While some conservatives claim that Obama wants to kill your granny I hesitate to accept that as Obamas sole reason for pushing the health care reform.
From the private insurers point of view it makes perfect sense to oppose the reform ... if they didn't, they'd face an immense decline in profits if either the government option provides better care or if regulations bar insurers from avoiding costs by their current methods.
But it's a bit too simplicistic to merely claim that one party acts out of altruism (or a loathing of old ladies) and the other out of greed.
So, what do you think are the driving motives in this dispute ?
(Note that I don't ask you what you think is the better solution.)
Pro (Motives of the health care reform advocates):
Con (Motives of the health care reform opponents):
Two key issues that make the health care reform necessary in the eyes of the proponents are quailty and cost.
Quality has been discussed to death and information (and misinformation) is freely available.
Cost is harder to estimate - one simply can't understand what estimated costs of trillions of dollars over decades means for your paycheck. So I started a different thread where I want to compare the personal average cost of health care in different countries.
For example: German average gross income is about €2,500. After deductions (including health insurance) a single person without kids gets to keep about €1,500.
And what can germans do with that money in germany? Why, buy beer, of course. €1,500 get you 1,200 litre of high quality Pilsener beer - twice as much if you don't care about quality and go for the cheap labels.
Health care costs: €185 per month (currently $264)
Cheers!
Don't need Frogboy for that. Most of them are open about where they are posting from. Many, if not exactly "most", of the supporters on the forum will not be affected by it in any way. Most of those opposed will be affected by it eventually.
Anyone willing to read for a while should find this article interesting. Keep in mind the writer is a self-proclaimed Democrat, but some of the ideas expressed should have other party members ready to disown him. Only at the end when he gets to the things all Americans should be required to do does he return to what a Democrat would find acceptable.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
To be fair, most of them hated us already. Bush just reminded them why.
Certainly not a lunatic, though.
Again, my reasoning is being "overshot"; each individual has some control over the society they live in.
Not if the poorest (say, about 100+ workers) are used to generate TOO MUCH wealth that only one person can benefit from. What is a reasonable maximal limit for anyone to be able to simply live in such a context? 20,000,000$/Year salary or less? Do they really need that much money to spend?
200,000x100 is what? Enough or better off?
20,000x1000? Care to evaluate their available means.
Premiums paid to Insurance corporations is funding for universal health care already. Well, at least, that's what we've been hearing from those who ARE covered in the US.
Zyxp -
qnpoquywghbnqrtqouihvpqo;wenit;qoihvaalkndf;aohyqebrqiygtbsbnw4rtmqeroj
IIRC, a Lungs cancer patient is still enjoying a whole bunch of millions in Florida for going after the Tobacco industry. Should any car manufacturers be help responsible for clunkers (of late) that POLLUTED her lungs too?
That's health, ya know. That's even jobs in agriculture or assembly plants.
I'm seeing multiple people post various reiterations of the statistic, "2/3 of all health care costs in a person's life are spent during the last 6 months." Average life expectancy in the US is 77.9 according to the latest statistics, and medicare kicks in after living for 65 years, (among other qualifications) so we can safetly assume that a vast majority of these cases are paid by medicare.
I've also seen the argument about not paying for another person's surgery a lot, because of American individualism. However, we still pay for the surgeries of old people through medicare (also going back to the 2/3 in the last six months piece of data). Medicare is going to stay where it is since seniors are the happiest with their health care and the most active voters, so politicians don't want to lose that voting bloc. (trying to work with the reality of the political situation)
Contemplating these two facts, I would like to pose a question:
Let's take a guy named Joe Bob. He lives a relatively healthy life, with the average salary, has health insurance until he turns 65, where he signs up for medicare. At age 70 (i'm not a doctor, so these ages are fairly arbitrary) he begins to have heart troubles, escalating to multiple surgeries during his first six months of being 75. Eventually, the old age takes over, and he passes away.
So in reality, the government payed for most of his healthcare. According to the data, he spent 1/3 of his total hospital bills of his life for a total of 75 years, but in the short period of 6 months, 2/3 of his total hospital bills were payed for by the government. Why doesn't the government pay for the other 1/3 over the course of a 65 year period? (actually less than 1/3 given he had already been on medicare for 10 years before the surgeries)
I want this question to be simple and philosophical, while recognizing the current situation. I know that the numbers are not be completely accurate, but when answering the question, the numbers are food for thought.
Hah! Maybe you aren't, I missed that whole PC craze. Completely...
This would be the same Cuba where fever reducers aren't widely available, yes?
For what I truly wish could be the last time, life expectancy is a product of lifestyle first, health care second. Cuba's poverty is even a plus. They aren't actually starving, but they can't afford to eat too much. When you slow down your metabolism, you age slower to go with it. They walk to work because they can't afford transportation, plant their own gardens because they can't afford to shop like we do, and generally aren't fat, yet again because they can't afford to eat McDonalds every day and sit on their ass all evening. Cuba's health care sucks donkey balls, aside from a couple high end clinics in the rich parts of the island. Those would be the places tourists go to. Their other facilities make the shit hole hospitals we have in rural areas look like a godsend.
First, you're wrong. Medicare is 80/20. People that die of cancer generally don't die of cancer after 65. When you died at 25 from leukemia, you weren't covered by medicare. You did however rack up x millions of dollars in hospital bills before you went. More money than you would likely have made in your entire life had you lived to ripe old age. Two thirds in the last six months, yes, but everyone doesn't live to be 75, and medicare doesn't pay it all.
Second, you're assuming that it's a good idea government pays for all those costs. Medicare is what created the rapidly increasing cost, the time line is quite obvious. Each expansion, including the one Bush made, has increased the rate at which new treatments are created, due to the increase in viability through government funding. There would be no aids coctail without medicaid for instance. No one with aids, aside from Magic Johnson, could afford the treatment. It's nice that my grandfather got to beat lymphoma twice, it's not very fair though. More money was spent on him than he and all his children combined have made their entire lives. In return, he got 16 years he wouldn't have ten years earlier. Medicare has created the massively expensive, but significantly better medical treatment. It is the problem.
If we can't afford the amount we're spending, the solution is that we need to die sooner. You do that by getting rid of medicare and medicaid, not by expanding the system to include everyone.
Excellent insight Frogboy. I agree that Canadians embrace collectivism but I do not agree that we are, as a whole, homogeneous. The difference is that we celebrate and embrace the cultural/religious differences among us and allow people to express that. We make sure our children are educated about cultural differences. This helps to eliminate the ignorance, fear, hatred and misunderstanding that breeds prejudice. We respect the rights of individuals while at the same time, striving for what's best for all.
For example, several years ago we held a referendum here in Canada in relation to the French/English issue (a fairly hot button topic here in Canada). The ensuing vote ended in a 49%/51% split. In the US, that may have been grounds for a civil war. In Canada it was more like "Ok, the vote is done, the people have spoken, it is what it is, let's go home". I do not see this as weakness of conviction but rather respect for the democratic process whether it supports your convictions or not.
Melchiz....While I suspect it is fruitless to expect to have a productive debate with you, I will say that I understand perfectly the meaning of hyperbole and mockery. As someone who can complete the New York Times crossword puzzle in about 1/2 hour (in pen), I suggest you look up the definition of "miserly".
I also never said "American doctors as a whole are inspired by greed". While I believe wealth is the motivation for many in the medical profession, I never implied that was the case for all.
The Monk's Wife
Thank you for this. I really didn't need any evidence of your sour attitude before, but this speaks more clearly of your character than my words would ever be able to accomplish.
In the words of my husband the_Monk....."He's a dick", meaning you....I concur.
I also do not have a "sour" attitude....I'm pretty sweet actually...and my character is, in my humble opinion, admirable.
Something of interest, the Founding Fathers used greed to their advantage. That is why it is a capitalist society.
Don't misunderstand me, they were Idealist as well. They believed that all mankind have good in them, but they understood that you will not get people to work their best just for the greater good.
To work hard and to put your best in the work for the greater good is a wonderfull idea and works brilliantly on paper, but unfortunatly it requires a great deal of moral and mental strength to do that day after day; and that strength cannot be found in great abundence in any country in the world at this time.
The Founders reliezed this and also reliezed that if you offer a reward for the work, they are more willing to do the work. They also knew that if you give more incentives to work harder people would be more willing to do it. That is why capitalism works so well, it is a group of people who are working together for their own personal gain and striving to do better because they know that they will recieve better rewards. Those that work also relieze that if they don't do a good job while someone else is doing a better job for the same price, they will be dropped for the better worker. Same goes for companies and products, if there is something or someone else who is doing a better job for a similar price those who are paying for it will go there. It is all similar to how the laws of supply and demand work.
In contrast, if the people are being paid the same price whether they are doing a lousy job or a brilliant job, they tend to become discourage and just do an okay job because no matter what they are being paid the same. An example of this is communist Russia (no I am not prejudice, it is just easier to see with them as an example), the products that came out of the factories were crap because it didn't matter how good it was they were still paid the same no matter what, as long as they worked.
How this applies to doctors is that they put in A LOT of effort and money to become a doctor, hence why here in America they are paid more. If they weren't paid more far less people would be willing to put in the effort to become a doctor. There would still be those who wanted to help people, but the majority of people who could be great doctors wouldn't be willing.
As an example of people willing to do things for a reward let me make an example: Who here would be willing to take a monkey to prom, and enjoy it? No one?
What if I offered to pay you 100,000 dollars? How many would be willing?
what about 10,000? Still takers?
1,000? I still see a few hands
100? I think i still see several hands in back
What about 5 dollars?
10 cents?
If you were still willing to do it at 10 cents I appluade your, ahem, extreme individuallity.
Edit: The only two motivators in life; Fear of loss, or Hope for gain.
Now, I'm willing to bet that if he had private health insurance, his premium would have been jacked up after the first case of getting lymphoma (I'm sure you read Wendell Potter's testimony -- he's from the health insurance industry and argues that they try to dump people who are costing them too much). Given the comparison of the medical bills to the wages that him and his direct relatives made, it seems reasonable to conclude that he would not have been able to pay for the second lymphoma case if he had private health insurance.
In addition, you suggest that those who don't make a lot don't deserve the same high quality treatment that the rich can get. This leads to our seemingly inherint philosophical differences. You think that only the rich should be able to have access to top notch care due to cost issues, wheras I think the system should be more equal and give out care to everyone, prioritizing those who can prove longevity from the treatment.
If it makes any difference to you, I think it was absolutely fair that your grandfather got the treatment he needed regardless of his socio-economic status, and I feel good that my tax dollars (well, not my tax dollars, I wasn't paying taxes over 16 years ago) were going to save his life.
Avix605....like i said, i was married to an emergency physician for 10 years...I know how hard they work in Med school and the stresses they deal with in their work. I am not suggesting a communist situation where everyone is paid the same, but i am also suggesting that salaries for physicians in the US (and for that matter pro athletes, movie stars, etc.) are inflated. Nobody needs millions of dollars every year to live a good life. And by the way, doctors in Canada still get paid handsomely and are nowhere near being martyrs.
As for the ideals of the Founding Fathers"....if it were true that hard work, effort, level of responsibility, etc. in a job reflects the remuneration of said job in the US, then nurses, teachers, law enforcement, etc. would be paid waaaay more than they are.
I hope you realize that some (many) believe that 'what's best for all' only means 'what they believe in their own belief system', and that some of those will use any means necessary to force their belief on you - even to the point of beheading you while you are still alive with a very dull knife, if you don't subscribe to their belief system.
With nearly a third of the global population in a religion (Islam) that teaches this through their most sacred writings, even 1% (around 20,000) is something to be reckoned with. Can you ever eliminate the fear of these people by 'education'? Or, would the education simply enforce the fears? (and for good reason, and through no 'prejudice')
Ignorance is another thing entirely. And much of it stems from a desire to bury one's head in the sand to not see a very real danger.
Thus is true. But there is a difference between making a living off helping others get well, and getting rich off the suffering of others..
I mean were not talking luxuries here, were talking about basic fundamental needs here. The costs for vital medical attention should be affordable for all. Sure Charge up the wazoo for breast augmentation, or other non vital elective surgeries. Sad part is Ive seen Bill boards pop up advertising competitive rates for breast implants, but yet dude dieing in ICU is cut no such break. Again the have's cutting deals for the haves, while the rest get the shaft..
BTW I have ample Health coverage and have for many years, but it bothers me to see folks who do work hard to support their families not be able to cover insurance premiums. Not to mention getting stuck with large parts of the bill becuase the insurance CO would rather see you Die than pay out.. Dont get me started on them either...
When My mom was sick with cancer I had to step in because her insurance didnt cover everything, so I covered the expenses the insurance didnt cover over what she couldnt afford, prescriptions etc. Sure I paid the $500 weekly for 7 pills trying to save her life, But holy shit did they really cost $400 to make, even $300? $200? $5.00??? not to mention the $10 ibuprophin pill I could have bought 500 of at walmart for the same price. I mean it looks like a 500% or so mark up on every thing, no wonder folks cant afford health care, and dont trust the health care system.
I mean doctors used to take a bushel of apples or what ever the patient could afford... but now with huge medical centers and Boards of directors running the show, you almost have to offer up a mortgage on the family home to get seen.. its gotten way out of hand.. Sadly the people are speaking out.... and if the Medical profession as a whole wont listen, the people will turn to who ever will. IMO If the health care industry wants to avoid Government regulation and keep the ball in their court.. They need to start making some revisions and fast. Other wise for better or worse, the Government will get drug in to the picture.
The Political aspect is moot to me as If they are involved they will screw it all up no mater what party is running the show, And I trust either side about as far as I can toss a Bus. Keeping Political promises = smoke and mirrors to cast an illusion of actuality.
Um, she said "respecting individual liberties. I don't believe what you say about "what's best for all" being forced upon us. You know, we do have rights, it's not like the government can just kill everyone who holds an obama as hitler sign.
But where did that come from? striving for what's best for all is like striving for perfection, you can only get closer to it but cannot actually reach it.
well, charlie wilson wanted to send some money to build up an educational system and what not in afghanistan after handing out weapons, but that request was denied. On the whole, education would have helped them to be more civilized and we would have been a lot less likely to have the need for troops there.
I'm suggesting you do some very simple math, along the lines of two plus two equals four. My grandfather consumed far more resources than he created in his life, period. Bill Gates has done much for society with the products he's brought about, and been rewarded in kind. Bill Gates spending fifteen million dollars to live another 16 years actually makes sense. Bill Gates isn't consuming more wealth than he's creating, he isn't burdening future generations with debt from any medical procedures he is able to pay for. The refusal of collectivists to accept this simple fact is why socialism fails to get them anywhere.
To have more, you must produce more. If you haven't produced it, you are taking it from someone else.
Monk's Wife
I never said Canadian doctors were martyrs, nor did I say you were suggesting communism. I mearly used it as one of my examples.
There is another factor that does come into play; how much are the employers willing to pay. The wage of a worker is a compromise between what a person is willing to work for, and how much do they think they are worth. Now, I do not remember off the top of my head about nurses, but I do know that all public school teachers, law enforcement officers, military personel, etc. are government employee's. The president, congress, and the majority of the bureaucracy try to take the government income (taxes) and fund the Important items, and their pet projects, find ways to take it home as bonuses or give it in gifts to their supporters, etc. and the lower level "less important people" (ie the teachers, law enforcement, etc.) get the short end of the stick.
Now more on Communist Russia, when I was a little child my family had the Great Honor of hosting two russian choir members in our home. They were part of the only russian choir that had been allowed to come to America before the Iron Curtain fell. Do you know what happened the minute they stepped into a common supermarket? My mother remembers clearly, The Were Absolutly SHOCKED. Shocked that the shelves were lined with food. Shocked that there was all kinds of food. Shocked that you could recieve help at anytime in the store.
Do you know what communism and socialism try and impersonate. Something religious called the United Order. It is where everything is pooled together and people receive only according to their needs. It will only work though when two conditions are met. When the people are of one heart and one mind and God himself is the ruler. The Founding Fathers wanted this perfect society more than any of us can ever understand. They believed in God with all their hearts. But they knew how greedy people are. When they sat down to create the Constitution of the United States they strove to create the best government they could that would insure the freedoms of the people. Don't deny that you too see the truth in the phrase it takes two thieves to make an honest deal.
The Founding Fathers created this Great Experiment. The United States. Proof that the people can in some way rule themselves and that they did not need someone else to make all the decisions for them. All free countries owe their freedoms to this experiment. For well over two hundred years it has stood, and it sickens me how over the years people have chipped away at it, striving to make it into what it was never ment to be. That is what this bill is. An attack on the very founding principals of this nation. If the government gets any larger or anymore control over the people that is one more chip taken from the very foundation of this Free nation.
Nobody seems to have noticed this aspect of one of the health bills, the one that has passed through the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP). It's aim is to "promote healthy living and reduce disparities" by providing grants to "(A) State government agency; ( local government agency; or (C) national network of community-based organizations." The grants would be "for the implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of proven evidence-based community preventive health activities in order to reduce chronic disease rates, address health disparities, and develop a stronger evidence-base of effective prevention programming."
It's purpose is to promote "healthier school environments, including increasing healthy food options, physical activity opportunities, promotion of healthy lifestyle and prevention curricula, and activities to prevent chronic diseases."
"Activities within the plan shall focus on (but not be limited to) ... (iv) assessing and implementing worksite wellness programming and incentives; (v) working to highlight healthy options at restaurants and other food venues; (vi) prioritizing strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities, including social determinants of health..."
"In carrying out subparagraph (A), the eligible entity shall, with respect to residents in the community, measure--"(i) decreases in weight;"(ii) increases in proper nutrition;"(iii) increases in physical activity;"(iv) decreases in tobacco use prevalence;"(v) other factors using community-specific data from the Behavioral Risk Surveillance Survey; and "(vi) other factors as determined by the Secretary [at HHS]."
This means that some government sponsored entity like Acorn will have committees in your neighborhood who will check into what you eat, whether you smoke, and whatever else they dream up to monitor your life.
The program is called "Community Transformation Grants," and is on pages 382-387 as posted on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) web page.
Some people want to think it's advisory; using the word implement indicates otherwise. In the name of health care costs, it's highly likely that you would be required to comply with their instructions.
The Senate committe web page: http://help.senate.gov/ Get the PDF version of the bill here: http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf
The Senate committe web page: http://help.senate.gov/
Get the PDF version of the bill here: http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf
And yet, Hitler did it, eventually, to those that opposed him and to those he saw as inferior. And in much the same way, Obama and this adminstration are taking those very steps right now.
Obama is appointing so many 'Czars' that answer to no one but himself. It seems as though he is trying to circumvent 2 branches of the Government to give sole control to the Executive branch, with himself as the head of everything.
And in case you haven't noticed, our 'rights' are flying out the window like birds fleeing a fire. This administration (and the previous as well) cares nothing for 'Constitutional Rights' (or responsibilities) anymore.
Heck, our President won't even release his original long-form birth certificate or other records - and is paying BIG $$$ to keep it that way. Why?
This country is going to hell-in-a-hand-basket. And all because so many want what they don't earn themselves at the cost of those that do.
You're just crazy, no one would ever tell you how to eat!
...
Oh right, we have a marxist president with openly communist and fascist advisors. Never mind me.
I just think that everyone should be able to have the same opportunity your grandfather had. To be denied that would be a denial to life. Sixteen years is a long period of time. One of his grandchildren probably moved through his or her adolescance and into the real world, something he would not have had the joys of if he couldn't get the care that he needed.
It's really weird debating with someone where I'm the one saying, "your grandfather deserved what the government gave him" and you disagree.
Being a dick doesn't make him wrong.
Seriously, did no one read that atricle I linked to at the top of the page? This sort of thing is explained in detail there. Cosmetic and optional procedures are cheaper because insurance and Medicare don't cover them. This type of stuff actually participates in something that resembles a free market, and so prices came down after a few years. Normal medical care in no way resembles a free market, so prices stay high even after new treatments become widespread.
The pills themselves, probably not. Figuring out *how* to make them, certainly. Phizer (or some other "big evil drug company") probably spent half a billion dollars or more on research to make the contents of that pill, then testing it for years before they were allowed to sell it. And when they do get to market, there may be only a few thousand people that need it in any given year, depending on what it's supposed to treat. I'll be generous and say 10 thousand patients a year; divide 500 million by 10 thousand, then divide again by the 7 (generally fewer) years they get to sell it before generics are legal, and what is your mother's share of that development cost?
BTW, that is the reason most other countries (notably Canada) have far cheaper drugs: their government sets the price they are willing to pay based of production costs, not production plus R&D cost. So drug companies shit bricks when they hear anyone mention reimportation, because selling drugs at insanely high prices here is the only way they can possibly recoup the cost of R&D. Add in the time factor: they get 7 years from the day it's patented (generally long before it hits market) to recover the R&D costs, then anyone can make those pills and sell them for production cost.
Seriously people, read the article.
ahh but what if your grand father was also Bill Gates grandfather but had died due to lack of health care before producing Bills father, thus bill never being born. Hence causing a greater loss to society than the care's initial cost. Would the savings have been worth it then?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
