control the industry, then transportation, and finally health and well-being. We are moving quickly. The trees outside the window are a blur.
CF, Have you been reading your ABA, ATLA, and OTLA circulars again?
;)
Seriously, you base your contention that med mal lawsuits are not responsible for high medical expenses based upon paid out settlements? What about those lawsuits that never get settled or where a doctor has to proceed to trial for vindication? What about those costs? Or how about the time that a doctor that is a victim of a frivolous lawsuit has to waste in answering discovery, appearing at depos, or sitting at the table at trial? Or how about the countless hours a doc expends in having to listen to lawyers lecture them about risk management, charting, or patient relations in order to head off lawsuits?
Now, you know I have a vested interest in med mal tort reform. With that said, here is a line of work I would like to get into since most judges in this state will do nothing to punish frivolous filings:
http://www.physiciansnews.com/law/403post.html
As for a doctor's salary, I have always thought that no other profession on the planet should earn more than a doc. Seriously, how much is your life or the life of your child worth? The military spends millions of dollars in safety features on airplanes, ships, tanks, and whatever to preserve the life of the soldier. To me, that demonstrates that the value of that human life is millions of dollars. I know it might be unpopular in this thread, but docs do save lives every day but do not collect the sort of salary that many believe docs earn. Instead, we pay golfers millions of dollars to hit a little ball into a cup and pay millions of dollars to Oprah to praddle on about what books she likes to read.
Guido:
1) First, I explicitly stated that I was not advocating that MDs are not worth what they are paid. As far as professions are concerned, they are THE highest paid in the nation, reflecting the value we place on our health care (health care != health). While a few professional golfers earn multimillions, most earn a meager living and eventually get another job.
Second, if we are basing salaries on the value of human life, bus drivers, airline pilots, water supply security guards and the like should earn hundreds of thousands. On a given day a bus driver has many multiples of the number of lives in their hands as a given MD. We'll call it "preventative care." I realize the argument is absurd, but pay is based on supply and demand and NOT the real value of the service performed.
Certainly it takes great qualifications to be an MD. But with the AMA and Congress controlling supply it is hard to place a market value on those services. No doubt they are, would be, and should be highly paid professionals. And no doubt they are, would be, and should be a significant portion of the cost of health care in this country. But I don't understand why such a significant cost isn't part of the equation whenever health care cost is discussed.
2) No. I haven't read the ABA, ATLA or OTLA circulars on the issue. As you can see by my links, I just grabbed sources off of the internet. I used to be against any government interference in health care, but after researching the issue it appears SOMETHING needs to be done (bearing in mind that I think the government largely contributed to creating the problem with tax incentives, medicaid, and medicare. . . so I am leery of a truly governmental solution).
But yes, my contention is that med mal lawsuits are not a primary driver of higher medical expenses. Lets play with some numbers to prove a point. Lets pretend that:
a) Only 10% of med-mal lawsuits end in a settlement or judgment (as you know a low number).
b) That each of those non-paying events costs as much as if they lost the suit.
With our new assumption we take the actual number and multiply it by TEN FOLD, we get 1% of total health care costs. So even if all filed suits resulted in a payout as if there was a fight to get it, we would have 1% our our nationals health care costs explained. Lets take it times 20 and get 2%. How about 50? Then we are up to a whopping 5% of our health care costs for med mal.
Sorry, it just doesn't make sense. If it cost that much to defend these suits you'd be better off settling every one filed on an administrative basis. That doesn't happen because it is cost effective to fight them, largely because perusing a med mal case costs tens of thousands of dollars even if it is clear cut (sponge left in patient after surgery).
You will note I did NOT take into account hours spent by people learning about procedure, charting and patient relations because that is part of the best practices of a medical group wanting to avoid errors. I also didn't count continuing training hours or preventative procedures. Things which should be done to ensure safety, not to avoid lawsuits.
Again, we have THE WORST MEDICAL ERROR RATE in the developed world. If lawsuits are responsible for hospital safety procedures "being so strict" then we need to double our lawsuits. More lawsuits are of course NOT the answer, but if the safety measures to prevent medical errors are a result of lawsuits I'd scared of what would happen if they went away.
3) I have repeatedly agreed with you that frivolous suits need to be thrown out. Judges are supposed to be the gate keepers, if they throw out a good suit you can appeal. If a suit needs discovery to find out if it has merit, then grant it. But when it is apparent that there is no suit then it is the attorneys duty to drop the suit.
As someone who doesn't know anything about the health care industry, for what reason would I care about the profits of insurers(other than not seeing a bunch of people laid off)? The prices for health coverage are artificially inflated because of insurance companies, who's services you are forced to use(you can't reasonably expect not to have insurance). So aside from maintaining the great tradition of capitalism, what is my benefit for not wanting single payer?
You and I are getting at this from differing perpsectives. I have worked in the health care field, am married to a professional in the health care field, and am an attorney that has defended med mal lawsuits for years. As to the latter, I can think of only one that had any merit. ONE! In defending those actions, insurance companies pay tens of thousands of dollars for lawyers, experts, document production, and related expenses. Doctors lose time and money in having to participate in the proceeding. So, it's not just about the direct cost of the lawsuit, it's the loss in productivity by a doc that cannot be measured.
My conservative bona fides be damned because I do support some health care reform but it must include tort reform as well. But my problem is the entitlement mentality people have with regards to health care which is why I am not pushing very hard. Here's a story:
Several years ago my wife was driving home following a night shift and witnessed a truck roll over onto a smaller pickup. She pulls over and, with the help of bystanders, extricated the driver of the smaller truck and performed medical treatment that probably saved that driver's leg and perhaps his life given the amount of blood he had lost. Not so much as a "thank you", and she didn't care. I was super proud of her heroism, though.
There are stories like this out there all the time involving docs, but we are more interested in being critical.
I have been out of the loop lately. I did not know Henry signed a tort reform bill:
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/06/08/prsb0608.htm
Cannon, just curious what your uncle thinks. He's a well-respected doc and has a grasp on the admin side of the field. What's he saying about the issue? Bruno?? Anyone else with an MD or DO care to chime in?
Quote from: guido911 on June 15, 2009, 01:25:43 PM
I have been out of the loop lately. I did not know Henry signed a tort reform bill:
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/06/08/prsb0608.htm
Lately?
Democrats' hype about health care reform will hurt them
http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2009/06/04/democrats'-hype-about-health-care-reform-will-hurt-them/
Obama's response, essentially, was that single-payer is off the table because the insurance industry is too powerful to beat, and there are other ways to cut health care costs that don't require implementing a single-payer system. He is wrong on both counts.But then Obama went on to imply that we don't need a single-payer system to cut costs. "There are ways that we can drive down costs," he said. He cited three ways: greater use of preventive services, (not by making insurance companies pay for them, but by changing the way doctors are paid); electronic medical records; and a public program to compete with private insurers. The first two ideas are straight out of the insurance industry's hymnal. The third idea, the proposed public program (which its advocates now refer to as "the public option") will either quickly morph into a single-payer or it will accomplish little or no cost containment.Obama wants a public option because he believes over time it will become the only option and thus segue into single payer.
The cost of smoking is not higher health care costs, it's earlier death.
Quote from: guido911 on June 15, 2009, 01:25:43 PM
You and I are getting at this from differing perpsectives. I have worked in the health care field, am married to a professional in the health care field, and am an attorney that has defended med mal lawsuits for years. As to the latter, I can think of only one that had any merit. ONE! In defending those actions, insurance companies pay tens of thousands of dollars for lawyers, experts, document production, and related expenses. Doctors lose time and money in having to participate in the proceeding. So, it's not just about the direct cost of the lawsuit, it's the loss in productivity by a doc that cannot be measured.
My conservative bona fides be damned because I do support some health care reform but it must include tort reform as well. But my problem is the entitlement mentality people have with regards to health care which is why I am not pushing very hard. Here's a story:
. . .
There are stories like this out there all the time involving docs, but we are more interested in being critical.
. . .
I have been out of the loop lately. I did not know Henry signed a tort reform bill:
1) I'm glad your wife is a decent person. But it doesn't change my perspective on health care because an MD does what a decent society would expect. I also concur that too many people don't do what is decent and that it was crappy for the guy not to thank her or do anything. I have never argued that Doctors are horrible people.
2) Yes, Henry signed the industry serving reform. It does NOTHING for health care in Oklahoma but-for saving the insurance companies money in settlements. For perspective, the State of Oklahoma is subsidizing the salaries of the Thunder for about as much money as is paid out in Med Mal suits in Oklahoma in a year (per Kaiser foundation). We have had this discussion in other threads (where you admitted the bill is solely serving the insurance companies).
About $20 per person is paid out in Med Mal awards each year in the State of Oklahoma. Or about $60,000,000.
To support our prison population we spent $477,576,000. Or nearly 8 TIMES as much, nearly $160 per person. But based on the time allocation of our legislature, it is the $20 per person we pay in extra medical costs to cover med mal that is bringing Oklahoma down. Too bad there isn't an insurance industry lobbying to bring down the cost of putting people in prison . . .
(slight tangent, but I just read that prison stat last night)
3)
A. All aspects of med mal added together are STILL not significant.
The entirety of med mal insurance in the United States is $55,000,000,000 a year. All in. That includes profits and money to defend lawsuits as well as actual payouts (payouts are 6.7% of the total cost of med mal insurance). That's about 2% of our health care budget going to med mal premiums. Throw in all the extra time, procedures, or whatever else you want. We can DOUBLE the cost and we're not even to 5%.
I can tell you that most industries pay insurance based on gross receipts. From workers comp to common carrier coverage, it's almost all by gross receipts. And NO ONE pays anything as low as 2%. Heavy lifting, field service, or steel work is lucky to get 6% for liability coverage. Why are we so outraged that health care has 2% liability insurance?
Now, consider we are the most medicated and medically treated nation on Earth. We also have THE MOST ERRORS of any industrialize nation. Does spending 2% of our health care budget to insure against malpractice seem like too much to you? We have more procedures than anywhere else and SCREW UP a greater percentage of those procedures than anywhere else.
B. I submit that your perspective is skewed if you have reviewed hundreds of claims and found ONE with merit. Either that or the international community is against the USA when we are consistently rated poor for our error rate, infant mortality rate, and life expectancy (all the key elements of health care ratings).
Sorry Guido. You just can not convince me that the 0.1% of the medical cost paid out to plaintiffs or the 2% total in insurance premiums somehow extrapolates to a medical cost that is 50% higher than anywhere else in the world. It just doesn't make sense.
I'm not trying to be obtuse and I'm not motivated by ideology. I don't work for a med mal firm (we have had med mal cases walk in [aforementioned sponge left in body] but not as part of our usual practice). I have many relatives that are MDs. I simply listened to the debate, looked up the statistics, and did some thinking.
Please put some numbers to it and explain how the med mal expenses add up to a significant number in light of the overall health care cost. If we are honestly looking to save money: should we look at the 0.1% of the cost that is reflected in plaintiffs money? It just doesn't add up.
Quote from: FOTD on June 15, 2009, 03:08:58 PM
The cost of smoking is not higher health care costs, it's earlier death.
You obviously have no grasp of the cost of treating COPD and other respiratory and cardiac diseases which are related to smoking.
Meanwhile back in LaLa Land....
Goals of a good health care system:
1. Simplicity. (Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi, this means lack of complexity)
2. Available to all members of society, including the poor.
3. Offers good, basic lower cost health care options.
4. Portable. Not tied to employer or the government.
5. Prevention of exclusions for those who have had "pre-existing" problems.
6. Expandable. Option to purchase more extensive plans according to personal choice and ability. There is no Shangri-La. Wealthier people in Britain buy private insurance and those in Canada come to the United States for care. The Wyden plan proposes options for more extensive plans as well.
7. Shared, sustainable cost and some personal financial responsibility for all.
8. Patient health centered care. Preventive care with financial penalties for continued poor choices and rewards available for good health practices.
Solution:
1. Don't pass any of the Democrat health care plans. Savings of at least $3 trillion over the next five years.
2. Immediately do away with Medicare, Medicaid, and The Center for Medicare and Medicaid services. No other major industrialized nation has a separate system for the elderly, disabled and the poor. Scrap the Joint Commission on Hospital Accreditation. Savings of nearly $1 trillion in federal tax dollars yearly, $1 trillion in savings for states and billions in savings by dissolving the tyrannical Joint Commission.
3. People should be responsible for purchasing their own health care, not the government or the employer, making health insurance completely portable. Scrap Hillary Clinton's HIPAA act at a savings of billions yearly. Let's make it HIPAA-posthumous.
4. A Health Insurance Company must offer a good basic low-cost health care plan with expanded health savings accounts. Taxpayer cost zero dollars.
5. No health exclusions for three years. Taxpayer cost zero dollars.
6. Health plans should promote healthy practices and preventive health. Taxpayer cost zero.
7. For the poor, government should subsidize the premiums, not be involved in paying providers. Taxpayer costs by my estimate around $600 billion per year.
8. Retired people of lower means should be helped as above but should not have a separate insurance plan run by the government. Sorry, Medicare is dead. Promises were broken, but we are mature people and we need to get over it. Let's not let it happen again! Taxpayer cost around $300 billion per year.
9. End tax penalties for individuals purchasing individual health insurance. Taxpayer cost zero dollars as these penalties are merely punitive, designed to make people dependent.
10. The health insurance companies in each state should have the option of creating a risk pool from some of their premium funds. Taxpayer cost zero dollars.
11. Laws should be changed to allow for private health co-ops to be formed as an option for those so inclined. Taxpayer cost zero dollars.
12. Patients should be free to change insurance plans at least twice yearly and since their insurance would not be controlled by their employer or the government no permission is needed from them. Taxpayer cost zero dollars.
13. There should be no legal right for insurance plans to dismiss competent and qualified contracted physicians for "no cause", when that no cause is really due to the physician acting as a patient advocate.
14. Tort reform with penalties for frivolous lawsuits and the loser paying some of the costs.
Well, there you have it. The savings for taxpayers over three years: Nearly $5 trillion. Not requiring bills hundreds of pages long: Priceless! A few short regulations and we have a viable health care system for the future covering over 99% of the population, devoid of the treachery of Medicare and without dependence on the federal government. It's very simple, very sensible, and so easy even a government official can understand it. It's even short enough for Congress members to read fully, though some may require several days. Oh, yes, Mr. Obama, I want our $600 billion back.
Frank S. Rosenbloom, M.D.
CF, I have not been trying to convince you that med mal lawsuits are a large contributor to medical costs. My whole point is about frivolous med mal cases and how they must be stopped. I have seen so many awful cases get passed summary judgment and tried it sickens me. They burden our court system, the physician and his/her practice, the hospital, and all involved.
As for your argument, your stats don't lie. The costs of these lawsuits in the grand scheme of things are statistically insignificant. They are very significant, though, to the innocent individual practitioner who gets popped by one.
As for my skewed position, you are right. I became very cynical about the nature and extent of an injury after working in an er for two years as a medic. I have said on occasion that unless the doc does something mindless like cutting off the wrong limb or is whacked out of his/her mind on drugs, I just do not think docs are out to hurt anyone.
Quote from: guido911 on June 15, 2009, 04:08:47 PM
CF, I have not been trying to convince you that med mal lawsuits are a large contributor to medical costs. My whole point is about frivolous med mal cases and how they must be stopped. I have seen so many awful cases get passed summary judgment and tried it sickens me. They burden our court system, the physician and his/her practice, the hospital, and all involved.
As for your argument, your stats don't lie. The costs of these lawsuits in the grand scheme of things are statistically insignificant. They are very significant, though, to the innocent individual practitioner who gets popped by one.
As for my skewed position, you are right. I became very cynical about the nature and extent of an injury after working in an er for two years as a medic. I have said on occasion that unless the doc does something mindless like cutting off the wrong limb or is whacked out of his/her mind on drugs, I just do not think docs are out to hurt anyone.
People are also quick to want to blame someone else for their own foolishness, life-long poor lifestyle issues, or just bad draw from the gene pool.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 15, 2009, 04:19:59 PM
People are also quick to want to blame someone else for their own foolishness, life-long poor lifestyle issues, or just bad draw from the gene pool.
Conan,
We have a growing majority that wishes to shed responsibility for anything difficult.
Addictions have become diseases (you are not responsible if it is a disease).
Every bad behavior is now a syndrome (It's not your fault).
Wants and needs are becoming "rights" (houses, cars, jet-skis, medicine, food, tupperware, these are RIGHTS DAMN IT!).
Choices are being replaced by provisions.
Manufacturers are forced to carry the burden for the stupidity of their customers (If you're fat, sue Burger King. If you're deficient in vitamin C, sue Froot Loops, yes it was a real case).
The days of the free American are almost over. More choose the government yolk. It promises freedom from the pain of responsibility. It offers security, hope, and change. A refuge from the choices that could lead to failure or triumph. Risk is replaced by mediocrity. Excellence is punished, and failure is elevated.
The trap is ticking.
Quote from: guido911 on June 14, 2009, 07:23:53 PM
Have you been pounding aox's bong? The USPS is operating in massive deficits and has or is about to lay off 25K people. Doesn't sound like a very successful business model.
Yes, they are going through a transition period, as many fields are, thanks to the Internet. Also, if you hadn't noticed, a great number of private companies are also conducting mass layoffs. For some reason you expect anything related to the government to be perfect and if it's not it's trash, yet you don't really seem to mind when major corporations have similar issues with the lack of perfection.
You think that might have something to do with your anti-government bias?
Sort of like your work in defending medical malpractice suits might have something to do with your finding almost all the suits you've defended frivolous. Given that it's your job to defend your client, I'd hope you thought little of the cases brought against them!
Quote from: Gaspar on June 15, 2009, 04:57:02 PM
The days of the free American are almost over. More choose the government yolk. It promises freedom from the pain of responsibility. It offers security, hope, and change. A refuge from the choices that could lead to failure or triumph. Risk is replaced by mediocrity. Excellence is punished, and failure is elevated.
The trap is ticking.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_k2rfk6VyHkQ/SFaF7R_8BnI/AAAAAAAAAc8/cMuzXd79iTA/s400/TinFoilHatArea.jpg)
Once again:
Could you please stop being an anti-government idealogue for a few seconds and ADMIT that the Canadian system has some advantages over our own "big mushy" Russian-roulette private for-profit system?
Geez.
Quote from: nathanm on June 15, 2009, 05:21:10 PM
You think that might have something to do with your anti-government bias?
That's pretty weak Nate. It's not bias against the govt, it's that the govt cannot do anything right. The postal service is one example.
My mail service has been more dependable than almost any other utility I've ever used over my adult life.
Privatizing the postal service would be a HUGE MISTAKE.
Why do you insist on scapegoating the government for everything that's wrong in this country?
Quote from: guido911 on June 15, 2009, 06:43:45 PM
That's pretty weak Nate. It's not bias against the govt, it's that the govt cannot do anything right. The postal service is one example.
The government issued you a licence to practice law.
Quote from: guido911 on June 15, 2009, 06:43:45 PM
That's pretty weak Nate. It's not bias against the govt, it's that the govt cannot do anything right. The postal service is one example.
See, that's not accurate. The government is pretty good at lots of things, but folks with your worldview focus on only on the things that government does wrong. Similarly, you focus almost entirely on things the corporate world does right while ignoring the mistakes it makes. In the alternative, you seem not to mind corporate malfeasance as much as governmental malfeasance.
On the specific example of the post office, it gets things wrong about as often as FedEx and UPS do. Which is to say not very often. It's not perfect, but nothing is. You have a strong tendency to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
If anything, I dare say the corporate world's mistakes have cost us as a society far more in the last decade than government's errors. Well, I take that back. Other than the Iraq War, which wasn't so much a failure of government or its institutions but a failure of leadership. Hell, maybe even with the war thrown in the excesses of the banks and companies like Worldcom and Enron have cost us more. It would be close.
Quote from: nathanm on June 15, 2009, 08:50:46 PM
See, that's not accurate. The government is pretty good at lots of things, but folks with your worldview focus on only on the things that government does wrong. Similarly, you focus almost entirely on things the corporate world does right while ignoring the mistakes it makes. In the alternative, you seem not to mind corporate malfeasance as much as governmental malfeasance.
On the specific example of the post office, it gets things wrong about as often as FedEx and UPS do. Which is to say not very often. It's not perfect, but nothing is. You have a strong tendency to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
If anything, I dare say the corporate world's mistakes have cost us as a society far more in the last decade than government's errors. Well, I take that back. Other than the Iraq War, which wasn't so much a failure of government or its institutions but a failure of leadership. Hell, maybe even with the war thrown in the excesses of the banks and companies like Worldcom and Enron have cost us more. It would be close.
That's unfair and you should know that. I have hammered GM and Chrysler in the past several weeks, as well as AIG paqying out those bonuses with our money. In fact I lauded Obama for his position on this. As for what govt does well, please provide examples.
Quote from: guido911 on June 15, 2009, 09:02:02 PM
As for what govt does well, please provide examples.
I will admit it's hard to find examples of things government does well here in Oklahoma, given that we elect people who believe that government is a big failure, thus leaving us with a bunch of people who refuse to fund the work we ask of the government, thus making it a failure.
My point wasn't to get into a pissing match with you, my point was that both government and private industry often get things right and often fail.
If you want to know what government does right, think of the things they do that you depend on every day. You get a weather forecast? Well, that's coming from the government. Yeah, you may see it on The Weather Channel or Fox News or a local station, but the model data? Those models are largely either run by NOAA directly or run by universities with NOAA's money. The inputs that go into those models? Say hello to government flown weather balloons. Like weather warnings? Better thank the National Weather Service for those nice radars that are about twenty times more useful than most TV station radars.
I presume you like firefighters and police, but maybe not. I like to have running water and sewer service to take away my poo. Heck, I like roads to drive on, Netflix films dropped in my mailbox. I like not having brownouts thanks to all the hydroelectric projects. I like that we have pipelines and fiber crisscrossing the nation thanks in part to NASA and the USGS and their topographic maps. I like having a system that can locate me to within 30 meters over 99% of the time and within 100 the rest of the time, should I find myself lost and in need of a map to tell me where I am.
I like having national parks and national forests in which to recreate. I like having an ozone layer and bald eagles, both of which we would have lost but for government regulation.
Government isn't the problem, people who believe that government is always the problem and therefore elect those who are like minded are the problem. Government, like any large organization will always have some issues, some malfeasance on the part of some employees, some waste, some graft, some plain dysfunction. The correct response to those issues are to bring them to light and fire or prosecute the offenders, not to cry government is the problem and "elect" an even more unaccountable group to supposedly solve our problems.
That's all for now, I've worked late enough and it's my bedtime.
Quote from: USRufnex on June 15, 2009, 05:33:26 PM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_k2rfk6VyHkQ/SFaF7R_8BnI/AAAAAAAAAc8/cMuzXd79iTA/s400/TinFoilHatArea.jpg)
Once again:
Could you please stop being an anti-government idealogue for a few seconds and ADMIT that the Canadian system has some advantages over our own "big mushy" Russian-roulette private for-profit system?
Geez.
No. I like "Private" and "For-profit." Those are not bad words to me. On the contrary, they are two of the most beautiful words in the world. Sure the current system needs a major overhaul, but a surrender to government is beyond stupid.
I challenge you to name one single thing, besides defense and taxation, that our government has ever taken over and done well.
Quote from: USRufnex on June 15, 2009, 06:58:26 PM
My mail service has been more dependable than almost any other utility I've ever used over my adult life.
Privatizing the postal service would be a HUGE MISTAKE.
Why do you insist on scapegoating the government for everything that's wrong in this country?
Lets see, it costs people a mere .44 cents to send a letter. The government spends far more than .44 cents to deliver that letter, operating at a net loss. As of last year, priority mail packages are now flown by FedEx under contract by the postal system for an excess of what the consumer is charged.
Basically FedEx is receiving an unnecessary subsidy to deliver your package with US postal packaging. The Post Office has chosen FedEx to deliver packages because they can do it at a far lower base rate than the postal service can provide internally. Prior to this arrangement the USPS operated at a loss of $5.3 billion dollars for 2007. After the private agreement, the USPS operated with a surplus of 900 million for 2008. Privatizing just a small sector of the postal service saved over $4 billion.
The US post office is very good at sorting letters, they have a better mechanism than any private company in the world, but they do it at a loss. Operating losses are met using federal tax money. In other words, sending a letter costs you far more than .44 cents, you just don't realize it. Even if you don't send letters, you are paying for letters. Most of what you are paying for is junk mail. Billions of trees worth of junk mail.
Very dependable system indeed.
Guido, Conan . . . I think we are at a point at which we can agree.
Too many people want to pass their problems off on someone else. Most doctors are not out to hurt people. Many med mal cases should be tossed.
But to be fair, when a MSJ is filed on every case the court approaches them as routine and often lacking merit. Like a list of affirmative defenses. Hence, when they have merit it is often over looked. I have no interest in picking up loser cases; it wastes my time, hurts my profession and in the long run costs me money.
/thread hijack
CF:
Agreed.
One other thing. It looks like the tort reform bill that passed has modified the standard for msj, apparently in line with the federal standard set forth in the tripletts. Perhaps this will help get rid of some of the more weaker cases.
/thread thoroughly hijacked.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 16, 2009, 08:09:21 AM
Lets see, it costs people a mere .44 cents to send a letter. The government spends far more than .44 cents to deliver that letter, operating at a net loss. As of last year, priority mail packages are now flown by FedEx under contract by the postal system for an excess of what the consumer is charged.
Basically FedEx is receiving an unnecessary subsidy to deliver your package with US postal packaging. The Post Office has chosen FedEx to deliver packages because they can do it at a far lower base rate than the postal service can provide internally. Prior to this arrangement the USPS operated at a loss of $5.3 billion dollars for 2007. After the private agreement, the USPS operated with a surplus of 900 million for 2008. Privatizing just a small sector of the postal service saved over $4 billion.
The US post office is very good at sorting letters, they have a better mechanism than any private company in the world, but they do it at a loss. Operating losses are met using federal tax money. In other words, sending a letter costs you far more than .44 cents, you just don't realize it. Even if you don't send letters, you are paying for letters. Most of what you are paying for is junk mail. Billions of trees worth of junk mail.
Very dependable system indeed.
Please provide a citation for the government subsidy.
Quote from: guido911 on June 15, 2009, 06:43:45 PM
That's pretty weak Nate. It's not bias against the govt, it's that the govt cannot do anything right. The postal service is one example.
Medicare is a very well run government program. Just fyi for when your time comes.
Quote from: nathanm on June 16, 2009, 07:45:47 PM
Please provide a citation for the government subsidy.
Thank you Nathanm,
I appreciate you asking such a question because the way the money is distributed is designed to keep the public unaware of the expenditure. Otherwise people would be up in arms over the amounts.
First, lets look at the system itself.
in 2002 the operating debt was around $11 billion for the USPS.
The Bush administration forced USPS to make changes including downsizing, and outsourcing to private companies dropping their yearly operating debt to just over $5 billion by 2007, and they were able to turn a "profit" (LOL) by 2008.
So one would think that they are operating a profitable organization now. All of this info is available on the USPS website.
Now lets look under the hood. The postal Pension fund was in debt for HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS during the Clinton and Bush administrations and the sum was growing. Each employee pays 7% of their paycheck to the postal pension fund and of course that money is invested in the typical blend of stupid government crap resulting in dismal returns. To make up for the shortfall the Bush administration hatched a plan to make treasury payments to the pension fund over a period of 40 years. In response to this additional government handout, the Postal Union increased demands for benefits, and so the wheel turns, and the debt still grows.
Now lets look at operations and the reasons behind "revenue support" or subsidies.
The Postal Reorganization Act (PRA) of 1970 guarantees governmental appropriations to the USPS. The way it is structured, it subsidizes the postal service for any parcel not posted at the standard (current $.44) rate or higher. Currently the appropriation is running at around 25% of the USPS operating budget!
Business rates, educational rates, bulk rates, governmental postage, non-profit rates, services for the blind, newspapers, Second-class mail, agricultural, labor union rates, veterans rates, book rate, media rate, fourth-class mail, library rate, and a host of other discounted postal services support the growing subsidy. All of your junk mail is paid for by YOU.
You would think that the postal service would operate like any other business and simply raise rates to cover these losses, but a fail safe provision (39 U.S.C.§ 3627) requires them only to raise rates when congress will not appropriate necessary funds to make up for shortfalls.
There are a number of appropriations supporting the operation, and employee benefit programs of the USPS and they are spread over many categories as to make them easier to swallow. $20-30 million for mail for the blind, $3 billion for retirement funding, and individual appropriations for several of the discounted and free rates, and millions and millions for "discretionary administrative expenses."
The system is so clouded that for the most part the public remains unaware of any total number spent on a yearly basis for postal operations. In the USPS annual report, numbers are calculated based on postal rate collections without a line item for any of the government subsidies, so when we see that the post office was profitable to a tune of 900 million last year we don't see that tens of billions of dollars were provided by appropriations, and long term congressional funding extending over decades.
In our recient Omnibus 2009 (H.R.1105) the USPS was provided:
$111,831,000 for free and discounted mail for 2009.
$239,356,000 for salaries for 2009.
$48,463,000 for expenses for 2009.
. . .And then of course there is the billions spend on construction and upgrades of new postal facilities, but we won't even cover that.
Basically you don't have to look very far to find the subsidies, you just have to look in many places. It's the definition of a "cluster-F."
Yes the mail arrives on time. It should for the price we pay.
I hope that answers your question. Consult the Library of congress website and do a search on "Postal Appropriations." It will take you the better part of a day with a good calculator, and is quite shocking.
The whole system is jacked..
I go to the dr. and get an antibiotic shot. They charged me $87 (I have catastrophic coverage so I pay 100% up to $2300). The insurance company's "negotiated" rate for that shot was under $1. So I only had to pay like 87 cents instead of $87. The insurance company wasn't on the hook for any of it. For somebody without insurance who makes minimum wage that would be probably 1/3 to 1/4 of their rent money. Because they don't buy into the system. Uninsured go to the emergency room and clog it up. My wife had appendicitis and she couldn't get in for like 3 hours. Then with her insurance at the time she still had to pay 14% of her salary (before taxes) for the operation/hospital stay. Hell. They charge $50 for a bag of salt water.. 60% of all bankruptcies are for medical reasons. Then most of those 60% are insured.
Blowing Our Chance for Real Health Care Reform
by Dave Lindorff
"Simply put, you cannot solve either of these problems by leaving the payment system for medical care in the hands of the private insurance industry, since the whole paradigm of insurance is to make money by keeping high-risk people out of the insured pool, and by keeping reimbursements and coverage for premium payers as low as possible.
If President Obama had any political courage at all, he'd simply get on TV and say this: I will create a plan that will cover everyone, lift the burden of paying for health care from individuals and employers, and have the government pay for it all. You the taxpayer will pay for this plan with higher taxes, but you will no longer have any significant medical bills, you will no longer have health insurance premiums deducted from your paycheck, your employer will no longer be paying for employee medical coverage, and you will never have to worry about losing health benefits again, even if you are laid off. (Incidentally, eliminating employer-funded health insurance would go a long way towards allowing workers to fight to have unions, and to strike for contracts, by ending the threat that they would lose their benefits.)
Right now, with half of all Americans reportedly fearing that they could lose their jobs, and with one in five Americans reportedly either unemployed, or involuntarily working part-time, we have a situation where a majority of Americans either have no health insurance, have lost their health insurance, or are in danger of losing their employer-funded health insurance. It is a unique moment when a bold president and Congress could act to end private health insurance and establish a public single-payer insurance plan to insure and provide access to affordable medical care to all Americans.
Instead of this, we are being offered half measures or no measures at all by leaders who are shamelessly in hock to the health care industry or who are afraid of its power.
It doesn't have to be this way, but only if Americans rip their eyes away from their crisp new digital-image TV screens and start demanding real health care reform will we get honest reform. A good place to begin would be to start writing and phoning your local media outlets to ask why they are not reporting on single-payer, and in particular on the single-payer bill sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), which is being silently blocked and killed by his colleagues in the Democratic congressional leadership and by the White House. A good place to begin would also be to start calling your elected representatives to demand that they support Rep. Conyers' single-payer bill."
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/16-3
Blowing it? we don't even have a seat at the table.
And federal and state programs provide coverage to those typically excluded from the insurance pools.
http://okhrp.org/
The Oklahoma High Risk Pool provides health insurance to Oklahoma residents who have been denied coverage. We've redesigned our website to give our members better tools and service. If you are currently a member of OHRP, please register to use this site now. If you aren't a member, find out if you are eligible.
Soonercare:
http://www.ohca.state.ok.us/individuals.aspx?id=548
My understanding was that the lion's share of the "subsidy" is actually repayment for franking privileges that members of congress and others receive.
And it is true the USPS has been losing money hand over fist for the last year (as opposed to last year when the losses were more manageable), but that's mostly due to the drastic decrease in mailing volume.
And as far as the USPS' retirement contributions, they actually contribute more than their fair share to the civil service retirement fund. Something like $5 billion a year in overpayments first due to a miscalculation, then due to Congress requiring them to pay more than other departments so the newfound shortfall wouldn't have to be made up on the books. Of course, when the USPS loses money it borrows from the Treasury to make up for it, so I'm not really sure who thought that was a good idea.
Like any other corporation, the fortunes of the USPS ebb and flow. In these difficult economic times, there's much more ebb than flow.
And FWIW, given that postal service is guaranteed in our Constitution, I don't really have a problem with it receiving government subsidies. You think that government compensating the USPS for being required to provide a significant discount to the blind is a problem?
Quote from: Gaspar on June 17, 2009, 08:31:57 AM
Thank you Nathanm,
I appreciate you asking such a question because the way the money is distributed is designed to keep the public unaware of the expenditure. Otherwise people would be up in arms over the amounts.
First, lets look at the system itself.
in 2002 the operating debt was around $11 billion for the USPS.
The Bush administration forced USPS to make changes including downsizing, and outsourcing to private companies dropping their yearly operating debt to just over $5 billion by 2007, and they were able to turn a "profit" (LOL) by 2008.
So one would think that they are operating a profitable organization now. All of this info is available on the USPS website.
Now lets look under the hood. The postal Pension fund was in debt for HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS during the Clinton and Bush administrations and the sum was growing. Each employee pays 7% of their paycheck to the postal pension fund and of course that money is invested in the typical blend of stupid government crap resulting in dismal returns. To make up for the shortfall the Bush administration hatched a plan to make treasury payments to the pension fund over a period of 40 years. In response to this additional government handout, the Postal Union increased demands for benefits, and so the wheel turns, and the debt still grows.
Now lets look at operations and the reasons behind "revenue support" or subsidies.
The Postal Reorganization Act (PRA) of 1970 guarantees governmental appropriations to the USPS. The way it is structured, it subsidizes the postal service for any parcel not posted at the standard (current $.44) rate or higher. Currently the appropriation is running at around 25% of the USPS operating budget!
Business rates, educational rates, bulk rates, governmental postage, non-profit rates, services for the blind, newspapers, Second-class mail, agricultural, labor union rates, veterans rates, book rate, media rate, fourth-class mail, library rate, and a host of other discounted postal services support the growing subsidy. All of your junk mail is paid for by YOU.
You would think that the postal service would operate like any other business and simply raise rates to cover these losses, but a fail safe provision (39 U.S.C.§ 3627) requires them only to raise rates when congress will not appropriate necessary funds to make up for shortfalls.
There are a number of appropriations supporting the operation, and employee benefit programs of the USPS and they are spread over many categories as to make them easier to swallow. $20-30 million for mail for the blind, $3 billion for retirement funding, and individual appropriations for several of the discounted and free rates, and millions and millions for "discretionary administrative expenses."
The system is so clouded that for the most part the public remains unaware of any total number spent on a yearly basis for postal operations. In the USPS annual report, numbers are calculated based on postal rate collections without a line item for any of the government subsidies, so when we see that the post office was profitable to a tune of 900 million last year we don't see that tens of billions of dollars were provided by appropriations, and long term congressional funding extending over decades.
In our recient Omnibus 2009 (H.R.1105) the USPS was provided:
$111,831,000 for free and discounted mail for 2009.
$239,356,000 for salaries for 2009.
$48,463,000 for expenses for 2009.
. . .And then of course there is the billions spend on construction and upgrades of new postal facilities, but we won't even cover that.
Basically you don't have to look very far to find the subsidies, you just have to look in many places. It's the definition of a "cluster-F."
Yes the mail arrives on time. It should for the price we pay.
I hope that answers your question. Consult the Library of congress website and do a search on "Postal Appropriations." It will take you the better part of a day with a good calculator, and is quite shocking.
Warning: Health Care Lobbyists Are Winning the Battle to Screw All of Us
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/140732/warning:_health_care_lobbyists_are_winning_the_battle_to_screw_all_of_us_/
Democrats have all but abandoned the idea that everyone be covered without exception. They've so far avoided endorsing clear cost-containment measures that would pass the budget-scorers' test of legitimacy. The wished-for savings that Obama says he wants the private insurance industry to achieve are exactly that -- wishes. The winners so far are health-industry lobbyists. They sense that their chances of protecting the interests of big insurers, drug companies, medical specialties, technology companies and the like are improving every day. They're probably right.
Americans want, need, and deserve Single Payer. Nothing less. This WILL happen. The insurance industry WILL win. Make no mistake about this.
Report: Health care costs to rise 9 pct in 2010
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hZuemSJ4pbgjxRDMzsbINv6ImpuwD98T1IB80
"If the underlying costs go up by 9 percent, employees' costs actually go up by double digits," he said, noting that will have a "major, major impact" when many employers also are freezing or cutting pay.
Quote from: FOTD on June 18, 2009, 01:29:48 PM
Warning: Health Care Lobbyists Are Winning the Battle to Screw All of Us
Shocker, didn't see that one coming.
Single Payer and the Duplicitous Rahm Emanuel
by Russell Mokhiber
Earlier this year, Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, warned about what she called "the futility of piecemeal tinkering." Obama and the Democrats did not heed her warning. -- Earlier this week, the most liberal of the Democrats tinkering plans - Senator Kennedy's - went up in smoke when the "Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the Kennedy plan would cost $1 trillion over ten years and still leave 37 million Americans uninsured. Three months ago, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) told single payer supporters that he would seek to get the CBO to score single payer legislation (HR 676). But Steny Hoyer backed off his pledge. He never did get the CBO to score single payer. Why? -- Because it would show that under single payer, we'd pay what we are paying now - or less - and it would cover everyone. Zero People Left Uninsured. Zero People Dead From Lack of Health Insurance. No More Medical Bankruptcies. -- But at the same time, single payer would eliminate the more than 1,000 health insurance corporations. That's how you save $400 billion a year to cover everyone - replace the 1,300 payers with one single payer. -- So the corporate Democrats and Obama are now engaged in a Protection Racket - Protecting the Bloated, Wasteful Health Insurance Industry from sure extinction if single payer becomes law."
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/18-2
As long as employers have anything to do with the health care system, the system is broken. Yet nobody seems willing to do what needs to be done.
FWIW, single payer does not at all mean an elimination of private health insurance, although it does relegate private health insurance to providing supplemental insurance for experimental procedures or drugs a public single payer plan would not cover.
Mandating that people buy coverage is worse than what we have now unless that mandate comes with strict limits on the health insurance companies as to limitations of coverage and what they charge. Even so, having multiple risk pools run by private insurers defeats the purpose. Private insurers will do whatever they can to make sure their risk pool has only the healthiest. One single pool encompassing the entire nation is the only way to go.
If getting it done means that the single payer government plan is a wholesaler to private insurers who profit on the markup, so be it. Anything short of a single risk pool with universal coverage is no real progress at all.
Once again the Congressional Democrats are kowtowing to the Congressional Republicans in an effort to get them to vote for a bill they will never vote for. They obviously learned nothing from the stimulus vote. Idiots. Oh well, at least they aren't also malicious.
Quote from: nathanm on June 17, 2009, 03:54:20 PM
Like any other corporation, the fortunes of the USPS ebb and flow. In these difficult economic times, there's much more ebb than flow.
That quote made my day.
Nathanm, My point was to respond first to the assertion that the USPS is an example of a profitable government run industry, and then second was to respond to the strange idea that the USPS was somehow not subsidized.
I have done both, and am still waiting for an example of ANY industry run by the federal government that is functional under normal market circumstances. If anyone can provide an example then perhaps we can look at the model and apply it to how the government might treat healthcare.
But then again, I think that the exercise is probably pointless, people don't care if the system produces poor medicine, wrecks the economy, or fails economically. The people want a pony damn it!. . .and they want that pony now!
Quote from: Gaspar on June 19, 2009, 06:26:24 AM
But then again, I think that the exercise is probably pointless, people don't care if the system produces poor medicine, wrecks the economy, or fails economically. The people want a pony damn it!. . .and they want that pony now!
What you seem not to understand is that health care is already subsidized. (As are FedEx and UPS)
And you have yet to explain how exactly single payer would result in poor medicine, or how it's possible to be a larger economic failure than the current system which is bankrupting employers. And how it could wreck the economy by reducing the overhead expenses of healthcare, which would actually be good for the economy, again, by reducing the costs of businesses here in the US.
White House (CNSNews.com) - Two days after President Barack Obama told the American Medical Association that in some countries a single-payer health care system "works pretty well," the White House reaffirmed that people in those countries liked their health care, but also said it did not know to which countries the president was referring.
"I don't know exactly the countries. I think if you talk to the people in the countries that have that system, they think their health care is pretty good," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told CNSNews.com Wednesday during the daily press briefing.
Asked again if he knew specifically which countries, Gibbs replied: "I assume Canada, Britain, maybe France. I don't know the exact countries, but again, I don't think the president is going way out on a limb that some people in other countries have a health care system that they like. Just as some Americans like the health care system that they have."
Enough evidence for me. Lets do it!
Quote from: nathanm on June 19, 2009, 06:49:33 AM
What you seem not to understand is that health care is already subsidized. (As are FedEx and UPS WRONG)
And you have yet to explain how exactly single payer would result in poor medicine, or how it's possible to be a larger economic failure than the current system which is bankrupting employers. FRANCE, CANADA, MEXICO, BRITAIN, AND SEVERAL 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES. You are correct in mentioning that the current system is bankrupting employers. It should have never been an employers responsibility to provide medical care to employees. The insurance companies and administrative organizations have become predatory and speculative as a result.
And how it could wreck the economy by reducing the overhead expenses of healthcare, which would actually be good for the economy, again, by reducing the costs of businesses here in the US. THE OVERHEAD SHIFTS TO GOVERNMENT. It does not disappear. Government has never streamlined anything. What was a ridiculous private health insurance system, will become a goliath government bureaucracy. Government has no capacity for cost controls on itself.
The system will require feeding, and that feeding will come from taxation, so the burden shifts and becomes larger. The government will need to reduce the perceived financial burden in order to pay for the product. This will be done as it has in every single country that provides a socialized medical system. By health-care rationing, reductions in quality and availability of diagnostics, and a simplified formulary.
Again, I ask for a single government run enterprise that is self sustainable or even moderately efficient?
Why don't you just say "Well this will be different." . . . and be done with it?
Quote from: Gaspar on June 19, 2009, 06:26:24 AM
That quote made my day.
Nathanm, My point was to respond first to the assertion that the USPS is an example of a profitable government run industry, and then second was to respond to the strange idea that the USPS was somehow not subsidized.
I have done both, and am still waiting for an example of ANY industry run by the federal government that is functional under normal market circumstances. If anyone can provide an example then perhaps we can look at the model and apply it to how the government might treat healthcare.
But then again, I think that the exercise is probably pointless, people don't care if the system produces poor medicine, wrecks the economy, or fails economically. The people want a pony damn it!. . .and they want that pony now!
You're making some weird assumptions. Government typically provides services that wouldn't be supported by pure market conditions. For instance, private health insurers have no true incentive to provide affordable healthcare to the elderly, the sick, or the poor. There's simply no profit in it. Government steps in and provides those services because they are 1) necessary to a functioning society and 2) a moral and good thing. But of course it will happen at a loss. This is why government can never function the way you want it to -- as a business. It is inherently concerned with things the private sector can or will not.
But Gaspar for all this kvetching that you're doing about how government simply can't do anything right ever for anyone, I haven't heard one alternative from you. You're one of our resident free market evangelists, so I'm curious as to what you think the free market solution is when the free market has succeeded in distorting itself? Will somehore MORE freedom and MORE money in the system encourage change? Or will it just encourage more of the same?
Gaspar is not familiar with the success of Medicare. %95 approval rating by all involved. So, there.
Here, jump on this! http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=14090
Medicare's overhead is significantly less than that of private insurers. There may be an issue regarding fraud, but that's a lack of political will and funding to pursue it aggressively. I haven't seen any statistics on fraudulent private health insurance claims, so I can't say how that compares.
Additionally, you seem to be discounting the excess overhead inside the doctor's office that comes from having a hundred different insurance plans to bill, thus requiring several employees just to deal with submitting claims. While Medicare is not perfect in this respect, it does require less management from the provider end than a hundred different private insurers.
And all that is before taking into account the savings inherent in eliminating the profit in the basic health insurance product.
As I've said repeatedly, I think it would be a fine idea to have private insurance to pay for "upgrades" like private rooms and whatever else. The single payer system should be there to provide basic care for everybody. People should no longer have to make a choice between insurance and the mortgage. The entire concept of bankruptcy due to medical bills is just sick.
Quote from: we vs us on June 20, 2009, 01:29:48 PM
But Gaspar for all this kvetching that you're doing about how government simply can't do anything right ever for anyone, I haven't heard one alternative from you. You're one of our resident free market evangelists, so I'm curious as to what you think the free market solution is when the free market has succeeded in distorting itself? Will somehore MORE freedom and MORE money in the system encourage change? Or will it just encourage more of the same?
Thanks for asking. The cost of todays medical care is easy to trace. Remove the smokescreen from the left, and the protectionism from the right and just look at the problem for what it is.
The insurance company used to compete for YOUR business. You payed a reasonable price for insurance, or you paid a reasonable cash price to your physician.
The insurance company asked you questions, "do you smoke?", "do you drink?", "Exercise?"
Your cost for insurance was based on your lifestyle and incentive existed for you to be healthy. Incentive also existed for the insurance company and your physician to keep you healthy. If you were unhappy with care or with coverage you fired someone, the physician or the insurance company.
This kept costs low, and coverage options competitive.
Enter the "benefits" system.
Companies want competitive advantage. There are two ways to do this:
1. The honest way, by offering a better product or a better price.
2. The dishonest way, by removing competition through elimination of choice.
Insurance companies who had for years offered corporate packages for executives learned that if they expanded that system to include entire workforces they could essentially eliminate individual choice and gain complete control over price and profit. Of course this would require the elimination of individual medical history evaluation, or at least a narrowing of the gap between what the healthy insured and the unhealthy insured pay. So they would just cover the risk by charging everyone a little more, and since the employer was paying for the bundle, collections would increase. Good for insurance companies, good for workers, good for employers right?
Physicians who used to choose what insurance companies they would accept were slowly pushed into signing on with these huge blocks of employee benefit plans. It was either that or lose patients to younger doctors who were willing to accept the cut rate prices and limited formulates that the insurers began to dictate. They had to see more patients, and provide more limits on care in order to cover costs.
The insurance companies learned that they now had control over the doctors and hospitals. This power to squeeze prices forced the market, naturally, to inflate in other areas. Over time this inflation of course came back to the insurers who simply raised rates and squeezed prices harder.
Physicians were driven towards specialization as a means to increase their marketability. This too caused increased costs. The family doc no longer set bones, read x-rays, and in some cases even cared for patients admitted to hospitals. This limit on diversity also increased costs.
Today, the physician, the hospital, and the pharmaceutical companies are in "un-natural competition" with each other because they are controlled and regulated by insurance companies with limited (or no) market threats.
You can look at it this way. If your car insurance company had the power to dictate what car you could drive, and what fuel you could use, and what tires you could drive on, it would result in unnatural competition between companies like Ford, Michelin, and Phillips 66. Situations like this will ALWAYS result in inflated costs on one side of the teeter-totter as prices are controlled on the other. Now that's a pretty ridiculous analogy. Your auto insurance would never have such power, right?
What if your employer, or the government provided your auto insurance?. . .
This is not rocket science. Remove the monopolistic forces and you fix the system. Only works 100% of the time.
So what, you want HSAs? You honestly think that people are going to bargain the prices for their bypass surgery?
Maybe this article has a piece or two of the puzzle. A large part of the problem may be doctors recommending (or patients demanding) unneeded tests and procedures when in fact the best thing to do might be to send the patient home with instructions to come back if the problem gets worse.
When doctors decide to be businessmen first, of course they're going to recommend whatever course of action makes them the most money when there are two reasonable alternatives. Between the 20% overhead at private insurers and the overuse of surgery and other expensive procedures, it's no wonder costs are spiraling out of control. No amount of patient control is going to fix that. Patients simply aren't in a position to negotiate.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
And of the industrialized nations, which on this map (http://img.freebase.com/api/trans/raw//wikipedia/images/en_id/12550149) has the highest per capita expenditure and the worst outcomes? Which one spends out out of every six dollars it earns on health care?
Quote from: nathanm on June 22, 2009, 05:44:43 PM
So what, you want HSAs? You honestly think that people are going to bargain the prices for their bypass surgery?
Maybe this article has a piece or two of the puzzle. A large part of the problem may be doctors recommending (or patients demanding) unneeded tests and procedures when in fact the best thing to do might be to send the patient home with instructions to come back if the problem gets worse.
When doctors decide to be businessmen first, of course they're going to recommend whatever course of action makes them the most money when there are two reasonable alternatives. Between the 20% overhead at private insurers and the overuse of surgery and other expensive procedures, it's no wonder costs are spiraling out of control. No amount of patient control is going to fix that. Patients simply aren't in a position to negotiate.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
And of the industrialized nations, which on this map (http://img.freebase.com/api/trans/raw//wikipedia/images/en_id/12550149) has the highest per capita expenditure and the worst outcomes? Which one spends out out of every six dollars it earns on health care?
You don't get it. . .but not because you don't understand.
Recognize the basal cause, remedy it, and you eliminate these layers of effect.
We can all see the results of the current system and perhaps even forecast future problems, but until we fix the actual problem, we will continue to finance an unsustainable expansion of cost. If we allow the government to pay for it (US paying for it through force rather than choice), we seal off any possibility of control, outside of reduction in quality or quantity.
But, this is a moot point. The two bills have now been recognized as producing an unacceptable expense even to insure a third of the population and will be allowed to silently die.
We can now focus on fixing the system by removing the controls that the insurance industry has put on individuals and doctors and returning choice of care to the individual. Unfortunately trust laws were never written to anticipate such monopolistic practices on behalf of an industry, but perhaps now that we recognize such, they may be amended (tung-in-cheek, you can't take a free pony away).
Reason, again, will lose to pander. A new plan will be hatched, and then another. Political diving boards, each one higher than the last.
Medicare for everyone? Why not?
"Public Option" is a disgusting idea - a dumping ground for the sick to boost health mafia profits.
We can easily afford the best and we deserve the best - Single Payer - nothing less.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 23, 2009, 08:02:45 AM
We can now focus on fixing the system by removing the controls that the insurance industry has put on individuals and doctors and returning choice of care to the individual. Unfortunately trust laws were never written to anticipate such monopolistic practices on behalf of an industry, but perhaps now that we recognize such, they may be amended (tung-in-cheek, you can't take a free pony away).
Reason, again, will lose to pander. A new plan will be hatched, and then another. Political diving boards, each one higher than the last.
The choice of care is never with the individual. It's with the doctor. Unless you have a cold or some other minor issue you probably shouldn't even be bothering a doctor with. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it's even possible for there to be a rational free market in essential health care. Insurance company policy (aside from certain abusive practices) is not the source of the problem.
Interestingly, 70% of the US population wants the public option and over half are willing to pay more taxes to get it. Even half of
Republicans want the public option.
Not that I think it's worth a damn.
Your ideology seems to be leading you towards the idea that there is one root cause to the cost of health care spiraling out of control, but there's not. There are several different issues all at work here. Insurance company and doctor overhead in dealing with so many payers, artificially restricted supply of physicians, advertising budgets out of control at the pharmaceutical companies, and all sorts of other issues are at play. One big one is the lack of a real social safety net in this country. There is a strong correlation between low socioeconomic status and diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and stroke, even amongst those with similar diet and exercise habits.
Insulation from the cost of health care is pretty low on the list, as people tend to do what their doctor says, and if their doctor orders expensive tests that aren't really necessary to a diagnosis, most people will have them done without a second thought, insurance or no. I don't know about you, but if I have a heart attack, I'm not going to be in a position to negotiate with the doctors over fees or demand that the ambulance take me to a different, less expensive, emergency room.
Quote from: nathanm on June 24, 2009, 08:58:31 AM
The choice of care is never with the individual. It's with the doctor. Unless you have a cold or some other minor issue you probably shouldn't even be bothering a doctor with. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it's even possible for there to be a rational free market in essential health care. Insurance company policy (aside from certain abusive practices) is not the source of the problem.
Interestingly, 70% of the US population wants the public option and over half are willing to pay more taxes to get it. Even half of Republicans want the public option.
Not that I think it's worth a damn.
Your ideology seems to be leading you towards the idea that there is one root cause to the cost of health care spiraling out of control, but there's not. There are several different issues all at work here. Insurance company and doctor overhead in dealing with so many payers, artificially restricted supply of physicians, advertising budgets out of control at the pharmaceutical companies, and all sorts of other issues are at play. One big one is the lack of a real social safety net in this country. There is a strong correlation between low socioeconomic status and diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and stroke, even amongst those with similar diet and exercise habits.
Insulation from the cost of health care is pretty low on the list, as people tend to do what their doctor says, and if their doctor orders expensive tests that aren't really necessary to a diagnosis, most people will have them done without a second thought, insurance or no. I don't know about you, but if I have a heart attack, I'm not going to be in a position to negotiate with the doctors over fees or demand that the ambulance take me to a different, less expensive, emergency room.
That is the point we just have to disagree on. I do see the root problem as the cause for all of the above mentioned. Patients frequently used to acquire a "second" opinion and physicians had no problem, some even recommended it. They were a well functioning, self policing peer group.
Don't act like insurance companies are some how responsible for advances in medical care or practice. No idiot is going to swallow that.
It's so easy to fix the problem, but what have become gargantuan lobby groups and butter baked politicians will never let that happen.
So, since we won't be allowed to fix the problem, how can we wash our hands of it?
If we allow it to continue in it's current state, we break the bank and put negative strain on the economy, but the lobbyists will be happy.
If we nationalize we may be able to cover the population for around 4 trillion dollars over 10 years with some rationing and reduction in care and certainly formulary. We will need to get the pharmaceutical companies to reduce the money they charge by a significant percentage. Last week they agreed to this by eliminating much of their R&D budgets. So we will have fewer new drugs and treatments for disease, but the existing medications will be cheeper.
A fairly significant tax increase will be necessary to finance the system, and it will be President Obama's job to convince the american people.
Unfortunately the systems President Obama used as examples during his campaign, Canada, Britain, and France are now experiencing a rather strong degree of resistance brought to light by the vary discussion of the United States nationalizing. Why? (hint: the answer is hilarious)
With the congressional rape over the last quarter, I doubt that the President will have any support for more debt. We can't see over the mountain he has already made, and until the people see a working system demonstrating some result from stimulus action and other congressional project slinging, he is walking a thin wire.
What he needs now is a catastrophe, an attack or a natural disaster to turn attention away from this or it will certainly become his albatross. Heaven forbid, and I pray it doesn't happen, but strategically it is his best out.
Yeah, they dropped their R&D department dollars down. But they still spend 50x their R&D budget on TV Commercials.
So how about we just make it illegal to advertise drugs on TV/Print that aren't directed at Doctors. Then they will have plenty of money for R&D.
Quote from: Trogdor on June 24, 2009, 10:28:10 AM
Yeah, they dropped their R&D department dollars down. But they still spend 50x their R&D budget on TV Commercials.
So how about we just make it illegal to advertise drugs on TV/Print that aren't directed at Doctors. Then they will have plenty of money for R&D.
Exactly. They are in an un-natural competition with physicians and insurance companies. . . using the patient to pressure changes in the approved formularies.
It's disgusting.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 24, 2009, 12:57:10 PM
Exactly. They are in an un-natural competition with physicians and insurance companies. . . using the patient to pressure changes in the approved formularies.
It's disgusting.
Recall the days prior to Big Pharma telling you to get hard on teevee?
It is beyond the pale. Prescriptions abound. And pharmecutical addiction is rampant. You just don't hear much about it. The docs get their kickbacks by keeping it all "private" with their patients.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 24, 2009, 09:53:51 AM
That is the point we just have to disagree on. I do see the root problem as the cause for all of the above mentioned. Patients frequently used to acquire a "second" opinion and physicians had no problem, some even recommended it. They were a well functioning, self policing peer group.
Sure, I'm going to get a second opinion about the precancerous wart on my shoulder or whatever, but the most expensive medicine is done when there is no time for second opinions, often when when patient is unconscious. That's why it's a mistake to pretend the patient has total control, much less the power to fix all the problems.
You really think that if there were no formularies, drug advertising would be
reduced?!. All that will do is increase the incentive for the drug companies to spend money on ads.
Additionally, I don't think the reason medicine used to cost less is due to second opinions. More expensive testing procedures are a more likely culprit. In the 60s, the tests they order today simply didn't exist, so doctors had to rely more on experience and instinct, which comes at no additional charge.
The main point I'm trying to get across, apparently not very effectively, is that the patient can help keep prices down on time-insensitive elective procedures. Cosmetic surgery, for example. There is an entire other class of medicine where the patient has no power whatsoever, and even when they do have choices to make, they may well be far too shocked to make good decisions. Most people, when someone tells them they (or a family member) are dying, are not in a position to make intelligent decisions regarding health care. In this country we seem to have a fetish with prolonging life, even at the expense of quality of life.
I'm not saying the government or anybody else should step in and say "no more," but our health care expenditures would be significantly reduced if we'd let people die when it was their time rather than keeping them half alive for months on machines in the ICU.
STUFF! Speaking with a friend today who recalled Nixon was really liberal for a republican. In 1972, he helped enable the horrible health care system we have today by enabling the doctors and the insurance companies through decontrol.
Robust Health Care Reform is the Moment of Truth for Obama and the Democratshttp://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/24/robust_health_care_reform_is_the_moment_of_truth_f/?ref=fpblg
"
If at this remarkable juncture Obama and the Democrats cannot enact a robust health care reform -- with a strong nationwide public option, cost controls, and nearly universal coverage -- I would not want to be in charge of fundraising and mobilization for them in the 2010 and 2012 elections! Most of us who supported them last time will of course not vote for a Republican.. But if Obama and the Democrats cannot act now on a once in a half century challenge and opportunity, they are not worthy of extra energy. And those of us who wrote big checks last time will tell the Democrats -- especially in the Senate -- to hold pharmaceutical fundraisers instead."
"There is no need for "bipartisanship" and the calls for it from some weak-kneed Democrats are merely excuses for doing the business of the medical-insurance establishment. Senators Baucus, Conrad, Feinstein, Nelson, Landrieu, Bayh -- this means you. All of you come from states where people really need robust reform and you should step up."
"Because let's not kid ourselves: WHATEVER passes this year will make the Democrats owners of the health care mess going forward. If they just throw more subsidies and piecemeal regulations into the current system, they will ensure galloping public costs for residual arrangements and for subsidies to private insurers who will easily find ways to avoid sick or costly patients. Businesses and citizens will grow more and more irritated as time passes, and will blame the Democrats. Rightly so."
TWITTER Grassley: In Order For Health Care To Be 'Bipartisan, 'We Need To Make Sure There Is No Public Option'http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/24/grassley-public-plan/\
Grassley's generous health insurance provided for him and his family by the public should be immediately canceled. Let the bastard shop for his own overpriced and skimpy coverage. If he even qualifies for one, because he's old, and probably diseased.
Oh, and screw the bipartisanship.
This "deal" looks worse and worse.
And here's this!
SENATE HEARING
Former CIGNA Exec Has Stinging Words For Health Insurers http://www.courant.com/business/hc-cigna-potter.artjun25,0,4107201.story
"They confuse their customers and dump the sick — all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors,""Insurers make promises they have no intention of keeping, they flout regulations designed to protect consumers, and they make it nearly impossible to understand — or even to obtain — information we need," Potter's written testimony said.
4 Senators out of 24 showed up..Senators see no evil, hear no evil ... vote for evil.
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/6075
Jesus Would Be An Advocate For A Universal Single Payer Plan
"Whatever you do to the least among us, you do unto me."
Jesus would be an advocate for a universal Single Payer Plan. If Jesus were in the Senate today, only he and Vermont's Bernie Sanders would be backing S 703 for Single Payer. If Jesus were in the House of Representatives, he would have 80 possible comrades on his side on this issue backing HR 676. Jesus was used to standing tall in a true moral minority. Sometimes in a minority of one.
Jesus was a messenger for truth, justice and compassion. And as what happens to most effective messengers telling serious truth to serious power, Jesus was betrayed and crucified. Jesus rose up again.
Jesus would be on the side of 2 out of 3 Americans who actually want a universal Single Payer Plan, though the U.S. corporate media bans any discussion of that, refuses to acknowledge that statistical reality. Just like most of our Congress and the administration pretend that that majority preference isn't so. (It is crazymaking when those we trust ask us to deny reality.)
Our elected representatives took an oath to protect their constituents, but then it seems the vast majority of them took vast amounts of money from corporate lobbies to abandon that commitment. It's been reported that the Democrats received $90 million and the Republicans $65 million from health care and pharmaceutical companies in the last election.
And now our betrayers, who regard such transactions as necessary S-O-P for political survival, are tap dancing fast, eagerly lip-servicing reform with the tease of a "public option," as if that is remotely similar to the sturdy foundation of a true public health care system. As if that is remotely like what every other industrial nation has. As if that would raise us significantly from a disgraceful international ranking of 37th in terms of quality, or not, health care.
Quote from: FOTD on July 04, 2009, 02:56:01 PM
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/6075
Jesus Would Be An Advocate For A Universal Single Payer Plan
"Whatever you do to the least among us, you do unto me."
Jesus would be an advocate for a universal Single Payer Plan. If Jesus were in the Senate today, only he and Vermont's Bernie Sanders would be backing S 703 for Single Payer. If Jesus were in the House of Representatives, he would have 80 possible comrades on his side on this issue backing HR 676. Jesus was used to standing tall in a true moral minority. Sometimes in a minority of one.
Jesus was a messenger for truth, justice and compassion. And as what happens to most effective messengers telling serious truth to serious power, Jesus was betrayed and crucified. Jesus rose up again.
Jesus would be on the side of 2 out of 3 Americans who actually want a universal Single Payer Plan, though the U.S. corporate media bans any discussion of that, refuses to acknowledge that statistical reality. Just like most of our Congress and the administration pretend that that majority preference isn't so. (It is crazymaking when those we trust ask us to deny reality.)
Our elected representatives took an oath to protect their constituents, but then it seems the vast majority of them took vast amounts of money from corporate lobbies to abandon that commitment. It's been reported that the Democrats received $90 million and the Republicans $65 million from health care and pharmaceutical companies in the last election.
And now our betrayers, who regard such transactions as necessary S-O-P for political survival, are tap dancing fast, eagerly lip-servicing reform with the tease of a "public option," as if that is remotely similar to the sturdy foundation of a true public health care system. As if that is remotely like what every other industrial nation has. As if that would raise us significantly from a disgraceful international ranking of 37th in terms of quality, or not, health care.
That's just Ka-razy!
(http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/BatShitCrazy128427839146317500.jpg)
Crowder's take on single payer:
Guido, Medicare?
Got through 3 seconds of the video while he spewed that "socialism" crap. What's social security? Medicare?
You really need to come up with a better word for it. How's this, Social Democracy?
ALL YOU WHINERS, WIND YOURSELVES UP!
Corporatist Senators will try and make this all DOA.
Obama Open to Partisan Vote on Health-Care Overhaul, Aides Say
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4.kYDWV9erc
"July 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama may rely only on Democrats to push health-care legislation through the U.S. Congress if Republican opposition doesn't yield soon, two of the president's top advisers said.
"Ultimately, this is not about a process, it's about results," David Axelrod, Obama's senior political strategist, said during an interview in his White House office. "If we're going to get this thing done, obviously time is a-wasting."
Both Axelrod and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said taking a partisan route to enacting major health-care legislation isn't the president's preferred choice. Yet in separate interviews, each man left that option open."
And...The wealthy might have to pay a little bit more of a fair share of their obligation to America? "House health plan to boost taxes on rich."
House rolls out plan to make health care a right
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and ERICA WERNER
Associated Press Writers
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_CARE_OVERHAUL?SITE=FLMYR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
"The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan."
Obama says the time for talk on healthcare is overm but is clueless as to a key mandate in the house bill:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/21/obama_not_familiar_with_key_provision_in_health_care_bill.html
Insanity at Faux News takes a smackdown.
The GOP just can't get enough of the "S" word. Every time President Obama announces a new policy, they are too quick to shout "Socialism," without realizing what Socialism actually means. Luckily, Mike Papantonio of Air America's Ring of Fire confronted Fox News' Bulls and Bears to inform them that nationalized healthcare does not a socialist nation make.
Ooga booga booga!The health Insurance Companies are so afraid of a rational medical service that they will say and do anything. Do not fall into their clutches again. Health contracting for profit does not work. The big insurers must now go peacefully into the graveyard for useless and vicious scams. But be warned....before they die there will be a huge struggle and spending of lobby money. So many of our congress men will become crooks or maybe bigger crooks.
WANT A GREAT LAUGH! BACK IN BLACK!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-20-2009/back-in-black---health-care-reform
Quote from: guido911 on July 21, 2009, 12:06:46 PM
Obama says the time for talk on healthcare is overm but is clueless as to a key mandate in the house bill:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/21/obama_not_familiar_with_key_provision_in_health_care_bill.html
Guido, do you think it's a coincidence the grapic in the background in that video looks eerily similar to Mickey Mouse? Tasty irony, right? (i.e. Mickey Mouse healthcare, you numpties)
Uh, oh here comes the "hateful white man" police in 3-2-1.....
Quote from: Conan71 on July 21, 2009, 02:57:42 PM
Guido, do you think it's a coincidence the grapic in the background in that video looks eerily similar to Mickey Mouse? Tasty irony, right? (i.e. Mickey Mouse healthcare, you numpties)
Uh, oh here comes the "hateful white man" police in 3-2-1.....
CoCo,
You look authentic in that empty suit. Why do you never offer up any suggestions to solve health care? If you think this is going to be Mickey Mouse Healthcare then what do we have now? And why do you always change the subject?
Please, recognize the junk you are receiving, whether in emails and internet talk boards (anonymous), or in the airwaves (dominated by conservative infrastructure), as the manipulative misinformation and misdirection that it is.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 21, 2009, 02:57:42 PM
Guido, do you think it's a coincidence the grapic in the background in that video looks eerily similar to Mickey Mouse? Tasty irony, right? (i.e. Mickey Mouse healthcare, you numpties)
Um, yes.
Back OT, my family has a terrific health and dental plan and I am very pleased with my medical care. Nearly 240 million other Americans have insurance. Why should 75% of this country's population have to give up what they have, or even have to worry about losing what they have, so the other 25% get insurance? How does a single payer system benefit that 75%? More still, why should those that are already paying their own way on insurance pay for health benefits of other persons? Oh wait, I know. We need to punish the successful so the FOTD-type deadbeats/failures/losers can feel successful.
Quote from: guido911 on July 23, 2009, 07:48:41 PM
Um, yes.
Back OT, my family has a terrific health and dental plan and I am very pleased with my medical care. Nearly 240 million other Americans have insurance. Why should 75% of this country's population have to give up what they have, or even have to worry about losing what they have, so the other 25% get insurance? How does a single payer system benefit that 75%? More still, why should those that are already paying their own way on insurance pay for health benefits of other persons? Oh wait, I know. We need to punish the successful so the FOTD-type deadbeats/failures/losers can feel successful.
LOL!!!
Guido....you are obviously in fine PHYSICAL condition. Mental's another issue...PLUS, FOTD thought you'd been gassed by the government. What a tremendous veteran you are not to cost our taxpayers on your impairment.
Are you a "give a hand up" type of American? That's rhetorical ...no response necessary. But, have you had the experience of dealing with Medicare?
You have dealt little with the crooked game playing and the abuse and lack of accountability in health care. This is about the rights of all Americans to health care. "Mitch McConnell says he's worried the best health care system in the world will begin to ration health care. That's what we already have. They're worried about people having to get in long lines just to get health care. We already have that too." http://wisecountyissues.com/
America deserves better.
FOTD WISHES HE HAD A SENATOR AND CONGRESSMAN TO CALL!
Do what this little devil is engaging in. We are calling and explaining because we hail from Oklahoma and our voice is muted by our GOP representation it is important for the dims to stand together on single payer.
Call Congress now: Imminent vote on Single Payer
http://www.democrats.com/friday-key-vote-on-single-payer-healthcare
"A dedicated group of 86 Democrats are fighting for single-payer (H.R. 676), and they need our help today. The battle over single-payer is in the House Energy & Commerce Committee (E&C). The committee was supposed to vote on Rep. Anthony Weiner's single-payer amendment on Monday, but chairman Henry Waxman keeps postponing the vote because it might pass - just like the Kucinich Amendment for a single-payer state option passed on July 17 by a shocking 25-19 bi-partisan majority. Today we're told the vote could be tomorrow (Friday). Can you call the 6 lean yes and convince them to become solid yes on Rep. Anthony Weiner's single-payer amendment in the Energy & Commerce Committee?"
Dems mull skipping panel, bringing healthcare to floor
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-mull-skipping-panel-bringing-healthcare-to-floor-2009-07-23.html
"....At the same time, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been adamant, even as recently as Thursday morning, that she has the votes to pass the bill on the floor.
Asked about shuffling the healthcare bill right to the floor, Pelosi on Thursday night said: "I don't want to do that."
Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) was not immediately available for comment on the idea of scratching the rest of his markup.
At least one member of his panel, though, indicated that she believes the markup will proceed.
"We've been asked to clear our calendars for Saturday," said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) who joined with six other members of the Committee on Thursday to announce an amendment package they intend to introduce if and when the markup resumes. "I have a busy day in Los Angeles, but I might be spending that busy day in Washington, D.C."
Cute. You are aware of this thingy called "Sooner Care" which is available for people who don't qualify or can't get their own health insurance in Oklahoma, right? Similar to Cali One Care I would assume.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 11, 2009, 03:30:18 PM
Cute. You are aware of this thingy called "Sooner Care" which is available for people who don't qualify or can't get their own health insurance in Oklahoma, right? Similar to Cali One Care I would assume.
My mother uses it. Godsend. Her prescriptions are $2 and $1 ($2 for more than 30 days, $1 for 30 and under). Lotta paperwork and sometimes DHS isn't real responsive. You have to renew every year and last year (which was the end of her first) they never communicated that to her so that her insurance lapsed. I reamed out some case workers and a supervisor over it. Threatening to get the media involved got their cankles up.
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FOTD still hoping!
HR Bill 676 Single Payer: Change You (Really) Can Believe In
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/7607
Reagan was wrong....
Here's the hypocrite-in-chief on health care reforms (prescription drugs) in 2006. What a difference 3 years can make:
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-flashback-combining-private-public-healthcare-sectors-worst-of-both-worlds/
Quote from: guido911 on August 29, 2009, 12:59:39 PM
Here's the hypocrite-in-chief on health care reforms (prescription drugs) in 2006. What a difference 3 years can make:
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-flashback-combining-private-public-healthcare-sectors-worst-of-both-worlds/
Out of context....learn to debate....post up your sources! : http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/29/just-a-reminder-obamas-a-mindblowing-hypocrite-about-vicious-partisan-attacks/
http://factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/
"Claim: Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
False: The new Health Choices Commissioner will oversee a variety of choices to be offered through new insurance exchanges. The bill itself specifies the "minimum services to be covered" in a basic plan, including prescription drugs, mental health services, maternity and well-baby care and certain vaccines and preventive services (pages 27-28). We find nothing in the bill that prevents insurance companies from offering benefits that exceed the minimums. In fact, the legislation allows (page 84) any company that offers an approved basic plan to offer also an "enhanced" plan, a "premium" plan and even a "premium plus" plan that could include vision and dental benefits. "
The KKK and white racists from un-free republic are at it again screaming hate and obscenity at our ELECTED president (unlike the Never elected bush.)
These EVIL, hate filled people need to go back to the darkness from which they crawled out from.
No response Guido? Busted?
the video is worth watching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHVwrCzRUX0
BILLIONAIRES FOR WEALTHCARE" GROUP MOCKS OPPONENTS OF HEALTHCARE REFORM AT TOWNHALL FORUM
Source: East County Magazine
August 30, 2009 (Spring Valley) – A rowdy crowd of approximately 1,500 turned out to cheer on and heckle Congresswoman Susan Davis (D-San Diego) during a town hall meeting in Spring Valley Saturday afternoon. Protests from conservative "teabaggers" and signs with racist overtones were countered by a newly-formed group calling itself "Billionaires for Wealthcare." (photo).
Dressed in formal attire, members pulled up in a limousine to greet other protesters, thanking them for "standing with billionaires" to oppose real healthcare reform. The group later posted a YouTube video and forwarded an e-mail that read "Townhall crashed by wealthy Hollywood elite," creating an online sensation.
Inspired by the website www.billionairesforwealthcare.com , Barbara Cummings of Spring Valley was among those to don black attire and pearls for the occasion "because sometimes street theater can have an impact where just yelling at one another accomplishes nothing," Cummings said.
Davis staffers passed out information on healthcare reform including answers to common questions—answers many in the crowd apparently had no inclination to read. Although the majority of the crowd seemed in favor of healthcare reform, those opposed were not content to wait their turn to be called upon to ask questions. Instead, many shouted out insults to the Congresswoman and some uttered racial slurs including "******" against President Barack Obama.
Read more: http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/?q=node/1814
Isn't this just a recycled version of Billionaires for Bush?
Quote from: FOTD on August 31, 2009, 11:10:39 AM
those opposed were not content to wait their turn to be called upon to ask questions. Instead, many shouted out insults to the Congresswoman and some uttered racial slurs including "******" against President Barack Obama.
Ah, I love the smell of astroturf.
Sorry, Mr. President, you're wrong this time.
Obama Declares Single Payer Not the Silver Bullet that Will Save Health Care, But Mr. Prez, It's the Closest Thing We've Got - $400 Billion/year Saved
By: libbyliberal Monday September 21, 2009 12:12 am
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/8336
Bush III?
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/041b5acaf5/protect-insurance-companies-psa?rel=player
Sarcasm and Cynicism....the devil's work!
SOMETHING TERRIBLE IS HAPPENING!
FOTD is starting to admire the relentless nature of Repiglicans....the Dumbicrats do not get it....
Michael Moore tells Blue Dogs 'We will remove you from office.'
Why the Current Bills Don't Solve Our Health Care Crisis
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/why-the-current-bills-don_b_302483.html
Co-authored with Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director, California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee
"Now we know why they've stopped calling this health care reform, and started calling it insurance reform. The current bills advancing in Congress look more like rearranging the deck chairs on the insurance Titanic than actually ending our long health care nightmare.
Some laudable elements are in various versions of the bills, especially expanding Medicaid, cutting the private insurance-padding waste of Medicare Advantage, and limiting the ability of the insurance giants to ban and dump people who have been or who ever will be sick.
But, overall, the leading bills and the President's proposal are, like the dog that didn't bark, more notable for what is missing.
Here are 13 problems with the current health care bills (partial list):
1. No cost controls on insurance companies. The coming sharp increases in premiums, deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, etc. will quickly outpace any projected protections from caps on out-of-pocket costs.
2. Insurance companies will continue to be able to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollees.
3. No restrictions on insurance denials of care that insurers don't want to pay for. In case you missed it, the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee uncovered data on the California Department of Managed Care website recently that found six of the biggest California insurers rejected, on annual average, more than one-fifth of all claims every year since 2002.
4. No challenge to insurance company monopolies, especially in the top 94 metropolitan areas, where one or two companies dominate, severely limiting choice and competition.
5. A massive government bailout for the insurance industry through the combination of the individual mandate requiring everyone not covered to buy insurance, public subsidies which go for buying insurance, no regulation on what insurers can charge, and no restrictions on their ability to decide what claims to pay.
6. No controls on drug prices. The White House deal with Big Pharma, which won bipartisan approval in the Senate Finance Committee, opposes the use of government leverage to negotiate real cost controls on inflated drug prices.
7. No single standard of care. Our multi-tiered system remains with access to care still determined by ability to pay.
8. Tax on comprehensive insurance plans. That will encourage employers to reduce benefits, shift more costs to employees, promote proliferation of bare-bones, high-deductible plans, and lead to more self-rationing of care and medical bankruptcies.
9. Not universal. Some people will remain uncovered, including those exempted, and undocumented workers, denying them treatment, exposing everyone to communicable diseases and inflating health care costs.
10. No definition of covered benefits.
11. No protection for our public safety net. Public hospitals and clinics will continue to be under-funded and a dumping ground for those the private system doesn't want. Public monies going to hospitals serving low-income communities will be shifted to subsidies for private insurance.
12. Long delay in implementation. Many reforms don't go into effect until 2013.
13. Nothing changes in basic structure of the system; health care remains a privilege, not a right.
We may be slow learners, but the rest of the industrial world has figured it out: Universal, single-payer or national health care systems. That's the reason why all those other countries cover everyone, have better patient outcomes, cause no one to declare bankruptcy or lose their homes because of medical bills, and spend less than half per capita on health care than we do.
We could do it too, by reducing the starting age for Medicare from 65 to 0. There's still time to act.
Call on your Congress member to support the vote coming up on the House floor on the Anthony Weiner amendment to protect, expand and improve Medicare for All. Senators have the same opportunity in a vote on Senate bill 703, being offered as a floor amendment by Senator Bernie Sanders.
Democrats must also ensure that whatever bill passes includes a provision enabling states to set up their own single-payer systems. These votes are the true litmus tests of the Democrats' commitment to guaranteeing health care for all, and finally solving our health care crisis.
Oh no, Bob Dole supports healthcare reform!
I wonder how long before Rushbo and the Cryer start denouncing him as a RINO?
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/6136
One doesn't need a study. It's obvious that it would be a HUGE stimulus. But no, we have to dish out untold trillions to the banks. Can't do Single Payer. That's too revolutionary. Interesting. Why weren't these studies done and reported first? You know, before they took Single-Payer OFF OF THE TABLE.
First-of-Its Kind Study: Medicare for All (Single-Payer) Reform Would Be Major Stimulus for Economy with 2.6 Million New Jobs, $317 Billion in Business Revenue, $100 Billion in Wages
http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/january/first-of-its-kind-study-medicare-for-all-single-payer-reform-would-be-major-stimulus-for-economy-with-2-6-million-new-jobs-317-billion-in-business-revenue-100-billion-in-wages.html
Be sure and share this with your winguts and congress-critters.
STILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Health Insurers Making Record Profits as Many Postpone Care
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/14health.html?_r=1
"Some observers wonder if the insurers are simply raising premiums in advance of the full force of the health care law in 2014. The insurers' recent prosperity — big insurance companies have reported first-quarter earnings that beat analysts expectations by an average of 30 percent — may make it difficult for anyone, politicians and industry executives alike, to argue that the industry has been hurt by the federal health care law."
It is time America put people over profits and quit letting insurance barons rob everyone else blind. These folks are making the most compelling argument for single-payer yet. They simply cannot be trusted with the health and well-being of America.
To hell with Obamacare Romneycare.
So what was the overall profit margin in the sector and how does it compare to previous quarters?
Quote from: nathanm on May 14, 2011, 12:39:12 PM
So what was the overall profit margin in the sector and how does it compare to previous quarters?
That doesn't matter. It only matters that they beat their projections by 30% if you want to make a point.
An example would be a projection of 1% followed by an actual return of 1.3%.
Or, it could be a 100% projection followed by an actual of of 130%.
Isn't math wonderful?
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 14, 2011, 07:46:53 PM
An example would be a projection of 1% followed by an actual return of 1.3%.
Or, it could be a 100% projection followed by an actual of of 130%.
I doubt either the former or the latter are in line with reality. Historically, a 10-15% profit margin has been pretty standard for health insurers. Casualty insurers don't typically do as well. Or grocery stores. Or just about anybody else short of hedge funds and REITs that are working with massive leverage, actually. I posted the actual numbers sometime in the last year or two, but I've forgotten which government agency keeps track.
Quote from: nathanm on May 15, 2011, 07:54:21 PM
I doubt either the former or the latter are in line with reality. Historically, a 10-15% profit margin has been pretty standard for health insurers. Casualty insurers don't typically do as well. Or grocery stores. Or just about anybody else short of hedge funds and REITs that are working with massive leverage, actually. I posted the actual numbers sometime in the last year or two, but I've forgotten which government agency keeps track.
I also doubt either of the examples I gave are realistic. I intentionally chose some absurd limits to make my point. The overall point is that anyone can use selected statistics to make a point when reality may be something entirely different.
I am pleased with my coverage, although I wish my group would be allow to pool so I could get a little decrease in deductible. Still, I like it so I guess Single Payer is not the only "healthy solution" after all.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 15, 2011, 09:27:48 PM
I also doubt either of the examples I gave are realistic. I intentionally chose some absurd limits to make my point. The overall point is that anyone can use selected statistics to make a point when reality may be something entirely different.
Which is why the actual numbers would have been interesting information.
Guido, it's not healthy to have a gangrenous foot even if the rest of your body is hunky dory.
Quote from: nathanm on May 15, 2011, 09:50:26 PM
Which is why the actual numbers would have been interesting information.
Guido, it's not healthy to have a gangrenous foot even if the rest of your body is hunky dory.
I don't have a gangrenous foot. I call a doctor (ortho, cardiac, internal, or pediatrician for my kids), get an appointment usually within 48-72 hours (quicker if I ask) and I go in. Need a test or procedure? Wash and repeat. No questions. No issues. And I am treated terrifically. I have no complaints.
Quote from: guido911 on May 15, 2011, 10:31:02 PM
I don't have a gangrenous foot. I call a doctor (ortho, cardiac, internal, or pediatrician for my kids), get an appointment usually within 48-72 hours (quicker if I ask) and I go in. Need a test or procedure? Wash and repeat. No questions. No issues. And I am treated terrifically. I have no complaints.
It pays to have a magnanimous personality. ;)
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 15, 2011, 10:38:45 PM
It pays to have a magnanimous personality. ;)
Nope. It pays to know what you are doing and that I care enough to provide for my family's health and well-being.
Now, waiting on the "rich get everything" BS response.
Quote from: guido911 on May 15, 2011, 10:56:21 PM
Nope. It pays to know what you are doing and that I care enough to provide for my family's health and well-being.
Now, waiting on the "rich get everything" "insurance industry" BS response.
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2011/05/16/with-50-mil-uninsured-health-insurance-industry-report-record-profits/
With 50 Mil Uninsured, Health Insurers Report $15 Bil Profit While Shifting Uninsureds' $49 Bil Hospital Tab to Taxpayers
Doctors Once Used Leeches to Cure Maladies, Now Leeches Run the Entire Health-Care System
Quote from: guido911 on May 15, 2011, 10:31:02 PM
I don't have a gangrenous foot. I call a doctor (ortho, cardiac, internal, or pediatrician for my kids), get an appointment usually within 48-72 hours (quicker if I ask) and I go in. Need a test or procedure? Wash and repeat. No questions. No issues. And I am treated terrifically. I have no complaints.
The country has a gangrenous foot; namely those who can't get/can't afford coverage. People who can afford individual coverage or qualify for group coverage or have group coverage paid for by their employer are doing just fine, aside from paying more than they would in any other country in the world thanks to all the uninsured who can't pay their bills.
Quote from: nathanm on May 17, 2011, 02:32:14 PM
The country has a gangrenous foot; namely those who can't get/can't afford coverage. People who can afford individual coverage or qualify for group coverage or have group coverage paid for by their employer are doing just fine, aside from paying more than they would in any other country in the world thanks to all the uninsured who can't pay their bills.
Right. Like the enormous cost side to this equation isn't driven by Big Pharma, the Hospital mafias, and the greedy doctors?
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 17, 2011, 02:34:36 PM
Right. Like the enormous cost side to this equation isn't driven by Big Pharma, the Hospital mafias, and the greedy doctors?
Doctors are only greedy inasmuch as:
a) their malpractice insurance rates are ridiculous
b) they have to hire a gaggle of people to code for the different insurance plans they accept
c) in some cases, doctors are beholden to pharma with freebies and the like
But a and b, IMO, are the lion's share of the problem. You've seen my posts regarding a centralized, unified insurance coding system. That would reduce overhead by a huge margin.
Hoss, there are some doctors who overprescribe things like MRIs because they own an MRI and that sort of thing, but they aren't the majority of the issue in most locales.
Quote from: nathanm on May 17, 2011, 03:19:59 PM
Hoss, there are some doctors who overprescribe things like MRIs because they own an MRI and that sort of thing, but they aren't the majority of the issue in most locales.
That too, but as I've described previously, my current sister-in-law worked coding insurance and hated it. Too many different forms to have to know how to code. Please for the love of all that is good, standardize the insurance forms. That would save a hell of a lot of money. Might put a few people out of work, but it would save overhead for the GP for sure.
Colonoscopies....the list is long especially at the private hospitals.
But I am old enough to recall the times when doctors made money off their investments and their pay covered moderate family lifestyle and education.
Quote from: Hoss on May 17, 2011, 03:23:58 PM
That too, but as I've described previously, my current sister-in-law worked coding insurance and hated it. Too many different forms to have to know how to code. Please for the love of all that is good, standardize the insurance forms. That would save a hell of a lot of money. Might put a few people out of work, but it would save overhead for the GP for sure.
In case I haven't been clear, I completely agree. I probably posted about in our discussions about HCR before it was passed.
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 17, 2011, 03:27:30 PM
Colonoscopies....the list is long especially at the private hospitals.
But I am old enough to recall the times when doctors made money off their investments and their pay covered moderate family lifestyle and education.
Where did they get the money for their investments?
Also, that's before doctors started building their own for-profit hospitals and helping to create an expensive de-centralization of health care.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 17, 2011, 03:38:10 PM
Where did they get the money for their investments?
They certainly didn't earn it. The money probably came from this:
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSk45vAaABFjDqwyF3o9MXIwFuw2ZbmWs_SWTHY2XWtYIuo5AC66Q)
Quote from: Conan71 on May 17, 2011, 03:38:10 PM
Where did they get the money for their investments?
Also, that's before doctors started building their own for-profit hospitals and helping to create an expensive de-centralization of health care.
They saved over many years unlike the docs today who are bankers favorite credit risks because of their enormous incomes.
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 17, 2011, 11:33:07 PM
They saved over many years unlike the docs today who are bankers favorite credit risks because of their enormous incomes.
Only stupid bankers. In my experience, doctors are the worst about paying their bills. I much prefer lawyers for clients, given the choice.
I don't know if they're too busy or they don't get paid on time or if they're just deadbeats, but it's always been a problem for me, aside from the two guys who do actually pay on time regularly. Of course, to be fair, there was this one attorney who never paid her bills on time either, but at least she had a good excuse: she had adopted 6 kids from third world countries and was single. (and she often took on pro bono work, the only reason I kept her as a client until I ridded myself of almost all the small ones)
Vermont takes the lead.....
Vermont committee approves universal health care
"Late Thursday night, the House Health Care Committee approved the bill designed to set Vermont on a path toward a single-payer health care system on an 8-3 party-line vote."
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9M1STEG0.htm
Fantastic. If the federal courts keep their noses out of it (and there are no Constitutional implications I'm not thinking of) we can see whether RomneyCare or single payer works better.
Quote from: nathanm on May 18, 2011, 04:54:01 PM
Fantastic. If the federal courts keep their noses out of it (and there are no Constitutional implications I'm not thinking of) we can see whether RomneyCare or single payer works better.
I'd still like to take a look at Curtain #3.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 18, 2011, 06:26:55 PM
I'd still like to take a look at Curtain #3.
We live behind curtain #3 .... status quo.
Health care on California agenda
Bill would initiate single-payer reform; opponents call it socialized medicine.
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2011/05/18/1895408/health-care-on-state-agenda.html
Ah, civility.
O/T. It's nice to see that we will look to Vermont and Mass. to see which HCR the country should follow. In the real world, I managed to get four specialist appointments for routine medical care made with at most one week wait time. Now, if i was living in, I wouldn't be so fortunate.
QuoteA new poll of 838 Massachusetts doctors finds patients are still waiting weeks -- in some cases as long as a month and a half -- for non-urgent appointments with primary care physicians and certain specialists.
Surveyors for the Massachusetts Medical Society called doctors' offices in February and March and asked when they could come in for routine care. They requested a new patient appointment with internists, family practitioners, and pediatricians; an appointment for heartburn with gastroenterologists; a heart check-up with cardiologists; an appointment for knee pain with orthopedic surgeons; and a routine exam with obstetrician/gynecologists.
The average wait ranged from 24 days for an appointment with a pediatrician to 48 days to see an internist. The wait for an internist was actually down slightly, from 53 days in a similar 2010 survey, but the waits for family doctors, gastroenterologists, orthopedists, and ob/gyns increased.
The medical society, which represents physicians, broke down the results by county, but in some cases the sample is small.
Surveyors also asked doctors whether they are accepting new patients: It was most difficult to find a new adult primary care doctor -- more than half of those practices were full. This year's results were close to the findings in the society's 2010 survey.
http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2011/05/wait_for_doctor.html
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 18, 2011, 06:33:09 PM
We live behind curtain #3 .... status quo.
No, that's curtain #4.
Quote from: guido911 on May 18, 2011, 06:51:20 PM
In the real world, I managed to get four specialist appointments for routine medical care made with at most one week wait time. Now, if i was living in, I wouldn't be so fortunate.
I don't know that anyone has advocated restricting your choice of doctors, so I'm not quite sure why you keep bringing up that straw man. Incresing the number of people getting routine care is a good thing for both the newly insured and you (less people to get you sick). If there is a shortage of doctors, talk to the board that restricts med school slots to keep doctors' incomes up.
Quote from: nathanm on May 18, 2011, 09:21:08 PM
If there is a shortage of doctors, talk to the board that restricts med school slots to keep doctors' incomes up.
Got a cite for that?
Notwithstanding, let's have the government open the floodgates and get more doctors in the pipeline because dumbing down the doctor pool is a fantastic idea. While we are at it, let's have the government tell them what their practice area will be and the number of patients they are required to accept as well. Hey, let's also tell them how much money they can earn.
You know, I have had it with your doctor bashing. Do me a favor, don't go to one any more. Cure yourself.
Yeah, I'm bashing doctors when I say that the supply is artificially limited. And since you seem to be in favor of that, shall we go back to limiting law school admissions as well? Good for lawyers, not so much for the rest of us.
Quote from: nathanm on May 18, 2011, 11:07:40 PM
Yeah, I'm bashing doctors when I say that the supply is artificially limited. And since you seem to be in favor of that, shall we go back to limiting law school admissions as well? Good for lawyers, not so much for the rest of us.
Then like I said, don't go to a doctor then, Seriously, heal thyself. And law schools do have limitations on admission--which I destroyed. What about your field? Are there limitations/admissions/licensing in your field; which by the way is what precisely?
And I would like a link to your "artificially limited" accusation.
Quote from: guido911 on May 18, 2011, 11:39:28 PM
Then like I said, don't go to a doctor then, Seriously, heal thyself. And law schools do have limitations on admission--which I destroyed. What about your field? Are there limitations/admissions/licensing in your field; which by the way is what precisely?
Either I'm being less clear than I think I am or you're being intentionally dense.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm
Quote from: nathanm on May 18, 2011, 11:54:09 PM
Either I'm being less clear than I think I am or you're being intentionally dense.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm
So, no, no one regulates your industry. Anyone can apparently do what you do. You know what I do, what about you? Tell us or are you ashamed?
Quote from: guido911 on May 19, 2011, 12:04:14 AM
So, no, no one regulates your industry. Anyone can apparently do what you do. You know what I do, what about you? Tell us or are you ashamed?
I've said repeatedly, just not in this thread. ;)
I'm an IT consultant. There are regulations, but only if you're dealing with clients that have to be PCI or HIPPA compliant, and they don't apply to the worker, but to the company.
Quote from: nathanm on May 19, 2011, 01:33:08 AM
I've said repeatedly, just not in this thread. ;)
I'm an IT consultant. There are regulations, but only if you're dealing with clients that have to be PCI or HIPPA compliant, and they don't apply to the worker, but to the company.
HIPPA? HIPAA?
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/
Quote from: nathanm on May 19, 2011, 01:33:08 AM
I've said repeatedly, just not in this thread. ;)
I'm an IT consultant. There are regulations, but only if you're dealing with clients that have to be PCI or HIPPA compliant, and they don't apply to the worker, but to the company.
In other fields (specifically the one I'm in) there is also the FCRA to be mindful of.
Quote from: guido911 on May 19, 2011, 09:06:30 AM
HIPPA? HIPAA?
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/
Yeah, sometimes a person types the wrong letter when they're typing quickly. Get over it, deadbeat.
Quote from: nathanm on May 19, 2011, 11:34:24 AM
Yeah, sometimes a person types the wrong letter when they're typing quickly. Get over it, deadbeat.
Whatever Clavin. When you believe you know everything about everything you will get burned. No one else in this forum behaves like you, and what is sad is you are too dense to realize it.
Quote from: guido911 on May 19, 2011, 01:36:13 PM
Whatever Clavin. When you believe you know everything about everything you will get burned. No one else in this forum behaves like you, and what is sad is you are too dense to realize it.
If I actually believed that, you might have a point, but as anyone who actually knows me is aware, I'm the first to point out that I don't in fact know everything about everything, as depressing as that fact is.
BTW, I am not going to let you get me down. I have 6 beers in front of me and it's snowing, so you know what to do. ;)
Conan, thanks for the Steamworks suggestion. They have some damn good beer.
Quote from: nathanm on May 19, 2011, 02:07:58 PM
If I actually believed that, you might have a point, but as anyone who actually knows me is aware, I'm the first to point out that I don't in fact know everything about everything, as depressing as that fact is.
BTW, I am not going to let you get me down. I have 6 beers in front of me and it's snowing, so you know what to do. ;)
Conan, thanks for the Steamworks suggestion. They have some damn good beer.
I know what to do. In three days I'll be in suite nearly as big as my first apartment/townhouse on a cruise in the Caribbean.
Quote from: guido911 on May 19, 2011, 02:11:53 PM
I know what to do. In three days I'll be in suite nearly as big as my first apartment/townhouse on a cruise in the Caribbean.
Sounds like fun. Thankfully, Hilton is also very kind to she who must be obeyed. ;)
Quote from: guido911 on May 19, 2011, 02:11:53 PM
In three days I'll be in suite nearly as big as my first apartment/townhouse on a cruise in the Caribbean.
There's a thing I can't do.
QuoteCruise ships are an ideal breeding ground for germs: thousands of people in close proximity, eating food made in the same kitchen, inhabiting enclosed spaces that just a few days before housed someone else. In December 2002, the norovirus made waves in the media after a series of outbreaks on Holland America, Disney and Carnival lines, in which hundreds of passengers were infected. The problem has not disappeared. Fifteen cruise ship outbreaks of gastrointestinal illness (as defined by 3% or more of passengers having been diagnosed) were recorded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2009, down from 23 in 2007.
The CDC posts outbreaks on its web site. But this information accounts for only a portion of outbreaks worldwide because the CDC monitors only ships that include a U.S. port in their itinerary. Short of remaining ashore, the best way to stay healthy is to wash your hands frequently and thoroughly with soap and water, the CDC says.
http://www.smartmoney.com/spend/family-money/10-Things-Your-Cruise-Line-Wont-Tell-You-18575/?zone=intromessage (http://www.smartmoney.com/spend/family-money/10-Things-Your-Cruise-Line-Wont-Tell-You-18575/?zone=intromessage)
Quote from: Townsend on May 19, 2011, 02:27:10 PM
There's a thing I can't do.
http://www.smartmoney.com/spend/family-money/10-Things-Your-Cruise-Line-Wont-Tell-You-18575/?zone=intromessage (http://www.smartmoney.com/spend/family-money/10-Things-Your-Cruise-Line-Wont-Tell-You-18575/?zone=intromessage)
I know this thread is veering off. I raised the same issue with my wife a while back. She threw the "you don't want to know what's on your paper money/door handles/ATM screens/shopping cart handles (how's that for a memory)" and the crowds at the mall at me. Our family goes on at least one cruise (2 this year) and one ski trip each year and I seem to get racked up more after skiing.
Really, dollar for dollar cruises are a great value. This upcoming cruise, though, is way more expensive given the very unique, once-in-a-lifetime, accomodations
Quote from: guido911 on May 19, 2011, 02:37:29 PM
Really, dollar for dollar cruises are a great value. This upcoming cruise, though, is way more expensive given the very unique, once-in-a-lifetime, accomodations
It's too bad the cruise lines don't have great frequent cruiser programs like the hotels and airlines do.
Quote from: nathanm on May 19, 2011, 02:07:58 PM
If I actually believed that, you might have a point, but as anyone who actually knows me is aware, I'm the first to point out that I don't in fact know everything about everything, as depressing as that fact is.
BTW, I am not going to let you get me down. I have 6 beers in front of me and it's snowing, so you know what to do. ;)
Conan, thanks for the Steamworks suggestion. They have some damn good beer.
If you get a chance, see if SWMBO will allow an hour or two at Pagosa Brewery. Their grub is as good as the beer, I promise!
The Kolsch is a good one. I liked it so well I bought the jersey:
Quote from: nathanm on May 19, 2011, 02:45:01 PM
It's too bad the cruise lines don't have great frequent cruiser programs like the hotels and airlines do.
Carnival does.
http://www.carnival.com/cms/Static_Templates/carnival-past-guest-recognition.aspx
So does Royal Caribbean:
http://www.royalcaribbean.com/cas/aboutprogram.do?cS=NAVBAR&pnav=6&snav=3
Good to know. I have a couple of friends who cruise at least once a year and have never mentioned an upgrade or anything like that. I'll be sure to let them know so they can stop leaving perks on the table..
Quote from: Conan71 on May 19, 2011, 02:53:15 PM
If you get a chance, see if SWMBO will allow an hour or two at Pagosa Brewery. Their grub is as good as the beer, I promise!
The Kolsch is a good one. I liked it so well I bought the jersey:
Agreed. The only one I didn't care for was, ironically, their namesake Steam Engine Ale.
QuoteDemocrat To Offer A 'Lifeline' For Single-Payer Health Care
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/25/490429/mcdermott-universal-care-romney/
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) will soon introduce legislation that would allow states to use federal funds they're receiving through Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care programs to build a universal single-payer system. Advocates are describing the bill as a "lifeline" for advocates:
It would create a mechanism for states to request federal funds after establishing their own health insurance programs.... It would, for the first time, create a system under which a Medicare-for-all program could be rolled out on a state-by-state basis. In California's case, it would make coverage available to the roughly 7 million people now lacking health insurance.
"This is a huge deal," said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica advocacy group. "This is a lifeline for people who want to create a Medicare system at the state level."
The bill could warm the hearts of liberals who expressed frustration with the Affordable Care Act's more moderate approach of building on the existing health care system and should also satisfy GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor has sought to differentiate his 2006 health reform from Obamacare by rejecting a federal prescription for reform and promising to "pursue policies that give each state the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own citizens."
The ACA creates state flexibility by granting waivers to states that meet certain coverage standards and a bipartisan group of lawmakers has offered legislation expanding the provision by allowing states with innovative health care solutions to opt out of certain provisions beginning in 2014. Romney, meanwhile, has pledged to build on the ACA's flexibility and grant states to the ability to opt out of the law entirely.
McDermott's measure would go even further and encourage states to repurpose federal funds to build a universal single-payer health system of their own. If Republicans are truly interested in states rights, they will back it in mass.
States Rights....gotta love em....
This looks like preparation for when SCOTUS derails the law over their political agenda. I like the preparedness approach.
Let's see the GOP/Teabaggers lean towards furthering their American sabotage.
I believe Vermont has been planning to do that all along.
I predicted this:
Supreme Irony: Would a 'single payer' health care plan be less vulnerable to the court than the Affordable Health Care Act?
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-irony--would-a--single-payer--health-care-plan-be-less-vulnerable-to-the-court-than-the-affordable-health-care-act-.html
" it would be the simplest law in the world to enact. All the Congress would need to do is to take the Medicare law and strike out the words "over 65." ...."Medicare and Social Security are: the taxing power." "(The remedy, of course, lies with the voters, who would be more than likely to send a powerful message at the next election, which is why the lack of constitutional limits on the taxing power do not lead to confiscatory rates.)"
RMoney pushed for individual mandate in Massachusetts health care law, emails show...