Political Potpourri VIII

DonPanic · 2005-08-01 12:58:03

And capturing them has given the UK a lot of intelligence that can be used to stop the future planned attacks on the UK and incidentally from the intelligence gained Frances metro as well.

Don't know how it is in London and in main US cities, but here in Paris, we have about 30 false bomb alarms a day, stressing demining teams.
Hoaxers can be immediatly condemned to 2 years of jail and 30000€ fined. (about 36000$ or 20000£)

Grypd · 2005-08-01 13:45:07

And capturing them has given the UK a lot of intelligence that can be used to stop the future planned attacks on the UK and incidentally from the intelligence gained Frances metro as well.
Don't know how it is in London and in main US cities, but here in Paris, we have about 30 false bomb alarms a day, stressing demining teams.
Hoaxers can be immediatly condemned to 2 years of jail and 30000€ fined. (about 36000$ or 20000£)

Except the information gained was when a would be suicide bomber whose bomb had failed was cornered and detained. This bomber was one of the recent 5 and was found in posession of the Metro plans and times for the best "results" So it was not a hoax and with the UK transport system at such high alert France's Metro was considered the secondary target. And one of the "bombers" was recently captured in Italy after having been detected in Paris and by SigInt means followed across France to Italy. The Italian police then raided the flat. Both of the Men there have since been charged with terrorism crimes

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-01 23:52:22

Bill:-

General Motors and US Steel are hardly paragons of rugged individualism.

= = =
Many of America's best decades of economic performance came after the New Deal, which I believe was an effort to blend the best attributues of capitalism and socialism.
It has also been argued that liberal (meaning easily available) bankruptcy laws allow American business folk to take risks Europeans would never dream of taking.
Is easy access to bankruptcy protection (debt relief) free enterprise or socialism? I say that's a hard question to answer.

Good points, Bill, and you've demonstrated one can analyze this enormous subject down into an infinite array of smaller tricky questions; thus getting bogged down in the minutiae of history. And what is history? (I think we could get bogged down in that one, too! )
-- Nevertheless - and perhaps my point wasn't made clearly enough - as I understand it, and compared to other countries, America has generally expected its citizens to look after themselves. 20th century America isn't famous, as far as I'm aware, for a broad-based welfare safety net and universal 'free' medical care.

Again, as I understand it, there are powerful forces trying to push the U.S. along the path to greater welfare - including government funded healthcare. And, as I said, I believe this is a noble cause in principle. But past experience tells us that once a country starts down that road, its economic performance begins to falter and it marks the beginning of the end of any dominance it may have enjoyed.
-- That's O.K.! The U.S. is your country, not mine, and it's certainly not the end of the world for any of us. And there'll always be another country to take America's place as the economic powerhouse and drive the world's economy forward. It's an ongoing process we've seen countless times, going back to ancient Mesopotamia and forward through dominant empires like Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Greece, Rome etc. In modern times, of course, the mantle of supremacy tends to be passed on economically, rather than by military invasion. But the end result is similar.

I just happen to think a move toward more welfare will be the catalyst that ultimately brings America's economy down, that's all. Not because there's anything wrong with a more egalitarian system - my instincts lean quite strongly toward socialism - but because there's something wrong with us! Many, if not most, human beings are incapable of controlling their basic laziness and greed. They will take unfair advantage of a system designed to help those who need help, and the politicians will take advantage of that trend to buy themselves power.

It's just always been that way and it probably always will be.

DonPanic · 2005-08-02 03:12:20

Hi Bill
I wouldn't say that Shaun is wrong when so many people break their piggy banks to play on lotteries, rush to Las Vegas casinos, thus taxing themselves to redistribute their own money for some happy few to be millionaires. Pretty sure that among them, are some lower middle class peoples, which vote for left parties which usually slogans "lets take out of the richs to give to the poors" :?

srmeaney · 2005-08-02 06:36:27

"I am truly amazed. In terms of ownership, royalties, tax, and marketing of your energy and minerals, I know of only one country in the world which gets a worse deal: that's Gabon in West Africa. Why do you allow it?"
-Peta Nore, Expert on energy and resources, Norway in a speech to gathered Political leaders.

BWhite · 2005-08-02 19:27:44

http://www.juancole.com/2005/08/fisking … .html]Juan Cole's latest - - Enjoy!

BWhite · 2005-08-02 19:44:42

Bill:-
General Motors and US Steel are hardly paragons of rugged individualism.

= = =
Many of America's best decades of economic performance came after the New Deal, which I believe was an effort to blend the best attributues of capitalism and socialism.
It has also been argued that liberal (meaning easily available) bankruptcy laws allow American business folk to take risks Europeans would never dream of taking.
Is easy access to bankruptcy protection (debt relief) free enterprise or socialism? I say that's a hard question to answer.
Good points, Bill, and you've demonstrated one can analyze this enormous subject down into an infinite array of smaller tricky questions; thus getting bogged down in the minutiae of history. And what is history? (I think we could get bogged down in that one, too! )
-- Nevertheless - and perhaps my point wasn't made clearly enough - as I understand it, and compared to other countries, America has generally expected its citizens to look after themselves. 20th century America isn't famous, as far as I'm aware, for a broad-based welfare safety net and universal 'free' medical care.

Shaun, as a lawyer I help people start up new small businesses. Most fail.

The statistics are grim, like 70% of all new business start-ups fail. Maybe that's okay because trying is good and should be encouraged.

But if you have a family, to go naked without health insurance and start a business is pretty damn foolish. Unless your employer offers health insurance the rates border on unaffordable. Among my construction clients most have a wife who works full time at a really big company and therefore gets excellent group medical insurance.

And I know people who stay at their big company jobs (that they hate) instead of starting a new business because they cannot risk a spouse or child getting sick without insurance. Rather than promoting rugged individualism, this creates a nation of Dilberts, company man who are too timid to strike out on their own.

Hardly the mythical American dream.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-03 07:32:17

And I know people who stay at their big company jobs (that they hate) instead of starting a new business because they cannot risk a spouse or child getting sick without insurance. Rather than promoting rugged individualism, this creates a nation of Dilberts, company man who are too timid to strike out on their own.
Hardly the mythical American dream.

Which comes back to what I was saying, the present health insurance paradigm needs to be dumped in its entirety.

The problem you describe is a direct result of centralized healthcare and in a roundabout way, of socialist-style thinking.

BWhite · 2005-08-03 08:01:47

And I know people who stay at their big company jobs (that they hate) instead of starting a new business because they cannot risk a spouse or child getting sick without insurance. Rather than promoting rugged individualism, this creates a nation of Dilberts, company man who are too timid to strike out on their own.
Hardly the mythical American dream.
Which comes back to what I was saying, the present health insurance paradigm needs to be dumped in its entirety.
The problem you describe is a direct result of centralized healthcare and in a roundabout way, of socialist-style thinking.

Our current health care system arose through market forces.

Are you saying government should break up the insurance industry to better assure competition and direct access (and payment) between patients and doctors?

Dude, welcome to the Leftie Revolution! :grin:

= = =

Next, I will bet that the lion's share of political donations from Big Pharma and the medical insurance industry go to GOP candidates. The HMOs and large insurers are the middle men who take a large slice of pie leaving less for the rest of us.

Therefore, your plan is "pie in the sky"

In the meantime, Wal-Mart encourages its employees to apply for state subsidized medical care. First they seek tax breaks from local governments by promising local jobs then they dump the health care component cost from those same jobs back on the State government.

It's what Warren Buffet calls the sharecropper society. established under a false veneer of "rugged individualism" perpetuated by its apologists.

I guess that makes Buffet a communist! :shock:

BWhite · 2005-08-03 08:14:29

LO
Many of America's best decades of economic performance came after the New Deal, which I believe was an effort to blend the best attributues of capitalism and socialism.
I think there is not a good or perfect system in the absolute, each system creates its own "antigenes" such as the more its goes, the closer its reaches to a breakdown point.
Capitalism tends to unbearable inequalities between peoples, socialism tends to unproductivity as seen with the english industry in the years 1970.
Right now, I think that power of money owners have gone too far, and that soon or later, there will be a clock beam return, be smooth or brutal.
Economists know that for a long term period, the average industry profit rate is about 3.25% (over inflation rate). Now investissors seek for profits rates over 10%, then they act as predators, throwing attacks at industrial groups, dismanteling them, keeping only the most valuable departments, closing the less profitables ones, without any consideration on their market positions, firing as many workers as possible, without thinking that wrecked employment regions become marketless regions. At least Mr Ford 1 had the intelligence to consider his employees as his enterprise best clients.

I agree with this.

When designing an electrical circuit which is more important, the positive wire or the negative?

If either Labor or Capital grow too ascendant the circuit fails.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-03 08:18:23

Our current health care system arose through market forces.
Are you saying government should break up the insurance industry to better assure competition and direct access (and payment) between patients and doctors?
Dude, welcome to the Leftie Revolution!

Nice try! Next drink's on me.

Our current system arose through market forces responding to government interference.

The reason employers started offering health benefits in the first place can be traced back to FDR. What amounted to wage caps were enacted in 1941. Consequently employers could not use the traditional method for attracting the best people, offering more money, so they had to find other ways. Enter employer-provided healthcare.

After the war, we Americans came to expect this sort of thing (like so many other bad ideas we clung to after the war) and the system evolved into the beast we have today.

I propose we kill it for the good of all. When people pay their own medical costs (some provision could be made for catastrophic illness or injury) costs come down. As they drop, little or no need for government-subsidized healthcare. The problem largely solves itself if we yank out that one pin that holds the whole thing together. Sure, it may be a "pie in the sky" sort of plan, but then American history is rife with such things. Don't discount the revolution just yet. :twisted:

BWhite · 2005-08-03 08:31:10

Okay, dude. Send Bill Frist a letter. Maybe he will go for it.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-03 08:36:40

Okay, dude. Send Bill Frist a letter. Maybe he will go for it.

We both know he most certainly will not. No one currently in Washington will.

But some in the lower echelons of the Republican Party would consider it, I've been working on them. :twisted:

And I've got time.

Muahahahahaha!

clark · 2005-08-03 08:49:04

I should stay in the closet. Grrr.

The reason employers started offering health benefits in the first place can be traced back to FDR. What amounted to wage caps were enacted in 1941. Consequently employers could not use the traditional method for attracting the best people, offering more money, so they had to find other ways. Enter employer-provided healthcare.

Employer-provider healthcare was the result of employee’s wising up, dude. A couple smart cookies figured out that if a group of employee’s pitched in a nickel a day from their wages, then all of them could see a doctor when they needed to.

That same nickel, alone, wouldn’t get them in the door. That same nickel, combined with all others, would build hospitals, pay nurses, give doctors a salary, and ensure that the employee’s and their families could be treated.

You know where this started? Railroad workers. You know, people who would get hurt by accidents on the job. People doing manual labor, menial tasks, and tedious routine- the ones that lived hand to mouth.

When you are living hand to mouth, dealing with a cold or a flu before it becomes a crisis (like pneumonia) is improving your quality of life, and ensures you can work to support your family.

Employer’s *adopted* this benefit because the same employee’s started forming unions and demanded it. Your big Cuddly Big Business Teddy Bear out of the goodness of their heart is a joke.

Where things got screwed up is when private insurers got into the mix, and started taking a slice off the top. Where things are screwed up is when health care is about profit, instead of about taking care of the patient.

That’s the problem. Not some ideological battle over the role of government in the mix.

Grrr.

BWhite · 2005-08-03 09:04:46

Maybe Cobra's plan would work IF we encouraged the resurgence of labor unions.

But then again, in his world passing laws to assist the lions to feed while prohibiting the chimpanzees from ganging up (unions) is the essence of freedom. Too bad that collective action is how we chimps rose to the top in the first place.

By the way, Adam Smith (and I claim him as a liberal) called this system mercantilism not free market enterprise.

= = =

Sadly, ever since Hillary got trounced in the early 1990s on single payor health care the battle as been about myths rather than logical rational provision of health care and about profts for some really BIG companies and campaighn donors.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-03 09:05:34

Clark, you're talking about general pooling of resources, I'm talking about our specific healthcare system currently in place. Everyone pitching in their nickel just in case is an age-old practice, our present system is the direct result of FDR's domestic policy during WWII.

When you are living hand to mouth, dealing with a cold or a flu before it becomes a crisis (like pneumonia) is improving your quality of life, and ensures you can work to support your family.

Which I'm not disputing. However, having any kind of external provider paying for simple maintnenace costs, whether it be a private insurance company or a government program, has the effect of driving costs up. Make people pay for their own flu medications and costs will plummet.

If only catastrophic things were covered (hence the word "insurance") the overall cost would be reduced. We could even talk about a nationalized healthcare program under those circumstances. Get cancer, get subsidized. Get a cold, you're on your own. Even that has problems, but anything more extensive leads to the mess we have today.

Employer’s *adopted* this benefit because the same employee’s started forming unions and demanded it. Your big Cuddly Big Business Teddy Bear out of the goodness of their heart is a joke.

Big cuddly big business teddy bear eh? I think you may be reading a great many things into what I said.

You're right about profit in parts of the healthcare field being a problem, but it's only part of the problem. To focus on it as though it is the sole scourge is folly. In some quarters profit is a necessity, otherwise what's the motive to develop new treatments, new and better surgeries? Some inate sense of goodness?

You're right about something else as well. This isn't about ideology. It's about economics. Presently it doesn't make sense.

clark · 2005-08-03 09:27:42

Clark, you're talking about general pooling of resources, I'm talking about our specific healthcare system currently in place. Everyone pitching in their nickel just in case is an age-old practice, our present system is the direct result of FDR's domestic policy during WWII.

And the point being…?

Our present system is the direct result of some guys who didn’t want to pay their taxes. What does that tell us? Who cares. I don’t want to live in a pre-depression America, and most Americans feel the same way.

Our current system is the direct result of a bunch of history, including stuff beyond just FDR. If you agree that the practice of pooling resources is ‘aged old’ then obviously everything about our health care system stems from that. Throwing in FDR is a nice way to bring politics into the discussion without actually saying something on the subject at hand. [shrug]

Which I'm not disputing. However, having any kind of external provider paying for simple maintnenace costs, whether it be a private insurance company or a government program, has the effect of driving costs up. Make people pay for their own flu medications and costs will plummet.

And you base this theory on what? Have you seen places that practice what you preach? It’s largely why we ship them medications below cost and send the peace corps.

If only catastrophic things were covered (hence the word "insurance") the overall cost would be reduced. We could even talk about a nationalized healthcare program under those circumstances. Get cancer, get subsidized. Get a cold, you're on your own.

Well, your analysis does hold much water. Covering catastrophic circumstances *is* currently covered. This will do nothing to resolve the day to day maladies that people let go because they do not have affordable insurance. What happens is that flu turns into pneumonia and the costs to treat that person have just increased ten fold due to hospitalization. It would have been cheaper to try and manage the health prior to a it reaching a crisis point.

That’s the reality.

Even that has problems, but anything more extensive leads to the mess we have today.

No, as we are does not resolve the problems because our system is pretty much just like you want. You see a problem here, but your solution is what causes the problem.

To focus on it as though it is the sole scourge is folly. In some quarters profit is a necessity, otherwise what's the motive to develop new treatments, new and better surgeries? Some inate sense of goodness?

Where is profit necessary for resolving the misery of individuals? Why?

As for the “some innate sense of goodness”, well, yes. You yourself assume that private charity will step in out of the same innate sense of goodness. Yet when I reference it, it doesn’t hold water? Ha!

Talk to some doctors. Talk to some nurses. In my experience, most of them got involved with health care because they wanted to help people. Teachers don’t teach for the money. Cops don’t work for the scenery. And soldiers don’t soldier cause they like to be away from home and family.

Some things are not about profit, and you know that.

It's about economics. Presently it doesn't make sense.

Like a great deal of things. But what you are suggesting won’t help.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-03 10:30:10

Our current system is the direct result of a bunch of history, including stuff beyond just FDR. If you agree that the practice of pooling resources is ‘aged old’ then obviously everything about our health care system stems from that.

Among other things. What our current system does is deny people a true understanding of how much healthcare really costs and allows those costs to expand unrealistically because no one thinks they're paying for it. It fosters a sense of dependence. "I need my insurance, because it pays for my healthcare, I need Medicaid to pay for my healthcare." Bah! Most people don't think of it as pooling resources but as "my insurance paying for it". The reality is that we pay for it regardless, only under the current system we spread it around to disguise that fact and give everyone else a reason to meddle in our own affairs.

And you base this theory on what? Have you seen places that practice what you preach? It’s largely why we ship them medications below cost and send the peace corps.

Of course! All the economic problems in Africa are the direct result of freedom of choice and responsibility in the population and capitalism in healthcare!

C'mon, you can do better than that.

Well, your analysis does hold much water. Covering catastrophic circumstances *is* currently covered. This will do nothing to resolve the day to day maladies that people let go because they do not have affordable insurance.

You are demonstrating the very kind of thinking that feeds the problem. If they let the flu go they'll get really sick and we'll pay more, so we better pay for the flu too Great. But hey, we should also make sure they don't eat anything unhealthy because it will lead to greater expenses later. Not only does it assume that the people are fools incapable of running their own lives but it further assumes everyone needs to be involved in the lives of others. Make no mistake, pooling resources always comes with strings attached. It's the plank holding up all much of he nanny-state laws we're seeing now.

The present system is inherently destructive to individual freedom.

Just come out and say the people are idiots and need to be ruled and we can talk straight, otherwise the wheels continue to spew mud with no traction.

No, as we are does not resolve the problems because our system is pretty much just like you want. You see a problem here, but your solution is what causes the problem.

Nice trick, but without substance. There's a similarity between what we have and what I advocate, therefore the point is moot? Silly. By the same token you have no grounds for complaint.

Where is profit necessary for resolving the misery of individuals? Why?

It drives the creation of the means by which that misery is alleviated.

As for the “some innate sense of goodness”, well, yes. You yourself assume that private charity will step in out of the same innate sense of goodness. Yet when I reference it, it doesn’t hold water? Ha!

What seems more likely to you, a few thousand people giving a few dollars each to help the sick or one or two good-natured souls giving millions of dollars to develop and test a new medical treatment?

The second one may come along from time to time but they are few and far between. Progress will be excruciatingly slow.

Talk to some doctors. Talk to some nurses. In my experience, most of them got involved with health care because they wanted to help people.

Good for them. Bravo. But real medical advances don't often come about by a few doctors working with a few patients. Someone has to foot that hefty R&D budget, someone has to deal with the FDA (unless you propose we abolish it), someone has to have a reason to go through all this and all too often a "desire to help" isn't enough.

clark · 2005-08-03 12:08:05

Among other things. What our current system does is deny people a true understanding of how much healthcare really costs and allows those costs to expand unrealistically because no one thinks they're paying for it. It fosters a sense of dependence. "I need my insurance, because it pays for my healthcare, I need Medicaid to pay for my healthcare." Bah! Most people don't think of it as pooling resources but as "my insurance paying for it". The reality is that we pay for it regardless, only under the current system we spread it around to disguise that fact and give everyone else a reason to meddle in our own affairs.

Medicaid provides money for doctors and hospitals to treat those living at, or below the poverty line. It pays for the health care for children whose parents cannot afford to pay for their children’s health care. It pays for women to get pre-natal screenings and for post-birth health care.

The alternative you seem to imply is that we all would be better off if these same people didn’t have help.

Don’t be fooled, Medicaid, and Medicare, the government stop-gap health care system is not a panacea of providing quality care. It offers government payments at predetermined levels based on a whole slew of factors, and the pay out is *always* below current market values for the services provided.

This is exactly why more and more physicians and hospitals are refusing to take Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Removing Medicare or Medicaid will not magically make those living at or below the poverty line suddenly have the money to afford quality health care. Instead, it will decrease the quality of life that this program can and does afford.

You seem to have an expectation that some invisible entity will step in to take the place of these programs to help these individuals out. I ask you where they are now. Where are these groups?

Now, you bring up a valid point about the true costs being masked and people believing that the insurance is paying for the service, and not themselves. Insurance companies realize this and that is why they institute higher premiums and deductibles, as well as higher co-pays- all in an effort to reduce actual utilization of services. That’s why many plans require referrals to a specialist from a primary care physician (yet another means to control access and limit utilization, thus driving down costs).

There are different matrix models insurance companies can use to influence utilization behavior, they have power to do so. My main point is that private for profit companies have an added incentive to reduce actual utilization, so they are more likely to introduce barriers to access of care. A private, market driven health care system is primarily concerned about the bottom line and a healthy profit margin. My point is that they should be primarily concerned with a healthy patient population.

Now government can be involved with overall healthcare, and can control costs by instituting the same strategies that current health care providers use now.

Deductibles, co-pays, and premiums. They can offer incentives for having yearly physicals and getting vaccinations for the flu. They can subsidize healthy living programs, such as smoking cessation programs or nutritional improvement programs.

These are all programs and systems that companies use now. Hell, the government can just provide funds for those health care companies that meet their requirements for overall managed care, and hold private health care providers accountable based on a matrix of quality of care, patient access to care, and reductions in emergency hospitalizations for those illnesses that should and could have been managed.

You are demonstrating the very kind of thinking that feeds the problem. If they let the flu go they'll get really sick and we'll pay more, so we better pay for the flu too Great.

Thinking? No, this is experience dude. The cost to treat an illness in the first stages is always cheaper than dealing with the costs of hospitalization after it has progressed. Treat a hundred people with flu vaccines for pennies instead of treating an unknown number that require ICU respiratory care. It’s economics.

But hey, we should also make sure they don't eat anything unhealthy because it will lead to greater expenses later. Not only does it assume that the people are fools incapable of running their own lives but it further assumes everyone needs to be involved in the lives of others. Make no mistake, pooling resources always comes with strings attached. It's the plank holding up all much of he nanny-state laws we're seeing now.

Is that all you got? Nice scare tactics. –oooo-

The present system is inherently destructive to individual freedom.

Ah. So how are you less free than prior to this system? Where is your liberty impugned? Why don’t you wave a flag while you’re at it.

Just come out and say the people are idiots and need to be ruled and we can talk straight, otherwise the wheels continue to spew mud with no traction.

No, that’s your little fantasy. You’re the one with the ideological axe to grind.

By the same token you have no grounds for complaint.

No, I have pointed repeatedly to the aspect of the system I find odious and would like to see reformed. I do have grounds for complaint. You want to replace the current system with a nearly identical duplicate and call it ‘progress’.

What seems more likely to you, a few thousand people giving a few dollars each to help the sick or one or two good-natured souls giving millions of dollars to develop and test a new medical treatment?

And what is the government but all of putting a few dollars in for something that will benefit all of us?

Good for them. Bravo. But real medical advances don't often come about by a few doctors working with a few patients. Someone has to foot that hefty R&D budget, someone has to deal with the FDA (unless you propose we abolish it), someone has to have a reason to go through all this and all too often a "desire to help" isn't enough.

All of which has nothing to do with the argument at hand. You want to talk about R&D and drug manufacture, fine, but that it outside the scope of what we are talking about.

People join the front line health care system primarily to help other people. Just like police. Just like teachers. Just like soldiers.

People try to develop new drugs to help those with an illness. Some others with the resources decide to utilize their skills to make a profit. [shrug] That’s the problem.

Palomar · 2005-08-03 12:20:06

*Don't read this if you're eating or about to. I don't mean to be crude, but there is an example I want to share.

Lots of doctors are in it for the $$$ and prestige. Not all are...but many ARE. I've worked within the medical arena now for nearly 20 years.

Also, sorry: There -are- a lot of stupid people out there who want to be ruled. I could type out example after example as healthcare goes: For instance, the woman (30- or 40-something) who complained about blood in the toilet, had absolutely no history of gastrointestinal woes, no family history of it; just this sudden development of blood being present in the toilet after using it. The doctor convinced the patient to have a flexible sigmoidoscopy right away.

Did I mention the patient was currently on her menstrual cycle?

Gee, could that be the cause of the sudden appearance of blood in the toilet?

The patient couldn't figure that out? Nor the doctor? Can't wait until
after cycle cessation to see if the "mysterious" blood in the toilet has stopped occurring?

I could go on and on.

That doctor charged (in 1990, when this case occurred) $75.00 per flexible sigmoidoscopy. She was -always- seeking to find ways of getting patients in for those.

Greedy doctor, stupid patient.

Again...I could cite many, many other examples but this one particularly stands out in my mind.

There are some saavy patients who question the doctor, seek a 2nd opinion, opt for alternatives, etc. There are many more who are gullible and Doc = God, do whatever they say.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-03 12:52:20

Medicaid provides money for doctors and hospitals to treat those living at, or below the poverty line. It pays for the health care for children whose parents cannot afford to pay for their children’s health care. It pays for women to get pre-natal screenings and for post-birth health care.
The alternative you seem to imply is that we all would be better off if these same people didn’t have help.

Not at all. I do however think we would all be better off if so many didn't have to rely on such programs to subsidize them due to artificially inflated costs caused in large part by those very programs.

You seem to have an expectation that some invisible entity will step in to take the place of these programs to help these individuals out. I ask you where they are now. Where are these groups?

No, I have an expection that the vast majority of people are capable of running their own lives and covering their own expenses if restrictions to that are kept in check. At present, so many employers provide insurance, insulating patients and thus driving up costs, that a large number of people can't afford those inflated costs on their own. But it's totally artificial in most cases.

The remainder who are truly so sick as to be unable to do anything for themselves are a very small percentage of the population. I expect that voluntary charity can take care of a few thousand, there would be no need for them to cover tens of millions.

A private, market driven health care system is primarily concerned about the bottom line and a healthy profit margin. My point is that they should be primarily concerned with a healthy patient population.

Who could be more concerned with that than the patients themselves?

These are all programs and systems that companies use now. Hell, the government can just provide funds for those health care companies that meet their requirements for overall managed care, and hold private health care providers accountable based on a matrix of quality of care, patient access to care, and reductions in emergency hospitalizations for those illnesses that should and could have been managed.

No, the government can compel US to provide funds for these programs.

Thinking? No, this is experience dude. The cost to treat an illness in the first stages is always cheaper than dealing with the costs of hospitalization after it has progressed. Treat a hundred people with flu vaccines for pennies instead of treating an unknown number that require ICU respiratory care. It’s economics.

Obviously. An oil change is cheaper than replacing a seized engine too but car insurance doesn't cover oil changes. To do so would drive costs up astronomically, both of insurance policies and oil changes. The same applies here. What we presently have is "insurance" that isn't insurance at all which the policy holders don't really think they're paying for.

In our current system costs balloon and a few make a profit. If the government ran it directly costs would balloon and we'd all lose money. The soultion then seems to be letting individuals cover their own minor expenses, which leaves room for a collective pool of resources (insurance if you will) for major illnesses. This alone would greatly help matters.

Government program or private insurance, I don't much care. But having our health "insurance" pay for annual physicals and flu shots is economically ass-backwards. The entire premise behind insurance is that many pay in just in case and few ever need to collect. In this case, everyone draws on it repeatedly at inflated rates.

Quote:
Just come out and say the people are idiots and need to be ruled and we can talk straight, otherwise the wheels continue to spew mud with no traction.

No, that’s your little fantasy. You’re the one with the ideological axe to grind.

Of course. You have no ideological axe of your own. Yet you seem to instinctively reject some rational points simply because they don't fit in with your framework.

To be honest, I happen to think that the majority of people lack the knowledge and mindset to participate directly in the governance of a modern state, yet they are by far the most qualified to run their own lives. Even if they destroy them. That's my ideologic axe for all to see.

No, I have pointed repeatedly to the aspect of the system I find odious and would like to see reformed. I do have grounds for complaint. You want to replace the current system with a nearly identical duplicate and call it ‘progress’.

And what is the government but all of putting a few dollars in for something that will benefit all of us?

But we're forced to do it. If it were voluntary you'd have a point, but government relies on mandatory taxation with minimal accountability for it which is in essence theft.

People try to develop new drugs to help those with an illness. Some others with the resources decide to utilize their skills to make a profit. [shrug] That’s the problem.

People may want to develop drugs to help people but they don't do it themselves because they can't, the costs are far too high. Those "others" put up the funds that make it possible in order to make more money. Nature of the beast my friend, to lament profit in the medical field is a nice exercise but meaningless. For anyone to put vast resources on the line they require at least the potential of gaining even more.

clark · 2005-08-03 13:35:47

Not at all. I do however think we would all be better off if so many didn't have to rely on such programs to subsidize them due to artificially inflated costs caused in large part by those very programs.

Okay, you must be smarter than me. How do these programs artificially inflate costs?

No, I have an expection that the vast majority of people are capable of running their own lives and covering their own expenses if restrictions to that are kept in check. At present, so many employers provide insurance, insulating patients and thus driving up costs, that a large number of people can't afford those inflated costs on their own. But it's totally artificial in most cases.

So because people are able to utilize their affordable health care, the only solution is to remove affordable health care so more people can afford health care?

The remainder who are truly so sick as to be unable to do anything for themselves are a very small percentage of the population. I expect that voluntary charity can take care of a few thousand, there would be no need for them to cover tens of millions.

Tens of millions is just the kids, in one state. I think you do not fully appreciate the scope of the situation and the problems that will result from implementing your suggestions.

Even with the government programs we do have, and even with the employer provided insurance some can afford, 40% of the population does not have affordable health care.

Who could be more concerned with that than the patients themselves?

As Cindy points out, people are by and large at the mercy of the system and the fact that they are locked into whatever program they can afford.

No, the government can compel US to provide funds for these programs.

So, I am compelled to provide funds for an unnecessary war in Iraq. Consider it a little quid pro quo.

Obviously. An oil change is cheaper than replacing a seized engine too but car insurance doesn't cover oil changes. To do so would drive costs up astronomically, both of insurance policies and oil changes. The same applies here. What we presently have is "insurance" that isn't insurance at all which the policy holders don't really think they're paying for.

Human beings are not cars. There are other means available to get people to only utilize the system when necessary.

Car insurance could provide a lower premium for those who do take care of their car. Health insurance could provide similar incentives for proactive behavior in the maintenance of personal health.

In our current system costs balloon and a few make a profit. If the government ran it directly costs would balloon and we'd all lose money. The soultion then seems to be letting individuals cover their own minor expenses, which leaves room for a collective pool of resources (insurance if you will) for major illnesses. This alone would greatly help matters.

THAT IS THE CURRENT SYSTEM! Except some are making a profit when it isn’t necessary.

A copay, a deductible, a premium- these are all “minor expenses” the patient must pay for service. The collective pool kicks in for the big stuff. Look C.C., I sincerely suggest you do some research here, cause you have got this all backwards.

Government program or private insurance, I don't much care. But having our health "insurance" pay for annual physicals and flu shots is economically ass-backwards. The entire premise behind insurance is that many pay in just in case and few ever need to collect. In this case, everyone draws on it repeatedly at inflated rates.

There is a reason that health plans are reaching out to their populations to do pre-screening, preparatory vaccinations, and out reach behavioral programs- it costs less than having them come into the system when the problem requires more resources to treat. Paying for this, or subsidizing these programs will save us money in the long term.
You pay more upfront to collect on the savings later on through lower utilization by critical care. A 15 minute physical versus a five hour surgery.

Or, if you prefer, a regular routine check up on your car for 50 bucks, or paying for a new engine after it seizes.

Of course. You have no ideological axe of your own. Yet you seem to instinctively reject some rational points simply because they don't fit in with your framework.

I’m not talking from a framework. This isn’t ideology. And your rational points on this matter are missing. Sorry dude. You know cars, I know health care.

To be honest, I happen to think that the majority of people lack the knowledge and mindset to participate directly in the governance of a modern state, yet they are by far the most qualified to run their own lives. Even if they destroy them. That's my ideologic axe for all to see.

That’s all fine and good. But that ideological point of view just gets in the way when it comes to looking for ways to improve health care, and provide quality care to more people. Sometimes that belief of yours is a hill to die on, but this isn’t one of them.

But we're forced to do it. If it were voluntary you'd have a point, but government relies on mandatory taxation with minimal accountability for it which is in essence theft.

Then reform the f*cking government.

People may want to develop drugs to help people but they don't do it themselves because they can't, the costs are far too high. Those "others" put up the funds that make it possible in order to make more money. Nature of the beast my friend, to lament profit in the medical field is a nice exercise but meaningless. For anyone to put vast resources on the line they require at least the potential of gaining even more.

They are able to make those nice profits through government funded grants, and through nice fat IP protection that is continually renewed. So we, the people, end up paying for this gain twice over, and for several generations. The system is skewed too much.

Palomar · 2005-08-03 13:43:47

*Everyone has an ideology.

Being anti-ideology is an ideology.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-08-03 13:48:53

My ideologies are not informing my point of view on this matter.

Unless of course you count my belief that we do not need to utilize a for-proft model in the delivery of health care. But even that is based on my own personal experience. [shrug]

Palomar · 2005-08-03 14:09:17

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050803/ap_ … curity]Two NYC officials call for racial profiling

*For anti-terrorism purposes.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2005-08-01 12:58:03

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#152 2005-08-01 13:45:07

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#153 2005-08-01 23:52:22

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#154 2005-08-02 03:12:20

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#155 2005-08-02 06:36:27

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#156 2005-08-02 19:27:44

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#157 2005-08-02 19:44:42

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#158 2005-08-03 07:32:17

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#159 2005-08-03 08:01:47

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#160 2005-08-03 08:14:29

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#161 2005-08-03 08:18:23

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#162 2005-08-03 08:31:10

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#163 2005-08-03 08:36:40

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#164 2005-08-03 08:49:04

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#165 2005-08-03 09:04:46

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#166 2005-08-03 09:05:34

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#167 2005-08-03 09:27:42

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#168 2005-08-03 10:30:10

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#169 2005-08-03 12:08:05

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#170 2005-08-03 12:20:06

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#171 2005-08-03 12:52:20

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#172 2005-08-03 13:35:47

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#173 2005-08-03 13:43:47

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#174 2005-08-03 13:48:53

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#175 2005-08-03 14:09:17

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

Board footer