Health care - administrative incompetence

[kellyb]

That's the only free market proposal that might work. In some ways it makes sense. Get rid of the massive army of middlemen and you may get rid of enough of the non-medical costs to make medical care affordable.

Problem is the middlemen represent a billion dollar industry that isn't particularly interested in going away.

I would really like to hear Rolfe's perspective on this. In a really, really, really free market, she'd be able to treat humans, too.

Do the sort of high tech treatments like Ducky got even exist in vet medicine? If not, is that because not enough people value their pets that highly, or because with 90% of the population being unable to afford it even in theory, it's not worth developing the technology?

 

[bookitty]

I would really like to hear Rolfe's perspective on this. In a really, really, really free market, she'd be able to treat humans, too.

Do the sort of high tech treatments like Ducky got even exist in vet medicine? If not, is that because not enough people value their pets that highly, or because with 90% of the population being unable to afford it even in theory, it's not worth developing the technology?

There are very high-tech treatments for pets with the associated price tags. Radiation and chemotherapy spring to mind. As does the cat with bionic feet that made the news a few months back.

The reason that we don't spend the same sums on our pets is not because they aren't valued, they are but because they don't have dependents, they haven't paid taxes and they don't participate in the market.

A human being has paid taxes, in the US most adults have paid some funds towards health insurance. For this they expect treatment.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Okay so I just read Ducky's story and I am willing to admit the system did not work for him. Nor does it work for many people I will admit. But I think the problem, at least for me, is the U.S. Government simply does not work for the people.

I was thinking if it was possible to 'fix' the system with some kind of UHC that was not run by the government, would I be okay with that? And I have to say I am definitely more open to that thought than having the government run healthcare. There is so very much waste and abuse of power in our government that frankly, I could never get on board with them running our healthcare system. There is so much lack of personal responsibility in this country that government-run healthcare would just be another type of free ride for so many people. I think many of us who work 60-80 hours a week have about had it with the droves of people who do not produce but rather take, take, take and then want more. I live near a big city and I see first-hand the people I am supporting with my tax dollars. I am an employer and I see first-hand the games people play to get hand-outs in this country. I am wondering if it is UHC/NHC that I am against or the principle of it. If the government could take the tax dollars it is getting now, stop paying for pork secretly snuck into every bill and implement a healthcare program run by some honest, competent entity then I would rethink my position.

 

[bookitty]

Okay so I just read Ducky's story and I am willing to admit the system did not work for him. Nor does it work for many people I will admit. But I think the problem, at least for me, is the U.S. Government simply does not work for the people.

I was thinking if it was possible to 'fix' the system with some kind of UHC that was not run by the government, would I be okay with that? And I have to say I am definitely more open to that thought than having the government run healthcare. There is so very much waste and abuse of power in our government that frankly, I could never get on board with them running our healthcare system. There is so much lack of personal responsibility in this country that government-run healthcare would just be another type of free ride for so many people. I think many of us who work 60-80 hours a week have about had it with the droves of people who do not produce but rather take, take, take and then want more. I live near a big city and I see first-hand the people I am supporting with my tax dollars. I am an employer and I see first-hand the games people play to get hand-outs in this country. I am wondering if it is UHC/NHC that I am against or the principle of it. If the government could take the tax dollars it is getting now, stop paying for pork secretly snuck into every bill and implement a healthcare program run by some honest, competent entity then I would rethink my position.

Ugh! Can we get off the "lack of responsibility" mantra for a while. Yes, there are abuses to the welfare system, yes it takes far too much money and results in too few benefits.

To change that we need to change the way we deal with poverty, increase not decrease funding to schools, decrease tax breaks to companies that send some or all jobs overseas, increase job training in high school and prisons, etc, etc.

So yes, that aspect of the system is incredibly flawed and has been for many, many years. It needs a fresh start. That does not negate the possibility for good in any government program, especially one that could base its design on one of the many modern working models available.

 

[kellyb]

I am wondering if it is UHC/NHC that I am against or the principle of it. If the government could take the tax dollars it is getting now, stop paying for pork secretly snuck into every bill and implement a healthcare program run by some honest, competent entity then I would rethink my position.

I don't think our government works for us, either. I'm not honestly sure why 99% of our politicians seem to be 500% (or whatever) more corrupt than elected officials in other countries, but something is very, very weird about the fact that what we pay for medicare and medicaid alone (per capita) funds the entire NHS (and every other UHC system in the developed world), and none of the political elite on either the left or the right seems to be aware of that. Or, if they are aware of it, they aren't too keen to want to talk about it.

I suspect that a big part of it is that their campaigns are being funded by the exact same vested interests that are keeping everything 50% more expensive over here. A more benign possibility is that they're worried about spooking the AARP crowd on Medicare. It wouldn't be hard to take the facts and frighten seniors by saying "Candidate X wants to take your Medicare benefits and give them to the young!"

Rolfe thinks we're just screwed, but I think we'll get serious about fixing our issues, out of sheer desperation if nothing else, before too long.

If it makes you feel any better, a whole lot of us on the left hate Obamacare just as much as you conservatives do. In our case, we hate it because it doesn't do hardly anything to address any of our core issues in a sustainable way. Candidate Obama said "A health insurance mandate to fix our health care problem makes as much sense as mandating housing to fix the homelessness problem." But look at what President Obama signed into law.

Sigh.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Are there any other industries in the US where the government decides how much you can charge for your service or how much profit you can make in a privately owned company?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Ugh! Can we get off the "lack of responsibility" mantra for a while. Yes, there are abuses to the welfare system, yes it takes far too much money and results in too few benefits.

To change that we need to change the way we deal with poverty, increase not decrease funding to schools, decrease tax breaks to companies that send some or all jobs overseas, increase job training in high school and prisons, etc, etc.

So yes, that aspect of the system is incredibly flawed and has been for many, many years. It needs a fresh start. That does not negate the possibility for good in any government program, especially one that could base its design on one of the many modern working models available.

But the whole 'lack of responsibility' thing is extremely pertinent when you are talking about taking even more of my hard-earned money to pay for people who, as a result of their bad choices, are needy. I'm not talking about the Ducky's of the world; I'm talking about the high school drop-outs that have 3 children by 3 different fathers before the age of 18. Why should I be forced to support that?

My brother-in-law is a prime example. He quit his job (with full benefits) at a hospital because he thought he would get unemployment. He was not approved (because he quit - duh) and he is still not working 5 months later. My husband and I paid his rent for 4 months but he was not even looking for a job so we stopped. We paid $1000 to get his car fixed and he promptly wrecked it a week later. Last week he sold what was left of it for $200.00. Do you think he gave that money to his landlord? No, he didn't. And now he's ringing our phone off the hook because he is about to be evicted. Yet he has not even obtained a newspaper to see if he can find a job. Unfortunately this kind of attitude is the norm in this country.

 

[bookitty]

But the whole 'lack of responsibility' thing is extremely pertinent when you are talking about taking even more of my hard-earned money to pay for people who, as a result of their bad choices, are needy. I'm not talking about the Ducky's of the world; I'm talking about the high school drop-outs that have 3 children by 3 different fathers before the age of 18. Why should I be forced to support that?

My brother-in-law is a prime example. He quit his job (with full benefits) at a hospital because he thought he would get unemployment. He was not approved (because he quit - duh) and he is still not working 5 months later. My husband and I paid his rent for 4 months but he was not even looking for a job so we stopped. We paid $1000 to get his car fixed and he promptly wrecked it a week later. Last week he sold what was left of it for $200.00. Do you think he gave that money to his landlord? No, he didn't. And now he's ringing our phone off the hook because he is about to be evicted. Yet he has not even obtained a newspaper to see if he can find a job. Unfortunately this kind of attitude is the norm in this country.

Approximately 10% of the work force is unemployed. If your story was the norm, that rate would be much, much higher. The lowest common denominator is the most visible (and often the most annoying.) That doesn't mean that it represents the whole.

 

[Uncayimmy]

My brother-in-law is a prime example. He quit his job (with full benefits) at a hospital because he thought he would get unemployment. He was not approved (because he quit - duh) and he is still not working 5 months later. My husband and I paid his rent for 4 months but he was not even looking for a job so we stopped. We paid $1000 to get his car fixed and he promptly wrecked it a week later. Last week he sold what was left of it for $200.00. Do you think he gave that money to his landlord? No, he didn't. And now he's ringing our phone off the hook because he is about to be evicted. Yet he has not even obtained a newspaper to see if he can find a job. Unfortunately this kind of attitude is the norm in this country.

Yeh. Your brother's attitude is the norm.

 

[kellyb]

You have to wonder about the mental health of someone who has 3 kids by 3 different fathers before the age of 18.
As far as how to deal with that sort of problem, we no longer have "welfare" as it was traditionally thought of. They already live in poverty. Mom works at least one, if not two jobs, usually. Should the kids really go without foodstamp food and Medicare health care?

I have an irresponsible brother, too. I told him I'd help him out if, and only if, he'd start showing up at LaborReady every morning.

 

[kellyb]

Are there any other industries in the US where the government decides how much you can charge for your service or how much profit you can make in a privately owned company?

What are you talking about?

The Gov tells all public servants how much money they make. (although said servants can, sometimes in some places, fight back against unfair wages with strikes.)

 

[kellyb]

Yeh. Your brother's attitude is the norm.

At least 80% of the people I know are just like that.

























Just kidding, by the way.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Yeh. Your brother's attitude is the norm.

Okay okay. So I overstated it a bit. Let's just say it's the norm among unemployed democrats.

 

[kellyb]

Okay okay. So I overstated it a bit. Let's just say it's the norm among unemployed democrats.

Heh. My brother and unemployed moocher dad are both Republicans.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

How does it work in your line of work? Cash or no healthcare for the pet, right? That is the way it used to be in the U.S. No insurance companies, no government healthcare. You traded a jar of jelly (or a chicken or whatever) for whatever treatment you needed. That is what it needs to return to (even though that would put me out of business )

I sure hope you're being sarcastic. Don't you remember the Republican chicken lady that ran for senator:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003163-503544.html

And she was rightfully mocked for suggesting that we pay doctors in chickens. She ended up losing the Republican primary to the "second amendment solutions" lady:

I can't decide which one was crazier. Thank God Democrat Harry Reid won re-election.

GB

 

[bookitty]

Heh. My brother and unemployed moocher dad are both Republicans.

Ha! The only person I know like that is a CT tea-bagger who thinks welfare should be allocated by IQ so that intelligent people could sit around all day and solve the world's problems. He's pretty sure he'd be eligible for top dollar. (He also thinks that Michelle Obama is a satanist and that the moon landing was faked because "we never went back.")

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Are there any other industries in the US where the government decides how much you can charge for your service or how much profit you can make in a privately owned company?

You can't possibly be from the US. The Health Insurance industry is a consortium with an Anti-trust Exemption. Which means THEY can Price Fix and charge whatever they please, the public be damned.

GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

But the whole 'lack of responsibility' thing is extremely pertinent when you are talking about taking even more of my hard-earned money to pay for people who, as a result of their bad choices, are needy. I'm not talking about the Ducky's of the world; I'm talking about the high school drop-outs that have 3 children by 3 different fathers before the age of 18. Why should I be forced to support that?

My brother-in-law is a prime example. He quit his job (with full benefits) at a hospital because he thought he would get unemployment. He was not approved (because he quit - duh) and he is still not working 5 months later. My husband and I paid his rent for 4 months but he was not even looking for a job so we stopped. We paid $1000 to get his car fixed and he promptly wrecked it a week later. Last week he sold what was left of it for $200.00. Do you think he gave that money to his landlord? No, he didn't. And now he's ringing our phone off the hook because he is about to be evicted. Yet he has not even obtained a newspaper to see if he can find a job. Unfortunately this kind of attitude is the norm in this country.

Of all the anecdotes on this thread, yours is the only one that I don't believe.

GB

 

[Wildy]

Singapore isn't a dictatorship. But even if it was, I'm willing to learn from dictatorships as well as monarchies.

Technically Singapore isn't a dictatorship, but it is a one party state. The People's Action Party has won every election in Singapore since independence in 1965.

That's believed to be one of the reasons that their healthcare system developed so well, consistent party wins meant that policies could be implemented over a long period of time instead of having to think in shorter periods of time as happens in the US.

The Uk isn't a monarchy. The monarch is a figurehead and the country is run by a democratic parliament, a system that works so well that they also use it in Singapore.

Singapore is a democratic republic not a constitutional monarchy.

 

[kellyb]

Ha! The only person I know like that is a CT tea-bagger who thinks welfare should be allocated by IQ so that intelligent people could sit around all day and solve the world's problems. He's pretty sure he'd be eligible for top dollar. (He also thinks that Michelle Obama is a satanist and that the moon landing was faked because "we never went back.")

That's the general thought process in my family. "I deserve to be paid for being such a great thinker!!"
All those brown people are a totally different story.