JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum The Most Important Film In American History? Maybe

I bet we could all get the health care system back real good if we did'nt go to them.
I know that would be futile and there are people with crippling and even life threatning conditions like diabetes that needs help. But that would really get them where it counts.
If people are young and basically healthy, they usally pay out of their pocket and don't have insurance.
I don't, other than some hospitalization.
I pay for my own dental, prescription, and outpatient care.
But there are hypochondriacs that need to see a doctor for everythng.
And draining taxes with medical assistance in the process, while people with life threatning conditions are scared of not getting cared for.
Dental was stopped with medical assistance in my state.
The mouth has to be cared for and is crucial to staying healthy.
Yet they treat the hypochondriacs, or at least not something nearly as crucial.
Fortunately, there are state run programs here that sprouted up to help where medical assistance did'nt.
It would be a lot simpler and cost a lot less if the health care system prioritized better.

But I like the idea of alternative prevention.

I tried vegeterinism for a year just to see what that would be like.
I broke down at Thanksgiving around the family table.
But I still go back to vegeterinism for a short while every now and then.
I took vitamins, with some making me barf.
then I looked into genetics.
As much as is said about genetics from scientists, it gets treated almost like a secondary issue.
We are what we eat as well as what our ancestors ate.
But there is this stereotype that that vegeterian scientists dies before they are 60 and as thin as a brocolli stem.
Something possibly is being left out of the diet that was all through the genetics. So in a way, we have to be what our ancestors ate.
If that makes sense.
I don't want to derive too far from the topic.
There is all this knowledge from scientists, yet how many people want to live by those preventative methods?
I know I can't give up my burgers and sweets.

I always liked the idea of people opening up mobile hospital branches.
Bring the hospital to the trusted neighbor in that neighborhood.
No compasionate local doctors and house calls anymore.
Many have limited choices on what doctor to see even with the health insurance and people don't know eachother as well.
We can't even be certain if we can brush our teeth without getting deathly ill (anti-freeze in tooth paste).
It would be nice if traditional methods could be married to technology and progress.
Everything just has become too damn huge.

Matt

I ran across this and thought it might be a great resource for those interested in what other thinking minds have studied on this topic.

http://www.jhsph.edu/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/h...2800&en=08b30bad8ea1967d&ei=5070

There should be enough money for quality care instead of rationed care.
I read both links and the second one about Massachusettes insuring everyone.

If that works, maybe Massachusettes could serve as a model with health care.

But there is just so much greed and sinics.

I always thought that state health care could be managed, but national health care would be too large to manage.

Matt

We are what we eat,so we should be careful what we eat.I drink very little soft drinks,laced with sugar,I no longer eat white bread,I eat little or no fast foods,I eat out in resturants about
eight or ten times a year,special occasions mostly.Try to eat food in its natural state,the lass processing the better.Cook at home,then you know what is in the food you eat.Don't smoke or drink a lot of booze,it's poison and your body don't need it.Stay clear of margarine,your body don't know what to do with it.Potato chips are not healthy for you,as is too many candy bars.Before you eat or drink something,ask yourself if this is good for me and does my body need it.Food, as God made it in its natural state is best for you,once man starts to add too or take away from it,it loses its value.

Everett,
Isn't it funny how many clouds, advertisements, etc. life puts in front of simple, time tested, rational thinking like what you just posted. Their would be less burden on the health care system if our population heeded your advice. Our system is broken though, and needs a fix that is much easier to talk about than implement. As our baby boomer generation (the smokers,heavy drinkers, overeaters are an epidemic in this age group)reaches maturity it is sure to get worse before it gets better, and the generation we are raising now are widely guilty of the things you warned about. I personally think, from an American point of view, if we took this situation out of Washington, and put it in the hands of each state to fund and administer there would be much more progress. Too many hands in the pie at a national level. The state funded program would create a locally funded, locally operated system that is rewarded by performance. In other words, if a state wants more residents, provide them with excellent health care at a fair price and see what happens. I doubt if all 50 states will agree to any proposal, but each state individually will end up with a group of leaders that show the others how it ought to be done. Now that's just my take, and I still need $4 to get a Starbucks...ha...Not a very musical topic, and frankly bores the shinola out of me quickly...see ya around. Moker

Everett,
Yup, I couldn't agree more!
And the same is also true for what God said in His Word.
Add or take anything away and WATCH OUT, you got BIG trouble coming!

Michael

Hi folks,

I was thinking today about the years I spent as a volunteer community health/wellness coordinator for my local church.

One thing that I found the most helpful with adults was to emphasize the focus HAS to be on what is being ADDED to one's lifestyle rather than what is being removed.

Rather than looking at dietary changes as cutting back or eliminating say, soda pop or too much junk food---I'm guilty of indulging in empty calories from time to time too---it's much more effective to focus on ADDING what's better:

5 fruits and vegetables each day. Five a Day. Google that and see what you find. It's a very positive campaign by none other than the produce growers themselves! They finally got on the bandwagon of advertising like all the unhealthy food vendors. A little late---but better late than never!

When we add a fruit or veggie to your diet each day----something else, less healthy will naturally fall away---without us having to 'give it up'. Natural foods are much more filling for one thing. Junk food doesn't fill you up, so the it's common to feel like eating way more of it.

Noone likes to think of what they CAN'T do. Much more encouraging to think about what you CAN do.

Cherries and blueberries are in season right now. They are my absolute favorite. Oh, and watermellon. I'm 'preaching' to myself now, 'cos I've fallen into a pattern of too much quick foods and junk over the past year. It's easy to do when you're trying to do a lot of different things. I've decided to turn over a new leaf. And eat more spinach leaves and stuff!!

Vanessa,

Thanks for posting those links. Massachusetts has been held up as an example (good or bad as you like) for many years now. And actually, although Brian asked for new ideas, I don't think we need any new policy ideas. There are plenty out on the table. Tons of opinions from experts for years and years. They include various combinations of public and private payments, all the way up to a total single-payer (govt) option.

The problem is not in generating ideas but in considering the ones we have. And every time the discussion is joined, it is thwarted by the interests at risk trying to scare people into shutting up. Witness the Harriet and Louise advertisements run all over TV while the Clinton White House was marketing its health care plan in 1993-94. What people forget is that 1.) those ads deliberately mis-represented the Clinton plan, and 2.) if you did not like the Clinton plan, there were at least four other bills pending in Congress for different plans. In fact, none got any support because the Clintons were stubborn, so was everybody else, and the public got totally confused as a result and wound up supporting nothing. So EVERYTHING in the legislative hopper died.

Look, ANY solution that involves basic care being covered for all is going to involve either 1.) higher taxes somewhere or 2.) less of something else. And if private insurance plans continue, but with controls for greed, those controls will have to be enforced by the state or federal government, because that is what government is there for. Businesses do not police themselves against their own interest.

So there you go - no pain, no gain. So now, the next question is, how do you build a coalition for something? I think right now you can't. If you saw the Ishmael thread (he's a whale of a guy) you can see what the real problem is - too many ignorant people who don't want to hear what they don't want to hear. Especially new information they are predisposed to disagree with. And people bristle so easily these days, you can't have a real discussion. The only place you will find such salons is on CNN, if that. (And here too I suppose, but then we are all peachy here aren't we as we wait for our CVS price checks.... heh heh - but never mind)

So until we can get past this 49/49/red/blue problem first I can't see anything but wheels spinning.

Jeff E.

Moore “World of We”
Michael Moore is practically the Leni Riefenstahl of socialism.

By Rich Lowry

Michael Moore set out to make a movie attacking the American insurance industry and ended up attacking the American character. By the end of his movie SiCKO, his plaint is less about American resistance to government-run health care than its overarching rejection of collectivism. As Moore puts it, everywhere else it’s “a world of we,” but here a “world of me.”

His voice thus joins a vast, age-old chorus of left-wing bafflement and disillusion at American exceptionalism — our national traits that have prevented the development of a statist politics along continental European lines. Moore’s explanation for this phenomenon is typically twisted: Americans are saddled with debt from college loans and health care, and that keeps us from demanding French-style pampering from our government for fear of foreclosure by The Man.

Tellingly, Moore picks up this theory in an interview with Tony Benn, an old-school British socialist of the sort who simply doesn’t exist in the U.S. Here, our left-wing politicians vote for war funding before they vote against it, always trimming to keep from rubbing too strongly against the American grain. Moore fervently wishes that grain were different, and he celebrates all countries where government has a vaster reach and tighter grip — from Cuba to France.

He is practically the Leni Riefenstahl of socialism. Anyone in a country with government-provided health insurance is portrayed as tripping through daisies to the hospital, where everything is free and the care is perfect. America, in contrast, is a vista of unrelieved gloom. Moore is adept at the propagandist’s art — keep it simple and keep it dishonest.

You would never know that America ranks highest in the world in patient satisfaction, or that only about half of emergency-room patients in Canada get timely treatment. This is not to say that Moore doesn’t highlight real problems in the American insurance system — which is badly distorted by the fact that most people get their insurance through their employers — but his complaint goes much deeper: Americans don’t have the “free” things of the French, who not only get lots of paid vacation, but have government nannies come to their homes to do their laundry for them after they have children.

Moore hints at — of course — a conspiracy to try to keep us from liking the French for fear that we too will develop a taste for the good life on the government’s dime. Unfortunately for Moore, it’s worse than that. America has a deep-seated individualistic value system that, coupled with the lack of European-style class conflict, inhibited the rise of social democracy here. As one historian has put it, if you were to set out to design a society hostile to collectivism, “one could not have done much better than to implement the social development that has, mostly unplanned, constituted America.”

This exceptionalism has its downsides — our high rates of violence, for one — but it also has created a extraordinarily dynamic and open society that can adjust to and thrive in the globalized economy in a way that sclerotic social democracies can’t. Just as Moore is apotheosizing France, its people took to the polls in near-record numbers to elect a reformist president devoted to making them work harder and weaning them from cushy benefits. In this sense, Michael Moore is more French than the French.

He hails the street protests that engulf France every time the government threatens to take away some benefit. We don’t match the French in demonstrations, but once established, our government programs are just as fiercely defended. Liberals agitate for more government programs knowing that they create their own self-perpetuating constituencies and chip away at our culture of self-reliance. For now, that culture is still robust, as American exceptionalism remains stubbornly exceptional.

If you really want sweeping French-style social-welfare programs and repressive tax rates, your only alternative is to, like the American expats Moore glorifies in his movie, move to France.

Cheers,
Terry

Terry for President...T you're gonna have to move...MJ

Rick Lowery writes a persuasive article and correctly points out that Michael Moore is a propagandist film maker. But we already know that. When I watched the movie JFK, I knew it was a movie and I didn't automatically think that Lyndon Johnson plotted to kill Kennedy. Moore is communicating with film. You don't accuse the photographer of dishonesty because he only picked his best shot to show you! I know what I am watching and my brain makes all the necessary reality selections. Michael Moore is making a point and his point is valid. The American Health Care system, or industry, or what ever you want to call it, is not fair, it is not efficient and it can be downright cruel. I frankly didn't believe much about the French and Cuban scenes. But what I could not deny, was clips and interviews that demonstrated the cruel and capricious nature of our health system.

The solution will be uniquely American but we have to be more inclusive- and I don't care what you want to call it, we have got to take care of our American community or it will fragment into self interest and isolation. I flirted with the Libertarian party a few years ago until I had my disabled daughter. According to the self reliant way of thinking, basically you've go a Darwinian philosphy- the fit will survive. If the person can't survive alone or with the help of family then, God forbid the State aid it that! That is crazy because the State by it's nature is a giant flywheel of stability, creating and regulating every thing from airports to the interstate highway system to checks and balences on the food we eat and the air we breathe. We are all dependent upon this giant regulator- society would be a mess without it. No, unless you start your own private society in deep space somewhere, you are going to need the State and the State is going to need you.

Amen, Moke!

Just listening to Walter E Williams regarding health care. He points out that during a heat wave in 2003 in France, 11,000 people died, mostly of dehydration. He says the emergency rooms in France stopped answering the phones. You don't get that kind of info through the usual channels.
He points out..."What do we most complain about? Government run programs. Not your local supermarket, restaurant or most of the things wherein competition drives the market. If they don't satisfy the customer, they're forced to go out of business. Not so with government programs. Forty years of inferior government run schools, with trillions of $$$ thrown it's way, hasn't shown improvement, more the opposite."

I recently heard that they are taking the word "public" out of public schools, to alleviate the stigma. Yeah, right.

Anyone not familiar with this Professor of economics at George Mason U really ought to check out his website.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/

He isn't well known in the usual circles, since he is a conservative who also happens to be black, same as another brilliant conservative, Dr. Thomas Sowell. Naturally, on the rare occasions when they are depicted in the major media, they are generally referred to as extremists and/or "Uncle Tom's" (and the "C word" (conservative) is ALWAYS in the description. I always wonder why the "L" word is rarely given the same place of prominence when referring to the likes of M Moore!). Both of these men are practical, engaging, humorous and MORE than worth a look for refreshing opinions on a wide range of "hot" topics.

Dr Sowell's website is:

http://www.tsowell.com/

Uh-oh, sorry. I changed some of the fonts. Must be another "rant."

Ben Burton.....good day.

Thanks for those links, Ben. I read Sowell and Williams whenever their columns show up in my daily paper. I would not want to debate either one of them.

Now I can catch a few more columns

The conservatives could do much better if they let guys like these speak for them rather than the usual cast of windbags. There are windbags on the left, too, of course....

Scott

You betcha, bud. I think a lot of it is right there in your statement, Scott. Those on the right almost HAVE to be "windbags" to garner any press in the mainstream, ala Ann Coulter. These guys have many of the same views, but they aren't out there shaking the tree, so an incredibly large segment of the population (esp. on the left) don't know who they are.

You are 100% right, though. They would be hell in a debate, razor-sharp wits, and their knowledge seems boundless!

Ben

PS Have you read some of their comments on race relations, Jesse Jackson, etc. Very insightful, and often hilarious, though true!

I correspond with Walter Williams often. He is a wise man.

Hmmmm... so the heat wave killed 11,000 in France. And the hospitals stopped answering the phones. So of course if they had a different health care system, all those people would be alive today.

So... the Katrina Hurricane wiped out multiple US coastline cities. The US Government was helpless to efficiently handle the problem, even though everyone knew in advance it was coming. Film crews could get in and out to film it all, but people couldn't to take care of the problem. Should we make the connection that if our government wasn't a Democracy, then everything would have been fine? Of course not.

The health care system, whether it was private or not, would not have solved the problem that elderly people in France don't have air conditioning to cool themselves off when it gets to record heat. In the US, every single year when we have heatwaves in Chicago and NYC, many people die even though A/C is readily available in pretty much every single public building in every city.

One thing being true doesn't mean some other complex system that exist is to blame. One tragedy that happens doesn't condemn the entire system in which is happens under. The US Government and health care system as a whole wasn't scrapped solely on how they handled Katrina any more than the French Health care system was scrapped because of the Heat Wave. To make the suggestion or connection is ridiculous. Needing Air Conditioning doesn't connect to the health care system at all.

No one has suggested that the French system is the perfect way to go. Even in the Moore film he doesn't at any point endorse one system. He does, however, give examples of other system we could steal ideas from. If we know that some people in the US suffer because they have no health care OR because their health care terribly fails them, then a rational person would say "let's look at countries that have systems that give universal coverage to their citizens, and figure out how we could do that same thing even better and in the context of the US." If our infant mortality rate is horrible, especially among Western Nations, we should be able to say "our system isn't working.. what can we do to make it better and can we adopt things that countries ahead of us are doing?" and we should be able to say "if our system bankrupts our people who need prescription drugs and forces them to choose between medicine and food for example, there must be a way to improve that.. perhaps we should borrow from how other countries can fix that..." or even "if we can't take care of the 9-11 responders and their health care needs, where is the soul of our country?"

I've never voted for a Democrat for President in my life. I am not some left wing communist. But we need universal health care in some form and we need to stop letting people in our own, greatest nation, suffer and live in fear of illness or die from neglect when medical treatment and medicine readily exists and money is the only reason they can't have it.

Brian

I'm so glad I have two hands. A left one and a right one. I'm even more happy that I can use both of them, being that I'm ambidextrous. Left, Right, phffft. How about both and using each for it's good qualities?

Must be hard for people who can only see or use one side or the other.

I'm serious that I'm ambidextrous. However, I'm tired of hearing people label each other as Left and Right, conservative, liberal, etc. How about getting back to offering solutions rather than bashing each other again. I've seen about 4 posts here that actually offered ideas to help promote a better health plan. Anyone else actually have good ideas to add?

That's pretty much where I am also coming from Jody. But some folks from both sides only want to argue it as a "left-right" issue as if that fight will solve anything. That fight is totally manufactured to keep us fighting each other rather than noticing and holding accountable our elected officials from both parties sides.

Brian

I read a great book about WHY government doesn't work, by late LP presidential candidate Harry Browne.
Amazon.com Book Link - "Why Government Doesn't Work"
Harry is right, for MOST things, government solutions do NOT work, especially for services that can be completely privatized and operate under fair competition in a free marketplace.

A truly free marketplace would bring lots of competing services for better & much more affordable health and insurance options for those that choose it. Competition reduces costs, increases job opportunities and makes everything much more affordable.

Though no free enterprise system is ever 1000% perfect, it's still the best solution since everyone can choose from many competing options rather than get "stuck" with just one government mandated healthcare provider, school or other "services".

I'll give you one example near to everyone's hearts around here... CD Baby! If it became government controlled by law, would the service improve, get cheaper, be more competitive, make a better profit or service indie artists better? I doubt it and I'm sure Derek would agree!

I bet you most of our elected government officials don't use public schools or health care for their themselves and their own family. They're smart, they know government doesn't work AS WELL as other options!

Michael

Why is it, Whitney, every time I make a comment, even quoting someone else, you jump on it?
"Hmmmm... so the heat wave killed 11,000 in France. And the hospitals stopped answering the phones. So of course if they had a different health care system, all those people would be alive today..... The US Government and health care system as a whole wasn't scrapped solely on how they handled Katrina any more than the French Health care system was scrapped because of the Heat Wave. To make the suggestion or connection is ridiculous. "

Do you realize I NEVER start in on you. I am ALWAYS responding/defending to you directing comments at me. Never the other way. Let me repeat...NEVER the other way. Why is that?

You stay out of my face, and I swear you won't hear a thing from me. I have no desire whatsoever to swap barbs or anything else with you. True, you started this thread; therefore you could claim that my views opposing Michael Moore were directed at you, but there were already MANY comments before that. I didn't specifically pick out something you said and run with it. I am intentionally not addressing your assertions of the comments on my post being ridiculous, because I don't want to argue with you, since it's utterly hopeless. Anyone who contends an email trumps a direct phone call to the horse's mouth (CVS) as far as credibility...well, there's no way to win an argument, though I did go into a CVS Wednesday, talked to the gal running the front for over 20 minutes (during which time no one bought even a 2 liter) and she confirmed they sell very little compared to drugs (not just prescription, but store brand aspirin, etc).
I'm sorry, where was that you played college football?

You know, it seems to me, Jody, the ones who say they're ambidextrous, or that we shouldn't get into an issue of left vs. right are, invariably, unwilling to at least admit that the context I used the "conservative" "liberal" comments is, in fact, true. 100%! The plain truth is, this statement is true...

"and the "C word" (conservative) is ALWAYS in the description. I always wonder why the "L" word is rarely given the same place of prominence when referring to the likes of M Moore!"

When a conservative is introduced on a Sunday morning show, etc, he/she are usually introduced as such. This is documented and I can research it, though I'd rather not, to demonstrate. But anytime it's brought up, it's shouted down by the people who prefer to pretend it isn't so, thus maintaining the status quo; ie conservatives should be deemed such, but those from the other side are mainstream, so there is no need to "label" them. Hey, if we could get that stopped...oh, and maybe get at least ONE major news anchor who isn't leaning...oh, forget left, let's just say anti Bush, anti war, anti big business, pro global warming and pro most all Democrat positions (I know, don't hold my breath)...but that's what conservatives have to endure. Speak up, and it's "Oh, why do you have to use labels? Just leave well enough alone! Well, if the day comes that the "conservative" label is dropped, I'll gladly refrain, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna go for this nonsense the way it is now.

Well, if I were in charge...

I'd find out how to make the pharmaceutical companies and the hospitals NOT FOR PROFIT. I agree with the person who said profit has no business in healthcare. I agree. That doesn't mean the workers all work for free. It just means that beyond the overhead of payroll and supplies, equipment, etc. there is no expectation to turn a 'profit' for shareholders.

Some people fear that if you make them 'Not For Profit' then the incentive for really trying to be the best is then lost. I say that when you let profit enter the picture---you lose sight of the real purpose---to make people whole. Profit blinds even well meaning individuals. And pharmaceutical companies are examples of what can happen. They bring out new drugs to replace drugs that are already working fine. Why? There's no profit after a patent runs out. They found a way to beat the system when generic drugs were allowed.

My husband was involved for two years with a business venture that went sour. He was hired as the medical director over a new optometry practice. It was an investment by a banking conglomerate (lesson learned). The 'corporate' office who ran things made outrageous decisions and bankrupted the whole thing in two years. In hindsight, it was obvious that they really never cared if the practice succeeded. They spent money from their lavish expense accounts till the 'party' was over.

In theory, the venture should have been a success. They had a huge contract with the State Teacher's Union. That is a coveted contract. I used to work for the State PRO. (Peer Review Office) and when they lost PEEHIP (State Teachers Blue Cross insurance---back then anyway) some coworkers lost their jobs. It was considered a huge contract.

I'm not a business minded person but I've worked with people who are. Somehow you have to reward people for running things efficiently without sacrificing quality.

One hospital rewarded the fastest opthalmologist on staff. Trouble is he blinded people. Two of us nurses refused to work with him and no one would make us. He finally quit the profession. The retina specialists all joked about his cases (when they had to repair the damage he did). One day I glared at one of them over my mask and said, "You're the ones who could do something about it." I got tired of working with them and went to work on the floor.

During my orientation to the regular floor, the top retinal surgeon who also went by the name of 'god' was going from room to room and checking surgery cases without washing his hands in between. I knew I had to say something even though this nurse who'd been there twenty years was just following him around very subserviently. After two cases, I blurted out, "Aren't you going to wash your hands?" He marched us to the treatment room and had us all three wash our hands. Never said another word about it.

People need to be rewarded for keeping each other honest and saving healthcare dollars. It makes no sense to go around 'causing' infections. Yet, nosocomial (hospital acquired) infections are a big problem in the US. I forget what the statistic last was but it was staggering best I can recollect.

I think somehow, people need to have some kind of ownership into their own healthcare. If it's all free, then what's the incentive to lead a healthier lifestyle? Paying a sliding scale fee seems to work for a lot of things. I know at the YMCA, there are lots of kids who go to the swim/summer day camp but pay a lot less since their parents don't make as much income. That's great. I like it that they make the Y affordable for kids from families of lower incomes.

Even with 'Not For Profit' healthcare providers, there can be problems since the people who are handling the resources can steal and mismanage. It's sad. But, the bottom line is, until most people begin to take responsibility for being good stewards, I don't see much of a solution. I wish I did. But, I've seen too much corruption---even my sheltered life.

To end on a more positive note, I think Brian said something about CVS hiring Nurse Practitioners for little clinics. I think that is a Wonderful idea. It's high time Nurse practitioners were allowed to practice without some physician thinking he has to stamp his signature on the bottom just so he can keep the nurse from billing medicare or the insurance. Speech pathologist can bill medicare and insurance companies. And nurse practitioners should be able to too. Also, midwives should be allowed to practice again---with the proper training and backup.

The AMA has been its own worst enemy in the US. And I'm so ready for their power to be broken. In some states physicians still aren't required to take anymore continuing education hours. Nurses and all other healthcare professional have to. As it stands today, some states have started requiring physicians to get CEU's and others still don't.

I'll stop for now. If someone had asked me several years ago, while I was still working in the profession, I could have come up with some ideas. I remember driving home thinking of ideas!

Vanessa

Ben, I didn't direct that comment at you, I mentioned it for everyone throwing any political label: liberal, conservative, left, right, etc... I don't care if the context is true. Those statements are not constructive to providing ideas for creating a better health care system. In reality those labels of "left", "right", "conservative", "liberal" are akin to calling a particular race or ethnicity by a slang term and are meant to make the writer/speaker feel better about containing or putting-down another person or group. They are unnecessary and provide no constructive ground to move ahead with anything.

As for my remark about being ambidextrous, I was referring to my physical ability to use both of my hands equally. I play guitar like most right handed people, I can bat a ball both ways, I can golf both ways, I write with both hands. Some things I do better with my left (and I consider it to be my dominant hand), some things I do better with my right hand. Not everyone is ambidextrous and I understand that. It does make a good analogy though.

Can anyone else provide actual helpful ideas to aggregate a better health care system?

If that has been lost in this thread, maybe it's time to start another one geared toward that goal.

Ben,

I didn't direct my comments toward you because I didn't even read your post. Once again, you're so sure that people actually care about what you say or do that they are always referencing you in their posts. I wasn't. I was once again responding to TERRY's post. But of course once again, you start attacking me. How many time are you going to make the same mistake without learning from it?

Brian

The will never have the existing pharmaceutical co's be not for profit, if you pay scientists well and produce the same things and provide it at cost you could eventually hurt them. States would do a better job than feds with implementing a government health care system. What works for the folks in Idaho, ain't gonna cut it in Miani, New York, L.A. , different approach to geographic health care demands would be better handled on the state level. Let the citizens, and tourists to that state fund the program. MJ

Jody,
Was just coming back to paste some comments to Dr. Williams for a (unlikely, I know ) response. I didn't mean at all to imply your post was directed at my comments. I was simply pointing out the hard facts that the "can't we just get along" folks know their points will be made ad infinitum through major news sources, and that token conservatives, like George Will, will be labeled as such.

As to your ability, I haven't looked up the odds, but it has to be astronomical against having that ability. In all my athletic years, both participating and watching, I haven't known a soul who was truly ambidextrous. Known some switch hitters, but not that could throw with either hand. It's an interesting thing to think about, though.

My only brother and I participated in multiple sports...both right handed batting & throwing. I learned to use my left hand (enough to get by, anyway) in basketball, because I was forced to play center my senior year, and at only 6'2", I would've been in trouble with some of the tall centers if I'd had to use my right below the basket all the time. Oddly though, the one area where my brother and I differed was in the high jump. We both won the city championship jumping the old fashioned way...using the scissors. BUT we approached the bar from different directions. He jumped off of his right foot, and I my left. Haven't thought about that in years and now that I do, I'm more curious than I was back then. We both kicked right-footed, so....

Anyway, you neglected to mention one thing....yikes, sorry, just double checked and you said "equally." That really is amazing! Do you know the odds? Think I'll google it. I used to have dreams (DAYdreams ) about pitching both ends of a double header, one with each hand. You really COULD. That has to be innate.

Ben

Ben,

I didn't direct my comments toward you because I didn't even read your post. Once again, you're so sure that people actually care about what you say or do that they are always referencing you in their posts. I wasn't. I was once again responding to TERRY's post. But of course once again, you start attacking me. How many time are you going to make the same mistake without learning from it?

Brian

Thank you so much, MR WHITNEY!!! I intentionally included the part of your comments that were directed at me (let me be CLEAR! what I WROTE in my post) in my post, and now you come back once again mocking me for being shown up yet again.

Guess what, big boy????? Terry didn't mention 11,000 French deaths in his post, or that the hospitals stopped answering the phones.

But you know what? This fact won't slow you down one iota! You'll come back with more BS exactly the way you did the other day when you were wrong. People can read for themselves, fellow. There aren't many here who would back me, but I think their silence can speak volumes.

Ah.. Ben you're correct. You are the one who said it. I saw Terry's post which made me roll my eyes, but obviously I also saw your comment as well.

Now, that being said, I don't see anywhere in that post where I personally attacked you (or Terry for that matter) or named you or even took one side over another since I named both the Left and Right together. I also never got any apologies or acknowledgements from you for your previous mistakes and comments. You didn't even respond to the fact that you questioned the existance/credibility of my wife and her post.

But that's okay Ben. Unlike you, I actually acknowledge when I get something wrong. You simply go on the personal attack.

So, I definitely did make a mistake here and referenced your post as Terry's. Now are you going to acknowledge your continual inappropriate behavior or will you simply continue ad naseum as you have?

Brian

Well, I think the one good way to get it to stop [using those terms] is too actually rise above it and stop using them yourself. Point it out to others when they use it. When enough people do something about it, something gets done. But it has to come from within.

As for the odds, no, I don't know the odds and I don't even think about it. It's just part of how I do things. I tend to figure out which hand feels more comfortable doing a particular task and I stick with it unless otherwise needed. It's really not that big a deal.

Not For Profit doesn't have to mean 'Government run'. There have been many 'not for profit' organizations. They have different rules as far as taxes etc. Aren't they tax exempt?

The trouble with competition and profit in healthcare is that greed takes over. I've seen it first hand. The patient doesn't get better care in many cases. I've seen it. I've experienced it on both sides. As an employee and as a patient. I've watched the trends through the years. HMO's have tainted healthcare in this country. Course the AMA had already tainted it. And pharmaceutical companies have out done both of them in their willingness to cross the line beyond what's ethical. That's my opinion of course. I have information to back up the pharmaceutical industry's woes.

Ben,

It's interesting. I just re-read my post which was a logical addition to the discussion. It didn't attack anyone. It did reference a comment about France to make a point. In response, rather than attack my premise, you attacked me. So am I to take it that disagreeing with you or simply discussing a point you brought up is the same as a personal attack? Is if that you couldn't disagree with my statement so all that was left for you was to attack me?

I may have made a mistake and referenced your post as coming from Terry, but that hardly compares to your assault towards me. And I made the mistake after being put on he defensive by your attack. Are you too angry to see the obvious truth of that?

Brian

Brian,
I'll be totally honest. I read Terry's...heck, that's not right...I read about 10% of Terry's last post, then Moker's, then I responded (without directing it to anyone (I couldn't have, since I haven't read anymore since the other day..). I was just starting to scroll today when I saw Terry's name, and wondered if he was actually going to post something original, or just paste, as usual! )

At any rate, I'll take your word that he covered the same thing I said about the French dying in the heat and all (we both DO listen to Rush sometimes, and since Dr. Williams was filling in, he must have heard it, too.) So that being the case, I'll happily apologize for thinking you had directed those comments toward my post. I honestly can't read hours on end on this screen anymore. My eyes have really gone down in the last year, and I know that's the cause. I don't mean that as an excuse for not being aware of earlier posts, but in the future, Ill just stick to the song boards, which don't require the "eye-time" (OR the energy!)
Sorry.

Ben

I did listen to Dr. Walter Williams today because I heard that he was going to be on. I have been a fan of his for years. He did mention that people abuse their insurance by using it for $100 or $200 dollar medical bills or for going to the doctor for injuries and ailments that can be taken care of at home. and that those small charges add up thus contributing to higher premiums. He suggested buying only catastropic type insurance at a high deductible which would be much cheaper and using a medical savings account which IS available for smaller medical bills. I haven't formed an opinion on this idea yet but it is an idea and that's what we are looking for, idea's. Just passing it on. Ben W

I think both terms (conservative and liberal) are complimentary. I am sometimes one, sometimes the other. It is only popular usage that has corrupted them beyond their real meanings. If I want to say something non-complimentary, it would be something like "wind-bag".

Getting back to the point, I am cursed with leaning conservative on fiscal matters and liberal on social matters. Which means, I want health care for all but worry about how we will pay for it.

I said earlier on this thread that I would rather the government be in charge of health care than a for-profit industry. The problem with that is it is just so EASY to give away money that isn't yours. If they are happy to pay $1000 for a hammer, how much would they be willing to pay for open-heart surgery? An insurance company that has to show a profit will be a tougher negotiator.

On the other hand, an UNCHECKED insurance industry is capable of doing real damage and actually letting people die or suffer.

So this thread is making me think and modify my positions. As I said earlier, I am a firm believer in checks and balances. And I would be more comfortable with the government in a "watchdog" role rather than running the show. Government seems to function much better in that mode, imo. Letting the for-profit companies handle insurance with the government creating tight rules and enforcing them vigorously might be the way to go.

Am also a little disappointed about the lack of ideas generated.....

Scott

Ben,

I had a similar idea where the government would over the catastrophic problems and the insurance companies would handle the routine. Maybe if that type of system was in place, then insurance companies wouldn't have to build in that catastrophic coverage into their premiums and in exchange, they could offer basic health insurance at reasonable prices to everyone. That would keep the system intact where doctors and researchers and drug companies can still make their big profits, but no one will have to decide whether to have one or both of their severed fingers reattached because they can't afford it and our Grandmothers and Grandfathers won't have to decide between eating dog food and getting their heart medicine or going without.

Brian

Was interesting to read your perspectives, Vanessa, particularly since you worked in health care. I see the exact same things in my profession (non health-care related).

I think a sliding scale is used many times. I know an immigrant who owned his own restaurant and burned himself very badly with cooking oil. He had no health insurance and had to spend several days in the hospital. His bill was on the order of $30,000. The hospital knew he couldn't pay it so they negotiated with him and billed him $5000. A lot of money? Sure was. But he and his wife are great people and donations collected from his customers paid for a chunk of it. They are paying the rest over time.

Happy ending? Or shameful that he had to pay at all?

Scott

I think one thing that could be looked into would be the fact that Hospitals routinely charge 5-6-10-20 times more for a service or item to someone without insurance than they would for someone WITH insurance. There should be a pricing system that says, here's what this cost.. here's our mark-up and here's the bill which is the same and fair to all parties. Why screw the people with the least ability to pay the bill in the first place? We wouldn't allow a restaurant to charge more for food to poor people than rich people right? We wouldn't allow a clothing store to do the same. Why is it okay for a hospital?

Brian

Actually Brian,

Insurance companies are paying way more than an uninsured individual does (per capita).

There have been all sorts of coments on this subject... all of them make me rech.

The problem is that America, and it's bleeding hart civilians have deemed it nessesary to save the rest of the world. Have you seen what the Pharmacudicals are giving away to the rest of the world... third word contries to be exact. Do you know what an AIDs pationt pays for meds and care compared to those in third world contries?

I'd prefer not to become a socialistic contry! In fact I intend not to.

Take care of your own before everyone else!

I know that is a crappy attitude, but I can no longer afford to pay for every one else in the world to have a better life, as I have lost my good paying job to some "immagrants".

Seems like it should be the other way around. Not that it's right in the first place to have different charges, but if they charged the insurance co. on the high end at least they would know that they are going to be paid. But I forgot that the insurance co. actually sets the rates and they will take whatever they give them whereas the uninsured will have debt collectors calling them the rest of their lives. Just an aside: I went to the doctor two years ago with bronchitis and strep throat. I told the receptionist that I had no insurance at the time and repeated it to the doctor himself. I left with a prescription along with antibiotics that they injected in me with a bill of $70. The prescription cost another $50. Not bad for no insurance.

Kaboom,

Well, I know from direct personal experience that the rates paid by insurance companies are way less than what I was being asked to pay for tests and a hospital stay. Where are you getting your numbers? If I was the only person singled out and it never happens to others, then I'd love to have that info to go back to the people who overbilled me.

When I questioned it at the time (with documented facts in hand) I was told that insurance companies get negotiated volume discounts. On some services, I was being asked to pay 20 times what the insurance company was. In others it was only 2-3-5 times. Most people can see their billing on their current insurance company which shows the original bill, and what the insurance company was willing to pay which is always WAY less than the bill amount.

Brian

Brian

Brian, what you just said, we experienced first hand. My wife had physical therapy in December and paid a $20 co pay per session. Then in the following February, the hospital sent us a bill for $6000. A glitch in our insurance caused by the new year, caused us to be us to be billed for the sessions but we were charged $400 per session while Cigna Insurance, our carrier, had been billed $60 per session. How in hell does the hospital get away with that?

That kind of abuse is not complicated to fix- there is no rational justification for it and it exacerbates the problem of getting affordable insurance for as many as possible. I sounds like a conspiracy formulated by the insurance companies to force everyone into their highly profitable little racket. didn't Nixon and Erlichman start this demonic little enterprise in the 70's. I wonder if there are folks out there who have lost their jobs and houses because they were unable to pay these outrageous sums when otherwise, they may have been able to afford it had they been charged the same amount as the insurance companies.

I think there is some truth in the part of the Moore film that talked about how Americans are terrified into staying in jobs they hate because of fear of losing health care benefits.

My rates, deductibles, and co pays go up ever year. Our insurance is diluted. 7 years ago, when I started work at this college in Texas, I had $10 co pays, no deductibles and major medical procedures were paid at 100%. Today, my copays are $35, my deductibles are S2500 per person and it is now 90 10 coverage and the "lifetime payments are capped. Don't you dare slip into a coma because at $2000 a day, they are going to have to pull the plug on you before you have time to come out!

My premium is $14000 per year for our family. My employer pays about 60% of that. When I worked at the University of Oregon, my employer paid 100% of the premium.

So guess what? We are already serving the new tyranny and we can't even vote them out of office so why the big fear of big bad government?- at least we can vote for who runs it and we can even run for office ourselves. No, private enterprise fans, private enterprise is not the guardian of health care anymore than the oil industry is the guardian of clean air.

Samuel,

That's been my experience and that of others I know. I am curious to see Kabooms data/source for the claim that uninsured actually pay less than insurance companies for like services. I've never heard anyone make that claim before on any side of the argument.

Brian

I'm not going to ague this subject.
But I will give this last bit of info before I retire from this subject...



We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Can anyone tell us how many hospitals have gone out of buisness say in the past five years? They talk about it alot but I have never seen it happen. Someone enlighten me. This is a serious question.

Actually I have seen quite a few rural hospitals go under.

As far as urban facilities go, you should check out wait times in the emergency rooms around here.

You should also check out what's happining to some of the less fortunates in LA, and what's becoming of their cheepest fair.

Brian, I just gave an example. Maybe not much compaired to more expensive cases, but just by telling my doctor that I have no insurence, he made my visit affordable.

Well Kaboom, I'm not quite sure why you are quoting Declaration of Independence but if you specifically mean this:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ...

then, yeah, I'm glad that is in there and it may come to that but right now we have a democracy that is still functioning but has been infiltrated by special (selfish) interest. Can we change it at a grass roots level? I don't know, but I will try to be more active personally. I have had to fight for the rights of the disabled which has put me at odds with school systems which is one of the most fierce entrenched bureaucracies ever devised by the mind of man.

I'm not so sure the "Demacracy" is functioning... How much say do you actually think you have... For my birthday I marched agains amnisty for current "illegle immagrants". I was totally dismayed at the dismal responce. Maybe 500 showed up, in a target state no less. It passed congress anyway, luckily for us the senate blew it out of the water with little fanfare.

No one is standing up any more. Soon we will be left without a choice (have you been to wallmart lately?). I am deeply concerned. I am abundantly aware of the price my ancesters paid.
I doubt most American are aware of the actual price... something we are giving away

Kaboom,

Not sure what immigration has to do with this or what the DOI has to do with health care as I don't recall it specifically addressing that topic. I actually agree with you that we have very little say in most matters since the incumbancy rate in both parties is actually higher than that of the Soviet Union in it's heyday. It's very rare for a rep or senator to be voted out as an incumbent and even though an occassional scandal will do one in, look at how many are convicted felons and still people keep getting re-elected. Not to mention Ted Kennedy.. but I digress.

I am actually NOT for opening the gates to immigration.. but I AM for giving universal health care to those here legally. How's that for 2 extremist issue stances?

Brian

I agee with you Brian,
We should watch after our own first. Call it universal healthcare, or whatever. But the instant we become a socialistis society I done..

On a lighter note, Im listening to Jerry Jeff Walker... "Desparatoes Waiting for a Train" to be more exact

I strongly suggest going to the site that was mentioned earlier and that is http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/ and read TNI's exclusive interview with Dr. Walter E. Williams. This guy pulls no punches. Ben