Forbidden Donut

I didn't make this myself and can't verify it but it is shocking:
Obama Health Care Details
HR 3200
currently under consideration in the House of Representatives
Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice!
Pg 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise
Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID Health care card will be issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your banks accts for electronic funds transfer.
Pg 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange to bring priv HC plans under Govt control.
Pg 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private Health Care plans in the Exchange
Pg 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!
Pg 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example - Translation for illegal aliens.
Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan
Pg 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members - Your Health Care WILL be rationed
Pg 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Individual will be automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.
Pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue Govt on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monopoly.
Pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make.
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public opt plan. NO CHOICE
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.
Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll
Pg 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesnt provide public opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll
Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Pg 170 Lines 1-3 Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay).
Pg 195 Officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans financial and personal records.
Pg 203 Line 14-15 HC - “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that.
Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.
Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same.
Pg 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr’s time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.
Pg 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.
Pg 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.
Pg 272 SEC. 1145. Treatment of certain cancer hospitals – Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals for what Govt deems preventable readmissions. (Incentives for hospital to not treat and release.)
Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission-Govt will penalize you.
Pg 317 L 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.
Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand.
pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can you say ACORN?!!
Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Govt mandates established of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing.
Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans (Part /cool.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="B)" border="0" alt="cool.gif" />, HMOs, etc. Forcing people into Govt plan.
Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people!
Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Committee. HC by phone/Internet?
Pg 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance [Death] Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life.
Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!
Pg 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Gov’t provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death.
Pg 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Gov’t has a say in how your life ends.
Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An “adv. care planning consult” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.
Pg 429 Lines 10-12 “adv. care consultation” may incl an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV
Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life
Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?
Pg 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment to a community-based org. Like ACORN?
Pg 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. They will insert Government into your marriage.
Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those svcs
PG 502 Sec 1181 Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research Established. – Hello Big Brother – Literally.
Pg 503 Lines 13-19 Gov’t will build registries and data networks from YOUR electronic med records.
Pg 503 lines 21-25 Gov’t may secure data directly from any depart or agency of the US including your data.
Pg 504 Lines 6-10 The “Center” will collect data both published & unpublished (that means public & your private info)
PG 506 Lines 19-21 The Center will recommend policies that would allow for public access of data.
PG 518 Lines 21-25 The Commission will have input from HC consumer reps – Can you say unions & ACORN?
PG 524 18-22 Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund set up. More taxes for ALL.
PG 621 Lines 20-25 Gov’t will define what Quality means in HC. Since when does Gov’t know about quality?
Pg 622 Lines 2-9 To pay for the Quality Standards, Govt will transfer $$ from to other Govt Trust Funds. More Taxes.
PG 624 “Quality” measures shall be designed to assess outcomes & functional status of patients.
PG 624 “Quality” measures shall be designed to profile you including race, age, gender, place of residence, etc
Pg 628 Sec 1443 Gov’t will give “Multi-Stake Holders” Pre-Rule Making input into Selection of “Quality” Measures.
Pg 630 9-24/631 1-9 Those Multi-stake holder groups incl. Unions & groups like ACORN deciding HC quality.
Pg 632 Lines 14-25 The Gov’t may implement any “Quality measure” of HC Services as they see fit.
PG 633 14-25/ 634 1-9 The Secretary may issue non-endorsed “Quality Measures” for Physician Services & Dialysis Services.
Pg 635 to 653 Physicians Payments Sunshine Provision – Gov’t wants to shine sunlight on Docs but not Govt.
Pg 654-659 Public Reporting on Health Care-Associated Infections – Looks okay.
PG 660-671 Doctors in Residency – Gov’t will tell you where your residency will be, thus where you’ll live.
Pg 676-686 Gov’t will regulate hospitals in EVERY aspect of residency programs, incl. teaching hospitals.
Pg 686-700 Increased Funding to Fight Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. You mean like the Gov’t with an $18 million website?
PGs 701-704 Sec 1619 If your part of HC plan isn’t in Gov’t HC Exchange but you qualify for Fed aid, no payment.
PG 705-709 SEC. 1128 If Secr gets complaints (ACORN) on HC provider or supplier, Gov’t can do background check.
PG 711 Lines 8-14 The Secretary has broad powers to deny HC providers/suppliers admittance into HC Exchange. Your doctor could be thrown out of business.
Pg 719-720 Sec 1637 ANY Doctor who orders durable med equip or home med services MUST be enrolled in Medicare.
PG 722 Sec 1639 Gov’t MANDATES Doctors must have face to face with patient to certify patient for Home Health Svcs.
PG 724 23-25 PG 725 1-5 The same Gov’t certifications will apply to Medicaid & CHIP (your kids)
PG 724 Lines 16-22 Gov’t reserves rt to apply face to face certification for patient to ANY other HC service.
Pg 735 lines 16-25 For law enforce. proposes the Secretary-HHS will give Atty General access to ALL data.
PG 740-757 Gov’t sets guidelines for subsidizing the uninsured (Thats your tax dollars people)
Pg 757-762 Fed gov’t will shift burden of payments to Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) to States. (Taxes)
Pg 763 1-8 No DS/EA hospitals will be paid unless they provide services without regard to national origin
Pg 765 Sec 1711 Gov’t will require Preventative Services including vaccines. (Choice?)
Pg 768 Sec 1713 Gov’t – Nurse Home Visitation Svcs (Hello union paybacks)
Pg 769 11-14 Nurse Home Visit Svcs include-economic self-sufficiency, employ adv, school-readiness.
Pg 769 3-5 Nurse Home Visit Services - “increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.” Govt ABORTIONS anyone
Pg 770 SEC 1714 Fed Gov’t mandates eligibility for State Family Planning Services. Abortion & State Sovereign.
Pg 789-797 Gov’t will set, mandate drug prices, controlling which drugs brought to market. Bye innovation.
Pgs 797-800 SEC. 1744 PAYMENTS for graduate medical education. The government will now control Drs’ education.
PG 801 Sec 1751 The Govt will decide which Health care conditions will be paid. Say RATION!
Pg 810 SEC. 1759. Billing Agents, clearinghouses, etc req. to register. Gov’t takes over private payment sys.
Pg 820-824 Sec 1801 Govt will identify individ. ineligible for subsidies. Will access all personal financial information.
Pg 824-829 SEC. 1802. Govt Sets up Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund. Another tax black hole.
PG 829-833 Gov’t will impose a fee on ALL private health ins. plans incl. self insured to pay for Trust Fund!
PG 835 11-13 fees imposed by Gov’t for Trust Fund shall be treated as if they were taxes.
Pg 838-840 Gov’t will design & implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids & families expect kids.
PG 844-845 This Home Visitation Prog. includes Gov’t coming into your house & telling you how to parent!!!
Pg 859 Gov’t will establish a Public Health Fund at a cost of $88,800,000,000. Yes that’s Billion.
Pg 865 The Gov’t will MANDATE the establishment of a National Health Service Corps.
PG 865 to 876 The NHS Corps is a program where Drs. perform mandatory HC for 2yrs for part loan repayment.
PG 876-892 The govt takes over the education of our Med students and Drs.
PG 898 The Govt will establish a Public Health Workforce Corps to ensure supply of public health prof.
PG 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of civilian employees of the U.S. as Secretary deems.
PG 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of officers of Regular & Reserve Corps of Service.
PG 900 The Public Health Workforce Corps includes veterinarians.
PG 901 The Public Health Workforce Corps WILL include commissioned Regular & Reserve Officers. HC Draft?
PG 910 The Govt will develop, build & run Public Health Training Centers.
PG 913-914 Govt starts a HC affirmative action program thru guise of diversity scholarships.
PG 915 SEC. 2251. Govt MANDDATES Cultural & linguistic competency training for HC professionals.
Pg 932 The Govt will estab Preventative & Wellness Trust fund- initial cost of $30,800,000,000-Billion.
PG 935 21-22 Govt will identify specific goals & objectives for prevention & wellness activities. Control YOU!!
PG 936 Govt will develop “Healthy People & National Public Health Perform. Standards” Tell me what to eat?
PG 942 Lines 22-25 More Gov’t? Offices of Surgeon General -Public Health Svc, Minority Health, Women’s Health
PG 950- 980 BIG GOV’T core pub health infrastructure including workforce capacity, lab systems; health info sys, etc
PG 993 Gov’t will establish school based health clinics. Your kids won’t have a chance.
PG 994 School Based Health Clinic will be integrated into the school environment. Say GOVT Brainwash!
PG 1001 The Govt will establish a National Medical Device Registry. Will you be tracked?

Not to hop into something that isn't my realm, at all... But where did you get that from... If you didn't create it, and can't say where you got it... Please... I'll be alarmed about "Will you be tracked?" because I most certainly will be, when I know where your horse shit is coming from.

"PG 844-845 This Home Visitation Prog. includes Gov’t coming into your house & telling you how to parent!!!"

Because it's the worst thing that's happened since the patriot act?


Evestay... If you're going to bitch about things that fuck the constitution in the ass... Go ahead and bitch about all the shit you would have supported 2, or 5 years ago. Then fuck yourself straight in the ass. Two years ago, you would have fellatio'd yourself to make this happen, if the right people were behind it "to fight the terrorists". Just take two steps back, and realize what a hypocrite you are when "national security" is at stake. And take it easy. The patriot act, supported by every dick that was SCARED SHITLESS by the THREAT of a TERRORIST action on our own soil, which HAD happen before, and which we dealt with without destroying the constitution. But now... You know. They're brown. Do fuck em up.. Declare ware. Or whatever it is you want. Fuck the poor etc. Good work. Bound to end well.

Maybe you'll get your well... Won't end up to well anyway. Look forward to it.

http://blog.flecksoflife.com/
As he read the bill he put each new thing on twitter... http://twitter.com/fleckman . I don't know who he is.

Dear Government,

Stay out of my business.

Sincerely,
Brian M.

PS: I don't want your "help," and I don't want your "security" either.

you're like some sort of sketch comedian, you must be.

I got a little into that list. The guy is clearly carrying water for the Republicans and might be, I suspect, a birther... So he can be safely ignored in lieu of a better source of information.

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!! So? The government can already audit those books. If you're not doing anything wrong you've got nothing to fear, right?
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get As opposed to a *for-profit* corporate committee...
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!! Vague... ok. Well it is already. So excuse me while I don't shit myself over this concern.
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice! Bullshit. Overt hyperbole. "you have no choice!"...? it's not even THINLY veiled.
Pg 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise It already is, at higher cost. And IMO, this is not a bad thing.
Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID Health care card will be issued! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The National ID card is gonna come up a lot. Whatever...
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your banks accts for electronic funds transfer. In what capacity. Nothing in legislation is unilateral. Does this guy understand that? What are the exceptions?
Pg 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN). ... oh... yeah, fuck this idiot.

*on the subject of Natl ID cards:
If you want to reduce health care costs, then easy access to and centralization of information is crucial. I'd rather have the government (who already has all of our IDs, in case you didn't notice) take care of that information than some private entity.

seriously dude fuck that national id card thing

*goes to collect his social security check*

Only argument against it that's worth a damn as far as I'm concerned is that we already have a national ID card, and that line of debate sounds suspiciously like it's lacking crucial information. Much as I'm.

But damnit. The purpose of the card is to allow faster and simpler access to health information *wherever* you choose to go. You're records aren't locked in your doctor's office anymore, they're in your pocket... or rather, on a server that has to meet EXTREMELY strict security requirements. That reduces cost overhead for every hospital, and doctors office, which SHOULD make fiscally responsible people happy. But no. Instead it's some scary way to keep track of you and possibly put you in a work camp/political detention facility.

jesus guys.. I just posted that because I found it interesting. I definitely don't agree with everything the guy says and the point is that if you see something interesting in his statements then you can read that section of the bill (its available online) and decide for yourself. And I don't appreciate the fking attacks.

the fact that you prefaced that guys bullshit with "i didn't make this myself and CAN'T verify, but it is shocking" means you pretty much have to sit down and take whatever is thrown at you

I never plan to win the court case. Just to use it as a public forum to reveal that tehy'd literally kill to make a profit.

Going to call bullshit on this one.

France is 605 miles at its east-west extreme, and 590 miles on its north-south extreme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_urban..._European_Union
Paris lies ~150 miles due south of the northern extreme of the country, and ~260 miles from the easternmost extreme, ~300 from it's westernmost(Brest). It has a population of ~10.5 million(just shy of 1/6th of their total population).

Marseille is on the coast of the Med, and is ~140 miles from the(local) eastern extreme northeast of Monaco. It has a population of ~1.35 Million people

Lyon is ~175 miles North of Mareille(~250 miles SSE of Paris), and 100 miles from the eastern extreme which appears to be the border area with Switzerland and Italy. It has a population of ~1.35 Million People

Lille--Kortrijk is ~125 miles NNNE of France on the Belgian border(Kortrijk is a Belgian city, Lille is French), putting it ~50 miles South-east of France's northern extreme. It has a combined population of ~1.05 Million people.

Nice is on the Med, and within ~25 miles of Frances border with Italy. Population ~889,000 people.

continuing to other points on the eastern side of France...

Mulhouse @ ~25 miles NW of the French border with Switzerland and Germany, and ~165 miles NW of Lyon, has a metro population of ~271,000.

Another 70 miles NNNE of Mulhouse, you also have Strasbourg which has a metro population of ~702,000. Strasbourg is also ~40 miles SSSW of the Easternmost etreme of France, and ~260 miles east of Paris.

Moving west,

We have Toulouse Sitting roughly halfway between the Med(95 miles) and the Bay of Biscay(Atlantic Ocean @ ~130 miles), ~60 mils from Spain, and ~200 miles west of Marseille. Population ~761,000.

Bordeaux is ~ 120 miles NW of Toulosuse, 30 miles from the Bay of Biscay, and ~130 miles from Spain. It has a population ~754,000 people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantes
Nantes has a population of ~804,000 people, is ~175 miles NNW of Bordeax, is ~25 miles from the Bay of Biscay and ~65 miles from the Westernmost extreme of France(Brest). and 180 miles from Cherbourg to the north(Paris being a comparable distance).

Speaking of Brest, France. It has an estimated metro population of ~303,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brest,_France

Going back to Cherbourg for a moment, Caen France is ~70 miles away with a population of ~110,000 people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically what that giant wall of text I made tells you(albeit in a disorganized manner) is that it is virtually impossible to be visiting France and not be within 80 miles of an urban area or town with a population greater than 100,000 people.
"Rural France" isn't anywhere near what would qualify as Rural in the United States.

While failing to find an apples to apples comparison, I'm hoping you can figure some of this out on your own with this map from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_urban_area

Problem with that Map is it considers an Urban Area to be one with an urban population density(>1000 per square mile) and population >50,000. In addition to that, it also shows "Urban Clusters" which are areas with urban population densities with more than 10,000 people. Which means there is far more red showing on that map than I want/need to make my point, but I'll take it as it's the best I can get at the moment.

Edit to add: I chose France because it is decently sized and relatively well regarded(when it comes to health care). Great Britain is small enough I doubt any sane person is going to argue people don't live within a 100 miles of a major city/urban area. Likewise for a number of other smaller European Nations. The only other one you could try to pick nits on is Germany, but I'm certain you'd find what held for France holds true for Germany as well where population dispersal goes.

Neither France, nor Germany are even close to the size of the United States... so I don't think that's a very good comparison.

That would be his point. Rural in France is different from rural in America. Thus, if you are saying rural populations in France are well served by centralized health care, it is hard to say if it will work as well for serving rural America.

The problem is, Andrew didn't say France, TheDaemon chose France. It's a bit of a straw man when he uses a weak point that Andrew didn't actually make to try and prove him wrong.

I'm not sure if there are better countries to compare with, but France certainly isn't going to provide accurate data in this comparison at all.

Actually, he did Mention france, as well as several other European nations, I just didn't quote that block. Here you go:



Also keep in mind that Japan is likewise highly urbanized to the point where I think it is impossible to find a "small town" that is more than 100 miles from a major city. Unless you're talking about small islands that are out in the middle of the Pacific(like Iwo Jima), but those instances contribute such a negligible amount to the general population to not even register in the noise level surveys of National Health Care systems would get in their statistical sample. (it should also be noted that France likewise retains control of a number of "middle of nowhere islands" as well, to much the same effect)

Canada is likewise something of a poor example, while they do have some even more exceptionally rural areas, roughly 75% of their population lives within 150 miles of the US, and a comparable ratio live in "urban areas" so once again, with few exceptions, most of them appear to live within easy travel distance of a major population center.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada

Heck, from that, it looks like the three northernmost territories of Canada: Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon make up a combined 0.31% of the National Population. So They're exceptionally rural given the land areas involved. However, I also think you're going to be hard pressed to get much in advanced medical care up their either, but that going back to those people being below the "noise level" of most national surveys.

Using that Wiki link, "As of 2006, Canada's 13 largest cities (metro areas) have a combined population of 17,885,000" (note: total estimated population for Canada in 2006 was 31,612,897 -- 56.6% of their population lives in just 13 Urban Centers... )

Playing with a better apples to apples comparison from that page: "Canada has 100 cities with 45,000 inhabitants or more for a combined population of 20,687,000" (65.4% of the population)

Back to the United States for a moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unite...tes_urban_areas

484 "Urban Areas" in 2000 with a population greater than 45,000 people. My copy/paste and suming on a spreadsheet gives me 193,895,753 people in those 484 Urban areas. The 2000 Census gave the US a population of 281,421,906. Which works out to 68.9% of the population, so some argument can be made about the US being slightly more Urbanized on the raw statistics side of things.

Except lets go back and play with that 56.6% of the population in 13 Urban Areas in Canada. 56.6% of the US population would be 159,284,799 people in the US in 2000. Consulting that table again, it takes 129 "Urban Areas" in the United States to reach that proportion of the population as of 2000 -- and the 120's and 130's in that list are cities with ~250,000 people in them.

So Canada can manage 56.6% of their population by handling 13 urban areas. The US has to manage 129 Urban areas to do the same thing.

Canada can manage 65% of their population by managing 100 areas. The US would be looking at 484 areas for the same general kind of spread, never mind dealing with the people in more rural areas -- that other third of the population. If you can't see several additional layers of bureaucracy appearing in a US version of National Health Care that doesn't exist in the Canadian one, you're on some mighty fine drugs. The size alone would pretty much mandate it, as the people who would be the final tier in the Canadian system would likely end up three or more rungs away from the top in the US system.

...Which isn't to say the US system isn't horribly bloated and inefficient as it is, but yikes.

I see you have trouble with context.

You've made your entire point dependent on me talking about centralization of service in other countries when I was talking about it here. Re-read my post. I used the post office as the example. But hey, since you're begging to be proved wrong:

Canada.

Of COURSE 75% of Canadians live near urban areas... That's... a completely meaningless figure.

After all, our number is 81%. So it's a GREAT example.

/That's kind of how urban areas work dude... but what does this have to do with UHC anyway?

This is the worst argument against trying a citizen of a country can give. What does it say about us as a country that this response to UHC is even acceptable?

"We're too corrupt to even TRY..." It's pretty weak to me. Followed and preceded by "We're too big to even TRY."

So if it's crappy now, then it needs to change.

You seem to be espoused with the idea that we can't adopt a foreign system effectively. Does this mean you wish to try something brand new, blindly?

Or let me make this more direct:
Since you acknowledge the inefficiency in US healthcare, what do you think should be done to address it?

Without reading this entire thing, who's in favor for a nationalized health care policy? Can we add a poll at the top?

I did my best to not reduce the debate to "in favor" vs. "opposed", since the situation is a little more nuanced than that, and I recognize that opinions vary in a spectrum. But there's the poll. Enjoy. I can add crap if you like.

I am against it..Don't see how the government would do a good job running health care...

I think what we need to do is focus on lowering the costs of health care in general, not who is providing it.

On a side note..I just fucked up my knee playing soccer..can't really walk....at all...yey health insurance

I don't see how private industry would do a good job running health care though. And that's the other option. And since we can see how that pans out, it's pretty easy to see that it doesn't cut mustard, IMO.

Driving down costs is more important than covering everybody. We can't do the second part without the first. You're right on there.

1) We're too big to try to do a blanket one size fits all solution based on what worked for other nations. A lot of things that worked for them are N/A for the United States, particularly in the more rural states. (and keep in mind, that also is one of the things they're claiming they're trying to fix -- "rural health care")

2) I don't actually believe the US Health Care system is currently corrupt. What it happens to be is horribly inefficient, and most of those problems have to do with things outside the Health Care system itself.

2.a) Electronic Medical records and a more nationalized(and standardized) system should help, but that is already under way, Bush started that. (It'll reduce the amount of medical work that gets done multiple times because the doctor you're currently dealing with doesn't have access to the stuff your previous doctor had on you)

2./cool.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="B)" border="0" alt="cool.gif" /> Tort law is still one gigantic pain in the ass, and is the next largest contributing factor to medical expenses increasing like they have. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...h-hco053105.php

"Malpractice insurance premiums vary widely from state to state. Florida is the highest-premium state, with an average 2004 premium of more than $195,000, followed by Nevada, Michigan, the District of Columbia, Ohio, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Connecticut, Illinois and New York.

The 10 lowest-premium states are Oklahoma, at about $17,000 on average, and Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota, Indiana, Idaho, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Arkansas and South Carolina."

--Now keep in mind, the states of Nevade, Michigan, Washingto DC, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, and New York have far more people in them than the 10 low cost states. To the point that some of them(New York) has more residents than most of those states combined. That is going to have a significant impact on what the cost of an ob/gyn visit is on the national level.

but continuing with that article:

"Many areas of the country, especially around major metropolitan areas, are experiencing large increases in the average costs of premiums. Between 2003 and 2004, Dade County in Florida, which includes the city of Miami, went from $249,000 to $277,000, an increase of about 11 percent.

In that same period, Cook County in Illinois, which includes Chicago, jumped about 67 percent from $138,000 to more than $230,000. Wayne County in Michigan, which includes Detroit, went up 18 percent, from almost $164,000 to nearly $194,000."

http://www.nal.usda.gov/ric/ricpubs/RHNsprsum02.htm

"Citing data from a survey by Medical Liability Monitor, ACOG said that nationally, the median insurance premium for OB/GYNs increased 167 percent from 1982 to 1998. In 2000, it rose seven percent. In 2001, it went up another 12.5 percent. For 2002, the expected increase is 15 percent.

According to American Medical News, eight states saw two or more liability insurers raise rates by at least 30 percent in 2001. In more than 12 states, one or more insurers raised rates by 25 percent or more."

And before we go citing greed on the part of the Liability Insurance providers:

"In addition to the increases in premiums, some carriers are closing up shop. In December, 2001, The St. Paul Companies, the nation’s second-largest medical malpractice underwriter, insuring some 40,000 doctors in 45 states, announced that it would phase out of the business. The reason: it was losing too much money--$1 billion in the last five years, according to CBS News. Other companies have also left the market or become insolvent."

---Of course, going to state run health care could be fun for other reasons. As you're no longer suing the doctor persay. You're now suing the Government. Have fun with that. Though I guess one solution on that front is for the US Government to offer a "Catastrophic insurance" option to the medical insurance field like they already do for the Insurance Industry for floods and earthquakes.

The other end of the Medical Liability thing is this: The doctors need to be insured, in the case of hospitals, the administrators have to be (additionally) insured as they're potentially liable for anything a doctor working under them does. The medical (electronic) equipment provider needs to have insurance on themselves as well. The pharmaceutical companies need to have insurance on themselves as well in case of unexpected side effects, and so forth.

3) I served in the Military, I've seen state run health care and experienced it first hand. Yes, its nice to not have to worry about the cost of care. But it also can be a very painful and exhausting undertaking getting them to do anything. It isn't all its cracked up to be.

Going even further on that point, the United States Government frequently claims/asserts it cannot afford to provide the full range of medical benefits it already promised to its veterans. Which is why dealing with the VA for anything medical is a gigantic PITA, and you're thinking the country can afford to do it for everyone?

4) First off, you seem to be under the assumption that I think full and unconditional access to Health Care should be a universal right. I don't think it is.
That being said, I do see common benefit by it being accessible and affordable, so I do view it as being an "infrastructure" item. Good health care systems are needed to reduce/prevent the impact of things like disease, and a healthy population is more likely to be a productive one.

I wouldn't mind seeing the US Government stepping into/picking up the tab for some things. Preventative medicine items would be one such item, so a lot of the pre-natal stuff for pregnancies would potentially be covered, mammograms, colonosopies, and all that other fun stuff that doctors recommend for early detection of various cancers for example. (the earlier they're detected, the more likely it can be fought off successfully, and with much less cost) This could also potentially include the annual dental visit for a checkup/cleaning as well.

Preventative Medicine is mentioned specifically because I know a number of insurance companies for various bizarre reasons don't seem to like footing the bill for that stuff.

I also potentially wouldn't mind seeing minors(and potentially college/university students as well) getting a full coverage option c/o the US Government as I don't think they should be "medically penalized" due to the economic status of their parents.

Of course, the "fun" part of my particular take on it is that I very much do not want to see the government dealing in many of the much more expensive medical procedures. I'd let it get into it edgewise(like the early cancer detections), but don't think it should be involved in paying for, or determining a course of treatment once it has been detected, that should remain in the private sector IMO. Though that potentially results in the not-fully insured person getting the Government going "Well, you've got Cancer, and it's completely treatable right now, but since you lack any coverage to pay for the operation, you're pretty much fucked anyway as I doubt any carrier will insure you now."

The biggest problem is where to draw the line on a lot of this stuff, and its the biggest reason I'm more inclined to leave it the hands of private industry, and let the individual/family (in conjunction with the private sector) be the one that made the call that ultimately resulted in their final (medical) outcome. I have major issue with a national health care plan getting implemented where the United States Government has just committed itself to potentially spending hundreds of thousands of dollars helping some 60 YO male fight off some rare form of cancer just because he happens to be an American.

I can see how that person's family potentially benefits from the government picking up the tab on that, but I fail to see how the nation benefits from doing so. If the nation does benefit in such a case, chances are extremely good he was in a position where he could have funded it himself if a private option was still available.

I know I'm being a total and complete asshole for saying this but it is true: It is not, and never has been, the mandate of the United States Government to provide "warm fuzzies" for its citizens, if private industry wants to do so, more power to them, but that is not a role the Government should be funding. The biggest problem with Universal Health Care if provided for by the United States Government, is that there will be numerous occasions where it will be doing just that: providing warm fuzzies, and little else.

Perhaps maybe it could be an opt in program? And if you opted in, you pay more every year for taxes?


I have nothing to go on for this, and it is a random idea I had. Then, should one not want it, they don't pay for it. The gob'ment could then essentially become a people owned insurance company, except the gob'ment can't borrow from it.

Kind of like what social security was supposed to be.

Wall of text.

On Corruption in Insurance

On the VA.
When were you in the military? Current reports about the quality of VA care are pretty great. With the exception of the psychological side of things, which the military pretty much pretends doesn't exist. Most complaints about wait times and crap like that date back to at least the 90's, before VA records were centralized, reducing cost overhead and raising efficiency. Second link is an abstract. Key point:


On Malpractice.
That's fantastic. But $75-$125k means nothing in a bubble. The cost of malpractice insurance premiums account for less than one half of one percent of total healthcare costs. So even if malpractice suits were banned completely (and your OB/GYN could deliver a child, snap its spine in twain and then cut the mother's legs off and leave her with no legal recourse) it still wouldn't fix shit as far as costs are concerned.

I'm tired of "free" market worship. Health Care is left to the free market in somalia, along with damn near everything else. And that place is a fuckin' bastion of free-rolling consumerism and and a burgeoning economic powerhouse... Or something.

Take everything off the alter. Nothing's sacred. Examine the situation with health care objectively. Learn lessons from people who have tried and succeeded/failed before us.

Please explain your final statement, as I'm curious as to what you mean by "warm-fuzzies" if not "health care", in which case your "little else" aside makes about as much sense as a rooster's tooth.



This would not help people who can't afford insurance already. Next.

Sure it would. 40% of Americans don't make enough to pay taxes so if they opted-in they still wouldn't have to pay taxes.

But the issue would be that the government has a huge pile of money to underprice and outperform the private sector. (already the Govt, thru medicare and medicaid, drastically dictates what type of health care will be available on the market. if a drug company wants to market a certain drug it better hope medicare and medicaid approve of it and offer it to people or else the drug co loses 25% of its possible market. same for medical equipment. thus the govt is already influencing what drugs i might be able to get as a private citizen with private health insurance bc the company might have dropped its drug off of the market if medicare/medicaid didnt accept it.)

either you completely missed andrew's point or you're sidestepping it entirely in order to further your agenda... can't really tell anymore

Alfy's point was that he didn't want his taxes to go up to fund it. So those who opt in pay for it.

And that's not an issue, apparently. If the gov't is really as bad as you think, and they have the power to fuck with drug companies, explain the drug for Restless Leg Syndrome. Or the drug that helps lower cholesterol, but can cause heart attack, stroke, or death...

Drug companies can do whatever they want even with all the evil government controls.

This would be because they make more money if you actually get sick and can't pay for your procedures. Then they can siphon money from you for decades, instead of weeks.

It's the business model that generates the most money, so we should expect a for-profit organization to follow it.

yeeah that is pretty much true =\

Except that doesn't work.
http://www.census.gov/macro/032008/rdcall/1_001.htm (for where I'm pulling quintile data from)

The only way they can get a socialized medicine plan to work is if the top 40% of income earners in the United States agree to pay for it, as they're the only ones who could reasonably come close to being able afford to pay the tax rates that would be incurred for their own Families care, never mind anyone else's. (The top 40% would be anyone with a household, before tax, income of more than $62,153/year as of December 31, 2007)

After all, do you really think that the bottom 20% of household income earners(tops out at $20,752 /year before taxes), is going to be able to afford paying a tax rate that would be able to cover their own share of the medical expenses? And keep in mind, it is that bottom 20% in particular that is most likely to be picking up any Government Health Insurance plan.

This is a "social justice" ie: "social welfare" / social engineering undertaking. It means income redistribution will have to occur, so that the end result is that rich are paying for the benefits the poor are receiving. Which is something governments are awesome at, they aren't concerned about profit margins when it comes to rendering services to a person. Heck, as we've seen, Governments can also be very practiced at not having to worry about solvency either(lol stimulus, lol California, lol the past 70 some-odd years).

But basically, they cannot allow paying for this program to be "opt in" because if they do, it would never be anything resembling solvent, as they want to make at least some pretense of "money out = money in" and if the guys at the bottom can't pay, the guys at the top will make up the difference.

Which isn't to mention the several million people in the US who are willfully uninsured. Something about deciding that rather than pay a $600/month health insurance premium, they decided to buy some Recreational Vehicles or a House that is considerably larger/nicer than they actually needed.

Poor people don't buy RV's if they don't have a job. If they have a job they have insurance, as that's what most plebes base their employment situation on.

/If rich people don't have health insurance, then they are stupid, and don't deserve to be rich.

Active duty from June 1999 until June 2007. VA wait times are still a joke, Active Duty military still does anything and everything they can to avoid documenting things that lead to a "service connected disability" claim down the line. Typically the guys that get the biggest run around on that are the ones who'd basically be going for what would be a workman's comp type accident/injury in the course of doing their job. However, there are plenty of reports of them trying to pull comparable stunts on people who can trace their issue to stuff that happened on the actual Battlefield.

Then you get off of Active Duty and get to demonstrate to the VA that yes that disability still exists(in some cases even having to recertify it -- like a 80% hearing loss is going to suddenly correct itself). However, I can't speak too authoritatively on the VA disability side as I don't currently have any(mildy concerned about Mesothelioma cropping up later in life as I was potentially exposed to asbestos while on Active Duty, but I'll cross that bridge when/if I get there), so what I do have there is second/third hand. They're better than they used to be, but they're still terrible. Getting my GI Bill benefits was enough of an adventure -- taking just shy of 3 months to get it turned on. However, I do know of a few people who had service related problems that have had to go to third parties (American Legion/VFW/Congressmen) and get them to start asking questions before anything started getting done for them.




The legal protection in those highest cost areas is probably a bigger expense for the doctor than the facilities he is using. Which is a little worrisome in my book, but to each their own.

Other factors at play: Cost of education (though the incidently also blame some of their own price hikes on the rising cost of health care)

Hospital costs incurred when caring for patients that cannot afford the care they are receiving -- this is perhaps the biggest contributor. In this particular case, getting them on some kind of insurance/care plan would help as hospitals are no longer charging the people who can pay high rates because others can't pay(which creates its own feedback).

As far as costs of drugs are concerned, no National Health Care plan is going to be able to address that. Highly specialized drugs take a lot of highly specialized research, and have very lengthy vetting processes(that still aren't perfect) that incur very large amounts of expenses. Being corporate entities, they're in the business of making money(profits) on a regular basis, and that means recovering their costs in a timely manner, another thing not helping them there is patent law currently only gives them a small window of opportunity to enjoy exclusivity on the drug before the generics can come in and drop the price to near cost of production. Which means they have less than 20 years(often times much less, as the clock starts ticking once they file for the patent on the compounds involved... Which will often be well before it starts going through the FDA approval process, to make sure someone else doesn't patent it in the mean time) to recover the hundreds of millions(if not billion+) they spent developing that latest life saving/changing wonder drug.



A "warm fuzzy" in this case is something that provides little/no discernible benefit to society as a whole, other than making people feel good about what was accomplished. Like spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to help a retired 77 YO male (named "Bob") with Liver Cancer fight it off so he can live to be 84 and get another ~6 years of life with his children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren.

While the warm fuzzy of knowing I helped Bob live see his latest great-grandchild born when he is 82 years old, and that his family probably considered the experience to be priceless.... I'm not sure I consider it be an effective use of the tax payer's money. Of course, we have medicaid and medicare that already help to some degree in cases like Bob. It's cruel, it's heartless, but I'm sorry, his extra few years of life better have left one hell of a profound impact on his great-grandchildren, or I think we would have been further ahead building bridges in Death Valley for all the benefit society got for their money on that.

Now if a private insurance company had said they were willing to take the risk of him getting cancer at age 77, and would cover his costs should he get it, more power to that insurance company when it turns out Bob does get cancer at 77.

However don't tell me that society is obligated to keep him alive simply because we can do it. There are a lot of things we could do if we wanted to, it doesn't mean we have to do so, or that we should do so. (That goes for things we can do for good, and for ill for those who can't figure that out)

And like Social Security(something else I generally disagree with, as I think Adults should be held responsible for the planing of their own well being not some nanny state, but that started more than 40 years before I was born so its moot), once we make the commitment to do something "for the people of the United States," we are committed to doing it. So make damned sure you know what you(we) are promising to each other and everyone else when it is made, because you're going to be very hard pressed getting out of it once committed. I know this is one commitment I for one do NOT want to be making as I do not like the obligations that are going to follow as a result. Which isn't to mention the other things it is going to do, as I'm fairly certain that the plan before congress will ultimately result in the death of private insurance for anyone except the really wealthy(top 5 to 10% of society).

Page 30 in the PDF viewer(table 6, labeled as page 22 inside the pdf itself)
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

9,115,000 people without health insurance with more than a $75,000/year household income. (out of 116,568,000)
8,488,000 people without health insurance with a $50,000 to $74,999/year household income. (out of 58,355,000)

I think that comes out to ~17,603,000 people in the United States who are very near, at, or considerably above the median household income for the United States in 2007 who are running around without any form of health insurance.

We'll drop down into the next bracket as well, keep in mind, these guys are still above the poverty line.
14,515,000 people without health insurance with a $25,000 to $49,999/year household income. (out of 68,915,000)

And just for kicks, I find this one interesting, the final grouping:

13,539,000 people without health insurance with a $0 to $24,999/year household income. (out of 55,267,000)

Now how the fuck are 41,728,000 people who make less than 25K/year packing health insurance when there are 32,118,000 people making more than 25K/year who don't?

edit: Nevermind, medicaid would explain a good sized portion of that, but still....

VA:
That sucks dude... But is contrary to many reports I've read.


You didn't read anything I posted, did you? <1%. That's the number. There's no probably. It's not a bigger expense than pretty much anything. It's a very tiny expense when compared to the total amount of money thrown around in the medical arena. Wanna blame high costs on litigation? Duplicate and unnecessary tests done to cover hospitals' asses. The insurance is cheap in hospital terms.


Can you quantify this? Or is it from the University of Myass?


That's not how reimbursement in hospitals is done. Read about it. It's fascinating stuff that will make you sound like you know what the hell you're talking about.


Look up the 20 top selling drugs. Heart Burn, Depression, Schitzophrenia, Asthma, Anemia, and High Cholesterol... Specialized my butthole... Continue your regularly scheduled corporate water-carrying.


Like reducing health care costs across the board. Yeah, I can't see the benefit of that either.

... That would be spent on him anyway when he has a heart attack and goes to the ER without a DNR.

At higher costs.

If he's 77 he's unemployed. He will be denied coverage. Hey, it's your perfect world! Bob gets to die and you don't have to pay for his freeloading ass! high five, you.


You tell em! America SUCKS! Right on.


Patently false. We've restructured and eliminated tons of social programs that were either no longer needed or bad from the beginning.

Stats about who does and does not have insurance are kind of difficult to analyze. It's like asking who does and does not own a home. There are many reasons somebody making 75k would not own a home. Perhaps they have a poor credit score and can't secure a loan, perhaps they can't find a house to buy near where they work so they rent, maybe they prefer to rent. Who knows.

There are too many factors related to why somebody may or may not have insurance at that level of income.

What's clear is that our of the employed, an average of 70% get health insurance. Among the highest earners, or those who could afford it themselves, 90% received employer health insurance. Among the lowest 10% of earners however, that number drops to 25%

In other words, those who need it most, are denied it. And those who are the Titans of industry, the earners, the movers, the shakers, aren't also forced to go out and pick themselves up by their boot straps. They are protected by the power of collective bargaining. Seems like a dick move to me to exclude poor people just because they are poor.

Great article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the...nment_he_1.html
Things it brings up:
Why other countries spend a smaller portion of their gross national product and have apparently better health care:
-because we do the heavy lifting of the world's research and development so other countries do not have to make such expenses
-because measuring life expectancy and infant mortality might be skewed by cultural and genetic factors. For instance, Americans are fat and might die sooner but that does not mean the quality of care they recieve is bad. Also, if you get rid of the high automobile crash and crime rates then the US would be have the highest life expectancy in the world. Infant mortality rates are measured differently country by country because certain countries do not count as new babies as live births if they are under a certain weight and size (Canada's limits are higher than ours).
Care here:
-survival rates under American health care are better than in other countries for things like cancer
-The US has the best preventive care in the world at the moment (Americans get more preventative testing than other countries' citizens)

This statement does not parse...

American Thinker? Great Article?

/I'll read it when I get a break...

edit:
Correction, I'm not going to wade through that quagmire of un-cited claims to try and convince you of something that you'll just find an article on NRO to disprove...

Here:
The Cost of For-Profit Corporation-Run Health Care
By Andrew Nunes
Patients Lose the Right To Decide What Treatment They'll Receive when they turn it over to an insurance company.

There Are Long Waits for Care that are related to population density vs. resources.

Patients Are Denied the Latest Medical Technology and Medicines. This is done to save money on unnecessary treatments. It's important to the business model of Insurance.

Breakthroughs in Life-Saving Treatments Are Discouraged. This is done to drum up profits for pharmaceutical companies. There's no money in curing a disease, but countless billions in "treating" it's symptoms.

The Best and Brightest Are Discouraged from Becoming Doctors because there's more money in creating and managing obscure financial instruments than in doctoring, and it's less risky, and less costly to pursue.

Is Government-Run Health Care Better? Yes. I have just as much evidence as this article. So it's just as valid.

Does Government-Run Health Care Provide Everyone Access to Equal Care? NO! Hey, we agree. This point is incongruous with the rest of his article.

Ironically, as we're moving toward having our government completely control health care, countries with government-run health care are moving in the opposite direction.

We're not.
They're not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You deserve a response that's less snarky.

Our totally kick ass research makes drugs to make your dick hard for 36 hours and reduce the symptoms of heart burn... Name a miracle drug we've developed here. Shit, name a miracle drug. We still get fat, cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes... and we have no cure for any of them... just treatments. Expensive treatments that could be replaced by diet and exercise.

What happens when you apply mortality/birth rate methodology from Canada to America? Other countries have violent crime too. Many have worse auto crash rates.

Talking about "cancer survival rates" demonstrates a pretty limited understanding of how cancer staging, prognosis, and treatment work. What are our survival rates of say... Stage III Mesothelioma vs. that of the UK? Compare that to Prostate, then the other 120 some odd types of cancers, then the other 3 stages. That data is all WAY too easy to cherry pick. A better measurement would be survival rates of something more specific, like cholera, or syphilis.

We pay out the ASS here to have that "preventative care" which is alternatively characterized as "unnecessary testing".

My friends dad had a nasal infection. His doctor prescribed a fucking MRI scan. He paid 15 bucks. Insurance paid the rest. The machine was a SIEMENS Donut, which cost over 4 million bucks a pop to buy, 250k/year to run/service, and an additional one time charge of between 2 and 10 million bucks for the software, depending on the package. I can't cite this unfortunately. I worked for Siemens Medical Systems though, and I've seen the MRI of the man's head. This is GREAT preventative care. It is also insanely wasteful and stupid.

Preventative care is going to the doctor/dentist once or twice a year, depending on age/health. Not MRI's for everything just because we can. That doesn't make us better, just more bad ass.

I think the threat of being able to sue an insurance company helps keep them semi-honest. Are we going to be able to sue the government for denying a specific treatment when it made a law cutting certain people off, making it legitimate?

There are plenty of miracle drugs here and if you would rather live in a world where America produces no new medicine because every drug is frivolous then more power to you.

Are diet and exercise considered preventative medicine or are they just societal values?

I believe you about the MRI thing =\.

Yes. We sue the gov't all the time. There's nothing to prevent this. If they haven't made such laws already to protect insurance companies, then they've already decided it's not worth the political fall-out. There would be so many claims of discrimination flying around it would die in committee. It would also be transparent, as we can read bills in all their versions on the internet. I can't sit in a board meeting at IBX while they hash out their conditions.


You've made the claim that we lead the world in innovative drug research. Support the claim or GBTW.
Top 20 drugs, 14 (I think) are US researched. Many are funded by our evil government. None of them are really 'innovative', and frankly I don't trust a single one. Zocor helps with high cholesterol, for example. But causes Kidney damage and muscle erosion (myopathy) in 2% of users.

Lipitor's even better.

It's a miracle!


I never said that. Read it again.

The Healthcare Bill would create some 5 person commission that decides what kind of operations/medicines to approve and would probably give that commission authority to pass regulations such as if you have X number of quality life years left and the treatment costs over Y per quality life year left then you don't get the treatment. Because it is a law in the Code of Federal Regulations it would be impossible to sue the government (saying they should have granted the treatment bc the law says they did not have to) unless you are trying to claim the law is unconstitutional which would make the suing process pretty insurmountable. (although we are moving toward viewing health care as a right so maybe some day it will be a constitutional right such that a law denying it would be unconstitutional).

And I really do not feel like doing research into US-based drugs since most people would admit we lead the world in research, so you can believe what you want (that sure we lead the world in research but it is not useful research bc it is designed to make money off of weird ass drugs).

I agree that they can go overboard with things (right now I am in a full leg brace that seems a bit excessive and I might very well get an MRI..) but maybe there was mmore to the story or he thought he could of had something worse.

Ok so ordering an MRI when it is not needed is obviously wasted money on the patients end, and obviously makes insurance pay the bill which makes insurance prices go up. But...why does the cost of the machine matter in this instance. If the machine as you quote is a relatively fixed cost, with fixed man hours, then it makes sense for the them to want to fill the waking hours with as many scans as possible.

The price is relevant because its ludicrous, but not really to this example I suppose. Somebody had to pay for it, and for the code to run it. They will recoup the loss by charging as much as they can recoup through insurance (prices and rates are negotiated, if I remember my Siemens days well enough) and then passing the cost onto everybody who pays into the system. This could easily be the biggest cost to health care in this country. It's certainly not malpractice insurance.

There wasn't more to the story. The doctor told him there was a slight chance that he could have a tumor, and that they could either try an antibiotic for a week and see, or take an MRI later that week and find out that way. He got the MRI because it's 15 bucks, and now he has a CD-ROM with a 3D picture of his dome on it. Other payers into his insurance plan picked up the remaining 2 grand or so.

Depends on which "Veteran's Health Care Plan" you are talking about. There are multiple flavors.

I'm talking about the Veterans Administration one, which is primarily aimed at the people who didn't retire from the military(non-career) .

There also is the (Retiree) Veterans Benefits Package which is basically an extension of the Active Duty Military Care options, just at a lower priority(when using Active Duty care facilities)

The Retiree Veterans Benefits package has been generally improving for a while and isn't too bad.

But if you didn't retire and get that package, you're pretty much fucked trying to get anything out of the government, particularly for the medical stuff that can be proven to be their responsibility.



Knew I forgot something, and yes, that is one of the efficiency items. They'll test you five ways from Sunday if they can get someone to foot the bill from it, before they decide on a course of treatment even though the first and/or second test was all they needed, but because they don't want to get sued they'll run a few more tests just to make sure. (inefficiency item)



Sorry, I guess I wasn't being specific enough when I used the word "specialized." If they're a top selling drug, even if they perform a specific task(which, granted, is a form of specialization) they are not "specialized" in the respect of seeing limited/use distribution because the number of patients who could benefit from it is comparatively limited. The most expensive drugs to be found are often the ones that serve the smallest number of patients as there is no "economy of scale" at play with them.



Stick him in a hospice situation and be done with it.



Cancer treatment regimes are far more expensive than an ER visit for a heart attack. Besides which, there is nothing saying he wouldn't have had the ER visit for a heart attack if he had been treated for cancer. So that is pretty much zero-sum.



Believe it or not, there are companies that are willing to insure the unemployed, they just have to have a means of paying for it. (but that also goes back to my comment a few posts back about the people who likely be of "sufficient benefit" to society to keep alive would likely be able to take care of it themselves anyways -- they'll either have the money to pay for it, or are still employed despite their age)



Except there have been discernible benefits to society from the Space Program, and even the Apollo Lunar Missions.

Which isn't to mention if your concern is with the "big picture" for humanity, you want to maximize the chances of humanity(and by extension -- society) making its way through a (near) extinction level event with as much of its knowledge base intact as possible. You can't do that if everyone is either on the same planet, or in low earth orbit(if it is an cometary/asteroid event rather than one of the super volcanoes, they're very likely to be killed by debris being ejected into their orbit after impact). You have to move outside of those areas. Which means the Moon, and most likely Mars as well.. And not just simple scientific outposts either, they have to be slightly more than self-sustaining so when (N)ELE comes knocking, they're able to provide assistance for anyone who manages to live through the initial onslaught. But before we get colonizing space, we have to cover a lot of ground in between.

Besides which, the money we've spent on Space Exploration to date is chump change compared to what Universal Health Care would cost us.



"No longer needed" = not being used (by much of anyone) = safe to eliminate.

Yes, they've restructured welfare as well, but keep in mind, most welfare recipients that restructuring impacted negatively were the people who had already drawn significantly out of it, while putting next to nothing into it.

Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security are the ones I was talking about specifically, and UHC would fall under the same general umbrella. The reason they are so difficult to manage/fix/address properly is "I paid a lot of fucking money into it, they promised I'd be able to do ______ with it, and by damned they're going to make sure I get money's worth!" With armies of (elderly) voters who are (historically) more than happy to go to the voting booth with that being their primary issue.

There is no reason to believe UHC would not become a comparable one because a lot of people (At the top end of the income range especially) are really going to be paying a LOT of fucking money into the system, they're going to want "their money's worth" out of it, and it'll be a new entitlement item for lower income people, where once its established, it becomes the new "boogieman issue" for use in elections that more than just the elderly will take note of.

"If Steve wins this election, he'll reduce the quality of the health benefits package you get from the government!"

Found an article reprinted from the New England Journal of Medicine on December 2, 1971 that raised an interesting counterpoint to the concept of a "right to health care."

It can be found at the link below:
http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/sademcr.htm

A formally recognized "right to healthcare" would be the first legally recognized "right" that in order to be carried through to its conclusion, would essentially require the suppression of the rights of another group of persons: In this case medical care providers.

Or as the abstract puts it:

Daemon, you might be the most intellectually inconsistent person I've ever had the pleasure of speaking with on the internet, and I frankly don't even know where to begin replying to your tome of a post.

You clearly think that poor people are a burden on society, and should be treated accordingly. Ok.

The rest of the civilized world disagrees, and is able to do so in a way that neither bankrupts their country, nor creates a negative environment around health care.

"A formally recognized "right to healthcare" would be the first legally recognized "right" that in order to be carried through to its conclusion, would essentially require the suppression of the rights of another group of persons: In this case medical care providers."

Bullshit. When we abolished slavery the southern plantation owners could have said the same thing. When we created a minimum wage granting labor rights to workers, we "suppressed" the rights of business owners to hire who they liked and pay them what they wanted...

What "rights" are being suppressed in this case?

Also everybody should read this before talking about what laws and crap the government will "probably" institute in an effort to fuck you over for some reason.

Protip: Keep your posts shorter and cite claims you make if you want me to keep reading them. I'm this close to quitting on you, buddy.

The right to keep slaves was never exactly an enumerated right(closest it came was "congress shall make no laws for the first __ years"), and it is actually reversed from your claim. That prohibition is the closest thing you have to the US having a law on the books giving everyone a right at the expense of another segment of the population(freedom of the press being mildly grey on that front in the last century).



First off: Closed Shop laws should be considered illegal and overturned wherever they remain(sadly I know that is never going to happen). Closed Shop laws are not simply removing choice on the part of the employer, but on the part of their employees as well in many cases where it is practiced. Thankfully, the state I currently live in is "Right to Work" so it's moot for me anyhow as Closed Shop is a non-issue for anyone who isn't a union booster around here. (I do support collective bargaining, which Unions in theory help achieve. I simply don't support "collective bargaining" where many of the people involved are part of that "collective" because they were coerced into it)

Minimum wage laws, while potentially grounds for claiming a suppression of "business rights" is not a suppression of individual rights or in particular individual liberties. The only people who could come close to making that claim are the people who are truly cut loose or never hired simply because an employer couldn't afford to pay minimum wage to keep/bring them on while having everyone else on their payroll.

Which isn't to say there is a world of difference between "everyone who is employed should be paid(or has a right to) a wage of at least ____ per hour." and saying "everyone has a right to health care no matter the cost." An employer can choose to simply not employee any more people. A health care provider would still be obligated to render services, which hospitals already are obligated to do in some respects already, they already are legally incapable of allowing someone to bleed to death on their doorstep as it is.



It's a complex issue, and it is a hard one to put down in any substantive form without missing a whole lot pieces and parts. If it was easy issue to address it would have been handled long since.

1. Poor people in and of themselves are not necessarily a burden, people have to start out somewhere. I have nothing against providing assistance to people who are trying to be productive members of society. I've had the occasion to know people in this category, and they are amazing people, and with few exceptions, they get rewarded for it. (they cease being poor)

2. Not every poor person is productive, and I've known more than my share of people who feel they are entitled to everything under the sun while having done virtually nothing to deserve anything.

3. It is virtually impossible to create a large scale system that will be able to effectively and efficiently distinguish between the two.

4. Likewise, it is virtually impossible to create a system to address that which doesn't end up with either
A) Significant Corruption
or
/cool.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="B)" border="0" alt="cool.gif" /> Significant Bureaucracy making it unresponsive... (back to point #3)
and
C) If it doesn't end up with both.

That isn't to say it can't be done, just that it is very easy to create a system that won't work.

(Points 3 and 4 are why the scale of the undertaking in front of the US was a point I brought up when compared to other nations. They're smaller in geography, population, and had some geographic advantages for the most part that the US lacks in many cases)

5. I believe in stupid being rewarded for being stupid, and am not a big fan of "safety nets for stupid." Particularly when those safety nets come at the expense of people who would otherwise want nothing to do with said individuals and their stupidity. If someone decides health insurance isn't a bigger priority in their life than the nicer things, I'm not sure why the United States Government should provide it for them. I guess you could say I'm fan of allowing for natural selection to occur.

6. I also understand that "basic level" healtcare services to the population at large are critical to well being of everyone, and the economic productivity of the nation.

We don't want communicable diseases to spread anymore than can be helped.
We don't wan't a nation of people who are crippled because they couldn't get a medical professional to properly set their broken bones.
We don't want people getting killed by infected wounds(which isn't to mention health concerns over whatever they may have oozed upon in the mean time).

I don't want to see people die a needlessly painful death because they cannot afford painkillers. (Why I would support hospice level health care. While I may be harsh enough to practically condemn them to death, that doesn't mean I want it to be a needlessly painful experience for them)

I would like to give people the best chance possible of surviving any disease that can be easily treated. (if detected in time -- which is why I would support preventative medicine, also bearing in mind that for healthy people, preventative medicine checks are the most expensive line-item carried by health insurance companies -- it significantly lowers their overhead, which should in turn make "catastrophic insurance" for things like cancer, much more affordable for everyone... as even the cost of treating most forms of cancer should in turn be lower thanks to it being caught much earlier)

I would like to make sure that nobody is unduly penalized as a result of who their parents are, as they had little/no choice in that matter. (Which is why I would be fine with the somewhat contradictory stance that I would have no problem with the Government covering minors and potentially college/university students as well)

I could go on but you've already complained about the walls of text as it is.

1. So then what "right" of health care providers as specifically enumerated (since that's the criteria you're using above) is being infringed by the idea of UHC?

2. This IS very hard. And there are lessons to be learned from other countries. But you, and tons of people like you, simply block those lessons out by saying we can't do it here. I say that's a shitty attitude.

3. You don't seem to recognize the problem. There already IS a "safety net for stupid". Shit, YOU even pointed it out. Any asshole can go into any hospital and they can't turn him away. Our safety net is just pointlessly expensive and inefficient already. But you don't want to rush into a solution that might be... expensive... or inefficient. And then you enumerated reasons why we NEED to provide this safety net. Their stupidity harms us all. Think AIDS in Africa. They are dumb for not wearing protection and screwing virgins to "cure" their AIDS... "Natural Selection" will eventually wipe out most of the continent. This isn't just bad for Africa, but potentially bad for the world.

4. You seem to want UHC, but you don't want to call it UHC, and you want to be the personal arbiter of who does and does not get what care. Sorry, you don't get to. What's the point of providing care to everybody if people with AIDS or Cancer can't get treatment with it? "Take this Tylenol (that is still overpriced) and don't bother calling, cause I got more important shit to do for this guy with money." is not helpful.

5. When you make a claim. Fucking cite it. Jesus. How hard is this? You read it or heard it somewhere. Just tell me where or I'm going to assume you're pulling numbers and facts straight out of your butthole.

- How expensive, and how much more expensive than other costs?
- How does it lower their overhead if it's more expensive? Do you know what "overhead" refers to?
- Please show that people who have insurance that covers preventative care and regular checkups have fewer incidences of Stage III or IV cancers than those without. I believe it because it's logical. But that doesn't make it fact.

I agree that preventative care is really important. But I also believe that it's a lower cost item than catastrophic or continued care. But that may be dependent on whether you think doling out MRI's is the definition of preventative care or not.

/And why should we give a shit about the rights of corporations? I think it was a mistake to make them "people" to begin with.