Hillary outspoken socialist

[JayB]

Both the availability, and the wait associated with the procedure, would depend on which state you are talking about.

 

Still doesn't support the conclusion that the benefits of a health-care market which is not a public monopoly are confined to the entities that derive their profits from that system.

 

Guess what happens to innovation in pharmaceuticals if the single most significant provider of effective demand for new therapeutics imposes price controls. Might introduce the rest of the world to the flip-side of the "free rider" problem when there's nothing for them to ride for free.

[JayB]

I would love to have all of my compensation as cash, and obtain a tax deduction for the premiums that I pay (rather than the tax benefit being confined to my employer) on a plan of my choosing - which would have a deduction on the order of $5K or more. Don't see this happening under any single-payer model.

 

I'd love to be responsible for my personal health and health records instead of having the medical establishment as highly interested party caretakers who except for the rich (or those not rich willing to pay massive fees) provide no user specific services. I needed to receive an antimalarial. A Drs office charged me $100 for the pleasure of following the exact CDC website flow chart. He was nice enough to print out a copy for me. His value added = 0, however he's the gatekeeper to a prescription. How convenient.

 

I'd have no problem with making the vast majority of drugs OTC.

[cj001f]

I'd have no problem with making the vast majority of drugs OTC.

 

Alas I feel the first politician to propose this would either die from the screams of harpies shouting "Think of the children" or be put away

 

Both the availability, and the wait associated with the procedure, would depend on which state you are talking about.

 

The availability and wait now are dependent on my ability to pay. Not much different.

 

 

Fortunately the limitations of both the American system and the European system (cost and wait) are being addressed by the market. Looked into the medical care available for foreigners in India, Indonesia and Thailand? It's cheap, quick, easily available, and reasonably good quality - the Drs are often western trained. In someways the information about these Drs is perhaps more available than for your home GP. Met several people who found the cost of a plane ticket + the procedure was less than the cost of the procedure at home. Even for such trivial things as crowns or tooth pulling.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Fuck socialism and all socialist cocksuckers! Eat shit and die, pinko, demo-liberals!

 

[JosephH]

JayB,

 

Nearly all the proposed 'reform' plans simply add yet another layer on top of the ones we already have. Until we are in a single pool, using a single transaction system, we will never escape the overhead inherent in our current system. And what is to be gained fracturing the pool even by states? Hell, you see states now attempting to pool together to get some leverage. There is nothing gained by us all not being in a single risk pool and transaction system - nothing.

 

There are simply too many parasites attempting to make a profit on the system we have today. Those parasites drain resources that could easily fund technical advances and preventative medicine. In fact, the current system will never support even the premise of preventative medicine.

 

 

[SemoreJugs]

When your car breaks down over and over despite numerous repairs, don't you eventually decide that you are better off getting a new(er) car?

 

Thats what our healthcare system is like now, along with many other systems such as the corporate profit interests which control the leaders in our government. Time to throw it all out, burn it down, and begin anew.

 

That's how America was created after all. Reforms are bullshit. Successive revolutions are the only real paths towards lasting progress.

 

Do I know how to do it? Not for certain, but here's one idea.

 

I suggest that we boycott insurance companies. Instead of paying premiums and co-pays to them, pool it into a co-op structure. Local co-ops that are run by a board elected by the payees. Its run like a corporation, except that the yardstick for success is not in securing a profit, but in increased health benchmarks for its members. The better the benchmarks, the better the pay for the board members. If it goes down significantly, they get impeached or receive a "vote of no confidence".

 

Why has'nt this "radical" idea or something else occurred? Because the people who are in power (politicians, the mainstream corporate media, and such) have convinced us that every "radical" idea will be a catastrophe. And what is so astounding to me is that the system we have in place now already is a catastrophe and I dont see how anything else could possibly be worse. Its in their interest to maintain this system because the wealthy can obtain quality care and all the leaching of money feeds back into wealthy pockets.

 

Now if the nurses decided to strike (who are not wealthy, unlike doctors) they would bring the system to a complete halt. The problem is that most nurses would not be willing to sacrifice their patients for the greater good, which is why they dont strike.

 

Its quite impressive how collective action in this country has been almost entirely stifled. Unions are a 4-letter word. How evil, to cut into profits for the good of workers. Tsk. Tsk.

 

Fuck Money. Its time we began to value people instead.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

When your car breaks down over and over despite numerous repairs, don't you eventually decide that you are better off getting a new(er) car?

 

Thats what our healthcare system is like now, along with many other systems such as the corporate profit interests which control the leaders in our government. Time to throw it all out, burn it down, and begin anew.

 

That's how America was created after all. Reforms are bullshit. Successive revolutions are the only real paths towards lasting progress.

 

Do I know how to do it? Not for certain, but here's one idea.

 

I suggest that we boycott insurance companies. Instead of paying premiums and co-pays to them, pool it into a co-op structure. Local co-ops that are run by a board elected by the payees. Its run like a corporation, except that the yardstick for success is not in securing a profit, but in increased health benchmarks for its members. The better the benchmarks, the better the pay for the board members. If it goes down significantly, they get impeached or receive a "vote of no confidence".

 

Why has'nt this "radical" idea or something else occurred? Because the people who are in power (politicians, the mainstream corporate media, and such) have convinced us that every "radical" idea will be a catastrophe. And what is so astounding to me is that the system we have in place now already is a catastrophe and I dont see how anything else could possibly be worse. Its in their interest to maintain this system because the wealthy can obtain quality care and all the leaching of money feeds back into wealthy pockets.

 

Now if the nurses decided to strike (who are not wealthy, unlike doctors) they would bring the system to a complete halt. The problem is that most nurses would not be willing to sacrifice their patients for the greater good, which is why they dont strike.

 

Its quite impressive how collective action in this country has been almost entirely stifled. Unions are a 4-letter word. How evil, to cut into profits for the good of workers. Tsk. Tsk.

 

Fuck Money. Its time we began to value people instead.

 

None of you know what the fuck you are talking about.

 

Doctors rich? Not anymore, relative to other professions, unless you're a cardiologist. And nurses make a damn good salary, but certainly nothing exhorbitant.

 

You all neglect to mention that litigation has driven costs through the roof. Of course you'd reject any reform of the "legal system" - your sacred fucking cow.

 

As for "revolution", just try it. You and your party will go down the shitter just like last time with BillaryCare of 1992.

 

 

[cj001f]

You all neglect to mention that litigation has driven costs through the roof.

 

We haven't mentioned it because it hasn't driven costs through the roof.

[SemoreJugs]

As for "revolution", just try it. You and your party will go down the shitter just like last time with BillaryCare of 1992.

 

Revolution involves neither Democrats nor Republicans. They are part of the benefited power structure currently in place. I am talking about a real revolution of the people. Is that so hard to imagine these days? You have to look outside the only "choices" which are being marketed to us by the two-party system.

[i_like_sun]

[mattp]

You all neglect to mention that litigation has driven costs through the roof.

 

We haven't mentioned it because it hasn't driven costs through the roof.

 

 

I believe there are a few specialties where litigation has been a factor in driving up costs - like delivering babies for example - but overall it has not been near the factor that the insurance industry lobbyists portray it to be. I can't remember the statistic, but liability is a tiny percentage of the cost of healthcare. I think I've heard 1% or 2% from various sources (here's one link)

 

If there is one particularly risky area of practice like delivering babies, that practice is actually expensive when you consider the actual costs like those associated with mothers dying or having to care for a permanently disabled child and etc. which are real costs but indirect costs of that practice. You free market people ought to consider that maybe liability claims in such cases are actually a symptom of the "market" working as it should - even if the result is that we have more concentrated practice of - what is it? Ob-Gyn? Maybe there is in fact a benefit to be had from "the market" pushing people to the hospital for deliveries where, if complications arise, services are available. Maybe a smaller field of practitioners, more highly trained so they can avoid the mistakes that lead to liability, would be a good thing. And, compared to the alternative which at least in some cases will be to provide welfare for the orphan children of the dead mother or maybe the state ends up caring for the disabled child - might it make more sense for the doctors to have insurance? If we think this forces too many out of practice, might we consider a subsidy of those particular insurance premiums? Evil socialism, you cry.

 

We could argue the merits of home birth or access to neighborhood ObGyn's, and we could argue forever whether in the case of a risky area of practice there should be more government oversight, regulation and fixed procedure in an effort to make it safer, or whether a liability based system is more efficient, or whether mothers should just be expected to take their chances no matter what the standard of practice might be.

 

Overall I think the statistics make it pretty clear that the so-called "medical malpractice crisis" is a myth used for political purposes.

[JosephH]

There absolutely is no litigation or malpractice crisis - that is classic Republican fear-mongering at its best. Malpractice litigation is still the only really effective independent oversight of the medical profession that exists today.

 

And kkk is right, by and large doctors are no longer rich. That's because the same folks who raped pension funds in the 80s and who specialize in raiding piles of loose cash identified doctor salaries as one of those loose piles in the late 80's and removed about 150-250k from each doctor over the course of the 90's. That's part of what provider corporations and HMO's was all about.

 

As for the let's blow off insurance companies and pool revolution, it cannot and will not happen as a grassroots level because by definition it's about a single massive pool, not a hundred thousand small ones. A single risk pool of all citizens along with a single transaction system is the only way to achieve real, effective reform.

[ericb]

JayB,

 

Nearly all the proposed 'reform' plans simply add yet another layer on top of the ones we already have. Until we are in a single pool, using a single transaction system, we will never escape the overhead inherent in our current system. And what is to be gained fracturing the pool even by states? Hell, you see states now attempting to pool together to get some leverage. There is nothing gained by us all not being in a single risk pool and transaction system - nothing.

 

There are simply too many parasites attempting to make a profit on the system we have today. Those parasites drain resources that could easily fund technical advances and preventative medicine. In fact, the current system will never support even the premise of preventative medicine.

 

 

Joseph H...how has the current healthcare system failed you? It's treated me just fine. I blew out my ACL, had a fully covererd MRI 4 days after the accident, Orthodpedic consultation 5 days after that, and surgery by a top knee doc 4 weeks after that.....my cost for the $16K surgery - zero.

 

And why is that??? Because my company, in competing for top talent saw that health benefits was an important factor. So they got a quote to manage our benefits from Aetna, who, competing for the business with other insurers, agreed by contract to provide the infrastructure and financial network to make the approval process pain-free. In order to be in the network, my surgeon's practice agreed to pre-determined competitive pricing, etc. etc. etc.

 

You talk about the right using litigation/malpractice as some sort of fear-mongering tactic. On contrary, I think the left has whipped the false impression that our health-care system is totally broken, expensive, etc. In my personal experience, it has worked quite well, actually. Of course to get said job with associated good insurance took a lot of hard work, education, and initiative. Things which we'd dare not encourage in our current age of entitlement.

[JosephH]

Ericb, again, how would you fair if you developed cancer, and then got laid off or your company went under? Think you'd do well? As for entitlement, that's a matter of opinion. If you are saying that everyone should compete for the right to reasonable healthcare then I'd say absolutely not. For our country to compete we need a highly skilled and educated workforce which by definition means a healthy populace - the two are inseperable. Competing internally for basic necessities simply creates a nation corporations will flee when burdened with the associated costs.

[billcoe]

 

None of you know what the fuck you are talking about.

 

 

 

And this surprises you why?...............

[cj001f]

You talk about the right using litigation/malpractice as some sort of fear-mongering tactic. On contrary, I think the left has whipped the false impression that our health-care system is totally broken, expensive, etc. In my personal experience, it has worked quite well, actually. Of course to get said job with associated good insurance took a lot of hard work, education, and initiative. Things which we'd dare not encourage in our current age of entitlement.

 

Did Aetna pay for the rib removal so you can suck your own cock?

[ericb]

Ericb, again, how would you fair if you developed cancer, and then got laid off or your company went under? Think you do well? As for entitlement, that's a matter of opinion. If you are saying that everyone should compete for the right to reasonable healthcare then I'd say absolutely not. For our country to compete we need a highly skilled and educated workforce which by definition means a healthy populace - the two are inseperable. Competing internally for basic necessities simply creates a nation corporations will flee when burdened with the associated costs.

 

JH....to my earlier question....how has the healthcare system failed you?

 

As for your question to me....given my sense of personal responsibility, I'd use COBRA, and maintain my health insurance at my expense until I got a new job.

 

I had a friend who left his job and elected not to pick up health insurance because he was too cheap. He took a 15 foot fall and sustained a severe head injury....chopper to Harborview, quater segment of his skull removed, ICU/neuro rehab, etc. He had limited assets, and couldn't work for several months.....the state - between Medicare and Harborview picked up his entire $250K bill....even the abulance that brought him to the chopper. They could have gone after his assets, except all he had was his car, apartment, basically a bunch of stuff they can't take away from you. They then paid him disability until he could work again.

 

Again - my personal experience has indicated to me that the system aint as broke as the left makes it sound.

[cj001f]

As for your question to me....given my sense of personal responsibility, I'd use COBRA, and maintain my health insurance at my expense until I got a new job.

 

You could afford the COBRA premium for the 6-12 months it might take to find a new job? Bwahahaha

 

Unless you have some nasaty pre-existing condition or are old (the people who the healthcare system is failing) it's usually much cheaper for individuals to find their own insurance than to continue on with COBRA

[KaskadskyjKozak]

As for your question to me....given my sense of personal responsibility, I'd use COBRA, and maintain my health insurance at my expense until I got a new job.

 

You could afford the COBRA premium for the 6-12 months it might take to find a new job? Bwahahaha

 

Unless you have some nasaty pre-existing condition or are old (the people who the healthcare system is failing) it's usually much cheaper for individuals to find their own insurance than to continue on with COBRA

 

You don't need COBRA. Just apply for your own insurance policy - no problem if you have a proof of insurance. Been there; done it.

 

And maybe if you all studied a little harder in school and actually cared about your jobs and career and worked at it - rather than expensive recreation activities and travelling vacations all over the world - you could find work with good benefits.

 

[cj001f]

You don't need COBRA. Just apply for your own insurance policy - no problem if you have a proof of insurance. Been there; done it.

 

Indeed. And if you have some nasty accident COBRA is retroactively available

 

Good benefits are difficult to maintain when the cost of healthcare is rising 10% a year.

[JosephH]

Again, if you or a member of your family had cancer, a serious illness, or suffered some major accident and had to switch jobs for any reason COBRA would do you no good whatsoever and the only coverage you could get would be incredibly expensive and would not cover your pre-existing conditions - you'd be screwed. Think differently and you're just kidding yourself. If you develop cancer in a smaller company that self-insures you can bet your ass in most cases they'll do everything humanly possible to get rid of you.

 

As for how the healthcare system fails me - well, I'm self-employed so it fails me instantly by the fact I and my family pay exorbitant rates for coverage. It fails me because I know how badly our system burdens employers and makes us less competitive as a nation - and that effects my business. It fails me because paying for the medical costs of un- and under-insured Americans costs inordinately more than it should and comes out of my pocket. It fail me, you, and all of us by making us incredibly less competitive and as an obstacle to the widespread adoption of preventative medicine.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Again, if you or a member of your family had cancer, a serious illness, or suffered some major accident and had to switch jobs for any reason COBRA would do you no good whatsoever and the only coverage you could get would be incredibly expensive and would not cover your pre-existing conditions - you'd be screwed. Think differently and you're just kidding yourself. If you develop cancer in a smaller company that self-insures you can bet your ass in most cases they'll do everything humanly possible to get rid of you.

 

As for how the healthcare system fails me - well, I'm self-employed so it fails me instantly by the fact I and my family pay exorbitant rates for coverage. It fails me because I know how badly our system burdens employers and makes us less competitive as a nation - and that effects my business. It fails me because paying for the medical costs of un- and under-insured Americans costs inordinately more than it should and comes out of my pocket. It fail me, you, and all of us by making us incredibly less competitive and as an obstacle to the widespread adoption of preventative medicine.

 

There is no failure - other than you.

 

[cj001f]

There is no failure - other than you.

 

I thought the trial lawyers, the gays, the lesbians and the ACLU were to blame?

 

I get so confused listening to conservatives.

[jjd]

It is simply wrong for the government to confiscate from one person in order to pay for someone else's medical insurance.

 

If "the rich" choose to pay for their own insurance, do they still have to pay into the system for "free" health care?

[JosephH]

There is no failure - other than you.

 

And you arrive at this prodigous conclusion how?