Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Ray,

While I agree with the idea that a single payer system seems to be the best and cheapest(most efficient) way to fix health
care, I don’t agree healthcare as been broken since the 1600’s or even prior to 1965.

A part of the problem also is education of the public. It seems many people think everything is curable or treatable. It’s probably the fault of doctors selling new cures constantly.

The truth is we will get sick, suffer pain and die in this life.

The wealthy will generally have better health.

Single payer systems won’t fix this.

While you nail the Capitalist sycophants, somestimes you sound as though you still are a Marxist. Capitalism isn’t all bad, some people just do it poorly.

The main beneficiary of single payer will be the working poor and middleclass. The “efficient” can fly to Bangalore or Cancun for luxury class service.

Posted by: googlumpus at March 14, 2008 04:55 PM

googlumpus,

Not a Marxist - just making it clear capitalism will not fix this problem not without some class struggle and state intervention anyway. When and how has healthcare not “been broken since the 1600’s or even prior to 1965.”???

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 14, 2008 05:09 PM

Prior to 1965, I believe most people, except blacks say, recieved the medical care available. Heart and cancer treatment was not really available prior to then.

Antibiotics and some surgeries were about the only real treatments available. Prior to WWII, even less was available than that. It’s hard for something that barely exists to be broken. Granted leechings provided for Washington were probably the hottest medical tech around, unless that’s what you mean by broken.

There’s still a lot that can’t be fixed that we waste money on. Chemotherapy is one. Most Chemo is a waste of time, only delaying the inevitable.

Posted by: googlumpus at March 14, 2008 06:31 PM

Get rid of the middlemen.
And stop these other abuses to make health care affordable and safe (instead of killing 195,000 people per year by preventable mistakes).

Posted by: d.a.n at March 14, 2008 06:38 PM

googlumpus

“There’s still a lot that can’t be fixed that we waste money on. Chemotherapy is one. Most Chemo is a waste of time, only delaying the inevitable.”

what the hell is this supposed to mean? i lost my father in december to cancer, chemo slowed the the growth, and ultimately gave him another year of QUALITY life which he otherwise wouldn’t of had. i don’t usually get hostile about things on this blog, but this is an exception. i bet i’m not the only one who feels this way either. what a callous, and ignorant remark.

Posted by: dbs at March 14, 2008 06:56 PM

As d.a.n. stated fix the abuses to the system, for exampole one lady from where I live called 911 because she had a splinter in her finger, people filling the emergency rooms with sniffles and sneezes, or minor cuts and bruses.

Posted by: KAP at March 14, 2008 07:40 PM

Thank you Ray for trying out your new comedy routine on us before taking it on the road. Leno and Letterman will be making bids for your hilarious comedic effort.

Had there never have been insurance companies we would all be better off…am I reading you correctly? All they’ve done is mess things up, kill people and rob them of their money. How about life insurance Ray? Is that capitalism at its worst also? When we achieve equal suffering among the masses will we reach the nirvana you speak of?

Frankly I am surprised our founders didn’t address this issue. They could have mandated free health insurance for all, free housing, free carriages, free horses, etc. Oh hell, they were just a bunch of white capitalists and it has taken this long for the great thinkers of today to embrace socialism.

Posted by: Jim M at March 14, 2008 07:55 PM

That’s what all medical care does. It delays the inevitable.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 14, 2008 08:08 PM

Leeches are coming back. I have worked in the health care field for 14 years, long enough to know that much of medical practice consists of going along with whatever is the latest fad or drug company promotion. Codeine based drugs were once popular, but now they have a bad name. Morphine was once anathema, now it is given routinely to terminal patients. People have strong opinions about treatments that they reject for themselves, and will object to paying for those treatments for other people.

Hospitals that were once charitable institutions, set up to provide affordable health care, have become parts of large corporations. They bill Medicare for a large portion of their revenue. If everyone in the country bills the same system, it is going to produce more of the same.

Ray Guest, thanks for the nod to the coffee houses, but almost all business and office practices originated in these same places. The insurance industry actually began with gamblers taking bets on which ships would make it back home.
“Maximizing profits” in the short term is usually not good for the corporations either.
On General Motors, I though this Ford ad from the 1950s might amuse you, about the origin of two car families
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDk_TEM257k
Prilosec was very effective for me for acid reflux.
Thumbs Up for Hamilton, thumbs down to Jefferson, but remember that New York in the colonial period existed primarily on goods and services provided to the British fleet. People selling agricultural produce were dealing with a different trade structure, except for the hemp production.
Former Marxist, huh? No red star on your furry forehead?

Posted by: ohrealy at March 14, 2008 08:16 PM

Referring to the chemotherapy comment…. I agree it is an ignorant and uninformed statement. My sister was dying from hepatitis C third stage… chemo cured her… no trace in her body at all now four years later…
So I guess it isn’t a waste, it saved her.
I know I cared for her for 6 months while she underwent the therapy.

Posted by: napajohn at March 14, 2008 08:49 PM

Ditto on the chemo….I had my daughter a year longer due to it. It still remains a choice, and ultimately the decision of the one who is ill.

Posted by: Jane Doe at March 14, 2008 09:19 PM

My mother always said ignorance is bliss. At least one very happy poster on this blog.

Breast cancer chemotherapy survivor here.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 14, 2008 10:00 PM

dbs,

I am sorry to hear about your father. But, be careful when you get angry here not to violate the rules. You didn’t. Just be careful.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 14, 2008 10:08 PM

googlumpus,

You wrote: “It’s hard for something that barely exists to be broken.”

Whatever the state of the art was at any given time in history, was it universally available at an affordable price. I say no. In other words broken. Neanderthals performed successful brain surgery. My great grandfather survived being wounded in the civil war. Healthcare existed. Was it

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 14, 2008 10:15 PM

googlumpus continued: Healthcare existed. Was it universally available?

KAP,

You wrote:

As d.a.n. stated fix the abuses to the system, for exampole one lady from where I live called 911 because she had a splinter in her finger, people filling the emergency rooms with sniffles and sneezes, or minor cuts and bruses.

This is a perfect example of another externality. Private enterprise will not work.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 14, 2008 10:19 PM

Jim M.

Thanks for the compliment. I will respond to your comment in a minute.

Loyal Opposition,

You wrote: “That’s what all medical care does. It delays the inevitable.”

Life is dangerous. We are not going to get out of it alive. Delaying the inevitable beats the alternative.

ohrealy,

You wrote: “No red star on your furry forehead?”

Nah, I had to tattoo a picture of Reagan’s #$$ over it.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 14, 2008 10:31 PM

napajohn and Jane Doe,

Thanks for your comments. napajohn - congratulations. Jane - I am so sorry, but glad that she and you were given the gift of an extra year.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 14, 2008 10:35 PM

womanmarine,

I am so glad that you made it as well.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 14, 2008 10:36 PM

Jim M.

Thanks for comment. I think that I said that capitalism works well for some things. But, you wrote:

Frankly I am surprised our founders didn’t address this issue. They could have mandated free health insurance for all, free housing, free carriages, free horses, etc. Oh hell, they were just a bunch of white capitalists and it has taken this long for the great thinkers of today to embrace socialism.

So I am sure if understand your entire point here, but I will try to respond to the parts that I think that I understand. In the past I have argued vigorously for the notion that socialism was a good idea in principal for national health care. Click on my name and go to prior articles and commentary threads and you will find my stuff in that regard. However, I should point that the Physicians for National Health Care Plan Single-Payer FAQ. link which I posted in the article body - which is the plan that I endorse - goes to some length to point out that their plan is not socialized medicine.

You also wrote:

Had there never have been insurance companies we would all be better off…am I reading you correctly?

Probably, we would have found another, and better, solution… Neanderthal did not need insurance companies in order to do brain surgery…

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 14, 2008 10:52 PM

Jim M.

I meant: “So I am not sure”

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 14, 2008 10:54 PM

I truly wonder if on some level people lash out at the health care system for reasons that psychologists would call “displacement.” We don’t like the fact that we get sick, get hurt, that our loved ones die, etc., so we get angry at the system which is in place to alleviate these woes. Perhaps as a way to avoid thinking about our own mortality.

Actually, I’m sure this happens on some level, but I wonder how much of this really drives the debates about health care. There are a lot of ads out there, for example, which show something like a sick or injured child—as if children would never be sick or injured or would be miraculously healed if we only had a a single payer health care system.

People here are talking about how they’ve survived cancer as a result of their treatment, for example. When I hear that, it sounds to me like the system, though flawed in some ways, is not exactly broken.

I disagree that there is “consensus” that our health care system is “broken.” It’s actually pretty excellent. The problem is with making an excellent system more accessible and affordable for more people without breaking the bank or killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

We have to accept that no system is going to be perfect. And I don’t think that many people who have actually experienced socialized medicine would be so enthusiastic about bringing it to the US.

If you’ve got something like strep throat, an ear infection or a broken limb, then on balance, you’re probably better off under a single-payer system such as they have in most of Europe. But if you’re talking about cancer or need an organ transplant, then god help you.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 14, 2008 11:39 PM

Dear All:

Rearding my comments on Chemotherapy. I lost my mother to colon cancer. Chemotherapy may have extended her life. That by no means was for certain. It is the premise on which the doctors selling this therapy operate. She was also miserable during treatment. Her surgeon stated he was not a particular fan of Chemo for terminal cancer. It generally has a low success rate.

My point was we need to retreat from the live at all costs pilosophy. It is unrealistic and destructive to those we leave behind to refuse to let go when it is time. The Terry Schiavo fiasco comes to mine. People that live in this unreality are in part responsible for the health care disaster. I’m the first one to scream about doctors, insurance companies and the like, but I also recognize a disconnection with people in this country and the reality of death. This isn’t Robo-cop. They can’t fix everything.

As to Neanderthals doing brain surgery….Huh? I have no idea where you are going with that, Ray.

My point was, that part of the reason medical costs were reasonable, was the low cost of treatments. They didn’t have MRI’s, endoscopes, etc., etc. They couldn’t do a whole lot for you. With some diseases that’s still the case. They can study you ad infinitum, with the same result, running costs through the roof.

We need to keep that in mind, if we intend to reel in medical costs and distribute service equitably.

Posted by: googlumpus at March 14, 2008 11:59 PM

Googlumpus, I had an uncle who was diagnosed with melanoma and opted for very aggressive treatment in hopes of extending his life and possibly even achieving a complete cure. He died a couple months in.

With minimal or even no treatment, he’d have lived a lot longer, but I can totally understand his choice. Thanks to chemotherapy, there are a whole lot of people out there living normal lives—many of whom are now cancer free—who were once given grave diagnoses. He knew that and decided to roll the dice.

I’m very sorry about your mom, but I hope (and trust) that she made her own decisions about her potential treatments and had weighed all the options presented her before deciding on her course.

These heart-breaking scenarios are the major reason I object to single payer, state-managed health care. Such hard decisions should not be left to faceless government functionaries who do cost/benefit analysis and decide that the odds of success are too low to spend limited government funds on.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 15, 2008 12:51 AM

LO,

God help you, indeed. A few years ago, I switched jobs. Unfortunately, I had a heart attack a week into this job. I believe it was relatively a mild one. I had 2 stents implanted. I was in the hospital a week. I was assured my insurance was in effect. A few days after I was released, I was fired and told my inurance was not in effect.

I incurred a $35,000 medical bill. I did not take the drugs prescibed, nor seek follow up treatment. I did not attend a “rehab” treatment program the doctor suggested. I now had an enormous bill and no job.

I took my time finding a job, recognizing the blow I had just sustained. At first, I was honest about what happened. I quickly learned that heart attack is the new “N” word when looking for a job.
I lied, found a job and have been fine, without the aftercare. I have lost weight, and tried to increase my exercise.

I watched my great uncle have several heart attacks from the age of 35, through the 1960’s and 70’s. He was bed bound for months and in lots of pain. Nitro and a diet was all the treatment he got.

My mother’s experience, my sister’s experiences with chronic fatiuge, her children’s asthma, and my own experiences with medicine have caused me to study and think about it a lot.

Business Week recently exposed the fraud of the cholesteral scam. It turns out unless you have heart disease, cholesterol may have nothing to do with your likelyhood of a heart attack. It may be some other inflammatory process that statins affect.

I am certain that many of our current spate of highly advertised drugs and therapies are simply profit motivated. This is new fangled snake oil.

I think it’s broken, and most people agree. As to other countries, they are horrified by our system.
If you haven’t seen Sicko, you should. Even Fox gave it a thumbs up.

If you don’t have insurance forget transplants. If you do, be prepared to wait a long time, here.
If you have money, go to China or India where they’ll “harvest” you one.

As to cancer, some we can cure, mostly, if you catch it early. You get the same treatments or better in Europe and a greater likelhood of catching it early because they practice actual preventative, rather than for profit medicine. After that, you can spend copius amounts of money anywhere in the world, and you’ll still die. Ask Steve McQueen.

Posted by: googlumpus at March 15, 2008 01:07 AM

LO,

The problem with your heartfelt opinion is that rationing IS occurring now. Today. In America.

I just gave you my own personal example of being “rationed”. You just don’t want to own up to it.

Posted by: googlumpus at March 15, 2008 01:14 AM

Loyal Opposition,

As all ready repeatedly pointed out it is not socialized medicine - it is socialized financing. Your post would probably carry more weight and we would not bore our readers with pointless repetitious corrections if you read the article, comments, and key links before commenting.

You wrote:

I disagree that there is “consensus” that our health care system is “broken.” It’s actually pretty excellent.

I cannot argue against that if that is what you actually believe. It is after all just a matter of perception. Yours, that our health care system is “pretty escellent” - mine, that is broken. I am pretty confident most Americans will agree with me.

A number of commenters here are appropriately grateful for the gifts of modern medicine that have saved or extended their life or the lives of loved ones. However, technical competence does not mean that the health delivery system works in an effective and efficient manner. Is our level of scientific and technical knowledge good? Pretty good. I think. Yet not nearly as good as it should or could be if our capitalist corporations were not wasting money by allocating it to increase profits (as detailed in the article above) instead of allocating it to serve human needs (develop new efficacious chemo-therapies instead of me too drugs, for example).

What I am talking about here is the way that scientific expertise is delivered to the American people. That is what is really broken. The capitalist system of delivery is what is broken.

You think it is excellent. Rich people sometimes die because they are diagnosed with cancer too soon and receive unnecessary treatments. Poor or uninsured people often die because they are not diagnosed soon enough.

You think it is excellent. Billions of dollars wasted on me too drugs.

You think it is excellent. We ration healthcare by denying it to uninsured people such that they are left in defacto waiting lines that never move and such that they never receive the healthcare that they need.

You think it is excellent. We spend more money per person, and in total, and as percentage GNP than all of the other developed countries and a number of undeveloped countries with national healthcare, yet our life expectancy is way down the list below all of them.

You think it is excellent. Older workers are unemployable and older companies with older work forces are disadvantaged because it cost more to insure an older worker.

You think it is excellent. That those us lucky and unlucky enough to have coverage or money, are pumped full of unnecessary, dangerous and counter-productive drugs, medical procedures, tests, and treatments. Or do you really think that restless leg syndrome is a serious condition. Restless leg syndrome is profitable though. So are boob jobs - highly profitable - they write an R and an L on the nipples - cut them off set them on ice - do the job then sew them back on in a new location with no sensory nerve endings attached - it is profitable for the capitalist though - wasteful - dangerous - pointless for the rest of us. That is elective of course - soooo… Personally I like nipples to be alive to the touch - that is just me. This is symptomatic of the predatory exploitive nature of the for profit healthcare delivery system. You think it is excellent - so OK…

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 15, 2008 01:39 AM

Loyal Opposition,

You wrote: “But if you’re talking about cancer or need an organ transplant, then god help you.”

All of those poor people that you are asking god to help are livin longer than you.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 15, 2008 01:41 AM

Nobody’s celebrating things like misdiagnoses, medical errors or being pumped full of unnecessary drugs. These are problems. But how will a single-payer system perfect the practice of medicine?

We are not being offered a choice between an imperfect system and a perfect one. We’re being offered a choice between an imperfect but very good system and trashing that system to try something untested and unproven.

Honestly, some people talk as if nobody would get sick anymore and there would be an end to human suffering if we could only get the government instead of insurance companies to ration health care.

Does a single-payer system prevent health care rationing? No. It increases it 10-fold.

Yes, people from other countries are horrified by our system. And when they’re really sick, they do everything they can to get here and use it.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 15, 2008 01:55 AM

googlumpus,

Thanks for clarifying your position. I agreed with the people who took you to task for insensitivity but you I figured you had a good point - inadvertently stated in way that turned out to be insensitive. I often do the same. We do spend a lot of money keeping suffering dying terminal people alive. My wife has the right (power of attorney) to pull the plug on me right now. Don’t keep me alive any longer than you would a dog or in many cases even that long. When it is time, or close to time, let me go. I would rather be let go a month early than a week late.

You wrote:”As to Neanderthals doing brain surgery….Huh? I have no idea where you are going with that, Ray.” Just having some fun with it. They did do brain surgery though and their patients survived.

You wrote:”They can study you ad infinitum, with the same result, running costs through the roof.”

Agreed. A lot of tests are unnecessary and a lot treatments are unnecessary, counter-productive, and / or ineffective - but profitable.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 15, 2008 02:00 AM

googlumpus,

You wrote:

I incurred a $35,000 medical bill. I did not take the drugs prescibed, nor seek follow up treatment. I did not attend a “rehab” treatment program the doctor suggested. I now had an enormous bill and no job.

Loyal Opposition apparently thinks that this sort of thing is “pretty excellent.” Fortunately you got a wakeup call and a chance to take care of yourself - a little follow up care would be nice. We need national healthcare now.

I agreed with your entire comment here. My doctor has tried to push statins on me too. I have resisted. They do reduce inflammation, as you say, and they may be good, especially for someone like you. On the other hand they are dangerous, I think perhaps more dangerous than they realize or let on. The drug reps push them on the doctors so the doctors push them and a lot of other drugs on us. My doctors also tried to push Vioxx (COX 2 inhibitor for arthritis)on me. Now we know it was killing people. Doctor is still pushing closely related Celebrex. Its benefits are said to “out weigh its risk for certain patients”… My arthritis is mild. I should take a potentially deadly drug???

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 15, 2008 02:20 AM

KAP wrote: As d.a.n. stated fix the abuses to the system, for example one lady from where I live called 911 because she had a splinter in her finger, people filling the emergency rooms with sniffles and sneezes, or minor cuts and bruses.

Ray Guest wrote: This is a perfect example of another externality. Private enterprise will not work.

Ray Guest, respectfully, I disagree completely with the extremist conclusion that “Private enterprise will not work”, and agree 1,000% with KAP, who made a perfectly valid assertion; one that, at the very least, should be given serious consideration and comtemplation. Especially when MANY examples of private enterprises can be proven to work very successfully.

It is not hard to show MANY private (and non-profit) enterprises that are successful (e.g. Saint Judes is one very good example, and there are many others; many in my own state of Texas alone, that I contribute to yearly). That is despite massive apathy, complacency, misplaced voter loyalties, etc., etc., etc. Americans are a huge untapped resource in many ways, and I think, if provided sufficient education and provided sufficient information, can excel in many areas, including the health care system. But the GREEDY middlemen must be removed.

The problem (as it almost ALWAYS is) is corpocrisy, corporatism, MASSIVE Medicare fraud, many other abuses, and other manifestations of unchecked GREED.

There is NO reason why a private, non-profit medical system can not exist (sucessfully!).
NONE.
And there are many, many examples of it.
Not only with health care, but many other industries.
There are MANY non-profit entrepreneurial endeavors that are successful, where participants have decent compensation, without GREEDY CEOs and board members trying to fleece the stock holders and employees.
Goverment over-sight might be OK, but the government does NOT need to meddle in EVERYTHING! Remember. We ARE the government, and that has some of its own inherent problems too!

What the nation needs to address is increasing lawlessness, increasing crime rates, and GREED that is eroding and undermining the fabric of MANY of our systems.
One very good example is that our hospitals and E.R.s are being overrun by illegal aliens.
Hundreds of hospitals are closing their doors due to that one abuse.
84 hospitals closed in the state of California alone due to Illegal Aliens: (source: www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/178/8693)
Illegal immigration is costing middle-income Americans an estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion per year.

However, MANY of our politicians have chosen to continue to despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes. Another example of unchecked greed, pandering for votes, and misplaced compassion.

Address the OBVIOUS abuses first, and the health care system will become more affordable (and safer too), not to mention many other improvements that will naturally follow.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 15, 2008 05:22 AM

Ray Guest, Cudos, though, for a hot and important topic.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 15, 2008 05:28 AM

d.a.n.,

You wrote:

There is NO reason why a private, non-profit medical system can not exist (sucessfully!).

I agree. I am talking here about private “for profit” enterprise. In fact, under the plan of the Physicians for National Health Care Plan Single-Payer FAQ., the healthcare system would still be private non-profit enterprise combined with single payor with the exception of the untouchable drug companies.

You also wrote:

Goverment over-sight might be OK, but the government does NOT need to meddle in EVERYTHING! Remember. We ARE the government, and that has some of its own inherent problems too!

Yes, that is why this is a plan for socialized financing not socialized medicine. Its has been a while since I have studied all the details here, but for profit healthcare corporations would be gradually transitioned to non-profit corporations. Stock holders would receive fair equity in the process. The AMA would essentially act as a union for doctors and would negotiate per procedure compensation rates with the single payor. The single payor would grossly reduce the size of current payment bureaucracies because it would be simple and straight forward. The per procedure payment rates would be lower than they are now, but doctors and hospitals would save money on overhead (billing) and would actually get paid for every procedure they perform instead of having to treat the poor for free.

You also wrote:

One very good example is that our hospitals and E.R.s are being overrun by illegal aliens.

Idon’t see this as a major factor here. We need to fight crime. We need to control our borders. We need to stop Greedy corporations exploiting Mexicans in Mexico by not allowing them to form unions that could create economic opportunity there. We need to legalize the otherwise law abiding hard working people here so that their standard of living will rise and they can contribute more.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 15, 2008 09:51 AM

Man, I’ve got to get new glasses or a bigger monitor…my typos are horrendous!!!:)

Posted by: googlumpus at March 15, 2008 10:36 AM

LO,

No, most people don’t rush here. Rich people go to research facilities for advanced care. Some go to South Africa, Britian, France. Most people can afford only to stay where they are.

You are advocating a system that caters to the wealthy. Longevity and quality of life is better in Europe than here. They have superior healthcare by any reasonable measure. Waving an American flag may make you feel better, but it’s killing many more. Do some research.

As to a single payer system increasing rationing, what it increases is sensible medically based rationing rather than insurance driven, cost reduction/profit enhancement rationing.

I’m not searching for perfection, idealogical reasons, or patriotism. I want something that makes some degree of sense.

Posted by: googlumpus at March 15, 2008 10:53 AM

d.a.n.,

I just reread your comment more slowly, and agree with even more of it. Study the physician’s plan I think that you will like it.

Illegals that are engaging in criminal enterprise need to be caught, imprisoned, and deported. Hard working poor illegals need to be given healthcare until legalized. The above plan would address that and keep those hospitals open. The hospital that my wife retired from has to serve a lot of inner city poor. That is a problem.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 15, 2008 11:42 AM

googlumpus,

You wrote:

As to a single payer system increasing rationing, what it increases is sensible medically based rationing rather than insurance driven, cost reduction/profit enhancement rationing.

An excellent way to say it.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 15, 2008 11:45 AM

“Honestly, some people talk as if nobody would get sick anymore and there would be an end to human suffering if we could only get the government instead of insurance companies to ration health care.

Does a single-payer system prevent health care rationing? No. It increases it 10-fold.

Yes, people from other countries are horrified by our system. And when they’re really sick, they do everything they can to get here and use it.”

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 15, 2008 01:55 AM

LO, well said. The first paragraph you wrote above was inspired. Thanks for stating the obvious in such a concise and articulate way.

Posted by: Jim M at March 15, 2008 12:12 PM

I was just talking to an old friend who got out of the hospital last week , where they nearly killed him with a new antibiotic, when he went in to get his big toe amputated because of an infection in the bone. He just lived through a scene in Pulp Fiction, and is heading for the orthotics specialist to get a plastic big toe.

Single payer is not going to improve the quality of health care, it will just make it easier for the practitioners to get their bills paid.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2008 01:07 PM

Geesh Ray, Take a pill!
It must be Republicans are the only people making the mess we’re in because all the democratics are on wellfare.
The democratics are still as pure as the wind driven snow because only republicans have the monopoly on all the bad things that go wrong in our society.
Is that the gist of your rant, Mr. Guest? I couldn’t finish reading it. I stopped when you admitted you were insulting republicans.
That was the purpose of your post, wasn’t it? Come on! Admit it. You weren’t trying to solve any problems we have, were you? You just wanted to insult republicans, didn’t ya, huh? didn’t ya, didn’t ya?

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 15, 2008 01:11 PM

Ray Guest wrote:d.a.n., I just reread your comment more slowly, and agree with even more of it. Study the physician’s plan I think that you will like it.

Yes, that PNHP plan has some positives, and some negatives.

The PNHP is better in one important way:

it eliminates one of the unnecessary middlemen: insurance companies.

However, that advantage will be lost if the PNHP becomes another bureucratic and wasteful program in a sea of other wasteful programs in an already severely over-bloated federal government, that continues to grow and grow to nightmare proportions (such as the current massive Medicare fraud; and 32% of illegal aliens that receive Medicaid; $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security surpluses, leaving it pay-as-you-go; etc.).

Another advantage of non-profit hospitals and health care is that they don’t have to pay corporate taxes, and are often also exempt from paying state and local property taxes.

However, many will not support a mandatory payroll tax to fund health care.
Besides, we ALREADY pay taxes for welfare.
Welfare is for the truly needy.
One other major issue is the co$t.
The U.S. is already $48 Trillion in debt (nation-wide).
And 80% of Americans only own 17% of all wealth (a trend that has been steadily worsening since year 1976).
And real median household incomes are falling (since year 1978, when you consider there are more workers per household).
And home equities are at a 16 year low (i.e. 50%).

Therefore, including me, many would prefer the PNHP system to be VOLUNTARY.
Also, this part of PNHP goes against many peoples’ grain and sense of freedom-to-choose (especially people with Libertarian leanings) …

• PNHP QUESTION: Why shouldn’t we let people buy better health care if they can afford it?


• PNHP ANSWER: Whenever we allow the wealthy to buy better care or jump the queue, health care for the rest of us suffers.

Yes, to jumping-the-queue, but no to buying better care. I think that is treading on our freedom-to-choose (despite the many things that are already treading on our freedoms; no need to add to the list).

I’ve got a lot of problems with some (not all) wealthy that abuse their wealth, such as those that use it to control and influence government (e.g. 99.85% of all 200 million eligible voters that are vastly out-spent by a tiny 0.15% of all 200 million voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more, etc.).

But preventing someone from buying better care? That is too controlling.

Ray Guest wrote:d.a.n., Illegals that are engaging in criminal enterprise need to be caught, imprisoned, and deported.

Yes, we agree on that (i.e. deport criminals). But it may be futile as long as the borders are nearly wide-open. For example, consider:

• Then, there is Jorge Hernandez, aka Jorge Soto, who killed Min Soon Chang, an 18-year-old college freshman, in a terrible head-on wreck while Hernandez was driving drunk. He had been arrested 3 previous times for drunk driving in 3 other states, and he had been deported seventeen (17) times!
• Israel Robles-Gaytan (a.k.a. Omar Alaverez-Mecedo), an illegal alien, was arrested yesterday and charged with human smuggling after being stopped on I-70 driving a van carrying 13 other illegal aliens. ICE reported that he had already been caught and deported fourteen (14) times. He will be deported again and that would make 15 total deportations.
• 14-Sep, 2007, Demetro Acosta-Uribe charged for the brutal murder of Ivan Santos in Phoenix, had already been deported five (5) times.
• Carlos Ortiz-Lazcano, and Saul Hernandez-Lopez, were arrested and charged with human smuggling and reckless endangerment. The pair already had been arrested and deported six (6) times for smuggling people into the United States
• Rolando Mota-Campos’s, an illegal alien who had already been deported three (3) times in 10 years, was sentenced today to 14.5 years in federal prison, but he vowed to return again, illegally. Rolando Mota-Campos’s lengthy criminal record included three drunken driving convictions and domestic assault.
• Deputy Sheriff Saul Gallegos, age 35, of the Chelan County, WA., who was murdered June 26, 2003. Deputy Gallegos was shot and killed after stopping a vehicle in a routine traffic stop. Jose Sanchez-Guillen, 22, who had ALREADY been deported three (3) times.
• Officials with the Department of Homeland Security told NBC that accused cop-killer, Adrian George Camacho, was living in the country illegally and had already been deported several times during the past 10 years.
• Jose Raul Pena, who had alrady been deported once for cocaine possession, used his little daughter as a human shield for hours in a Los Angeles shootout with police. Pena and Suzie were both killed. During the incident, Pena used a 9-millimeter Beretta pistol which had been stolen last year in a burglary in Oregon.
• Esmerelda Nava, age 4, was strangled, molested and killed by an illegal alien who had already been deported in 2003 for drunk driving.
• In GAO Report 5646R (www.gao.gov/htext/d05646r.html), in a study group of 55,322 illegal aliens, the average number of times arrested was 13 per illegal alien.

Ray Guest wrote: Hard working poor illegals need to be given healthcare until legalized.

It seems the right thing to do is to provide emergency care to any person coming to an E.R.

However, I do not support another amnesty that quadrupled the problem in 1986, and the last amnesty BILL was too complicated (fines, requirements, etc.), and would most likely not be enforced any better than the current laws or border security efforts.

If illegal employers were prosecuted, many illegal aliens would voluntarily self-deport, and we might even pay for transporation to those voluntaring to self-deport.
But border security alone will not stop illegal immigration.
As for a path to citizenship, it seems fair to provide it only to the truly innocent, and that will be a difficult process too.

I understand peoples’ sense of compassion, but they should not forget their fellow American citizens.
It isn’t fair that illegal aliens flood our E.R.s and hospitals while American citizens are unable to get medical care in time because of it.
It isn’t fair that illegal employers are shifting an estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion in net losses to middle-income tax payers.

Ray Guest wrote: The above plan would address that and keep those hospitals open. The hospital that my wife retired from has to serve a lot of inner city poor. That is a problem.

Maybe. However, PNHP is a mandated health care system (with a health care payroll tax), which upsets people that believe government should not be doing that, but should concentrate ONLY on national defense, law enforcment, monetary policy (which it is not doing a good job), trade and foreign affairs, and upholding the Constitution (which it is currently violated in several ways: one-simple-idea.com/ConstitutionalViolations.htm).

d.a.n. wrote: One very good example is that our hospitals and E.R.s are being overrun by illegal aliens.

Ray Guest wrote: I don’t see this as a major factor here. We need to fight crime. We need to control our borders… . We need to legalize the otherwise law abiding hard working people here so that their standard of living will rise and they can contribute more.

We will have to agree to disagree on this issue (we have already rehashed this before?).

It isn’t right to mistreat illegal aliens merely looking for work, but …

• Illegal immigration is costing U.S. tax payers an estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion annually in (one-simple-idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm#Burdens) in net losses.
  That does not even include the untold cost of crime, disease, 2.3 million displaced jobs, wage depression, and our politicians despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profit and votes. But repeatedly rewarding incumbent politicians for it with 93%-to-99% re-election rates doesn’t help (one-simple-idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm).


• Illegal aliens are eligible for federal funds for prenatal care and childbirth, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, education. An illegal couple in California with two anchor babies can get as much as $12,000 in public benefits per year. In Arizona, at the Maricopa County Medical Center, an anchor baby is born every 3 hours, making the parent(s) eligible too for benefits. In Maricopa County, 66% of the births are to illegal aliens (2,900 each year). It’s a huge part of the $28 million overall spent treating illegal aliens at just one hospital. When was the last time your wife, sister, daughter or any other family members received FREE prenatal care and delivery? In Laredo, Texas (year 2005) there are 2,000 births per year by illegal aliens.


• In Los Angeles, Elastar, a hospital that served as a principal care destination for Hispanic immigrants had to close its doors [August 2004], shifting burdens on resources in the city’s remaining emergency rooms. The 80-year-old hospital could not afford to pay its 400 workers. Elastar was the third hospital with an emergency room to close in the county in year 2004. “We cannot stand any more closures in an emergency system capacity in Los Angeles - this system is on the brink of absolute chaos,” — Jim Lott, the executive vice president of the Hospital Assn. of Southern California.
  That is only one of 84+ hospitals that have closed in California.

It is hard to ignore the impact of all of this on American citizens lives, and the potential American lives lost due to resources becoming more scarce and costly.
Another problem that is often over looked is, how employable will the tens of millions of illegal aliens be when they no longer have the advantages the illegal employers are exploiting?
With $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt, the U.S. can no longer afford to the world police and the world welfare office (i.e. an estimated 32% of lliegal aliens receive welfare).

But, since all three presidential candidates have bad voting records on illegal immigration, and Congress refuses to do anything about it, the problem is likely to get much worse, and another amnesty will likely quadruple the problem again, as the amnesty of 1986 did.

Health care (and many other things) would probably become more affordable if a number of abuses were addressed first.
Many of the nation’s problems are not NEW things we should do, as much as OLD abuses we should STOP (as soon as possible).

Posted by: d.a.n at March 15, 2008 03:05 PM

Loyal Opposition,

As all ready repeatedly pointed out it is not socialized medicine - it is socialized financing.

Ray, that doesn’t make any sense. You can’t socialize the financing without socializing the system. The system and who pays for it are inseparable.

It’s incredible to suggest that because there are inefficiencies in how money is allocated in our healthcare system that if the government took over allocating all the money, the inefficiency would magically go away.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 15, 2008 04:23 PM

It’s not the government, it’s republicans, greedy republicans. Ray Guest is suggesting if democratics took over allocating all the money, the inefficiency would magically go away. It’s all about party in power. Republicans are bad and destroying our country by killing everyone with greed and democratics must be able to save everyone with universal healthcare paid for by those greedy rich republicans who have too much money.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 15, 2008 04:41 PM

I am in the same boat as googlumpus. I had a mild heart attack 9 years ago. A month later my daughter was born. (you oughta see how nervous the hospital staff gets around you in the delivery room-2 Dr.’s on call one for delivery and one for my revival-lol). Two years later I was divorced, 18 months later, California Extended coverage runs out, now self employeed and not insurable. I have applied every 3 years just incase a actuary takes a chance. I pay cash for all meds, all doctor visits etc. I also talk with the my heart doc- he works with me like doubles the meds so I can cut them in half etc. I have complained to him about a few pains or other things so he orders tests. We discuss the tests and I decide whether to have them or not. For instance, he ordered a stress test for me-@$1000 a pop. I refused but suggested that as he was a runner, I would sport a new pair of running shoes for a jog in the park with a stethescope.

The point is that the live at all costs mentality, coupled with the CYA attitude of the rightly malpractice phobic physicians leads to many unnecessary tests/procedures. Anecdotely, horror stories abound about medical mistakes. Remember, not all docs get the 4.0 and graduate first. They are not god and are truely subject to the same stresses and job related issues as the rest of us. Correctly, things happen; left over spunges, wrong appendage amputation, wrong meds etc. At work we are under the boss’s or in my case the clients microscope. If we make a mistake, we are fired, reprimanded etc. If they are subject to a human mistake, they are almost ruined. You can’t expect perfection in a non-perfect world.

First, solve medical tort cases. some of the rewards are ludicrous. second, remove all state and federal mandates which would allow the free market absorb more uninsured with cafeteria style policy. i.e.- I would love to be covered for skeletol, nervous, endocrine systems etc. I would go on probation for circulatory systems due to my heart attack, but then I could start a HSA to help offset the cost.

Encourage more doc in the boxes as we call them here. small clinics to handle the nuiscance calls-splinters, runny noses, broken toes etc.

Lets shake out the tree of uninsured before we screw up the system that is working for the vast majority of people.

Lastly, I am sure that this will rub some people the wrong way, but my heart attack was preventable. Many things are preventable. Most medical issues are argueably self inflicted. This head long desire to make cadillac health care a right is both wrong and down right greedy for those it is said to help. No other Right confiscates something from me to give to someone else. This will. And I will not have any say as to how it will be given. Why should I subsidize a reckless lifestyle? Why should you be forced to subsidize my life? If taking from society for this is so great, why not ask your neighbors and family first and see how long you will be supported before the goodwill runs out.

Posted by: ScottP at March 15, 2008 08:31 PM

One of the basic problems with the health care system is that so many of the conditions that cause people to seek medical care are self-inflicted and self-curable if people do sensible things like get exercise, drink enough fluids to flush toxins out of the body, and pay attention to their own basic bodily systems. Many many people go to doctors expecting to get a magic pill that will allow them to continue their bad habits and somehow get better. I can’t tell you how many diabetic clients I have had over the years who will do nada zip nothing for themselves, but expect medical care to help them to get better.

Posted by: ohrelay at March 15, 2008 08:38 PM

Ohrelay,

Absolutely right.

Posted by: ScottP at March 15, 2008 08:50 PM

I spent this afternoon with a former client who is now in a nursing home. She is 88 and retired from the USDA, and has the government employees blue cross. She had a healthy active life, and her biggest problems now are side effects from taking Fosamax for Osteoporosis. She had the best insurance available, and all it did was put her into the same drug company promotion of the year kind of situation that ends up hurting people more than it helps them.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2008 09:32 PM

Encourage more doc in the boxes as we call them here. small clinics to handle the nuiscance calls-splinters, runny noses, broken toes etc.

Lets shake out the tree of uninsured before we screw up the system that is working for the vast majority of people.
Posted by: ScottP at March 15, 2008 08:31 PM

I SAID THIS! I said this many moons ago!

Ambulances should have control over fixing many of the “splinters, runny noses, broken toes ect.

I said, “Doctors should have an ambulance instead of an office.”

I said that.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 15, 2008 10:49 PM

Jim M.

Apparently you were quoting LO when you wrote:

Does a single-payer system prevent health care rationing? No. It increases it 10-fold.

Absolutely untrue. The poor and uninsured are invisible. You simply do not see the rationing here, but you do see the aggregate effect. The effect is (and it is both universal and global), that people in countries with national healthcare live longer than people in countries without national healthcare. The only explanation for such a stark and broad based difference is because they have more and better access to care - i.e. less rationing with national healthcare. If it was just an occasional country here or there, you could write it off to other variables, but when the difference is universal and broad based, all other variables cancel out, and the only variable left standing is national healthcare versus predatory for profit vampirish private enterprise health exploitation.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 15, 2008 10:51 PM

by republicans.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 15, 2008 11:03 PM

ohrealy,

You wrote:

Single payer is not going to improve the quality of health care, it will just make it easier for the practitioners to get their bills paid.

There are a lot of other fixes that need to get made.

Weary Willie,

You wrote:

It must be Republicans are the only people making the mess we’re in because all the democratics are on wellfare.

We are all on welfare because Republicans shipped all of our jobs to China.

You also wrote:

That was the purpose of your post, wasn’t it? Come on! Admit it. You weren’t trying to solve any problems we have, were you? You just wanted to insult republicans, didn’t ya, huh? didn’t ya, didn’t ya?

didn’t ya, huh? didn’t ya, didn’t ya? I like that chant. It puts me into too deep of a trance to respond to your comment.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 15, 2008 11:06 PM

we are all on welfare because Repul icans shipped all of our jobs to China

Well, you had better check with the chinese, but it appears that in an NPR interview that they are shipping jobs to viet nam for cheaper labor as well. Not many repubs in china at my last estimation. Posted by: ScottP at March 15, 2008 11:20 PM

Yes Weary, you are right. Triage is the better, prevention is the best, and emergencies happen.

Posted by: ScottP at March 15, 2008 11:24 PM

d.a.n.,

Your last comment should have been posted as a stand alone article. Thanks the thoughtful comment. I am not going to respond to the whole thing because of time limitations. There are at least 2 points that I do want to challenge.

Well maybe I am going to wind up responding to the whole thing…

You mention Medicare fraud. Remember the for profit vampires have sank their fangs into medicare… Then you talk about the money borrowed from Social Security - Reagan’s plan all along - and Bush gave that money to the rich as a tax cut deliberately bankrupting the system. Social Security would have wound up borrowing money anyway, but in the meantime we could have been using the surplus to pay down national debt in preparation - but no we give the money to the rich then plead poverty. That was always their plan…

You talk about our national debt. I agree. The fact that we are so far in debt is exactly why we must have the most efficient plan possible.

Then:

You wrote:

Therefore, including me, many would prefer the PNHP system to be VOLUNTARY.
Also, this part of PNHP goes against many peoples’ grain and sense of freedom-to-choose (especially people with Libertarian leanings) …

* PNHP QUESTION: Why shouldn’t we let people buy better health care if they can afford it?

* PNHP ANSWER: Whenever we allow the wealthy to buy better care or jump the queue, health care for the rest of us suffers.

Yes, to jumping-the-queue, but no to buying better care. I think that is treading on our freedom-to-choose (despite the many things that are already treading on our freedoms; no need to add to the list).Remember we are dealing with corporatists. They are like vampires. They will suck you dry. You wear garlic, carry a cross, and drive a wooden stake through their heart - all the way through… If you allow one of these private for profit health insurance beasts to live along side of an efficient single payor system, they will not be able to compete against it, so they will set about to kill it. They will use their lobbying money to undermine and subvert it just like they have Medicare mentioned above. In terms of healthcare, you can never be safe in a world populated with vampires. You must kill them all. You must kill them completely. The only other alternative: The only other way that you might stand a chance:: Public financing of elections combined with stripping for profit corporations of personhood status, combined with stripping for profit corporations of all political rights - including free speech, combined with mandating by law that all for profit corporations are required by law to serve the public good. Pull the vampires fangs and he just another beast of burden. So, doing these things would turn them into beasts of burden and you might not have to kill them - but they are still good eatin. They better pull hard on that plow if they don’t want this old farm boy to eat em.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 15, 2008 11:44 PM

Let’s talk about getting doctors into ambulances to provide first aid!

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 15, 2008 11:47 PM

Loyal Opposition,

You wrote:

Ray, that doesn’t make any sense. You can’t socialize the financing without socializing the system. The system and who pays for it are inseparable.

The distintions have been well documented elsewhere.

You also wrote:

It’s incredible to suggest that because there are inefficiencies in how money is allocated in our healthcare system that if the government took over allocating all the money, the inefficiency would magically go away.

It is not magic. The plan is well documented. Apparently you have been rather pathetically reduced to arguing that we should just continue to finance obvious, glaring, gross inefficiencies rather than to attempt to fix the problem. Stand pat with that argument. It is a good one.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 15, 2008 11:51 PM

Weary Willie,

You wrote:

It’s all about party in power.

Quite so. It is about the party in power. Are you arguing that the party in power should not have to accept responsibility for its exercise of that power. That is what you are arguing… it is isn’t it huh huh… How did you do that chant?

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 15, 2008 11:56 PM

When I was a kid I kicked my brother in the knee and broke my toe.

I thought I would have a big cast and would have to limp around on crutches for a month but, no…

The doctor taped my broken toe to the next toe and I went to school the next day, a little pissed because I didn’t have a cast and a pair of crutches.

Fricken’ doctors.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 15, 2008 11:58 PM

“We are so far in debt etc.”

The other day I received this Economic Stimulus Payment Notice, from the IRS:
Dear Taxpayer:
We are pleased to inform you that the United States Congress passed and Presidnet George W. Bush signed into law the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, which provides for economic stimulus payments to be made to over 130 million American households. Under this new law, you may be entitled to a payment of up to $600($1200 if filing a joint return), plus additional amounts for each qualifying child…The IRS will determine eligibility, figure the amount, and send the payment.

I already got my tax refund, but the government, which is broke, wants to give me more money. I guess it’s supposed to be a good bye gift from GWBush.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 16, 2008 12:01 AM

It’s buying your servitude.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 16, 2008 12:04 AM

ScottP,

You wrote:

Well, you had better check with the chinese, but it appears that in an NPR interview that they are shipping jobs to viet nam for cheaper labor as well. Not many repubs in china at my last estimation.

Lots of predatory capitalists though…

Weary Willie,

I must have missed a comment of yours in the crossfire, but:

You wrote:

Let’s talk about getting doctors into ambulances to provide first aid!

Sounds like a waste of good medical school to me. Further, CRNAs and paramedics actually have more experience stabilizing patients than most doctors who simply are not involved in that sort of thing most of the time.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 16, 2008 12:05 AM

There is no law that says you must file an income tax form.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 16, 2008 12:06 AM

ScottP,

You wrote:

Well, you had better check with the chinese, but it appears that in an NPR interview that they are shipping jobs to viet nam for cheaper labor as well. Not many repubs in china at my last estimation.

Lots of predatory capitalists though…

Weary Willie,

I must have missed a comment of yours in the crossfire, but:

You wrote:

Let’s talk about getting doctors into ambulances to provide first aid!

Sounds like a waste of good medical school to me. Further, CRNAs and paramedics actually have more experience stabilizing patients than most doctors who simply are not involved in that sort of thing most of the time.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 16, 2008 12:09 AM

Maybe, Ray Guest, a medical schooling is over rated. Expecially when it is specialized and a brain sergion can’t tie a tournicate without some kind of insurance that allows him to do so.

It’s too bad you have to focus on party politics and use people’s lives to make sure you get your party’s way.

It’s a shame you can rail against republicans without any resistance in the media or in any public venue. Another shame on all of us is you get away with it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 16, 2008 12:13 AM

“Fricken’ doctors.”

Good night all. Thanks for your comments. I appreciate all of them - especially the funny ones.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 16, 2008 12:17 AM

WE’RE NOT DONE YET, MR. GUEST!!!

(to be continued..)

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 16, 2008 12:31 AM

Ray, I’m thinking about the law of unintended consequences.

If you were tell me that some people in our country have trouble affording to buy groceries while others are pigging out on filet mignon and overpriced bottles of wine, I could agree. But I wouldn’t agree that the government should take over the financing and regulation of farms, restaurants, and grocery stores and announce that in the future, food will be free.

Why, I wonder, must any solution to such a problem always be one of increased government regulation and interference? And why should we believe that it would work with health care when we wouldn’t even imagine it would work in other less complicated sectors? Well, I guess there are some who will always imagine that we’d better off if the government ran the entire economy and controlled everything—but are we such people?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 16, 2008 12:33 AM

Jees, Ray your rant or slant or prejudice against corporate vampirism is difficult to get my brain around. Does this mean that my popcorn butter manufacturer is raping me? I am my own corporation, imagine my dilemma? Rape, rob, pilage, or just do my best to serve me and some sort of profit to feed the family? What do your neighbors do? Anyone in a corporation? Are they ripping you off?

Question—My kids are spoiled, but they treat what they sacrifice for better than what we as parents give them. Is it the opposite in your house? How will giving away medical insurance be cheaper than what now is a trade off? I know that my health costs to any payor besides me will rise as I will go to the provider at the shank of hang nail! Its free and you are paying for it afterall.

Not everyone deserves everything. what about corporate car co.s. should we have free cars or subsidized cars so that we can get to work and pay for this free healthcare? my house is expensive, how about free housing for the abled bodied? What about free chicken wed. for the nugget deprived?

Again, does some fixing need to be done. Absolutely. But lets get the government out of the way before we step back in.

As long as we have the government as a coach and umpire, it will be a total disaster. How long can a competitive little game go with the coach on the field the entire game? why not let the boys and girls play and let the umpire call the extreme fouls.

Posted by: ScottP at March 16, 2008 01:01 AM

I agree with you Ray.Our health care system is broken, and just making everyone insured is not going to fix it. The free market (supply and demand) principal is a good way to determine the price of tea in China. If it’s a good year to grow tea, and you have a bumper crop the price goes down. On the other hand, if you run a really good marketing campaign and more people drink tea the price goes up. These principals will never work to determine the cost of health care. We’ve had way too many years of being charged whatever the market will bear. Because when it comes to matters of health care we’re willing to pay whatever it takes. This will cause the cost to keep going up and up forever.
As a matter of fact, the need for profit is always getting in the way of good health care. Ideally a hospital should be full of empty beds, waiting for patients. But, that’s not profitable. So, when the hospital is empty you’re a lot more likely to be admitted. When the hospital is full, you’re more likely to be sent home. Whether you’re admitted or not should be because of your health and condition, not the hospital’s bottom line. Ideally, when a doctor calls for a test, prescribes a drug, or performs an operation it’s in the patient’s best interest. All too often, profit gets in the way. Some tests are more profitable than others. He’s more likely to prescribe that new drug he leaned about in the seminar in Los Vegas. And—- I don’t even want to talk about unnecessary operations.
In Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko” what surprised me wasn’t the Canadians and Europeans who liked their one payer system. It was the reaction of the Canadian and European doctors. They insisted they couldn’t work in a system where the decisions were made by an accountant instead of a trained medical person. If you haven’t seen “Sicko”, I suggest you don’t miss it. It’s not just hilarious, but quit eye opening. In it he tells us that Cuba spends just $251 per person on health care every year. Where as we spend more than $7,000 per person per year. And yet Cubans have a lower child mortality rate than we do. And they live longer lives.
Our health care wasn’t always so expensive. But since it is based on profit, the cost of it kept going up. As it got pricier and pricier insurance companies popped up. (You give them a little money every month and if you get sick, they pay all the costs.) This worked for a while. But as the price kept going up they’d have to raise premiums and co-pays to try and balance it out. It finally got so expensive that managed care (HMO’s) came in. Now 30% of our health care costs go to administration. And there’s lots of people to decide if you should get what the doctor wants you to have.
Unfortunately, That’s not the worst of it. Not only is our health care system broke, but so is our government. There are more health care lobbyists in Washington than there are Congressmen and Senators. And they’re better paid than the politicians. A lot of our health care bills were wrote by these lobbyists, just like our energy bills. Of course, their main propose was to maximize profit. We will never be able to fix our health care system until we fix our government. We need an amendment to the constitution to make all campaign adds illegal. Then at least honest politicians wouldn’t have to spend day after day begging corporations for money, knowing if they don’t have 20% more money than they had last time, they will be out of work. But if buying campaign adds were illegal they wouldn’t need that money. They would be free to do what was good for America. Either way we’ll never have an efficient health care system till we have a one payer system similar to the Canadians and Europeans. You can’t fix health care simply by giving the insurance companies more money.

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at March 16, 2008 09:04 AM

You can’t make campaign ads illegal because it’s considered to be free speech, but you could tax campaign contributions, or at least make them not tax deductible. It’s not like they are giving money to a charity or something useful. Advertising could also be taxed. It’s a bigger public nuisance than cigarettes.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 16, 2008 09:39 AM

Loyal Opposition,

You wrote:

Ray, I’m thinking about the law of unintended consequences.

The law applies to everything. This whole article is about how the law applies to predatory capitalist commoditization of life and death. I have pointed out some of the unintended consequences of that - no of which have you challenged.

There certainly will be unintended consequences of national healthcare - some good - some bad. There are many different types of national healthcare around the world. Some work better than others. all lead to longer life expectancy. That is an intended consequence which is clearly obtainable.

Someone above mentioned the urban myth of someone going to the emergency room for a splinter. It probably did happen. It a big enough system everything happens at least once. in the first place we do not know how big or where the splinter was (eye), or what sorts of mental health problem the person might actually have needed treatment for. In any case, I am in favor of modest, very modest co-pays for treatment to help regulate that unintended consequence.

However saying that there may be some unintended negative consequences to national healthcare does not change the fact of obvious massive glaring unintended consequences in the capitalist healthneglect system.

You also wrote:

Well, I guess there are some who will always imagine that we’d better off if the government ran the entire economy and controlled everything—but are we such people?

No one is suggesting that here. So why are you throwing that red herring in our readship’s face. What I am suggesting, is that we can do better than this conflict ridden system and there are many countries with national healthcare where people live longer which proves that we can indeed do better.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 16, 2008 12:35 PM

ScottP,

You wrote:

Jees, Ray your rant or slant or prejudice against corporate vampirism is difficult to get my brain around. Does this mean that my popcorn butter manufacturer is raping me?

Well, I just don’t know. It depends on how bad the externalities are in the popcorn butter market - doesn’t it. I must confess that I have not analyzed that market and cannot comment upon it. It is not the subject of this article and accordingly I can tell you that your popcorn butter smells a lot like a red herring…

You also wrote:

What do your neighbors do? Anyone in a corporation?

I work for GM, so I am selling you that great Hummer that is raping the environment… …and your red herring point is?

You also wrote:

I will go to the provider at the shank of hang nail! Its free and you are paying for it afterall.

I have already addressed this unintended consequence of national healthcare. First, this already exists as an externality in the capitalist system - insurance pays. Second, I suggest modest co-pays to introduce a “free market” principal. Third most people are too busy too waste their valuable time going to the doctor for a hang nail. So this is a red herring. Excessive use and waste of unnecessary medical goods and services is driven by predatory capitalist marketing as detailed in the main article.

You also wrote:

Not everyone deserves everything. what about corporate car co.s. should we have free cars or subsidized cars so that we can get to work and pay for this free healthcare? my house is expensive, how about free housing for the abled bodied? What about free chicken wed. for the nugget deprived?

You have an endless supply of red herring don’t you. According to “market principals” Red Herring must be free.

You also wrote:

Again, does some fixing need to be done. Absolutely. But lets get the government out of the way before we step back in.

Already answered in the main article - which you have have not challenged.

You also wrote:

As long as we have the government as a coach and umpire, it will be a total disaster. How long can a competitive little game go with the coach on the field the entire game? why not let the boys and girls play and let the umpire call the extreme fouls.

I have an idea: Let’s not let our sons and daughters play a “competitive” life and death “game.” Let’s take the competition out of it. Let’s make it about working together to fight for life. Teamwork. One team on the field working together fighting for life. The doctors are the coaches. There is no need for an umpire. The government is only facilitator. It provides the field.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 16, 2008 01:09 PM

ScottP,

You wrote:

Jees, Ray your rant or slant or prejudice against corporate vampirism is difficult to get my brain around. Does this mean that my popcorn butter manufacturer is raping me?

Well, I just don’t know. It depends on how bad the externalities are in the popcorn butter market - doesn’t it. I must confess that I have not analyzed that market and cannot comment upon it. It is not the subject of this article and accordingly I can tell you that your popcorn butter smells a lot like a red herring…

You also wrote:

What do your neighbors do? Anyone in a corporation?

I work for GM, so I am selling you that great Hummer that is raping the environment… …and your red herring point is?

You also wrote:

I will go to the provider at the shank of hang nail! Its free and you are paying for it afterall.

I have already addressed this unintended consequence of national healthcare. First, this already exists as an externality in the capitalist system - insurance pays. Second, I suggest modest co-pays to introduce a “free market” principal. Third most people are too busy too waste their valuable time going to the doctor for a hang nail. So this is a red herring. Excessive use and waste of unnecessary medical goods and services is driven by predatory capitalist marketing as detailed in the main article.

You also wrote:

Not everyone deserves everything. what about corporate car co.s. should we have free cars or subsidized cars so that we can get to work and pay for this free healthcare? my house is expensive, how about free housing for the abled bodied? What about free chicken wed. for the nugget deprived?

You have an endless supply of red herring don’t you. According to “market principals” Red Herring must be free.

You also wrote:

Again, does some fixing need to be done. Absolutely. But lets get the government out of the way before we step back in.

Already answered in the main article - which you have have not challenged.

You also wrote:

As long as we have the government as a coach and umpire, it will be a total disaster. How long can a competitive little game go with the coach on the field the entire game? why not let the boys and girls play and let the umpire call the extreme fouls.

I have an idea: Let’s not let our sons and daughters play a “competitive” life and death “game.” Let’s take the competition out of it. Let’s make it about working together to fight for life. Teamwork. One team on the field working together fighting for life. The doctors are the coaches. There is no need for an umpire. The government is only facilitator. It provides the field.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 16, 2008 01:11 PM

Mike the Cynic,

Excellent comment. I wish that you would have co-wrote my article.

I am an Obama supporter but I oppose his healthcare plan because it sells out to for profit corporations. On the other hand they have too much political power and he will not get elected otherwise. He is by far the least sold out of our available choices.

I agree that we probably will not fix healthcare until we fix our government. I believe that will not happen until we have publicly funded elections, and corporations are stripped of personhood status (free speech rights), and are stripped of political power.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 16, 2008 01:26 PM

ohrealy,

You wrote:

You can’t make campaign ads illegal because it’s considered to be free speech, but you could tax campaign contributions, or at least make them not tax deductible. It’s not like they are giving money to a charity or something useful. Advertising could also be taxed. It’s a bigger public nuisance than cigarettes.

Corporations have not always had and do not have to have personhood status and free speech rights. We need to back our Constitution and make it for “We the people” again.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 16, 2008 01:30 PM

I work for GM, so I am selling you that great Hummer that is raping the environment

GM, eh? And how is your health plan?

Next question:

How would you feel about having it taken away and having your taxes raised so YOU can start paying more of your fair share for the healthcare of unemployed freeloaders and illegal immigrants?

Perhaps some day you can stand in line behind a couple dozen crack addicts and illegals for your “free” five and a half-minutes with a tired, overworked, government subsidized physician. But I say no thanks.

Why should you enjoy such a good health care plan when others don’t? You might be thinking about the “rich capitalists” who have it better than you do. But when the world becomes “fair,” what makes you think you’re going to being sharing with the rich instead of the grubby unwashed masses?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 16, 2008 02:16 PM

Ray Guest wrote: You mention Medicare fraud. Remember the for profit vampires have sank their fangs into medicare…

Yes, but the corruption within our plutocratic government is a part (if not most) of the problem, since it is the duty of government to enforce laws, and prosecute violators. Instead, Bill Frist’s HCA paid a massive $631 Million fine, and the investigation was dropped.

Lawlessness and corruption are getting worse because the voters have failed to do their part too for too long, because the incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly have capitalized on a VERY clever mechanism designed to trick voters and capitalize on the voters own apathy, laziness, complacency, and misplaced loyalties:

• (a) Even though many voters often don’t like THEIR incumbent, they will NEVER vote for a challenger from the OTHER party. Thus, they don’t vote, or blindly pull the party-lever, and repeatedly re-elect the incumbent politicians anyway.


• (b) Therefore, the incumbent career politicians continue to enjoy their 93%-to-99% re-election rates (indefinitely, without term limits).


• (c) The incumbent politicians can therefore do almost anything they want and be repeatedly rewarded for it. Even when some are under investigation for felonies (e.g. William Jefferson); for which some might get a presidential pardon anyway (e.g. Dan Rostenkowski), putting the politicians above the law).


• (d) Therefore, the voters’ loyalty is continually abused (despite the dismally low approval ratings for Congress, yet very high re-election rates for Congress). Therefore, the voters’ loyalty to THEIR party is actually misplaced. And repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians for so many abuses merely ensures that the abuses will continue to make the majority of voters lives more uncomfortable.


• (e) Some politicians love to fuel the partisan-warfare to distract the voters, and it is powerfully effective. Some voters are all too happy to wallow in it, because it is easier to blame the OTHER party, rather than admit neither is much better than the