alrighty, i said i'm out...but seriously...i had to address this. who has ever even suggested THIS? um, senators, congressmen, and yea...the president...all are 'government workers'...and i believe they all make pretty good salaries.
Those people are elected officials. Their compensation is prescribed in the Consitution. I'm talking about civil servants. There's a difference.
Under this new and glorious system, doctors would be glorified postal workers.
There's no shame in being a postal worker. But, as someone whose mother in law is one, they are chronically underpaid. Because they can be. The government runs on cheap labor.
If you think we can have UHC, AND doctors can continue to average the salaries they are averaging now (or, hell, even the salary of a junior congressman) ... then add a couple more trillion to the tax bill.
We have an entire network of free, government paid attorneys that serve as public defenders and prosecutors in our legal system. Nonetheless, you can still make millions in private legal practice. That's a dumb argument. A government funded health care system does not make private industry disappear. We have public legal officers and public schools... yet you can still buy private attorneys and pay exorbitant amounts for private schools if you've got money to throw around. Nice try, but try again.
You do realize that most doctors have a shit-ton of college loans to pay off, that they typically start their practices up to their assholes in debt, right?
That's part of the reason they have to make that kind of money. It doesn't make them assholes. It doesn't mean they don't care about you. It means they have bills to pay that those of us that go into other professions don't have.
And, by the way, ask your doctor if he'd be willing to work for you for minimum wage. Get back to me when he stops laughing. I'll bet you'll find he's not the altruistic saint you think he is.
I'm up to my asshole in debt from my law degree. I can make tons to pay it off in private practice. But guess what... go into public interest/government work and they forgive those loans! Holy Shit! Imagine that! And if it weren't WAY more competitive to get those low-paying public interest jobs, I'd be working one. Most attorneys I know are not altruistic saints, but many of them would also be happy to work for government wages in order to have a nice quality of life and be doing work they value. You know what kind of hours doctors and lawyers in private practice work? There is a ton of appeal for those low-paying government jobs. It is HARDER to get a low-paying government job out of law school than it is to get a 6-figure law firm job. There's huge competition and they tend to get the best, most dedicated law students. You think the medical profession would be any different? Plenty of people go into medicine and law for the $$, but even more go into those fields out of a sense of wanting work that has a social justice/service component. Do you even know any government lawyers before you dismiss them as the dregs of the profession? I guess it's easy when you're wrapped up in the corporate world to assume everybody else is a money-grubbing bastard like the rest of your business school buddies are. I admire your efforts to make up nonexistent problems though.
i never said it wasn't *ok*......i simply suggest that to absolutely conclude, definitively, that it WILL be inferior....b/c there is no proof. i have not said it WILL be great....tho i think it well could be. i just personally dislike declarative statements, unproven. the reasons he's offered, i have countered....thus why i ask why he or others may still cling to this utter belief that it will fail. there is a difference.
1. you'd have to elaborate
2. medicare is not what UHC would be based on, and would have a far better and broader base of funds to help ustain it, and lower overall costs b/c there would be no profit built in the model ( i know medicare is not-for-profit, but it still exists and operates in a purely for profit healthcare environment)
3. while our school system is imperfect - don't know of one that is, i would hardly consider it inferior...as for infrastructure, once again, same thing...
4. yes and no.....as you would say, it's not so simple.
so go ahead and think what you like, never said otherwise! it's the statements that it can't be done, or it will be inferior....again with no true proof, that really don't 'add' to the discussion is all.
you don't think our public school system is inferior to the private one?
the whole crappy healthcare bit..i had a long response, but bottomline....you have ZERO proof that would be the case. at all. in actuality, with all i've said in other posts, truly, there is NO reason for that to occur, at all....but i am not going to spell it out again.
we CAN have UHC...and we CAN have excellent healthcare. they are not mutually exclusive.
and what proof do you have? why is it not ok for slightof to conclude that UHC would be inferior but perfectly fine for you to say it can be great?
do you agree it CAN also be inferior?
I think it would be inferior based......
1) simple supply and demand laws
2) Medicare which has basically bankrupt and 30 Trillion underfunded.
3) the government proven track record of not supplying the people with a quality product...i.e public schools and infrastructure.
4) the governments proven track record of not being able to spend our money correctly. ie. massive budget deficits and bankrupt social security program.
Seriously.
Social Security.
Frannie and Freddie.
The School System.
The Tax Code.
The DMV.
Airport Security.
You want me to entrust my health to the people who brought us all of the above clusterfucks? No. Thank. You.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
i never said it wasn't *ok*......i simply suggest that to absolutely conclude, definitively, that it WILL be inferior....b/c there is no proof. i have not said it WILL be great....tho i think it well could be. i just personally dislike declarative statements, unproven. the reasons he's offered, i have countered....thus why i ask why he or others may still cling to this utter belief that it will fail. there is a difference.
1. you'd have to elaborate
2. medicare is not what UHC would be based on, and would have a far better and broader base of funds to help ustain it, and lower overall costs b/c there would be no profit built in the model ( i know medicare is not-for-profit, but it still exists and operates in a purely for profit healthcare environment)
3. while our school system is imperfect - don't know of one that is, i would hardly consider it inferior...as for infrastructure, once again, same thing...
4. yes and no.....as you would say, it's not so simple.
so go ahead and think what you like, never said otherwise! it's the statements that it can't be done, or it will be inferior....again with no true proof, that really don't 'add' to the discussion is all.
you don't think our public school system is inferior to the private one?
Depends where you are. I know plenty of private Catholic schools that are vastly inferior to public schools. But to those that can't afford tuition at an elite college-prep private school, I'm willing to bet the public one is vastly superior to no school whatsoever.
You do realize that most doctors have a shit-ton of college loans to pay off, that they typically start their practices up to their assholes in debt, right?
That's part of the reason they have to make that kind of money. It doesn't make them assholes. It doesn't mean they don't care about you. It means they have bills to pay that those of us that go into other professions don't have.
And, by the way, ask your doctor if he'd be willing to work for you for minimum wage. Get back to me when he stops laughing. I'll bet you'll find he's not the altruistic saint you think he is.
I'm up to my asshole in debt from my law degree. I can make tons to pay it off in private practice. But guess what... go into public interest/government work and they forgive those loans! Holy Shit! Imagine that! And if it weren't WAY more competitive to get those low-paying public interest jobs, I'd be working one. Most attorneys I know are not altruistic saints, but many of them would also be happy to work for government wages in order to have a nice quality of life and be doing work they value. You know what kind of hours doctors and lawyers in private practice work? There is a ton of appeal for those low-paying government jobs. It is HARDER to get a low-paying government job out of law school than it is to get a 6-figure law firm job. There's huge competition and they tend to get the best, most dedicated law students. You think the medical profession would be any different? Plenty of people go into medicine and law for the $$, but even more go into those fields out of a sense of wanting work that has a social justice/service component. Do you even know any government lawyers before you dismiss them as the dregs of the profession? I guess it's easy when you're wrapped up in the corporate world to assume everybody else is a money-grubbing bastard like the rest of your business school buddies are. I admire your efforts to make up nonexistent problems though.
That's interesting stuff.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
and you conveniently did not answer the question - if your employer stopped paying for healthcare, could you actually afford to pay for the exact coverage you have right now? maybe you could, but most people can't...
Conviently for you, I did not answer this, because it supports my argument. Of course I couldn't. And when the government enacts its plan, my employer ceases to pay its share, and leaves the entire bill for me. Which I just said I can't afford.
So, I am forced to accept whatever the government will offer me. Which is guaranteed to be an inferior product to what I am getting now. I will still have to pay the same amount (if not more) via taxes.
Government-run health care gives me fewer options. Not more. This is why I am against it, in the form it is currently being proposed.
ugh - lost my post again! :evil:
seems whenever someone posts while i compose my own, it gets lost...grrr. anyway....
um, NO. this simply illustrates that clearly you pick and choose what parts of my posts you read. i CLEARLY said a few times over......your employer, instead of paying for coverage thru private insurance, yes...will pay tax equal to that amount towards UHC. they are not off the hook either. it does not increase your costs. in fact, if you read my posts discussing the costs.....there would be more funding going direct to healthcare, and most especially with more prevenative care being utilized and cutting profit out of the equation, makes it more affordable to cover more.
thank you tho, b/c it DOEs prove MY point: that without your employer's contribution, it's unaffordable. therefore, if tomorrow your employer ceased maying towards healthcare, you'd be just like many within the 44 million uninsured...ya know, those fucked people. yea, GREAt system there!
and the whoile options thing, again., HUH? you could go to ANy doctor, to ANy hospital, b/c they'd ALL be under public health. right now, your insurance company limits your choices. limits on treatments, meds, what have you.....you'd have that either way, private or public, b/c your insurance won't just cover ANYthing, etc. so not more limits, more like...less. more options.
nothing is guaranteed...to be better or worse. THAt is 100% your assumption. you've done nothing to PROVE that will absolutely be the case. however, you have proven just how tenuous healthcare is for us all under our current system.
# Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
# Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
# Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.
# Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.
the whole crappy healthcare bit..i had a long response, but bottomline....you have ZERO proof that would be the case. at all. in actuality, with all i've said in other posts, truly, there is NO reason for that to occur, at all....but i am not going to spell it out again.
we CAN have UHC...and we CAN have excellent healthcare. they are not mutually exclusive.
and what proof do you have? why is it not ok for slightof to conclude that UHC would be inferior but perfectly fine for you to say it can be great?
do you agree it CAN also be inferior?
I think it would be inferior based......
1) simple supply and demand laws
2) Medicare which has basically bankrupt and 30 Trillion underfunded.
3) the government proven track record of not supplying the people with a quality product...i.e public schools and infrastructure.
4) the governments proven track record of not being able to spend our money correctly. ie. massive budget deficits and bankrupt social security program.
i never said it wasn't *ok*......i simply suggest that to absolutely conclude, definitively, that it WILL be inferior....b/c there is no proof. i have not said it WILL be great....tho i think it well could be. i just personally dislike declarative statements, unproven. the reasons he's offered, i have countered....thus why i ask why he or others may still cling to this utter belief that it will fail. there is a difference.
1. you'd have to elaborate
2. medicare is not what UHC would be based on, and would have a far better and broader base of funds to help ustain it, and lower overall costs b/c there would be no profit built in the model ( i know medicare is not-for-profit, but it still exists and operates in a purely for profit healthcare environment)
3. while our school system is imperfect - don't know of one that is, i would hardly consider it inferior...as for infrastructure, once again, same thing...
4. yes and no.....as you would say, it's not so simple.
so go ahead and think what you like, never said otherwise! it's the statements that it can't be done, or it will be inferior....again with no true proof, that really don't 'add' to the discussion is all.
You know what doesn't add to the discussion? Dismissing people's opinions because there is no "true proof" of them. Well of course there's no true proof of them. There's no "true proof" of anything.
Forcing one side to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that something won't work, while allowing the other side to operate on pure conjecture -- "Hey, you never know! This UHC *could* work" -- is hardly fair.
My point is this: We're talking trillions upon trillions of dollars here. In the midst of a recession. Trillions and trillions of dollars that our government doesn't have. If we throw all our money at this UHC stuff, and it doesn't work, we're going to sink deeper toward Depression, at which point health care will be the least of our worries.
Couple that will the fact that the U.S. government has a proven track record of fucking up everything it touches, and you should start to see my skepticism. I need more than, "Hey, what the hell. Let's try it. It might work" before I feel comfortable throwing trillions of dollars at something.
We're back at the top of the Empire State Building. Though nobody can offer any "true proof" of what will happen if you jump, we've offered several reasons to believe that the most likely outcome is not good. You seem willing to bet that, if you jump, you'll catch just the right breeze and it will drop you safely to the earth below.
Forgive me if I'm still skeptical.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
i never said it wasn't *ok*......i simply suggest that to absolutely conclude, definitively, that it WILL be inferior....b/c there is no proof. i have not said it WILL be great....tho i think it well could be. i just personally dislike declarative statements, unproven. the reasons he's offered, i have countered....thus why i ask why he or others may still cling to this utter belief that it will fail. there is a difference.
1. you'd have to elaborate
2. medicare is not what UHC would be based on, and would have a far better and broader base of funds to help ustain it, and lower overall costs b/c there would be no profit built in the model ( i know medicare is not-for-profit, but it still exists and operates in a purely for profit healthcare environment)
3. while our school system is imperfect - don't know of one that is, i would hardly consider it inferior...as for infrastructure, once again, same thing...
4. yes and no.....as you would say, it's not so simple.
so go ahead and think what you like, never said otherwise! it's the statements that it can't be done, or it will be inferior....again with no true proof, that really don't 'add' to the discussion is all.
you don't think our public school system is inferior to the private one?
no.
i went to private schools, i even taught in private schools....but i have plenty of friends and family who went public, married a man who went public...and i know plenty of teachers in the public system. there are advantages/disadvantages in both, but i would not outright say one is *better* than the other. there are top-rated public schools and shit private schools, and vice versa.
and soulsinging....good info!
besides which, i know we're not to discuss 'other countries'...but many in other countries HAVe said that their doctors are STILL quite well paid, rich even. there's no reason they wouldn't be here too.
i see many posts of it can't work....its guaranteed to be inferior....and then i see others simply saying 'no thank you'....don't want govt in it, etc. i think the 'no thank you's are a lot more true. simply don't want it. why, i honestly don't know...but i've yet to truly see a compelling reason to be so against it. as much as the govt can fuck things up, they obviously must still do a lot right too......and i fail to see how private industry is doing healthcare any *better* than the govt can. that's all...
i never said it wasn't *ok*......i simply suggest that to absolutely conclude, definitively, that it WILL be inferior....b/c there is no proof. i have not said it WILL be great....tho i think it well could be. i just personally dislike declarative statements, unproven. the reasons he's offered, i have countered....thus why i ask why he or others may still cling to this utter belief that it will fail. there is a difference.
1. you'd have to elaborate
2. medicare is not what UHC would be based on, and would have a far better and broader base of funds to help ustain it, and lower overall costs b/c there would be no profit built in the model ( i know medicare is not-for-profit, but it still exists and operates in a purely for profit healthcare environment)
3. while our school system is imperfect - don't know of one that is, i would hardly consider it inferior...as for infrastructure, once again, same thing...
4. yes and no.....as you would say, it's not so simple.
so go ahead and think what you like, never said otherwise! it's the statements that it can't be done, or it will be inferior....again with no true proof, that really don't 'add' to the discussion is all.
you don't think our public school system is inferior to the private one?
no.
i went to private schools, i even taught in private schools....but i have plenty of friends and family who went public, married a man who went public...and i know plenty of teachers in the public system. there are advantages/disadvantages in both, but i would not outright say one is *better* than the other. there are top-rated public schools and shit private schools, and vice versa.
wow, well we can agree to disagree I guess. I'm not saying the public is bad per say. I'm just saying our private school system is better then the public one. the quality of education is better overall and comparatively. but I'm not going to dig up info on this...we'll save it for a battle in another thread perhaps
# Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
Actually I am pretty sure in Canada malpractice suits are less common than in the US. I think a big reason for that is because in our system no money is changing hands between doctor and patient. I mean if I was living in the US and a family member died while in surgery and then I got the bill (or in turn their estate got the bill basically cleaning it out) I would be pissed and much more likely to contact a lawyer to make sure that everything in that surgery went perfect and death was unavoidable (and remember as long as a lawsuit is filed, even if it has no merit it still costs the insurance money). Where as if no money changed hands I would be much less likely to look into what happened and contact a lawyer.
# Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
# Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
# Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.
# Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.
1. it might be possible, but it is not guaranteed to be probable.
2. they may do that anyway. and, aren't you the one who discusses choice? how is that limiting your freedom? you can still smoke and drink soda.....just you'd also have to pay more tax. it'll cost you more, but won't affect your rights to do so.
3. i say BS. i see it no more likely to be compromised then as opposed to now.
4. well, considering i do think it should be a 'right'....yes.....i think it's fine to be near impossible to remove UHC, b/c it should always exist. there are many ways to cut a budget, change things, etc. lots of things change that we don't want, even right now.
all these things can be addressed.
tho i appreciate you coming up with some actual reasons for dislike of the idea.
i guess it just amazes me that so many would rather accept the tenuous status quo, b/c even if you are insured today....that could easily change tomorrow and you'd be scrambling along with the other 44 million......rather than try to actually think of new solutions so that we ALL have healthcare access.
jlew.....just for the record, one little 'stat' for you -
public school teachers MUST be certified to teach, for private schools....while it is desired, it is not required. in the school i taught, we had a few uncertified teachers. 'stats' may give some picture, but i also have LOTs of first-hand experience. and it is not definitive that private is better than public. that said, you have that choice. you'd have the same with healthcare too. think about it - i went to private school the bulk of my schooling, i don't have children, and yet 65% of my property taxes go to support schools. my only *choice8 there is not to own a home. however, i think we ALL should contribute to education, b/c having our citizens at least with a basic education is far superior to not. i think the same of healthcare.
# Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
# Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
# Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.
# Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.
1. it might be possible, but it is not guaranteed to be probable.
2. they may do that anyway. and, aren't you the one who discusses choice? how is that limiting your freedom? you can still smoke and drink soda.....just you'd also have to pay more tax. it'll cost you more, but won't affect your rights to do so.
3. i say BS. i see it no more likely to be compromised then as opposed to now.
4. well, considering i do think it should be a 'right'....yes.....i think it's fine to be near impossible to remove UHC, b/c it should always exist. there are many ways to cut a budget, change things, etc. lots of things change that we don't want, even right now.
all these things can be addressed.
tho i appreciate you coming up with some actual reasons for dislike of the idea.
no shit they can be addressed. anything can be. we are all talking in hypothetical because we dont have UHC. like response to #1 "it might be possible, but it is not guaranteed to be probable." why isnt is probable? because you say so? but at least we agree its possible.
i guess it just amazes me that so many would rather accept the tenuous status quo, b/c even if you are insured today....that could easily change tomorrow and you'd be scrambling along with the other 44 million......rather than try to actually think of new solutions so that we ALL have healthcare access.
slightof already told you about many safeguards in place such as government subsidized Cobra costs. and I'm all for new solutions....just not one as EXTREME as UHC. I'd like to see some baby steps to see how things work. you make it sound that whoeever doesnt support UHC is for NO change at all. thats complete bullshit.
jlew.....just for the record, one little 'stat' for you -
public school teachers MUST be certified to teach, for private schools....while it is desired, it is not required. in the school i taught, we had a few uncertified teachers. 'stats' may give some picture, but i also have LOTs of first-hand experience. and it is not definitive that private is better than public. that said, you have that choice. you'd have the same with healthcare too. think about it - i went to private school the bulk of my schooling, i don't have children, and yet 65% of my property taxes go to support schools. my only *choice8 there is not to own a home. however, i think we ALL should contribute to education, b/c having our citizens at least with a basic education is far superior to not. i think the same of healthcare.
the cost of public eduction is a very SMALL fraction of what Healthcare would cost. would you be ok with your property taxes going up another 65% to pay for healthcare costs? its foolish to compare the two in terms of costs.
what is better, comes down to so many factors, its not worth getting into
ugh - lost my post again! :evil:
seems whenever someone posts while i compose my own, it gets lost...grrr. anyway....
I dont think you are losing it. just scroll down when that happens, the submit button, and your post, should still be there.
i do that....and then it's gone.
then, i get taken to the main page of the board.
:evil:
believe me....it's happened a few times now.
and in the past, while i find that whole 'another post has been made' message annoying, it never happened before until the last few days. c'est la vie.
anyhoo....if it makes you feel any better....i sadly believe we are a long way off from my utopian dreams of true universal healthcare in america. to me, that is shame. i do believe obama will do a lot to reform the system, tweak it, get some osort of coverage for those falling between the cracks...and that's a good thing. however, i think overall our helahtcare coverage is far too tenuous, left at the mercy of our employers, private insurance companies calling the shots...and the real possibility that many of us could well find ourselves w/o insurance when we most need it. i've seen it happen. i'd like to hope we're at least at the first step at working towards that not being the case. i do realize, it takes time...b/c sure....obviously, there are plenty of people like you and jeff who share similar thinking, so we all have to work at a pace until you are all enlightened to the good of it. perhaps it will take us all that time to work on a truly *great* plan that WILL work as i would hope and desire for our country...
jlew...my gawd. i wsn't comparing ed costs to healthcare costs!
i've already posted, numerous times, how we would pay for it! i was simply countering your private vs publice, better and worse, scenario of schools.
i agree to disagree with you....that's for sure!
btw tho - do you truly read?
oftentimes your response are so out of whack to what i wrote, i wonder...such as this:
"it might be possible, but it is not guaranteed to be probable." why isnt is probable? because you say so? but at least we agree its possible
READ what you quoted me as saying. i did NOT say it wasn't probable, simply that it is not guaranteed to be so!
i oftentimes get the feeling you skim for your own content purposes. which is fine, but frustrating. you seem to miss the gist of many of my posts. granted, i know they are lengthy, but sadly i cannot seem to discuss these topics in detail, without going into lengthy detail. there are just many, many points i have made numerous times.....never addressed....and/or even within a post, such as a the comment above, totally misconstrue my words. perhaps i am lacking clarity...idk. guess it's something to work on.
jlew.....just for the record, one little 'stat' for you -
public school teachers MUST be certified to teach, for private schools....while it is desired, it is not required. in the school i taught, we had a few uncertified teachers. 'stats' may give some picture, but i also have LOTs of first-hand experience. and it is not definitive that private is better than public. that said, you have that choice. you'd have the same with healthcare too. think about it - i went to private school the bulk of my schooling, i don't have children, and yet 65% of my property taxes go to support schools. my only *choice8 there is not to own a home. however, i think we ALL should contribute to education, b/c having our citizens at least with a basic education is far superior to not. i think the same of healthcare.
I would like to correct this point... in Philadelphia public schools a certification is NOT required. It is only required that you are working towards certification even if you have FAILED the certification test multiple times you can still seek employment in the district. Also, Teach for America teachers are hired by the thousands every year to teach in "hard to fill areas" and the only certification they possess is a college degree and a 5 week training program... yep sounds like they are qualified to teach in a classroom to me.
back to UHC... which I think will be a complete clusterfuck especially since to implement quickly it will be based on the underfunded and overstretched Medicaid system which only reimbursts hospitals $0.75 for every $1.00 spent.
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
jlew.....just for the record, one little 'stat' for you -
public school teachers MUST be certified to teach, for private schools....while it is desired, it is not required. in the school i taught, we had a few uncertified teachers. 'stats' may give some picture, but i also have LOTs of first-hand experience. and it is not definitive that private is better than public. that said, you have that choice. you'd have the same with healthcare too. think about it - i went to private school the bulk of my schooling, i don't have children, and yet 65% of my property taxes go to support schools. my only *choice8 there is not to own a home. however, i think we ALL should contribute to education, b/c having our citizens at least with a basic education is far superior to not. i think the same of healthcare.
I would like to correct this point... in Philadelphia public schools a certification is NOT required. It is only required that you are working towards certification even if you have FAILED the certification test multiple times you can still seek employment in the district. Also, Teach for America teachers are hired by the thousands every year to teach in "hard to fill areas" and the only certification they possess is a college degree and a 5 week training program... yep sounds like they are qualified to teach in a classroom to me.
back to UHC... which I think will be a complete clusterfuck especially since to implement quickly it will be based on the underfunded and overstretched Medicaid system which only reimbursts hospitals $0.75 for every $1.00 spent.
ok, yes, you aRE 100% correct there. what i should've said, more clearly, is that there is a time limit tho for reaching certification status, at least in NYS. however, in private schools, one can remain teaching...indefinitely...uncertified. that was my main point. just to illustrate that the 'private' label, in and of itself, does not guarantee 'better'.
as to UHC, why does it have to be implemented quickly? and why would it be based on the medicare model?
jlew.....just for the record, one little 'stat' for you -
public school teachers MUST be certified to teach, for private schools....while it is desired, it is not required. in the school i taught, we had a few uncertified teachers. 'stats' may give some picture, but i also have LOTs of first-hand experience. and it is not definitive that private is better than public. that said, you have that choice. you'd have the same with healthcare too. think about it - i went to private school the bulk of my schooling, i don't have children, and yet 65% of my property taxes go to support schools. my only *choice8 there is not to own a home. however, i think we ALL should contribute to education, b/c having our citizens at least with a basic education is far superior to not. i think the same of healthcare.
I would like to correct this point... in Philadelphia public schools a certification is NOT required. It is only required that you are working towards certification even if you have FAILED the certification test multiple times you can still seek employment in the district. Also, Teach for America teachers are hired by the thousands every year to teach in "hard to fill areas" and the only certification they possess is a college degree and a 5 week training program... yep sounds like they are qualified to teach in a classroom to me.
back to UHC... which I think will be a complete clusterfuck especially since to implement quickly it will be based on the underfunded and overstretched Medicaid system which only reimbursts hospitals $0.75 for every $1.00 spent.
ok, yes, you aRE 100% correct there. what i should've said, more clearly, is that there is a time limit tho for reaching certification status, at least in NYS. however, in private schools, one can remain teaching...indefinitely...uncertified. that was my main point. just to illustrate that the 'private' label, in and of itself, does not guarantee 'better'.
as to UHC, why does it have to be implemented quickly? and why would it be based on the medicare model?
because Obama only has 3 years left (7 at the most) to implement it and Medicare is already in place, the infrastructure for UHC is already in place. Plus with Medicare, the government has a huge bargaining chip (which is only growing everyday) to use in trying to get everyone else on board (hospitals, doctors, healthcare providers) or hold over their heads.
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
because Obama only has 3 years left (7 at the most) to implement it and Medicare is already in place, the infrastructure for UHC is already in place. Plus with Medicare, the government has a huge bargaining chip (which is only growing everyday) to use in trying to get everyone else on board (hospitals, doctors, healthcare providers) or hold over their heads.
3.5...;)
ok, i see. you think getting things in motion within 7 years is...too fast?
and i don't actually believe obama WILL get a true UHC system in place, said as much earlier. he'll get some semblance of a START, get coverage for those most in need.....but an across the board, true UHC, i don't think we'll see that for a looooonnnnggggg time. i think most realize that. i think he well hinted at that even in his inaugral speech, that it's gonna take TIME. you could say he was already starting his re-election campaign right from the start if one wants to be jaded about it...;) i think my main concern Is b/c there are those against such a system that we might get some half-assed version, and yea....what will that be like, and then it'll just add fuel to the 'it can't work!' crowd....and then how do we move forward? so yes, i truly hope if we're going there....and i personally hope we do....we GO there. forget medicare. new ideas, new models, new ways of seeting it in motion.
and sure...call me a dreamer....but i'm not the only one.
I'm for middle ground and baby steps. No details, but this might be a start. Pass the hidden tax onto those who benefit from it in the form of cheap basic health coverage.
Group Tallies Families' 'Hidden Health Tax'
By PATRICK YOEST
WASHINGTON -- The average family with health insurance in 2008 paid a "hidden health tax" of $1,017 to cover the health-care costs of the uninsured, according to a report released Thursday by advocacy group Families USA.
The report by the group, which promotes universal health insurance, found that a total of $42.7 billion in care for those without insurance was passed on to health insurers. The insurers, in turn, passed on the costs through higher premiums, the report said.
The report comes as Congress debates proposals to provide health-insurance coverage to all Americans -- a key part of President Barack Obama's legislative agenda. The report uses data primarily from consulting firm Milliman Inc.
When those without insurance sought care, often in emergency rooms, government and charities picked up more than a quarter of the $116 billion tab last year, the report said. More than a third was paid for by those seeking the care, and the rest was passed on to health insurers and eventually to insured people through higher costs, it said.
"There is something clearly that affects the pocketbook as a result of the hidden health tax," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA. "I think the key to it is having a system that will make health more affordable."
Mr. Pollack appeared with Aetna Inc.'s chairman and chief executive, Ronald A. Williams, on Thursday at the National Press Club.
Mr. Williams, like many leaders in the health-insurance industry of late, has expressed support for expanding health coverage. He discussed such "cost-shifting" to health insurers as a major reason for covering more people.
"For every person who has private health insurance, there is a tax that is based on paying for the uncompensated care that these community hospitals have to collect," Mr. Williams said.
Proposals in Congress have centered on establishing a health-insurance "exchange," in which individuals who don't currently have insurance could purchase it. Most lawmakers anticipate that private insurers would play a major role in the exchange, and the insurers have indicated a willingness to participate in talks on the legislation.
Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), who has taken the lead on crafting health-overhaul legislation in the Senate, said Thursday the report showed the health-coverage "tax" will continue to grow unless Congress acts.
"We must repeal this hidden tax and lift the burden from American families and businesses by ensuring quality, affordable health care for all Americans," Mr. Baucus said in a statement.
Insurers have stopped short of supporting a public health-insurance plan that would compete with them in a health-insurance exchange. Mr. Williams said his company's spending in areas such as health technology had improved health coverage to the extent that it could play a major role in covering the uninsured.
"We've invested in tools, technologies and capabilities that really help close gaps in care," Mr. Williams said, adding that "generally, we much prefer private and public partnerships" to the public-plan option.
yes, that's a big part of the problem. the uninsured hitting up the ER for care, which is far more costly.....and usually wait until urgent need, rather than preventative/maintanence care......b/c in the ER they can get some help, whereas they are shut out so much elsewhere. drives up cost enormously. it's definitely all related, and you KNOW the costs have always gotten passed onto us, thus why the costs are getting so out of control. the insurance industry certainly isn't going to allow a tax cut into their profit margin, just pass it onwards to the insured. we always pay. thus why i truly believe a UHC is the way to go.......cut out so much fat, and get more care, earlier, and thus cheaper.....and it can help, overall, rein in healthcare spending. baby-steps is how it will happen tho, absolutely. a nation this large does not accept vast, sweeping change overnight....too many conflicting opinions and desires, absolutely have to tak it one step at a time. as long as i believe we truly are on that road to UHC.....i'm ready for the long haul, as long as we get there........
I will say that privatized insurance is not the answer, but I am bias, because I do not believe in privatization for essentials that we all need (ie healthcare, electricity.... etc)
call me a socialist or an idiot or whatever but when it is for profit people get fucked
talk about ignorance. wow. "for profit" doesnt mean people get fucked. profit is an excellent motivator...it brings innovation..it brings much needed technological advances. status quo socialism does not. like slight said, it beings everyone down to an equal level. which isn't an improvement. its a step backwards.
Profit is a motivator? How many innovations have you seen on your electric bill? Most doctor's offices are behind the times in terms of the current technology available. But yes we have people in the most powerful country without insurance, without running water, without electricity..... and other services, so I would say they are fucked.... by the system. Like someone said 10 pages ago, many advancements, be it in medicine or otherwise are funded with government grants.
OMG people on an equal level how HORRIBLE :roll: ..... really that is an improvement IMO.
In terms of doctors making 30K, I want what you are smoking..... almost all government employees make more than 30K (however are underpaid but who is not) most starbucks or walmart employees do not, and government employees have better insurance.
But like someone pointed out... with UHC, doctors would not work for the government they would contract with the government and I would argue they would have more bargaining power with the government for compensation then they would with insurance companies. Insurers are cheap and the pay bottom dollar for most services, that is why there are co-pays and most services are not covered 100% becuase docs want more.
But I see that you like the system as it is as long as you are taken care, and not at the bottom of the totem poles.... but be carefully don't look down
Q: Why is it so difficult to make health care accessible to everyone in the world’s richest country?
A: It shouldn’t be. And it’s wrong. You know, my mother died of ovarian cancer when she was 53 years old. And I remember in the last month of her life, she wasn’t thinking about how to get well, she wasn’t thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality, she was thinking about whether or not insurance was going to cover the medical bills and whether our family would be bankrupt as a consequence. That is morally wrong. It’s objectionable. That’s why I put forward a comprehensive legislation for universal health care so that all people could get coverage. My attitude is, that since you are paying my salary as taxpayers, you should have health care that is at least as good as mine. And the key to that is not only a good plan, but we’ve also got to overcome the drug & insurance company lobbies, that spent $1 billion over the last 10 years to block reform. As president, I am going to take them on.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on Univision in Spanish Sep 9, 2007
FactCheck: Correct that insurance lobbying cost $1B
Obama used a figure that sounded dubious to us, but it turned out to be correct. Obama said, “We’ve also got to overcome the drug company lobbies, the insurance company lobbies, that spent $1 billion over the last 10 years to block reform.”
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the pharmaceutical and insurance industries spent $1.2 billion and $949 million, respectively, on all lobbying efforts since 1998. Moreover, the two industries combined shelled out about $193 million in political donations and expenditures backing Republicans, about twice as much as they spent supporting Democrats. So it is reasonable to conclude that the pharmaceutical and insurance industries have indeed spent at least $1 billion combating legislation that Obama favors.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 Democratic primary debate on Univision Sep 9, 2007
Oh really? I wonder how that's playing out nowadays? Let's check:
And let's see how Obama's tune started to change now that the Dems are receiving all those donations from big pharma and hmo's:
"If, in fact, we are not making healthcare affordable enough, which is what’s happening right now, and you mandate on families to buy health insurance that they can’t afford and if they don’t buy it you fine them or in some other way take money for them. What is happening in Massachusetts right now, which is that folks are having to pay fines and they don’t have health care. They’d rather go ahead and take the fine because they can’t afford the coverage. My core belief is that people desperately want coverage, and my plan provides those same subsidies. If they are provided those subsidies and they have good, quality care that’s available, then they will purchase it. That is my belief. I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single payer. What I said was that if I were starting from scratch, if we didn’t have a system in which employers had typically provided health care, I would probably go with a single-payer system." Barack Obama
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I will say that privatized insurance is not the answer, but I am bias, because I do not believe in privatization for essentials that we all need (ie healthcare, electricity.... etc)
call me a socialist or an idiot or whatever but when it is for profit people get fucked
talk about ignorance. wow. "for profit" doesnt mean people get fucked. profit is an excellent motivator...it brings innovation..it brings much needed technological advances. status quo socialism does not. like slight said, it beings everyone down to an equal level. which isn't an improvement. its a step backwards.
Profit is a motivator? How many innovations have you seen on your electric bill? Most doctor's offices are behind the times in terms of the current technology available. But yes we have people in the most powerful country without insurance, without running water, without electricity..... and other services, so I would say they are fucked.... by the system. Like someone said 10 pages ago, many advancements, be it in medicine or otherwise are funded with government grants.
OMG people on an equal level how HORRIBLE :roll: ..... really that is an improvement IMO.
In terms of doctors making 30K, I want what you are smoking..... almost all government employees make more than 30K (however are underpaid but who is not) most starbucks or walmart employees do not, and government employees have better insurance.
But like someone pointed out... with UHC, doctors would not work for the government they would contract with the government and I would argue they would have more bargaining power with the government for compensation then they would with insurance companies. Insurers are cheap and the pay bottom dollar for most services, that is why there are co-pays and most services are not covered 100% becuase docs want more.
But I see that you like the system as it is as long as you are taken care, and not at the bottom of the totem poles.... but be carefully don't look down
I'm not sure how you can argue profit ISN'T a motivator. But have fun trying ...
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
# Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
# Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
# Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.
# Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/univers ... h_care.htm
1. I can guarantee the government will make itself pretty immune from lawsuits somehow But I do agree that medical lawsuits are out of control. It's very interesting to see the bias there as lawyers look out for their own. Make a questionable choice as an attorney and you were just exercising professional judgment and don't owe anyone a penny. Do it as a doctor and you were a negligent maverick that should be sued into the poorhouse.
2. I'm ok with that. You don't lose the freedoms at all... it's a free market choice. Is the given item worth the price attached to it. Simple. I'm all for incentivizing behaviors like that, I'll take that over outright banning things any day. In fact, I very much wish we would switch to a 100% use/luxury tax based system and do away with income tax, but that's just me. As a guy that's a big fan of sin, I'm perfectly ok with "sin taxes."
3. That is a good point, and very worrisome to me. Though I am less worried about my medical information than other things. And I prefer it going to a government entity that has no choice but to cover me than having it go to a private company that can choose to drop me, tell me cancer is a pre-existing condition it won't cover, or sell the information to other companies to market drugs to me.
4. This is true, and a problem. But I also see a UHC system as potentially freeing us to get rid of things like social security and other programs, since health care costs are the chief draing on the finances of the elderly and disabled that social security was intended to help.
You do realize that most doctors have a shit-ton of college loans to pay off, that they typically start their practices up to their assholes in debt, right?
That's part of the reason they have to make that kind of money. It doesn't make them assholes. It doesn't mean they don't care about you. It means they have bills to pay that those of us that go into other professions don't have.
And, by the way, ask your doctor if he'd be willing to work for you for minimum wage. Get back to me when he stops laughing. I'll bet you'll find he's not the altruistic saint you think he is.
I'm up to my asshole in debt from my law degree. I can make tons to pay it off in private practice. But guess what... go into public interest/government work and they forgive those loans! Holy Shit! Imagine that! And if it weren't WAY more competitive to get those low-paying public interest jobs, I'd be working one. Most attorneys I know are not altruistic saints, but many of them would also be happy to work for government wages in order to have a nice quality of life and be doing work they value. You know what kind of hours doctors and lawyers in private practice work? There is a ton of appeal for those low-paying government jobs. It is HARDER to get a low-paying government job out of law school than it is to get a 6-figure law firm job. There's huge competition and they tend to get the best, most dedicated law students. You think the medical profession would be any different? Plenty of people go into medicine and law for the $$, but even more go into those fields out of a sense of wanting work that has a social justice/service component. Do you even know any government lawyers before you dismiss them as the dregs of the profession? I guess it's easy when you're wrapped up in the corporate world to assume everybody else is a money-grubbing bastard like the rest of your business school buddies are. I admire your efforts to make up nonexistent problems though.
That's interesting stuff.
Trust me, I know from bitter experience. If I had worked a helluva lot harder than I did, I might be able to land a job with the US attorneys or a PD's office somewhere. Instead I'm stuck with a big money gig at a national law firm because my grades were mediocre. Kinda fucked up eh?
Q: Why is it so difficult to make health care accessible to everyone in the world’s richest country?
A: It shouldn’t be. And it’s wrong. You know, my mother died of ovarian cancer when she was 53 years old. And I remember in the last month of her life, she wasn’t thinking about how to get well, she wasn’t thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality, she was thinking about whether or not insurance was going to cover the medical bills and whether our family would be bankrupt as a consequence. That is morally wrong. It’s objectionable. That’s why I put forward a comprehensive legislation for universal health care so that all people could get coverage. My attitude is, that since you are paying my salary as taxpayers, you should have health care that is at least as good as mine. And the key to that is not only a good plan, but we’ve also got to overcome the drug & insurance company lobbies, that spent $1 billion over the last 10 years to block reform. As president, I am going to take them on.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on Univision in Spanish Sep 9, 2007
FactCheck: Correct that insurance lobbying cost $1B
Obama used a figure that sounded dubious to us, but it turned out to be correct. Obama said, “We’ve also got to overcome the drug company lobbies, the insurance company lobbies, that spent $1 billion over the last 10 years to block reform.”
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the pharmaceutical and insurance industries spent $1.2 billion and $949 million, respectively, on all lobbying efforts since 1998. Moreover, the two industries combined shelled out about $193 million in political donations and expenditures backing Republicans, about twice as much as they spent supporting Democrats. So it is reasonable to conclude that the pharmaceutical and insurance industries have indeed spent at least $1 billion combating legislation that Obama favors.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 Democratic primary debate on Univision Sep 9, 2007
Oh really? I wonder how that's playing out nowadays? Let's check:
And let's see how Obama's tune started to change now that the Dems are receiving all those donations from big pharma and hmo's:
"If, in fact, we are not making healthcare affordable enough, which is what’s happening right now, and you mandate on families to buy health insurance that they can’t afford and if they don’t buy it you fine them or in some other way take money for them. What is happening in Massachusetts right now, which is that folks are having to pay fines and they don’t have health care. They’d rather go ahead and take the fine because they can’t afford the coverage. My core belief is that people desperately want coverage, and my plan provides those same subsidies. If they are provided those subsidies and they have good, quality care that’s available, then they will purchase it. That is my belief. I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single payer. What I said was that if I were starting from scratch, if we didn’t have a system in which employers had typically provided health care, I would probably go with a single-payer system." Barack Obama
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008
Obama's pretension that no one will find charges IN his or her current health insurance plans except for a magical reduction in their cost by $2,500 a year is a fools proposition.
private health insurers will be no more private than TARP funded banks or Govt subsidized are in Obama's America. They will be controlled by govt. health care workers who will approve treatments,limit drug use,hold down medical incomes and bring their cos cutting programs to bear. Inevitably, their ax will fall on the oldest and sickest among us,those least "deserving" of our newly limited and under Obama's program diminishing health care resources.
I don't understand the argument that we shouldn't have universal health care because our quality of care will decline. We're such an instant gratification culture that we are more concerned with how long it will take to get care than what the outcome of that care will be. Let's remember that the United States is not the stellar model of health that we seem to think we are. We actually rank quite poorly when it comes to health outcomes, and are commonly outranked by countries that DO have universal health care. Here are just a few stats I pulled quickly off an American Public Health Association website:
•U.S. life expectancy ranks 46th in the world, behind Japan, most of Europe, and even countries such as South Korea and Jordan.
•A baby born today in the U.S is more likely to die before its first birthday than in almost any other developed country.
•Nearly one in 20 residents in the nation’s capital are HIV-positive.
•All minorities, except Alaska Natives, have a rate of type 2 diabetes that is two to six times greater than that of the white population.
If all doctors are now essentially government workers, and make civil servant's salaries, what is the financial impetus to become a doctor?
Take out several hundred thousand dollars in student loans, spend six years in medical school ... and then make 30K a year? No thanks.
We're going to see a shortage of doctors. Or, at least, a shortage of good ones.
It's a misconception that a universal, single-payer health plan would equate to socialized medicine where the government runs the hospitals and the medical staff are government employees. We would still have individual hospitals that employ doctors, run things as they see fit, and compete with each other for business. It's just that when it comes time for the patients to pay their bills, the money would come from a government source. Kind of like how you can get Medicaid now and use it at whichever private hospital will accept it, only every hospital and doctor will accept it now.
As for the income issue, since they won't be government employees, they won't be making civil servants' salaries. Many, many doctors already work in places whose primary sources of reimbursement are government programs and they haven't quit yet, and keep on coming. And part of healthcare reform should include making medical training affordable. By the way, I think it's offensive to all the wonderful healthcare professionals we have out there when people suggest they're just in it for the money (or would leave without the money).
Comments
We have an entire network of free, government paid attorneys that serve as public defenders and prosecutors in our legal system. Nonetheless, you can still make millions in private legal practice. That's a dumb argument. A government funded health care system does not make private industry disappear. We have public legal officers and public schools... yet you can still buy private attorneys and pay exorbitant amounts for private schools if you've got money to throw around. Nice try, but try again.
I'm up to my asshole in debt from my law degree. I can make tons to pay it off in private practice. But guess what... go into public interest/government work and they forgive those loans! Holy Shit! Imagine that! And if it weren't WAY more competitive to get those low-paying public interest jobs, I'd be working one. Most attorneys I know are not altruistic saints, but many of them would also be happy to work for government wages in order to have a nice quality of life and be doing work they value. You know what kind of hours doctors and lawyers in private practice work? There is a ton of appeal for those low-paying government jobs. It is HARDER to get a low-paying government job out of law school than it is to get a 6-figure law firm job. There's huge competition and they tend to get the best, most dedicated law students. You think the medical profession would be any different? Plenty of people go into medicine and law for the $$, but even more go into those fields out of a sense of wanting work that has a social justice/service component. Do you even know any government lawyers before you dismiss them as the dregs of the profession? I guess it's easy when you're wrapped up in the corporate world to assume everybody else is a money-grubbing bastard like the rest of your business school buddies are. I admire your efforts to make up nonexistent problems though.
you don't think our public school system is inferior to the private one?
Seriously.
Social Security.
Frannie and Freddie.
The School System.
The Tax Code.
The DMV.
Airport Security.
You want me to entrust my health to the people who brought us all of the above clusterfucks? No. Thank. You.
for the least they could possibly do
Depends where you are. I know plenty of private Catholic schools that are vastly inferior to public schools. But to those that can't afford tuition at an elite college-prep private school, I'm willing to bet the public one is vastly superior to no school whatsoever.
That's interesting stuff.
for the least they could possibly do
ugh - lost my post again! :evil:
seems whenever someone posts while i compose my own, it gets lost...grrr. anyway....
um, NO. this simply illustrates that clearly you pick and choose what parts of my posts you read. i CLEARLY said a few times over......your employer, instead of paying for coverage thru private insurance, yes...will pay tax equal to that amount towards UHC. they are not off the hook either. it does not increase your costs. in fact, if you read my posts discussing the costs.....there would be more funding going direct to healthcare, and most especially with more prevenative care being utilized and cutting profit out of the equation, makes it more affordable to cover more.
thank you tho, b/c it DOEs prove MY point: that without your employer's contribution, it's unaffordable. therefore, if tomorrow your employer ceased maying towards healthcare, you'd be just like many within the 44 million uninsured...ya know, those fucked people. yea, GREAt system there!
and the whoile options thing, again., HUH? you could go to ANy doctor, to ANy hospital, b/c they'd ALL be under public health. right now, your insurance company limits your choices. limits on treatments, meds, what have you.....you'd have that either way, private or public, b/c your insurance won't just cover ANYthing, etc. so not more limits, more like...less. more options.
nothing is guaranteed...to be better or worse. THAt is 100% your assumption. you've done nothing to PROVE that will absolutely be the case. however, you have proven just how tenuous healthcare is for us all under our current system.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
# Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
# Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
# Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.
# Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/univers ... h_care.htm
I dont think you are losing it. just scroll down when that happens, the submit button, and your post, should still be there.
You know what doesn't add to the discussion? Dismissing people's opinions because there is no "true proof" of them. Well of course there's no true proof of them. There's no "true proof" of anything.
Forcing one side to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that something won't work, while allowing the other side to operate on pure conjecture -- "Hey, you never know! This UHC *could* work" -- is hardly fair.
My point is this: We're talking trillions upon trillions of dollars here. In the midst of a recession. Trillions and trillions of dollars that our government doesn't have. If we throw all our money at this UHC stuff, and it doesn't work, we're going to sink deeper toward Depression, at which point health care will be the least of our worries.
Couple that will the fact that the U.S. government has a proven track record of fucking up everything it touches, and you should start to see my skepticism. I need more than, "Hey, what the hell. Let's try it. It might work" before I feel comfortable throwing trillions of dollars at something.
We're back at the top of the Empire State Building. Though nobody can offer any "true proof" of what will happen if you jump, we've offered several reasons to believe that the most likely outcome is not good. You seem willing to bet that, if you jump, you'll catch just the right breeze and it will drop you safely to the earth below.
Forgive me if I'm still skeptical.
for the least they could possibly do
no.
i went to private schools, i even taught in private schools....but i have plenty of friends and family who went public, married a man who went public...and i know plenty of teachers in the public system. there are advantages/disadvantages in both, but i would not outright say one is *better* than the other. there are top-rated public schools and shit private schools, and vice versa.
and soulsinging....good info!
besides which, i know we're not to discuss 'other countries'...but many in other countries HAVe said that their doctors are STILL quite well paid, rich even. there's no reason they wouldn't be here too.
i see many posts of it can't work....its guaranteed to be inferior....and then i see others simply saying 'no thank you'....don't want govt in it, etc. i think the 'no thank you's are a lot more true. simply don't want it. why, i honestly don't know...but i've yet to truly see a compelling reason to be so against it. as much as the govt can fuck things up, they obviously must still do a lot right too......and i fail to see how private industry is doing healthcare any *better* than the govt can. that's all...
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
wow, well we can agree to disagree I guess. I'm not saying the public is bad per say. I'm just saying our private school system is better then the public one. the quality of education is better overall and comparatively. but I'm not going to dig up info on this...we'll save it for a battle in another thread perhaps
Actually I am pretty sure in Canada malpractice suits are less common than in the US. I think a big reason for that is because in our system no money is changing hands between doctor and patient. I mean if I was living in the US and a family member died while in surgery and then I got the bill (or in turn their estate got the bill basically cleaning it out) I would be pissed and much more likely to contact a lawyer to make sure that everything in that surgery went perfect and death was unavoidable (and remember as long as a lawsuit is filed, even if it has no merit it still costs the insurance money). Where as if no money changed hands I would be much less likely to look into what happened and contact a lawyer.
1. it might be possible, but it is not guaranteed to be probable.
2. they may do that anyway. and, aren't you the one who discusses choice? how is that limiting your freedom? you can still smoke and drink soda.....just you'd also have to pay more tax. it'll cost you more, but won't affect your rights to do so.
3. i say BS. i see it no more likely to be compromised then as opposed to now.
4. well, considering i do think it should be a 'right'....yes.....i think it's fine to be near impossible to remove UHC, b/c it should always exist. there are many ways to cut a budget, change things, etc. lots of things change that we don't want, even right now.
all these things can be addressed.
tho i appreciate you coming up with some actual reasons for dislike of the idea.
i guess it just amazes me that so many would rather accept the tenuous status quo, b/c even if you are insured today....that could easily change tomorrow and you'd be scrambling along with the other 44 million......rather than try to actually think of new solutions so that we ALL have healthcare access.
jlew.....just for the record, one little 'stat' for you -
public school teachers MUST be certified to teach, for private schools....while it is desired, it is not required. in the school i taught, we had a few uncertified teachers. 'stats' may give some picture, but i also have LOTs of first-hand experience. and it is not definitive that private is better than public. that said, you have that choice. you'd have the same with healthcare too. think about it - i went to private school the bulk of my schooling, i don't have children, and yet 65% of my property taxes go to support schools. my only *choice8 there is not to own a home. however, i think we ALL should contribute to education, b/c having our citizens at least with a basic education is far superior to not. i think the same of healthcare.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
no shit they can be addressed. anything can be. we are all talking in hypothetical because we dont have UHC. like response to #1 "it might be possible, but it is not guaranteed to be probable." why isnt is probable? because you say so? but at least we agree its possible.
slightof already told you about many safeguards in place such as government subsidized Cobra costs. and I'm all for new solutions....just not one as EXTREME as UHC. I'd like to see some baby steps to see how things work. you make it sound that whoeever doesnt support UHC is for NO change at all. thats complete bullshit.
the cost of public eduction is a very SMALL fraction of what Healthcare would cost. would you be ok with your property taxes going up another 65% to pay for healthcare costs? its foolish to compare the two in terms of costs.
what is better, comes down to so many factors, its not worth getting into
i do that....and then it's gone.
then, i get taken to the main page of the board.
:evil:
believe me....it's happened a few times now.
and in the past, while i find that whole 'another post has been made' message annoying, it never happened before until the last few days. c'est la vie.
anyhoo....if it makes you feel any better....i sadly believe we are a long way off from my utopian dreams of true universal healthcare in america. to me, that is shame. i do believe obama will do a lot to reform the system, tweak it, get some osort of coverage for those falling between the cracks...and that's a good thing. however, i think overall our helahtcare coverage is far too tenuous, left at the mercy of our employers, private insurance companies calling the shots...and the real possibility that many of us could well find ourselves w/o insurance when we most need it. i've seen it happen. i'd like to hope we're at least at the first step at working towards that not being the case. i do realize, it takes time...b/c sure....obviously, there are plenty of people like you and jeff who share similar thinking, so we all have to work at a pace until you are all enlightened to the good of it.
jlew...my gawd. i wsn't comparing ed costs to healthcare costs!
i've already posted, numerous times, how we would pay for it! i was simply countering your private vs publice, better and worse, scenario of schools.
i agree to disagree with you....that's for sure!
btw tho - do you truly read?
oftentimes your response are so out of whack to what i wrote, i wonder...such as this:
READ what you quoted me as saying. i did NOT say it wasn't probable, simply that it is not guaranteed to be so!
i oftentimes get the feeling you skim for your own content purposes. which is fine, but frustrating. you seem to miss the gist of many of my posts. granted, i know they are lengthy, but sadly i cannot seem to discuss these topics in detail, without going into lengthy detail. there are just many, many points i have made numerous times.....never addressed....and/or even within a post, such as a the comment above, totally misconstrue my words. perhaps i am lacking clarity...idk. guess it's something to work on.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I would like to correct this point... in Philadelphia public schools a certification is NOT required. It is only required that you are working towards certification even if you have FAILED the certification test multiple times you can still seek employment in the district. Also, Teach for America teachers are hired by the thousands every year to teach in "hard to fill areas" and the only certification they possess is a college degree and a 5 week training program... yep sounds like they are qualified to teach in a classroom to me.
back to UHC... which I think will be a complete clusterfuck especially since to implement quickly it will be based on the underfunded and overstretched Medicaid system which only reimbursts hospitals $0.75 for every $1.00 spent.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
ok, yes, you aRE 100% correct there. what i should've said, more clearly, is that there is a time limit tho for reaching certification status, at least in NYS. however, in private schools, one can remain teaching...indefinitely...uncertified. that was my main point. just to illustrate that the 'private' label, in and of itself, does not guarantee 'better'.
as to UHC, why does it have to be implemented quickly? and why would it be based on the medicare model?
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
because Obama only has 3 years left (7 at the most) to implement it and Medicare is already in place, the infrastructure for UHC is already in place. Plus with Medicare, the government has a huge bargaining chip (which is only growing everyday) to use in trying to get everyone else on board (hospitals, doctors, healthcare providers) or hold over their heads.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
3.5...;)
ok, i see. you think getting things in motion within 7 years is...too fast?
and i don't actually believe obama WILL get a true UHC system in place, said as much earlier. he'll get some semblance of a START, get coverage for those most in need.....but an across the board, true UHC, i don't think we'll see that for a looooonnnnggggg time. i think most realize that. i think he well hinted at that even in his inaugral speech, that it's gonna take TIME. you could say he was already starting his re-election campaign right from the start if one wants to be jaded about it...;) i think my main concern Is b/c there are those against such a system that we might get some half-assed version, and yea....what will that be like, and then it'll just add fuel to the 'it can't work!' crowd....and then how do we move forward? so yes, i truly hope if we're going there....and i personally hope we do....we GO there. forget medicare. new ideas, new models, new ways of seeting it in motion.
and sure...call me a dreamer....but i'm not the only one.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124353194170163283.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Group Tallies Families' 'Hidden Health Tax'
By PATRICK YOEST
WASHINGTON -- The average family with health insurance in 2008 paid a "hidden health tax" of $1,017 to cover the health-care costs of the uninsured, according to a report released Thursday by advocacy group Families USA.
The report by the group, which promotes universal health insurance, found that a total of $42.7 billion in care for those without insurance was passed on to health insurers. The insurers, in turn, passed on the costs through higher premiums, the report said.
The report comes as Congress debates proposals to provide health-insurance coverage to all Americans -- a key part of President Barack Obama's legislative agenda. The report uses data primarily from consulting firm Milliman Inc.
When those without insurance sought care, often in emergency rooms, government and charities picked up more than a quarter of the $116 billion tab last year, the report said. More than a third was paid for by those seeking the care, and the rest was passed on to health insurers and eventually to insured people through higher costs, it said.
"There is something clearly that affects the pocketbook as a result of the hidden health tax," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA. "I think the key to it is having a system that will make health more affordable."
Mr. Pollack appeared with Aetna Inc.'s chairman and chief executive, Ronald A. Williams, on Thursday at the National Press Club.
Mr. Williams, like many leaders in the health-insurance industry of late, has expressed support for expanding health coverage. He discussed such "cost-shifting" to health insurers as a major reason for covering more people.
"For every person who has private health insurance, there is a tax that is based on paying for the uncompensated care that these community hospitals have to collect," Mr. Williams said.
Proposals in Congress have centered on establishing a health-insurance "exchange," in which individuals who don't currently have insurance could purchase it. Most lawmakers anticipate that private insurers would play a major role in the exchange, and the insurers have indicated a willingness to participate in talks on the legislation.
Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), who has taken the lead on crafting health-overhaul legislation in the Senate, said Thursday the report showed the health-coverage "tax" will continue to grow unless Congress acts.
"We must repeal this hidden tax and lift the burden from American families and businesses by ensuring quality, affordable health care for all Americans," Mr. Baucus said in a statement.
Insurers have stopped short of supporting a public health-insurance plan that would compete with them in a health-insurance exchange. Mr. Williams said his company's spending in areas such as health technology had improved health coverage to the extent that it could play a major role in covering the uninsured.
"We've invested in tools, technologies and capabilities that really help close gaps in care," Mr. Williams said, adding that "generally, we much prefer private and public partnerships" to the public-plan option.
change...occurs in waves........
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Profit is a motivator? How many innovations have you seen on your electric bill? Most doctor's offices are behind the times in terms of the current technology available. But yes we have people in the most powerful country without insurance, without running water, without electricity..... and other services, so I would say they are fucked.... by the system. Like someone said 10 pages ago, many advancements, be it in medicine or otherwise are funded with government grants.
OMG people on an equal level how HORRIBLE :roll: ..... really that is an improvement IMO.
In terms of doctors making 30K, I want what you are smoking..... almost all government employees make more than 30K (however are underpaid but who is not) most starbucks or walmart employees do not, and government employees have better insurance.
But like someone pointed out... with UHC, doctors would not work for the government they would contract with the government and I would argue they would have more bargaining power with the government for compensation then they would with insurance companies. Insurers are cheap and the pay bottom dollar for most services, that is why there are co-pays and most services are not covered 100% becuase docs want more.
But I see that you like the system as it is as long as you are taken care, and not at the bottom of the totem poles.... but be carefully don't look down
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barac ... h_Care.htm
Q: Why is it so difficult to make health care accessible to everyone in the world’s richest country?
A: It shouldn’t be. And it’s wrong. You know, my mother died of ovarian cancer when she was 53 years old. And I remember in the last month of her life, she wasn’t thinking about how to get well, she wasn’t thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality, she was thinking about whether or not insurance was going to cover the medical bills and whether our family would be bankrupt as a consequence. That is morally wrong. It’s objectionable. That’s why I put forward a comprehensive legislation for universal health care so that all people could get coverage. My attitude is, that since you are paying my salary as taxpayers, you should have health care that is at least as good as mine. And the key to that is not only a good plan, but we’ve also got to overcome the drug & insurance company lobbies, that spent $1 billion over the last 10 years to block reform. As president, I am going to take them on.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on Univision in Spanish Sep 9, 2007
FactCheck: Correct that insurance lobbying cost $1B
Obama used a figure that sounded dubious to us, but it turned out to be correct. Obama said, “We’ve also got to overcome the drug company lobbies, the insurance company lobbies, that spent $1 billion over the last 10 years to block reform.”
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the pharmaceutical and insurance industries spent $1.2 billion and $949 million, respectively, on all lobbying efforts since 1998. Moreover, the two industries combined shelled out about $193 million in political donations and expenditures backing Republicans, about twice as much as they spent supporting Democrats. So it is reasonable to conclude that the pharmaceutical and insurance industries have indeed spent at least $1 billion combating legislation that Obama favors.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 Democratic primary debate on Univision Sep 9, 2007
Oh really? I wonder how that's playing out nowadays? Let's check:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/r ... ortorder=U
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/r ... ortorder=U
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H04
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/c ... cycle=2008
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/r ... 08&ind=H03
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H03
And let's see how Obama's tune started to change now that the Dems are receiving all those donations from big pharma and hmo's:
"If, in fact, we are not making healthcare affordable enough, which is what’s happening right now, and you mandate on families to buy health insurance that they can’t afford and if they don’t buy it you fine them or in some other way take money for them. What is happening in Massachusetts right now, which is that folks are having to pay fines and they don’t have health care. They’d rather go ahead and take the fine because they can’t afford the coverage. My core belief is that people desperately want coverage, and my plan provides those same subsidies. If they are provided those subsidies and they have good, quality care that’s available, then they will purchase it. That is my belief. I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single payer. What I said was that if I were starting from scratch, if we didn’t have a system in which employers had typically provided health care, I would probably go with a single-payer system." Barack Obama
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'm not sure how you can argue profit ISN'T a motivator. But have fun trying ...
for the least they could possibly do
1. I can guarantee the government will make itself pretty immune from lawsuits somehow
2. I'm ok with that. You don't lose the freedoms at all... it's a free market choice. Is the given item worth the price attached to it. Simple. I'm all for incentivizing behaviors like that, I'll take that over outright banning things any day. In fact, I very much wish we would switch to a 100% use/luxury tax based system and do away with income tax, but that's just me. As a guy that's a big fan of sin, I'm perfectly ok with "sin taxes."
3. That is a good point, and very worrisome to me. Though I am less worried about my medical information than other things. And I prefer it going to a government entity that has no choice but to cover me than having it go to a private company that can choose to drop me, tell me cancer is a pre-existing condition it won't cover, or sell the information to other companies to market drugs to me.
4. This is true, and a problem. But I also see a UHC system as potentially freeing us to get rid of things like social security and other programs, since health care costs are the chief draing on the finances of the elderly and disabled that social security was intended to help.
Trust me, I know from bitter experience. If I had worked a helluva lot harder than I did, I might be able to land a job with the US attorneys or a PD's office somewhere. Instead I'm stuck with a big money gig at a national law firm because my grades were mediocre. Kinda fucked up eh?
Obama's pretension that no one will find charges IN his or her current health insurance plans except for a magical reduction in their cost by $2,500 a year is a fools proposition.
private health insurers will be no more private than TARP funded banks or Govt subsidized are in Obama's America. They will be controlled by govt. health care workers who will approve treatments,limit drug use,hold down medical incomes and bring their cos cutting programs to bear. Inevitably, their ax will fall on the oldest and sickest among us,those least "deserving" of our newly limited and under Obama's program diminishing health care resources.
•U.S. life expectancy ranks 46th in the world, behind Japan, most of Europe, and even countries such as South Korea and Jordan.
•A baby born today in the U.S is more likely to die before its first birthday than in almost any other developed country.
•Nearly one in 20 residents in the nation’s capital are HIV-positive.
•All minorities, except Alaska Natives, have a rate of type 2 diabetes that is two to six times greater than that of the white population.
http://www.generationpublichealth.org/pg_educate.htm
It's a misconception that a universal, single-payer health plan would equate to socialized medicine where the government runs the hospitals and the medical staff are government employees. We would still have individual hospitals that employ doctors, run things as they see fit, and compete with each other for business. It's just that when it comes time for the patients to pay their bills, the money would come from a government source. Kind of like how you can get Medicaid now and use it at whichever private hospital will accept it, only every hospital and doctor will accept it now.
As for the income issue, since they won't be government employees, they won't be making civil servants' salaries. Many, many doctors already work in places whose primary sources of reimbursement are government programs and they haven't quit yet, and keep on coming. And part of healthcare reform should include making medical training affordable. By the way, I think it's offensive to all the wonderful healthcare professionals we have out there when people suggest they're just in it for the money (or would leave without the money).