Political Potpourri VIII

clark · 2005-07-26 17:15:10

Nevermind.

Back in the closet I go.

srmeaney · 2005-07-26 17:18:08

Who the hell are we to bring Islam into the 21st century?!
This course would preclude any future chance to unite with Islamic peoples against a common enemy. (Just a guess, but I'll bet terrorism has edged out lightning as a cause of death in Iraq this year. Here in the States, it also put lighting to shame with a brief spike in activity during September of 2001... ) It's a waste of effort as well. Every muslim on the planet is not out to get us (yet ).

It isnt the religion thats the problem. Its the - Human who "needs it" and the people "pushing it". Take Christianity being pushed in Mongolia, Christians being paid to recruit the nomadic population out beyond the cities, they are telling people any old rubbish.-Christ is this "wizard" who could walk on water and heal with a touch. Frankly its little more than fraud and a dangerous fraud at that. The idea that "Christ died for you so its ok to die for him" is very close to what is being pushed in Islam - a philosophy of loyal followers willing to lay down their lives in a fight. There's the problem. Its the Bastards using it for personal gain.

DonPanic · 2005-07-26 17:38:35

LO

I still think we should have stayed the course in Afghanistan.
We have. We don't hear much about it largely because it's going reasonably well. Still there, staying the course.

Reasonably :? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4717905.stm

BWhite · 2005-07-26 18:23:55

Just dump it all. No health insurance, no pensions, no Social Security, no Medicaid. Just pay people right up front. Costs will come down, government will be less invasive, most people will be better off and more of those who aren't will be so directly because of their own actions, and nothing motivates one to change their behaviors than clearly visible consequences, both good and bad.
At the risk of outing myself here, let me suggest, from a birds eye view, that this is a pretty lousy idea.

In my version, the government would employ doctors to provide a base line of care to those who qualify on a "needs" basis.

But its all fantasy anyway since HealthSouth etc. . . earns too great a profit on the current system.

clark · 2005-07-26 19:02:22

Oh, I get it Bill, in your version you would have Medicare and Medicaid, but *wouldn't* call it that!

Healthcare in this country is a giant ponzi scheme, and is fractured and distorted due to the competing private interests of for profit managed care.

In a nutshell, the huge problem we are facing right now is the result of competing market forces where private plans offer higher copays and lower premiums to draw in the healthy population who are low utilizer’s of the system.

That leaves a higher utilization population holding the bag. The whole premise of healthcare is that we take money from A, who isn't using what he is paying for at the moment, to pay for B, who is using more than he is paying for at the moment. The idea being that when it comes A's turn, B will be paying more into the system and using less of the resources.

This can work in a large population size where you absorb the different penetration rates of users. A large population tends to have stable, and predictable usage rates. You can plan around that (except for when the sh*t hits the fan during a flu outbreak or a huge disaster... spikes in other words).

However, breaking up your larger population into smaller groups stresses the system, and makes it harder to weather the various spikes. You end up having to put in greater control measures, like cutting high utilizer’s, charging higher co-pays to reduce utilization, and charging higher premiums to recoup the cost of doing business.

BWhite · 2005-07-26 20:50:53

I agree with your analysis, clark. My issue is how much do we let the MBAs and CFAs siphon off for "management fees"

clark · 2005-07-26 21:05:40

If you want my honest opinion, not founded on facts, but experience, then I suggest *forcing* all health care providers to be a not-for-profit model. There are internal checks and balances in such a model to reduce administrative costs and increase resources dedicated to care.

And all the money going in goes only for health care, or the expansion of care. Nothing goes to a non-producing stockholder getting rich off the misfortune of others.

Josh Cryer · 2005-07-26 22:01:02

Not all, just create a section of the government that functions that way, as a non-profit. The non-profits will have better healthcare overall.

clark · 2005-07-26 22:26:58

Government version of a non-profit is universal care.

However, there are less control mechanisms in place to control costs. The government pays what it takes.

In not-for-profit model, it is structred similar to a private-for-proft managed care delivery system, but has to control costs like a private company. The difference though is that all money and resources are going directly for patient care or administration of patient care.

Anything left over is simply used to expand services or imrove exsisting ones to provide a better level of care.

Zero-dollars go outside the system.

DonPanic · 2005-07-27 02:54:37

LO

The exact rhetorics Bush and Blair brain trust invented to avoid further questions about the consequences their politics.
*No, actually -- believe it or not -- those are my thoughts.

Unlike a large majority of the Brits :
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polls/st … 91,00.html

So what turned peoples into fanatics ?
Fundamental religion and its attendant intolerances and bigotries.

Peoples are not naturally intolerant and bigot, there must be a background for.
I mean that they can be so in their own life, that do not spread to the others. The Koran is supposed to tell that Jews and Christians are to be respected.
Terrorism leaders manipulate the populace bigotry, but mainly the social despair to recruit and to turn to peoples to fanatism and serve political aims that have little to see with religion.
This is the case in Egypt where fundies provide social help, "education" and care to the poors.
This spreads a fudamentalist pressure into the middle classes in which peoples feel they are obliged to look like ordinary people, otherwise they would be endangered in their day to day life.
Egypt is now falling in same type of civil war as Algeria 10 years ago.
Algeria is just overcoming thanks to the oil price rise that gives means to its government to improve the standarts of living, but Egypt has no oil.
Trying to spread democracy to some countries without massive economic help would turn them into tough "islamic republics".
One problem is that if they compare military spendings in Iraq with the economic help given to them, they will regard it as an obscenity.

In Europe, we are facing aculturation of the immigation origin youth which rediscovers muslim religion with a distorted look.
French authorities have chosen to organise a "french" islam with the french centralized tradition: soon there will be a "National Ulemas School", only licenced students will be permitted to preach in mosquees. Any un authorized preacher will be banned or prosecuted.

Stormrage · 2005-07-27 05:46:37

So what turned peoples into fanatics ?

Anger. You really can't expect people in the Middle East to like America when America is providing and protecting Israel. It doesn't help the matter when American foreign policy allows it to topple government of a weaker country that it doesn't like or attacking other countries for false reasons.

When you watch Bush and Blair speak about terrorism they make it sound like the terrorists are a sad lonely and depressed people who want to opress others. Have they been smoking something? Fighters in Chechnya want to be free their country from Russian control. These people have a reason for doing what they do. The only reason they fight like this is because they don't have a big budget to spend on a military like America and UK does. So they try the David style of slaying Goliath.

At the end of the day politics sucks. Gives me a head ache every time i think about it.

DonPanic · 2005-07-27 06:24:50

LO
Must realize that before 1947, many Jews lived peacefully in many arab countries, as for instance in Morroco where Jews thrown out of Spain found refuge, and where there have never been any pogrom unlike in Europe.
After 1947, Israel made everything to attract the Jews which were living in arab countries. then the former hosts of these Jews saw them take weapons at other Arabs. So, in many arab countries, Jews from Europe are seen as caucasian western invaders while oriental Jews were seen as disgusting betrayers.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-27 08:16:34

If you want my honest opinion, not founded on facts, but experience, then I suggest *forcing* all health care providers to be a not-for-profit model. There are internal checks and balances in such a model to reduce administrative costs and increase resources dedicated to care.

Depending on how it's implemented. A non-profit model wouldn't help much if the underlying structure of healthcare were not fundamentally changed.

There are really three major, over-riding problems with how healthcare is organized in this country, though the third is somewhat tangential. Providers have no reason to price competitively, patients don't think they're paying for it (my insurance will cover it, the government will pay for it, etc.) and having everyone paying into a central trough, whether it be the current insurance scheme or a government "universal" healthcare plan encourages everyone to meddle in everyone elses affairs, leading to the sort of nanny-state laws we have today. If we're all paying for everyone else's health problems, we have a compulsion to forbid them from eating anything unhealthy or doing anything dangerous.

But if everyone covers their own expenses, prices come down and each individual can decide for themselves what level of risk is acceptable. That old freedom thing again.

DonPanic · 2005-07-27 08:54:55

LO

But if everyone covers their own expenses, prices come down and each individual can decide for themselves what level of risk is acceptable. That old freedom thing again.

From Ancient Greece up to the XIXth century, tradition for Doctors was to ask high fees to rich patients, or ask them donations so they could take care of the poors for cheap or free, following the Hipocrates Oath. Some equivalent behaviours in Asia.

Now, Doctors in Medecine mostly don't care about.
How does a family with a child needing costly treatments or people with handicapping desease manage to pay their "own expenses"

You just let them die for "that old freedom" ?

Or do you call "freedom" some return to jungle laws where the weak must die and the strong survive ?
Better watch out, someday some more powerful than you could treat you as a prey in the kind of world you defend.

BWhite · 2005-07-27 08:57:07

Hey Cobra, you better lubricate your turret. I sense many traverses are going to be needed, and soon.

Michael Savage says http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mp … 77239]Bush is too liberal!

"What makes Bush a conservative?" Savage asked when I got him on the phone the other day. "On the economy, Bush has got more governmental workers than anybody before him. He's ballooned the government."

Sean Vanity?

As regards the so-called "war on terror," Savage points out that you can't win a war when you're afraid even to name the enemy.
"He's never mentioned Islamo fascism," said Savage.
No, he hasn't. Even the French have been more willing to defend their borders, language and culture than Bush. He's a multiculturalist and a mushy one at that. Instead of reducing the reach of Islamic fundamentalism, Bush has managed in Iraq to get 1,700 Americans killed in a war that will create yet another Islamic republic. Just Wednesday we learned that the new constitution in Iraq will incorporate sharia, Islamic law.
That's why we right-wing commentators believe the Iraq war has been the biggest blunder in American military history. As for Bimbo and Vanity, if I may employ Savage's labels, they are simply too uneducated to realize that the Iraq war represents a failed liberal exercise in nation-building.

Gosh, what a world. Maybe the Cubs will win the World Series this year.

= = =

PS - - Hillary Clinton wants to expand the army by 80,000 soldiers, so we can "stay the course" in Iraq!

Whoa!

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-27 10:09:57

How does a family with a child needing costly treatments or people with handicapping desease manage to pay their "own expenses"

For one thing, costs would drop for treatments just as they do with any medical procedure that isn't covered by insurance. Now granted, there are a number of conditions that can't be treated cheaply, not because of expense but because medical science has yet to find a solution.

To use your examples, the costly treatment for the sick child will not be nearly as costly with government/insurance cut out and market forces applied and let's be honest here, many of those with "handicapping diseases" can't be helped by modern medical science anyway. All that can be done is to make them more comfortable, barring some breakthrough.

Enter private charity. Even in a total free-market medical system some things will remain expensive. Private non-profit organizations will continue to exist to help alleviate the problem and people will still voluntarily donate just as they do today.

I'm sure some example can be found where someone will be screwed over under such a system. Unfortunately that happens quite frequently under the current system. Don't let the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good" or progress will never be made.

Or do you call "freedom" some return to jungle laws where the weak must die and the strong survive ?
Better watch out, someday some more powerful than you could treat you as a prey in the kind of world you defend.

I'm afraid that upon clear examination you will find that the world is already full of predators. I simply advocate not allowing ourselves to become dependent on them for our own well-being.

Michael Savage says Bush is too liberal!

Isn't he? At least in some respects?

I know I've bashed him on this sort of thing before. . .

PS - - Hillary Clinton wants to expand the army by 80,000 soldiers, so we can "stay the course" in Iraq!
Whoa!

She has to distance herself from the kook-fringe that is rapidly becoming the "mainstream" of the Democrat Party. I question the sincerity of such statements.

clark · 2005-07-27 10:21:24

grrrr. must. stay. in. closet. grrrr.

[sigh]

reddragon · 2005-07-27 10:58:11

Michael Savage says Bush is too liberal!

I don't think the left wants to take him, though. And he still has the support of many on the right. I guess that some of what he does isn't really conservative by definition, but in other areas, especially the "moral values" stuff, he is definitely conservative. And I certainly wouldn't call the war a "liberal exercise in nation-building."

PS - - Hillary Clinton wants to expand the army by 80,000 soldiers, so we can "stay the course" in Iraq!

Where does she expect to get the soldiers. The army is already not meeting its enlistment goals as people, quite reasonably I think, don't want to risk death in a war with no end in sight and no apparent benefit to the country. To get more they would have to resort to a draft, an unpopular and unjustified step clearly not worth it for this war.

Stormrage · 2005-07-27 11:33:03

PS - - Hillary Clinton wants to expand the army by 80,000 soldiers, so we can "stay the course" in Iraq!

Thats beacause she has to look like she wants to protect america.When the fact is Iraq is inciting more attacks.

She if says she wants to take out the troops out of Iraq. People will say she doesn't want to protect america she won't get elected.

If she does send more troops to Iraq. The insurgents won't give up and will continue. It will also inciti terrorists to attack any country invovled in the Iraq War.

DonPanic · 2005-07-27 14:21:11

How does a family with a child needing costly treatments or people with handicapping desease manage to pay their "own expenses"
For one thing, costs would drop for treatments just as they do with any medical procedure that isn't covered by insurance. Now granted, there are a number of conditions that can't be treated cheaply, not because of expense but because medical science has yet to find a solution.
To use your examples, the costly treatment for the sick child will not be nearly as costly with government/insurance cut out and market forces applied and let's be honest here, many of those with "handicapping diseases" can't be helped by modern medical science anyway. All that can be done is to make them more comfortable, barring some breakthrough. (...)

Chatchatchat, thanks, Cobra, Bravo! as we say in France, you have a remarquable art to "drown the fish" :mrgreen: i.e. not to frankly answer a simple question wich is: how do peoples with low incomes do to have necessary cares they can't afford ?
You should start a political career, bright future promised

DonPanic · 2005-07-27 14:45:05

grrrr. must. stay. in. closet. grrrr.[sigh]

Short of paper ? :shock:

Make a http://www.logogle.com/ggl.php?hl=ja&lo … &q=]search

C M Edwards · 2005-07-27 14:50:57

grrrr. must. stay. in. closet. grrrr.
[sigh]

How odd! ( :twisted: )

clark · 2005-07-27 16:57:32

No, not short of paper, but perhaps a bit odd.

When it comes to health care, I have a very definite opinion.

Personally, I have had my life saved, numerous times, because of the not-for-profit health care system I was a part of.

I, and my family members, have never had to rely on handouts, or charity, or worry if such good will would come to our rescue.

Life throws surprises at us, and many times, there is little or nothing that we can do about it. Heath care is piece of mind, and affordable insurance for everyone is nothing to shy away from.

I will simply say that I have seen both private and non-profit models of health care delivery in a very intimate setting. I will tell you that a private model is a conflicted beast because there is a profit motive behind the decision process. The decision process is you, the patient.

A not-for-profit is not like the government. It is more like a private run enterprise where the resources go to expanding care, and increasing services. That's it. They expand as they are able, and try to serve their members.

For profit is all about the bottom line and charging what the market will bear. There is a profound difference when you apply either model to reality.

I fail to see why any of us should accept the idea that it is legitimate to profit from the misery and misfortune of others. That is fundamentally what a private model driven by market forces is.

Private interests and market forces have their place, but I sincerely believe that in the delivery of health care, it has none. I can't debate this point without becoming overbearing, so I choose to sit it out.

But. I. Still. Growl. In. The Closet.

Grrrr.

DonPanic · 2005-07-27 17:30:21

I believe where Bill is coming from is pointing out the continuing PR disaster that is the War on Terrorism.
"War on Terrorism" is among the most stupid concepts I've ever heard,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … op.html]Is Big Brother watching us ?

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-28 07:21:52

Cobra, Bravo! as we say in France, you have a remarquable art to "drown the fish" i.e. not to frankly answer a simple question wich is: how do peoples with low incomes do to have necessary cares they can't afford ?
You should start a political career, bright future promised

Sometimes there isn't a simple answer. If all you want to hear is that someone will be screwed over, okay. Someone will be screwed over. But the same happens with every system currently in use. As we say in America, life isn't fair.

Arrangements for '08 are already in the works.

I can't debate this point without becoming overbearing, so I choose to sit it out.

Court order? Psychiatric advice? We're worried about you, dude.

But in all seriousness, clark does have a point. Healthcare is something of a paradox, if it's for-profit the motivation to treat a patient diasppears if it loses money, yet if it's rendered as an entitled service costs balloon uncontrollably because no one believes they're really paying for it. "I only paid ten dollars at the doctor and my prescription was free, yippee. Hey, why are my taxes so high?"

So the question is how do we alleviate both problems. How do we get clark's non-profit focus on care over money and introduce market forces to keep costs from exploding?

Hey, I don't claim to know, but this idea occurs to me. What if we created a government-sanctioned (but still essentially private) national insurance company (think PBS with drugs ) They cover the actual costs above a certain level, every worker can opt to pay into the system, or not at their discretion. You get the flu, you pay yourself. You get cancer, the program kicks in. Only cover catastrophic illness or injury. For those that do pay in, the Public Health Corp pays their medical costs much like current insurance schemes today.

The board of the PHC (or whatever it's called) is compensated according to how well they treat/cure patients as well as how well they keep costs down. Letting a cancer die because they're an expense would be criminal and subject to prosecution, but finding cheaper yet equally effective treatment would be rewarded.

So even for insurance payments, doctors have to compete. Further, they don't just send the bill off to the PHC, they give it, itemized and in its entirety to the patient. Make them give estimates beforehand, just like a mechanic. No costs are hidden and patients can go anywhere they want. Market forces come to bear on providers but a cushion exists to keep people from dying in the streets from TB.

Cover only serious illness, make providers compete, make the taxation voluntary.

And if someone opts out of the program, their call. Make the choice clear, then let people make their own decisions. Most will go in out of convenience if nothing else, especially if costs are kept down.

Not even awake yet and that's better than what the current crop of politicos can come up with. And trying to compromise with clark, what has the world come to? :twisted:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-07-26 17:15:10

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#102 2005-07-26 17:18:08

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#103 2005-07-26 17:38:35

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#104 2005-07-26 18:23:55

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#105 2005-07-26 19:02:22

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#106 2005-07-26 20:50:53

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#107 2005-07-26 21:05:40

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#108 2005-07-26 22:01:02

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#109 2005-07-26 22:26:58

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#110 2005-07-27 02:54:37

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#111 2005-07-27 05:46:37

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#112 2005-07-27 06:24:50

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#113 2005-07-27 08:16:34

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#114 2005-07-27 08:54:55

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#115 2005-07-27 08:57:07

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#116 2005-07-27 10:09:57

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#117 2005-07-27 10:21:24

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#118 2005-07-27 10:58:11

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#119 2005-07-27 11:33:03

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#120 2005-07-27 14:21:11

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#121 2005-07-27 14:45:05

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#122 2005-07-27 14:50:57

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#123 2005-07-27 16:57:32

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#124 2005-07-27 17:30:21

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#125 2005-07-28 07:21:52

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

Board footer