BooBooBear saw sicko and is looking at his bill from the cardiologist and is sicko.

[ladelfina]

there is always plenty of money for war...

Yep.. and then the wingers point to Walter Reed as a bad example of Universal Health Care as opposed to the clearest example ever of what is wrong with America's priorities as expressed by the current system: lots of money for breaking; not so much for fixing. (And of course at Walter Reed they had handed much over to private contractors.)

 

[dumpster56]

Yep.. and then the wingers point to Walter Reed as a bad example of Universal Health Care as opposed to the clearest example ever of what is wrong with America's priorities as expressed by the current system: lots of money for breaking; not so much for fixing. (And of course at Walter Reed they had handed much over to private contractors.)

That is correct, walter reed was given to PRIVATE ENTERPRIZZZZEEEE!!!!

 

[ERD50]

That is correct, walter reed was given to PRIVATE ENTERPRIZZZZEEEE!!!!

Wasn't the government still responsible for monitoring the private enterprise? Seems like the govt is responsible for any failures in either case.

-ERD50

 

[samclem]

Originally Posted by samclem
It's not news to me. On the other hand, when an individual receiving a service is insulated from its true cost, the situation is ripe for artificial shortages/rationing. BTW, this de-linking of the patient from the cost of the services is also a problem with the present US health care system.

Kind of like that abortion we have going on in Iraq?

Well, not exactly. The people receiving the services of the US in Iraq are the Iraqi people and various terrorist/insurgent elements. Unfortunately, it is likely impractical to provide the insurgents/terrorists a bill for the services we are providing. As an aside, we also have a devil of time collecting customer feedback ("Did you find US forces provided timely, accurate firepower when engaging you and your terrorist associates?" "Would you likely call on the United States again when requiring the delivery of a PGM to your rat-infested hideout?").

There are sure a lot of folks who claim to be interested in health care who drag national security questions into the mix at every opportunity. I wonder what their real agenda is.

 

[JohnEyles]

But its funny how all of them are wound up to make you feel bad about being an american.

Hmm, maybe (just maybe) that's because Moore realizes that being
"proud to be an American" doesn't just mean you've stuck some stupid
bumper sticker on your car, but rather that you realize that we really
ARE the best country in the world, so we oughta CARE about some of
the really f*cked-up stuff about our country and DO something about it !

 

[bright eyed]

I for one have tried to stay out of political threads these days here, however saw the movie and was impressed. Now for sams one liners, I really wonder why he would be against a march of some magnitude to washington to deliver the worthless politicians here in america a wake up call!!

I am ready to go to washington on Labor Day. Anyone else? The fact that we allow the health care system to be run for profit is a crime.

Screw the HMO CEOs! Wake up america take back our country!

while marches can be inspiring - they often don't amount to much polictical action and take a heck of a lot of work/energy/resources to organize - so perhaps he wants that work/energy/resources to be used in other ways?

then again, there hasn't been one lately where the majority were older white guys who tend to vote...that might shake'm up...

ooor, a protest of campaign contributor's tearing up their checks at a march - that would be funny - watch the politicians leap into the air to try and salvage those...

 

[farmerEd]

Well, not exactly. The people receiving the services of the US in Iraq are the Iraqi people and various terrorist/insurgent elements. Unfortunately, it is likely impractical to provide the insurgents/terrorists a bill for the services we are providing. As an aside, we also have a devil of time collecting customer feedback ("Did you find US forces provided timely, accurate firepower when engaging you and your terrorist associates?" "Would you likely call on the United States again when requiring the delivery of a PGM to your rat-infested hideout?").

There are sure a lot of folks who claim to be interested in health care who drag national security questions into the mix at every opportunity. I wonder what their real agenda is.

First off, the Iraqi people aren't on the hook for the bill...the american taxpayers are, so I have no idea what you are talking about billing Iraqis..smells like a red-herring to me though...nice try confusing the subject.

Second, whats the real agenda? Its to expose the hypocritical neo-cons/republicans that complain about the "cost" of some social service that would provide real, tangible improvements in peoples live, and at the same time are happy to squander away trillions, upon trillions of dollars for wars that should never happened in the first place; never once questioning the cost benefit of such wasteful operations.

Why is it that people don't mind spending a few trillion dollars for killing people in some far off place, but put up a stink when a few hundred billion could be spent saving lives in this country?

 

[samclem]

The role of the US government as outlined in the Constitution is a helpful starting point for understanding why people view some expenditues as valid ad others as not valid. The word "defense" shows up a few times in the Constitution, along with "war", "Army", and "Navy". The terms "hospital", "health care", "fix my bunions" are curiously absent. Folks who want the government (i.e. other taxpayers) to provide health care, free circuses, etc have had to bend the "promote the general welfare" clause in ways that would have been hooted down immediately by the framers of the constitution.

 

[jefipius]

The role of the US government as outlined in the Constitution is a helpful starting point for understanding why people view some expenditues as valid ad others as not valid. The word "defense" shows up a few times in the Constitution, along with "war", "Army", and "Navy". The terms "hospital", "health care", "fix my bunions" are curiously absent. Folks who want the government (i.e. other taxpayers) to provide health care, free circuses, etc have had to bend the "promote the general welfare" clause in ways that would have been hooted down immediately by the framers of the constitution.

Why is that? "To Promote the General Welfare" in even the the most strict sense would be to support policies to keep the country and people healthy, safe, happy, and prospering. How is devising a rational health care system contrary to this?

welfare definition - Dictionary - MSN Encarta

OTOH, you would have to bend the "Provide for the Common Defense" clause like a pretzel to justify this Iraq debacle. Very little defense about it as far as I can see.


"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Its also worthwhile to note that when the constitution was written, prescription drugs and modern medical care didnt exist.

Back then, leeches and a nice amputation to get rid of the gangrene were about the best you could get.

Not something to ponder long about incorporating into your country's documents of formation.

 

[Martha]

Its also worthwhile to note that when the constitution was written, prescription drugs and modern medical care didnt exist.

Back then, leeches and a nice amputation to get rid of the gangrene were about the best you could get.

Not something to ponder long about incorporating into your country's documents of formation.

In contrast, piracy on the high seas was a big problem in the 1780s so it is directly addressed in the constitution.

There is no question among constitutional scholars that the broad power to levy taxes and expend funds to provide for the general welfare gives the legislature power to do things like establish social security programs, medicare, and it it chose, national health care.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

In contrast, piracy on the high seas was a big problem in the 1780s so it is directly addressed in the constitution.

ARRR!

 

[Webzter]

People, people. Everyone knows that the best defense is a good offense.

 

[Sundance Kid]

I'm really afraid, of whats ahead for this country. i.e. -- A Government and Politicians, we don't trust. Poverty, Medical Care issues, Immigration, to name a few. The people in Washington really, don't seem too concerned. They, have taken all steps necessary, to insure their well being. I'm not to sure, they realize, this country's future is at stake. Their inability, to stand up and perform, is destroying this country.

In five years, I may be sharing food from a dumpster, with a terrorist.

It's Sad, that this country has come to this point. Voter apathy, electing the pretty face with the most campaign dollars, hidden agendas, lies, do not contribute to getting us outta this mess!

 

[Letj]

Hey Sam, can you point me to the posters here on ER where they believe that national health care would be "FREE"? Do you really think one-liners like your post add anything to the debate?"

He is not always the voice of reason I am afraid.

 

[Letj]

I can't imagine why anyone who is on this board would be against a universal health care (except for those who work for the health insurance or big pharma industries)- a guaranteed health coverage is certainly a major issue for all who are retired and those who plan to.

I can tell you who would be a afraid - all those companies that treat their employees like dirt because those employees would wake up and realize they don't have to stay with them just for the health insurance. It would be a boon to the average man/woman. I can't wait.

 

[samclem]

As much as I would like to think that the reason we will end with universal care is because of a desire on the part of the politicians(and people who already have coverage) to do what is right (i.e. figure out a way to pay for care for everyone), we will get universal care, but we will get it because big business is waking up to the idea and they would like nothing better than to stop providing it to their employees (who can blame them with costs going up 10-15% per year every year)...

When corporate america finally decides they want it, they will hire the right lobbyists, buy the right politicians, and *voila* it will come to pass.

So , it will be for the wrong reason, but ultimately we will get it.

I agree on the mechanics, though I'm not sure universal care/single payer will necessarily be the result. Once it becomes clear that American businesses can't compete against foreign companies if they have to support one of the most inefficient health care funding systems in the world, US businesses will push for changes that will transfer these costs to taxpayers. But, if change doesn't come quickly enough, then businesses will simply choose, as a matter of survival, to further scale back/stop funding worker health care. They may offer increases in wages in order to keep skilled workers, and workers might end up buying their own private or bundled policies (at least the healthy ones who can get coverage). Either way, we'll wind up with either increased government involvement or increased dependence on privately-purchased policies.

Also, it's interesting to note that we got this curse of employer-supplied health care delivery as a result of a previous government policy (wage caps during WW-II, but no caps on medical care and other fringe benefits, so businesses provided health care and other benefits as a means to attract qualified employees in the face of government interference. The subsequent unfair tax treatment of these benefits ever since has perpetuated the problem).

The rest of the world benefits tremendously from the inefficient US system. The most significant advances in pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, etc come from US companies and foreign companies hoping to sell in the US market because there's a TON of money to be made in the US from these improvements. We pay tremendously for these cutting-edge improvements, and the rest of the world gets in cheap. While it would certainly benefit US consumers if we shut down the gravy train, we should expect the pace of medical advances to slow as a natural result (since capital investment and talent will be redirected to other areas with greater profit potential). On balance, reigning in our costs will still be a big net benefit for US consumers of health care, but it might not feel that way to the guy dying for lack of the drug that was never developed.

 

[Peter]

but it might not feel that way to the guy dying for lack of the drug that was never developed.

Sam, nice post ... but I have to point out that many of these expensive drugs do no more than prolong an uncomfortable life for a few more months.

In my opinion this is neither humane nor cost-effective.

Peter

 

[dumpster56]

Kinda like the 5000 dollar dose of TPA during a heart attack that is no better than 25 DOLLAR streptokinse.

 

[HFWR]

People, people. Everyone knows that the best defense is a good offense.

The key word in that phrase being "good"...

 

[Bigritchie]

World Leaders and Famous People Promoting a New World Order and a One World Government

 

[samclem]

Kinda like the 5000 dollar dose of TPA during a heart attack that is no better than 25 DOLLAR streptokinse.

http://http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/reprint/114/5/441S.pdf

Well, maybe not quite the same. Of patients having a heart attack and receiving either tPA or streptokinase, 12% fewer of the tPA patients die. So, by this math, if you believe your life is worth less than $41,700 you should get the streptokinase, save the $5000 and take you chances. Many of us would choose (or like the freedom to have available) the extra measure of effectiveness tPA offers.

In Europe, (socialized medicine) streptokinase is more popular. In the US, a patient is more likely to get tPA. This is a good example of the different care options that are before us.

(In fairness, the decision between the two drugs isn't quite so clear as above, as those receiving tPA have a higher risk of hemorrhagic stroke. But, overall, tPA comes out ahead in overall survival rates.)

Hmm. Both Social Security and Medicare will benefit financially if Gramps and millions like him don't pull through from their heart attack. Now the folks who'll decide what type and how much care they'll get as they age will also be green eyeshade wearers in the government. Nope, don't see even a potential problem with that. "How old is he? 77? The rules say no tPA or streptokinase. Give him a bottle of aspirin and send him home. Nope, he can't buy his own shot--that wouldn't be fair and will only drive up the cost for deserving patients."

 

[farmerEd]

http://http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/reprint/114/5/441S.pdf
In Europe, (socialized medicine) streptokinase is more popular. In the US, a patient is more likely to get tPA. This is a good example of the different care options that are before us.

...and yet those "socialized medicine" countries all have longer average lifespans than the US and spend a fraction of what we do...they must be doing something right.

 

[samclem]

...and yet those "socialized medicine" countries all have longer average lifespans than the US and spend a fraction of what we do...they must be doing something right.

Look at their caloric intake. (Walk through the streets of Prague--you'll see very few obese people. Now, look around any US mall). Look at the amount the people in these countries walk. Look at the lower vehicle-related deaths/morbidity (they walk or are on public transportation). Look at the rates for death by homicide. The real testament to the quality of US health care is that our average lifespan is as long as it is despite the unhealthy lifestyle the average American leads.

Plus, the lifespan figures are sometimes highly suspect (e.g. Some countries don't even count infant deaths before age 2 in their mortality figures.)

There's a lot more to "average lifespan" than health care. In fact, the major increase in lifespan over the last 200 years in this country and Europe has a lot more to do with plumbing, public sanitation, and nutrition than with improvements in health care.

 

[NinjaPigeon]

When a topic like universal healthcare comes up to politicians, they spend all their energy pointing out how it won't work, rather than actually discussing how it could be made to work. In other words, they have an agenda of keeping the status quo, even if a system that is potentially flawed in different ways might still be better.


And to CFB, I don't feel bad about being an American. I love my country even while I mourn that we have lost sight of everything our ancestors died to create. Several members of congress have committed acts that our founding fathers would have hung them for.