Obama

[MarkP]

What's McCain's solution to the health care crisis ?

First, do we have a 'crisis' or do we need some tweaks within the current system?

Why are Canadians and Europeans coming to the US for healthcare? If universal socialized healthcare is so good, why is that? Is it because government control always creates scarcity?

From McCain's web site - Straight Talk on Health System Reform

From a CNN article - McCain's health care proposal emphasizes 'freedom'

A first take would be McCains 'freedom' and promotion of competion vs. Obama forcing companies and resultant reduced competition and scarcity. The outcomes are obvious based on the socialization of any service or industry.

 

[MUSKYMAN]

John McCain believes that insurance reforms should increase the variety and affordability of insurance coverage available to American families by fostering competition and innovation.
Reform the tax code to eliminate the bias toward employer-sponsored health insurance, and provide all individuals with a $2,500 tax credit ($5,000 for families) to increase incentives for insurance coverage. Individuals owning innovative multi-year policies that cost less than the full credit can deposit remainder in expanded health savings accounts.
Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines, to maximize their choices, and heighten competition for their business that will eliminate excess overhead, administrative, and excessive compensation costs from the system.
Insurance should be innovative, moving from job to home, job to job, and providing multi-year coverage.
Require any state receiving Medicaid to develop a financial "risk adjustment" bonus to high-cost and low-income families to supplement tax credits and Medicaid funds.
Allow individuals to get insurance through any organization or association that they choose: employers, individual purchases, churches, professional association, and so forth. These policies will be available to small businesses and the self-employed, will be portable across all jobs, and will automatically bridge the time between retirement and Medicare eligibility. These plans would have to meet rigorous standards and certification.


Well since my health care is god awful high because of my smoking co-workers I have to say I like this too

 

[vray]

The problem that needs to be addressed, is people who have health insurance, but are declined for the necessary procedure.

 

[nosivad_bor]

Id say there is a crisis. Overworked understaffed hospitals cause the patient to do so much leg work its pathetic.

Let me just tell you that I had an extraordinary year with our health care system and I was interacting with the "Best in Pittsburgh" as far as doctors were concerned and the experience made my entire family say "so this is the health care crisis they are talking about" "

And you can joke about Pittsburgh all you want but it has a very good reputation as far as medical care is concerned and I was personally let down by the whole thing. The only redeeming thing was the people from Hospice.

 

[vray]

Why are Canadians and Europeans coming to the US for healthcare? If universal socialized healthcare is so good, why is that? Is it because government control always creates scarcity?

The Europeans who come to the US for medical procedures are not coming for standard care. They are coming for specialized treatments, like elite sportsmen visiting specialists for injuries. Steadman in Colorado for example. You probably couldn't afford to see him, and neither would you need to. But if you are Michael Owen or Ronaldo and your knee blew out, then he's your guy.

You seem to forget that medicine in Canada is private, it is the insurance that is socialized. So as Jim says above, it is not about socialized medicine, it is a about socialized medical insurance.

 

[MarkP]

. . . You seem to forget that medicine in Canada is private, it is the insurance that is socialized. So as Jim says above, it is not about socialized medicine, it is a about socialized medical insurance.

Healthcare providers may be 'private' but the government controls the money and who gets healthcare.

In Britain NHS is called a disaster. Canada prohibits citizens from privately contracting for medical care. Canada also prohibits private health insurance. The single-payer system calls for everyone to pay into the government. The problem with socialized healthcare systems? Government services always cost more than the government budgets. When it's 'Free' consumption always is significantly higher. The solution? Cut back on services. Reduce payments to providers. In the end - scarcity and as a "delegate speaking on the house floor at the Canadian Medical Assn. annual meeting state that her patients are "suffering and dying on wait lists," and the only escape for them is to go to the United States."

Canada's medical gulag
The Endowment for Medical Research


I can see major medical coverage for everyone, but socializing healthcare would be a disaster. Forcing companies to structure P&L is really just nationalizing an industry.

 

[garrett]

John McCain Believes in Personal Responsibility
We must do more to take care of ourselves to prevent chronic diseases when possible, and do more to adhere to treatment after we are diagnosed with an illness.
Childhood obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure are all on the rise. We must again teach our children about health, nutrition and exercise - vital life information.
Public health initiatives must be undertaken with all our citizens to stem the growing epidemic of obesity and diabetes, and to deter smoking.


wow step up and take personal responsibility...god that would be horrible for america

Right on, but guess what.......we don't tend to those responsibilities. Our country is one of the richest in the world yet we have one of the highest infant mortality rates (rivals many 3rd world countries), we consume some of the poorest quality food and our oveall health is in the toilet. Look around........we are fat, lazy and sick.
There is a crisis on MANY levels when our kids are obese and significantly overweight along with their parents and the future is grim for the generations to come.
We are over medicated and the pharm companies have us thinking we need to pill because our kids sneeze. It's an epidemic to say the least.
Yeh it's fucked up. I'd say there's a crisis on all health issues in this country.

 

[vray]

Healthcare providers may be 'private' but the government controls the money and who gets healthcare.

In Britain NHS is called a disaster. Canada prohibits citizens from privately contracting for medical care. Canada also prohibits private health insurance. The single-payer system calls for everyone to pay into the government. The problem with socialized healthcare systems? Government services always cost more than the government budgets. When it's 'Free' consumption always is significantly higher. The solution? Cut back on services. Reduce payments to providers. In the end - scarcity and as a "delegate speaking on the house floor at the Canadian Medical Assn. annual meeting state that her patients are "suffering and dying on wait lists," and the only escape for them is to go to the United States."

Canada's medical gulag
The Endowment for Medical Research


I can see major medical coverage for everyone, but socializing healthcare would be a disaster. Forcing companies to structure P&L is really just nationalizing an industry.

Let's argue on the merits, not on the smears and bullshit.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i
http://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary/docs/Diemer-TenHealthCareMyths.htm

 

[MarkP]

Right on, but guess what.......we don't tend to those responsibilities. Our country is one of the richest in the world yet we have one of the highest infant mortality rates (rivals many 3rd world countries), . . . .

While this is commonly used as a reason for changing our healthcare system, the internals of the data show a different story:

From Healthcare Economist - Health Care System Grudge Match: Canada vs. U.S

It turns out that once we condition on infant birthweight–a significant predictor of infant health–the U.S. has equivalent infant mortality rates. In fact U.S. infant mortality is lower for low-birthweight babies than Canadian infant mortality for low birthweight babies. Overall infant mortality, however, is higher in the U.S. because the incidence of babies with low birthweight is higher than in Canada. This may be due to demographic or epidemiological factors, or it may be the case that the U.S. is better at having a live birth for a low birthweight baby.​

The higher mortality rate is caused by our higher capability healthcare system. If a baby is born dead, it doesn't count. The US excels in premature and low birthrate care, hence the higher infant mortality rate. You would not want healthcare in Cuba. Sure they have a lower mortality rate. There is a reason - poor healthcare, the infant is already dead.

Now in Obama's language of "Change" and considering the real impact of socialized healthcare and the above internals of the data - we would lower our infant mortality rate under socialized healthcare, Obama's "Change".

Would that "Change" be 'good' or would the reality be 'bad'.

 

[antichrist]

Regardless of how you feel about Obama, I couldn't believe (actually, sadly I could) what I read in Sunday's Altanta paper. One of the columnists quoted some woman who called in to ask a question during the debate. Basically questioning why he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin, like all the other political lemmings (she thought he should, I'm the one calling them lemmings). First, I can't believe they wasted time during the debate for such an idiotic question, and secondly I can't believe they wasted newsprint quoting her, and using his repsonse as something of enough significance be critcal of him about. Obama should have told her to fuck off and get a life.

 

[Steve]

What's McCain's solution to the health care crisis ?

It isn't a right of the American to health insurance. You as the citizen shop for a job with an employer that provides you with a plan you like. Why is it the government's responsibility? (Where is Ron Paul????)

 

[nosivad_bor]

here is the issue, there are NO GOOD INSURANCE COMPANIES ! They are more crooked than the government.

 

[Steve]

here is the issue, there are NO GOOD INSURANCE COMPANIES ! They are more crooked than the government.

So here is a thought... what if everyone did away with health insurance coverage? Would two Tylenol at the hospital be reduced from $15 down to 30 cents? Would the cost of services be corrected like the housing market correction? Do doctors deserve to make $500k per year or have to pay malpractice?

Blame the lawyers and do something about civil litigation in the medical industry. Or you could find yourselves a nice family practitioner in the country who takes a half-peck of apples in exchange for the family checkup and you don't really need insurance.

 

[nosivad_bor]

or i can bitch on discoweb about it for the rest of my life (like I plan on doing)

 

[Nomar]

Today's the day PA!

Obama or Clinton?atriot:

 

[bovw]

Hmm, PA. Could we vote for Galen, Rob, Sven, or anyone else from Philly Rovers?

 

[Steve]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBGyuYKlxIg&eurl

 

[MarkP]

The problem that needs to be addressed, is people who have health insurance, but are declined for the necessary procedure.

Or . . . .


Former Surgeon General on a Better Approach to Health Care
PajamasMedia
April 22, 2008

Dr. Richard Carmona, the U.S. surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, believes that the key to both curbing costs and saving lives is to refocus health care on the prevention and early detection of chronic disease — long-term and typically incurable conditions such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and asthma. Three-quarters of U.S. health care expenditures go toward treating such diseases because “our system is set up to wait for people to get sick and then care for them.” His organization, the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, seeks to bring a more preventive approach to health care. . . . .


Carmona: The shortcomings are really, first of all, when we look at the system — we don’t have a health care system; we have a sick care system. Our system is set up to wait for people to get sick and then care for them. And when you look at how we pay our providers of health care, it’s to take care of sick people. How many people do we pay or how many systems do we have that reward you for keeping me healthy? . . .


. . . The existing system is predicated on a much simpler world, where there were few advances in medical science. There were a couple of antibiotics; there were no psychotropic drugs; there were no CTs, MRIs, or minimally invasive surgery; genomics was science fiction. So that’s the world that we were in a half century ago that Medicare and Medicaid is predicated on. Now we keep putting Band-aids on this system in hopes of trying to fix it, but the system is accelerating too fast. It doesn’t have the capacity to accept the new science, the new technology, the new knowledge base we have. . . .​

If we could move from sick care to health care the savings could be used to provide "health care" to more people. Keep in mind some will never accept the personal responsibility of healthcare as outlined in this interview, but that is another issue. We also don't want a totalitarian system that tells you how to live your life. That is a slippery slope under this definition of healthcare.

Which sector could better move us from sickcare to healthcare? Public or private? Once you answer that question then you can determine which Presidential candidate would best serve these goals.

 

[gugubica]

Look around........we are fat, lazy and sick.

So do you think that the Government stepping in and giving these people free health care is going to solve this. Or is it more likely that the Government will remove any insentive to get healthy. If you do not have personal consequences for the actions, then why take any personal responcibility to correct them?

For example, it is cheaper in the long run to pay for a smokers health care than a non-smoker (because the smoker does not live as long). So why would the person picking up the tab encourage people to quit smoking. And as a smoker, or a fat person, or what ever, if you are not going to be picking up the tab, then who cares?

Or...

Should the Government just get out of it entirely and let some good old fashioned Darwinism take out the weak, and fat, and lazy, and sick that are unwilling to change these things about themselves?

 

[gugubica]

Oh, and by the way, I have first hand experiance with a Government funded and run health care system.












































































It's called the VA, and it SUCKS!