"Patients are having to wait up to three months for urgent heart surgery at St George Hospital, which is another of the area health service's hospitals."
What does the doctor say? "Hang in there, Bob, only another month to go!"
DJ, how much of what you are hearing is reality and how much is marketing? I'm sure there are drawbacks to socialized medicine but remember that HMOs, insurance companies, and drug companies here in the US don't want to lose their pile of cash. They will do anything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen.
They are running the biggest racket since the Mob and they want us all to believe that our standard of care will go down if we have socialized medicine in this country. I think that is somewhat of a lie. But again, don't take my word for it. Ask some Canadians. I know several and they have a very different point of view then what you present here.
And, I want to be clear on something from the last thread down below, do you think that if Hillary is elected that she will force you to have government health care and send you to jail if you don't comply?
"do you think that if Hillary is elected that she will force you to have government health care and send you to jail if you don't comply?"
Sure, why not. That is what they are doing in Massachusetts. If you don't buy health insurance there, they fine you through your income tax returns. So much for freedom of choice.
I love these Lefties that are so gung- ho for nationalized health care. They think that their people will always be in charge.
What happens when the Right comes to power and decides that the government(now in control of health care) is not going to pay for abortions?
I want the government far, far away from my health care decisions. It is much too involved in them now for my taste.
Why would I take your word for anything? You really don't understand how little credibility you have around here, do you?
... do you think that if Hillary is elected that she will force you to have government health care and send you to jail if you don't comply?"
No, I don't.
What Hillary Clinton tried to do, in 1993 through 1994, is put into place a health care system that would preempt all private health care in this country. Under the statutes that she tried to enact, her proposed system would not have forced me to have gubmint health care and/or sent me to jail if I didn't comply. But it would have fined and/or imprisoned me if I obtained, or tried to obtain, health care by paying for it privately outside the gubmint system, as her statutes would have made that a felony.
To put it more simply, I wouldn't have to accept the health care the gubmint offered, but I couldn't get it anywhere else, and I could be fined and/or imprisoned if I tried to.
Now, do you see how your question illustrates your lack of understanding?
I don't believe that she would propose anything different, if elected, than she proposed before, when whe wasn't elected. I don't see any reason to.
"Hillary Clinton voted against providing seniors with a prescription drug benefit.
"Hillary Clinton voted against allowing people to save tax free for their out-of-pocket medical expenses.
"Hillary Clinton voted against medical liability reform so that docs are not forced out of practice by junk lawsuits.
"She opposes leveling the playing field so that people who pay for health insurance out of their own pocket get the same tax break the big corporations get for providing health care benefits to their employees.
"She’s against allowing people to shop for health insurance across state lines like we do with auto insurance so the consumers would have more choices and there’d be competition to get your business, give you more for less."
Neal Boortz has the same opinion of her that I do. He says:
"Many Americans need to rid themselves of the notion that people like Hillary actually give a flying fornication about their health status. What they care about is government power. Every step taken in congress must be a step that takes power away from the people and hands it to the Imperial Federal Government. The ultimate goal here is not to improve access to health care, but to make each and every American dependent on the federal government for their health care."
That is the only explanation of her actions that fits all the facts, and it is exactly what she tried to accomplish in 1993-1994.
Yosemite, so you'd rather have someone whose central goal is to rip you off make decisions for your health care? That is the main goal of the system we have now: profit through misery. Moore asks the question towards the end of the film: What kind of a country have we become?
Go see it for yourself and tell me what you think.
DJ, well, I don't have any credibility with you, that much is certain. The "Hillary in 1993-1994" story is told quite well in Sicko and, quite frankly, in a completely factual way. She was ground down to a nub by Congressional leaders who had been bought off by the health care industry. They torpedoed any chance of providing affordable health care for all of us by lying their butts off about what socialized medicine actually means. They used the same campaign that Reagan used in the 1960s when that record was circulated about the "evils" of socialized medicine. Why?
Because they wanted to keep making money. It's just that simple.
Look, DJ, I don't know what you have for health care. Whatever you have, YOU are dependant on companies whose goal is, in fact, not your well being but your pocketbook. You shout loud and hard about the government taking money from you but paying for a second vacation home for the CEO of your HMO is OK? Sheesh....
Thank you so much for making this point explicitly.
This is why socialized medicine sucks so bad. When you remove the profit motive, you remove any incentive to: invent, innovate, provide superior service, provide adequate service, etc., etc., etc.
The profit motive is responsible for the MRI and the CAT scanner. It's responsible for the development of new pharmaceuticals. It's responsible for the large classes in medical schools.
Hmm. So by your logic, Kevin, France's health care should be quickly spiraling down the toilet instead of...oh..I don't know...having the best system in the world.
By saying "remove the profit motive, you remove any incentive to.."
you do a great disservice to the thousands of men and women around the world who's only incentive is to make people healthier.
Check out this plan, the best one I have seen so far from any of the candidates and tell me what you (all of you) think:
I can't believe you linked John Edwards. If anyone is singularly responsible for the out of control, spiraling cost of health care, John Edwards is the man. Thank you, no, he needs to stay far, far away from anything to do with this nation's health care.
BTW, how much profit did Edwards make off the back of hard working health care professionals. I guess it's OK to grab a buck when you are ostensibly on the side of the Socialists.
Seriously dude, are you for real. You are beyond parody.
Mark, your cognitive dissonance is gonna put you in an early grave. Open your eyes and your mind and get that pus-riddled infection of conspiracy theories out of your head. You preach against the profit motive (without naming it as such) and you preach in favor of the benevolence of the almighty goddamned imperial federal gubmint and of those who aspire to it. As Kevin noted, you haven't got a clue.
Hillary Clingon failed to implement a socialist health care system primarily because she was not elected to do so. She was just a private citizen (regardless of where she lived at the time) who took it upon herself to cram it down the throats of a Congress that collectively took offense at her arrogance, at what they perceived as her usurpation of their role in gubmint, and whose members listened to their constituents. She failed to convince Congress to accept her proposed system, all consideration of her arrogance notwithstanding, because she failed to convince the populace to accept it. The peepull, bless their pointed heads, rejected her system because they didn't like it.
H. L. Menchen said of such: "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."
You are blind to that concept. You continually attribute evil to the motives of those who are motivated by profit, and you continually attribute goodness to the motives of those who are motivated by power. Can you not see how twisted that is?
"... you'd rather have someone whose central goal is to rip you off make decisions for your health care? That is the main goal of the system we have now: profit through misery."
The alternative to the free-market profit motive is the gubmint whip. Is that really what you would would prefer to be the motivating force in health care?
Compare North vs. South Korea. Compare East vs. West Germany. Tell me which is better.
I am all for the profit motive. I believe in the law of supply and demand. I do not believe in gubmint control of private lives, of gubmint control of the economy, either in whole or in part, and I emphatically do not believe in the judgment or the benevolence of Hillary Clingon.
The pharmaceuticals and the medical procedures available today, and the facilities in which they are used, all exist due to the astounding motivating force of the profit motive. They would not exist if the only force motivating their development were the gubmint whip. Where the economic motivating force is control by the gubmint whip, such as North Korea, Cuba, and the like, they use pharmaceuticals and medical procedures that were developed here, in the free world. Hillary Clingon would have us reject our system in favor of theirs, and you really can't understand why I, and others like me, think that is a piss-poor idea.
The capitalist system under which we live is not a conspiracy to keep us poor and sick, either in whole or in part, rather it is the greatest system to raise the standard of living that has ever existed, and that is precisely what it has done in this country.
Again, compare North vs. South Korea. Compare East vs. West Germany. Tell me which is better.
The clinic that I use for routine medical care did not exist two years ago. A group of doctors, physician assistants, and nurses planned a free-enterprise business, formed a corporation, built a building, hired people, and opened their doors. Now, they have charts on over 6,000 patients. I can walk in any time they are open, six days a week, without an appointment, and receive whatever care they offer. It's cheap, it's fast, and they care about me.
What an utterly marvelous thing that is.
Why does it generate such visceral blindness in you?
"Look, DJ, I don't know what you have for health care. Whatever you have, YOU are dependant on companies whose goal is, in fact, not your well being but your pocketbook."
I am retired, and I pay my own way in all things. I don't receive so much as a penny from the gubmint, but the gubmint receives one shitload of dollars from me, every year, in taxes. I pay for my own health insurance, which is voluntary, meaning no one forces me to either have it or not. I pay for what my insurance doesn't cover. I live a comfortable, middle class lifestyle, and my medical expenses consume about 35% of my budget. I am responsible for my health care, not you, not the taxpayers, and not the gubmint, and the goddamned imperial federal gubmint does not control what health care I can receive. That's the way I like it.
I would not be alive today, indeed I would have died about twenty years ago, if it weren't for modern medicine. I take four prescription drugs and two non-prescription drugs every day, three of them by injection, and thereby I am a poster boy for type 1 diabetes control and cholesterol reduction. As I related earlier, I had a near heart attack two years ago and had a textbook recovery after bypass surgery. Think of what a wonderful and utterly astounding thing it is that such surgery is routinely done literally thousands of times every day across the country immediately as and where it is needed, and that recovery from it is only a matter of a few weeks.
My continued existence is a testament to modern medicine and to the beneficial economic power of the profit motive. I am all for both, and I recognise that the former exists because of the latter. Why the hell don't you?
Yosemite, one of the things that really crack me up about the current state of politics is that once a line or a take is fed from the propaganda machine of either party, the believers believe. And never question.
Do you know how many times I have heard your take on John Edwards? Like...I don't know...a million? Yeah, I'm for real, dude. I understand that the "lawsuits by trial lawyers have driven health care costs up" line of shit is a lie. Yep, John Edwards-Trial Lawyer. So, anything he says is garbage. Mission accomplished, spin machine!
Did you even bother to read his proposal?
DJ, it doesn't have to be the either-or scenario that you think it will be. There are a myriad of proposals out there which take into account the complexities of our system. For example, we can't just switch to a public system immediately without putting millions of people in the HMO/insurance industry out of jobs. It has to be combination of a public and private system. Take a look at what Edwards is proposing. I don't see anything in there that would force you or anyone who didn't want to, to switch to government care.
Your local health care provider sounds like a good deal. I'm glad to see that it's cheap. In Minnesota, we have many of the same type of places. But not everywhere is this true. That's where public aid really could help.
As to your larger issue, I think the basic tenets of capitilism are sound. So are the basic tenets of socialism and communism. The problem is, and this particularly true in the cases of socialism and communism, leaders pervert the system for their own means. I have yet to see a "true" communal country and probably never will because men are greedy and violent.
The same thing holds true for capitalism, a system perverted. The basic ideas are good but have you ever heard the phrase, "You have to screw people in order to get ahead in this world?" Well, it's true. And your vision of how business works in this country (and the world) is very rose colored.
Think about his for second: we already have several socialist entities in place in this country and you know what? Our country has not come to an end. How about your local library? Books, shared knowledge of the world, internet access...all free and paid by your local county or city.
Yeah, Edwards is a misunderstood victim because of the spin machine. He took all of that cold cash out of the goodness of his heart. GMAFB.
What you don't get Markadelphia is that most of us here on Smallest Minority have a completely different base paradigm than yourself. What that means is that we will never agree. You can go on and on about the benefits of government control of almost everything and we will look at you as a whackjob because the very idea is pure anathema to us.
Your library example illustrates this perfectly. Libraries were initially private organizations that were setup by philanthropists. Only later was it decided that the Government should do this. I don't think many here would argue against a return to private libraries. I'm sure the very idea makes you shudder with horror.
BTW, why the big interest in just health care. It's horrible that I have to actually go to work to buy food. Without food, I will die. Thus Government should provide me with food. QED.
Face it. You will never convince us and we will fight to prevent the society you want to create.
Actually, if you want my vision of the future....hold on, I must prepare for geek comments to flow forth...it's Star Trek. Any or all of them.
The world of Star Trek eliminating poverty by essentially emliminating money. The central drive in the future is making yourself a better person without having to worry about having your basic needs provided for. Of course, technology helped immensely with this, eliminating the need for the less than glamorous jobs. Utlimately, the thirst for exploration of the galaxy outweighed the petty desire for land, money, and power. A Unified Earth and then a United Federation of Planets...think of it.
So what kind of society would I like to create? One that is free of ignorance and fear. One where everyone is given a fair shake at contributing something. One where people realize the power of the individual and how that can affect an entire community. Or a generation.
"As to your larger issue, I think the basic tenets of capitilism are sound. So are the basic tenets of socialism and communism."
You have hung your flag out for all to see. But you needn't have bothered. We knew it already.
"The same thing holds true for capitalism, a system perverted. The basic ideas are good but have you ever heard the phrase, "You have to screw people in order to get ahead in this world?" Well, it's true. And your vision of how business works in this country (and the world) is very rose colored."
I got ahead in this world, retiring at age 48 having worked as a salaried engineer for 26 years, without screwing anybody. It's called work, but you don't understand it.
"I understand that the "lawsuits by trial lawyers have driven health care costs up" line of shit is a lie."
And you accuse me of looking through rose colored glasses. Goddamn, but you are dense.
John Edwards made megabucks by convincing juries that babies were born with defects, particularly cerebral palsy, because they were born naturally as opposed to via a C-section, and that the doctors who chose to deliver them that way were to blame. As a result, malpractice insurance is much more expensive, fewer medical students opt for gynecology, and so having a baby costs a lot more.
Most significantly, it was just a scam, as a much higher percentage of babies are now delivered via C-section, all at much greater expense and risk, and all to no avail, as the percentage of babies born with the defects ole' Haircut Boy complained about hasn't changed at all. His career wasn't about health care, or medical risk, or malpractice by physicians, it was just a way for him to extract money he didn't earn and didn't deserve, and we all pay for it.
But you don't believe a bit of that, do you? You think he should tell us all how to make health care better.
It's cognitive dissonance, dude, bordering on schizophrenia.
"The central drive in the future is making yourself a better person without having to worry about having your basic needs provided for."
Which is an oxymoron. It is a clarion call for parasitism, which does not make a person better in any way.
How does "having your basic needs provided for" happen, dude? By magic? No, it's called work, but whose work? In your preferred world, it's someone else's work. That's what parasitism is all about.
As I noted above, you have hung your flag out for all to see, but we knew it already.
"So what kind of society would I like to create? One that is free of ignorance and fear. One where everyone is given a fair shake at contributing something. One where people realize the power of the individual and how that can affect an entire community. Or a generation."
That is precisely what the founding fathers of this country created over two centuries ago, dude. It's still here, but it's not surprising that you can't see it. Opportunity is available for all and free for the taking, but, as Thomas Edison noted, most people don't recognize opportunity when they see it because it is dressed in overalls and it looks like work. You can't see it because, to a parasite, opportunity is for someone else to take advantage of and provide you with the results thereof.
You don't belong here, Mark. You belong in England, or in France. They are steadily marching down the road you want. Go ahead; we won't miss you.
Well, of course John Edwards is bad, DJ, he's a Democrat, right? And all Democrats are out to get us, right? And you talk to me about derangement...sheesh. Has there ever been a single Democrat you thought was alright?
Cognitive Dissonance, a favorite term bandied about in regards to yours truly, could be used to describe yourself as you seem to have trouble when reality threatens your belief system.
How does having your basic needs provided for happen? Well, engineers, actually, who dream of technology that makes our life easier.
And you're right, this country is great and I do see the beauty it could become, if we eject the scumbags that exploit its good nature from the capsule. I think you and I, however, have a very different view on who the scumbags are, though.
Of course, when you talk about seeing the great wonder that is America I see a place where a Somali women in full cover can work at Target (as I saw today) and not get shot at....or can she?
"Well, of course John Edwards is bad, DJ, he's a Democrat, right?"
No, he is bad because he a lying, hypocrital, power hunger lawyer. He would be so no matter what party he belongs to.
Still having reading comprehension problems, are you?
"And all Democrats are out to get us, right?"
No, but some will likely harm us, without compunction or apparent remorse, as collateral damage in their quest for public office.
Still jerking your knees, are you?
"And you talk to me about derangement...sheesh. Has there ever been a single Democrat you thought was alright?"
Yes, there are many. I put Thomas Jefferson at the top of the list, and Harry Truman at the top of the list of this century. I don't like or dislike people because of labels they pin on themselves. Some of the finest people I know are friends who call themselves Democrats, but who bear no more resemblance to moonbats like Edward Kennedy than a dog does to a fish. I do, however, judge people (and I expect to be judged in return) for what they do and what they claim to think regardless of what labels they prefer.
In contrast thereof, I have a much worse opinion of John McCain than I do of Edward Kennedy. Again, it's because of what they do and what they think, not because of the labels they put on themselves.
Still jumping to conclusions, are you?
"How does having your basic needs provided for happen? Well, engineers, actually, who dream of technology that makes our life easier."
My basic needs are provided for because I worked for them, rather than expecting or demanding that someone else be taxed to the gills to provide them for me.
I am such an engineer, now retired, who not only dreamed of technology, but who made that technology a reality such that many tens of thousands of people now earn their own living by using it. I do not exaggerate, indeed I have 24 patents to prove it.
It is the compound growth effect of such work that makes the standard of living of this country what it is. It has been my observation that very few people outside of engineers understand the concept, and very few third world countries have ever begun it.
"And you're right, this country is great and I do see the beauty it could become, if we eject the scumbags that exploit its good nature from the capsule. I think you and I, however, have a very different view on who the scumbags are, though."
Unlike you, I see the beauty that it actually is and I am actively trying to prevent some of its citizens from damaging it in their quest for political power. At the top of that list are people who have a vested interest in forcing this country to lose a war that it fights in defense of its own future, but your quacking shows overwhelmingly that you'll never understand why.
"Of course, when you talk about seeing the great wonder that is America I see a place where a Somali women in full cover can work at Target (as I saw today) and not get shot at....or can she?"
An amazing thing, freedom. What you describe is one tiny piece of it in action. I also see it as a place, unlike England, where she can defend herself as a matter of right, with the full sanction of law, and with the support of a majority of the citizenry if she is shot at.
An amazing thing, freedom. What you describe is one tiny piece of it in action. I also see it as a place, unlike England, where she can defend herself as a matter of right, with the full sanction of law, and with the support of a majority of the citizenry if she is shot at.
Ooooh! THAT ought to leave a mark, but being Mark I'm sure it'll slide right off him.
DJ, I don't think I ever said anywhere that people should expect to have free handouts. Everyone should have goals and work for them, regardless of money incentive. If I had a food replicator and a roof over my head, I wouldn't mind working at my job for free. I love teaching. It's important to me because I need to feel like I contribute.
So, the things that you created as an engineer made people's lives easier to live. That's cool. I say we should turn that to basic needs and then we can really get the human race moving in the right direction. To be sure, there will be lazy asses who don't want to do anything. Oh well. I guess they will prove Darwin was correct and life will pass them by. It will be their loss.
And your last comment didn't leave a mark at all. If I am to fight for personal liberties protected (i.e. illegal wiretapping, Patriot Act, etc), I would be a hypocrite if I was for gun control. Besides, lately I have been meetng a new breed of animal...liberals with guns!!
"DJ, I don't think I ever said anywhere that people should expect to have free handouts."
Bullshit.
You have loudly sung the praises of a health care system that is paid for by taxes on those who work, and is, quite literally, a free handout to all those who don't work, and that is but the tip of the iceberg.
You don't understand what you write, much less what you read.
"So, the things that you created as an engineer made people's lives easier to live."
Still having reading comprehension problems, huh?
I didn't state, or imply, that I made things that make people's lives easier to live. I stated that I made things that people used to make a living with. They are called "tools".
Just chock full of platitudes, aren't you? I'm so impressed.
"And your last comment didn't leave a mark at all."
Nope, Kevin, it went clear on through, like a neutrino through a block of lead.
"I think you both should afraid"
I presume you meant that we should "be afraid". Of what, exactly? Liberals with guns? I know lot's of 'em.
DJ, since I know you won't see the film Sicko, let me enlighten you on what the film is really about. It's not about the "lazy people" who want nationalized health care. What a bunch of bullshit that is, btw. That is a MYTH created by the people who stand to lose the most from the system i.e. their not-so-worked-hard- for money
It is about the people who have health insurance, who worked hard their whole lives, and paid their premiums dilligently only to be told that heart surgery and re-attaching fingers is "elective" surgery. It is about the 9-11 rescue workers who are still suffering from lung ailments and were told by their health insurance companies that their problems were "voluntary."
Do you get it? Do you? You ask me this question all the time and now I am asking you. The corporations that run our country want to fleece us out of as much money as possible. Their goal is inequality and they have done a damn fine job of it. And they make certain, by paying off politicians of both parties in DC to freak people out (like yourself) that anything else is "evil" and will "take away money from your wallet." THEY are taking money away from your wallet.
Until you or someone you love experiences how much of a racket our current health care system is, I guess I might as well be talking to a brick wall.
Of course I "get it". I always did. I haven't seen Sicko, but I have read reviews of it.
"The corporations that run our country want to fleece us out of as much money as possible. [...] THEY are taking money away from your wallet."
Still jumping to conclusions, aren't you?
I am a high risk client and I am retired. Have you ever tried to buy health insurance under those conditions? I do, and it's expensive. But it has worked astoundingly well.
Now, let's see if I am being ripped off, shall we?
My health insurance is with CIGNA, purchased through IEEE (the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.). That organization is to the electrical engineering profession what the AMA is to the medical profession.
I received a letter from them dated October 31, 2006. Here are a few highlights of that letter:
"In 1997, following the enactment of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, our Plan became guarantee issue. Any U.S. member could become enrolled without underwriting, regardless of pre-existing conditions, after only two years of IEEE membership. By 2001, the economic impact of guarantee issue and the plan becoming the only option available to older members with significant health issues, had started to adversely affect the financial stability of the plan."
That's me, dude, an older member with significant health issues.
The letter continues:
"However, underlying claims expenses exceeded premium (sic) collected each year, the plan began to accumulate financial losses, and by the end of 2005, CIGNA demonstrated to the IEEE Individual Benefits and Services Committee (IB&SC) and the Insurance Committee that it had incurred an estimated deficit of approximately $6 million. In mid-2006, CIGNA told IEEE that the company could no longer tolerate the growing deficit, projected to reach $10 million by the end of this year."
The future of the plan is summarized as follows, in a cover letter from Affinity Group Services, who administers the plan on behalf of IEEE:
"In the past, CIGNA has assessed Plan claims experience annually to determine rates. The company, from this point forward, will be assessing the Plan financials on an monthly basis, and may re-rate the Plan if claims paid exceed premium collected. Also, CIGNA may re-rate the Plan whenever participation numbers change by plus or minus 15%.
"CIGNA will continue to insure all existing Plan participants, unless the number of insured falls below 50. At this time there are over 2,200 certificates, representing over 4,000 lives. Marsh will continue to service this Plan; IEEE will continue to sponsor the program, for those who are already insured."
(All added emphasis is mine.)
Now, exactly why should I believe CIGNA is out to "fleece" me?
C'mon, give me a straight answer, and can the bullshit when you do.
Consider when you do that IEEE pays Affinity Group Services to administer and audit the plan. Don't give me any bullshit about cooking the books; IEEE is an organization of very intelligent people and has a stellar reputation. I've been a member for 34 years.
Are there corrupt insurance companies? Of course there are. There are corrupt people and therefore corrupt companies in all manner of businesses. Does that mean private enterprise is wrong? Of course not. Are you really suggesting otherwise?
LabRat is right. You are a categorizer. Your mantra, poorly expressed as it is, appears to be: Some are bad, therefore all are bad, and the whole concept is bad.
"Their goal is inequality and they have done a damn fine job of it."
So, the people who run corporations lay awake at night, pondering their dream of increasing inequality amongst us.
What I don't get is: if the insurance companies and private enterprise are so corrupt, why do the true believers in this clap trap believe that the government will be any better? I used to live in Massachusetts and the politicians there make any corporate corruption pale into insignificance.
They elected a governor who was knee deep in the sub prime mess as a board member of Ameriquest. Even after becoming governor, he made a phone call on behalf of Ameriquest. But he spouts all of the Liberal talking points so the Lefties there love him.
The government run health care scheme would appoint people like Massachusetts' governor Deval Patrick to run health care.
So instead of having some freedom of choice between semi-corrupt health care schemes, we would be forced to use the one, totally corrupt government plan, which would have an absolute monopoly.
Yosemite, there would not be an absolute monopoly, It's impossible to do that given the fact that HMOs, hospitals and insurance companies have thousands of people on their payrolls and to dump all of them would be worse than the situation we have now. Take some time and do some research on what Canada has now...France...the UK...these systems are not perfect by any means but, according to WHO, they spend less money and give better care than the US.
Go to Edwards link above and read it. It is very detailed and addresses many of you concerns.
DJ, in 2004, Cigna settled out of court for 85 million with a group of about 600,000 doctors. They, along with several other health care companies, wrongfully underpaid them in various ways, including the use of computer programs that routinely denied parts of their fees. Based on your post and since that time, they have probably improved their business practices.
I don't think I am being a sick fool when I say that American business leaders, as a general rule, want to make more money. Many of them really don't care if they screw people over when they do it. It happens every day.
Do you think Bill McGuire, CEO of United Health Care, "worked really hard" for this 1.1 billion dollar stock option buy out? Read some more about his shennigans and you will understand why I question your rose colored view on the health care industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._McGuire
Check out whose campaigns he has contributed to....oh, what a shock
You didn't answer my question. What makes you think that the government being the prime "Single Payer" would be any better than the corporations you decry?
No matter the faults of our current system, I'll take the "do any thing for a buck" corporate model before I'll put my health in the hands of smarmy politicians who will screw anybody to grab a vote.
".these systems are not perfect by any means but, according to WHO, they spend less money and give better care than the US."
That's pure crap. I have personal experience with both the U.S. and U.K. systems. U.S. health care is top notch. I've gotten excellent care here. The U.K. system sucks with long waiting lists, if you are on the government system. The rich buy their own care there.
I didn't answer the question because the solutions that are out there don't have the government as a single payer. What they have is the government as one option and private insurance as another. So, do I think that the government as the only option is the way to go? No, and I don't think it would be better.
It would be better as an option for people who, for example, work 15-20 hours a day at three jobs just to make end meat and can't afford the spiraling costs of health care. They are the ones that would benefit from government health care.
People need to have more options to them, not less. That is why we have the problems we do in this country.
"I don't think I am being a sick fool when I say that American business leaders, as a general rule, want to make more money."
No, saying that is not what makes you a fool. Running a business such that it makes money is the whole job for the Head Guy What's In Charge.
"Their goal is inequality and they have done a damn fine job of it."
To the extent they work toward such a "goal", they make it more difficult for people to buy the products and services they are trying to sell. Thus, working toward such a "goal" is precisely the opposite of their goal in running a business.
Now do you see it? You are a sick, twisted fool because you believe these two things simultaneously. You are a case study in cognitive dissonance, in Orwellian doublethink.
And, you didn't answer my question either. Go back, read it again, and give it a try.
C'mon, Kevin. Ease up. You'll hurt yourself. It's not that funny.
While what you posit is better than the single payer system that has been advocated in the past, I still believe that the government running more of health care would be a mistake.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that the system needs reform. Just not in that manner.
If the question was is Cigna out to fleece me, probably not. But they are in business to make money, not pay out money, which, if you read the link that I posted above you would see that it is true.
Their business should be about making people healthier in the cheapest possible way.
"If the question was is Cigna out to fleece me, ..."
Oh, come on. That was explicitly the question! Why can't you just get on with it?
"... probably not."
Bravo! Spot on, dude!
Now see what a little analysis, using real data and without jumping to conclusions, can do?
"But they are in business to make money, not pay out money, ..."
Well, almost. Insurance is a business, just like any other business. Of course insurance is in business to make money, as is any other "for profit" business. But "paying out money" is a part of any business, and paying the claims of its clients is part and parcel of the medical insurance business. Insurance companies understand that, even if you don't.
"... which, if you read the link that I posted above you would see that it is true."
Sigh. Do you really think you have to prove to me, or to anyone else, that insurance companies are out to make money? Damn, but reality gives you a hard time, doesn't it?
"Their business should be about making people healthier in the cheapest possible way."
Aw, shit. You had it going and you blew it.
The insurance business is about spreading the cost, and the risks of future costs, that their clients incur, over the whole of their client pool. It is a very risky business, as it involves a pure gamble, a guess as to what a statistically predictable but randomly variable future will bring. Sometimes they make money hand over fist, and sometimes they lose their shirts. No matter whether it is private insurance, group insurance, employer insurance, gubmint-backed insurance, or the gubmint itself, it is still nothing more than a cost- and risk-spreading mechanism.
Making people healthier is what the medical profession is about
My medical needs are decided by me and my doctors, it costs what it costs, and the cost is spread among me and the others in my insurance group. I haven't thought up any scheme that provides the proper care and minimizes my risk of future costs any better.
That is why, in a nutshell, I rail against any gubmint-backed scheme, such as is found in Canada. Such a scheme results in doctors being responsible to the gubmint, not to the patient, and thereby it puts accountants, and not doctors, in charge of medical care. Look back through all the horrible incidents cited as examples in this long discussion and elsewhere and you'll find that such is an accurate description of why they happened.
No, leave medicine to the medical profession, and leave bill-paying to the insurance profession. I'm quite satisfied with that.
Bottom line is that when our health care system changes in this country, I highly doubt your situation will change. No extra money will coming out of your pocket and you will still go to the same doctor and have the same insurance.
"No extra money will coming out of your pocket (for your own medical care) and you will still go to the same doctor and have the same insurance, (but your taxes will be going up astronomically to cover the health care costs - and government overhead - of the "less fortunate" and the "losers of life's lottery." You wealthy, selfish bastard!)
"No extra money will coming out of your pocket ..."
Mark, you reveal yourself unequivocally as a blithering idiot by this statement. Look the words up:
blither intr. v. to talk foolishly
idiot n. a foolish or stupid person; a person lacking intelligence or common sense
Yup, that's you. The ink's dry, and the evidence is undeniable and unmistakable.
Do you believe the gubmint could, or would, undertake to provide health care to tens of millions of people (at minimum) without increasing taxes, my taxes, to pay for it? And wouldn't that take more money out of my pocket than it takes now? And would that mean "extra money" would be coming out of my pocket?
"No, but the tax money that normally went to kill people will instead go to help people who are less fortunate."
Ah! Just shut down the military and spend that money on the (what was it Kim says) the "pore and starvin"?
That's what Europe tried, but they always had the U.S. to provide them security.
Europe's having problems funding their experiments in socialism now, even without funding their militaries. Canada has gutted its military, and still can't make its budgetary ends meet.
Canada has almost no military (he's on leave, this month, isn't he?). Canada's net tax rate is much higher than ours, and Canada spends nearly half its revenue on health care. Despite the huge expense per person, there are shortages such that Canadians come here for treatment. Canada shows that cutting military expenses and increasing net taxes still wouldn't be enough.
Mark, you're wishing for cloud cuckoo land. Try wishing in one hand and shitting in the other, and see which one fills up first.
I didn't say we should shut down the military. What we need to do is stop the price gauging that is currently going on in the defense industry. You want to talk about wasting your tax dollars? All the money we spend and we still can't properly equip our troops? Our defense spending and our armed forces need to be more streamlined and efficient.
But you're right, DJ. Your taxes are going to go up but not because of any future universal health care model. They have to go up because someone spent all the money in the world cutting Paris Hilton's taxes and not killing Osama bin Laden.
No. I think the main goal is get everyone basic health care if they need it. Then we need to fix the system we already have which rips many people off who pay their premiums and work hard everyday.
"I didn't say we should shut down the military. What we need to do is stop the price gauging that is currently going on in the defense industry."
So, your argument is that a gubmint which cannot be efficient at one task will suddenly become super-duper efficient at another.
"Your taxes are going to go up but not because of any future universal health care model."
Bullshit.
"They have to go up because someone spent all the money in the world cutting Paris Hilton's taxes and not killing Osama bin Laden."
Why do you persist in convincing us that you have no grasp at all of reality? You succeded long ago.
And you still can't express yourself other than in hyperbole, can you?
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/08/wonders-of-nationalized-health-care.html (41 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Outstanding stuff that commiemed.
I saw that, Kevin, but I thought adding it to the comments would just be "piling on". But, since you brought it up, go see
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/private-hospital-eyes-public-bed-space/2007/08/16/1186857683370.html
I found this part to be a jaw-dropper:
"Patients are having to wait up to three months for urgent heart surgery at St George Hospital, which is another of the area health service's hospitals."
What does the doctor say? "Hang in there, Bob, only another month to go!"
DJ, how much of what you are hearing is reality and how much is marketing? I'm sure there are drawbacks to socialized medicine but remember that HMOs, insurance companies, and drug companies here in the US don't want to lose their pile of cash. They will do anything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen.
They are running the biggest racket since the Mob and they want us all to believe that our standard of care will go down if we have socialized medicine in this country. I think that is somewhat of a lie. But again, don't take my word for it. Ask some Canadians. I know several and they have a very different point of view then what you present here.
And, I want to be clear on something from the last thread down below, do you think that if Hillary is elected that she will force you to have government health care and send you to jail if you don't comply?
"do you think that if Hillary is elected that she will force you to have government health care and send you to jail if you don't comply?"
Sure, why not. That is what they are doing in Massachusetts. If you don't buy health insurance there, they fine you through your income tax returns. So much for freedom of choice.
I love these Lefties that are so gung- ho for nationalized health care. They think that their people will always be in charge.
What happens when the Right comes to power and decides that the government(now in control of health care) is not going to pay for abortions?
I want the government far, far away from my health care decisions. It is much too involved in them now for my taste.
"... don't take my word for it."
Why would I take your word for anything? You really don't understand how little credibility you have around here, do you?
... do you think that if Hillary is elected that she will force you to have government health care and send you to jail if you don't comply?"
No, I don't.
What Hillary Clinton tried to do, in 1993 through 1994, is put into place a health care system that would preempt all private health care in this country. Under the statutes that she tried to enact, her proposed system would not have forced me to have gubmint health care and/or sent me to jail if I didn't comply. But it would have fined and/or imprisoned me if I obtained, or tried to obtain, health care by paying for it privately outside the gubmint system, as her statutes would have made that a felony.
To put it more simply, I wouldn't have to accept the health care the gubmint offered, but I couldn't get it anywhere else, and I could be fined and/or imprisoned if I tried to.
Now, do you see how your question illustrates your lack of understanding?
I don't believe that she would propose anything different, if elected, than she proposed before, when whe wasn't elected. I don't see any reason to.
Now this is fascinating. Karl Rove is laying into Hillary Clingon (yes, I spelled it that way on purpose) on the subject of health care. Go see
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/8/19/191716.shtml?s=ic
He says:
"Hillary Clinton voted against providing seniors with a prescription drug benefit.
"Hillary Clinton voted against allowing people to save tax free for their out-of-pocket medical expenses.
"Hillary Clinton voted against medical liability reform so that docs are not forced out of practice by junk lawsuits.
"She opposes leveling the playing field so that people who pay for health insurance out of their own pocket get the same tax break the big corporations get for providing health care benefits to their employees.
"She’s against allowing people to shop for health insurance across state lines like we do with auto insurance so the consumers would have more choices and there’d be competition to get your business, give you more for less."
Neal Boortz has the same opinion of her that I do. He says:
"Many Americans need to rid themselves of the notion that people like Hillary actually give a flying fornication about their health status. What they care about is government power. Every step taken in congress must be a step that takes power away from the people and hands it to the Imperial Federal Government. The ultimate goal here is not to improve access to health care, but to make each and every American dependent on the federal government for their health care."
That is the only explanation of her actions that fits all the facts, and it is exactly what she tried to accomplish in 1993-1994.
Yosemite, so you'd rather have someone whose central goal is to rip you off make decisions for your health care? That is the main goal of the system we have now: profit through misery. Moore asks the question towards the end of the film: What kind of a country have we become?
Go see it for yourself and tell me what you think.
DJ, well, I don't have any credibility with you, that much is certain. The "Hillary in 1993-1994" story is told quite well in Sicko and, quite frankly, in a completely factual way. She was ground down to a nub by Congressional leaders who had been bought off by the health care industry. They torpedoed any chance of providing affordable health care for all of us by lying their butts off about what socialized medicine actually means. They used the same campaign that Reagan used in the 1960s when that record was circulated about the "evils" of socialized medicine. Why?
Because they wanted to keep making money. It's just that simple.
Look, DJ, I don't know what you have for health care. Whatever you have, YOU are dependant on companies whose goal is, in fact, not your well being but your pocketbook. You shout loud and hard about the government taking money from you but paying for a second vacation home for the CEO of your HMO is OK? Sheesh....
"Because they wanted to keep making money."
And socialized medicine means "Not making money."
Thank you so much for making this point explicitly.
This is why socialized medicine sucks so bad. When you remove the profit motive, you remove any incentive to: invent, innovate, provide superior service, provide adequate service, etc., etc., etc.
The profit motive is responsible for the MRI and the CAT scanner. It's responsible for the development of new pharmaceuticals. It's responsible for the large classes in medical schools.
So let's destroy it!
Hmm. So by your logic, Kevin, France's health care should be quickly spiraling down the toilet instead of...oh..I don't know...having the best system in the world.
By saying "remove the profit motive, you remove any incentive to.."
you do a great disservice to the thousands of men and women around the world who's only incentive is to make people healthier.
Check out this plan, the best one I have seen so far from any of the candidates and tell me what you (all of you) think:
http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/health-care-fact-sheet/
Oh, God forbid people are making a Gasp PROFIT.
I can't believe you linked John Edwards. If anyone is singularly responsible for the out of control, spiraling cost of health care, John Edwards is the man. Thank you, no, he needs to stay far, far away from anything to do with this nation's health care.
BTW, how much profit did Edwards make off the back of hard working health care professionals. I guess it's OK to grab a buck when you are ostensibly on the side of the Socialists.
Seriously dude, are you for real. You are beyond parody.
Bravo, Kevin!
... Why?
Mark, your cognitive dissonance is gonna put you in an early grave. Open your eyes and your mind and get that pus-riddled infection of conspiracy theories out of your head. You preach against the profit motive (without naming it as such) and you preach in favor of the benevolence of the almighty goddamned imperial federal gubmint and of those who aspire to it. As Kevin noted, you haven't got a clue.
Hillary Clingon failed to implement a socialist health care system primarily because she was not elected to do so. She was just a private citizen (regardless of where she lived at the time) who took it upon herself to cram it down the throats of a Congress that collectively took offense at her arrogance, at what they perceived as her usurpation of their role in gubmint, and whose members listened to their constituents. She failed to convince Congress to accept her proposed system, all consideration of her arrogance notwithstanding, because she failed to convince the populace to accept it. The peepull, bless their pointed heads, rejected her system because they didn't like it.
H. L. Menchen said of such: "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."
You are blind to that concept. You continually attribute evil to the motives of those who are motivated by profit, and you continually attribute goodness to the motives of those who are motivated by power. Can you not see how twisted that is?
"... you'd rather have someone whose central goal is to rip you off make decisions for your health care? That is the main goal of the system we have now: profit through misery."
The alternative to the free-market profit motive is the gubmint whip. Is that really what you would would prefer to be the motivating force in health care?
Compare North vs. South Korea. Compare East vs. West Germany. Tell me which is better.
I am all for the profit motive. I believe in the law of supply and demand. I do not believe in gubmint control of private lives, of gubmint control of the economy, either in whole or in part, and I emphatically do not believe in the judgment or the benevolence of Hillary Clingon.
The pharmaceuticals and the medical procedures available today, and the facilities in which they are used, all exist due to the astounding motivating force of the profit motive. They would not exist if the only force motivating their development were the gubmint whip. Where the economic motivating force is control by the gubmint whip, such as North Korea, Cuba, and the like, they use pharmaceuticals and medical procedures that were developed here, in the free world. Hillary Clingon would have us reject our system in favor of theirs, and you really can't understand why I, and others like me, think that is a piss-poor idea.
The capitalist system under which we live is not a conspiracy to keep us poor and sick, either in whole or in part, rather it is the greatest system to raise the standard of living that has ever existed, and that is precisely what it has done in this country.
Again, compare North vs. South Korea. Compare East vs. West Germany. Tell me which is better.
The clinic that I use for routine medical care did not exist two years ago. A group of doctors, physician assistants, and nurses planned a free-enterprise business, formed a corporation, built a building, hired people, and opened their doors. Now, they have charts on over 6,000 patients. I can walk in any time they are open, six days a week, without an appointment, and receive whatever care they offer. It's cheap, it's fast, and they care about me.
What an utterly marvelous thing that is.
Why does it generate such visceral blindness in you?
"Look, DJ, I don't know what you have for health care. Whatever you have, YOU are dependant on companies whose goal is, in fact, not your well being but your pocketbook."
I am retired, and I pay my own way in all things. I don't receive so much as a penny from the gubmint, but the gubmint receives one shitload of dollars from me, every year, in taxes. I pay for my own health insurance, which is voluntary, meaning no one forces me to either have it or not. I pay for what my insurance doesn't cover. I live a comfortable, middle class lifestyle, and my medical expenses consume about 35% of my budget. I am responsible for my health care, not you, not the taxpayers, and not the gubmint, and the goddamned imperial federal gubmint does not control what health care I can receive. That's the way I like it.
I would not be alive today, indeed I would have died about twenty years ago, if it weren't for modern medicine. I take four prescription drugs and two non-prescription drugs every day, three of them by injection, and thereby I am a poster boy for type 1 diabetes control and cholesterol reduction. As I related earlier, I had a near heart attack two years ago and had a textbook recovery after bypass surgery. Think of what a wonderful and utterly astounding thing it is that such surgery is routinely done literally thousands of times every day across the country immediately as and where it is needed, and that recovery from it is only a matter of a few weeks.
My continued existence is a testament to modern medicine and to the beneficial economic power of the profit motive. I am all for both, and I recognise that the former exists because of the latter. Why the hell don't you?
Yosemite, one of the things that really crack me up about the current state of politics is that once a line or a take is fed from the propaganda machine of either party, the believers believe. And never question.
Do you know how many times I have heard your take on John Edwards? Like...I don't know...a million? Yeah, I'm for real, dude. I understand that the "lawsuits by trial lawyers have driven health care costs up" line of shit is a lie. Yep, John Edwards-Trial Lawyer. So, anything he says is garbage. Mission accomplished, spin machine!
Did you even bother to read his proposal?
DJ, it doesn't have to be the either-or scenario that you think it will be. There are a myriad of proposals out there which take into account the complexities of our system. For example, we can't just switch to a public system immediately without putting millions of people in the HMO/insurance industry out of jobs. It has to be combination of a public and private system. Take a look at what Edwards is proposing. I don't see anything in there that would force you or anyone who didn't want to, to switch to government care.
Your local health care provider sounds like a good deal. I'm glad to see that it's cheap. In Minnesota, we have many of the same type of places. But not everywhere is this true. That's where public aid really could help.
As to your larger issue, I think the basic tenets of capitilism are sound. So are the basic tenets of socialism and communism. The problem is, and this particularly true in the cases of socialism and communism, leaders pervert the system for their own means. I have yet to see a "true" communal country and probably never will because men are greedy and violent.
The same thing holds true for capitalism, a system perverted. The basic ideas are good but have you ever heard the phrase, "You have to screw people in order to get ahead in this world?" Well, it's true. And your vision of how business works in this country (and the world) is very rose colored.
Think about his for second: we already have several socialist entities in place in this country and you know what? Our country has not come to an end. How about your local library? Books, shared knowledge of the world, internet access...all free and paid by your local county or city.
Are libraries destroying Barnes and Noble?
Yeah, Edwards is a misunderstood victim because of the spin machine. He took all of that cold cash out of the goodness of his heart. GMAFB.
What you don't get Markadelphia is that most of us here on Smallest Minority have a completely different base paradigm than yourself. What that means is that we will never agree. You can go on and on about the benefits of government control of almost everything and we will look at you as a whackjob because the very idea is pure anathema to us.
Your library example illustrates this perfectly. Libraries were initially private organizations that were setup by philanthropists. Only later was it decided that the Government should do this. I don't think many here would argue against a return to private libraries. I'm sure the very idea makes you shudder with horror.
BTW, why the big interest in just health care. It's horrible that I have to actually go to work to buy food. Without food, I will die. Thus Government should provide me with food. QED.
Face it. You will never convince us and we will fight to prevent the society you want to create.
Actually, if you want my vision of the future....hold on, I must prepare for geek comments to flow forth...it's Star Trek. Any or all of them.
The world of Star Trek eliminating poverty by essentially emliminating money. The central drive in the future is making yourself a better person without having to worry about having your basic needs provided for. Of course, technology helped immensely with this, eliminating the need for the less than glamorous jobs. Utlimately, the thirst for exploration of the galaxy outweighed the petty desire for land, money, and power. A Unified Earth and then a United Federation of Planets...think of it.
So what kind of society would I like to create? One that is free of ignorance and fear. One where everyone is given a fair shake at contributing something. One where people realize the power of the individual and how that can affect an entire community. Or a generation.
"As to your larger issue, I think the basic tenets of capitilism are sound. So are the basic tenets of socialism and communism."
You have hung your flag out for all to see. But you needn't have bothered. We knew it already.
"The same thing holds true for capitalism, a system perverted. The basic ideas are good but have you ever heard the phrase, "You have to screw people in order to get ahead in this world?" Well, it's true. And your vision of how business works in this country (and the world) is very rose colored."
I got ahead in this world, retiring at age 48 having worked as a salaried engineer for 26 years, without screwing anybody. It's called work, but you don't understand it.
"I understand that the "lawsuits by trial lawyers have driven health care costs up" line of shit is a lie."
And you accuse me of looking through rose colored glasses. Goddamn, but you are dense.
John Edwards made megabucks by convincing juries that babies were born with defects, particularly cerebral palsy, because they were born naturally as opposed to via a C-section, and that the doctors who chose to deliver them that way were to blame. As a result, malpractice insurance is much more expensive, fewer medical students opt for gynecology, and so having a baby costs a lot more.
Most significantly, it was just a scam, as a much higher percentage of babies are now delivered via C-section, all at much greater expense and risk, and all to no avail, as the percentage of babies born with the defects ole' Haircut Boy complained about hasn't changed at all. His career wasn't about health care, or medical risk, or malpractice by physicians, it was just a way for him to extract money he didn't earn and didn't deserve, and we all pay for it.
But you don't believe a bit of that, do you? You think he should tell us all how to make health care better.
It's cognitive dissonance, dude, bordering on schizophrenia.
"The central drive in the future is making yourself a better person without having to worry about having your basic needs provided for."
Which is an oxymoron. It is a clarion call for parasitism, which does not make a person better in any way.
How does "having your basic needs provided for" happen, dude? By magic? No, it's called work, but whose work? In your preferred world, it's someone else's work. That's what parasitism is all about.
As I noted above, you have hung your flag out for all to see, but we knew it already.
"So what kind of society would I like to create? One that is free of ignorance and fear. One where everyone is given a fair shake at contributing something. One where people realize the power of the individual and how that can affect an entire community. Or a generation."
That is precisely what the founding fathers of this country created over two centuries ago, dude. It's still here, but it's not surprising that you can't see it. Opportunity is available for all and free for the taking, but, as Thomas Edison noted, most people don't recognize opportunity when they see it because it is dressed in overalls and it looks like work. You can't see it because, to a parasite, opportunity is for someone else to take advantage of and provide you with the results thereof.
You don't belong here, Mark. You belong in England, or in France. They are steadily marching down the road you want. Go ahead; we won't miss you.
Well, of course John Edwards is bad, DJ, he's a Democrat, right? And all Democrats are out to get us, right? And you talk to me about derangement...sheesh. Has there ever been a single Democrat you thought was alright?
Cognitive Dissonance, a favorite term bandied about in regards to yours truly, could be used to describe yourself as you seem to have trouble when reality threatens your belief system.
How does having your basic needs provided for happen? Well, engineers, actually, who dream of technology that makes our life easier.
And you're right, this country is great and I do see the beauty it could become, if we eject the scumbags that exploit its good nature from the capsule. I think you and I, however, have a very different view on who the scumbags are, though.
Of course, when you talk about seeing the great wonder that is America I see a place where a Somali women in full cover can work at Target (as I saw today) and not get shot at....or can she?
"Well, of course John Edwards is bad, DJ, he's a Democrat, right?"
No, he is bad because he a lying, hypocrital, power hunger lawyer. He would be so no matter what party he belongs to.
Still having reading comprehension problems, are you?
"And all Democrats are out to get us, right?"
No, but some will likely harm us, without compunction or apparent remorse, as collateral damage in their quest for public office.
Still jerking your knees, are you?
"And you talk to me about derangement...sheesh. Has there ever been a single Democrat you thought was alright?"
Yes, there are many. I put Thomas Jefferson at the top of the list, and Harry Truman at the top of the list of this century. I don't like or dislike people because of labels they pin on themselves. Some of the finest people I know are friends who call themselves Democrats, but who bear no more resemblance to moonbats like Edward Kennedy than a dog does to a fish. I do, however, judge people (and I expect to be judged in return) for what they do and what they claim to think regardless of what labels they prefer.
In contrast thereof, I have a much worse opinion of John McCain than I do of Edward Kennedy. Again, it's because of what they do and what they think, not because of the labels they put on themselves.
Still jumping to conclusions, are you?
"How does having your basic needs provided for happen? Well, engineers, actually, who dream of technology that makes our life easier."
My basic needs are provided for because I worked for them, rather than expecting or demanding that someone else be taxed to the gills to provide them for me.
I am such an engineer, now retired, who not only dreamed of technology, but who made that technology a reality such that many tens of thousands of people now earn their own living by using it. I do not exaggerate, indeed I have 24 patents to prove it.
It is the compound growth effect of such work that makes the standard of living of this country what it is. It has been my observation that very few people outside of engineers understand the concept, and very few third world countries have ever begun it.
"And you're right, this country is great and I do see the beauty it could become, if we eject the scumbags that exploit its good nature from the capsule. I think you and I, however, have a very different view on who the scumbags are, though."
Unlike you, I see the beauty that it actually is and I am actively trying to prevent some of its citizens from damaging it in their quest for political power. At the top of that list are people who have a vested interest in forcing this country to lose a war that it fights in defense of its own future, but your quacking shows overwhelmingly that you'll never understand why.
"Of course, when you talk about seeing the great wonder that is America I see a place where a Somali women in full cover can work at Target (as I saw today) and not get shot at....or can she?"
An amazing thing, freedom. What you describe is one tiny piece of it in action. I also see it as a place, unlike England, where she can defend herself as a matter of right, with the full sanction of law, and with the support of a majority of the citizenry if she is shot at.
An amazing thing, freedom. What you describe is one tiny piece of it in action. I also see it as a place, unlike England, where she can defend herself as a matter of right, with the full sanction of law, and with the support of a majority of the citizenry if she is shot at.
Ooooh! THAT ought to leave a mark, but being Mark I'm sure it'll slide right off him.
DJ, I don't think I ever said anywhere that people should expect to have free handouts. Everyone should have goals and work for them, regardless of money incentive. If I had a food replicator and a roof over my head, I wouldn't mind working at my job for free. I love teaching. It's important to me because I need to feel like I contribute.
So, the things that you created as an engineer made people's lives easier to live. That's cool. I say we should turn that to basic needs and then we can really get the human race moving in the right direction. To be sure, there will be lazy asses who don't want to do anything. Oh well. I guess they will prove Darwin was correct and life will pass them by. It will be their loss.
And your last comment didn't leave a mark at all. If I am to fight for personal liberties protected (i.e. illegal wiretapping, Patriot Act, etc), I would be a hypocrite if I was for gun control. Besides, lately I have been meetng a new breed of animal...liberals with guns!!
I think you both should afraid :)
"DJ, I don't think I ever said anywhere that people should expect to have free handouts."
Bullshit.
You have loudly sung the praises of a health care system that is paid for by taxes on those who work, and is, quite literally, a free handout to all those who don't work, and that is but the tip of the iceberg.
You don't understand what you write, much less what you read.
"So, the things that you created as an engineer made people's lives easier to live."
Still having reading comprehension problems, huh?
I didn't state, or imply, that I made things that make people's lives easier to live. I stated that I made things that people used to make a living with. They are called "tools".
Just chock full of platitudes, aren't you? I'm so impressed.
"And your last comment didn't leave a mark at all."
Nope, Kevin, it went clear on through, like a neutrino through a block of lead.
"I think you both should afraid"
I presume you meant that we should "be afraid". Of what, exactly? Liberals with guns? I know lot's of 'em.
DJ, since I know you won't see the film Sicko, let me enlighten you on what the film is really about. It's not about the "lazy people" who want nationalized health care. What a bunch of bullshit that is, btw. That is a MYTH created by the people who stand to lose the most from the system i.e. their not-so-worked-hard- for money
It is about the people who have health insurance, who worked hard their whole lives, and paid their premiums dilligently only to be told that heart surgery and re-attaching fingers is "elective" surgery. It is about the 9-11 rescue workers who are still suffering from lung ailments and were told by their health insurance companies that their problems were "voluntary."
Do you get it? Do you? You ask me this question all the time and now I am asking you. The corporations that run our country want to fleece us out of as much money as possible. Their goal is inequality and they have done a damn fine job of it. And they make certain, by paying off politicians of both parties in DC to freak people out (like yourself) that anything else is "evil" and will "take away money from your wallet." THEY are taking money away from your wallet.
Until you or someone you love experiences how much of a racket our current health care system is, I guess I might as well be talking to a brick wall.
"Do you get it?"
Of course I "get it". I always did. I haven't seen Sicko, but I have read reviews of it.
"The corporations that run our country want to fleece us out of as much money as possible. [...] THEY are taking money away from your wallet."
Still jumping to conclusions, aren't you?
I am a high risk client and I am retired. Have you ever tried to buy health insurance under those conditions? I do, and it's expensive. But it has worked astoundingly well.
Now, let's see if I am being ripped off, shall we?
My health insurance is with CIGNA, purchased through IEEE (the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.). That organization is to the electrical engineering profession what the AMA is to the medical profession.
I received a letter from them dated October 31, 2006. Here are a few highlights of that letter:
"In 1997, following the enactment of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, our Plan became guarantee issue. Any U.S. member could become enrolled without underwriting, regardless of pre-existing conditions, after only two years of IEEE membership. By 2001, the economic impact of guarantee issue and the plan becoming the only option available to older members with significant health issues, had started to adversely affect the financial stability of the plan."
That's me, dude, an older member with significant health issues.
The letter continues:
"However, underlying claims expenses exceeded premium (sic) collected each year, the plan began to accumulate financial losses, and by the end of 2005, CIGNA demonstrated to the IEEE Individual Benefits and Services Committee (IB&SC) and the Insurance Committee that it had incurred an estimated deficit of approximately $6 million. In mid-2006, CIGNA told IEEE that the company could no longer tolerate the growing deficit, projected to reach $10 million by the end of this year."
The future of the plan is summarized as follows, in a cover letter from Affinity Group Services, who administers the plan on behalf of IEEE:
"In the past, CIGNA has assessed Plan claims experience annually to determine rates. The company, from this point forward, will be assessing the Plan financials on an monthly basis, and may re-rate the Plan if claims paid exceed premium collected. Also, CIGNA may re-rate the Plan whenever participation numbers change by plus or minus 15%.
"CIGNA will continue to insure all existing Plan participants, unless the number of insured falls below 50. At this time there are over 2,200 certificates, representing over 4,000 lives. Marsh will continue to service this Plan; IEEE will continue to sponsor the program, for those who are already insured."
(All added emphasis is mine.)
Now, exactly why should I believe CIGNA is out to "fleece" me?
C'mon, give me a straight answer, and can the bullshit when you do.
Consider when you do that IEEE pays Affinity Group Services to administer and audit the plan. Don't give me any bullshit about cooking the books; IEEE is an organization of very intelligent people and has a stellar reputation. I've been a member for 34 years.
Are there corrupt insurance companies? Of course there are. There are corrupt people and therefore corrupt companies in all manner of businesses. Does that mean private enterprise is wrong? Of course not. Are you really suggesting otherwise?
LabRat is right. You are a categorizer. Your mantra, poorly expressed as it is, appears to be: Some are bad, therefore all are bad, and the whole concept is bad.
"Their goal is inequality and they have done a damn fine job of it."
So, the people who run corporations lay awake at night, pondering their dream of increasing inequality amongst us.
You are one sick fool, Mark.
What I don't get is: if the insurance companies and private enterprise are so corrupt, why do the true believers in this clap trap believe that the government will be any better? I used to live in Massachusetts and the politicians there make any corporate corruption pale into insignificance.
They elected a governor who was knee deep in the sub prime mess as a board member of Ameriquest. Even after becoming governor, he made a phone call on behalf of Ameriquest. But he spouts all of the Liberal talking points so the Lefties there love him.
The government run health care scheme would appoint people like Massachusetts' governor Deval Patrick to run health care.
So instead of having some freedom of choice between semi-corrupt health care schemes, we would be forced to use the one, totally corrupt government plan, which would have an absolute monopoly.
Yosemite, there would not be an absolute monopoly, It's impossible to do that given the fact that HMOs, hospitals and insurance companies have thousands of people on their payrolls and to dump all of them would be worse than the situation we have now. Take some time and do some research on what Canada has now...France...the UK...these systems are not perfect by any means but, according to WHO, they spend less money and give better care than the US.
Go to Edwards link above and read it. It is very detailed and addresses many of you concerns.
DJ, in 2004, Cigna settled out of court for 85 million with a group of about 600,000 doctors. They, along with several other health care companies, wrongfully underpaid them in various ways, including the use of computer programs that routinely denied parts of their fees. Based on your post and since that time, they have probably improved their business practices.
I don't think I am being a sick fool when I say that American business leaders, as a general rule, want to make more money. Many of them really don't care if they screw people over when they do it. It happens every day.
Do you think Bill McGuire, CEO of United Health Care, "worked really hard" for this 1.1 billion dollar stock option buy out? Read some more about his shennigans and you will understand why I question your rose colored view on the health care industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._McGuire
Check out whose campaigns he has contributed to....oh, what a shock
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/William_McGuire.php
You didn't answer my question. What makes you think that the government being the prime "Single Payer" would be any better than the corporations you decry?
No matter the faults of our current system, I'll take the "do any thing for a buck" corporate model before I'll put my health in the hands of smarmy politicians who will screw anybody to grab a vote.
".these systems are not perfect by any means but, according to WHO, they spend less money and give better care than the US."
That's pure crap. I have personal experience with both the U.S. and U.K. systems. U.S. health care is top notch. I've gotten excellent care here. The U.K. system sucks with long waiting lists, if you are on the government system. The rich buy their own care there.
"Take some time and do some research on what Canada has now."
Only because the courts in Canada forced them to. The government system was the only game in town until very recently.
I didn't answer the question because the solutions that are out there don't have the government as a single payer. What they have is the government as one option and private insurance as another. So, do I think that the government as the only option is the way to go? No, and I don't think it would be better.
It would be better as an option for people who, for example, work 15-20 hours a day at three jobs just to make end meat and can't afford the spiraling costs of health care. They are the ones that would benefit from government health care.
People need to have more options to them, not less. That is why we have the problems we do in this country.
"I don't think I am being a sick fool when I say that American business leaders, as a general rule, want to make more money."
No, saying that is not what makes you a fool. Running a business such that it makes money is the whole job for the Head Guy What's In Charge.
"Their goal is inequality and they have done a damn fine job of it."
To the extent they work toward such a "goal", they make it more difficult for people to buy the products and services they are trying to sell. Thus, working toward such a "goal" is precisely the opposite of their goal in running a business.
Now do you see it? You are a sick, twisted fool because you believe these two things simultaneously. You are a case study in cognitive dissonance, in Orwellian doublethink.
And, you didn't answer my question either. Go back, read it again, and give it a try.
C'mon, Kevin. Ease up. You'll hurt yourself. It's not that funny.
Thanks for answering the question, Markadelphia.
While what you posit is better than the single payer system that has been advocated in the past, I still believe that the government running more of health care would be a mistake.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that the system needs reform. Just not in that manner.
If the question was is Cigna out to fleece me, probably not. But they are in business to make money, not pay out money, which, if you read the link that I posted above you would see that it is true.
Their business should be about making people healthier in the cheapest possible way.
Thanks Yosemite.
"If the question was is Cigna out to fleece me, ..."
Oh, come on. That was explicitly the question! Why can't you just get on with it?
"... probably not."
Bravo! Spot on, dude!
Now see what a little analysis, using real data and without jumping to conclusions, can do?
"But they are in business to make money, not pay out money, ..."
Well, almost. Insurance is a business, just like any other business. Of course insurance is in business to make money, as is any other "for profit" business. But "paying out money" is a part of any business, and paying the claims of its clients is part and parcel of the medical insurance business. Insurance companies understand that, even if you don't.
"... which, if you read the link that I posted above you would see that it is true."
Sigh. Do you really think you have to prove to me, or to anyone else, that insurance companies are out to make money? Damn, but reality gives you a hard time, doesn't it?
"Their business should be about making people healthier in the cheapest possible way."
Aw, shit. You had it going and you blew it.
The insurance business is about spreading the cost, and the risks of future costs, that their clients incur, over the whole of their client pool. It is a very risky business, as it involves a pure gamble, a guess as to what a statistically predictable but randomly variable future will bring. Sometimes they make money hand over fist, and sometimes they lose their shirts. No matter whether it is private insurance, group insurance, employer insurance, gubmint-backed insurance, or the gubmint itself, it is still nothing more than a cost- and risk-spreading mechanism.
Making people healthier is what the medical profession is about
My medical needs are decided by me and my doctors, it costs what it costs, and the cost is spread among me and the others in my insurance group. I haven't thought up any scheme that provides the proper care and minimizes my risk of future costs any better.
That is why, in a nutshell, I rail against any gubmint-backed scheme, such as is found in Canada. Such a scheme results in doctors being responsible to the gubmint, not to the patient, and thereby it puts accountants, and not doctors, in charge of medical care. Look back through all the horrible incidents cited as examples in this long discussion and elsewhere and you'll find that such is an accurate description of why they happened.
No, leave medicine to the medical profession, and leave bill-paying to the insurance profession. I'm quite satisfied with that.
Bottom line is that when our health care system changes in this country, I highly doubt your situation will change. No extra money will coming out of your pocket and you will still go to the same doctor and have the same insurance.
Fret not, DJ, all will be well in your realm.
"No extra money will coming out of your pocket (for your own medical care) and you will still go to the same doctor and have the same insurance, (but your taxes will be going up astronomically to cover the health care costs - and government overhead - of the "less fortunate" and the "losers of life's lottery." You wealthy, selfish bastard!)
There. Fixed it.
No, but the tax money that normally went to kill people will instead go to help people who are less fortunate.
"No extra money will coming out of your pocket ..."
Mark, you reveal yourself unequivocally as a blithering idiot by this statement. Look the words up:
blither intr. v. to talk foolishly
idiot n. a foolish or stupid person; a person lacking intelligence or common sense
Yup, that's you. The ink's dry, and the evidence is undeniable and unmistakable.
Do you believe the gubmint could, or would, undertake to provide health care to tens of millions of people (at minimum) without increasing taxes, my taxes, to pay for it? And wouldn't that take more money out of my pocket than it takes now? And would that mean "extra money" would be coming out of my pocket?
Why, dude? Why do you do this to yourself?
"No, but the tax money that normally went to kill people will instead go to help people who are less fortunate."
Ah! Just shut down the military and spend that money on the (what was it Kim says) the "pore and starvin"?
That's what Europe tried, but they always had the U.S. to provide them security.
Europe's having problems funding their experiments in socialism now, even without funding their militaries. Canada has gutted its military, and still can't make its budgetary ends meet.
SO LET'S DO IT HERE!
No, I don't think so.
Look even closer, Kevin.
Canada has almost no military (he's on leave, this month, isn't he?). Canada's net tax rate is much higher than ours, and Canada spends nearly half its revenue on health care. Despite the huge expense per person, there are shortages such that Canadians come here for treatment. Canada shows that cutting military expenses and increasing net taxes still wouldn't be enough.
Mark, you're wishing for cloud cuckoo land. Try wishing in one hand and shitting in the other, and see which one fills up first.
I didn't say we should shut down the military. What we need to do is stop the price gauging that is currently going on in the defense industry. You want to talk about wasting your tax dollars? All the money we spend and we still can't properly equip our troops? Our defense spending and our armed forces need to be more streamlined and efficient.
But you're right, DJ. Your taxes are going to go up but not because of any future universal health care model. They have to go up because someone spent all the money in the world cutting Paris Hilton's taxes and not killing Osama bin Laden.
Markadelphia: So you want to make purchasing healthcare more like the military procurement system?
No. I think the main goal is get everyone basic health care if they need it. Then we need to fix the system we already have which rips many people off who pay their premiums and work hard everyday.
"I didn't say we should shut down the military. What we need to do is stop the price gauging that is currently going on in the defense industry."
So, your argument is that a gubmint which cannot be efficient at one task will suddenly become super-duper efficient at another.
"Your taxes are going to go up but not because of any future universal health care model."
Bullshit.
"They have to go up because someone spent all the money in the world cutting Paris Hilton's taxes and not killing Osama bin Laden."
Why do you persist in convincing us that you have no grasp at all of reality? You succeded long ago.
And you still can't express yourself other than in hyperbole, can you?
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>