[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I would feel a lot better about these bills if I thought that the issues were being studied rather than just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Same here. Although I know the UHC idea is sound and that it can work: there seem to be elements going out of their way to ensure it fails here.

[tlj009]

Same here. Although I know the UHC idea is sound and that it can work: there seem to be elements going out of their way to ensure it fails here.

Yes, I am sure that it works both ways. There are some who push for the idea without looking into it at all and there are some who try to make it fail simply because they didn't come up with the idea. That is US politics. And they wonder why politician is one of the most despised professions.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Ax

I did like how they said that they were gonna tax insurance companies whose premiums were too high. What I didn't see, which I believe is necessary, is that it should be illegal for a drug corp to offer a drug cheaper overseas than in the U.S., which does happen. Also, possibly capping markup on production.

Well don't forget that many times that is a contractes thing with the govt. for the right to even market the drug in that country. Also some times when it is generics, they come from foreign countries that do not have the expensive quality controls that AMerican companies have.

[nolidad]

Same here. Although I know the UHC idea is sound and that it can work: there seem to be elements going out of their way to ensure it fails here.

Well whatever plan the democrats vote into law, there will eventually be a govt. option which will morph into single payer govt. controlled health . Privatre insurers and employers won't be able to compete with the govt. that has been concluded by economists on both sides of the aisle. The biggest question is how long beofre it further breaks the already broken public bank. Every country that has universal govt. financed health care are straining under the fiscal eight of these health plans.

[nolidad]

Does everybody remember all the brouhaha with Gov. Palin and the death panels inthe health care bills?? Well guess what- she didn't make it up herself she had help from a democrat .

Robert Reich On Health Care: Old People Have to Die

HMMMM? I wonder if he knows something and spilled the beans?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Robert Reich On Health Care: Old People Have to Die

Which of the UHC bills was his again?

None? Oh. I thought you might have been trying to be relevent. My mistake.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well whatever plan the democrats vote into law, there will eventually be a govt. option which will morph into single payer govt. controlled health . Privatre insurers and employers won't be able to compete with the govt. that has been concluded by economists on both sides of the aisle. The biggest question is how long beofre it further breaks the already broken public bank. Every country that has universal govt. financed health care are straining under the fiscal eight of these health plans.

Don't forget that we will also be selling our children to slave-traders, giving our resources to Martians, and kicking puppies.

Your fictitious fearmongering is irellevent

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Does everybody remember all the brouhaha with Gov. Palin and the death panels inthe health care bills?? Well guess what- she didn't make it up herself she had help from a democrat .

Robert Reich On Health Care: Old People Have to Die

HMMMM? I wonder if he knows something and spilled the beans?

but he has a point. End of life care is very expensive. We have finite resources. Right now, who gets medical treatment is largely determined by who has the better insurance or who has the largest bank account balance. If a 70 year old (on Medicare) needs a new liver and a 30 year old needs a new liver but doesn't have insurance or the means to pay for it, then the 70 year old gets the liver. Am I wrong about this? I don't think I am. Shouldn't medical/health care resources be allocated based on the quality of life and contribution to society and not on financial basis?

My grandmother has Alzheimer's disease. She also has coronary artery disease. They could do a bypass surgery and prolong her life, but doing so would only prolong a life of pain. Not to mention the fact that she still won't be able to talk, walk, or think. Do you think it would be an efficient use of medical resources to do this surgery. We don't, so we have chosen not to allow the bypass surgery. But there are some people who would and would do anything so they don't have to let their loved ones pass because they can't bare to live without them. I know that those times are an extraordinarily difficult time for families and I don't want to diminish their pain or suffering. But the rational and logical thing to do is to focus our resources on those who will have a larger improvement in quality of life and contribution to society.

[JerryLove]

Very true. Half the money we spend is on treatment that fails (treatment in the last 6 months of life).

If someone is dying of pancratic cancer in the hospital. They are, simply put, not going to live more than a month... and they go into cardiac arrest. How much effort and mony should be put into trying to revive them and, say, keep them alive for another three weeks in a coma, before they die?

But all of this is irrellevent to the skipped salient point.

ALL health insurance, every one. Private, public, or otherwise: choose to allow or deny coverage in any given circumstance. The government's healthcare might not approve puttning a 90-year-old whose heart just died on a heart-bypass machine so that he can live another week attached to it? Well, neither with Aetna.

BTW: Where is all this rage about the inadequicies of congressional health care? They are on a plan whose traits are decided by the government.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Bryan

but he has a point. End of life care is very expensive. We have finite resources. Right now, who gets medical treatment is largely determined by who has the better insurance or who has the largest bank account balance. If a 70 year old (on Medicare) needs a new liver and a 30 year old needs a new liver but doesn't have insurance or the means to pay for it, then the 70 year old gets the liver. Am I wrong about this? I don't think I am. Shouldn't medical/health care resources be allocated based on the quality of life and contribution to society and not on financial basis?

My grandmother has Alzheimer's disease. She also has coronary artery disease. They could do a bypass surgery and prolong her life, but doing so would only prolong a life of pain. Not to mention the fact that she still won't be able to talk, walk, or think. Do you think it would be an efficient use of medical resources to do this surgery. We don't, so we have chosen not to allow the bypass surgery. But there are some people who would and would do anything so they don't have to let their loved ones pass because they can't bare to live without them. I know that those times are an extraordinarily difficult time for families and I don't want to diminish their pain or suffering. But the rational and logical thing to do is to focus our resources on those who will have a larger improvement in quality of life and contribution to society.

So you do believe in death panels???? What you just promoted are the things that many conservatives were villified for saying.

You bring some extreme examples as showing why th eyoung should get the care and the old left to die.

I do not promote pouring huge sums to the terminally ill. I do not think anyone would want that. But to deny a 75 year old a bypass because they are 75 is not what America is about. Or maybe we should say is not what America was about despite all its problems.

When we reduce life to how much that unit can benefit society- we have gone far down the road of Stalinism and Maoism. This is antithetical to our Judeo-Christian heritage that help craft so many of our laws.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by nolidad

So you do believe in death panels???? What you just promoted are the things that many conservatives were villified for saying.

You bring some extreme examples as showing why th eyoung should get the care and the old left to die.

I do not promote pouring huge sums to the terminally ill. I do not think anyone would want that. But to deny a 75 year old a bypass because they are 75 is not what America is about. Or maybe we should say is not what America was about despite all its problems.

When we reduce life to how much that unit can benefit society- we have gone far down the road of Stalinism and Maoism. This is antithetical to our Judeo-Christian heritage that help craft so many of our laws.

you conveniently ignored what I said about quality of life. And no, I don't think how beneficial to society a person can be should be the sole determinant in how we allocate medical resources. But it shouldn't be ignored completely.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by nolidad

But to deny a 75 year old a bypass because they are 75 is not what America is about.

But denying a 75 year old a bypass because they can't pay for it is what America is about?

This is antithetical to our Judeo-Christian heritage that help craft so many of our laws.

Even more pernicious to our Christianity is the reduction of people's lives to a profit/loss margin. Capitalism and Christianity are not compatible. We endure capitalism, not practice it.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

But denying a 75 year old a bypass because they can't pay for it is what America is about?



Even more pernicious to our Christianity is the reduction of people's lives to a profit/loss margin. Capitalism and Christianity are not compatible. We endure capitalism, not practice it.

WEll if we can pay for it we should, but right now we are insolvent. We as a society haven't been paying for our stuff for a long time noe- hence why between govt and private citizens we are $30 trillion in actual debt.

Soif Christianity and capitalism are incompatible- what is compatible with Christianity?? And can you cite historical examples of how it is better.

[nolidad]

Evr since the federal govt. (both sides of the aisle) has gotten actively and fiscally involved in both medicien and higher education both systems have gotten to become a mess.

Yes there have been new technologies and breakthroughs in medicine- but the more govt. has pumped cash into medical care the more expensive it has become.

Insurance is a wonderful thing but it also makes things more expensive because it passes the cost off to someone else- the insurer be they a porivate company or th egovt. Thereis no incentive to the patient to be frugal- the insurer pays. There is no incentive for the physician- they just bill out and receive payment.

Two examples of where medical costs have gone down are the two places that haven't beentouvhed by private or public ins.

Cosmetic surgery and lasik surgery- competition has improved the quality and reduced the cost.
Free markets seem to be working great here.

Even more pernicious to our Christianity is the reduction of people's lives to a profit/loss margin. Capitalism and Christianity are not compatible. We endure capitalism, not practice it.

Don't forget that just as pernicious to our Christianity is th ereduction of peoples lives to their benefit to the collective. Socialism and its variants are not compatible with Christianity. Unfortunately America is being nudged down th road to socialism. As Maher said- people should be dragged to socialized medicine- we are stupid and don't know whjat is good for us..

[Buster Friendly]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Thereis no incentive to the patient to be frugal

The incentive is to keep your premium down.

Originally Posted by nolidad

There is no incentive for the physician- they just bill out and receive payment.

The incentive is to keep patients (customers) coming to your hospital to receive treatment. The lower the cost of procedures, the lower the rise of the patient's premium.

Originally Posted by nolidad

Two examples of where medical costs have gone down are the two places that haven't beentouvhed by private or public ins.

Cosmetic surgery and lasik surgery- competition has improved the quality and reduced the cost.
Free markets seem to be working great here.

Cosmetic Surgery Prices Increase - See: the first sentence.
Surgery.com - The Cost of Surgery and Trends in Cosmetic Surgery Prices

Lasik prices increase - See: "Average LASIK Costs"
Cost of LASIK Eye Surgery (Updated July 2009) - AllAboutVision.com