patrick.net

True indeed regarding Barney Franks... lets look at the video.. in their own words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Just look at the Demos getting all the bad news and their reaction...

>>

>>>>

>>@justme, why did you swap in “rich” where I had put “conservative”? Conservatives out give liberals. Since Soros is a flamming nut-job leftist criminal liberal - it would appear that rich = liberal, not conservative.

Feel free to swap it back in, and then answer the same questions. I'm waiting.

I love statements that claim that "conservatives" give more to charity than "liberals" without a single shred of evidence to back the claim up.

Not that this means anything with regard to whether we should change the broken health care system, of course.

Before anyone talks about health care just read this
Look here's the four models of health care
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html

If you want the Beveridge system then we need to have higher income taxes (most likely...simply slapping a tax on alcohol or tobacco isn't nearly enough) if we don't raise taxes we'd have to cut spending elseware and that isn't popular either.

The Bismark model is basically massachusetts, germany, france, belgium, netherlands and japan..

nation health insurance which is a mix of bismark and beveridge...this would be canada and south korea (private practices are illegal in canada...I highly doubt we can can go as far as what they have done)

lastly out of pocket...just straight out cash

so the answers seem to be either higher taxation, mandates or having the the government and insurance companies fight it out..

I've been in arguments with people over healthcare and frankly few know what they really want.
OK so you want a government plan...ok are you will to pay more in taxes? if not ok fine what do you want cut?

You want a private plan ok how is coverage going to be for everyone? Out of pocket works on minor things but no one has the cash for say a 90K brain surgury. You can't deny say ER care to someone and the medical staff still have to get paid.

The government should at the very least free some things up. Why does someone have to see a doctor to get perscription? I've been to other countries and this isn't an issue. Not all states allow drug store clinics. Why should someone see a doctor just to have a throut examined? Minor care might not require a doctor.

The government should at the very least free some things up. Why does someone have to see a doctor to get perscription? I’ve been to other countries and this isn’t an issue. Not all states allow drug store clinics. Why should someone see a doctor just to have a throut examined? Minor care might not require a doctor.

Misdiagnosing, lack of medical training, lack of experience, Michael Jackson, Danny Gans, Anna Nicole Smith... all reasons why MD's should be in on prescriptions. Sure, these celebs had docs in their pocket and got the meds that they wanted. But the general public certainly doesn't, and the doc model is preferable.

I agree that some conditions might not require a doctor, an FNP or PA should be able to diagnose simple things. But they work at the direction of a doctor - and it should be that way. Even tho docs make mistakes, they have much greater training and experience before they're turned out. A sore throat could be cancerous, or it could be benign.

s/rich people/conservatives

Bap33,

Yes, but HOW MUCH more do conservatives give to charities. Put a number on it, and see if it matters. Look at the level of giving as a percentage of income.

This whole idea that conservatives would give away more money to charity than they would otherwise pay in taxes is just lies and propaganda. I find it astounding that anyone could truly believe otherwise. I think nobody on the inside of the Republican party really believes this is true. It just makes for good propaganda.

Progressives pay their taxes gladly, and likely they pay more taxes than the conservatives who cheat on taxes with their left hand and give less to charities (loosely defined, often politically non-neutral charities) with their right hand.

drfelle,

Instead of deflecting the question, can we get some straight answers here?

drfelle says

Tude says

drfelle says

Most claim they’re worried about the poor and pathetic lower-middle class. But I bet not one of them have sprang for a hot meal for a bum or helped their family members out of a financial jam. They want cheaper insurance so they can spend their money on one of the many other Government Programs now available(i.e. Real Estate, [GM] Auto Sales, etc.).

They don’t give a damn about the poor and needy. If they did they would’ve already been charitable - instead they find excuses and accuse charities of being corrupt.

I want universal socialized medicine to take this industry away from the for-profit phamo-medical machine, as well as get away from us being job/health insurance slaves. I would like to possibly start a small business, or go back to school, without having to be worried about being bankrupted by the insurance and/or medical industry.

Such a sense of entitlement the citizens of this country have.

I can’t wait until you start your business and Uncle Sam starts regulating how much you can make so someone else can go to school and start a business.

Yes, I feel entitles to my tax dollars going to the citizens of this country via health care and education, NOT lining the pockets of the health care, finance and military "industries".

You act as though I am NOT "entitled" to want my HUGE tax bill to benefit myself and society? How on earth is that a bad thing? Am I not "entitled" to care where more than a third of the money I earn goes??

>>I haven’t done an audit on conservatives lately.

Very well, so you acknowledge there is no factual basis for the claim. That should settle the question.

I am curious as to how many people, pro or con, have ever lived under a universal health care system?

I have lived under both the "free market" system here in the US, the universal system in Japan, and the quasi-universal system here in the US. Other than the price you pay, I have seen little difference in care. Admittedly, I have not had major health issues; only minor ones, but I have never had a problem with getting effective, efficient health care. When there were problems, they always came afterward and always dealt with money.

I have lived under universal health care in Hong Kong, UK, experienced hybrid system through my parents in Australia, also know plenty of relatives who use the Canadian system.

In terms of care for most routine services, I see little differences, except for the wait. But it can be easily overcome in Australia and UK through private gap insurance. In terms of surgery and more advanced treatment, if I were to compare the best hospitals in Australia against the best hospitals in the Bay Area, the Aussie ones are completely at par in hardware, and better in nursing quality.

Why? Excuse me for saying so, but here we get so many fresh immigrant nurses who don't even speak the language well, but down there you get more experienced nurses who have been living in the country for a long long time, regardless of their races. Nurse has now become the fastest legal immigration route into the US so you get plenty of rif rafs who have no love for the profession, and just want to get their greencard this way before hopping onto better pasture.

In terms of gap coverage and cost, Australia wins hands down, I would opt for the hybrid system in Australia over a heartbeat. The elderly down under get lifetime long-term care (yes, you heard me right) for a small cost like $20K, for that alone I am retiring in Australia.

Over-prescribing antibiotics is almost like a medical culture in east Asia. If you seek treatment for cold or flu in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan, you WILL be prescribed antibiotics. In fact, many Asian patients in the US often complain that they are not prescribed enough antibiotics.

My guess is it may have something to do with population density.

chrisborden says

Take me for an example of why forced insurance probably won’t work. I am 54 and down to my last $15,000 in savings except for what is left of my retirement accounts (they are sizable still). Because of my advanced age in this youth oriented world I cannot find a decent paying job since being laid off two years ago from the dying newspaper industry. I now earn $350-$450 a week as a driving instructor, which is barely enough to pay my rent, gas, food, etc. Although I have zero debt, I am in no position to be forced to buy health insurance for very long (and furthermore, I am in superb health and have seen a doctor three times since 1990). Will NoBama force me to withdraw from my retirement accounts, thereby incurring a massive penalty and taxes, to get insurance? The media is not telling me what this will cost. I’m sure it will be at least $300 a month. Oh, yea, then there’s the penalty if I refuse to get it. So forcing me to get health insurance will mean either bankruptcy or early retirement unless I can magically find a $40K+ a year job, which is highly unlikely at my age. Therefore, I cannot win. Will someone please enlighten me?

This is why we need to discuss single payer not for profit health care as proposed in HR 676. Obama would certainly sign this bill if it were passed.

The only problem is that the private health care insurance industry owns congress, and Americans are too ignorant to understand this.

drfelle says

Tude says

Yes, I feel entitles to my tax dollars going to the citizens of this country via health care and education, NOT lining the pockets of the health care, finance and military “industries”.
You act as though I am NOT “entitled” to want my HUGE tax bill to benefit myself and society? How on earth is that a bad thing? Am I not “entitled” to care where more than a third of the money I earn goes??

Correction: You feel entitled that EVERYONE ELSE’s tax dollars go to the deadbeats.

You have nothing to offer.

We will pay for the deadbeats in any system. Right now if you get in a car accident or get shot or whatever and go to the hospital without resources we all pay for it. It will always be that way.

Our system is not working, other countries do it better and you offer nothing but more of the same which is not working.

Some Guy,

My experiences in the Japanese health care system is that the doctors were the ones who were the ones who examined me, talked to me about what I needed, and made out the prescription in front of me. The nurses were more for assistance to the doctors. Granted here in the States, we expect more medical information from nurses since doctors may not always spend, or be able to spend for whatever reason, the time with the patient.

My waiting time to be seen was comparable to the time I wait here in the States. Everything was completely covered. There was not even a co-pay for medical visit, but there was a small co-pay for medicines. I hear that there have been some changes with co-pay. I liken it to the Kaiser Permanente coverage, but run by the government.

How was your wait time?
Did you have to pay anything?

drfelle says

Me? I’ll spend all day on here, I can afford Insurance. Heck I might even click on a few Google Ads and donate to Patrick’s Health Fund ; )

You are most likely paying alot of money for your health insurance. If you are using your insurance and you are insured as an individual, you must be paying a whole lot of mony for your insurance.

If you are in some sort of group, there is all kinds of other problems. For example, GM had to pay health insurance for its people and its retirees. And this company had plenty of clout to force lower health costs.

I don't know what kind of plan you have. Perhaps you have no idea what it costs. Perhaps you are young and your health is good so you are not using your insurance, or maybe you are working for a young company with many younger workers so health insurance is a better deal.

Many companies are really getting hammered by their health insurance costs, but maybe your employer is one of the few lucky ones.

But I really doubt that you truly understand what your health insurance costs are since you seem to be happy with it and do not want change.

drfelle says

I know exactly how much I’m paying.
Expense is relative. How much is your health worth?
If people cut unnecessary spending (ie. $400-$800+ Lexus lease payments, eating out every night, McMansion payment) and started eating and taking care of their bodies better, they could afford insurance. But, selfish FAT Americans can’t do that - they want everything the Jones’ have! And at the end of the month when there’s no money left for Medical Care (because they spent it on frivolous bull crap and food that makes them obese), they come crying to Uncle Sam for a handout.
Americans have learned the bad habit of overspending from Gubbermint. The only way to unlearn it is for the FED to stop spending so much on social programs (and spending in general) and force FAT and lazy Americans to figure out how to succeed at life on their own!

I know what my company is paying for health insurance. It is a whole hell of a lot of money.

And I have seen people with excellent health insurance, get sick, lose their job and live too long.

Our system is broken and we need to change it.

I do not see how single payer could be any more expensive than what we have now and it would most likely be cheaper.

You have yet to explain why our company when it pays its health insurance bill should also be forced to pay the bonuses and salaries and profits and all the rest of these politically connected Wall Street Health insurance companies?

Do you have any answers other than crying about government?

I'm starting to think that the quoting mechanism now in use on Patrick.Net is counter-productive.

We already have threads to keep track of topics. Why do I have do re-read reams of quoted text every time someone has something to say about whatnot? I short and to-the-point quote is fine, but it is getting out of hand.

Tricky Dick (drfelle),

>>I could cry for “factual basis” on 90% of the stuff written here. What’s your point?

Hence I can claim that conservatives cheat more on their taxes than the $373 they are claimed
to pay more in charity (per year) than liberals(*). What are you going to do about that, big boy?

(*) the number 373=1600-1227 is supposed to be the difference between charitable giving between
conservatives and liberals, according to a study, methodology unknown, by a certain Arhur C. Brooks.

Now there are several suspect points about this data.

1. Religious persons often are self-described conservatives, perhaps they pay $373 (or more) to church?

2. Is the data from tax returns. Apart from cheating on their taxes in general, perhaps the conservatives also cheat more on their claims about charitable deductions?

3. Arthur C. Brooks is the president of the American Enterprise Institute, a "conservative think tank", aka. propaganda shop.

Now, apart form all of the above, the general idea that charitable giving will be enough to pay for healthcare for the poor is ridiculous. How much healthcare are you going to get some fraction of $373?

And don't come tell me about some "trickle-down" theory of charitable giving more than making up for tax cuts. We all know that trickle-down theory has been proven a complete falsehood over the last 30 years.

Fell free now to admit your propaganda, or go back to your corner and smoke your own propaganda some more. Just don't blow that smoke all over the place.

http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20090706/NEWS01/907060309&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
a personal story (like so many we've heard before):

Families without medical coverage face tough battles
BY PATRICE ST. GERMAIN • patrices@thespectrum.com • July 6, 2009
In the United States, there are an estimated 46 million uninsured Americans.
"With no available health care, that forgoes preventative measures for dental and health care let alone trying to address their (current) health problems," Doug said.
Starting out with various aches and pains beginning at the age of 12, Amy's biggest problem has been the lack of a diagnosis.
Suffering from encephalitis and spinal meningitis and a pseudo tumor, the multitude of health problems would prevent Amy from getting coverage because of her preconditions - unless it was group coverage.
But because of the pseudo tumor, which gives Amy debilitating headaches, she is unable to work and has been denied Social Security several times and she has no access to Medicaid.

justme says

I’m starting to think that the quoting mechanism now in use on Patrick.Net is counter-productive.

We already have threads to keep track of topics. Why do I have do re-read reams of quoted text every time someone has something to say about whatnot? I short and to-the-point quote is fine, but it is getting out of hand.

I could limit the maximum quote size. But you know, you can select with your mouse and then hit quote, and it will quote just the selection.

Maybe we should start a new thread about health care. This one is getting slow with all the comments on it. Anyone have a new inflammatory position on health care they would be willing to post?

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Anyone who really believes this has a 'very good incentive' to give away their money (to charity). This is more of a measure of how deeply someone is religious and not necessarily a conservative/liberal issue. (Just so happens that more conservatives are deeply religious than liberals).

Either way, no reason to stop giving....

Limiting max quote size would be a good start. Thanks.

Tricky Dick,

Now you're just being lame. First you defend bap33's claim, and demand that I disprove it. Then when I post and critique the available (but suspect) material, you suddenly disown the claim. That should sum up the level of hinesty in your argumentation, right there.

Bap33,

So now you claim some "independent study" about the relative levels of giving by conservatives and liberals. Still no reference to your study.

And please do not come and claims that Arthur C. Brooks made an "independent study". Go back and read what I had to say about that one.

From http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2
...But while the rich do give more in overall dollars, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income.
Many researchers told us lower income people give more because they think they are more likely to need charity or know someone who needs charity...
(Supports my previous hypothesis that charitable giving seems to be linked to some possible future benefit (Heaven?))

Maybe we should start a new thread about health care. This one is getting slow with all the comments on it. Anyone have a new inflammatory position on health care they would be willing to post?

Nah, they're busy slinging names, blaming it on the libs and delving into semantics.

drfelle,

And I do not know what makes you so smug about hiding behind this whole "If I was rallying in support of Bap’s claim," semantic game.

It's a lot like Tricky Dick saying "IF I was behind the breaking into the Watergate Hotel".

Californian,

Thanks for the link to the study that shows that rich people contribute a smaller fraction (i.e. percentage) of their income to charitable causes than do poor people.

This was exactly what I claimed. Now, Tricky Dick, *IF* you were rallying in support of Bap’s claim, what would you say to that?

Phew.

And bap33,

>>An independant source did the study. And, I gaurentee you that the libs posters know about it already too since Rush plastered it all over the place a year or so ago

>> #2a) Conservatives OUT-GIVE liberals by a HUGE margin.

Somehow I have always had the feeling that you and "Rush" (Limbaugh) were on a first name basis.

But in any case, you haven't said much about the facts of the case lately. Your "huge margin" turned out to be only $373/year even in a highly suspect study. Well, whop-de-do, them conservatives really are generous, aren't they.

drfelle,

>“Many researchers told us lower income people give more because they think they are more likely to need charity or know someone who needs charity.”
>> Oh, “many researchers” told them so.

So now you have given up on your main thesis and instead want to squabble about *WHY* poor people give more? Does that mean that you have finally acknowledged that poor people give more?

By the way, I made no claims about what the motivation was, I just said "poor give more as % of income". Who is it you are arguing with now, exactly?

drfelle,

Then why are you getting into arguing about the motivation of poor versus rich people giving?
Perhaps you should instead argue about the motivation of conservatives versus liberals?

Speaking of people that need to make up their minds, you are one of them.

>> Is someone playing a joke on me???

I think so, but it isn't I.

hanskung23 says

AIDS drugs, cholesterol drugs, diabetes drugs, anti-hypertensives–the majority of these were developed by American pharmaceutical companies.

How would eliminating insurance companies eliminate the motivation for these companies to operate and produce advancements in medicine?

By the way -- this statement isn't even true. Pfizer is the largest pharmaceutical company in the world by a small margin (unless you count J&J), but after that you have Bayer (germany), GlaxoSmithKline (UK), Novartis (Switzerland), Aventis (France), Roche (Switzerland), and AstraZeneca (UK).

All of those companies do quite well, and even Pfizer makes more money in Europe than they do in the US (and the EU and the US have comparable GDPs).

So that's just a stupid argument.

Pay for doctors is also not really the issue here (though that's certainly a concern for other reasons). It isn't doctors that are making the US system cost twice as much as the Canadian or swiss systems.

The "best and brightest" who are purely motivated by money don't go into medicine -- they go into business and law, which pay a hell of a lot better than what even top surgeons get paid. Your $400k salary is nothing compared to the bucks being brought in by the people on wall street. Those other countries that you seem to think are so much worse off seem to have the same basic staffing situation as we have in the US, and offer just as good, if not better medical care for half the price. This tells me that the vast majority of people who go into medical professions for $400k will still go in for $200k, though I'm skeptical that there would be much of a pay difference in the first place.

The Swiss have more physicians (and nurses) per capita than the US. They actually had to implement a moratorium on new medial practices in some cantons because there were TOO MANY doctors. All this despite a government that sets strict price controls and where coverage is universal.

The current system does not benefit ANYBODY but the "insurance" companies. What benefits and innovation are they bringing?

Every dollar that we don't give to an insurance company is a dollar that can go to research and paying for talented physicians.

Hanskung23 - you are exactly right. I'm tired of people with no knowledge whining about our healthcare system because they don't want to pay for the service and goods they are receiving. The saying "you get what you pay for" is true, and the value has always been better historically in the presence of a free market, where people get rewarded (monetarily ie with something that gives them purchasing power to turn around and get what they want.) I know why people choose to ignore facts - they are lazy and want something for nothing - but why throw away everyone else's access to QUALITY healthcare just because someone is too lazy to take care of themselves and earn the money they need to pay for treatment. If people are truly worried about affordability in society, they shouldn't entrust everything to government programs, they should call for a reform of our fractional reserve monetary system. People have no common sense or critical thinking skills - if they did they would not want a national healthcare system.

I very much agree with what Kevin just said, except for the statement

>>The “best and brightest” who are purely motivated by money don’t go into medicine — they go into business and law, which pay a hell of a lot better than what even top surgeons get paid.

I'm not so sure they are the best nor the brightest, not even by a fairly long shot.

nogovhealthcare, what free market? Health Insurance is a rigged market... fixed market oligarchy to be exact.

"...QUALITY healthcare just because someone is too lazy to take care of themselves and earn the money they need to pay for treatment."

So your advocating a cash health care system.

A properly functioning health care system is supported by investment... taxes are an investment. The delivery can remain private, nothing wrong with that, but private insurance has to go. The difference in per capita health care spending IS private health insurance industry indirect cost... overhead and their profit.

We don't need a middle man. Private health insurance out. Profit out. By the way Medicare is 5 times more efficient in indirect cost/ overhead than the private Health Insurance industry.

Why do you think US corporations AGAIN want a fixed market so they don't have to compete?

It is like Wall Street is today, a parasite on the economy. Originally Wall St. function was capital formation for a real producing economy. Not a developing a bunch of fraudulent paper to shuffle around ripping off investors and pension funds.

"If people are truly worried about affordability in society, they shouldn’t entrust everything to government programs..."

Back to free markets solve everything?

Listen closely. Free markets DO NOT EXIST.

A perfectly competitive market is an academic construct on a blackboard because a static economic model is much easier to teach than dynamic one. Due to wealth and political power free markets will never exist. It is one of the fundamental failings of economics as a discipline.

As soon as the economic actors have the wealth and the means, they use their wealth to influence or subvert government and its regulators to the advantage of the wealth holders in the markets. Every time. The markets eventually become fraudulent and manipulated as wealth concentrates further... Hence, Wall Street today.

With your argument, we privatize fire, police and the military next.

Dear Mr. Drfelle:

I want single payer not for profit health care in this country because it will be much less expensive for business. This is the main reason it will be coming sooner or later. We cannot afford the massive Wall Street private health care profits, bonuses, salaries and beauracracy.

So why should all the "responsible" people have to pay more for health care to support the private health care insurance industry? You conveniently ignore the main issue while railing against the deadbeats.