debate on universal access to health care

To your question my answer is survival of the fittest. Anything done to prevent this only slows human evolution and contributes to over-population.
Click to expand...

Social Darwinism? Please tell me you're joking. Welcome back to the late 1930s?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

I'm suggesting the United States move to a system more like Canada's. It works fine. It costs about half what the US is spending right now. You're all telling me about theoretical ideas why it can't possibly be more efficient than the US health care system. But as far as I can see, it is. Much, much more efficient, and everyone is covered, and the only downside I can see is a slightly longer wait for non-emergency treatment.

I could be persuaded to continue in this thread if someone would present some new data that contradicts what I just said. Not theories, not speculation about how it can't possibly work (which are all demolished by the fact that it works fine in almost every industrialized country besides the US), but actual hard facts.
 
jules
only 2 countries in the entire world allow advertising.
the U.S. and iirc iceland.
Can you grasp the significance of advertising? (causing demand)?
 
What are you talking about?
HeartSafe-Billboard-final.jpg


I assume you must be referring specifically to pharmaceuticals. So what's your point?
 
Canada did NOT have a single bank failure; no mortgage crisis.
Point is; The U.S. does things differently. Sometimes it ends in diaster.
Sometimes in great success.
.
The lowest cost system is in rural china; less than 1 penny per month.
.
We can't do what others do by pointing to them and exclaiming THEY CAN DO IT; THEREFORE WE WILL DO IT. IT won't happen.
.
If anyone admires a particular country, MOVE THERE. Or find out why WHY IT WORKS THERE.
I say drug ads fuel demand; you say, i surmise, ads don't fuel demand. Correct?
 
Matt Gruber said:
Good Q! What are the canadians doing different to keep costs down?
Maybe u guys can chime in.
I'm no expert.
I did read that canada BANS all drug advertisments,
the US allows drug ads.
Put Anything on TV and in magazines and people will buy it!
Restless legs? Allergy? Moody?
BUY DRUGS, it's the AMERICAN WAY.
Side effects are the CASH COW. They all have side effects, and they are great for the current health care system(if u want WASTE). Someone demands a drug for this or that minor condition. Some get dizzy, a common side effect. Next they end up in the hospital to get an MRI, etc. to see if its a brain tumor. $$$$$$ Cash cow. Do they cancel the 1st drug. NO. they give a 2nd drug to cure dizzyness. Then he can't sleep. Then they add a sleeping pill AS SEEN ON TV, drug #3 CASH COW! $$$$$$
So 1st write congress and demand a ban on MEDICAL ADS.
(get rid of lawyers' ads too, while u are at it)

bob
I do agree that CEO's are OVERPAID. I think 50k is plenty.
But, is this pay cut the way to fix things?
.
add up all those ridiculous salarys of CEO's. What is the TOTAL? now, divide by 300 million U.S. citizens. if they all work for FREE, how much will each of us save? Do the math. Now look up drug stocks(pfizer, merek, glaxo etc) and see how much they spend on ADS and drug promotion; BILLIONS bob, not millions). It is not profit that is evil, but shameless promotion of drugs. Billions bob, Billions.
Click to expand...
Jules;
maybe u missed this post
 
Your theory is that making pharmaceutical ads illegal will cut our healthcare costs in half? Like I said before, I'm tired of discussing speculation and theory. Maybe you can come up with some numbers. Keep in mind that pharmaceutical companies spend a lot educating physicians in every country -- you can't just look at their marketing budgets and assume that's all spent on advertising to the public.
 
Matt Gruber said:
Do you know that most Dr.'s are blissfully unaware of the costs of different treatment? Even Dr. Nancy Sniderman(on NBC) said paitents need to call her office and talk to the girls to find out prices and pick the best value! She has no idea!
Hospitals too! I found a stock that for a fee, informs hospitals of the most effective, least cost treatment! Most have no idea!
And many are NOT interested in LOWER revenues.

My conclusion:
1. obama will not pull a rabbit out of a hat. He can't cut medicare waste in order to expand medicare as it will be broke in 2017. He will be lucky to keep it solvent.
2. Patients have to have the final say. They have to authorize payments in order to control costs. This will not happen.
3. Dr's & hospitals will have to learn a new trick: Finding the best value. This won't happen.
4. Ban medical and lawyers ads. Never will happen.
5. Insurance will not and can not cover pre-existing conditions. This is by medicare or medicaid or welfare or charity or savings or asset sales or hard work by the family. Where is easy credit when you really need it?
6. Unlimited coverage will NEVER happen. There will always be expensive experimental treatment few can afford.
7. Employer paid benefits are not taxed! This bizzare loophole keeps the gov from paying for more poor. As long as the rich(anybody with a job & ins) have loopholes like this there won't be money for the poor.
8. Revive the FLAT TAX idea, pay for health and balance the budget; everybody pays say 20%, after a personal exemption of $6,000 each. 39% over 200k. 50% over 1 million. Not going to happen!
Click to expand...
Jules
maybe u missed my conclusion as i edited it much. and it is subject to editing as i learn more.
Ads in Canada might double sales within a few years. Is this hard to imagine?
 
I see a list with a bunch of "this won't happen, that won't happen" statements seemingly concluding that there is no solution for US healthcare. Yet somehow almost every industrialized country but the US has solved the problem. I also see a couple of questionably effective tax reforms which have nothing to do with the cost of healthcare. I don't think pharma advertising makes that big a difference either way, but I invite you to provide some evidence that suggests otherwise. Is there anything else I missed?

Tax reform isn't the answer. We're already throwing twice as much money at healthcare as most other countries. We need to reduce costs, not find more resources to throw at the problem.
 
I got a question.

How do you get people, without any extra income, to help pay for this free health care they will be getting.

If you guys want to chip in and buy me health care, I will gladly take it. :D

I would like some dental care too, just throw that in please.

Deron.
 
julesa said:
I see a list with a bunch of "this won't happen, that won't happen" statements seemingly concluding that there is no solution for US healthcare.
.
BINGO! You are correct! Too many want something for nothing. Too big a quagmire for congress to solve.
But, you can solve the problem for yourself. Pack and move.
That's what i did. I now save over $4000 every year(moved in '88). But, this won't happen with you! Prove me wrong! (no guts, no glory). I agree, some countries(even states) have good health care, even for those without ins; do your own research, as my books are from '87)
.
Deron
with a fixed income, you have to cut expenses. Example, i now pay $1400/yr property tax, when i left NJ it was about $3900, a savings of $2500 right there. Now I hear it is $5000-7000 in NJ! This is how i do it plus:
1. never eat out
2. spend <$20/week on food
3. no new car since '84; often ride e-scooter
4. buy sale items only or
5. yard sales
6. bake my own rolls using a $3 yard sale bread machine to mix.
7. bake own pizza too!
8. never bought a pc! this is a 10yr old webtv that cost $99 new. Saved thousands over 10 yrs.
9. Attic TV antenna cost $19. 20yr saving over 45/mo cable : $10,800!
Today i'm looking into a discount broker $3.95 unlimited shares! I thought $7 was great. It's fun to get a great deal.
Click to expand...
 
Matt Gruber said:
Today i'm looking into a discount broker $3.95 unlimited shares! I thought $7 was great. It's fun to get a great deal.
Click to expand...

Wow, that is a good deal.

As to solving the healthcare problem, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think the surest path to more government waste and corruption is to sit back and just cynically accept it as inevitable. Maybe it is, but I'm not going to pretend I'm happy about it or that it's acceptable. So I hope you're wrong, and I think there are enough people angry about the current situation to motivate some good changes.
 
Matt Gruber said:
julesa said:
I see a list with a bunch of "this won't happen, that won't happen" statements seemingly concluding that there is no solution for US healthcare.
.
BINGO! You are correct! Too many want something for nothing. Too big a quagmire for congress to solve.
But, you can solve the problem for yourself. Pack and move.
That's what i did. I now save over $4000 every year(moved in '88). But, this won't happen with you! Prove me wrong! (no guts, no glory). I agree, some countries(even states) have good health care, even for those without ins; do your own research, as my books are from '87)
.
Deron
with a fixed income, you have to cut expenses. Example, i now pay $1400/yr property tax, when i left NJ it was about $3900, a savings of $2500 right there. Now I hear it is $5000-7000 in NJ! This is how i do it plus:
1. never eat out
2. spend <$20/week on food
3. no new car since '84; often ride e-scooter
4. buy sale items only or
5. yard sales
6. bake my own rolls using a $3 yard sale bread machine to mix.
7. bake own pizza too!
8. never bought a pc! this is a 10yr old webtv that cost $99 new. Saved thousands over 10 yrs.
9. Attic TV antenna cost $19. 20yr saving over 45/mo cable : $10,800!
Today i'm looking into a discount broker $3.95 unlimited shares! I thought $7 was great. It's fun to get a great deal.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The point I'm making is, some people will contribute nothing to the paying of this proposed new free health care system. If you only make enough income to pay for food and housing, how will they get any extra money out of you for the health care you will now be receiving?

Why work, free health care. That can be added to the free food and rent these people are already getting.

With California going bankrupt, I have just found out one of the reasons why. It was in the news that there are one million kids getting free health care.

Deron.
 
I got this today and am sending it on. If Obama's plans in other areas don't scare you, this should.

Please do not let Obama sign senior death warrants

Most of you know by now that the Senate version (at least) of the "stimulus" bill includes provisions for extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens.. The author of this part of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today by Bloomberg with the following statement:

Bloomberg: Daschle says "health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them."

The actress Natasha Richardson died after falling skiing in Canada. It took eight hours to drive her to a hospital. If Canada had our healthcare she might be alive today. We now have helicopters that would have gotten her to the hospital in 30 minutes. Obama wants to have our healthcare like Canada's and England's.

In England anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed.

In the USA, Medicare has disapproved payment for virtual colonoscopies (invasive colonoscopy still approved). If Medicare disallows payment for the latest preventive measures, what will the government do when they provide healthcare payments for everyone?

If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.
 
I've not read through this thread, so my apologies if this has all ready been covered.

First, let me say that I'm sure the quality of the healthcare could be fine, or at least up to my standards, which simply require the setting and casting of a bone now and then, and otherwise I ask nothing of the medical system. From back in the days when I lived out of an unheated un-plumbed storage unit eating ketchup packets for food, I learned to stitch my own cuts, and I learned the internet medical encyclopedias and keeping a bottle of online pharmacy anti-biotics handy was good enough for me (though i only take anti-biotics once every couple years for serious infections that don't improve naturally).


For me to support such a program for equal medical care for all people in the US, it would require a very simple and logical requirement, and then it would have my full support.

If the care is to be equal, the cost in taxes should likewise be equal. Don't pay your equal share of medical tax, then you don't get the coverage.

It's not like my medical coverage costs 50 times what other folks medical coverage costs. I fought tooth-and-nail to pull myself through school and climbed my way up to a very good job. If socialized medicine were to happen, I imagine I will be paying for at least 50 other people's healthcare costs. This is my objection with socialized medicine.

Make it equal cost for equal coverage, and don't prohibit private hospitals to exist for those who wish to pay out-of-pocket (and not pay the government medical tax) and I've got no problem with it at all.
 
jerryt said:
I got this today and am sending it on. If Obama's plans in other areas don't scare you, this should.

Please do not let Obama sign senior death warrants

Most of you know by now that the Senate version (at least) of the "stimulus" bill includes provisions for extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens.. The author of this part of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today by Bloomberg with the following statement:

Bloomberg: Daschle says "health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them."

The actress Natasha Richardson died after falling skiing in Canada. It took eight hours to drive her to a hospital. If Canada had our healthcare she might be alive today. We now have helicopters that would have gotten her to the hospital in 30 minutes. Obama wants to have our healthcare like Canada's and England's.

In England anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed.

In the USA, Medicare has disapproved payment for virtual colonoscopies (invasive colonoscopy still approved). If Medicare disallows payment for the latest preventive measures, what will the government do when they provide healthcare payments for everyone?

If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.
Click to expand...

1) England's healthcare system actually is socialized medicine. Canada's system is not socialized medicine. I don't recall ever hearing any American politician proposing socialized medicine for America.

2) If I got all worked up about every proposal that's discussed on the floor of Congress I'd have to be taking blood pressure medication.

3) Am I supposed to blame Obama for something Tom Daschle proposed?

4) They have helicopters in Canada too. They didn't think she was badly hurt.

5) Most health insurance plans also do not cover virtual colonoscopy, because it's new, it's more expensive, it can't detect small tumors, and the physician cannot take samples or remove small tumors during the procedure.

6) "don't let Obama sign senior death warrants?" Who do you think he is, Stalin? :lol: Nobody has proposed making it illegal to pay a doctor out of your pocket either.
 
We could end up with 1 payor, the gov.
I hope there isn't a PANDEMIC that bankrupts all insurers. Then the gov would be the only payor left.
.
I've given up on the current system, But i applaud all of u for trying to improve it.
 
1) England's healthcare system actually is socialized medicine. Canada's system is not socialized medicine. I don't recall ever hearing any American politician proposing socialized medicine for America.
When a government proposes to control my health care and well being, semantics are irrelevant to me.

2) If I got all worked up about every proposal that's discussed on the floor of Congress I'd have to be taking blood pressure medication.
Me too; that's why I pick and choose. But I have to remain vigilant when I observe that 100 senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices, 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

3) Am I supposed to blame Obama for something Tom Daschle proposed?
Daschle is speaking for Obama. I blame Obama when he doesn't discourage this kind of proposal

4) They have helicopters in Canada too. They didn't think she was badly hurt.
True that

5) Most health insurance plans also do not cover virtual colonoscopy, because it's new, it's more expensive, it can't detect small tumors, and the physician cannot take samples or remove small tumors during the procedure.
Expense should never be a factor when health is at risk. On the other hand, any and all new medical procedure needs plenty of developmental process improvement and who better to practice on than us older lab rats.

6) "don't let Obama sign senior death warrants?" Who do you think he is, Stalin? :lol:
Just flamboyant phraseology similar to Obama's "Hope and Change" phrases. Quite honestly, I don't know yet who or what Obama is all about. But if he showed compassion for aborted babies, I would not be as suspicious about his stance on killing the rest of us.

Nobody has proposed making it illegal to pay a doctor out of your pocket either.
But isn't this what the ultimate outcome is all about ? After all, it's illegal for a bank to repay TARP funds :lol:
 
Congress should create an
ORGAN EBAY CARD
Auction funds could be used to pay off medical bills or go into a family medical savings account.
No, sorry, then u still can't legally, while still alive, sell organs outright, only after death, and no, funds can't be used for a car, only mdical bills.
And yes, u can still donate for free if u like.
 
YOU GUYS ARE ALL MISSING THE POINT! I started this thread so i feel i need to steer it back on track:

the same government that just agreed to pay 10 TRILLION (yes with at 't') to bail out a bunch of cutthroat investors is telling us that 1 Trillion is too much to give us all health care over the next 10 years? I may have a high i q but most of you are not that stupid. why should we have for-profit businesses in charge of denying care to sick people? are we really worried about the government doing a worse job? at least we can vote them out. let's just agree to pay doctors and drug companies a fair price for services, then take care of sick people. with the extra 400 billion a year left over that the insurance company parasites were sucking off, with their only goal to limit service to sick people, let's take care of any sick human, dog, cat, or whatever that needs care.At some level of the food chain we change our ideas that the organisms are food, but even then most of us take care of them in a humane manner. How can we deny a homo sapiens the care we would pay for if it were a stray whale? If it is not food it is one of us. Am i the only one who sees this so clearly?
 
Where did you get that $10 trillion figure? I think it's more like $1 trillion. Still f@*&ing ridiculous but only 10% as ridiculous as $10 trillion... :wink:

Anyway, we shouldn't have to pay anything more to provide healthcare for every sick person in the US. The US Government is ALREADY paying more per capita on health care than other countries who provide subsidized health care for every citizen. And I'm not talking about total spending, I'm just talking about government spending -- tax dollars. If we eliminate the unbelievable amount of waste in the US healthcare system, we will be spending LESS on healthcare, not more, even if we provide subsidized healthcare for every citizen.

Seriously. Healthcare spending in the US is more than double what the average advanced democratic country spends per capita, and about half of that US spending is public money, aka taxes.

If you look at how much tax money the US government spent on health care over the past decade, you would think the US had the most socialist health care system in the world, because we already spend more tax money on health care than most of the countries who really do have socialized medicine. So why does our health care system stink compared to many of these other countries?

I've linked to evidence earlier in the thread. Here's more:
http://opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf
 
julesa said:
Where did you get that $10 trillion figure? I think it's more like $1 trillion. Still f@*&ing ridiculous but only 10% as ridiculous as $10 trillion... :wink: /quote]

TEN TRILLION is the real number, as reported today by CNN. Many estimates ignore the cost of the counterparties; those vultures who sat back and made bets on real estate loans that had nothing to do with them but these government guaranteed investments make up much of the ten trillion you are apparently unaware of. (forgive the dangling preposition and my knuckles feel the smack of the ruler of sister whitcheverbitchitwas.)

i think we agree that we are spending enough money now to provide health care to everyone who is willing to work and pay taxes if they earn enough. we may disagree about how we treat the dog in the ditch with a broken leg. we should treat our fellow humans at least as well; citizens or not.
Click to expand...
 
Bob
in 1970 i got blue cross for $96/year.
i've been paying out of my own pocket for 39 years
it now costs almost $1500/year and has a $2 million cap.
Some guy(you) comes along and says he is smart! Didn't buy insurance, wants me to pay for his care(thru taxes or higher premiums). Bob, how can you consider yourself healthcare smart? You are like a guy who has no flood insurance, gets flooded and thinks he somehow is entitled to a free rebuild. Good luck LOL
.
PS bob i read your story and i was faced with the same question DO I TRUST AN EMPLOYER TO COVER ME?
LOL NO NO NO NO
I just kept paying my blue cross. so when i quit/got fired, i was always covered. Sure i was at first tempted to save money and cancel my blue cross, but i thought
1. what if i get fired?
2. what if i quit?
3. what if i get sick?
4. what if employer cuts out plan just when i get sick?
5. what if they go broke(co or his insurer)
6. what if their plan doesn't cover what blue cross covers?
7. what if i go in business for myself?
etc etc.
so really, i was NEVER even tempted to cancel my plan.

But, bob, that is not what most people do.
You needed to request a copy of your bosses plan to study it. Then you'd of found out there was no plan, then u should buy your own plan. How much brains does that take?
 
Pop quiz: if you loan someone $10, and they pay you back $9, how much did that cost you: $10, or a little over $1? ($1 plus the cost of money over the loan period)
 
Matt Gruber said:
You are like a guy who has no flood insurance, gets flooded and thinks he somehow is entitled to a free rebuild. Good luck LOL
Click to expand...

Interesting example, Matt. Did you know the US government forces people who live in houses which have living space below the 100-year flood mark to buy government subsidized flood insurance? Why do you suppose they do that?

If we could find people who have zero risk of needing health care, then I suppose we could exclude them from our hypothetical universal coverage plan. :lol:
 
I live in a flood zone and nobody FORCED me to buy flood ins.
I caled my agent and he said ONLY the gov offers it. There is nobody else that can take the risk.
So, i guess that FORCES me to buy from the GOV? Is that your point? My neighbors DO NOT have FLOOD ins, so nobody is forcing them. It is optional.
I read that the gov only paid 20k for a totaled 100k house (Katrina). Go sue the gov. Obscene cheating by the gov. U want them to pay U? LOL
But blue cross is NOT a gov plan. There are numerous heath plans non gov, and NON PROFIT.
.
As long as everyone pays much higher taxes, then you can have universal care. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. way too costly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top