Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine in Rants, Raves, & Praise

Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine in Rants, Raves, & Praise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20433457 en Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:38:42 EDT Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:38:42 EDT Re: Health Care http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20464688 i1me2ao : funny thing is most americans are one major medical issue away from losing everything..
--
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20464688 Sun, 11 May 2008 09:40:46 EDT Re: Health Care http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20464246 BurntCricket : Well NO ONE in this country goes without access to Health Care, the people that are basically screwed are the ones that make too much to qualify for Medicaid(basically socialized medicine for the poor)or another state run program, are not supplied health insurance from work, or can not afford a single subscriber policy.

One thing I think needs to stop is people running to the ER for things that are OBVIOUSLY not an emergency, so people can complain about waiting four hours in the ER.
If the triage nurse decides it is not an emergency, you are sent to a health clinic, or urgicare center.

I could be biased on this matter since I have pretty much always had health insurance and have had no major problems with the company denying anything my Doctor requested. UCR payments are fun to deal with, especially when there are data entry problems, or the Doctor doesn't accept UCR.
--
If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20464246 Sun, 11 May 2008 03:49:52 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20450524 Count Zero : First of all if you ever did go to medical school you obviously "didn't make it" since you're making your posts from 247realmedia.com or unsubcentral.com.... what hospital are they affiliated with? I'm pretty sure those aren't ISPs either based on their websites...

Listen I know you disagree with me about giving the government money - but you can't honestly say that private insurance would insure everyone in the US for cheaper. If they WERE to insure everyone for cheaper it would only be because the majority of plans had deductibles that were too large for lower-income families to afford. The fact is, healthcare is a basic human right (»www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)- right now we have a very primitive and very expensive Universal Healthcare and you are already paying for it via your taxes. Right now anyone can go into a public ER, give a fake name, receive care, and when they leave the hospital receives reimbursement via tax money. Of course it's not the full reimbursement the hospital actually needs to stay afloat - and sadly that means a lot of hospitals are in trouble.
You don't think there are waiting lists under private insurance for procedures? If your insurance company had their way there would be - again more proof you've never worked with an insurance company in the US. The waiting penalty here is usually imposed on the doctor - not the patient and it is in the form of delayed reimbursement. Waiting 2-3 months before you receive money for what you did for the patient, meanwhile the private insurance company raises the rates for the patient. If it is one of the insurance plans that REQUIRES pre-authorization and you want an expensive procedure you can already expect them to deny your claim and try to make you do tons of paperwork in an effort to stave off having to pay for the procedure. Hoping you'll eventually give up ad live with whatever ailment you have. So waiting lists are already a reality for many here in America.

The alternative to insuring everyone is to have millions of people die horribly and slowly of chronic diseases (with your out-of-the-US medical education why don't you think about that?) without receiving any care because unfortunately they couldn't afford thousands of dollars of medical care each year when they got older.

MediCare already insures two of the most expensive segments of our population - adding the rest of the population to MediCare (in a revamped form) would actually help the program out a lot since younger, healthier people who are right now giving their money to private insurance for pure profits could instead give that money to MediCare where it would help people who actually need it.

Private education is NOT a requirement, I graduated from a public high school and I took 8 AP classes (that's almost a full year of college credit), I graduated from a top 25 public university in just 3.5 years and got into medical school my first time applying. My wife went to a different public high school, graduated with some AP credit and got into pharmacy school her first time applying.
In fact my old college roommate got into her pharmacy school after going to a private high school (Mount De Sales) and failed the first semester, TWICE. So it's very much a falsehood to generalize that public schools only put out unsuccessful people and private schools generate all of the successful people. Public education was considered an "unfunded liability" in it's infancy as well but that has proven to be untrue, and in the long-term has greatly helped the US economy. And the government feels you have an obligation to pay for other people's children's' education and that's backed by laws written by politicians elected by the population; so if you get people elected who write a law saying you aren't obligated to pay towards education for other people's children then you in fact will be correct with your earlier statement.

That's it though. I know you'll come back here tomorrow spew nonsense about how intelligent and logical you are - without even realizing that in the broad scheme of things there is little intelligence or logic in leaving 50M people uninsured and millions of others underinsured thanks to a private insurance system.

Oh as for China... a little research on Google brought up countless articles citing shortcomings by their private system. "The Chinese economist Yang Fan wrote in 2001 that lip service being given to the old socialist health care system and deliberately ignoring and failing to regulate the actual private health care system is a serious failing of the Chinese health care system." Just look at how many health epidemics there are in China; just to name a few very recent ones: cholera & streptococcus suis (China is the ONLY place on earth where pig to human transmission of that bacteria has occurred), Hepatitis B is endemic on the mainland and they only recently started a program to inoculate all newborns. These epidemics I just listed are all since 2002. So, is China really better off than countries in Europe?
Real quick:
US life expectancy:78
China life Expectancy:72.88
Swedish life expectancy: 80.63
UK life expectancy:78.7
Canada life expectancy:80.34

Yes. I am thrilled about China's health system. I think we should emulate theirs fully.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20450524 Thu, 08 May 2008 09:43:52 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20449966 anon :

said by Johnny

:

Not Ron Paul - Howard Roark.

EDIT: Turning my anon block back on. Ahhhh....

Good idea. When I was a small child, I, too, used to shut my eyes and pretend that things I couldn't cope with simply weren't there. Perhaps the same strategy works for adults, too?

I couldn't tell you.

Meanwhile, before I forget, I did want to thank all of the collectivists, central planners and socialists for their "thumbs down" votes and clumsy, painfully transparent ad hominem attacks.

Cheers, fellas. And no hard feelings, eh?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20449966 Thu, 08 May 2008 04:47:32 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20449937 anon :

said by Count Zero

:

It's not even worth arguing with you Ron Paul, obviously you're so much smarter than everyone else on the planet -

If you think that the wealth redistribution scheme you're proposing is anything new, then you are sadly mistaken.

But having the government steal money from some people to give to others (in a "good cause" of course!) is what politics is all about: A and B get together and decide that money ought to be taken from C and given to D. C isn't asked for his opinion: he just needs to keep his mouth shut and do as he is told.

Of course, A and B will both get a hefty cut of the stolen loot for "administering the program," but that aspect of politics is left largely unexplored.

So as much as I would enjoy claiming to be the "smartest man on the planet," (your words) I can't make any such claim. It's just not that difficult to come up with convincing counter-arguments to anyone who touts Socialized Medicine as a good idea.

Because the only thing that's actually being socialized here is risk.

said by Count Zero

:

ignore the fact that reality contradicts your view on so many issues we've discussed here.

Well, I never claimed to have a monopoly on reality. But I will allow anyone who has followed this thread to make up their own mind as to which one of us is grounded in reality and which of us is engaging in pie-in-the-sky, the-Feds-would-never-cheat-us wishful thinking.

said by Count Zero

:

I started to write a long post back, and I realized it was the exact same post you just ignored and replied to with a series of half-truths and non-truths!

If there's one area in which I have to declare your abilities far superior to mine, clearly it's the purveyance of half-truths and falsehoods (another, more honest word for "non-truths"). I know when I'm beaten.

said by Count Zero

:

I am so sorry to have wasted your time. Please, go back to your expensive toys and forget that someone such as myself ever tried to instill some compassion for your fellow man into you.

You seem to have quite a supply of compassion for your "fellow man," but none at all for my own wants and desires.

I've told you: if someone wants something from me, they have every right to ask. And I have every right to grant or refuse their request because it is my own time and resources (not yours) that are the ones to be employed in granting that request.

It seems perfectly straightforward to me, but there's some aspect of all this that seems to irritate you no end.

said by Count Zero

:

By the way I have NO problems with profits! I even own stock and have money in a mutual fund, I'd say I'm all FOR corporate profits - just not when those profits are made by selling people insurance and then declining coverage.

We've been over all this before: if you feel that insurance companies are too stingy when it comes to paying out claims, why not start one up yourself? You can "show them how it's done."

I agree with you if you're making the claim that insurance companies can make mistakes in their judgment, same as any other group of people. And as I've already pointed out, that's why we have a court system: people who feel they've been cheated can take an insurer to court and prove to a jury of their peers that they were, in fact, cheated.

But advocates of Socialized Medicine don't seem to be able to acknowledge that governments, like insurance companies, also have a finite number of resources. And that waiting lists are their way of allocating their resources, since they cannot hope to grant every request for health care simultaneously.

said by Count Zero

:

If everyone could afford insurance and insurance never denied claims purely to protect their bottom line then I would have NO problem with the current system.

I'm sorry that the world we currently live in does not meet with your full approval.

said by Count Zero

:

However, neither of those conditions are true, so we need to reform it -

Who, exactly, is this "we" you are referring to? You? You and your immediate family? Who?

Insurance companies are in no way obliged to insure everyone on the planet merely because they ask for coverage. Please stop pretending that access to insurance is a "right" when no such right exists.

And if insurance companies are in the habit of denying perfectly legitimate claims all the time, fine: team up with a lawyer and you can right these wrongs in no time flat.

And you could use the proceeds from all the cases you win to fund your insurance company. You know, the one that will be known for its fairness in settling quickly and generously.

said by Count Zero

:

and the best (and most logical -

It's only the "best" and "most logical" way of managine health care according to advocates of Socialized Medicine.

Please stop pretending that everyone in the US automatically agrees with your assertion. Because that's all it is.

said by Count Zero

:

considering the number of other INDUSTRIALIZED nations that have adopted it - is socialized medicine).

If Socialized Medicine is the way to go for INDUSTRIALIZED nations, then why are the Chinese currently favoring a free-market system of meeting their health care needs.

Do they know something we don't?

I also invite you to study the economic performance of those countries that have adopted Socialized Medicine. If you think that the US economy out to look like that of France or Germany, then I hope you're quite prepared to explain away the holes those two countries currently find themselves in as a result of paying for all that Socialism.

said by Count Zero

:

Also RE: the UK's tax rate - consider their population demographic and it becomes patently obvious why their rate would have to be higher than ours.

Their tax rate is higher than ours because the UK has had about all the socialism it can stand. "Demographics" have nothing to do it: the UK has decided that they want a government that takes care of (and, indeed, monitors) them from cradle to grave.

For them, socialized medicine was merely the thin end of the wedge.

At any rate, I have no problem with advocates of Socialized Medicine "selling" it to the public here in the US. Provided, that is, that they inform the people that they're selling it to that they can look forward to higher tax rates.

And then specifying exactly what those higher tax rates will be. You know, so that people can assess from themselves whether the costs justify the benfits.

It's called "being honest and upfront." And, no, I don't hold out much hope of it happening, either.

said by Count Zero

:

Also - sorry you feel that public education is a waste,

There you go again putting words into my mouth.

If you go back and read what I wrote, you'll find that nowhere did I claim that public education is a "waste."

I merely stated that it is wrong to claim that I have an obligation to bear the costs of educating other people. There is no such obligation.

But if you think that people can have as many kids as they like, and then have other people bear the costs for educating those children, then that's your business.

And I hope you can respect that those of us with three kids chose to have three kids because we can only afford to pay the way for three kids.

But if you think your neighbor should crank out ten kids, and then has every right to hand you the bill for their education, health care, and whatever else, then that's up to you.

Me, I can see how being lumbered with paying for other peoples' children might mean you then lack the financial means to provide your own children with what you'd like to give them.

But people like you, who apparently have an infinite amount of money, have no problem at all with paying the expenses of other people, no matter how large they might be in addition to the costs associated with raising your own family.

I don't know how you do it.

said by Count Zero

:

but I stated it for 2 reasons. 1 - it is a wonderful counterpoint to your "unfunded liabilities" nonsense;

I mentioned unfunded liabilities when I was mentioning Medicare. There is nothing nonsensical about the fact that the Medicare system is incapable of supporting itself over the long term.

An "unfunded liability" is fancy talk for "you've promised people an entitlement, but cannot demonstrate an ability to meet (i.e. pay for) that obligation."

I'm sorry you feel that unfunded liabilities are a lot of "nonsense," but I invite you take a look at the long-term (hell, even the short-term) liabilities of Medicare and see for yourself just what all the fuss is about.

Honestly, I have no idea what in the Wide Wide World of Sports you're talking about when you make the claim that public education serves as a "wonderful counterpoint" to the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, but I'll have to leave it up to the reader to decide which one of us is talking the nonsense.

said by Count Zero

:

2 - public education is what provides those who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth to achieve higher than their parents did

Obviously you haven't been paying attention to the current state of the public schools. If the kids today can emerge from their education with the ability to read and write, (and think) then they are way ahead of the game.

I don't feel it's a stretch to say that we're all aware of the "benefits" that our socialized educational system has brought to this country. And if you think that the majority of the kids coming out of the public schools are better prepared than their parents were to face the world, well, you're laboring under some serious delusions.

At any rate, sending your children to a private school is now a necessity if you wish to see them "get ahead" as you seem to. And I think you'll find that most politicians send their own children to private schools, which ought to tell you something about what they really think of public education.

In education, as in everything else, you get what you pay for. Though it's certainly okay for you to pretend otherwise; after all, they're your kids, aren't they?

said by Count Zero

:

(but you wouldn't want that would you?

It's not up to me to decide what other people do (or don't do) with their children. I only know that it is unfair that I be asked to pay for the expenses involved with other people raising their children.

I do not feel it's unreasonable to expect those who want to have children to have the ability to pay for them. Although perhaps we should just crank out as many kids as we like and then let other people pay for their support, eh?

said by Count Zero

:

Someone else's kids competing with your kids, when your kids are so obviously more deserving of a better lifestyle because you managed to do well for yourself (supposedly).

My children deserve as lavish (or as impoverished) an upbringing as my income will allow.

And, no, the thought of other parents trying to give their own children every advantage does not worry me in the least.

All I ask is that they pay their own way, same as I pay the way for my own family. This is not too much to ask, though you certainly seem to think so.

said by Count Zero

:

If you could though, please just plainly answer for me: what ought we do with our 50M uninsured and underinsured Americans?

And I, in turn, will ask you yet again: where does it say that I'm obligated to pay for the health care of 50 million of my fellow Americans?

Where? If it's an obligation you yourself have made up out of whole cloth, just admit it. I will admire and respect you for making such an admission.

said by Count Zero

:

btw - a small tip as to how I know you didn't go to med school, right below your posting ID...

Ah, so you're familiar with what the requirements of med schools the world over, then?

I think you'll find I never made the assertion that I went to med school in the US.

However, if you possess full knowledge of the requirements of med schools the world over, I really must congratulate you on your encyclopedic knowledge.

Alas, if only you could apply that same effort to understanding economics, you'd understand why Socialized Medicine is a bad idea. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20449937 Thu, 08 May 2008 04:23:27 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20444498 Johnny : Not Ron Paul - Howard Roark.

EDIT: Turning my anon block back on. Ahhhh....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20444498 Wed, 07 May 2008 09:21:45 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20444206 Count Zero : It's not even worth arguing with you Ron Paul, obviously you're so much smarter than everyone else on the planet - ignore the fact that reality contradicts your view on so many issues we've discussed here.

I started to write a long post back, and I realized it was the exact same post you just ignored and replied to with a series of half-truths and non-truths!

I am so sorry to have wasted your time. Please, go back to your expensive toys and forget that someone such as myself ever tried to instill some compassion for your fellow man into you.

By the way I have NO problems with profits! I even own stock and have money in a mutual fund, I'd say I'm all FOR corporate profits - just not when those profits are made by selling people insurance and then declining coverage. If everyone could afford insurance and insurance never denied claims purely to protect their bottom line then I would have NO problem with the current system. However, neither of those conditions are true, so we need to reform it - and the best (and most logical - considering the number of other INDUSTRIALIZED nations that have adopted it - is socialized medicine). Also RE: the UK's tax rate - consider their population demographic and it becomes patently obvious why their rate would have to be higher than ours.

Also - sorry you feel that public education is a waste, but I stated it for 2 reasons. 1 - it is a wonderful counterpoint to your "unfunded liabilities" nonsense; 2 - public education is what provides those who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth to achieve higher than their parents did (but you wouldn't want that would you? Someone else's kids competing with your kids, when your kids are so obviously more deserving of a better lifestyle because you managed to do well for yourself (supposedly).

If you could though, please just plainly answer for me: what ought we do with our 50M uninsured and underinsured Americans?

btw - a small tip as to how I know you didn't go to med school, right below your posting ID...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20444206 Wed, 07 May 2008 07:39:46 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20444049 anon :

said by Count Zero

:

And I am simply tired of being told that I "ought to" give money to people merely because they are standing there with their hand out. I'll decide who should get my money and what they should get it for, thanks.

Any man who claims that they are better qualified than I am to make such decisions is, quite simply, a liar. I can't put it any plainer than that."

And this statement right there boils down your whole view on the world. What about all that "compassion" I'm sure you wrote about in your med school entrance essay?

This is what is known as an ad hominem argument. And while accusing someone of not being "compassionate" enough to be making a valid argument might sound convincing to children under the age of eight, I am not eight years old, so I am entirely unimpressed.

Arguments have to stand (or fall) on their own. Their validity is not dependent upon the character of the person presenting them. Whether I have an abundance of compassion, or lack it entirely, does nothing to make my argument either better or worse.

Nice try, though.

said by Count Zero

:

No, you didn't go to medical school,

And what do you base this assertion on, exactly?

said by Count Zero

:

I'm pretty sure right now you are in management of United Healthcare, or some other insurance company and that's why you're so vehemently against Universal Healthcare, because YOU wouldn't be the one providing it.

As I've already explained to you about eight times, I am against Socialized Medicine (let's call a spade a spade here, shall we?) because a) I've seen what a mess the government has made of MediCare over the past 40 years and B) proponents of Socialized Medicine (this means you) have yet to tell me what exact measures will be taken to prevent a system of Socialized Medicine from becoming the Thumping Great Gravy Train that Medicare has become.

said by Count Zero

:

And don't pretend I don't understand the "economics" of it.

I don't have to "pretend" anything. Please believe me when I tell you that your comments speak entirely for themselves.

said by Count Zero

:

You just don't want to accept that it is possible to do something without "profits".

I don't know why you seem to feel that profits are some sort of Satanic innovation, but I can assure you that this is not so.

Profits are an indication of how successful a given enterprise is at allocating the resources given to it. When a company shows that it is able to earn high profits over a long period of time, (versus, say, a pump-and-dump) then that's their way of indicating to their shareholders that, yes, they can be trusted to make the best of their money and resources that are given to them.

So you can stop talking about profits as though they're something dirty, rather than an indication of how effective a given company is at managing its resources.

How else would you choose to have us measure a company's performance?

said by Count Zero

:

So what if tax rates in Europe are higher,

"So what?" Why don't you take a look at the tax rates in the countries I mentioned before (the UK and Scandanavia).

It's certainly easy for someone to say that 50%+ tax rates are "no big deal" when they've never had to pay such rates themselves.

said by Count Zero

:

they USED to be higher in this country too, and when they cut the tax rates is when we started accumulating this massive national debt.

Well, here we go again, plumbing the depths of your economic knowledge.

Our staggering national debt has nothing to do with the government failing to tax us enough. It has, instead, everything to do with the government continuing to spend money that it simply does not have.

I don't know about you, but I have a finite amount of money to draw from to handle my expenses, and the expenses of those I love. I either have to make sure that I don't spend money I do not have, or I can look forward to being forced to declare bankruptcy.

But our government, alas, does not feel itself bound by these same restraints. Rather than learning to live within its means, it chooses, instead, to spend money that it does not have.

Please note that no one puts a gun to the collective head of the federal government to force them to do this. This is a choice they make for themselves.

And since it is a choice that they have made for themselves, (and, indeed, continue to make) then I have little sympathy for them.

If someone were to claim that living within one's means can be an inconvenience at times, and a downright pain in the ass at others, I would be the first to agree.

But I could not respect myself if I failed to demonstrate basic self-restraint when it comes to my finances. And the corollary to that is that I cannot respect other people who cannot control their spending. It's just so basic.

So please do not insult my intelligence by claiming that the national debt is at $9 Trillion because the government fails to tax us enough. We are $9 Trillion in the hole because our government has made spending money that is does not have a matter of policy.

said by Count Zero

:

Can't have things both ways Mr. Reagan & Bush. Wanna spend money? Gotta tax people. Don't want to tax people? Don't spend money.

I agree entirely: you cannot spend more money than you take in. And failing to live within your means (i.e. the money that you take in) is a recipe for disaster.

Unfortunately, it cannot be said that the Federal government engenders confidence in its ability to allocate resources when it spends itself into a hole time and again.

Perhaps we can agree that a good definition of insanity is repeating the exact same action over and over again and expecting a different result.

Which makes your apparent eagerness to hand the Feds more money and more control over our lives utterly baffling.

said by Count Zero

:

But I wouldn't mind if the Government were spending money on GOOD social projects like insurance for everyone.

Well, speak for youself.

I, on the other hand, would mind if the Federal government were to get into the health insurance business.

There's a reason why insurance companies charge different people different rates: the rates they charge are directly related to the amount of risk that they feel they're assuming by agreeing to take on a client.

And if the thought of becoming a member of a risk pool that includes everyone in the US, regardless of how they choose to take care of themselves or what activites they get up to, is an exciting one for you, then I'm not entirely convinced you understand the principle that insurance companies operate on: they cannot pay out more money than they take in.

And if you conclude that the US Government can magically insure everyone without ending up paying out more money than they take in, (as with MediCare today) then I'd be interested in how exactly it is you arrived at that conclusion.

said by Count Zero

:

I suppose you get pissed off that you have to help pay for Paul's kids' educations, no? I bet that pisses you off that you have to actually give money into a public school system and help raise someone else's kids.

Are you attempting to claim that picking up the tab for other people is a good idea? I think you'll find you're on some seriously shaky ground there.

If you feel that paying for the expenses associated with other peoples' children is A-OK, then fine: I'll crank out ten kids, and we'll jack up your taxes so that you can help pay for their education and health care. Because, after all, anyone who claims that they ought to be able to hang onto their own money in order to meet the needs of their own family is merely being a Selfish Bastard, and their feelings on the matter are hardly worth consideration, are they?

Do you now see why having Peter pick up the tab for Paul might (just might) be a bad idea? It's painfully obvious (to most people, anyway) that Paul has little incentive to pay attention to the expenses he racks up if he can get someone else to foot the bill.

If, on the other hand, Paul has to pay all the expenses associated with his having children, perhaps he's going to be somewhat more careful about the size of his family.

said by Count Zero

:

Think of it this way... suppose we fund this insurance system by cutting all the tax breaks to the rich,

I'll tell you what: go ahead and write your congressperson a letter right now telling them all about how we ought to eliminate tax breaks for the rich.

Then, later on, when these same rich people have made their usual campaign contributions to keep these politicians in office, I'll make a bet with you as to who it is the politicians will listen to: you with your indignant letter, or the rich people who pay off the politicians (via campaign contributions).

And the bet can be for an amount of money as large as you like.

As I've explained previously, it's the rich who have helped our politicians write the Tax Code in the first place. After all, the IRS cannot come after you if your exemption is actually written into the Tax Code, can it? It cannot.

said by Count Zero

:

and as I said earlier (but you OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T READ or COMPREHEND) premiums will be added via taxes

I most certainly did sit up and take notice when you started talking about how we can fund Socialized Medicine through increased taxes.

If you're advocating EU-style rates of taxation (50%+) for the US, then you need only say so. I'm sure that people here will be thrilled to start paying more in taxes to fund your Socialized Medicine.

My only requirement is that you come up with hard numbers and are able to produce an accurate figure as to what all this Socialized Medicine will cost, with no hidden costs and no deficit spending allowed under any circumstances (so we don't end up with Son of MediCare).

Fair enough? I think so.

said by Count Zero

:

(and you obviously didn't understand my cigarettes bit either, thy mighty genius,

I'm afraid I understood your "cigarettes bit" entirely.

You view cigarette smokers as cash cows, to be taxed, taxed, and taxed some more. Many of the states currently take the exact same view that you do, so there's really nothing new here.

The problem is that the states have made their income projections based upon the number of smokers being constant. Which means that when the number of smokers declines, they have no choice but to go after non-smokers for revenue.

Because the tax revenues that they fondly imagined that they'd be getting forever are simply no longer there. So they go looking for other means of "revenue enhancement."

said by Count Zero

:

because I wouldn't mind it if less people smoked

Frankly, it's none of your business (or mine) whether people choose to smoke (or not).

If you think their smoke is, somehow, infliciting harm upon you, fine: you're perfectly free to take them to court and prove your case against them, same as you would with anyone else who was damaging property you own (like your body).

The problem here has nothing to do with people smoking or not smoking. The problem is that, somehow, it has become acceptable to pass on the costs of one's decisions onto other people.

Neither you nor I have the right to tell people what they can/can't do with their own bodies. If I don't own my own body, and cannot do with it what I wish, then I cannot be said to own anything.

And, yes, that includes the "right" to abuse it as well. But neither you, nor I, nor anyone has the right to ask other folks to pick up the tab for whatever it is we get up to.

Such a responsibility is found nowhere in the US Constitution and is merely a baseless assertion made by people who get off on telling other people what to do and how to live.

Well, I myself have no interest in telling other people what to do and how to live. And I hope you feel the same way. Because if you don't, you'll quickly find that bossing other people around is hugely time-consuming and breeds a great deal of resentment.

said by Count Zero

:

even if it were a result of the higher tax on tobacco -
since it would drastically reduce the cost in healthcare associated with tobacco related diseases.

Can you please explain to me just where in the US Constituion it says that I have an obligation to pay for the health care of people who decide to smoke? Because it isn't enumerated in there.

In addition to assuming that I, somehow, are responsible for meeting the costs involved with the choices that other people make, you're also assuming that:

The taxes taken in from cigarettes are indeed enough to meet the costs associated with Socializing the health care of smokers

and

That politicians are perfectly willing to let vast sums of money accumulate without finding an excuse to steal the money for their own pet projects.

I see an example of the latter in my own state, which charges a tax on gasoline that is based on the price of that gasoline.

And with the price of gas being what it is, does this now mean that the people living in my state can look forward to driving on streets paved with gold? Hell, no. Instead, we can look forward to politicians bitching and whining about how we still don't have enough money to properly maintain the roads.

And why is this? Because the politicians repeatedly find excuses to raid the income generated by gas taxes for other "important things."

So while the idea of taxing the hell out of cigarettes to pay for the health care of smokes may sound like a good idea, the idea of taxing gasoline and then using the proceeds to maintain the streets also sounded like a good idea, too.

said by Count Zero

:

Course you only thought "money money money").

No, I thought of the considerations I mentioned in my previous post (that it's a mistake to make revenue assumptions when your tax base is shrinking) as well as the two I've elaborated on above (that revenues may not meet costs, and that politicians will loot the funds raised for their own favorite programs).

It's obvious you assume that tax revenues are always directed to where they were meant to go to when the voters approved the tax.

And I find your faith touchingly naive.

said by Count Zero

:

And I'm sorry that Peter will have to help out with Paul's care,

You know I've asked you repeatedly to point out to me just where, exactly, it is documented that such an obligation exists.

And since you've utterly failed to do so, I think it's safe to say that such an obligation exists only in your own mind.

However, in the interests of giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will ask you one final time: where does it say that I am obligated to pay for the health care of others?

said by Count Zero

:

but if Peter weren't such a selfish man, perhaps he would learn to accept it.

No one (NO ONE) has a greater call on the resources of Peter than Peter does.

You're acting as though Paul has every right to demand that Peter give up his property or resources whenever Paul sees fit to demand so of him.

Well, I call bullshit on that. Calling Peter "selfish" does nothing whatsoever to diminish his claim to his own resources. Last time I looked, this was still the US, not the USSR.

Again, if you can tell me where it is documented that Paul has the right to force Peter to give up his property or resources, I'll believe you.

But until you do so, you're making an assertion that is entirely without basis. If someone wants something from me, they have every right to ask. And I, likewise, have every right to refuse their request.

Were you born in a socialist country? It certainly sounds like you were with your "What's mine is mine....and what's yours is mine, too" attitude, that's for sure.

said by Count Zero

:

As for your quip about government employees getting paid no matter what quality work they do, you make it sound as if 90% of the people in the government do horrible work but not a single person in the private sector does

I never claimed that 90% of the people in the government do horrible work. Nor did I ever claim that not a single person in the private sector ever slacks off.

It is you who are making such a claim. So I'll thank you not to attempt to put words in my mouth.

My point is that government employees are paid regardless of how they perform. And whether the results they obtain are good, bad, or indifferent, they still get a check no matter what.

said by Count Zero

:

... man you are in some dream world.

Tell me something: in which sector is union membership actually growing: the public (government) sector, or the private sector?

I bet you can't guess.

And the fact that union membership is growing among government employees should tell you a great deal about how they view themselves and their work.

If I perform a valuable service, and my work is good, why would I need a union to "protect" me? If, on the other hand, the work I perform is not so valuable, and is not in demand, than perhaps it is entirely understandable why someone in such a position would wish to join a union.

Unions engage in the cartelization of labor, just the same as corporations attempt to engage in the cartelization of resources. Let's not pretend that one is any more nobler than the other.

said by Count Zero

:

How does it not bother you that private insurance exists solely to deny claims and thus generate profit?

If a given insurance company denies too many claims, and gets a bad reputation for not honoring legitimate claims, do your really think that people are going to continue to hand them premiums?

I mean, let's give consumers some credit here. And let's also acknowledge the fact that businesses do not operate in a vacuum, either.

The fact is that, as a consumer, I am given a chance to shop around and decide which insurance company will best meet my needs and suit my pocketbook.

And this is a decision that advocates of Socialized Medicine seek to take out of my hands and put into the hands of the government.

Who do you suppose is better qualified to make decisions regarding my healthcare choices: me or the government? I know the answer to that one, although I can't say that you seem to. I am not impressed with people who insist that a one-size-fits-small system run by the government is the best way to meet the wants and needs of millions of consumers.

said by [user=Count Zero :

]
We're talking about everyday, honest people who paid their premiums, but are being denied coverage simply because it keeps Insurance Co. in the black.

Dude, you're acting as though insurance companies can deny claims whenever they feel like it, and for any reason.

In case you haven't noticed, we do have a court system in this country. And if you, as a consumer, feel than an insurance company unfairly denied your claim, then you're perfectly entitled to take them to court. You'll find that many lawyers are willing to take a case on a contingency basis.

Insurance companies cannot arbitrarily deny coverage time and again without getting the pants sued off them, to say nothing of getting a reputation for denying legitimate claims. It sounds as though you've been watching way too many Michael Moore films.

said by [user=Count Zero :

]
I know I could never change your views, you're obviously wildly successful under the current regime, so what is your incentive to change?

Oh, I see: anyone who has the audacity to call their time, energy, and money their own is automatically an asshole in your book.

Fine then, have it your own way: I'm an asshole. I maintain that what's mine is mine, and if you believe that what's mine is yours, and you try to take it, I will view that as an attempt to steal from me. Which is exactly what it is.

If you want something from me, ask for it and I'll consider your request. But please stop pretending that you have the right to my property because you don't, no matter how many times you repeat your assertion that you do.

said by [user=Count Zero :

]
You care not for your common man, only for your pocketbook.

I respect the property of others. And I ask that they, in turn, do the same. And I'm saddened at how obvious it is that you were not raised with the same sense of respect for other people and their property.

Property rights are the basis of civilization. And any civilization that cannot respect individual property rights (that is, insure the rights of the individual against those of the group) will not last long.

The old Soviet Union held exactly the same views that you seem to hold when it comes to property rights. And in case you missed it, they are no longer with us.

said by [user=Count Zero :

]
I only hope that enough people will eventually realize that Universal Healthcare's downfalls are blown out of proportion and will better serve the greater good of our country.

I'll acknowledge that Socialized Medicine is a Good Idea as soon as I see actual evidence to support that claim.

But making a populist appeal for Socialized Medicine is not the same as presenting evidence to support it. And I'm afraid that making a populist appeal is all you've really done here.

That's not to say that populist appeals aren't at all effective. Just that they're not effective when it comes to convincing those of us who are hopelessly bound by logic and reason (and who understand how politicians work) that's all.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20444049 Wed, 07 May 2008 06:09:44 EDT Re: Health Care http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20442386 i1me2ao : i have the same situation here. i have severe sinusitis. basically i tell the doctor what i need and go on my way. but it is a pain in the ass to setup visit when i can see the drug on the shelf that i need. and the people that get the once a year headache and take bendryal make me wanna puke..
--
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20442386 Tue, 06 May 2008 20:52:43 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440945 Corona :

said by tapeloop

:

(And at this point, I don't think there's any hope of getting back to the topic. Pseudoephedrine, remember?)

no, there isn't.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440945 Tue, 06 May 2008 16:14:10 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440931 tapeloop :

said by Count Zero

:

So she asks me why is the bill was $14,000 for a surgical appendectomy...

Sounds like she got the discount rate.

“I’m fine with that,” I said. She handed over a printout, and I realized she was right. Most of the line items â€” 95 in all â€” were gibberish. Thiopental, $53.25. Endo Stapl*, $547.19. Finally I saw one I thought I could understand: Hot Pack, $36.

For the first time in the entire process, I realized, I was seeing Sarah’s actual bill. This was the full accounting of everything that had been done to my sweet little daughter.

What was truly fascinating, though, was that this list of charges was more or less useless. Of the $19,000 in miscellaneous charges, my insurance company had paid only $4,954. “It’s the contract,” Deirdra explained. In fact, while the total charges for Sarah’s stay were $28,738, United and I only paid about $12,000 ($9,136 from United, $3,233 from me). Sixty percent of the charges vanished into thin air.

Figuring out just what an insurance company pays for and what it doesn’t isn’t cheap. Physicians for a National Health Program, a group pushing for national health insurance, says paperwork and bureaucracy account for nearly a third of every dollar we spend on health care â€” and that streamlining the system could save nearly $400 billion per year.

Top Doctors 2008: My Daughter’s $29,000 Appendectomy
»www.phillymag.com/articles/top_d···my/page1

An interesting read from an author who had little experience with the underpinnings of the healthcare industry.

(And at this point, I don't think there's any hope of getting back to the topic. Pseudoephedrine, remember?)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440931 Tue, 06 May 2008 16:12:02 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440662 Johnny :

said by Count Zero

:

Please dont lead me to believe you have only two neurons and they're held together by a spirochete.

Oh lues lues, oh-no I tell you we gotta go. EEE-AA-BBB-AA-EEE

Small and tall and young and lovely,
The girl from Treponema goes walking,
And when she passes each guy she passes goes "GAH."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440662 Tue, 06 May 2008 15:25:15 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440583 Count Zero : You have yet to prove that helping 50M+ Americans is actually worsening anything. Please tell us how to help them. Please dont lead me to believe you have only two neurons and they're held together by a spirochete.

EDIT
Call it socialism if you will, but when private industry can not or will not provide society with a service it needs it is the government's job to do so. As the Constitution says: promote the general welfare - which in this case means provide a healthcare system that gives everyone equal access.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440583 Tue, 06 May 2008 15:10:55 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440546 Corona :

said by Johnny

said by Corona

:

You don't want to hear what I have to say. you seem to think either everyone has to be rich, or the fed needs to step in and take over everything.

Call it what u like. Merriam-Webster defines socialism as: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

Why be intellectually dishonest by calling it something else?

And because I haven't posted my ideas for fixing some of the problems doesn't mean yours is better. A "solution" that makes the problem worse isn't really a solution is it?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440546 Tue, 06 May 2008 15:05:20 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440500 Johnny :

said by Corona

:

You don't want to hear what I have to say. you seem to think either everyone has to be rich, or the fed needs to step in and take over everything.

And by the way - nobody is talking about "socialism." This is a VERY PRACTICAL and PRAGMATIC point we are making - namely you are paying for it anyway, through high premiums and high local taxes.

Everybody's care is already paid for - it's just astronomically expensive because it's the hospitals and the doctors and the increased premiums paying for it.

Which is fine, except you still get a bill. You will actually get a bill for several hundred thousand dollars if you have to spend some time in the hospital.

What is your solution?

If you don't have a solution, we won.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440500 Tue, 06 May 2008 14:58:19 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440468 Count Zero : no seriously. How do you propose 50M Americans without insurance afford healthcare? How about those who have insurance but are being badly hurt by massive deductibles that make their plan largely useless to them?

I want to know your plan. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440468 Tue, 06 May 2008 14:53:46 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440418 Corona : You don't want to hear what I have to say. you seem to think either everyone has to be rich, or the fed needs to step in and take over everything.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440418 Tue, 06 May 2008 14:45:51 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440384 Count Zero : Well how do you propose we pay for everyones care otherwise? Perhaps they should just learn to be rich like you? Obviously you dont understand healthcare if you can't answer this question. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440384 Tue, 06 May 2008 14:39:50 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440297 Corona :

said by Count Zero

:

Can't answer the question, so you change the subject. Brilliant!

Funny, I thought we were discussing the merits of socialized health care.

said by Johnny

:

Call their bluff and they always bail.

We win.

This is at least the 20th time I have had them give up with their ridiculous pontifications.

You "win"? I'm not going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change mine. What's to "win"?

You make it sound like I think our current health care plan is just the bomb. That's not the case. But I'm not stupid enough to think that a federally run socialized health care program will fix the ills of the current situation.

When has ANYTHING the fed ever "taken over" been run more efficiently, with more fairness, and cheaper than it was in the private sector?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440297 Tue, 06 May 2008 14:27:54 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440287 Count Zero : I had the same thought. Or maybe its a wonderful life only instead if their uncle losing the money they lose it to a horrible medical condition, then an angel shows them how they'd have benefitted from universal healthcare, so they jump off the bridge after the dream sequence. Sort of like an inverse of its a wonderful life really. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440287 Tue, 06 May 2008 14:26:00 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440120 Johnny :

said by Count Zero

:

Can't answer the question, so you change the subject. Brilliant!

Call their bluff and they always bail.

We win.

This is at least the 20th time I have had them give up with their ridiculous pontifications.

What this needs is a version of A Christmas Carol where these folks can have a dream in which they are sick and get no coverage. Heh.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20440120 Tue, 06 May 2008 13:59:34 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439898 Count Zero : Here let me give you an example from semi-personal experience.

I have a classmate, in medical school, who had a bad case of appendicitis last year over the summer vacation. She was home with her family, and her father is a family practice physician in this rural town. She goes to the ER because the pain is so severe, winds up having an emergency appendectomy because they're worried the thing is going to burst and is given a bill for $14,000 because the insurance decided that it wasn't serious enough to warrant paying for an out of network provider and hospital to do the surgery (Let alone our student insurance has the smallest in-network area ever, she was at least an hour+ away from the nearest doctor who was in-network). She's in medical school, on an Army scholarship - but she can't afford $14,000 when she has rent and school to pay for! She has to file for indigent care to get the bill reduced or forgiven.

So she asks me why is the bill was $14,000 for a surgical appendectomy... I tell her it's because of people like "YOU" and point at her. Because in order to provide for the indigent they have to charge everyone who can pay more to cover their costs. Insurance companies of course fight this and make the hospitals and physicians agree to only accept a less sum in compensation for receiving patients from them.

Does it really cost $14,000 to do that appendectomy? Not even close, probably less than half of that - and if we had a UNIVERSAL insurance provider via the Government there would be no such thing as "out of network" because the only other alternative is cash and sorry Corona and Count Five not everyone is rich enough to pay cash for leukemias and appendectomies. So the INDIVIDUAL cost of healthcare actually goes down under a universal system. Add to that the savings of not having to do advertising, not having to maintain a PROFIT, and the efficiency saving (for both the healthcare providers and hospitals plus the insurance system) of reduced paperwork and access to comprehensive records and the individual savings stand to be VERY significant. So while I don't pretend that we can break penny even without levying new taxes and cutting certain existing tax breaks to pay for Universal Healthcare, the costs incurred on the AVERAGE MIDDLE CLASS FAMILY will be minimal, but the QUALITY OF LIFE will go UP for nearly everyone.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439898 Tue, 06 May 2008 13:15:45 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439851 Count Zero : Can't answer the question, so you change the subject. Brilliant!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439851 Tue, 06 May 2008 13:04:53 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439850 Count Zero :
said by Corona :

sorry. I prefer to be in charge of my health care.

I don't need the Federal Government telling me:
-when or IF I CAN EVEN GET care
-Or where I rank on the waiting list
-Or what I'm allowed to eat anymore.
If you think they won't make the leap to what you're 'allowed' to ingest, just you wait until they're controlling the financial aspects of your health care. "I'm sorry Mister Smith, your health care status indicates you're not allowed to order that steak, because your HDL is 10 points too high."

I don't want the Fed to have access to my health records.

All you recreational drug users better watch out too. Once the fed has access to your health records, it can be in the nations "best interest" to scan all blood samples in the national health system for any and all illegal drugs. Let's feed that data on over to the CIA/FBI/NSA. Oh, while we're at it, let's get everyone's DNA in there too. We've already got the blood samples.

Privacy? There is no privacy once the Federal Govt is involved.

LOL Well obviously you aren't a healthcare provider! HDL is 10pts too high!!! LOL

You aren't in charge of your healthcare right now either! Your INSURANCE provider is, and your insurance provider is watching out for their profit margin! They'd rather let you die than pay $0.01 for your care, sadly there are those contracts and government regulations that prevent them from doing so.

I guess you haven't been really sick yet, just because you pay your insurance premiums doesn't mean you always get healthcare, trust me.

Do you believe there are no waiting lists in private healthcare? If you ever need a truly complicated procedure the paperwork your insurance provider makes the physician do to prove that you really need that procedure is a more than adequate waiting period.

Any illusion of privacy today PERIOD is merely that, an illusion.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439850 Tue, 06 May 2008 13:04:22 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439561 Corona : sorry. I prefer to be in charge of my health care.

I don't need the Federal Government telling me:
-when or IF I CAN EVEN GET care
-Or where I rank on the waiting list
-Or what I'm allowed to eat anymore.
If you think they won't make the leap to what you're 'allowed' to ingest, just you wait until they're controlling the financial aspects of your health care. "I'm sorry Mister Smith, your health care status indicates you're not allowed to order that steak, because your HDL is 10 points too high."

I don't want the Fed to have access to my health records.

All you recreational drug users better watch out too. Once the fed has access to your health records, it can be in the nations "best interest" to scan all blood samples in the national health system for any and all illegal drugs. Let's feed that data on over to the CIA/FBI/NSA. Oh, while we're at it, let's get everyone's DNA in there too. We've already got the blood samples.

Privacy? There is no privacy once the Federal Govt is involved.
--
Corona "No, make no mistake. It's not revenge he's after; it's a reckoning."

Check out the band 1000 Miles From Home]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439561 Tue, 06 May 2008 12:11:46 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439504 Count Zero : Boy you're obviously right since our economy is booming right now and these European countries and Canada with their horrible healthcare are doing soooo much poorer than we are. Top it off with our ranking in average life expectancy and you wouldn't believe how foolish I suddenly feel!

And having access to every room in the hospital doesn't define "working" in one. If you aren't involved directly in patient care, even back-end insurance stuff, you probably don't grasp just how hard this hurts people.

And why should I be against Universal Healthcare? The average salary in the UK for a physician is less than in the US - but their system is structured slightly differently than I would propose, but even still the physician salary in the UK is something like twice the median household income in the US. I see no reason why half the people in this country should die without access to the best healthcare in the world simply because they cannot afford it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439504 Tue, 06 May 2008 11:59:56 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439478 Count Zero : What are the other variables then?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439478 Tue, 06 May 2008 11:54:53 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439451 Corona :
said by Johnny :

Dodging the question again.

Person is sick. Person has no money or insurance. Cost is in the millions.

Government should pay, or person should be denied care? Those are the ONLY choices. Decide.

no. it's never that simple. take out the myopic lenses.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439451 Tue, 06 May 2008 11:50:59 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439444 Johnny : Dodging the question again.

Person is sick. Person has no money or insurance. Cost is in the millions.

Government should pay, or person should be denied care? Those are the ONLY choices. Decide.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439444 Tue, 06 May 2008 11:49:31 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439433 Corona :
said by Count Zero :

In what capacity did you work in one?
HR/IT doesn't count as actually "working" in a hospital.

My mother is an OB nurse, I'm in med school starting my clerkships, my wife is a hospital pharmacist, my father is a cardiologist, my grandfather and great-grandfather used to be OB/GYNs, my grandmother was a staff nurse... I've done plenty of hospital volunterring both before and during medical school and last summer I did research with the head of surgical oncology in Savannah Memorial Hospital on pancreatic cancer... I think I've been around hospitals a good bit. In fact it is hard to find a conversation in our house that doesn't involve hospitals.

wow. I guess having access to just about every room/area in a hospital sure doesn't count as "working" in one. You got me there.

You've taken the OP way off topic. I just don't believe socialized healthcare is going to fix all the ills you see wrong with the current system. It works for shit in Canada. It works for shit in the UK. I have ZERO faith the US FED GOV can do it any better. Quite honestly, with so many people in your family in healthcare, I'm shocked you're so for it. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439433 Tue, 06 May 2008 11:47:42 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439421 Johnny :
said by Corona :

said by Johnny :

What other conclusion could be drawn? He can't pay, you don't want "the rest of us" (tax money) to pay, so who pays? If nobody pays, he gets sent home.

I don't see many moms with premature babies on their hip hitchhiking home from the hospital, do you?

THAT's THE POINT.
The babies get care, it costs $3 million (at first; many more millions for the rest of the child's life), and somebody pays for it.

You say it should not be anybody but the parents. Well, the parents have no money and no insurance.

Your move.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439421 Tue, 06 May 2008 11:46:04 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439419 Count Zero : Besides, who says they have to be hitchhiking home?
They could be lower or middle class and still not be able to afford the treatment.
Maybe their mothers drive them home or they get a taxi.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439419 Tue, 06 May 2008 11:44:59 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439411 Count Zero : In what capacity did you work in one?
HR/IT doesn't count as actually "working" in a hospital.

My mother is an OB nurse, I'm in med school starting my clerkships, my wife is a hospital pharmacist, my father is a cardiologist, my grandfather and great-grandfather used to be OB/GYNs, my grandmother was a staff nurse... I've done plenty of hospital volunterring both before and during medical school and last summer I did research with the head of surgical oncology in Savannah Memorial Hospital on pancreatic cancer... I think I've been around hospitals a good bit. In fact it is hard to find a conversation in our house that doesn't involve hospitals.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439411 Tue, 06 May 2008 11:42:57 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439394 Corona : I drive by 4 every day, and I worked in one. How about you?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439394 Tue, 06 May 2008 11:38:50 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439391 Count Zero : How many hospitals do you hang out in? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439391 Tue, 06 May 2008 11:38:04 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439384 Corona :
said by Johnny :

What other conclusion could be drawn? He can't pay, you don't want "the rest of us" (tax money) to pay, so who pays? If nobody pays, he gets sent home.

I don't see many moms with premature babies on their hip hitchhiking home from the hospital, do you?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439384 Tue, 06 May 2008 11:37:34 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439363 Johnny :
said by Corona :

said by Johnny :

said by Corona :

why the hell should the rest of us have to pay for his leukemia?

So you advocate sending him home to die?
did I say that?

What other conclusion could be drawn? He can't pay, you don't want "the rest of us" (tax money) to pay, so who pays? If nobody pays, he gets sent home.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439363 Tue, 06 May 2008 11:33:59 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439358 Corona :
said by Johnny :

said by Corona :

why the hell should the rest of us have to pay for his leukemia?

So you advocate sending him home to die?
did I say that?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439358 Tue, 06 May 2008 11:32:43 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439347 Johnny :
said by Corona :

why the hell should the rest of us have to pay for his leukemia?

So you advocate sending him home to die? Let's talk in real terms about what really happens, rather than some fantastic dreamworld scenario where everyone magically has $2 million dollars or dies.

What if it was you? Do you agree that you should be sent home to die, when a $2 million dollar bone marrow transplant would save your life?

If your wife has a premature infant, and you can't prove you have $3 million at the front desk of the hospital, they should discharge the 750-gram baby to home?

That is what your "everyone pulls his own weight" philosophy comes down to. It's real, it happens every day, and it happens to millions. Just not to you - yet. Tomorrow is another day.

Let's drop the theoretical Ayn Rand pontifications and talk about reality.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439347 Tue, 06 May 2008 11:30:16 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439279 Count Zero : Because if it was YOUR leukemia you'd want everyone else to pay for it.
Of course if it was Count Five's Leukemia I'd rather not pay for it out of the personal principal of not wanting to help those who think they're above helping their common man... but if we had Universal Healthcare I would, and I'd 'accept' paying for his knowing that a lot more people were benefiting than a single bigot.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439279 Tue, 06 May 2008 11:19:49 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439236 Corona :
said by Johnny :

As for my "luxurious lifestyle," you don't know the first thing about me. But suffice it to say that I make my living in the private sector and have never taken Dime One of tax money. The people who give me money feel that I have a service to offer that's worth giving money for. And I do my best to make sure that their faith in me is justified.
Right... right....

And when tomorrow you cough up some blood in the morning and much to your disappointment it turns out to be leukemia, which will cost $2 million and make you so sick you cannot work and lose your job and can't pay your premiums or your mortgage or your car payment or your kids' college tuition?

If you have $2 million, then ignore this. Otherwise should the doctor tell you that your resources are inadequate and send you away?

why the hell should the rest of us have to pay for his leukemia?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439236 Tue, 06 May 2008 11:14:09 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439160 Johnny :
As for my "luxurious lifestyle," you don't know the first thing about me. But suffice it to say that I make my living in the private sector and have never taken Dime One of tax money. The people who give me money feel that I have a service to offer that's worth giving money for. And I do my best to make sure that their faith in me is justified.
Right... right....

And when tomorrow you cough up some blood in the morning and much to your disappointment it turns out to be leukemia, which will cost $2 million and make you so sick you cannot work and lose your job and can't pay your premiums or your mortgage or your car payment or your kids' college tuition?

If you have $2 million, then ignore this. Otherwise should the doctor tell you that your resources are inadequate and send you away?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439160 Tue, 06 May 2008 10:59:49 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439050 Johnny : Yeah, what we have here ladies and gentlemen is an Atlas-Shrugging, Fountainheading, objectivist.

Which is fine until you consider what you have failed to realize: health care is NOT like housing or cars or any of the things you use as analogies to "what the government should provide."

If you do not have a house, you can technically live on the street. If you do not have a car you can walk.

If you do not have health coverage, somebody is going to call 911 and that starts the cash register. So the expenses WILL be generated no matter what.

Unless you are advocating a wallet biopsy on every emergency patient, and letting them die by the side of the road, then your whole idea of "everyone pays for himself" won't work for health care.

What, in your Ayn Rand world, should be done with the woman who has no money but has a premature baby at 27 weeks? Admonish her for over-extending her personal wealth? Talk about a dreamworld. Next we can admonish teens for having sex, telling them how wonderful personal responsibility is and how we aren't going to pay for their poor judgement.

Health care HAS to be paid for.

Unless, as I said, you would turn the woman in labor away, send her home to deliver there, if she had no coverage.

Would you? If not, Peter is paying Paul.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20439050 Tue, 06 May 2008 10:37:30 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20438729 Count Zero : "I'm against universal healthcare because it's a scheme to have Peter pay for the costs of Paul's health care when it is up to Paul to pay his own way through life.

I'm also against it because it is little more than Yet Another Scheme to yank more money from taxpayers' pockets.
And if you'll pardon my saying so, I feel as though I have quite enough money yanked from my pockets already.

I make it a habit not to spend money that I do not have. And as soon as our government makes it plain that they, too, have adopted such a philosophy, then I will have no problem with giving them more money.

You will let me know when that happens, won't you?

As for my "luxurious lifestyle," you don't know the first thing about me. But suffice it to say that I make my living in the private sector and have never taken Dime One of tax money. The people who give me money feel that I have a service to offer that's worth giving money for. And I do my best to make sure that their faith in me is justified.

And I am simply tired of being told that I "ought to" give money to people merely because they are standing there with their hand out. I'll decide who should get my money and what they should get it for, thanks.

Any man who claims that they are better qualified than I am to make such decisions is, quite simply, a liar. I can't put it any plainer than that."

And this statement right there boils down your whole view on the world.
What about all that "compassion" I'm sure you wrote about in your med school entrance essay? No, you didn't go to medical school, I'm pretty sure right now you are in management of United Healthcare, or some other insurance company and that's why you're so vehemently against Universal Healthcare, because YOU wouldn't be the one providing it.

And don't pretend I don't understand the "economics" of it. You just don't want to accept that it is possible to do something without "profits". So what if tax rates in Europe are higher, they USED to be higher in this country too, and when they cut the tax rates is when we started accumulating this massive national debt. Can't have things both ways Mr. Reagan & Bush. Wanna spend money? Gotta tax people. Don't want to tax people? Don't spend money. But I wouldn't mind if the Government were spending money on GOOD social projects like insurance for everyone. I suppose you get pissed off that you have to help pay for Paul's kids' educations, no? I bet that pisses you off that you have to actually give money into a public school system and help raise someone else's kids.
Think of it this way... suppose we fund this insurance system by cutting all the tax breaks to the rich, and as I said earlier (but you OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T READ or COMPREHEND) premiums will be added via taxes (and you obviously didn't understand my cigarettes bit either, thy mighty genius, because I wouldn't mind it if less people smoked even if it were a result of the higher tax on tobacco - since it would drastically reduce the cost in healthcare associated with tobacco related diseases. Course you only thought "money money money"). And I'm sorry that Peter will have to help out with Paul's care, but if Peter weren't such a selfish man, perhaps he would learn to accept it.

As for your quip about government employees getting paid no matter what quality work they do, you make it sound as if 90% of the people in the government do horrible work but not a single person in the private sector does... man you are in some dream world. How does it not bother you that private insurance exists solely to deny claims and thus generate profit? We're talking about everyday, honest people who paid their premiums, but are being denied coverage simply because it keeps Insurance Co. in the black.

I know I could never change your views, you're obviously wildly successful under the current regime, so what is your incentive to change? You care not for your common man, only for your pocketbook. I only hope that enough people will eventually realize that Universal Healthcare's downfalls are blown out of proportion and will better serve the greater good of our country.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20438729 Tue, 06 May 2008 09:05:24 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20438512 anon :
said by Johnny :

People who continue to insist that people should pay individually for healthcare are living in a dreamworld.
Frankly, I'm beginning to suspect that anyone who continues to insist that Americans ought to pay their own way through life is "living in a dreamworld."

After all, why should I pay my own way when I can have other people pay my way for me?

What I'd like to know is: at what exact moment was it deemed mandatory that I pick up the tab for the health care of other people? Because I sure don't remember seeing that in the Constitution.

said by Johnny :

No amount of tax-credits, tax-deductions, or tax-anything is going to make a difference if people have no money.
And no amount of feel-good goobledygook is going to change the fact that all that socialized medicine really is is another wealth transfer program, where Peter is expected to pick up the tab for the costs that Paul incurs.

How is this fair, exactly? I've yet to hear an advocate of Socialized Medicine successfully rationalize the theft that is taking place here.

said by Johnny :

Even the cheapest insurance can't be bought by people working at minimum wage, and they can't pay the deductibles either, which are the highest if you get the cheapest plan.
I thought that ambition was all about not working for minimum wage.

And the reason why deductibles are so high when a plan calls for low premiums is because the insurance companies have costs to meet. This should not be a mystery.

said by Johnny :

So all of these half-assed schemes that don't cover everybody are total non-starters. The reason there are 50 million uninsured isn't because these people don't want insurance; it's because they can't afford it.
So if someone cannot afford something then the government has an automatic duty to step in and provide it for them?

Where, exactly, does it say that?

The point I'm trying to make here is that if you furnish people with everything, then they have little incentive to better themselves.

You seem to feel that just because someone cannot afford something, they still ought to have it anyway. Well, I disagree. The whole point to bettering yourself is to provide yourself and your family with the things you need. If you want the government to simply start handing things out, then you're removing the incentive for people to work harder and provide things for themselves through their own efforts.

I think that any country that decides that stealing from Peter to pay Paul is a legitimate way to do things is ultimately doomed. And that seems to be exactly what you're advocating here.

said by Johnny :

McCain's ridiculous $5000 tax credit, even if you gave it to a McDonald's employee, wouldn't pay for a year's premiums plus deductible. It also does nothing to promote competition - since everyone would have the $5000, the insurers would just design plans that take it all, and subscribers still couldn't afford to see a doctor because of the deductibles. That means the insurers get the $5000 and pay out nothing.
What leads you to believe that the government would be able to come up with a foolproof scheme of health care? All they're doing is handing out money here, so of course the system is going to get gamed.

Insurance companies don't make campaign contributions? Think again.

said by Johnny :

Paying premiums so that insurers can make 30% profit is a huge waste of money - the insurers don't generate any productive work.
Insurers don't do anything useful? I don't know about that one. If they don't do anything useful, why do people continue to give them money?

I'm confused as to what, exactly, the government is supposed to be doing in this scheme of yours that's so useful. The last time I looked, they weren't exactly generating anything in terms of "productive work" for Medicare, either.

said by Johnny :

Take that 30% and use it to actually buy health services instead of going to shareholders.
You're crediting the government with the ability to allocate resources efficiently here. When did that ever happen?

said by Johnny :

Nobody can choose whether to get health services - everyone needs them.
Hey, I need a place to live, too. Should I send you my rent bill?

Again, you're assuming that I am, somehow, obligated to pick up the tab for the expenses of other people. Once you tell me where it says that I'm obligated to do so, I'll do it.

Until then, you're making assertions that are entirely unsupported.

said by Johnny :

Anybody could get cancer tomorrow. Any couple could have a premature baby this November. That's millions of dollars of debt, and loss of job in many cases due to illness.
Which, presumably, is what motivates people to buy insurance.

I guess I don't understand how the insurance companies can still stay in business, what with their rates being so unaffordable and all.

said by Johnny :

Loss of job = loss of insurance. Pay with a credit card and go bankrupt? Wups - the Republicans have made sure that you still have to pay it off by changing the bankruptcy laws.
Oh, those dastardly Republicans. Perhaps they were bought off by the credit card companies?

And of course, if the Republicans were bought off by the credit card companies, perhaps we should wonder if the health care companies might (just might) throw some campaign contributions to the politicians and affect "universal health care" legislation by doing so.

Stranger things have happened.

said by Johnny :

And don't think that MediCare is going to help you. Need more than 90 days inpatient? Too bad. Need more than 120 days skilled nursing? Denied. Need non-skilled nursing home? Not covered.
Perhaps this is why insurance companies exist.

I think the fact that Medicare has the limitations you've listed helps to illustrate the fact that the government cannot afford to pick up the tab for everyone's health care all of the time. There is a finite amount of health care resources available. And getting the government involved is not going to change that.

Hey, I feel you, but I'm not convinced that involving the government more heavily in all of this is going to do anyone any good. All that's going to happen with such a scheme is that the politicians are going to line their own pockets, same as they always have.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20438512 Tue, 06 May 2008 07:36:17 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20438398 anon :
said by Count Zero :

That's a good point that I didn't even touch on. Many hospitals are REQUIRED to provide stabilizing treatment in their ERs, and when uninsured people come into the ER and leave without paying the hospital either has to get reimbursed from tax monies, or go bankrupt (as in Telfair county here in Georgia only a few months ago) and close - which worsens the healthcare situation for EVERYONE and it means that people wind up having to go to counties far away, where it may already be overcrowded, to get their care.

I guess this is what some people consider rationing?
[laughs]

Thanks for illustrating my point for me quite beautifully.

As you've just shown us, health care costs money. And if a hospital cannot get its patients to pay for their own care, it will have little choice but to go bankrupt because it cannot meet the costs associated with providing that care.

The reason why those other counties (the ones that still offer the "mandatory" ER care) then become crowded is because there's a constant demand for "free" ER services, yet there are no longer any such services available in Telfair county. Because the medical facilities that provided them were driven into bankruptcy by their doing so. Therefore, people seeking such care for free have to go somewhere else.

What you have yet to explain is just how, exactly, all this is fair to those people in the other counties. You know, the counties that now have all these people from Telfair County showing up and demanding care in their ERs.

All that's happening here is cost-shifting. That is, rather than the folks in Telfair County paying their own way, they are, instead, seeking to inflict those costs on people in other counties. And have them pick up the tab instead.

I take the position that the folks in Telfair County are responsible for meeting the costs of their own health care and are not entitled to shift those costs onto other people.

You seem to be of the opinion that Peter ought to pay Paul's emergency room bill no matter what. Well why, exactly, should Peter be asked to pay the bills of another person?

Case in point: English football hooligans and the NHS.

In case you weren't aware, the NHS in the UK operates under those exact conditions you describe: no one can be turned away and denied health care.

And in the case of English football hooligans, this is carte blanche for them to get into fights and smash the hell out of each other. Why? Because they know full well that the NHS is obliged to put them back together again (somewhat like Humpty Dumpty, if Humpty Dumpty was into vomiting through his nose and sported a BNP tattoo on his forehead).

Likewise, the folks in Telfair county have little incentive to take care of their own health if they can just show up at an ER, get health care, and have someone else foot the bill. And that they've managed to drive their local hospital into bankruptcy underscores the fact that they understand they can shift the costs of their health care onto others in a very real and meaningful way.

If you yourself are enthusiastic about footing the bills for other people, that's great. Perhaps you can band together with other like-minded folks and establish a private charity so that folks who can't meet their bills can get some help.

But I'm sure with the example you so kindly provided that you can now appreciate my lack of enthusiasm when it comes to picking up the tab for making health care "free" to other people. Because, as I'm sure you now understand, all that's actually taking place is that those costs are being shifted onto me.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20438398 Tue, 06 May 2008 06:32:21 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20438333 anon :
said by Johnny :

OK, I turned off my "ignore all anons" button.
Well, you can turn it back on again. Whether you choose to read my posts or not, I don't get anything out of it.

I write in order to clarify my thoughts and see if the positions I hold will withstand logical scrutiny. If someone else reads my disjointed ramblings, the more fool they.

said by Johnny :

What's YOUR solution to the 50 million uninsured for whom you are paying through increased premiums and increased local and state taxes for the public hospitals they show up at?
You're mistaking me for a politician. Well, I'm not a politician, but a private citizen. And as such, I did not come here to offer some any sort of one-size-fits-small legislation to fix anything.

I'm simply one of those people who does not enjoy having his pockets picked and who also does not enjoy listening to people come up with new rationales for doing so. Particularly when it's obvious they haven't thought through the long-term implications of what they're advocating.

And it's become obvious over the 40 years that our government has mismanaged Medicare that it is nowhere near qualified to take charge of my health care. If you want to place your and yours in their charge, that's up to you.

Is the free market perfect? It is not. But it allows me to make my own choices about where my money goes and who it goes to. Anyone who advocates socialized medicine seeks to take those choices away from me, plain and simple.

And I cannot respect that.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20438333 Tue, 06 May 2008 04:54:04 EDT Re: [Rant] Pseudoephedrine http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20438312 anon :
said by Count Zero :

From wiki:
Since the beginning of the Medicare program, CMS has contracted to private companies to assist with administration. These contractors are commonly already in the insurance or health care area. Contracted processes include claims and payment processing, call center services, clinician enrollment, and fraud investigation.
Yes, the key word there is "assist." Please let's not pretend that the Federal government has nothing to do with administering Medicare or footing the bills for it.

Come on, man. If private industry were completely in charge of administering Medicare, then what would we need the Federal Government for?

said by Count Zero :

A) A big part of the medicare's woe's are fraud and letting politicians touch the system in general.
I couldn't agree more.

And socializing health care means that health care will become even more politicized. Which means that fraud will increase (as politicians divert public funds to the private companies that have given them the most in campaign contributions).

And if you think that socializing medicine will mean less interference in health care by politicians, then you, my friend, are hopelessly naive. It may have escaped your notice that politicians make a career out of interfering in our day to day lives, (and making our choices for us) but it certainly hasn't escaped mine.

said by Count Zero :

B) You lose any credibility with me when you make the statement "b)private companies have learned to game [the system].
I'm sorry that you suffer from an inability to handle reality, but "gaming the system" is what politics are all about.

And frankly, I don't care how much "credibility" I carry with you (or with anyone, for that matter). I angrily insist on calling a spade a spade and I'm sorry if you cannot bring yourself to do the same.

If you think that public programs are created by selfless politicians who don't stand to profit by their creation and administration, then it's plain you don't understand the first thing about politics (no offense).

Our government is like any other group of people: it will pursue its own interests and goals, first. If you and I happen to be outside the group, then we can look forward to getting whatever is left over after those folks have taken care to line their own pockets and satisfy their own needs.

Do you really believe that the folks running for president are doing so in the interests of helping you rather than for personal gain? I hope not.

said by Count Zero :

And why shouldn't they when the Feds are handing out money hand over fist?"

Because it is morally reprehensible that the government tries to help out people who need it, but a company decides that instead of using that money to help people as the government intended them to they might as well keep it because they certainly need it.
I see. So companies should be condemned for pursuing their own self-interest? Last time I looked, companies were in business to make money, not to act as charities.

Companies will indeed work for money when they have to. By "work," I mean that they will provide goods and services that people are willing to part with their own hard-earned money for.

However, if there's an easier way to get money, then companies will certainly pursue it. Human beings seem fond of pursuing the path of least resistance and groups of human beings (companies) are certainly no exception.

And there's no easier way to get money then to make campaign contributions (bribes) to a politician, and then have that politicians write laws and create programs that divert money to these favored businesses.

Do you honestly think that the Tax Code is so lengthy because the politicians wanted to make sure they got it right? Well, if that's what you think, you are entirely mistaken: our tax code is so lengthy because there are thousands of exemptions written into it for corporations and wealthy individuals.

Please take a look at the Tax Code sometime, and then you will understand what I speak of when I refer to companies and people "gaming the system."

I'm sorry you're under the impression that politicians are entirely selfless and disinterested, but that just isn't so.

said by Count Zero :

Then someone like yourself gets to come around and say "see it costs too much!".
Prices are what we use to decide "who gets what."

Why is it that, say, open-heart surgery is so expensive? Because there is a limited number of people who can perform it, these people require specialized training and expensive machines to help them perform such a procedure, and there are many consumers who wish to have this procedure done at any given time.

After all, their life is at stake, so you can hardly blame them.

And prices are set when the people offering such services can find other people (buyers) willing to meet that price. Because if they cannot, they must either a) lower the price in the hopes of attracting buyers that will meet it or b) give up that particular line of work and go find something else to do.

So while I, like you, would love to see everyone who needs open-heart surgery get it, it's sheet madness to pretend that this surgery doesn't cost anything, and that the resources (people and machines) to provide it are not scarce relative to the number of people who would like to have it.

So we can allocate this by a) setting a price for it (the Free Market way) or b) establishing a waiting list of some kind for it (the Socialized Medicine way).

But please let's not pretend that there's some way we can magically make open-heart surgery available to everyone whenever they happen to want it at no cost. Because that demonstrates a complete ignorance of economics and an unwillingness to face the fact that we cannot schedule an infinite amount of open-heart surgeries because the machines and personnel simply do not exist to perform an infinte number of them.

said by Count Zero :

"If you think this is a sustainable over the long term then I'm not sure you grasp the economics behind it all."

If other countries are capable of providing Universal Healthcare I don't see why the United States isn't.
Because it's obvious you lack an understanding of basic economics. Have you ever lived in the UK yourself? Do you know how high tax rates are in the UK?

Please let's not pretend that EU countries can magically provide health care at no cost to their taxpayers. Because their tax rates reflect the fact that someone, somewhere, has to pay the bills.

I know that the Scandanavian countries are often pointed to as examples of countries that provide cradle-to-grave health care. And it's no mere coincidence that the government in these countries consume more than 50% of the GDP paying for it all.

So if you're comfortable with telling people in this country that it's time that we, too, started giving the government 50% of our earnings (and that's just for starters) in taxes, then fine: go to it.

But health care has to be paid for. And the more money you throw in a pot in public programs like Medicare, the more likely you are to have people game the system.

said by Count Zero :

England has been providing Universal Healthcare since 1948.
I can tell that you've never been a "customer" of the NHS if you're touting it. Because as anyone who has spent time being cared for by the NHS can tell you, it isn't something you'd go around touting, that's for sure.

said by Count Zero :

Their system isn't perfect, but at least EVERYONE gets healthcare over there.
You're neglecting to mention two things here:

1) EVERYONE in England is also subjected to incredibly high tax rates. Because as I've mentioned before, health care has to be paid for.

2) Anyone who seeks anything more than a tongue depressor or a band-aid in the way of health care is put onto a waiting list for the procedure.

Or did you fondly imagine that, if you live in the UK and need heart surgery, that you're scheduled for it the next day? It doesn't work that way.

Even countries with "free" or "single-payer" health care systems are forced to come up with a system to allocate health care. And a waiting list is deemed to be the "fairest" way of doing this.

I'm sorry if this reality makes you uncomfortable, but I can't help that.

said by Count Zero :

First of all I don't think healthcare should be FREE,
No, it's obvious you simply believe in cost-shifting. That is, having Peter pay for Paul's health care.

said by Count Zero :

obviously everyone who works is going to be paying into the system with taxes and we can attach federal taxes to cigarettes to cover the gamut of health problems smoking causes
See, it's this kind of thinking that leads me to believe that you don't understand economics very well.

First off, cigarettes are already grossly taxed at present. If you think that the exact same number of smokers are going to smoke when cigarettes are $5 a pack (as they are now) as when cigarettes are $8 a pack, (as people like you would like to make them) then you're quite mistaken.

The states have been putting the screws to the tobacco companies for quite some time via lawsuits. The hilarious part is that they had to stop doing so, because they were winning huge judgments that the tobacco companies simply could not afford to pay when the number of smokers is steadily declining.

And, lest we forget, these numbers are declining as the result of state and federal "education" programs that are scaring people away from cigarettes.

So please make up your mind: either cigarettes are bad for you, and their use should be discouraged, or you want the number of smokers to be constant so that they can serve as a tax base that will help fund your Socialized Medicine.

Because you can't have it both ways.

said by Count Zero :

(including in the people around them breathing in the second hand smoke)
Well, if these people can indeed make a scientific case that they have been harmed by second-hand smoke, then fine: they are entitled to compensation by those who produced that smoke.

But if you're suggesting that these people should be compensated out of public funds, then you can expect people to game your system six ways from Sunday.

To say nothing of the fact that, since I do not smoke, there are no legal or ethical grounds to have people like me bear those costs. Only the people producing the smoke in those particular cases should be held liable for those costs.

said by Count Zero :

- I believe there should be a co-pay for all treatment except true emergencies (and I think there should be a PENALTY for going to the ER for minor things like colds) and the co-pay could be low like $5-10 but it would be enough that people might think twice before going to the doctors for complete non-issues. And there should be co-pay for prescriptions - maybe $5 for most drugs except antibiotics and $10 for narcotic pain killers.
And just who is it that will end up bearing the full cost of these services?

You're doing a great job telling us all about what piffling sums like co-pays "ought to" be. But you haven't done anything so far to tell us just who, exactly, is going to be picking up the tab for the other 95% of the costs involved in providing this medical care.

Unless, of course, you feel that the US ought to meet these costs by having tax rates that match those of the UK or the Scandanavian countries. In which case, it's only fair to mention this to people when you're advocating Socialized Medicine. Fair is fair, and it is simply wrong to pretend that people can get something for nothing when all that is taking place is cost-shifting.

said by Count Zero :

I've never heard the federal reserve simply "prints money" to keep Medicare going, I believe that's from someone's imagination.
The Federal Reserve prints money to keep the government going. And the only thing that limits the supply of money is the supply of paper on hand.

If you think that the US Dollar is anything but a fiat currency, (that is, money with no intrinsic value)
then you are engaging in some Seriously Wishful Thinking

But please do not take my word for it. I invite you to investigate the doings of the Federal Reserve for yourself. Because once you do so, then you will understand (as I do) that the US Dollar is backed by.....nothing.

Again, take a look and see for yourself.

said by Count Zero :

Secondly, I can't believe anyone would honestly believe that a FOR PROFIT CORPORATION should be the one making choices about who receives care and who doesn't.
I see. So the US government has an infinite supply of money to spend on healthcare and everyone can have anything they want, whenever they want to have it.

Is that what you're saying? I want to make sure I'm reading you right here.

Because, unfortunately, governments are also obligated to keep costs down in order if they want to keep things sustainable over the long-term. I've already pointed out that the government loots other programs (like Social Security) and has money printed (via the Federal Reserve) to pay for Medicare's cost overruns.

Can you please explain to me why, exactly, you feel that the government is somehow "fairer" than a private company is when it comes to deciding who gets what? Because I really would like to know the reasoning behind your way of thinking.

said by Count Zero :

My wife and her twin were born at 32 weeks. My sister-in-law wasn't fully baked you might say, she had to get a shunt for hydrocephalus and when she was a teenager her shunt broke and she wound up having awful seizures and other problems. Once she got into the hospital they decided they had to repair or replace the shunt, but because the family had just moved from New Hampshire to Georgia, and switched insurance providers neither provider wanted to pay for the expensive operation. She was on her death bed, and private insurance companies didn't want to foot the bill, the old one because they weren't receiving premiums from her anymore, and the new one because it was a "Pre-existing condition". To this day it amazes me that one of them finally agreed to pay for the surgery instead of letting her die.
Look, I feel for you, but you don't seem to be able to acknowledge that insurance companies do not have an infinite supply of money to pay out to people.

Insurance companies exist on the premise that not everyone paying premiums will need to file a claim. In other words: if insurance companies pay out more