Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2013 09:26 am
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5240231)
Damn you're dumb, FrankA.

You say you are not a liberal, then stop acting like one.


Did you mean to say, "You say you are not a liberal, then stop acting like what I consider to be a liberal?"
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2013 09:27 am


Today may just be the day FrankA's head explodes Laughing
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2013 09:29 am
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
Today may just be the day FrankA's head explodes


Gotta think that one over for a bit. Are you threatening an attack?
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2013 09:34 am
@Frank Apisa,

FrankA, you started down the road to personal destruction long ago, please stick to that road and beware the moors.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2013 11:29 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Uh... what is it you think this graph (link please) is demonstrating?
that america has profound errors of healthcare delivery. This does not mean that single payer will not work but those promoting it need to explain how it is the elixer. How for instance does it prevent the massive waste at the end of life? My mom sucked up $30k of care in the last 4 months for cancer therapy that was never going to help because she was too far gone, my grandpa got a new set of knees that he never wallked on because he was too far gone, because no one was going to tell them no. This is a government that is addicted to handing out unpaid for candy, putting them in charge of a single payer health systes seems like a recipe for disaster.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2013 11:47 am
@blatham,
I doubt very much it's about single-payer that our cost of health care is so high.
It has to do with fraud, overpayment for drugs and equipment, and unnnecessary procedures and lab work.

If these problems are "fixed," our cost of health care will be more in line with other country's costs/benefit.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2013 11:56 am
@cicerone imposter,
It is not just the costs but also the outcomes, for instance we massively over treat for prostate cancer and have worse outcomes as a result. We have a habbit of over screening, over treating, and indulging in popping very expensive pills, none of this will be corrected by changing the bill payer.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2013 12:19 pm
@hawkeye10,
I think prostate cancer is a unique illness, because research continues to change about treatments vs no treatment - depending on age and grade.
When I was diagnosed, I had a team of my own physician, urologist, and oncologist to help me decide the best treatment for my age and grade of cancer.

You don't pop pills for prostate cancer - none that I know of.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2013 12:25 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
FrankA, you started down the road to personal destruction long ago, please stick to that road and beware the moors.


Well then, apparently it was a threat.

Perhaps that is why some people worry more about the honest, decent law-abiding owners of guns...than they do of criminals.

Anyone who threatens me without doing it to my face I consider a punk.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2013 12:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
This is a government that is addicted to handing out unpaid for candy, putting them in charge of a single payer health system seems like a recipe for disaster.


Not necessarily hawk. The SP system is only a funding mechanism. It has the flexibility to both run services and hire them.

And once established the voters decide how much "unpaid for candy" there will be. It might take, say, three elections for the voters to learn the ropes.

Until it is tried arguments are moot, And my reading of the US political scene is that a SP system is very unlikely. Arguing against something that hasn't happened is a form of fortune telling.

All systems in this field have their advantages and their drawbacks. I doubt one person in 100 in the UK would vote for a system like yours. We tried it.

It is not an elixer. Nothing can be. It greatly reduces anxiety though. Just as a total ban on all private guns would. In both cases there are periods of bedding in to be endured. Lessons to be learned.

0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2013 05:37 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
This does not mean that single payer will not work but those promoting it need to explain how it is the elixer.


"Elixer". Not a word I've used. As to single payer, there are other examples or systems in place elsewhere that do function efficiently (all those other dots on the graph you posted where costs are far lower than the US and outcomes better, about two thirds of said dots). Consider them pilot projects, if you will. Successful pilot projects.

End of life care is problematic, particularly as technologies increase life-span and as costs of many of these new techniques and related meds are high. But is it your claim or assumption that such are absent in Canada or Finland or Germany or New Zealand or Israel, etc?

Your use of "candy" is intellectually trivial. The only thing that would make the use of it less so would be if those other examples I just alluded to did not exist and if they were packing the old folks onto ice as soon as some cost/benefit equation turned south.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2013 05:44 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I doubt very much it's about single-payer that our cost of health care is so high.
It has to do with fraud, overpayment for drugs and equipment, and unnnecessary procedures and lab work.
If these problems are "fixed," our cost of health care will be more in line with other country's costs/benefit.


But what factors lead to such abuses? Surely, corporate profit-taking (where the prime ethical consideration is understood to be maximal return to shareholders, not to mention CEOs and boards) inherently works in opposition to real efficiencies as Wendell Potter exposes in some detail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Potter

The question again presents itself - why would the US be so uniquely prone to these problems of fraud, drugs costs, etc?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2013 06:00 pm
@blatham,
I believe the "fraud" aspect of the higher cost for our medical care has many problems including overcharges by doctors for unnecessary procedures and outright charging for non-performance. As for higher drug costs, I understand even Canadians pay less for drugs produced in the US. Something is definitely wrong when US consumers pay more for the same drugs used in other countries. ++

http://www.businessinsider.com/see-how-much-more-americans-pay-for-prescription-drugs-2012-8
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2013 06:01 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
The question again presents itself - why would the US be so uniquely prone to these problems of fraud, drugs costs, etc?


The US Constitution is designed for those precise reasons. You need to engage with something more disinterested than media Bernie.

I presume "etc" means the aspects of the investment banks concerned with the ownership of the "key industries". In which, as Minderbinder reminded us, we all have a share.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2013 12:08 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I understand even Canadians pay less for drugs produced in the US. Something is definitely wrong when US consumers pay more for the same drugs used in other countries. ++


of course, the technical term is "Americans are irresponsible chumps"......
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2013 04:57 am
@cicerone imposter,
Two things there (at least), delivery inefficiencies or fraud by medical professionals and drug company manipulation to keep their profits up.

As doctors are paid here by the government, that immediately puts in place a check on fraudulent or over-blown charges. I'm not sure what other systems of oversight are in place but I'll try to find out.

As to drug costs, your link tells the story. That's simply a very corrupt system where politicians and their staffs are bought or manipulated into shafting consumers (sick humans) so that the pharmaceutical companies can gain maximal profits. American exceptionalism.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2013 05:09 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
of course, the technical term is "Americans are irresponsible chumps"......


Americans are "chumps" because they have been very effectively propagandized into their chumpness. Again, see Wendell Potter's experiences as VP of communications at CIGNA. You can choose to lay blame with citizens if you like but you'll get no change until you reach into the institutional structures presently in place. And as citizen government is the only entity powerful enough to match corporate power, you'll probably want to turn there for solutions.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2013 05:26 am
@blatham,
Are we to assume that "here" means you are now back in Canada?

The main system of oversight here is a nosy media and the Minister of Health having to answer embarrassing and career threatening questions in parliament.

I don't think chumpiness and corruption are American problems. I think the system doesn't control such things as well as other systems.
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2013 08:12 am
When republicans lose and can't obstruct magical things happen but how long with this last with a republican congress?

Dow Jones Industrial Average Has Best January Since 1994

Quote:
NEW YORK -- The Dow logged its best start to the year in almost two decades.

Stocks rallied in the first week of the year after U.S. lawmakers reached a deal to avoid the "fiscal cliff," and then pushed higher toward record levels as optimism about the housing market recovery grew. Decent company earnings for the fourth quarter and an improving job market also helped lift markets.

The Dow Jones industrial average ended the month up 5.8 percent, its strongest January since 1994, according to S&P Capital IQ data. The Standard & Poor's 500 finished the month 5 percent higher, its best start to the year since 1997.

"There's not a whole lot of bears left here," said Jeff Hirsch, the editor of the Stock Trader's Almanac, adding that the market may struggle to gain further in February.

Stocks have also benefited as investors have put money into equities in January. By one measure, the monthly flow into stock funds was the largest in nine years.

About $51 billion in net deposits was moved into stock funds and so-called hybrid funds, which invest in a mix of stocks and bonds, consultant Strategic Insight said Thursday. That's the most since $56 billion flowed in during January 2004.

On Thursday, stocks drifted lower as investors digested more earnings results and reports on the economy.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2013 08:16 am
@jcboy,


Obama is hell bent on pushing this country over the fiscal cliff.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fiscal Cliff
  3. » Page 59
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/11/2020 at 08:01:32