Page 81 of 143 FirstFirst ... 3171767778798081828384858691131 ... LastLast
Results 1,601 to 1,620 of 2855
  1. #1601  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hello Everyone,

    It seems to me that almost everyone agrees that medical costs are too high. First--where does that money go? I'd say three places--to pay medical care workers; to cover overhead (and waste and fraud) in these massive systems (government or insurance) and for actual material costs.

    Let me deal with the last one first--material costs. It seems to me that in many, many other areas of the economy, a market approach works quite well. We might not be happy with it, when our gasoline costs go up, or food is most costly because someone wanted to toy around with Ethanol fuels, but it basically works. So, even though I don't know a lot about medical equipment, medication, supplies--they are material goods, and if left to a free market with competition, those costs will be realistic (if not what we might wish). However, I'm not sure there is a free market in regards to this. I'm not a medical expert, but I know of a child who recently got a vaccination (standard stuff) and they cost $100-125 each as I recall. Now, for vaccinations which are likely numbering in the millions each year (just a guess), that seems like a really high price. So, I'd love to be informed if that is reasonable or not.

    Second--overhead costs. Why not eliminate both government and insurance from the bulk of medical interactions--those for common medical issues (non-catastrophic). Why not eliminate ALL of that middle man cost and simply let the patient and doctor work within the free market (lots of patients and lots of doctors) to pay for services directly. If I've got a cold or fever or a minor injury, why should an insurance company be involved? Why can't I simply pay for the service I need?

    That brings us to the last point. In a family members recent office visits we paid $150--that's for about 10 minutes of time with the doctor. Now, like in any business, that Doctor has overhead too, but it would be instructive to know if that $150 is really reasonable or not. What goes into a doctor's costs in overhead that requires a price of $150 for 10 minutes? Remember that vaccination--there were additional costs for the nurse to administer these vaccinations which if memory serves was $40 for the first and $10 for the next two--that's $60 to administer 3 shots--less than 5 minutes of actual time (not sure about any prep time).

    So, again--I don't know what drives these costs, but I suspect that only a small portion of that is going to pay the salary of the nurse, or even the doctor. So, what is causing the overhead here?

    Anyway--to review--I'm asking about the overhead with providers--because I'm not sure what contributes to that, but insurance overhead for a big chunk can be eliminated totally, simply by taking insurance and government out of the picture completely and returning common health care to the free market.

    Major medical is a somewhat different story. I keep hearing about massive prices that no average person can afford--and that's true, but again--why do these things cost so much? Do tests actually cost hundreds of dollars or is there a lot of hidden overhead that we know nothing about. I'm not declaring--I'm asking.

    A less specific example--recently a friend who was pregnant was sent to the hospital (total time there 26 hours) which cost just about $5000. The care involved some blood tests, and administration of two different medications (relatively common to my knowledge--meaning not some super recent advanced medication) via injection. There were also two monitoring devices attached (one to the mother one for the baby (external) for most of that time (again common to my knowledge--BP, heart rate, etc) $5000--does that seem like a reasonable cost for what was provided? As it turns out there was no problem at all--a false alarm (the Doctor's call, not the patients). So, it seems likely that there is a lot of overhead involved here, because $5000 for essentially one day without any particularly advanced care (no surgery, or anything like that) seems to be quite high. What drives costs such that a relatively minor hospital visit costs $5000?

    I forgot to mention. The pregnant woman was also told she had to wear these stockings--which I understand are to help circulation issues. She didn't want them, and wasn't there for days (she was there a few hours at that time) and was charged $126. I went to a medical supply store (different issue) some weeks later, and decided to look for those--they cost $40 (retail). So, back to those material costs from above--clearly, someone is charging extra here--and I am not aware of any reason that would be justified.

    Sorry--another point. Costs. The buying power of the individual can be instantly increased by making every dollar spent for medical costs tax deductible. Currently, you have to meet some threshold (I recall 7% of yearly income, but don't quote me on that).

    KAM
    While it's a great simplification, in many many hospitals (and offices depending on the philosophy of the provider), charges reflect care delivere to those that can't pay. I'm sure this is no surprise, and I can't imagine you don't already know everything I'm saying. Every patient without money that comes to the ER and gets admitted costs money. Somebody has to pay the people that work there, pay for the radioisotopes and 24 hour technicians and transportation people and maintenance workers and electricians and plumbers. And just in case you don't know it, doctors are almost never paid by hospitals, so that overhead is managed entirely by the hospital. Our hospital GAVE away 15 million dollars in uncompensated care last year. That's why it costs over $1500 a night for just a bed. That's why we recuperate many patients at the Hilton down the road if possible....it costs a fraction as much. Are we going to refuse to admit critically ill patients because they don't have insurance? With a national requirement that anyone who comes to an ER must be seen, the ER costs are ridiculous. The vast majority of patients that come to ERs can be seen easily by nurse practitioners or primary care docs. But they get charged the same high rates because they are seen in the hospital. And if they don't pay they will be turned over to collection agencies, and be taken to course, and bankrupted if they can't workk out a payment plan. And this is not elective. This isn't making a choice to buy a car, or a new mattress, or a stove. This is someone's health and ability to work in the future, and their ability to support their family. It's a good thing your family can afford the expensive care they've been able to receive. But don't you understand that many many people can't?

    I have no problem with eliminating the middleman entirely, just as long as you tell me exactly what you consider to be "common medical issues" and also tell me what the maximum is that you're going to make people pay for. Then, tell me what will happen if they can't pay? Will you deny them care?
  2. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1602  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I have no problem with eliminating the middleman entirely, just as long as you tell me exactly what you consider to be "common medical issues" and also tell me what the maximum is that you're going to make people pay for. Then, tell me what will happen if they can't pay? Will you deny them care?
    So, we're already paying for those who can't pay. We're already living in the world or redistribution according to you. My friends pay $5000, because they are really paying for other people. It doesn't seem to me that that sort of system is working very well.

    I've heard that stated before, but I'm not in this line of work, as you point out. I'm still not clear as to where the 300 billion we (as taxpayers) spend on medicaid goes then if not for those who cannot pay.

    As far as common medical care--I'm not a doctor so I can't define these things exactly. What I know is that a cold is common, and heart surgery is not. Point is--it can be defined, by experts. Everyone doesn't get cancer or have a heart attack, stroke, etc but almost everyone gets a cold or the flu or some sort of non-life threatening injury over the course of their lives.

    There would be no threshold. There is no threshold for car repairs, or gasoline prices, or food prices. People manage according to their means, and for common medical care (minor things which I believe make up the bulk of medical care needs--by volume--tell me if you think that's not true), they might choose to manage with an over-the-counter remedy. I do it all the time. I rarely go to the doctor for a minor issue, although sometimes I have, when it got to a point I couldn't manage it myself.

    You also need to get your head right about something--I don't deny care to anyone. I'm not a medical provider--you are. YOU choose if you deny someone care, I cannot. People incur bills for all sorts of things they can't afford--and a heck of a lot less important than medical care.

    KAM
  3. #1603  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Our ideas do not matter, Clem. They could care less. It isn't about cost saving ideas or improvements in healthcare. For them, this is only about getting socialized medicine for all Americans. Single payer is the goal, not fixing anything.
    I know....just frustrates me. I understand where doc is coming from in that he sees people everyday that are struggling, and so I can see how it would hit him harder than me. I talk to people weekly (won't say daily) who are struggling with premiums, and I would like to find ways to help them. I also talk to people who simply don't want to pay a premium unless they need the coverage. These people can afford the coverage, or could afford the coverage, but have other priorities. While I will have compassion for these people, I don't think it should be my responsibility to pay for their healthcare when they don't want to help.

    So....you have around 85% of the people that have coverage and 15% that don't through various reasons. Where he loses me is changing the whole system for the 85% in order to get coverage for the 15%. I just think we can tackle this thing without a federal overhaul and he believes it is the only way. To add to confusion, I hear other doctors, that seem like nice people, who believe this will be catastrophic to have a national "medicare" type of plan. I don't know.....just doesn't make sense and that frustrates me. I also read about doctors bailing from seeing Medicare patients because of the low reimbursements....so.....that tells me something is broken in their mind.

    Of course, we hear today that Social Security recipients will not get COLA increases for 2 years. We will either need to dramatically change when people can receive benefits (I say raise it to at least 75), continue to hold the benefits level, or raise the payments going in (for everyone), and that still likely won't fix it. So I see us having to dig out Soc Sec, dig out Medicare, and likely find universal healthcare in deep do-do after a few years of it draining us further into debt. Hold onto your hat....inflation is around the corner! And the part that sucks is I believe all those benefits are un-constitutional to begin with! LOL

    Of course, the good doc sounds like he is close to retirement and likely has a nice pension and 401(k) plan and so he figures he is all set. Maybe he feels a little guilty about him being all set while others struggle? Hmmm, mabye that is it. He can retire and working at clinics makes him feel better. Well....I'm not set yet....working towards it.....and I see all this debt is likely going to slow down my steps to getting where he likely is. Of course, I am never opposed to someone looking out for his or her own interest....so maybe he is just looking out for # 1?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  4. #1604  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    So, we're already paying for those who can't pay. We're already living in the world or redistribution according to you. My friends pay $5000, because they are really paying for other people. It doesn't seem to me that that sort of system is working very well.
    .....
    You also need to get your head right about something--I don't deny care to anyone. I'm not a medical provider--you are. YOU choose if you deny someone care, I cannot. People incur bills for all sorts of things they can't afford--and a heck of a lot less important than medical care.

    KAM
    You are absolutely right, you are paying for those that can't pay, and you have been for many years. Yes, it doesn't work very well, because the money runs in an indirect fashion...like through an insurance company. Even worse here, because it's not related to the specific individual but to a whole class of unsupported patients. It is a non-system. We need a system. And as far as the last point....if you oppose health care reform that provides everyone reasonable care, you are denying them care. And if you don't have a plan for doing so, then try to not make judgements based on the fact that you don't like the politics of people that are trying their best to come up with something that works. And that excludes all republicans as far as I can see.
  5. #1605  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    These people can afford the coverage, or could afford the coverage, but have other priorities. While I will have compassion for these people, I don't think it should be my responsibility to pay for their healthcare when they don't want to help.

    So....you have around 85% of the people that have coverage and 15% that don't through various reasons. Where he loses me is changing the whole system for the 85% in order to get coverage for the 15%. I just think we can tackle this thing without a federal overhaul and he believes it is the only way. To add to confusion, I hear other doctors, that seem like nice people, who believe this will be catastrophic to have a national "medicare" type of plan. I don't know.....just doesn't make sense and that frustrates me. I also read about doctors bailing from seeing Medicare patients because of the low reimbursements....so.....that tells me something is broken in their mind.

    .....
    Of course, the good doc sounds like he is close to retirement and likely has a nice pension and 401(k) plan and so he figures he is all set. Maybe he feels a little guilty about him being all set while others struggle? Hmmm, mabye that is it. He can retire and working at clinics makes him feel better. Well....I'm not set yet....working towards it.....and I see all this debt is likely going to slow down my steps to getting where he likely is. Of course, I am never opposed to someone looking out for his or her own interest....so maybe he is just looking out for # 1?
    So you're saying that people who currently have insurance cannot be trusted to make the right choice for themselves? You mean they might actually make a choice that saves them money? Do you think that might force insurance companies to control their costs? Isn't that what's called competition? I do believe, however, that it should be a fair competition. I do think that whatever plan is developed it should be held financially responsible once it is established.

    On the other hand, let's just look at this thing from a wider view. If you believe every person should have health insurance, and you realize that you will have to subsidize private insurance plans so that they will be able to financially survive at their current levels of overhead and adminstrative costs. What you are saying is that you are perfectly willing to take taxpayer's money and give it to for-profit insurance companies to administer instead of giving it to the public health option, however it's funded. This is identical to the joke that is the Medicare drug benefit, in which republicans have arranged to take taxpayer's money and totally waste it on brand-name drugs, denying any negotiation option with drug companies for less than retail price. You, as taxpayers, are paying list price for drugs for Medicare and nobody is allowed to try and negotiate lower prices in spite of the massive numbers of patients being treated. Do you NOT think that is stupid? This argument is very similar. You clearly want to give your money (and more of your money will be required) to private insurance companies with their excessive costs. I just don't see how this makes sense. Do you?

    I have never said that a single-payer system is the only way to do this. I also have never said that the 85% of people that are covered should have to change their coverage. If the insurance companies can provide good service for a reasonable price, that's fine with me. I just don't think it can be done, and I don't like handouts for private corporations....but that's just me.

    Finally, as a primary care doc, I have always set aside a reasonable amount for retirement. I make considerably less than most other docs I know and work with, but that's fine with me. I don't feel guilty about planning for my future, but I must admit that I had the good sense to marry a CPA, because otherwise there's no telling what I would have blown my money on. Yeah, I'll probably retire soon, but if you think I feel the way I do because I feel guilty about all the money I've made, you need some drugs. After putting two kids through college (one of whom gave up a very good job in the northeast and moved to New Orleans to teach in a charter school), and supporting a demented mother with full time care, I'm happy I make a decent living...but I wouldn't call it extravagant. I began working in free clinics when I was a student so believe me, I don't feel the way I do because I'm now comfortable. That doesn't make me smarter or better than my friends who choose not to, or who choose to donate money instead of their time. Let me say that again: that does not make me any better in any way than people that don't do what I do. It just makes me different than them. Whatever you can do for the community is a good thing. It's when you do nothing for your community, when you turn your back on everybody's needs except for your own, then I think you lose out on some of the most positive experiences available. Maybe by attacking me as being unrealistic, or idealistic, or egoncentric, or a socialist, it makes you feel better about your level of commitment to your community. To each their own.
  6. #1606  
    All sorts of stuff here for any side of the debate.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. #1607  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    So you're saying that people who currently have insurance cannot be trusted to make the right choice for themselves? You mean they might actually make a choice that saves them money? Do you think that might force insurance companies to control their costs? Isn't that what's called competition? I do believe, however, that it should be a fair competition. I do think that whatever plan is developed it should be held financially responsible once it is established.

    On the other hand, let's just look at this thing from a wider view. If you believe every person should have health insurance, and you realize that you will have to subsidize private insurance plans so that they will be able to financially survive at their current levels of overhead and adminstrative costs. What you are saying is that you are perfectly willing to take taxpayer's money and give it to for-profit insurance companies to administer instead of giving it to the public health option, however it's funded. This is identical to the joke that is the Medicare drug benefit, in which republicans have arranged to take taxpayer's money and totally waste it on brand-name drugs, denying any negotiation option with drug companies for less than retail price. You, as taxpayers, are paying list price for drugs for Medicare and nobody is allowed to try and negotiate lower prices in spite of the massive numbers of patients being treated. Do you NOT think that is stupid? This argument is very similar. You clearly want to give your money (and more of your money will be required) to private insurance companies with their excessive costs. I just don't see how this makes sense. Do you?

    I have never said that a single-payer system is the only way to do this. I also have never said that the 85% of people that are covered should have to change their coverage. If the insurance companies can provide good service for a reasonable price, that's fine with me. I just don't think it can be done, and I don't like handouts for private corporations....but that's just me.

    Finally, as a primary care doc, I have always set aside a reasonable amount for retirement. I make considerably less than most other docs I know and work with, but that's fine with me. I don't feel guilty about planning for my future, but I must admit that I had the good sense to marry a CPA, because otherwise there's no telling what I would have blown my money on. Yeah, I'll probably retire soon, but if you think I feel the way I do because I feel guilty about all the money I've made, you need some drugs. After putting two kids through college (one of whom gave up a very good job in the northeast and moved to New Orleans to teach in a charter school), and supporting a demented mother with full time care, I'm happy I make a decent living...but I wouldn't call it extravagant. I began working in free clinics when I was a student so believe me, I don't feel the way I do because I'm now comfortable. That doesn't make me smarter or better than my friends who choose not to, or who choose to donate money instead of their time. Let me say that again: that does not make me any better in any way than people that don't do what I do. It just makes me different than them. Whatever you can do for the community is a good thing. It's when you do nothing for your community, when you turn your back on everybody's needs except for your own, then I think you lose out on some of the most positive experiences available. Maybe by attacking me as being unrealistic, or idealistic, or egoncentric, or a socialist, it makes you feel better about your level of commitment to your community. To each their own.
    No idea what your first part was about....gotta admit you lost me....I'll go back and read that later. I don't think you really read my posts though. I gotta hit the bed so I can hit the pool at 5:30 and don't have time for that tonight.

    As for what I do or don't do for charity, I prefer not to discuss that. I always get annoyed with people who feel compelled to say what good things they do....do you want a pat on the back? I realize no one knows me in here, but just not going to get into a competition on who does or gives more. Not being a doctor, I will confess that I don't treat people in clinics....and probably a good thing, don't you think?

    The only charitable thing I will admit to is that if you were to compare my tax return to our VP Biden, you would see that the 2nd in charge of your very own party doesn't believe in charity himself. Biden's definition of charity is taking from one group via taxes and giving to another. Key word, TAKING. He is so noble....and so patriotic, LOL. What a freakin' joke. But no, I won't get into a competition of who is the more charitable person. The important thing is you do what you can, and I'll do what I can. I maybe can't help a person with a health issue, but I certainly can, and do, help in other ways. And that's about all I got to say about that.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  8. #1608  
    I did my very best to point out that I don't think what I do (or what anyone else does or doesn't do) means nothing in terms of the kind of people they are. What I do does not make me any better than anyone else. I think I said that twice. I've got some major flaws. People are different. Do I really give a damn how much Biden gives to charity? Does that make him a better person or a better VP? Nope, has no bearing. And I would say the same thing about any republican I respect. Of course, that list is fairly small, but I sure do like Joe Scarborough. Hell, I'd even vote for him over Corinne Brown. Or Jackson, the dude with the freezer money. See, I'm real open-minded about republicans.
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1609  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    You are absolutely right, you are paying for those that can't pay, and you have been for many years. Yes, it doesn't work very well, because the money runs in an indirect fashion...like through an insurance company. Even worse here, because it's not related to the specific individual but to a whole class of unsupported patients. It is a non-system. We need a system. And as far as the last point....if you oppose health care reform that provides everyone reasonable care, you are denying them care. And if you don't have a plan for doing so, then try to not make judgements based on the fact that you don't like the politics of people that are trying their best to come up with something that works. And that excludes all republicans as far as I can see.
    Here's the problem--you do not get to define what "reform" is universally. Your view of reform or support of an idea doesn't define my opposition to it as "anti-reform." The false situation you are trying to create is that if I disagree with you, I am against reform and therefore denying people care. That's simply untrue, logically and in terms of common sense. I am not in a position to deny anyone care, nor am I responsible for providing them care. That being said--good amounts of my money taken in taxes do already go to provide the unfortunate with medical care, and in my view that money is not being well spent, because apparently at approximately $6400 per person they still aren't getting sufficient healthcare.

    Your statement about Republicans is general, and generally wrong for the same reasons it is false when you try to apply it to me. No sincere attempt has been made to cooperate on common ground, and that is the fault of the current leadership in both Congress and the Presidency. Those are of course totally under democrat control. The fact is--Republicans are basically a non-issue, but liars of various stripes keep trying to scapegoat them.

    As to the people trying to come up with "what works." Well, that's the real problem, because what is being proposed isn't reform or a new idea--it is delving into systems that are failing or already have failed. You've just admitted that the existing system doesn't work very well, and that system is one that depends on taking money from those who are able to pay (less and less able as it turns out--which is why the system is failing) and using that money to pay for those who cannot. That system is failing, and the "reform" plan is little more than an expansion of that system, and removing what little competition is left.

    This massive fraud and failure has been essentially snuck into place due to the fact that we have an indirect payer system for much of heath care (insurance and government both). We've been lulled into this mindset that we really aren't paying--insurance is paying, so why worry about it? Well, insurance can't sustain itself, so prices skyrocket. The "reform" system that you apparently support is an expansion of a system that has already miserably failed, and made it near impossible for the poor and increasingly impossible for the middle class to afford.

    Destruction and suppression of open, competitive free markets for healthcare is one of the root causes of this. The lie that we can just keep redistributing more and more money from those who pay to cover an increasing number of those who don't is a major reason costs are skyrocketing. Simply stated--the well is running dry, and the "reform" plan is to try and water millions of more people, while ignoring things that might actually reduce costs.

    So, in short--what you call reform, I call a massive fraud, and I've got 40 plus years of history, and a system that is failing before our eyes as evidence. The system that you want to expand is a failure, so continuing deeper into failure isn't only a bad idea--it is ludicrous. If the people pushing this were not driven by ideology and instead attempted to find practical solutions, then we'd likely have a consensus and have achieved at least some progress. That isn't happening, because we have politicians attempting to push more and more unsustainable failure programs on the public that has finally grown tired of the same old thing.

    Back for one second to people paying for others. Really? What you are really saying is that I'm being defrauded, because there is nothing on my medical bills that say "charge to cover the uninsured." It lists services/materials and a cost. I'm not doubting you, but this is clearly unethical, because I am being lied to and being charged for services I'm not getting. Even the government isn't that dishonest--they simply say "this is your tax bill, we will spend it on what we want." Very revealing.

    We do agree on one major point, and that is on the issue of indirect payment. I advocate removing that middle man, but apparently unlike you, I see no reason to replace one middle man (insurance) with another (government). Government has already failed at medicaid and medicare, failing to cover the poor and elderly sufficiently even though they spend roughly 30% of the entire federal budget on it. I advocate actual reform--identifying the problem and not repeating proven failures. You advocate handing control over to the same government that has and continues to fail.

    You are seeking to repeat and expand the same mistakes and expecting a different outcome. That strikes me as wildly dangerous, and likely to fail.

    KAM
  10. #1610  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Destruction and suppression of open, competitive free markets for healthcare is one of the root causes of this.
    KAM
    If you want me to distill all the verbiage and BS from both sides of this argument, I can do it very easily, based solely on my opinion.

    THERE SHOULD NOT EVER BE A "MARKET" FOR HEALTH CARE. Ever. Save your markets for cars and laptops and yogurt and game controllers. Just as individuals in this country have an option for reasonable education to allow them to succeed, they should likewise have an option for reasonable health care. I realize some of you think they shouldn't have education either, that it's not in the Constitution, yada yada yada. But obviously most people find the educational system to be a reasonable tradeoff. Health care should be the same. I don't care how you do it, just do it. And as much as republicans have been in power, with control of both houses and the White House, just like the democrats have now, they have never once done anything reasonable to improve health care. The Medicare drug benefit is a joke, a handout to big pharmacy. The republican party does not care about this, and anyone who says otherwise is hiding their heads in the sand.

    I just don't think there's too much more to say about the issue from my standpoint. We have different world views, and those don't change easily. There will be "winners" and "losers" in this thing, but the only winners I care about are not politicians but people who are suffering daily from a lack of care. Screw the politicians.
  11. #1611  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I realize some of you think they shouldn't have education either, that it's not in the Constitution, yada yada yada. But obviously most people find the educational system to be a reasonable tradeoff.
    I get so tired of this arguement.....education isn't in the Constitution and is therefore handled by the states! THE STATES. 85% of education comes from state taxes. So please stop using this example, it is a horrible example.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  12. #1612  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I get so tired of this arguement.....education isn't in the Constitution and is therefore handled by the states! THE STATES. 85% of education comes from state taxes. So please stop using this example, it is a horrible example.
    So what? I don't care if the states do it themselves. But given only a few have tried, one under a republican governor no less, obviously we can't rely on the states to actually do it.

    Just get it done. Now. However.
  13. #1613  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I get so tired of this arguement.....education isn't in the Constitution and is therefore handled by the states! THE STATES. 85% of education comes from state taxes. So please stop using this example, it is a horrible example.
    For now, but did you ever read House Joint Resolution 29, introduced in 2005?
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  14. #1614  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    For now, but did you ever read House Joint Resolution 29, introduced in 2005?
    No
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  15. #1615  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    For now, but did you ever read House Joint Resolution 29, introduced in 2005?
    Okay....looked it over....sponsored by Jesse Jackson, Jr back in 2005....first....anything sponsored by Jesse Jackson (Sr, Jr, III, IV, V, etc) sends up a huge red flag to me. Didn't this guy try and buy a Senate seat? Anyway, this was introduced in 2005, but anything else since then? Also....the bottom line is it isn't in the Constitution now and therefore the Fed Govt shouldn't be involved. However, if this does become an amendment, watch out for the next socialist program of fully funded college education for all! It won't matter if you worked hard in high school....submit an application and bingo bango, you're in college! You liberals will not stop until every aspect of our lives is run by the Government. Holy , it just won't ever end will it?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  16. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1616  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    If you want me to distill all the verbiage and BS from both sides of this argument, I can do it very easily, based solely on my opinion.
    I'm more interested in facts, but since that clearly isn't your interest, go ahead.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    THERE SHOULD NOT EVER BE A "MARKET" FOR HEALTH CARE. Ever. Save your markets for cars and laptops and yogurt and game controllers. Just as individuals in this country have an option for reasonable education to allow them to succeed, they should likewise have an option for reasonable health care. I realize some of you think they shouldn't have education either, that it's not in the Constitution, yada yada yada.
    See, you can't even begin to be a reasonable person--you simply cannot avoid trying to insult me, by fabricating things. I didn't say people shouldn't have an education education did I? You are addressing me, by responding to my post, so if you were reasonable you would acknowledge that we haven't discussed education and if you want to accuse someone else, you should address them directly. But instead you are making things up and attributing them to me. I find that to be quite dishonest. How weak is your argument that you must continually keep throwing out these distracting falsehoods. I'm not sure what world you live in where this sort of nonsense works, but it sure doesn't work with me.

    A market for healthcare PRODUCES a reasonable option. You simply refuse to consider that, and therefore (according to your "logic") are the one standing in the way of Reform, and hence are responsible for denying people care. Its too bad you are so dedicated to a system that is failing and denying people reasonable opportunity to medical care. Unfortunate, that you are advocating handing more and more control over to the same entities that have destroyed our medical care system--because that's where it is according to "reformers" right--we have a "Crisis" right? Well, that crisis is here, BECAUSE of the system that you want to expand.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    But obviously most people find the educational system to be a reasonable tradeoff. Health care should be the same. I don't care how you do it, just do it. And as much as republicans have been in power, with control of both houses and the White House, just like the democrats have now, they have never once done anything reasonable to improve health care. The Medicare drug benefit is a joke, a handout to big pharmacy. The republican party does not care about this, and anyone who says otherwise is hiding their heads in the sand.
    Is anyone required to take part in the Medicare Drug benefit? Do seniors choose to use it, and find it useful? Apparently they are using it, so apparently they think it is a viable choice. If that's a big handout to "big pharmacy" then is general medicare a handout to "big medical." How many doctors do you know of who happily write our prescriptions for every thing under the sun--benefiting these big drug companies? Certainly you don't believe that doctors aren't every bit as much of a problem in this whole drug industry. People aren't getting prescription drugs (legally) without doctors participation.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I just don't think there's too much more to say about the issue from my standpoint. We have different world views, and those don't change easily. There will be "winners" and "losers" in this thing, but the only winners I care about are not politicians but people who are suffering daily from a lack of care. Screw the politicians.
    Yes, you say "screw the politicians" but you advocate this "reform" which endangers us all (the poor and elderly are already in danger in government hands) by expanding failed systems, and continuing a system that is not sustainable--putting more and more control in the hands of these politicians. Your view is very contradictory.

    You keep on claiming that you care about the people, and while I'd like to believe you, I doubt your sincerity, because you've displayed such an eagerness to blatantly fabricate things. I'd like to think you are just misguided and don't realize that the "reform" you support is an expansion of a system that has already failed and is CAUSING the problems you claim to want to solve.

    You mentioned "options" but this "reform" is designed to eliminate options, and incrementally funnel people into a non-option system. It is designed to eliminate competition, and without options things will get worse--just like they are with medicaid and medicare--both going broke.

    We are told that the United States spends more on healthcare than any other nation (per capita I assume). Where is that money going? President Obama says that doctors are performing unnecessary procedures for profit. You've already told me that hospitals and Doctors are intentionally overcharging me, because they are making up for those who aren't paying. I guess they are making sure they get paid--not caring that it is breaking the middle class and Insurance companies. Of course I don't have too much sympathy for insurance companies, because they enable the medical industry and help them perpetrate this fraud via indirect payment schemes.

    You've described your own industry as engaging in fraud (which I find unethical), and yet you keep on talking about this as if people like me are somehow to blame. YOUR side of the equation is the problem, and the side receiving massive amounts of money, not mine. My side--the patients are the victims of the corruption in the medical industry. Now, please keep in mind, I am not attempting to blame you individually for the actions of your industry, because I know nothing about you. You may or may not be guilty--I don't have information to make that judgment. I have no idea if you personally overcharge patients to insure you get paid at their expense, but I'd be interested in knowing. Only you know whether you are guilty of what you claim is common practice or whether you are the exception.

    Are your rates for services significantly lower? Naturally, they would be if you aren't overcharging like you've stated others do. Are you charging patients only for the service/material they directly receive? Are you absorbing the costs for any patient who doesn't pay, or are you passing it along to someone else? I'm guessing an self-described idealist like you is making sure that you charge only for what the paying patient receives and aren't marking things up at all. You stated earlier that you believe for-profit systems are a problem (that increases medical errors and sometimes results in death), so I'd expect that you don't actually receive profit from your work. Is that correct?

    You'll notice that I'm asking you--giving you an opportunity to speak for yourself, rather than follow your example, accusing and attributing things to people that you have no knowledge of.

    You can answer whether you are part of the problem, or if you are the exception.

    KAM
  17. #1617  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Okay....looked it over....sponsored by Jesse Jackson, Jr back in 2005....first....anything sponsored by Jesse Jackson (Sr, Jr, III, IV, V, etc) sends up a huge red flag to me. Didn't this guy try and buy a Senate seat? Anyway, this was introduced in 2005, but anything else since then? Also....the bottom line is it isn't in the Constitution now and therefore the Fed Govt shouldn't be involved. However, if this does become an amendment, watch out for the next socialist program of fully funded college education for all! It won't matter if you worked hard in high school....submit an application and bingo bango, you're in college! You liberals will not stop until every aspect of our lives is run by the Government. Holy , it just won't ever end will it?
    Then I suppose you are a big advocate of Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1618  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Okay....looked it over....sponsored by Jesse Jackson, Jr back in 2005....first....anything sponsored by Jesse Jackson (Sr, Jr, III, IV, V, etc) sends up a huge red flag to me. Didn't this guy try and buy a Senate seat? Anyway, this was introduced in 2005, but anything else since then? Also....the bottom line is it isn't in the Constitution now and therefore the Fed Govt shouldn't be involved. However, if this does become an amendment, watch out for the next socialist program of fully funded college education for all! It won't matter if you worked hard in high school....submit an application and bingo bango, you're in college! You liberals will not stop until every aspect of our lives is run by the Government. Holy , it just won't ever end will it?
    No, it won't ever end. We have people claiming that health care (something others must provide at a cost) is a right. Is it really going to surprise anyone if they then claim that food is a right or housing is a right as well? Those things are even more fundamental than healthcare. We will die very quickly without food.

    The fact is that we do not have a right to have someone else pay for us to do anything, and anyone that advocates that is simply wrong. That fabricated system is a fantasy that cannot be sustained. It won't be. This whole concept that government is responsible for providing specific services, care, goods to individuals is just not what our government is, nor what the Constitution allows. It is a bastardization of the entire system we've established in this country.

    If anyone claims health care (not the freedom to SEEK healthcare) is a Constitutional right, then simply ask why it hasn't existed for a couple hundred years? If this is so apparent and so obviously correct, then why wasn't a healthcare system that provided individuals heath care set up immediately? Did you think they created a system where this was the case, and then immediately forgot about it for 200+ years?

    It simply isn't true, and it is long past time that people stop tolerating these lies being pushed on us--often by very dishonest people. Its time we stop coddling these people who keep foisting idiotically false concepts on us. They are free to say whatever they want of course, but its time that reasonable people that understand the role of government and our Constitution say "enough is enough" and stop letting these people create systems that downward spiral into misery and "crisis."

    It is amazing to me that the people who advocate all these things avoid taking responsibility for their failures and keep pushing for MORE failure--repeating the same mistakes again and again.

    What these people are really advocating is a type of feudal system, where you are provided for by someone (they decide what you get or don't get) who essentially controls you. That is the inevitable result of having a "Right" to things other people pay for.

    People keep trying to sell us on the concept that there in fact can be a free lunch, but it isn't true.

    The other side of this--we can all choose to help our fellow citizens. We can help our neighbors and friends and even those we have never met. We can and do help each other, and we don't require the National government, and in fact involving them insures that every dollar you spend results in less than a dollar of benefit. If you want to help someone--then help them. Don't create a false system so you can pretend you are helping people, while creating dependency and insuring that more and more people need help.

    KAM
  19. #1619  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Or Jackson, the dude with the freezer money.
    ITYM 'Jefferson'.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #1620  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    For now, but did you ever read House Joint Resolution 29, introduced in 2005?
    I just read it. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it seems that it's at least following the process it should.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...

Posting Permissions