You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
MySploofus
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message



Pages:  1    


tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Thu, 4th Jun '09 9:01 AM

HEALTH INSURANCE IN THE US

From a Reuters article on YAHOO earlier today:

"Medical bills are involved in more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, an increase of 50 percent in just six years, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday.

More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine.

"Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92 percent of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5,000, or 10 percent of pretax family income," the researchers wrote."

This is the system that those who oppose single-payer healthcare are afraid of losing. It is no surprise that medical bills play an ever increasing role in personal bankruptcies. First, for all the talk of government rationing care -- this is precisely what private insurers currently do. Second, when the banks got there way about a decade ago and it became much harder to discharge credit card debt in bankruptcy, bankruptcies primarily triggered by credit card debt dramatically declined.

goddess28
Goddess28  (Level: 92.6 - Posts: 5236)
Thu, 4th Jun '09 9:25 AM

I am not surprised.
My son had insurance through his work and paid $32 a week, when he lost that job (since it was a dealership) a few weeks ago he got a notice from them. They stated that due to HIPAA he could keep his insurance but it would cost him over $400 a month. This is a 19 year old boy who would be paying twice what I pay for mine, of course he had to sign a form saying he declined. It is obscene what the health industry is doing to us.

bbear
Bbear  (Level: 161.7 - Posts: 2301)
Thu, 4th Jun '09 10:50 AM

Goddess - your son is entitled to COBRA and may be able to find it a bit cheaper. But at 19 and if he is basically healthy he is probably much better off getting a hospital only policy (they are cheap) and just suck it up and pay out if he needs a visit to his primary care physician or an eye doctor. What is going to slam him are dental fees.

Be aware that many physicians will cut their fee by as much as 1/2 if they are made aware that you don't have insurance. It's no different than the same negotiations they have with insurance companies.

I wish your son good luck.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Thu, 4th Jun '09 2:43 PM

I sympathize as well. I am currently without insurance and although relatively healthy I am starting to get worried. I am at an age where health problems begin to appear. I don't qualify for medicaid and am way to young for medicare. Your son is entitled to cobra they will insure him for I believe 90 days after his health insurance lapses. I never appreciated health insurance until now when I need it. If something were to happen I honestly don't know what I would do. Even a broken limb would be disastrous. Even with a job healthcare benefits don't kick in for 90 days.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Thu, 4th Jun '09 6:12 PM

Perhaps this thread has not seen more activity TSK, since it was just recently discussed: http://www.sploofus.com/bbs_detail.sp?post=156726&cID=7

I did notice you didn't participate, perhpaps that was because you didn't see this thread????

Anyway, I did recieve by e-mail today this notification about my own state:

Two historic health care bills have gone through the committee process in Salem and are headed for votes on the House Floor. A vote is expected Monday, June 8th Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon has closely monitored these bills and we believe that this legislation will move us forward towards creating a health care system in Oregon that will include everyone and work well for all of us.

HB 2116 will expand funding for the Oregon Health Plan (the state's Medicaid agency) so that it is able to cover most of Oregon's uninsured children and 35,000 additional low-income adults. The bill represents an historic opportunity to bring additional money into Oregon's health care economy by securing increased federal funding and to provide access to care for Oregon's most vulnerable populations.

HB 2009 moves us closer to fixing Oregon's broken health care system. It creates an Oregon Health Authority that will consolidate and streamline the state's undercoordinated health care functions. This Authority will also begin to establish a health care exchange that will offer individuals and businesses access to quality affordable health coverage. It will also be directed to take steps toward containing soaring medical costs, and it will be directed to bring back to the legislature a plan to guarantee coverage to all Oregonians by 2015.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Thu, 4th Jun '09 6:52 PM

Hurray, Jeremy! Believe in the other thread I suggested we make medicaid more expansive and inclusive rather than fund something with absolutely no plan in place.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Thu, 4th Jun '09 8:52 PM

I totally agree Linda. Good for Oregon, a very progressive state. Hopefully other states will follow the lead and implement their own plan. I don't see it happening anytime soon in NC. It is very unprogressive as far as social reform. Thanks for that update, I am glad to see someone paying attention SYL.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 1:34 AM

Yeah, Oregon seems to be pretty progressive, but the unemployment rate is the second highest in the nation (although the data they use to calculate that is relatively small). If it weren't for that things would be pretty good in this state. I'm curious to learn more about these bills and how they plan to fund such a project in light of the jobless rate. I don't know if I would support this or not, but I do think that if they get it wrong it will be fuel for the anti-national healthcare groups until the end of eternity, even if it could work in some other way. I'm looking at it carefully, though I think all I can do at this point is contact my local legislator and urge them to vote in favor of the bill, if it is something I would support.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 4:07 AM

That ist he key: Have a plan with all terms and conditions out there for ALL to see and say EXACTLY how it will be funded. Then people can decide if it is worth it-

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 4:20 AM

"HB 2009 moves us closer to fixing Oregon's broken health care system. It creates an Oregon Health Authority that will consolidate and streamline the state's undercoordinated health care functions."

When was the last time government streamlined anything?????

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 4:29 AM

That is my huge issue when our leader wants to fund a dream-terms and conditions, please-

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 3:17 PM

This is in Oregon folks, Obama has nothing to do with this one. I hope it works out and not to much bureacreacy.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 10:02 PM

Collioure, I understand your concern about big government attempting to "streamline" a process. I have yet to look at the specific bill, and even though the part you are talking about comes from the rhetoric that came with the e-mail, you concern is the same as mine. However, outside of being a critic, I would ask what you would personally do about the healthcare situation in the U.S. instead?

I don't like government, even less do I like "big" government, but it seems to me that the what the bill is talking about probably needs to be done for the good of society. Like it or not, if the healthcare system is not willing to take on personal responsibility for a "crisis" which it definitely plays a role in creating, which is my preference, what other choice might we have? In fact, when I do see something on the voter ballot regarding healthcare in Oregon, I don't exactly understand how it works, it generally has something to do with giving pay raises to nurses or preserving benefits of some kind......hmmm, that's helping the situation! No other talk that I can remember (which doesn't mean there hasn't been something that I've missed) has even occurred out here. I can assure you, that the nurses in this state are generally well paid in comparison to other states (according to them anyway), and all they want is more, more, more. I understand you probably don't care how I vote on this issue, but a discussion might prove helpful anyways. For all I care this could be some kind of temporary patch up job on the situation, rather than permanent coverage for people.

In this environment where it is the good of a select few above (IMO) the good of everyone else, why wouldn't government in that situation then be something of a necessary evil? I agree, the idea of the government streamlining a process comes off as a bit silly indeed. Any specific alternatives in mind?

P.S., with my work and homework schedule, I have yet to look at the details of the bill, just warning you ahead of time. Although, time permitting, I will get to it.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 10:05 PM

Nor, btw, have I decided whether to help put pressure on my legislators or not.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 10:28 PM

Forgot to tell you I like your avatar. Why would Collieure be a person that would be an expert on this matter. Just being a devils advocate you might do better to research on your own, since you live in the state of Oregon.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 10:31 PM

I honestly was not trying to insult anyone it just seems to me if you live in the state you should be the one doing the research. Do you think the insurance coverage is inadequate and would a vote to get funding for improved healthcare be advantageous for all citizens of Oregon.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 12:28 AM

I directed it towards him, though I have read very little of his posts and know very little about him, because his comment on this thread regarding streamlining seemed critical of the bill. I admit I'm not very good at interacting in these forums, though I got the "impression" right or not that he might have something critical to say I might be interested in hearing. I was just curious is all. Perhaps he has nothing more to say about it, in which case he is more than welcome to disregard the previous post.

surreyman
Surreyman  (Level: 260.9 - Posts: 2770)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 11:43 AM

Er ..... so why, oh why, do so many USians decry our UK National Health Service?

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 12:03 PM

Surreyman, I for one am in favor of National Health Care. Even under taken by government. In this country there are far to many people under insured or not insured. People I know with health problems put off going to doctor because they can't afford one. One of them is myself. This can result in premature death and preventing a serious health care issue. So many people on Sploofus and here in the States fear that this will be an added burden on taxation for everyone. I see it as a neccessary service for everyone. It would be better in economic terms simply from the viewpoint that preventive care would be available. That would reduce health care significantly. If people have no insurance they often wait until life threatening health problems arise. When if treated early on they could have treatment and costly health care could be avoided. This is my opinion of course. I see nothing wrong with UK National Health Care, at least you have one.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 12:10 PM

Perhaps those doing the paying (specifically identified) knew what they were paying for as well as "terms and conditions" Linda

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 2:12 PM

Linda we are far from National Health Care so I don't think I would get my panties in a twist worried about how we are going to pay for it. I don't think your pocket book is being effected by this yet. Although soaring medicare costs could deplete system to the point that it may effect YOUR healthcare in future.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 2:57 PM

The usual big hurried PUSH without thinking is on don't kid yourself or try to kid me with no plan just up front money

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 5:54 PM

I agree just have some empathy for those of us who don't have you health care benefits. I have seen with my kids jobs and my own, ever increasing cost of company subsidized health benefits. It cost more and more with less benefits, some people can['t afford for a company to take out a fourth of their paycheck for insurance, so they go without benefits. These people are taxpayers just like you. I don't think health care should be only for women having babies and not being married or the rich, or the elderly which are 3 of the ways to have it. That leaves out a lot of people. I am not saying it won't be at a cost but as a country we should get our priorities in the right place. Education and Health being something we should be willing to pay for. the future of our country depends on it. Of course as well police protection and firemen etc. NOT defense spending.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 6:42 PM

Whatever Bobo. What Obama wants Obama gets. Pushed today from overseas to get some kind of huge sum funded with no plan in place yet again. On the tax rebate thin don't know how many millions of dollars were sent to people who had long ago been dead but hurry and waste again ...

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 9:52 PM

You don't want to find solutions or support anything. I think you would complain no matter who was in office. So go ahead on girlfriend if it makes ya happy and peace out.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 10:00 PM

Bobo - President Obama already said there is no money. The country can't just keep coming up with huge spending programs - and national healthcare is HUGE. There just is no money to support it, no matter how great an idea anyone thinks it is.

This country, for all intents and purposes, is bankrupt. The debt incurred since January 20 this year is so phenomenally massive that it cannot be paid back. It's impossible. Our economy is a ticking time bomb now and nobody can disarm it......I don't know if anyone can ever disarm it. The interest rate on this debt alone is devastating.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 12:30 AM

I respect you but I am so tired of hearing the same old gloom and doom from people on here. That may be true but don't they have money for the military budget? I don't want a answer you probably are going to throw more scripture at me. I thought you of all people would have empathy for people who don't have health coverage. Thanks for telling me the obvious I know about the debt the administration was left with.

surreyman
Surreyman  (Level: 260.9 - Posts: 2770)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 4:57 AM

I can only say again that maybe the US now has to join the real world.
How d'you think the lil' ol' UK funds universal national health services, and other social services way ahead of anything in the US?
The US has rather higher average incomes and distinctly lower cost-of-living and taxes (of all types) than, for instance, most European nations.
It wouldn't surprise me if average effective disposal income is towards twice that of the UK?
Maybe the Good Life might now need paring a little?


caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 5:47 AM

I respect your opinion Alan as you give reasons why you think so. Not sure i agree with your reasoning or how you come to your conclusion but you give them. I think it diminishes people who do not give reasons as it does to be disrespectful to someone beliefs.-most often here there religious beliefs and right to express them whether you agree or not Just a question for you ,Alan., Did you have a plan in place before you funded it? At the moment that is my biggest issue? Thanks-Linda

surreyman
Surreyman  (Level: 260.9 - Posts: 2770)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 7:07 AM

I didn't need a plan in place or need to fund it.
The National Health Service is with you from the day you're born.
It's funded by employees' and employers' National Insurance Tax.
Before and after your working years it's there for you for free.
It's not perfect, but pretty damned good!
Those who can afford it and prefer private wards, faster treatment etc., etc. can still finance their own private health plans on top if they wish.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 7:26 AM

That gives me a clear picture of what happens in the UK and I thank you for giving it to me. Since we do not already have that system here, believe it is fair to know the terms and conditions and the method of funding-thanks again-Linda

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 9:48 AM

Bobo:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090527110221AA7I3zf

George W Bush increased the national debt by ... a rate of about $52 Billion a month.

Barrack Obama has managed to raise the national debt ...an average of $175 Billion a month.

The debt this administration inherited from decades of spending (not just by Pres. Bush) is being TRIPPLED by the new administration.

surreyman
Surreyman  (Level: 260.9 - Posts: 2770)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 10:09 AM

Whoever was now President would have the same problem, inherited from previous decades, surely?

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 10:10 AM

No - that's all TARP 2 and stimulus packages. New spending.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 10:28 AM

Think it is a record for hipocrasy that during the campaign Obama blasted McCain-never very fond of him-for even suggesting taxing employer paid health benefits-callled it an "outrageous" attack on the middle class. if you notice now he refuses to take that option off the tabler rubber hit the road not enough fat cats to tax. He, however, will not get blamed for whatever is muddled together by Nancy and Harry's folks as he has put the responsibilty for everything on someone(s) other than himself like he did with stimulus-He is indeed "slick". linda

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 11:55 AM

Those figures are "if" he continues to spend the same amount. It also doesn't take into account any additonal revenue. New jobs creating more revenue or the dreaded word taxes. It is obvious we are going to have to increase taxes. The question is who will have the burden the middle class and poor or wealthy. Surreyman is right Americans have the highest amount of disposable income. Maybe he is right and in order for everyone to have the benefits of education and health care we all have to pay.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 12:10 PM

Linda: You said, "President Obama already said there is no money. The country can't just keep coming up with huge spending programs - and national healthcare is HUGE. There just is no money to support it, no matter how great an idea anyone thinks it is."

I admit I'm no economist, although I'm slowly getting an idea as to how it all works, slowly of course, through school. However it seems to me that you're argument that we "have no money" I would contend based off my limited understanding is not entirely accurate. Healthcare spending is currently 16-17% of the gross domestic product. As a group, the United States is expected to increase that spending to 4.3 trillion dollars, 20 percent of GDP within eleven years (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml). We have money, and it is being spent on healthcare already privately. We spend more on healthcare as far as I know by far than any other industrialized nation.

The country has money to support a national health care system if it ceases to continue to overpay for healthcare. A massive amount of money is going to be spent on healthcare whatever we do, the question isn't whether there is money but how will that money be distributed and to whom, giving whom coverage. The way I see it, this has nothing to do with money. It's there, it's just a question as to who gets it or who has access to it. In the previous thread an economist from a very prominent school gave his opinion that a National Healthcare system implemented properly could possibly save money. I may be wrong, but I honestly feel that a better debate would be focusing somewhere else rather than whether the U.S. could come up with the money. To me, IMO, a better debate might be focused on whether redistributing wealth that is already going to be spent is really all that wise.

Surreyman: You said, "I can only say again that maybe the US now has to join the real world. How d'you think the lil' ol' UK funds universal national health services, and other social services way ahead of anything in the US? Maybe the Good Life might now need paring a little?"

All I can say is "duh". Anyone who has ever had the experience of working at a hospital as an aide on night shift, while three nurses getting paid $50 an hour with their little tiny baby associates degrees sit around all night, sleep, play games on the computer, plan their next vacation, shop for dresses, talk about their childs private education, their latest and most expensive surgery they had done yet which the hospital paid for, drink lattes and generally act like they are superior to most people while I do the work because I'm the aide and going to college really can't see this healthcare system as it really is. (I'm not saying that all nurses are that way) As if the situation isn't being abused here. The cost of those nurses goofing off that I watched do that every night for more than 2 years gets passed on to the customers. In any other industry the company would go bankrupt with three employees doing virtually nothing for years at $50 dollars an hour every night. I can say I don't quite get it, but not in healthcare in this country. It doesn't seem to be exposed to the same pressures that any other industry faces. Is that because it's a necessity? I really don't know.

I once suggested to these same nurses that maybe healthcare wouldn't be so expensive if healthcare practitioners chose to live different life styles. Maybe skip the third Lexus? Is that perhaps a bit of overkill here? The reaction to that comment was like they caught me molesting a baby or something. It did not go over well. You have to remember that to these people, healthcare is NOT a philosophical "right" like it is in other countries, whereas by living a particular lifestyle is a philosophical "right", whoever that lifestyle hurts in a world of limited and finite resources. And what's worse, though this is just a personal comment, I don't even think that view of the "good life" is even an accurate assessment of what the good life is! Whatever. Fundamentally I would consider this philosophical difference, the issue of "rights", between the U.S. and the rest of the world huge in the health care debate.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 12:13 PM

Linda: I understand that was a long and by far "oversimplified" post and response, but I'm suffering from limited time and limited internet access today. Hopefully my response will clear up anything that sounds a bit phony in there, or perhaps to hastily written.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 12:18 PM

Jeremy, they want a trillion dollars to finance the start-up of a system that will ration healthcare and they haven't shown it to us it.

Be curious and see how their other estimates are doing.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 12:19 PM

You might want to take a look at just the interest on the debt even if he doesn't spend another time. From long personal experience know that throwing money at school systems does not make for good educations.- more than suspect it will be the same with health care. Want to know who is going to bear the burden of these tax increases that he PROMISED would not be the middle class. You don't get much more middle class than my kids and so far they have not been part of the ""Greater". I understand you don't have health care and that is frightening . We need to look at expanding Medicaid perhaps as it is already there- not something with no plan. I also badly need a new roof on my house but since I live in Florida and insurance companies here the ones that are left have huge deductibles for wind related. if tey pay at all. I don't expect you nor my neighbors nor my kids to pay for a new one or repairs. It is my responsibility to save enough to do that!!

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 12:25 PM

Quick Ladd, pm me the name of that hospital, I wanna work there! At every hospital I've worked at, it's the nurses who do most of the work, there are few if any "aides", $50.00 an hour would be paid only for agency or other categories of nurses who receive no benefits at all, and most make quite a bit less than that.
As far as sitting around. Not that it never happens, but it's very hard to staff hospitals. the in and out-flux of patients in a single shift can be tremendous. So it can go either way--under or over staffed.
Maybe you think firefighters are overpaid too. They just sit and do nothing between fires anyway. They with their "little baby ? degrees?
How insulting!

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 12:26 PM

My point is this is a complex issue a start is good but a rush just so someone can add it to their resume is not. medicaid is already in place-wasteful but there so lets start there rather tan funding a dream- Linda

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 12:28 PM

Jeremy, it was I and not Linda who quoted Obama saying there is no money.

I'm sorry - but it is a direct quote from Obama - I didn't make it up. You can google and find the quote under several sites - just find one you respect.

Sat May 23 2009 10:32:18 ET

In a sobering holiday interview with C-SPAN, President Obama boldly told Americans: "We are out of money."

C-SPAN host Steve Scully broke from a meek Washington press corps with probing questions for the new president.

SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?

OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 12:33 PM

Just know my doctor is green carding from Canada. Some posted from other countries certainly not all but believe Alan was the only one who spoke favorably of their health care system. linda

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 12:36 PM

And another thing Ladd
One reason that nurses make pretty good money (though less than you quoted) is that there is a nursing shortage. Most people just don't want to be nurses!
Cut the pay to save on health care. Many existing nurses would go elsewhere. You could pull in some folks off the street to do the work, and work them like dogs.
Let's see how we do with nosocomial infections, medication errors, etc then.


caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 12:46 PM

LOL Sandy always loved the folks who said that the problems with education all stemmed back to teachers getting way overpaid with those paid summer vacations. Obviously they had most likely never even been into the inner city of Detroit let alone past the chained doors on the school and the security guard. Those paid summer vacations i received were because i chose the option of taking less each pay day and getting check over the summer months. When you talk about who needs to make the sacrifices for the "GREATER" it can get ugly and many will simply do something else or go elsewhere...

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 12:47 PM

I agree Sandy, that comment was a bit insensitive. I know the few times I have been in the hospital it was the nurse's that helped me. I personally have never seen them sitting around doing nothing. Especially in ER or on a maternity ward, they do make a good salary but then again they have enormous responsibility and stress. I honestly don't know if I could do it. I think we should applaud nurses for the most part for being over worked and basically doing the physcians work.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 12:50 PM

SO... Bobo who is going to sacrifice for the "GREATER"??? Nothing is free....

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 1:07 PM

My response to you is EVERYONE has to sacrifice for the greater good. No nothing is free we should focus more on national woes than on developing a better way to kill mankind and polute the environment. How is that for idealistic socialism which is what I am a proponent of and you can believe I won't complain if I am taxed more if it is for the benefit of health coverage. Now lets all respond in a respectful way today. Without putting someones politcs or religion (or lack of) down.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 1:08 PM

Sandy - I agree. I've not seen behavior which Jeremy described. Did he mean in a universal health care world?

I could NEVER be a nurse. I'd cry all the time. I'd be scared out of my wits all the time - it takes all i can do to keep pets and plants alive - and my record on plants is not over 50%.

God bless ALL the health care angels everywhere. They and you deserve to be paid well.

I fear Universal Health Care will pay you less, not more.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 1:11 PM

Probably true, but I still believe some form of it is necessary.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 1:19 PM

Unless some kind of VAT (believe the hated Republicans proposed something that would tax all equally once and some still do called a flat tax-wasn't and isn't popular )- with no rebates to anyone is imposed, don't see how those who don't work maybe have never worked , own property. or own a business are sacrificing anything...., show me factually how I am wrong, please Linda gets really ugly when it is pointed out SPECIFICALLY who will be sacrificing...

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 2:25 PM

I have trouble understanding who comments are directed at on this thread.

Linda: If you are saying you understand I have no health insurance, you are sorely wrong. My benefits are great. The county pays 100 percent of my benefits, I have low deductibles and virtually no copay. If you are talking to Bobo or someone else, disregard the comment. I also misunderstood your initial comment, thinking you meant the long-term ability to secure funding for healthcare. If you are talking about start-up costs, I can see how that "might" be problematic.

That post illicited alot of commentary, I would love to respond. Today is not the best day, but I will try as I have time, as I am enjoying this thread. I offer no apology about the baby degree comment. It was a shot at the ego of the nurses I was working with on that particular unit, as you can probably tell by the context. After a decade of working in various capacities within the healthcare field, (starting as a cook, an aide, working up to the business office, etc.) I also know that it is not only the nurses on that particular unit who see themselves as uber successful and oh so bright, without doing the hard work or facing the struggles that the rest of us face, but a certain number of others as well. I wouldn't say it was jealousy, but a pernicious ego problem I've encountered in the field at least in my various neck of the woods. It was mostly directed at them in particular. A select group, to be sure. I honestly think they can have whatever ego they want, I'm just not buying into it is all, nor am I buying into the rhetoric about what great people they are. Many of them are heroes and truly public servants, many of course are not by any means.

No need for a PM Sandy. The hospital was Providence St. Vincent Medical Center in Portland Oregon. The starting wages, although I might be off by a bit are generally about $36 dollars an hour or so. There were only about 5-6 nurses on the unit. Two charge nurses who by self-report were making more than $50 dollars an hour, with a ton of overtime whenever they wanted it, (and I was privy to one charge nurses pay stub in particular which YTD with overtime was well above $100,000 dollars). Three of the others by self-report (you have to remember they were trying to convince me to become a nurse) were making "about" $50 dollars an hour, but my guess was is they were in the $40's somewhere. They were old nurses, relatively close to retirement, which might account for the high wages. I think one was in the industry so long I think she said she didn't have a degree, she just had training. The new nurse, who might have been in the $30 dollar an hour range, never offered me a report on her wages.

There isn't a shortage in health care because of a lack of people wanting to go into the field, Puhleaazze Sandy, get real. With those wages and hardly any time spent in college? At least in the States in the areas I've lived in it has more to do with the colleges and universities not responding to the current demand for those degrees, long, long, waiting lists, and the relative difficulty of young people freeing up their time to face classes that have been made PURPOSEFULLY harder than they have to be. Regarding that last comment, one professor at Portland State University said this to me point blank. Regarding long waits, one security guard had been waiting ten years on a waiting system at P.C.C. out here because the college he was trying to go to had a "lottery" system. Meaning you didn't get in by grades, but by picking a name out of a hat so to speak.




sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 2:37 PM

oh sure, on the one hand the classes are purposely hard, on the other, the students are picked out of a hat. some nurses are angelic heroes, others scum of the earth egotistical and lazy. My guess is that most of us are far to the middle.
Oh, what do you think about firefighters pay, since 90% of the time they're doing nothing, and they're nothing if not egotistical about their jobs (for good reason IMO). I think they make about the same as nurses, only with better benefits. I'm not aware of any college degree they require. One of my best friends is a firefighter. Could /would never do that, or teach kids!!


jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 2:42 PM

From my experience, certain personality types go into firefighting, law enforcement, and piloting. It seems to me it takes a strong level of self-confidence to do those jobs well - put your life on the line at any time. They're the kinds of people we want to be doing those jobs.Might be a bit harder to deal with OFF the job...

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 2:57 PM

I couldn't agree more Jank!

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 2:57 PM

Lol, I'm not sure how this thread has turned from healthcare into a discussion about egos. Forget the initial remark, this would be a long discussion into personal philosophical views, one that would include a discussion of egos, and I do not care to take the time for it today considering I'm behind on school work from internet issues at my house. Perhaps some other time? I'm sorry that my remark has rubbed you the wrong way Sandy, and you have taken personal offence. From what I know of you, I would not direct that remark towards you. As far as firefighters go, I do not see them as lazy, and am grateful for their help.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 3:00 PM

BTW, classes can still be purposefully hard, and be picked out of a hat. It just happens to be the case (until next year I'm told) at that particular school.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 3:01 PM

Tks Jeremy.
I would never say that firefighters are lazy! Was just pointing out that they are not always busy, and you indicated that if a nurse is not always busy, then they're, well, lazy!

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 3:41 PM

Lazy nurses????

Uh, I don't think so.

Jeremy, sorry you apparently lack the experience and maturity to see thru the shell game being promoted as the greatest thing since sliced bread.



smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 4:08 PM

Laziness, a word I would've never considered, was not what I was trying to convey. To me, based off my personal experience, this seems like an industry at times incapable of self-governance and self-regulating cost. With the advent of managed care, I'm obviously not the only one who thinks there are major problems in that area. I understand there needs to be extra staff in that setting, and as we sat and waited for an emergency level of demand for our services that basically NEVER came in two and a half years, after discussing why we were staffed the way we were with other employees, it occurred to me that I could think of many ways of staffing the situation that would provide similar coverage at much lower cost to the patients. As someone who takes alot of business classes, such things would naturally pop into my mind. Any further discussion will come off as slander in my opinion, and I don't care to slander anyone or any institution, as I imagine it has nothing to do with the ineffectiveness (again in my opinion) of this hospital per se but with the industry in particular. Thanks for respecting mine (and their) privacy in this matter.

Collieure: I just saw your remark, a put down in place of clarification of points and discussion says alot about you, but this has to do with one situation and one shift. The nurses on other shifts, depending on the day, were far more busy than is customary in many other industries. Thank you for putting words in my mouth Collieure, you seem even tempered indeed.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 4:14 PM

Jeremy, basically you can't create more health care out of thin air. You can reduce some costs with economies (many of which are partisan issues - so only the ones favored by the Democrats would be sought). However, to achieve lower costs in general, you will need to reduce salaries.

After that we get to rationing, and we are going to get there very quickly.

Got it?

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 4:16 PM

Thanks Coll. But of course there are some lazy nurses. Not the majority though. Just felt we were all being painted with the same brush.
Jeremy, I'm sorry you worked with a lousy bunch, if you did. I think it's rude to sit around discussing your salary at work, especially with people from different departments or job status.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 4:29 PM

Coll: Your point is now better understood and appreciated, thank you for your contribution and clarification on the matter. I apologize if I came off as confrontational, but saying I lack "maturity" will not encourage me to learn from you, it will instead motivate me to walk away from this "discussion". I make no claims that I'm absolutely right in my views, I come here to talk and to learn, and hopefully to admit and shore up my weak points in understanding. Convincing you of my perspective is last on my agenda. If I'm not doing so, I am wasting my time.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 4:49 PM

I don't see rationing as entirely a bad thing, though I may be using the same word in a different way. Although it may be "un-American" to do so, would a voluntary non-government based salary regulation on the part of the healthcare employees themselves lead to "rationing", as opposed to the bulky last ditch efforts the government is discussing? I don't know, I'll admit to holes in my understanding, but I can't see how it would. You'll call me idealistic, and I agree, it would probably never happen, but I've taken pay cuts before at times when I could afford them for things I care about. I don't even believe it would have to be everybody. The private sector has means of fixing these problems themselves. The government "threat" as I see it, would certainly be called off in such an event. I've met alot of nurses and doctors, and I KNOW not all of them are just about the money.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 4:57 PM

Jeremy, I was not talking to you. I was talking to Bobo as she has talked about being uninsured ore than once. I just want to know the plan and PRECISELY who is making the sacrifices for this "GREATER" thing. News said today Obama is going to get more involved. Hope that means he will have a plan and not just that he is using pressure to get his dream funded-Linda usually philosophical thread here do not stay philosophical-just an observation-tends to get personal when it is clear that the "tooth guy' is not leaving any money under the pillow or when you start discussing a bean counter determining "cost effective".

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 5:04 PM

Pardon me, Jeremy, I was a bit strong as you were giving this subject an academic approach.

The problem for me is that these folks are moving the ball. They've been dying to do health care for almost two decades now. Here comes another chance, and we're broke.

So suddenly we have a new reason. They're going to save lots of money. Well, I've worked in government and governments do not save money. So I am not buying that. And they need more than a trillion to get started???

We can trim some costs - less testing (which for some will mean a real decline in health care quality), limits on malpractice claims, shifting (non-emergency) emergency room services to less expensive venues . . . but after that we're down to rationing, waiting lines and lower salaries.

Here in France medical professionals have free education, but once in practice they collect much lower fees. I can't believe how much lower are the fees here - like 65% or more less. And still the single payer system runs at a deficit in the billions.

In the US something will have to give, but it won't be the new bureaucrats or the new taxes.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 5:22 PM

Ah, appreciate your very well written response Coll. I agree, at this juncture, a trillion seems like alot to ask.

Well, I will say that the call for voluntary "pay-cuts" has happened in education. Our governor has recently asked us to do so in education recently in light of the economy. I wanted to do so, and would do so had I had more time to set up a replacement source of income. I'm struggling with high debt after my divorce, so the extra source was needed, the little bugger put alot of debt in my name. Long term, I could've set that up. Some of the others on my job were scoffing at the suggestion, and I got the feeling that had I taken the pay cut I would've been made fun of a little, taking a "respect" cut on top of the pay cut. That's fine, different strokes for different folks I guess, but personally I would do so.

I imagine though that if the health care industry doesn't learn to self-regulate in some way a bit better, the government will keep rearing it's ugly head. When individuals hurt people and don't "regulate" their own behavior, government steps in (cops, lawyers, etc). Same with healthcare. If the practitioners and the others involved won't do it, then the government will probably eventually try to step in. If not today, then at some other time. There's a "rogue" element to it right now where it's not exactly serving a significant portion of what might be constituted as "the people" of the U.S. I think this will just keep coming up.

The academic approach was, as I said in the other thread, was playing devil's advocate a bit, sorry to throw you off there.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 5:46 PM

Oh, the government is intending to step in.

I just hope that some sounder minds in Congress will insist on a less ambitious plan considering our country's current finances.

Stay tuned, and don't count on those promised costs savings.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 5:48 PM

Trust me, I won't "count" on the savings, lol.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Mon, 8th Jun '09 5:58 AM

Jeremy apparently they have already stated some costs they would reduce

1. Cut diagnostic imaging tests like MRIs and CAT scans.

2. Reduce the use of antibiotics.

3. Perform fewer Caesarean sections.

4. Cut care for management of chronic back pain

I'll speak to #2 since I have some horrible experiences with such here in France when my primary doctor was away. They discourage antibiotics here (even with TV ads). Now twice when I needed them right away (Coricidin was no longer controlling a descending respiratory infection), I didn't get them. I became very ill both times. In fact, instead of a little $5 box of ampicillin which would have done the trick at the outset, I got more elaborate and more expensive treatments that failed, leading the way to many more doctor visits and eventually much more expensive antibiotics. A third time I didn't get a strong enough dosage precipitating another doctor visit and several more prescriptions.

I now have a back-up doctor for those moments when my regular doctor, who pays no attention to this BS, is away. Yes, you usually don't need antibiotics when a cold is in the head, but once it reaches the throat it's no longer the time for FHB. And the consequences of not getting them when needed are quite expensive and possibly mortal.

Fewer MRIs and CAT scans? Shouldn't we have more and shouldn't the price come down?

Fewer Caesarean sections, ladies? Fill us in.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Mon, 8th Jun '09 10:44 PM

Well, no one responded to this latest post, but I'm honestly not sure what you are asking for. I'll respond "better" if you give me a better idea of how you would like to me to reply.

My position on universal healthcare is something like "interested" but uncommited, I won't rule it out, and I will look at other options. I do believe that something needs to be done, as politically I will not put up this system as it is. I don't really consider the idea the "we ought to have" universal healthcare as "my view". Because of that I really don't feel compelled to respond to your latest post. For example, if you were to say post something about the "wrongs" or "flaws" of communism, I probably wouldn't feel compelled to respond to that either, as it just isn't my view that we ought to have a communistic government.

However, I am willing to continue to behave "as if" I were completely in favor of universal healthcare, in a devil's advocate role, because I get to learn as I go and enjoy the debate, or (my preference sometimes) the discussion. If you want me to behave "as if" and respond with a defense, I will, as an exercise in creativity and as a learning experience for me. If not, that's fine too. If so, then a reference for your post would come in handy.

If you want me to respond outside of that role just as an uncommitted human being and give my reaction to your post, then this is what I have to say:

I'm truly sorry about your experience with not getting the right the treatment. As someone who is not as familiar with all facets of the healthcare debate as I should be, I would like to ask what other solutions are being suggested by various parties that I can take a look at? When I'm done looking at the alternatives, then I will have a "tenative" commitment to a solution, and a discussion or perhaps debate can ensue from there, albeit in such a discussion, I may change my view at any time, and my first post may not come quick.



smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Mon, 8th Jun '09 10:46 PM

Thank you for directing your post at me, such a discussion, either way we have it, does sound like something I would enjoy.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Tue, 9th Jun '09 3:56 AM

Jeremy, since you were attracted by the cost-saving argument, I'm just showing what happens when government gets in control of health care.

Now, on second thought regarding MRIs and CAT scans, maybe less expensive tests can do the job in some instances. Possibly MRIs and CAT scans are overused, but a doctor who wants to get to the bottom of a problem quickly may not want to wait for the results of a X-ray and then an ultrasound.

But fewer antibiotics? I know personally how penny-wise and pound-foolish that is. Maybe less expensive antibiotics, not prescribing the really expensive ones when not called for at first.

And fewer Caesarean sections? We really need to hear about that one.

Heretofore doctors and HMOs have made these decisions. Does government know better, or will it just be trying to save money?

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Thu, 11th Jun '09 5:50 PM

My internet has been down...., sorry for the delayed reply.

Umm, the cost saving argument that I was supposedly "attracted" to, was brought up I guess because of another general belief that I have about systems that I think probably applies here, which is that probably regarding this situation in healthcare any system we implement "could" possibly work, what it depends upon is the character and the decisions that are made by the people within that system.

I was glad to see it pointed out by a respectable source that it was "possible" that a universal healthcare system could in theory save money. But since I don't think (government or private) that the people within the system will have the right kind of character or that the necessary decisions will be made , I think any system that gets implemented is going to be something of a failure, much like the current disaster they call the healthcare system now.

I am however more interested (at this point today) in universal health care than this system we have because it will help the poor, those whom I particularly am concerned about. I do believe that alot of the people who have made the private pay system a disaster will lose their jobs only to get rehired in the government system, and will "help" make, along with others who will join the field, a losing proposition financially, just like the current one is. Which is what I meant when I said, I won't count on the savings.

As far as the cuts you are talking about that will "for sure" be made, I would still like a reference for that fact, and perhaps time or internet willing a discussion along those lines would ensue hopefully.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 11th Jun '09 5:56 PM

I have recently read that even the Congressional Budget Office is skeptical of these projected savings in health care.

I am afraid that what we're seeing is an administration that does not have the money to launch their programs while they still have the votes. So in order to launch these programs anyway, they are inventing phony reasons.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Thu, 11th Jun '09 6:07 PM

Vague plan -no specifics again. He said anyone could keep their current insurance if they were happy with that. My BC/BS comes via Detroit Public Schools.If they have a choice between a cheaper government plan or my current one-guess what? Old saying something like the devil being in the details..

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Thu, 11th Jun '09 6:09 PM

"I have recently read that even the Congressional Budget Office is skeptical of these projected savings in health care."

You don't have to convince me, as has already been stated.

"So in order to launch these programs anyway, they are inventing phony reasons."

I do not understand what the phony reason comment refers to at all, unless you are referring to comments made in other threads. Either way, you would have to spell it out for me.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 11th Jun '09 7:15 PM

Jeremy, they don't have money to implement a health care reform today while they have the votes. So they invented this reason "cost savings."

If they would lower their sights bit and implement something effective and much less costly, they would gain support for further reform later on.

However, they way they are going about this, you have to be suspicious.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Thu, 11th Jun '09 7:52 PM

They being the dems I guess. LOL, I think I spend most of my time trying to understand the relevance of your comments. That makes sense of some earlier comments of yours. When you said something about my maturity and inability to see through things, you must've been referring to me being taken in by the "current" cost savings argument, of which I was unaware was being used by "them" at all. I've always suspected that long term cost savings "might" be "possible" through more coverage, long before the current administration, and long before Bill Clinton showed up, which is why I had trouble making sense of your words. I'd written papers about it before I even knew who Obama was.

The "possibility" of savings and the "realization" of savings of course are two very different things. I believe the possibility exists, but the realization of those savings don't seem likely to me at all, as I stated. I agree, a middle step taken would probably gain more support, and is probably wiser at this point. As usual though, the suspicious comment has me scratching my head at what in particular I ought to be suspicious about. Whether it's a drawback or not, I don't generally keep up with "today's" news about politics, and if it refers to that in some way, I probably wouldn't get your meaning.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 11th Jun '09 7:57 PM

Well, they're in such a hurry to do the whole thing while they have the votes, they are going to try to ram it through, the finances of the country be damned. Suspicious?K - of their numbers and of the consequences of their plan, of course.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Thu, 11th Jun '09 8:22 PM

Oh, I guess I'm not as suspicious as you. Well, it could be "they" are trying to push the agenda at the expense of the overall well-being of the country, or it could be that "they" truly think this is what is best long term for the country regardless of the current circumstances, or some other possibility or middle ground. Your perspective is something to think about, I agree. Not sure what to make of your view just yet, but I'm grateful and glad and I do thank you for explaining that to me just now.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sat, 13th Jun '09 10:06 AM

Not really interested in debate, and this is nothing too important, just an update on Oregon's healthcare reform efforts, in case anyone is interested: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/health_care_reform_bills_clear.html

The two bills passed. Nearly all of Oregon's children are now covered along with more 35,000 more adults, and more on the way??

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sat, 13th Jun '09 10:09 AM

Sorry, but Bobo appeared interested if no one else.....

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sat, 13th Jun '09 10:10 AM

If the national health care stuff is enacted, does that render Oregon's nul and void? Will national health care be "instead of" or "in addition to"?

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sat, 13th Jun '09 10:14 AM

Good question, I don't know!! I do know this current bill recieves federal money......but otherwise....????

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sat, 13th Jun '09 6:19 PM


collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 13th Jun '09 6:34 PM

Jeremy, we began this with the idea that the administration was floating this on the basis that it would reduce costs over the long run. That turned out to be a rather flimsy argument.

When someone tries to put on over on you, you need to be very suspicious.

Oh, it may be true that they think it's good for the country (or good for their party), but in my opinion they don't have the money for their grandiose program today and raising it could be disastrous. The timing is all wrong. They know it - that's why we heard the flimsy cost saving argument up front.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 14th Jun '09 4:16 AM

I'm still at a loss at times about whether to respond or not to your replies. Your posts seem to be set in some kind of "debate" mode, which I don't mind and would usually enjoy, with the kind of language that would ordinarily draw someone in. With sentences like, "When someone tries to put one over on you" or "good for their party" being aimed at the democratic party, were I a democrat that would work (were that your intention) and I would feel compelled to defend "my" party. But I'm not, and I feel that whether your perspective about the party is true or not, it's not my party. I'm just saying, if you want me to defend the dems I won't. Ideologically I'm a libertarian, but a very bizarre one indeed, and you would have to work pretty hard at getting to know me in order to figure out just how to draw me in (again, were that your intent). I'm just guessing here at why you've chosen those particular words and phrases of course.

As far as the cost savings issue, other than a quote about how another country has run a deficit, you have yet to back up your claims, and I have already agreed that immediate savings is not likely. I'm not sure what else to add as we appear to be in agreement on the issue. I don't see universal health care as something I would vote for as a long term solution, though maybe it is, just think it's necessary in the short term, so I will vote for it. If you know something about the basic views of the libertarians, and I'm sure you do, than you know that I would vehemently prefer a small government, and this solution is not in alignment with that ideal. I would not view this as some kind of long term fix, I have other views on those. I would actually prefer some other way.......

surreyman
Surreyman  (Level: 260.9 - Posts: 2770)
Sun, 14th Jun '09 4:46 AM

From the UK's long experience (some 60 years), universal health care is very expensive, and the 'medical' rate of inflation is usually far higher than the real rate of inflation due to research, technology etc.
And I don't see it could be a short-term measure - it's an enormous turnaround in organisation and associated taxation.
A nation just has to decide whether to go for it or not.
I would never be without it.
As before, the US currently has (relatively) a high income/low costs non-supportive economy. Nowt wrong with that if that's what they want.
But, in terms of medicine, energy, housing, finance and a whole host of other aspects, maybe the US is now looking at a rather basic change to the current laisser faire?

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 14th Jun '09 5:23 AM

Jeremy, I don't have a party. So when I write "good for their party," I am saying for purely political gain.

Over 100 Democratic Congressmen have signed a document saying they will not support a health care plan funded by more deficit spending. So maybe they don't believe the claims of cost savings either. The Obama admin is now looking for $600 million in new taxes to fund the plan.

Do the math. They don't believe in the costs savings themselves then.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 14th Jun '09 6:01 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/13/key-senators-seeking-overhaul-health-care-industry-ties/ not sure what this says but looks like any plan might not be for the good of the folks from the start

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Fri, 19th Jun '09 3:55 PM


caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Fri, 19th Jun '09 4:01 PM

I disagree with this doctor's plan as well but at least he acknowledges the flawed plan

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 21st Jun '09 3:59 AM

Coll: As far as the "cost savings" argument that you feel is flimsy, I'm not sure which one you are referring to....the one put out by the Obama administration (if there is one), the one put forward from the professor of economics listed in one of these threads, or the one I developed long before the controversy began? I imagine there is more than one argument here, I'm not sure how you can call them all flimsy (per your words on another thread) when you don't even know what they all are. If you just mean the "specific" argument, Obama's, then perhaps that is the case, I wouldn't know.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 21st Jun '09 4:20 AM

Jeremy, the administration doesn't even know. It was the reason they put forward when they realized they didn't have the money.

Patience, my friend, it will all be before us in a few months and you will be able to see it for yourself.

Something should be done to improve access to health care for those who do not have it

Bur for far less than $1.6 trillion.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 21st Jun '09 5:54 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/20/key-senator-white-house-strike-deal-drug-industry-health-coverage/ guess this is viewed as a plus for the prez-just know if he screws with the insurance held buy folks like the teamsters which similar to mine, he won't get far in ruining the system with the numbers he pulls our of the air like he does the":jobs saved' thing. Interestingly Tom Daschle who was his first pick but was just too big a tax cheat to get past the naaive public, made a speech somewhere recently. Don't remember much of it but believe it went along the lines of the Daschle plan. It also put forth taxing the current benefits of health care. Don't believe this favorite of the prez would have made such a speech if it did not meet with the approval of the prez. Jusr someone is able to slow anything down before we are rushed into ruination.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 16th Jul '09 7:28 PM

Jeremy, at the time you doubted my words above.

Today the Congressional Budget Office stated that the health care reform proposals afoot today would increase health care costs per capita. So much for the phoney cost savings argument.

QED


Pages:  1    



Copyright © 2003-2016 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus