Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills are Killing Us

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by antimony View Post
    Read what I wrote, the "compassion" or "understanding" side does not surface unless its personal. If you want to only make allowances once something personal happens, its not compassion, its hypocrisy.

    Further case in point, the sequester. Some of the GOP governors are now up in arms specifically because the resultant job and benefit cuts in their states would affect them. Its personal now.
    None of the GOP governors you have your panties in a wad about created or, in their cases, voted on the sequester. You expect 100% lockstep from every Republican and every conservative at all times? Do you hear me whining about indiscriminate cuts to Defense, one of my biggest Sacred Cows? Grow up.

    -dale

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
      No, it's just no normal person is a full-blown conservative or liberal. Most people are a mix of both, with a whole bunch of other stuff tossed in as well. Just because some people identify mostly with one side or the other does not make them die hard. It's just that kind of polarization that you speak of that pushes people towards the fringes and leads to moderates of either side being branded traitors to the cause.

      I'm like Pari. I lean towards the conservative side of things, but I am in favor of socialized healthcare, since it seems to work pretty well, and since I benefit from it. That doesn't mean I support massive amounts of welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc.... I'm more of a believer in "get your ass up and out to work". And there's absolutely no reason the two can't coexist.
      And in fact do coexist, as NZ, Canada, Australia, Japan, Chile, and most of Europe attest.
      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

      Leibniz

      Comment


      • #33
        well, to put it another way:

        even the TERM "socialized healthcare" carries a lot of baggage in the US, to the point where the most liberal President the US has had since nixon/ford (irony!) can't even approach it but must bang the drum on how his plan will instead expand the private market for insurance companies.

        even though a fairly practical, pragmatic analysis of healthcare spending around the world tends to indicate that socialized healthcare provides better solutions at lower costs. the one model which obama used for his healthcare was the swiss system, which is -still- more expensive than its european counterparts.

        i completely agree that there is no rational reason why one can't be in favor of socialized healthcare purely for pragmatic reasons and a free market for other issues, but unfortunately this conversation can't really exist in the US without screeches of "communism" and "socialism" and "controlled healthcare" and "death panels".

        and as problematic as the Demmocratic Party is, the fault for THAT does not lie with them.
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
          No, it's just no normal person is a full-blown conservative or liberal. Most people are a mix of both, with a whole bunch of other stuff tossed in as well. Just because some people identify mostly with one side or the other does not make them die hard. It's just that kind of polarization that you speak of that pushes people towards the fringes and leads to moderates of either side being branded traitors to the cause.

          I'm like Pari. I lean towards the conservative side of things, but I am in favor of socialized healthcare, since it seems to work pretty well, and since I benefit from it. That doesn't mean I support massive amounts of welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc.... I'm more of a believer in "get your ass up and out to work". And there's absolutely no reason the two can't coexist.
          I agree. And need to add. if a person is sick and can't get healthcare - its pretty hard to get out there and work... In the US, healthcare care wipe out a person's savings and make them homeless - its got nothing to do with laziness, who chooses to get sick? When a person is very sick, who wants them at work? We need to provide for our citizens, that shouldn't mean illeagal imigrants, and people who don't work should get the bottom rung of care, people who do work, shouldn't be financially wiped out by an illness, loose their homes and be left with little recourse other than dying. Criminals get a better assurance of healthcare than hard working citizens in this country...
          Last edited by USSWisconsin; 26 Feb 13,, 22:19.
          sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
          If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by astralis View Post
            i completely agree that there is no rational reason why one can't be in favor of socialized healthcare purely for pragmatic reasons and a free market for other issues, but unfortunately this conversation can't really exist in the US without screeches of "communism" and "socialism" and "controlled healthcare" and "death panels".
            I'll give you two rational reasons right away:

            1) reduced options
            2) increase in government power, both over individuals and the economy

            Now you may not agree with them but they are not irrational.

            and as problematic as the Demmocratic Party is, the fault for THAT does not lie with them.
            Right. Because it was the Repubs that rammed through a shitty overreaching law against normal procedure and without reading or understanding it.

            And Dems and lefties can tell blacks about getting put back in chains, wishing candidates for high office to be raped by black dudes, making porn movies like "Nailin' Palin", talk about clean articulate black candidates, diddle chubby interns in the Oval Office, call out individual Americans for criticism from the bully pulpit, claim they were spit on and slurred, steal campaign money for personal use, and refuse to pass a budget for 4 years, and yet when a conservative or Republican calls socialized medicine "Socialist", or a group of people appointed to ration health care resources amongst the ill "death panels", it's Republicans who are the problem. Democrats are not at fault. At all.

            Ye gods I miss Rosie - at least he never pretended he wasn't an ignorant, partisan ass.

            -dale

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by dalem View Post
              None of the GOP governors you have your panties in a wad about created or, in their cases, voted on the sequester. You expect 100% lockstep from every Republican and every conservative at all times? Do you hear me whining about indiscriminate cuts to Defense, one of my biggest Sacred Cows? Grow up.

              -dale
              Take your own advice or at least open your eyes and ears.

              I see backtracking on ideology often, when something affects conservatives personally - be it the matter of cuts affecting their jobs, or them having gay family members or whatever.

              Don't try to brush it off as "differing positions", the differing positions occur when something affects them personally.
              "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by antimony View Post
                Take your own advice or at least open your eyes and ears.

                I see backtracking on ideology often, when something affects conservatives personally - be it the matter of cuts affecting their jobs, or them having gay family members or whatever.

                Don't try to brush it off as "differing positions", the differing positions occur when something affects them personally.
                But what is your larger point?

                -dale

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by dalem View Post
                  But what is your larger point?

                  -dale
                  My point is that frequently ideologues take a "compassionate" or "pragmatic" turn when a personal crisis or situation hits them. When that happens (and it seems to happen quite frequently), its not an "evolving to a different view", its hypocrisy.
                  "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Socialized healthcare can only function if you have

                    a) far more healthy persons - contributors; and
                    b) cheap services.

                    Over here it has been working for over 50 years, but I think (based on my personal survey) that people overload the system and that the services are getting way out of hand in terms of prices. It is a matter of time when it will collapse the way it is set up now.

                    Personally, I have nothing against the system. It is basically a low interest loan that you pay in advance.
                    The problem is out of principle and it starts with the premise that people are forced to buy something. From a certain vendor for a price that they can not negotiate - even if it is a % of a salary.

                    I don't see people having issues buying life insurance or additional healthcare - tho it is more expensive for the services it provides, but it is a matter of choice and noone makes a fuss out of it.
                    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Over here everyone is obligated to be a member of one of 4 HMOs. Once a year you are allowed to switch between HMO's, so there still is competition among them to keep the price relatively low. For the HMO that I'm in, the basic monthly fee is somewhere around 30NIS (~$7.5). I personally have one of the highest quality programs, one that I pay almost double, 55NIS, for.

                      If a doctor gives you a prescription, even for OTC drugs that don't need a prescription, you get them at a discounted rate, usually 25%. Like I mentioned earlier, I've already taken advantage of well over 10,000NIS (~$2,500) in doctors appointments, medical examinations and tests and physical therapy for my knee in the last year or so alone. I've paid less than 1,000NIS into my HMO, including added specialist fees and self-participation charges for certain exams and tests. The wait may be long for some things, but I rarely have to wait too long.

                      Overall, it's not the best thing in the world, because there are some setbacks, and sometimes the bureaucracy boggles the mind, but it works, at least for me. I do know that my mother pays for added health insurance that covers the entire family, but I don't know how much she pays or what it provides. I assume that as I start building a family of my own I will also pay for added health insurance, mainly because it's a good investment and you don't screw around with your or your loved one's health.

                      The problem is when you can't negotiate and the product is expensive. If the product is cheap, like basic coverage here in Israel is, I don't see much of a problem.

                      Truth be told, until this issue with my knee came up, I had no idea why I was paying for a top-tier program. Now I know why. I figure if I never have to take another medical test or examination or procedure of any sort, OR see any doctors or specialists, it will still take me well over a decade to pay in enough to cover what I took advantage of this past year.
                      Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                      Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by antimony View Post
                        My point is that frequently ideologues take a "compassionate" or "pragmatic" turn when a personal crisis or situation hits them. When that happens (and it seems to happen quite frequently), its not an "evolving to a different view", its hypocrisy.
                        That's one of the reasons it's best to govern with the intellect and not emotions.

                        -dale

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          dale,

                          I'll give you two rational reasons right away:

                          1) reduced options
                          2) increase in government power, both over individuals and the economy

                          Now you may not agree with them but they are not irrational.
                          1.) is nonsensical; nothing prevents people in places with 'socialized healthcare' from getting additional private treatment. which they do.

                          2.) is a substitution for government power over corporate power, and is one of the FEW areas in which this is preferable.

                          but either way, neither of those "reasons" cover why one can't be in favor of socialized healthcare purely for pragmatic reasons and a free market for other issues. as pari and BR and the others mention, there does not need to be an "either-or".

                          And Dems and lefties can tell blacks about getting put back in chains, wishing candidates for high office to be raped by black dudes, making porn movies like "Nailin' Palin", talk about clean articulate black candidates, diddle chubby interns in the Oval Office, call out individual Americans for criticism from the bully pulpit, claim they were spit on and slurred, steal campaign money for personal use, and refuse to pass a budget for 4 years, and yet when a conservative or Republican calls socialized medicine "Socialist", or a group of people appointed to ration health care resources amongst the ill "death panels", it's Republicans who are the problem. Democrats are not at fault. At all.
                          let's put it this way. republicans have always demonized universal/socialized healthcare, not even in the halcyon (from my POV, anyway) days of the Eisenhower administration and the semi-mythical days of bipartisanship and all that. since roosevelt first proposed the idea, socialized universal healthcare has been deemed "socialist" (notwithstanding the fact that one can have socialized healthcare without socialism) and worse.

                          and these days, it's worse.

                          there's no pragmatic assessment of costs-- no assessment of economic gain/loss-- international comparisons be damned. it's merely ideological demonization at this point. so much for intellect over emotions.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by dalem View Post
                            I'll give you two rational reasons right away:

                            1) reduced options
                            2) increase in government power, both over individuals and the economy

                            Now you may not agree with them but they are not irrational.



                            Right. Because it was the Repubs that rammed through a shitty overreaching law against normal procedure and without reading or understanding it.

                            And Dems and lefties can tell blacks about getting put back in chains, wishing candidates for high office to be raped by black dudes, making porn movies like "Nailin' Palin", talk about clean articulate black candidates, diddle chubby interns in the Oval Office, call out individual Americans for criticism from the bully pulpit, claim they were spit on and slurred, steal campaign money for personal use, and refuse to pass a budget for 4 years, and yet when a conservative or Republican calls socialized medicine "Socialist", or a group of people appointed to ration health care resources amongst the ill "death panels", it's Republicans who are the problem. Democrats are not at fault. At all.

                            Ye gods I miss Rosie - at least he never pretended he wasn't an ignorant, partisan ass.

                            -dale
                            Favored candidate for Post of the Year.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by astralis View Post

                              1.) is nonsensical; nothing prevents people in places with 'socialized healthcare' from getting additional private treatment. which they do.
                              Though I am not a fan of the current system, I do think that universal healthcare has its disadvantages. In the UK, for e.g., I cannot get a doctor's appointment unless my GP has an available slot. Even if I get around this with a private doctor, I thin there are still availability issues for hospital care.

                              For childbirth situations, here in the US a new mother gets 24 hours for recovery at the hospital for a normal delivery. In the UK its 12 hours as after that the bed needs to be released to another patient.

                              So there definitely are supply constraints in a government run system. I do not profess to have the answer for a particular system. However, it seems to me that a government run system may indeed provide limited or restricted healthcare options at a lower cost while the US system provides more accessible care, but at a hugely inflated cost.
                              "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by dalem View Post
                                That's one of the reasons it's best to govern with the intellect and not emotions.

                                -dale
                                I agree.

                                However, you do realize that conservative social policies (around abortion, LGBT issues etc.) are largely emotion driven.
                                "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X