patrick.net

Some Guy says

okkey5 says Some Guy says It’s just tearing you guys up that a black man became president, isn’t it? ****Yawn***** I was wondering how long it would take before some lib accused anyone with a different opinion of being a racist. Really, it’s getting a bit old, and it only proves you can’t make a persuasive argument for your point of view. Fucking bullshit. You right-wingers like to play this game that goes like this: Someone makes a comment about black people and tap-dancing, which anyone with two brain cells to rub together KNOWS is about the biggest racial stereotype there is. Or that asshole who used to be on the forum equates black people with monkeys, the second biggest racial stereotype there is. Then you get called on it, and suddenly this giant halo appears over your head: “Who ME? Why I’m not a racist. I just thought maybe Obama likes watermelon and used to work as a bellhop. Perfectly innocent comment.” So fuck all you right-wing trolls and your little games, because I am not stupid enough to fall for that shit

You've just proven my point, really I couldn't have made it any better. What absolute nonsense, no one (on this thread at least) said anything remotely racist. They simply made points you couldn't argue with, so you resort to name-calling, swearing and other childish behavior. And by the way, how could you possibly know what's in the heart of a total stranger posting a comment on an internet forum, and whether they are racist? How very arrogant, but not surprising since you can't seem to formulate a complete sentence without insults, curse words and totally incoherent rants.

Rundle: God bless America, because someone needs to Guy Rundle writes: Well. It's been another tough few weeks for Obama – to say nothing of his increasingly frazzled cheer squad, watching from the sidelines, thermos untouched by their side, hand-made banner wilting from lack of use. Mired in a struggle to get a fairly modest set of health-care reforms through, the Prez was sidetracked by the messy arrest of black academic Henry Louis Gates, and a subsequent intervention therein. As a third whammy, the new front in the Afghan war is already starting to bog down -- as it inevitably would -- the stimulus package has not kicked in yet, and may well be vastly less than is required, and, well isn't that enough? Health care is the big one, the fight that Republicans think will break Obama if they can win it -- just as it broke Bill Clinton's first presidency, as the GOP took control of Congress, and launched a full-scale war against the executive branch. Hillary Clinton's health care plan at that time was a complex system, which edged towards a dominant public option -- and more importantly imposed a vast series of standard pricings and conditions on private insurance. The aim was to stop average Americans being cheated and gouged by Big Health, but if it ever had a chance of getting through Congress (when it was still controlled by Democrats) that was killed by the Clintons' high-handed "take it or leave it" approach -- brave, and the sort of thing that sections of the left are demanding of Obama, but suicidal in the face of a Congress of members permanently running for re-election, and drip fed by Health system donations. Obama's model is more modest than that -- but still a big ask for the American system. At the core of it he wants a "health care exchange" -- a fancy-pants way of saying that a public health insurance plan would always be available to any American who wanted to purchase it (together with the Medicare system for low income earners), and that people on crap existing plans could jump out of them into the public system. Unlike Oz Medicare, the public plan is just one plan among many, paid for out of general tax revenue, rather than a universal specific levy. The fact that Obama has got centrist "Blue Dog" Democrats even talking and negotiating about this means that he has got genuine universal health care provision closer to fruition than any President since the attempt was first made under Harry Truman. But almost jumping over a crevasse ain't much of an achievement, and failing to get the system up would be a big blow to his Presidency. The safer option would have been to leave the US system in private hands, subsidise plans for low income earners, and mandate it in the same manner as car insurance. But the result would be to put even more power in the hands of Big Health, with concomitant increase in service costs etc -- making the most expensive, least effective major health care system in the advanced world even worse. A public option would help introduce actual competition into the system, which is why Big Health hates it so much. Obama wanted a vote on the proposal before Congress ends its summer session in August -- but that relied on getting an assent from centrist Democrats, and a couple of friendly Republicans. It's a measure of the difficulties of getting the thing up, that even the House of Reps -- where the Dems have a 70+ seat majority -- is looking tough to get. The "Blue Dog" Democrats -- Senators and Reps mostly in districts or states who voted for McCain in the presidential race -- want a far more limited programme, using "health care co-operatives" to provide plans for those who can't afford anything other than the most basic care. This would be provided by private companies offering a pooled system, shouldering the burden of customers likely to cost more than they can pay over time -- but still leaving provision in the hands of a private company (worse, a monopoly of private companies). They're also baulking at the trillion dollar cost over ten years, and a host of other, smaller, concerns. The Republicans hope -- and have said, foolishly, publicly -- that the health care thing will break Obama. That's unlikely -- the Democrats will come to some deal by the vote (now pushed back to December) and the White House will make whatever compromise necessary to get something passed, that they can call a major health care reform. The issue is currently the subject of a phenomenal proxy war between groups opposed to the bill at all, and those supporting it, with TV ads, mailouts, door-knocks etc covering the nation. The GOP's fear campaign -- that overnight the US will become a health care North Korea -- is undoubtedly having an effect, but so too is a no-nonsense campaign directed at the Blue Dogs, to let them know that they will be unseated in party primaries, if they simply try and kill the bill. There's a lot of kvetching about Obama's leadership on the issue -- an underwhelming press conference that failed to deliver the inspiring whoosh people wanted -- but which was designed to not up the pressure on the Blue Dogs, such that they would feel no choice but to vote health reform down under any circumstances. But coming on top of the angst created by his comments on the false arrest of black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates -- calling the undoubtedly stupid and possibly racist white cop who arrested the man in his own home, uh stupid -- which were uh, uh stupid, there was concern that Obama was not performing as well as he could under the slow shit-rain of a continuing Presidency. He recovered as well as he could -- calling the cop, asking him down to the White House for a beer -- which showed a touch of the old Obama, and the NUBO rule (Never Underestimate Barack Obama) holds, but it is tough times, with the smell of blood in the water. Worth considering as the Rudd government extends the federal system to all hospitals, that Americans are shrieking about a system that would minimise the number of their fellow citizens who are sent home to die, of easily curable conditions (about 15,000 last year). God bless America, because someone needs to.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/07/27/rundle-god-bless-america-because-someone-needs-to/

drfelle says

the one’s that can’t watch their mouths. Learn how to communicate without cursing!

Fuck that. drfelle says

I’m sure you and most people do. Like I said, you want to eliminate another one of your monthly bills so you can spring for HBO.

I already have HBO. Under just about any plan being proposed (including the Swiss system, which I am strongly in favor of), I would likely pay a lot more out of pocket than I currently pay. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. drfelle says

Now you’re going to claim that everyone is starving? Keep up the scare tactics.

No, troll, I'm saying that the reason why our taxes keep going higher and higher while getting us fewer and fewer returns are because the cost of programs like Medicare are devouring bigger and bigger portions of tax revenues. This cycle will only end when we bring down medical costs or when we end medicare. If we end medicare, there will be no medical coverage available to those over 70, and they'll be paying full price for treatment. Very few of these people can afford this treatment. Most will declare bankruptcy, and the costs will just be placed back on everybody else anyway as the hospitals write off the losses. You completely fail to see this happening because you're in the corner with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears. elliemae says

However, insurance companies aren’t required to offer these programs and some of the premiums charged are so great that seniors can’t afford them. Federal law regulates those companies that offer the supplements but there is no mandate that they offer the plans.

Sorry for the poor wording. What I meant by "required" here is that any insurer that participates in part C is required to cover the seniors without prejudice for medical conditions or overall health. They can certainly deny claims for all manner of bullshit reasons after the fact, of course. There are clear advantages to the HMOs that participate in part C, and it's primarily that the tax payers are footing the vast majority of the bills and the part C provider's profits are essentially guaranteed. Again, my original point still stands. Without medicare, very few elderly people would have any health coverage at all. Without the government backing the bulk of the costs, nobody would take the risks for the (relatively low) premiums that they can earn.

elliemae says: Sorry for the poor wording. What I meant by “required” here is that any insurer that participates in part C is required to cover the seniors without prejudice for medical conditions or overall health. They can certainly deny claims for all manner of bullshit reasons after the fact, of course. There are clear advantages to the HMOs that participate in part C, and it’s primarily that the tax payers are footing the vast majority of the bills and the part C provider’s profits are essentially guaranteed. Again, my original point still stands. Without medicare, very few elderly people would have any health coverage at all. Without the government backing the bulk of the costs, nobody would take the risks for the (relatively low) premiums that they can earn. ---------------------------- IMHO Part C sucks. HMO's receive thousands for each patient they sign on each month; the more they sign on the more they make. A great trick they have is to ignore requests to disenroll - I've had several encounters with Kaiser over this one. A patient moves out of the area and the HMO refuses to disenroll, but refuses to cover the out-of-state medical costs (non-contracted providers)... They're called "Medicare Advantage" programs, but the advantage is to the insurance company. The sales people get $500/yr for the first 4 years the patient stays on the program, and a $2,500 bonus the 5th year. All for answering the phone. If a senior goes to an independent company to gain secondary insurance coverage, they're steered toward the HMO's because the work is less and the commission greater. I agree with your point that without the govt, no one would touch the seniors for coverage. Just as --------------------------------------- This thread has gotten out of hand. It's the evil libs against conservatives, and it's sooooooooo old. example: "Your such a bleeding-heart! Volunteering to pay more so you can help out the poor. I’m not falling for your lies. You might be able to fool others on here, but I know your agenda. I just figured out you libs are trying to insult me. I’m so hurt! You libs can’t participate in friendly debate without getting all emotional, cursing, and name-calling. That’s nothing new." Seems like the emotions and name calling are coming from both sides. There's nothing "friendly" about much of this "debate." Just an observation.

Tenpoundbass says

You know you remind me of my Brothers common law wife(who happens to be Cuban) teacher. She is taking a “Poverty in Society Class” as she put it, it’s actually a “Blame Whitey” class. She and a three other girls challenge her ever day she told me. And last week they had a test, since she and the three of four other girls got a 76 on the test they had to stay after class. Dare I tell you the other girls were Black? Well they were and the Liberal bitch teacher told them “How can I get you all on board with the curriculum?” To which Lisa my brothers gf said “you do get irony that you’re a white woman that kept 5 minorities after class to make us concede that we feel violated, or oppressed by the white man, when you are the only person in my life right now oppressing me?” True story!

I didn't understand any of that story.

"I'm undecided" (Or a version thereof) That's the answer I like the best on all the polls or questionnaires I find. I don't get how someone could not choose between a couple of responses. How difficult is it for some people to make a simple decision?

Thanks Drfelle.

drfelle says

kentm says

last time I checked the healthcare system in the states was a nightmare.

Is that what cable news and your Messiah told you? Quit watching MSNBC! They (MSNBC) are making your blood pressure and stress level go up.

from our own Patrick.net link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&sid=ac_Ad5Car70M&ref=patrick.net and another comparison with "Socialized MEdicine: Circulatory disease deaths per 100,000: Canada: 219 United States: 265 Child maltreatment deaths per 100,000: Canada: 0.7 United States: 2.2 Digestive disease deaths per 100,000: Canada: 17.4 United States: 20.5 Infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births Canada: 5.08United States: 6.3 Intestinal diseases death rate Canada: 0.3% United States: 7.3%Proability of not reaching age 60: Canada: 9.5% United States: 12.8% Respiratory disease child death rate per 100,000 Canada: 0.62 United States: 40.43 Heart disease deaths per 100,000: Canada: 94.9 HIV deaths per million people: Canada: 47.423= United States: 48.141= =You get the point. If this is “socialized medicine,” sign me the hell up. (ref, sadly no) ...by any reasonable standards a nightmare. quit selective reading... drfelle says

Hillary wants Socialized Medicine in ‘93 claiming a “crisis”. She get’s shot down and the Health Care system survived. There hasn’t been talks of a Health Care “crisis” until Barry decideds he needs to establish his legacy and Socialize Medicine.

Again I say, there has to be another reason your taking this tack. It really has nothing to do with the facts and you're clearly hostile to "Barry". Or lets take this tack instead: Instead of attacking "Socialized" Healthcare & "Barry", tell me what it is you love so much about the current system...

That I don't have the government choosing which procedures, devices and drugs should be covered by my insurance company (or the government insurance plan). I like the fact it is driven by the free market and if a plan does not stack up, my company can choose to shop elsewhere for a more comprehensive plan. I don't like the 5000 things that are broken with the current system though. At some point things like QALYs need to be used to keep costs in check though ... it really is a matter of time. I just want everything for less (the California mentality)!

People with a "private medicine=PARADISE" mentality clearly haven't dealt with HMO in much depth. Many companies have a limited number of equally sucky choices. When you get right down to it the private companies want PROFIT for least amount of work. Thus like my brother who had to pound on a lot of doors to get them to deal with hernia in any vaguely timely manner the care can be quite slow. They don't view the alien protruding from your belly as an urgent thing until it's eating other crewmembers, please let's patiently wait a few months just use your hand to hold your intestines m'kay? And what do you do about it? Next year you get to pick door #2 and find they suck as bad. They also want to avoid doing a bunch of referrals to specialists and tests when possible, so like my niece who spent 7 YEARS being incorrectly diagnosed before finding out she had Crohn's disease, yeah that can suck pretty bad too. I'm not saying either system is any great shakes but I find the reflexive reaction "government medicine = bureacracy & negligent death galore" often coming from people who have relatively shallow experiences with any kind of medicine. It's usually people who don't like government to start with and are TERRIFIED it might go wrong on them in their hour of need. Despite the fact that they trust the government to rescue them floating in the ocean (Coast Guard) or to handle nuclear weapons on a daily basis. And they are contrasting with what? With a government program they have no personal experience with either? With make-believe comparison to DMV? I dunno. This issue is so pre-loaded with unexamined gut reactions it's impossible to debate like grownups.

Agreed it is hard to debate with most people as healthcare quickly becomes personal and most people have very personal experiences. I do like to point out that the government is already controlling 1/2 of our health care "system" (hard to call our healthcare an actual system which all parts functioning together) and things aren't going that great thus far. Now this isn't to say that with more focus and vast changes to the way the insurance industry is run things couldn't be improved, but I just find it hard to believe that government control will improve the ways things are run. I believe that the government should have a lot more standards and enforcement to make the system much more transparent then the mess we have today. And, yes HMO's have major issues. When I speak of private insurance I'm guess I think of a PPO model where I can see whoever I want. I do tend to pay more for the option of the PPO when I have a choice of insurance companies from my work. I do realize this isn't the view of private insurance most people have and many Americans are left without these options.

American health care system slogan Even though we are "health care provider" we cannot insure you because you are sick.

Has any one looked at how much medical insurance and malpractice suites impacted the cost of healthcare in the US? Unlike many other countries, it is very easy to sue a doctor in the states.

Tenpoundbass says

d3 says

Has any one looked at how much medical insurance and malpractice suites impacted the cost of healthcare in the US? Unlike many other countries, it is very easy to sue a doctor in the states.

Yawn, you mean it’s the only industry to where you can be held accountable for being a Hack?

I am all for people’s right to sue, including doctors. Suing doctors however has become the latest and greatest get rich quick scheme that every sleazy lawyer is trying to profit off of. Too many people who get sick or hurt themselves are looking for someone else to blame because they are too selfish to see there own follies. Although there are some valid reasons for suing a doctor, my guess is 90% of the suits are simply a blame game that a lawyer and "victim" are trying to profit off of. I strongly believe this is one of the reasons it costs 3x more to get treatment in the US than any other country in the world. Would you rather treatment cost 1/3 the price or would you rather be able to sue the doctor whenever you do not feel like you got the "best" treatment. Personally I think there is a middle ground, ie setting stricter requirements for being able to collect from malpractice., ie gross negligence

I have a relative who works in the healthcare insurance defense industry. Although she does see a number of cases where the docs really did screw up and injure someone due to negligence, much too often the cases are just ridiculous. My favorite was the case she had were a convicted felon suing a hospital from prison. Not only did the felon not have a lawyer, after he learned in jail how he could sue the hospital, the case was a complete joke. In the end the case was thrown out, but not until the insurance company had to spend a good chunk on legal fees. My opinion is that there should be a separate court system similar to bankruptcy to handle these cases, or at least some way to filter them out before they even reach the point where an insurer needs to respond. I'm still not sure this adds that much unneeded (some cases are valid) waste to the system though. Another nice legal waste the money spent on hospitals suing the government and the government suing back to invalid changes or unpaid charges. Ironically, a single payer system (or universal coverage, or mandated coverage, or insurance exchanges or whatever they come up with) does nothing to address any of these issues.

Tenpoundbass says

Fuck the Doctors and the stethoscope they rode in on. I’ll worry about their welfare when Doctor owned hospitals(which I’d wager contribute to a greater hemorrhage of money from the hcs than all of the lawsuits combined) are a thing of archaic thinking. It’s essentially Doctors writing their own checks.

Ah yes, I know one of those. The richest person I know...as in 42 years old and worth millions and millions of dollars... I was curious how a doctor could get that rich.

You do not have to be a doctor to have millions of dollars. Are you sure he made all of his money from being a doctor??? or are you just speculating? You can be the dumbest person in the world and win the Lotto or have money passed down to you and be a millionaire. Yes there are doctors who do make a LOT of money, however most doctors do not make a fortune. There are a lot of primary care doctors who are very good at what they do who can barely afford to stay in business. Also if you invest $100ks and give up 8+ years of your life in school you should be making big money. Else why become a doctor? Why not become a lawyer, in some states you don't even need a degree to pass the bar exam.

d3 says

You do not have to be a doctor to have millions of dollars. Are you sure he made all of his money from being a doctor??? or are you just speculating? You can be the dumbest person in the world and win the Lotto or have money passed down to you and be a millionaire. Yes there are doctors who do make a LOT of money, however most doctors do not make a fortune. There are a lot of primary care doctors who are very good at what they do who can barely afford to stay in business. Also if you invest $100ks and give up 8+ years of your life in school you should be making big money. Else why become a doctor? Why not become a lawyer, in some states you don’t even need a degree to pass the bar exam.

yes. He's married to one of my closest friends. He graduated with more than 100k in student loans and no money. He mentioned he got lucky and his second job was for a hospital that went private, making him part owner. 10 years later he has millions with a dozen homes around the world. I am talking crazy money.

This doucebag thinks you are preaching to the choir here and this is not news. I do not know why citizens are content with matters as they stand. I perceive that many of them are focussed on inconsequentials like who is in the Oval Office. Even in your own post your ire about a President "hires & fires corporate CEO’s and illegally re-writes private business contracts to his heart’s content." seems a rather curious inclusion in the parade of transgressions. Maybe it went like this: Prez: I feel terrible about this Chuck, but I think it's best you resign Chuck: Well OK then, I'll fax my resignation over. It always strikes me as funny how people suddenly become all prickly about "contract law" because some CEO is tossed overboard. Did anyone actually research how these "hiring & firing" occur and thus are violations of some particular code that can be identified? Or is it more informal and perfectly LEGAL asking someone to resign like I've laid out above. Do you know? I don't. But you've decided to be incensed about that point and not some other....just 'cause I dunno you heard it on a radio show? The citizens do not object to being referred to as "consumers" in 99% of discourse and even use the word themselves. They are being herded into permanent debt slavery and do nothing about it. Why? The system is actually efficient at maintaining status quo?

Whoa there guys!...baaaa!...baaaa!...excuse me, I had some lawn clippings stuck in my mouth; don't you know that us 'PEASANTS' can now be rounded up and shot thanks to the Patriot Act. That kind of thinking isn't allowed when you can qualify for a leased BMW and a nice tract home with granite counter tops and 55 inch flat screens for all rooms in the hills provided your FICO score is over 800 and your income is well north of six figures. Some people prefer to be a nice little sheepies...baaaa! baaaa! BTW, has anyone seen my Zoloft and Ambien? It's time for my daily dose:)

I'm not even sure as to the point of your post. Who here on this board would accuse you of pessimism porn? I agree that things are not as good as they appear and there is still downside risk to all sorts of things. I assume that's a common belief amongst many here. Are you saying we don't believe these things? This board was one of the earliest in the calls against the housing bubble. If you are trying to argue that the US is "finished" then I must ask, In relation to whom? Every other industrialized country is also running the printing press as fast as they can. There is one good thing about fiat currency and that is it's value is all relative to the values of other fiat currencies. If all the fiat currencies have the sane problems (which they do) then it's the same as them having no problems at all. Sure there will be some arbitrage with regards to the time frames during which this all happens but I believe the rest of the world is doomed as much as we are.

Bwahah! Constitutional purity & your high-school civics dead long before you were born. Little late to that party! Federal Reserve Act 1913, The "interstate commerce" rationale, CIA & NSA acting inside US, the War on Some Drugs, Patriot Act, a chain of events way predate Obama. Thanks for the shotgun blast rant that was a hoot. Ranting about CEO firing *now* strikes me funny like a person complaining whole family murdered but ENRAGED cat was injured too.

d3, You asked if anyone had looked into the cost impact of malpractice claims. Indeed, your fellow poster Kevin already has, and this is what he found: >>You’re still wrong. Try digesting this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16136632 (in 2001 the figure was 0.46% for the combined cost of defending, insuring, and settling malpractice claims; less than a quarter of that was awarded to victims. At best, completely banning lawsuits is going to reduce medical care costs by less than 1%. Awesome. In short, the notion that malpractice claims are a big burden on the health care system is wrong. At best, it is just misguided to claim otherwise, and at worst it is a decoy issue intended to distract from the real problems, and/or give doctors immunity against lawsuits which they should not have.

justme says

d3, You asked if anyone had looked into the cost impact of malpractice claims. Indeed, your fellow poster Kevin already has, and this is what he found: >>You’re still wrong. Try digesting this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16136632 (in 2001 the figure was 0.46% for the combined cost of defending, insuring, and settling malpractice claims; less than a quarter of that was awarded to victims. At best, completely banning lawsuits is going to reduce medical care costs by less than 1%. Awesome. In short, the notion that malpractice claims are a big burden on the health care system is wrong. At best, it is just misguided to claim otherwise, and at worst it is a decoy issue intended to distract from the real problems, and/or give doctors immunity against lawsuits which they should not have.

1% of an annual 2.4 trillion spend on healthcare would be 24 billion dollars annually. 1% of heathcare is a good chunk. Even it if was only half were talking 12 billion a year. Guess by today's standards that just isn't that much. Edited - bad math ...

TPB, I just noticed you posted a certificate from a ESRI GIS User's Conference to start this thread. What the hey ?? I fail to see how this relates to your point in any way (I must say, and not to offend, but I often fail to make heads or tails out of your posts). I do enjoy seeing that my industry (I work in this area) is 'on the map' (tee hee). I thought it would be a cold day in ... anyway, the award you post has nothing to do with Health care - it was for an ATLAS OF ICELAND. But I suppose a 'huzzah' to you for creating a busy thread with 400+ comments. Oh ... and I repeat, I thought this was a housing forum.

Vicente says

This doucebag thinks you are preaching to the choir here and this is not news. [..]The citizens do not object to being referred to as “consumers” in 99% of discourse and even use the word themselves. They are being herded into permanent debt slavery and do nothing about it.

I do! I object! I object! Just stated so on another thread. I AM NOT A CONSUMER, I am a CITIZEN. You know what I was saying in 2004? It's '1984', 20 years late.

Cigna PPO new slogan: "We insure healthy people only, so our ROI goes to top and hence our stockholders make money."..... Send me more ...We are having a competition where we judge slogans of health insurance companies in America.

classic struggle between have's and have not's....but for the first time i am with the have's or else we all will become have not's. I never understood why health care is limited resource. i thought a limited resource is something which can be traced to something which cannot be produced and is contant (water, some minerals, land..etc. how come health care became limited resource ? why is free market broken here. its just a f**ing service like another specialized service except that supply has been artificially contrained. there are only two inputs : doctors and equipment ..which one is a limited resource ? and why

>>were talking 12 billion a year. Right, and about 25% of that goes to victims of malpractice, as determined by a jury in a court of law. So what is the problem? You can argue that lawyers and insurance companies take too much of the cake, and I would agree, but that does not mean that we should give doctors immunity. We could cover a 0.46% higher fraction of the population if there was no malpractice, and no malpractice suits. But would you want to be treated by a doctor that has no financial motivation in preventing errors, and you having no recourse to get compensated for your loss due to errors? I certainly would not. In summary: Ragging on malpractise lawsuits as being the reason for unaffordable healthcare is factually wrong, dishonest, and is used by right-wingers as a distraction from the real issues.

renter for ever_san jose says

classic struggle between have’s and have not’s….but for the first time i am with the have’s or else we all will become have not’s. I never understood why health care is limited resource. i thought a limited resource is something which can be traced to something which cannot be produced and is contant (water, some minerals, land..etc. how come health care became limited resource ? why is free market broken here. its just a f**ing service like another specialized service except that supply has been artificially contrained. there are only two inputs : doctors and equipment ..which one is a limited resource ? and why

Typical fear mongering that if Govt takes over health care, we will all become have nots....But I bet you don't mind police and other jobs being done by governments including such critical things as responding to a fire alarm. Even when critical jobs like airport security were transferred to TSA, a federal agency, after 9/11 people like you were keeping their tails inside their asses....now when times comes to health care suddenly it becomes a struggle between haves and have nots....Shame on you...Come out of your little frigging shell and think of other people too...

everybody is concentrating on thier own agenda and benefit. Democrats want to ration health care and get votes from the have not's. Republicans want to ensure that the rich keep thier power to buy health care with money ( which will dissappear soon). Nobody is trying to find the right solution to fix health care because right solution doesn't motivate either party. Right solution : find out why health care SERVICE has become so expensive and market forces are not working to bring down the cost. Once the bottlenecks are identified , try to remove them. Current bottlenecks : 1) insurance keeps buys insulated from prices 2) Doctors lobby keeps supply of doctors limited 3) drug and insurance lobby influence govt and keep thier monopoly. eg: you cannot buy drugs from outside the country..etc

final word : You cannot solve a real famine by rationing but by trying to find a way to produce more food.

renter for ever_san jose says

Doctors lobby keeps supply of doctors limited

Why cannot we have H1B for doctors ? I agree that having more hospitals and doctors will definitely bring down the prices...but that assumes everyone pays from their pocket....Here we are talking about insurance based health care...Even if you sneeze you need to go through your insurance ....And "for profit" insurance has no motive to really look after poor sick people...

Bap33 : your point makes sense but we are talking about services here, which are provided by humans biengs to human biengs and thus makes it independent of breeding unless the rate of breeding is too fast compared to the time it takes to train for the services.

in a free market, a human service can never become a bottleneck..example : prostitution will never be a limited resource in a free market unless govt intervenes.

Why cannot we have H1B for doctors ? They do! part of exchange programs. Not to mention some doctors who intern here, move back home, along with their patients.. I read how India and Thailand health care is growing with Medical Tourism. So keeping a limited supply of doctors doesnt work. Its much cheaper and easier to go overseas. Do a search on india thailand medical tourism Its extremely difficult to get in to medical profession isn US ..period. For engineer's , the end customer ( companies who hire) determine what qualifications they need. In Medicine, the end customer (hospital or patient) DON'T decide what qualifies a doctor, its the freaking AMA. AMA keeps the barrier of entry very high by putting too much red tape and licencing requirements. Its similar to a communist govt trying to control everything. AMA (doctors lobby) is very powerful which contraints the supply of medical schools and entry into them. It also has one of the most cubersome and lengthy licensing requirements in the world. thier main goal is to keep the supply of doctors low to boost the salaries of existing doctors..similar to unions. I wish there was some lobby like that for software engineers so that i could get 300k for my work.

renter for ever_san jose says

Why cannot we have H1B for doctors ? They do! part of exchange programs. Not to mention some doctors who intern here, move back home, along with their patients.. I read how India and Thailand health care is growing with Medical Tourism. So keeping a limited supply of doctors doesnt work. Its much cheaper and easier to go overseas. Do a search on india thailand medical tourism Its extremely difficult to get in to medical profession isn US ..period. For engineer’s , the end customer ( companies who hire) determine what qualifications they need. In Medicine, the end customer (hospital or patient) DON’T decide what qualifies a doctor, its the freaking AMA. AMA keeps the barrier of entry very high by putting too much red tape and licencing requirements. Its similar to a communist govt trying to control everything. AMA (doctors lobby) is very powerful which contraints the supply of medical schools and entry into them. It also has one of the most cubersome and lengthy licensing requirements in the world. thier main goal is to keep the supply of doctors low to boost the salaries of existing doctors..similar to unions. I wish there was some lobby like that for software engineers so that i could get 300k for my work.

Very well said renter...I knew AMA was making sure that H1Bs do not start taking their jobs...But you summarized the situation succinctly.

renter for ever_san jose says

in a free market, a human service can never become a bottleneck..example : prostitution will never be a limited resource in a free market unless govt intervenes.

I have seen this in Europe...I have no idea how America became such a Nanny state. But america had to struggle and to come to terms with their violent (towards native americans) racist (towards blacks) past... I guess while trying to do that they became excessively religious and excessively money minded...My friend who visited me from overseas was joking that only time he sees americans smiling is when they are receiving money...I tried to counteract his point but had to agree to some extent...

renter for ever_san jose says

2) Doctors lobby keeps supply of doctors limited

Heh, Where did you get that from? 1. From my understanding doctors have little lobbying power. It is the insurance companies who have the power and can determine how much a doctor will get paid for someone. 2. one of the main reason for the shortage of primary doctors is because a lot of them are leaving the feild to make more money doing something else. Fewer and fewer people want to waste 8+ years of there life to only get paid the scraps left for them from the insurance companies. I know of atleast 3 doctors who have left there practes within the last few years because health insurance companies squized out any hopes of them becoming profitable again.

The landlord has a right to collect from you untill the bank formerly starts foreclosure proceedings. If you stop paying him before that he can sue you BUT BE CAREFULL! He probably won't tell you if they've foreclosed on the property, and may still try to collect from you. In that instance, he's taking money that belongs to the bank, and they can still expect you to pay them for the money you gave to the landlord! I'd call the bank to find out what's up.