Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
Yay!
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


winkwinklambonini


Mar 2, 2007, 6:57 AM
Post #1 of 34 (1474 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 16, 2002
Posts: 1579

Yay!
Report this Post
Can't Post

Hope


pinktricam


Mar 2, 2007, 7:15 AM
Post #2 of 34 (1464 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947

Re: [winkwinklambonini] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

So, what do you think, winky? Are we headed towards a system of socialized medicine and is that the best solution?


winkwinklambonini


Mar 2, 2007, 8:03 AM
Post #3 of 34 (1455 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 16, 2002
Posts: 1579

Re: [pinktricam] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

pinktricam wrote:
So, what do you think, winky? Are we headed towards a system of socialized medicine and is that the best solution?

Don't know, and don't know. What I do know is that at present, it is not working. When 80% of folks see fixing health care as more important than tax cuts for the wealthy, then that is a sign that people are concerned about things that effect them, as apposed to things that do not.

Some will say that health care in Canada sucks, and then I will counter that maybe it does if you compare it to what you get here if your a millionare, then someone will say that our system innovates new procedures that save lives, then I will yawn and say that I can't afford to pay $350/month for health insurance, an neither can millions of other americans, so that doesn't do us any good, now does it?

The point is, people are thinking. A free market has cause monopolies to arise in health care, and they write our laws, so maybe we should try something else.


Partner bill


Mar 2, 2007, 8:36 AM
Post #4 of 34 (1443 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 3, 2004
Posts: 1061

Re: [winkwinklambonini] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

 

In reply to:
Nearly two-thirds said the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans and half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 more in taxes a year for universal coverage, it said.

$500 a year....that's funny.


reno


Mar 2, 2007, 8:51 AM
Post #5 of 34 (1438 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [bill] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

bill wrote:

In reply to:
Nearly two-thirds said the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans and half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 more in taxes a year for universal coverage, it said.

$500 a year....that's funny.

Exactly. People are willing to pay $500 a year, as long as someone else pays the other $849,999,999,500 to obtain that universal coverage.


crankinv9


Mar 2, 2007, 9:03 AM
Post #6 of 34 (1435 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 713

Re: [reno] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

reno wrote:
bill wrote:

In reply to:
Nearly two-thirds said the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans and half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 more in taxes a year for universal coverage, it said.

$500 a year....that's funny.




Exactly. People are willing to pay $500 a year, as long as someone else pays the other $849,999,999,500 to obtain that universal coverage.

money better spent than the rougly billion a week spent on your right wing fantasy war


reno


Mar 2, 2007, 9:26 AM
Post #7 of 34 (1428 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [crankinv9] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

crankinv9 wrote:
money better spent than the rougly billion a week spent on your right wing fantasy war

Why is it that liberals can not discuss any topic without comparing it to Iraq?

I'm disappointed in you, crankinv9... thought you were smarter than this.


winkwinklambonini


Mar 2, 2007, 9:48 AM
Post #8 of 34 (1419 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 16, 2002
Posts: 1579

Re: [reno] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I really don't think that if the costs were brought down somehow, that it would be that expensive to provide uni. health care. Somebody find right and left stats on this.

Speaking of taxes, I'm reading the memoirs of someone who wrote briefly that after WWII, the tax rate on incomes of over $1M was 90%!!!. He made just over that from the trust he inherited, but received less than $150,000 after taxes. Given that thanks to Bush, the Capital Gains Tax is I think capped at 18%, there is a possible source right there....

Tax cuts on wealth generated income, immoral to the extreme....


hangerlessbolt


Mar 2, 2007, 10:07 AM
Post #9 of 34 (1410 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255

Re: [winkwinklambonini] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

The misses and I fork over $275 a month...each.

Sometimes, you have to weigh the cost paying for health insurance. If you're rarely sick, it may be less expensive to pay out of pocket per visit.

However, if you ever have a serious accident or become seriously ill...that $275 a month is going to look like 'chump-change' compared to a few hospital bills.

Suppose that's why it's called 'insurance'.

With regards to universal health-care, being in a higher earnings tax bracket... and as much as I like to keep as much money as I earn...I'm not opposed to UHC; however, I do take issue (for a variety of reasons) with folks having children whom they're unable to support. I find it incredibly disturbing when folks abuse our social welfare system. (Being a product of the system myself, I've witnessed quite a bit of misuse.)


(This post was edited by hangerlessbolt on Mar 2, 2007, 10:20 AM)


rmsusa


Mar 2, 2007, 10:09 AM
Post #10 of 34 (1407 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017

Re: [winkwinklambonini] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
then I will counter that maybe it does if you compare it to what you get here if your a millionare, then someone will say that our system innovates new procedures that save lives, then I will yawn and say that I can't afford to pay $350/month for health insurance, an neither can millions of other americans, so that doesn't do us any good, now does it?

No.... that would be compared to what you get here if you have insurance. You don't have to be a millionaire to have insurance. The numbers thrown about indicate that approximately 88% of the US population has health insurance. So, you're among the 12% that doesn't. That's a distinct minority.

We should be concerned about the minority, of course. If we can find some way to provide insurance to the TRULY needy, it would speak well of our country. The solution is political and involves big money, so it'll take a long time to come to some kind of an agreement. Ted Kennedy has been working on this very problem for his entire political career and gotten roughly nowhere.

In reply to:
A free market has cause monopolies to arise in health care, and they write our laws

Medicine is very competitive, it's the way in which our society provides insurance that's screwed. Think about the definition of monopoly. They don't exist in medicine. Writing our laws? Provision of health care only very peripherally involves law. It's screwed because of the way the insurance component works in our society. That's an accident of history.

I pay $325/mo for myself, Age 60, with a $5K maximum out-of-pocket expense. I've been paying for a long time without getting sick. A few months ago, I got sick. The treatments will last several months. Retail price will be roughly $175K. My total expenses will be $10K (out-of-pocket for 06 & 07). That's inconvenient, but not impossible (half the price of a car). Thank heaven for insurance.

If you truly can't afford health insurance, find something to do that pays a little better or a job that has benefits. Take matters into your own hands and do something real about your situation.

A good job with a good company will get you benefits. That's insurance that costs you (as an employee) basically nothing. The financial repercussions of an automobile accident or a serious illness will affect everybody around you and your entire family. Think about it.


reno


Mar 2, 2007, 10:21 AM
Post #11 of 34 (1403 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [rmsusa] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

rmsusa wrote:
The numbers thrown about indicate that approximately 88% of the US population has health insurance. So, you're among the 12% that doesn't. That's a distinct minority.

Something I've always wondered about these numbers (and the "44 million citizens" number):

How, exactly, is this defined? Does that number include the estimated 12-14 million illegal immigrants? Does it include people who can afford insurance, but choose not to (does anyone really think Bill Gates has an HMO?) Does it include people who choose not to afford it for other reasons (i.e. gang members in L.A., pro athletes, etc.)?

I haven't been able to find answers to this question. I don't know how much it'd matter, but making rough guesses:

45 million without insurance.
12 million illegal immigrants.
2 million folks who are exceptionally wealthy and don't need insurance (Bill Gates, Oprah, etc.)
1 million "other" (gang members, pro athletes, and so forth.)

45-12-2-1=30 million.

Still a lot of folks, and I'm not denying that. But it does give reason to question the numbers, I think.


hangerlessbolt


Mar 2, 2007, 10:24 AM
Post #12 of 34 (1401 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255

Re: [reno] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

reno wrote:

Something I've always wondered about these numbers (and the "44 million citizens" number):



Satellites and 'Big Brother', man…we’re being watchedSly


winkwinklambonini


Mar 2, 2007, 11:35 AM
Post #13 of 34 (1391 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 16, 2002
Posts: 1579

Re: [rmsusa] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

rmsusa wrote:
In reply to:
then I will counter that maybe it does if you compare it to what you get here if your a millionare, then someone will say that our system innovates new procedures that save lives, then I will yawn and say that I can't afford to pay $350/month for health insurance, an neither can millions of other americans, so that doesn't do us any good, now does it?

No.... that would be compared to what you get here if you have insurance. You don't have to be a millionaire to have insurance. The numbers thrown about indicate that approximately 88% of the US population has health insurance. So, you're among the 12% that doesn't. That's a distinct minority.

We should be concerned about the minority, of course. If we can find some way to provide insurance to the TRULY needy, it would speak well of our country. The solution is political and involves big money, so it'll take a long time to come to some kind of an agreement. Ted Kennedy has been working on this very problem for his entire political career and gotten roughly nowhere.

In reply to:
A free market has cause monopolies to arise in health care, and they write our laws

Medicine is very competitive, it's the way in which our society provides insurance that's screwed. Think about the definition of monopoly. They don't exist in medicine. Writing our laws? Provision of health care only very peripherally involves law. It's screwed because of the way the insurance component works in our society. That's an accident of history.

I pay $325/mo for myself, Age 60, with a $5K maximum out-of-pocket expense. I've been paying for a long time without getting sick. A few months ago, I got sick. The treatments will last several months. Retail price will be roughly $175K. My total expenses will be $10K (out-of-pocket for 06 & 07). That's inconvenient, but not impossible (half the price of a car). Thank heaven for insurance.

If you truly can't afford health insurance, find something to do that pays a little better or a job that has benefits. Take matters into your own hands and do something real about your situation.

A good job with a good company will get you benefits. That's insurance that costs you (as an employee) basically nothing. The financial repercussions of an automobile accident or a serious illness will affect everybody around you and your entire family. Think about it.

True that you only have to have insurance to get good treatment, but if you don't your obviously skrewed. For those who do have it, which I had when I worked at bigger companies, it goes up so fast that it's completely pinching even the middle class(60% in one year when I was boatbuilding).

Now, if anyone here really knows why ours system is failing please do something about it. It is so complicated that I can only make crazy guesses.

One general idea that I have is what I would call INFLATING ETHICAL NORMS, aka progress. Recently a baby was brought home after being delivered at 21? weeks. This was death, soon it will become expected, maybe. This is a very difficult subject, since we will probably know someone who benefits from this, but on the other hand, costs keep going up. If this is the case, then as a society we should accept it, and kick down.

As far as monopolies, BCBS is one. And as far as our laws, medicare can't negotiate for prescrips, which are cheaper outside this country, of course our laws aren't written by lawmakers! My dad is a doc, who can't wait to retire as he is fed up with the system, including, as he puts it:"Laws designed by the pharm industry".

One solution: Legalize Pot! The tax revenue from that would pay for it, or just reset the C.G. Tax at 19%.Laugh


thorne
Deleted

Mar 2, 2007, 1:02 PM
Post #14 of 34 (1378 views)
Shortcut

Registered:
Posts:

Re: [winkwinklambonini] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

winkwinklambonini wrote:
I really don't think that if the costs were brought down somehow, that it would be that expensive to provide uni. health care. Somebody find right and left stats on this.

Speaking of taxes, I'm reading the memoirs of someone who wrote briefly that after WWII, the tax rate on incomes of over $1M was 90%!!!. He made just over that from the trust he inherited, but received less than $150,000 after taxes. Given that thanks to Bush, the Capital Gains Tax is I think capped at 18%, there is a possible source right there....

Tax cuts on wealth generated income, immoral to the extreme....

You should compare the history of highest income tax rate to the history of the federal deficit debt. Note where both were in 1980.








(This post was edited by thorne on Mar 5, 2007, 6:04 AM)


reno


Mar 2, 2007, 1:04 PM
Post #15 of 34 (1377 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [winkwinklambonini] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

winkwinklambonini wrote:
True that you only have to have insurance to get good treatment, but if you don't your obviously skrewed.

This is patently false, it doesn't merit a reply.

In reply to:
Now, if anyone here really knows why ours system is failing please do something about it. It is so complicated that I can only make crazy guesses.

There are SEVERAL reasons why our system is in need of repair. None of them are solved by Universal Coverage, and some are made worse.

In reply to:
One general idea that I have is what I would call INFLATING ETHICAL NORMS, aka progress. Recently a baby was brought home after being delivered at 21? weeks. This was death, soon it will become expected, maybe.

Not knowing specifics of this case, I'll refrain from judgement. However, fetal lung development is not until 24 weeks. A baby born at 21 weeks has ZERO chance of life, at home or in the best neo-nate ICU in the world. None. Zip. Nada. Thus, it's a poor example to try an illustrate US healthcare failings.

In reply to:
As far as monopolies, BCBS is one.

You ever look up the definition of monopoly?


winkwinklambonini


Mar 2, 2007, 2:14 PM
Post #16 of 34 (1365 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 16, 2002
Posts: 1579

Re: [reno] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

reno wrote:
winkwinklambonini wrote:
True that you only have to have insurance to get good treatment, but if you don't your obviously skrewed.

This is patently false, it doesn't merit a reply.

In reply to:
Now, if anyone here really knows why ours system is failing please do something about it. It is so complicated that I can only make crazy guesses.

There are SEVERAL reasons why our system is in need of repair. None of them are solved by Universal Coverage, and some are made worse.

In reply to:
One general idea that I have is what I would call INFLATING ETHICAL NORMS, aka progress. Recently a baby was brought home after being delivered at 21? weeks. This was death, soon it will become expected, maybe.

Not knowing specifics of this case, I'll refrain from judgement. However, fetal lung development is not until 24 weeks. A baby born at 21 weeks has ZERO chance of life, at home or in the best neo-nate ICU in the world. None. Zip. Nada. Thus, it's a poor example to try an illustrate US healthcare failings.

In reply to:
As far as monopolies, BCBS is one.

You ever look up the definition of monopoly?

In reverse order:

No, I don't need to, it's when a company has a controlling stake in the market. The most famous example, Standard Oil, had 90%.

http://www.physiciansnews.com/spotlight/500.html


I was right, just under 22 weeks.

http://www.foxnews.com/...,2933,255898,00.html

By definition, the problem of millions not having coverage would certainly be solvedCrazy. Besides, Have you ever heard Kerry's plan, no of course you haven't, because John Kerry is an idiot.Laugh But his plan would have won him the election if people heard about it, and weren't distracted by patriotism.

And lastly, tell me how I am not skrewed, if I get hospitalized without insurance. And I'm not a climber that everybody has heard of.Unsure

Edit, I'm not saying you don't get treatment, but you do go into debt. This is bad.....


(This post was edited by winkwinklambonini on Mar 2, 2007, 3:02 PM)


scrapedape


Mar 2, 2007, 2:22 PM
Post #17 of 34 (1360 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2392

Re: [thorne] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Thorne,
the chart you posted is a little deceptive. You refer to the deficit, but your chart is the history of the debt.
The debt is roughly the integral of the deficit over the years, i.e. the deficit is the slope of the line in the graph you presented, not the line itself.
It's hard to say for sure, but from looking at the graph, it appears the deficit has been increaseing lately, but not as dramatically as the chart would indicate.


crankinv9


Mar 2, 2007, 3:20 PM
Post #18 of 34 (1350 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 713

Re: [reno] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

reno wrote:
crankinv9 wrote:
money better spent than the rougly billion a week spent on your right wing fantasy war

Why is it that liberals can not discuss any topic without comparing it to Iraq?

I'm disappointed in you, crankinv9... thought you were smarter than this.

I wasn't trying to discuss the topic, just like you weren't....

I will respond to right wing talking points with the liberal bias that you have to come to expect from me

Or, we can dicuss the merits of a system that will help our country in the long run; remember, most doctors would rather deal with prevention rather than crisis.


rmsusa


Mar 2, 2007, 3:36 PM
Post #19 of 34 (1347 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017

Re: [winkwinklambonini] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
As far as monopolies, BCBS is one. And as far as our laws, medicare can't negotiate for prescrips, which are cheaper outside this country, of course our laws aren't written by lawmakers! My dad is a doc, who can't wait to retire as he is fed up with the system, including, as he puts it:"Laws designed by the pharm industry".

BCBS is only one of many insurance companies. By definition not a monopoly. There IS competition for insurance dollars.

As far as medicare not being able to negotiate, the issue that's controversial is price controls. The thought is that any price negotiated by medicare becomes "the" price in the marketplace. Many people believe that this would be de-facto government price control. That runs counter to the market-based philosophy that (arguably), the US is founded upon. These are not arguments without merit. We see intelligent people on both sides arguing their point.

Thank god our laws aren't written by lawmakers (legislative politicos)!

Normally, a legislator has an idea, then asks for opinions from experts on the subject. The experts make suggestions and a law is drafted. I think it's a way better thing to do than having a cowboy from Montana, a tort lawyer from California and a car dealer from Texas (all politicos) sit around and design a technical system for regulation of sewer systems or nuclear power plants without knowing much about how they really operate.

My whole family (dad, uncles, brothers & sisters) is medical. They all bitch some but basically concentrate on treating people and enjoy the practice of medicine. I'm sorry your dad is burned out.


reno


Mar 2, 2007, 4:02 PM
Post #20 of 34 (1344 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [crankinv9] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

crankinv9 wrote:
I will respond to right wing talking points with the liberal bias that you have to come to expect from me

I expect nothing less.

In reply to:
remember, most doctors would rather deal with prevention rather than crisis.

Yes, but most PATIENTS wouldn't. That's one of the biggest problems, and one that has no solution. You can't FORCE someone to go to the doctor for routine checkups; you can't FORCE people to exercise; you can't FORCE people to eat healthy foods, not smoke, cut back on the booze, and so forth.


hangerlessbolt


Mar 2, 2007, 4:51 PM
Post #21 of 34 (1335 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255

Re: [reno] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

reno wrote:
crankinv9 wrote:
I will respond to right wing talking points with the liberal bias that you have to come to expect from me

I expect nothing less.

In reply to:
remember, most doctors would rather deal with prevention rather than crisis.

Yes, but most PATIENTS wouldn't. That's one of the biggest problems, and one that has no solution. You can't FORCE someone to go to the doctor for routine checkups; you can't FORCE people to exercise; you can't FORCE people to eat healthy foods, not smoke, cut back on the booze, and so forth.

Sure you can...just look at how well the war on drugs is doing

All you have to do is make it illegal to be unhealthy...then put the law-breakers in prison...a Big Mac gets you 20-life

Oh, wait...but who would pay for the prisons?!?

I suppose that would be socialized health care


reno


Mar 2, 2007, 5:35 PM
Post #22 of 34 (1332 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [hangerlessbolt] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

hangerlessbolt wrote:
All you have to do is make it illegal to be unhealthy...then put the law-breakers in prison...a Big Mac gets you 20-life.

You've been hanging out with Prince Charles, haven't you?

Wink


dingus


Mar 2, 2007, 10:42 PM
Post #23 of 34 (1315 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17361

Re: [winkwinklambonini] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I'm pretty sure we're going to have some sort of universal health care in this country. It is the right thing to do.

The "I got mine" wing of the republican party is going down tethered to the neocon bastards that wrecked the party and good riddence to you all sirs!


DMT


themadmilkman


Mar 3, 2007, 12:42 AM
Post #24 of 34 (1309 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 21, 2006
Posts: 510

Re: [reno] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

reno wrote:
crankinv9 wrote:
money better spent than the rougly billion a week spent on your right wing fantasy war

Why is it that liberals can not discuss any topic without comparing it to Iraq?

I'm disappointed in you, crankinv9... thought you were smarter than this.

When more than half your government's budget is spent defending a nation from enemies that your own government has created? It's bound to make you just a little angry.

Especially when the same leaders that have helped to create this madness spout of crap about needing to cut social security benefits to help balance the budget and the likes...


dingus


Mar 3, 2007, 8:43 AM
Post #25 of 34 (1289 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17361

Re: [themadmilkman] Yay! [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

themadmilkman wrote:
reno wrote:
crankinv9 wrote:
money better spent than the rougly billion a week spent on your right wing fantasy war

Why is it that liberals can not discuss any topic without comparing it to Iraq?

I'm disappointed in you, crankinv9... thought you were smarter than this.

When more than half your government's budget is spent defending a nation from enemies that your own government has created? It's bound to make you just a little angry.

Especially when the same leaders that have helped to create this madness spout of crap about needing to cut social security benefits to help balance the budget and the likes...

How DARE you libs continually refer to the 800-pound neoconbastards-created gorilla in the room!!!111???XXX

The I-Got-Mine republicans are very disappointed that you won't let them forget how they prostrated themselves to radicals, spread their cheeks wide and invited all PAC donations.

All they wish to do is change the channel, change the subject, get back on the firm ground of keeping the little man down. That is a republican rally cry if ever there was one!

DMT


(This post was edited by dingus on Mar 3, 2007, 8:45 AM)

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$53.96 (10% off)
$53.96 (10% off)
$8.96 (10% off)
$89.06 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook