Topic: Random Rants/Health Care (Read 34096 times)

mryellow · « **Reply #50 on:** August 14, 2009, 04:13:39 PM »

Quote

how does the most advanced, prosperous and resourceful society in history tolerate poverty and suffering in its midst?

No offense, I know you mean well, but this really is patriotic BS, not to mention historically incorrect and arrogant. Patriotic nonsense makes is so much harder to find flaws, study their causes and correct them.
It is perhaps a scary thought that there are other developed countries in the world and many have surpassed or equalled America in many areas. But wouldn't it make more sense to study those areas and come up with ways to get America back in the game, rather than using patriotic nonsense to cover them up? Just like one famous American president, who just recently kept referring to American workers as the most productive workers in the world. Why can they just get away with such comforting but obvious lies? If you won't face the problem, or refuse even the possibility that there might be a problem, how are you going to address it?

Well, we are seeing just that right now. Facts don't matter when such a large percentage of Americans refuse to believe anything but "we have the best healthcare in the world, why change a winning team, look at how bad the other teams are...".

For those of you who read my earlier comment in this thread, my prediction for next year? Jackpot. My healthcare costs are going up by at least 10% next year. AGAIN.

Clear_Runway · « **Reply #51 on:** August 14, 2009, 04:32:00 PM »

from each according to he ability, to each according to his need

translation: healthy people (me) get the finger, paying for everyone else's meds.

only they get the finger, too, because the government sucks at doing anything.

ivan · « **Reply #52 on:** August 14, 2009, 04:43:29 PM »

Quote from: mryellow on August 14, 2009, 04:13:39 PM

No offense, I know you mean well, but this really is patriotic BS,

Uhm, not really sure what you're on about. First of all, I rarely mean well. Second, when I use the words "most advanced, prosperous and resourceful society in history", I am being ironic. Or wry. Or something like that.

But wow, I don't think I've ever been called patriotic before.

ivan · « **Reply #53 on:** August 14, 2009, 04:47:33 PM »

Quote from: mryellow on August 14, 2009, 04:13:39 PM

Facts don't matter when such a large percentage of Americans refuse to believe anything but "we have the best healthcare in the world, why change a winning team, look at how bad the other teams are...".

Oh, I get it. You think that I think America has the best healthcare in the world.

But actually, just yesterday, in this very thread I posted links to statistics that refute that premise.

So you're just one of those blokes with low reading comprehension, which greatly diminishes my brief elation at being called a patriot.

Clear_Runway · « **Reply #54 on:** August 14, 2009, 10:35:06 PM »

that study is completely misrepresented, and you misrepresent it even more.

first of all, 60 to 100 or so amenable deaths per 100,000 is a really good ratio. that's a negligible potion of the population. reallydoesnt get a lot better than that. secondly, American deaths actually went down in the represented time period. they just went down faster in the other countries. thirdly (and this is mentioned in the article) the countries represented have very different lifestyles. Simply put, Americans don't eat well(completely different debate entirely). this makes comparison on the basis of health care difficult. lastly, does it occur to anyone why America ended up "last" in that study? why stop at the exact number that America happens to be at? I bet if they didn't, the other countries would make America look really peachy.

12AX7 · « **Reply #55 on:** August 15, 2009, 01:01:39 AM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on August 14, 2009, 03:54:24 PM

I assume those very same people would be fine if government decided that eating meat was immoral and banned it? Or if atheism was immoral? Or that [fill in the blank] was immoral?

We already have that; in abundance, thanks to the unshakable "belief" that this is a Christian nation. How many of you can buy beer on Sunday? I can't. It is illegal. Why Sunday, hmm?
How about this - (esp. the last part): [ from: http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/flux/gSpot/sexLaw.html ]

"There was a case featured in the November 1996 issue of "Marie Claire" involving an Atlanta wife who tried to have her soon-to-be ex-husband charged with rape. She had persuaded her then hubby to tie her up and later used the bondage as a means of proving that the sex had not been consensual. Her sister came forward and informed the court of the plot against the man, but there was another twist in the story.
Although the man was acquitted on the rape charge, the man was sentenced to five years in jail for having performed oral sex on the woman. He had admitted to that during the course of the case and so he was charged and sentenced under Georgia law."

The last thing private citizens need is more government in their lives.

I have a serious question, though. Why do we not address the actual problem –which; I’m fairly sure we all agree is the insurance ~~scam~~ “industry”. THAT is what people can’t - and should be able to – afford. The problem isn’t our health care; its access to it. People are denied coverage for a variety of reasons – all in the insurance companies’ projected financial favour, of course; having nothing to do with the patient’s health or needs. I work for VerizonBusiness (OOO!! I bet you got GOOD insurance!) Yep, I do; for what it will cover. But I have to take Paxil every day for cataplexy / narcolepsy. Covered? Hell no. I just had Lasik done to correct my vision. Covered? Hell no. I’ve just had three serious dental surgeries, four fillings put in, and an estimate for an implant. Covered? Hell no.
I have had an ongoing chronic issue with my hips and lower back that I am probably going to have to have physical therapy for; possibly surgery. Covered? ANY of it? Hell no. AND I HAVE WHAT’S CONSIDERD SOME OF THE BEST INSURANCE. I wouldn’t have been able to get any of this done had my estranged wife not died and forgot to change me as her beneficiary.

It isn’t “insurance” anymore. You can pay whatever their premium is; and you aren’t “insured” on anything. Any claim you make – even backed up with “proof” – will be challenged by your insurance company; and if they can get out of it by any means possible – they will. How is THAT being “insured”?
Any “healthcare reform” should leave the healthcare alone and revamp the insurance industry. Let every company sell policies in every state; competitiveness, in addition to other regulations, would help drive the cost down. Another idea – maybe a bit simplified, is simply “bumper-to-bumper coverage”. You get insurance, and you are insured. There should be no haggling over what or if it is a disease or a ‘condition’; no second-guessing the doctor that examined the patient and recommended a specified treatment by accountants looking at “the numbers”. It’s an INSURANCE company; not a medical review board. Force them to get back to their business of figuring out how many policies to sell and services to offer to cover potential losses instead of basically shutting down coverage and only allowing what the deem necessary while continually upping your premium. Another question I have is why am I wasting my time typing this…

mryellow · « **Reply #56 on:** August 15, 2009, 04:35:09 AM »

Quote

So you're just one of those blokes with low reading comprehension, which greatly diminishes my brief elation at being called a patriot.

Touché

12AX7 · « **Reply #57 on:** August 15, 2009, 06:41:17 AM »

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDM5NDJkMDA2ODJlNmMxY2VhYmI2NGJhZGEwZGFlNjU=

phyre · « **Reply #58 on:** August 15, 2009, 10:04:45 PM »

Found in that article:

Quote

Meanwhile, the independent Lewin Group estimates

Waitaminute....

Quote

Lewin group linked to private insurers

Quote

Insurer-Owned Consulting Firm Often Cited in Health Debate

"I do not think that word means what you think it means"... but I digress.

Question 2 assumes that the first question results in an answer that results in increased spending. Question 1 is a good question, and makes a good point that we should be getting more for our money right now- we really ought to be allocating our resources better. If someone can answer Question 1 in a way that doesn't increase our spending, then Question 2 is moot.

I like Question 3.

I don't get Question 4- this is probably because I personally have no real bias in the abortion debate. Abortions being performed now are paid for just fine in the existing system- I see no need to have taxpayers paying for them, but I also don't see why this needs to be a centerpoint argument in a much larger debate. I guess I feel like Question 4 has less to do with healthcare and more to do with abortion, which is a completely different problem, IMO.

I also like Question 5. What's "for the people, by the people" mean if you're not in the same boat as all the rest of us?

I've got nothing on questions 6 or 7. Not that I can't have an opinion, but I haven't done the research to talk about it and I won't speak out of turn.

8 makes a good point. Government does not have a reputation for being the most effective manager of any given system, much less the existing healthcare programs. This shouldn't be an argument for doing nothing, though. There are legitimate problems with our system that need remedies.

Number 9 assumes, again, that a solution involves spending more money. I want to see another solution.

Which is where Tom comes in with Question 10. I've felt for a few months that we've rushed headlong into this healthcare debacle, and I can't help but think that anything with that much impetus is bound to crash badly. I don't mean that I'm against this healthcare bill, I mean that our elected officials should have taken more time to study the issue and come up with something that really works, not just for today, but for the next 20, 40, 60 years. Because I'm not looking forward to reaching my golden age at a time when you have to threaten your doctor with a spear to get a boil looked at because the US lost the Great Healthcare War of 2031.

Also, I think it's a little funny that most Senators go by "Senator" but in the middle of a healthcare debate Tom Coburn's senatorial website calls him "Dr. Coburn". Maybe that's normal, for a doctor turned politician, but it doesn't hurt him politically, either.

[/twocents]

phyre · « **Reply #59 on:** August 15, 2009, 10:17:15 PM »

Also, I don't know if anyone really cares about the comparison between Canadian and US health care systems, but Wikipedia has an article on the topic at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

xolik · « **Reply #60 on:** August 16, 2009, 09:08:30 PM »

Quote from: phyre on August 15, 2009, 10:17:15 PM

Also, I don't know if anyone really cares about the comparison between Canadian and US health care systems, but Wikipedia has an article on the topic at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

I just edited that article to say AMERICA ROCKS YOUR SOCKS SUCK IT CANADIAN BITCHES.

Hey, it's on Wikipedia so it MUST be true!

ivan · « **Reply #61 on:** August 27, 2009, 08:19:59 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on August 14, 2009, 03:54:24 PM

I assume those very same people would be fine if government decided that eating meat was immoral and banned it? Or if atheism was immoral? Or that [fill in the blank] was immoral?

The problem with using moral justification of government use of force is that one loses any right to complain when someone whose morals they find disagreeable use government to force theirs upon everyone.

This is probably pummelling a moribund equine, but the national argument, as I understood it, was not over whether something should be done, but rather what solutions will work. I took the position that oposing a public option on principle is, to put it mildly, callous. A public option might be the only alternative our society can offer at this time; rather than oppose it on principle, our goal should be to limit its use to those who need it, and make it as efficient as we can.

Fact is, we have a whopping public option in place right now, and the people it benefits -- our parents and grandparents -- have no desire to see it dismantled. It can be made more efficient, maybe, but by and large it's doing the job. This public option is not available to young people, no matter their predicament. Simply put, it should be. It should be available to all who need it, and it should be strictly managed and made to work as well as possible.

I've made the argument that government isn't capable of running an efficient program, but lately the argument has become tired and a meaningless slogan. In reality, a lot of gov't programs are run as well as they'd be in the private sector. As much as people like to trash the postal service, for example, it accomplishes a staggering task for not a lot of money.

In the end, the main reason the inept-government argument does not hold water is simple: like soylent green, it's people. Theories and tendencies and human nature and such aside, if it can be done in the private sector, it can be done in the public sector as well. We boast some of the most industrious and intelligent people on the planet, and they don't magically turn into braindead parasites just because their paycheck sports an official seal. In other words, if anyone can make a schizoid laissez-faire/socialist hybrid work, then by golly we sure as hell can, and be the best at it, too.

Let's just take care of the most eggregious problems still plaguing us in the most direct and efficient way we can think of and move on. Public sector, private sector, whatever. Just fucking take care of it already.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #62 on:** August 28, 2009, 08:30:35 AM »

I simply cannot support any public option that is funded by a means that doesn't provide a way for individuals to opt out of its services AND its expense. I refuse to compromise my principles for utilitarianist arguments; at this point, the public option may in fact be the best option in the world.

But, in the immortal words of Jules from Pulp Fiction, "sewer rat might taste like pumpkin pie, but I wouldn't know, because I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker".

Harming many to help some is never the answer.

"Do not consider Collectivists as 'sincere but deluded idealists'. The proposal to enslave some men for the sake of others is not an ideal; brutality is not 'idealistic,' no matter what its purpose. Do not ever say that the desire to 'do good' by force is a good motive. Neither power, lust, nor stupidity are good motives."

-- Ayn Rand

Ivan, the argument you've made smacks of "well, voting for a 3rd party candidate only ensures that I'm voting for someone who will NEVER win, and will never be elected, so I might as well vote for the lesser of two evils."

That kind of defeatist thinking is a big part of the problem in this country. Just because it seems inevitable that one of the harmful options is the one to "win" never excuses the mindset of "well, since it's inevitable, I may as well throw my support behind the least harmful option among them".

In the end, that only guarantees that we end up with a harmful option. I will not play that game. One has to draw the line. I refuse to be a party to any proposal that increases the size, scope, influence, and cost of government, and I don't care if I happen to be the only opposition to it. I will not be a contributor to the continued erosion of our liberties simply on the grounds of "well SOMETHING must be done". If that something involves harming many to help some, it is not an acceptable option, even if the end result is the best system in the world.

ivan · « **Reply #63 on:** August 28, 2009, 03:28:47 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on August 28, 2009, 08:30:35 AM

I simply cannot support any public option that is funded by a means that doesn't provide a way for individuals to opt out of its services AND its expense.

You cannot opt out of public healthcare expenses as it is now. We are paying for the existing public option for seniors, and for the private options of government employess. But even worse, the uninsured are driving up both the cost of healthcare and the cost of insurance for everyone. So those of us with means are already paying for the healthcare of those of us without, but in a chaotic, inefficient way that drives costs yet higher. You may think you're eating pumpkin pie, but the sewer rat has been baked right in.

Given that I am stuck in this hybrid laissez-faire/socialist society, I would at least like the 40% removed from my paycheck to be used less for bombs and foolishness and more to improve American lives. That is what is at stake, those are the cards that have been dealt. Your options are limited: you can take care of the underclass, or let it rot. But if you decide to take care of it, there is only one resource available: public money. Enlightened self-interest doesn't work very well in a society where the poor are shunned, resented and blamed for their own problems.

I would love to see it all torn down and built up from scratch, this time avoiding the mistakes made the first time around. But to actually do that is, of course, unthinkable. Any progress made towards a less statist society will be incremental and built on compromise. Expanding the public option to include 40 million uninsured can be seen as harming many to help some; but dismantling the current safety net would also be harming many to help some. We are stuck with it. Our society cannot succeed as a pure laissez faire economy, because it is not a pure laissez faire economy. It cannot succeed as a socialist state, because it is not a socialist state. It is a hybrid, and it will only succeed as a hybrid. Which means an occassional sewer rat for lunch.

Clear_Runway · « **Reply #64 on:** September 01, 2009, 09:26:00 PM »

About social security: somebody has to get the finger. We get rid of it now, the current generation of elderly will get it. We do it later, our parents get it. We wait even later, and we get it. Somebody will have to pay into that money-hemorrhaging program thier entire lives, and then not get a dime for it.

I just hope it isn't me, frankly. Better to get the whole thing done and gone. And make no mistake, either it will go (bankruptcy can do that) or it'll be incorporated into Obamacare.

Of course, if Obamacare is instituted, then I suppose there will be a lot less old people, so we wont be paying for them as much. Hooray for profiting from the misfortune of others!

reimero · « **Reply #65 on:** September 02, 2009, 08:57:12 AM »

There's an incredible amount of stuff to consider here, none of which bodes well for a public health insurance plan. Aside from the actual costs, the entire medical infrastructure is problematic in a way not easily reversible.
Example: insurance companies pay physicians a "usual and customary" amount based on procedure. These "usual and customary" amounts are quite arbitrary and do not reflect the actual costs of the procedure. For instance, a CAT scan will result in an insurance payout of several hundred dollars, even though the technology has been around for decades, the machine has long since paid-for, and the actual labor and overhead are pretty small. And insurance companies HATE paying for mere consultations.

The biggest problem is on the supply side. The HMO model (which a public option would glom onto) puts the bulk of the administration on the primary care provider. This means the primary care provider spends more time on (non-billable) paperwork than (s)he does on what (s)he went to med school for. Everyone knows the big bucks are in surgical specialization (cardiology, neurology, oncology, etc.) This means family doctors and primary care physicians take the job because they love the nature of the work. But that core work is giving way to paperwork, and physicians willing to be primary care providers are dwindling.

Basically, in order for any sort of health care to work, you have to have health care providers at each step of the way. And who would become a primary care provider if you're not gonna get your loans paid off before you're ready to retire?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #66 on:** September 02, 2009, 10:20:59 AM »

Social Security is a ponzi scheme.

BizB · « **Reply #67 on:** September 02, 2009, 12:10:00 PM »

Yes, Mr. Abramoff, it is. But that's no defense.

Clear_Runway · « **Reply #68 on:** September 02, 2009, 01:05:13 PM »

This whole healthcare thing would be solved completely if we were to just cut out the middleman. Doesn't matter if that's insurance, the government, whatever. If everyone just paid to take care of their own bodies, the price would go down and it would be affordable. All insurance does is encourage doctors to charge outrageous fees, because the insurance will cover it no matter what. Then the insurance companies have to compensate because the doctors charge so much, by passing those costs on to the insured.

Health insurance was originally designed to protect you from devastating illness, something nobody could pay for. But nowadays insurance is expected to cover almost everything, and what people don't realize is that they're paying for it no matter what. The insurance company has to run a profit, end of story. Unless you get some terrible illness, you will end up paying more in insurance than insurance ever pays out to you.

The government is much the same, except that there will be no competition whatsoever, and the government is not obligated to run a profit, so there's no motivation to give quality care.

xolik · « **Reply #69 on:** September 02, 2009, 11:24:30 PM »

Quote from: Clear_Runway on September 02, 2009, 01:05:13 PM

If everyone just paid to take care of their own bodies, the price would go down and it would be affordable.

That's leaving out a portion of the populous that isn't employed, the homeless and the elderly who are already living on a meager fixed income. They'd be screwed. Well, they're already kinda screwed as is but they'd be even MORE screwed.

Of course the health insurance companies have to run a profit. This is not a ground breaking realization, it's just how privatized business operates. It can be a noble cause such as 'here's your shots to fix your drippy dick, that'll be a $15 copay please' and not-so noble causes like 'hey let's plop down this here mega store and run all other business out of the town. Hookers and blow for all!' There's nothing wrong with making some profit, providing it's done in a responsible way. I fully expect to pay in more to my health insurance company than it will pay out to myself. Same thing with my auto-insurance. God knows I've been mandated by the state to pay for car insurance which I haven't really used at all. It's for the Greater Good after all.

Quote from: Clear_Runway on September 02, 2009, 01:05:13 PM

the government is not obligated to run a profit

And they've done a fine job demonstrating that fact over and over again.

BizB · « **Reply #70 on:** September 03, 2009, 08:00:39 AM »

My girlfriend went to the ER because she couldn't get in to see a urologist in a timely manner. She was suffering from kidney stones. They hospital did some test and sent her home with the knowledge that it was kidney stones -- and something for the pain.

Total cost to her: $100
Total billed to the insurance co: $7,300

They billed $500 for the routine blood work.
They billed over $5,900 for an MRI.

THAT is what is wrong with the health care system, today.

She was 90% sure that it was just kidney stones (again). A urologist would have been fairly certain that it was just kidney stones - if she'd been able to get in to see him. The ER dr. probably knew or, was 90% sure that it was just kidney stones with a simple external examination and symptom description. But, it doesn't cost him/her anything to run the MRI and it doesn't cost the patient anything more, but it does cover the dr.'s ass in the event that it wasn't just kidney stones and the patient is of the litigious type.

ivan · « **Reply #71 on:** September 03, 2009, 03:42:56 PM »

Quote from: BizB on September 03, 2009, 08:00:39 AM

cover the dr.'s ass in the event that it wasn't just kidney stones and the patient is of the litigious type.

Yes, defensive healthcare needs to be gotten rid of.

ivan · « **Reply #72 on:** September 03, 2009, 04:21:44 PM »

Some of you might be confused by my pro-public-option stand. How, you might ask, do I reconcile it with the LP positions I have otherwise taken? Quite simply, I don't.

Here is how I am thinking:

Let's pretend I am a guitarist, and I also believe there is no purer and truer musical expression than jazz. I despise rock and pop, barely tolerate classical and traditional music. If I were to assemble a band, I would certainly do what I can to keep it on the straight and pure path of jazz. But gosh, the only band in the entire world that's looking for a guitarist turns out to be BAAB, an ABBA cover band. As much as I hate to admit it, a large segment of the listening audience adores this band. Reluctantly, I sign on and begin attending rehearsals. But there is not a single song being performed that I can wholeheartedly embrase, let alone condone. I look at my options. To reshape the band into something remotely pallatable, I would have to dismantle it and rebuild it from scratch, which is not an option. Leaving the band is also not an option. So I become a PITA primadonna, refusing outright to play anything unless it is made to sound at least a little like jazz, and so grind the band down to the point where nothing ever gets played and all our time is spent arguing. The day of the big performance comes, and as I stand on stage in my white polyester jumpsuit I catch the eye of a sweet little lass who spent her life savings just to see us play. But instead of playing, we continue arguing about what should be played, and how it should be played. The audience begins to dwindle, but I see the little girl standing there with no where to go. And I think, you know -- it's not the pure, clean sound of jazz this little girl needs most of all right now (although it would be much better for her in the long run). Right now, she needs Dancing Queen. So I do it for her. And then, after the show, I go back to trying to get the rest of the clowns in the band to see things my way.

ivan · « **Reply #73 on:** September 03, 2009, 04:33:32 PM »

Or, to put it another way:

When it comes to the underclass, our hybrid system is failing both as a socialist state and as a capitalist state. One or the other side of this schizoid mass mind needs to step forward and take care of the problem. If the problem is not taken care of in some way, ALL of us suffer. I really don't care how the problem is solved -- an increase in government, or some magic voodoo trickle-down fairy dust -- whatever. But what I do think is that rational people can come up with a workable compromise.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #74 on:** September 03, 2009, 04:49:55 PM »

So instead of cutting the cancer out, you're in favour of just selecting a different form of cancer that will kill the patient in 10 years instead of only 8.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Random Rants/Health Care (Read 34096 times)

12AX7

12AX7