Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Hillary's Health Care Idea NSFW (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/124228-hillarys-health-care-idea-nsfw.html)

Cynthetiq 11-26-2007 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
That reads as "all poor that aren't insured don't help themselves, so fuck them". Unless you have anything at all besides cruel baseless judgments of the poor, that sentiment seems rather useless. Obviously not all poor people without healthcare are in that situation by choice. Most of them CAN'T HELP IT. They work twice as hard as you or I and get half as much, and yet there you are judging them. It'd be fascinating if it weren't so disappointing.

Stop acting as if
1) You're better than people because you were fortunate enough to get opportunities to live comfortably.
2) All poor people are lazy.

Both ideas are inane at best, and deeply ignorant and judgmental at their core.

Who the fuck are you to tell me how to act? Am I telling you to stop acting as a know-it-all? I'm telling you my opinion and like host, you don't like it because it differs vastly from yours.

Some facts of life:

Quote:

You don't get to pick what family you are born in.

You don't get to pick what country you are born in.

Life isn't fair.
Just like that, you could have easily been born in a destitute family of 10 in India. Should someone else be taking care of you because of it?

I never said I was better. I said I got myself to this point through hard work. So did my wife. I don't act as if I'm better. I may be better off then others, but I don't belittle my own accomplishments nor do I feel bad like you do. I earned my seat at the table.

Other people I know have also. Just as other people I know aren't as fortunate, and well, I can't help them nor am I interested in helping them. I'm SELFISH for me and mine. As I get older and I know that I need to take care of my own self during my elder years, the money that I give away to those "less fortunates" are dollars less for me and my own healthcare and needs.

I believe in the ability of the individual. If they aren't getting what they need then they need to do what they need to do in order to be better off, whatever that requirement is. This means making choices, as far as I can tell from the people in the projects down the street, fashionable clothes, rims, latest snazziest cellphone, are all more important than getting themselves ahead.

Ustwo 11-26-2007 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Are you saying you want to have sex with John Edwards? If not, what the hell are you talking about?

Ummm willravel for someone who is politically vocal I would think you would have known the background of the last democrat VP candidate.

Willravel 11-26-2007 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Who the fuck are you to tell me how to act?

The moral high ground is traditionally where people are who can help to correct the actions of those who do not have the moral high ground. The golden rule, generally, is considered the highest moral ground.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Am I telling you to stop acting as a know-it-all? I'm telling you my opinion and like host, you don't like it because it differs vastly from yours.

Some facts of life:

You got #1 and #2 right, but you're way off on #3. I disprove #3 every day. Life isn't fair so long as those capable don't help those who are incapable. As soon as the capable start helping, life becomes more fair. It's very simple but it's something you, as a fellow 'capable', don't seem to get. Being capable to help is a responsibility. If you were shit poor and living on the street I'd help you. If I were shit poor and living on the street, I'd hope someone would help me. It's the golden rule. Do on to others as you would have them do onto you. I can't imagine a more simple, yet important rule.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Just like that, you could have easily been born in a destitute family of 10 in India. Should someone else be taking care of you because of it?

You're confusing "taking care of with what is actually being said: "helping out". I don't think anyone is asking you to wipe their asses, but to allow your sympathy to guide your actions to help them in some way.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I never said I was better. I said I got myself to this point through hard work. So did my wife. I don't act as if I'm better. I may be better off then others, but I don't belittle my own accomplishments nor do I feel bad like you do. I earned my seat at the table.

You aren't being asked to feel badly for succeeding. Far from it. It's a simple matter of sympathy and the golden rule. This is about doing the best thing and not just for yourself.

What do you feel when you see a homeless person? From your posts, it seems you don't respect them, and you feel they've earned that place in life. You've made that very clear. Why don't you see someone who may have never gotten the opportunity and despite their best effort have not succeeded? Is it so difficult to understand that not all poor people are responsible for their situation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo
Ummm willravel for someone who is politically vocal I would think you would have known the background of the last democrat VP candidate.

My attempts at humor go unnoticed. I'm well aware of Edwards' past. I wasn't sure what it had to do with the thread, so I attempted to diffuse the situation with a homosexual innuendo. Assuming Edwards has a y chromosome.

Cynthetiq 11-26-2007 08:06 PM

will, I'm not responsible for anyone else but myself and my own circle. You may decide to include those unfortunates and homeless in your circle. I don't.

Life is fair? Really? You got a heart operation and others who are in line for heart transplants that don't get them. That's fair? Oh because there's an organization that tries to make it more equitable that makes it more fair? Maybe in your world, not in mine. Life is still not fair.

Just because you believe in the golden rule doesn't mean that someone will give it to you. That fact alone is the problem with this discussion, you feel entitled to it if you were shit poor. You feel entitled to that help because you'd do it for someone else. No, I don't subscribe to that, I help myself, and will continue to do so. I don't care for someone else's help, in fact most of the time, someone else's help isn't for my benefit but for their own in some manner because like you said, it's their responsibility.

Being able to take care of myself FIRST before I help others is more important. Otherwise when travelling shouldn't the parent put that mask on the child first? No it's because if I don't take care of myself first, I would never be able to take care of another human being. After myself is my family and my friends, they unfortunately for the rest of the world take up a good chunk of the benevolence I have. Anything left over from that goes to the rest of the world.

taking care and helping out? This is healthcare thread remember? Nurses wipe asses... so that's what we are talking about.

It's pretty simple. Again, you decide and judge your ownself and how you live in it. I can sleep at night and look myself in the mirror. If you don't do all that you can, maybe you can't. I know that I can.

Willravel 11-26-2007 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Life is fair? Really? You got a heart operation and others who are in line for heart transplants that don't get them. That's fair? Oh because there's an organization that tries to make it more equitable that makes it more fair? Maybe in your world, not in mine. Life is still not fair.

I got a plastic tube, not a heart. It's made out of dacron, the same compound used to make plastic coke bottles. It was medical grade, mind you, but it's very easy to manufacture and there wouldn't be a line to get it any more then there'd be a line to get plastic shopping bags. The procedure? I had a good doctor. There are lots of good doctors. Mine happened to be in SFSU when I needed the coarctation repair. He happened to be a cardiologist of some note, but the surgery isn't brain surgery. I was told that most hospitals have someone who could have done it. I was in and out in 2 weeks, and that's at age 5.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Just because you believe in the golden rule doesn't mean that someone will give it to you.

You're right. Not everyone has morals. You're bright and well informed, though, which usually is accompanied by an integration of sympathy and empathy which translates into the golden rule.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
That fact alone is the problem with this discussion, you feel entitled to it if you were shit poor.

This is a discussion about the haves, not the have nots. It's not about entitlement at all. It's about responsibility as a member of the human race.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
You feel entitled to that help because you'd do it for someone else. No, I don't subscribe to that, I help myself, and will continue to do so. I don't care for someone else's help, in fact most of the time, someone else's help isn't for my benefit but for their own in some manner because like you said, it's their responsibility.

You do help yourself. I'm not against that. You also help others, because it's unselfish.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Being able to take care of myself FIRST before I help others is more important. Otherwise when travelling shouldn't the parent put that mask on the child first? No it's because if I don't take care of myself first, I would never be able to take care of another human being. After myself is my family and my friends, they unfortunately for the rest of the world take up a good chunk of the benevolence I have. Anything left over from that goes to the rest of the world.

And that's how it works.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
taking care and helping out? This is healthcare thread remember? Nurses wipe asses... so that's what we are talking about.

We're talking about your paranoia that you think people are trying to steal from you to pay for the poor which you apparently took as some kind of attack.

Cynthetiq 11-26-2007 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
I got a plastic tube, not a heart. It's made out of dacron, the same compound used to make plastic coke bottles. It was medical grade, mind you, but it's very easy to manufacture and there wouldn't be a line to get it any more then there'd be a line to get plastic shopping bags. The procedure? I had a good doctor. There are lots of good doctors. Mine happened to be in SFSU when I needed the coarctation repair. He happened to be a cardiologist of some note, but the surgery isn't brain surgery. I was told that most hospitals have someone who could have done it. I was in and out in 2 weeks, and that's at age 5.

You're right. Not everyone has morals. You're bright and well informed, though, which usually is accompanied by an integration of sympathy and empathy which translates into the golden rule.

This is a discussion about the haves, not the have nots. It's not about entitlement at all. It's about responsibility as a member of the human race.

You do help yourself. I'm not against that. You also help others, because it's unselfish.

And that's how it works.

We're talking about your paranoia that you think people are trying to steal from you to pay for the poor which you apparently took as some kind of attack.

Paranoia??? I'm not paranoid about it, people are discussing actually spending more of my earnings in some capacity thus reducing my own stocks for my own purposes.

I feel I pay plenty of taxes. I pay more taxes than some people make as a year salary. You and host are suggesting that I pay more for more social services. I'm not interested in giving it up without a fight.

Sorry, the golden rule is a nice thing to believe in, but I still believe strongly that when I need the help that it won't be there for me because of this belief I prepare for my own needs and help myself. You would rather not bother to help yourself thinking that someone will be there to help you. That's great, I'm happy for you. I don't think that way and I'm not interested in thinking that way. I'm happy to give a hand out if someone needs it, but what we are discussing here isn't a once or twice shot, but actually universal healthcare, which is a LIFETIME.

robot_parade 11-26-2007 10:06 PM

Personally, I think that 'society' (aka, the government, aka the Man) should provide:

o food.
o housing.
o education.
o basic healthcare.

To anyone who is unwilling or unable to provide it to themselves. Why? Because I think it makes economic sense. If a person doesn't have one of those things, it becomes an emergency. Whether it's some poor homeless guy freezing to death, and gets taken to the emergency room, or some kid who doesn't get decent education, emergency situations are more expensive by definition. If the govmint provides for these basic services in a routine, structured way, we'll all be a lot better off. Those of us who can afford better will pay more for better than the bare minimum that the government provides. It would be crazy for the government to provide 'elective' services. The free market still rules because everyone wants to do better than just survive.

host 11-26-2007 11:47 PM

How many are even aware of the societal crisis in America?
 
I've been watching all of this since I was in the seventh grade. It is all interconnected. I read, over on the "six questions" thread, how many of you <h2>do not</h2>
Quote:

...believe that part of the role of taxation is to redistribute resources more equally.....
You know who you are....the ones most likely not even to read what is in this post:
Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/...312004,00.html
Los Angeles Dispatch
Civil wrongs

Decades after the Watts riots, life for the people of South Central Los Angeles is as tough as ever - and now they are losing their only good medical facility, reports Dan Glaister

Friday September 24, 2004
Guardian Unlimited

Next year sees the 40th anniversary of the Watts riots - or rebellion, depending on your politics. Among the hottest points of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the riots were condemned by the white establishment at the time as one of the largest outbreaks of mass looting ever seen, involving an estimated 50,000 people.

Almost 40,000 police and national guard officers confronted the rebels/rioters as the authorities reacted belatedly and heavy handedly. Of the 34 people who died during the six days of unrest, 28 were African-American.

After the event, despite the tepid recommendations of the official McCone commission, orthodoxy swung behind the more liberal interpretation of events: the Watts riots had been a "rebellion of rising expectations" fuelled by poverty, racial injustice, a lack of services and the awareness that Watts, Willowbrook and Compton, predominantly African-American areas of Los Angeles that were later renamed South Central, were being left behind.

The McCone commission, while largely dismissed as a whitewash, did produce one legacy, a legacy that has returned Watts and the events of almost 40 years ago to the news this week.

Three years after the riots and just six days after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr, work began on the construction of what came to be called the King/Drew medical centre, a response to the catastrophic lack of services for the local community. The 500-bed hospital, serving 1.5 million people, opened in March 1972.

Since then the proud hopes of the King/Drew medical centre have given way to less edifying stories of mismanagement, corruption, and inefficiency.

Yet a beacon shone out of the rubble of the hospital's original aims. The pride of the medical centre was its trauma unit. The unit, additional to the emergency room, specialised in the treatment of violent injuries such as gunshot wounds, stabbings and car accidents. It treated 2,150 patients last year and was the busiest and best trauma unit in the country.

However, at a press conference last week hospital officials announced that the trauma centre was to be shut down as part of an attempt to rationalise the chaotic state of the institution and prevent the closure of the entire facility....
A teaching hospital with 537 beds, reduced to 233 beds, then to 42 beds, and three months ago...to zero beds...and an elimination of:
Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_...forces_closure
....If federal funding ends, among other problems, MLK-Harbor would permanently lose 250 medical resident slots, 15% of the 1,700 in Los Angeles County.[6]....
Hospital killed by racial/economic segregation driven dysfunction:
Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_...forces_closure

Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital (MLK-Harbor), formerly known as Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center (King/Drew), is a public hospital in Willowbrook, an unincorporated section of Los Angeles County, California, north of the city of Compton and south of the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles.

MLK-Harbor is operated by the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (DHS) and has 48 beds. In recent years, widely publicized problems related to incompetence and mismanagement caused the hospital to undergo a radical overhaul: <h3>bringing the number of beds down to 42 from 233.[1]</h3> Since 2004, 260 hospital staffers, including 41 doctors, had been fired or had resigned as a result of disciplinary proceedings. It currently has 1,400 employees. To alleviate the impact on the community of the large loss of capacity, The Los Angeles County Medical Alert Center (MAC) contracts ambulances take approximately 250 patients per month to other local hospitals. [1]

<h3>At the turn of the 21st century and before its crisis, MLK-Harbor (then MLK/Drew) had 537 beds</h3>, was the teaching hospital of the adjacent Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, and spread over a 38.5-acre site that includes a dormitory for medical residents; with 2,238 full-time employees, and in 2004 treated 11,000 inpatients and 167,000 outpatients. Located near areas of high crime, the hospital has a very active trauma unit. <h3>In 2003, it handled 2,150 gunshot wounds and other life-threatening injuries.....</h3>

....Federal funding termination forces closure

On August 10, 2007, after the hospital failed a comprehensive review by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, federal officials decided to revoke $200 million in funding.[21] Inspectors concluded that there was no functioning quality improvement plan at the hospital.[22] Los Angeles County health director Dr. Bruce Chernof moved quickly to notify the county Board of Supervisors of his decision to begin shutting down the facility. The emergency room was closed by 7 p.m. that day and ambulances were diverted to other area hospitals, the rest of the hospital was closed by August 27, 2007.[21] Some of King-Harbor's 1 600 employees would likely be reassigned to jobs at other county facilities.[21]

On August 13, at a specially convened board meeting, LA County supervisors voted unanimously to shut inpatient services and promised to pay up to $16.3 million to nearby private hospitals and doctors bracing for a deluge of patients from the closed facility.[22] They also released the 124-page report by federal inspectors that detailed dozens of errors and failures by the hospital during their final make-or-break review; the citations included improperly sterilized medical equipment, nurses who could not rapidly find medication, a nurse who did not know how to mix medication in an emergency, and a patient who complained of severe chest pain but was not given pain medication for 4.5 hours.[22]
Hospital imperiled by racial/economic segregation driven dysfunction:
Quote:

http://www.ajc.com/shared-gen/conten...cxntlid=inform
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=...-8&sa=N&tab=wn

Atlanta Hospital in Grave Condition
By ERRIN HAINES
Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA — For generations, Grady Memorial Hospital has treated the poorest of the poor, victims of stabbings and shootings, and motorists grievously injured in Atlanta's murderous rush-hour traffic.

Now, Grady itself is in grave condition.

Staggering under a deficit projected at $55 million, the city's only public hospital could close at the end of the year, leaving Atlanta without a major trauma center and foisting thousands of poor people onto emergency rooms at other hospitals for their routine medical care.

"I don't have the words to describe the onslaught of health care needs that will hit the region if Grady were to close," said Dr. Katherine Heilpern, chief of emergency medicine at the Emory University medical school, which uses Grady as a teaching hospital and supplies many of its physicians. "This is a huge deal. We may literally have people's lives at stake if the Grady Health System fails and spirals down into financial insolvency."

Grady Memorial Hospital's board of trustees on Monday unanimously agreed to establish a nonprofit governing board intended to attract $300 million in immediate and long-term funding from the city's business, philanthropic and government communities as well as from the state.

Dozens of activists, doctors, clergy members, lawmakers and citizens packed an auditorium across from Grady and demanded to be heard before the board voted.

"Y'all ought to be ready to stay here all night," said state Sen. Vincent Fort, who was involved in a scuffle with hospital security guards shortly before the meeting. "The fight ain't over. If some of us have to go to jail, so be it."

Founded in 1892, Grady has struggled financially for years. But now it has reached a crisis because of rising health care costs, dwindling government aid, a lack of paying customers and years of neglect — a situation not uncommon among urban hospitals like Grady that primarily serve the needy.

In addition to losing money on patient care, Grady needs an estimated $300 million to repair and modernize its buildings and acquire new equipment such as CT scanners and an up-to-date computer system.

The loss of Grady would be unconscionable to many political and civic leaders in this booming metropolitan area of 5 million people. The overwhelming majority of the 900,000 patients treated at Grady each year are poor and black, and the institution is considered a vital part of Atlanta's black community.

But some fear that after the switch to a nonprofit governing board the hospital will be less committed to the poor, and that the board will go from mostly black to mostly white. Grady has been run by a governing board whose members are appointed by politicians in Fulton and Dekalb counties.

Fort, a black Democrat from Atlanta, said earlier that Grady is "absolutely critical" to the city's black poor. And he charged that Atlanta's "white power structure" — including the business leaders and politicians who are pushing for the nonprofit board — is trying to orchestrate a takeover.

"To the extent that you have African American doctors, nurses and other professionals operating a big-city hospital and taking care of black people, that is a source of pride in the black community," Fort said. "So there is a great deal of skepticism that the Chamber of Commerce is interested in Grady. There are some of us who believe that is a self-interest."

<h2>With 953 beds and 5,000 employees, Grady is an anchor of Atlanta's downtown and accepts all patients, without regard to their ability to pay.

Only 7 percent of Grady's patients have private insurance, and 75 percent are on Medicaid. Because they lack insurance and have no family doctor, many go to Grady's emergency room even when they don't have an emergency. The ER ends up treating sore throats and other ordinary aches and pains.</h2>

Besides Atlanta's poor, Grady's patients include tourists passing through on their way south to Walt Disney World and victims of auto accidents, since Grady is the only hospital in a 100-mile radius of Atlanta that has a Level 1 trauma center, capable of treating the most serious injuries. (A popular bumper sticker seen on cars along Atlanta-area highways reads: "If I'm in a car crash, take me to Grady.")...

...."Quite frankly, that would've overwhelmed any other system in the city," Heilpern said. "That was sort of all in a day's work for us."

<h3>Grady also has the state's only poison control center, obstetrics intensive care unit and comprehensive sickle cell center. And the city's emergency command center for handling plane crashes and terrorist attacks is based at Grady.</h3>

If Grady were to close, poor people would probably swamp other hospitals' ERs with everything from ordinary colds to genuine medical emergencies.

"It will be a sad day for Atlanta if Grady closes. If people realized the benefits Grady provides, closure would not be on the table," said Dr. Marsha Regenstein, a health policy professor at George Washington University in the nation's capital.

Doctors, activists, lawmakers, business leaders and the hospital leadership are scrambling to find a fix for Grady, which gets most of its funding from Medicare, Medicaid and Fulton and Dekalb counties.

In July, a 17-member task force of business leaders recommended the shift to a nonprofit board. Some of Atlanta's major corporations have said they would contribute to Grady if it were run by a nonprofit board because it would manage the hospital more efficiently.....

Quote:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work.aspx?category=428
<h3>Economic Mobility of Black and White Families</h3>

Nov 13, 2007

The dream that one can rise up from humble beginnings and achieve a comfortable middle-class living, if not attain great wealth, transcends racial lines. But is this a reality for black and white families alike?

This report, by Julia Isaacs of The Brookings Institution, reviews overall income trends based on Census Bureau data and provides an intergenerational analysis based on a longitudinal data set that allows a direct match of the family income of parents in the late 1960s to their children’s family income in the late 1990s to early 2000s.

In brief, trends show that median family incomes have risen for both black and white families, but less so for black families. Moreover, the intergenerational analysis reveals a significant difference in the extent to which parents are able to pass their economic advantages onto their children. Whereas children of white middle-income parents tend to exceed their parents in income, a majority of black children of middle-income parents fall below their parents in income and economic status. These findings are provided in more detail below....
Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/20/na...=1&oref=slogin
Plight Deepens for Black Men, Studies Warn
Published: March 20, 2006

BALTIMORE — Black men in the United States face a far more dire situation than is portrayed by common employment and education statistics, a flurry of new scholarly studies warn, and it has worsened in recent years even as an economic boom and a welfare overhaul have brought gains to black women and other groups.....


...Although the problems afflicting poor black men have been known for decades, the new data paint a more extensive and sobering picture of the challenges they face.

"There's something very different happening with young black men, and it's something we can no longer ignore," said Ronald B. Mincy, professor of social work at Columbia University and editor of "Black Males Left Behind" (Urban Institute Press, 2006).

"Over the last two decades, the economy did great," Mr. Mincy said, "and low-skilled women, helped by public policy, latched onto it. But young black men were falling farther back."

Many of the new studies go beyond the traditional approaches to looking at the plight of black men, especially when it comes to determining the scope of joblessness. For example, official unemployment rates can be misleading because they do not include those not seeking work or incarcerated.

"If you look at the numbers, the 1990's was a bad decade for young black men, even though it had the best labor market in 30 years," said Harry J. Holzer, an economist at Georgetown University and co-author, with Peter Edelman and Paul Offner, of "Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men" (Urban Institute Press, 2006).

In response to the worsening situation for young black men, a growing number of programs are placing as much importance on teaching life skills — like parenting, conflict resolution and character building — as they are on teaching job skills.

These were among the recent findings:

¶The share of young black men without jobs has climbed relentlessly, with only a slight pause during the economic peak of the late 1990's. In 2000, 65 percent of black male high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless — that is, unable to find work, not seeking it or incarcerated. By 2004, the share had grown to 72 percent, compared with 34 percent of white and 19 percent of Hispanic dropouts. Even when high school graduates were included, half of black men in their 20's were jobless in 2004, up from 46 percent in 2000.

¶Incarceration rates climbed in the 1990's and reached historic highs in the past few years. In 1995, 16 percent of black men in their 20's who did not attend college were in jail or prison; by 2004, 21 percent were incarcerated. By their mid-30's, 6 in 10 black men who had dropped out of school had spent time in prison.

¶In the inner cities, more than half of all black men do not finish high school.

None of the litany of problems that young black men face was news to a group of men from the airless neighborhoods of Baltimore who recently described their experiences.....
The POTUS and former Texas governor, left this legacy when he left Texas, for Washington:
Quote:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=15822844

All Things Considered, October 31, 2007 · The Texas juvenile corrections system is in a deep crisis.
Nation
Crisis-Prone Texas Juvenile Facilities Look to Reform

by Jason Beaubien

Listen Now [4 min 45 sec] add to playlist

This is the second report in a two-part series.

.....Texas Seeking Alternatives

For those residents who can't maintain control, there is an isolation area called the Security Unit where as many as 30 people are kept in isolation cells. All the cells are occupied. In one cell, a 13-year-old near the door screams profanities and bangs on his cell walls. Assistant Superintendent Gonzales says teens can be held in this isolation unit — at times just until they calm down — or for as long as 90 days.

<h3>By comparison, in Missouri, there are only nine isolation cells in the entire state for a system serving 1,000 youth offenders. Evins, along with the rest of the facilities run by the Texas Youth Commission, is attempting to change and to become a bit more like Missouri, where the focus is on small, treatment-orientated group homes.</h3>

Missouri has reaped the benefits of an alternative system. Tim Decker, the director of the Missouri Division of Youth Services, says Missouri's recidivism rate is less than 10 percent. According to the Texas Youth Commission report, the recidivism rate in Texas tops 50 percent.

Evins is shutting down one of its large dorms and building individual cells. It also offers education and counseling for its residents, but in this isolated corner of the state, it's often difficult to attract and keep professional staff. Will Harrell, who earlier this year was appointed as the ombudsman for the Texas Youth Commission, credits Missouri with offering a model for reform, <h2>but he says whatever changes are adopted in Texas will be unique to the state and will take time.</h2>

"It's a transition and a difficult one at that," Harrell says, "but everyone needs to understand that <h3>it took many years to get to the crisis that imploded the agency earlier this year, and it's going to take a while to stabilize the agency and move forward.".....</h3>
Read the last few sentences in the preceding quote box; these are kids, they don't "have time"....while Texas juvie takes fucking forever to emulate what is in place, and known to work well in Missouri.

I've been aware of all of this for more than forty years. Not only do we have to solve these problems if we are going to have vibrant city centers with performing arts, orchestras, and advanced teaching and research medical centers, expecially with $5.00 gas "a'comin" to slow suburban sprawl, but the rest of us have to drag some of you along, "kickin and screamin", as you vote to sabotage the relief that can only come from government driven and managed solutions. Piecemeal doesn't work, turning whole cities into ghettos entered only to receive trauma care in dire emergencies, isn't working, and private health insurance sure as hell is not working.

Why are we torturing juvenile detainees in Texas, and why are we incarcerating so many blacks not convicted of violent crimes?

You can keep voting for Bush, for Paul, and you can pay much more later if the problems are not dealt with now. The choice is living in gated communities with increasingly heavy security needed when you want to leave your "GREEN ZONED" world.

Nothing will change while you refuse to even see the problems, then, accept that they are your problems, and you look around to see who is able to pay to fix them, besides you.
Trauma medicine is not state of the art because of what doctors have learned at the Mayo clinic in Rochester, Minn...it is because of the experience gained in the practice of emergency medicine at the teaching hospitals in the centers of old, run down, American cities.

Either the wealthiest pay a disproportionate share to help bring everyone else up to a higher quality of life with government managed and subsidized, "single payer" healthcare, as in the rest of the indusrtialized and post industrialized world, or the entropy currently weighing on American society will pull everyone down with it.

Let's stop talking BS like, "it's the tort lawyers and their malpractice lawsuits". It isn't coherent, IMO, to claim that private malpractice insurance for doctors is broken, so government must pass laws to stop those who cannot afford upfront legal fees from suing on a contingency basis, while simultaneously claiming that private medical insurance is a hunky dory status quo solution for the American healthcare crisis. It is the opposite....the lawsuits are driven by the high cost of longterm care for people who are rendered uninsurable after botched medical care that leaves them with expensive to treat, "pre-existing conditions" that are excluded from future medical insurance coverage.

I'm not a medical practitioner, but even I'm sharp enough to evaluate how ludicrous the idea that medical malpractice lawsuits are a significant cause of "the problem", and not merely another symptom of a broken system that can only be mitigated by a single payer solution. <h3>It is obvious that there is no way to keep "have nots" in the current private payer system, from using emergency and trauma centers as clinics of last resort, without reform that provides them equal and routine access to neighborhood clinical and preventive medical treatment.</h3>

Cynthetiq 11-27-2007 05:17 AM

host, WTF does that juvie system have to do with Universal Healthcare?

Oh right you said it's all interconnected... :shakehead: sure, I'll agree to that to a point, but at some point in order to have a discussion there's a reasonable line to stop at. Otherwise, well, we could be discussing nuclear energy since that's connected somewhere too.

circle of life and all that...


Cynthetiq 11-30-2007 08:16 AM

Quote:

11/30/2007 | 11:19
Millions Cut in Funding for National Hospital
LINK

Department directors at the National Hospital in Iceland recently received a letter from Vilhjálmur Egilsson, head of a committee on hospital issues, explaining that funding to the hospital would be cut by ISK 500 to 700 million (USD 8 to 11 million, EUR 5 to 8 million) next year.

“No one is saying it will be easy, but no one is saying it will be impossible either. This is exactly the same thing everyone else involved in management has to deal with,” Egilsson told Fréttabladid.

The state’s total contribution to the National Hospital amounts to ISK 33 billion (USD 534 million, EUR 363 million), but last year the hospital was operated with a considerable deficit and therefore an additional funding of ISK 1,800 million (USD 29 million, EUR 20 million) was required. As a result, the hospital will have less money next year.

“People are always looking for ways to operate more efficiently,” Egilsson said, adding he does not believe the cut in funding will result in a cut in services offered at the hospital. He explained the cut also involves shifting projects away from the National Hospital to other health institutions.

Healthcare centers in Akranes, Selfoss, Hafnarfjördur and Reykjanesbaer, none more than an hour away from Reykjavík, will thus receive additional financial support of ISK 430 million (USD 7 million, EUR 5 million) so they can take on added projects.

Magnús Pétursson, Director of the National Hospital, told Fréttabladid it is clear that the cut will have an impact on the hospital’s operations.

Pétursson said the management will stay inside the financial frame established by the Althingi parliament but it has not been decided in which departments cuts will be made.
So how do you cut costs without cutting benefits? Something has to give somewhere. To reiterate for will, I don't think that the system is better here in the US vs. Iceland, and since Iceland is a socialized healthcare system, and was voted #1 place to live by the UN this week, I see even more interest in looking closer at a small socialized system that supports only 300,000 people and see that it still is expensive.

host 11-30-2007 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
So how do you cut costs without cutting benefits? Something has to give somewhere. To reiterate for will, I don't think that the system is better here in the US vs. Iceland, and since Iceland is a socialized healthcare system, and was voted #1 place to live by the UN this week, I see even more interest in looking closer at a small socialized system that supports only 300,000 people and see that it still is expensive.

I don't know how much moiney beyond the amounts described in your article are spent by the gov of Iceland on annual healthcare, but the amonts mentioned are well under $600 million, US, or less than $2000 per resident.

They are hampered by a lack of an economy of scale, and most medical supplies and equipment are likely imported. In contrast, if you've looked at the furnishings and equipment in the US medical clinics and hospitals, surprisingly, it is almost all US made, as well as the drugs. Even with that advantage, medical treatment is one of the most dramatically rising services in the US.

They also have a corporatist conservative PM who saw some of his center-right coalition voted out of office last spring.

Isn't it in his interest to paint the state medical care operations and benefit as something that is responsible for it's own increased spending because it is not as efficient as it could be, and therefore, his government, with increased industrialization facing opposition, cannot fully fund medical care without unrestricted growth?

Quote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/world...BrandChannel=0

http://www.reuters.com/article/world...BrandChannel=0


......The Independence-Progressive coalition had wanted aluminum giants such as Alcoa to keep building smelters powered by Iceland's abundant geothermal and hydroelectric resources, a trend that has driven rapid economic growth in recent years.

But the Social Democrats and Left Greens called for a pause until the environmental and economic impact of the latest projects became clear.

A growing number of Icelanders have expressed concern about dams on the country's rivers to power the smelters and record-high borrowing costs in a fast-growing economy.

Gisladottir said after her meeting with Haarde that they had not discussed detailed policies or the sharing of ministries.

Independence walked away from Saturday's vote with 25 seats, a gain of three, while the Progressives kept just seven of 12.

This left the government with the 32 seats needed for a majority in the 63-seat parliament but Sigurdsson, who lost his own seat, suggested on Sunday he would heed voters and leave.

Gisladottir, who wants Iceland to join the European Union, wants the poorest to share in the country's prosperity.

Haarde, a proponent of corporate tax cuts and a staunch opponent of EU membership, has said the most important goal for Iceland is to spur economic growth.

Ustwo 01-27-2008 09:46 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../27/nhs127.xml.

Just food for thought.

Willravel 01-27-2008 09:58 PM

In the article they're offering cash to fat people who lose weight. That's kinda brilliant.

BTW, I just checked the Bill of Rights and it didn't say anything about cigarettes or donuts. Or do you think the free market will stop people from smoking and getting fat?

ASU2003 01-27-2008 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
In the article they're offering cash to fat people who lose weight. That's kinda brilliant.

I don't think it is brilliant.

Healthy, inshape people should get money back from their healthcare taxes each year. That will be an incentive to stay healthy.

Actually, they could penalize overweight people with more taxes and then give it back to them if they kept the weight off.

pr0f3n 01-28-2008 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003
Actually, they could penalize overweight people with more taxes and then give it back to them if they kept the weight off.

A regressive tax on vice items including fast food and transfat items, for example, would be a more reasonable approach. It would accomplish what you're proposing more directly plus help by pricing those things out of the lifestyles of the poor.

Ustwo 01-28-2008 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0f3n
A regressive tax on vice items including fast food and transfat items, for example, would be a more reasonable approach. It would accomplish what you're proposing more directly plus help by pricing those things out of the lifestyles of the poor.

This says so much about Liberalism as a philosophy.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1200/lfug6.jpg

pr0f3n 01-28-2008 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo
This says so much about Liberalism as a philosophy.

:rolleyes:

It says a lot about Goldberg that Jon Stewart could dismantle his drivel.

About what in my statement you disagree?

Ustwo 01-28-2008 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0f3n
:rolleyes:

It says a lot about Goldberg that Jon Stewart could dismantle his drivel.

About what in my statement you disagree?

You have decided what the proper choices in diet is for people assuming they can not make the right ones.

You think it should be enforced by forcing everyone to pay far more for such food items via a tax which makes them unable to buy them. It doesn't matter if you are a healthy person who wants a bag of chips or someone with a problem. EVERYONE has to pay extra so you can price it out of the poors range.

You would also therefore be regulating industry to do so.

They called it national socialism for a reason ;)

dc_dux 01-28-2008 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0f3n
A regressive tax on vice items including fast food and transfat items, for example, would be a more reasonable approach. It would accomplish what you're proposing more directly plus help by pricing those things out of the lifestyles of the poor.

pr0f3n...I thnk the conservative free market approach to cost containment is for heatlh insurers to provide bonues to their executives who can drop the most customers from coverage:
Quote:

Health insurer tied bonuses to dropping sick policyholders

One of the state's largest health insurers set goals and paid bonuses based in part on how many individual policyholders were dropped and how much money was saved.

Woodland Hills-based Health Net Inc. avoided paying $35.5 million in medical expenses by rescinding about 1,600 policies between 2000 and 2006. During that period, it paid its senior analyst in charge of cancellations more than $20,000 in bonuses based in part on her meeting or exceeding annual targets for revoking policies, documents disclosed Thursday showed.

The revelation that the health plan had cancellation goals and bonuses comes amid a storm of controversy over the industry-wide but long-hidden practice of rescinding coverage after expensive medical treatments have been authorized.

These cancellations have been the recent focus of intense scrutiny by lawmakers, state regulators and consumer advocates. Although these "rescissions" are only a small portion of the companies' overall business, they typically leave sick patients with crushing medical bills and no way to obtain needed treatment.

*snip*

Insurers maintain that cancellations are necessary to root out fraud and keep premiums affordable. Individual coverage is issued to only the healthiest applicants, who must disclose preexisting conditions.


full article: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...la-home-center
Its called "compassionate conservatism"

pr0f3n 01-28-2008 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo
You have decided what the proper choices in diet is for people assuming they can not make the right ones.

You think it should be enforced by forcing everyone to pay far more for such food items via a tax which makes them unable to buy them. It doesn't matter if you are a healthy person who wants a bag of chips or someone with a problem. EVERYONE has to pay extra so you can price it out of the poors range.

You would also therefore be regulating industry to do so.

They called it national socialism for a reason ;)

There are proper dietary choices for people, there's quite a bit of research on the subject, and our educational system and lack of UHC has hobbled people's abilities to make informed choices in self-care. Those problems need to be addressed, but there's further support for the levy.

A pigovian tax certainly isn't a revolutionary or especially socialist idea, and the fact that it also promotes moderation is a side benefit. EVERYONE has to pay for the effects of obesity anyway, through higher health care costs and lost productivity, but this particular extra cost is going directly to combat those health and economic impacts.

We already regulate the food industry.

As for Goldberg's Godwin Delusion, I'm not derailing this thread any further with regard to hack punditry.

flstf 01-28-2008 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
pr0f3n...I thnk the conservative free market approach to cost containment is for heatlh insurers to provide bonues to their executives who can drop the most customers from coverage:

I hate to defend the insurance companies in this but what action do you think they should take when someone lies on their application? Until we have something like universal health care these are for profit companies who contribute to our polititians to maintain the status quo. They do not want to insure people who already have health problems or are over weight or smoke etc.. in order to keep profits high and/or premiums lower for subscribers. Sometimes you can get insurance with pre-conditions but they will charge a lot more.
Quote:

Health Net contended that Bates failed to disclose a heart problem and shaved about 35 pounds off her weight on her application. Had it known her true weight or that she had been screened for a heart condition related to her use of the diet drug combination known as fen-phen, it would not have covered her in the first place, the company said.

"The case was rescinded based on inaccurate information on the individual's application," Health Net spokesman Brad Kieffer said.

dc_dux 01-28-2008 09:58 AM

flstf....I agree with you about fraud.

But are you suggestion that it is OK for health insurance companies to screen potential consumers AND EXISTING POLICY HOLDERS and only insure the healthiest in order to maximize profits?

Where does that leave the rest of us..those with pre-exisitng conditons, those overweight but not obese, smokers and drinkers, couch potatoes....?

flstf 01-28-2008 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
flstf....I agree with you about fraud.

But are you suggestion that it is OK for health insurance companies to screen potential consumers AND EXISTING POLICY HOLDERS and only insure the healthiest in order to maximize profits?

Where does that leave the rest of us..those with pre-exisitng conditons, those overweight but not obese, smokers and drinkers, couch potatoes....?

Most people get their insurance through their employers and do not have to worry about pre-conditions, etc.. Those of us who buy our own policies have to jump through more hoops and sometimes cannot get insurance. If we make insurance companies take everyone then premiums will go up for everyone. I think if we are going to go to this extreme then we should just provide universal care through the government and take the insurance companies out of the loop.

Willravel 01-28-2008 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo
This says so much about Liberalism as a philosophy.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1200/lfug6.jpg

Translation: I have nothing constructive to say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo
You have decided what the proper choices in diet is for people assuming they can not make the right ones.

It's not an assumption. All one needs to see is the obesity rates and the leading causes of death. That is absolutely irrefutable proof that a large percentage of the population is utterly incapable of making proper diet and exercise decisions. They cannot make the right choices and are dying because of it.

flstf 01-28-2008 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
It's not an assumption. All one needs to see is the obesity rates and the leading causes of death. That is absolutely irrefutable proof that a large percentage of the population is utterly incapable of making proper diet and exercise decisions. They cannot make the right choices and are dying because of it.

I don't think it is a good idea to set prices so that only the wealthy can afford to eat cake. This is the kind of thinking that can start revolutions. Besides, I think the food pyramid recommendations change quite frequently usually with the help of food companies input and contributions to our polititians.

Willravel 01-28-2008 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf
I don't think it is a good idea to set prices so that only the wealthy can afford to eat cake.

Just FYI, that wasn't my idea at all. I would tax unhealthy food companies and give incentives to those that produce natural, healthy foods. When the market corrects itself (no one would pay $20 for a McDonalds meal), we'll be left with better options.

I see this as the same as taxing companies that pollute. Just because a company pollutes our arteries instead of our air doesn't make it any less pollution.

Ustwo 01-28-2008 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf
I think if we are going to go to this extreme then we should just provide universal care through the government and take the insurance companies out of the loop.

It is a poor extreme but far less extreme than a government run system which would still offer better choices.

Government hospitals have no incentive to compete for your dollars.

Willravel 01-28-2008 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo
Government hospitals have no incentive to compete for your dollars.

Government hospitals have no incentive to drive up prices for shareholders. Government hospitals have no incentive to turn people away because they can't pay. Government hospitals allow for additional coverage from private organizations, which can compete in the free market.

flstf 01-28-2008 11:57 AM

It looks like some countries that provide universal health care are also considering reducing care to high risk patients.
Quote:

Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors

By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:09am GMT 28/01/2008

Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

Fertility treatment and "social" abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.
The findings of a survey conducted by Doctor magazine sparked a fierce row last night, with the British Medical Association and campaign groups describing the recommendations from family and hospital doctors as "outrageous" and "disgraceful".

About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.
Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money.

The Government announced plans last week to offer fat people cash incentives to diet and exercise as part of a desperate strategy to steer Britain off a course that will otherwise see half the population dangerously overweight by 2050.
Obesity costs the British taxpayer Ł7 billion a year. Overweight people are more likely to contract diabetes, cancer and heart disease, and to require replacement joints or stomach-stapling operations.

Meanwhile, Ł1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema, with a similar sum spent by the NHS on alcohol problems. Cases of cirrhosis have tripled over the past decade.

Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services.
One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. Half thought that smokers should be denied a heart bypass, while a quarter believed that the obese should be denied hip replacements.

Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's ethics committee, said it would be "outrageous" to limit care on age grounds. Age Concern called the doctors' views "disgraceful".
Gordon Brown promised this month that a new NHS constitution would set out people's "responsibilities" as well as their rights, a move interpreted as meaning restrictions on patients who bring health problems on themselves. The only sanction threatened so far, however, is to send patients to the bottom of the waiting list if they miss appointments.

The survey found that medical professionals wanted to go much further in denying care to patients who do not look after their bodies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../27/nhs127.xml

Ustwo 01-28-2008 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf
It looks like some countries that provide universal health care are also considering reducing care to high risk patients.

Thats what I posted to restart this thread, I just linked it though.

Will ignored that part and just focused on the paying people not to be fat though.

Willravel 01-28-2008 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo
Will ignored that part and just focused on the paying people not to be fat though.

Like you've been ignoring my points?

OH SNAP! :eek:

flstf 01-28-2008 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo
It is a poor extreme but far less extreme than a government run system which would still offer better choices.

Government hospitals have no incentive to compete for your dollars.

You may be right since I don't have much faith in the government running this very well either. I was just trying to think of a way to use the insurance company profits to provide better care especially since they would have to raise their rates considerably if they were forced to cover everyone.

Sorry about missing your link, that's probably where I saw it in the first place and just forgot.

loquitur 01-29-2008 11:08 AM

The more things you put the govt in charge of, the more opportunities the govt has to restrict your freedoms. Health care is no different. That article about the British NHS is just an example of that principle at work.

dc_dux 01-29-2008 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur
The more things you put the govt in charge of, the more opportunities the govt has to restrict your freedoms. Health care is no different. That article about the British NHS is just an example of that principle at work.

How has the government restricted the freedoms of seniors in the 40+ years of Medicare? of the poor in 40+ years of Medicaid? or working class families in the 10+ years of SCHIP?

Willravel 01-29-2008 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
How has the government restricted the freedoms of seniors in the 40+ years of Medicare? of the poor in 40+ years of Medicaid? or working class families in the 10+ years of SCHIP?

Don't forget things like police and fire coverage, roads, public transportation, etc.

loquitur 01-29-2008 03:29 PM

hey guys, you are arguing a logical fallacy. I didn't say govt should do nothing, I just said that the more you give it to do, the more you're playing with fire. I'm not an anarchist. What I'm advocating is limited government, not no government.

Sheesh. Read the flippin' Federalist Papers about the need to restrict the powers of central government. It's all right there. And you still haven't made any effort to deal with that British NHS proposal to ration care away from people like the overweight or smokers.

Willravel 01-29-2008 03:31 PM

Guilt by association is also a fallacy. Just because NHS has issues doesn't mean that a hypothetical US system would.

loquitur 01-29-2008 07:35 PM

I'm talking about the principle, will. It's an illustration of what happens when you turn power over to the state. If it's not this particular problem it'll be another one. It always is. Rule of unintended consequences, you know.

Willravel 01-29-2008 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur
I'm talking about the principle, will. It's an illustration of what happens when you turn power over to the state. If it's not this particular problem it'll be another one. It always is. Rule of unintended consequences, you know.

That's hardly an actual rule. It's more like Murphy's Law.

Quite frankly, NHS is 1000 times better than what we have in the US, even bearing any glaring faults in mind including wait times and the possibility of morbidly obese people not getting a 100% free ride. You're aware that one can get additional coverage on top of universal healthcare, right? And that system is capitalist and privatized?

sprocket 01-29-2008 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
That's hardly an actual rule. It's more like Murphy's Law.

Quite frankly, NHS is 1000 times better than what we have in the US, even bearing any glaring faults in mind including wait times and the possibility of morbidly obese people not getting a 100% free ride. You're aware that one can get additional coverage on top of universal healthcare, right? And that system is capitalist and privatized?

Hes exactly right, they will eventually have to restrict your freedom. Eventually, the focus will no longer be on helping patients, but maintaining the sacred system. You put too much strain on the system by making lifestyle choices the collective deems bad, and you wont get your medical care. You want to see a particular doctor, because he is the best at what he does? Too bad, we dont think your illness has priority over somebody else, because we dont like how you led your life.

If you want government medical care, get your state to provide it for you, not the feds.

Willravel 01-29-2008 08:24 PM

My freedom is restricted under a capitalist system. Competition has ended because ALL of the competition is aware they can hike up prices and they simply do. Along with bribing government officials. And not covering now close to 50 million Americans.

But hey, NHS insists that you not live on bacon flavored potato chips and soda. Assholes!

sprocket 01-29-2008 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
My freedom is restricted under a capitalist system. Competition has ended because ALL of the competition is aware they can hike up prices and they simply do. Along with bribing government officials. And not covering now close to 50 million Americans.

But hey, NHS insists that you not live on bacon flavored potato chips and soda. Assholes!

Lets not forget, nutrition science isnt anywhere as certain as it gets made out to be. So what if your genetics allow you to maintain a fairly unhealthy diet, but your conditions were caused by some other outside factors? Yet since you eat bacon every day, they deem you unworthy for care.

You have the freedom to educate yourself, and choose a career that will get you the best medical care possible. Prices are so out of control partly because of government involvement. Demand goes through the roof because of government medical programs, and drives up the prices. Thats a simplistic way of looking at it, and there are many more factors involved, but its still true.

Edit: What is going to happen when the government provides healthcare to everybody and no one has to weigh the economic cost for getting every little ache and pain checked out, time and time again? Those current projections of a couple hundred bucks per tax payer are going to fly out the window. Then they have to either raise more taxes, or start coming up with all kinds of lists of acceptable and unacceptable treatments, procedures etc. Less freedom.

pr0f3n 01-29-2008 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur
Sheesh. Read the flippin' Federalist Papers about the need to restrict the powers of central government. It's all right there. And you still haven't made any effort to deal with that British NHS proposal to ration care away from people like the overweight or smokers.


Reread the article, the only NHS proposal mentioned is to incentivize self-care. Hardly clear evidence of the government restricting freedom. The Federalist papers are an interesting insight into political thought at our nation's founding but things have changed to such an extent they're hardly the end point in a discussion about the role of government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket
Yet since you eat bacon every day, they deem you unworthy for care.

No one's doing that.

Quote:

You have the freedom to educate yourself, and choose a career that will get you the best medical care possible.
Yeah what's wrong with all those poor people choosing to have no money?


Quote:

Prices are so out of control partly because of government involvement. Demand goes through the roof because of government medical programs, and drives up the prices. Thats a simplistic way of looking at it, and there are many more factors involved, but its still true.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and doing so with authority!

Quote:

Edit: What is going to happen when the government provides healthcare to everybody and no one has to weigh the economic cost for getting every little ache and pain checked out, time and time again? Those current projections of a couple hundred bucks per tax payer are going to fly out the window. Then they have to either raise more taxes, or start coming up with all kinds of lists of acceptable and unacceptable treatments.. have you done in your past that will allow us to exclude you for treatment etc etc. Less freedom.
Every other industrialized western nation has UHC and pay 60-120% less per capita than we do in the US. Preventative care decreases health expenditures over the long term. You're inventing problems that don't exist.

Willravel 01-29-2008 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket
Lets not forget, nutrition science isnt anywhere as certain as it gets made out to be. So what if your genetics allow you to maintain a fairly unhealthy diet, but your conditions were caused by some other outside factors? Yet since you eat bacon every day, they deem you unworthy for care.

I am always left wondering after reading stuff like this. Tell me, where above did it say that someone wouldn't be examined? Where did it say that they won't seek to find out what's causing your obesity if you have a healthy diet?

Nowhere.
Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket
You have the freedom to educate yourself, and choose a career that will get you the best medical care possible. Prices are so out of control partly because of government involvement. Demand goes through the roof because of government medical programs, and drives up the prices. Thats a simplistic way of looking at it, and there are many more factors involved, but its still true.

Who in the government decides that I have to pay $10k a year (my actual rate) because I have a preexisting condition? No one. That's a decision made by the health care insurers because I may not be a profitable patient at a normal rate. That has nothing at all to do with the government and everything to do with the free market.

As for government involvement in medicine... IT'S CIRCULAR. Big pharma and big health care insurance bribes representatives that will return the favor once elected. That wouldn't happen in a system that existed in the public sector.
Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket
Edit: What is going to happen when the government provides healthcare to everybody and no one has to weigh the economic cost for getting every little ache and pain checked out, time and time again? Those current projections of a couple hundred bucks per tax payer are going to fly out the window. Then they have to either raise more taxes, or start coming up with all kinds of lists of acceptable and unacceptable treatments, procedures etc. Less freedom.

The private US health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to the WHO. In other words, we pay more and get less. Sounds like we're getting raped. Do you have a source for your projections?

sprocket 02-01-2008 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0f3n
Reread the article, the only NHS proposal mentioned is to incentivize self-care. Hardly clear evidence of the government restricting freedom. The Federalist papers are an interesting insight into political thought at our nation's founding but things have changed to such an extent they're hardly the end point in a discussion about the role of government.



No one's doing that.



Yeah what's wrong with all those poor people choosing to have no money?

Yea, go visit the vast majority of those poor people and you'll see their injuries resulted from overstraining themselves carrying to much "bling".

Quote:

You have no idea what you're talking about, and doing so with authority!

Every other industrialized western nation has UHC and pay 60-120% less per capita than we do in the US. Preventative care decreases health expenditures over the long term. You're inventing problems that don't exist.
Just about every other industrialized nation with UHC, isn't comparable with the US on this issue. Number 1, most of them have better health to begin with than our obese, heart disease having, tv watching, non-exercising, diabetic population. The other issue, is our system is going to be the largest UHC system in the world.. by many times. The challenges in maintaining and implementing the medical system for a country as large as ours is going to be nearly impossible... especially when compared with a place like france.

I have no confidence in our federal government to uproot our entire medical system and make us all better off. Like I said in my first post on this thread, there's nothing stopping you from getting your state to provide health coverage. Get your state to do it. If it works as well as you think, then others will follow.

Its funny how so many people seem to mistrust the feds, claim 911 was in inside job, or go on and on about all the rights the government is continually taking away, but are ready to hand their lives right over in the form of UHC.

pr0f3n 02-01-2008 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket
Yea, go visit the vast majority of those poor people and you'll see their injuries resulted from overstraining themselves carrying to much "bling".

What the hell is wrong with you?

Quote:

Just about every other industrialized nation with UHC, isn't comparable with the US on this issue. Number 1, most of them have better health to begin with than our obese, heart disease having, tv watching, non-exercising, diabetic population.
America can't have UHC because countries with UHC are healthier because of their UHC. Gotcha.

Quote:

The other issue, is our system is going to be the largest UHC system in the world.. by many times. The challenges in maintaining and implementing the medical system for a country as large as ours is going to be nearly impossible... especially when compared with a place like france.
We already have a medical care infrastructure, funded through mixed payor means. We're only failing to cover 15% of the population. Single payor allows for everyone to receive preventative and emergency care at a greatly reduced cost and with better outcomes.

Quote:

I have no confidence in our federal government to uproot our entire medical system and make us all better off. Like I said in my first post on this thread, there's nothing stopping you from getting your state to provide health coverage. Get your state to do it. If it works as well as you think, then others will follow.
I'm not sure what leads you to believe our medical system will be "uprooted." We're talking about how it's payed for, doctors and hospitals remain the providers of care. It's the profiteering that's excised. The benefit of a Federal UHC system over disparate state plans is the portability and additional leverage in negotiating prices with providers and pharmaceutical companies. Plus with a centralized system it's far easier to address chronic lifestyle issues like obesity and smoking.


Quote:

Its funny how so many people seem to mistrust the feds, claim 911 was in inside job, or go on and on about all the rights the government is continually taking away, but are ready to hand their lives right over in the form of UHC.
It's funny how people drive on the federal highway system, go to public school, eat federally inspected food, yet don't trust our government to successfully administrate health care even we've been doing so for the elderly for 40 years.

sprocket 02-01-2008 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0f3n
What the hell is wrong with you?

America can't have UHC because countries with UHC are healthier because of their UHC. Gotcha.

And Britain is considering paying obese people to exercise in order to prevent their system from being crushed under its own weight (no pun intended). Doesn't seem like UHC is such a catalyst for cultural and lifestyle change.

Quote:

We already have a medical care infrastructure, funded through mixed payor means. We're only failing to cover 15% of the population. Single payor allows for everyone to receive preventative and emergency care at a greatly reduced cost and with better outcomes.

I'm not sure what leads you to believe our medical system will be "uprooted." We're talking about how it's payed for, doctors and hospitals remain the providers of care. It's the profiteering that's excised. The benefit of a Federal UHC system over disparate state plans is the portability and additional leverage in negotiating prices with providers and pharmaceutical companies. Plus with a centralized system it's far easier to address chronic lifestyle issues like obesity and smoking.
Even if your right, do you think the government is going to keep its tendrils out of medical care, and not start demanding compliance with whatever schemes the politicians come up with down the road? After all, its government money, they should get a say in how it gets spent.

And quite honestly, with the way our government handles money, both D&R, I'm not really excited at the prospect of giving them more to mismanage.

Fix government spending and I'll consider UHC. If its 15% of the population, uninsured, its hardly a national crisis worthy of so much fuss.

Quote:

It's funny how people drive on the federal highway system, go to public school, eat federally inspected food, yet don't trust our government to successfully administrate health care even we've been doing so for the elderly for 40 years.
I dont trust the government for schooling, not in the least. Anyway, whats wrong with starting at the state level first? Your asking to appropriate a hell of a lot of tax money from a hell of a lot of people for your scheme. The least you could do is prove it works first, by enacting it in a place thats willing to try... and if it doesnt work, you dont take us all along for the ride. Saying it works for the French isnt good enough... we have our own set of unique challenges in this country.

Willravel 02-01-2008 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket
And Britain is considering paying obese people to exercise in order to prevent their system from being crushed under its own weight (no pun intended). Doesn't seem like UHC is such a catalyst for cultural and lifestyle change.

NHS is rated one of the highest quality health care systems in the world. Maybe we should compare paying fat people to exercise to... say... 50 million Americans COMPLETELY uninsured. The fact that you're capable of overlooking a travesty in our system and concentrating on such a small problem in the NHS is telling about your bias. Yes, bias. You should take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

France, Italy, Singapore, Spain, Austria and Japan; all public healthcare, and all ranked as the best in the world. There really is no argument against this.

sprocket 02-01-2008 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
NHS is rated one of the highest quality health care systems in the world. Maybe we should compare paying fat people to exercise to... say... 50 million Americans COMPLETELY uninsured. The fact that you're capable of overlooking a travesty in our system and concentrating on such a small problem in the NHS is telling about your bias. Yes, bias. You should take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

I brought that up because of the claim that UHS ushers in a new age of health enlightenment, where no one becomes obese and everyone eats their vegetables.. and stops smoking. Its not true at all, and Europe in general, and many other places with UHS, are now starting to have the same problems with health and obesity that the US has struggled with. Our bad cultural habits are being exported, and I dont think switching us to UHC is going to reverse it.

Quote:

France, Italy, Singapore, Spain, Austria and Japan; all public healthcare, and all ranked as the best in the world. There really is no argument against this.
Like I said before... get government spending under control, and help hold politicians accountable for how they spend and borrow and it may be a viable option. Right now, I dont even think we should entertain the idea at all.

And yea... I am bias against new government programs. Again... whats wrong with doing it at the state level first?

Willravel 02-01-2008 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket
I brought that up because of the claim that UHS ushers in a new age of health enlightenment, where no one becomes obese and everyone eats their vegetables.. and stops smoking. Its not true at all, and Europe in general, and many other places with UHS, are now starting to have the same problems with health and obesity that the US has struggled with. Our bad cultural habits are being exported, and I dont think switching us to UHC is going to reverse it.

Link to stats?
Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket
And yea... I am bias against new government programs. Again... whats wrong with doing it at the state level first?

Most states won't do it. I shouldn't get universal healthcare just because I'm fortunate enough to live in California. All Americans deserve a better system, not just the ones smart enough to vote for it.

sprocket 02-01-2008 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Link to stats?

http://www.eubusiness.com/Health/eu-...esity-problem/

http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/uk...article-157251

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...3/nsick123.xml

Google Europe Obesity for all the articles and info you can handle on Europe's growing obesity problem.

Quote:

Most states won't do it. I shouldn't get universal healthcare just because I'm fortunate enough to live in California. All Americans deserve a better system, not just the ones smart enough to vote for it.
Its about proving the system will work here in the US and alleviating the concerns of the opposition. Obviously its not your desired endgame, but its a step in that direction and it would go along way towards getting support, if your system got results.

Willravel 02-01-2008 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket
Its about proving the system will work here in the US and alleviating the concerns of the opposition. Obviously its not your desired endgame, but its a step in that direction and it would go along way towards getting support, if your system got results.

I can't think of any reason it wouldn't work. It's not like the US is the only country in the world with corrupt and partisan politicians.

sprocket 02-01-2008 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
I can't think of any reason it wouldn't work. It's not like the US is the only country in the world with corrupt and partisan politicians.

I dont know what the spending is like is most of the UHC nations, but I think we can all pretty much count on our guys throwing all the UHC taxes into the general fund to pay for their earmarks and pet projects, while borrowing to actually pay for the UHC services.

Wow... they arent even waiting for UHC to start making laws about this crap... I remember years ago, just when the big anti-smoking laws started coming around and people would joke about laws against food would be coming next.. but it sounded crazy at the time.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...01081fat1.html

Quote:

New bill would make it illegal for restaurants to serve the obese

FEBRUARY 1--Mississippi legislators this week introduced a bill that would make it illegal for state-licensed restaurants to serve obese patrons. Bill No. 282, a copy of which you'll find below, is the brainchild of three members of the state's House of Representatives, Republicans W. T. Mayhall, Jr. and John Read, and Democrat Bobby Shows. The bill, which is likely dead on arrival, proposes that the state's Department of Health establish weight criteria after consultation with Mississippi's Council on Obesity. It does not detail what penalties an eatery would face if its grub was served to someone with an excessive body mass index. (2 pages)

pr0f3n 02-01-2008 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket
several posts


UHC systems offer the opportunity for a centralized, comprehensive approach to dealing with problems like obesity and smoking. I'm surprised that you can link those articles on UK/Euro obesity for their stats and not notice that they're all talking about how to solve the problem through their UHC systems. The UK is the heaviest population in Europe, projecting to have 25-30% obese or overweight by 2010. The US reached that level in 2000. What national program do we have to address such a problem, and why didn't we begin dealing with it before 1/3 of our people were fatasses?

What unique challenges does America have to deal with in health care that make UHC inviable? It works in dozens of industrialized nations, and has for decades. America has no unique characteristics or problems that prevent it from doing so as well.

It's a bad idea to allow the states to institute disparate systems in various states due to portability conflicts, their diminished stance in both contract negotiations and risk pooling.

I appreciate your trepidation in regards to government spending, but the US already spends more per capita than every UHC nation and our health indicators are falling or are already behind these same nations. Medicare works, the VA works, Tricare works.

http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/default.a...setCode=HEALTH
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/c...indicators=nha

You haven't offered any evidence for a UHC system that doesn't work, you haven't offered any real evidence for your cynical dismissals of UHC.
Frankly, fear-mongering about unprecedented hypotheticals is the last refuge of ideologues and fools. If you look at the data and have a scintilla of commons sense, you'll realize there's no debate to be had. UHC is the optimal moral and economic choice.

Tully Mars 02-02-2008 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye
well thats my co-pay as well for any visit for any reason no matter how many times I go...on top of the 120 a month I pay for my part of my insurance.

Im with BOR I remember when without insurance the entire visit was the around the same as just a little more than my co-pay is now....

I get the "itemized this is not a bill" statement and it just astounds me how much they charge for just a regular office visit these days

Go to a hospital for a few days and look at that bill. I've spent way too much time in hospitals over the past couple years. I had insurance. Even so, with the co-pay and portions not covered I could have easily bought my dream sports car. I look at the itemized bill and see things like 2 acetaminophen tablets (Tylenol) 22.75ea. and know the system is completely broken.

I no longer have insurance. I moved to Mexico and pay for my medical expenses out of pocket. It's better care, IMO. The Doctors are more often then not US trained. They spend more time with the patients, often coming to the home (no additional costs.) On top of all that it's less costly. My Dr. charges $25 per visit. If I need inpatient I can get a private room for around $90 a day. All these costs are less then my co-pays in the states.

ganon 02-02-2008 02:49 PM

i grew up in a single parent, horribly abusive home. i suffer from the after affects, but i function. i work where i have health benefits. if they didn't have them i would find a place that did. life sucks, folks. thinking that the govt is going to be able to fix it is just a bad idea. if true competition between providers was allowed, and people could choose who they want to see, the prices of all of this would go down. the govt is in such crappy shape financially and we are continuing to ask more of it. where is the money going to come from? just because they can print it doesn't mean it has any worth. you can get good medical care for major surgery in india for a third or less of what they charge here. if more people could get over there for these major things, the price would come down here. and if people weren't suing the pants off of doctors the cost would drop. right now if the govt takes a leak in your cornflakes, can you sue them? no. imagine how bad it will be when the malpractice starts up under a govt program. no redress of grievences. it's a bad idea.

flstf 02-02-2008 11:57 PM

I read most of Hillary's plan on her web site. From what I can tell she wants to force everyone to purchase insurance from either a private company or a plan offered by the government. Insurance companies would not be allowed to charge more based on age, pre-conditions or anything else that might be perceived as higher risk.

As an example (I'm just guessing here) someone over 55 who is paying $1000 per month and someone under 25 who is paying $200 per month would now be paying the same. I guess the result would be something like $600 per month for both. There would be government subsidies for those who can't afford it.

On the surface this looks like a good deal for the old and/or unhealthy and a bad deal for the young and/or healthy. I guess bringing in all the young and healthy currently uninsured people might keep the rates somewhat lower than now? I still don't understand the monetary logic of her and Obama's plan of keeping the insurance companies in the loop.

Tully Mars 02-03-2008 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf
I read most of Hillary's plan on her web site. From what I can tell she wants to force everyone to purchase insurance from either a private company or a plan offered by the government. Insurance companies would not be allowed to charge more based on age, pre-conditions or anything else that might be perceived as higher risk.

As an example (I'm just guessing here) someone over 55 who is paying $1000 per month and someone under 25 who is paying $200 per month would now be paying the same. I guess the result would be something like $600 per month for both. There would be government subsidies for those who can't afford it.

On the surface this looks like a good deal for the old and/or unhealthy and a bad deal for the young and/or healthy. I guess bringing in all the young and healthy currently uninsured people might keep the rates somewhat lower than now? I still don't understand the monetary logic of her and Obama's plan of keeping the insurance companies in the loop.

I think, given the aging pop, the numbers for the final rate might be higher then $600.

I'm not so sure there is a good solution to US health care. I recently read an article about Nixon and Henry J. Kaiser regarding the history of the HMO act of 1973. Granted I haven't done a lot of research on this subject but it seems to me that starting with the passage of that act we started down the wrong road regarding health care in the US. We've been going down that road for 35 years now. An awful lot of damage has been done and undoing it will not be easy, IMO.

Willravel 02-03-2008 10:52 AM

Warning: Hillary 2008 is not the same as Hillary 1994. Don't confuse the two.

flstf 02-03-2008 02:55 PM

I just looked up Massachusetts' plan and it makes little sense to me. We currently have $10,000 deductible catastrophic coverage for $300 per month which would not qualify in Mass. Instead we would be forced to buy a state approved (low deductible) private insurance plan that would cost between $900 and $1800 per month. If you can show that you can't afford it and the state approves then they will not penalize you to be uninsured. If you are poor (income below $42,000 for a couple) you can get a similar plan from the state for $200 to $300 per month.

Since the poor usually qualify for government assistance anyway, I don't see much benefit in this plan other than to force those in the middle class and above to buy more expensive plans with additional things like drugs covered, etc.. with lower deductibles. I guess there are some couples making less than $42,000 per year and too much for other government programs who will benefit from buying the lower priced state packages. But I bet there are thousands of couples who make more than $42,000 per year who won't be able to afford the state approved private insurance rates.

Ustwo 02-03-2008 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf
I just looked up Massachusetts' plan and it makes little sense to me. We currently have $10,000 deductible catastrophic coverage for $300 per month which would not qualify in Mass. Instead we would be forced to buy a state approved (low deductible) private insurance plan that would cost between $900 and $1800 per month. If you can show that you can't afford it and the state approves then they will not penalize you to be uninsured. If you are poor (income below $42,000 for a couple) you can get a similar plan from the state for $200 to $300 per month.

Since the poor usually qualify for government assistance anyway, I don't see much benefit in this plan other than to force those in the middle class and above to buy more expensive plans with additional things like drugs covered, etc.. with lower deductibles. I guess there are some couples making less than $42,000 per year and too much for other government programs who will benefit from buying the lower priced state packages. But I bet there are thousands of couples who make more than $42,000 per year who won't be able to afford the state approved private insurance rates.

We have a high deductible plan as well, nice that the government would tell me I don't have the proper coverage.

Forcing people to get insurance. It makes sense for auto insurance since it protects the other drivers, but here, its just more fascism with a happy face.

pr0f3n 02-04-2008 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf
I just looked up Massachusetts' plan and it makes little sense to me. We currently have $10,000 deductible catastrophic coverage for $300 per month which would not qualify in Mass. Instead we would be forced to buy a state approved (low deductible) private insurance plan that would cost between $900 and $1800 per month. If you can show that you can't afford it and the state approves then they will not penalize you to be uninsured. If you are poor (income below $42,000 for a couple) you can get a similar plan from the state for $200 to $300 per month.

Since the poor usually qualify for government assistance anyway, I don't see much benefit in this plan other than to force those in the middle class and above to buy more expensive plans with additional things like drugs covered, etc.. with lower deductibles. I guess there are some couples making less than $42,000 per year and too much for other government programs who will benefit from buying the lower priced state packages. But I bet there are thousands of couples who make more than $42,000 per year who won't be able to afford the state approved private insurance rates.

Yeah this is the failure of mandates. It wouldn't be much better if the government got into the mixed payor market. This is also why state governments can't work. Massachusetts is just too small to negotiate effectively with the insurance industry, and way too small to fund their own insurance plan universally. This is what you'll see if you keep voting for Republicans though.

Single payor or nationalized industry are the only two schemes that have consistently succeeded in achieving universal health care.

Ustwo 02-04-2008 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0f3n
Single payor or nationalized industry are the only two schemes that have consistently succeeded in achieving universal health care.

And yet, outside of experimental treatments which haven't been approved in the US, people still flock here for treatment from other countries.

Odd that.

dksuddeth 02-04-2008 09:17 AM

Quote:

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans. The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."
Nothing says 'socialist democrat' any louder than someone wanting to force you to participate in something that costs you your money to pay for someone elses interests and then wants to jail you for refusing.

flstf 02-04-2008 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0f3n
Yeah this is the failure of mandates. It wouldn't be much better if the government got into the mixed payor market. This is also why state governments can't work. Massachusetts is just too small to negotiate effectively with the insurance industry, and way too small to fund their own insurance plan universally. This is what you'll see if you keep voting for Republicans though.

I don't think it is just the Republicans. Hillary's plan forces you to buy a policy from private insurance or the government and Obama's plan is similar except you can choose to be uninsured. The devil is in the details which we know little about at this stage but both of them are keeping the insurance companies in the loop.

Mass. is in the process of actually implementing their policy so we know most of the details now. If I understand the situation they are already backing down from requiring many middle class people to buy state approved insurance because they cannot afford it and it would cost too much to subsidize them.

I have a feeling these plans will be more of the same especially after the lobiests work their money magic on congress. The poor will be OK with government assistance and the wealthy will be OK since they have great insurance and resources. It is the working poor and middle class who are most at risk of losing everything from a sudden illness or accident.

dc_dux 02-04-2008 09:55 AM

I must be lookling at different plans.

As I have read them, both the Clinton and Obama plan allow (and encourage) those currently covered through an employer-based plan to remain with the plan if it is satisfactory.

Thats about 180+ million who, for the most part, would not be affected by either candidate's plan.

And both Clinton and Obama plans would cover the uninsured based, in part, on the federal employees and/or congressional plan model and, in part, on health pools for small businesses who currently do not provide coverage for employees. Neither is a government run program, but a program that offers choice from among a variety of private providers.

added:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo
And yet, outside of experimental treatments which haven't been approved in the US, people still flock here for treatment from other countries.

Odd that.

Flock here?

Not likely. The last stats I recall seeing reported that medical visas to the US have been declining dramatically for the last 10 years or so while "medical tourism" has become a boom industry, with countries like Costa Rica, Singapore, Phillipines the greatest destinations.

Tully Mars 02-04-2008 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo
And yet, outside of experimental treatments which haven't been approved in the US, people still flock here for treatment from other countries.

Odd that.

Odd that you would say that.

There's a time what you're saying would be 100% true, not so much these days. There was also a time when a car built in the US would be considered hands down the best world wide, no so much these days.

People from the US are in fact flocking to other countries for more and more medical treatments every year. Medical tourism as it's known is a billion dollar plus a year business. India alone projects they'll be doing 2.2 billion a year by 2012.

People from the US seeking care in other countries are likely doing so because the cost of the care is 10%-25% of what it would cost in the US.

While people from countries that have socialized medicine are generally engaging in medical tourism to avoid long lines and wait times.

I moved to Mexico last year and a part of my determining factor in moving was medical care. I'm finding the quality of care is often better then what I was getting in the states and the cost is less then my deducible and co-pays back in Oregon. And yes I had health insurance from a private provider.

Here's an article from the University of Delaware that covers some of the trends:

http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2005/m...ism072505.html

flstf 02-04-2008 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
And both Clinton and Obama plans would cover the uninsured based, in part, on the federal employees and/or congressional plan model and, in part, on health pools for small businesses who currently do not provide coverage for employees. Neither is a government run program, but a program that offers choice from among a variety of private providers.

That will be great if we can buy the same plan that they have for the same as they pay out of pocket with all the bells and whistles like dental and vision. Plus they can't charge more for high risks. With the insurance companies in the loop, I'll believe it when I see it.

I suspect that when we know all the details that they will determine it is too expensive like Mass. and working people who do not have employer furnished insurance will be unable to afford it. Heck, today those of us who have to buy our own can't even claim our health insurance costs as a deduction. The poor already get subsidized.

These polititians get a lot of money from the health care, pharma and insurance industries so they will make out OK no matter what they come up with. I believe they are talking a good game now (with few details) in order to score points in order to get elected. Once in office reality will set in.

sprocket 02-06-2008 06:43 PM

Interesting. A study was recently published that has found "curing obesity" (ie, preventative care) actually increases medical costs... simply because patients live longer.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...d.0050029&ct=1

Quote:

.....

Conclusions

Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures.
Guess NHS might want to rethink their obesity programs.

flstf 02-06-2008 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket
Interesting. A study was recently published that has found "curing obesity" (ie, preventative care) actually increases medical costs... simply because patients live longer.

The same argument could be made for any preventative care, the longer we live the older we get and the more health care we will use. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to have a policy of witholding care so people die young to save money. I guess there are some who might feel this is a good way to reduce the surplus population.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360