mudcat.org: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]


BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Greg F. 15 Aug 09 - 07:02 PM
heric 15 Aug 09 - 06:48 PM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Aug 09 - 06:15 PM
heric 15 Aug 09 - 05:09 PM
Maryrrf 15 Aug 09 - 04:39 PM
DougR 15 Aug 09 - 03:46 PM
heric 15 Aug 09 - 01:51 PM
Bill D 15 Aug 09 - 01:43 PM
Bill D 15 Aug 09 - 01:31 PM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Aug 09 - 01:11 PM
heric 15 Aug 09 - 12:45 PM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Aug 09 - 12:39 PM
Greg F. 15 Aug 09 - 10:07 AM
McGrath of Harlow 15 Aug 09 - 07:14 AM
Penny S. 15 Aug 09 - 06:47 AM
The Barden of England 15 Aug 09 - 04:41 AM
Richard Bridge 15 Aug 09 - 03:14 AM
DMcG 15 Aug 09 - 02:49 AM
DougR 15 Aug 09 - 01:34 AM
heric 14 Aug 09 - 11:37 PM
heric 14 Aug 09 - 11:36 PM
Richard Bridge 14 Aug 09 - 11:22 PM
Greg F. 14 Aug 09 - 10:45 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Aug 09 - 08:10 PM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Aug 09 - 07:50 PM
pdq 14 Aug 09 - 07:45 PM
DougR 14 Aug 09 - 07:41 PM
Peace 14 Aug 09 - 06:59 PM
heric 14 Aug 09 - 06:54 PM
Peace 14 Aug 09 - 06:50 PM
Little Hawk 14 Aug 09 - 06:48 PM
Azizi 14 Aug 09 - 06:28 PM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Aug 09 - 06:04 PM
Greg F. 14 Aug 09 - 06:01 PM
Greg F. 14 Aug 09 - 05:10 PM
Alice 14 Aug 09 - 05:00 PM
heric 14 Aug 09 - 04:59 PM
bobad 14 Aug 09 - 04:19 PM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Aug 09 - 04:13 PM
heric 14 Aug 09 - 03:59 PM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Aug 09 - 03:55 PM
heric 14 Aug 09 - 03:26 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Aug 09 - 02:58 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Aug 09 - 02:50 PM
heric 14 Aug 09 - 02:39 PM
Peter T. 14 Aug 09 - 02:26 PM
Alice 14 Aug 09 - 02:08 PM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Aug 09 - 01:49 PM
DougR 14 Aug 09 - 01:14 PM
beardedbruce 14 Aug 09 - 12:27 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 07:02 PM

Doug? MISLEADING?

Not at all. What he's spouting is absolute crap.

And this statementof his:
That law is credited with helping to create the run-away cost of medical care in this country. is all the proof one needs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 06:48 PM

(To be clear: The insurance claim is processed by the provider, not the patient. You don't need cash. If the patient turns out to be covered by a private or public option, then the provider will get it's payment. It may be entitled to some further contribution from the patient for which it will follow up. The entitlement may come from the plain terms of the insurance that the patient expected, or it may come because the provider is not bound to accept the insurance terms as payment in full. If it turns out their is no coverage obligation, private or public, then the provider will go after that person whole hog, at "fair value" rates much higher than it would have accepted from the private insurer or the public program. That's where the cost-shifting ramps up - and where the working and middle classes Face the Beast.) (The truly poor and the truly rich have nothing to fear.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 06:15 PM

I think you said the opposite if what you meant to say there, Doug: "NO ONE who shows up sick or injured at an Emergency Room at any hospital in the United States cannot be turned away without treatment."

What Maryff wrote there fits with my understanding of the situation, which underlay what I wrote.

If you turned up to an emergency room here with a life threatening condition you would definitely be referred on to get the kind of continuing medical help that you needed, over and above any immediate emergency help you might need.

But accident and emergency services are not the way most people with serious illnesses get help under the NHS. The normal way is for people to consult their family doctor, who refers them for specialist help, if that's what is needed. I imagine that's the same way as in America - except that here it doesn't involve paying anything, or making an insurance claim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 05:09 PM

But that's not the end of the insurance availability story through Meidcaid or other public assistance. I hesitate to show you the crazy California patchwork, but here it is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 04:39 PM

What Doug said is misleading. If you show up to an emergency room with a life threatening condition they have to STABILIZE you. That is, give you the minimum treatment so that you don't die right there. They don't have to treat a raging sore throat, a painful but not life threatening burn, etc. Nothing will be done about a potentially fatal illness that requires ongoing treatment, like cancer or emphysema. And whatever treatment you receive you're liable to be socked with an enormous bill which you will be expected to pay if you have any assets at all. Here's a short article about emergency room rights


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 03:46 PM

McGrath: You must not be aware that NO ONE who shows up sick or injured at an Emergency Room at any hospital in the United States cannot be turned away without treatment. I believe the law was passed in around 1986. Any hospital turning away people who need medical care are in violation of that law. That law is credited with helping to create the run-away cost of medical care in this country.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 01:51 PM

There is and always has been a cottage industry of alternative proposals. But it all has to be packaged together. The public has just been exposed to the current package(s) selected from the body of literatue and the body politic, which proposals are not themselves fully formed. So that's what we're working with.

(My simple preference for geting something done quickly would be to elimnate the employer's tax deduction for providing polcies, and a mandatory national program to guarantee no-deductible preventive care and very high deductible or catastrophic coverage for all.)

Thanks for the Obama Senior Moment link. I think it comports with my understanding (on its restricted scope of issues), except that the poor are denied preventive and wellness care. The nature of rationing is almost unknown, though, to be born in the as-yet undescribed scope of authority of the yet to be created agencies.

This isn't cause to reject the proposals (or what the proposals end up becoming.)

What I haven't seen, although they may exist in the muliple, thousands of pages proposals, is the great body of consumer protection provisions that make up so much of insurance law. Hoefully they're in there. The immunity from review provisions I did see smack of the government grabbing similar protections for itself that employer provided insurance holds under ERISA (and the governemnt employee programs also have under FEHBA).

It's also true that the US rations by "ability to pay" but in practice the more accurate description is by the availability of insurance, public or private. A point the article doesn't get to, and which the proponents haven't been pushing to my knowledge, is that actuarial fairness is built into larger pools of participants. The larger the better. So while the WSJ makes they point that thousands of carriers in the open market have a different method of rationing than centralized government entities, it doesn't mention the unfairness of smaller pools where the healthy and wealthy get better rates.

I also liked the comment at the end about how AARP can be brought back with prescription benefit sweeteners. Where we're positioned now is that the government has promised to make one really big sausage, and has told us most of the ingredients.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 01:43 PM

sometimes an image says it best


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 01:31 PM

DO remember that the Wall Street Journal is now owned by Rupert Murdoch, and is showing all the symptoms of being just one more voice of the Conservative agenda.

As to Health Care, it is obvious (to me, anyway) that after many years of something like 1/3 of the country NOT being covered or having very inadequate coverage, any changes will take awhile to tweak and some may, indeed, find some services a bit slower and/or 'restricted' as we strive to train more doctors, adjust the rules & routines and generally learn to navigate the byways.
It will be, in some places, like having paving going on in front of your house...it's inconvenient for awhile, but better in the long run. But you KNOW that many folks will have NO patience, and will characterize any personal inconvenience as 'failure' or even worse.

   I am WILLING to deal with it....I want everyone possible to have basic, decent care, and if *I* have to wait 30 days instead of 3 days for an appointment...so be it! (I often can't get an appt. with a specialist for that long anyway!)

I am disgusted with the cries of **Socialized Medicine**, as if that says anything. It is "quality of life", not some abstract political label that interests me....and far too many folks now have a life that is "on the edge", and would welcome something a bit more 'social'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 01:11 PM

I wasn't after "mass mind reading" - I was wondering whether the politicians and lobbyists involved are coming up with their own specific alternatuve proposals for achieving universal health care. Because the debate, both here and in the media that I have seen, just does not seem to be carried out in that way. Just knock-about stuff.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 12:45 PM

It wasn't well written and it wasn't very useful, but I was carrying on with the idea of "how far in the political arena this is an argument between people who agree about the importance of achieving universal health care," and trying to identify who might not even agree with that premise. We can only guess who and how many don't even care about the fundamntal fairness / universal access goals.

I was just trying to think who, if any, might be in that category besides the 10% in my earlier (wild) guess.

For your category of "opponents of the proposals [who] have no intention at all of achieving [universal access]," the answer would be very close to zero by their openly stated arguments. I didn't mean that you were making gross generalizations, I really meant that it was uncomfortable for me that I was trying to engage in mass mind reading.

(I know some Pennsylvanians who fit squarely within Obama's guns and religion classification, were highly offended at the time, and now have knee-jerk reactions against *anything* he says, while still presenting entirely rational reasons for their opposition to these proposals.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 12:39 PM

In case anyone wants to see that Wall Street Journal editorial, without having to sign up with the Wall Stree Hournal for a trial subscription (which is what googling the Wall Street Journal com esup with), here is Obama's Senior Moment"

I'm less than overwhelmed y it:

For example "Yes, the U.S. "rations" by ability to pay (though in the end no one is denied actual care). This is true of every good or service in a free economy and a world of finite resources but infinite wants. Yet no one would say we "ration" houses or gasoline because those goods are allocated by prices. "

Still it's honest - health care on the USA should continue to be dependent on the person having the money to pay for it. With the highly questionable assertion "in the end no one is denied actual care". I suppose the key phrase there is "in the end" - even when you didn't get the treatment that could have saved you, you will get some kind of care on your death bed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 10:07 AM

...I cannot see for the life of me how there is still a problem with NHS! According to most Brit posts, it is the perfect system...

I know you think you're a comic, Douggie, but this sort of childish drivel just isn't amusing.

And by the way "Brit" is not a polite term- not that that would trouble you, of course.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 07:14 AM

"Going back to Mr. Harlow's question (and now going to uncomfortable gross generalizations): I've been thinking that as you move further to the left on that spectrum, you get to the guns and religion / Rush Limbaugh crowd who don't fit all the way into the far right."

I'm afraid I can't understand the point you are making, heric.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Penny S.
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 06:47 AM

Aren't people forgetting what rationing means? Everyone gets an equal share of a limited commodity. I seem to remember having read that there were people who objected to food rationing when it came in during WWII. And that they tended to be people who could afford to buy whatever they wanted while others went short. Not the towndwellers with no option to keep chickens or rabbits or grow their own veggies.
A conservative politician has fallen foul of the press this week for claiming he is rationed with regard to his salary. Like the opposers of wartime rationing, he is one of those who gains. He is on a salary three times the national average, but is comparng himself with the City types who take home more than he does.
Is medicine going to be a limited commodity in the US if a universal health service comes in? Only if people currently in receipt of good health care are using so much that there is not enough for those who fall through the system. Is the nation incapable of training enough providers, building enough hospitals? If there is not enough provision for all, then it would be right for there to be rationing. As some anecdotal postings about people whose insurance company pulls the plug suggests there already is.
Health provision ought to be a right. For those in receipt to deny it to others is astonishing.
Even more astonishing is the suggestion I have seen that the most vocal opposition is coming from people who claim to be Christians, for whom I would have thought the provision of health care should be a duty.
Penny


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Barden of England
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 04:41 AM

So there's no "rationing of care" the the USA then? Of course there is - the insurance comnpanies make sure of that! And if you have no insurance then there's no care to ration.
John Barden


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 03:14 AM

Doug, put it another way. All those in the UK who fear "rationing" of care are free to take out insurance policies and go private. Or to go private for cash. Or to travel to the USA (or elsewhere) and pay cash. None of them want to.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 02:49 AM

DougR: No-one thinks the NHS is perfect. But look at the speed with which the UK leader of the Conservatives and all his spokemen reacted to the comments of the Conservative MEP on Fox; and also the speed with which the Labour party tried to brand large numbers of Conservative MPs are being in secreat agreement with those same remarks and you will be clear just how valued the NHS is by almost every potential voter in the UK.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 15 Aug 09 - 01:34 AM

McGrath: "Problem?" Based on your posts alone, I cannot see for the life of me how there is still a problem with NHS! According to most Brit posts, it is the perfect system that the whole world would be wise to adopt! I have read, though, that the system is not without some problems. Rationing of care being a very big one.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 11:37 PM

Hey that was quite a coincidental cross-post there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 11:36 PM

" . . British ex-pats think the NHS is just hunky dory, also means nothing."

It means nothing because no one is offering us an NHS - They are offering low-deducitble comprehensive policies and expansion of the employment based system with its many, many faults, and the ability to land safely when falling out of it.

Going back to Mr. Harlow's question (and now going to uncomfortable gross generalizations): I've been thinking that as you move further to the left on that spectrum, you get to the guns and religion / Rush Limbaugh crowd who don't fit all the way into the far right. They'd probably be the next most resistant to compassion arguments. They're still smarting from the insult and the election loss. But they are not composed of unintelligent, uneducated overly-excitable (or heartless) rabble. We might think their instincts caused and causes them to vote against their interests then and now, and that they are too angered to be swayed by compassion for the greater good, but (in caricature at least) these are the people who know the sweat value of a dollar, and who refuse to believe in the value of multi-trillion deficit spending.

We haven't been offered the Holy Grail of civilisation here.

In terms of public support (ignoring the "persuasiveness" of industry lobbyists in Congress), winning this, I think, really means winning the middle. (And the middle, trust me, are almost deaf to the left:right screaming.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 11:22 PM

Actually, listening carefully to the words of UK conservative politocos, their promises to increase the real budget of the NHS annually through beyond 2011 seem to be undermined by unformulated suggestions of future proposals to ensure sensible use of the system. I suspect that that means that if the conservatives do work their usual malice NHS care will be denied to those deemed undeserving.

But the truth in UK political terms is indeed that any political party that proposed the abolition of universal free at the point of care healthcare based on need criteria would be committing electoral suicide.

It is wholly fantastic that a country without such a system can seek to call itself civilised.

It is also pretty fantastic that only one of the recent US political candidates (Kucinich) really proposed a proper solution. Obama's plans are, it seems to me, reform and not revolution. It is the latter that is needed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 10:45 PM

Why don't you read the articles in the Wall Street Journal that I posted, THEN, tell me what you think?

Why Douggie, I'm surprised at you for making this disingenuous suggestion.

You've never once felt it necessary to actually read (or for that matter, comprehend) something before critiquing it or telling us it's garbage.

Guess you can only talk the talk, huh?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 08:10 PM

""The public, as a whole, does not think healthcare is a "crisis", but a problem that needs to be addressed. Carefully.""

Now, I might just be able to swallow that wholly unsupported opinion, had it come from one of the 47 million who don't have access.

Could you produce some?..........NO! I don't suppose you mix in those circles.

""The fact that a couple of British ex-pats think the NHS is just hunky dory, also means nothing.""

Now that is just TOTAL crap. You have the evidence of a whole nation of beneficiaries of the NHS system, who would cheerfully, and without hesitation, cut the balls off any politico who tried to do away with it.

That's 70 million mate, not "a couple of ex pats". If that's the best you've got to offer, you really shouldn't bother.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 07:50 PM

And with enormous patience. Sixty years is clearly not long enough to solve this incredibly difficult problem...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 07:45 PM

If heric is trying to nudge the discussion back to the contents of the ObamaCare bill, may his tribe increase.

What some airhead on the Jerry Springer Show thinks about the plan, having never read a word of the text, means nothing.

The fact that a couple of British ex-pats think the NHS is just hunky dory, also means nothing.

The idea that a federal dam project actually works and produces electrical power is not Socailism and has nothing to do with socialized medicine. Besides, the proponents of the bill insist it is "insurance reform" and definitely not Socialism.

I want the authors to give us a precisely-worded bill so that legal and medical experts can study it and report back to the public.

I want everyone concerned to take as much time as needed.

The public, as a whole, does not think healthcare is a "crisis", but a problem that needs to be addressed. Carefully.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 07:41 PM

Alice: Why don't you read the articles in the Wall Street Journal that I posted, THEN, tell me what you think? Reading them won't make you a Conservative you know. It might even add to your knowledge of the subject being discussed. Someone posted a link to a publication titled, "What's good about the NHS," and I read it. Reading it didn't make me a Liberal ...even a Brit.
:>)
DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 06:59 PM

The Canadian Looney.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 06:54 PM

I would guess that the opponents coming from "don't mess with mine" aren't evolved sufficiently to have compassion for others in their heads at all - it's not even an issue. It is interesting that the proponents haven't used ethics arguments in any substantial way (just taking it as "given" I suppose.)

The other how-you-gonna-reason-with-them group of opponents would be the Ruby Ridge no government no time no how crowd that the media likes to present for entertainment value. (There is a tiny group of Libertarians with some well structured Constitutional arguments that get confused into this group - but they have little influence.)

I suppose those two groups (of people who just don't care and or who care but still won't be swayed by compassion arguments) could add up to almost 20% starting from the right side of the spectrum but I really don't think so. (Maybe 10%?? Wild guess by me and no credible source whether pollsters or otherwise can tell us the true number.)

Attacking the looney right or yelling at the opponents (or unpersuaded) that they must be looney right doesn't strike me as a productive direction to choose.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 06:50 PM

First, socialism isn't a bad thing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 06:48 PM

Excellent, Azizi! ;-)

Only on one thing in there do I disagree. The Federal Reserve Bank is not a socialist institution, it is a privately owned bank, a corporation, and it masquerades AS a federal government institution simply by calling itself the "Federal Reserve", which is an oxymoron meant to mislead people into imagining that it's a publicly owned and run institution which it definitely is NOT.

Most Americans don't know that. Look it up.

Your main point is quite correct. The morons who attack socialism on principle seem to have no idea that their society cannot function without a large amount of socialism which they depend on every day of their lives.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Azizi
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 06:28 PM

I'm not sure if this has been posted on Mudcat yet, but I understand that it has been around the Internet for years:

"Once again, for the benefit of the goernment-can't-get-anything-right flock:

I AM AN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE SHITHEEL

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and tTechnology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issed by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to ny house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right."

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/forums/index.php?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat:338a2432-3a3c-459f-9c58-00df


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 06:04 PM

you already hashed that through with pdq on July 21, regarding poll results There aren't any posts on this thread from pdq on July 21, not now anyway.   

In any case poll figures aren't the real issue - what I'm not clear is how far in the political arena this is an argument between people who agree about the importance of achieving universal health care, but disagree about exactly how this can be done, and how far is it the case that opponents of the proposals have no intention at all of achieving that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 06:01 PM

What is gained by providing a link to that White House website?

Well, Douggie, those like yourself who don't have the shadow of a clue about what the White House is actually proposing- judging by the lies, bullshit & nonsense they keep spouting- might at least gain a factual basis for their hysterical ranting.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 05:10 PM

Now, there you go again, Alice (as our dearly departed senile president Reagan was wont to say) using "Doug" and "think" in the same sentance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 05:00 PM

You can listen to recording of the town hall meeting at
http://ypradio.org/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 04:59 PM

Sorry, Kevin, I missed that you were asking for responses ABOUT what people who aren't here think. But luckily (a) that's what the vast majority of the postings here have been about, and, (b) you already hashed that through with pdq on July 21, regarding poll results possibly indicating that 20% of Americans don't want other Americans to have access to quality health care.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: bobad
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 04:19 PM

"That comment has caused a minor buzz in the U.S., as have remarks by two British women featured in a video made by the lobbying group Conservatives for Patients' Rights, which opposes Obama's healthcare proposals.

Both women are seen criticizing the NHS for its policies on cancer treatment; one says that not getting a Pap smear in time signed her "death warrant." But the two women have told the British media that they were misled into thinking they were being interviewed for a documentary on healthcare reform, not a political attack ad.

Kate Spall, whose mother died of kidney cancer while awaiting treatment, said she was appalled by how her words were being used by the lobbying group.

"I feel I was duped," she told The Times of London. "The irony is that I campaign for exactly the people that socialized healthcare supports. I would not align myself with this group at all."

In addition to defending the NHS from conservative critics in the U.S., some in Britain have now gone on the offensive, expressing incredulity that the U.S. boasts of being a superpower while leaving tens of millions of its people uninsured.

"The United States lies between Costa Rica and Slovenia in the World Health Organization's ranking of health-care systems . . . which puts them in 37th place," Keith Hopcroft, a doctor, wrote in The Sun's commentary piece. "The U.K.? 18th. I rest my doctor's case."


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britain-health15-2009aug15,0,2736574.story


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 04:13 PM

My query was "whether the universal health cover is seen as a desirable and achievable goal by critics of the proposed reforms?"   Nothing about limiting that to "critics on this thread".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 03:59 PM

You asked about critics on this thread. I don't speak of any crazies on the Jerry Springer style "news"casts. I don't care about them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 03:55 PM

So then, heric, in spite of all the hoohah everyone in the USA is agreed that universal health care for all has to be provided, and will be provided, one way or another.

Well, sixty years after the NHS was set up, it's good to know that the USA is going to join the civilised world.

Funny that it just doesn't sound like everyone is agreed on that essential issue.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 03:26 PM

Our good President has been prevaricating, by the way. Of course there are multiple mechanisms to achieve rationing, as there must be. A potentially powerful one is the executive agency's ambiguously constrained discretion in provider rate setting. There's the authority to prohibit facility expansion. There are certainly many others.

The most fascinating part to me is the 8% of payroll cap on employer obligations. This has astounding potential. I assume the companies with higher paid employees are the ones who beat the 8% solution, sometimes by a large margin, and the ones with lower paid employees are the ones who hit up to 16%. I won't presume to guess what long term effects that will have. This should work to prevent people from "falling out" of the private insurance system into limbo. (?) But if government rates entirely dominate the market by a large margin, there have to be rationing effects from that as well.

It's interesting to ponder that 8% of all pre-tax payroll from every salaried citizen still leaves a $1 trillion shortfall.

More questions: What are the proposals doing to ensure portability? Do we just forget about it and let job-changers flow into the public programs? How do you force an employer to keep its employees on an existing private program if an employee wants to keep it, and for how long? Even if they are at 16% of payroll? Can the employer and the insurer both be held hostage to one employee? That can't be the way it works.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 02:58 PM

""Churchill's support for the NHS""

And although he had changed sides, at this point Churchill was a committed right wing Tory.

So much for the NHS being "SOCIALIST" medicine a la Stalin.

It was supported even by those who were well to the right of Attila the Hun, and still is.

There is no politician in the United Kingdom who would even DREAM of its abolition.

That should tell you something, given that we too have our rapacious insurance, and drug, companies, and also, unfortunately, our acquisitive corporate moguls.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 02:50 PM

""There appears to be a strong likelihood Hannan will be disciplined by the Tories for letting the side down so badly, by attacking a "great national institution".""

There's a good reason why Hannan is a member of the European, rather than the UK Parliament.

He is a loose cannon whose views on many subjects are diametrically opposed, not just to Tory policy, but to plain common sense and common decency.

I'm not quite sure HOW this nut managed to get himself elected, but my guess is a mixture of terminal apathy and no competition. Had Kermit the Frog stood against him, Europe would have gained a new "green" politician.

He is just one of those affronts to the body politic, who has bought a ticket for the EU Gravy Train, and the only upside of that is that he is in a place where he will have minimal influence, and cause minimal damage.

Suffice it to say, that those who believe any part of the claptrap he spouted in the US will succeed only in showing themselves to be at least as stupid as he.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 02:39 PM

I would hope that every American on the list is a critic of the proposal. There is only one thing I can think of that is un-American, and that is a failure to question authority.

Are there any opponents of the proposal(s) on the list? I searched way back for quite a percentage of postings, expecting I might find DougR and pdq perhaps. But DougR repeatedly said he was just seeking information and opinions. pdq said "Yes, 100% of respondents should say that 'all people should have access to quality health care'. Pollsters ask silly questions quite often."

Unless and until someone says otherwise, I think the answer to that is pretty clear.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 02:26 PM

Winston Churchill, March 1944:

The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear. Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the same way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion. Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.

from an article today at www. salon. com on Churchill's support for the NHS and other notes on the neo-con liars and delusional morons in the US.

Peter T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 02:08 PM

OMG, Doug, you think the Wall Street Journal's opinion is unbiased?

ha, ha, ha, wow,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 01:49 PM

Any response to my question about whether the universal health cover is seen as a desirable and achievable goal by critics of the proposed reforms? Or is thta something they think America should get along without?

In this context the NHS is a red herring since, for better ore worse, that's not what's on the table. (I'd be inclined to say "for worse" along with the overwhelming number of people who actually use it, and know what they are talking about, but then we would, since we know what they are talking about. However it's not for export, and of course there are a host of other ways of organising universal health care in operaqtion around the world.)
..........................

As for that Wall Street Journal editorial, it doesn't really stand up too well: "However, there's an ocean of difference between coverage decisions made under millions of voluntary private contracts and rationing via government." I can't see why there is any particular significant difference, and insofar as there is, I'd far sooner trust the NHS way of doing it than be at the mercy of private insurance companies.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 01:14 PM

Amos: What is gained by providing a link to that White House website? Obviously, one is going to read the White House's "line" about the heath care (excuse me)health insurance debacle. Not particularly objective, right?

I would suggest interested parties reading The Wall Street Journal's editorial in today's edition (August 14, 2009). It would be interesting, I think, for supporters of the NHS to counter the criticizem of that program included in the editorial, and for that matter, comment on the editorial as a whole. The title of the editorial is, "Obama's Senior Moment,"

Another article of interest in today's WSJ, especially to Mudcatters who have been denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions, is one titled, "What to Do About Pre-existing Conditions," by John H. Cochrane, professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, and author of "Health Status Insurance."

Google Wall Street Journal and when you reach the website, click on "Opinions."

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 09 - 12:27 PM

A little off-topic, but perhaps the place to present it:

"The Great 'Prevention' Myth

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 14, 2009

In the 48 hours of June 15-16, President Obama lost the health-care debate. First, a letter from the Congressional Budget Office to Sen. Edward Kennedy reported that his health committee's reform bill would add $1 trillion in debt over the next decade. Then the CBO reported that the other Senate bill, being written by the Finance Committee, would add $1.6 trillion. The central contradiction of Obamacare was fatally exposed: From his first address to Congress, Obama insisted on the dire need for restructuring the health-care system because out-of-control costs were bankrupting the Treasury and wrecking the U.S. economy -- yet the Democrats' plans would make the problem worse.

Accordingly, Democrats have trotted out various tax proposals to close the gap. Obama's idea of limits on charitable and mortgage-interest deductions went nowhere. As did the House's income tax surcharge on millionaires. And Obama dare not tax employer-provided health insurance because of his campaign pledge of no middle-class tax hikes.

Desperation time. What do you do? Sprinkle fairy dust on every health-care plan, and present your deus ex machina: prevention.

Free mammograms and diabetes tests and checkups for all, promise Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, writing in USA Today. Prevention, they assure us, will not just make us healthier, it also "will save money."

Obama followed suit in his Tuesday New Hampshire town hall, touting prevention as amazingly dual-purpose: "It saves lives. It also saves money."

Reform proponents repeat this like a mantra. Because it seems so intuitive, it has become conventional wisdom. But like most conventional wisdom, it is wrong. Overall, preventive care increases medical costs.

This inconvenient truth comes, once again, from the CBO. In an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."

How can that be? If you prevent somebody from getting a heart attack, aren't you necessarily saving money? The fallacy here is confusing the individual with society. For the individual, catching something early generally reduces later spending for that condition. But, explains Elmendorf, we don't know in advance which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case, "it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway." And this costs society money that would not have been spent otherwise.

Think of it this way. Assume that a screening test for disease X costs $500 and finding it early averts $10,000 of costly treatment at a later stage. Are you saving money? Well, if one in 10 of those who are screened tests positive, society is saving $5,000. But if only one in 100 would get that disease, society is shelling out $40,000 more than it would without the preventive care.

That's a hypothetical case. What's the real-life actuality? In Obamaworld, as explained by the president in his Tuesday town hall, if we pour money into primary care for diabetics instead of giving surgeons "$30,000, $40,000, $50,000" for a later amputation -- a whopper that misrepresents the surgeon's fee by a factor of at least 30 -- "that will save us money." Back on Earth, a rigorous study in the journal Circulation found that for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, "if all the recommended prevention activities were applied with 100 percent success," the prevention would cost almost 10 times as much as the savings, increasing the country's total medical bill by 162 percent. That's because prevention applied to large populations is very expensive, as shown by another report Elmendorf cites, a definitive review in the New England Journal of Medicine of hundreds of studies that found that more than 80 percent of preventive measures added to medical costs.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't be preventing illness. Of course we should. But in medicine, as in life, there is no free lunch. The idea that prevention is somehow intrinsically economically different from treatment -- that treatment increases costs and prevention lowers them -- is simply nonsense. Prevention is a wondrous good, but in the aggregate it costs society money. Nothing wrong with that. That's the whole premise of medicine. Treating a heart attack or setting a broken leg also costs society. But we do it because it alleviates human suffering. Preventing a heart attack with statins or breast cancer with mammograms is costly. But we do it because it reduces human suffering.

However, prevention is not, as so widely advertised, healing on the cheap. It is not the magic bullet for health-care costs.

You will hear some variation of that claim a hundred times in the coming health-care debate. Whenever you do, remember: It's nonsense -- empirically demonstrable and CBO-certified. "


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 19 April 3:53 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.