Originally Posted by Poodle

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/op...=1&ref=opinion

The key to understanding the G.O.P. analysis of health reform is that the party’s leaders are not, in fact, opposed to reform because they believe it will increase the deficit. Nor are they opposed because they seriously believe that it will be “job-killing” (which it won’t be). They’re against reform because it would cover the uninsured — and that’s something they just don’t want to do.
And it’s not about the money. As I tried to explain in my last column, the modern G.O.P. has been taken over by an ideology in which the suffering of the unfortunate isn’t a proper concern of government, and alleviating that suffering at taxpayer expense is immoral, never mind how little it costs.
Given that their minds were made up from the beginning, top Republicans weren’t interested in and didn’t need any real policy analysis — in fact, they’re basically contemptuous of such analysis, something that shines through in their health care report. All they ever needed or wanted were some numbers and charts to wave at the press, fooling some people into believing that we’re having some kind of rational discussion. We aren’t.

To the point and right on! Thanks.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Eventually, we all die. It doesn't mean we have to let fear run our lives.



I am sorry for your condition, but a government-run system is no guarantee that you'd get your transplant, either.

I don't let fear run my life. I live every moment to the fullest. But that doesn't mean that, at times, I think about what my husband would do or not seeing my grandchildren grow up.

And, there are other issues for those without health care, medicine. The discussion about the price of drugs that we recently had on this forum, is a case in point about the expense and the lack of quality of life without some of them. A diabetic wouldn't live a quality of life or live very long without insulin.

As for a transplant, no, there is no guarantee. But without health insurance, it's an absolute impossibility. I'd rather take my chances with having insurance.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I don't let fear run my life. I live every moment to the fullest. But that doesn't mean that, at times, I think about what my husband would do or not seeing my grandchildren grow up.

And, there are other issues for those without health care, medicine. The discussion about the price of drugs that we recently had on this forum, is a case in point about the expense and the lack of quality of life without some of them. A diabetic wouldn't live a quality of life or live very long without insulin.

As for a transplant, no, there is no guarantee. But without health insurance, it's an absolute impossibility. I'd rather take my chances with having insurance.

My wife also has an auto-immune condition, but one that is fully treatable. Fully treatable, in her case, is roughly $32,000 a year with no insurance. Of course, my insurance company pays a fraction of that, but we wouldn't be so lucky if we had to do it out of pocket.

I guess I'm working until I'm very old or rational, national coverage is in place. She's 12+ years my junior.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Sure, but rather than looking to drugs as a way to help these people, I'd rather look at diet and exercise. A lot of people think they can ignore those things if they can just find the "right" pill, or the "best" health insurance. It's not a realistic attitude, but it DOES help those corporations make a lot more money.

True for Type II diabetics. Not so for Type I diabetics. They need either insulin or a transplant. I've worked for 20 years with a Type I diabetic. He's in his late 50s now and has a bit of a pot (slightly overweight, not obese), but he was quite skinny back in the day. Didn't matter; he still needed that insulin.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

My wife also has an auto-immune condition, but one that is fully treatable. Fully treatable, in her case, is roughly $32,000 a year with no insurance. Of course, my insurance company pays a fraction of that, but we wouldn't be so lucky if we had to do it out of pocket.

I guess I'm working until I'm very old or rational, national coverage is in place. She's 12+ years my junior.

I do hope your job is not extremely taxing or stressful. Looks like you and my husband are in similar situations.

The best to you!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Eventually, we all die. It doesn't mean we have to let fear run our lives.

As long as *your* number isn't up.

Not much sympathy for Deb, there, from you.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If we can get to where those are the only ones left, that will be great. Having fewer preventable diseases around leaves a lot more resources available for the unpredictable ones.

"Are there no poorhouses?"

Originally Posted by The Rani

If we can get to where those are the only ones left, that will be great. Having fewer preventable diseases around leaves a lot more resources available for the unpredictable ones.

Well, of course we want to prevent preventable diseases. I don't know anyone, other than Big Pharma, that would argue with you there.

Originally Posted by Poodle

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/op...=1&ref=opinion

The key to understanding the G.O.P. analysis of health reform is that the party’s leaders are not, in fact, opposed to reform because they believe it will increase the deficit. Nor are they opposed because they seriously believe that it will be “job-killing” (which it won’t be). They’re against reform because it would cover the uninsured — and that’s something they just don’t want to do.
And it’s not about the money. As I tried to explain in my last column, the modern G.O.P. has been taken over by an ideology in which the suffering of the unfortunate isn’t a proper concern of government, and alleviating that suffering at taxpayer expense is immoral, never mind how little it costs.
Given that their minds were made up from the beginning, top Republicans weren’t interested in and didn’t need any real policy analysis — in fact, they’re basically contemptuous of such analysis, something that shines through in their health care report. All they ever needed or wanted were some numbers and charts to wave at the press, fooling some people into believing that we’re having some kind of rational discussion. We aren’t.

My take on the GOP is that they believe that free-enterprise solves all problems better than anything that government could do( or manage). This approach breaks down for the health care system ( and not just the insurance part).

Originally Posted by Poodle

"Are there no poorhouses?"

Thank you. People get ill. My sister, who never weighed more than 105 pounds except when pregnant, who smoked briefly as a teenager and quit when she was 21, who rarely over-indulged in anything, died at the age of 44 from colon cancer. Lifestyle? Don't think so.

At the same time, a close friend is a pulmonary doc. He sees a lot of obese people with respiratory illnesses, some of which could be avoided by diet, etc. He very much supports some kind of national health care even if it would cut into his substantial earnings. But as he says, he's a screaming liberal. And I've know him for 25 years. He didn't go into medicine for the dough.

Not that I don't think doctors shouldn't make good money, considering the obscenity of debt/malpractice insurance they carry.

These are choices.

Maybe some people get all angry by the idea that other people make choices that will cost them money. But the way the private insurance system is, those people are already costing me money. I'm already paying for them through Cigna. That what insurance is, whether it's public or private.

A friend who lives a very moderate life-style (moderate drinking, fresh, healthy foods) and has knee problems. Since she's been in her 20s she's had a a degenerative condition that she knows will require her to have knee surgery. She's now in her mid-50s. But since she's self-employed, she pays $650 a month for a $2500 deductible, with waivers that exclude knee surgery and shoulder surgery based on "previous conditions." If she goes without insurance for 6 months, she could maybe get something. But given her age, it's too worrisome to do so. What the heck? Nearly 8 grand a year for nothing except if she nearly drops dead.

And those who are against some form of national health lament that you may have to wait. Well, she's waiting until she can't walk. And even then as it stands, she'll wait until medicare, which she's paid into, will allow her to afford the darn surgery. She's also waiting because knee replacement is not all that long-lasting. So she slowly goes downstairs and lives in pain.

I must be a damn socialist. Because I just don't feel like judging people regarding medical issues. I'd rather have my tax dollars go to health care for old people and kids and "gee, I have this condition" than to idiotic wars or to rich farmers who bitch about the government and take the tax dollars but who claim they're not getting so-called entitlements.

I know there are a lot of morons out there who do little to nothing to care for themselves. But the morons will be with us always. Poor of heart, poor of hope, poor of spirit. And maybe that poor soul will save my life one day. And there are many many people who do what they can for themselves and still have medical problems. They happened to get a debilitating illness. They have autoimmune disorders. They got a bad number in the gene pool.

That decent health care, which could include preventative care, is reserved for only those of us who are employed by those who deign to give it to us, is infuriating.

Damn it, why don't we want to take care of each other? You can talk about the Darwinian survival of the fittest all you want. But Stephan Hawking said he'd be dead without National Health. Guess he shouldn't have been helped. So I may have to wait in line. If I'm having a grabber, I won't. They don't allow that in most 1sr world countries and we won't here.

A friend (who works 35+ hours a week) without health insurance has gotten amazing care here in Chicago at Fantus Health Clinic. She's had to wait all day, yes, (but to get a mammogram at Northwestern Hospital you have to wait 6 months. Even if you've had some big, nasty signs of something wrong in the past.) My friend has PTSD and Grave's Disease. The staff at Fantus have been amazing. It's one of the few free clinics left. And I'm glad my very high Cook County taxes are going there.

DebC, I don't always agree with you, but on this one I am entirely in your corner. I hope for the best for you.

Originally Posted by annla899

DebC, I don't always agree with you, but on this one I am entirely in your corner. I hope for the best for you.

I sincerely appreciate your support. And, your analysis was superb.

Originally Posted by The Rani

People usually want to take care of their own first.
And I'm sorry, but at some point giving free care to people who fuck themselves up through their own lifestyle choices becomes "enabling," not "caring."

EDIT:
Just remembered this quote, from another thread:
"At bottom, legitimate humanitarians inspired by real compassion inevitably seek to help men become more responsible for themselves, not less."
For me, that says it all.

But how do you know?

That you are enabling and not caring?

Originally Posted by The Rani

People usually want to take care of their own first.
And I'm sorry, but at some point giving free care to people who fuck themselves up through their own lifestyle choices becomes "enabling," not "caring."

EDIT:
Just remembered this quote, from another thread:
"At bottom, legitimate humanitarians inspired by real compassion inevitably seek to help men become more responsible for themselves, not less."
For me, that says it all.

This can be as mom-and-apple-pie as "teach a man to fish...yadda, yadda."

Or, it can be two-fer for the Randian sociopath 'superman' (or woman) - both an excuse to not give a rat's ass plus the added benefit of an ego-boosting hand job.

Is all in the carry-through.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You have to pay attention, look at the results of what you are doing, and see whether or not the person is making progress.
And actually, I DO think that enablers care, in their own way. They just aren't realistic about what they can do for other people, and what others must do for themselves.
Is that what you're asking?

The question to me comes down to this: Is the physician "enabling" the 300 pound woman who has taken care of many foster children, whose family adores her, but who eats fried food and twinkies and has Type II diabetes and high blood pressure? And maybe Lupus?

Or are you "caring for" a 110 pound woman who has not eaten red meat in yearsor may be vegan, who eats clean food but who has mentally and physically abused her children and family?

Who deserves the care? Who is being enabled?

I recognize the frustration. I teach and I know there are utter con artists and dopes out there, and I don't see anything like what doctors see. And we will always have to deal with idiots. Like that old prophet said, the poor are with you always.

It may be that I just don't think what I do or that my money is that important that I don't mind paying for morons and enablers and idiots to get my health care dollars. Because I already pay for them. I've now been lumped in with a great mass of people since HR in my college has gone the completely corporate route. It's some crappy big insurance company and a number of my long-term physicians aren't in their network.

I pay for it anyway. There are some people already in my network who are eating up my paycheck contributions. Because I'm not.

And don't get me on Big Pharma--which I know you know. My bro-in-law is a bigwig in that area and he steers me clear of a lot. Bless his statistical heart. He's warned me not to get Lasik surgery, for example.

There are a number of government rip-offs I care about, where I really can be fairly sure it's a waste (like not growing hemp for clothing, etc, purposes. Like hemp has much THC--not.) Health care? Nationalize that baby. Or something like it.

It's just my thing. I just can't make that judgment. I don't know who's deserving or not. And I don't think any of us really can know that holistically. I am Libertarian in some ways: legalize most illicit drugs and prostitution. Tax the hell out of them and if people become addicts they will. Because they already do. Most of that vice stuff is a waste of time, energy and money. But in terms of medical care, which includes psychiatric care, just tax my ass. I pay anyway and it keeps going up. Making it a part of employment is idiotic.

Comment from Doctor Don McCanne:

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) will be making recommendations to
HHS on the definition of required essential benefits for the health plans
that are to be offered through the state insurance exchanges. Several
experts testifying before IOM's Committee have called for flexibility in the
definition (testimonies provided at IOM link above).

We should all be concerned that the insurance industry intends to use this
approach to "let the market decide what type of coverage is needed."
Although the health reform legislation closed large loopholes in insurance
coverage, it is clear that the industry fully intends to use innovations in
essential benefit design to continue to profit by depriving patients of
essential health care.

It was a terrible mistake to design health care financing reform based on
the existing model of private insurance plans. No matter how much the
private insurers are regulated, they will always find a way to place their
own interests first.

It is not too late to stop this nonsense and do it right - establish our own
publicly-administered and publicly-financed single payer national health
program, an improved Medicare for all.

IOM meeting on essential benefits:
http://iom.edu/Activities/HealthServ...12/Agenda.aspx

Originally Posted by The Rani

Are you seriously asking, or ranting?
The answers, of course, depend on the specifics of each case. As I said, you have to watch their progress and see the results of the interventions that you are making.

Both.

And how long do you watch their progress until you see results? Years, months? Is the care palliative? Is the care given because the patient's state of health can improve ?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Mo' money for da poor can also be an ego-boosting hand job, as well as an excuse to look the other way after you've dropped the coins into the styrofoam cup.
Otherwise, I agree with you.

Ah, but da poor get to live another day.

But, I agree with you as well!

Maybe we should do lunch?

Health Care Overhaul Debate Now Shifts to States

Perhaps the first practical opportunity for the two political parties to work together on an issue that divide them in Washington.

Health care is something every single one of us need to be concerned about. Maybe your covered today, but tomorrow may be another story. All of us are vulnerable in this current system.

The following article lists some of the best reasons for a health care for all.

For instance;

"While everyone talks about a global economy, no substantive consideration was given by policy makers or the media to the way other industrialized countries assure health coverage with lower costs and better outcomes through national or single payer systems, all while failing to challenge those who falsely claim "we have the best healthcare system in the world" (we don't)."


Top 10 Reasons Why the Health Repeal Vote Is Inane
By Rose Ann DeMoro

At a time when so many Americans continue to fall through the gaping holes in our healthcare system, it's hard to imagine a more dysfunctional debate in Washington than the charade this week over the Republican effort to repeal President Obama's healthcare law.

Consider that, to name just a few points:

• The number of officially uninsured tops 50 million,

• Half of all Americans are considered to have pre-existing conditions and thus subject to rampant insurance denials (and ways big insurers will surely find to game the system even if the law remains as is),

• Arizona is denying life-saving transplants to poor people on Medicaid,

• Blue Shield is ignoring protests and pushing through premium rate hikes in California of up to 59 percent for individuals

• A UNICEF report ranked the U.S. a pathetic 22nd in health well-being for our children.
Yet Congress is going a though a Kabuki theater that will end without repeal or real, comprehensive solutions to the ongoing healthcare crisis.

For the ten compelling reasons, this is the URL:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rose-a..._b_811118.html
.

"Profits first" is the essence of American capitalism and its political retainers.

Most industrialized countries have had to deal with their heritage of capitalists who maintained feudal attitudes toward employees up to at least World War. One of the ways of putting an end to the militarism in political life that had made possible the likes of Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy, and brought France to the brink of a fascist takeover in the 1930s was to make governments responsible for such 'welfare' concerns as health care. Maybe countries that had to tax and spend for social welfare couldn't seek more 'adventurous' activities such as expanding colonial empires or bullying their neighbors.

Yes, the Cold War played its role. European and Japanese capitalists recognized that if they were to preserve capitalist enterprise, they would have to make capitalism a desirable system for people other than capitalists, in part because Soviet Communism was a clear threat. After all, local commies weren't talking about the worst of Stalin but instead the promise of Marxism to do better than capitalism in creating social equity and general prosperity because it would cut out the 'parasitic' class of property owners. Casting off the worst features of feudal inequities in rural areas and of early-capitalist ways in business was one way to preserve capitalism. It worked well enough that when Communism died, the European welfare state -- and not the American-style economic order -- prevailed where Commies had ruled.

We still had the semi-feudal land order in the South in which a few big landowners dominated the political order after World War II -- and it is still there. As an example, the Alabama state constitution still prohibits taxation of land dedicated either to the production of cotton or timber. If one isn't a cotton planter or a tree raiser in Alabama one pays for that tax break largely to people whose economy is still holds pre-industrial attitudes in ways other than higher taxes. We have business interests who would be delighted with the abolition of minimum wage laws. Licit loansharks, some operating in impressive offices and having a role in the Establishment, seek to return to the days when one could change interest rates at will.

Does anyone begrudge the Medicare taxes on payroll? Could those double without us feeling hurt, so long as those covered medical care for all? Couldn't we have a small federal sales tax that ensures that if we buy food in a mom-and-pop restaurant that doesn't really pay its family workforce, then those workers would have health care when they need it?

Poor people pay for our economic cruelty, and not only for poor or unavailable health care. The atomized social order that we have in which the 3T ethos of "every man for himself", "I've got mine, $crew you!" and "the Devil Take the hindmost" has begun to hurt people. At its worst it can kill.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

"Profits first" is the essence of American capitalism and its political retainers.

Most industrialized countries have had to deal with their heritage of capitalists who maintained feudal attitudes toward employees up to at least World War. One of the ways of putting an end to the militarism in political life that had made possible the likes of Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy, and brought France to the brink of a fascist takeover in the 1930s was to make governments responsible for such 'welfare' concerns as health care. Maybe countries that had to tax and spend for social welfare couldn't seek more 'adventurous' activities such as expanding colonial empires or bullying their neighbors.

Yes, the Cold War played its role. European and Japanese capitalists recognized that if they were to preserve capitalist enterprise, they would have to make capitalism a desirable system for people other than capitalists, in part because Soviet Communism was a clear threat. After all, local commies weren't talking about the worst of Stalin but instead the promise of Marxism to do better than capitalism in creating social equity and general prosperity because it would cut out the 'parasitic' class of property owners. Casting off the worst features of feudal inequities in rural areas and of early-capitalist ways in business was one way to preserve capitalism. It worked well enough that when Communism died, the European welfare state -- and not the American-style economic order -- prevailed where Commies had ruled.

We still had the semi-feudal land order in the South in which a few big landowners dominated the political order after World War II -- and it is still there. As an example, the Alabama state constitution still prohibits taxation of land dedicated either to the production of cotton or timber. If one isn't a cotton planter or a tree raiser in Alabama one pays for that tax break largely to people whose economy is still holds pre-industrial attitudes in ways other than higher taxes. We have business interests who would be delighted with the abolition of minimum wage laws. Licit loansharks, some operating in impressive offices and having a role in the Establishment, seek to return to the days when one could change interest rates at will.

Does anyone begrudge the Medicare taxes on payroll? Could those double without us feeling hurt, so long as those covered medical care for all? Couldn't we have a small federal sales tax that ensures that if we buy food in a mom-and-pop restaurant that doesn't really pay its family workforce, then those workers would have health care when they need it?

Poor people pay for our economic cruelty, and not only for poor or unavailable health care. The atomized social order that we have in which the 3T ethos of "every man for himself", "I've got mine, $crew you!" and "the Devil Take the hindmost" has begun to hurt people. At its worst it can kill.

Very well said.

I was talking this morning with a good friend of ours who is a lawyer and somewhat of an expert in tax laws etc.. He was explaining how other more equitable countries may have higher taxes, but the citizens actually have more in savings than Americans. When college, health care, and other safety nets are provided, the citizens end up with more money in their savings accounts. Unlike our country, they don't have to be concerned with saving for their kids college, health care expenses and other much needed programs for social uplift.

However, I could see where this social uplift would be a problem for the elite. After all, where there's more of an equality in a society, the rich can't own it.

I would say, too, that they live much more simply. They don't have large homes and all the trappings that come with them. You'd never find a television in every room. They don't worry about having two cars. Their closets are tiny, so they don't buy a lot of clothes. Etc. As you pointed out, Deb, Americans would have more money if they didn't spend it needlessly, too.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

"Profits first" is the essence of American capitalism and its political retainers.

Most industrialized countries have had to deal with their heritage of capitalists who maintained feudal attitudes toward employees up to at least World War. One of the ways of putting an end to the militarism in political life that had made possible the likes of Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy, and brought France to the brink of a fascist takeover in the 1930s was to make governments responsible for such 'welfare' concerns as health care. Maybe countries that had to tax and spend for social welfare couldn't seek more 'adventurous' activities such as expanding colonial empires or bullying their neighbors.

Yes, the Cold War played its role. European and Japanese capitalists recognized that if they were to preserve capitalist enterprise, they would have to make capitalism a desirable system for people other than capitalists, in part because Soviet Communism was a clear threat. After all, local commies weren't talking about the worst of Stalin but instead the promise of Marxism to do better than capitalism in creating social equity and general prosperity because it would cut out the 'parasitic' class of property owners. Casting off the worst features of feudal inequities in rural areas and of early-capitalist ways in business was one way to preserve capitalism. It worked well enough that when Communism died, the European welfare state -- and not the American-style economic order -- prevailed where Commies had ruled.

We still had the semi-feudal land order in the South in which a few big landowners dominated the political order after World War II -- and it is still there. As an example, the Alabama state constitution still prohibits taxation of land dedicated either to the production of cotton or timber. If one isn't a cotton planter or a tree raiser in Alabama one pays for that tax break largely to people whose economy is still holds pre-industrial attitudes in ways other than higher taxes. We have business interests who would be delighted with the abolition of minimum wage laws. Licit loansharks, some operating in impressive offices and having a role in the Establishment, seek to return to the days when one could change interest rates at will.

Does anyone begrudge the Medicare taxes on payroll? Could those double without us feeling hurt, so long as those covered medical care for all? Couldn't we have a small federal sales tax that ensures that if we buy food in a mom-and-pop restaurant that doesn't really pay its family workforce, then those workers would have health care when they need it?

Poor people pay for our economic cruelty, and not only for poor or unavailable health care. The atomized social order that we have in which the 3T ethos of "every man for himself", "I've got mine, $crew you!" and "the Devil Take the hindmost" has begun to hurt people. At its worst it can kill.

Interestingly, the majority of the prominent creators of the European welfare state were Christian Democrats like Konrad Adenauer, most of them Missionaries and a few Lost. Not until the cusp of the 2T in the late 60s do the Social Democrats form governments in many countries.

Originally Posted by Xer H

I would say, too, that they live much more simply. They don't have large homes and all the trappings that come with them. You'd never find a television in every room. They don't worry about having two cars. Their closets are tiny, so they don't buy a lot of clothes. Etc. As you pointed out, Deb, Americans would have more money if they didn't spend it needlessly, too.

Deb and X-H are correct. Spent lots of time over there; it's what we might evolve to, in a century or so, if we're lucky. Latin America is sadly more likely.