patrick.net

Amen. Now we just need to convince our Representatives, Senators, and our President. Good luck. I've tried...

It is unacceptable for the health care system to be used as a cash cow for

medical goods & service providers.

FTFY.

"According to Towers Perrin, a global professional services firm, malpractice litigation costs $30 billion a year and has grown at more than 10% annually since 1975."

Anyhoo, if I were King I'd move the malpractice insurance from covering the doctor to covering the patient. It'd just be part of one's general insurance package, and the insurance companies would fight the doctors not shield them.

Wow, interesting thought Troy re: malpractice insurance...never thought of it that way.

Can you please elaborate on the Ponzi aspect of Medicare, I don't follow. Thanks.

Can you please elaborate on the Ponzi aspect of Medicare, I don’t follow. Thanks.

I thought it would be self-evident. But anyway...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/20/the_medicare_ponzi_scheme_96581.html

I think Republicans should especially support universal health care, and anything that helps tort reform.

I do not get the fuss about abortion. If the government should not pay for abortion then it definitely should not cover maternity.

Don't we want abortion to be much more affordable than maternity?

I am generally pro-life, except that I strongly support the death penalty and I believe that abortion, though vile, is preferable to having neglected children, aka future welfare recipients.

yeah, Medicare is due to blow up real soon now since 3% of the wagebase as an input isn't enough to cover the boomers as they move into their 60s.

From the article:

"There is $34 trillion sitting off the balance sheet, waiting for future generations to pay," Herzlinger said.

That works both ways, though, on the other side of the $34 trillion expense is $34 trillion in income to the medical industry. Yowza! Full employment for everyone -- $34 trillion can pay 4.5M people $150,000 a year for 50 years!

Of course, elderly health care is purely consumption and not accretive to the national production of wealth, other than the fact that personal health is personal wealth so a healthy society is a de-facto wealthier one.

and I believe that abortion, though vile, is preferable to having neglected children, aka future welfare recipients.

The libertarian side of me has no problem with what people do with their bodies. I'm not religious so a one day fertilized egg or two week old blastocyst is just a ball of interesting cells to me, potentially a life but neither here nor there as far as I am concerned. Late term abortions are done for other reasons, nearly all because the health of the fetus/infant is severely compromised for some reason, and I don't see any need to interfere with that decision since, like you, there are costs involved and as a left-libertarian I think we've got to pick our battles about who society can support and how much.

I think the moment of birth is better than any to draw the line about government guarantee of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Before then, it's really none of my business.

John Stossel has had some pretty "out there" opinions, is now a rep for Faux News. His opinion is completely biased.

There are some problems with Medicare - that's a given. There is so much fraud - with equipment providers sending stuff through the mail to people who answer a survey over the phone, jazzy chairs flying off the shelf (I've seen it), charging for services not provided. Hospices sign on just about anyone. Home health providers too. There should be more followup for fraud reports. And people who report fraud or abuse shouldn't be penalized or have their careers & reputations trashed.

De-regulating doctors? I've seen some who were drug addicted, who were drunk, who operated on the wrong body part or patient because they were distracted or confused... But that doesn't mean that I want a physician who was trained in another country, who doesn't speak our language, who doesn't understand modern equipment or sterilization procedures working on me. That wouldn't save money, it would create more problems.

Look at it this way - a CNA passes a short course and is certified to take blood pressure, complete a body assessment and report to the nurse. Would you want that same CNA to decide what is wrong with the patient and call the doctor for treatment orders? I'm gonna say hell no. Now, take a person who is a doctor in another country and send them here - if that country doesn't regulate how much training the doc has, or how much education the doc has, should that doctor come to the US and make life & death decisions? Not every decision is life & death, but we're paying for those times that they are.

So far as reasonable end-of-life decisions, we do spend money on the elderly. However, not all those decisions are poor. Just because a person has maybe 10 years left on them doesn't make their life any less valuable. It should be the quality they face vs the quantity they face that matters. No one should be denied treatment based on the decision made by someone who will inherit their estate. If I were Donald Trump's kids, I'd have him put down for a hangnail...

End of life decisions should be reasonable, but if I had to bet how much money is "wasted" in this area it would be substantially less than the fraud that's perpetuated within the system. IMHO, of course.

People pay into the Medicare system all of their lives, and draw from it when they're 65 or older. They pay premiums at that point ($100/month for part B plus their drug premium); so when people say that the elderly are a drain on the system that's not exactly true. If the premiums they paid for 40 years had been invested, I doubt the care would exceed the cost. The problem that we have now is that there are more old people drawing from the system than young people paying in - and we've used the money from Medicare & Social Security to balance budgets and spend on all sorts of things. Now that we're upside down, we want to make changes. Anyone see a similarity to the housing crisis?

Reasonable decisions should be made about everyone's care - but not according to finances. It should be quality vs quantity.

Peter P says

Can you please elaborate on the Ponzi aspect of Medicare, I don’t follow. Thanks.
I thought it would be self-evident. But anyway…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/20/the_medicare_ponzi_scheme_96581.html

I guess I just don't have any wealthy seniors in my life...

Most are still working to maintain their employers bennies. When my dad retired and was diagnosed w/ Multiple Myeloma 5 months later I got the opportunity to go pick up his pain and anti-nausea meds at the pharmacy...$1,000 out of pocket. That's my personal Medicare experience.

Leigh says

Peter P says

Can you please elaborate on the Ponzi aspect of Medicare, I don’t follow. Thanks.
I thought it would be self-evident. But anyway…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/20/the_medicare_ponzi_scheme_96581.html

I guess I just don’t have any wealthy seniors in my life…
Most are still working to maintain their employers bennies. When my dad retired and was diagnosed w/ Multiple Myeloma 5 months later I got the opportunity to go pick up his pain and anti-nausea meds at the pharmacy…$1,000 out of pocket. That’s my personal Medicare experience.

Medicare supplements cost anywhere from a couple of hundred dollars a month to five hundred. Advantage plans charge over a hundred per month - and these are for premiums. Drug co-pays are outrageous. Hospital & rehab co-pays are in the thousands.

I don't know many wealthy seniors. I have seen many who can't afford co-pays, premiums, etc. Once again, an article written by John Stossel taken as fact (when in reality he's made so many controversial comments he can't be taken seriously as a reporter, hence his association with Faux News which has admitted that only a minute portion of its programming can be considered "news), simply can't be relevent when discussing healthcare. Anyone can quote an "article" - hell anyone can write one. Doesn't make it so.

I've seen more patients who can't afford their care, even with insurance, than those who can. I'm sorry that Leigh's experiences were such - and that it's possible that the only way his medication became affordable was for him to receive hospice care to the tune of $140 per day to the Medicare system.

Unfortunately, the people who are the greatest critics aren't touched by lives affected by Medicare's good & bad points. Or should I say fortunately? After all, I don't wish anyone the hell of dealing with provider issues, denials, preauthorizations, case managers, etc. Sure, the system is broken and needs a fix. But the people suggesting the fix don't know or understand the issues.

Yeah Elliemae, I am just amazed to hear, mostly from Libertarians, that health care for the needy and elderly can be taken care of via charity work like the old days before Medicare/Medicaid. Do these people even understand the magnitude of the population?

You wanna see death panels...leave it up to charity.

'cause, even though these old people paid into the system for years and the payments were hijacked to balance budgets ala Reganomics, they're a drain on the system now. We don't want death panels to decide their healthcare, we want them dead so they don't receive healthcare.

Damn global warming! Used to be you could shove an old person onto an ice flow and they'd be gone for good. Now it's not so easy...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091211/wl_afp/australiaantarcticaiceberg

I'm just wondering how many old people are on that sucker right now?

You wanna see death panels…leave it up to charity.

Charity is the way to go. :-)

And since many charities are religious based I have to ask, "What would Jesus do?"

Which begs another question, "If heaven is soooo ummmm heavenly, why aren't old folks lining up to get in, ie, stop taking their meds, DNR/DNI?!?!?!

Just some thoughts since we are a predominantly Christian nation.

Leigh, I think you are onto something... :-)

If the old people are faithful, they should embrace the inevitably graciously.

They need to ask themselves if they are simply taking up space and emitting CO2 by breathing.

"I am confident that a well-run universal health care system will cost less to the taxpayers."

Um what in the Frack is a "Universal Health Care" or "Public Option" for that matter?
If there's a hefty premium involved it's called a goddamn insurance phuck job!

Money you'll piss away and a small percent of the population will piss away in hypercondriac hospital visits, for uber expensive procedures, that the "System" will use to justify the oppresive premium that the middle class will no doubt pay for.

Now if we're talking about a government run health care "Agency" that is run and operated on fiscally responsible audits. Then count me in.

But a federal insurance agency forged out to this lot in Washington whilst being lobbied 30:1 by every profit driven medical and pharmaceutical company in the world, you can't seriously have faith in that. Can you?

I mean, has every one really been paying attention to what Washington tells us they are working in legislation and what we end up with, the difference has been Utopia compared to Hades.

You think shits broke now...

I am talking about a government-run health care branch that bills you full retail for the first $5000 every year.

On top of high taxes? Are you people mad?

The Doctors piece of paper doesn't have to be a lucky day wind fall for everybody?
Why is every one pretending that 80% of the people involved in all things medical industry related in this country, are "NOT" parasites that add no value to the service, but 70% cost?

I'm talking about the insurance admin side, the marketing in all fields, the private owned hospitals and clinics with their board members and a long line of investors behind them. The medical billers the collection agencies and their lawyers. I know I could go on and fill a long paragraph if need be.

I'm sure our government can provide a government entity that can run a hell of a lot cheaper. Because as I pointed out most of what we pay now is profit and greed, a government run system funded by taxes, won't have the need for 90% of the over burden that is currently in our for profit system.

And for those that wouldn't be caught dead in a Kremlin Emergency room, there could always be the private for profit hospital and ER probably right across the road. And don't kid your self, even if we did have my idea of a national health care system. There would still be a private health industry. We as a nation just don't feel right unless we over pay for what we get after all.

On top of high taxes? Are you people mad?

In order for the world to keep growing, global tax rates need to come down dramatically. Those who rely on welfare in developed countries should be relocated to cheaper places.

Tax rates have shot up way too much over the last 100 years. And for what???

"Morally, letting sick people die because they cannot afford health care is NOT wrong. "

O.K. so now I know.

Is it morally wrong to allow "For Profit" companies to make health care unaffordable?

I mean that would be one hell of a way to conquer a country. Buy their medical system.

Is it morally wrong to allow “For Profit” companies to make health care unaffordable?

No.

But why is health care unaffordable in the first place? Perhaps there is not enough competition and/or too much regulations.

Moreover, there must be an incentive for people to "ration" health care themselves. Individuals must be exposed to costs of health care for the market to work.

(BTW, I accidentally deleted my previous comment when I tried to edit it. I was comparing health care to national defense, and that I support government-run healthcare only because of competitiveness and economic reasons.)

Why is every one pretending that 80% of the people involved in all things medical industry related in this country, are “NOT” parasites that add no value to the service, but 70% cost?

I agree with you. :-)

However, the existence of those "parasites" is the direct result of the regulatory and/or judicial environment.

And don't get me wrong, I think universal health care is a NECESSARY evil. We need it not because of compassion. We need it only to maintain a productive and competitive economy.

(Hence I do not see universal health care as a form of welfare, which tends to punish productivity for "compassion" reasons.)

Forget it. The USA had its chance time and time again. Now the only presidents with any real power in the USA are the dead ones. Its corrupt at the very core and not about to change anytime soon. It will only get worse. The only thing that will change anything is a global catastophe to force an even playing field again.

I don't think Nature favors any "level" playing field (or Evolution would not have occurred). All natural participants are either on the right side, or not any side at all in the long run.

There is no such thing as an "unearned" income. Who is to decide?

Perhaps programmers have not "earned" their income because they do not physically work in the cotton field.

Transaction tax will only damage the financial market. Do you seriously think the volume will be there with that tax? It is just populist nonsense!

Why are you blaming the bankers? They are merely reacting to human greed. If you and I are not on their side, shame on us.

I am all for abolishing Medicare/SS tax if you think it is too regressive.

The only new tax I support is a poll tax. Thatcher is my hero!

What financial market abuses are you talking about? Pre-SEC stock charts look just like recent stock charts. When the public is not allowed to comprehend concepts like caveat emptor, no wonder the herd is getting dumber.

Has anyone seen the connection between Health Care and THE FED? There is a DIRECT CONNECTION. You can find all the details in Dr. Ron Pauls book called END THE FED. Its very helpful regardless which side of the argument you happen to stand.

Everything is connected to the issuance and control of money.

Peter P says

Transaction tax will only damage the financial market. Do you seriously think the volume will be there with that tax?

Is lower volume a bad thing?

Peter P says

Why are you blaming the bankers? They are merely reacting to human greed. If you and I are not on their side, shame on us.

Gordon Gecko? Is that you? Fraud is not a reaction to greed. It is a criminal action.

Is lower volume a bad thing?

Absolutely. And volatility is a GOOD thing, because the market tends to dry up without it.

Guys, please do not blame speculators, they are the PROVIDERS of LIQUIDITY.

Gordon Gecko? Is that you? Fraud is not a reaction to greed. It is a criminal action.

It is a criminal action only because insider trading was criminalized. Morally, I do not see how insider-trading amounts to fraud. It is more like herding sheep(le).

Remember, people make the choice to participate in the financial market. They should take responsibility in their own actions. If they do not like those greedy "fat cats" they can simply hide in a farm and grow their own food.

Peter P says

Is lower volume a bad thing?
Absolutely. And volatility is a GOOD thing, because the market tends to dry up without it.

Why is lower volume a bad thing?

Why is lower volume a bad thing?

With lower volume, liquidity drys up, and the market fails to perform its function to reflect value.

Why is greed a bad thing?

Peter P says

Why is lower volume a bad thing?
With lower volume, liquidity drys up, and the market fails to perform its function to reflect value.

I hardly think that we are in danger of liquidity drying up. There are already transaction costs associated with each trade, so I find it hard to believe that a small tax would cause such a drastic change in volume. And even if volume dropped by 25%, the market will still perform its function without an issue.

Peter P says

Why is greed a bad thing?

It's bad when it causes people to make poor decisions. Greed usually encourages short term gains over long term value. And often leads to cutting corners...

Small taxes always balloon to big taxes. New tax (unless it is poll tax) will not solve any problem. Instead, there are always unintended and undesirable consequences.

Even 0.01% on a $10B derivative contract is $1M! Not small at all!

Stop demonizing derivatives. Blame the stupid people who are on the losing side. Any transaction tax will suffocate the market.

It’s bad when it causes people to make poor decisions. Greed usually encourages short term gains over long term value. And often leads to cutting corners…

So what? If people are making poor decisions, Free Market allows us to make them our gains. What long term value? Life is short. We will have new equilibrium points in the future. Our next generation will adapt and deal with the new environment. I don't care if they drive hover cars or hunt with sticks and rocks.

Peter P says

Small taxes always balloon to big taxes.

No they don't.

Peter P says

New tax (unless it is poll tax) will not solve any problem

If the problem is lack of government revenue, then I think it would help solve that problem.

Peter P says

Blame the stupid people who are on the losing side

Fine. Let's all blame them. They work on Wall St. in New York. The problem is that it's tax dollars that are used to bail them out.

Peter P says

So what? If people are making poor decisions, Free Market allows us to make them our gains.

Seems like we all lose to me. My tax dollars are being used to keep the economy from collapsing because of their greed. Who exactly are the winners?

No they don’t.

Yes they do. Income tax rate used to be just a few percents during the Civil War.

If the problem is lack of government revenue, then I think it would help solve that problem.

But the problem is too much government spending. You are trying to solve the wrong problem.

Fine. Let’s all blame them. They work on Wall St. in New York. The problem is that it’s tax dollars that are used to bail them out.

Ha. They got bailed out because the people were scared. The bankers could not care less. They won before it started.

My tax dollars are being used to keep the economy from collapsing because of their greed. Who exactly are the winners?

Yup. You were out the money. Who exactly are the losers?.

BTW, if being a winner means being the person who save the day, I am willing to be a loser because I want to be helped and I want to pay nothing.

Can I trouble you to voluntarily pay a 100% income tax? It will help the economy from collapsing and I will personally give you a "winner" plaque. :-)

Good one Peter. Looks like you pointed out an inconvenient fact. Or perhaps you could call it "the ugly truth".

Peter P says

But the problem is too much government spending. You are trying to solve the wrong problem.

You say tomato, I say tomato. Taxes have gone down in the last 20 years--so they don't always get bigger.

Peter P says

Ha. They got bailed out because the people were scared. The bankers could not care less. They won before it started.

No shit people were scared. And for good reason--the economy almost imploded. Buffet has a trade receipt where someone gave him something like $100.52 to buy a $100 future 3 months from now. It was a negative return. That's how bad it was. What do you mean the bankers couldn't care less--lots of them are out of a job. You think the people at Lehman cared? That makes no sense.

Peter P says

Yup. You were out the money. Who exactly are the losers?.

If you live in the US and pay taxes, you were a loser my friend.

Taxes have gone down in the last 20 years–so they don’t always get bigger.

Yeah, only because of one heroic president that also tore down the Berlin Wall.

What do you mean the bankers couldn’t care less–lots of them are out of a job.

You are confusing bankers with banker peons.

If you live in the US and pay taxes, you were a loser my friend.

No doubt.

elvis says

TAXES are MUCH HIGHER because the purchasing power of the dollar is MUCH LOWER…daaahhh

How do you figure? Please show me some data on that. Otherwise, I'll assume it's just one of your made up facts....

And please give it up about the Government causing the faulty lending practices... More regulation of the banking industry is what we need. I don't know if the current bill is a good one, but we definitely do need more regulation...

Tapupu - Seriously, if you don't understand that the dollar has continually lost purchasing power you need some REALLY basic education. Facts? They're all over the web if YOU would take the time to look them up yourself. Look up: Inflation, "The Grandfather Report", National Inflation Association. Log on: 321 Gold, Dollar Collapse, etc. Do some reading...please.

More regulation? "If you wish too destroy a nation, you must corrupt its currency." That's exactly what the FED is doing. SOUND MONEY is society's first defense. MORE REGULATION ISN'T. More government is not the solution to America's problems.

No government ever seizes power with the intention or relinquishing it. The FED created new paper currency and wealth incessantly, while the real personal wealth of society was steadily being diminished through increased prices.

Read and learn my friend, read.