BS: US Health Care Reform

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 02:00 PM

Riginslingers's King Charles's Head once agaiin...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 06:29 PM

Riginslinger: I would not expect the Democrat Bill that will soon be available for the president's signature to include any meaningful tort reform, neither will it likely bar non-citizens from receiving health care.

Trial lawyers are among the largest campaign contributors to Democrat candidate political campaigns. Can't upset them! Neither will the Bill bar non-citizens from participating in the new health care program. The Democrats want their vote! Heck, if babies could vote they probably would even bar abortions from being eligible for payment.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 06:53 PM

Doug, I have some questions and comments about your post.

1. Why are you leaving the suffic "ic" off the word Democratic (as in the Democratic Party)?

2. "neither will it likely bar non-citizens from receiving health care" - Under what conditions? Any civilized country in the world will treat a foreign visitor who is injured in, say, a traffic accident or an assault or who has a heart attack or any other such emergency. And the bills are sorted out afterward. Other than that, what are you referring to and why is it a problem if a foreign resident is obliged to pay for medical treatment? My father, for example, fell ill once while visiting Florida....got treatment...and was presented with a very expensive bill. He paid it (with much grumbling...he could have got the same treatment free if he'd been lucky enough to be home in Canada when it happened).

3. The Democrats, like the Republicans, want the votes and support of big lobbyists. That includes trial lawyers, I assume, but what's more important in the case of the health care issue is...it includes the health insurance companies and Big Pharma. I think that both the Democrats and Republicans will bend over for those guys any time they are asked to, don't you?

4. "if babies could vote they probably would even bar abortions from being eligible for payment."

No doubt. But they can't. Personally, I'm waiting for the day that dogs, chickens, and monkeys get the vote. If they did, it might raise the overall I.Q. of your electorate a point or two.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 07:01 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 09:06 PM

"Any civilized country in the world will treat a foreign visitor who is injured in, say, a traffic accident or an assault or who has a heart attack or any other such emergency."

             Aha, I knew somebody would bite on that.

             I've come up with a plan. Of course the medical professionals have to treat injured people, but the US doesn't have to let them on the healthcare plan.

             All you have to do is treat them in the emergency rooms like they're getting treated now. That costs a fortune, but then you have to go after them, run them to ground, sue them, send credit hounds after them, force them into bankruptcy. Then they can't rent a house or an apartment or get the power and gas turned on.

             I know. I went through all of that when Ronald-pig-fuckin'-Reagan got elected.

             But you don't stop there, force them to change their identity and then go after them for identity theft. That makes them felons, so you go after them as felons--promote that sheriff from Arizona to take care of them--and all the time you let them know. If they wan't to avoid all that misery, all they have to do is to go back where they came from.

             It will be a lot easier to do this once the health care bill is passed, because everybody else will have insurance. The only ones who won't will be the illegals.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 10:42 PM

Ye gods!

I have heard from many sources, including personal friends, that when they were traveling in Europe and got sick or needed to see a doctor for some reason, one of the bigger surprises was that there was no charge. In fact, the hospital or clinic or whatever was surprised that they expected to have to pay for health care. Rick Steves, the travel writer (with a series of television programs on how to travel inexpensively and really see a country) has commented on this phenomenon a number of times.

I'd really like to see the United States become as civilized as most of the other industrialized countries in the world.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 11:25 PM

Sorry DougR, but it needs to be said, even if it is "rude".
DougR says what he says because that is what they say on Fox News.
I know because I watch it, and then I hear it repeated by DougR (and by my Father-in-law whom I love but he makes my head explode).

DougR - other than Fox News, please give just one source for the claim that non-citizens might be included.

And then please tell us the relative amounts that trial lawyers contribute to Democrats and Republicans.

And then, just try to say "Democratic Party". Or I will have to refer to the "Repubic Party".

In Fox We Trust.....

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 12:27 PM

I'd really like to see the United States become as civilized as most of the other industrialized countries in the world.

I'm sure you are in lots of ways. It's just that health seems to be a bit of a blind spot.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 05:42 PM

Doug has always enjoyed operating in a fact-free environment. He ain't gonna change. Deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 02:07 AM

Here's the latest word on health care reform from Dennis Kucinich:

"Dear Friends,

More about why we desperately need health care for all:

This past weekend, I visited a festival at a church in a working class area of my district. These events are opportunities for people from the community to gather, to eat ethnic foods, listen to music and enjoy each other's company; before the brisk, brooding Cleveland winter begins to set in. When I walked through the doors, I felt as though I had stepped back in time, to when I was a child growing up in the inner city of Cleveland where I witnessed people struggling every day to make ends meet. From this early experience I have learned to recognize poverty, the clothes it wears and the physical appearance it presents.

What I saw in the church were humble people whose shoes were well worn and whose clothes were in need of repair. I also saw people struggling with various stages of ill health, with obvious physical difficulties. I know what poverty feels like and I felt it here and I was surprised. What made this visit memorable was that it occurred in a suburban community which had formerly been known for its solid middle class housing.

Meanwhile about 400 miles away, in Washington, DC, the insurance companies have wielded enormous influence to knock a public option out of the Senate Finance Committee health care bill and we still struggle to keep the public option alive in the House. A decision is due soon from the full Senate. Will they actually pass a bill which requires that Americans buy private insurance? The House continues to try to determine the shape and content of our legislation.

The political system is failing the American people. Money for Wall Street, not for Main Street. Money for War, not for Peace. Money to move jobs out of America, not to create new jobs here. Money for insurance companies, but what about the people?

While 47 million uninsured wait for an answer, and another 50 million underinsured stand by, Americans are losing their jobs, their homes, their health care and their retirement security. How long can people wait for help?

I am asking you to continue to join me in the push to have a state single payer amendment in the health care bill. Whatever passes the Congress will be insufficient to meet the broad based health care needs of the American people, which is why it is important to give the states the option to move toward single payer. Call your representative now and demand that the Kucinich state single payer amendment remain in the bill.

In my community, and many others across our nation, the level of human suffering from an economy "gone bad" is rising to shocking levels. A recent US Census report states that in this decade the number of northeastern Ohioans who live fractionally above the poverty line has risen 10% - to a quarter of a million people.

But I do not see cold statistics. I see real people. I see the poverty lining their faces. I see their eyes asking: Why?

Sincerely,

Dennis "

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 06:55 AM

Yes, Kucinich makes a compeling case. I wonder where he is on tort reform?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 12:58 PM

From the Washington Post:

"The Democrats' fickle-and-dime health strategy

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 21, 2009

"Iwill not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future -- period," President Obama told Congress in a health-care address last month.

Well, that depends on what the meaning of "plan" is.

Senate Democrats wanted to protect doctors from scheduled cuts in Medicare payments over the next 10 years, but there was a problem: Doing so would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to the federal deficit, making mincemeat of Obama's promise. So Democrats hatched a novel scheme: They would pass the legislation separately, so the $250 billion cost wouldn't be part of the main reform "plan," thereby allowing the president to claim that that bill wouldn't increase the deficit.

Republicans, who had been losing traction in their effort to fight a health-care overhaul, could hardly believe the gift the majority had given them.

"I have never witnessed something more sinister!" an agitated Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.) declared on the Senate floor Tuesday morning. Citing a report that the "doc fix," as the $250 billion measure is called, was created to buy the American Medical Association's support for the main health-care bill, Corker accused the AMA of prostitution. "We all know that the selling of one's body is one of the oldest professions in the world," Corker said. "The AMA is engaged in basically selling the support of its body."

While Corker was on the Senate floor suggesting that the Democrats were johns paying for sex, Jon Kyl (Ariz.), the second-ranking Senate Republican, preferred a reptilian metaphor. "They thought they were getting a problem off the table, and instead they grabbed a rattlesnake by the tail and don't know how to let go," he told reporters as he headed to a lunch with his GOP colleagues in the Capitol.

Around the corner, John Cornyn (R-Tex.), the man in charge of the Senate Republicans' 2010 campaign, opted for numismatic imagery. "This, of course, violates one of the president's first principles, when he said he won't sign any health-care bill that adds one dime to the deficit," he reminded reporters. "This adds a lot of dimes to the deficit." Two and a half trillion, in fact.

The sponsor of the doc fix, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), seemed unconcerned that the fix had put the party in one. "It really is about honest budgeting," she said at a news conference Tuesday morning. On one side of her stood the AMA president. On the other side was a poster framed by a flag. One of its bullet points: "Honest budgeting."

Honestly? A decade ago, Congress passed legislation designed to limit health-care costs by slowing the growth of Medicare payments to doctors. Each year, Congress passes a "patch" to prevent the cuts from taking effect. Stabenow proposed to make this system "honest" by eliminating the cuts permanently.

Medicare is hurtling toward insolvency, but Stabenow would essentially repeal past cost-cutting efforts. And even granting that it's a good idea not to cut Medicare payments to doctors, it's a strange interpretation of honesty to separate this $250 billion cost from the health-care bill and then claim that the other bill doesn't raise the deficit.

To be sure, stranger things have happened on Capitol Hill. On Tuesday morning, for example, a group of pranksters called the Yes Men -- the same ones who held a phony U.S. Chamber of Commerce news conference on Monday -- showed up dressed in brown inflatable balls five feet in diameter called SurvivaBalls. Three of the SurvivaBalls, attempting to draw attention to global warming, broke through a chain on the Capitol steps. When a police officer attempted to remove the intruders, one of them rolled all the way back down the steps. "See? I'm fine. I'm okay," the SurvivaBall called out when he landed. "The SurvivaBall will protect us. We will survive climate change."

But in the self-injury department, the Democrats' doc fix outdid even the SurvivaBalls. After a party lunch Tuesday afternoon, Senate Republicans were jubilant as they derided Stabenow's plan. "Finally we're coming to the first vote on health-care reform, and what do the Democrats propose to do?" Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) asked at the microphones. "They propose to raise the national debt by . . . a quarter of a trillion dollars, plus $50 billion interest."

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader, was rather less energetic when he appeared at the same microphones a few minutes later. He had already had to cancel a Monday-night vote on the doc fix because various Democrats, including Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (N.D.), opposed it. Reid had hoped to bring the issue up for a vote on Tuesday, but it quickly became clear that he still didn't have the votes. In his opening statement, Reid didn't even mention the doc fix.

Fox News's Trish Turner pointed out that Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) had acknowledged that there aren't enough votes for the fix and that others were talking about scaling back the plan. "Will you talk about the status?"

"You seem to have all the information now, so why do you need anything?" was the extent of Reid's answer.

Another reporter asked whether Democrats could "still say health-care reform is paid for if you pass a quarter-trillion-dollar doc fix and don't pay for it."

Reid sought the protection of Obama, saying that "the White House favors what's on the floor now." Then he hinted that he wouldn't hold out for Stabenow's plan, floating the possibility of "a one-year fix."

Of course, that would be the same gimmick Congress has been using for years. But in politics, a lot of small gimmicks are easier to justify than one big gimmick. "

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 03:38 PM

Well, they could pass laws strictly regulating the insurance companies and eliminate the anti-trust exemption that the insurance industry enjoys. They could make it illegal for insurance companies to make a profit on their services, regulate how much insurance companies could charge, force them to take all prospective customers, and force them to cover all medical expenses. That would do the trick, I think, without adding to the deficit.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 04:08 PM

And they would stay in business why, with NO profit allowed?

All the risks and none of the gain.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 04:37 PM

Public service, BB? Oh...I forgot! Such an idea as public service is sacrilege, isn't it? ;-)

Well, we have a single payer health coverage plan in Canada that IS done as a public service, and it costs considerably less per capita than the USA's present government health costs do. Our medical personnel are also quite well paid. I haven't seen any doctors here who cannot afford a nice house and a modern car and a prosperous life. I've heard they can earn even MORE in the USA...and that's where they can go if they don't mind working for a criminal oligarchy, I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 04:41 PM

The insurance companies in Japan, Germany, and Switzerland (and probably a few other countries as well) have stayed in business under laws and regulations like those. The incentive is that they want to stay in business, so they would adapt as the insurance companies have done in other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 05:08 PM

And they would stay in business why, with NO profit allowed? Why not? And if they packed it in, there'd be no pr0blem in replaciing them. The private health insurance that operates in the UK in parallel with the NHS (BUPA etc) is non-profit, and seems to do very nicely for itself.

So long as a business covers its operating costs, including the wage and salary bill, and costs of borrowing money if need be, then it can stay in business. Racking up those costs by trying to cream off a profit just serves to damage its viability.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Maryrrf
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 08:59 PM

If this doesn't prove that the system we have now is reprehensible, I don't know what does. Really it takes the cake. Too Small for Insurance
Does anyone seriously think that these insurance companies should control whether or not millions of Americans have or don't have access to health care?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: EBarnacle
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 01:00 AM

I am currently reading "Team of Rivals," by Doris Kearns Goodwin and, when I got to the chapter about the Lincoln-Douglas debates, was amazed at how similar the situation we have now is to the 1850's.

In that era, most of the "civilized" world had eliminated slavery for both moral and economic reasons. In many ways, there was a degree of levelling between the underclass and the elite. In the United States, the privileged elite were doing their best to keep the underclass right there--in servitude. Slavery was the defining issue of the first 87 years of the United States Constitution. The Know Nothing Party was doing its best to discriminate against the German and Irish Catholics. The Dred Scott case, decided by a large Southern majority on the Supreme Court, not only worked to return fugitive slaves to their owners but was an attempt to undermine restrictions on slavery where such restrictions existed. All of this was in service of a dying system.

At present, we are looking at the messiness of Democracy. It is noisy and often uncomfortable. Health Care is one of the defining issues of the current era and real reform will, undoubtably and unfortunately, take a lot longer than we wish. Eventually it will happen and we will catch up with the rest of the world.

As has been noted above, this is a very divisive issue. In an effort to avoid the debacle which struck the Clinton administration, the Obama administration is doing its best to allow Congress to do the spadework. If we do not make significant progress, it will be a shame and a betrayal of the public trust in Congress. President Obama is, sooner or later, going to have to start defining what he wants to see from the final bill. Harry and Louise are on their own this time.

This Summer, a friend attended a local Town Hall. On her way in, she saw a woman of a certain age with a sign protesting Socialized Health Care. When my friend asked her whether the was on Medicair, the woman replied "Yes, but that's different." She could not get an answer when she asked "How?"

In addition, every time a hospital or a doctor treats someone who has no money and no insurance, they lose money. If they treat enough people who don't have money, they have to go out of business. It would surely make more sense to get these people insurance so that their service providers could pay their own bills and maybe even provide appropriate service to everyone. And yes, that includes illegal aliens. From a public health perspective it makes more sense to treat them than not to treat them. Swine flu epidemic, anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 08:28 AM

If Obama is going to need Roland Burris' vote, he's got a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 01:41 AM

So the US government establishes it's own insurance program in "competition" with private insurance companies. In the first place, "competition" is a laughable term. Private businesses cannot compete with the federal government BECAUSE it does not have to show a profit to stay in business! The government has millions of tax payers to keep the government run health care (whatever) in business.

So private insurance companies cannot compete. What happens to them? Like any other profit oriented business, they go out of business.

Hooray, hooray, the liberal voices cry! Those dirty old stinking capitalists are getting what they deserve!

One aspect of that scenario hasn't been discussed, as far as I can tell. How many private health care insurance companies exist in the United States? The figure I have heard is 1,200 to 1,500. If they go out of business, how many jobs will be lost? Will the government operated program be able to absorb those who lost their jobs? Where will the money come from to support the cost?

Yep, you got it. Increased taxes from those who can afford to pay taxes. What about those who can't afford to pay the taxes? No problemo! They simply enjoy the benefits paid by those who can afford it.

Sounds like a good deal to me.

However, the problem might be that there are not enough people earning enough money to afford to pay for the total cost of health care.

So what do we do?

We move to those countries who will support us, and provide the health care we need.

Personally, I really enjoy England. Ireland and Scotland are good possibilities too, of course. Canada might be nice if I were to move close to LH so we could argue politics from time to time. I guess I'll just wait and see what happens.

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 07:48 AM

""So the US government establishes it's own insurance program in "competition" with private insurance companies. In the first place, "competition" is a laughable term. Private businesses cannot compete with the federal government BECAUSE it does not have to show a profit to stay in business! The government has millions of tax payers to keep the government run health care (whatever) in business.

So private insurance companies cannot compete. What happens to them? Like any other profit oriented business, they go out of business.""


I can't quite make up my mind Doug, whether you are deliberately disingenuous, or genuinely too stupid to listen to what you are being told.

In the civilised countries of this world, healthcare consists of a public system, paid for by National Insurance, and Tax revenue, and a private system, whih does make a small, reasonable, profit.

These two entities are NOT in competition in the way that you assume.

They are in collaberation.

There are always those who are prepared to pay for peripheral benefits, and for them the private system is the way to go.

Most of them are enrolled in Insurance schemes which will defray the immediate cost of treatment, in return for regular ongoing premiums.

They do exclude some pre-existing conditions, but they are NOT as rapacious as the US insurance companies, knowing that they can price themselves out of the market, because patients have the free option to fall back on.

None of the British private health insurers have gone out of business, in fact they are all doing better than most commercial concerns. Even in a recession people still get sick.

So, for the umpteenth time, you have been told that your fears about killing the private system are groundless.

Are you saying then that you would object to the idea of YOUR private healthcare being much less expensive, and that you would refuse free public healthcare for the things your private company refuses to fund?

If the answer to that is yes, then I know exactly which of the two alternatives I mentioned above is true.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: maeve
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 07:59 AM

This program was interesting."The Healing of America"
If it's been mentioned already, please accept my apology.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 09:35 AM

Do not, repeat DO NOT attempt to change Douggie's mind with facts.

He absolutely ENJOYS his fantasy world- let him play. he's basically harmless- until he votes,that is, or manages to convert someone equally gormless to his delusions.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 11:05 AM

This probably belongs in a different, but related thread, but here goes:
Regardless of how healthcare providers are paid, privately or publicly, there is no incentive for any of them to lower prices. As long as the fee-for-service model is in place, it's beneficial to doctors and hospitals to provide more and more services (necessary or not, redundant or not. This has been amply demonstrated: in areas where there are more medical facilities available, healthcare costs tend to skyrocket; in less-well-provided areas the costs remain lower. And there's no perceptible difference in the patient's outcomes.
       The Mayo Clinic, for one, puts doctors on salary. There's no benefit to the doctor in providing more care than is required so they don't. Result? Much lower costs, and healthier (and less impoverished) patients.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 11:21 AM

I think you'd enjoy living in Canada, Doug. It's a nice place. So by all means, move up here if things get worse in the USA...and try to move fairly near Orillia, Ontario, and we can get together and discuss politics frequently.

Your fears about the private insurers going out of business are groundless. They haven't gone out of business here. It is as Don T says.

You're being manipulated by an avalanche of propaganda that is being disseminated on your (Fox) media by the health insurance industry who are spending vast amounts of money to fool people and maintain the status quo, and the status quo involves robbing your public blind and denying them health care unless they pay at least 10 times what I do for it. With that sort of money at stake, Doug, they will tell you ANYTHING.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 02:06 PM

The private insurance companies won't go out of business if they have to compete with a public option. They haven't gone out of business in the UK, where they have to compete with a universal single payer system, and they haven't gone out of business in several countries where they are not allowed to make a profit at all.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 02:10 PM

By the way, the poster who is suggesting that the private insurance companies will go out of business if they have to compete with the government gets their health care courtesy of the US taxpayers, and the US government.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 03:57 PM

Doug, I know this flies in the face of the standard practices and customs of American capitalism, but the truth is that a business does not have to make a profit to function well. As long as the business provides the goods and/or services for which it exists, and administrators and personnel receive livable salaries (this is called "expenses), it functions, and can continue to function. Most small businesses operate this way. Where a company needs "profit" (above and beyond expenses) is when it sells stock, and lots of people who neither administer nor produce anything sit back and clip coupons (stockholders). True, their function is to invest in the business by "loaning" it money, but they are certaily dispensable. Whenever a business needs money, they don't have to sell stock. They can borrow from a bank. That's one of the functions of banks. Lots of small businesses in the U. S. operate perfectly well, provide good service to their customers, and provide good salaries (minus the multi-million dollar annual CEO bonuses) for their employees.

Here's a news flash:   Wall Street is a big Ponzi scheme and, in actuality, it produces nothing.

There is no reason whatsoever that private insurance companies could not exist right along with and in competition with a government run program.

If the primary purpose of business were to produce goods and services rather than to simply maximize profits, this would be a whole bright new world.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Oct 09 - 04:00 PM

Butb you don't have to "show a profit in order to stay in business" Doug - you just have to avoid making a loss.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 01:50 AM

Profit is NOT an ugly word! That's why private businesses exist ..to make a profit! To say a business can exist without making a profit may be true in the short run, but only an idiot would be in business to break even. It is not difficult to separate, on this forum, folks who HAVE owned and operated a business from those who have not. They are the ones who write utter nonsense when it comes to writing about profit and loss.

I HAVE owned and operated two profitable businesses. So don't tell me, Don, that a business can be successful (a profit oriented one) without making a profit.

And those who believe that a private business can compete with the federal government, well, you are clearly nuts!

And Carol, yes, I participate in a government operated Medicare Advantage program. It is not something GIVEN to me, I earned it. I payed into Social Security all of my working life just like everyone else who participates in the same program. Yesterday I received a letter from my insurance provider informing me that according to their records I qualify for "extra" help to pay for my prescription drugs. I wrote them a letter today informing them that with my social security income and income from investments, I require no "extra" help. If, Carol C., you had received the same letter, would you have done the same?

DouogR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 02:47 AM

It depends on what you call profit, Doug. And, yes, I have run my own business. Good service at a fair price. Must have been, because it kept expanding until I had all the business I could handle. I made a pretty decent living at it. Currently my wife and I own our own home free and clear, and although we are not rich, we are debt-free and live quite comfortably.

Also, we have health insurance (my wife still works part time at the Seattle Public Library) and we are both of an age when we qualify for Medicare. Since I wasn't physically able to serve in the military (polio when I was quite young), I don't have VA benefits.

So please don't try to tell me what you think I don't know.

What I see are millions of people who are cut out of the system for no reason other than that they are not profitable to the insurance companies. Other countries don't allow their citizens to do without in this manner. And many of them have better, far less expensive health care than we do.

City on the hill? I don't think so. The measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable members, and we just don't measure up.

By the way, I'm not a socialist, but I'm not frightened of the concept either. There are countries in this world that are frankly and openly socialistic, and they are just as free and democratic as we are, if no moreso.

(Way past my bedtime, but if you want to pursue what I raised in my last paragraph above, particularly my last sentence, I'll be happy to tomorrow)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 02:52 AM

If I didn't need the help, I would definitely have done the same.'

However, it is WRONG to say that business can't survive if they can't make a profit. As I have already said several times, the insurance companies in several countries are not allowed, by law, to make a profit, and they're doing just fine.

I happen to be a small business owner (with JtS). THAT (and pre-existing conditions) IS WHY WE CAN'T GET INSURANCE. If we could earn a decent salary, make all of our expenses, and have enough left over to reinvest in our infrastructure, we would be quite able to not only survive, but to actually thrive without making any profit.

If the insurance companies in Germany, Japan, Switzerland, and all of the other countries who aren't allowed to make a profit at all, by law, can not only survive, but thrive and do a far better job than the insurance companies in the US do, our insurance companies sure as hell can survive if all they have to do is compete with a public option.

And on the subject of Medicare, certainly the above poster has paid into the system. And that's exactly what people who benefit from the public option would do as well. The difference, is that the above poster has the benefit of being able to rely on the government to ensure that they can be adequately covered for a cost that is affordable. That's what those of us who want the public option want as well. It's pretty selfish for someone to say "I deserve this, but I couldn't give a rat's ass whether or not anyone else can have it also".

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 02:53 AM

In my last post, where it says, "above poster", it should say, second to last poster.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 07:42 AM

Yes, what Carol says and the fact that American business can't compete with businesses in places where health care is provided is the best argument for public health care.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 10:44 AM

Douggie apparently believes that Social Security and Medicare are one and the same thing.

yet another example of his genius.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 12:02 PM

"And those who believe that a private business can compete with the federal government, well, you are clearly nuts!"

Doug, tell this to America's private schools. And Fed-X. And UPS. And Blackwater (or is it now XE). They don't seem to understand that.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 12:52 PM

Here is a link to BUPA, which provides private health insurance alongside the British NHS. Its annual turnover in the year ended 31 December 2004 was £3.6 billion - none of it "profit" - any surplus to operating costs get put back into service development.

And it's not a question of "competing" with the NHS. The relationship between private medicine and the NHS is one of cooperation, as is only right.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 04:37 PM

Americans spend 50% more on health care than any other country in the world.

In a survey of citizens' general happiness and satisfaction with their lives, the top country was Denmark. The United States did not make the top ten. Stress from a long list of causes was the main reason that the U. S. didn't make the cut.

U. S. spends 15% of its GDP on health care, and in quality of health care, based on such things as longevity, infant mortality, and a whold batch of other statistics, the U. S. ranks 11th in the world, behind Finland (3), Sweden (2), and Iceland (1).   — Forbes

Hip replacement: in the U. S., approximately $45,000. In Poland, about $8,000. In India, about $7,000 (in clean, modern hospitals and done by doctors at least as well trained as American doctors). And in some foreign hospitals, such as in Thailand (prices comparable to India's), the price includes follow-up physical therapy. There are travel agencies that book "health care tours" for Americans to go to foreign countries to have procedures done for a fraction of what they would cost in the United States, even including the cost of air fare and other travel expenses. Thailand has better, far less expensive health care than the United States! Whodathunkit!??

If health insurance premiums continue to escalate at the rate they have for the past two decades, in ten years, the average family of four will spend half of its income on health insurance premiums.

If your house is on fire and you call the fire department, they come and put out the fire, and they do not charge you for it. It's generally paid for out of property taxes.

Likewise police protection. If you call 911 and tell them that someone is trying to break into your house, they will dispatch a squad car immediately. No charge.

The police department (local and state) also manages traffic control on the streets and highways. And construction of those streets, highways, and bridges in the first place was paid for out of taxes. And their maintenance is paid for the same way.

In many cities (Seattle is one), if you have a heart attack or other emergency health problem such as a stroke, or a fall, you can likewise call 911, and the fire department will dispatch a medical aid van staffed with a pair of emergency medical technicians, equipped with a van-load of equipment such as defibrillators, oxygen, et al. In Seattle, if you call 911 for such a medical emergency, a Medic One van will be at your door within three minutes.

[In February of 2000, when I fell in the bathroom and fractured my left femur, my wife called Medic One, and they were here within a couple of minutes. The EMTs confirmed that I had broken my leg, splinted it, and transported me to Swedish Hospital. No charge. The hospital charged something like $24,000 for repairs. Fortunately, my insurance (actually, my wife's insurance from her job, which also covers me) covered most of the cost of the surgery and a three week stay in the hospital.]

Education, from kindergarten through high school is free of charge to the individual student, paid for by taxes.

Have you made use of a public library? A monumental resource for entertainment and education, and the only time I have ever been charged is when I returned a book or a CD or a DVD late (10¢ a day).

All of these things are free of charge to the user, paid for by taxes. These are the things that some people who are apparently incapable of making connections would regard as "socialism" and object to strenuously, were it not for the fact that they use them themselves, don't pay attention to how they came about or are maintained, and simply take them for granted as perfectly normal.

But they howl like a banshee at putting something as absolutely essential as health care into the same catagory and paying for it with taxes, even though every wealthy, industrialized country in the world does it except the United States.

A woman with breast cancer, who has health insurance, is denied coverage on the basis of a "prior condition." What was the prior condition? She had had acne as a teenager. Her local hospital won't treat her unless she pays $20,000 up front. The American system has condemned her to death!

There are people who can't afford to go to a dentist, so they try to ignore dental problems until they become so painful that they have no choice. Usually this involves full-mouth extraction, with replacement by dentures—if they can afford the dentures. Totally preventable if treated in time, but they can't afford to.

The same with a whole encyclopedia of medical conditions which are relatively minor if treated early, but can become life-threatening if not treated. Not treated because they try to ignore what seems to be a minor pain because the rent has to be paid and the kids have to be fed.

I could catalog a list of such things as long as your leg, Doug, that are not from my imagination, or Michael Moore's imagination, but are very real and widespread in this supposedly "enlightened" country.

A combination of callous greed on the part of health insurance companies, total lack of integrity on the part of many of our elected officials, and sheer bull-headed ignorance on the part of all too many people who oppose an easily implemented humanitarian solution to the problem simply because they fear the word "socialism."

For shame!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 05:20 PM

The figures I'm seeing are that US consumers are paying twice as much (100% more) than consumers in other developed countries, for health care, and that the US government is paying 50% more than the governments in other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 05:52 PM

Probably right, Carol. The initial stat I quoted is from about ten years ago (I need to update), and things have been escalating at a staggering rate since.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 06:29 PM

Well, I suppose at this point, there really is nothing to do except wait to see what the health care geniuses in Congress comes up with. It appears that the public option is still very much alive, as are cuts to Medicare and the deficit will continue to climb.

So be it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 06:40 PM

Actually, the proposal being promoted in the House now saves money. There was a new report from the government agency that the anti-public option people were quoting so liberally a couple of months ago (can't remember the name right now), that shows that the public option actually reduces the deficit. So there really is no legitimate argument for not having a robust public option (except greed).

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 06:54 PM

Congressional Budget Office...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/cbo_a_strong_public_plan_saves.html

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 07:08 PM

Here's some interesting commentary on the subject of fiscal conservatism and health care reform...

http://trueslant.com/zaidjilani/2009/10/24/the-public-option-saves-money-2/

Here's a bit of cognitive dissonance that's been bothering me during the entirety of the health care debate. The most ardent opponents of the public option - a new public insurance plan that would be offered to those who cannot get insurance through the private market (although unfortunately it is not open to everyone) - have been politicians and pundits who proudly refer to themselves as fiscal conservatives.

You know these folks - the Mary Landrieus and Evan Bayhs of the world. They play their violins on behalf of our (admittedly sizable) national debt, and decry the inclusion of the public option in health care legislation by saying it will cost too much. And yet what we've seen from all the different studies on the subject - whether from outside groups or the widely-respected nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office - is that the only way to save real money is by including the public option in health care legislation. And what's more, the better the option - meaning, the more it's able to compete effectively with private insurance to be able to offer the same level of care for less - the more money we save.

Thus, if the fiscal conservatives among us really are genuine in their complaints about cost, it'd make sense to see them being the most ardent defenders of the public option. Heck, if they were really serious, they'd be demanding that we shelve all this talk about offering a tiny number of Americans a public option (what the result looks like it's unfortunately shaping up to be) and start talking about outright emulating foreign systems of health insurance, which generally revolve around one national health insurance plan covering most people with the option of getting more care for extra cost (kind of like our Medicare or the French system). That's by far the most fiscally conservative way to deliver health care to all.

Yet what we've seen - from the conservative "Blue Dog" coalition or Evan Bayh's Blue Dog-style coalition in the Senate - is a tendency to attack the public option, or at least weaken it as much as possible. That doesn't make any sense if these people are really just about saving money and cutting the national debt. I don't know if it's cognitive dissonance on their part, or they simply have other things in mind - like an ideological fixation against the role of the government for the purpose of social welfare, or the amount of cash they receive in campaign contributions from the different actors in the medical industry that oppose a public option. But either way, it really does not make any sense.

And for that matter, neither does the fact that these same folks also seem to be the quickest to line up to support costly overseas adventures and to fight back against any effort to rein in corporate welfare or waste, fraud, and abuse in the military sector.

If this continues to be the case, I say they back off their pose as fiscal conservatives, because that label just isn't true.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 11:00 PM

The entire process is so depressing. We should have had a list of problems, and a list of existing strengths to foster, discuss them openly and address them. Sounds so simple. Instead we have a cloud of confusion, a predominance of hidden agenda, competing interests compromising (or not), sound bytes and dishonesty all around and a final product of bullshit stew. More government, more regulations, more public expense, more private expense, more insurer profits without systemic insurer accountability (the only way you can get it you liars), a teeny bit more egalitarian and not so many people screwed. And less autonomy which is the key component giving the US the best health care in the world, despite the inequalities.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 11:01 PM

Carol: You appear to be a good researcher. Sometime when you have nothing to do, take a look at the track record of the Congressional Budget Office. Compare it's projections for new programs, regardless of administration, and see how close their projections for costs relate to actual figures incurred. You can save some time by merely researching Wall Street Journal editorials for the past two weeks or so. They presented a graph of projections versus actual cost for several programs including Medicare. As I recall, Medicare was projected to cost 10 Billion over ten years or so. It actually cost some ten times that amount.

I know you abhor the WSJ so pick another source and see what you come up with.

They even were wrong when they projected the cost of the prescription drug program for Seniors passed by the Bush administration. The program didn't cost anything near that projected by the CBO.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 11:07 PM

If the CBO is so unreliable, why were so many Republicans and others fighting against health care reform so eager to quote their figures when they said that the House bill would increase the deficit?

I don't have time to go look right now, but I won't be at all surprised if I go back and read this whole thread and see that the above poster is one of the people quoting the CBO when it suited the purposes of the anti-health care reform people to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 09 - 11:16 PM

I haven't read the whole thread, but I did do a search on "congressional budget office" (but not CBO). I have not found any example of that poster endorsing the CBO's earlier figures in this thread, and I don't have time to search more thoroughly in this thread or any of the others, but it might shock the poster who is now criticizing the CBO to know that FOX NEWS endorsed the CBO when its reports supported their position a couple of months ago.

So either their earlier report that the earlier version of the House bill was not reliable, or this one is. Can't have it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Oct 09 - 07:17 AM

It doesn't make sense that the House bill saves money now when it didn't before. There's no way to trust anybody inside the beltway.