Govt health insurance

[Homz]

"Rationing care" is just catch phrase for the wealthy will have to stand in line like all us commoners. It trikes me as being more socially acceptable racism. IMHO

 

If they thought about it for a second they would realize money is always going to buy them preferential treatment. It just might be that others who might normally not get to see a doctor will simply be in the back of the line instead of in the morgue.

[milod]

Hoyt....

 

I'm dead serious on this. Within 10 years the average elderly will receive less health care than today. I'll be one of them and frankly, I expect virtually nothing if it's truly "serious."

 

That's from comments from the left, not the right, by the way. Heck, why pay anything more than morphine for an old guy who's gonna croak anyway in a month or two? That's waste, right?

 

Federal "health care" for the elderly actually is sorta available up until the time they start playing musical hospitals. Then there's the issue of going entirely on various government doles after losing all their personal property. You expect change? Yeah, right. It'll change in urban areas depending on local politics.

 

Where I do think you'll see better care is for the "working poor," the lower paycheck blue collar folks. But then only during their childhood and working years. Care in old age will lessen significantly, especially in cases of serious illness.

 

RE: Denmark.

 

Yup, I can easily see socialized medicine working quite well in Denmark. A heterogeneous population with general consensus on medical ethics and when money should and should not be spent on various medical issues. That ain't the case in the USA, for better or worse.

[Hoyt]

I must say I'm pretty happy with the national health care system in my country (Denmark). Everything is paid through income tax' date=' and even though I've never been to hospital in my 37 year old life I have no problems showing a little solidarity to the less fortunate, hell, I might be the one in dire need of expensive medical care some day![/quote']

 

 

Thanks, Hans.

 

We hear so often how Europeans and Canadians are dissatisfied with their national health plans -- but, I've yet to find anyone who will give it up. Heck, I've yet to even meet any of these people who are supposedly dissatisfied -- I think most are just made by those who profit from the current system.

 

I hope one day we can develop a view like yours. In the USA, we are all just one illness away from poverty.

[Hoyt]

"Rationing care" is just catch phrase for the wealthy will have to stand in line like all us commoners. It trikes me as being more socially acceptable racism. IMHO

 

If they thought about it for a second they would realize money is always going to buy them preferential treatment. It just might be that others who might normally not get to see a doctor will simply be in the back of the line instead of in the morgue.

 

 

 

Truthfully, Homz, I have often thought right wingers' opposition to health care reform is their fear of having to sit next to a minority in the waiting room, and having to wait and get treated just like the commoners.

[Homz]

Hoyt's point is a good one.

 

The three top reasons for bankruptcy in the U.S. are health care costs, job loss, and divorce.

[Hoyt]

Milrod, I'm not too far behind you (or, perhaps, ahead of you).

 

However, I'm not worried about care being available, especially if we adopt a coordinated approach to health care implicit in a single payer system.

 

Quite frankly, I'm not even concerned about the possibility of being denied a heart transplant at 80+ years when my life expectancy -- even without the heart problems -- is relatively limited. I'd rather that money go to some poor kid's education.

[KSG_Standard]

When you guys talk about the healthcare issue and equate "right wingers" and their opposition to gov't run healthcare as some form of racism...it's hard to take you seriously. When people disagree with your side of an argument, that doesn't make them racists, bigots, haters or cro-magnons...come on if you guys want to have a reasonable debate you have to learn HOW to debate.

[Homz]

Not that I believe it to be a valid concern, but I'd give up all my health care for some young-an to get a few extra days. Perhaps that's to easy to say since I have a basic health care package at the moment.

 

Perhaps that would be an interesting concept. Giving up ones health care for an X number of days so that others who are not covered could use it. If say everyone gave up their coverage for 10 days a years would that be enough for all the uninsured to get necessary health care? Perhaps if only for the kids?

[Homz]

When you guys talk about the healthcare issue and equate "right wingers" and their opposition to gov't run healthcare as some form of racism...it's hard to take you seriously. When people disagree with your side of an argument' date=' that doesn't make them racists, bigots, haters or cro-magnons...come on if you guys want to have a reasonable debate you have to learn HOW to debate.[/quote']

 

Agreed it doesn't always lead to racism, but many times it does and that is about all that was said. It wasn't said as if it were the only possibility. It was said as a possibility. To discount racism is to hide from the harsh realities of our countries history.

 

But true, your point.

[milod]

I think the equation of racism with politics disgusting, especially if viewed in any sort of historical perspective.

 

But that's besides the real point and the real arguments for and against. Technically it's a "red herring" argument reflecting very, very poor logic, if not rhetoric.

 

But the comment about not wanting a heart transplant at 80 so the cash could go to younger people is exactly the sort of thing I see as a major, major problem in the US: We do not have a shared medical ethic.

 

Frankly I'm with you in that I don't want a @#%#@$% heart transplant or anything else that puts tubes in this carcass. I'm having enough problems with a new set of temporary dentures over healing jaws top and bottom. <grin>

 

On the other hand, you will find those of all political persuasions who would question major spending on infants with horrid birth defects and a 5 percent chance of living through reconstructive surgery.

 

There are those whose opinions are much, much different from ours on medical ethics. Abortion is not an issue of left or right, at least not among actual voters. Some would see heaven and earth move to get "grandma" that heart transplant, especially if she wants it too.

 

What happens politically when we start telling those people "no"if you and I both agree it's likely not very practical and likely causes more pain than it alleviates without truly extending life?

 

I'm dead serious in that I see far, far more problems in the US getting any kind of federalized system to work, even if it came absolutely without financial cost to anybody. It's a matter of a lack of shared health care ethics. Period.

[Homz]

Milod, You forgot hyperbole. I like hyperbole. It just kind of rolls off the tongue.

[myspace.com/jessenoah]

some real good posts guys!

[milod]

Just one other comment since I don't quite get what Homz was trying to say... <grin>

 

One thing I've learned as a journalist from some "backgrounders" on various health care related subjects is that what is seen by the general public is usually awfully sanitized and simplified - and a lot of realities left unspoken.

 

I guarantee that "hyperbole" is an understatement in a nation as heterogeneous as the US as we get further into into socialized medicine and as one begins to wade into the politics, governmental and corporate.

 

There are control issues that nobody wants, but are guaranteed. Who runs the hospitals and how many empires will fall and be raised? How long can a federalized system cope with private hospitals both for profit and nonprofit? What of various clinic corporations, nursing home corporations... health care in prison systems where costs per person already are far above the general population?

 

Race questions? Absolutely. Now add Indian Health Service questions to what most of you think about in terms of "race." How about immigrants, especially those here illegally? Do we treat them ignoring their status or put them into a prison hospital?

 

Control over health care of children? Judges already do some commanding on that, so what of the future of such religious groups as may disagree entirely with blood transfusions?

 

Even better, how about use of DNA testing and how that information may go into spending decisions? To add race into that equation, how about sickle cell treatment when there's no "cure?" I've had black friends who wouldn't even consider coming to visit here in winter - the pain in east Tennessee in winter was bad enough. What do we do with others whose DNA indicates tendencies to heart attack, stroke and a host of other infirmities?

 

How much do we spend on people with incurable diseases ranging from diabetes to MS to AIDS? I've friends whose corporate "health insurance" pays more per year on their meds than they pay in? What decisions will a federal bureaucrat make on such things? Do we next as a government take over the pharmaceutical industry to "lower costs" and then discover the US isn't developing new drugs as we used to? What of joint replacements at what age?

 

I posted this, then thought of another question: What of chiropractors and alternative medicine practitioners of all sorts? Who decides what is "health care" and what is witch doctery?

 

The issues to be resolved go on and on and on - and bulldozing into them is not necessarily a good idea. Or alternately, it may be a better idea than not. I dunno.

 

Personally I'm convinced there will be many, many difficulties getting anything done in the US short of bulldozing, and then trying to handle unintended consequences afterward and increasing "political" polarization of our culture at large. Given the number of otherwise "liberals" who are anti-abortion, I can feature a restructuring of much of our entire political system.

 

Oh, and if you want a good example of our current federalized medical system, go to the average Indian Rez and ask how happy those folks are with the system. I could give you examples, but this isn't the venue.

[Homz]

Surely the greatest country in the world can overcome all those and many more obstacles. France did it. Hell doesn't Iraq even have universal health care? Who do you suppose helped them with that. Your not going to tell me that all the major infrastructures failed, but the health care system, are you?

[Hoyt]

Milrod, you might be right about the "shared health care ethic." But I'm not sure that is a reason to let Native Americans and others suffer with inadequate health care compared to the rest of us -- it ought to be the same for all, no matter how good or bad it is.

 

But, assuming this lack of a shared ethic is the major obstacle impeding a single payer system, I think the solution enacted into law is -- and will be -- that there will be a federal system that we can all buy into. I also think most small business and many big ones will tell their employees to go buy into it. I will buy into it. I think most on this board will buy into it early on, certainly ultimately. But those that truly can't share with the rest of us, can go their own way, take their chances, and let the health care business folks decide what's covered and what's not and how much it's going to cost with the add ons for marketing costs, profits to shareholders, adminstration, bonuses to execs and those charged with limiting care, etc.

 

Which system do you think will survive? I'm pretty sure the shared/coordinated system will ultimately survive, but we'll waste a lot of money and time appeasing/coddling those without a "shared health care ethic."

[milod]

.... Actually I see the lack of a shared medical ethic eventually causing a number of unintended problems.

 

First you have those who feel it immoral to cover "X" vs. those who feel it immoral not to cover "X."

 

That will enter politics, I think. Abortion is, of course, the immediately obvious issue, but as costs rise, consider things such as birth defects, cost problems with various fertility issues such as multiple births, birth control vs viagra sorts of issues, how much to spend on the elderly as the odds of them "recovering" to a capable lifestyle decrease...

 

France, until it had increasing lower class Muslim immigration, had probably a good example along with the Scandinavian countries, of a more homogeneous culture and health care ethic.

 

I see major issues arising on how much to spend on the elderly as our capability increases to keep the flesh alive long after the lights turn off and it's back to the "lizard brain" functions only.

 

There's one acquaintance, for example, who's in a care center some 500-600 miles away, who has some limited brain function but is essentially lacking higher mental skills. How long and how much should we spend as a culture at the same time his family goes broke trying both to live without him and to visit on occasion with what's left. Money for the "care" is not in this case an issue, the human elements are. Some 50 years ago he'd be dead.

 

I dunno.

 

We can force a federal guideline and nationalize hospitals or whatever and get by. But the single payer system won't work that well until there's functionally a single governance of health care models. Which model do you want; let's compare that with someone elsewhere.

 

Rural areas also always will take the hindmost, and that includes a lot of Indian reservations - which is why I mention them.

 

Their standard of care in ways has dropped as they have to travel more to get to care. Out here, the numbers just don't add up to governmental standards of cost-benefit for IHS hospitals - or for the funding that kept a lot of small rural hospitals alive that now are gone. And yeah, frankly I think in general if they want it, they have about the same choices as the rest of us with either good health insurance or some federal program for the poor and elderly.

 

It's not "less than the rest" as much as getting access and being able to afford the additional that either insurance or federal bureaucrats don't believe fits their regulations.

 

The bottom line is, will we consider "X" to have an appropriate cost-benefit ratio according to some bureaucrat who may or may not agree with our individual deeply held beliefs of perceived needs.

 

In the US, I thing there will be enough arguments compared to what one would find in a more homogeneous "state" that we're in for an interesting out-of-control sleigh ride.

 

The ideal of excellent health care for everyone can only truly work if a solid majority agrees with a given definition of the ideal. Period. I'm asking this rhetorically, but would you support, for example, a sex change operation for a 60-year-old who's been in prison for murder for 40 years?

 

All medical ethics decisions are situational, and yet that's precisely where bureaucracies founder.

 

Yeah, we've got a mess now. But are we perhaps creating a greater mess by trying to be France?

 

Oh, and after I first posted this, another point came into view...

 

No, it's not just a small minority to be run over by a majority, I think you'll find that some unintended consequences of any federalized system will start festering to the point it's a majority. Then what? How does one unbreak humpty dumpty?

[NeoConMan]

NeoCon' date=' I hope you never lose your job and get sick[/quote']

Thanks!

 

 

 

 

And it didn't cost me a thing.

Who paid for it?

 

You're welcome....

[NeoConMan]

So what is your solution?

I don't have one.

In the years I've been following the rhetoric and gov't $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ on this' date=' I've yet to find a pat answer.

Same as Hillary and Tom Daschle.

 

 

 

 

-- let the system continue screwing us and the poor.

Any "system" is gonna screw people Hoyt. Just the way any bureaucrapacy works.

 

 

 

 

Or do we finally change it?

Sure' date=' change it - for the better.

Pie-in-the-sky dreamworld baloney funded with the same care and consideration we've seen elsewhere in the last 4 months is NOT my idea of a [i']good[/i] idea.

When it's free, who's gonna pay for it?

 

For every trillion dollars spent by our new Obamanomics Plan, around $80,000 comes out of MY pocket.

YOU really don't mean that much to me.

Sorry.

 

 

 

 

As to efficiency -- Medicare and Medicaid are a lot more "efficient" than private insurers.

BALONEY!

 

 

 

 

There is nothing wrong with profit' date=' but the insurance industry is profiting by screwing sick people and the rest of us. [/quote']

Then eliminate profits altogether and EVERYTHING will be perfect' date=' eh?

 

 

 

 

Try responding without pretending you are John Wayne.

Try responding to questions posted before pretending you're immune like Barack Obama, you sniveling weenie.

[milod]

NeoCon... you started out well and then lost the high ground.

 

BTW, I'm probably more concerned about the long-term scope of the disaster than you are, and I'm glad I'll likely be dead before the worst occurs. In fact, I hope I'll be dead in 20 years or less largely because of stuff like this.

 

For what it's worth, former Sen. Tom Daschle is an old friend of mine who has eaten at our hearth - well, hearth figuratively. He knows he's welcome in my home any time although the last time we met he had as many bodyguards as presidential candidates normally have nowadays. It took a bit for them to catch on. <grin>

 

But he had no answer to the question I bring up and I find no answers from anyone who knows what's going on. That's how to handle differences in deeply held beliefs in terms of medical ethics that far transcend "politics" at today's national political level.

 

Any federalized health care system will ask today's 20-somethings to pay for "us" 50 and 60 somethings as our bodies and perhaps also our minds begin to decay and yet are sort of alive. Cost-benefit ratios and such will bring the decisions that may bring some interesting political realignments depending on health care ethical concepts.

 

By the way too, I'll add that I'm convinced Bill Clinton let Hillary carry the ball on "their" health care plan for a number of both personal and political reasons. Note that the failure left him relatively spotless politically and secured her constituency for the future. Smart politics. Very, very smart politics.

 

Forget the abortion issue. Look instead at how technology is increasing capability of prolonging life of a sort and how much one finds in a cost-benefit ratio.

 

That is the time bomb I'm watching tick away in Obamacare or any other alternative including following the current path, especially with baby boomers approaching that "elderly" category whether they like it or not. Technically I'm on the edge of that and I can guarantee it ain't gonna be anywhere close to anybody's "ideal" for health care.

 

Who's better off, the elderly in dotage kept alive in a mental state that isn't by any criteria "them" or the elderly who die as they approach that edge? I dunno. Does anyone? And yet, is it euthanasia not to keep them alive even when they need tubes stuck into them to provide nourishment? I dunno. Does anyone?

 

These are the ethical and economic issues we face, and that we face without a consensus. Anyone who thinks the Vietnam War brought political disaster to the nation ain't seen nothin' compared to what's approaching. But notice that few political people have the guts to mention it? They'll talk about medicaid and medicare running out of cash, but not the ethical consequences of what's going to happen.

 

Are we better off railing at fate that we lack the cash ourselves to keep the machines running to keep our spouse alive in dotage, or at the government because it pulls the plug? Should we instead be happy the plug is pulled?

 

I dunno. But it's not going to be pretty.

[Homz]

High ground. Neo?

Take away his shovel. The hole he's digging is going to hit magma.

[Hoyt]

.... The bottom line is' date=' will we consider "X" to have an appropriate cost-benefit ratio according to some bureaucrat who may or may not agree with our individual deeply held beliefs of perceived needs. . . . . .

[/quote']

 

 

Milrod, that is the benefit of having elected/appointed folks making all but the clinical decisions in the room with the patient. We can vote them out, we can recall them, we can have local panels that decide some aspects of care. The system can be a compromise handling most sides to some degree. Now, we have nothing but a mesh-mash (whatever the darn term) of systems and plans often run by folks who have no one to answer to than the guy above them who determines their bonus.

 

Makes no sense to me. But if you are happy with the current system, you can stay with it. I'll opt for the government plan, as will most of us and our employers.

 

God bless you and hope you make the right decision.

 

BTW -- I assume you have filed the proper papers to turn down your upcoming Medicare coverage?

[Hoyt]

Try responding to questions posted before pretending you're immune like Barack Obama' date=' you sniveling weenie.

 

 

[/quote']

 

 

 

How about chiming in with a solution or something to support your position other than resorting to your cyber bullying BS.

 

 

BTW, I have a source for a Gibson Rush Limbaugh Special Edition -- are you interested?

[myspace.com/jessenoah]

the more he types, the more i think milod should run for president

 

 

 

 

 

 

id vote for him over ted nugent, neoconman, or axe any day of the week

[milod]

Hoyt, I haven't done beans for medicare or SS or any of that crap that's in theory roughly a year away for me. I'll be working until the company fires me, I'm offered a much better job, I drop dead or otherwise the company or myself determines I'm no longer capable of work. At that point I question whether life is worth living unless "retirement" is forced while I'm still capable and then I'll look for another job.

 

I've covered far too many stories on variations of federal health care to believe in "local panels" making cost-benefit decisions on health care. Period. You want a great vehicle for lawsuits, you've just hit one potential. Add to that the broader vision that has closed rural clinics, hospitals and nursing homes - on the rez as well as small farm or ranch communities.

 

You only offer a belief - and it's just that, a belief - that the current federal proposals will end up in 20 years as better than the current system that ain't that hot anywhere and is balanced against rural regions of the country.

 

Frankly I think there is a great error in logic to consider that one accepts either Big Brother or Big Mess - and with no other alternatives.

 

There are no other alternatives only because

1) the Democrat Party and a significant number of big businesses want Big Brother Care Now (the latter to cut their perceived labor costs)

and 2) there's a perception that Big Brother Care is the only possible alternative to corporate greed and out-of-control health care costs, especially to lower-pay working people as currently seen.

 

The problem is that nobody has guts to admit that the the real problem is rationing of one sort or another regardless of which of the above two decisions one makes. Neither is very healthy and both create horrid arguments on medical and health care ethics that have not yet been resolved.

 

Politically? Yeah, I think a lot of folks will accept the false dilemma you pose and frankly I think we'll end up with a variation of Obamacare.

 

Then as people start to realize they're approving both higher taxes and some rationing of care that they don't agree with, they'll elect Republicans who will try to change stuff depending on whatever the constituency is hollering about. Then the Democrats and Republicans who don't agree with anything they're hearing will start their own political gamesmanship within their parties, and with arguments based on cultural beliefs and regional issues.

 

It'll be a political and social disaster.

 

My answer? We shouldda backed off after HillaryCare flopped and started seriously with a long-term discussion on how practically to improve care, not ration it, and work to get a consensus on ethics and priorities based on health care realities rather than pure politics.

 

The way things have happened? We're en route to a train wreck and remodeling the locomotive and changing engineers doesn't do a darned thing to get us onto another track that would avoid the crash. We may even, to expand the metaphor, have to build another track.

 

Otherwise? With either of the choices you pose as the "only alternatives," we're headed to increased rationing and decisions on that rationing made by politicians more interested in reelection than solving problems - and that's a totally nonpartisan comment since both parties are equally guilty.

 

Or... if you like big government that well, we could simply have a führer. That would solve any consensus issues.

[Hoyt]

So, to avoid big government, we'll just sit back and let big business run things with respect to health care? That's not an answer.

 

I have worked for government and big businesses. I can tell you that they screw up and waste just as much as the government -- perhaps more. And no government employee makes anywhere near what these guys make. If I need widgets, capitalism and all that goes with it is the best way. But I'm not sure that works with health care. Yep that is a "belief" as you point out, but your prediction of what will happen 20 years from now is what is called a WAG (Wild *** Guess). I don't think your WAG is any better than my "belief."

 

But, if you are are so opposed to a government financed system, please renounce your Medicare Part B benefits. It will save you $50 or so a month at 65 and you can go find yourself a private insurer that will cover you with as extensive a coverage. Good luck.