 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / April 2008Changing insurance
Alan wrote: > We don't say to people, you can buy police protection or not, > fire protection or not........We require these things. Did you know that there are still areas in the U.S.A. with private fire departments? Where if you don't pay your annual fees, they don't extinguish your fires? If you don't have a fire mark on your front door (in Tucson, Arizona it was a decal on the curbside mailboxes), they turn around and return to the station. The wealthiest community in SoCal (and the first in the U.S.A. to have covenants covering every square inch within that community) for decades has hired a private security firm because the county sheriff's department doesn't have enough manpower -- too few deputies. So they "buy" police protection. This is true coast to coast, border to border...and in Alaska. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 > Alan wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Arizona it was a decal on the curbside mailboxes), they turn > around and return to the station. I didn't know that. It's scary. I wouldn't want to live next door to someone who didn't pay for fire protection, and then have to worry about whether, if his house catches fire, will mine get the sparks. I'd also hate to have to run into his burning house to save him or his children without any of the training, protective equipment, and youthful strength that a real fireman might have. I suspect that, even in Tucson, the firemen would save any people in the house, even if they didn't put out the fire. They might also stick around and keep the fire from spreading (I'm only speculating). Personally, I think the fire department should both save the people and put out the fire, and the homeowner should be taxed to pay for the service, whether he likes it or not. Fire safety, crime protection, child protective services, public education, and some other services are recognized in most jurisdictions (though not all - as you point out) as mandatory services for which people must be taxed for the collective good. Sometimes it's against private good. People without children may complain about paying for public education. People who never read a book complain about paying for libraries, people who live in fireproof homes may complain about paying for fire departments. But it seems to me legitimate to say that society as a whole is worse off if we have abused or ignorant children, fires out of control, criminals who can attack certain people or places with impunity, and so on. I personally believe that the same is true for public health. I don't want uninsured people clogging emergency rooms because they didn't get simple, cheap, standard care when their health problems were at early stages. I don't want people with dangerous communicable diseases walking around because they didn't get treatment. I don't want people to be sick and suffering when they can be helped. I don't want children, old folks, or anyone with insufficient money untreated, any more than I want starving beggars on the street. We live in a wealthy country. Why should we put up with the same problems as India or Brazil? Isn't it worth paying extra taxes to overcome these? I'm not convinced that public health will be more expensive. We already pay more than the European countries do, many of which are claimed to have better health care by objective measures. It's a value judgment. We have to consult our consciences. My own personal conscience has problems with uninsured people in my society. Alan Quoting Calchief >> Did you know that there are still areas in the U.S.A. with >> private fire departments? Where if you don't pay your annual [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Arizona it was a decal on the curbside mailboxes), they turn >> around and return to the station. Alan replied > I didn't know that. It's scary. (snip) It is a situation that, if my wetware is up to snuff, once existed in London and in certain US cities. Depended upon whether a householder had bought fire insurance, as the firemen were employees of the insurance companies. I'd be very interested in Calchief's documentation. It does not appear that what he wrote represents the present situation. FWIW, several years ago I lived in Bethesda, Maryland. The very well-equipped and professional fire department was a private enterprise. So, until last year, was the fire department (called Rural-Metro) of Scottsdale, Arizona and several other communities in the USA and elsewhere. Regards, Steve J > I'm not convinced that public health will be more expensive. We > already pay more than the European countries do, many of which > are claimed to have better health care by objective measures. Would you accept and treat yourself on the word of the mainstream press on a cancer treatment? Then why accept its word on the cost of public health, European health care, our economy, the war on terror, any political candidate, or global warming, especially given the press's incentives for distorting them? Example: How can you say our health care costs more when European taxes are as much as triple ours? I.P. > ... > Would you accept and treat yourself on the word of the mainstream press [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Example: How can you say our health care costs more when European taxes > are as much as triple ours? I admit I'm no expert on this. I also admit that conventional wisdom (which says that the Europeans pay less for health care than we Americans do) could be quite wrong. Figuring the cost and effectiveness of health care is a very difficult problem. I have seen many claims that Europeans pay less and get better care where one measure of better care is a healthier population. On the other hand, I saw an interesting article recently that said that the better health of Europeans is not necessarily due to better health care, but due to rampant obesity in the U.S. People who are overweight have vastly more health problems. So I don't know what the truth is. I would personally be in favor of a government directed study, conducted by leading experts, including advocates of various sides of the issue, to report on real costs and benefits of the various systems. But while I don't know that European health care really is better and cheaper than American health care, I have at least seen many claims that it is. If I have no solid reason for believing the Europeans do it better, I can also say I have no solid reasons for believing that the Americans do. As for higher taxes in Europe, there are bunches of reasons for their higher taxes, other than health care, that may account for the difference. For example: Welfare is dramatically more expensive in some European countries. Unemployment is higher in some of the countries, giving a smaller tax base and a higher welfare cost. The retirement age is much lower in Europe, and retirement benefits are much higher. This also gives a smaller tax base supporting a larger fraction of the population. Education goes further in Europe. A German friend of mine from a poor family went to college and grad school, paid for by the government, with no special scholarships not given to everyone. Some parts of the infrastructure are more extensive, for example the German autobahns. More is spent on environmental efforts. Bureaucracy is larger in many areas (not just health care). The European countries do not have the astonishing deficits that we have (especially the trillions piled on by Reagan and the Bushes). They pay for a higher percentage of their costs with taxes instead of debt. However I also recognize that they don't have the gigantic military cost that we have. In the end, my argument for public health care is not based on costs, it's based on a belief in the benefits of it. I suspect, but do not have facts to establish this one way or another, that a more public oriented health system will not cost more. If it costs less, the same, or even slightly more, I'd be in favor of it. Only if someone could show me that it would cost a lot more than what we have now, or that the benefits are worse than what we have now, would I step back from that position. So, as I have maintained all along, I'm not an expert and can't say what we should do. But I'm in favor of having the government investigate all of the options and do _something_ to remedy the really severe shortcomings of our current system. I understand that there are pitfalls in government involvement. But I don't see any other agency for effecting the needed change. Alan > ... > On the other hand, I saw an interesting article recently that > said that the better health of Europeans is not necessarily due > to better health care, but due to rampant obesity in the U.S. > People who are overweight have vastly more health problems. > ... As a followup to this, here's the data I found on a blue cross / blue shield web page. The diseases mentioned below are positively correlated with obesity. http://www.bcbs.com/news/national/europe-healthier-than-u-s.html Percentage of people 50 and older diagnosed with diseases in the U.S. and Europe. Arthritis U.S.: 53.8% Europe: 21.3% -- High blood pressure U.S.: 50% Europe: 32.9% -- Heart disease U.S.: 21.8% Europe: 11.4% -- High cholesterol U.S.: 21.7% Europe: 19.6% -- Diabetes U.S.: 16.4% Europe: 10.9% -- Cancer U.S.: 12.2% Europe: 5.4% -- Chronic lung disease U.S.: 9.7% Europe: 5.4% -- Source: Emory University Rollins School of Public Health > The diseases mentioned below are positively correlated with obesity. > Arthritis > High blood pressure [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Cancer > Chronic lung disease No surprises there. Cancer, for example? Fat is a living, breathing entity which produces a wide variety of carcinogens. Millions of early deaths are thus self-inflicted. I.P. > More is spent on environmental efforts. Yup. Kyoto is breaking their backs and bank and harming the environment. > they don't have the gigantic military cost that we have. Of course. The 4-5% of GDP that we pay defends most of the free world. I don't understand why folks whine so much about paying a measly 4-5% of U.S. productivity to protect their freedom. It's a bargain at thrice the price, and one of the smaller budget categories, FAR smaller than education, welfare, SS, etc. > In the end, my argument for public health care is not based on > costs, it's based on a belief in the benefits of it. I suspect, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > than what we have now, or that the benefits are worse than what > we have now, would I step back from that position. Google the states that implemented Hillarycare (I know TN and WA did, among others) in about 1993-95. It was a horrific failure in every case. I.P. >Google the states that implemented Hillarycare (I know TN and WA did, >among others) in about 1993-95. It was a horrific failure in every case. > >I.P. I.P., enlighten me please. What elements of "Hillarycare" do we have in WA. Or, if we tried it and it was a horrific failure, what did we try and abandon? Please excuse my ignorance. I was largely out of touch with what the State of WA was doing with healthcare at that time. I retrospect, not being aware may have been a good thing. When I google hillarycare in WA, all I get is references to the "other" Washington. Thanks BH RP in 1995 (age 52) RT in 2000 ADT (Casodex) 10/06 - 8/07 Latest PSA - 0.18 >> Google the states that implemented Hillarycare (I know TN and WA did, >> among others) in about 1993-95. It was a horrific failure in every case. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > When I google hillarycare in WA, all I get is references to the > "other" Washington. It failed so miserably in WA state that it's no longer a part of WA state law. Seven national health care trial runs since WWII -- five at the federal level plus Hillarycare programs in WA and TN -- all failed miserably. National/ universal health care is an old horse, debated nationally and tried nationally unsuccessfully five times since WW II. Hillary’s new plan strongly resembles many of them, especially Nixon’s failed 1974 Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. My tipoff came from a recent newspaper story at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/22163.html , which is just a beginning for your Google search on our five national and two state NHC battles and trials. For federally-managed state trials of Hillary’s original blockbuster health plan, Google such words as <Hillarycare 1993 washington state health plan> and <Hillarycare tennessee>. Plan on hours if you want details, or minutes if you just want the bottom line, on Hillarycare’s abject failures. Hillary’s plan was implemented virtually intact in Washington state under the Clinton administration’s close scrutiny, promptly failed miserably, and was repealed. One detailed analysis of its failure in WA is at http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg1121.cfm . I cannot link you to the text of the original Clinton Health Care plan of 1993 for one simple reason: it was developed and discussed in secrecy, in violation of federal law. The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons was unable in federal court to obtain access to the plan, stating that it “has the potential to destroy the foundations of American medicine”. You’re welcome to ignore the hundreds of erudite discussions of it easily Googled. Its details frighten anyone except avid socialists or even fascists, with such government dictates as: 1. Your health care source, including the HMO and the physicians you can use, was dictated under penalty of law. 2. Its fixed, government-specified cost. 3. Cost caps, in the sense that if a test or treatment costs too much, you can’t have it. 4. That you buy insurance against every threat, even though as a 75-year-old single gay male you are highly unlikely to need coverage against ectopic pregnancy. 5. You will also find many reference to Hillarycare’s criminalization of choosing and paying any doctor other than the one her system provides. That rabid mandate has been withdrawn now due to public uproar upon its exposure, and her original health care plan has been struck from the internet but it reveals how she thinks and by itself prohibits me from ever voting for her or her party as it exists today. It’s just one of many reasons her college professors and classmates labeled her a socialist, and she has vowed that any Democrat Party national health care plan will be a very close clone of hers. The day I and my doctor receive huge fines or are sentenced to prison for choosing my wife’s brain surgeon is the day I leave this country; I do not want to subject myself to any administration which thinks like that. Affordable health costs and a mandatory national health care system are almost unrelated, in that a NHC system essentially spreads the load without inherently lowering costs. Certainly Paul’s health care would cost him a great deal less if the government robbed Peter to pay for it, but is that fair to Peter, and does it motivate Paul to get off his arse, make more money, and buy health insurance instead of a big pickemup truck? Does it make any particular surgery cheaper? Sounds like a good excuse for mandatory health insurance, but why not motivate it with incentives, as the Republican candidates do, rather than the judicial system, as the Democrat candidates do? Now, when isobars wrote: The primary excuse for mandatory national/universal health care is twofold: buying votes with taxpayer money (or mandatory insurance proceeds) and creating greater dependency of more people on bigger government. This smacks of socialism, which should raise the hair on the back of every American’s neck. A government-mandated and government-regulated (maybe even government-run) health care system funded by money taken at gunpoint (i.e., under penalty of law) from every citizen is forbidden by our constitution and -- by definition if the government manages the care -- is socialized medicine. A NHC system will require oversight (i.e., new government employees). Its effect -- I believe its very purpose -- is to make citizens ever more dependent on the government, a primary objective of the Democrat Party. (Democrats pander to the lower economic half for their votes, while the Republicans pander to industry. Many of that lower half don’t realize that “their” jobs are provided -- i.e., owned -- by the very industry the GOP supports.) IOW, the Democrats want our well-being dependent on the government’s redistribution of our heavily taxed collective wealth, while the Republicans want us to get rich earning our OWN money and tax it more lightly so we can sustain growth. On a scale from socialism to capitalism, where do those objectives fall? Our government, especially its bureaucratic agencies, is extremely inefficient and largely incompetent. Neither its structure nor its individuals have any organizational incentive for efficiency or competence, unlike the private sector in which profit provides the carrot and the risk of getting fired provides the stick. The more involved the government is in our health care, the more likely it is that the bean counter deciding whether you deserve a transplant is a GS-5 who worked yesterday at the DMV. (And I’m commenting on the DMV’s customer service reputation, not its function.) I.P. >>> Google the states that implemented Hillarycare (I know TN and WA did, >>> among others) in about 1993-95. It was a horrific failure in every case. [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > >I.P. WTF don't you have a life beyond this newsgroup? This is a support group which you appear to believe you are it's chief citizen. You're a right wing hack, which is ok it's a free country. But who the hell wants to continually see your neocon diatribes in a cancer support newsgroup? BTW your arguments are as silly and immature as your nym. I remember your nym as an old joke we use to chuckle about in elementary school. Hmmm not much changes does it? So just stfu for awhile and whack off to Ann Coulters pic or whateverr gets you neocons off these days.. > You're a right wing hack, which is ok it's a free country. STFU. Well, which is it ... "OK", or "STFU"? > But who the hell wants to continually see your neocon diatribes in a > cancer support newsgroup? Apparently several people, and the rest don't have to read it. You think I should just ignore direct questions related to health -- including cancer -- care? > BTW your arguments are ... silly At least they're relevant to the topic and are impersonal. Yours? > I remember > your nym as an old joke we use to chuckle about in elementary school. I'm surprised you got the reference. You're brighter than you sound. > Hmmm not much changes does it? Nope. Dust to dust ... diapers to diapers. > So just stfu for awhile and whack off to Ann Coulters pic Too scrawny. I like meat on my bones ... and would love to have a bone in my meat. > or whatever gets you neocons off these days.. Well, it sure ain't Gloria Steinhem, Cindy Sheehan, or Rosie O'Donnell. And while you're at it ... 1. Define neocon. 2. Where were your complaints when your side espoused their point of view? 3. It wasn't I who brought up national health care. 4. Nor was it I who got personal and insulting. I.P. Freely (heh heh ... get it?) > ... > > But who the hell wants to continually see your neocon [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You think I should just ignore direct questions related to > health -- including cancer -- care? I for one like to read them. > ... > Nope. Dust to dust ... diapers to diapers. > ... > I.P. Freely (heh heh ... get it?) Personally, I almost never agree with I.P.'s politics, but his prose is fantastic. So, HesDeadJim, I recommend you keep reading him. He grows on you. Alan > Personally, I almost never agree with I.P.'s politics, but his > prose is fantastic. Meaning, whatever he writes is based on fantasy rather than fact. Distortion is his specialty. > So, HesDeadJim, I recommend you keep reading him. He grows on > you. Like a cancer. > Alan A recent example: I.P. Freely wrote: > Alan Meyer wrote: > > Many countries rate higher, including Britain, >> France and Germany, all of whom have government managed systems, >> and all of whom charge their citizens less than we pay for our >> private system. > > Every authoritative figure I can find on the cost of national/ federal/ socialist health care systems says they cost far more than we pay and, in the vast majority of such nations such as Canada and Great Britain, is still going bankrupt. If Leaky doesn't bother to look, then Leaky won't find "authoritative figures". Less prejudiced people will immediately notice his gross distortions. Health care per capita in the U.S. is higher than in any other developed country per OECD figures. Three times as high as in the U.K. The only bankruptcy in sight is Leaky's: a moral bankruptcy. What a liar. http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm hadnOn Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:54:08 -0700 (PDT), Alan Meyer <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote: >Personally, I almost never agree with I.P.'s politics, but his >prose is fantastic. Can't agree, Alan. It's brash, witty and an assortment of well-turned phrases for sure but I find it to be a style much too weighty for the content, too often tainted by the writer's self-centric sometimes smug view. Bull in a china shop. Never mind the quality feel the width. Not my kind of prose...at all. A matter of taste, of course, but I rarely read his posts through unless we're exchanging, or I think I need to know. I popped as briefly as possible into this thread to see what all the fuss was about. >So, HesDeadJim, I recommend you keep reading him. He grows on >you. Don't count on it HDJ. No IP growth here - not even a germinated seed, otoh he's of unarguable benefit here as a contrarian and - like all good obsessives - possessed of a wealth of info; one only needs to be wary of its sometimes selective or weighted bias. Where a post reveals itself to be OT - read no further!! Politics is a great spectator sport - and who can't be interested in economics these days - but for the discussion of overbearing irresolvable pontification better to choose a specialist forum where the density of traffic helps act as a safeguard against the cult of personality. Here, we have predominantly one person with a post-line quota way, way beyond the average (maybe even beyond the rest of the entire group's total!) drunk on foisting upon a.s.c.p. his views, some undoubtedly sound as a nut, others resting on questionable 'logical', 'provable', 'truthful' credentials. Nothing more tedious than a writer claiming opinion as fact - even worse as 'provable fact'. Some may actually be provable, others will be humbug, argued with a bitter determination amongst those who think life is long enough. My advice is to ask IP where he goes to discuss these issues and meet him there. Having said that, I'd hope I.P. would answer my PCa related question if he and only he knew the answer.....:-). >> You're a right wing hack, which is ok it's a free country. STFU. > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > I.P. Freely (heh heh ... get it?) IP, this is yet another example of what happens in this forum when we leave the topic of prostate cancer and get into political *opinions*. I swore off this a while back; I thought you did too. You know where I stand politically. But this is not the forum where I feel I should state it. You continually mention, in one way or another, your self-discipline. I wish you would exert it in this forum---remembering that its name is simply "alt.support.cancer prostate", and not anything involving "socialism", "patriotism", "Hilary-care", blah, blah, blah---topics you feel very passionately about. It's simply "alt.support. cancer.prostate." Why don't we keep it that way? > IP, this is yet another example of what happens in this forum when we leave > the topic of prostate cancer and get into political *opinions*. I swore off [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > passionately about. It's simply "alt.support. cancer.prostate." Why don't > we keep it that way? I'm sorry I've upset you, Claude, but why do you appeal only to me when: a) several others broached and discussed the topic first, b) they presented their liberal points of view on national health care without anyone's objection, b) some asked me direct questions about it, d) it applies to cancer health care all the way from PSA checks to terminal care, e) you don't say a word about the off-topic venom or ad hominem from your side, and f) if I just wanted to wax politically per se, it would include other equally or even more alarming issues than national health care? You'll need to broaden your complaint target if you expect me to feel too guilty about it. What I hear you saying is, "Our side gets to rant but you should keep quiet, even though it concerns the future of U.S. health care." And if Calichief and I don't get to jerk He'sDeadJim's chain a bit, then what purpose does his ad hominem serve and what fun is this place? I.P. >> IP, this is yet another example of what happens in this forum when we >> leave the topic of prostate cancer and get into political *opinions*. I [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > I.P. Did I say it's OK for liberals (or moderates) to go off-topic? Where? Is not the entire point of my post that we should stick to the topic of prostate cancer and not bring political opinions into it? And how on earth can someone as bright as you read into my post, "Our side gets to rant but you should keep quiet, even though it concerns the future of U.S. health care." Why am I responding to you? Because we have been over this before. Because you go on and on and on, leaping from a legitimate topic like health care to attacking Democrats by name, ranting on about global warming, liberal media bias, Islamic extremism, aid to the poor, societal laws, blah, blah, blah. Because the greatest amount of off-topic verbiage in this thread is from you. Because if it weren't for all this, He'sDeadJim would never have posted the way he did. Why am I responding to you? Because you pride yourself on logic, but yet cannot see that in a support group for a disease, you offer support to people and *relevant* information on that disease, not attack their politics and attitudes in other areas of their lives. Why am I responding to you? Because you trumpet your self-discipline and the lack of it in others, but yet *cannot resist* going off topic---and continuing off-topic---when someone else does. No doubt this will prompt yet another response from you. I had hoped that a general appeal to stay on topic would help here. Obviously it hasn't. Your positions seem to be far too emotionally driven. I won't waste anymore time with this. I tried. > how on earth > can someone as bright as you read into my post, "Our side gets to rant but > you should keep quiet, even though it concerns the future of U.S. health > care." > Did I say it's OK for liberals (or moderates) to go off-topic? Where? In your silence during the weeks they posted before I entered the discussion. Is > not the entire point of my post that we should stick to the topic of > prostate cancer and not bring political opinions into it? More people specifically asked to discuss health care -- and several more eagerly contributed -- than objected to it. I recall not one post complaining that the left wing posts were irrelevant or out of line. And > you go on and on and on, leaping from a legitimate topic like health care to > attacking Democrats by name Who? Where? Do you equate posting relevant facts to "attacking"? > you trumpet your self-discipline and the lack of > it in others, but yet *cannot resist* going off topic---and continuing > off-topic---when someone else does.... > Your positions seem to be far too emotionally driven. To assess my "discipline" you'd need to know my goals and definitions. I among several others consider health care to be on topic in a cancer forum, and my goals include challenging people I believe are threatening that health care. And, in fact, my positions -- e.g., on cancer, side effects, health care -- are based on and expressed as facts first, logic second, and derived opinions third ... unlike so many from the other side of the fence. > I had hoped that a general appeal to stay on topic would help here. It may have, had it been targeted bilaterally and if fewer of us thought health care off topic. I suspect that, given your background and expertise in this arena, you could contribute a great deal to this very relevant topic if you could distance your emotions from it -- tough, I'm sure, considering the venue of your work. I.P. Gentlemen: I propose that we change the subject of this thread from "Changing insurance" to "OT: Changing insurance". I agree with I.P. that a significant percentage of the thread is on-topic, and I agree with Claude that a significant percentage is off-topic. I think if we just label the thread as "OT", meaning Off-Topic, we should be fine. Anyone uninterested in off-topic posting can see that they need not read this thread. I know that politics is a matter of deep conviction. It is for me, and I know it is for many others in the group. We can get pretty passionate about it. However, I think it's important that we not get mad at each other or criticize each other. After all, we're all in the same boat here. Alan > I think if we just label the thread as "OT", meaning Off-Topic, > we should be fine. Anyone uninterested in off-topic posting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > get pretty passionate about it. However, I think it's important > that we not get mad at each other or criticize each other. Another forum I'm tried separate threads just for politics, and although it sounded good in theory, it backfired when several posters went ballistic and smeared the OT thread's baggage all over the whole forum. Thus I suggest instead that we either decide whether health care is On or Off topic, or split the difference by marking the thread something descriptive and letting people choose whether they want to read the thread based on their opinion of its relevance to PC. "Changing Insurance" comes to mind, but maybe something like "health care options" or even "national health care options" makes it clearer. But I feel such a thread should still be related to PC -- as I believe health care is -- lest it provide no benefit, just 100% side effects. I argued for years to have OT political threads in forums of known entities because I thought it was feasible. I'm now persuaded it is not. A thread for "OT Politics" just brings crazies out of the woodwork in my experience. It is as plain as the sun in the noon sky in Arizona from hundreds of discussions over many years that a significant percentage of those on the left are incapable of rational, impersonal discourse on politics. ALL many of them do is post pages upon pages of vile personal attacks with no pretense of topical OR political purpose, just pure venom. That's why it took me about two minutes to PLONK Safire; cancer or no cancer, I just don't need people or $#!+ like that in my life. OTOH, just as I feel candid discussions of PC tx SEs re valid and necessary, I believe national health care is a valid topic for us because it could change our health care dramatically if done too heavy-handedly. Unfortunately, not only does it include politics, but I believe ALL IT IS is politics, and it could be implemented by decree if the party supporting it achieves a triumvirate this Fall. We'd better be damned sure we want national health care, and for practical reasons, not emotional ones, before we vote it in. There's no way to separate NHC from politics OR from cancer, IMO. Now, see, Claude, I really AM trying to stay what I believe *is* On Topic. In rereading this whole thread I noticed only a paragraph or two of mine that was purely political, and for that I apologize; I appreciate your sounding off about it. I.P. > Gentlemen: > > I propose that we change the subject of this thread from > "Changing insurance" to "OT: Changing insurance". Or maybe the ending of it. These guys are getting pints out of this turnip. >> Gentlemen: >> >> I propose that we change the subject of this thread from >> "Changing insurance" to "OT: Changing insurance". > > Or maybe the ending of it. These guys are getting pints out of this turnip. Don't forget, Steve, that not only OUR health care, but our descendants', may be highly dependent on whether and when it becomes "nationalized" and to what degree. I'm fighting an ins co through the state Insurance Commissioner right now, and Ive got to believe the "insurance professionals" I'm dealing with at the ins c and at the Commissioner's office would be hard pressed to graduate high school. They're simply and totally incompetent, and the government stands minimal chance of improving upon that. I.P. >>> Gentlemen: >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Don't forget, Steve, that not only OUR health care, but our descendants', Oh, I don't forget. With five grandchildren and three more on the way, I'm constantly aware of what we're fighting to leave our descendants. But, the fight doesn't belong here. > the [NHC] fight doesn't belong here. Should that opinion, also expressed by a few people actively tying to forbid it, prevent those who do want it from pursuing it? I.P. >>> You're a right wing hack, which is ok it's a free country. STFU. >> Well, which is it ... "OK", or "STFU"? [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > passionately about. It's simply "alt.support. cancer.prostate." Why don't > we keep it that way? You have a point, but I think discussion of health care costs and related matters is a relevant topic of discussion. What happens to health care costs may make the difference between life and death for some of us. I do agree with you that we often let discussions of this sort go on too long, and I am probably as guilty as I. P. of doing that. That I think is just an unfortunate characteristic we share of wanting to get the last word. About almost anything. I remember a famous story about the late Mayor Daley, the current Mayor's father. He was holding a forum and one citizen shouted out "Up yours, Daley" or something of that nature, to which Daley responded "Up yours too". >>>> You're a right wing hack, which is ok it's a free country. STFU. >>> Well, which is it ... "OK", or "STFU"? [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > matters is a relevant topic of discussion. What happens to health care > costs may make the difference between life and death for some of us. Certainly, Leonard. Very valid topic. But it can be dealt without impugning various poltical figures and bringing in all sorts of extraneous issues that only in the poster's mind and people of his political committments are related to health insurance. I finally jumped into the discussion when I felt it had gotten out of hand in that fashion. And since people on both sides of the political fence feel very strongly about some of these political figures and some of of their proferred solutions, it ended up by mutual insults. That was not appropriate for a support group. > WTF don't you have a life beyond this newsgroup? This is a support > group which you appear to believe you are it's chief citizen. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So just stfu for awhile and whack off to Ann Coulters pic or whateverr > gets you neocons off these days.. Clear, sound arguments and so well supported by facts, I doubt he could have a response other than to recognize your obvious knowledge and debating skills. On April 11, Señor Freely wrote: (su-nip) > The more > involved the government is in our health care, the more likely it is > that the bean counter deciding whether you deserve a transplant is a > GS-5 who worked yesterday at the DMV. (And I’m commenting on the DMV’s > customer service reputation, not its function.) Bingo! Regarding a wide range of gummint and corporate controls over our very lives: Who decides, and what are their qualifications? I will now answer myself. Who = some recent graduate who is barely conversant in English and is afraid to think beyond the constraints of his/her procedures manual. Qualifications = to process as much paper as can be done for as low a price as possible. It's called "multitasking," which really requires pushing paper with little regard to what is ON the paper. Example from experience: one's performance is evaluated by how many files are closed, not how well the issues are handled. More experience: recently I was involved in a claim for the theft of my car. Simple, no? No, not with the gecko. It took 8 (eight!) months to settle the claim. It was so poorly handled that I also collected $20,000 in addition to the value of the car. What those AHs could not understand, even though I told them so, was that I knew their insurance contract better than they did. Damn. I do so hate to agree with Mike. Regards, Steve J > Damn. I do so hate to agree with Mike. Well, sometimes we just can't help ourselves, can we? ;-) Maybe HesDeadJim would feel better if he knew that I quit listening to Limbaugh > 10 years ago when he kept blasting Hillary's looks (as though they matter) and suspect Bush gets more things wrong than right. I.P. >> Damn. I do so hate to agree with Mike. > > Well, sometimes we just can't help ourselves, can we? ;-) (ka-snip) I was joking but forgot the ;-) Steve J >>> Google the states that implemented Hillarycare (I know TN and WA did, >>> among others) in about 1993-95. It was a horrific failure in every case. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > miserably. National/ universal health care is an old horse, debated > nationally and tried nationally unsuccessfully five times since WW II. You see to have forgotten Medicare, which seems to have been a great success. In fact, it has been so successful that a very conservative Republican president actually expanded it to cover drugs, although I don't much like the say he did it. I would have to look into what you say have been previous faiures to see if your argumetn has any merit. I do know that the Massachusetts plan is considered in Massachusetts to be reasonably successful in insuring previously uninsured people, but it has encountered some serious problems with financing. It is much too early to call it either a success or a failure. I am not familiar with Washington's plan which seems to be for basic rather than comprehensive care. There is a web site at www.basichealth.hca.wa.gov which describes. I don't know its present status. I would have to look into the situation, but I understand Oregon and Arizona have attempted plans of this sort. And California is trying to institute one but has had trouble with figuring out how to finance it. Let me say that these plans are not really comparable to any national plan. A state doesn't really have the resources to deal with the problem. If no national plan is adopted, the states will continue to try and they may or may not succeed. Let me also say that I think using the term "Hillarycare" confuses the matter. Early in the Clinton administration, Hillary Clinton tried to come up with a plan, and its merits were never tested. Although epople were tehn ready to serioulsy consider such an initiaive, it seems generally clear that Clinton went about designing it clumsily and she was politically naive. The plan was shot down before it had a chance to get anywhere by health insurance lobbying who attacked it vigorusly in TV ads. Remember Harry and Louise? Americans are very insecure about health insurance and if they already have good insurance, even if it is threatened by what may happen, people can be convinced that any change is likely to make them worse off even if other people are made better off. If the argument is posed as why help all those undeserving -----(fill in the blank as your prejudices dictate), why should you have to be hurt. thus by dividing the public into deserving haves and undeserving have-not s, you prevent any more equitable distribution of resources. This may even be just and reasonable for many aspect of life, but I don't think it does for health care. Whether or not you need expensive health care is largely beyond individual control, as many of us here have found out. Note that Even Clinton's current plan is very different from what she proposed in the early 90s. So no one is proposing anything that could reasonably be called "Hillarycare". I think there is a pretty good chance that anyone using that term is trying to express contempt both for Clinton and any healthcare plan they think they wouldn't like. There are two basic problems in doing something serious about doing something about our current system to pay for medical costs. The first is that while it need not increase costs, it will shift how they are paid. It is possible people will prefer to pay much higher amounts in insurance premiums than they would be willing to pay for the same purpose through taxes, but I hope enough people can do arithmetic well enough to understand that you are better off paying less altogether. The other problem is how to fit private insurance into a new system. The medical insurance industry is a significant part of how we now pay for medical care, and they are not going to agree to anything that doesn't preserve some role for them and for their making money. They may have an effective veto about what gets done. But I hav hoeps. Eventually things will get so bad that some very conservative Republican president will come up with what is basically a single payer system and force it through Congress. We have already seen moderate Republicans like Schwatzenegger and Romney (before his conversion to the true Republican faith) make such attempts. There are also other related precedents. It was the Reagan administration, after all, that placed an upper limit on what doctors could charge under Medicare. Many physicians of course predicted disaster if that was done, but it turned out that enough physicians were actually interested enough in treating their patients or didn't want to give up on such a large that market that it has worked pretty well since then. One good principle is that, when all else fails, whatever your ideology says, you should do the obvious thing, so you do, and usually it works. > Hillary’s new plan strongly resembles many of them, especially Nixon’s > failed 1974 Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. My tipoff came from a > recent newspaper story at > http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/22163.html , which is just a > beginning for your Google search on our five national and two state NHC > battles and trials. I haven't yet done it, but I have found in the past that when I follow the links and do my own searches, I find the situation is quite a bit different from what I. P. says it is. He doesn't do a specially good job of distinguishing fact from opinion. He is certainly entitled to his opinion, but each of us should look indepdenently. I won't try to analyze everything he says here, but the above reference is to an article in the McClatchy newspapers that describes the current Democratic proposals as very similar to what Richard Nixon proposed in 1974. I think that is something of an exaggeration, but there are certainly strong similarities. (For those of you who don't remember, Nixon was thought of as a conservative Republican, but many of what he proposed then is to the left of what Democrats are proposing today.Some people call him "the last liberal president".) It goes on to explain why such plans fail to be approved despite significant public support for the general principle of national health insurance. The attacks, then as now, are that this is "socialized medicine" which I think is a phony issue. It comes about by conflating related matters under one term as though they were the same thing. The real world is more complicated than that. For example, the general public thinks prostate cancer is one disease which is, according to the last thing they read, a fairly innocuous complaint, or something that will certainly kill you. Many of us of course know that it is more complicated than that and the details actually matter. The same thing is true about health insurance. There is no way to isolate one aspect and use that to determine whether it is good way to do things. >> It failed so miserably in WA state that it's no longer a part of WA >> state law. Seven national health care trial runs since WWII -- five at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You see to have forgotten Medicare, which seems to have been a great > success. > I would have to look into what you say have been previous faiures to see > if your argumetn has any merit. ... Massachusetts plan ... a web site at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > matter. Early in the Clinton administration, Hillary Clinton tried to > come up with a plan, and its merits were never tested. I'm sorry, Leonard, but you obviously have not even looked at what I posted, let alone my references. Hillarycare has nothing to do with Medicare, and has not been tried in CA or OR or AZ or Mass to my knowledge. Hillarycare is the name the media gave to the very explicit, gigantic, fascist (no other word describes a system which fines and imprisons patients -- and their doctors -- who chose their own doctors) health plan she authored in secrecy in violation of federal law. It was voted into law almost verbatim in WA and TN -- WA legislators refused to include her mandate that the aforementioned doctors and patients will be federal felons subject to a $50,000 fine and significant prison time -- in the early 90s and aborted due to massive failure and public and legislative outrage. The WA in particular, and I believe TN, Hillarycare programs were under close scrutiny of the feds to ensure exact compliance with Hillary's health care system as formal tests of her program. I've told you all this and much more, with links to authoritative sources, more than once, yet you keep ignoring those sources and making invalid assumptions. None of this is "my arguments"; some of the autopsies of the Hillarycare cadaver are huge, cold, professional analyses. Hillary publicly stated that any national health care system the Democrats invoke will be based on her program. And as I said and referenced before, her program was in addition to five other federal NHC dialogs and/or trials since WWII, all of which failed congressional and public muster and of which looked very much like hers but was out of the Nixon administration. > yada yada yada about my alleged objection to insurance. I have never thought or said insurance is wrong. I firmly believe in it, buy lots of it, support its legal mandate in scenarios such as auto liability, and have even filed some claims. But because Steve Forbes and countless other financial and governmental analysts/gurus consider any officious, restrictive, non-competitive, heavily regulated, exclusive NHC -- such as what most Dems seem (we haven't heard Obama's yet) to favor -- to be untenable on many levels, who am I to argue with them? (OK, I do dispute Forbes' flat tax preference over the Fair Tax, but I've not researched the former and it's not relevant to cancer.) > Note that Even Clinton's current plan is very different from what she > proposed in the early 90s. I don't know how different it is, other than her being forced by public outcry to drop the federal rap clause. Her new version was only recently released, and the original Hillarycare plan was never published. Again, Hillary publicly stated that any national health care system the Democrats invoke will be based on her program. > It was the Reagan administration, after > all, that placed an upper limit on what doctors could charge under > Medicare. Many physicians of course predicted disaster if that was > done, but it turned out that enough physicians were actually interested > enough in treating their patients or didn't want to give up on such a > large that market that it has worked pretty well since then. So why is Medicare going bankrupt, maybe even in my lifetime, and why do fraud and abuse of it run into the tens of *billions* annually, if the government is running it so well? One good > principle is that, when all else fails, whatever your ideology says, you > should do the obvious thing, so you do, and usually it works. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > different from what I. P. says it is. He doesn't do a specially good > job of distinguishing fact from opinion. I provided a reference precisely so people CAN make their own evaluations, which is far more than you do (see below). Even when I said recently that "I THINK but have not verified ..." you responded that my claim was wrong ... even though I offered further evidence of my SUSPICION. I resent the living hell out of your denigrating my veracity and intelligence not only with no proof but even in the face of proof of my claims. In this and your more recent NHC post you present MANY claims with no attempt whatsoever to substantiate them, such as your assessments of other nations' health care systems. The Prime Minister of Canada and the British government often and loudly dispute your claims about the viability of their troubles systems. And you repeatedly virtually make stuff up about the VA system you have no personal experience with. To top it off, Claude says my discussion and factual support of the Venn diagram overlap between politics and health care are off limits, yet when Leonard says > You have a point, but I think discussion of health care costs > and related matters is a relevant topic of discussion. What happens > to health care costs may make the difference between life and death > for some of us, Claude gushes, "Certainly, Leonard. Very valid topic." and says not one word about Leonards's generalized personal snipe. Sorry, guys, but you're making my case better than I could. You're more concerned about my political correctness -- and the side of the fence I'm on -- than about my message and its substantiation. How long did it take LEONARD, of all people, to resort to unsubstantiated personal denigration when his politics were challenged? This, Alan, is what I've seen happen to the tune of hundreds of such posts and internet stalking when a forum opens up an OT thread just for politics. You and I could probably debate hot topics rationally all day; FAR too many people are not capable of it. Oh, well ... at least one person is (justifiably) enjoying my time on the hot seat; right, Jordan? ;-) That's OK; have fun. I.P. On ApriI 14, Señor "Freely" wrote: (su-nip) > Oh, well ... at least one person is (justifiably) enjoying my time on > the hot seat; right, Jordan? ;-) Nope :-) Steve J >Oh, well ... at least one person is (justifiably) enjoying my time on >the hot seat; right, Jordan? ;-) Yes, transparently, it's yourself, and there's nothing justifiable about it. >>> It failed so miserably in WA state that it's no longer a part of WA >>> state law. Seven national health care trial runs since WWII -- five [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> You see to have forgotten Medicare, which seems to have been a great >> success. and most european countries, where national health care systems work considerably more efficient than the current u.s. system, i.e care that is at least as good as care in the u.s. is delivered at half the u.s. price. >> I would have to look into what you say have been previous faiures to >> see if your argumetn has any merit. ... Massachusetts plan ... a web [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > imprisons patients -- and their doctors -- who chose their own doctors) > health plan she authored in secrecy in violation of federal law. what federal law prohibits authoring anything in the privacy of your study room? It was > voted into law almost verbatim in WA and TN -- WA legislators refused to > include her mandate that the aforementioned doctors and patients will be > federal felons subject to a $50,000 fine and significant prison time -- > in the early 90s and aborted due to massive failure and public and > legislative outrage. maybe because no state can make a crime a federal felony. that's just absurd. this guy really is out of the mainstream. i'll bet he also thinks income taxes are unconstitutional. The WA in particular, and I believe TN, Hillarycare > programs were under close scrutiny of the feds to ensure exact > compliance with Hillary's health care system as formal tests of her [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > > I.P. >> Google the states that implemented Hillarycare (I know TN and WA did, >> among others) in about 1993-95. It was a horrific failure in every case. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > When I google hillarycare in WA, all I get is references to the > "other" Washington. It failed so miserably in WA state that it's no longer a part of WA state law. Seven national health care trial runs since WWII -- five at the federal level plus Hillarycare programs in WA and TN -- all failed miserably. National/ universal health care is an old horse, debated nationally and tried nationally unsuccessfully five times since WW II. Hillary’s new plan strongly resembles many of them, especially Nixon’s failed 1974 Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. My tipoff came from a recent newspaper story at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/22163.html , which is just a beginning for your Google search on our five national and two state NHC battles and trials. For federally-managed state trials of Hillary’s original blockbuster health plan, Google such words as <Hillarycare 1993 washington state health plan> and <Hillarycare tennessee>. Plan on hours if you want details, or minutes if you just want the bottom line, on Hillarycare’s abject failures. Hillary’s plan was implemented virtually intact in Washington state under the Clinton administration’s close scrutiny, promptly failed miserably, and was repealed. One detailed analysis of its failure in WA is at http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg1121.cfm . I cannot link you to the text of the original Clinton Health Care plan of 1993 for one simple reason: it was developed and discussed in secrecy, in violation of federal law. The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons was unable in federal court to obtain access to the plan, stating that it “has the potential to destroy the foundations of American medicine”. You’re welcome to ignore the hundreds of erudite discussions of it easily Googled. Its details frighten anyone except avid socialists or even fascists, with such government dictates as: 1. Your health care source, including the HMO and the physicians you can use, was dictated under penalty of law. 2. Its fixed, government-specified cost. 3. Cost caps, in the sense that if a test or treatment costs too much, you can’t have it. 4. That you buy insurance against every threat, even though as a 75-year-old single gay male you are highly unlikely to need coverage against ectopic pregnancy. 5. You will also find many reference to Hillarycare’s criminalization of choosing and paying any doctor other than the one her system provides. That rabid mandate has been withdrawn now due to public uproar upon its exposure, and her original health care plan has been struck from the internet but it reveals how she thinks and by itself prohibits me from ever voting for her or her party as it exists today. It’s just one of many reasons her college professors and classmates labeled her a socialist, and she has vowed that any Democrat Party national health care plan will be a very close clone of hers. The day I and my doctor receive huge fines or are sentenced to prison for choosing my wife’s brain surgeon is the day I leave this country; I do not want to subject myself to any administration which thinks like that. Affordable health costs and a mandatory national health care system are almost unrelated, in that a NHC system essentially spreads the load without inherently lowering costs. Certainly Paul’s health care would cost him a great deal less if the government robbed Peter to pay for it, but is that fair to Peter, and does it motivate Paul to get off his arse, make more money, and buy health insurance instead of a big pickemup truck? Does it make any particular surgery cheaper? Sounds like a good excuse for mandatory health insurance, but why not motivate it with incentives, as the Republican candidates do, rather than the judicial system, as the Democrat candidates do? The primary excuse for mandatory national/universal health care is twofold: buying votes with taxpayer money (or mandatory insurance proceeds) and creating greater dependency of more people on bigger government. This smacks of socialism, which should raise the hair on the back of every American’s neck. A government-mandated and government-regulated (maybe even government-run) health care system funded by money taken at gunpoint (i.e., under penalty of law) from every citizen is forbidden by our constitution and -- by definition if the government manages the care -- is socialized medicine. A NHC system will require oversight (i.e., new government employees). Its effect -- I believe its very purpose -- is to make citizens ever more dependent on the government, a primary objective of the Democrat Party. (Democrats pander to the lower economic half for their votes, while the Republicans pander to industry. Many of that lower half don’t realize that “their” jobs are provided -- i.e., owned -- by the very industry the GOP supports.) IOW, the Democrats want our well-being dependent on the government’s redistribution of our heavily taxed collective wealth, while the Republicans want us to get rich earning our OWN money and tax it more lightly so we can sustain growth. On a scale from socialism to capitalism, where do those objectives fall? Our government, especially its bureaucratic agencies, is extremely inefficient and largely incompetent. Neither its structure nor its individuals have any organizational incentive for efficiency or competence, unlike the private sector in which profit provides the carrot and the risk of getting fired provides the stick. The more involved the government is in our health care, the more likely it is that the bean counter deciding whether you deserve a transplant is a GS-5 who worked yesterday at the DMV. (And I’m commenting on the DMV’s customer service reputation, not its function.) I.P. I.P. wrote: > Tricare Standard vs Extra vs Prime (for pre-medicare retirees); > the more choice one wants, the more the program costs. My wife was enrolled in Standard and began to ask around about Extra and Prime. We learned that many doctors accept only Standard. > Yes. Tricare for Life, initiated in Nov 2001 to provide the > medical care we were promised but the government reneged on, > is only for retirees over 64 and on Medicare. (I don't > understand your being "pre-medicare" but in Tricare for Life.) I've been on medicare a year after my SSDI kicked in, back in my 50's. When I became 60 and switched from "Reserve Retired Without Pay" to "Reserve Retired With Pay), I was eligible for medical care and drugs at the local Naval hospital, with a notation that it expired on my 65th birthday (November 2001). Married in summer 2001 at age 64, immediately took the bride in for an ID (August), and the clerk suggested that I obtain a new ID without the medical expiration date. BTW, I am now 71. <VBG> ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 Alan Meyer replied to Joe: > Personally, I think the fire department should both save > the people and put out the fire, Some departments have insured addresses computerized and will not even dispatch to an unisured address. > and the homeowner should be taxed to pay for the service, > whether he likes it or not. But the local government doesn't include fire protection into its annual budget because there's no "public" fire department. There is no tax for fire protection, whether the homeowner likes it or not. (This could not happen in California.) California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), now CalFire, stopped responding to any non-vegetation, i.e. a struture, fire decades ago -- unless counties paid CDF for fire protection. Many communities, indeed entire counties, today contract for and pay CalFire for fire protection. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 Hesdeadjim9@67.162.155.224 (giganews.com/comcast.net) spewed his garbage: > You're a right wing hack, which is ok it's a free country. What does that make you? A left wing socialist/commie? > But who the hell wants to continually see your neocon > diatribes What do you call your post? Sounds like infantile, "Mommy, mommy, he stuck his tongue out at me." > BTW your arguments are as silly and immature as your nym. His arguments are fully justified. He's trying to preserve the U.S.A. as the founding fathers created it. Your ranting and raving is immature. Your cavil is exactly what's expected of someone who wants what is available in many other contries, but wants it here instead of moving to one of those other countries. > So just stfu Ah, proving he's just a kid on his parents' computer, trying to act big with that language. > BTW your arguments are as silly and immature as your nym. No, the only thing silly and immature was your post (which by the way included 121 lines of quote for your smallish 14-line silly a.s, frivolous objection to I.P.'s writings). > I remember your nym as an old joke we use to chuckle about in > in elementary school. > Hmmm not much changes does it? Now you're in junior high school and still trying to prove to the other boys how "adult" you can pretend to be. > for awhile and whack off to Ann Coulters pic or whatever > gets you neocons off these days.. Actually, Ann is more appealing that your girlfriend Hillary. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.