The Battle for Healthcare Begins

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

We Spend Twice as Much on Health Care as Other Rich Countries -- and What Do We Get for It?

Suppose that people in the United States paid twice as much for our cars as people in Canada, Germany, and every other wealthy country. Economists would no doubt be pointing out the enormous amount of waste in the US auto industry. They would insist that we both take advantage of the lower cost cars available elsewhere and take steps to make our own industry more efficient.

For some reason, economists do not have the same attitude towards health care. Most seem little bothered by the fact that we spend more than twice as much per person as people in other countries, with no obvious benefit in terms of health care outcomes. This lack of concern is especially striking since health care is a far larger share of the US economy than autos, comprising 17 percent of total output, as compared to about 3 percent for autos.

The excess health care spending comes to more than $1.2 trillion a year or the equivalent of more than $16,000 for a family of four. Paying too much for health care has the same economic impact as a health care tax. In effect, we have a health care waste tax that is about 10 percent larger than the projected federal revenue from the personal and corporate income tax combined. In short, this is real money.

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/140098/we_spend_twice_as_much_on_health_care_as_other_rich_countries_--_and_what_do_we_get_for_it/

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[kbordson 8]

And why, oh bril one, do you think that is?

Or are you just slinging mud for the sake of starting a pissing contest?

You don't think it has to do with the cost of the business of medicine that has been driven up by the staggering cost of malpractice insurance? As an OB/Gyn in Missouri, I can assure you that it isn't cheap. And why is it so high? Back again to the CULTURE over here. With the litigiousness attitudes here and easy access to legal counsel (they advertise on TV... "call here if you ever even think that you took this medicine"), with the juries quite sympathetic to a crying patient or family member, and the expectation that doctors can "save" anything... And the lawyers in the government seem to have no reason to acknowledge their responsibility in culturing that attitude. So why would they try to change it?

And lets talk about the cost of medications or medical devices. Where are many of those companies based? Who funds most of their studies (and there are QUITE A FEW phases to getting a medicine approved by the FDA, not that there shouldn't be... but that there's a COST to that, of which the company has to re-coup to stay solvent.) Who pays for the cost of educating the physicians and even the public that this medicine is "great"? That is the LARGE part as to why costs are so much higher here. The "drug rep benefits" aren't what they were ten/twenty years ago and they keep being cut by restrictions. The CEOs might a nice income, but the majority of them are NOT doing that job to become billionaires. Blaming the cost on the doctors or the CEO's just doesn't hold water.

Now... in other countries that haven't had the cost of the the bio-engineers, that didn't have to test the meds, those that just had to steal the formulas and have them made quite a bit cheaper.... yeah, medications are more expensive here

I'm telling you - YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.

Move here. Learn to understand the culture here. Become a physician. Walk in those shoes. THEN we will discuss what your "opinions" are on how the medical system is broke.

I'm not saying that it isn't broke. Do a search - I have posted many times that I am WELL AWARE that it is. But there is so much more to fixing it then you acknowledge when just posting wiki quotes that don't really have relevance to the true problems.

You think the AMA is the problem? OK, lets take away the AMA and let the lawyers in Washington make those medical decisions. (because truly, the AMA is more like a lobby than a union) Then with the government control, it becomes more restrictive and many physician will leave practice, further challenging the system. Then it becomes like over there - rationing of services. I had a friend over there that had to wait THREE years to get his knee replaced... three years of severe pain, limited activity and even considering "other ways" to just end the pain.... So, yes, it was "free"... but at the cost of pain and anguish for three years. Over here, he would have sued someone.

I don't think your way will fix this problem. And I think it's arrogant to think the answer is just that simple.

BUT... I am very willing to state that I'm not smart enough to know exactly HOW to fix it.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

i love your big socialised banks as well

Why? You keep money there?

Quote

meanwhile...
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/140051/that_didn%27t_take_long%3A_insurance_industry_breaks_promise_to_president_obama/

And so? What is your point?

By the way, the alternet.org website has a notice at bottom, which says that reproduction of material from any AlterNet pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. You're reproducing their content pretty heavily here. Do you have such written permission?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Health Insurance Bankrupts Americans

Most Americans fear private health insurance companies won't be there for them when they get sick. As the debate heats up, it's really clear that a strong public health insurance plan must be a no-compromise element of any health care reform package. According to the Harris Poll only 7% of people judge private health insurance companies to be "honest and trustworthy." Trust in private health plans ranks above tobacco (2%) and oil companies (4%) but below hospitals (31%) and banks (21%).

People have a lot of reason to be suspicious about whether private insurance will cover them when they fall ill. A report from the American Cancer Society and Kaiser Family Foundation showed that despite having private health insurance, cancer patients are running up large debts, filing for personal bankruptcy, and even delaying or forgoing treatment because they can't afford care.

This is one of the reasons why a Lake Research poll found that a whopping 73% of voters want everyone to have a choice of a public health insurance plan while only 15% want everyone to have private insurance.

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/140367/health_insurance_bankrupts_americans/

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[mnealtx 0]

Clicky

Quote

Victims left for hours covered in blood, denied pain relief; elderly cancer patients lying in their own filth; dirty, chaotic wards akin to "war zones"; a shortage of basic equipment, including trolleys and thermometers; shouting nurses; ill-trained, badly supervised medics; disease outbreaks; starvation and dehydration; mounting piles of dead…

It has been described by the National Health Service's medical director as a "gross and terrible breach of trust" of patients, though why he should be so shocked is anybody's guess. It's not as though this sort of thing hasn't happened in Britain's magnificent "free" healthcare system many, many times before.

This, remember, is the "service" so poor that 55 per cent of senior doctors take out private medical insurance so they don't have to use it; the one where one in 300 hospital deaths is the result of a patient contracting an infection completely unrelated to the one they came in to have treated; where the cancer survival rates are the worst in the civilized world; where more patients die in hospital in a year -- 40,000 -- than were killed in the 2006 Iraqi civil war.

Clicky

Quote

Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.

In America, these ideas may not sound shocking. But in Canada, where the private sector has been shunned for decades, these are extraordinary views, especially coming from Castonguay. It's as if John Maynard Keynes, resting on his British death bed in 1946, had declared that his faith in government interventionism was misplaced.

What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.

Years ago, Canadians touted their health care system as the best in the world; today, Canadian health care stands in ruinous shape.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

The nation’s largest physician organization has announced it will oppose Democratic plans for a new government-sponsored insurance program that would compete with private insurers. In a statement, the American Medical Association said healthcare should be provided solely through “private markets.” The announcement comes just days before President Obama is set to travel to Chicago to address the AMA on Monday. The AMA represents around 250,000 doctors across the United States. Its position comes despite recent polls showing as many as 60 percent of doctors support the creation of a national public insurance plan.

http://www.alternet.org/rss/3/60501/american_medical_association_opposes_public_health_insurance_plan/

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[crustySCSA69 0]

People, people, people.
The 'socialism' boogie man drivel has really got your shorts in a knot.

When this great (and I use that term unreservedly) country was founded the wise men in charge reserved for the Federal government, power over practically any aspect that affected ALL of the citizens.

Diplomacy with foreign powers.

Defense (although state militias were allowed, it was with the provision that they could be called up by and subject to command of the FEDERAL authorities).

I supreme judiciary that would be the final say on what was and was not subject to Federal control.

Added later was Interstate commerce, when it was realized that, who would of thought, the Titans of industry (read railroad barons) were perfectly happy to screw anyone, anywhere, anytime and competition be damned (yes, competition, what makes aFREE market work and what most corporations view with horror). So interstate commerce, affecting ALL the people was brought under Federal regulation. In the complete spirit of the original intent of the founding fathers (there were no railroads when they wrote their original documents).

So, did they mention HEALTH CARE ?? or ENERGY ??

of course not, HEALTH CARE consisted of finding the hungriest leech and ENERGY consisted of owning a horse (owning one for some may have been a struggle but was not insurmountable and you could always walk).

They could not in their wildest dreams have imagined what proper Health Care could provide.... or it would have been written right into those documents as RIGHT due to all citizens and a service that the FEDERAL government was obliged to provide.

Had they thought for a minute that ENERGY would be what it was ... the same thing would have occurred.

So shove your socialism argument, those original constitutional dudes KNEW that the purpose of the FEDERAL government was to control (and even provide, if that was necessary) those things that were essential to ALL of the citizens, and they made that very clear in a couple of pieces of paper called the CONSTITUTION and the BILL OF RIGHTS.

[lawrocket 3]

I regret to inform you that your timeline of the US Constitution is a bit off.

Indeed - the federal government had little to do with people's everyday lives until the 14th Amendment.

Also note the commerce clause didn't really take off until the FDR admin. That what when "progressives" stopped interpreting the Constitution's word and replacing it with what they thought the Constitution should say.

Hence, the federal government moved from limited powers (the Bill of Rights LIMITED what the federal government could do) where "interstate commerce" meant "interstate commerce" and police powers to the states to one where wholly intrastate personal cultivation of wheat (then marijuana 65 years later) is a federal offense.

Not till Teddy Roosevelt wanted to control opium did anyone even consider it. But, since the end justified the means...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[crustySCSA69 0]

Quote

....
Also note the commerce clause didn't really take off until the FDR admin. That what when "progressives" stopped interpreting the Constitution's word and replacing it with what they thought the Constitution should say.
..

obviously, like so many Americans you don't even know you're own history, in my day we had rigorous (meaning no easy grade) 2 years of 'AMERICAN' history before we got out of high school ... and this was in Canada ...

these days all you have to do is click (but I knew this from 8th grade history... in Canada)

http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/interstate_commerce.html


it may have taken more time to get proper enforcement but the intent was obviously to end collusion, price-fixing, and monopolization (i.e. throttling of you sacred free market)

perhaps your intent was to say 'no one actually started enforcing the law until the FDR administration'?? or is your contention that free range pillaging of the populace in the style of ENRON, Madoff, et al is OK because that's just 'business' ?

[justinb138 0]

Quote

obviously, like so many Americans you don't even know you're own history, in my day we had rigorous (meaning no easy grade) 2 years of 'AMERICAN' history before we got out of high school ... and this was in Canada ...

And yet like so many Americans, you choose to believe everything they told you in schools without question.

I remember being taught that the American economy was based on capitalism and that the government was limited in its actions by the constitution, which with every passing day seems further and further from the truth.

[crustySCSA69 0]

Quote

Quote

obviously, like so many Americans you don't even know you're own history, in my day we had rigorous (meaning no easy grade) 2 years of 'AMERICAN' history before we got out of high school ... and this was in Canada ...

And yet like so many Americans, you choose to believe everything they told you in schools without question.

I remember being taught that the American economy was based on capitalism and that the government was limited in its actions by the constitution, which with every passing day seems further and further from the truth.

I challenge you to find Capitalism or Corporation in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights

YOU as individual have all rights guaranteed .. Corporations should BOW to the individual when there is a conflict ... otherwise ... you simply have Fascism
which, by the way, was Italian, not German and Mussolini was quoted as saying he sometimes wished it had simply been called CORPORATION ... and he started it ....

and I've paid US taxes for 27 years and Social Security and live here ... but I am a Canadian (gotta keep your options open)

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I challenge you to find Capitalism or Corporation in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights

I never said anything about it being there, just said that it's what was taught where I went to school - and I'd assume that it's what is being taught today.

Quote

YOU as individual have all rights guaranteed .. Corporations should BOW to the individual when there is a conflict ... otherwise ... you simply have Fascism
which, by the way, was Italian, not German and Mussolini was quoted as saying he sometimes wished it had simply been called CORPORATION ... and he started it ....

Personally, I think both should be bound by the rule of law, although I must admit I'm confused about your statement regarding corporations "bowing" to he individual. Can you give me an example of what you mean?

Quote

and I've paid US taxes for 27 years and Social Security and live here ... but I am a Canadian (gotta keep your options open)

And the one thing we have in common is that we both probably won't see a dime of it. (and given what I've seen lately, I can see why you'd want to keep your options open).

[justinb138 0]

Quote

perhaps your intent was to say 'no one actually started enforcing the law until the FDR administration'?? or is your contention that free range pillaging of the populace in the style of ENRON, Madoff, et al is OK because that's just 'business' ?

ENRON:
----------
Ken Lay: Dead.
Jeffery Skilling: 25 Years in Prison
Andrew Fastow: 6 Years in Prison

Madoff:
----------
Currently facing life in prison and $170bln in restitution.

Tyco:
----------
Kozlowski and Swartz: 8 - 25 Years in Prison.

Healthsouth:
--------------
Richard M. Scrushy: 8 years in prison.


Sure doesn't seem like it's OK to me.

[crustySCSA69 0]

that was a very reasoned response ..

just remember .... most of what you are taught in school is propaganda (I got an A+ in history once, demolishing what was being taught with a paper backed by a slew of references ... the teacher even said 'I really don't want to give you this' when he handed it back, but I respect him because he checked the references and realized he had no choice ... according to what was taught, he could have given me an F)

you may be horrified (I doubt it, you seem sophisticated enough) to learn that most of american history that is taught is pure myth ... it doesn't have to be ... there is enough good to go around... they just refuse to admit any of the bad ... textbooks are 1 source, there is a whole lot out there ...

I just saw you list of miscreants getting their just desserts ... with PROPER regulation they would have been caught BEFORE they destroyed untold thousands of lives (financially)

as for corporations benefiting over individuals I simply refer you to a canvas of Supreme Court decisions since 'Teflon' Ron packed the court ...
they keep saying any one of a 'liberal' bent is an activist and anyone of a conservative bent is a 'constitutionalist' but I think if you read many of the cases and arguments you will find
A. in absolutely 'clear' cases where the constitution Specifies certain rights, the ruling is almost unanimous
B. in any case, where 'interpretation' of the constitution is required (because it does not directly address the issue at hand, and how could it, 250 some odd years later) ... the ruling follows completely on who was nominated by who ... 'conservatives' vote thusly (generally for corporate interests) and 'liberals' vote thusly (generally for individual rights) ... and generally 'liberals' lose since Ron packed the court

and yet, the 'conservative' faction claims and is believed in alarming proportions, that they 'uphold' independence and 'individual' rights and everyone else is a socialist yahoo.....and said often enough, with no denial and no acknowledgments of any other view (or facts) many people, with no incentive to actually check what's being said, believe it ...

Goebbels already proved that proposition

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I just saw you list of miscreants getting their just desserts ... with PROPER regulation they would have been caught BEFORE they destroyed untold thousands of lives (financially)

Ask yourself this.

Did these people get involved with Madoff, Enron, etc.. because they assumed that if they were up to no good that the government would have done something about it?

And if these same government regulators didn't exist, how many people would have chosen to actually research these investments before spending their money?

Does the government regulation prevent corporate fraud or give people a false sense of security that leads to them becoming a victim of it?

If they screw up and miss something like Madoff or Enron, they always say they need more regulation, but does more regulation actually help, or does it just increase the cost of business while giving people an even greater false sense of security?

[crustySCSA69 0]

I see.
You are a social Darwinist ... survival of the fittest in the big scheme....

Is that your attitude towards skydiving ? Should we eliminate AADs past student status ? lat natural law sort it all out ?
get rid of the dead weight ?

or does your Darwinism only apply to the BIG picture.

you see, that's where we diverge, being a civilized person I think we should surmount Darwin in the BIG picture, because that would actually put us a step ahead of the animals .....

I bet you are perfectly willing to beat Darwin in the small picture (let's all have AADs and coach jumps and god only knows what)
but in the BIG picture, good grief, how could you possibly want to contradict Darwin .....

are you an 'I got mine Jack' or what ???

personally, I see Health Care (now that it amounts to more than slapping a leech on you or draining a pint) as a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Is that your attitude towards skydiving ? Should we eliminate AADs past student status ? lat natural law sort it all out ?
get rid of the dead weight ?

AADs? Eliminate them? No. Take money from everyone that has one to so that those that don't can get one? Absolutely not.

Quote

you see, that's where we diverge, being a civilized person I think we should surmount Darwin in the BIG picture, because that would actually put us a step ahead of the animals .....

So you're saying it's OK to use force to take my money, and you're the one who is civilized?

Quote

are you an 'I got mine Jack' or what ???

Are you implying that there is something wrong with providing for one's self?

I'm an 'I earned mine Jack'. And if someone asks me for help, there's a good chance they'll get it. If someone comes and demands it by force, they're not getting a damn thing.

Quote

personally, I see Health Care (now that it amounts to more than slapping a leech on you or draining a pint) as a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT

You do have the right to health care in this country - but you have to work for it. Just because it's not given to you doesn't mean you don't have the right to get it.

[dreamdancer 0]

you sound like another libertarian/anarchist tax obsessive

(the only thing that has value in libertarian fantasy land is the dollar - all bow down)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[justinb138 0]

Quote

you sound like another libertarian/anarchist tax obsessive

(the only thing that has value in libertarian fantasy land is the dollar - all bow down)

I'm sure I could waste 5 minutes of my life trying to come up with some witty response, but honestly I'm tired, and you're not worth the effort.

Your writings on here speak more to your character than anything I'd be able to come up with anyway.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

you sound like another libertarian/anarchist tax obsessive

(the only thing that has value in libertarian fantasy land is the dollar - all bow down)

I'm sure I could waste 5 minutes of my life trying to come up with some witty response, but honestly I'm tired, and you're not worth the effort.

Your writings on here speak more to your character than anything I'd be able to come up with anyway.

yes to libertarianism then

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[crustySCSA69 0]

Quote

.......

yes to libertarianism then

actually ... he is just an 'I got mine Jackist'
any libertarian writings I have seen are fanatical flat taxists ... which I support wholeheartedly

flat tax ... on the GROSS (just like your 'Individual' income taxes) NO deductions ... maybe ... ONLY... wages paid by a company (to prevent double dipping) ... otherwise, same thing, flat tax on the GROSS ... if it's good enough for me (the way it is right now) ... why isn't it good enough for large corporations and very rich people ???

then they will be lobbying to reduce YOUR tax rate (the only way they can reduce their own)

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

No change will be made here until the deficit drops back on line with normal levels (ie, less than half a trillion at the least).

While there would be some benefits, there's no way to derail the current train onto a new track without spending a buttload of money to get it going. And that money isn't here right now.

Moreover, the people who need it least are the ones that vote.

Not with obama's crowd spending money like he can just print it. Oh wait he is doing that

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

(the only thing that has value in libertarian fantasy land is the dollar - all bow down)

The only thing that has value in Libertarian-land is the INDIVIDUAL. Groups have rights only in so far as they are collections of INDIVIDUALS, each with their own rights.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[loumeinhart 0]

Jesus Christ. The last few dvds I rented from Blockbuster Video have been skipping. I think the government should buy out Blockbuster Video. I want to rent movies from the government.

[loumeinhart 0]

To all of you idiots ( no PA - look up Idiot) that think Federal Healthcare is a good idea...

What else has the Federal Government done such a good job at? VA hospitals? Free clinics? Government Housing? Jobs?

You can take and keep your shitpoor government programs including this awesome new "healtchare for everyone!" I'm going to compete with the population, earn a modest living, and pay for my own healthcare. Sorry most of you whining crybabys can't, I'm stronger than you.

Oh yea, healthcare is NOT a fundamental right. Only people who can't compete say that. See what rights you have stranded in the fucking desert dying of thirst.

How about don't have kids if you don't have health insurance? That's brilliant isn't it?