The W
Views: 100046927
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.14 1447
The W - Current Events & Politics - The Health Care Debacle (Page 2)
This thread has 7 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.86
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
(188 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (100 total)
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 8 hours
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.77
This is for AWA. Found this site while searching.

http://www.cmpa.com/​Studies/​Election08/​election%20​news%20​7_​29_​08.htm

Also, look for Eric Altman's book on media biased via goggle or amazon. I saw the UCLA study on media biased, but I had some problems with the study itself. If you want to take a look to decide for yourself, here it is:

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/​polisci/​faculty/​groseclose/​Media.Bias.8.htm

It was done in 2004.


StaggerLee feels the same way, I do about the military industry. Do we really need to make smarter weapons when we can just nuke the planet five times over? Also, if you want subsides shouldn't you agree with the bill since that is going to beone of the major points.

(edited by lotjx on 21.12.09 1110)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 5 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.03
    Originally posted by Amos Cochran
    It's great that you think healthcare should depend on your ability to navigate a complex subsidies claiming system. And what kind of healthcare should be covered by these subsidies?


Good job of falling into the health CARE vs health INSURANCE hole.
They are not the same thing. And, why does it have to be complicated? If you receive government assistance through unemployment, food stamps, etc, you should be afforded help from the government in paying for health insurance. ASSISTANCE, not totally provided.

Everything should be covered under health insurance, to some degree. (everything preventative, and limited elective procedures).
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 22 hours
AIM:  
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.32
Conservatives tend to notice my posts more and believe that I'm liberal and out to get them.

Liberals tend to notice CRZ's posts more, and presume that he's conservative and out to get them.

On topic: The whole idea of forcing reform on the Health-care industry seems to be out the window.

To fix this issue, you need to look at where all the money is taken out of the system. So, if we're putting in $100 for health care, is it OK as long as $1 goes to to hospital staff, $1 goes to emergency workers, $5 to nurses, $15 to administration, $15 to doctors, and $64 to G.E. for medical equipment leasing / purchasing, drug companies for expensive drugs, utlities, etc?

What's the break-down of our current medical bill - that's my question. Who is getting rich off of the American public's health?

What if the answer was something simpler like the US Government pays for drug research instead of private industry, and the costs are paid for by taxpayers directly. How many levels of management, bribes, etc. would that cut out? If the FDA was directly funding research, would they have better access to the data instead of just getting the best set of data for the company? How would this impact public safety?

What if being a doctor wasn't an artificially limited resource? The AMA limits how many schools are accredited, and schools limit how many students they take on. Early internships for doctors are gruelling - why? Why do we work so hard to destroy the dreams of those who would work for our health? Is it just to protect the earning power of doctors already in the system, or is the better reason?

What if we could all go to medical school if we wanted to? How would that impact the public health?

What if nurses could easily prescribe common medications instead of requiring them to get the pre-signed scrips that the doctors give them?

What if there were only one processing system for insurance, similar to EDI standards used in the grocery business? Would it make it easier for everyone to exchange documents? Are we working on that?

I care about that stuff more than the Public Option. Forcing everyone into getting insurance just puts everyone into a broken system.

You should be able to price shop a doctor visit, not have insurance so any doctor is $5.




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 5 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.07
Zim, I can see your point about where the money goes. Personally, I have no problem with GE making money off of an MRI machine, or similar equipment. If they develop it, bring it to market, and it helps save lives, they should be able to make money off of it. But, the issue of GE is a whole other can of worms in the health care debate, since they're so much in bed with Obama it's hard to call them anything other than a very interested partner in all of this.

As for Nurses, a Nurse Practitioner can write for many non controlled medicines on his/her own, which is why a lot of the "doc in a box" places have NPs staffing their urgent care clinics vs a doctor.

I don't see a problem with medical schools being so hard to finish. If a doctor can navigate the stresses of medical school, he/she is probably more adept and dedicated to somebody who would be able to get through an 'easier' school.

As far as the government doing drug research, I don't see how the government would be able to effectively take over that sector of science. As a country, our government has funded a lot of fantastic research, but it's always been the scientist who's made the advances, in a lab setting.



Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 21 hours
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.03
I'm not going to go point-by-point on anything because a lot of things have been dealt with, and I know CRZ doesn't like to have too much of the political stuff. There's no question in my mind that the media is biased in favor of conservatives, but I don't think this is the place to get into it. (I will say this, though...just ask yourself where you got the idea that the media was liberal. Because I'm betting it's from the media.) I think most of the points about the topic have been made, but I did think one thing was important to address:

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    People aren't dying in the streets because they do not have insurance,


Perhaps not in the streets, but, in fact, 45,000 Americans a year are dying for precisely that reason. http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.48
GE can make money but their was a report on these machines and their cost in a country like Japan. Essentially the same equipment is less than 50% of the cost in the US.

The argument that it is personal responsibility is valid in an ideal world but this ain't it. Plus where children are involved, they by our laws don't have personal responsibility. We have an obligation as a society for their care.

And really this isn't (shouldn't be) a conservative vs. liberal issue. I believe we speak of "life liberity and the pursuit of happiness." Your health falls in this realm. I don't much care how it is "responsibly" achieved but with the money we are spending now, no one should lack health care access without going broke.



Perception is reality
Alex
Bratwurst








Since: 24.2.02

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 41 min.
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.23
I think the worse problem in regards to people not having health insurance is that often they'll avoid getting regular check ups or going to see a doctor when they're sick, thus turning minor problems into catastrophic ones.

If the news in this country were anything other than a stodgier version of TMZ I think it would be a vast improvement over the current state of things.
Kei Posiskunk
Kolbasz








Since: 7.1.02
From: Central PA, USA

Since last post: 144 days
Last activity: 95 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.40
    Originally posted by Alex
    I think the worse problem in regards to people not having health insurance is that often they'll avoid getting regular check ups or going to see a doctor when they're sick, thus turning minor problems into catastrophic ones.


I'm not sure this is entirely true. I know where I work, doctor visits were actually REMOVED from our insurance plan because TOO MANY people were going to the doctor repeatedly over and over during the year, often for bogus reasons just to get a doctor's note to cover for their unexcused absences.

And yes, that DOES hurt the people who might go once a year, or when things get bad, but many people were definitely going in sometimes ten or eleven times a year where I work, and it was becoming too much of a cost sink for the company.

I don't know how you solve a problem like that so that you keep access AND keep it cost effective.






Professional Hat Thief.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.48
    Originally posted by Kei Posiskunk
      Originally posted by Alex
      I think the worse problem in regards to people not having health insurance is that often they'll avoid getting regular check ups or going to see a doctor when they're sick, thus turning minor problems into catastrophic ones.


    I'm not sure this is entirely true. I know where I work, doctor visits were actually REMOVED from our insurance plan because TOO MANY people were going to the doctor repeatedly over and over during the year, often for bogus reasons just to get a doctor's note to cover for their unexcused absences.

    And yes, that DOES hurt the people who might go once a year, or when things get bad, but many people were definitely going in sometimes ten or eleven times a year where I work, and it was becoming too much of a cost sink for the company.

    I don't know how you solve a problem like that so that you keep access AND keep it cost effective.


It's tough but in our paranoid culture, many people over react when they sneeze or want an excuse. However, I think most people are not out to abuse the system. And preventative care is the one thing that would greatly decrease costs.



Perception is reality
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 5 days
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.07
DrDirt, Just curious why parents are not responsible for their children? I provide for mine, most people provide for theirs. To say "it's for the childrens sake" is a bit of a stretch. I understand that not everybody takes care of their business as much as others. That doesn't mean we need the government to step in, and do it for them.

You state life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and say that health care falls within that. I would say that liberty would provide me the with a world where I didn't need my government telling me how much insurance I should have, who I should buy it from, or what my doctor can do as far as my health is concerned.

Personal responsibility is lost, and turning to the government to fix all of your problems is not the answer.

45,000 people died without insurance? Out of the 2,426,264 people that died(2008 numbers), that's less than a tenth of a percent. We need to spend a trillion dollars to fix less than a tenth of a percent of the population who dies each year? People who according to the studies usually have a higher rate of smoking, drinking, drug use and obesity. But if they can't control their smoking, drinking, drug use and overeating, the people of the United States should have to pick up the tab?

lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 8 hours
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.77
Life equates health without good health you are probably dead.
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 454 days
Last activity: 414 days
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.38
    Originally posted by Kei Posiskunk
      Originally posted by Alex
      I think the worse problem in regards to people not having health insurance is that often they'll avoid getting regular check ups or going to see a doctor when they're sick, thus turning minor problems into catastrophic ones.


    I'm not sure this is entirely true. I know where I work, doctor visits were actually REMOVED from our insurance plan because TOO MANY people were going to the doctor repeatedly over and over during the year, often for bogus reasons just to get a doctor's note to cover for their unexcused absences.



He was talking about people without insurance not going to the doctor, which is entirely true. Most of the major causes of death in the United States are things that could be prevented with regular checkups.

The other problem is when people who don't have insurance do go to the doctor, it's usually the emergency room. That increases the wait and expense of using the emergency room as well.
Alex
Bratwurst








Since: 24.2.02

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 41 min.
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.23
    Originally posted by StaggerLee

    You state life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and say that health care falls within that. I would say that liberty would provide me the with a world where I didn't need my government telling me how much insurance I should have, who I should buy it from, or what my doctor can do as far as my health is concerned.


This is a reasonable ideal, however under our current system these things are dictated by for-profit corporations as opposed to the government. Personal responsibility runs a distant second to corporate profit imperative.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 20 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.49
don't forget, at least some of those who died without insurance are young people who didn't have insurance because they didn't want insurance. No doubt that in most of those cases that their estate picked up any costs (but on the other hand, probably most of them died when the fast car they bought with the money they would have spent on heath insurance hit a tree, so little money was spent on them.

After the Army, I didn't have any for four years - because I couldn't get it? Nope. Because I knew I was invulnerable and I rolled the dice (I was in school). My wife had it at her work, but it was like 95 a month more for me and we just never put me on (it was free for her).

ah, freedom. I guess we don't actually NEED that.



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 21 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.85
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    ah, freedom. I guess we don't actually NEED that.
Since it's perfectly constitutional to force me to buy auto insurance, why the heck wouldn't it be as equally constitutional to force me to buy health insurance? FREEDOM!



StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 5 days
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.07
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    don't forget, at least some of those who died without insurance are young people who didn't have insurance because they didn't want insurance. No doubt that in most of those cases that their estate picked up any costs (but on the other hand, probably most of them died when the fast car they bought with the money they would have spent on heath insurance hit a tree, so little money was spent on them.

    After the Army, I didn't have any for four years - because I couldn't get it? Nope. Because I knew I was invulnerable and I rolled the dice (I was in school). My wife had it at her work, but it was like 95 a month more for me and we just never put me on (it was free for her).

    ah, freedom. I guess we don't actually NEED that.


You bring up a good point about the people who choose not to buy insurance. They are lumped into the numbers of people without, but it's by choice. I've heard some numbers, between 20 and 40% of the total without insurance. Even if it's the lesser, that's a BIG number of people without insurance by choice.

Second, you are still eligible for VA healthcare, right? Even if you never signed up, it's always an option.
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 9 days
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.38
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    People who according to the studies usually have a higher rate of smoking, drinking, drug use and obesity. But if they can't control their smoking, drinking, drug use and overeating, the people of the United States should have to pick up the tab?


    Originally posted by AWArulz
    No doubt that in most of those cases that their estate picked up any costs (but on the other hand, probably most of them died when the fast car they bought with the money they would have spent on heath insurance hit a tree, so little money was spent on them.


So the uninsured are either drug addicts or irresponsible twenty somethings. I guess any argument to dismiss these people entirely will suffice - and a Merry Christmas to you, too.

I'm sure the 62% of the bankruptcies that occurred in 2007 are the fault of those entirely unprepared for a major medical illness (72% of whom were insured, BTW). And given the current economy, it'll be even better this year.

    Originally posted by AWArulz
    ah, freedom. I guess we don't actually NEED that.


Oh, COME ON...



Who likes the little little duckies in the pond? I do, I do, I do, a chicka-quack quack.
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 35 min.
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.63
I'm no congressional rules expert, but the Democrats could've passed any bill they wanted had they enacted the 'reconciliation' tactic or whatever it's called, right? I mean, the Republicans passed loads of bills by a 52-48 or close margin during their reign, while suddenly when the Democrats are in power, now a 60-vote threshold is needed because the GOP is Borg-like in its voting practices.

'Reconciliation,' as is my limited understanding of it, means that a bill only has to pass by a simple majority vote. So had the Dems gone down this route, they would've lost Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, probably Baucus, maybe Carper but still passed (what would've been likely a much more effective) bill by a 55-45 margin.

Here's a better question --- why the hell does Lieberman still hold his chairmanship positions on Senate committees? If I were Harry Reid, I would be devoting my final year in office to destroying this idiot.




Kirk, crackers are a family food. Happy families. Maybe single people eat crackers, we don't know. Frankly, we don't want to know. It's a market we can do without.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 5 days
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.07
    Originally posted by CRZ
      Originally posted by AWArulz
      ah, freedom. I guess we don't actually NEED that.
    Since it's perfectly constitutional to force me to buy auto insurance, why the heck wouldn't it be as equally constitutional to force me to buy health insurance? FREEDOM!


Apples and oranges. If you don't drive, you aren't forced to buy it.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 5 days
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.07
    Originally posted by Leroy


    I'm sure the 62% of the bankruptcies that occurred in 2007 are the fault of those entirely unprepared for a major medical illness (72% of whom were insured, BTW). And given the current economy, it'll be even better this year.

    .

From the article you linked:

    Medical insurance isn't much help, either. About 78% of bankruptcy filers burdened by healthcare expenses were insured, according to the survey, to be published in the August issue of the American Journal of Medicine.


So having insurance really makes no difference when something catastrophic happens.

And, while we're talking about percentage of people filing being related to health care bills, it might be useful to know what CAN be a reason to file, since this was passed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​Bankruptcy_​Abuse_​Prevention_​and_​Consumer_​Protection_​Act

By making it harder to file for tons of credit cards, mortgage problems, etc, the percentage of those filing for medical bills logically would go up.

And Leroy, when you say "oh please" to AWA about freedom, I wonder, does that mean you were cool with the Patriot Act?



(edited by StaggerLee on 22.12.09 0003)
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Thread rated: 4.86
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Thread ahead: Terror Attack thwarted in Detroit.
Next thread: The Pope gets knocked down at Christmas Mass
Previous thread: RIP Oral Roberts (1918 - 2009)
(188 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
That is pretty funny. I was actually refering to Dole, Clinton, and Bono though.
The W - Current Events & Politics - The Health Care Debacle (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.154 seconds.