The Pub Discussion Board

I doubt this will have legs, because he was basically standing alone in his veto... that is, he was going against his own party, and any candidate can simply point out that they voted for / supported the bill.

The thing I find curious about the *reporting* in the article you just mentioned is, if there was so much Republican support for the bill, why were there no quotes from Republicans in the article?

Net Wolf

Jefferson wrote:

I They sure can't afford medical insurance making only $80,000 a year. Poor babies.

Greetings

I shouldn't get involved but that's about what my last hospital bill was -- about $80K

Hospital can bankrupt a millionaire, quickly

Its unconscionable that the greatest country in the world doesn't have medical protection provided by the government just like fire protection, and police protection..

Right now a rich guy some where is fueling up his Gulfstream with the money I paid to get umm well

One persons sickness ought not be to a profit center or a stock option opportunity

Thanx for listening

I'm done [/rant]

Enjoy your journey

WarLord

Net Wolf wrote:

Government provided medicine... um... no thanks.  I have government-provided insurance, and that's bad enough.

I agree that the costs of health care have grown too large, but we've already seen what government provided (aka "socialist") medicine is capable of, and I want no part of it.

Net Wolf

Greetings

Thats sort of reflexive ie unthinking

Medicine for profit where the motive is cost cutting is far worse than anything that any government could do by any stretch

for instance the CEO stock options based on how many claims he can reject with how little care, how many people he can take premiums from that then get no care beciae of "pre-existing conditions"

When a CEO in MN cashes 100's of millions in stock options and the sole business is umm health care I'll take the same guys who deliver my mail

As for the pittance pain in the ass for doctors ask anyone if they like dealing with an HMO? They'll tell you its a bastard to collect

Nope I've dealt with doctors hospitals and pharmacies for damn near 40 years with my condition chronic and acute and watched a steady unending downward trajectory

guess what

we need a change

46 million uninsured need insurance and its up to us taxpayers to make it happen

Rich bastards are only interested in skimming cream collecting premiums from the healthy as per usual

Sorry but its a major big red hot button, too many years fucking with too many claims and getting royally fucked in the process by the current broken for profit system and its rich parsites on Wall Street

OKay now I'm really done [/rant]

Enjoy the journey

WarLord

I am on pacificare and it is great. When I broke my arm and needed surgery it only cost me 2/3's the price. Isn't copay awesome.


I'm with Net on this one, we need a change, but this isn't it.

Khellendros

You know, clearly you're not willing to actually learn anything concerning this issue, so I'm not going to explain it to you any further, but you really need a lesson in Economics.

And, just for the record, not all insurance is an HMO.  MY insurance isn't even an HMO.  So, no, Doctor != HMO.  Which one of us is spewing propaganda now?  As to the "propaganda" about socialized medicine... try asking someone who lives in Canada or the UK how "great" their system is.  I don't think you'll find they like theirs any better than you like ours.

Net Wolf

I HATE the idea of socialized medicine in this country. I think it's a huge mistake.

BUT to change the subject just a little bit, or maybe take a different view of the subject.

I want to know where the Federal Government gets the power to provide medical care for anyone. The US Constitution lays out very clearly, for anyone who wants to read it, the responsibilities of the US Federal Government. Those jobs include; Laying taxes and tarrifs, making trade agreements, running the US Post office, Maintaining a standing military. The US Constitution CLEARLY states any powers NOT GIVEN To the Federal Government are to be left in the hands of the states and the people.

The COnsitution also states that for the Federal Government to take on a new job, there must be a Constitutional amendment.

Now I admit that the US Federal Government has grown A LOT over the last seventy years or so, since the Great Depression and WWII, and they've taken a LOT of power from the states and the people and they did so without any constitutional amendment, in my opinion this is A large part of our problem. The Government is supposed to gets it's power FROM THE PEOPLE yet it is taking power without the people's consent. It's taken power over education, welfare, health, aviation, and any number of other things which it has no right to be involved in.

The US Congress should NOT be discussing Abortion or Socialized medicine until we, the people, give them the power to do something about it... IE; A Constitutional amendment.

Just to make clear, I admit that some, maybe even most, of those "unConstitutional" agencies DO save lives and have aided this nation in it's growth BUT they are, strictly speaking, unConstitutional. Just like HillaryCare would be if we try it.

Last edited by Jefferson (2007-10-04 23:03:15)

Net Wolf wrote:

There isn't a single country in the world where the actual health care coming out of socialized medicine is of the quality coming out of the United States Health Care Industry.

I will not argue this any further but that is not completely true.  I live in Canada with socialized medicine.  Admittedly  our system is not perfect either but I don't think there is any perfect system.

However if I get sick I don't have to be scared to go to the hospital because I will be handed a huge bill that I can't afford.  Yes I'm still paying for it through taxes but the expense is shared between everyone not just those that can afford it.

There must be a reason why every time a politician proposes overhauling our health system inevitably advocates scream we are trying to "Americanize" or "two tier" health care.  My personal opinion on this is a mix of the two systems.  How this would be done you will have to ask a person with a bigger brain than mine.

Please see the following link that shows Canada at 30th and the US at 37th.  http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Anyone up for Federal health insurance? My personal views tend toward the libertarian end of the awkward blob that is our political spectrum, but I have to say that if republicans and democrats take a solid stance each opposing the other, it's more likely that America will end up with one extreme or the other.
Secondly, because bureaucratic is so incredibly entrenched, along with lobbying groups which depend on congress for money, that extreme is likely to be the democrat-supported one.
Therefore I shamelessly propose a compromise: that the USFG become a provider of low-cost health insurance to all.

There are multiple advantages to this idea, the first of which follows from logic that not all Americans will take Federal health insurance. Privately owned companies have such a great share of the industry, and have such great marketing techniques that federal health insurance will probably only go to those who need it.

Secondly, Federal Health insurance would be dictated in mandate by a scale of measurement of average income, like that which governs scholarships from the government. Instead of giving free healthcare to everyone in America, the government would only be giving it to those who need the aid.

Thirdly, because the bureaucracies created by such a plan would be fully entrenched, this insurance would never go away: in fact, it would only get bigger; and eventually lead to socialized health care, a socialized state, the mass takeover of communism, and the loss of America’s soul. Oh, wait, that's not a good thing... forget the last point, and think of Federal health insurance as the lesser of two evils. Oh. Wait. Did someone say that about an invasion not too long ago? Never mind, just forget the entire last point.

The end

The N Storm

I have to agree with Jefferson on most of this one... though I doubt they'd turn the pharma industry into a governmental service.  Hell, the government doesn't even build it's own war machines.

But we can't afford to spend... how many billions go to defense?  On health care, too...

As I said, I don't actually see a solution to this problem, because I can so easily see both sides of it.

On the one hand, people aren't being covered, and can't afford health care.
On the other hand, people spent nearly a decade educating themselves, and deserve to be proportionally compensated for that effort.  (Which means, in case it's not clear, that they should be making 8-10 times as much as people who only spent a year on their career education.)

On the one hand, the cost of prescription drugs is astronomical, and most people cannot afford them without insurance, which a sizable fraction of the population does not have.
On the other hand, due to federal over-regulation, the cost of developing a drug is astronomical, and the only way the drug company can both stay in business, AND invent new drugs, is to charge an arm and a leg for what they do create and manage to get past the FDA.
On the THIRD hand (Didn't know I was talking about Buddha or something, did you?  ), if the FDA doesn't regulate things so strictly, someone might *gasp* get hurt.

On the one hand, insurance costs are sky-high.
On the other hand, if they weren't, insurance companies would all go out of business, due to the high cost of medical care, which we discussed earlier.

So, what's the solution?  I don't actually see one.  In this case, I really think we are going to be stuck with what people decide is the lesser of two evils:  Excellent health care that not everyone can afford, or mediocre health care that covers everyone.

Socialized health care will lead to a lack of innovation, a lack of motivation, and basically a lack of caring on the part of the doctors.  They get paid the same whether you live or die, so why should they give a damn?  They're never going to get rich, they won't be able to take Friday afternoon off to go play golf, they're not going to live in a nice, fancy house and drive a Beamer... so why should they bother?  Yes, there will be a few for whom the duty of caring for their fellow man overrides this apathy... for a while.  But sooner or later, people get tired of being under-compensated for their effort.  And who is going to want to put in 8 years of schooling (or more) to get paid the same as a factory worker who didn't go to college at all? 

On the other hand, a purely free-market health care system means that a vast section of the populace is going to be left unable to afford health care, which means that many people will grow ill enough to actually be incapable of work, thus taxing the welfare system even more than it already is... also hospitals would have to eat the cost of ER visits by people incapable of paying for them (since the law requires that hospitals take ER patients whether they can pay or not...).  This would further raise the costs on those who COULD pay, which would then increase the number of people who could not... etc. etc. ad nauseum.  Insurance costs and medical costs would continue to rise until some critical point where the economy could no longer support that cost... at which point some stability would be reached, but how much of the populace at that point would be incapable of affording health care coverage, and how many golf course would be choked with doctors from Tuesday through Friday?  (They would have to work at least one day a week, I imagine, to see the three patients who could afford them...)

Part of the problem is the American lifestyle... in two (almost opposite) ways.  On the one hand, we are living less healthfully.  On the other hand, we're living longer.  BOTH of these things tax the health care system enormously.  While I'm not advocating ANYTHING by this comment, I'm simply pointing out that this is part of the reason the system is so overwhelmed.  If people weren't so afraid of dying, perhaps we wouldn't spend a sizable portion of our resources trying to extend life beyond 75 years.  If people (like myself, I admit!) weren't such lazy-assed couch potatoes, maybe we wouldn't have to spend so much of our resources on medications for things like adult-onset diabetes and heart disease.  I'm not advocating we stop this research; I'm simply pointing out that we're causing our own damned problem, and I can't see a way out of it without a wholesale change in perception and lifestyles.

Net Wolf

Um... what's the definition of a "private" hospital?  Because everywhere I've lived these days, the hospital is owned by some corporation or other.  Our local hospital doesn't even ask about your insurance at the ER until AFTER you've been treated...  Kinda late to deny treatment at that point...

Net Wolf

Just found this. Thought it might be interesting and valid to the subject.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071015/wl … 1015111944

English 'pull own teeth' as dental service decays

LONDON (AFP) -Falling numbers of state dentists in England has led to some people taking extreme measures, including extracting their own teeth, according to a new study released Monday.

Falling numbers of state dentists in England has led to some people taking extreme measures, including extracting their own teeth, according to a new study released Monday.

Others have used superglue to stick crowns back on, rather than stumping up for private treatment, said the study. One person spoke of carrying out 14 separate extractions on himself with pliers.

More typically, a lack of publicly-funded dentists means that growing numbers go private: 78 percent of private patients said they were there because they could not find a National Health Service (NHS) dentist, and only 15 percent because of better treatment.

"This is an uncomfortable read for all of us, and poses serious questions to politicians from patients," said Sharon Grant of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health.

Overall, six percent of patients had resorted to self-treatment, according to the survey of 5,000 patients in England, which found that one in five had decided against dental work because of the cost.

One researcher involved in compiling the study -- carried out by members of England's Patient and Public Involvement Forums -- came across three people in one morning who had pulled out teeth themselves.

Dentists are also concerned about the trend.

Fifty-eight percent said new dentists' contracts introduced last year had made the quality of care worse, while 84 percent thought they had failed to make it easier for patients to find care.

Almost half of all dentists -- 45 percent -- said they no longer take NHS patients, while 41 percent said they had an "excessive" workload. Twenty-nine percent said their clinic had problems recruiting or retaining dentists.

"These findings indicate that the NHS dental system is letting many patients down very badly," said Grant.

"It appears many are being forced to go private because they don't want to lose their current trusted and respected dentist or because they just can't find a local NHS dentist."
=============================================

Now, anyone want this kind of trouble in the US? This is what happens with Socialized medicine.

We need another of RR's swift swords.