Political Discussions
Health Rationing in our Future?
Posted by anticsrocks • 7/06/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: end of life, health care, obama, rationing, reform, socialized medicine
This is an eye opening article from the Los Angeles Times. Health rationing is probably the scariest issue associated with socialized medicine. Around the world many other countries are doing it right now as we speak. Even our own state of Oregon has a rationing body.
"To our knowledge, the Oregon Health Plan is the first government health care program anywhere in the world that has drawn up a formal procedure for rationing. After comment from interested parties, this state health program for low-income people ranks treatment for various diseases and conditions, currently from 1 to 680, in order of priority. The health care dollars available determine which priorities are met. As program costs have grown, the list of covered procedures has become shorter.
Reordering Priorities. Surprisingly, between 2002 and 2009 there was a fairly radical reordering of the plain language priorities. A great many life-saving procedures that ranked high in 2002 have been relegated to a much lower position in 2009, while procedures that are only tangentially related to life and death have climbed to the top. (While extensive code lists define actual treatment, most people must rely on the plain language to judge list adequacy.)
For example, medical treatment for Type I diabetes, which ranked second in 2002, was demoted to 10th place in 2009. Oddly, given that not providing treatment for Type I diabetes is a death sentence, it has been placed behind spending on smoking cessation, sterilization and drug abuse treatment. And this is not an isolated case."
www.ncpa.org/pub/ba645
This article goes on to talk more about Oregon's health care rationing. Even saying that the Bush administration was correct to deny Oregon the ability to alter their Medicaid program to reflect their new health procedure ranking system.
"It was rationing by recipe. Regardless of almost any other variable concerning one's health status, reimbursement was based on whether or not a given procedure was on or off an approved list Human beings are not, of course, so readily classified. That's why triage decisions take into account holistic judgments about individuals. By following blindly the Oregon norms, any number of absurd outcomes were bound to result.
That is exactly what happened when Oregon tried to implement its program three years ago. A twelve-year-old boy with leukemia was denied a potentially life-saving bone marrow transplant bone marrow transplant. At the same time, patients near the end of their lives were receiving nonessential care because those procedures were on the list."
www.thefreelibrary.com/Rationing+in+Oregon:+not+this+way-a012702783
And lastly, here is the article that shows how Obama feels about end of life care:
www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-oe-allen5-2009jul05,0,213990.st...
User Comments
-
Our current system rations medicine. But we've already talked about this on multiple threads a bit earlier in the year.
And the term "socialized" medicine is bothers me, but we've been there too.-
mark...From Wikipedia -
"Socialized medicine is a term used primarily in the United States to refer to certain kinds of publicly-funded health care."
So we do have forms of it now and Obama wants to increase it greatly. He is on record as saying he favors the single payer method. This is from his own web site!
"Obama Has Consistently Said That If We Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System, But Now We Need To Build On The System We Have"
Also:
"Barack Obama said he would consider embracing a single-payer health-care system, beloved by liberals, as his plan for broader coverage evolves over time."
blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/19/obama-touts-single-payer-system/
So Obama wants to shift us towards the single payer system. That is a disaster. It has never, ever worked anywhere in the world. -
And as I've said, we've argued about this topic too much before. I'm not in the mood.
-
No, paying for yourself is not rationing. And anyways, our friends in Sweden managed to create a very effective subsidizes system that, to my knowledge, does not include rationing, despite having originally been a state-run system. Of course, the fact that the rationing is most of what they wanted to get rid of helped.
-
-
Could be true, but nobody is proposing socialized medicine so the point is moot.-
Indeed.
-
*sigh*
Once again, here is the definition of socialized medicine:
"Socialized medicine is a term used primarily in the United States to refer to certain kinds of publicly-funded health care.
In the United States, Medicare, Medicaid, and the US military's TRICARE fall under this definition." -
*editing wikipedia article* -
@anticsrocs: A partisan slogan does not a broadly accepted or useful definition make.
-
@mark...so you are saying that Medicare and Medicaid are not already socialized medicine? Or that what Obama wants to do isn't going to be socialized medicine, either?
That's not a very open minded view of this topic. Because you don't want to use the word 'socialized,' we don't have socialized medicine? -
What part of the proposed health care reforms do you consider to be "socialised?"
-
I've been listening to this rhetoric at a high and shrill volume for two years now. It's been in the background for two and a half decades, and I've seen several threads on the topic since Obama became president, some of them started by you. Always it is reduced to two slogans by your side: "socialized" and "rationing." I've had my fill.
Meanwhile, all hell is breaking loose in western China, Obama is in Russia, Iran and Honduras are still issues, and so on. Of course, domestic politics matter too, but I personally find that it should get beyond the sloganeering. Meanwhile, I'll look at other stuff. Hell, even Michael Jackson, who I never liked, is more interesting than the rhetoric of "socialized" and "rationing" at this point.
/end rant -
AR appears to be arguing against Medicare and SSDI rather than the proposed reforms to health care insurance.
-
A quote supposedly from Churchill that just came up on my twitter feed:
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
(twitter.com/techfun/status/2514755309)
The second part of that definition seems operative here.
I won't change my mind on how horrible the system is, but I know you don't want to hear about the woes I have experienced in it. That's why I'll change the subject. Or my country of residence if something doesn't happen during this administration. -
"What part of the proposed health care reforms do you consider to be "socialised?"
The part where the Government takes over. Single payer. Call it what you like, that is where it is headed.
And sati, I am arguing against bigger government. Let them fix Medicare and Social Security first before moving on to bigger and more costly programs.
@mark...if you detest talking about Obama taking over the health care industry, and you want to bury your head in the sand, they why do you keep posting on threads about it? -
The part where the Government takes over. Single payer. Call it what you like, that is where it is headed.
So you haven't read any of the proposals, because a single payer system is off the table. -
No it isn't. Obama has been saying for the last two years, that is what he wants to "transition" to.
""Here's the bottom line. If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system...But we're not designing a system from scratch...And when we had a healthcare forum before I set up my healthcare plan here in Iowa there was a lot of resistance to a single-payer system. So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices....Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system."
That is from his own web site.
Here is a quote from him when he spoke to the Illinois AFL-CIO.
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
www.pnhp.org/news/2008/june/barack_obama_on_sing.php
And this from the huffington compost:
"Included in that has been concern among advocates of a single-payer system that their voices would not be included at the table.
An administration official put that unease to rest on Wednesday night, telling the Huffington Post that, "single payer advocates will be represented at the forum tomorrow."
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/04/obama-will-have-single-pa_n_171994.html
If it were truly off the table, then he wouldn't keep saying that is what he wants to "transition" to. -
@antrocks: The if clause you aimed at me rests on a false statement ("taking over"). That said, you have a point. Why don't I just ignore these threads?
Actually, I would be very interested in talking about health care solutions, but on these boards the only option seems to be no option or the status quo (which amounts to the same thing) versus the bogeyman of "socialized medicine." A discussion of what is actually being considered becomes impossible.
The debate being offered by conservatives is, frankly speaking, irrelevant at this point. I'd like to know more about the debate among Democrats. There is a real and important debate going on there, one that will shape what actually happens, but it is impossible to discuss it here. Instead, we can only address conservative fears. Hence, my protests. -
Being a proponent doesn't make it a proposal. He's backing off support for the public option now, which is pissing off a lot of people who voted for him (including me).
-
@mark...fair enough, but just don't paint me with the same brush and dismiss me as a right wing nut job. I want change, but I don't want the government involved, or at least involved no more than it is now. There is no reason why we couldn't propose changes to the current system without increasing the government's role in it.
-
@Sati: Me too.
-
sati, how many times must he let you down, before you begin to realize just how fundamentally flawed his thinking is? He wants no part of our personal liberties and freedoms. The more control government has, the more he likes it. Step back and analyze all his proposals. Try to be objective and look. You will see that he is all about big government in every aspect of our lives.
-
When the market is as coercive as it is, the government has to get involved. Adam Smith's description of the market and the invisible hand have nothing to do with the reality of the current health care system. The Democrats more nuanced understanding of Adam Smith's insights separates them from all-market-all-the-time fanatics, aka, the GOP.
By the way, why would you take Obama's move to the right on this issue as an opportunity to criticize him from the right? Sounds a little desperate to me. -
AR, if he wants more control, why is he not supporting the public option? It's a contradiction.
As far as being objective, you're arguing right-wing talking points rather than the actual proposals. -
The modern notion of "Laissez Faire" is derivative of Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman, rather than Adam Smith.
-
What Obama "endorses" and what he wants are two different beasts. You don't think he would show his hand this early, do you? If he were to press for the top down, full blown socialized medicine, then the American people would not allow that. Rahm Emanuel said as much on Charlie Rose.
@mark...see above. He isn't moving to the right. He is playing politics. -
AR, that's pure conjecture... very hedgehoggian.
-
Well said, Sati. -
That's half true, ala Scarlett O'Hara. The way they've structured the public plan, most employers will simply dump their insurance as it no longer provides a productivity gain for the business. Unlike the German and Swedish systems, Obama's proposal does not include safegaurds to prevent such actions.
In other words, Obama is playing the weasel.
-
-
Private insurance readily "rations" health care and access to it - and has for years.
They're called waivers and riders - and all out exemptions. Your insurance provider can deny your coverage (even of catastrophic illnesses) any time they want to, and they do. That's why I no longer have private insurance, because they "rationed" my health care only to checkups and accidents and illnesses not related to cancer. And with their uber high prices and deductibles, they've rationed my health care to zero. Zip. Zilch, nada.
For all this crying about "Socilaized" medicine, no one ever stops and thinks about what private insurers do. There is a reason I no longer work in the industry - and that deception is it.
Why isn't anyone afraid of said rationing and control of their health care not railing against the private industries for doing exactly that? Why complain about what might be when you can do something about what actually is?-
Your attitude towards the private insurers mirrors mine. Of course, legislation with teeth could help to reform the system, but I don't think that will be enough.
And yeah, I hear you on being pragmatic and addressing real issues too. -
I am against any rationing. But in a free market system, it really isn't rationing per se. You have other choices. Once the government controls it, none of us have a choice, unless we get elected to Congress and get their health care coverage. Under the single payer system, you cannot even pay for your own care, if you are wealthy enough to do so. See Canada. That is why they, and many people from Europe and Great Britain take "medical holidays."
But this argument that "there is already rationing, so more is okay," is like saying that people are already dying from gang violence, so more is okay. -
anticsrocks you seem to have attached yourself to wrong end of the stick.
The UK has probably the most "socialised" medical system in the world these days.
The worlds single largest employer is not Coke, IBM, Shell, Ford or any other large corporation one might think of. It is the UK National Health System which employs 1.2 million people (if you except Indian Rail and the Chinese Army).
Private healthcare and insurance operates quite happily alongside the NHS. In the UK if you want to pay to go private there is nothing to stop you. As for "medical holidays" if you are paying for something it pays to shop around and that applies to US citizens as well as those who could opt to use their National Health Service.
150,000 US citizens sourced their medical treatment overseas in 2006.
750,000 US citizens sourced their medical treatment overseas in 2007.
Projected US medical tourism at that rate of increase might even reach 6 million US citizens in 2010. Stats from Time www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1861919,00.html
To address rationing. Unfortunately rationing is inevitable because the cost of modern treatments are so high. The question is do you want your healthcare to be rationed by your medical insurer according to the premiums you can afford to pay, or, do you want your medical treatment to be rationed by it's clinical relevance to your case? -
"The question is do you want your healthcare to be rationed by your medical insurer according to the premiums you can afford to pay, or, do you want your medical treatment to be rationed by it's clinical relevance to your case?"
Well, you answered your own question. Medical care is rationed because it is so expensive. So do I want a politburo style board telling me what I can and cannot receive as far as health care? Hell no. I won't, but I could cite example after example of the atrocities that go along with government rationing bodies. Anyone with half a brain knows that is true.
Why are you so sold on the UK health system, when 71% of their citizens want it scrapped? -
Mark - yes we do have similar opinions on the private health care industry!
Antics - we don't have a free market economy, and quite frankly we never will. No one will ever have a truly free (Re competitive) market because the corporations will do exactly what they do now. That is to say offer the same exact crap for about the same price across the board.
Blue Cross and Blue shield offers the same stuff at the same rates as Aetna and Met life, and etc and so forth. Sure, switching might make you feel better - but you're not actually switching anything at all except the name of your provider.
It's the same with every company out there - the grocery stores are all the same, the big box stores are all the same, utility companies, credit cards, banks - they're all the same as their peer competitors. It's that way on purpose - because then if one company successfully raises a price or lowers quality - they can all do it because, well, where else are you going to go? They're all the same, so you might as well not deal with the hassle of switching!
Health care IS rationed - why do I not hear any complaints from the right about this? Why do I only hear paranoia about what might happen in the near future with ONE health care option that they don't even have to participate in, anyway?
Listen, if private health care is so awesome, the public option will just go away and even if it does stick around, it's not going to bother anyone who doesn't use it - so what's the big deal? Would anyone be so up in arms about a not-for-profit health care option coming to the game to compete in the same manner? -
anticsrocks
"Why are you so sold on the UK health system, when 71% of their citizens want it scrapped?"
If that were true you would expect one or all of the main UK political parties to support scrapping the NHS. However none of the main political parties (if any, even the crack pot tiny ones) propose scrapping the NHS because to do so would be electoral suicide.
Electoral suicide because the NHS is overwhelmingly supported by the UK electorate.
You do have a point though about the allocation of resources, it is a contentious area. But that is true of both public and private medical care because most times in private medicine it is insurers who decide on the treatments available not the individual. -
@poly...I was merely quoting a statistic that I saw on a health care report.
"More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."
www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
@Anok..."Would anyone be so up in arms about a not-for-profit health care option coming to the game to compete in the same manner?"
*sigh* If only it could be so, hon. But what with human nature being what it is, that will never happen, save for some utopian dream. Bottom line, not-for-profits cannot compete with for-profits. -
anticsrocks Checked out your reference. That is the most flawed document polybore has seen for a long time. In fact it is complete and utter bullsh*t.
Example the 70% figure you quote and which www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649 "reference" from the paper:
"Toward Higher-Performance Health Systems: Adults' Health Care Experiences in Seven Countries, 2007" Cathy Schoen et al
www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/In-the-Literature/2007/Nov/To...
Well this is what the paper ACTUALLY says:
"Affordability concerns may well be the reason that a third (34%) of U.S. respondents said the health care system needs to be rebuilt completely. This was the HIGHEST rate of any of the seven countries"
The paper also details:
1 The US has the highest reported medical error rates out of the 7 countries.
2 The US has the highest rates of people skipping care due to cost.
3 A high proportion of US adults have problems paying medical bills.
4 US adults actually face more delays to accessing medical treatment than some countries which have universal health care ie Germany, Netherlands etc
Absolutely disgraceful. Citing a reference which says the complete and utter opposite of one's claim... probably in the hope no one will ever bother checking...
Unbelievable. Based on this anyone believing any of the claims made at www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649 is being extremely naive. -
Not on the level of what is done in public systems. Personally, I support keeping the private system and simply banning the exemptions (not to hard, just add it to our "Fraud" laws and throw anyone in to jail who tries) and maybe including some financial aid (but no public option) for a certain impoverished percentage of the population, while the majority middle-class will receive ABSOLUTELY NO AID WHATSOEVER so as to make sure the system stays competitive.
-
-
Right-wingers use the argument that they don't want some bureaucrat deciding what health care a person is eligible for. Right now, it's someone who makes a greater profit by denying coverage who makes that decision. A public option would give us a choice between the two.
Why are right-wingers so anti-choice?-
It's not the only issue they're anti-choice on. Kind of at odds with the free market and screams of liberty, but what the hell do I know?
-
- I just watched a fascinating TED lecture video which I have now posted on my blog. In it Jonathan Haidt discusses the moral roots of liberals and conservatives. He focuses on what he calls The five foundations of morality, which are:
1. harm / care
2. fairness / reciprocity
3. in group loyalty
4. authority/ respect
5. purity / sanctity
He suggests we might build a more civil and productive discourse by understanding the moral psychology of those we disagree with, and committing to a more civil political process.
If you'd like to watch it here's the link:
thistimethisspace.com/2009/07/04/openminded-or-closedminded/
Openness to experience
“Open individuals have an affinity for liberal, progressive, left-wing political views — they like a society which is open and changing — whereas closed individuals prefer conservative, traditional, right-wing views.” -
@time...Great video! I liked it very much, but of course my degree is in Psychology. It was informative and helpful in that the speaker allows you to see the other side without castigating them. And that is so easy to do, particularly in forums such as this. Anonymity behind the keyboard affords one the luxury of being more sharp of tongue than we might be if we all were sitting around a table.
I took a couple of his sample studies and found that I am left of the hard right, but still right of center. Where I differ with the hard right is on peace, fairness and loyalty. (yes I took more than one study) Oddly enough, I am closer to the left on harm.
All-in-all a very enlightening video and enjoyable web site. Thank you for posting. -
Dumbf*ckistan! lol! I'll have to watch the rest of the video this evening. I only watched the first five minutes.
-
PLEASE watch it. If you're not careful, you might learn something.
-
AR, there you go again with personal attacks. I realise it's part of your nature but we don't need it here in BC forums.
-
Oh wow, I just took a bunch of those tests. I'm so far to the left I done fell off the chart
-
OMG, did I offend you sati? I didn't realize you were anti-learning. I mean when I said you might learn something, I didn't know you were against learning new things. I will try and remember that in the future.
It was a joke, sati. Get over it. -
No, I don't rely on Internet videos for my learning.
-
@TT: Most of that is simply the esthetics of those who are arguing. In the Arab world, their conservatives are our liberals with an odd religious totalitarian bend (e.g. support the labor unions, subsidize everything, but stone adulterers), while their liberals would be almost identical to an American conservative.
I know for me personally it's not so much that I don't like the idea of change as I don't like the idea of SOCIETY (unwelcome company) doing it. See, I would much rather my changes be my decisions and everybody else just leave me alone. I also do not have an exceptional level of confidence that what they want is any more then a path of destruction and decadence anyhow. -
@satj: No. Wages are sticky, which preserves health insurance if you don't play games like this, but if given the choice of a public option during a recession most EMPLOYERS will take it simply as a low-impact, politically light paycut to circumvent union and human resources pressure.
Also, public insurance is backed by government assets and taxation, which distorts everything and means that you pay for it if you don't pay for it. -
Good video. I liked the way he ended it. That they have a passionate commitment to making the world a better place but also a passionate commitment to the truth. You need the truth on your side to make the world a better place.
-
@commentremovedbycommunity: Oh C'mon! It was fun sarcastically turning satj's conclusion against him. Don't tell me you thought it was serious.
-
-
I want to thank Poly for pointing out the obvious ridiculousness of citing that source. Also, of all the "civilized" industrialized countries, we are the most unhappy with our health care. If they tried to get rid of the systems in place in Canada and Europe, they would riot in the streets. That is why no politician brings it up there cause it would be political suicide.
The fact that so many Americans would rather leave their health care up to just a few people whose main concern is increasing their profit is quite the achievement in propaganda. It's also quite embarrassing.-
"Also, of all the "civilized" industrialized countries, we are the most unhappy with our health care."
That's not true, Hapless.
"People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."
Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent)."
www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649 -
I just did a quick check on the NCPA claims...
From NCPA:
Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1] Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
That may be true, but it's misleading
The highest survival rates were found in the U.S. for breast and prostate cancer, in Japan for colon and rectal cancers in men, and in France for colon and rectal cancers in women, Coleman's team reports.
In Canada and Australia, survival was also high for most cancers.
www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country
Japan, France, Canada, and Australia all have socialised health care.
NCPA is a dishonest, political hack of a website. -
On one hand you say it is true, but misleading. On the other hand you say it is dishonest. Can't have it both ways, sati.
NCPA is conservative, so you are against it from the beginning.
And besides, it was around before it had a web site. Moron. It is an organization for the betterment of man by providing free market alternatives to government programs. -
There you go again with your name calling. You need to resort to insults because you have no valid argument. You are an authoritarian follower and you interpret criticism of your political parts as a personal attack. All your posts are based on emotion rather than logic.
Our founding fathers strove to get away from the authoritarian type of government you support, but there will always be the weak of mind and body who need to be told what to think and do. -
anticsrocks Checked out your reference. That is the most flawed document polybore has seen for a long time. In fact it is complete and utter bullsh*t.
Example the 70% figure you quote and which www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649 "reference" from the paper:
"Toward Higher-Performance Health Systems: Adults' Health Care Experiences in Seven Countries, 2007" Cathy Schoen et al
www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/In-the-Literature/2007/Nov/To...
Well this is what the paper ACTUALLY says:
"Affordability concerns may well be the reason that a third (34%) of U.S. respondents said the health care system needs to be rebuilt completely. This was the HIGHEST rate of any of the seven countries"
The paper also details:
1 The US has the highest reported medical error rates out of the 7 countries.
2 The US has the highest rates of people skipping care due to cost.
3 A high proportion of US adults have problems paying medical bills.
4 US adults actually face more delays to accessing medical treatment than some countries which have universal health care ie Germany, Netherlands etc
Absolutely disgraceful. Citing a reference which says the complete and utter opposite of one's claim... probably in the hope no one will ever bother checking...
Unbelievable. Based on this anyone believing any of the claims made at www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649 is being extremely naive. -
Reality has a liberal bias.
-
"That is the most flawed document polybore has seen for a long time"
Polybore doesn't dabble in U.S. political "information" much, huh? -
anticsrocks thinks polybore should get out more. No study or think-tank is completely unbiased. Ever hear of the observer effect?
So let me post these studies so you can pick them apart and blast them as partisan hacks trying to misinform the American public!!
Here is one that cites 89% of Americans are happy with their health care.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/26/health-cares-big-secret/
This one, 8 out of 10 like theirs:
spectator.org/blog/2009/03/20/cnn-poll-more-than-8-in-10-ame
blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=14902 -
It is one thing for a study for a think-tank or study to be biased it is another for them to cite references which turn out to demonstrate the exact opposite of the point that they were supposed to support. Nobody likes sophistry.
In fact this has happened again with your www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/26/health-cares-big-secret/ which refers to (but surprise surprise does not link to) an article by Regulation Magazine 2008 (CATO institute). "Voters Send Mixed Messages on Health Care" which clearly states that Americans want health care reform, although they are not sure exactly what that should entail. Here is the link theycould not be bothered to include. Wonder why?
www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9460
However this is rather academic as the most recent and representative poll ie the presidential election is the one that counts and the US voted for reform.
As for "anticsrocks thinks polybore should get out more". It is difficult for polybore to agree with your sentiment. If applying one's critical faculties when presented with "information", even if one is minded to agree with it, means one should get out more then polybore prefers to stay in. -
Only 52.7% of the voters chose Obama. They voted for him, because he preached change and change and, what was that other thing? Oh yes! Change.
Well, I will keep my personal liberties, my freedom and YOU can keep the change. -
No. Sweden already got rid of their national health care system, in part because of rationing, and Germany never had one to begin with. As for the Brits, may I remind you these are the people who inspired Dickens to write.
-
@sati...You are far from able to lecture me about name calling. Legitimately, that is. As I have mentioned before, after only being on this board a number of days, you started in on me. Yet, it is always me who is the bad guy. So guess what? Sit and spin. I am tired of trying to be nice to you, I called you a moron. Get over it.
-
-
"NCPA is a dishonest, political hack of a website."
To say the least.
This is all ridiculous. I found that almost all "statistics" that say how horrible health care is in Western Europe and Canada come from sources that are either associated with the American medical industry or flat out plain right wing interest group of sorts.
Our standing in healthcare to the rest of the civilized world is telling.
I've lived in some of these countries for a while. They would riot in the streets if you tried to change their system to a private one. It would be very easy for a politician there introduce some legislation to start changing their system as there are no lobbyists and business interest to protect it like we have here protecting the med/pharma biz. See, there is some functioning of Democracy there.
It's amazing, this blind allegiance to capitalism that people would actually risk their health so the portfolios of the rich increase in value.
Btw, I have relatives in Europe and their health care is better than mine and they don't have nearly as many horror stories as I have. I have friends in Canada and they would NEVER choose our system. -
Interesting read:
Reality check: Canada's government health care system
www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/06/canadian.health.care.system/
There are pros and cons to everything. In Canada, you sometimes have to wait longer than desired for care... on the other hand.... it's free. The overall costs are also much lower than they are here in the states.
The reality is that despite GOP rhetoric regarding socialized medicine and health rationing, no Democratic plan now on the table calls for a Canadian-like government run health care system. You'll still be able to keep your private health insurance even if a public option is introduced.-
Missed this good quote from the article:
"But in talking to doctors, government officials and even average Canadians, they concede their system is far from perfect, but there is one statistic they are quite proud of: All Canadians have health coverage. That's 33 million people, compared with the 47 million uninsured in the U.S." -
How can it be free when Canadians pay taxes? No such thing as a free lunch.
And that statistic of 47 millions uninsured in America is misleading and false. Check the Census Bureau, that is where you can find all this info. It ranges from 46 million to 50 million, depending on which far left pundit is talking.
Here is what I posted on another thread about health care:
""...the 46 million US citizens without medical insurance."
As I explained in the post linked, there aren't 46 million Americans without health coverage...
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/yavol-herr-burgermeister#comment...
"You asked me to address the "50 million Americans with no health care" - to use a phrase that the leftist media throws around as if it is fact. All the numbers I am about to quote come straight from the United States Census.
In '06, the Census Bureau reported that 46.6 millions people are without health insurance. So, how does this break down?
- Nearly 10 million of the 46.6 million are not even U.S. citizens.
- 17 million live in households that make enough to afford health insurance, but choose not to purchase it.
- 18 million are between the ages of 18 and 34 are in robust health and choose not to purchase it because they feel they do not need it.
- Only 30% of non-elderly Americans who became uninsured, remained so for more than a year.
- Nearly 50% regained health insurance within four months." -
@RR: "You'll still be able to keep your private health insurance even if a public option is introduced." No, because most employers (the ones paying for it) will drop it and you will pay the taxes on the public plan whether you want it or not. Only the absolutely wealthiest Americans can get around this political trojan horse.
-
Thanks jeremy...seems like everyone is in need of mental health care in this thread. You brought some sanity.
*injects the far lefties with some jeremy-provided sanity*
*sniff*
*doesn't work*
-
@jeremyjanson
Not buying that argument. Private insurers will reform to offer more competitive plans and employers will pick the plan that best meets their needs. Potential employees are attracted to employers that offer decent benefit packages, so employers will want something that is attractive in addition to the other perks they may be offering to attract the best employees.
You probably believe that a public option will drive private insurers out of business as well. Here's Obama's response to that argument:
"Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical ....
But just conceptually, the notion that all these insurance companies who say they're giving consumers the best possible deal, if they can't compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision what's the best deal, that defies logic ...
I think that there is a legitimate concern, if the public plan was simply eating off the taxpayer trough, that it would be hard for private insurers to compete. If, on the other hand, the public plan is structured in such a way where they've got to collect premiums and they've got to provide good services, then, if what the insurance companies are saying is true, that they're doing their best to serve their customers, that they're in the business of keeping people well and giving them security when they get sick, they should be able to compete."
*injects the far righties with some rr-provided sanity* -
@RR: Your argument is like saying that Best Buy should stop existing because you can buy a TV stolen from somebody else for $20 down the street.
Taxpayer money is already being used to pay for developing these plans, which means that, as a taxpayer, you are already forced to pay part of your premium whether you want it or not, making the competition argument completely bogus. See, my friend, private plans have to pay for their own development cost, as does pretty much everything else, including an engineer who has to pay for his own schooling.
Further, much of the "price difference" comes from "health rationing," a practice refered to as "fraud," "lying" or "theft" in the free-market. These companies already practice a tiny degree of this (though not to the degree Obama wishes) and as such already deserve to be thrown in prison and Obama wants even more dishonorable behavior. -
It's quite interesting how people on the right can predict the future. Most every argument put forth by the far right these days is based on things that will surely happen in some distant or near-distant time.
People on the right can also read minds... they even know what our President is thinking.
I wonder why they didn't use these special abilities before we invaded Iraq or before Katrina hit New Orleans. -
@RR: Would you rather we not consider the consequences of anything?
Edited: And anyways, the decision to not build good dikes in New Orleans was entirely the product of government corruption from a democrat city counsel, and the decision to not send out the school buses was government incompetence unrelated to ideology. Seriously, RR, you are saying nothing. Talk of this sort does not belong in political debate. Come up with an argument, please. -
Need an argument include factual errors?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_levee_failures_in_Greater_New_Orleans
"To date, the studies disagree on the mechanisms of the levee failures. Fault has been aimed at the Corps of Engineers, their local contractors, and local levee boards." -
@Agit8r:
"Local levee boards." Considering how good of a job the ACE seems to be doing everywhere else, methinks that particular culprit has merit. Further, corruption with "local contractors" traces back to government as they were the ones who hired them.
Edited: Further, this has nothing to do with health rationing, indicating evasion. -
@ Jeremy
Of course I think we should consider the consequences of the healthcare bill along with many other decisions the government makes that affects our lives.
I welcome sensible dialog and valid information from reputable sources. Unfortunately, I see way more sensationalized misinformation and divisive rhetoric here regarding most issues. Most of the gloom and doom is based on imagined scenarios yet to happen or distorted facts.
I understand your concerns regarding costs, competition and how the plan will be paid for, but I still think it's in the best interest of the country if done right. Healthcare costs are getting out of control, 46 million are uninsured and the government needs to step in somehow.
@ Antics
Do you have any links for that census bureau info? I could not locate the breakdown you shared. -
@RR: I apologize if I was a bit overharsh. I'm actually really proud (for the first time in my life) of one of our WA senators Maria Cantwell, who has put forward a public coop program that I think has a lot of merit. It would create public coops, like those already available for banking (the Boeing Employee Credit Union, now a public credit union for all WA residents) could lower costs, compete with private plans and keep control entirely in the hands of the users and not a government health rationing board. Coverage should be expanded, but heartless rationing like that practiced in England or Oregon is not the way to do it. We should be eliminating care refusal from our system, not extending it.
-
Ruinous, here are the links. I cite an article mentioning the Census report and also the PDF of the report itself. It is called Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States.
www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49986
www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf
Also, these figures are quoted in Mark Levin's book, Liberty and Tyranny. But I didn't have a link for his book as it is still on the best sellers list, so I could not find an online reference; however, he also cites the PDF link I gave and this one as well:
aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm -
Mmmm.... the stats from the census bureau don't clearly reflect the breakdown you've presented. I don't see where it outlines the following:
- Nearly 10 million of the 46.6 million are not even U.S. citizens.
- 17 million live in households that make enough to afford health insurance, but choose not to purchase it.
- 18 million are between the ages of 18 and 34 are in robust health and choose not to purchase it because they feel they do not need it.
- Only 30% of non-elderly Americans who became uninsured, remained so for more than a year.
I'm sure it's there somewhere and you wouldn't want to mislead anyone. Can you take a look and let me know exactly where I can find this info?
www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf
Muchos gracias. - Nearly 10 million of the 46.6 million are not even U.S. citizens.
-
Page 30 shows the number in thousands of uninsured who were not citizens. It also shows the number in thousands of uninsured by age - under 18, 18-24 and 25-34.
Also, in the other article, it says:
"According to the Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States,” published in August 2008, there were 45.6 million persons in the United States in 2007 who did not have health insurance. However, the report states that 9.7 million of these uninsured persons were not U.S. citizens."
www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49986
The other stats are also in the Census Report. You did read it, correct? -
I did not read the entire census report, but I did go through each page looking for the bulleted information above. I still don't see all those points and the word citizen doesn't even appear after page 23. Page 30 talks about Cost of Living Adjustment and displays a Annual Average Consumer Price Index Research Series chart.
Regardless of whether the bulleted info is valid or not, there are still serious problems with our current health care system and many uninsured U.S. citizens. Some action is needed by our government and forcing all citizens over to a public plan that will have severe rationing is not the what is being discussed. -
Well, I didn't know we were counting how many times the word 'citizen' appeared in the report. Of course the info isn't bulleted for you. It is called research, you have to actually read and break down the numbers. Good old fashioned research.
-
LOL... it's called 'distorting facts' really.
You stated the stats you provided regarding non-citizens could be found in the census report... specifically page 30. That simply is not true. I searched the document using some of the key words from your bullet points and could not locate anything that resembled those statements. Word search is the intelligent first step in research today my friend.
You keep volleying this back to me because you want me to prove your statements are false rather that you having to prove they are true.
Show me where - exactly - in the census report there is information to support each one of the bulleted points you listed. -
First rule of thumb in proving arguments is that you prove they are true, not require that the other person prove they are not true.
I'm trying to imagine how the world would look in reverse. The students hand in a pile of research papers and then for each ten-page paper, the professor has to write a book rebutting the student. If he doesn't, the student gets an "A".
The lawyers say whatever they want in court. If the judge or jury don't develop thick case files in order to rebut those arguments, what the lawyers say is true.
Thinking of Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit" now: " . . . when logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead . . ." -
Are you unable to fathom the meaning of Table 6 on page 30?
"Page 30 shows the number in thousands of uninsured who were not citizens. It also shows the number in thousands of uninsured by age - under 18, 18-24 and 25-34.."
Here, I will copy and paste it, but it won't transfer well...
Table 6.
People Without Health Insurance Coverage by Selected Characteristics: 2006 and 2007
(Numbers in thousands, confidence intervals [C.I.] in thousands or percentage points as appropriate. People as of March of the following year)
Characteristic
2006 2007
Change in uninsured
(2007 less 2006)1
Total
Uninsured
Total
Uninsured
Number
90-
percent
C.I.2 (±)
Percentage
90-
percent
C.I.2 (±) Number
90-
percent
C.I.2 (±)
Percentage
90-
percent
C.I.2 (±) Number
Percentage
PEOPLE
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296,824 46,995 532 15.8 0.2 299,106 45,657 526 15.3 0.2 *–1,337 *–0.6
Family Status
In families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245,199 36,230 478 14.8 0.2 245,443 34,629 468 14.1 0.2 *–1,601 *–0.7
Householder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78,454 10,770 171 13.7 0.2 77,908 10,272 168 13.2 0.2 *–499 *–0.5
Related children under 18 . . . . . . . 72,609 8,303 241 11.4 0.3 72,792 7,802 233 10.7 0.3 *–501 *–0.7
Related children under 6 . . . . . . 24,204 2,690 138 11.1 0.5 24,543 2,555 135 10.4 0.5 –135 *–0.7
In unrelated subfamilies. . . . . . . . . . . 1,367 341 49 25.0 3.1 1,516 363 51 23.9 2.9 21 –1.0
Unrelated individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,258 10,423 269 20.7 0.5 52,147 10,665 272 20.5 0.5 242 –0.3
Race3 and Hispanic Origin
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237,892 35,486 473 14.9 0.2 239,399 34,300 466 14.3 0.2 *–1,186 *–0.6
White, not Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . 196,252 21,162 375 10.8 0.2 196,768 20,548 370 10.4 0.2 *–614 *–0.3
Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,369 7,652 262 20.5 0.7 37,775 7,372 258 19.5 0.7 –280 *–1.0
Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,194 2,045 138 15.5 1.0 13,268 2,234 144 16.8 1.0 *188 *1.3
Hispanic (any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,854 15,296 322 34.1 0.7 46,026 14,770 321 32.1 0.7 *–526 *–2.0
Age
Under 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74,101 8,661 246 11.7 0.3 74,403 8,149 238 11.0 0.3 *–512 *–0.7
18 to 24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,405 8,323 241 29.3 0.7 28,398 7,991 236 28.1 0.7 *–332 *–1.2
25 to 34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39,868 10,713 272 26.9 0.6 40,146 10,329 267 25.7 0.6 *–384 *–1.1
35 to 44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,762 8,018 237 18.8 0.5 42,132 7,717 232 18.3 0.5 *–301 –0.4
45 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,653 10,738 272 14.2 0.3 77,237 10,784 273 14.0 0.3 47 –0.2
65 years and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,035 541 62 1.5 0.2 36,790 686 70 1.9 0.2 *145 *0.4
Nativity
Native born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259,545 34,380 467 13.2 0.2 261,842 33,269 460 12.7 0.2 *–1,111 *–0.5
Foreign born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,279 12,615 335 33.8 0.7 37,264 12,388 333 33.2 0.7 –226 –0.6
Naturalized citizen . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,538 2,384 149 16.4 0.9 15,050 2,651 157 17.6 0.9 *267 *1.2
Not a citizen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,741 10,231 303 45.0 1.0 22,214 9,737 296 43.8 1.0 *–494 –1.2
Also I said: "According to the Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States,” published in August 2008, there were 45.6 million persons in the United States in 2007 who did not have health insurance. However, the report states that 9.7 million of these uninsured persons were not U.S. citizens."
See, when you research a long, dry boring government document like the PDF file I linked. You mine through it and present the facts you find in easier to understand ways.
Now if you would rather laugh and say it isn't true because what I "bulleted" and what the report says isn't "bulleted," then go ahead. If you don't want to believe it go ahead. You claim to have an open mind, yet you ignore the facts as presented to you. Either that, or you just can't understand the tables in that report.
Here, to make it easier for you to understand I will link to an Investor's Business Daily piece that breaks the data down for you since you think I am lying.
"The median household income, according to the data released this week, is $48,200. You might be surprised to discover that 38% of all the uninsured — that's almost 18 million people — have incomes higher than $50,000 a year. An astounding 20% of all uninsured have incomes over $75,000. These are people who can afford coverage.
Is it really a good idea to tax working people to subsidize those who refuse to pay for a necessity they could easily buy? The answer, of course, is no.
One other breakdown of the data is instructive. By far the group with highest share of uninsured is Hispanics. Some 34.1% of all Hispanics lack coverage.
That latter piece of data is alarming. Drilling even deeper, one finds that fully 27% of all the uninsured in the U.S. — that's 12.6 million people — aren't even citizens.
Not coincidentally, the government also estimates that about 12 million illegals now reside in the U.S., though some think tanks put the number as high as 20 million.
Putting the two together, this suggests that — surprise — a major reason for the uninsured "problem" is our failure to enforce our border.
By some estimates, another 20% or so is uninsured only for a couple of months a year. As TV journalist John Stossel recently noted, as many as a third of all those eligible for public health programs don't even bother to apply.
Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small — perhaps half the reported 47 million or less.
Yet it's not clear that shrinking the 47 million to zero would help all that much. Because the uninsured still get health care. They get it through Medicaid, the state-run, federally funded program for the indigent. They get care, by law, in any emergency room in the country.
No, that's not the best way to care for someone. But to say that people have "no access to health care," as we often hear, simply is a lie."
The article, which is a very good one I might add, goes on to say:
"If there is a real problem here it is a tax code that encourages third-party payment of our health care bills, thus driving up costs. An estimated 86% of all health care purchases go through third parties. As anyone with a credit card understands, letting someone else buy something for you without any controls is an invitation to financial disaster.
Making consumers responsible for spending their own health care dollars — and letting them benefit when they control costs — is the real answer to our "uninsured problem."
It would lead to lower costs, and wider coverage — something universal care advocates promise, but can't deliver."
The author even provides a table, although I know you have problems with tables, ruin.
-
I can read charts, but it seems you cannot read page numbers. That chart was pulled from page 22 of the census bureau report. I did see the number of uninsured non-citizens, but I didn't see any info regarding:
- 17 million live in households that make enough to afford health insurance, but choose not to purchase it.
- 18 million are between the ages of 18 and 34 are in robust health and choose not to purchase it because they feel they do not need it.
- Only 30% of non-elderly Americans who became uninsured, remained so for more than a year.
- 17 million live in households that make enough to afford health insurance, but choose not to purchase it.
-
Then you cannot read. I won't do your homework for you. I read it and understood it. The chart I posted was from the article I cited, not the bill. That shows me that you don't even bother to read what I post.
You constantly try to berate and belittle me, as if you think you are smarter than me. I was able to understand it, guess you need assistance.
Let's face it ruin. You won't believe me no matter what proof I show you, so drop it. -
Well, I'm sorry you do not understand the difference between a personal attack versus an attack on your statements. Your claim was:
"And that statistic of 47 millions uninsured in America is misleading and false. Check the Census Bureau, that is where you can find all this info." Followed by the bullets above.
I believe the statement and figures are misleading.
FactCheck breaks down the claims here:
www.factcheck.org/politics/the_real_uninsured.html -
""And that statistic of 47 millions uninsured in America is misleading and false. Check the Census Bureau, that is where you can find all this info." Followed by the bullets above.
I believe the statement and figures are misleading.
FactCheck breaks down the claims here:
www.factcheck.org/politics/the_real_uninsured.html"
First of all, I know the difference ruin. I have my doubts as to whether you do.
Secondly, let's look at the article you cite. I read it all the way through and then just grabbed one of the "bulleted" statistics.
"Twenty-one percent of the uninsured are immigrants, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation."
Do the math. 21% of 46 million is roughly 9.6 million which is the stat I first quoted.
"- Nearly 10 million of the 46.6 million are not even U.S. citizens."
But I wanted to see why factcheck would be twisting the stats to support their supposition. I mean no one is going to be right 100% of the time, and generally factcheck is a very good place to start when looking at statements made by politicians. But it is not the end all and be all of fact checking. But that begs the question of why?
Well, I looked to who owns factcheck.org. It was started by and is supported by the Annenberg Foundation. Fair enough. No government money, so that is a good thing. I checked the Annenberg Foundation and found that in the past, they have been very strong supporters of the Republican Party. So much so in fact, that some Democrats look at factcheck.org as a partisan site.
tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/nonpartisan-factcheckorg-not-q.p...
But by digging just a bit more, I found this interesting bit of news:
"Today, in a piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools,” I offer a report on my research into the archives of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), an education foundation once headed by Barack Obama."
article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTViMGRmMmYxZTgwZTFjYmFjODU5YzM4Y2MwM2ViMjY=
But even factcheck didn't spin all of the statistics.
"Claim: Many of the uninsured already are eligible for public coverage. That's true – NIHCM found that in 2006, 12 million of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (formerly SCHIP) but were not enrolled. "
By the way, I noticed when I made the post where I copied and pasted directly from the Census Bureau PDF file, I also cited an article that breaks the figures down. Well, I forgot to include the link, so here it is.
www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=273280379232127
-
-
@Anticrocks: I notice above that you use the term "free market system." It takes a major leap of the imagination to call the current system we have (not counting medicaid and medicare) "free market." There is absolutely nothing free about these coercive markets, where the insurers can and do do to their "customers" what they like. I think we need to reexamine just what a free market is before we throw it around as an automatic antonym to any system that includes a public option.
-
Point taken. I see what you mean, but I think you probably know that I was referring to the fact that our present system is much closer to a private free enterprise system than to a socialized or nationalized system. Medicare and Medicaid excluded, of course.
-
The reason I made this point, is because in a Smithian scheme of things, the whole invisible hand thing only works if the markets are free, if no force or compulsion is involved. The whole notion of a purely market-based solution has no value otherwise. A government intervention in the markets—by regulating health insurance and coming up with a public option—would merely be redressing this balance, making the game fairer, so to speak.
-
A free market economy is flawed when it comes to things that are necessities, like health insurance and even food to some extent. We have Goldman Sachs trading in and manipulating the commodities markets, which is why food prices sky-rocketed last year. Everyone has to have health insurance, which is the major flaw in a free market insurance industry. Same with auto insurance. These industries should be not-for-profit.
-
@mark...you make a valid point, but with one caveat: In a government intrusion into the market, they cannot be competitive without being unfair to the private sector. The entire philosophy behind the private sector is to be as competitive as possible in order to protect the bottom line. That can get in the way in areas like health care, I grant you that. But conversely, the government cares not about the bottom line. If they cannot be profitable, they simply raise taxes, impose restrictions, or do some combination in order to be in the market. When you don't care if it is economically feasible, there is no impetus to strive for efficiency. You then get a, "Eh, it's the government's money, why worry?" atmosphere which leads to corruption and gross misuse of tax dollars.
-
-
I disagree sati, EVERYTHING should be privatized. I'm sick of paying city taxes for the fire dept. just so some careless slob who left the stove on could have his house saved. And this nationalized security force, I mean the police. I'm so tired of paying the bill for other people's safety. Let them get alarm systems and hire some bodyguards (if they can't afford private security, maybe they should get a second or third job and be more patriotic). Also why do we all have to pay for road maintenance, traffic lights etc? I say if you want to go on the road, get yourself a strong heavily armored vehicle and just barrel through.
-
Ha LOL!
-
And what about trash pick-up? I'm sick of paying for my neighbor's trash to be picked up. This socialism has to stop.
-
-
up until the "road" bit, HH has described Anarcho-Capitalism.
I from my childhood, my initial first-hand experience with an anarcho-capitalistic measures. While vacationing in Oregon, we came across a 'day-use fee area' (basically a user fee as opposed to collective taxation for truly PUBLIC lands). My parents read the sign, and then my dad exclaimed "Damn commies!"
-
-
I should note that Oregon's constitution requires a balanced budget, so that once revenues go down, services do as well.
also, their health is only for those under the federal poverty level-
I should note that Oregon's constitution requires a balanced budget, so that once revenues go down, services do as well.
That's the way it should be. That way, if we vote in some nut-job who wants to wage war, we're also voting for a tax increase to pay for it. And if billions are wasted on war profiteering, taxes will have to be increased to pay for it.
Requiring a balanced budget would be the best thing to happen to our country. -
I would say yes, only making exceptions for certain actual emergencies and FORMAL DECLARATIONS of war.
-
Formal declarations of war? We haven't had one of those in over 50 years!
There would also have to be exceptions for recessions, since government spending is sometimes the only way to get us out.
-
-
"Formal declarations of war? We haven't had one of those in over 50 years!"
exactly -
Just a few days ago Bill Moyers had Wendell Potter on, a former top healthcare industry exec. and top PR guy. He comes clean about the industry and admits the healthcare industry have threatened politicians by letting them know that campaign contributions would be made to political opponents of those who did not support a completely privatized healthcare industry.
The insurance companies and pharma spend over $300 million a year on their propagsnda effort. He also admitted something that most intelligent, rational people are to figure out quite easily: The healthcare industry is afraid of a government-run system because it would be very hard to compete against it as a government-run system would provide better health care for much less because it WOULDN'T HAVE TO TURN A PROFIT.
It's been widely understood in the industry that an expansion of medicare type programs would severely cut into their profits.
Potter goes on to talk about some of the propaganda methods used and gives a detailed description of their agenda and talking points that people like AnticsRocks are duped into believing. Matter of fact the arguments made by AR are almost exactly as set forth by the industry's lobbyists and PR teams. He repeated the official line almost word for word. It's pretty funny. Almost as if thye programmed a private health care industry robot, a weak-minded robot.
Here is a link to part of it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv1FwOCNoZ8
or you can go to pbs and see the entire thing.-
Nice little tidbit about the holier than thou Bill Moyers...
www.theweek.com/article/index/93586/Bill_Moyers_gay_witch_hunt
- or -
www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/bill_moyers_gay_hypocrisy_scandal/
-
-
You're kidding me right? That's all you got AR? Some vague recollections that maybe 40 years ago Moyers was an aide to President Lyndon Johnson who carried out orders to assist in some vague way an investigation about whether someone way gay?
I knew you weren't really capable of abstract thought or even had the ability to think laterally but now I'm convinced your basic reading comprehension can't be very high either. After starting this ridiculous thread about the gloom and doom if healthcare isn't completely privatized, you just can't even understand the points that show how silly your original post is.
So let me get this straight: So someone or other said that when Moyers was working for LBJ 40 years ago, he may have went along with an inquiry about whether some guy was gay, maybe Jack Valenti. This makes his guest this week, a former top healthcare industry executive and healthcare industry man Wendell Potter invalid as a source?
Also, instead of worrying about Moyers, why didn't you reaearch Wendell Potter, the healthcare exec and PR man who helped construct the propaganda which you so easily swallow.
AR, you are a good boy. You follow the bs and propaganda with assiduousness.-
Oh Hapless, calm down. You really don't like it when your hero Moyers is shone in a bad light, do you?
I was pointing out that ole Billy boy is a political hack for the far left. What's the matter, you don't like that idea? Never mind that he takes public money (tax dollars) to make his documentaries, then he sells them and keeps the money. That is okay, huh? No, the fact that he went on a gay witch hunt isn't all I have on Moyers.
Go ahead and insult me some more, you seem to only be able to do that. -
Typical right-wing tactic.... attack to distract.
You still don't address Wendell Potter or the propaganda methods used. -
AR, the topic is the health care industry and Potter -- not what Bill Moyers did over 40 years ago. Stay on topic... concentrate... focus...
-
Just as there are a "growing number" of people that are aware of your M.O., as well. You attack a conservative and then when they defend themselves you cry foul. Typical lib attack pattern.
-
No one wants to read this stuff.
-
AR is an angry old man.
-
Yep, I am angry that libs blindly attack this country that they purport to love, then when someone calls them on it, they cry about it.
-
-
What makes it even funnier is that AR uses the same M.O. as pointed out by Potter. It's like he's using an official playbook. It's always the same thing:
----AR starts some ridiculous thread like the gloom and doom of a healthcare system that isn't totally privatized or Democrats in cahoots with space aliens to help Mexicans rule the world etc.
----Someone posts a rational response
----AR responds with more of the same official right-wing talking points
----Someone posts with information that takes apart AR's argument and proves AR just follows right wing talking points
----AR ignores the info and analysis and cites some hack bs propaganda website then insults other poster, usually Sati
----Other poster loses patience and posts response
----AR accuses other poster of just being able to insult him.-
Oh Hapless, you have Alinsky's rules for radicals right down to a tee.
Rule 5 - "Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." You got this one down. Every post you make that mentions me contains insult after insult.
Rule 6 - "A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.” You sure seem to enjoy trying to defame me.
Rule 11 - "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it." Right down your alley.
Now you have accused me basically of fear mongering. Yet you are doing the very same thing. You claim our present health care system is on the verge of breakdown. Needs to be overhauled, torn down, rebuilt. How is that not fear mongering?
The fact is, health rationing is the ultimate destination when governments start down the socialized medicine path. It is inevitable, because public health care options are just simply too costly. Money has to be saved, and health rationing is the way it is done.
Canada, Great Britain, our own state of Oregon - they all have rationing bodies.
Now then, Hapless. I don't follow right wing talking points, I wouldn't even know where to find them. So why don't you either contribute to the discussion or just shut up?
I admit what I posted about Moyers was off topic, but I posted it to show his bias, and how deep it runs. Funny thing is, had Moyers been a conservative, you would have been screaming for his censure. Yet since he is a liberal, it is okay that he went on a gay witch hunt.
Nice, you want it both ways. -
*rolls eyes*
You crying victim is getting quite ridiculous.... and very predictable. -
So, let me get this straight. When you complain about me making personal attacks, it is legitimate. Yet when I say the same about you, I am crying victim?
That is laughable. Believe me, I do not think you could ever make me your victim.
You just run out of debatable positions to defend and resort to name calling. You are the predictable one. -
I think the evidence speaks for itself plus there is a growing number of BC members who have made similar observations regarding your tactics.
-
-
There was a funny segment on The Prairie Home Companion this week. A Frenchman wrote home to someone wanting to know about this country. He said when his friend got here he would have to choose health insurance. Whereas in France one just went to the doctor when one got sick, here one had to consider various exclusions, authorized networks, etc. It sounded funnier when he said it, but it reflected my experience. In Germany when I'm sick I go to the doctor. Here I have to do research into what doctors I can see and then I have to hope they will see me.
-
-
AR says: "The fact is, health rationing is the ultimate destination when governments start down the socialized medicine path. It is inevitable, because public health care options are just simply too costly. Money has to be saved, and health rationing is the way it is done."
Govt run health care is too costly? Check that out. It's too costly to who and says who? That line is one of the talking points Wendell Potter talks about. FACT IS govt. run programs do the same exact care for about 30% less the cost. How do I know this? Well, there is something you might have heard of called Medicare in this country. For identical treatment, Medicare does it for 30% less because there is LESS OVERHEAD and they don't have to keep getting more profitable every year to be a good company and make stock holders happy.
If you bothered to hear or read anything Wendell Potter had said, you might know this. Why is Wendell Potter so important to this discussion? BECAUSE FOR MANY YEARS HE WAS A V.P. OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY CIGNA(ONE OF THE LARGEST IN THE COUNTRY) AND THEIR TOP PUBLIC RELATIONS GUY.
Now, you dismiss Potter as an important source because he was on Bill Moyers and one person says Moyers while working for LBJ, once cooperated with inquiry about the sexual orientation of someone 40 years ago. OK, so let's forget his interview on Moyers. How about Potter's testimony to Congress? Does that count?
My favorite line of the right's call for completely private healthcare is "do you want some bureaucrat to make medical decissions?" As if now there aren't the corporate bureaucrats handling your insurance.-
We're on the same side of this debate, but just out of curiosity, did Potter factor in how the government sets prices at the point of service? Of course, health insurance companies do that too, especially the really big ones.
And surely it is interesting and relevant to hear from a health insurance insider about this question.
Something is wrong when we have the most expensive health insurance system in the world, but we are much further down the list in terms of its quality. There ought to be a closer relationship between cost and quality. Why do countries with universal coverage manage to have better systems?
In the end, all I am hearing from the right wing is (1) ideology and (2) occasional finger-pointing to the imperfections of other systems, generalizing from those and taking a great big leap back to their original arguments via ideology. If any of them would actually experience other functioning systems over many years, they would come to other conclusions. (I've had a good decade plus in two systems, the one in the US and the other in Germany.) -
"FACT IS govt. run programs do the same exact care for about 30% less the cost."
Then why is Medicare going broke in 2018-2019? Where is your data to back up this claim? Or is it just typical far left rhetoric? I don't see any studies proving what you are claiming that Potter is saying. What studies did he show to Congress? If YOU bothered to hear or read anything in the news lately, you would realize that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is broken. Where is all that Government efficiency in those programs?
"The financial troubles daunting the Medicare system have deepened during the past year, according to a government forecast that says the federal fund that pays for hospital care for older Americans will become unable to cover all its bills a dozen years from now.
The annual report, issued yesterday by the trustees who monitor the fiscal health of the Medicare and Social Security programs, said the trust fund for the health insurance system for the elderly will run out of money in 2018 -- two years sooner than predicted a year ago and 12 years sooner than had been anticipated when President Bush first took office.
The problem, the report says, has accelerated largely because hospital costs last year were greater than expected."
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/01/AR2006050101448.ht...
seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2008/8-03-26-NewTrusteesReport.htm
Yeah, 30% less. Only thing that is 30% less where Medicare is concerned is that it typically pays the care provider.
"The report, by consulting firm Milliman, estimated private payers paid an additional $89 billion a year in 2006 and 2007 after calculating how much physicians and hospitals might be relying on private insurance pay to make up for lower federal rates."
www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/01/05/gvsb0105.htm
"My favorite line of the right's call for completely private healthcare is "do you want some bureaucrat to make medical decissions?" As if now there aren't the corporate bureaucrats handling your insurance."
So by your logic, if I am going to get bitten by a Doberman, I might as well get bitten by a Rottweiler? It makes no sense to let a politburo-style government board, like the rationing boards they have in Oregon right now control your health care just because private insurers have similar tactics.
"The 2009 Legislature may help 5-year-old Hana Mesa get the eye surgery she needs, but the same political forces that help Hana could cost Mary Garrett, a 60-year-old with cerebral palsy, the weekly caregiver visits that help her live independently.
In a recession, state revenues don't grow as quickly as the demand for services, forcing legislators to make stark choices this year. Gov. Ted Kulongoski offered one option in his 2009-11 budget, proposing new taxes to expand children's health insurance, but no new money for seniors or Oregonians with disabilities."
www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/01/2009_legislature.html
"On August 3, when the Bush administration rejected Oregon's request for a waiver to change the state's medicaid program in order to implement a system of explicit rationing, a number of commentators protested the decision. Along with state officials, they claimed the decision was the result of "election year politics." The New York New York, state, United States
New York, Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of Times later editorialized that, "absent any showing of invidious in·vid·i·ous
adj.
1. Tending to rouse ill will, animosity, or resentment: invidious accusations.
2. discrimination," the denial should be overturned and Oregon's appeal granted.
Upon closer examination, however, it appears that the White House was absolutely correct in rejecting Oregon's proposal. The administration should not have taken as long as it did to make its decision. Even prior to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act Americans with Disabilities Act, U.S. civil-rights law, enacted 1990, that forbids discrimination of various sorts against persons with physical or mental handicaps.
..... Click the link for more information., there was more than sufficient evidence of fatal flaws in the proposal. Oregon wanted to rank order procedures for which it would pay, while at the same time extending coverage to more of the indigent indigent 1) n. a person so poor and needy that he/she cannot provide the necessities of life (food, clothing, decent shelter) for himself/herself. 2) n. one without sufficient income to afford a lawyer for defense in a criminal case. population. This laudable goal would be achieved by "thinning the soup," e.g., only paying for those procedures that ranked high enough to be above the cutoff line."
www.thefreelibrary.com/Rationing+in+Oregon:+not+this+way-a012702783
"In 2009, the state will pay only for the first 503 procedures. It won't pay to remove ear wax, treat vocal cord paralysis, or repair deformities of one's upper body and limbs. It will fund therapy for conduct disorder (age 18 and under), selective mutism in childhood (a prolonged refusal to talk in social situations where talking is normal), pathological gambling, and mild depression and other mood disorders."
www.ncpa.org/pub/ba645
Hapless, show me one health care system that is socialized and doesn't ration, have poorer quality care, or have impossibly long waiting times. In fact, I will tell you what Hapless, come better prepared next time and I will be happy to debate you. Rhetoric and the White House talking points are not sufficient ammunition. Next time, bring facts. Or maybe you just want to make it a personal attack - as usual.
@mark...Could you show me the study that says US health care is "much further down the list in terms of its quality?" Please don't point to the WHO study that takes into account how much the governments pay into the system to improve a country's ranking. -
Just as soon as you rack up the years living in another system and with those years an ounce of credibility on this issue.
And how about backing up that last assertion? Utter nonsense. -
Your credibility would also be helped if you explained how easy it is to get proper health care under the current system with no health insurance or health insurance that refuses to cover the issue. Or maybe you could prove how it's people's own damn fault that they are unequal to the health insurance corporations and HMOs and what not. Maybe these people, myself included, deserve bad health? And what about the bankruptcies caused by the insured with serious health problems? Or the unemployed who can't afford the outrageous Cobra rates? It sounds to me like you've done okay in this system and fear change. Who cares about the rest of us?
Yeah, this is really a moral and ethical issue for me. But I'll take Obama's point about it being the fiscally responsible thing for this nation as well, since that's the tack that will get this through during economic hard times. -
Well, you can blame Ted Kennedy for the HMO's.
"Costs went up, introducing an economic obstacle to individual health insurance. As costs rose, those on the New Left, including then freshman Sen. Ted Kennedy, argued that government ought to pay for everyone's health care and promoted the idea of a health maintenance organization, a term coined by a left-wing college professor."
Now I know that you will say that this article is partisan, but it lays out the history of health care cost increases and where they came from. By the way, here is info about the author of that article...
"Scott Holleran is a writer and journalist. His articles have been published in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. Visit his Web site at www.scottholleran.com"
www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2819
I don't have years in a socialized medicine system, but I don't need to know how it is to be mugged to know that I don't like it. So why do I need to know what it is like in Great Britain when I can read their newspaper stories about the inefficiencies, abuse and neglect there?
As far as the people with no health coverage. I never said I was against covering anyone. But I am certainly not for tearing down our present system and turning it over to the very same people that have all but destroyed Medicare and Social Security.
As far as backing up my last assertion. Are you talking about asking you to show me study you talked about that showed America's quality of health care is sub standard or far below other countries? I didn't attack you, I merely asked where you got your statistics.
I sense a lot of emotion from you on this issue. When you put your mind to it, mark you can lay out facts with the best of them, I was only asking for that.
"...I'll take Obama's point about it being the fiscally responsible thing for this nation..."
I agree. Let's be fiscally responsible and take back the stimulus that isn't working, or at least fix Medicare and Social Security first. That would at least show the American public that Obama is able to make things work. It would be a hell of a smart political move, IMHO. -
"Just as soon as you rack up the years living in another system and with those years an ounce of credibility on this issue."
That's funny, I have about 30 years of that experience. And the only thing i hear from the libtards when THAT fact is brough up is how this system isn't the same and therefore will work as opposed to the rest of the world that are seeing similar problems with their Gov't systems.
It's all good though. It will take a number of years, and then they'll figure out how to sell private care to the rich so that they don't have to wait in line for months to get a basic procedure done. And then this "fair" system, will be truly class oriented like the rest of the world. -
What kind of system is Sweden's? One single payer type thing? Sounds like it. I lived in a country with a mixed system, private and public options, which is much closer to what is being proposed here.
And what does the libertarian refugee from socialism have to say about the situation of the uninsured? Will the trickling of the wealthy keep them healthy? What has your own experience been? Can you afford our system? Has that even been a question? Some people are lucky enough to have a job with health insurance or be able to afford it themselves. Or they can slide for years with no coverage, but that's not a great system, if you ask me. Nor is relying on the emergency room because no doctors will see one; costs all parties concerned way too much money that could be used much more efficiently in a reformed system, one that encompassed everyone, not just those lucky enough to have the right employer or a fat bank account.
The point about supplemental insurance for the rich should inspire our health insurance industry to quit fighting this reform. They can still make money. Only in the new world, they would actually have to offer value for their premiums. That would be a real change, one they fear, I'm sure. -
Nope, it WAS a single payer system, where the complete lack of service, rationing and the limited quality offered created a system that separates the wealthy from the poor to a much higher degree.
The best insurances in Sweden now offer same or next day access to specialists, where the public option often holds a 90-180 day wait for SEEING the doctor, and procedures like hip replacements carry a wait of 3-5 years.
in 2002, there were 60.000 approximate private health insurance holders. In 2003 that went to 150.000, in 2008 it was closer to half a million out of 9 million population.
about 70% of the swedish population now considers private insurance to be important or very important. And in 2008, 95% of companies reported that private insurance as part of a hiring package was imperative to attract the most competent high level executives.
Gov't systems creates a class based health system that is even worse than what people here are complaining about. The real difference is that here, middle class have access to decent healthcare. whereas there, instead of increasing the health of the poor, they are bringing the middle class down to the level of the poor.
With socialized healthcare, we'll soon learn the definitions of terms like Care-Cue.
In Sweden, they are currently hailing the new "improvements" in the helth care cue system called the "care guarrantee".. this guarrantee states.
If you need medical attention, you should be able to talk to a Registered nurse BY PHONE, in less than 24 hours.
You should be allowed to see a Registered nurse in 7 days (no you may NOT choose your nurse)
You should be allowed to see a doctor in 30 days (no you may not choose your doctor)
You should be allowed to see a specialist in 90 days
And it's important to note that almost no care areas (would be counties i guess, called "Landsting" there.. are currently meeting these requirements.
Unless of course you are wealthy and have private insurance, in which case you don't go ahead of the line, you have a side system parralell to the gov't one that offers care in hours instead of months. And are currently meeting their guarrantees to an acceptable level (97% was the latest number i saw.)
Now, of course the doctors in the private health care "system" are better paid than the gov't one. So the best doctors are of course gravitating towards working there. Which means that not only do you get care fast, you get better care there as well.
As far as my experience.
I was uninsured in 2004 when i got admitted to a hospital for Septicema (blood poisoning), I saw a doctor at the emergency room inside of 20 minutes of getting there, i was in a room and under treatment half an hour after that.
This was without any insurance whatsoever. Total cost was 8000 dollars, that i paid off over the next three years.
Now i have insurance, I pay about 30% income tax, on top of that my insurance is about 6% of my paycheck (before taxes) I also pay 6% sales tax. Giving me a total cost of taxes plus insurance of 42% of my income. Should i have the same occurence now, i would pay about $450 out of pocket.
In sweden my tax pressure was about 65-68%, and would have included worse care than that most likely i would not be allowed to occupy a bed at all. let alone for the two days i was there. And it would cost me approximately $300 out of pocket.
(this is of course not counting on the fact that i was one of the first in sweden to have private insurance.) which cost me about $1800 per year in 2001 on TOP of still paying the taxes for everyone else to have access to crap care)
No I prefer this system. By FAR. Even though as an uninsured, i had to pay a lot of money, there was never a problem establishing a payment plan that i COULD afford.
And I just wonder why people think that being dead (which is the likely outcome of a septicema that has gone systemic) is preferable to being in debt? When the same people are more than happy to get in debt to buy a new TV or fancy rims for their car....
Personally, I prefer being alive and paying my way. Not to mention paying LESS than i would have in Sweden for a lesser level of care. -
And your own concrete experiences in Sweden?
FYI, we had a kid in DC die, because of a rotting tooth that went to the brain. Emergency rooms don't take people for teeth, unless you are obviously dying by which time it might be too late. Meanwhile, how does one function with the pain? Use a credit card? In this warped system?
I'm glad the system works for you, but it doesn't work for far too many, and that is also a point that matters. -
My experiences in sweden, well considering i was one of the first to get private insurance. You might be able to do the math.
Most of the time I didn't bother even contacting medical services until I needed emergency care considering the wait. Most likely I would be well on my own before then. Kinda like what they are complaining about here.
As far as dental.. Swedish government have decided that the teeth are not part of the body and thus not covered. Even the private dental insurance is expensive in Sweden.
My teeth have never been healthier since I got here.
One thing that the swedish Government DOES cover, is dental for children, which I think is a splendid idea. But that only covers cleaning and repairs i.e. Health, no Braces or anything like that.
In fact, i think we SHOULD have universal coverage (including both medical, dental, and vision) for anyone under 18. But that's where it ends.
FYI, we have kids dying all the time in sweden because they get to see a nurse who misdiagnose them instead of doctors. Recently some kid got sent home with "swimmers ear" that turned out to be a brain haemmorage.
So no, don't expect any of this to get any better just because you overspend tax-funds on it. -
As a sidenote.. Swedish newspapers reported today that one person suffering complications from SwineFlu is in an advanced respirator.. He is now occupying 50% of the country's total capacity..
They are expecting to be able to raise 3-4 more machines in an emergency.. That's a total of 6 respirators able to treat something like the severe breathing problems from Swine flu in a country of 9 million..
Or.. 1.500.000 people per machine... If that doesn't sounds bad enough consider that sweden is expecting 500.000 to 2.000.000 to get sick.. so far they've had a grand total of 332 cases. Requiring one in respirator.. or about 0.3% of those getting sick. Again.. just do that math to see what will happen when it hits full force.
The blunt end of healthcare rationing.
www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article5538385.ab
-
-
www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/0717...
I'm sorry, that's just shameful. Even requiring rationing for those who need the assistance is only slightly evil.My opinnion of Obama has just been sinking lower and lower.-
I'm confused as to why they don't cite language from the bill to back up their assertions. o_0
-
C'mon Agit8r...
If they did that you might easily figure out their claims are bogus.
mediamatters.org/research/200907160040 -
"I'm confused as to why they don't cite language from the bill to back up their assertions."
Who is "they?"
-
-
Yes yes we all have horror stories. You guys want to ignore the motives behind the situation (I bet not one of you AR or CSI even looked at Wendell Potter for a second) and cling to your beliefs following the official line of the industry and AR even even citing from the AMA itself for Pete's sake.
Ok, let's talk anecdotal evidence. I got some experiences too. Someone very dear to me worked hard his entire life as a construction worker. While in his late 50's his wife became ill. Health insurance decided not to renew. His wife got sicker. Long story short, she died but and the medical expenses took his house too. He died in a run-down, 1 room basement.
A close family member gets diagnosed with cancer and unfortunately goes through a divorce shortly after. He was on his spouse's plan but now isn't covered anymore. He can NOT get coverage anywhere and can't afford the treatment he needs. We don't know how long he is going to live.
A few years ago, I had a kidney stone. The pain was excruciating. I arrived at the hospital. The wouldn't treat me because the hospital wasn't in network and they had to wait for the insurance company to certify before I could get any treatment. Well after a while, I passed out from the pain and woke up the next day with my head bandaged from the stitches as I hit my head against a table as I fell.
Listen folks, This is the richest country ever yet we are not the healthiest. This is also the only industrialized country in the world where people lose everything due to medical expenses. The main reason for that is because it is a for-profit business. Things have to change and there must be a public option.-
Hear! Hear!
-
Hapless, Talk about missing the point. If the socialized systems work, then this would not happen in those countries, but it does. Just as it does here. Only there, more people get sent home without treatment because of rationing.
Mark,
LOL... i wasn't expecting you to keep answering me above.. But to go Hear Hear on this proved the original point. When all else fail, just ignore the facts.
-
-
Wrong Diagnosis, sent home with "depression" dies of cancer
www.expressen.se/Nyheter/1.1357054/bodil-fick-fel-diagnos-dog-i-cancer
Wrong diagnosis, "Constipated" Child dies of Cancer
www.sr.se/goteborg/nyheter/artikel.asp?artikel=2939669
Sent home with "Migraine" Brain Haemmorage kills man.
svt.se/2.33686/1.1569543/85-aring_avled_efter_feldiagnos?lid=senasteNytt_39...
Man Diagnosed by EMT as "Stomach Flu" dies of heart faliure.
www.sr.se/kristianstad/nyheter/artikel.asp?artikel=2823756
This is all in the last couple of months, and first page on Google.com for the search of "fel diagnos" (wrong diagnosis)
You can use your favorite translation software if you want to check them out.
Most of these are caused by rationing, where either nurses or EMT's are diagnosing since no doctors are available. Or people who aren't visibly dying are sent home without ever seeing a doctor. Often with minor diagnosis such as Constipation instead of ever having any diagnosis made. -
Generalizing from your particular experience and saying that that negates the significance of a myriad of other experiences is problematic. Institutions, illnesses, insurance policies and so on vary. It is helpful to learn about experiences to craft better policy, but to say that problems in Sweden mean that no government intervention is desirable is to commit more than a few logical fallacies.
At issue, really, are two different sets of beliefs. For those in favor of health care reform, it is a human right. In its purest form, that argument doesn't wash with a whole lot of individualistic voters, but many do get the fiscal pressures the system is under. They understand that bureaucrats in health insurance companies are already making decisions about their health, and they sense how unfair that is. They want more people to be insured, and they want the system to work. The status quo is unacceptable.
The other side is about having the government have as limited a role as possible. Rather than talk about that, and rather than come right out and say that they don't care about tens of millions of uninsured, and tens of millions more under severe financial strain, some of contributing to the current financial meltdown, these conservatives would rather posit a false dichotomy between choice and rationing.
I say false dichotomy, because one has to have meaningful choice in the first place for it to be real. How many people worry about their job situation because of their insurance? How many people are priced out of health insurance because of preexisting conditions (often defined in the most arbitrary of fashions to boot)? Why are stories about lack of choice invalid, and stories about public health care the only ones we should pay attention to?
I say false dichotomy, because the public options that have issues are taken as examples of why public options cannot work period. Because you have to wait in some instances in Sweden, and because people find value in the private plans offered there, the only possible reaction is to say public options are bad, only private plans will work---as if public policy is not capable of reforming anything broken, if they are given the right tools with which to do the job.
Okay, I get that the GOP thinks government doesn't work. Why? Well, they break it and then prove that it doesn't work. Exhibit A: Katrina. But never mind that. Instead we get to hear facile comparisons with the DMV.
Let's be honest. The GOP tactic right now is simply to sow doubt and fear in order to stall, because stalling in Washington is as good as stopping a thing. They will nitpick about these things, because they know that the public is not on their side on the basic principle of needing universal coverage one way or another, if not couched in terms of human rights. But the GOP doesn't want that coverage.
(By the way, CSI, you talk of private health insurance in Sweden as if that private health insurance worked in exactly the same way as it does here, but does it? Can bureaucrats in companies turn you down or drop your policy on a whim? And are all weaknesses in the system really to be attributed to the public nature of the system, or is it about how the system has been set up and administered? And how does your experience stack up against those of others? What about the overall public health picture? And how do other cultural factors feed into that? [I'm thinking smoking, and alcohol consumption, for example.] The list of relevant factors goes on. Enough with the facile comparisons and false dichotomies already.)-
Mark, Eric hates everything about Sweden, completely ignoring the fact that it's ranked in the top 5 countries in the world for human rights, services, and a myriad of other protections it provides to citizens. (And the US doesn't make the top 50).
It's pure bias and blindness to the actual facts. If it was so gosh darn bad there, and every other country with a similar system, why do they still use it? I don't hear a lot of complaints from people in Sweden, Switzerland, Iceland, Denmark, and Canada but as you know, you can't please everyone all the time. -
John Stewart did a brilliant two-part segment on Sweden earlier this year, when he sent a "reporter" to Sweden. (The reporter was a comedian, of course, but the Sweden part was real.)
Your observations about Eric's feelings about Sweden seem to be true enough. What a shock it must be to find out that this country might share values similar to those of the country he so dislikes. Maybe he has to look for parts unknown, say Alaska, where the frontier spirit is still alive. Probably not much of that left in Florida. -
@Anok...you say Sweden is ranked in the 5 top countries in the world for human rights, etc... Do you have a study that you could cite so that we could read it and see what factors determine their rankings?
@mark...John Stewart and the Comedy Channel. What a great place to get the news... -
And who said that was where I "get the news"?
-
To say i Hate everything about sweden is probably the best example of making sweeping statements about something you know nothing about.
I do hate socialism, and what it creates. But since neither of you have any real experience over any prolonged amount of time with it, It's hard to have a discussion with you about it. Like so many other things, it's hard to explain experiences, cultural differences and such things.
Suffice to say, that Anok carricatures what she can't argue against in this case.
And i'd love to see what source you had on that "ranking"... especially what they measure. -
And... Quoting a comedians "view" and adding "The sweden part was real" would be like Looking at the swedish tv who LOVES to go into the West Virginia Backcountry to make reports on what Americans feel about things like Gun Control and Religion. Sure it can be argues as "real".. but is it an accurate representation?
-
Nice retort, csi.
-
English 101 for Right-Wingers: I was saying their comedian was really in Sweden. If you were familiar with the show, you would know that often their comedian pretends to be on location, but isn't. This guy was. And his interactions with the Swedes he talked to were funny. Referring to the show as "brilliant" as I did, does not constitute "quoting" a comedian. It was just damned good satire.
Rebuttals can be interesting if they actually address what a person says. Straw men are never interesting. Meh. -
"Your observations about Eric's feelings about Sweden seem to be true enough. What a shock it must be to find out that this country might share values similar to those of the country he so dislikes."
This is kinda funny, since those changes are what you want.. And they don't exist here yet. Does that mean that the observation of you hating everything about America would be "True enough" as well Mark?
Or is it perhaps possible to dislike something about a country without hating everything about it?
Just checking since you are giving the "english lessons" and all... -
@CSI: Well put. As much as I personally dislike Sweden's government, I also find their culture beautiful with it's emphasis on hard-work, responsibllity (ironic, since they are socialist, but then again the same could be said for California, Central Texas & New England), and civility. A lot of their traditions are beautiful as well.
-
Actually - Agit8r had an entire thread about the rankings of the countries (Of which I have already provided a link to said studies in a thread a while ago when asked the same question by Antics).
It was a thread Eric peeked at, and conveniently ignored and failed to refute.
Amazing, that.
You guys have seen the studies already - and I know for a fact that you have. No need to repost them again.
Yep - the US ranks very low in comparison with other Democracies - and Yes, Sweden is considered a Democracy. -
"Memory" (Cats) www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-L6rEm0rnY
-
@Anok...well duh. But there are many studies out there, I was only asking to which you were referring, if you don't want to provide a link, that is fine. Hard to discuss which study when you don't name it.
-
I'll see if I can dig up the thread. We've already gone over it, though.
-
-
(ironic, since they are socialist, but then again the same could be said for California, Central Texas & New England)
Why would that be ironic? Stereotypes, stereotypes, stereotypes.
*shakes head*-
New Englanders would be amazed to learn that they lived in socialist states, no?
(I'd say the same about the other areas too, but I don't know them like I do New England.)
Guess NH will have to give up it's Live Free or Die license plates, collect everyone's guns, and maybe pass a motorcycle helmet law. [/sarcasm] -
*giggle*
Well you know, we do allow the gays to marry, and people can choose to wear helmets or not, and can carry concealed weapons, and we frown upon laws that reflect religious doctrine, and some New England states (or the cities within them) are working hard to make health care for everyone and utilities services more affordable....
But we are not without our capitalistic ways - eminent domain, corporate takeovers, privatized monopolies in certain industries....
Yep, damn yankee socialists
-
Umm... Eminent domain is socialist / communist.. not capitalist.
-
Who uses eminent domain these days? Capitalists. Where once it had been for roads and such, now we get local governments using it to benefit land developers. Maybe you missed that decade-or-more-old discussion. Course, this contradicts capitalist dogma, but that's beside the point. Consistency never much mattered in this country. Exhibit A: corporate welfare. (Republican example: we don't use the government's market power to bargain over prescription prices. We just pay rates the drug companies set elsewhere in the "market.")
-
None the less, eminent domain may be being used by capitalists, but it is a socialist/communist idea. I believe that was what csi was pointing out.
-
Antics, congratulations you proved you understand the difference between an idea and it's implementation.
Now would you teach the "english teacher" too please? -
What was that about ad hominum? (www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/sotomayors-rankings#comment_1040...)
I'd rather have hominy. -
Well csi...you know the old saying, "Those who can't do, teach. And some people just prove that statement over and over.
-
Do you really mean that? Or are you just being obnoxious?
Try Taylor Mali: www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxsOVK4syxU
And by the way, I put myself out there and blog openly, not anonymously. I'm honest, in other words. Haven't seen much of that from you. Now that's okay. There are good reasons for being anonymous here. But personal attacks on someone for their occupation are even emptier under such circumstances, though they have precious little value in the first place. -
What's the matter? Did I strike a nerve? You are the one correcting everyone, so you put yourself out there. If you must know, my name is Don. Good enough for ya?
-
As far as Ad Hominem... Let's get something straight "english teacher"..
I said that "I Never thought I'd come to think of you as plain dumb".. Which is a reflection of what I'm thinking. Not a statement as to what reality is or might be.
If you're going to run around touting your english skills, maybe you need to learn a little about reading.
Antics, Mark has more than once talked about how I with my 7 years in this country can't know enough about it. But in the same breath sits in America claiming to be well versed enough to teach European History.
It's one of those "It's ok for me but not for you" situations. Or in plain english, a joke. -
Eminent domain is not Socialism (although it may have been a part of modified Communism).
Today eminent domain cases are brought about by corporations who want to take properties from residents and small businesses for their own profitable gain. Much like where I am now, once they destroyed the community, ruined the economy, turned neighborhoods into ghost towns and polluted our water and air - they're packing up and leaving. Because their tax exemption is up. -
@csi...it is always okay, as long as you agree with mark.
@Anok...well, one could argue that communism and socialism are of the same ilk, just differing degrees. -
Well, one could argue that all political systems are cut from a similar cloth, it's just a matter of degrees.
I'll probably mess this up, but there's a saying:
"What's the difference between Socialism and Democracy?
About 9 people."
-
lol, replace that ninja mask with a paper bag and you are the unknown ninja comic....er something like that.
-
@MS: Liberalism is a socialist doctrine, as anyone who has ever read the Communist Manifesto knows. As for the freedom stuff, people can talk their way in to or out of anything. They can believe in individualism and tell everybody but them to be collectivist - pretty much sums up the state of California and the entire West Coast of the United States.
-
there has never actually been a communist government per se, in that communism in theory is a stateless society. Those governments that have been called communist, or which are ruled by a communist party are/were actually totalitarian socialist regimes.
I like to use the term "planned economy" (a Hayekian term) because it encompasses mercantilism as well -
@Agit8r: Yeah, I like the term "planned economy" too and would also include Feudalism and Caste Systems under that header as well. But the Communist Manifesto's basic themes' contributed to the growth of all left-wing societies both democratic and totalitarian. "Planned economy" doesn't neccesarily mean left-wing, although right-wing in the modern Anglo-Sino-American sense would tend to be against it. There are also feudal and mercantile states which don't really fit on the left-right spectrum.
-
China is a good example because it calls itself communist but is really a mercantilist economy. Ironically it was such a system that Marx referred to as "capitalist"
What is now called capitalism in the U.S. is a sort of middle way between mercantilism and laissez-faire. It is ostensibly unplanned per se, but governments still make who-for-whom decisions as to whose property/tax dollars etc. will be given to whom. -
@Agit8r: US would be a little more mixed then that. Laissez-faire and mercantilist would certainly exist, but democratic socialist and legalist themes would exist as well, especially at the state level, with the DS being concentrated in the Midwest, Northeast, and California, and the legalist being concentrated in more liberal areas out west like Washington state (more irony, 1200-page Land Use Laws & 9th Largest Rodeo in SAME STATE.)
-
If I understand correctly, Democratic Socialism refers to a system in which the means of production/major services/utilities are predominantly run by the state. Instances that fall into this group would seem to be rather an exeption. Unless we are speaking of the broad definition of welfare-statism, which in itelf is hardly unique to DS.
The planned nature of the bulk of agricultural production is typically still run through a framework of private or corporate ownership, thus falling more into the mercantilist category. -
@Agit8r: I'm not using Welfare-Statist definition, but rather the nature of the American Federal Reserve, American Education System & Union Closed Shops, which essentially comprise a socialist system. Also, all passenger rail and most mass-transit in the US is government owned and now GM & Chrysler have significant government stakes.
-
Government Steaks??!!! Now the Gov't owns cows, too??
-
-
I stumbled upon this 1961 speech on socialized medicine. Here is a snippet of it.
"Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to another."
Too bad our current President couldn't say something positive about our health care system instead of always talking it down as the worst in the world.
"But let's also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. A doctor begins to lose his freedom, it's like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can't live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. I know how I'd feel if you my fellow citizens, that to be an actor I had to be a government employee and work in a national theatre. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won't decide when he's in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do."
Awesome speech by the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs
The interesting thing about this speech is that it was a 10 minute speech on a vinyl record. Copies were passed out by the AMA in their effort to defeat socialized medicine. Yes the same AMA who has recently thrown in with Obama and his desire for socialized medicine.-
It would seem then, that the AMA has changed their opinions a bit, no? (When you say "thrown in, I'm interpretating that as support).
I wonder what caused the change.
I have a current gripe about privatized medical care, but no time to tell it now. I'm wondering if it should be another thread, or if I should hijack you already long thread? -
Hijack away, my favorite anarchist.
But I was listening to Mark Levin's radio show the other day and an MD called in. He said that he called to quit the AMA because they had voiced support for H.R. 3200 which, among many, many other things, severely limits physicians' pay. He said that when he asked his person at the AMA why they support this, their answer was (paraphrasing), "We want to have a seat at the table." To me that translates to the thug tactics the WH used on the car companies and their investors. So that is why I used the term "thrown in." -
Ah, gotchya. It does seem odd, though that they would offer even mild support when not that long ago they campaigned against such proposals, doesn't it?
Of course I'm sure some doctors will be unhappy if their pay were to be cut or stifled. Then again there are a lot more people out there who are even angrier that they can't afford doctor's rates - so really, something is going to have to give at some point. SOmeone is going to give something up - so far it's been patients giving up money and/or medical care. Now it's the doctor's turn -
It's interesting what rhetoric was thrown around about healthcare during the early 60's
"This bill serves the public interest. It involves the Government because it involves the public welfare. The Constitution of the United States did not make the President or the Congress powerless. It gave them definite responsibilities to advance the general welfare--and that is what we're attempting to do.
And then I read that this bill will sap the individual self-reliance of Americans. I can't imagine anything worse, or anything better, to sap someone's self-reliance, than to be sick, alone, broke--or to have saved for a lifetime and put it out in a week, two weeks, a month, two months."
-- John F. Kennedy; Medicare rally, May 20, 1962
www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=8669
-
-
OK so this is me, hijacking Antic's thread Muwahahahahaha...
I'm going to use our recent brush with the health care industry to illustrate why privatized health care is the worst idea possible for people. Now, our recent experience (last week) dealt with a peculiar little area where we live - and it is the perfect example of the problems with a true free market/privatization of industries such as health care. How is this possible? Well, my husband was working (off site) for a company that does not technically reside on US soil. They do not have to follow US rules and regulations - and are under no obligation to follow typical US proceedures. Although they do at times pick and choose which laws they would like to abide by in the spirit of cooperation - they do not have to. What does this mean?
It means that all services they provide, and all incidents on their soil (they are completely self sufficient) are completely free of US legislation - that includes businesses so it is the perfect example of a completely unregulated market. So here's the story:
My husband is working, he slips on a hazard and gets seriously injured. Several other people had also slipped ons aid hazard, and were injured, yet nothing was done to clean up said hazard, or to prevent any further injury. In the US, this is called negligence. So he slipped, and the company called their own ambulance company to pick hi up and transport him the whole ten minutes to the hospital for x-rays and to make sure he didn't break his neck. My husband had no choice but to use their services (and even if he was capable of making his own decisions at that moment, they still must use their in house services as determined by their company - not by any laws).
Sounds OK so far, right? Well yesterday we had the bombshell dropped on us that because he got hurt on their property, because of their negligence, and was forced to use their ambulance, we must pay them $600. WHAT?!
Yeah - and get this - they don't have to honor any insurance they don't want to - so they will not accept our insurance. Now here's the big kicker - there aint no laws to use to fight this! We can try, but so far no lawyer is willing to take the case because A)They don't have to follow US laws, which changes the game and B) They simply have too much money power, and attorneys to deal with. SO no one will touch it because they're all certain that nothing will come of it, anyway.
So here we have a company - completely unregulated, 100% privatized, who force people into using their services which are phenominally expensive ($600 for an ambulance ride? Public fire departments here charge $400, and accept insurance), won't take insurance, and can't be fought in court.
Oh, and they don't have to compete because guess what - they tell you what you are going to do, and forbid people from using other services while on their property. They have, in other words, a monopoly.
This is the problem with privatized care AND free market ideology. Can you imagine if our entire health care system turned into that? Just like this place - which is surrounded by plenty of other public and private ambulance companies - the notion of "competition" driving down costs and upping care is a quaint but antiquated ideology. It's never worked, and it's even worse now. (We had unregulated markets prior to the great depression, and we were rife with monopolies, human rights abuses, and financial coercion).
They have "competition" however they control what you do on their properties. The person making the emergency call gets to contact whomever they please, and if they work for so-and-so company, that's who they're gonna call. It's a nice way to make a buck, right? I mean my husbands only other option was to continue laying there on the ground, hoping a good samaritan would take him to a hospital.
And now we're being soaked for an ambulance ride that wouldn't have been necessary if they hadn't been negligent - and have zero legal recourse.
Privatization is only beneficial to the companies - it is not beneficial for PEOPLE.
Our experience with this has confirmed for me the need for a public option or the eradication of privatized for-profit health industries all together.-
Sounds like the days of those company shops.
The problem with most right-wing rhetoric is they assume that "free" means "no government." "Free markets" in their idiom means "unregulated markets." But, as you point out, unregulated markets can create monopoly situations.
If we want to be good free market people, I mean really free market, we'd have to have a market where freedom lies not only with the provider, but also the consumer.
The conservatives are dealing in false dichotomies that only have value in their simplistic ideology, not the real world. Makes it tiresome to argue with.
Still wondering how legal that bill is. Maybe it would be illegal in that company's country? Of course, for $600, who's got the energy to find out? -
Lets see, you are using a company that doesn't have to follow US laws and accept US insurance to prove how the US system doesn't work?
Great example... -
If it happened in the US and is legal, it is per definition part of the US system.
-
Eric it was a pure example of no regulation, which is the basis of a free market economy. The fact that it is on non US soil makes no difference in the exercise, as it is a prime example of how corporations in "free markets" actually work.
As it turns out, it's anything but free.
Mark - the bill is perfectly legal, as it's a bill for services rendered. It's par for the course there for that sort of thing to happen. They also ship in immigrants (n waves) and pay them less than minimum wage along with firing union organizers so they can continue to pay low wages to various jobs. They're making out like a bandit - the workers and surrounding areas? Not so much.
Hell, they don't even pay competitive wages for the skilled professional jobs. It's a solid drop in pay compared to other companies. And yet - they're still making money hand over fist.... -
Ah, the "free" market. I guess here that means that the company gets something for nothing.
-
Anok...is the company your hubby works for a health care company? Or are they sending him to the facilities that their risk insurance (workman's comp) tells them to use?
I feel for you in this situation, but - and I understand your need for privacy - not enough is known about the situation to say whether it is a problem with health care, their insurance, your insurance or with whatever jurisdiction's regulations must be followed. You say it is not on U.S. soil, so that means there is another set of laws in place. You more than likely can find some recourse on this one. If it is on foreign soil, can you go to the United States' Embassy? -
Antics - no there's no embassy, and while they do have their own laws, per se, they generally circle the wagons when anyone tries to hold them accountable for anything. (There is no opposing representation sort of thing available). But honestly it's not a problem with the health care, or the insurance - it's just how things work when there are no regulations and everything is for profit. It's just how it works there, which is why I used it as an example for my argument against such a system.
It lends itself to financial tyranny far too easily.
Oh, sorry I didn't answer your first question - my husband was on the grounds doing promotional work for his company. The two are not related, and the events are after normal operating hours (for his company). The only thing his boss did/could do was pick up the company vehicle and property which was left on the premises. -
Okay, that is clear as mud. lol, but I think I understand what you are saying. Or at least I have better view of it, anyway. I hope you the best, and I am a pretty good researcher, if I can help, let me know.
-
What a useless side argument.
NO ONE has seriuosly been talking about zero regulation health care. So i still fail to see what this has to do with ANYTHING remotely relevant.
The only thing left to do is wonder about the sanity of someone entering an area where they have no protection and no rights. Seems borderline self-destructive to me. -
I think we could appreciate the situation more if we knew where this happened. That would shine a whole new light on your predicament. As I said though, I understand your need for privacy.
-
maybe nobody is talking about ZERO regulation, but certainly one side of the debate wants less accountability for doctors.
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/healthcare-reform-plans-are-like... -
Antics - aside from privacy, the matter is not yet settled, so you know, for legal reasons (I'm always careful about that) I'm trying to get around naming and too many specifics
Eric - free market, no government regulation. Is it an extreme example? Sure, but it's a real one - the fact of the matter is that this is what happens in privatized, un/de-regulated markets particularly in the arena of industries people need to survive. It 'ends itself to this sort of abuse all too easily - it's happening right here, right now.
I know it shatters ideologies that free market is awesome - but it is what it is. -
Total lack of regulation (read: rules) is always extreme.
-
I think you should ask Obama to send Biden in on your behalf. No wait. I that would make things worse.
-
Aren't two sentences on a piece of paper called the US Federal Statutes simpler then redoing the entire system, Anok?
And further, since when are partisan polticians and the DC machine OF THE PEOPLE?
Further, it is a straw man to claim that because you find creating either a government monopoly, price control, rationing board or effective monopsony on healthcare you therefore believe that the entire system should be run like your husbands business.
-
-
Anok,
1. To use completely unregulated as some alternative to what we are getting rammed down our throats now is ridiculous. No one has asked for that or is promoting a fully unregulated health care system.
To make comparison is a straw man at best. But there are better descriptions i'd prefer to use for it. Pathetic attempt to make a point would be one of them.
Whatever secret place this was, obviously aren't following the rules of the U.S. Legal or not. I still fail to see what this comparison has to do with anything.
You are discussing a severe anomaly from everything, and completely ignoring the real facts that are commonplace with countries that have gov't healthcare.. Waitlines, and what this thread is about, rationing. Which is rampant in every country I know of that has gov't healthcare.
In short, if this anomaly is your best argument against, then the norm seems to be working just fine.-
Eric, I know you fail to see the point. Not because you can't, but because you don't want to admit what de and unregulation in industries such as this actually does (besides make gobs of money for CEO's).
It's not a secret place, it is not on US soil, and therefore does NOT have to abide by our regulations. it is privatized, completely, and unregulated. That is what the end result is of deregulated, and unregulated free market economies. that is the reality. It is a real example, unlike your constant nagging about the mixed economies with some form of socialized, single payer, or government option industries.
Willful ignorance is par for the course, though.... as is the rest of your comment. Completely devoid of actual facts of how things are run here.
tell me, is it really that easy to navigate through life with such tight blinders on? -
You tell me, you're the one that thinks violent protest is a reasonable way to show you don't like a politican party...
So you are saying, that a foreign government not working after what you'd like it to do proves that the US Healthcare system doesn't work.
Talk about not seeing clearly.
He fell.. did you hit your head in the process? -
if I understand correctly, the point seems to be, that when you replace the government with a marketplace, the result is the same as any corrupt bribe-driven foriegn government... or maybe that is just me editorializing off topic, idk
It seems to me that there are some functions uniquely suited to a marketplace. the buying and selling of goods and most services seems to me to fit into this category. In such a system, individuals striving competitively produce the best--or most just--result.
In any realm where competitivness produces a worse result or causes injustice, there is reason for either regulation or some form of services being taken over by government. It is my view that the latter case ought to be a last resort, in that government providing a good or service is by nature a monopoly and will tend--if not kept in check by public vigilence--toward producing injustice of its own. The act of regulation upon a corporate or private entity should be done only as it is necessitized by a want of justice, and is in almost all cases preferrable to government monopoly, as the governmental function of providing a check upon power is more suited to an external body than itself. -
Well BINGO Agit8r.
Yes, regulation needs to be kept to a neccesary level, when the government owns a process, you are fairly helpless against it. (try suing the government...)
That being said, Legislation should be designed so that the fairest system occurs, without that being taken by government.
Opening the limitations on competition (geographic for instance) since competition is a direct countermeasure against price would be a great start. The fact that we allow limitations on competition right now is oen of the biggest injustices that exist in the current system. Another is that companies can deduct the cost from taxes, but private parties can't. These are the things that would dramatically lower the cost of healthcare.
This is the problem at large. IF you have a gov't owned system that fails and produces worse care over all, even if it does give it to more people. You end up with an even bigger difference between the wealthy and the poor. The wealthy, even where private options aren't available are able to travel to get care.
For instance, Sweden right now are huge customers of Polish Private doctors, because their costs are lower, and most of them are educated in Sweden and neighboring countries anyway.
There's even travelcompanies that set everything up for you. HOtels, Dental, Medical, Plastic surgery, all can be taken care of in one nice package "vacation" and done immediately as opposed to wait for extended peiods of time.
This of course is not "CHEAP" although much less expensive than the completely private options in Sweden unless you have the private insurance.
So, the wealthy get top care IN sweden, The upper part of the middle class travel to get care.
The lower income levels are stuck waiting for care that may very well not arrive in time.
This is NOT a fair system that takes care of the poor. It just masquerades as one.
Now, OBama keeps talking abotu 46million uninsured. How does anyone suggest squeezing them in without causing waits?
And as far as the gov't deciding if you should get care or not, that is also a rampant problem in other countries, Where gov't employed doctors who have never met a patient unilaterally overrides the attending physicians recommendations, based only on medical journals and charts.
And again, You can't sue the gov't very easily... -
Ihaven't read the latest bill, but all indications point to the 'public option' no longer being on the table. So I'm not sure what is left on the table, but as I said a week or so ago the final bill will be significantly stripped down.
-
Eric - what does my view on forms of protest have to do with privatized medical care? Nice dodge of the facts, though. Just face it - privatization and deregulation turns into economic fascism. The rest of the world is evolving into mixed economies that provide various forms of health care to citizens...they are moving away from privatization because they understand the consequences of it.
Agit - not really - actually my point was that privatization of industries such as medical care, education, etc lends itself to economic strangleholds and out and out economic fascism because it is based on profit over people. It's always been based on that, and any industry that operates in such a manner will eventually turn into that. It's my main argument against anarcho-capitalism, actually and my argument against capitalism and privatization in general. -
of course there has to be rules in order to have a sound economy. There may be some confusion about what is regulation and what isn't. more on this later.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
