I vote for
The Reverand Kennith Paul Whichard III
as next president.
Certainly couldnt be any worse than things are now.
The Reverand Kennith Paul Whichard III
as next president.
Certainly couldnt be any worse than things are now.
Govt. Run Health Care
- Thread starter RBBailey
- Start date
FYI .....
How American Health Care Killed My Father
The Atlantic
by David Goldhill"
h/t Tigerhawk
How American Health Care Killed My Father
The Atlantic
"After the needless death of his father, the author, a business executive, began a personal exploration of a health-care industry that for years has delivered poor service and irregular quality at astonishingly high cost. It is a system, he argues, that is not worth preserving in anything like its current form. And the health-care reform now being contemplated will not fix it. Here’s a radical solution to an agonizing problem.
by David Goldhill"
h/t Tigerhawk
Pretty much nails the discusson on Obamacare and the state of today's political parties:
Too late for Obama to turn it around?
By Camille Paglia
Too late for Obama to turn it around?
By Camille Paglia
MarkP said:
My father is a retired GP/gastroenterologist and he and I have wondered and debated for years why people will willingly spend silly money on purely discretionary items that don't impact or benefit themselves as a person more directly their own health.
We drop thousands of $ into a crappy car (no CfC hijacks please!) that we junk or sell at a loss but balk at even the copay amount for a prescribed drug if we're lucky to have coverage versus those who "have to have" a $1k designer handbag and yet wouldn't consider spending that amount on an individual health policy, flawed as today's system may be.
Each side of the current debate certainly has valid points but has anyone really attempted to actually define what the "right" to health care really means and what you'd actually get?
Is it coverage for any and all health care costs/items for any ailment, real or perceived, life-threatening or just lifestyle-impacting?
Is it some level of fundamental, basic life-saving coverage only, regardless of expense? (think: Airway, Breathing, Circulation from EMT training)
Is it really "socialized medicine" where my kid might have to wait in pain/discomfort from a non-lifethreatening but not-quite-urgent medical issue until a bed or OR slot opens up?
Or is there something else?
I'm not a regular reader of The Atlantic, but the fundamental pricing/consumer behavior issues highlighted in that article are real. The pricing schemes used throughout the healthcare business do what the author describes, and encourage the consumer to be driven by something other than monetary cost that they are accountable for - as we generally are in other aspects of daily life.
I think this debate is highlighting some very fundamental assumptions we've chosen to make (or deny) as a society and some tough reckoning is due. It's part of what we get to do as a democratic country. The question is do we have the personal and moral courage to accept that these definitions are needed (after vigorous debate) and then work towards making it happen instead of pushing it off onto my kid's grandchildren, which is where I figure we're at today...
atriot:
Discretionary spending makes people feel good. Hard work and exercise is just that. Most people given a choice, will opt for the low road or take the easy way out.
Give a hungry man a bone and he'll appreciate the missing steak. Give him a free steak and he'll throw away the bone.
Give a hungry man a bone and he'll appreciate the missing steak. Give him a free steak and he'll throw away the bone.
I heard a clip of the Presidents speech at the University of Maryland today. I looked it up to be sure I heard correctly. The President actually said that "We are the only nation on earth that leaves millions of people without health insurance."
http://cbs5.com/politics/obama.health.care.2.1190288.html
http://cbs5.com/politics/obama.health.care.2.1190288.html
It looks like "you lie" should have been shouted a few more times during that little speech.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/18/obamas-real-person-health-care-story-not-that-real/?icid=main|main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politic sdaily.com%2F2009%2F09%2F18%2Fobamas-real-person-health-care-story-not-that-real%2F
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/18/obamas-real-person-health-care-story-not-that-real/?icid=main|main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politic sdaily.com%2F2009%2F09%2F18%2Fobamas-real-person-health-care-story-not-that-real%2F
How government healthcare results in scarcity of medical care.
Illinois stiffs vendors, health-care providers going under
Hot Air ^ | Oct. 7, 2009 | Ed Morrissey
Illinois stiffs vendors, health-care providers going under
Hot Air ^ | Oct. 7, 2009 | Ed Morrissey
MarkP said:
this has been happening in Oregon as well. The HMO's won a court battle against the state and have the right to refuse service in some cases. They don't get paid by the state. It has resulted in the loss of choice, competition, and it has actually resulted in the loss of many jobs. This, and the logging/farming industry in Oregon are why we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country right now.
Another shining example of government health care. WTF would possess ANY doctor do do something like this?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/12/soldier.lung.cancer.transplant/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/12/soldier.lung.cancer.transplant/index.html
Unions will oppose Baucus bill unless it's changed
So in other words, Obamacare is going to tax generous union healthcare policies? Who would have thought that could happen! I mean, these people aren't "RICH".
:rofl:
Seriously, where do Obamacare supporters think the money is going to come from?
Oh, your wallet, not theirs. I forgot.
"WASHINGTON (AP) - About 30 unions will run a full-page ad in newspapers Wednesday announcing their opposition to the Senate Finance Committee's health overhaul bill, a top labor lobbyist said.....
....Labor has been a major Democratic ally in the health care debate but is unhappy the legislation ... would tax expensive policies in an effort to drive down costs. ....
....Labor has been a major Democratic ally in the health care debate but is unhappy the legislation ... would tax expensive policies in an effort to drive down costs. ....
So in other words, Obamacare is going to tax generous union healthcare policies? Who would have thought that could happen! I mean, these people aren't "RICH".
:rofl:
Seriously, where do Obamacare supporters think the money is going to come from?
Oh, your wallet, not theirs. I forgot.
I hear rumblings that a good chunk of doctors will just leave if it goes through.
The current bill thing (or whatever it is they voted on today) has a provision for forcing doctors to practice branches of medicine that are prescribed by the government, and it would force doctors to move, to live in specified areas (real nice areas) of the country that are deemed to be in need of more medical professionals.
The current bill thing (or whatever it is they voted on today) has a provision for forcing doctors to practice branches of medicine that are prescribed by the government, and it would force doctors to move, to live in specified areas (real nice areas) of the country that are deemed to be in need of more medical professionals.
Some thoughts on the current push to federalize the healthcare system ....
Let's consider an alternative perspective. We have all heard how healthcare is becoming a large portion of our GDP, 1/6th by some articles. That the trajectory of healthcare cost are unsustainable. So is the 'cost' of healthcare a cause or a symptom? Let's look beyond the healthcare specific arguments.
As a percent of GDP the Federal government has 'become' the GDP.
Hmmm... 3Q GDP... Goebbels Truth Leaks?
Denninger
"...2.2% eh? I thought it was 2.8%? Or was it 3.5%?...
.... the government's "pump" was responsible for 2.4% GDP "growth" - or more than the entire claimed increase...."
The only State to show significant job growth was ..... District of Columbia. Surprised?
Through Federal stimulus and Fed action the Federal government has become the economy. The public sector simply feeds on Fed printing, not real production of 'goods'. Fed induced easy credit has pulled forward demand and also created a large deficit. Only the private sector can produce real job growth.
For a perspective on debt:
A Short Treatise On The USeless Economy
Denninger
Let's look at real job growth as it would contribute to GDP. Remember, one of the premise of the need for healthcare reform is that it is bankrupting the US, that healthcare is now a large percent of GDP. Whose GDP? The private sector or the government sector. The question should be, What is bankrupting the US? Healthcare, private sector trends or Federal government growth?
Let's review the St. Louis Reserve Bank’s charts published in early December of 2009.
The State of the Union – in charts…
Nathan's Economic Edge
Pay particular attention to the section titled EMPLOYMENT. Let's review a couple of quotes:
"Below is the same chart but from the Fed dating back to the late 1940s. We are currently back to the same percentage [civilian employment population ratio] as we were during the late 1970s:"
"The number of employees producing durable goods is also back to the same numbers that are were found in 1942. Our population then was less than half the size it is now."
"The total number of people manufacturing non durable goods is now the smallest recorded since the Great Depression:"
In summary the Federal government has become the GDP and the number of private sector people actually contributing to real GDP are at WWII levels. It is no wonder that the cost of healthcare has risen as a percent of the Federal government driven GDP. Healthcare cost are not the problem, lack of private sector growth is.
So should we expect reform? That is an emotional subject that results in polarized responses. Let's look outside the US.
Why Is Obama Failing?
Jesse's Caf? Am?ricain
"...."What's costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting." Drew Westen, Leadership Obama Style
I think it is more that last of the three than anything else, and explains the others. Obama is captive to special interests, as are many of the key members of the Congress, and the Obama Administration, and the Federal Reserve. And I should add his two predecessors.
It explains why he cannot articulate a coherent ideological position and make it stick. Make no mistake, he is a smart and verbally adept individual, a gifted person intellectually. But he cannot adhere to principles because he has abandoned whatever principles he may have had to serve a variety of corrupting interests. And he appears laissez faire and distant because he is a figurehead, a household servant, and not in control. ......."
As a member of the Ivy League elite Obama is part of the problem. Real reform will come from someone outside the small circle of elite figureheads and those who orchestrate same.
Real healthcare reform may only come once real private sector growth returns and the Federal government returns to a much smaller part of our economy. Until then even the current proposals are doomed to fail because they grow the government even further, further shrink private sector growth and in the end enlarge healthcare as a percent of a federally driven GDP.
Our current healthcare cost issues are a symptom, not a cause.
Let's consider an alternative perspective. We have all heard how healthcare is becoming a large portion of our GDP, 1/6th by some articles. That the trajectory of healthcare cost are unsustainable. So is the 'cost' of healthcare a cause or a symptom? Let's look beyond the healthcare specific arguments.
As a percent of GDP the Federal government has 'become' the GDP.
Hmmm... 3Q GDP... Goebbels Truth Leaks?
Denninger
"...2.2% eh? I thought it was 2.8%? Or was it 3.5%?...
.... the government's "pump" was responsible for 2.4% GDP "growth" - or more than the entire claimed increase...."
The only State to show significant job growth was ..... District of Columbia. Surprised?
Through Federal stimulus and Fed action the Federal government has become the economy. The public sector simply feeds on Fed printing, not real production of 'goods'. Fed induced easy credit has pulled forward demand and also created a large deficit. Only the private sector can produce real job growth.
For a perspective on debt:
A Short Treatise On The USeless Economy
Denninger
Let's look at real job growth as it would contribute to GDP. Remember, one of the premise of the need for healthcare reform is that it is bankrupting the US, that healthcare is now a large percent of GDP. Whose GDP? The private sector or the government sector. The question should be, What is bankrupting the US? Healthcare, private sector trends or Federal government growth?
Let's review the St. Louis Reserve Bank’s charts published in early December of 2009.
The State of the Union – in charts…
Nathan's Economic Edge
Pay particular attention to the section titled EMPLOYMENT. Let's review a couple of quotes:
"Below is the same chart but from the Fed dating back to the late 1940s. We are currently back to the same percentage [civilian employment population ratio] as we were during the late 1970s:"
"The number of employees producing durable goods is also back to the same numbers that are were found in 1942. Our population then was less than half the size it is now."
"The total number of people manufacturing non durable goods is now the smallest recorded since the Great Depression:"
In summary the Federal government has become the GDP and the number of private sector people actually contributing to real GDP are at WWII levels. It is no wonder that the cost of healthcare has risen as a percent of the Federal government driven GDP. Healthcare cost are not the problem, lack of private sector growth is.
So should we expect reform? That is an emotional subject that results in polarized responses. Let's look outside the US.
Why Is Obama Failing?
Jesse's Caf? Am?ricain
"...."What's costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting." Drew Westen, Leadership Obama Style
I think it is more that last of the three than anything else, and explains the others. Obama is captive to special interests, as are many of the key members of the Congress, and the Obama Administration, and the Federal Reserve. And I should add his two predecessors.
It explains why he cannot articulate a coherent ideological position and make it stick. Make no mistake, he is a smart and verbally adept individual, a gifted person intellectually. But he cannot adhere to principles because he has abandoned whatever principles he may have had to serve a variety of corrupting interests. And he appears laissez faire and distant because he is a figurehead, a household servant, and not in control. ......."
As a member of the Ivy League elite Obama is part of the problem. Real reform will come from someone outside the small circle of elite figureheads and those who orchestrate same.
Real healthcare reform may only come once real private sector growth returns and the Federal government returns to a much smaller part of our economy. Until then even the current proposals are doomed to fail because they grow the government even further, further shrink private sector growth and in the end enlarge healthcare as a percent of a federally driven GDP.
Our current healthcare cost issues are a symptom, not a cause.
I'd like to nominate the Democrat Party as the dumbest party EVA!
Appears Jackass fits the bill.
Democrats consider dropping insurance ban on pre-existing conditions
One of the few good aspects of Obamacare may be 'under the bus'.
:banghead:
Appears Jackass fits the bill.
Democrats consider dropping insurance ban on pre-existing conditions
Among the casualties of President Barack Obama's healthcare agenda may be those who suffer from pre-existing medical conditions and can't get insurance.
Thought the ban on denying health insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions was going the way of the dodo? Not so fast. ....
.....new proposals floated by Democrats in the wake of the massive health care bill's collapse is a provision that would bar denying coverage for those with pre-existing conditions -- but only if they were under 19.......
...."The only reason to specify that children under the age of 19 won't be denied coverage is because you plan on letting everyone 19 and over BE denied coverage for pre-existing conditions,".....
Thought the ban on denying health insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions was going the way of the dodo? Not so fast. ....
.....new proposals floated by Democrats in the wake of the massive health care bill's collapse is a provision that would bar denying coverage for those with pre-existing conditions -- but only if they were under 19.......
...."The only reason to specify that children under the age of 19 won't be denied coverage is because you plan on letting everyone 19 and over BE denied coverage for pre-existing conditions,".....
One of the few good aspects of Obamacare may be 'under the bus'.
:banghead:
Quote:
Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams
'My heart, my choice'
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h0QC7bditrEb3wYz_6_b-gsGGDxA
Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams
'My heart, my choice'
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h0QC7bditrEb3wYz_6_b-gsGGDxA
apg said:
No it's not, not if the gov. is competing. Our state has laws to prevent the state itself from competing against private companies. That would be an abuse by the government against the private individuals. If they start with health care, where do they end? Automobile factories, TV, Newspapers???? What you will get from a tightly ran government health care is more like what you get from shopping at Walmart. Sure you'll get cheap products and service, but do you really want that? When I had my heart attacks, I turned to my good friend and family doctor and told him I don't care what it cost, get me to the person that you trust. Lucky for me he did. I want doctors who are competitive for stature and money. To get this they need to have built great reputations by being the best. I doubt you will find this in the USA (a country built on capitolism) if you start paying them the same amount no matter how good they are. Then you think it will save money. That's funny, I have a good perspective on this due to my sig other. There will be plenty of money to be made by someone, it may not be the doctors, but anytime you make a major change like this it happens.