How should the US structure universal fed "health care" system?

[neiowa]

It is obvious that the federal gov't is shortly going to take control of the US health care system. How should this be structured and what federal agency should best operate this new system?

Lost the poll question.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

It will be an extremely costly lesson for the US. Most people have no idea that this is happening. The ones that do know what is happening think that everything will remain the same, only it will be free.

There will be fewer people entering the medical profession. There will be fewer places to go for treatment. Costly treatments will be rationed. Medical care will be withheld.

Please don't tell me that I am shouting that the sky is falling. Any rational examination of this "plan" will show that the above results are inevitable.

The only good thing is that the people in the US are used to quality health care w/o restriction. When they see what is happening, the tide will change and we will revert back to an imperfect, but much more humanitarian approach to health care.

[ScareCrow57]

The government cannot run anything efficiently

Thereis a good commentary on this at CNN Commentary: Grateful Dead on health care (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/zelizer.health.care/index.html)

There is still the cost of health care and those cost won't change. If the government takes over the cost will increase because more people will receive care at no cost to them, there will be increased bureaucratic overhead, and the quality of care will suffer. Anyone who has ever tried to work with a government agency can tell you about the inefficiencies. Classic example. Wal-Mart has wanted to build a super store here for about 5 years now. They can't get through the permitting process. Now carry those same systems over to your heath care and imagine the nightmare.

As Dead sang, "When life looks like Easy Street, there is danger at your door."

If it looks to be to good to be true then it probably is. The insurance industry, hospitals, doctors, et al are in the business to make a profit. Take away the profit and you have real problems. Plus, they will never be able to fund it.

[gamewell35]

The government cannot run anything efficiently

Thereis a good commentary on this at CNN Commentary: Grateful Dead on health care (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/zelizer.health.care/index.html)

There is still the cost of health care and those cost won't change. If the government takes over the cost will increase because more people will receive care at no cost to them, there will be increased bureaucratic overhead, and the quality of care will suffer. Anyone who has ever tried to work with a government agency can tell you about the inefficiencies. Classic example. Wal-Mart has wanted to build a super store here for about 5 years now. They can't get through the permitting process. Now carry those same systems over to your heath care and imagine the nightmare.

As Dead sang, "When life looks like Easy Street, there is danger at your door."

If it looks to be to good to be true then it probably is. The insurance industry, hospitals, doctors, et al are in the business to make a profit. Take away the profit and you have real problems. Plus, they will never be able to fund it.

If we follow your rationale, what's the answer for the 47 million people without medical insurance in this country???

[ScareCrow57]

If we follow your rationale, what's the answer for the 47 million people without medical insurance in this country???

Of the 47 million about half have jobs and choose not to get insurance. That is their option. And all of these people have access to health care, so it is a non-issue.

[FDAIC485]

If we follow your rationale, what's the answer for the 47 million people without medical insurance in this country???

It's called get a job that provides some sort of insurance.

[slipperypete]

If we follow your rationale, what's the answer for the 47 million people without medical insurance in this country???So the coverage that my family and I receive has to suffer?!

[Catch22]

If we follow your rationale, what's the answer for the 47 million people without medical insurance in this country???

Reduce the cost of healthcare, for starters. But to do that, you have to take a major bite out of malpractice settlements by placing limitations on awards. Hell, make it harder to get awarded, even. These petty, BS lawsuits are a mockery of our judicial system and they're costing us.

You also have to find a way for the healthcare provider to actually get paid. Making them actually find a job and get off of medicaid would be a helluva start toward that end. Cutting out the waste in gov't so that Medicare can actually pay more than 50% of a claim would be another goal.

[gamewell35]

It's called get a job that provides some sort of insurance.

How many 6 year old kids are able to work and purchase Medical benefits?

[gamewell35]

So the coverage that my family and I receive has to suffer?!

Why would your coverage suffer? Please tell me how covering others would hurt you and your family?

[gamewell35]

Of the 47 million about half have jobs and choose not to get insurance. That is their option. And all of these people have access to health care, so it is a non-issue.

Crow, many of those people you claim choose not to get coverage can't afford it because they don't make enough money and they have to decide whether or not they want to eat or pay their rent, etc.

So they don't get preventive health coverage and when they really get sick, the public gets stuck footing the bill. And in many cases, people who suffer devasting illlnesses are no longer able to work and remain as productive citizens of this country.

It's not just that easy as many of the posters in this board want it to be.

[gamewell35]

Reduce the cost of healthcare, for starters. But to do that, you have to take a major bite out of malpractice settlements by placing limitations on awards. Hell, make it harder to get awarded, even. These petty, BS lawsuits are a mockery of our judicial system and they're costing us.

You also have to find a way for the healthcare provider to actually get paid. Making them actually find a job and get off of medicaid would be a helluva start toward that end. Cutting out the waste in gov't so that Medicare can actually pay more than 50% of a claim would be another goal.

Finally, someone with some common sense in here. Everything you mention is practicable and achievable. This is an excellent step in the right direction!

[BryanLoader]

It will be an extremely costly lesson for the US. Most people have no idea that this is happening. The ones that do know what is happening think that everything will remain the same, only it will be free.

There will be fewer people entering the medical profession. There will be fewer places to go for treatment. Costly treatments will be rationed. Medical care will be withheld.

Please don't tell me that I am shouting that the sky is falling. Any rational examination of this "plan" will show that the above results are inevitable.

The only good thing is that the people in the US are used to quality health care w/o restriction. When they see what is happening, the tide will change and we will revert back to an imperfect, but much more humanitarian approach to health care.

The only problem with that George, is that rabbit is going to be extremely difficult to be put back in the hat once its out. To get a decent look at a fairly good universal health care system, look to Australia. They've got a combination og govt and top up private health insurance which seems to work really well. Canada and Britain are not in too good a shape in this regard.

[FDAIC485]

How many 6 year old kids are able to work and purchase Medical benefits?

You should go research what happened in Hawaii when they tried to implement health coverage for uninsured children. The program went bankrupt in less than a year after taxpayers started dropping their kids from their current policies to qualify for the state program.

I pay around $5000 a year for my family medical insurance. How much will my taxes have to go up so I can also provide medical coverage for someone who thinks that he/she can support a family slinging fries?

[ScareCrow57]

Crow, many of those people you claim choose not to get coverage can't afford it because they don't make enough money and they have to decide whether or not they want to eat or pay their rent, etc.

So they don't get preventive health coverage and when they really get sick, the public gets stuck footing the bill. And in many cases, people who suffer devasting illlnesses are no longer able to work and remain as productive citizens of this country.

It's not just that easy as many of the posters in this board want it to be.

Flat screen TV, two cars, boats, recreational vehicles, or health insurance? Many choose the toys over health insurance. How many people have you seen who don't carry insurance on their home?

[ScareCrow57]

How many 6 year old kids are able to work and purchase Medical benefits?

How many 6 year olds have parents. DUH!!!!

[ScareCrow57]

Reduce the cost of healthcare, for starters. But to do that, you have to take a major bite out of malpractice settlements by placing limitations on awards. Hell, make it harder to get awarded, even. These petty, BS lawsuits are a mockery of our judicial system and they're costing us.

You also have to find a way for the healthcare provider to actually get paid. Making them actually find a job and get off of medicaid would be a helluva start toward that end. Cutting out the waste in gov't so that Medicare can actually pay more than 50% of a claim would be another goal.

How much of the cost is to cover malpractice? While I agree with your premise that these foolish and wasteful suits need to stop I also would like to know how much of the cost this affects.
And what about the tons of money that go to treating the terminally ill? Where do you draw the line and do you want the government making that decision?

But brother, you hit the nail on the head when you speak of the ineffectiveness of medicare/medicaid. The government cannot even run these programs effectively with a small population, expanding it will only cost us all more, rather than less.

[ScareCrow57]

Why would your coverage suffer? Please tell me how covering others would hurt you and your family?

The money to cover these people at no cost to them has to come from somewhere. If we are going to cover an additional 47 million people at a cost of 5,000 each that is $235 billion per year. That doesn't include the cost of administering additional taxes and fees, an increase in the size of the government bureaucracy, plus a system to investigate fraud and abuse. The medicaid system is one of the most abused systems in the country. And rest assured, those who get the coverage for free will abuse the system. Right now in NYS there are 23 different programs where people can get health care. My county has 55,000 people, the DSS office has full time people who do nothing more than try to find a way for people to get free or reduced cost health care. These people end up with a free policy that has a $3 copay, and they don't even pay that. These are the same people who go to the ER for a cold.

Bottom line is, government needs to stay out of the free enterprise system. For the last 150 years government has tried to regulate industry. And what did we get? Economic collapse.

[FF2426]

A couple of months ago I pretty much smashed off the bird finger on my left hand. Well I went to the e.r. with the expectation of them saying there is not enough to put back together and I would lose the ability to express my frustration to other drivers on the road. Well the doc on duty called a reconstructive surgeon and after looking at it for a while he said they can either cut it off or he believed that there was enough there to put back together with minimal deformaty. I chose to get my finger put back together (because I pay a lot for medical insurance and don't get the chance to use it that often) that day since he had the afternoon open. Since I drove myself I only wanted a local anesthetic used the doc agreed and I was awake and talking to him through the whole thing.

I brought up the idea of nationalized healthcare to get his opinion. What he told me really surprised me and made me cherish the insurance I have and pay for now. He said "if you came in with this injury under a national healthcare plan the e.d. doc wouldn't of called me, they would of just had you sent on to get the digit cut off. It would not be cost effective to have me come and spend 1 1/2 hours putting your finger back together not to mention having to pay for the at least 5 follow up examinations no matter how much you wanted to keep your finger" He also said that not only would patient care suffer dramatic setbacks but hospital up keep and renovations would almost disappear. Then the most surprising thing was when he said that the people working on cures for Cancer, AIDS, and other diseases would see their research funding almost disappear because the money would be needed elsewhere to pay for other things in the system and what would be the point of having a cure for a disease if the cure was to expensive to pay for.

Long story short I wouldn't have a finger, hospitals will fall into dis-array, patient care will suffer, patients will have little to no say in what treatments they recieve, advancements in medicine will disappear so they can pay to treat the problems we have now, and like others have said before taxes will skyrocket.

[slipperypete]

Why would your coverage suffer? Please tell me how covering others would hurt you and your family?Well, since you haven't posted your stance on universal healthcare i don't know where you stand. You appear to be in favor of it but i don't know for sure.

[ScareCrow57]

A couple of months ago I pretty much smashed off the bird finger on my left hand. Well I went to the e.r. with the expectation of them saying there is not enough to put back together and I would lose the ability to express my frustration to other drivers on the road. Well the doc on duty called a reconstructive surgeon and after looking at it for a while he said they can either cut it off or he believed that there was enough there to put back together with minimal deformaty. I chose to get my finger put back together (because I pay a lot for medical insurance and don't get the chance to use it that often) that day since he had the afternoon open. Since I drove myself I only wanted a local anesthetic used the doc agreed and I was awake and talking to him through the whole thing.

I brought up the idea of nationalized healthcare to get his opinion. What he told me really surprised me and made me cherish the insurance I have and pay for now. He said "if you came in with this injury under a national healthcare plan the e.d. doc wouldn't of called me, they would of just had you sent on to get the digit cut off. It would not be cost effective to have me come and spend 1 1/2 hours putting your finger back together not to mention having to pay for the at least 5 follow up examinations no matter how much you wanted to keep your finger" He also said that not only would patient care suffer dramatic setbacks but hospital up keep and renovations would almost disappear. Then the most surprising thing was when he said that the people working on cures for Cancer, AIDS, and other diseases would see their research funding almost disappear because the money would be needed elsewhere to pay for other things in the system and what would be the point of having a cure for a disease if the cure was to expensive to pay for.

Long story short I wouldn't have a finger, hospitals will fall into dis-array, patient care will suffer, patients will have little to no say in what treatments they recieve, advancements in medicine will disappear so they can pay to treat the problems we have now, and like others have said before taxes will skyrocket.

That is funny. My dentist has the same opinion. Then again, these are people working in the medical profession, what do they know?

[gamewell35]

You should go research what happened in Hawaii when they tried to implement health coverage for uninsured children. The program went bankrupt in less than a year after taxpayers started dropping their kids from their current policies to qualify for the state program.

I pay around $5000 a year for my family medical insurance. How much will my taxes have to go up so I can also provide medical coverage for someone who thinks that he/she can support a family slinging fries?

You still didn't answer the question.

[gamewell35]

Flat screen TV, two cars, boats, recreational vehicles, or health insurance? Many choose the toys over health insurance. How many people have you seen who don't carry insurance on their home?

Crow, i don't know too many people who have all of the above who don't have some sort of medical coverage. Maybe you do; I don't know but most people who can't afford medical insurance don't have that unless for some reason they have credit cards to lay out the money, which of course they are then expected to pay off. Most of them knowing they can't afford the monthly payments choose not to purchase those items.

I don't think your being realistic in this, rather your looking at it through blinders.

[CaptainGonzo]

The biggest burden on the healthcare system are the poor and uninsured.

What we need is a "Medical Corps".

There are thousands of bright students in this country that would love to be become doctors. While some may luck out and get scholarships; the costs of college and medical school put the dream out of reach for many.

The Military pays for college for those in the ROTC prgram, and in return the student serves as an officer in the service for a set number of years.

We could the same thing for healthcare. The Government would pay for college and med school, and in return, the doctors who graduate would serve in the "Medical Corps" in the rural and inner city areas for a set number of years before they could hang out their own shingle. They would be paid by the Medical Corps.

The costs of the medical corps would be far cheaper than the present system.

[FDAIC485]

You still didn't answer the question.

Let me yell it for the cheap seats....

THE FATHER AND/OR MOTHER SHOULD GET A JOB AND PROVIDE PROPERLY FOR THEIR CHILDREN.

I do it for my family. My Dad did it. It's called being a provider. It has something to do about duty and pride. It is something that is not limited to the Fire Service. Looking back now, my Father is one of the greatest men that I have ever known. And, yes, he did it all on a high school education.

[FDAIC485]

Crow, i don't know too many people who have all of the above who don't have some sort of medical coverage. Maybe you do; I don't know but most people who can't afford medical insurance don't have that unless for some reason they have credit cards to lay out the money, which of course they are then expected to pay off. Most of them knowing they can't afford the monthly payments choose not to purchase those items.

I don't think your being realistic in this, rather your looking at it through blinders.

Brother, I have worked fires and medical calls in welfare/medicaid households that have better entertainment centers than I have. Out in the country, it is very common to see a $35-45,000 pick-up truck sitting next to an old single-wide.

[ScareCrow57]

Crow, i don't know too many people who have all of the above who don't have some sort of medical coverage. Maybe you do; I don't know but most people who can't afford medical insurance don't have that unless for some reason they have credit cards to lay out the money, which of course they are then expected to pay off. Most of them knowing they can't afford the monthly payments choose not to purchase those items.

I don't think your being realistic in this, rather your looking at it through blinders.

Oh, they are easy to find. Go to your local Department of Social Services. They won't be the ones behind the desk, they will be the ones asking for the handout.

[ScareCrow57]

The biggest burden on the healthcare system are the poor and uninsured.

What we need is a "Medical Corps".

There are thousands of bright students in this country that would love to be become doctors. While some may luck out and get scholarships; the costs of college and medical school put the dream out of reach for many.

The Military pays for college for those in the ROTC prgram, and in return the student serves as an officer in the service for a set number of years.

We could the same thing for healthcare. The Government would pay for college and med school, and in return, the doctors who graduate would serve in the "Medical Corps" in the rural and inner city areas for a set number of years before they could hang out their own shingle. They would be paid by the Medical Corps.

The costs of the medical corps would be far cheaper than the present system.

Interesting concept, this medical corp. Are you suggesting that our doctors and nurses become part of a government run agency that then provides the care? Or are you suggesting a system like EMS where lesser trained people go out into the field to give shots, basic physicals, and basic health assessments. In the cities they could set up clinics, in rural areas there would need to be mobile clinics.

Most doctors spend 10 years getting that piece of paper. They work very hard and have very little while getting it. They do so with the idea that in the end they will make a lot of money. Also to add to that income they carry pagers and such so they can give their patients the best care.

What interest me is the number of people who complain about the rising costs. Those costs come from the application of high tech diagnosis, better care, people living longer, of course the cost will go up. Used to be you went to the family doctor, he took an x-ray, and fixed you up. Now you go to an x-ray facility, the family doctor calls in a specialist, the x-ray gets read by some other expert, then they order an MRI, and eventually treat the problem. Some of the test that are ordered are Doctors just covering their butts to protect against malpractice. Some are to provide a higher level of care. We could freeze the cost of health care, but that will mean no more advances.

[gamewell35]

Let me yell it for the cheap seats....

THE FATHER AND/OR MOTHER SHOULD GET A JOB AND PROVIDE PROPERLY FOR THEIR CHILDREN.

I do it for my family. My Dad did it. It's called being a provider. It has something to do about duty and pride. It is something that is not limited to the Fire Service. Looking back now, my Father is one of the greatest men that I have ever known. And, yes, he did it all on a high school education.

Thats a great concept except for those "Parents" who either chose not to work or are out of work and unable to afford to provide medical insurance; either way the children come out the losers in the end.

[FDAIC485]

Thats a great concept except for those "Parents" who either chose not to work or are out of work and unable to afford to provide medical insurance; either way the children come out the losers in the end.

These kids are normally on state-funded medical programs already, it's called medicaid. It's a gimme when their parents are on the government dime for their monthly checks. They go hand in hand.

[CaptainGonzo]

Interesting concept, this medical corp. Are you suggesting that our doctors and nurses become part of a government run agency that then provides the care? Or are you suggesting a system like EMS where lesser trained people go out into the field to give shots, basic physicals, and basic health assessments. In the cities they could set up clinics, in rural areas there would need to be mobile clinics.

No. Existing medical practices would not be part of the medical corps.

Most doctors spend 10 years getting that piece of paper. They work very hard and have very little while getting it. They do so with the idea that in the end they will make a lot of money. Also to add to that income they carry pagers and such so they can give their patients the best care.

Having premed and medical schol paid for in exchnage for a few years of service, a steady paycheck and experience sounds like a good deal... if they want to become "concierge doctors" and cater to the aches, pains and plastic surgeries of the superwealthy, they can do so... after they finish their committments to Uncle Sam.

What interest me is the number of people who complain about the rising costs. Those costs come from the application of high tech diagnosis, better care, people living longer, of course the cost will go up. Used to be you went to the family doctor, he took an x-ray, and fixed you up. Now you go to an x-ray facility, the family doctor calls in a specialist, the x-ray gets read by some other expert, then they order an MRI, and eventually treat the problem. Some of the test that are ordered are Doctors just covering their butts to protect against malpractice. Some are to provide a higher level of care. We could freeze the cost of health care, but that will mean no more advances.

Years ago, "bloodletting" was also considered a cure for what ails you... :rolleyes:

Advances in medical technology have improved our quality of life. Running additional tests may catch something before it becomes more costly to treat.

If you look at the big picture, the vicious cycle of the costs of healthcare didn't start rocketing into the stratosphere didn't start until the lifting of the ban on lawyers advertising. When they promise to take your case (while some are legitimate, others are totally frivolous) with no fee if they don't win it for you (actually themselves) and the insurance companies would rather pay out settlements than go to court, they in turn raise the insurance rates, which makes the doctors and medical device manufacturers, drug companies and companies raise their rates to cover the added expenses. The cycle is self perpetuating....

[ScareCrow57]

What interest me is the number of people who complain about the rising costs. Those costs come from the application of high tech diagnosis, better care, people living longer, of course the cost will go up. Used to be you went to the family doctor, he took an x-ray, and fixed you up. Now you go to an x-ray facility, the family doctor calls in a specialist, the x-ray gets read by some other expert, then they order an MRI, and eventually treat the problem. Some of the test that are ordered are Doctors just covering their butts to protect against malpractice. Some are to provide a higher level of care. We could freeze the cost of health care, but that will mean no more advances.


Years ago, "bloodletting" was also considered a cure for what ails you... :rolleyes:

My point here was that with the increased technology and better care comes increased cost. It is true we are able to catch things sooner. The colonoscopy is a classic example. Not too may years ago we didn't do this. Now we do this simple procedure at a cost of about $2,000 to detect problems early. So we have the direct cost of the procedure and the indirect cost of a longer life meaning more health care is needed.

And yes, clearly the legal profession is part of the problem. One almost gets the feeling the insurance companies are in collusion with the lawyers. If the insurance companies would do more to fight frivolous and unwarranted suits they would become unprofitable and go away. Classic case of good short term vision but poor long term sight.

[CaptainGonzo]

Colonoscopy prep: $40
Colonosocopy: $2,000
Catching potential problems: priceless.

I plan on living healthy and collecting my pension for a long time! :cool:

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

The only problem with that George, is that rabbit is going to be extremely difficult to be put back in the hat once its out. To get a decent look at a fairly good universal health care system, look to Australia. They've got a combination og govt and top up private health insurance which seems to work really well. Canada and Britain are not in too good a shape in this regard.

This is the US, not Canada. People will stuff that b@$t@rd back in faster than you could imagine. Once they realize what is going on, that is.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Thats a great concept except for those "Parents" who either chose not to work or are out of work and unable to afford to provide medical insurance; either way the children come out the losers in the end.

So if a "parent" chooses not to work, it is MY problem. Another Lib laugher.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

My point here was that with the increased technology and better care comes increased cost. It is true we are able to catch things sooner. The colonoscopy is a classic example. Not too may years ago we didn't do this. Now we do this simple procedure at a cost of about $2,000 to detect problems early. So we have the direct cost of the procedure and the indirect cost of a longer life meaning more health care is needed.

And yes, clearly the legal profession is part of the problem. One almost gets the feeling the insurance companies are in collusion with the lawyers. If the insurance companies would do more to fight frivolous and unwarranted suits they would become unprofitable and go away. Classic case of good short term vision but poor long term sight.

We all know that you will never die of colon cancer. Your head is so far up your butt you would catch the tiniest little tumor right away.

[ActionGoose]

I would give anything for socialized healthcare in this country.

If someone has the opportunity to see physician on a regular basis, they won't call me in the middle of the night for exacerbation of chronic conditions or for a ride for the ER for "midnight primary care".

[ActionGoose]

So if a "parent" chooses not to work, it is MY problem. Another Lib laugher.

Can you actually cite a source of all these healthy Americans that choose not to work because they prefer abject poverty?

[FDAIC485]

I would give anything for socialized healthcare in this country.

If someone has the opportunity to see physician on a regular basis, they won't call me in the middle of the night for exacerbation of chronic conditions or for a ride for the ER for "midnight primary care".

How much are you willing to pay for this? Meaning, how much more federal taxes do you want to pay every paycheck? The money has to come from somewhere to cover it.

[slipperypete]

I would give anything for socialized healthcare in this country.

If someone has the opportunity to see physician on a regular basis, they won't call me in the middle of the night for exacerbation of chronic conditions or for a ride for the ER for "midnight primary care". So we should all support your laziness? You can feel free to give anything of yours but you have no right to make me give up mine.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Can you actually cite a source of all these healthy Americans that choose not to work because they prefer abject poverty?

No.

But then again, I'm not the one who brought it up.

[scfire86]

The government cannot run anything efficiently
I can name numerous federal programs that are considered successful. This is yet another one of your stupid claims based upon a soundbite you read on some obscure blog that worships Ayn Rand. Earth to idiotboy. Libertarians have no clue. That includes you.

If the government takes over the cost will increase because more people will receive care at no cost to them, there will be increased bureaucratic overhead, and the quality of care will suffer.
Gotta love idiotboy. Throws out a hypothetical and claims it as fact.

[BryanLoader]

This is the US, not Canada. People will stuff that b@$t@rd back in faster than you could imagine. Once they realize what is going on, that is.

Well you could be right George, but look around, USA is the only major industrialised country in the world without universal health care. I would venture to bet that if the US operated a well thought out universal health care plan and it was in place for 5 years, there would be more chance of the NRA supporting a firearms ban than eliminating a universal health care system

[DaSharkie]

I would give anything for socialized healthcare in this country.

If someone has the opportunity to see physician on a regular basis, they won't call me in the middle of the night for exacerbation of chronic conditions or for a ride for the ER for "midnight primary care".

You keep thinking that. There is a shortage of physicians, Physician Assistants, and Nurse Practitioners in this country - across almost all specialties - ESPECIALLY primary care and general surgery.

Finding a physician that is taking new patients is a very difficult prospect as well.

Add to this the huge number of retiring - and immensely experienced internists and general practitioners out there - it is going to be even more difficult to find a PCP.


Consider this, I graduated from PA school with $96,000 in student loan debt. Most physicians will graduate with more than $250,000 in student loans, have to defer them for 3 or more years for residency and fellowship (while making about $40,000 a year) and are going to want to have some quality of life while making a $2,500 monthly student loan payment. Not really going to make that in Primary Care - sadly.

[ScareCrow57]

Colonoscopy prep: $40
Colonosocopy: $2,000
Catching potential problems: priceless.

I plan on living healthy and collecting my pension for a long time! :cool:

I understand that. The point is, people are complaining about the escalating cost of health care. Well when you get better health care it cost more. :rolleyes: Nothing any government does will change that.

Let's look at care for a cancer patient. Used to be you fed them morphine and kept them comfortable. Cost a few thousand dollars. Today, they get all kinds of treatments to try to kill the cancer, costs easily run over a million dollars. Health care cost are rising becuase we are doing more. You can't expect better health care and still pay the same price.

[ScareCrow57]

I would give anything for socialized healthcare in this country.

If someone has the opportunity to see physician on a regular basis, they won't call me in the middle of the night for exacerbation of chronic conditions or for a ride for the ER for "midnight primary care".

You are kidding right!!! You will get calls for hangnails because it won't cost anything for the free ride.

[ScareCrow57]

Can you actually cite a source of all these healthy Americans that choose not to work because they prefer abject poverty?

Yes, go to the local Social Services Department and observe the repeat offenders. The number I have been given is that around 80% are lifers and know how to use the system.

[ScareCrow57]

I can name numerous federal programs that are considered successful. This is yet another one of your stupid claims based upon a soundbite you read on some obscure blog that worships Ayn Rand. Earth to idiotboy. Libertarians have no clue. That includes you.


Gotta love idiotboy. Throws out a hypothetical and claims it as fact.

OK. Name them. I can name several that aren't. Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, HEAP, SSI, SSD. Although WIC is good, they tell you exactly what you can buy and how much.

[ScareCrow57]

You keep thinking that. There is a shortage of physicians, Physician Assistants, and Nurse Practitioners in this country - across almost all specialties - ESPECIALLY primary care and general surgery.

Finding a physician that is taking new patients is a very difficult prospect as well.

Add to this the huge number of retiring - and immensely experienced internists and general practitioners out there - it is going to be even more difficult to find a PCP.


Consider this, I graduated from PA school with $96,000 in student loan debt. Most physicians will graduate with more than $250,000 in student loans, have to defer them for 3 or more years for residency and fellowship (while making about $40,000 a year) and are going to want to have some quality of life while making a $2,500 monthly student loan payment. Not really going to make that in Primary Care - sadly.

Actually, my good friend CaptGonzo had a solution for that. The government could send people to medical school. In return, you give a certain number of years to work for the government providing inexpensive primary care. After your terms of service you are free to move on debt free.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Well you could be right George, but look around, USA is the only major industrialised country in the world without universal health care. I would venture to bet that if the US operated a well thought out universal health care plan and it was in place for 5 years, there would be more chance of the NRA supporting a firearms ban than eliminating a universal health care system

There is no such thing as a "well thought out universal health care" system. Especically for a country with 300,000,000 or so people.

The reason that people from all over the world flock here for specialized care is because we already have the best, albeit not perfect, health care system.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

You keep thinking that. There is a shortage of physicians, Physician Assistants, and Nurse Practitioners in this country - across almost all specialties - ESPECIALLY primary care and general surgery.

Finding a physician that is taking new patients is a very difficult prospect as well.

Add to this the huge number of retiring - and immensely experienced internists and general practitioners out there - it is going to be even more difficult to find a PCP.


Consider this, I graduated from PA school with $96,000 in student loan debt. Most physicians will graduate with more than $250,000 in student loans, have to defer them for 3 or more years for residency and fellowship (while making about $40,000 a year) and are going to want to have some quality of life while making a $2,500 monthly student loan payment. Not really going to make that in Primary Care - sadly.

Tell 'em how much they pay for malpractice insurance.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Yes, go to the local Social Services Department and observe the repeat offenders. The number I have been given is that around 80% are lifers and know how to use the system.

No, genius, a CITATION would require a specific authoritative source. Try that, or admit, once again you are talking out of your butt.

[CaptainGonzo]

Actually, my good friend CaptGonzo had a solution for that. The government could send people to medical school. In return, you give a certain number of years to work for the government providing inexpensive primary care. After your terms of service you are free to move on debt free.


Let's get this straight...

I am not "your good friend".

I do beleive that my view on a "medical corps" is a valid one and would be far less costly and allow for better care for everyone.

Let's look at care for a cancer patient. Used to be you fed them morphine and kept them comfortable. Cost a few thousand dollars. Today, they get all kinds of treatments to try to kill the cancer, costs easily run over a million dollars. Health care cost are rising becuase we are doing more. You can't expect better health care and still pay the same price.

Note: sarcasm mode has been enabled...

We could always do what the ancient Inuit people did... put their old and sick on an ice flow and set them out to sea...

Sacracsm mode now disabled.

I tihnk you also have part "Tin Man" in you.. it's obvious you don't have a heart.... :rolleyes:

[scfire86]

OK. Name them. I can name several that aren't. Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, HEAP, SSI, SSD. Although WIC is good, they tell you exactly what you can buy and how much.
You truly are stupid.

Here's a couple of Federal programs I would consider immensely successful:

GI Bill
TVA
Interstate Highway System
Rural Electrification
DoD
CIA
FBI
CPSC
FDA
US Patent Office (one of the true cornerstones of US capitalism)
NPS
CDC
NASA
FAA
FDIC
SEC (when it's being run by someone who actually pays attention)

I'm sure I could list dozens more. But being an idiot you wouldn't understand.

[BryanLoader]

There is no such thing as a "well thought out universal health care" system. Especically for a country with 300,000,000 or so people.

The reason that people from all over the world flock here for specialized care is because we already have the best, albeit not perfect, health care system.

Actually George, you might want to check out places like Australia, New Zealand, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Germany. Theirs all work pretty well. Mind you, their tax bases are higher than the US, but for a lot of people, they end up paying more when you factor in their medical insurance costs.

[BryanLoader]

Let's get this straight...

I am not "your good friend".

I do beleive that my view on a "medical corps" is a valid one and would be far less costly and allow for better care for everyone.



Note: sarcasm mode has been enabled...

We could always do what the ancient Inuit people did... put their old and sick on an ice flow and set them out to sea...

Sacracsm mode now disabled.

I tihnk you also have part "Tin Man" in you.. it's obvious you don't have a heart.... :rolleyes:

I think your idea is truly inspired Gonz, maybe somebody with half a brain in govt will see this and run with it. A large majority of walk in or supposed emergency patients can be treated very effectively in a clinic setting with out tying up a lot of nurses and facilities. It might actually find a sympathetic ear in todays govt.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Actually George, you might want to check out places like Australia, New Zealand, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Germany. Theirs all work pretty well. Mind you, their tax bases are higher than the US, but for a lot of people, they end up paying more when you factor in their medical insurance costs.

Do any of them operate in a free society with the population of the US?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Let's get this straight...

I am not "your good friend".

I do beleive that my view on a "medical corps" is a valid one and would be far less costly and allow for better care for everyone.


Don't we already do this? Aren't there federal programs to pay for people's medical school if they agree to practice in depressed rural areas for a period of time?

[ScareCrow57]

Let's get this straight...

I am not "your good friend".

I do beleive that my view on a "medical corps" is a valid one and would be far less costly and allow for better care for everyone.



Note: sarcasm mode has been enabled...

We could always do what the ancient Inuit people did... put their old and sick on an ice flow and set them out to sea...

Sacracsm mode now disabled.

I tihnk you also have part "Tin Man" in you.. it's obvious you don't have a heart.... :rolleyes:

I am not saying that this better methods aren't worth it. But with better methods comes higher cost. So stop complaining about the higher cost :rolleyes:. If you don't like the cost then go back top the old way of doing things. Bottom line is there is absolutely nothing wrong with the health care system in this country.

Please. Enlighten me. Why do we need to change our health care system?

[ScareCrow57]

You truly are stupid.

Here's a couple of Federal programs I would consider immensely successful:

GI Bill
TVA
Interstate Highway System
Rural Electrification
DoD
CIA
FBI
CPSC
FDA
US Patent Office (one of the true cornerstones of US capitalism)
NPS
CDC
NASA
FAA
FDIC
SEC (when it's being run by someone who actually pays attention)

I'm sure I could list dozens more. But being an idiot you wouldn't understand.

You have been critical of half of those organizations, what a hypocrite. Now answer the other half of the question. Are they efficient?

[scfire86]

You have been critical of half of those organizations, what a hypocrite. Now answer the other half of the question. Are they efficient?
I'm critical of private industry as well.

I couldn't comment on efficiency since I have no direct experience with them.

Unlike you I don't automatically dismiss them as either incompetent or inefficient.

I do know if none of them existed our quality of life in America would be much different. And not for the better.

[neiowa]

The biggest burden on the healthcare system are the poor and uninsured.

What we need is a "Medical Corps".

There are thousands of bright students in this country that would love to be become doctors. While some may luck out and get scholarships; the costs of college and medical school put the dream out of reach for many.

The Military pays for college for those in the ROTC prgram, and in return the student serves as an officer in the service for a set number of years.

We could the same thing for healthcare. The Government would pay for college and med school, and in return, the doctors who graduate would serve in the "Medical Corps" in the rural and inner city areas for a set number of years before they could hang out their own shingle. They would be paid by the Medical Corps.

The costs of the medical corps would be far cheaper than the present system.

You're being sarcastic or serious?

Such has existed for many many years. Typically in injun reserves and such. Works about as well as you would guess (and the UK and Canadian socialist Med system). Feds pay for med school and the grads then punch a clock for a few years. Work the mininum # of hours required (no profit/income motive) and then check out. Institutionalized medocracy.

DOD has paid for med school for years with similar program. Has worked better as the military (and the soldiers/officers) demands performance and have true patriots who are there to serve. Still often a long shot from a "real" medical system.

http://nhsc.hrsa.gov/

[CaptainGonzo]

You're being sarcastic or serious?

Such has existed for many many years. Typically in injun reserves and such. Works about as well as you would guess (and the UK and Canadian socialist Med system). Feds pay for med school and the grads then punch a clock for a few years. Work the mininum # of hours required (no profit/income motive) and then check out. Institutionalized medocracy.

DOD has paid for med school for years with similar program. Has worked better as the military (and the soldiers/officers) demands performance and have true patriots who are there to serve. Still often a long shot from a "real" medical system.

http://nhsc.hrsa.gov/

I'm being serious.

You are using a wide napped roller to paint everyone who wants to go into medicine.

Doctors who work the minimum and provide mediocre medical care will not survive in the real world. Those who excel will make good mony once their committment is through.


What is your solution other than rhetoric?

[neiowa]

I'm being serious.

You are using a wide napped roller to paint everyone who wants to go into medicine.

Doctors who work the minimum and provide mediocre medical care will not survive in the real world. Those who excel will make good mony once their committment is through.


What is your solution other than rhetoric?

Practice reading for comprehension. My comments clearly refered to the nationalized health service you asked for. Mediocracy

REAL Doctors working in a REAL medical service have a motivation to succeed, to work, to profit. That's what makes every field of human endevor work. Enlightened self-interest.

[gamewell35]

REAL Doctors working in a REAL medical service have a motivation to succeed, to work, to profit. That's what makes every field of human endevor work. Enlightened self-interest.

I don't think "REAL" doctors aren't in it for profit; perhaps to work and make a living wage, but I think it would be fair to say that most of them are in it for the betterment of all mankind. Just like firefighters are not in the firefighting business to get rich, rather most of them are dedicated to helping their fellow citizen in their time of need.

[CaptainGonzo]

Practice reading for comprehension. My comments clearly refered to the nationalized health service you asked for. Mediocracy

REAL Doctors working in a REAL medical service have a motivation to succeed, to work, to profit. That's what makes every field of human endevor work. Enlightened self-interest.


Is the cornfield blocking your vision? You should read the posts and heed your own advice.

From my onme of my previous posts on this thread.. I'll even bold it for you so you can see and understand...
No. Existing medical practices would not be part of the medical corps.

Having premed and medical school paid for in exchange for a few years of service, a steady paycheck and experience sounds like a good deal... if they want to become "concierge doctors" and cater to the aches, pains and plastic surgeries of the superwealthy, they can do so... after they finish their committments to Uncle Sam.


My version would leave the present medical system intact and allow more people the opportunity to become doctors and provide medical care for the poor, uninsured (some people cannot be insured due to preexisting conditions... and they still need care, so we are paying for it through higher health insurance premums) and for those in rural areas with limted access to medical care... like.. rural Iowa....

They would be paid like the doctors in the military. When they are done with their service, they could hang their shingle in a private or grup practic and make as much money as they want to.. like the doctors serving in the military can when they are finished with their hitch.

Now.. was that so hard to understand?

[doughesson]

When they get Congress to use the system themselves instead of getting head of the line privileges at Bethesda and Walter Reed,then I *might* be willing to go for the idea.

[gamewell35]

When they get Congress to use the system themselves instead of getting head of the line privileges at Bethesda and Walter Reed,then I *might* be willing to go for the idea.

Sauce for the goose Doug.

[DaSharkie]

Tell 'em how much they pay for malpractice insurance.

Well, let's see, OB-Gyn will easily pay $40,000 per year in premiums for each individual provider......And that is not even practicing "high-risk."

Anasthaesiologists can easily pay over $100,000 for their coverage.

I have a personal liability protection policy that is quite cheap at $450 a year, but an EM attending group can easily pay more than $10,000 per provider. If I were to carry an additional, true malpractice policy I could easily fork over $2,000 a year.

Family medicine practitioners can easily pay $40,000 per annum as well.

The "higher risk" the ridiculously higher the premium.

Florida is hemorrhaging doctors of all specialties. West Virginia is hemorrhaging OB-Gyns. Massachusetts can't train, get, or keep enough internists or family medicine providers.

Many doctors, PAs, and NPs walk around with the feeling that we have big targets painted on our backs. I can't drive my car to do errands without hearing some freaking useless, dirtbag, pathetic, scum-sucking, bottom-dweeling ambulance chacer playing an ad for business.

John Edwards made MILLIONS on cases based on no science, and only on emotion in North Carolina - he has a record collection from 1 case of $108 million. Took on Cerebral Palsy blaming it on the OB-Gyn's errors without having a stitch of medical evidence to support it. Only playing on the jury's emotions.

Pretty freaking sad really.

[BryanLoader]

Do any of them operate in a free society with the population of the US?

Actually George they are al free, democratic societies, some of whom have a demographic population base comparable georgraphically with the US. Its basically that they have taken the time to work out a lot of their mistakes originally made. Also the health care comes out of taxes rather than individual purchased insurance.

[ScareCrow57]

I don't think "REAL" doctors aren't in it for profit; perhaps to work and make a living wage, but I think it would be fair to say that most of them are in it for the betterment of all mankind. Just like firefighters are not in the firefighting business to get rich, rather most of them are dedicated to helping their fellow citizen in their time of need.

Perhaps you should ask the doctors that. Might surprise you. You will find a few who do it for the good of mankind, but most were lured by the big salaries.

My dentist tells me he enjoys what he does, but if he didn't make a good living doing it he would be doing something else.

[ScareCrow57]

Well, let's see, OB-Gyn will easily pay $40,000 per year in premiums for each individual provider......And that is not even practicing "high-risk."

Anasthaesiologists can easily pay over $100,000 for their coverage.

I have a personal liability protection policy that is quite cheap at $450 a year, but an EM attending group can easily pay more than $10,000 per provider. If I were to carry an additional, true malpractice policy I could easily fork over $2,000 a year.

Family medicine practitioners can easily pay $40,000 per annum as well.

The "higher risk" the ridiculously higher the premium.

Florida is hemorrhaging doctors of all specialties. West Virginia is hemorrhaging OB-Gyns. Massachusetts can't train, get, or keep enough internists or family medicine providers.

Many doctors, PAs, and NPs walk around with the feeling that we have big targets painted on our backs. I can't drive my car to do errands without hearing some freaking useless, dirtbag, pathetic, scum-sucking, bottom-dweeling ambulance chacer playing an ad for business.

John Edwards made MILLIONS on cases based on no science, and only on emotion in North Carolina - he has a record collection from 1 case of $108 million. Took on Cerebral Palsy blaming it on the OB-Gyn's errors without having a stitch of medical evidence to support it. Only playing on the jury's emotions.

Pretty freaking sad really.

So let's see. The doctor has to pay 100k a year for insurance. But that doesn't come out of his pocket, he passes it on to the consumer. So if we nationalize health care, and you can't sue the government, then those costs all go away. No more insurance companies getting rich. No more lawyers getting rich. And no more doctors.

Rest assured, if those knuckleheads in DC try to implement something like a national health care plan they will screw that up just like everything else they touch. Sure they can make it work, they just can't do it efficiently.

[scfire86]

Rest assured, if those knuckleheads in DC try to implement something like a national health care plan they will screw that up just like everything else they touch. Sure they can make it work, they just can't do it efficiently.
Sayeth the idiotboy. It's not like the private sector has a stellar track record either.

I hear predictions of long waits if the US invokes a national health care plan. I know folks who have that problem with their HMO's and PPO's. The decisions about one's health are made by insurance companies. Let's at least get past the pretense the doctor and patient are being considered.

[ScareCrow57]

Sayeth the idiotboy. It's not like the private sector has a stellar track record either.

I hear predictions of long waits if the US invokes a national health care plan. I know folks who have that problem with their HMO's and PPO's. The decisions about one's health are made by insurance companies. Let's at least get past the pretense the doctor and patient are being considered.

Tell you what. Go to your local DSS, IRS office, DMV, or other government agency and see how long you wait. The private sector has a much better record of efficiency and customer service. Tell you what, call the IRS and see how long they tell you that your call is important!!!

[gamewell35]

Tell you what. Go to your local DSS, IRS office, DMV, or other government agency and see how long you wait. The private sector has a much better record of efficiency and customer service. Tell you what, call the IRS and see how long they tell you that your call is important!!!

Crow, I have several personal friends who live in Canada; I've asked them which system they prefer; and surprisingly everyone of them told me they'd take the system Canada uses anytime over the US system. They did admit there are flaws within the system, but every year the government works to correct them in a positive way.

[scfire86]

Tell you what. Go to your local DSS, IRS office, DMV, or other government agency and see how long you wait. The private sector has a much better record of efficiency and customer service. Tell you what, call the IRS and see how long they tell you that your call is important!!!
Unlike you I've never had any problems with the IRS and so I don't need to call them. The last time I went to the DMV I made an appointment (as recommended) and was out the door in 15 min. I'll have to take your word on the DSS example.

By contrast I had reason to call my private sector cable TV company and my private sector utility provider and have waited a whole lot longer than 15 min in both cases.

And....I've had to utilize the 911 system twice. Both times the FD (not my former agency) arrived in less than 5 min. I doubt there is any company in the private sector that can claim that level of response.

[ScareCrow57]

Unlike you I've never had any problems with the IRS and so I don't need to call them. The last time I went to the DMV I made an appointment (as recommended) and was out the door in 15 min. I'll have to take your word on the DSS example.

There are reasons other than having a problem for calling the IRS. Like I have a question about filling out my taxes and want to know if this deduction is allowed. An hour later I gave up.

By contrast I had reason to call my private sector cable TV company and my private sector utility provider and have waited a whole lot longer than 15 min in both cases.

And....I've had to utilize the 911 system twice. Both times the FD (not my former agency) arrived in less than 5 min. I doubt there is any company in the private sector that can claim that level of response.

Guess you have never been to a privately run hospital then or a private doctor in an emergency. And on that same note, ever been to a VA hospital? Service there is awful. My neighbor goes all the time and hates it.

The real question is what is wrong with the current system? Nothing

[FireWA1]

On the whole debate between private and public... I called my cable company last week and the whole bloody process was automated. And heck if you did not do something that the machine could "help" you with then it would say more or less that Oh sorry we cant help you please contact customer support for help. (guess which number I was calling) after about an hour I finally figured out how to talk to a person going through that maze. Only had to wait 26 minutes on hold. (I was timing it at that point....). And heck the person did not even help me figure out the problem just kept telling me to unplug the box and plug it back in.

Now my phone call to the DMV went smoothly. The first little bit was automated but the last option was "If you would like to talk to a representative press 0." Which I gladly pressed. I may have had to wait 10-15 minutes on hold (20 at most) but I got to talk to someone who know what they were talking about and told me that they had no idea if what I wanted existed and tried to help me find the people to talk to. (I was asking for a court certified copy of my driving record but my state does not have those).

I did have to go to the SSA to get a new social security card (washed my on accident). I was the smart one who went during lunch and had to wait an hour while about 26 other people in front of me waited for their turn. I think about 6 of the people did not understand that they needed to go to the court house to pay their tickets... but that's a different story.

[scfire86]

There are reasons other than having a problem for calling the IRS. Like I have a question about filling out my taxes and want to know if this deduction is allowed. An hour later I gave up.
A rule of thumb. If you're calling, the deduction isn't allowed. Bankruptcy filing fees for example.

Guess you have never been to a privately run hospital then or a private doctor in an emergency. And on that same note, ever been to a VA hospital? Service there is awful. My neighbor goes all the time and hates it.
I had experience with govt. run hospitals when I was in the Army. Never had a problem.

The real question is what is wrong with the current system? Nothing
Service levels continue to fall, premiums increase at rates far exceeding inflation.

[ScareCrow57]

A rule of thumb. If you're calling, the deduction isn't allowed. Bankruptcy filing fees for example.

How about a qualifying relative? Can you ever claim a 23 year old as a dependent? Sometimes you need to check with them to see if you are interpreting things right.

I had experience with govt. run hospitals when I was in the Army. Never had a problem.

I had the same experience, never had a problem, go to sick call at 7 am and if you were lucky you would be out at noon.

Service levels continue to fall, premiums increase at rates far exceeding inflation.

To this I throw the BS flag. We a have better treatments, receive better care, it isn’t free. Comes at a cost. Our taxes keep going up at a rate that exceeds inflation as well. Having the government take over will not fix that problem.

[braidjansen]

Crow, I have several personal friends who live in Canada; I've asked them which system they prefer; and surprisingly everyone of them told me they'd take the system Canada uses anytime over the US system. They did admit there are flaws within the system, but every year the government works to correct them in a positive way.

For what its worth, as a Canadian I have to agree. We (Canadians that is) spend hours complaining about the inefficiencies of our system (systems actually, each Province has their own). Americans tend to view this debate as proof that our health care system is broken. In actual fact, our worst nightmare is the introduction of an American style for-profit health care system in this country. My wife is a type one diabetic and we live in the Province of Ontario and I must say that we have few complaints. We may wait longer for specialist appointments but at the end of the day the quality of care that she receives is comparable to what exists in the US. Better if you take into account that we do not pay for it (directly that is. Our taxes are much higher than yours). If your HMO decides to de-list a procedure you are pretty much scre#&D. If the government mismanages the health care system you vote them out at the next general election and replace them with someone who claims to be able to do a better job.

At the end of the day consider this. The GM and Chrysler plants in Ontario are remaining open due to the fact that they have much lower operating costs. The workers' salary's are comparable but the companies are not on the hook for basic health insurance costs. Also consider that every western industrialized nation in the world, with the exception of the US, has some form of universal public health care. The transition to some form of public health care would be a rocky one, there are so many vested interests involved. But at the end of the day, with the cost of health care constantly rising, it's a step that the US will eventually need to take.

[scfire86]

How about a qualifying relative? Can you ever claim a 23 year old as a dependent? Sometimes you need to check with them to see if you are interpreting things right.
So who were you mooching off of at 23?

I had the same experience, never had a problem, go to sick call at 7 am and if you were lucky you would be out at noon.
That's pretty much the same in the private sector for non-emergencies. If you can get an appointment that day.

To this I throw the BS flag. We a have better treatments, receive better care, it isn’t free. Comes at a cost. Our taxes keep going up at a rate that exceeds inflation as well. Having the government take over will not fix that problem.
Flag it all you want. The premiums for our health care were increasing by double digits annually until our union took control away from the department and negotiated with the providers. Things slowed down. As a retiree I'm on a plan that is costing close to a $1G/mo. Fortunately I don't need any meds...yet. But I'm sure that will change as I get older.

[CaptainGonzo]

Tell you what. Go to your local DSS, IRS office, DMV, or other government agency and see how long you wait. The private sector has a much better record of efficiency and customer service. Tell you what, call the IRS and see how long they tell you that your call is important!!!

Uh huh.. right...

I had a problem with my virus protection. After calling my ISP ( Comcast) going through the voice prompts on their voice mail system and being on hold for 20 minutes before actually taling to a real live person, I was redirected to call McAfee directly (Mcafee provides free virus protection through Comcast)

After going theough 10 minutes worth of voice prompts on their voice mail satem, I was on hold for another 20 minutes and then spoke to a "Barbara", who had an Indian accent.

After 20 minutes on the phone with her, the problem still wasn't resolved.

I called back a few minutes later and went therough the same BS.. this time with a "Charlotte" who sounded a lot like "Barbara"... she even recognized my name and voice :rolleyes:

Call the utility company and they give you a 4 hour window for service.

Call for a furniture delivery.. you get a 4 hour window.

I've called the DPW for problems.. they are there within 20 minutes.
Non emergerncy calls to the PD for a report or the FD to check something out: there within a few minutes.

I pay for the same service whether they be public or private sector. I have gotten better treatment through the public sector.

[ScareCrow57]

So who were you mooching off of at 23?

At 23 I was taking care of myself. But I was the one claiming the deduction, not be deducted.

That's pretty much the same in the private sector for non-emergencies. If you can get an appointment that day.


Flag it all you want. The premiums for our health care were increasing by double digits annually until our union took control away from the department and negotiated with the providers. Things slowed down. As a retiree I'm on a plan that is costing close to a $1G/mo. Fortunately I don't need any meds...yet. But I'm sure that will change as I get older.

Health insurance premiums are a funny thing and most people don't really look at what they are getting and what is covered. Not all plans are the same. It's like this, if you drive an escort you pay for the escort and get equivalent quality. You pay for a Cadillac, you get Cadillac quality. You buy Jap junk you get what you deserve. Simply put, better care and more people going for care will drive up the cost. Simple math.

But I find it interesting that the government in your case was not able to get as good a deal as a private entity. Thank you for making the case that Government cannot do the job as efficiently.

[ScareCrow57]

Uh huh.. right...

I had a problem with my virus protection. After calling my ISP ( Comcast) going through the voice prompts on their voice mail system and being on hold for 20 minutes before actually taling to a real live person, I was redirected to call McAfee directly (Mcafee provides free virus protection through Comcast)

After going theough 10 minutes worth of voice prompts on their voice mail satem, I was on hold for another 20 minutes and then spoke to a "Barbara", who had an Indian accent.

After 20 minutes on the phone with her, the problem still wasn't resolved.

I called back a few minutes later and went therough the same BS.. this time with a "Charlotte" who sounded a lot like "Barbara"... she even recognized my name and voice :rolleyes:

Call the utility company and they give you a 4 hour window for service.

Call for a furniture delivery.. you get a 4 hour window.

I've called the DPW for problems.. they are there within 20 minutes.
Non emergerncy calls to the PD for a report or the FD to check something out: there within a few minutes.

I pay for the same service whether they be public or private sector. I have gotten better treatment through the public sector.

Well calling Comcast for Anti-Virus support was a mistake. If I give you something for free don't come to me when it breaks.

But what you are describing is happening in every facet of life. Government and Private industry. What you aren't answering is how efficient and at what cost is this service. I give you a 4 hour window for a furniture delivery becuase I have 2 guys on a truck. DPW show up with a crew of 6 because they have 10 guys sitting in the garage just hanging out.

If you are going to compare the 2 operations do a complete job, not half again.

[BryanLoader]

At 23 I was taking care of myself. But I was the one claiming the deduction, not be deducted.



Health insurance premiums are a funny thing and most people don't really look at what they are getting and what is covered. Not all plans are the same. It's like this, if you drive an escort you pay for the escort and get equivalent quality. You pay for a Cadillac, you get Cadillac quality. You buy Jap junk you get what you deserve. Simply put, better care and more people going for care will drive up the cost. Simple math.

But I find it interesting that the government in your case was not able to get as good a deal as a private entity. Thank you for making the case that Government cannot do the job as efficiently.

Up here, if you pay for an escort, you could get a $500.00 fine and your name published in the "John List of Shame" in the newspaper.:eek:

[BryanLoader]

Uh huh.. right...

I had a problem with my virus protection. After calling my ISP ( Comcast) going through the voice prompts on their voice mail system and being on hold for 20 minutes before actually taling to a real live person, I was redirected to call McAfee directly (Mcafee provides free virus protection through Comcast)

After going theough 10 minutes worth of voice prompts on their voice mail satem, I was on hold for another 20 minutes and then spoke to a "Barbara", who had an Indian accent.

After 20 minutes on the phone with her, the problem still wasn't resolved.

I called back a few minutes later and went therough the same BS.. this time with a "Charlotte" who sounded a lot like "Barbara"... she even recognized my name and voice :rolleyes:

Call the utility company and they give you a 4 hour window for service.

Call for a furniture delivery.. you get a 4 hour window.

I've called the DPW for problems.. they are there within 20 minutes.
Non emergerncy calls to the PD for a report or the FD to check something out: there within a few minutes.

I pay for the same service whether they be public or private sector. I have gotten better treatment through the public sector.

Public and Private arguement aside, McAfee is a disaster virus protection. I've had it and I now use one called AntiVir. It isn't free but seems to be pretty effective.

[ScareCrow57]

Up here, if you pay for an escort, you could get a $500.00 fine and your name published in the "John List of Shame" in the newspaper.:eek:

Oh heck. Donw here the Governor pays $4,000 for the escort. I guess it is OK. :D

[ScareCrow57]

Public and Private arguement aside, McAfee is a disaster virus protection. I've had it and I now use one called AntiVir. It isn't free but seems to be pretty effective.

It is best to stay with the major vendors for virus protection. They are better equipped to push out new signatures as new viruses and variants are found. Anti-Virus software can be easily bypassed, so you really need intrusion detection and a firewall for full protection. Myself I prefer the Symantec tools.

[BryanLoader]

Oh heck. Donw here the Governor pays $4,000 for the escort. I guess it is OK. :D

Therein lies your problem! Govt spending out of control!!:D

[BryanLoader]

It is best to stay with the major vendors for virus protection. They are better equipped to push out new signatures as new viruses and variants are found. Anti-Virus software can be easily bypassed, so you really need intrusion detection and a firewall for full protection. Myself I prefer the Symantec tools.

Problem I found with Symantec is the damn thing took over parts of my computer. Unable to access USB drives etc. This one is from Germany and seems pretty good.

[ScareCrow57]

Problem I found with Symantec is the damn thing took over parts of my computer. Unable to access USB drives etc. This one is from Germany and seems pretty good.

OHHH!!! That only works on the German viruses. :eek: :D :D

[scfire86]

But what you are describing is happening in every facet of life. Government and Private industry. What you aren't answering is how efficient and at what cost is this service. I give you a 4 hour window for a furniture delivery becuase I have 2 guys on a truck. DPW show up with a crew of 6 because they have 10 guys sitting in the garage just hanging out.


If I get a faster response from DPW, I'm liking that system better. Realizing that you don't, but I have better things to do with my time than wait. From the end users perspective, the DPW system is more efficient.

At 23 I was taking care of myself. But I was the one claiming the deduction, not be deducted.
Sure you were.

Health insurance premiums are a funny thing and most people don't really look at what they are getting and what is covered. Not all plans are the same. It's like this, if you drive an escort you pay for the escort and get equivalent quality. You pay for a Cadillac, you get Cadillac quality. You buy Jap junk you get what you deserve. Simply put, better care and more people going for care will drive up the cost. Simple math.
Bad analogy idiotboy. Especially considering the Japanese (notice I didn't use the racial slur) are kicking the hell out of the American car companies. Yes they have lower costs for one big reason. They have nationalized health care and don't pay that expense to their employees. It's spread out amongst the entire population.

But I find it interesting that the government in your case was not able to get as good a deal as a private entity. Thank you for making the case that Government cannot do the job as efficiently.
Long story. Bottom line it had to do with the motivations of the individuals negotiating the contracts. When it was done by the department they were more concerned with getting the cheapest plan possible since the negotiator was getting compensated for that motive. The union negotiator was more interested in getting the best plan available. It helped immensely that our bargaining unit was the only group being considered and is a much healthier group than the general employees. We were offered significantly lower rates when that occurred. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't know those details.

[ScareCrow57]

If I get a faster response from DPW, I'm liking that system better. Realizing that you don't, but I have better things to do with my time than wait. From the end users perspective, the DPW system is more efficient.

At what cost? DPW shows up in 30 minutes, but is cost me $1,000 for that response. Cable Company shows up in 4 hours, and it cost me $50. I can wait.

Bad analogy idiotboy. Especially considering the Japanese (notice I didn't use the racial slur) are kicking the hell out of the American car companies. Yes they have lower costs for one big reason. They have nationalized health care and don't pay that expense to their employees. It's spread out amongst the entire population.

You have lost it. The Japanese have lower wages, less benefits, and fewer regulations; they produce the same thing for less money.

Long story. Bottom line it had to do with the motivations of the individuals negotiating the contracts. When it was done by the department they were more concerned with getting the cheapest plan possible since the negotiator was getting compensated for that motive. The union negotiator was more interested in getting the best plan available. It helped immensely that our bargaining unit was the only group being considered and is a much healthier group than the general employees. We were offered significantly lower rates when that occurred. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't know those details.

Bottom line is a private entity did it for less money than a governmental entity. But you state the crux of the issue. “The union negotiator (private entity) was more interested in getting the best plan available.” Government is not interested in getting the best deal for the American people.

You then go on to say "It helped immensely that our bargaining unit was the only group being considered and is a much healthier group than the general employees." So a smaller group got a better price??? That goes against what we are being told about a nationalized plan, that is given the large group the price would be lower.


P.S. Other than the slurs spewing out it is refreshing to see some logical debate from you for a change. Keep up the good work.

[scfire86]

At what cost? DPW shows up in 30 minutes, but is cost me $1,000 for that response. Cable Company shows up in 4 hours, and it cost me $50. I can wait.
That's because your time is only worth $50. Mine is worth more.

You have lost it. The Japanese have lower wages, less benefits, and fewer regulations; they produce the same thing for less money.
They have nationalized health care insurance. A HUGE less benefit. They also have very strong barriers to entry for imports.

Bottom line is a private entity did it for less money than a governmental entity. But you state the crux of the issue. “The union negotiator (private entity) was more interested in getting the best plan available.” Government is not interested in getting the best deal for the American people.
You missed the point. The government entity was more concerned about the bottom line (like a business), the union was more interested in the employee.

You then go on to say "It helped immensely that our bargaining unit was the only group being considered and is a much healthier group than the general employees." So a smaller group got a better price??? That goes against what we are being told about a nationalized plan, that is given the large group the price would be lower.
No idiotboy. A healthier group got a better plan. You are the stupid one.

P.S. Other than the slurs spewing out it is refreshing to see some logical debate from you for a change. Keep up the good work.
I always have logical debate. You're just too stupid to see it.

[CaptainGonzo]

Posted by Strawbrain
But what you are describing is happening in every facet of life. Government and Private industry. What you aren't answering is how efficient and at what cost is this service. I give you a 4 hour window for a furniture delivery because I have 2 guys on a truck. DPW show up with a crew of 6 because they have 10 guys sitting in the garage just hanging out.

Pretty broad brush you're painting with...

My DPW issue required 1 person and a pickup truck.

10 guys hanging out? Our DPW is shorthanded to begin with. Most of the time, the only people there besides the mechanics are the administrative staff and their dispatcher.

[ScareCrow57]

That's because your time is only worth $50. Mine is worth more.


They have nationalized health care insurance. A HUGE less benefit. They also have very strong barriers to entry for imports.


You missed the point. The government entity was more concerned about the bottom line (like a business), the union was more interested in the employee.


No idiotboy. A healthier group got a better plan. You are the stupid one.


I always have logical debate. You're just too stupid to see it.

I will put it to you this way. I have worked in government facilities and I have worked in private industry. Government facilities always have a bunch of slackers who don't do much work and just are along for the ride. The 50% of the employees carry the workload. In private industry, the majority of the slackers are out the door and are replaced by workers. I have never seen an efficient government operation.

[scfire86]

I will put it to you this way. I have worked in government facilities and I have worked in private industry. Government facilities always have a bunch of slackers who don't do much work and just are along for the ride. The 50% of the employees carry the workload. In private industry, the majority of the slackers are out the door and are replaced by workers. I have never seen an efficient government operation.
So how long did the working 50% carry you?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Well, let's see, OB-Gyn will easily pay $40,000 per year in premiums for each individual provider......And that is not even practicing "high-risk."

Anasthaesiologists can easily pay over $100,000 for their coverage.

I have a personal liability protection policy that is quite cheap at $450 a year, but an EM attending group can easily pay more than $10,000 per provider. If I were to carry an additional, true malpractice policy I could easily fork over $2,000 a year.

Family medicine practitioners can easily pay $40,000 per annum as well.

The "higher risk" the ridiculously higher the premium.

Florida is hemorrhaging doctors of all specialties. West Virginia is hemorrhaging OB-Gyns. Massachusetts can't train, get, or keep enough internists or family medicine providers.

Many doctors, PAs, and NPs walk around with the feeling that we have big targets painted on our backs. I can't drive my car to do errands without hearing some freaking useless, dirtbag, pathetic, scum-sucking, bottom-dweeling ambulance chacer playing an ad for business.

John Edwards made MILLIONS on cases based on no science, and only on emotion in North Carolina - he has a record collection from 1 case of $108 million. Took on Cerebral Palsy blaming it on the OB-Gyn's errors without having a stitch of medical evidence to support it. Only playing on the jury's emotions.

Pretty freaking sad really.

Exactly. Nice post.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Actually George they are al free, democratic societies, some of whom have a demographic population base comparable georgraphically with the US. Its basically that they have taken the time to work out a lot of their mistakes originally made. Also the health care comes out of taxes rather than individual purchased insurance.

In other words, no.

It is indisputable that the US medical system is the envy of the world. There are times it does not work well, but people in ALL of the countries you have listed would jump at the chance to be treated here.

No one speaks about the amount of free care that the US medical community provides. People suffering from rare and complex illnesses from third world countries are routinely flown here and treated at no cost to them. The US sponsors so many medical missions to third world countries it would take days to list them all.

When history looks back at why Pres. Obama served only one term, the leading cause will be what he tried to do to health care. This country sent Hillary packing when she tried socialized medicine and we will do the same with him.

[BryanLoader]

In other words, no.

It is indisputable that the US medical system is the envy of the world. There are times it does not work well, but people in ALL of the countries you have listed would jump at the chance to be treated here.

No one speaks about the amount of free care that the US medical community provides. People suffering from rare and complex illnesses from third world countries are routinely flown here and treated at no cost to them. The US sponsors so many medical missions to third world countries it would take days to list them all.

When history looks back at why Pres. Obama served only one term, the leading cause will be what he tried to do to health care. This country sent Hillary packing when she tried socialized medicine and we will do the same with him.
U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency

Published: Wednesday, 16-May-2007
Printer Friendly



Healthcare News


The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes, in the third edition of a Commonwealth Fund report analyzing international health policy surveys.
While the U.S. did well on some preventive care measures, the nation ranked at the bottom on measures of safe care and coordinated care.

Another new Commonwealth Fund report comparing health spending data in industrialized nations published today reveals that despite spending more than twice as much per capita on health care as other nations ($6,102 vs. $2,571 for the median of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] countries in 2004) the U.S. spends far less on health information technology, just 43 cents per capita, compared with about $192 per capita in the U.K.

"The United States stands out as the only nation in these studies that does not ensure access to health care through universal coverage and promotion of a 'medical home' for patients," said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis. "Our failure to ensure health insurance for all and encourage stable, long-term ties between physicians and patients shows in our poor performance on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and health outcomes. In light of the significant resources we devote to health care in this country, we should expect the best, highest performing health system."

In Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care, by Karen Davis, Ph. D., and colleagues, compare surveys on physicians' and patients' experiences and views of their health systems conducted in Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the U.K., and the U.S. between 2004 and 2006. Key findings include:


On measures of quality, the U.S. overall ranked 5th out of 6 countries. The U.S. ranked fifth in coordinated care, and last in patients reporting that they have a regular doctor (84% vs. 92%-97% in other countries).
On access measures the U.S. ranked last overall, including last on timeliness of care: 61% of U.S. patients said it was somewhat or very difficult to get care on nights or weekends, compared with 25%-59% in other countries.
On efficiency, the U.S. ranked last overall, including last on percent of patients who have visited the emergency room for conditions that could have been treated by a regular doctor if one had been available (26% vs. 6%-21% in other countries). The U.S. ranked fifth of six countries on primary care practices having "high clinical information functions," defined as practices having at least 7 of 14 office practice information functions, including electronic records, electronic prescribing, computerized safety alerts, and patient reminders systems and registries (19% compared with 8%-87% in other countries).
Multinational Comparisons of Health Systems Data, 2006, by Jonathan Cylus and Gerard Anderson, Ph.D., of The Johns Hopkins University, compares health spending data in nine Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States and, where possible, the median of all 30 OECD countries. Key findings include:


In 2004 the U.S. spent the most per capita on hospital services, and Canada and Japan spent the least. Adjusted for differences in cost of living, inpatient acute care spending per day in the United States was nearly three times the median OECD country ($2,337) and over five times more than Japan ($419).
The U.S. spent twice the OECD median per capita on drugs in 2004, $752 compared with $377.
Nearly one-third (30.6%) of individuals in the U.S. were obese in 2004, compared with 13 percent of the OECD median.
The U.S. had about two and a half times the OECD median for years of potential life lost due to diabetes, 101 per 1,000 people compared with 39 per 1,000 (U.S. data is for 2002).

Actually George, Dare I say it? You might just be wrong again. See above article from http://www.news-medical.net/?id=25179. There are actually quite a few European countries that have probably better overall delivery of medical care than the USA.

[ScareCrow57]

U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency

Published: Wednesday, 16-May-2007
Printer Friendly



Healthcare News


The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes, in the third edition of a Commonwealth Fund report analyzing international health policy surveys.
While the U.S. did well on some preventive care measures, the nation ranked at the bottom on measures of safe care and coordinated care.

Another new Commonwealth Fund report comparing health spending data in industrialized nations published today reveals that despite spending more than twice as much per capita on health care as other nations ($6,102 vs. $2,571 for the median of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] countries in 2004) the U.S. spends far less on health information technology, just 43 cents per capita, compared with about $192 per capita in the U.K.

"The United States stands out as the only nation in these studies that does not ensure access to health care through universal coverage and promotion of a 'medical home' for patients," said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis. "Our failure to ensure health insurance for all and encourage stable, long-term ties between physicians and patients shows in our poor performance on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and health outcomes. In light of the significant resources we devote to health care in this country, we should expect the best, highest performing health system."

In Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care, by Karen Davis, Ph. D., and colleagues, compare surveys on physicians' and patients' experiences and views of their health systems conducted in Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the U.K., and the U.S. between 2004 and 2006. Key findings include:


On measures of quality, the U.S. overall ranked 5th out of 6 countries. The U.S. ranked fifth in coordinated care, and last in patients reporting that they have a regular doctor (84% vs. 92%-97% in other countries).
On access measures the U.S. ranked last overall, including last on timeliness of care: 61% of U.S. patients said it was somewhat or very difficult to get care on nights or weekends, compared with 25%-59% in other countries.
On efficiency, the U.S. ranked last overall, including last on percent of patients who have visited the emergency room for conditions that could have been treated by a regular doctor if one had been available (26% vs. 6%-21% in other countries). The U.S. ranked fifth of six countries on primary care practices having "high clinical information functions," defined as practices having at least 7 of 14 office practice information functions, including electronic records, electronic prescribing, computerized safety alerts, and patient reminders systems and registries (19% compared with 8%-87% in other countries).
Multinational Comparisons of Health Systems Data, 2006, by Jonathan Cylus and Gerard Anderson, Ph.D., of The Johns Hopkins University, compares health spending data in nine Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States and, where possible, the median of all 30 OECD countries. Key findings include:


In 2004 the U.S. spent the most per capita on hospital services, and Canada and Japan spent the least. Adjusted for differences in cost of living, inpatient acute care spending per day in the United States was nearly three times the median OECD country ($2,337) and over five times more than Japan ($419).
The U.S. spent twice the OECD median per capita on drugs in 2004, $752 compared with $377.
Nearly one-third (30.6%) of individuals in the U.S. were obese in 2004, compared with 13 percent of the OECD median.
The U.S. had about two and a half times the OECD median for years of potential life lost due to diabetes, 101 per 1,000 people compared with 39 per 1,000 (U.S. data is for 2002).

Actually George, Dare I say it? You might just be wrong again. See above article from http://www.news-medical.net/?id=25179. There are actually quite a few European countries that have probably better overall delivery of medical care than the USA.

A few questions. Who is this Commonwealth Fund? Did they adjust for the local Cost of Living? I see they did for overall care. We all know American wages are higher. How much are the doctors, nurses, etc getting paid in those other countries? How did they perform this study? Human perception is not a good measure of timeliness. How did they gather this data? How about the other cost? Cost of power? Cost of the building and maintenance activities? What about the wages of the food service workers. I know in our little rinky dink town the folks in the kitchen are getting paid $15 per hour. These kinds of studies are easily swayed and manipulated, especially by the leftist amongst who can't handle the truth.


And as I thought about this a bit more; I can find the same results for education in the U.S. and probably with a little digging could find similar results for just about every government service.

I will say this much that when measuring how good a system is one must use tangible measurements, not a public opinion.

[scfire86]

Exactly. Nice post.
So what is the solution to redress patient injuries that are due to malpractice?

[scfire86]

In other words, no.

It is indisputable that the US medical system is the envy of the world. There are times it does not work well, but people in ALL of the countries you have listed would jump at the chance to be treated here.
It's the envy of the world for those who can afford it.

No one speaks about the amount of free care that the US medical community provides. People suffering from rare and complex illnesses from third world countries are routinely flown here and treated at no cost to them. The US sponsors so many medical missions to third world countries it would take days to list them all.
True enough. But that doesn't diminish the cost to those who live here.

When history looks back at why Pres. Obama served only one term, the leading cause will be what he tried to do to health care. This country sent Hillary packing when she tried socialized medicine and we will do the same with him.
And who is this person that is going to beat Obama? Obama can only hope the GOP runs Sarah Palin against him. GOP leader Rush Limbaugh (because we know it isn't Michael Steele) has already annointed her. My dream GOP ticket is Palin/Jindal. It will be four more years. This situation is exacerbated by the declining registration of the GOP and its inability to raise money.

[BryanLoader]

A few questions. Who is this Commonwealth Fund? Did they adjust for the local Cost of Living? I see they did for overall care. We all know American wages are higher. How much are the doctors, nurses, etc getting paid in those other countries? How did they perform this study? Human perception is not a good measure of timeliness. How did they gather this data? How about the other cost? Cost of power? Cost of the building and maintenance activities? What about the wages of the food service workers. I know in our little rinky dink town the folks in the kitchen are getting paid $15 per hour. These kinds of studies are easily swayed and manipulated, especially by the leftist amongst who can't handle the truth.


And as I thought about this a bit more; I can find the same results for education in the U.S. and probably with a little digging could find similar results for just about every government service.

I will say this much that when measuring how good a system is one must use tangible measurements, not a public opinion.

Actually I've tried to be diplomatic in this thread and to try and get some reasoned input. Instead what I get is from the biggest mouth and smallest brain on the forum that the US Health care system is the envy of the world. Fine! Please give me some indisputable facts to back up your ascertations and please show me where Canadians, Britains, Swedish, Germans, Australians are flocking to the US to have you share your superior medical knowledge and system with us poor uneducated peasants not lucky enough to be born in the Wonderful God Endowed USA. Some of you need a serious dose of education and reality.

[ScareCrow57]

Actually I've tried to be diplomatic in this thread and to try and get some reasoned input. Instead what I get is from the biggest mouth and smallest brain on the forum that the US Health care system is the envy of the world. Fine! Please give me some indisputable facts to back up your ascertations and please show me where Canadians, Britains, Swedish, Germans, Australians are flocking to the US to have you share your superior medical knowledge and system with us poor uneducated peasants not lucky enough to be born in the Wonderful God Endowed USA. Some of you need a serious dose of education and reality.

I did some research on the source of your report The Commonwealth Fund (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/About-Us.aspx)The Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation that aims to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.

This is clearly a biased source with an agenda.

I did find this though. Canadian Doctors Go To USA For Better Incomes & Better Training (http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/2007/04/canadian-doctors-go-to-usa-for-better.html)

Thus, America is not just 'stealing' physicians from poor countries, but also from it's rich neighbor Canada. A recent 2006-Data study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, titled - "The Canadian contribution to the US physician workforce" - studies about how Canada has been slowly losing its doctors and would-be doctors to the USA - thanks to two main factors - the much higher salaries in America and secondly, ample and better post-graduate training opportunities.

I can't say whether this is a good source or not, it's just a source. But it does put some perspective on things.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency

Published: Wednesday, 16-May-2007
Printer Friendly



Healthcare News


The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes, in the third edition of a Commonwealth Fund report analyzing international health policy surveys.
While the U.S. did well on some preventive care measures, the nation ranked at the bottom on measures of safe care and coordinated care.

Another new Commonwealth Fund report comparing health spending data in industrialized nations published today reveals that despite spending more than twice as much per capita on health care as other nations ($6,102 vs. $2,571 for the median of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] countries in 2004) the U.S. spends far less on health information technology, just 43 cents per capita, compared with about $192 per capita in the U.K.

"The United States stands out as the only nation in these studies that does not ensure access to health care through universal coverage and promotion of a 'medical home' for patients," said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis. "Our failure to ensure health insurance for all and encourage stable, long-term ties between physicians and patients shows in our poor performance on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and health outcomes. In light of the significant resources we devote to health care in this country, we should expect the best, highest performing health system."

In Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care, by Karen Davis, Ph. D., and colleagues, compare surveys on physicians' and patients' experiences and views of their health systems conducted in Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the U.K., and the U.S. between 2004 and 2006. Key findings include:


On measures of quality, the U.S. overall ranked 5th out of 6 countries. The U.S. ranked fifth in coordinated care, and last in patients reporting that they have a regular doctor (84% vs. 92%-97% in other countries).
On access measures the U.S. ranked last overall, including last on timeliness of care: 61% of U.S. patients said it was somewhat or very difficult to get care on nights or weekends, compared with 25%-59% in other countries.
On efficiency, the U.S. ranked last overall, including last on percent of patients who have visited the emergency room for conditions that could have been treated by a regular doctor if one had been available (26% vs. 6%-21% in other countries). The U.S. ranked fifth of six countries on primary care practices having "high clinical information functions," defined as practices having at least 7 of 14 office practice information functions, including electronic records, electronic prescribing, computerized safety alerts, and patient reminders systems and registries (19% compared with 8%-87% in other countries).
Multinational Comparisons of Health Systems Data, 2006, by Jonathan Cylus and Gerard Anderson, Ph.D., of The Johns Hopkins University, compares health spending data in nine Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States and, where possible, the median of all 30 OECD countries. Key findings include:


In 2004 the U.S. spent the most per capita on hospital services, and Canada and Japan spent the least. Adjusted for differences in cost of living, inpatient acute care spending per day in the United States was nearly three times the median OECD country ($2,337) and over five times more than Japan ($419).
The U.S. spent twice the OECD median per capita on drugs in 2004, $752 compared with $377.
Nearly one-third (30.6%) of individuals in the U.S. were obese in 2004, compared with 13 percent of the OECD median.
The U.S. had about two and a half times the OECD median for years of potential life lost due to diabetes, 101 per 1,000 people compared with 39 per 1,000 (U.S. data is for 2002).

Actually George, Dare I say it? You might just be wrong again. See above article from http://www.news-medical.net/?id=25179. There are actually quite a few European countries that have probably better overall delivery of medical care than the USA.

I don't give a rats *** what your liberal rag source says. People aren't flocking into the US because the coffee is good in the waiting room. If we are so friggin' bad, I would suggest you pass the word to all the Canadians who cross the border every year for treatment to stay up there and save themselves...or at least get on the list to save themselves.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

So what is the solution to redress patient injuries that are due to malpractice?

Two things. I think a cap on jury awards would be in order. There is not a human on earth worth tens of millions of dollars-I don't care what happened to you. The second would be an allowance for awards only on cases where gross negligence is proven.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

It's the envy of the world for those who can afford it.


True enough. But that doesn't diminish the cost to those who live here.

It is a total fallacy to say that people have no access to medical care. You cannot be turned away from an ER when you present yourself for treatment. Virtually every hospital runs a clinic with charity care. There are other outlets as well. Remember, I am not professing that our system is perfect.

And who is this person that is going to beat Obama? Obama can only hope the GOP runs Sarah Palin against him. GOP leader Rush Limbaugh (because we know it isn't Michael Steele) has already annointed her. My dream GOP ticket is Palin/Jindal. It will be four more years. This situation is exacerbated by the declining registration of the GOP and its inability to raise money.

I do not know yet. If someone steps up soon, it will happen. If someone doesn't step up before the midterm elections, I will have no choice but to change my prediction. I do not think that Sarah Palin is a bad thing. I think that the Sarah Palin you would see this time would be very different than the one you saw on '08.


(I hate the message is too short feature.)

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Actually I've tried to be diplomatic in this thread and to try and get some reasoned input. Instead what I get is from the biggest mouth and smallest brain on the forum that the US Health care system is the envy of the world. Fine! Please give me some indisputable facts to back up your ascertations and please show me where Canadians, Britains, Swedish, Germans, Australians are flocking to the US to have you share your superior medical knowledge and system with us poor uneducated peasants not lucky enough to be born in the Wonderful God Endowed USA. Some of you need a serious dose of education and reality.

You just earned the ignore list. You are a friggin' anti-US simpleton. I am tired of you bashing the US. Go to hell.

[BryanLoader]

A few questions. Who is this Commonwealth Fund? Did they adjust for the local Cost of Living? I see they did for overall care. We all know American wages are higher. How much are the doctors, nurses, etc getting paid in those other countries? How did they perform this study? Human perception is not a good measure of timeliness. How did they gather this data? How about the other cost? Cost of power? Cost of the building and maintenance activities? What about the wages of the food service workers. I know in our little rinky dink town the folks in the kitchen are getting paid $15 per hour. These kinds of studies are easily swayed and manipulated, especially by the leftist amongst who can't handle the truth.


And as I thought about this a bit more; I can find the same results for education in the U.S. and probably with a little digging could find similar results for just about every government service.

I will say this much that when measuring how good a system is one must use tangible measurements, not a public opinion.

Heres a link you can check out.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Course there will be those who say this is just a liberal rag or US bashing but it is neither. FYI I think Canadas health system is not great either. WHO only ranks it only slightly ahead of US. It is also true that some Canadians do go to the US for medical care, but it is normally for elective surgeries that they are wealthy enough to afford. Also many Americans come north for cheaper presciption drugs, so its a bit of a wash.
To me, I think you need to have a universal health care system that will take decent care of everyone, but allow private insurance as well for those who can afford it to make use of private for profit medical needs.

[ScareCrow57]

Heres a link you can check out.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Course there will be those who say this is just a liberal rag or US bashing but it is neither. FYI I think Canadas health system is not great either. WHO only ranks it only slightly ahead of US. It is also true that some Canadians do go to the US for medical care, but it is normally for elective surgeries that they are wealthy enough to afford. Also many Americans come north for cheaper presciption drugs, so its a bit of a wash.
To me, I think you need to have a universal health care system that will take decent care of everyone, but allow private insurance as well for those who can afford it to make use of private for profit medical needs.

Here is the link to the entire report.
The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance (http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/index.html)

It is a 215 page report so it will take time to read. What makes for a good health system? What makes a health system fair? And
how do we know whether a health system is performing as well as it could?
These questions are the subject of public debate in most countries around the world.
Naturally, answers will depend on the perspective of the respondent. A minister of health
defending the budget in parliament; a minister of finance attempting to balance multiple
claims on the public purse; a harassed hospital superintendent under pressure
to find more beds; a health centre doctor or nurse who has just run
out of antibiotics; a news editor looking for a story; a mother seeking
treatment for her sick two-year old child; a pressure group lobbying
for better services – all will have their views. We in the World Health
Organization need to help all involved to reach a balanced judgement.

This statement is from the Director General.

And then there from this article which is linked to your list WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS (http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html)Re sponsiveness: The nations with the most responsive health systems are the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden. The reason these are all advanced industrial nations is that a number of the elements of responsiveness depend strongly on the availability of resources. In addition, many of these countries were the first to begin addressing the responsiveness of their health systems to people’s needs.

And this was the system usedWHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

Understand the goal and charter of the WHO (not those Canadian guys either :) ) is to promote better health care around the world. That is there only concern.

Personally, I don't care what other countries do. That is none of my business. America is built upon this basic principle We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.... So when the government starts infringing upon my rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? ;) That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

This should be the guiding thought process for everything America does. For every person in America it was this way when you were born here or moved here. If you don't like those rules then go somewhere that has a set of rules more to your liking. I happen to love my country and like the principles it stands for. (Those same principles are tho ones that have irked the communist and Islamic radicals so much.) This is the most prosperous country in the world. With the hard work of our ancestors we were able to beat down the Germans in two world wars. In fact in WWII we fought a war on two fronts and won.

Our capitalist society and systems are what made us the greatest nation on earth. Why would you want to mess that up?

[BryanLoader]

Here is the link to the entire report.
The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance (http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/index.html)

It is a 215 page report so it will take time to read.

This statement is from the Director General.

And then there from this article which is linked to your list WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS (http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html)

And this was the system used

Understand the goal and charter of the WHO (not those Canadian guys either :) ) is to promote better health care around the world. That is there only concern.

Personally, I don't care what other countries do. That is none of my business. America is built upon this basic principle . So when the government starts infringing upon my rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? ;)

This should be the guiding thought process for everything America does. For every person in America it was this way when you were born here or moved here. If you don't like those rules then go somewhere that has a set of rules more to your liking. I happen to love my country and like the principles it stands for. (Those same principles are tho ones that have irked the communist and Islamic radicals so much.) This is the most prosperous country in the world. With the hard work of our ancestors we were able to beat down the Germans in two world wars. In fact in WWII we fought a war on two fronts and won.

Our capitalist society and systems are what made us the greatest nation on earth. Why would you want to mess that up?

Just a couple of things Crow. I got on my rant because you know who gets on his high horse as usual and spouts off that the US is undisputably the greatest health care system in the world, which it is not. You've got many great health care facilities but there is a big hole in your system, IMO. If you did go to universal health care, its nit the indigent or wlefare types that are going to benefit. I believe they are already covered under Medicare, Medicaid Etc.I think the hole is in the middle to lower middle class people who do have private insurance, but experience a long lingering cost intensive illness. I believe most of your insurance companies have a limit on payouts and ilnesses such as cancers, MS, Alzheimers, and others can lead people into bankruptcy. I had a relative who passed away eventually from Alzheimers but his hospitalization was years long. Fortunately they were both Drs and had sufficient medical coverage, but I do remember his wife saying that the bills were in excess of a million dollars and this was 20 years ago.
Also a universal system does encourage earlier detection of diseases or illness that can be treated much more cheaply than if people wait until the illness is in advanced stages. The problem we have with the Canadian system is that people are not allowed to buy private isnsurance and to use for profit facilities to get some operations done sooner, so the waiting times for elective surgeries keep clogging up the system. Some do choose to go to the US for these surgeries, but for the last few years, India is attracting people from all over the world for this option. Their facilities and training are supposed to be top notch and costs are a fraction of Europe or North America. Never had anything to do with it but sounds like quite a few people are taking part.

A comment on your second last statement, you had a whole lot of help in
WW2 and a lot of allies died before the US got involved in either WW

[scfire86]

I believe most of your insurance companies have a limit on payouts and ilnesses such as cancers, MS, Alzheimers, and others can lead people into bankruptcy.

Prior to the recession, the leading cause of bankruptcy amongst Americans was medical expenses due to catastrophic illness.

Forgive idiotboy's jingoistic remarks about America and the capitalism. He doesn't have a clue about his subject. He likes to spout personal responsibility, but has shown little in his personal life.

[DaSharkie]

One of the things about nationalized health care is that there are truly only a handful of countries with a single payer system - the most prominent being Great Britain and Canada.

Most of the other nations with "nationalized" health care still have a huge number of health insurance companies that actually administer the health plans and payments - because the government subsidized care for its citizens.

Massachusetts has implemented this system and as one who provides care to these folks, by almost all measures it is working out very well. I am no fan of the Federal government providing care, but I can honestly say that the biggest issue I have seen with the Massachusetts plan is one that I already posted - there just are not enough Family Medicine or Internal Medicine providers in this state to care for everyone. It is worse here than it is in many other states. Without PCPs you cannot get that preventive medicine.

I have been practicing for almost 3 years now, and preventive medicine is great, but there is a huge percentage of the population out there that refuses to listen to medical guidance. Quite sad really, since we are rapidly getting fatter, older, and increasingly more unhealthy.

Our current health care system currently would rather pay for treatments than it would for prevention. And I am deadly serious about this. Medicaid and Medicare would rather drop thousands and thousands of dollars on patients for surgical and interventional therapies that have been repeatedly proven to be absolutely no more beneficial than medications are - and at a fraction of the cost of surgical interventions.

We dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into end-stage care for chronic diseases and end with the same result. Lung cancer will kill 85% of all patients in 5 years, but we give massive doses of chemotherapy and radiation treatments which do not change the outcomes or extend the mortality statistics.

Truth be told, most physicians are against nationalized health care - and it has nothing to do with their income, it is because on a patient care level we have interacted with our counterparts from other nations and the problems do not really change - only the cost. No one designs a health care system with a great amount of input from the folks who provide care. The national organizations out there: AAPA, AMA, ACS, etc., do not really speak for the individuals - and many have conflicts of interest amongst them.

And it will only get worse with the insufficient supplies of physicians, Physician Assistants, nurses, and nurse practitioners to fill the need across our nation as we get fatter, older, and more unhealthy.

[ScareCrow57]

Just a couple of things Crow. I got on my rant because you know who gets on his high horse as usual and spouts off that the US is undisputably the greatest health care system in the world, which it is not. You've got many great health care facilities but there is a big hole in your system, IMO. If you did go to universal health care, its nit the indigent or wlefare types that are going to benefit. I believe they are already covered under Medicare, Medicaid Etc.I think the hole is in the middle to lower middle class people who do have private insurance, but experience a long lingering cost intensive illness. I believe most of your insurance companies have a limit on payouts and ilnesses such as cancers, MS, Alzheimers, and others can lead people into bankruptcy. I had a relative who passed away eventually from Alzheimers but his hospitalization was years long. Fortunately they were both Drs and had sufficient medical coverage, but I do remember his wife saying that the bills were in excess of a million dollars and this was 20 years ago.
Also a universal system does encourage earlier detection of diseases or illness that can be treated much more cheaply than if people wait until the illness is in advanced stages. The problem we have with the Canadian system is that people are not allowed to buy private isnsurance and to use for profit facilities to get some operations done sooner, so the waiting times for elective surgeries keep clogging up the system. Some do choose to go to the US for these surgeries, but for the last few years, India is attracting people from all over the world for this option. Their facilities and training are supposed to be top notch and costs are a fraction of Europe or North America. Never had anything to do with it but sounds like quite a few people are taking part.

A comment on your second last statement, you had a whole lot of help in
WW2 and a lot of allies died before the US got involved in either WW

Oh. Now I understand. :o And yes, a large number of allies died in the fight.

As I learned in engineering school, there are always trade-offs. We could build the perfect car but people could not afford it. We could also build the perfect health care system. But at what cost?

Currently the U.S. GDP is 13.8 Trillion Dollars. The record deficit setting budget is 3.6 Trillion Dollars. Back in 1947 the budget was 38.5 Billion, GDP was 238 Billion. As a percentage that means the government was taking 2009 - 26%, 1947 16%, that is 10% less money for private industry and the people. Our government cannot continue this tyrannical approach of stealing from the people.

The solution. 30% of the budget goes to Welfare programs, another 30% goes to Social Security, and Another 30% goes to defense. We need to make those unproductive welfare lifers (Which I include the SSD) folks productive and responsible for their own well being. We need to make living off the government less of a luxury.

[scfire86]

As I learned in engineering school, there are always trade-offs.
Who are you trying to fool? Playing with Legos and Tinker Toys does not qualify one as an engineer. If you designed any bridges please tell us which ones so we know to route any driving plans around them.

[gamewell35]

Oh. Now I understand. :o And yes, a large number of allies died in the fight.


The solution. 30% of the budget goes to Welfare programs, another 30% goes to Social Security, and Another 30% goes to defense. We need to make those unproductive welfare lifers (Which I include the SSD) folks productive and responsible for their own well being. We need to make living off the government less of a luxury.

Crow, thats a very noble concept, but where are these jobs supposed to come from in the first place? Irreguardless of why, their are no jobs, so how do you propose to get these "unproductive lifers" productive and responsible for their own well being? And if you can find jobs, how long would it be to get everyone employed? years?

[ScareCrow57]

Crow, thats a very noble concept, but where are these jobs supposed to come from in the first place? Irreguardless of why, their are no jobs, so how do you propose to get these "unproductive lifers" productive and responsible for their own well being? And if you can find jobs, how long would it be to get everyone employed? years?

It has taken us 80 years to get this screwed up, I suspect I will take a long time to fix it. One of the reasons there are few jobs is the drain on the economy from these social programs. We would have to slowly roll things back. Under the current system, there is little to no incentive to getting off the rolls and to work. This is why I have suggested a system that is graduated and not black and white. A family of four on Welfare can easily make the equivalent of a $45,000 a year job. They will get the $30,000 or so tax free. As an example I will use HEAP. The cutoff for a family of 2 this year was around $2,300 a month in income. If your income exceeded the $2,300 you got nothing and had to pay the $1,000 for your heat. If you made $2,299, then you saved the $1,000 plus got a $1,000 to pay for you heat. A difference of $2,000. The more equitable way would be to set the full benefit limit at $1,500. Then for every dollar over the limit that you earned you would get a 50 cents on the dollar benefit. So at $1,500 in income you would get $1,000, at $2,000 in income you would get $750, at $2,500 you would get $500 all the way up to $3,500 where the benefit would become zero. This provides an incentive to work.

Next, dump the Earned Income Credit. It is ridiculous that you get more back than you paid.

Third, dump the food stamp program. Instead, hire workers to buy bulk products and redistribute them to the needy. They don't shop for what they want, they get what you give them.

Another thing, in our county anyway, there is an entire floor of the super 8 motel reserved. Build a barracks style building with shared restrooms. No TVs, no maid service. You put them in the room and they are responsible for the cleaning and maintainence of the room.

Another idea I like is making them report daily for work details. Send them out to pick up trash, shovel snow around hydrants, whatever. If there is no work they learn life skills, like brushing their teeth and personal hygiene. Learn skills. Learn to cook. Learn to look for a job. Learn financial management. Make them do something besides sit around watching soap Operas in their Pajamas.

[scfire86]

Learn financial management.

This was a lemonade on the screen moment.

[jasper45]

Playing with Legos and Tinker Toys does not qualify one as an engineer. If you designed any bridges please tell us which ones so we know to route any driving plans around them.

I played Ace Combat 6 on my X-Box, I guess the Air Force should be looking for me to be a fighter pilot, right?


Thanks for the laugh.

[scfire86]

I played Ace Combat 6 on my X-Box, I guess the Air Force should be looking for me to be a fighter pilot, right?


Thanks for the laugh.
I sent my kids to space camp. They're now qualified to be astronauts.

[Raughammer1]

If we follow your rationale, what's the answer for the 47 million people without medical insurance in this country???

If we follow your rationale, how are you going to get people to give up 11 years of thier life and assume many tens of thousands of dollars in debt to become doctors?

[Raughammer1]

How many 6 year old kids are able to work and purchase Medical benefits?

So you think life is fair? You think others should pay for somebody else's health care?

How is my kids health care YOUR responsibility?

[neiowa]

Who are you trying to fool? Playing with Legos and Tinker Toys does not qualify one as an engineer. ...

I suppose you're think it snotty if I asked how you qualified as a Urologist?

[CaptainGonzo]

I suppose you're think it snotty if I asked how you qualified as a Urologist?


Or you as a proctologist? :D

[scfire86]

So you think life is fair? You think others should pay for somebody else's health care?

How is my kids health care YOUR responsibility?
Conversely, should children be penalized for being born by idiot parents?

[scfire86]

I suppose you're think it snotty if I asked how you qualified as a Urologist?
Run along farm boy. Millie call you. This statement makes no sense. I've never claimed to be an MD. idiotboy claims to be an engineer.

[gamewell35]

So you think life is fair? You think others should pay for somebody else's health care?

How is my kids health care YOUR responsibility?

Thats an easy statement for you to make; unless your out of work and your kids are affected. There's alot of things in this world that aren't fair; health insurance for kids shouldn't be one of them.

[BryanLoader]

The two main things that I think should be the responsibility of any civilised society are education and health care. Take a look at third world cpountries and try to figure out why they are there.

[ScareCrow57]

Conversely, should children be penalized for being born by idiot parents?

Absolutely. That is how Nature works.

I didn't get the benefit of been born to a millionaire.

[CaptainGonzo]

Originally Posted by scfire86
Conversely, should children be penalized for being born by idiot parents?

Absolutely. That is how Nature works.

I didn't get the benefit of been born to a millionaire.

So.. based on your reply to SC, you called your parents idiots on an international firefighter forum...

I guess, in that case, the apple didn't fall far from the tree, did it? :rolleyes:

[ScareCrow57]

Originally Posted by scfire86




So.. based on your reply to SC, you called your parents idiots on an international firefighter forum...

I guess, in that case, the apple didn't fall far from the tree, did it? :rolleyes:

I said nothing like that, you need to stop making stuff up and twisting things to meet your own agenda. I said "I didn't get the benefit of been born to a millionaire." And if not being a millionaire means you are an idiot then there are a lot of idiots in the world. I would venture that no one on these boards lived with a millionaire.

[ActionGoose]

So you think life is fair? You think others should pay for somebody else's health care?

How is my kids health care YOUR responsibility?

It's absolutely incredible to me how conservatives will fervently defend the life of a clump of cells the size of a grain of rice, but once the child is born they basically toss it onto the sidewalk and tell it to pull itself up by its bootstraps.

[ScareCrow57]

It's absolutely incredible to me how conservatives will fervently defend the life of a clump of cells the size of a grain of rice, but once the child is born they basically toss it onto the sidewalk and tell it to pull itself up by its bootstraps.

Not me. I watch COPS and see a lot of missed opportunities :eek: :D

Myself, I support the right of a person being to do as they want with their body and their stuff. Therefore, I don’t say in one breath you cannot have an abortion and in the next say you are on your own. If you are going to force the mother to have the child, then don’t complain when you have to support her and her children. And at the same token, if you are going to allow people to choose to have children then don’t force me to pay for their choices.

Way I see the liberals and the conservatives want to have it both ways.

[ActionGoose]

And stop telling boogeyman stories about socialized medicine in other countries. If you want anecdotal evidence, here you go:

I had an ear infection before I went off to the UK, and the pressurized cabin didn't help matters. The people I was staying with took me to a UHS clinic.

I entered my name and symptoms onto a touch screen device, and had a seat. Within 10 minutes, the televisions playing some horrible Channel4 drama paused, and displayed my name. A nurse greeted me at the door, took my medical history and got more information. A physician came in next, diagnosed me, and supplied me with the medicines I needed.

I was in and out within 30 minutes. The cost was £60, free if I was a resident of the United Kingdom. And I wasn't left in the streets to die!

[scfire86]

Absolutely. That is how Nature works.

I didn't get the benefit of been born to a millionaire.
Neither did I. Gotta love your response. I'm glad to live in a country that believes differently.

[ScareCrow57]

And stop telling boogeyman stories about socialized medicine in other countries. If you want anecdotal evidence, here you go:

I had an ear infection before I went off to the UK, and the pressurized cabin didn't help matters. The people I was staying with took me to a UHS clinic.

I entered my name and symptoms onto a touch screen device, and had a seat. Within 10 minutes, the televisions playing some horrible Channel4 drama paused, and displayed my name. A nurse greeted me at the door, took my medical history and got more information. A physician came in next, diagnosed me, and supplied me with the medicines I needed.

I was in and out within 30 minutes. The cost was £60, free if I was a resident of the United Kingdom. And I wasn't left in the streets to die!


Personally, if you want that systems then go there. We don't have that system here and there are those of us who don't want it. Let us be FREE. Not all change is GOOD!

[ScareCrow57]

Neither did I. Gotta love your response. I'm glad to live in a country that believes differently.

Incoherent again. Please leave the scotch in the cabinet until at least 5.

[ActionGoose]

Personally, if you want that systems then go there. We don't have that system here and there are those of us who don't want it. Let us be FREE. Not all change is GOOD!

Wanting the best for your country sometimes means taking your head out of the sand and realizes that not everything American is superior to that of the rest of the world.

[BryanLoader]

Wanting the best for your country sometimes means taking your head out of the sand and realizes that not everything American is superior to that of the rest of the world.


Ummm Goose., I don't think Crows head is in the sand. Somewhat about 3 foot further North. Crow, plain and simple, you're out to lunch and wrong, go play with your Never Wrong buddy.

[scfire86]

Incoherent again. Please leave the scotch in the cabinet until at least 5.
Idiotboy proves his stupidity knows no bounds.

[ScareCrow57]

Wanting the best for your country sometimes means taking your head out of the sand and realizes that not everything American is superior to that of the rest of the world.

It also means that you realize you cannot afford the perfect system. Many people feel the current system is just fine. If you don’t like the system then find one more to your liking, there are about 170 different systems to choose from.

[ScareCrow57]

Ummm Goose., I don't think Crows head is in the sand. Somewhat about 3 foot further North. Crow, plain and simple, you're out to lunch and wrong, go play with your Never Wrong buddy.

Ohh I am wrong once in a while, in fact, there was one time last year. :D. What I will say is there is no perfect system. There is no one size fits all. Some people believe that the Government is the solution for all the problems. Myself, I think the government is the source of many of the problems. It’s this big bloated, blob, of stuff in which one part has no idea what the other is doing.

[BryanLoader]

Ohh I am wrong once in a while, in fact, there was one time last year. :D. What I will say is there is no perfect system. There is no one size fits all. Some people believe that the Government is the solution for all the problems. Myself, I think the government is the source of many of the problems. It’s this big bloated, blob, of stuff in which one part has no idea what the other is doing.

I agree with you on the fact of govt ineptitude, but I stand by my earlier assertion that the two things that any civilised society should provide are Health Care and Education. Just MHO of course. And yes, I have been wrong before and cherrfully admit it.

[txgp17]

If we follow your rationale, what's the answer for the 47 million people without medical insurance in this country???Don't confuse insurance with health care. Most people who don't have health insurance choose not to have it. They'll have cigs, beer, ipods, iphones.
Like these guys. (http://online.wsj.com/video/how-to-fix-health-insurance/BDDD0C13-0453-4E03-8BE1-41BCC0F03694.html) Reduce the cost of health care, for starters.One of first signs of sanity in this thread. The price of a good or service is primarily regulated by supply in demand. If you want cheaper health care, look for the government to subsidize the education of health care professionals, provided they actually remain in the field that the government helped fund their education & training in. You won't see immediate changes, but years down the road, an increase in physicians forces them to compete for business, which will influence them to lower their prices.

Physicians, and insurance companies, like every other kind of institution, have to earn a profit in order to keep functioning. Some believe -- contrary to all evidence -- that the government can provide things cheaper, that it can "bring down the cost of health care," for example.

Virtually everything that the government does costs more than when the same thing is done in private industry -- whether it is building housing, running prisons, collecting garbage, or innumerable other things. Why in the world would we imagine that health care would be the exception?

When people talk about the government bringing down costs, what they really mean is that the government can impose price controls. Keeping prices lower than they would be under supply and demand produces shortages, quality deterioration, and black markets -- whether the price that is being controlled is that of food, housing, medical care or almost anything else.

If the government is to reduce health care cost, then what will cost less? Will we pay doctors & nurses less? We we invest less $$$ in researching new cures & procedures? Will we purchase inferior equipment?But to do that, you have to take a major bite out of malpractice settlements by placing limitations on awards. Amen.
How many doctors and other professionals did people like John Edwards bankrupt to fund construction of his 28,200 ft² home? Lawyers like him are nothing more than a thief who convinces 12 jurors to vote in favor of the courts forcing others to give money to him. How many 6 year old kids are able to work and purchase Medical benefits?How many 6 year old kids are there in this country? Earlier (http://forums.firehouse.com/showthread.php?p=1060199#post1 060199) you asserted there were 47,000,000 people.

Pick a statistic and stay with it. You want to use 6 year old kids as justification to give health care to everyone, including lazy adults. That's disingenuous.

"The poor" are used as political justification for imposing government-controlled medical care on everyone, which is a complete fraud that hurts everyone. The average uninsured American has above-average income -- and people living in poverty are already eligible for Medicaid. People without insurance are treated at hospitals all across America every day. Why would your coverage suffer? Please tell me how covering others would hurt you and your family?Because demand will outstrip supply. This leads to shortages. Shortages lead to higher prices and/or rationing of the good or service. This is Econ 101 stuff.

Sweden, Britain, Canada, Japan... each has socialized health care, and each has long waiting lists and rationing of services. This is not a coincidence.

Japan is so bad that they are sometime forced to ration emergency services, like right here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487747,00.html).

Cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Europe. Thousands of Canadians seek medical treatment outside of Canada, even though treatment is free inside Canada and they have to pay themselves for treatment elsewhere. Studies show that waiting times for surgery are months longer in Canada, Britain and Australia -- all countries with government-controlled medical care -- than in the United States.

Sounds like Universal Health care will cause more problems than it cures.Crow, many of those people you claim choose not to get coverage can't afford it because they don't make enough money and they have to decide whether or not they want to eat or pay their rent, etc. No.
Most decide whether or not buy kewl stuff, or have health insurance.

Do I want 22's and an exotic paint scheme on my Toyota Camry, or do I want health insurance?
Do I want a $100 a month 4-year contract on a $200 iphone, or do I want health insurance?
Do I want a Cadillac Escalade, or do I want health insurance?
Do I want a 52” LCD television, or do I want health insurance?

Most people making these decisions take a gamble, a calculated risk, and come out ahead because they didn't need insurance. But the liberals never report on those people, they only report on the ones who gambled on not paying for health insurance, and lost.So they don't get preventive health coverage and when they really get sick, the public gets stuck footing the bill. And in many cases, people who suffer devastating illnesses are no longer able to work and remain as productive citizens of this country.Catastrophic illnesses is one of the legitimate uses of insurance, to guard against the unlikely, yet potentially fatal incidents. We have automobile insurance for the same reason -- but our automobile insurance does not cover gasoline or oil changes.

"Universal health care" means insuring against the trivial and the catastrophic alike. I would give anything for socialized health care in this country.

If someone has the opportunity to see physician on a regular basis, they won't call me in the middle of the night for exacerbation of chronic conditions or for a ride for the ER for "midnight primary care".So your motive is self serving. You want to penalize everyone else so you can do less work and make the same amount of money.

Thanx for showing us all what your motives are.

You'll need that sleep too, to stay awake in the long lines you'll be waiting in to get health care when you need it. Well you could be right George, but look around, USA is the only major industrialized country in the world without universal health care.One of the many things that makes our country greater than the others. I would venture to bet that if the US operated a well thought out universal health care plan and it was in place for 5 years, there would be more chance of the NRA supporting a firearms ban than eliminating a universal health care system If, If, If...
If flies had wings they'd not bump their *****'s each time they hopped. You truly are stupid.More of the same. Here's a couple of Federal programs I would consider immensely successful:
TVAA Government granted monopoly. It has no competition. A monopoly has almost no motive to reduce costs. If it needs more $$$, it just increases prices. When was the last time you saw the power company or gas company men driving an old beat-up truck in an attempt to save money?DoDWhich side of your mouth did that come out of? Because right here (http://forums.firehouse.com/showthread.php?p=979777#post97 9777) you were critical of the DoD, and questioned why Air Force didn't take over all the air wings of the other branches, and questioned why the Marines even existed.

Did you have some revelation to change your mind or are you making stuff up to support your liberal fantasies? I don't think "REAL" doctors aren't in it for profit; perhaps to work and make a living wage, but I think it would be fair to say that most of them are in it for the betterment of all mankind.And your thinking is wrong.

A friend of mine is a Pediatric Anesthesiologist. She was offered a job at an Educational Hospital making $250,000/year. She interviewed with a private firm, where starting pay was about $500,000/year, and topped out at $950,000/year when you made partner. Which one of these firms would you guess attracts the best talent? Sayeth the idiotboy.Like a broken record. We know what he's going to say and when he's going to re-say it.It's not like the private sector has a stellar track record either.It's better than the public.I hear predictions of long waits if the US invokes a national health care plan. I know folks who have that problem with their HMO's and PPO's.Again you confuse health insurance with health care providers. If you can't tell the difference then you have no business discussing anything else health care related.

A HMO's priority is to provide you with the lowest cost health care they can get away with. Yet you act surprised when people don't get instant access to the best care available. The decisions about one's health are made by insurance companies. Let's at least get past the pretense the doctor and patient are being considered. There was a time when most people had no health insurance, when we simply paid the doctors or the pharmacies and went on our way. When and why did health insurance become widespread in the American economy? Like most things that the government does, 3rd party health insurance grew out of problems created by previous government policies.

During World War II, the government imposed wage and price controls. This meant that employers who wanted to hire more or better workers were forbidden to offer higher wages to attract them. So employers started offering various benefits instead. One of these benefits was employer-paid health insurance.

Since these benefits were not taxed as income, and could be treated as a business expense by the employer, everybody seemed to be better off. But, long after the war was over and wage and price controls were gone, the idea that 3rd parties ought to pay for health insurance continued on.

This would make some sense if 3rd party insurance was cheaper or better than insurance that each individual pays for. All the evidence is that it is just the opposite. China, Britain and other countries have been surprised to discover that the costs of government-provided health care greatly exceeded the costs initially projected. But they should not have been surprised. It is the oldest and simplest principle of economics that people will demand more when they pay a lower price, especially when that price is zero.

All medical needs do not have the same priority. Some medical issues require immediate intervention. Some require only a phone to call to your physician, rather than an office visit. When people pay their own money for medical care, they sort these things out accordingly. But when someone else is paying, then the trivial and the urgent are both likely to find their way to the doctor's office. This means that both end up competing for finite resources, which either drives up prices and/or leads to rationing. And who is this person that is going to beat Obama?And where was Obama in 2004? Yes he was visible, yes he was a keynote speaker the DNC, but he wasn't a front runner by any stretch of the imagination. 2012 is far away. I didn't get the benefit of been born to a millionaire.Plan B: Marry one.The two main things that I think should be the responsibility of any civilised society are education and health care. Take a look at 3rd world cpountries and try to figure out why they are there.If you want a health care plan that works like you spell, then we're all screwed. It's absolutely incredible to me how conservatives will fervently defend the life of a clump of cells the size of a grain of rice, but once the child is born they basically toss it onto the sidewalk and tell it to pull itself up by its bootstraps.And it is not equally incredible that liberals will defend a woman's alleged "right" to murder an unborn child, but once it's born give it everything it needs at everyone else's expense. The explanation is found in our Nation's founding documents. The Constitution says that people have a right to life, it says nothing about a right to free dental care.


Here's some good viewing material.
John Stossel - Sick in America - Part 1 (of 6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I&fmt=18)
John Stossel - Sick in America - Part 2 (of 6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsEAVbCkMM&fmt=18)
John Stossel - Sick in America - Part 3 (of 6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=refrYKq9tZQ&fmt=18)
John Stossel - Sick in America - Part 4 (of 6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzhiG0dcwN8&fmt=18)
John Stossel - Sick in America - Part 5 (of 6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp_Jh5EIT0&fmt=18)
John Stossel - Sick in America - Part 6 (of 6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_KCLm9cekU&fmt=18)

[scfire86]

Sweden, Britain, Canada, Japan... each has socialized health care, and each has long waiting lists and rationing of services. This is not a coincidence.
And that doesn't happen in the US?

You'll need that sleep too, to stay awake in the long lines you'll be waiting in to get health care when you need it.
Love an argument based on a hypothetical.

More of the same.
Which doesn't detract from its accuracy.

A Government granted monopoly. It has no competition. A monopoly has almost no motive to reduce costs. If it needs more $$$, it just increases prices. When was the last time you saw the power company or gas company men driving an old beat-up truck in an attempt to save money?Which side of your mouth did that come out of? Because right here (http://forums.firehouse.com/showthread.php?p=979777#post97 9777) you were critical of the DoD, and questioned why Air Force didn't take over all the air wings of the other branches, and questioned why the Marines even existed.
You're confusing success with efficiency. Big difference. Most of the programs I mentioned are considered core functions of government. Others (like the TVA or Interstate Highway System) are beyond the reach of the private sector's ability to raise the capital necessary for that particular project.

Did you have some revelation to change your mind or are you making stuff up to support your liberal fantasies? And your thinking is wrong.
Nope.

A friend of mine is a Pediatric Anesthesiologist. She was offered a job at an Educational Hospital making $250,000/year. She interviewed with a private firm, where starting pay was about $500,000/year, and topped out at $950,000/year when you made partner. Which one of these firms would you guess attracts the best talent? Like a broken record. We know what he's going to say and when he's going to re-say it.It's better than the public.Again you confuse health insurance with health care providers. If you can't tell the difference then you have no business discussing anything else health care related.
And we wonder why health care is so expensive. The number of doctors has been rationed by the limited number of slots available in med schools for years. You're a fool if you believe free market forces are at work in the US.

A HMO's priority is to provide you with the lowest cost health care they can get away with. Yet you act surprised when people don't get instant access to the best care available. There was a time when most people had no health insurance, when we simply paid the doctors or the pharmacies and went on our way. When and why did health insurance become widespread in the American economy? Like most things that the government does, 3rd party health insurance grew out of problems created by previous government policies.
Really? What few years I worked in the private sector in the late 60's, health care insurance was offered by my employer. Insurance companies have almost monopolistic forces allowing them to charge premiums with little impact since there is little if any competition.

During World War II, the government imposed wage and price controls. This meant that employers who wanted to hire more or better workers were forbidden to offer higher wages to attract them. So employers started offering various benefits instead. One of these benefits was employer-paid health insurance.
One of the many reasons was the fact that almost the entire economy was geared to supporting the war effort. The primary economic engine was being fueled by taxpayer dollars.

Since these benefits were not taxed as income, and could be treated as a business expense by the employer, everybody seemed to be better off. But, long after the war was over and wage and price controls were gone, the idea that 3rd parties ought to pay for health insurance continued on.
As a benefit to keep employees healthy.

Hey moonbat, how's that Obama citizenship case going?

[DaSharkie]

And stop telling boogeyman stories about socialized medicine in other countries. If you want anecdotal evidence, here you go:

I had an ear infection before I went off to the UK, and the pressurized cabin didn't help matters. The people I was staying with took me to a UHS clinic.

I entered my name and symptoms onto a touch screen device, and had a seat. Within 10 minutes, the televisions playing some horrible Channel4 drama paused, and displayed my name. A nurse greeted me at the door, took my medical history and got more information. A physician came in next, diagnosed me, and supplied me with the medicines I needed.

I was in and out within 30 minutes. The cost was £60, free if I was a resident of the United Kingdom. And I wasn't left in the streets to die!

And just what would those medications be? Antibiotics are not recommended in cases of acute otitis media in people over the age of 2 years old. Likely you could have gotten analgesics at any pharmacy.

Of course you do not mention months-long waits for MRIs, CTs, residing in hotels awaiting care.

No system is perfect, but everyone needs to tell both sides of the story and the equation.

The Europeans do some things right, so does the U.S. Health Care system. I just don't think the Feds running it is in the best interest of everyone involved. Alas, it is likely that the Dems will take up the system this Summer, little debate will occur, and a flawed system will be rammed through Congress and then fixed "later." Instead, the powers that be ought to take their time in doing it and getting as much of it right as possible, but that is why I do not put my trust in politicians - of any party.

Also recall that there is a reason why many medications are so expensive here, and not in every other country - actually several reasons. One being that we subsidize the lower price of other nations. Two being that the drug companies pay tons of money to market their "new" medications, while they are no better than old ones. Only the United States and New Zealand allow for direct to consumer advertising of medications as well. Consider the billions of dollars spent on this, and you have another huge cost factor.

Now am a red-blooded capitalist, but I loathe the pharmaceutical industries in that respect. Two years ago, Pfizer spent $700,000,000 marketing Lipitor alone. Considering that Lipitor is available for $4 for 30 pills at the dreaded Wal-Mart, it makes one wonder why this is done.

Meanwhile, azithromycin (Zithromax/Z-Pack) still costs $45 and it is off patent. Clindamycin is a 40 year old medication which I have to prescribe to many folks - God help you if you don't have insurance since it still costs you $130 for a 10-day course. Think about that cost.

No government-run system will reduce those costs long-term. Nor will government-run healthcare reduce the overall cost of healthcare, or the hassles of getting treatments covered. Over the past 30-40 years most research is now funded by drug companies and device manufacturers - before much of it was done by the NIH. New medications are constantly being found out to be no more effective than older, less expensive medications........One of the dirty little secrets of healthcare and pharmaceutical research.

[DaSharkie]

And that doesn't happen in the US?

Not as much, nor as severely as it occurs in other nations. You ought to research it more.

Love an argument based on a hypothetical.

You make hypotheticals frequently as well. Be careful, or your hypocracy will show itself even more so.

Which doesn't detract from its accuracy.

It does if you are wrong.

You're confusing success with efficiency. Big difference. Most of the programs I mentioned are considered core functions of government. Others (like the TVA or Interstate Highway System) are beyond the reach of the private sector's ability to raise the capital necessary for that particular project.

The Interstate Highway System was financed by the Feds, but it is not maintained or repaired by the Feds. It was designed as military adn Civil Defense aid primarily - with the added benefit of aiding in commerce. Remember that the IHS was designed to aid in evacuations and troop movements - because the Autobahns aided allied and axis movements of the same in WWII.

No competetion was in place for the same projects either - they were just put out to government bid.

And we wonder why health care is so expensive.

http://www.pedsanesthesia.org/patiented/faq.iphtml

It pays what the market bears. Considering the fact that an Anasthaesiologist attends 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, and a minimum of 4 years of residency, and probably an addition 1-3 year Fellowship. They graduate Residency at the age of about 30, having accumulated about $200,000 to $300,000 in student loan debt - deferring it for anywhere for 4-8 years while attending school.

So there you are, 30 years old, $300,000 in debt, in a highly litigious specialty (a pediatric death allows for you to be sued at ANY point up until that child would have turned 21) and just trying to make enough to buy a house in a big city (considering Peds. Anasthesioligists will likely work in major medical centers), pay at least $2,000 per month in student loan interest alone for anywhere between 10 and 30 years, and start your life. Oh yeah, don't forget that they will pay $100,000 per year in personal malpractice & liability insurance. Then work 60 hour+ weeks, retain board certification (several thousand dollars every 10 years), attend numerous conferences (at a few thousand a year), remain current in literature, techniques, research, and current trends. Consider that one individual monthly peer-reviewed journal costs at least $200 per year, add to that several thousand dollars annually to maintain enough CMEs to maintain certification, hospital privileges, and licensures.

The number of doctors has been rationed by the limited number of slots available in med schools for years. You're a fool if you believe free market forces are at work in the US.

As for medical schools, they must be affiliated with a major medical center - whether it be public (UMass, UCLA, Cook County) or private (Duke, Cedar-Sinai, Baylor) and have the capacity to educate, train, and suppor only 100-200 medical students per year - as well as find enough residency slots for those people every year at the same finite number of residency programs that have the same commitments and restrictions. It is not a control of the labor market. The number of people applying to medical schools is dropping off as well.

There are about 125 medical schools in the United States, all with strict rules for student to faculty ratios. All with strict rules for education curricula. All with strict rules for patient contact time. All with strict rules for clinical rotations that must also allow for training of residents, PA students, Fellows, Nurse Practitioner students, and the myriad of other medical trainees, students, and continuing education.

These educational programs and residencies need large patient volumes to substantiate enough patient contact time, referrals, surgeries, and procedures to support the training of all of these people as well.

You are a fool if you think that it is an educational restriction conspiracy put in place by the medical establishment.

Perhaps you would like to have yourself or a family member treated by a provider trained in a lesser volume center. I would not.

Really? What few years I worked in the private sector in the late 60's, health care insurance was offered by my employer. Insurance companies have almost monopolistic forces allowing them to charge premiums with little impact since there is little if any competition.

You ought to look into the wide variety of insurance plan pricing occurring nowadays - not something that took place 40 years ago.

As a benefit to keep employees healthy.

Yet we cannot charge higher insurance premiums to people living unhealthier lifestyles - smokers, drug users, the obese, etc...., Pick which avenue you want - you can't have it both ways.

Hey moonbat, how's that Obama citizenship case going?

Never able to make an argument without without insulting someone can you? Yes others do it, but you are just incapable of doing it. So sad.

[scfire86]

The Interstate Highway System was financed by the Feds, but it is not maintained or repaired by the Feds. It was designed as military adn Civil Defense aid primarily - with the added benefit of aiding in commerce. Remember that the IHS was designed to aid in evacuations and troop movements - because the Autobahns aided allied and axis movements of the same in WWII.

No competetion was in place for the same projects either - they were just put out to government bid.

The Feds (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm) are very much involved in their maintenance.

Interstate Maintenance (IM) Program

The FHWA first became involved with funding for maintenance activities on the Interstate System as a result of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976 that established the 3R program to fund interstate resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981 expanded the program by adding a fourth R, reconstruction. The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) terminated the I-4R program, except for a small discretionary setaside, established a new IM program and a separate NHS program which includes the Interstate System. The IM funds may be used on the Interstate System for 3R work and for reconstruction of bridges, interchanges and overcrossings along existing Interstate routes, but may not be used for the construction of new travel lanes other than high occupancy vehicle lanes or auxiliary lanes.

The 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) expanded eligibility for funding under the IM program to the 4th R, reconstruction. As a result, the addition of new interchanges, new rest areas, new noise walls, etc. became eligible for IM funding. However, IM funding of added lanes, except HOV and auxiliary lanes, are not allowed.


The point I was trying to make moonbat is there was never any interest on the part of the private sector to undertake a project. Only the Feds have the ability to raise the capital necessary and put the project out to bid by private contractors.

Never able to make an argument without without insulting someone can you? Yes others do it, but you are just incapable of doing it. So sad.
Gimme a break. The guy continues to put the belief that Obama isn't qualified to be President based on the writings of someone who believes Bush was complicit in 9/11. Need I say more?

[ScareCrow57]

I agree with you on the fact of govt ineptitude, but I stand by my earlier assertion that the two things that any civilised society should provide are Health Care and Education. Just MHO of course. And yes, I have been wrong before and cherrfully admit it.

This allows for an excellent comparison.

Our education system is a mix of public and private schools. And this goes from pre-school right up to college. The best educations come from places Like Harvard, Princeton, and MIT. And maybe the best isn't the right term, but you get the idea. A education from one of those places seems to hold more value.

There is also another dynamic at place in this comparison. That is the move away from publicly funded schools towards privately funded charter schools. People don't feel they get the same education in a public funded school vs a private school.

Not take out education and insert health care.

Funny how education is being privatized and health care governmentalized (probably not a real word until now). Two systems going in opposite directions. Seems we would learn our lesson from the educational fiasco.

[ScareCrow57]

Which doesn't detract from its accuracy.

So true, simply repeating inaccurate statements will not improve the accuracy. Only by educating yourself will the accuracy in improve.

And we wonder why health care is so expensive. The number of doctors has been rationed by the limited number of slots available in med schools for years. You're a fool if you believe free market forces are at work in the US.

What proof do you offer that medical costs are high? I say the costs are in line with the level of care provided as well as the cost of technological advances. You are correct about oen thing. Free market forces are severely limited by government intervention.


Really? What few years I worked in the private sector in the late 60's, health care insurance was offered by my employer. Insurance companies have almost monopolistic forces allowing them to charge premiums with little impact since there is little if any competition.

OK, I don't know what planet you live on but there is no monopoly anywhere in insurance. There are 100s of companies offering thousands of plans. OPM has information on hundreds of plans available to governmental workers. Do you know why group plans are cheaper than individual plans? Because insurance companies compete for the business. Thus lowering cost. :rolleyes:

One of the many reasons was the fact that almost the entire economy was geared to supporting the war effort. The primary economic engine was being fueled by taxpayer dollars.

Got to love how spending in WWII fixed the economy but spending on the war effort in Iraq ruined it. :rolleyes: You can’t have it both ways.

[ScareCrow57]

DaSharkie and txgp17, you both have put forth very thoughtful post filled with facts and dispelling many of the myths. DaSharkie as a doctor I value your opinion and thoughts on this issue. Unfortunately, there are those who spew forth the moonbat idiotboy philosophy as they know not what they speak about. It’s a shame they ignore the experts when it doesn’t fit into their agenda.

For some, it is easier to attack the messenger than it is to use facts and logic to attack the argument.

[DaSharkie]

The Feds (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm) are very much involved in their maintenance.

But it is done by the state. The money is put into the individual states' general funds to aid in maintenance. Our highways are crumbling here in the People's Republik.......literally. And the Federal funds do not cover the entirety of the cost.

The point I was trying to make moonbat is there was never any interest on the part of the private sector to undertake a project. Only the Feds have the ability to raise the capital necessary and put the project out to bid by private contractors.

And the point I was making, was that in the 1950s there was little need for the private sector to do so. It was a desire at the Federal Government level to do so. Once again, however, you prove my point. Have to insult someone with a counter opinion. Cannot make a point without calling someone a name. Wasn't too long ago you took the high road when people did that to you, and now you show your blatant hypocracy by doing it to others.

Gimme a break. The guy continues to put the belief that Obama isn't qualified to be President based on the writings of someone who believes Bush was complicit in 9/11. Need I say more?

There are many people here that you insult, demean, and call names. Not just him. I made a statement that you are incapable of having an intelligent argument without insulting someone. I don't give a damn what the excuse you choose to use is.

[DaSharkie]

Our education system is a mix of public and private schools. And this goes from pre-school right up to college. The best educations come from places Like Harvard, Princeton, and MIT. And maybe the best isn't the right term, but you get the idea. A education from one of those places seems to hold more value.

Society is impressed with where you went to college, but in the great scheme of life it means nothing but additional college student loan debt. So you went to Harvard, Stanford, or Yale. Big, fat, hairy deal. The education there is likely no better than that from UMass Lowell, UCLA, or Texas A&M. It just means you spent more for the same piece of paper.

Now, in the post-graduate world there can be some differences in the matter. In medicine, for example, attending Harvard Medical School does carry with it some additional benefits when it comes to residencies, but a lawyer from Harvard Law is likely to not make much (if any) more money than someone from UNC right out of school. It only opens up a broader network because the people that graduated from Harvard, Duke, and Stanford have more intact alumni network that is very paternal.

DaSharkie and txgp17, you both have put forth very thoughtful post filled with facts and dispelling many of the myths.

All it takes is a bit of research, and not espousing the opinions of others who know little or nothing about the matter of which they speak.

[QUOTE=ScareCrow57;1063266]DaSharkie as a doctor I value your opinion and thoughts on this issue.

I am not a doctor, I am a Physician Assistant working in the field of Emergency Medicine. Most of the points that I make on the matter come from folks much more involved in the providing and administering of helath care and delivery within the current system, as well as the literature I subscribe to. All one has to do is research the matter with the essays available in the various professional journals - JAMA, NEJM, and the like. Many of them are written by our counterparts in Europe and provide an opening of the eye to their issues and problems.

I look at the PA journals and see Canada and Great Britain recruiting U. S. Citizen Physician Assistants at huge salaries to work in their nationalized health care systems, while I work Canadian trained physicians. Quite an interesting prospect.

Unfortunately, there are those who spew forth the moonbat idiotboy philosophy as they know not what they speak about. It’s a shame they ignore the experts when it doesn’t fit into their agenda.

Because many choose to not make an effort to research the issue, and speak from their own limited experience with little input other than from a blog or article they read.

For some, it is easier to attack the messenger than it is to use facts and logic to attack the argument.

The favored tactic of those who know not of what they speak when confronted with facts and reality. It occurs from people on both sides of the issue and both sides of the political slant. Instead of admitting to others that they are wrong, or did not not know the issue, they criticize, insult, and demean the opposing person in order to try to make themselves feel better.

[Raughammer1]

Conversely, should children be penalized for being born by idiot parents?


Yes, life is not fair.

[Raughammer1]

Thats an easy statement for you to make; unless your out of work and your kids are affected. There's alot of things in this world that aren't fair; health insurance for kids shouldn't be one of them.

And that one is just as easy for me to refute; health care should be one of them.

You do not owe my kids healthcare and conversely i dont owe anyone else' health care.

You want it; go get it. No one owes you anything. Your parents suck or are idiots? Sucks to be you, but life is not fair.

[Raughammer1]

Don't confuse insurance with health care. Most people who don't have health insurance choose not to have it. They'll have cigs, beer, ipods, iphones.
Like these guys. (http://online.wsj.com/video/how-to-fix-health-insurance/BDDD0C13-0453-4E03-8BE1-41BCC0F03694.html) One of first signs of sanity in this thread. The price of a good or service is primarily regulated by supply in demand. If you want cheaper health care, look for the government to subsidize the education of health care professionals, provided they actually remain in the field that the government helped fund their education & training in. You won't see immediate changes, but years down the road, an increase in physicians forces them to compete for business, which will influence them to lower their prices.
...snip...
Physicians, and insurance companies, like every other kind of institution, have to earn a profit in order to keep functioning. Some believe -- contrary to all evidence -- that the government can provide things cheaper, that it can "bring down the cost of health care," for example.
...snip...


What a absolutely great post.
Good job Tx.

[ScareCrow57]

Originally Posted by scfire86 Conversely, should children be penalized for being born by idiot parents?

Yes, life is not fair.

I can't recall who it was, but it seems there was a person at one time who tried to create the perfect race by getting rid of the idiots. ;)

By the way... I do not endorse the persons philosophy at all.

[scfire86]

And that one is just as easy for me to refute; health care should be one of them.

You do not owe my kids healthcare and conversely i dont owe anyone else' health care.

You want it; go get it. No one owes you anything. Your parents suck or are idiots? Sucks to be you, but life is not fair.
This post summarizes the difference between conservatives and liberals. It's much easier to give someone the finger than a helping hand.

That all changes until it is you having to tell your kids they'll just have to suffer the consequences of the parent's poor decision making.

[DaSharkie]

This post summarizes the difference between conservatives and liberals. It's much easier to give someone the finger than a helping hand.

That all changes until it is you having to tell your kids they'll just have to suffer the consequences of the parent's poor decision making.

Between Medicaid and SCHIP very few - if any children are uncovered medically. Those that are not covered, simply are not enrolled in a program to do so. But it is not that difficult to get into a plan for the children.

I loathe socialized healthcare and the thought of paying for a capable, able-bodied adult's healthcare.....but when it comes to the children, you ought to at least cover them until they are done high school or choose to drop out (which out to not be allowed in the first place.) After that you have the ability to work and make money for yourself. Your 3 priorities ought to be a roof over your head, food in your stomach, and healthcare for yourself/dependents. All other items fall to the wayside.

What else sucks about Medicaid is that the mothers are covered under Medicaid once they are pregnant - if they are not already covered. But the fathers (married or not) are not allowed to be covered. Pretty blatantly sexist personally - but that is OK, the government does not wish to have fathers involved, or covered.

[scfire86]

Between Medicaid and SCHIP very few - if any children are uncovered medically. Those that are not covered, simply are not enrolled in a program to do so. But it is not that difficult to get into a plan for the children.
And remember who is supporting both programs and who is fighting it.

You claimed on another thread there were any number of critics to Bush's policies. I did a search and couldn't find any threads started of that nature. Could you please post some links? I might not have done a good job of looking.

[ScareCrow57]

Between Medicaid and SCHIP very few - if any children are uncovered medically. Those that are not covered, simply are not enrolled in a program to do so. But it is not that difficult to get into a plan for the children.

I loathe socialized healthcare and the thought of paying for a capable, able-bodied adult's healthcare.....but when it comes to the children, you ought to at least cover them until they are done high school or choose to drop out (which out to not be allowed in the first place.) After that you have the ability to work and make money for yourself. Your 3 priorities ought to be a roof over your head, food in your stomach, and healthcare for yourself/dependents. All other items fall to the wayside.

What else sucks about Medicaid is that the mothers are covered under Medicaid once they are pregnant - if they are not already covered. But the fathers (married or not) are not allowed to be covered. Pretty blatantly sexist personally - but that is OK, the government does not wish to have fathers involved, or covered.


You left out the part about how the prisoners who are released from jail get automatic Medicaid for one year

[txgp17]

And that doesn't happen in the US?Certainly. It happens everywhere.
But not nearly as often. And if you have the money to pay for the procedure yourself, out of pocket, you might just jump to the front of the line.

In those other places, where medical care is socialized, doing such a thing would make you a criminal. Free market forces are self-correcting, making shortages temporary, rather than sustained for the long term. Intervention by governments and insurance companies short circuit those self-correcting forces.Love an argument based on a hypothetical.It's not hypothetical when it's already occurring in every place where health care is governmentized. (yes, that's a new word)Which doesn't detract from its accuracy.No, it doesn't detract at all. Your ramblings are severely lacking in accuracy with or without your adolescent name calling.You're confusing success with efficiency. Big difference. Most of the programs I mentioned are considered core functions of government.Considered by who? You and Janeane Garofalo?Others (like the TVA or Interstate Highway System) are beyond the reach of the private sector's ability to raise the capital necessary for that particular project.Hardly. I guess you've never heard of the Pocahontas Parkway (in Virginia), and the Northwest Parkway (in Colorado). In both cases, private investors rescued and refinanced struggling public-sector toll roads, and will eventually make annual revenue-sharing payments to the states. One more liberal fantasy busted.

Plus the government has the power to seize land for use in these projects. If that kind of tyrannical power were extended to a private firm seeking to build a road, then you'd have seen a private toll-road built decades ago.Nope.Well were you lying then, or are you lying now?And we wonder why health care is so expensive.Like DaSharkie already pointed out (http://forums.firehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1063224&postcount=149), she spent 13 years in school. You cannot entice an individual to go through all of that for $65,000/year, which only puts them at the about the top 25% of income earners. I'd expect to see the most educated and highly trained of our society to be in the top 5% of income earners, like your wife. As was established earlier (http://forums.firehouse.com/showthread.php?p=983694&highlight=$174,000#post983694) , your & her combined AGI was AT LEAST $174,000. The two of you might earn 2 or 3 times as much.

You whine about highly paid physicians, but I don't hear you complaining one bit when your wife brings home the bacon. Hypocrite. I think this pic if fitting of your antics.
http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp130/txgp17/060425GasFumes-X.gifThe number of doctors has been rationed by the limited number of slots available in med schools for years. You're a fool if you believe free market forces are at work in the US.They're at work every day. The high pay entices smart, skilled professionals to engage in being a physician, rather than a landscaper or a cashier at Wal-Mart. Plus the higher salaries attract the most talented and successful professionals.

There are other positions for Anesthesiologists available that pay sub-$150,000, but who do you think gets those jobs, my friend who did a fellowship at Harvard Medical School, or some other cat that graduated last in his class?

And who would your rather have administering Schedule II narcotics to your children before surgery? The top graduate, or the mediocre one?

It's in a Doctor's best interests to limit the number of practicing physicians in America. It virtually guarantees a steady job market. Which is why I suggested earlier (http://forums.firehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1063156&postcount=146) that the government should subsidize the education of health care professionals, provided they actually remain in the field that the government helped fund their education & training in. We need more Doctors, not just cheaper ones.Really? What few years I worked in the private sector in the late 60's, health care insurance was offered by my employer. Do you want a cookie? The pattern of not offering employer health insurance predates your insignificant existence.Insurance companies have almost monopolistic forces allowing them to charge premiums with little impact since there is little if any competition.http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/anim_bs.gif
Get a shovel!

My employer puts out bids or requests for proposals on a frequent basis. Do you think there is only one company bidding?

Here's a quick list of some major players in the private health insurance business: Aetna Aflac American Medical Security Life Insurance Company Assurant Asuris Northwest Health Blue Cross/Blue Shield The Regence Group Celtic Insurance Co. CIGNA Fortis Golden Rule Insurance Company Group Health Inc. Health Net Health Partners Humana Inc. Intermountain Health Care Kaiser Permanente LifeWise Health Medical Mutual Oxforde Health Plans, Inc. UNICARE PacificareAnd that's a short list. All totaled there's at least 3,100 private health insurance companies in America (http://www.manta.com/mb_34_A2141_000/accident_and_health_insurance) , yet you call it a monopoly. That explains a lot.

The most important part of free market forces that has been hidden from consumers is the actual cost of medical care. Not the cost of setting a broken bone or cardiac catheterization but more routine procedures.

Under insurance plans, health care consumers don't care how much a doctor charges, cause all they typically pay is a fixed amount, like a copay or something.

If my car is damaged in a wreck, I'm normally required to get a few price quotes on the repairs. I'm still only responsible for the deductable, but the price checking prevents the insurance company from getting railroaded by the body shops, and it encourages competition among the different firms.

What do you think would happen to the price of auto insurance if it were administered in the same manner than health insurance is?

Suppose I'm offered a plan to repaint my car once a year whether I need it or not, and no matter where I go, it will cost me the same amount. Under that scenario you'd be a fool to take your car to Maaco for the $199 special.One of the many reasons was the fact that almost the entire economy was geared to supporting the war effort. The primary economic engine was being fueled by taxpayer dollars.Doesn't change the fact that government policies that placed artificially low ceilings on wages encouraged employers to attract the most talented workers by means other than raw dollars. Gimme a break. The guy continues to put the belief that Obama isn't qualified to be President based on the writings of someone who believes Bush was complicit in 9/11. Need I say more?There aren’t enough breaks to make an excuse for you.

And I’m not the one continuing, you are. Each and every time it’s mentioned on this site, it is done so by you.

And it’s not based on Berg’s writings; it’s based on Hussein’s life. Berg just happens to be the guy going to bat in the courts.

By the way, you’ve still have not cited an authoritative source stating that Hussein is a natural born citizen.

It’s nothing more than sign of your desperation. You can’t counter my arguments with facts so you resort to attacking the messenger. That all changes until it is you having to tell your kids they'll just have to suffer the consequences of the parent's poor decision making.I took steps to insure that if I check out too soon, there will be substantial resources to provide for my children's future. That was is my responsibility, and no one else's. That all changes until it is you having to tell your kids they'll just have to suffer the consequences of the parent's poor decision making.Once again the liberals tug at the heart strings, using poor children to get health care for everyone.

The poor already have health insurance, it's called Medicaid. I not opposed to increasing the availability for CHILDREN of the poor, but don't use them as bait to get it for every man, woman, and CHILD.

What's said about Medicaid is that in most instances it provides better coverage the Medicare. While working EMS years ago, I was told by a ER physician that when writing prescriptions, he checks insurance first. If they have Medicaid, they get name brand meds, if they have Medicare, they get generic. Why? Medicaid will pay the full cost of name brand meds, while Medicare will only pay for generic.

Why was an ER physician telling me this? Because that's where all the poor, who claim to have no access to health care, go to for their routine medical treatment.What a absolutely great post.
Good job Tx.You're welcome, and thanx for the compliment.
I intentionally abstained from posting in this thread to see how much propaganda would be spread by liberals before I would debunk it with facts.

[ScareCrow57]

Nice post there moonbat. :D, Or would that be Idiotboy? Or does Mr. head in the sand have a different name for you. Between you and DaSharkie you have fed him more facts than he will see in a lifetime on the Huffington post. He is no doubt looking up the latest lies from Pelosi and company to justify their bizarre positions.

[DaSharkie]

And remember who is supporting both programs and who is fighting it.

Who is fighting it? Last year there was a fight to expand SCHIP because one side of the aisle felt it was well funded, and others did not.

You claimed on another thread there were any number of critics to Bush's policies. I did a search and couldn't find any threads started of that nature. Could you please post some links? I might not have done a good job of looking.

I will not do your work for you. You admit yourself that you might not have done a good job of looking. Perhaps you ought to before you ask me to do your work.

[DaSharkie]

Nice post there moonbat. :D, Or would that be Idiotboy? Or does Mr. head in the sand have a different name for you. Between you and DaSharkie you have fed him more facts than he will see in a lifetime on the Huffington post. He is no doubt looking up the latest lies from Pelosi and company to justify their bizarre positions.

Well, scfire has neer been able to deal with facts when they are presented to him. Take the last several posts - he does not address them point for point - because he is incapable of taking them on. This is his typical tactic, Nozzleman does the same thing. They take talking points from the various liberal bloggers out there and post them here.

Also, txgp17 reminded me of another point, which I found out last year while doing my taxes. Those in the medical profession as PAs, NPs, or physicians (after residencies) make too much money to claim a single penny of student loan interest. We are considered "rich", so despite those of us who have busted our arses with 6 or more years of college, graduate school, and working to get there.....cannot claim it. In 2007 I paid $7,000 is student loan INTEREST alone. Last year I paid well over $5,000 (because I live well within my means and put every extra penny into paying off my loans.)

However, I do believe that we are just wasting our breath talking with scfire - he considers us lost souls because we do not drink the flaming liberal pink Kool Aid. And no Liberal has ever done anything wrong in the history of the world.

[Jonathan Bastian]

The point I was trying to make moonbat is there was never any interest on the part of the private sector to undertake a project. Only the Feds have the ability to raise the capital necessary and put the project out to bid by private contractors.


Yet again, facts are contrary to your statements. For example, in 2002, the TVA's total assets were valued at about $29.4 billion. In comparison, ExxonMobile had assets over FIVE times larger, about $152 billion. Shareholder's equity was actually 100 times larger for ExxonMobile than for the TVA ($74 billion vs. $742 million). Darn facts getting in the way again of your liberal ideology.....

Gee, the private sector raised enough capital to make a company with five times more assets that is 100 times more valuable. If a project is valuable, the market will provide funding. It is the unprofitable projects that suck up tax dollars. For example, our federal government is planning to spend $97 million to move Martin, KY out of its floodplain. The city is home to 663 people. The total assessed value of the property is $9.7 million. Now, by my math, it would be cheaper to pay each resident (not family, RESIDENT) $25,000 PLUS buy the land PLUS pay 10 years of tax payments to the county and state for the property. And you'd still have over $60 million left over. But, no...the government needs to SPEND. And, contrary to what some may think, it's a Republican Congressman who is supporting the porkject. Regardless of party, it's just another example of how the government wastes money.

[Jonathan Bastian]

Oh, and in case anyone's wondering, ExxonMobile's asset value and shareholder's equity have both increased about 50% since the 2003 annual report. TVA's have increased 20%.

[scfire86]

If a project is valuable, the market will provide funding. It is the unprofitable projects that suck up tax dollars.
In the case of roads (hence the IHS example), they are rarely profitable. However, one would be foolish to believe the commerce of a modern industrialized society could efficiently function without them.

If the profitability had been there, private industry (specifically; auto, oil, manufacturing, and tourist companies)would have funded the projects long before the 1950's. Yet they did not.

[Jonathan Bastian]

In the case of roads (hence the IHS example), they are rarely profitable. However, one would be foolish to believe the commerce of a modern industrialized society could efficiently function without them.

If the profitability had been there, private industry (specifically; auto, oil, manufacturing, and tourist companies)would have funded the projects long before the 1950's. Yet they did not.

Oh, I concur on roads. Viable interstate transport, in my mind, falls clearly under the Commerce Clause for congressional responsibility. Hence, my comparison to TVA. The TVA is frequently held as a paragon of governmental capability; you took refuge in one of the liberal defenses and it backfired. Your statement was that large projects needed government intervention because only the federal government could raise the necessary capital. This is patently untrue.

Not only can private industry fund many projects much larger than the TVA, it can do so much more efficiently. Last year, the TVA tied up $37.1 billion to make just $817 million...a return on assets of 2.2%. Exelon, another electrical company, had $2.7 billion in net income on $47.8 billion in assets last year. Net return? 5.7%. Private industry funds a larger company that is more than twice as profitable from an ROA viewpoint.

Expanded government is not the solution...the FACTS prove it.

[Jonathan Bastian]

Oh, and just because goverment CAN fund something, doesn't mean that it should. See my example above of Martin, KY (conspicuously ignored by scfire along with the other facts).

Would private industry fund that? Heck, no! But government wants to...why is the unanswered question. I guess we just have too much tax money to spend in DC.

[scfire86]

The TVA is frequently held as a paragon of governmental capability; you took refuge in one of the liberal defenses and it backfired. Your statement was that large projects needed government intervention because only the federal government could raise the necessary capital. This is patently untrue.
When TVA was funded, private industry didn't have the capital necessary to build the project.

Expanded government is not the solution...the FACTS prove it.
And smaller government is not necessarily better government.

[ScareCrow57]

In the case of roads (hence the IHS example), they are rarely profitable. However, one would be foolish to believe the commerce of a modern industrialized society could efficiently function without them.

If the profitability had been there, private industry (specifically; auto, oil, manufacturing, and tourist companies)would have funded the projects long before the 1950's. Yet they did not.

Nice dodge there sonny. Can't refute the facts on health care and how it is bad for government to get into the business, so you talk about roads.

[scfire86]

Nice dodge there sonny. Can't refute the facts on health care and how it is bad for government to get into the business, so you talk about roads.
There are facts about how health care is operated by other nations. There are no facts about a US run national health care plan since the US has never had a national health care plan. There's nothing that states a US plan will be as bad or better than other nations. You make the assumption that anything run by the government is bad. I stated many programs that I would consider well run successes by government.

Your "facts" are hypotheticals.

Thank you for the softball statement.

You continue to show your stupidity.

[DaSharkie]

When TVA was funded, private industry didn't have the capital necessary to build the project.

They had the capital, just not the need or desire to electrify appalachia. Perhaps you ought to review the history of the TVA and WPA.

And smaller government is not necessarily better government.

And larger government certainly is not better government either.

[DaSharkie]

Nice dodge there sonny. Can't refute the facts on health care and how it is bad for government to get into the business, so you talk about roads.

Because that is his tactic. He starts one argument, gets hammered on the facts (notice how he has not addressed any of the points that were brought up) and then changes directions. He lacks knowledge, knows it, adn when called on it he cannot handle it.

Took me years to get the guy to admit he was wrong on a minor fact. People in Hell just got ice water.

[DaSharkie]

There are facts about how health care is operated by other nations. There are no facts about a US run national health care plan since the US has never had a national health care plan. There's nothing that states a US plan will be as bad or better than other nations. You make the assumption that anything run by the government is bad. I stated many programs that I would consider well run successes by government.

Your "facts" are hypotheticals.

Thank you for the softball statement.

You continue to show your stupidity.

You continue to show your lack of understanding of the subject matter. When it is pointed out, you choose to ignore it, or move on to another topic.

Amazing how your points are argued against - point for point, but you do not address them, only asking questions of others.....and when they are answered, you just insult the poster.

And how come you use hypotheticals, but no one else can? Be careful how you anser the question, or your own hypocracy will show.

[ScareCrow57]

There are facts about how health care is operated by other nations. There are no facts about a US run national health care plan since the US has never had a national health care plan. There's nothing that states a US plan will be as bad or better than other nations. You make the assumption that anything run by the government is bad. I stated many programs that I would consider well run successes by government.

Your "facts" are hypotheticals.

Thank you for the softball statement.

You continue to show your stupidity.

I guess you haven't heard of Medicaid, Medicare and SCHIP.

[ScareCrow57]

And larger government certainly is not better government either.

Ever notice how the larger an organization gets the more lethargic and wasteful it becomes? Larger organizations are also more susceptible to fraud and theft as it becomes easier to fly under the radar.

[Jonathan Bastian]

When TVA was funded, private industry didn't have the capital necessary to build the project.


And smaller government is not necessarily better government.

Really? There was no capital in the private market? Are you SURE? Support it with facts...I challenge you. I did a little research and PROVED that, contrary to your statement, private capital CAN and DOES finance much larger projects than the TVA, or even the Interstates. I PROVED that private capital markets can do it more effectively, generating more income and a better return on assets. Give FACTS to support your statement that TVA could not have been done with private capital.

It may be that TVA would not have been done privately, but if not, then it is because it is not a reasonably profitable venture.

Find the facts...I dare you. Or, just ignore them and move on...as you have done in this thread as well as the one about taxation.

I suggest that a government smaller than what we have now WOULD be more beneficial for the markets, and therefore the economy. If you'd like more facts, I'd be happy to share them. But until you start posting facts, it would just be a waste of time as you would ignore them and move on to another point, arguing with your heart rather than with information.

[neiowa]

And smaller government is not necessarily better government.

Wrong again. Smaller/local gov't is better. For a start, smaller gov't steals less of the citizen's property for the gov'ts "benefit".

Gov't locally is in all ways better than a large distant body. When I can go see, or am, the local "authority" who answer directly to me and my neighbors. I can directly influence the direction of gov't and participate in it. I can oversee the budget and spending and waste. I can mobilise my neighbors to change the direction of gov't and if necessary to "throw the bums out".

None of this meets the agenda of you leftist/statists who value quantity over effectiveness or efficiency.

[gamewell35]

Wrong again. Smaller/local gov't is better. For a start, smaller gov't steals less of the citizen's property for the gov'ts "benefit".

Gov't locally is in all ways better than a large distant body. When I can go see, or am, the local "authority" who answer directly to me and my neighbors. I can directly influence the direction of gov't and participate in it. I can oversee the budget and spending and waste. I can mobilise my neighbors to change the direction of gov't and if necessary to "throw the bums out".

None of this meets the agenda of you leftist/statists who value quantity over effectiveness or efficiency.

Smaller gov't is ok until your cornfields and houses get flooded; suddenly large government and their "quantity" of resources becomes attractive to you.

[scfire86]

Wrong again. Smaller/local gov't is better. For a start, smaller gov't steals less of the citizen's property for the gov'ts "benefit".
Good thing the majority of folks disagree with that idea when it comes to defending the nation.

Gov't locally is in all ways better than a large distant body. When I can go see, or am, the local "authority" who answer directly to me and my neighbors. I can directly influence the direction of gov't and participate in it. I can oversee the budget and spending and waste. I can mobilise my neighbors to change the direction of gov't and if necessary to "throw the bums out".
In our system of govt. one has that option. I guess things are different in Iowa.

None of this meets the agenda of you leftist/statists who value quantity over effectiveness or efficiency.
Your quoting soundbites that have no relationship to reality. Your state would be nothing but tumbleweeds blowing back and forth had it not been for the efforts of big government during the Great Depression. The state's economy would collapse were it not for subsidies from the Feds.

I bet you can't find one GOP farmer receiving subsidies who'll give them up because of his/her belief in "small" govt.

Nice try farmboy. I bet your one of those who believes Bush kept us safe even though the deadliest terrorist attack occurred during his administration.

[scfire86]

Smaller gov't is ok until your cornfields and houses get flooded; suddenly large government and their "quantity" of resources becomes attractive to you.
Exactly. Ask the governors of South Carolina, Louisiana, and Alaska. All of them made statements refusing monies from the Stimulus Bill. They've all since recanted.

[ScareCrow57]

Good thing the majority of folks disagree with that idea when it comes to defending the nation.

Except that we don't defend just our country. Our military is 3 times as big as need be because we defend everyone elses country.

In our system of govt. one has that option. I guess things are different in Iowa.

ROFLMAO!!!! Ever write to your Senator? You get a form letter back that doesn't even address your concerns. Those idiots in DC are too far removed from the person on the street. They only relate to the rich people who make over $150,000. They have no idea about what a screwing they are giving 90% of the people in this country.

Your quoting soundbites that have no relationship to reality. Your state would be nothing but tumbleweeds blowing back and forth had it not been for the efforts of big government during the Great Depression. The state's economy would collapse were it not for subsidies from the Feds.

I bet you can't find one GOP farmer receiving subsidies who'll give them up because of his/her belief in "small" govt.

Nice try farmboy. I bet your one of those who believes Bush kept us safe even though the deadliest terrorist attack occurred during his administration.

At the thought of acting like one of the adolescents on this board, You are an IDIOT!!!! :rolleyes: Do away with the subsidies and do away with the price controls at the same time. The farmers would love it! Ask them if they refuse stimulus money do they also get to not pay for the stimulus if they will still take the money. It's like being forced to pay for the groceries then saying I don't want to eat that food. STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES!!!

[DaSharkie]

Smaller gov't is ok until your cornfields and houses get flooded; suddenly large government and their "quantity" of resources becomes attractive to you.

Well, that is what FEMA is for, but only when requested by an overwhelmed local and state government.

Same for the DOD.

Sorry to introduce facts into the argument - I know how much you hate it.

[DaSharkie]

Wrong again. Smaller/local gov't is better. For a start, smaller gov't steals less of the citizen's property for the gov'ts "benefit".

Gov't locally is in all ways better than a large distant body. When I can go see, or am, the local "authority" who answer directly to me and my neighbors. I can directly influence the direction of gov't and participate in it. I can oversee the budget and spending and waste. I can mobilise my neighbors to change the direction of gov't and if necessary to "throw the bums out".

None of this meets the agenda of you leftist/statists who value quantity over effectiveness or efficiency.

Just like going to New Hampshire. A state of a million people, no sales tax, no income tax. Relatively high local property taxes which are split into mostly local and school taxes. A small amount goes to the states. State legislators make a pittance - less than $1,000 per year.

The schools are good, the roads and infrastructure are not crumbling, little corruption - as opposed to the daily crap spread forth here in Massachusetts. Few far-reaching state agencies.

Same with many states as well. It all depends on what the people want the state to provide for them. And what those on the left want the government to provide.

[Jonathan Bastian]

Your quoting soundbites that have no relationship to reality. Your state would be nothing but tumbleweeds blowing back and forth had it not been for the efforts of big government during the Great Depression. The state's economy would collapse were it not for subsidies from the Feds.


He jukes left, he cuts right....ooh a high-step...what a dodge!

For a guy who is so apt to accuse others of using soundbites, your avoidance of specific questions on taxes and the economy is deafeningly silent in its conspicuousness.

[Jonathan Bastian]

ROFLMAO!!!! Ever write to your Senator? You get a form letter back that doesn't even address your concerns. Those idiots in DC are too far removed from the person on the street. They only relate to the rich people who make over $150,000. They have no idea about what a screwing they are giving 90% of the people in this country.
This makes you sound like a liberal. $150K is not an outrageous income, especially in a large city. Heck, a nurse and a firefighter can make pretty darn close to that in some cities, especially with a little overtime. I don't think anyone would confuse nursing and firefighting with careers that people undertake in order to become "rich." And how are they screwing 90% of the people, when 40% pay no federal income tax? A single parent of two making $16/hour gets back about $1000 MORE than he/she paid in federal income taxes...plus qualifies for tons of federal programs.

I don't think it is about screwing anyone...it's about getting re-elected. They are in it for themselves, not to better the nation.

At the thought of acting like one of the adolescents on this board, You are an IDIOT!!!! :rolleyes: Do away with the subsidies and do away with the price controls at the same time. The farmers would love it! Ask them if they refuse stimulus money do they also get to not pay for the stimulus if they will still take the money. It's like being forced to pay for the groceries then saying I don't want to eat that food. STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES!!!

Price controls normally guarantee minimum prices, not maximum. The stupid part is we Americans tolerate a system that takes our tax money to hire people to collect our tax money so that they can then turn around and pay farmers not to grow things that people won't buy at the prices they want so that the government can artificially force the prices up and the tax payers can pay more for the stuff at the store. Taxpayers pay more money to hire people to make our food more expensive!

This is perfect example of big government out of control and exceeding logical and Constitutional bounds.

[Jonathan Bastian]

Well, that is what FEMA is for, but only when requested by an overwhelmed local and state government.

Same for the DOD.

Sorry to introduce facts into the argument - I know how much you hate it.

Although one does have to wonder about the logic of FEMA racing in to rebuild a city below sea level on the coast, buildings on top of active faults, cities next to rivers that flood every decade, etc.

The definition of stupid? Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

[scfire86]

At the thought of acting like one of the adolescents on this board, You are an IDIOT!!!! :rolleyes: Do away with the subsidies and do away with the price controls at the same time. The farmers would love it! Ask them if they refuse stimulus money do they also get to not pay for the stimulus if they will still take the money. It's like being forced to pay for the groceries then saying I don't want to eat that food. STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES!!!
Hey idiotboy. I don't need to ask them if they don't want subsidies. They answer that question every time they cash the check.

[ScareCrow57]

Hey idiotboy. I don't need to ask them if they don't want subsidies. They answer that question every time they cash the check.

Maybe you should ask them. They would gladly give up those subsidies if the price controls went with it.

Now what about all the rest of the questions?

Interesting are the results of the poll here. Very few think government is smart enough to run the program, then again, they have already proven they can't

[scfire86]

Maybe you should ask them. They would gladly give up those subsidies if the price controls went with it.
Nothing stopping them from leading by example.

Now what about all the rest of the questions?

Interesting are the results of the poll here. Very few think government is smart enough to run the program, then again, they have already proven they can't
This is the same group that believed McCain would beat Obama last November.

[ScareCrow57]

Nothing stopping them from leading by example.

Easy to give up the subsidy. How do you get rid of the price controls?

This is the same group that believed McCain would beat Obama last November.

Yes, funny how educated blue collar workers don't buy into the liberal crap.

I'll Bet you think Freud is an idiot too.

[scfire86]

Easy to give up the subsidy. How do you get rid of the price controls?
ALL of the elected representatives from the affected states demand it. Citing it's lack of necessity. Good luck with that.

Yes, funny how educated blue collar workers don't buy into the liberal crap.
Whom are you referring? If you're referring to this posters on this group, it is hardly a bellwhether indicator of insight. You would get the exact opposite if not more skewed results from someone whose lost their health care coverage because they lost their job.

I'll Bet you think Freud is an idiot too.
What does that have to do with health care?

[ScareCrow57]

ALL of the elected representatives from the affected states demand it. Citing it's lack of necessity. Good luck with that.

Demand what? Price controls, subsidies , or both?

Whom are you referring? If you're referring to this posters on this group, it is hardly a bellwhether indicator of insight. You would get the exact opposite if not more skewed results from someone whose lost their health care coverage because they lost their job.


What does that have to do with health care?

Let me fix this for you "If you're referring to this posters on this group, it is hardly a bellwhether indicator of insight. "
Corrected version
If you're referring to the posters on this group, it is hardly a bellwether indicator of insight.

Now you know who the educated ones are.

[Jonathan Bastian]

And the crickets continue to chirp.....

[ScareCrow57]

No thanks to feds' health-care plantation (http://www.newschief.com/article/20090524/NEWS/905245042/1053?Title=No-thanks-to-feds-health-care-plantation)Four Republicans - senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Richard Burr of North Carolina along with congressmen Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Devin Nunes of California - have fired the first salvo in the great health-care reform debate.

They've introduced the Patients' Choice Act. Now, although we have a pretty good idea of what Democrats have in mind, we await crystallization of their ideas into legislation.

The difference of approach of the two parties on health care rides on the same basic question that divides the country and the parties on everything else. Are the problems we're facing today the result of too much government intervention in our economy and our lives or not enough?

The Patients' Choice Act reflects Republican thinking that health-care costs are out of control and, as result, not affordable for many, because of too much government. It allows Americans to take direct control of their health-care expenditures by giving families and individuals cash in the form of a tax credit ($5,700 and $2,300, respectively) to buy insurance and set up a Health Savings Account.

Democrats will take things in the opposite direction. Rather than controlling costs and access through more competition and consumer control, they see it coming from more government and regulation. Mandates on employers to provide insurance, fines if they don't, and using those funds to finance a new subsidized government plan.

And central to cost control are government bureaucrats defining what procedures may be used and determining what physicians will be compensated.

I'd suggest two considerations in assessing whether today's runaway costs and inefficiencies are the result of too much government or not enough.

First, we already have massive government involvement in health care. Practically half of all health care delivered today comes directly from government programs - mainly those begun in the 1960s. Medicare, Medicaid, and then later the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Only 35 percent of health care is paid for through private insurance. Some 87 percent of it is paid for by third parties - either government or employers. In 1960, 60 percent of Americans' health-care expenditures were out of their own pocket. Today it is 12 percent.

So massive growth in health care spending and cost escalation correlates directly with increasing government involvement in this marketplace and decreasing consumer control over their own expenditures. Does this tell you something?

Second, to see government health care at work, we don't need to look at Canada or Great Britain or Cuba. Fifty nine million Americans already have it. It's called Medicaid.

Medicaid was passed in 1965 to cover health care for poor Americans. It is a pure entitlement. If you qualify, you are covered. Government, both federal and state, pays.

Bureaucrats define what is covered and how much physicians will be paid. And, as result, there is a huge gap between being covered and actually getting health care.

On average, 40 percent of physicians won't accept Medicaid patients. They are paid less than what it costs them to provide the care. In a survey done last year by Merritt Hawkins, a health-care manpower firm, 65 percent of physicians said reimbursements from Medicaid were less than their costs.

Merritt Hawkins did a survey this year of physicians of different specialties in 15 different cities on acceptance of Medicaid patients. In Washington, D.C., for example, which has the highest incidence of children living in poverty in the country, only 63 percent of surveyed physicians in family practice will accept Medicaid patients.

A federal district appeals court ruled just a few weeks ago, affecting Alabama, Florida and Georgia, that state Medicaid programs can't be forced to pay if they disagree with a doctor's decision regarding care. In this particular case, Medicaid officials disagreed with the amount of nursing care prescribed by a physician for a teenager who suffers seizures.

A study cited by Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a physician and health-care expert at the American Enterprise Institute, showed Medicaid patients to be 50 percent more likely to die after heart bypass surgery than patients with private coverage or Medicare.

Move the whole nation onto a new government health care plantation?

No thanks. I'll take freedom and personal responsibility.

[Jonathan Bastian]

I find the health care debate interesting in that few look at the anology of auto insurance. To my knowledge, every state requires auto insurance on any vehicle. In many places, an auto is nearly a requirement for shopping, work, transporting kids to school and activities, etc. Yet, there is no outrage that people have to pay for their own (gasp!) insurance. Even worse (?), the cost of insurance is related to an actuarial examination of risk.

People who have lots of speeding tickets, a history of DUI, a history of accidents will pay more for insurance than those with a history of safe, responsible driving. People with more expensive cars will pay more than people with less expensive cars. In short, RISK determines cost...and that means that some people are essentially uninsurable. Chronic drunk-drivers or those with too many accidents may find it impossible to buy auto insurance.

Why should health insurance be so much different?

Oh, and scfire, whenever you answer my earlier questions, I'll respond to your post on this (I know you'll be itching to comment without facts or substance).

[ScareCrow57]

Ahh, you have hit upon one of my biggest complaints. Why should a family of two pay the same as a family of six? That is simply put, stupid. Insure one person you pay $100, insure two people pay $200, insure 3 people pay $300...And so it goes.

The other issue you raise is that of charging a premium on lifestyle choices. Should we charge a premium for people who drink, use drugs, smoke, are obese, are gay, sunbath, work in the sun, or even fire fighters because they are exposed to carcinogens? How about people who work in high stress jobs, charge them more? Think of the ramifications of doing that. Will the alcoholic go to the doctor for his problem if he knows it will cost him more?

Another interesting aspect is the number of people who currently receive the free medical also get free dental. Yet these people don’t use it. They don’t go get physicals. They don’t go to the dentist, heck most don’t even know what a toothbrush is as evidenced by the green teeth. These idiots want to insure 47 million people who don’t even want the insurance.

All Americans already have access to basic health care.

[ScareCrow57]

I have a question that come during a discussion about this. Why does a box of Kleenex in the hospital cost $4. I suspect it has to do with keeping them clean, delivery by a health care professional, and no doubt governmental regulation.

[DaSharkie]

I find the health care debate interesting in that few look at the anology of auto insurance. To my knowledge, every state requires auto insurance on any vehicle. In many places, an auto is nearly a requirement for shopping, work, transporting kids to school and activities, etc. Yet, there is no outrage that people have to pay for their own (gasp!) insurance. Even worse (?), the cost of insurance is related to an actuarial examination of risk.

People who have lots of speeding tickets, a history of DUI, a history of accidents will pay more for insurance than those with a history of safe, responsible driving. People with more expensive cars will pay more than people with less expensive cars. In short, RISK determines cost...and that means that some people are essentially uninsurable. Chronic drunk-drivers or those with too many accidents may find it impossible to buy auto insurance.

Why should health insurance be so much different?

Massachusetts has instituted this. Liberals don't want to mention it either, because though it costs a lot of money, it has been a rousing success......to a point. Its downside is that there are not enough Family Medicine and Internal Medicine providers to care for them.

The issues raised about Medicaid/Medicare are quite valid as well. For an entire pregnancy the OB/Gyn is paid a flat rate for all pre-natal care, visits, delivery, and follow-up care.......regardless of the number of visits, complications, or consultations. It does cost doctors a lot more to provide care than they are reimbursed. No one wants to mention this or discuss this. And it will only get worse as the population ages, has more chronic illnesses, and gets fatter (again bringing all of its medical issues.) As it is, more than 25% of our citizens are classified as obese. This brings about the incredible increase in the number of diabetics we have in this country and all of the health problems associated with it (hypertension, high cholesterol, strokes, coronary artery disease, kidney failure, neuropathy, and the like) but no one wants to address that either.

Oh, and scfire, whenever you answer my earlier questions, I'll respond to your post on this (I know you'll be itching to comment without facts or substance).

Don't hold your breath. He only answers questions when he can insult you, demean, you, or can find one little part of your post while he whines about you not answering his own questions.

Then again, according to Gamewell, I am just mean spirited.

[DaSharkie]

I have a question that come during a discussion about this. Why does a box of Kleenex in the hospital cost $4. I suspect it has to do with keeping them clean, delivery by a health care professional, and no doubt governmental regulation.

There is a reason for this. Any and all billing originates with the doctor, Nurse Practitioner, Nurse Midwife, or Physician Assistant. You cannot bill for nursing time, care, cleaners, etc. In order to pay for all of the ancillary staff that allows me to do my job, the costs of items are charged as such.

When I order Protonix for a GI Bleeder, the cost reflects the cost of the medication, the time needed by the Pharmacist to mix the medication, the equipment needed to mix the medication, the electricity needed to power the equipment to mix the medication, the lights, the facilities........It is as simple as that.

And then the malpractice insurance of all involved, the hospital's insurance, and the cost of compliance with Medicaid regulations, Medicare regulations, JCAHO compliance, and every other layer of duplicitous beurocracy.

So.....When Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid roll out their all encompassing cover everyone health care plan this Summer.......I am willing to bet (and I know how scfire hates hypotheticals) that there will be little, if any, capping of litigation claims.

You can make everyone have insurance, but you can't necessarily make a provider accept that insurance.

[ScareCrow57]

So what you are saying is the very organization that says they will fix the problem caused the problem in the first place.

[ActionGoose]

Tell me again how Medicare, Medicaid, JCAHO, HIPAA, etc regulations caused "the problem." I know that in your mind a libertopia free market health care system doesn't need goverment regulations, but seriously dude, you're drawing some really odd conclusions.

[ActionGoose]

All Americans* already have access to basic health care.

*who can afford to pay cash up front

[ScareCrow57]

*who can afford to pay cash up front

Back before the government got involved, everyone paid cash. Or barter.

LMAO!!! I will give you a bag of taters if you will take care of this corn on my foot.

[scfire86]

And the crickets continue to chirp.....
Hey jibber jabber. You might have noticed this was a long weekend. Coupled with the fact I'm retired. I occasionally have better things to do than respond to your inane writings. Sleeping would be one of them.

[scfire86]

Why should health insurance be so much different?

Oh, and scfire, whenever you answer my earlier questions, I'll respond to your post on this (I know you'll be itching to comment without facts or substance).
Because there are people who function quite well without cars.

Bad analogy. Try again.

[ScareCrow57]

Because there are people who function quite well without cars.

Bad analogy. Try again.

There are people who function quite well without insurance as well. Don't forget, they have access to basic health care. The problem here is that there are many running around following the lead of the kaiser screaming there is a problem. I usually ask what the problems are and get it will BK you. Then I ask for a solution. SILENCE. So here is a challenge for you. List 5 things that are wrong with the system. Explain why they are problems. Provide solutions.

I will help you out. My friend cries about the high cost. Has no solution other then let the government pay. And really, she can't tell you why other than to complain about the $4 box of Kleenex or the $3 band aid. Having Government paying will only end up costing more in the end and add another level of bureaucracy. Cost are high becuase we have million and 2 million dollar cancer treatments. Do away with those and health care cost drops dramatically. Is that what you want? Bottom line, she is just whining.

[DaSharkie]

Tell me again how Medicare, Medicaid, JCAHO, HIPAA, etc regulations caused "the problem." I know that in your mind a libertopia free market health care system doesn't need goverment regulations, but seriously dude, you're drawing some really odd conclusions.

I never said it caused the problem. Apparently you are not comprehending plane ol' English today. I said it contributes to difficulty in finding a doctor to care for you, it costs the health-care system untold millions, and adds layer upon layer to the beurocracy. And not in the best interest of the patient.

No idea where you pulled that ridiculous statement from. English comprehension is not a difficult concept to grasp.

[DaSharkie]

*who can afford to pay cash up front

Well, lets see.........You can go to any Emergency Department in the United States ane be seen. Every hospital in the United States gives millions in "free care" to people who are uninsured or underinsured.

All teaching hospitals have clinics to care for those who are "underinsured" or lack insurance. I refer people to them on an almost daily basis, and they are not turned away from the clinics. It may take a month to get an appointment, but they are not turned away.

No cash payment up front. I had the same set up for my patients when I was living in the South as well.

[DaSharkie]

Hey jibber jabber. You might have noticed this was a long weekend. Coupled with the fact I'm retired. I occasionally have better things to do than respond to your inane writings. Sleeping would be one of them.

And yet you still refuse to answer the questions asked of you. That is the point he was making. We'll connect the dots for you. (Just being mean-spirited again, right gamewell?)

[DaSharkie]

Because there are people who function quite well without cars.

Bad analogy. Try again.

What a pathetic answer.

You did not address the matter of being charged more for participating in dangerous activities. That was the entire premise of that discussion.

Surely an intelligent person such as yourself knew that. I love when you try to play stupid.

[ActionGoose]

Apparently you are not comprehending plan ol' English today.

This is a tasty bit of irony for everyone.

[DaSharkie]

This is a tasty bit of irony for everyone.

Ah, another perfect Liberal. Never made a spelling mistake while typing quickly. Oh to be so wonderful.

[ActionGoose]

Those liberals! They spell perfectly too, sometimes while they eat cheese that doesn't come individually wrapped! Liberals liberals LIBERALS!

[scfire86]

There are people who function quite well without insurance as well. Don't forget, they have access to basic health care. The problem here is that there are many running around following the lead of the kaiser screaming there is a problem. I usually ask what the problems are and get it will BK you. Then I ask for a solution. SILENCE. So here is a challenge for you. List 5 things that are wrong with the system. Explain why they are problems. Provide solutions.

I will help you out. My friend cries about the high cost. Has no solution other then let the government pay. And really, she can't tell you why other than to complain about the $4 box of Kleenex or the $3 band aid. Having Government paying will only end up costing more in the end and add another level of bureaucracy. Cost are high becuase we have million and 2 million dollar cancer treatments. Do away with those and health care cost drops dramatically. Is that what you want? Bottom line, she is just whining.
Hey idiotboy. That group typically accesses the health care system at the ER level. I'm sure sharkboy will be able to tell you that is the most expensive way to deliver health care.

Your example only presents the reasons necessary to make a national health care plan that utilizes preventative medicine.

Thank you.

[scfire86]

What a pathetic answer.

You did not address the matter of being charged more for participating in dangerous activities. That was the entire premise of that discussion.

Surely an intelligent person such as yourself knew that. I love when you try to play stupid.
Because those without auto insurance cause the rest of us to pay an extraordinary amount when they utilize the system.

Same with health care.

[DaSharkie]

Hey idiotboy.

Ah, nice to see you can change. Still have no argument to make based upon facts, so you must use insults. Love your hypocracy.

That group typically accesses the health care system at the ER level.

Actually they don't. They delay many issues until they are more expensive to treat because they are more difficult to treat, because they waited longer to get any treatment.

I'm sure sharkboy will be able to tell you that is the most expensive way to deliver health care.

Of course here in Massachusetts where nearly everyone has health insurance - as required by law - I find a large number of insured folks that come to the ED for care because one of two things occurred. Their PCP sent them for care of easy things, because they could not be overbooked for the day, or they come to the ED because they would rather not go to their PCP. But with MassHealth (Medicaid) they don't have to pay for anything, and are the most demanding patients to deal with.

Your example only presents the reasons necessary to make a national health care plan that utilizes preventative medicine.

If you say so. But you have ignored - or simply chosen not to address - the numerous issues raised. If you are going to propose and thrust upon everyone this idea of care, then you need to counter the arguments against it. You won't, because you are incapable of addressing the issues point for point. Like most of the arguments that you make.

[DaSharkie]

Because those without auto insurance cause the rest of us to pay an extraordinary amount when they utilize the system.

Same with health care.

And if you are going to require everyone to be covered by a single-payer system, why would you not charge those that choose to be obese, do not control their chronic diseases, use excessive alcohol, use drugs, or live their lives in a manner that increases their risks and likely cost to the system more for their coverage?

Oh yeah, that's right. They can't help it.


You still have not answered the question, you only skirted the issue. Typical.

[Jonathan Bastian]

There is a reason for this. Any and all billing originates with the doctor, Nurse Practitioner, Nurse Midwife, or Physician Assistant. You cannot bill for nursing time, care, cleaners, etc. In order to pay for all of the ancillary staff that allows me to do my job, the costs of items are charged as such.


I imagine part of the cost is also inflated by the different remibursement systems. There is the U+C charge, determined by the insurance company. There is also the Medicare rate, determined by the federal government. There is the "list price" from which certain insurance negotiate down and there is the cost of those who don't pay, which must be added to the cost of those that do.

[Jonathan Bastian]

Hey jibber jabber. You might have noticed this was a long weekend. Coupled with the fact I'm retired. I occasionally have better things to do than respond to your inane writings. Sleeping would be one of them.

And STILL the facts go unadressed, the valid questions unanswered; yet the name calling marches forth.

[ScareCrow57]

What a pathetic answer.

You did not address the matter of being charged more for participating in dangerous activities. That was the entire premise of that discussion.

Surely an intelligent person such as yourself knew that. I love when you try to play stupid.

Perhaps he isn't playing..... ;)

[Jonathan Bastian]

If you say so. But you have ignored - or simply chosen not to address - the numerous issues raised. If you are going to propose and thrust upon everyone this idea of care, then you need to counter the arguments against it. You won't, because you are incapable of addressing the issues point for point. Like most of the arguments that you make.

I'd say it is "ignored." In another thread, he argued "rich" Americans aren't taxed enough. When confronted with facts, he dodged, "Conservatives always talk about income tax." When asked the very simple question, "How much do you think you should pay in taxes," there was silence. His M.O. continues here, as he is proven wrong in a number of statements, asked to back up another one...then ignores supporting his position with fact.

I guess he is too tired from being retired and sleeping all weekend to be bothered actually researching something so banal as facts! We upity conservatives must be too trying by not accepting his word as Gospel, even when it is contrary to fact. It must be the exasperation that relegates him to name-calling. It really isn't his fault...it's ours for challenging the dogma.

[ScareCrow57]

Hey idiotboy. That group typically accesses the health care system at the ER level. I'm sure sharkboy will be able to tell you that is the most expensive way to deliver health care.

Your example only presents the reasons necessary to make a national health care plan that utilizes preventative medicine.

Thank you.

Still the adolescent :rolleyes:. I know the ER is the most expensive place. Did you notice that we give these very people health care now with full dental. They pay nothing, yet they don't take advantage of the dental or preventative care available to them.

[DaSharkie]

I'd say it is "ignored."

I agree, but I figured that I would at least give him the benefit of the doubt.

In another thread, he argued "rich" Americans aren't taxed enough. When confronted with facts, he dodged, "Conservatives always talk about income tax." When asked the very simple question, "How much do you think you should pay in taxes," there was silence.

He has also refused to give me a definition of who the "rich" are. I have, like you, asked him to for an amount or percentage of income that I should pay to the Feds and got a pathetic dodge about he doesn't know what the needs of the government are, so he could not answer the question. But apparently the $20,000 in income taxes we paid last year was not enough. :rolleyes:

then ignores supporting his position with fact.

He does not understand facts. The resources he RARELY uses to support his arguments are dubious, weak, and politically slanted. Hardly what one would truly consider "facts." When those same resources are used to counter his own argument, he resorts his childish name calling, insults, and ignoring.

He cannot have a complete and intelligent conversation.

We upity conservatives must be too trying by not accepting his word as Gospel, even when it is contrary to fact.

Most political ideologues are the same way. How dare you have gall to not swallow the crap that he spews forth.

It must be the exasperation that relegates him to name-calling.

No. It is his lack of ability to have a mature, rational, and intelligent exchange of ideas. Many on these boards are the same - on both sides of the aisle - but scifre, Nozzleman, and ActionGoose all choose to act in this manner.

[ScareCrow57]

Get ready, here it comes!!!! And for all those knuckleheads who said Obama is the best pick for Union workers, you now get the screwing you deserve.

Health reform: A $1 trillion question (http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/28/news/economy/health_reform_payfor_options/index.htm?postversion=20090528 04)


Tax part of employer contributions to health insurance: Right now, if you get your health insurance at work, any money your employer contributes to pay for premiums is tax-free income to you.
Impose Medicare tax on state and local government employees: Currently the wages of some state and municipal employees are not subject to the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax that other workers and their employers pay. Lawmakers may decide to subject all such employees to the tax.
Tax sugary and alcoholic drinks: One option under consideration would standardize and increase the federal tax on alcohol. Another would impose a new federal tax on beverages sweetened with sugar, high-fructose syrup or other ingredients. Diet sodas and other artificially sweetened beverages, however, would not be taxed.
Change or eliminate Flexible Spending Arrangements: Currently, employees get a tax break for money contributed to FSAs. The amount they may contribute is unlimited, although the employer may set a limit. And the money may be used for a host of health-related expenses that insurance doesn't cover, as well as for dependent care expenses.
Modify Health Savings Accounts: Individuals with high-deductible health insurance policies may set up HSAs to which they and their employers may contribute money tax-free. Earnings on those contributions are tax-free, as are withdrawals used for qualified medical expenses.



How about a Tax on domestic partners? Gay people are far more likely to get AIDS! How about a tax on red meat, it causes cancer? How about a tax on Salt, it causes high blood pressure?

[DaSharkie]

Well that cannot be.

Obama, Democrats, Liberals, Progressives (or whatever they are calling themselves this year), and even our own scfire have outright condemned the taxation of monies when employers pay for our healthcare as income. The Republicans came up with this one last year.

I will bet that now they will all change their mind and it will be a great idea.

[doughesson]

Well that cannot be.

Obama, Democrats, Liberals, Progressives (or whatever they are calling themselves this year), and even our own scfire have outright condemned the taxation of monies when employers pay for our healthcare as income. The Republicans came up with this one last year.

I will bet that now they will all change their mind and it will be a great idea.

They might.Ideas that were unworkable or warmongering during the campaign have had a habit of becoming policy under the Chosen One's administration.
I'm still waiting for any reply from the President and my congresscritters about my idea that members of Congress and the President and their families don't get special treatment at Bethesda Naval Hospital or Walter Reed Army Medical Center but get in line with the rest of Americans who will have to wait until some bureaucrat decides that their medical problem is covered under the new plans under consideration.
With my idea,I bet they make sure that if you go to a doctor with a complaint,you get treated for it accurately and post haste.

[ScareCrow57]

They might.Ideas that were unworkable or warmongering during the campaign have had a habit of becoming policy under the Chosen One's administration.
I'm still waiting for any reply from the President and my congresscritters about my idea that members of Congress and the President and their families don't get special treatment at Bethesda Naval Hospital or Walter Reed Army Medical Center but get in line with the rest of Americans who will have to wait until some bureaucrat decides that their medical problem is covered under the new plans under consideration.
With my idea,I bet they make sure that if you go to a doctor with a complaint,you get treated for it accurately and post haste.

Yes how once Obama got into the seat he started keeping some of W's policies in place. He also removed a couple then put them back. And where is the MSM??? They are MIA.

[scfire86]

I will bet that now they will all change their mind and it will be a great idea.
How much do you have to bet?

[neiowa]

...

I will bet that now they will all change their mind and it will be a great idea.


SC obvious has received these trolling orders yet. Give it a couple days for him to get his talking points.

[ScareCrow57]

How much do you have to bet?

I don't see you condemning Obama for wanting to place a tax on your income to pay for Medicaid. Remember how you bashed McCain because he wanted yo to pay SS just like everyone else in America. Damn, there is that equality thing again.

[DaSharkie]

How much do you have to bet?

With you? I'll bet a buck.

You will get it included in the funds your state government will get when they get Federal guarantees on thier loans for thier own financial ineptness.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30967018

But why have you not addressed the matter? You are a hypocrate on every other subject that you post, so why is this one different?

Why was it bad when McCainproposed it, but you have not made a single mention about it when The Chosen One has proposed it?

I eagerly await (once again) your non-answer.

[CrossBro1]

I'm sick and tired of hearing, "Health Care is a right."

My response, You're right! No one is saying that you can't go to a hospital and get medical care. In fact there is a law that hospitals can't turn you away for failure to be able to pay. But, health insurance is NOT a right. If you wanted health insurance than you should have stayed in school, received a good education and found a job that has health insurance. I'm sick and tired of having to pay for everyone else's laziness.

[CrossBro1]

I'm sick and tired of hearing, "Health Care is a right."

My response, You're right! No one is saying that you can't go to a hospital and get medical care. In fact there is a law that hospitals can't turn you away for failure to be able to pay. But, health insurance is NOT a right. If you wanted health insurance than you should have stayed in school, received a good education and found a job that has health insurance. I'm sick and tired of having to pay for everyone else's laziness.

[gamewell35]

I'm sick and tired of hearing, "Health Care is a right."

My response, You're right! No one is saying that you can't go to a hospital and get medical care. In fact there is a law that hospitals can't turn you away for failure to be able to pay. But, health insurance is NOT a right. If you wanted health insurance than you should have stayed in school, received a good education and found a job that has health insurance. I'm sick and tired of having to pay for everyone else's laziness.

What about those who stayed in school, received a good education and found a job and then through no fault of their own, lost their job because the company folded due to the lousy economy, and they are looking for work but unable to find any?? Whats your answer for that?

[Jonathan Bastian]

What about those who stayed in school, received a good education and found a job and then through no fault of their own, lost their job because the company folded due to the lousy economy, and they are looking for work but unable to find any?? Whats your answer for that?

It's called Unemployment Insurance and COBRA.

[ScareCrow57]

With you? I'll bet a buck.

You will get it included in the funds your state government will get when they get Federal guarantees on thier loans for thier own financial ineptness.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30967018

But why have you not addressed the matter? You are a hypocrate on every other subject that you post, so why is this one different?

Why was it bad when McCainproposed it, but you have not made a single mention about it when The Chosen One has proposed it?

I eagerly await (once again) your non-answer.

Looks like he doesn't like the beating he is getting and back into hiding again. Liberals hate facts and the truth.

[DaSharkie]

It's called Unemployment Insurance and COBRA.

I will say that COBRA is a joke. You must pay 100% of all premiums. Mighty pricey in the grand scheme of things.

[Jonathan Bastian]

I will say that COBRA is a joke. You must pay 100% of all premiums. Mighty pricey in the grand scheme of things.

Addressing the cost of insurance is a separate thread in itself; as you apparently know, the issue is much deeper than all those "evil, rich" doctors (afterall, everyone who is "rich" is evil, right? ;) )

But, you CAN pay for health insurance. You can opt to buy it, even as you search for a job or take another and are waiting for coverage to begin. In fact, you can even wait 30 days to see if you need insurance prior to starting COBRA.

The original post was that someone who got fired had no recourse, and that is not true.

[ScareCrow57]

Addressing the cost of insurance is a separate thread in itself; as you apparently know, the issue is much deeper than all those "evil, rich" doctors (afterall, everyone who is "rich" is evil, right? ;) )

But, you CAN pay for health insurance. You can opt to buy it, even as you search for a job or take another and are waiting for coverage to begin. In fact, you can even wait 30 days to see if you need insurance prior to starting COBRA.

The original post was that someone who got fired had no recourse, and that is not true.

In NYS we have programs. Low income people can get CDPHP or the HMO of the area for little or no cost. I believe I heard some have to pay $9 a week. I forget the name of the program but I believe anyone can get it. A funny thing happened when this program became available. One of the local businesses that hires a few hundred people had an insurance plan that they dropped. They sent their employees over to the county and had them pick up the state sponsored plan. They paid them a few more dollars for the loss of insurance (which now gets taxed), and had the state subsidize the insurance for them. What would be interesting to know is how many opted out of any insurance at all.

And let's talk about cost for a minute. I recently took my dog to the vet to get a lump looked at. The vet was going to surgically remove the lump at a cost of $250, including anesthesia. As it turned out, she was too anemic for the surgery. She got 2 xrays of the chest and abdomen, blood work, and a few other tests, for $350. Now I realize this is an animal, but the basic idea is the same, they are working on live animals, and people fall into the animal category. Now the biggest difference is that with the vet there are no insurance companies (or very few), no federal benefit programs, and no lawyers. Perhaps this explains why the cost is so much lower. Eliminate those three things and cost drop dramatically.

[DaSharkie]

And let's talk about cost for a minute. I recently took my dog to the vet to get a lump looked at. The vet was going to surgically remove the lump at a cost of $250, including anesthesia. As it turned out, she was too anemic for the surgery. She got 2 xrays of the chest and abdomen, blood work, and a few other tests, for $350. Now I realize this is an animal, but the basic idea is the same, they are working on live animals, and people fall into the animal category. Now the biggest difference is that with the vet there are no insurance companies (or very few), no federal benefit programs, and no lawyers. Perhaps this explains why the cost is so much lower. Eliminate those three things and cost drop dramatically.

Hell, most radiologists will bill a few hundred bucks just to read the chest X-Ray.

[BubVeb]

The money to cover these people at no cost to them has to come from somewhere. If we are going to cover an additional 47 million people at a cost of 5,000 each that is $235 billion per year. That doesn't include the cost of administering additional taxes and fees, an increase in the size of the government bureaucracy, plus a system to investigate fraud and abuse. The medicaid system is one of the most abused systems in the country. And rest assured, those who get the coverage for free will abuse the system. Right now in NYS there are 23 different programs where people can get health care. My county has 55,000 people, the DSS office has full time people who do nothing more than try to find a way for people to get free or reduced cost health care. These people end up with a free policy that has a $3 copay, and they don't even pay that. These are the same people who go to the ER for a cold.

Bottom line is, government needs to stay out of the free enterprise system. For the last 150 years government has tried to regulate industry. And what did we get? Economic collapse.

actually we got economic collapse (twice in the last 25 years) because of government inaction/deregulation. When greed is looked upon as greed and it's funny that the greediest attend christian churches will things get better.

[txgp17]

actually we got economic collapse (twice in the last 25 years) because of government inaction/deregulation. When greed is looked upon as greed and it's funny that the greediest attend christian churches will things get better.Can you edit that to be a little more clear?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Can you edit that to be a little more clear?

I wish he would edit it so it resembled English.

[scfire86]

One of the many reasons there will be some sort of health care reform.

Study Links Medical Costs and Personal Bankruptcy (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm?campaign_ id=rss_daily)

Money quote:

Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at the start of their illness, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid.

[ScareCrow57]

One of the many reasons there will be some sort of health care reform.

Study Links Medical Costs and Personal Bankruptcy (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm?campaign_ id=rss_daily)

Money quote:

OK, but how do you cut the cost? The treatments will still be the same and will still cost as much if not more. Add on a level of government bureaucracy and over all cost will go up. We already have HIPAA which is supposed to facilitate the exchange of data between health care providers and insurance companies. How is that working?

The only way the government can provide the same level of service is to charge as much if not more for the same service.