[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Give everyone who wants the choice this choice: Get 70s healthcare at 70s prices, or today’s health care at today’s prices. See which one people will choose…[/quote]
Exactly my point, when I said this:
You didn’t get the implication. There is a reason that there have been so many healthcare advances since then, and it’s certainly not price controls. If you want to see what happens with price controls, look at Iran’s gas situation…
The Republicans don’t generally want the status quo – they want more free market, less regulation, and more individual control.
As a matter of fact, check out today’s WSJ editorial page – your favorite candidate, Rudy Guiliani, had an article written about his health plan.
Here are some good takes on Sicko:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/06/shticko-ctd.html
http://blogs.nypost.com/movies/archives/2007/06/kyle_smith_on_m.html#more
(quote)The best part of sicko is that it shows the problems with a socialized private health care system, instead of showing the problems with a private insurance based one, which I’m sure was Moores intention.
I’m interested in seeeing the movie now due to this remark.
I would say the Aust Medicare system is semi-socialist : if you earn less than 7K, health care is free.
If you earn below a set amount (i think 50K) you pay 1.5% of your wages as a medicare levy.
If you earn over 50K you either pay the 1.5% plus an additional 1% surcharge, or pay for private insurance.
Heres a Medicare brief :
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/medicare.htm
Having been a ‘customer’ of the system, I’d have to say it is quite effective, and am very glad Aust does not have a 100% user-pays system.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Give everyone who wants the choice this choice: Get 70s healthcare at 70s prices, or today’s health care at today’s prices. See which one people will choose…
Brad61 wrote:
Exactly my point, when I said this:
As it stands, I expect the fat and happy GOP leadership will insist that no changes are needed. Everything’s fine!
You didn’t get the implication. There is a reason that there have been so many healthcare advances since then, and it’s certainly not price controls. If you want to see what happens with price controls, look at Iran’s gas situation…
The Republicans don’t generally want the status quo – they want more free market, less regulation, and more individual control.
As a matter of fact, check out today’s WSJ editorial page – your favorite candidate, Rudy Guiliani, had an article written about his health plan.
[/quote]
He doesn’t care about reality or real issues. He just wants to play the blame game.
Indeed, according to a recent ABC News/Kaiser Family Health study, insured Americans are overwhelmingly (89 percent) satisfied with their own care, while broadly concerned about rising costs of prescription drugs and critical of the care others receive.
I am not surprised.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Can you say:
-
“Walter Reed”?
-
The VA System?
(And before someone says it…War simply REVEALS, in graphic ways, the weaknesses in the Systems…)
-
The IRS?
-
“PASSPORT PROCESSING”? (Are you KIDDING me? And they are going to make complex medical decisions “in my behalf”?)
Mufasa
[/quote]
Whoa whoa whoa, I’m covered by the VA, Far far far better than any shitty medical insurance I have had. Yes, it is not perfect, but far far better than private insurance. The doctors at Walter Reed are amazing. I have had only one negative experience with one VA doctor. All the others were excellent.
[quote]coloradosteve wrote:
…
Whoa whoa whoa, I’m covered by the VA, Far far far better than any shitty medical insurance I have had. Yes, it is not perfect, but far far better than private insurance. The doctors at Walter Reed are amazing. I have had only one negative experience with one VA doctor. All the others were excellent. [/quote]
Damn good to hear this with all the negative stuff about the VA and Walter Reed.
See this as well for more Republican market-based ideas: Opinion & Reviews - Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Indeed, according to a recent ABC News/Kaiser Family Health study, insured Americans are overwhelmingly (89 percent) satisfied with their own care, while broadly concerned about rising costs of prescription drugs and critical of the care others receive.
I am not surprised.[/quote]
Prescription drugs, in my opinion, shouldn’t even be in this discussion. Everyone likes to attack ‘big pharma’, and while there are a lot of things that should be dealt with, most people complaining have no concept of the economics involved. I can address this later if anyone actually wants to discuss it, but I’ve got to go make dinner.
[quote]orion wrote:
The truth is IMO that we do not have the resources to give everyone all the medical attention they need.[/quote]
This is a piece of the conversation that no one wants to have. Under the current system only the welathy can afford these strained resources without assistance from an HMO or the gov’t.
I am not sure medicine can either be completely free-market or completely Socialized. In a free-market society, customers are exploited because for-profit companies realized we will pay almost anything to live one day longer. In other words, prices are not set by supply and demand but by demand alone.
We need both a free market to help meet demand and at the same time a way to make health care consistent for all people–even the ones who cannot afford it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
The truth is IMO that we do not have the resources to give everyone all the medical attention they need.
This is a piece of the conversation that no one wants to have. Under the current system only the welathy can afford these strained resources without assistance from an HMO or the gov’t.
I am not sure medicine can either be completely free-market or completely Socialized. In a free-market society, customers are exploited because for-profit companies realized we will pay almost anything to live one day longer. In other words, prices are not set by supply and demand but by demand alone.
We need both a free market to help meet demand and at the same time a way to make health care consistent for all people–even the ones who cannot afford it.[/quote]
What would come closest is probably a system of healt vouchers, comparable to the idea of school vouchers.
The idea that health care is soooo important that it eliminates the free market is absurd though.
The idea that hospitals, doctors etc exploit patients because they have to have something is the same as the idea that a baker exploits your need to eat or pepsi the fact that you will die if you don`t drink.
Food is waaaay more important than medicine, the lack of it WILL kill you faster than cancer and yet noone argues to socialize agriculture because we all know what that means, widespread famine…
The economics of food and medicine are exactly the same and everytime Moore pretends that they`re not, that anything could be provided “free”, the mythical “free lunch” if you will, I could jump into the TV…
There is a HUGE “Elephant in the Room” that isn’t discussed every time these discussions come up about “reforming” the U.S. Health Care System:
[center]"How much are we, as Americans, willing to reform ourselves and our expectations?[/center]
People like Moore will never address that, because it will require as to look at ourselves. Are we willing to stop:
-
Spending BILLIONS on extremely premature infants and end-stage Life Intensive Care?
-
Are we willing to stop insisting on every experimental treatment that comes along?
-
Are we willing to stop insisting that someone pay for everything from Gastric Bypasses to Tummy Tucks?
-
Are we willing to accept that there is a certain level of risk in every procedure and medical intervention, ESPECIALLY in Neurosurgery, Orthopedics and Obstetrics?
-
Is the Bar and our Legal Profession ready to limit Punitive Damage awards and clogging the courts with questionable cases, or borderline negligence at best, simply because you can probably “win”?
-
Are we willing to accept the fact that you may not be able to get an appointment prior to your hair appointment or that surgery prior to your Trip to Cabo?
The list goes on and on.
I will state it again and again:
Americans have neither the tolerance or Culture for a Nationalized System of care.
Our legislators (who are mostly Lawyers) will NOT make the Legal Reforms).
Lastly…there will be no “Medical System” reform until we fundamentally reform ourselves and our expectations.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…
- Are we willing to stop insisting that someone pay for everything from Gastric Bypasses to Tummy Tucks?
…
[/quote]
On this point, one of the more interesting reform ideas I’ve heard came from Newt Gingrich, and it involved opening up the various state insurance systems to enrollment from citizens from every other state.
CA could continue to mandate all sorts of ridiculous coverages as minimums, and see how it did in the insurance business versus a state that included an only catastrophic insurance option.
As to a few of your other points: lawyers suck… =-)
LOL!
BB:
Over the last few years, you have given me a greater understanding of the Law and its interpretation than any “talking head” or class ever did or has!
So…any knock on Lawyers includes the proviso…“Current company excluded…”!
Mufasa
The fact remains that michael moore is the sicko(that’s my opinion of course!) and I am willing to guarantee that if he were asked where he receives his healthcare it’s right here in the good ole’ heartland. Nothing but a hipocrite as fas as i’m concerned.
[quote]fastwrx05 wrote:
The fact remains that michael moore is the sicko(that’s my opinion of course!) and I am willing to guarantee that if he were asked where he receives his healthcare it’s right here in the good ole’ heartland. Nothing but a hipocrite as fas as i’m concerned.[/quote]
Moore is a fat pig who can be incredibly annoying…but I don’t see how he is “evil” or a “Sicko”, he makes very thought provoking documentaries/movie which may actually influence change for the better…
Just saw this movie last night and I’ve got to say it really got to me. How pathetic was that part with the 911 volunteers who couldn’t get the medical attention they needed? It made me realize what a pathetic “screw you” nation we’ve become.
I think one thing the documentary should’ve stressed more is how no one can really afford health care. So you have good insurance? So what, you may get denied on something or the deductibles will add up and put you in bankruptcy. Let’s face it, if something serious happens to any of us we are all screwed.
Anybody see the 10 min. CNN interview, God, I would hate to have to interview Moore.
But damn, did he really say social security was running well? (near the end)
We already have “socialized medicine” in the USA, it’s called the VA. Despite the problems at Walter Read (caused by a clumsy transition to privitized management) the VA generally works well, although it is perennially underfunded.
“Socialized medicine” means the government owns the hospitals and clinics. That’s not what Moore advocates, he advocates single-payer health care. We already have single-payer health care in the USA, it’s called Medicare. Medicare has a very high satisfaction rate among patients AND doctors, and runs very efficiently… a reported 3 percent overhead. Compare that to private insurance companies who operate with a 15 to 25 percent overhead, because they have to pay their shareholders a profit, for one thing.
The conservative ideal that ‘private companies do everything more efficiently than the government’ is a total fantasy, and you don’t need to look any further than Medicare for proof (or Halliburton, for that matter, but that’s a different topic).
I say lets open up Medicare to anyone who wants to buy into it (not just senior citizens). Let people who want to stay with their current private health insurance plan, remain with nothing changed, if they wish. Nobody is forced to do anything. Let the 3 percent Medicare overhead compete in a “free market” (sic) with the 25 percent private insurance overhead.
Little by little, those private companies will go out of business (or not), which would be less painful economically in the long run, than just turning the whole system upside down. You folks who hate the thought of government involvement in health care can continue to pay premium prices for private insurance, and be happy. Those with private insurance can get their federal taxes pro-rated, and continue paying the 400 dollars a month that private insurance costs (or whatever they currently pay).
Sound fair?