Comments (37) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   ynnek58 said, 3 months ago

   Natural selection – see you on the other side [or not] – we don’t have enough of it. Where’s the problem? You socialists don’t seem to realize no matter how ‘noble’ your goal or plan is, it doesn’t give you the right to forcibly take my money (and it IS forcibly!). If you want to give away every last cent you come across, feel free. If you want to, without coercion get others to donate to your cause, great; otherwise, get you grubby mitts out of my pockets.

2. 

   HUMPHRIES said, 3 months ago

   ynnek58 , your only concern is 2money”. One day your tune’s gonna change.

3. 

   Copperdomebodhi said, 3 months ago

   So much for “THE GOVERNMENT WILL RATION CARE!” Insurance companies are already rationing care like it was the last bowl of gruel in an orphanage, and that’s if you’re lucky enough to have coverage.

4. 

   pbarnrob said, 3 months ago

   What’d be funny (if it wasn’t so sad) ynnek’s and everybody else’s payroll bennies are going to those legalized gambling outfits called ‘insurers’, who then keep it and deny claims.

   With Single Payer, we’d be getting everybody covered, and be able to cut the overhead from some 30% to maybe 4-5%, and businesses big and small could get on with what they do best. HR676.

5. 

   NebulousRikulau said, 3 months ago

   @ynnek58

   Your money?

   It’s the government’s money. It says so right on it.

   @pbarnrob
   But what about all the newly unemployed that we would have to supply coverage to when the private insurers lay all of their unnecessary employees off?

6. 

   iamthelorax said, 3 months ago

   Do people actually think the government doesn’t ration care, doesn’t refuse it based on cost, actually will always have the treatment you need even if they wanted to give it to you? Is that what Oliphant is suggesting? La Vie en rose.

7. 

   hintzy said, 3 months ago

   @ynnek58: Just wait for the day when you need help and can’t afford it, you’ll be right back here bitching about how the government won’t help you.

   That’s the sense of entitlement so many people have these days, they want everything given to them, but they don’t want to pay for it. They shouldn’t have to pay for it, it’s their “right”! Ugh.

8. 

   BOB HASTY said, 3 months ago

   SInce going on to Medicare, I have NEVER had to get permission to see and doctor I want. When the M.D., or, more likely, the specialists wants test or a procedure, it gets scheduled and done! All my years with insurance companies, I have had critical care blocked!!!
   I have Ankylosing Spondylitis. I need Remicade, which costs $7,000.00 every six weeks, plus the lab and infusion costs at the MD’s office. Before I turned 65, it took a year and a half to finally get approval from Blue Cross. Then every year, when the new contract came up, they would try to deny treatment for a “pre-existing” condition. No more of that bleep with Medicare.

   If you people have sipped the kool aid of Private Insurers, I feel very sorry for you. The last time I was in France, I had a hypocglycemic event. After a day in the hospital, they gave me more medication. I PAID NOTHING!!!!!

   YOU PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE. THERE ALREADY IS A “DEATH PANEL.” IT IS PRIVATE HEALTH INSURERS.

   And for you poor souls who decided to buy Private Medicare [like Sure Horizons] Do you realize that the only way they make a profit is by holding down your medical care costs below what you and Medicare pays them in advance?

   Please wise up!!! It’s time for the adults to take over, just like they had to to get Medicare past! All of this scarey stuff was brought up back in 1965.

   Thank God!! The Democrats past Medicare on a 50 + 1 Reconciliation Bill. We would not have Medicare now if we let the Republicans filibuster it away.

   Get a LIFE!! Do you really want to die under the profit motive?????

9. 

   iamthelorax said, 3 months ago

   Every time I hear about this issue, it’s always “Capitalist Pig” who wants to kill poor people vs. “Socialist Dictator” who wants to kill old people.

   Doesn’t anyone want to grill Obama on why he isn’t trying to make medical care cheaper instead of whether he wants government to pay for it?

   Does he have any plan for that? Seems that would help a lot of people.

10. 

    hlp54 said, 3 months ago

    You said it Bob, there are just too many greedy, uneducated people who believe the lies and/or want to say “I got mine to h_ with you!”

11. 

    HOWGOZIT said, 3 months ago

    Already dead–he can still vote in Cook County, IL!

12. 

    Gary Kleppe said, 3 months ago

    But what about all the newly unemployed that we would have to supply coverage to when the private insurers lay all of their unnecessary employees off?

    What about all the people being laid off now because their companies can’t afford to keep subsidizing the insurance “industry”?

    See this California Nurses’ Association study which concludes that single-payer would create a net estimated 2.6 million jobs.

    http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/january/first-of-its-kind-study-medicare-for-all-single-payer-reform-would-be-major-stimulus-for-economy-with-2-6-million-new-jobs-317-billion-in-business-revenue-100-billion-in-wages.html

13. 

    4uk4ata said, 3 months ago

    @iamthelorax: “Doesn’t anyone want to grill Obama on why he isn’t trying to make medical care cheaper instead of whether he wants government to pay for it?”

    Good question, and I think it is asked fairly often. The thing is, most countries with universal healthcare have notably lower costs… and, by most surveys, get comparable health care services. To me this means that the current medical care system is exceedingly expensive and inefficient. According to a 2007 survey done by the McKinsey Global Institute, Americans pay a total of $480 billion in excess spending (due partly to administrative overcharges and poorer quality) per YEAR, compared to most Western European countries. Similar surveys concluded that Medicare has much lower administrative costs than the private insurers that offer similar services. My guess is the difference is due to the inefficient administration of the insurers (inefficient from the point of view of the medical service provided) and their profit margins.

    A plan that regulated the industry, especially if it includes a non-profit public option, can do a lot to cut this amount. The key word here is “can”. It depends on how good the final version is.

14. 

    ezdeb said, 3 months ago

    Cartwright, that’s the frustrating part. nek and others like him don’t have the intellectual capacity or the civics class foundation to think beyond their own wallet. They do not think that any commodity besides the green paper in their wallets has an accepted value.

    So, for example, if we’re talking about the savings that certain reforms will apply to the system, they cannot see that savings is money. It’s not a tax dollar on a line item on a W2, so they willfully ignore it. Same with the end-of-life counseling. Such a good idea, that actually protects patients and makes sure THEIR wishes are followed instead of hosp administration’s. You know, instead of beaurocrats….. This results in big savings too, but righties are unable to see that because there’s no way to blame a democrat for having a hand in neK’s own personal wallet.

    Since they won’t come up with links to any Republican healthcare reform they like, and they won’t say anything but Socialism is the threat, and they won’t do or say anything except that dems are not productive members of society, it’s hard to care enough to respond. lorax’s “question” is typical. We should GRILL Obama on why he isn’t trying to make things cheaper instead of just taking money from lorax’s wallet. So, Lorax, when the bills are introduced, why do republicans scream and twitch and remove ANY provision that would actually save money? It has happened over and over, as they ridicule democrats for not saving money, and now you want to grill the prez about why he’s not doing better. Read my lips: Obstructionism is not debate. No is not a reason. It’s only power.

    And yet they just ignore questions and go with the “dems are poo-poo heads, hyuk!”

    no intellect at all displayed here, righties.

15. 

    ezdeb said, 3 months ago

    4uk, on the other hand, leans a little left (my assumption). Look at his response to you, lorax. What does he say?

    Good Question. How weird is that! He doesn’t insult you or your ideology. Perhaps you find that bad. He then goes on to discuss it with you, giving you the benefit of the doubt. I just can’t wait to see your well reasoned, informed response!

16. 

    linusbern said, 3 months ago

    @ynnek58 “You socialists don’t seem to realize no matter how ‘noble’ your goal or plan is, it doesn’t give you the right to forcibly take my money (and it IS forcibly!).”

    I don’t remember tax paying being optional when it was my money paying for a war you were masterbating over nightly.
    
    I bet you own a car, I don’t, so I am subsidizing you almost $2000 a year so you have the infrastructure available to drive.
    
    When I can withdraw from paying taxes for everything I oppose, then you get a right to complain, in the meantime, get your hand out of my pocket you f&@king pervert!

17. 

    PlainBill said, 3 months ago

    iamthelorax; Good point. One problem is it is not possible to have a rational discussion on the issue. Someone like ynnek58 gets up and rants about ‘Socialized Medicine’, ‘Death Panels’, or other falsehoods.

    ynnek58, Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society”. I scorn those who want the benefits of a civilized society without paying the costs.

    While insurance companies deservedly take a lot of heat, medical care providers also deserve their share of blame. A personal case. My doctor performed a biopsy, and sent the sample to a lab. The lab was ‘out of network’. The doctor had access to information on which labs are ‘in network’, but did not use that information. As a result, a procedure which should have cost me no more than $300 may cost me $1800. And anyone who has seen an itemized hospital bill is familiar with $5 aspirin tablets and $10 tongue depressors.

    Lastly, this article identifies some potential saving from health care reform. It’s a small amount -only 1.2 Trillion dollars.
    http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/10/news/economy/healthcaremoneywasters/index.htm

18. 

    Magnaut said, 3 months ago

    You have failed to identify the enemy. As Pogo said “they are us” but at this time he would be wrong the enemy has been elected by us. I am a senior and a physician and also hate the insurance industry but we can fix it. Just try to fix the government and get labelled Nazi by Pelosi and KKK by Dingle.

19. 

    iamthelorax said, 3 months ago

    PlainBill:Nice to finally hear from people who agree :-) It’s hard to hear anything beyond name calling, and it is from both sides.

    I like your example; Not only because it’s based on personal experience instead of ideology, but because it highlights a huge reason why insurance companies aren’t entirely to blame. I mean it can’t be on them to make things affordable when their job is to refund inflated bills.

    I can’t make the link work, I get “404 Page Not Found”. I’ll try to search it somewhere on the site. I think that cost cutting is extremely important, more than working on payment options. You guys have some really good access to medicine, it’s too bad it’s unaffordable.

20. 

    photopip said, 3 months ago

    Ynnek58 - Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations.
    This has no application at all to the point you are trying to make, before using a term you clearly do not understand - please try finding out what it means first

21. 

    iamthelorax said, 3 months ago

    4uk4ata:Did I “insult you or your ideology”? If so, it wasn’t meant that way.

    I’m not convinced that the presence of a government payment option would result in cost control because it only covers the question of paying an existing bill. It might reduce the cost of insurance, seeing as that would be the direct competition, but that’s only one part of the problem.

    Like you said, “depends on the final version”.

22. 

    ezdeb said, 3 months ago

    linusbern, very well said. Any response, Kenny?

23. 

    fritzoid said, 3 months ago

    Millions of years of natural selection have left homo sapiens, like its nearest primate relations, as a socially cooperative species. The individual thrives when the community thrives. Resources are shared, the weak, sick, and aged in a group are aided by the strong. There are levels within each community such as alphas and betas and so on, but each individual earns (and must maintain) his or her place in the hierarchy; status is not inheritable.

    Imagine a chimp who, through superior ability, more than pulls his own weight in the gathering of bananas, but hoards those bananas from his fellows. Best case scenario: he is ostracized, and driven from the collective, so that he may on his own gather as many bananas as he wants, but loses the protection of the group. He survives, but cannot reproduce, and is likely to fall prey to the dangers of predators (including other bands of chimps). Worst case scenario: his own band turns on him and forcibly takes his bananas, and then rips him to pieces. Again, this chimp will not reproduce.

    All of this is entirely consistent with natural selection. So ynnek, be careful what you wish for.

24. 

    charliekane said, 3 months ago

    Now that’s what I call end of life counselling!

    No Obama Death Panel for elderly citizens!

    Don’t we all deserve what we can afford?

25. 

    fritzoid said, 3 months ago

    charliekane, your question is ambiguous.

    If you mean “Do we deserve as much as we can afford?”, then my answer is “yes.”

    If you mean “Do we deserve no more than we can afford?”, my answer is a resounding “NO!”

26. 

    DrCanuck said, 3 months ago

    Perhaps, in a civilized society, we all deserve what we truly need.

27. 

    David said, 3 months ago

    Guess what guys! Your government wants to replace that man at the desk with their own beaurocrat so they can do the exact same thing to you.

    NEXT!

28. 

    believecommonsense said, 3 months ago

    I’ll second Bob Hasty. Since I got Medicare, I haven’t had any of the problems I had with private insurance. I always chose the PPO, because HMOs are notorious for delaying care and other problems. Even with the more expensive PPO, everything was a hassle, from trying to find physicians on the insurer’s “preferred network,” to having to fight with the insurer constantly over errors in bills, denying claims, etc.

    Private insurers are the most inefficient system I’ve ever had to work with, and I don’t buy their mistakes are completely inadvertent, either. I think they know some people will just give up fighting their incredible bureaucracy.

29. 

    lindz.coop said, 3 months ago

    Last I heard, the idea behind Health Care Reform IS to make health care cheaper. It is too expensive for most individuals and it is becoming too expensive for corporations to provide. I think Obama has been grilled on this and has provided answers – less unecessary testing, medicines, procedures, more talking to patients to find out what is really wrong with them. The one big thing that has not been addressed is why all these things cost so much in the first place (pills are hundreds of dollars each, procedures are thousands, and the “miscellaneous” portion of my cancer treatment was $93,000 – (after doctor, radiation, setup, c-scans, etc). Nobody even questions that!!!

30. 

    ynnek58 said, 3 months ago

    Ha ha some of you assumed way too much I’m no Rep nor am I a Dem. I didn’t support Georgie’s war in I-Wreck, nor do I support Nobamas’s socialist agenda. They are just two idiots of a different feather.

    And it turns out I do know what natural selection is, but chose to use it in a slightly obtuse form – if you can’t make the leap stay on the other side. The intent of what I was implying is we do tamper with a lot of things that allow loads of people to get to a reproductive state that wouldn’t have otherwise done so, and others that wouldn’t have survived to live to birth again. Over time, who knows the long-term effect that our meddling will do. For instance bacteria have evolved a great deal (and some in a pretty scary way) because of input from antibiotics etc. that man has created. I’m not suggesting we throw all the stuff away, but we must realize that we have an effect. We are to the point we could easily have a pandemic that virtually wipes our species out, whatever.

    Money is just a vehicle to measure our work and reward system we have – it could be clams, I don’t care. The clams I gather should be mine. Hey, I don’t mind paying come clams for some stuff – the constitution does give the government the task of protecting us militarily. We need courts, law enforcement etc. But this concept of everything being a right, and somehow the government has this cradle to grave obligation is just utter nonsense. If that’s your vision, you are totally welcome to give away your last dime, just don’t expect me to be happy about pouring my money down a rat hole.

    No one has still answered the question. If one of you holds me up with a knife, it called robbery, but it two of you vote it out of my wallet it’s somehow legal and morally OK. My point is that no matter how noble your goal, you shouldn’t have the right to make other people conform to your vision. Maybe your vision conflicts with theirs? Nobamacare conflicts with mine.

    Hey $100 Billion here and $100 billion there – pretty soon it adds up to real money.

31. 

    4uk4ata said, 3 months ago

    @ Ynnek - not everyone benefits from certain social services, but someone has to pay for them. You were already given the example of having to pay for government-maintained roads, schools, police or army even though you personally might not be using them at the moment. Maybe I am a pacifist and want the army to be cut to a third of its current - but I do not get the option to not pay for it out of my taxes. That is a fundamental problem of society - it includes other people with their own opinions, which must be compromised with.

    As long as people live together, decisions they make impact others. Democracy often does have the implication that when the majority makes decisions, they are valid for all. While not particularly representative, do consider the opposite - decision made by the minority, and valid for all. IMO, this is even worse.

    That being said, I want to see the final draft of the health plan bill before speaking with any certainty. I will say this though - universal healthcare has provided comparable results at lower cost in many other countries. If there is a reason it can’t do so in the US, I do not know it.

32. 

    linusbern said, 3 months ago

    “universal healthcare has provided comparable results at lower cost in many other countries. If there is a reason it can’t do so in the US, I do not know it.”

    It can’t do it in the US and I will tell you the reason. It will not be allowed to. There are so many people, both inside and outside of the reform process that have a vested interest in it failing badly and they will work their asses off to make sure it is designed to fail. Already there is no notion whatsoever that the US system should emulate systems abroad that have proven effective at delivering comparable services far cheaper. It is taboo to even suggest such a thing. That would undermine the insurance industries god given right to extract obscene profits from the sick and dying.

    And the people who are currently tearing their eyes out at the notion of a heartless bureaucracy making your health decisions will be working just as hard to make sure that heartless bureaucracy is in place in any reform package because they would want to ensure that public healthcare was as punitive and degrading as possible, lest someone undeserving get it.

33. 

    ezdeb said, 3 months ago

    4uk, thanks for your post. neK, now that someone has answered your question about, you know, the concept of democracy, voting, etc, whatcha got to hate on?

34. 

    fritzoid said, 3 months ago

    The man with a knife takes your money, is that not natural selection as well?

    I don’t endorse paying stipends to those who are unwilling to contribute. I endorse revaluation of labor so someone who works hard at underappreciated tasks, like sweeping floors or waitressing or (it shames me that I even HAVE to include this) teaching children, receives a decent wage. If a CEO makes, say, 8 times the salary of his lowest-paid worker, that may be justifiable. If a CEO makes 300 times the salary of his lowest-paid worker, that is unconscienable.

    When Capt. John Smith at Jamestown laid down the edict “If you don’t work, you don’t eat!” it wasn’t directed to the menial laborers who were slacking off, it was directed to the idle wealthy who, although they may have provided capital to get materials, weren’t willing to do a lick of the labor required to get things up and running.

    The economists talk about what is the “optimal” level of unemployment, to keep labor costs down. If that “optimal” level is any number greater than 0%, then there will be people who are unable to find work, however badly they want it.

    The 5% of the population which controls 80% of the nation’s wealth has been very effective at keeping the 70% which owns the remaining 20% deathly afraid of the 25% which owns nothing. (Numbers are approximate.)

35. 

    DrCanuck said, 3 months ago

    David said: “Guess what guys! Your government wants to replace that man at the desk with their own beaurocrat so they can do the exact same thing to you.”

    DrCanuck responds: Actually, David, you are the one “guessing.” You state your accusation on the basis of NO evidence.

36. 

    PlainBill said, 3 months ago

    iamthelorax, I can’t apologize for the problem with the link. You are right, it doesn’t work. Something about this site mangles the underscore symbol. Try this - Google ’ Health care’s big money wasters ‘; it’s the first hit.

    lindz.coop, you have a good question, which has a simple answer. Actually, two answers. Greed and laziness. To improve ‘efficiency’, insurance companies set a lower limit on the charges which they will challenge. This limit is in the range of $20. To a certain extent, this makes sense.

    Take this scenario: a hospital charges $18 for the water pitcher they provide. The insurance company knows the hospital can buy them in bulk for $1.83. By the time the nursing station supply closet is stocked and someone pulls one from the closet and fills it with water, it has actually cost the hospital $7.12. So $7.12 is a fair payment.

    However, the insurance company has a human being reviewing the bill. That person occupies a desk, takes breaks (and paid vacations), is covered by health insurance, and collects a paycheck. It is costing the insurance company well over $60 per hour to have that person reviewing bills. It takes about the same time (let’s say 10 minutes) to object to a $10 overcharge as it does to object to a $200 overcharge. One rejection (if sustained) will COST the insurance company money, the other will save them money.

37. 

    M Henri Day said, 3 months ago

    Ynnek58, while you seem utterly unwilling that any of your money be spent to contribute to medical care for your friends, neighbours, and fellow citizens, you don’t seem to be concerned with the efforts at (un)natural selection (over one million excess deaths in Iraq alone) being carried out by your government in your name and which has been made possible by taxes paid by you and others. Thus, no «grubby mitts» for health care for all - but no problem with «grubby mitts» for the purposes of war. Lady Macbeth obviously picked the wrong husband ; hers being, as she notes, «too full o’ th’ Milke of humane kindnesse»….

    Henri