Originally Posted by Justin '77

Per your custom here, 99% of what you wrote was just you spewing bile against your imaginary friends. Unusually, you almost actually posed one question worth answering (however briefly). I've edited it lightly to make it worth our attention:

As I've explicitly made mention several times in the past -- directly to you on at least one occasion -- I was fairly well impressed by the superiority of the system my family and I encountered and used in Russia. To wit: emergency and lifesaving care as a no-question-asked service offered by doctors and clinics when it was needed (easily fundable by somewhat higher charges assessed for medical care outside that limited purview). Childrens' care primarily through their schools or kindergartens (part of the tuition) Everything else pay-as-you-go. All of it allowed to be accessible to even low-earners thanks to an absolute lack of cartelization in medical training and licensing.

It seems very much to be a system that works very well. People's lives are saved, and nobody even fears (to say nothing of actually experiencing) medical bankruptcy.

I'm sure there are other ways that work well. But that system is at least one that is demonstrably better from the standpoint of the actual provision of actual medical care o actual people. Which, to fully disclose my biases, is what I want from a medical paradigm. You clearly want something else, so I'm certain my points hold no weight with you whatsoever. That's cool.

I like this. Most people forget how much the mediacl monoploy drives up costs. I would like to know what The Rani has to say. Not that she is teh end all be all.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Per your custom here, 99% of what you wrote was just you spewing bile against your imaginary friends. Unusually, you almost actually posed one question worth answering (however briefly). I've edited it lightly to make it worth our attention:

As I've explicitly made mention several times in the past -- directly to you on at least one occasion -- I was fairly well impressed by the superiority of the system my family and I encountered and used in Russia. To wit: emergency and lifesaving care as a no-question-asked service offered by doctors and clinics when it was needed (easily fundable by somewhat higher charges assessed for medical care outside that limited purview). Childrens' care primarily through their schools or kindergartens (part of the tuition) Everything else pay-as-you-go. All of it allowed to be accessible to even low-earners thanks to an absolute lack of cartelization in medical training and licensing.

It seems very much to be a system that works very well. People's lives are saved, and nobody even fears (to say nothing of actually experiencing) medical bankruptcy.

I'm sure there are other ways that work well. But that system is at least one that is demonstrably better from the standpoint of the actual provision of actual medical care o actual people. Which, to fully disclose my biases, is what I want from a medical paradigm. You clearly want something else, so I'm certain my points hold no weight with you whatsoever. That's cool.

Okay, so you want the govt completely out of it (you've lost everyone on the Left, most independents and I dare say a lot of folks even on the Right (remember the baggers who demanded that the socialist govt keep their hands off their Medicare?))

And, you want to put the insurers out of business (you've lost all those who like free enterprise)

And now with further clarification, you want our health providers to have the same relative incomes as those providers in Russia (I think you just lost Rani and ALL of her friends in the entire medical arena).

Yea, that's viable.

In comparison, it does make what Debs has been harping on almost seem possible.... well, almost.

Originally Posted by The Rani

About ... ???

Cutting your income to about a 1/10 of what it is now.

It's for a more perfect world, you know?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Isn't that what YOU wanted, to make docs give up their Mercedes and send us all to the poorhouse?
I don't know why you're now arguing against it.

Yeah. Docs in Russia can make really good money, if they've got the drive to run and grow a business and the skills to offer to make it worthwhile to their clients.

PW's just talking out his ass again... by now, it must be strange and uncomfortable for him to do it any other way.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Isn't that what YOU wanted, to make docs give up their Mercedes and send us all to the poorhouse?
I don't know why you're now arguing against it.

I was pointing out the reality of high health cost in the US being due primarily because that's what health providers demand (admittedly, many younger docs tend to be at the lower end). And if you want to do something about those costs and talk only about the evil insurers rather than the saintly providers, you're just blowing smoke up... well, I've done enough anatomy tonight.

That's pretty consistent with my pointing out that Justin's Russian utopia would require taking on the providers in a very unfriendly way.

While I've hinted at what I believe is politically viable in that regard (i.e. something like a snowball's chance....), I really haven't revealed any personal preference. That would, of course, be contingent on whether I had a better chance than the snowball of marrying a certain health provider lady and live off her income...

Did I just hear someone say "eeeeewwww!" ???

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Yeah. Docs in Russia can make really good money, if they've got the drive to run and grow a business and the skills to offer to make it worthwhile to their clients.

PW's just talking out his ass again... by now, it must be strange and uncomfortable for him to do it any other way.

Ah, do you care to back that up with some actual referenced numbers?

You do recall as well that I'm married to a Russian? We're headed back there for a month this August.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Isn't that what YOU wanted, to make docs give up their Mercedes and send us all to the poorhouse?
I don't know why you're now arguing against it.

If doctors really cared about their patients, they wouldn't have such big houses.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, do you care to back that up with some actual referenced numbers?

Sure; I'll get you exact figures. The only numbers with any reality: first-hand anecdotal. Government statistics -- in particular from Russia -- in particular on reported income -- are no better than darts tossed at bullshit.

You do recall as well that I'm married to a Russian? We're headed back there for a month this August.

Awesome! She's from Karelia, if I remember correctly? If you have the slightest chance, I highly recommend the environs of the Belomor canal -- Belomorsk itself is a nice little burg, and the environs are spectacular; there's a great pulloff at Nadvoitsy where you can get right up to the locks that slaves built through hillsides; and the Sandomokh memorial out on the edge of Onega near Medvezhegorsk simply cannot be missed. August is a good time to be there.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Awesome! She's from Karelia, if I remember correctly? If you have the slightest chance, I highly recommend the environs of the Belomor canal -- Belomorsk itself is a nice little burg, and the environs are spectacular; there's a great pulloff at Nadvoitsy where you can get right up to the locks that slaves built through hillsides; and the Sandomokh memorial out on the edge of Onega near Medvezhegorsk simply cannot be missed. August is a good time to be there.

Actually a St. Pete girl but with a dacha up there. Right on the friken lake (but, ah, with outside building facilities) close to the environs of Petrovskaya (sp?). I know we're taking a ferry to some island with a wooden monastery that was put together without any nails. I'll show her your suggestions however.

She prefers the Russian health system as well, and we don't have an affordability problem here. It's other things particularly the lack of human touch here. She does complain about the bribes needed over there, but hell, she's Russian, they complain about everything so one has to tease out the difference to figure out what is actually preferred.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Actually a St. Pete girl but with a dacha up there. Right on the friken lake (but, ah, with outside building facilities) close to the environs of Petrovskaya (sp?). I know we're taking a ferry to some island with a wooden monastery that was put together without any nails. I'll show her your suggestions however.

Fuckin awesome! You're going to Kizhi! That's more than just the one monastery -- it's like an outdoor museum/archaeological site. It's one of the neatest places to go from SPb.

As to the dacha town, I assume it's Petrovskoye (it's a 'selo', so the adjective needs to be neuter-gender, not feminine). We have friends with a place in Orekhovo, just a hair down the road from there, that we used to visit. It's a pretty place, though more than on-foot distance from the lake... From there, the Belomorkanal tour is a bit of a drive, but it's still well worth doing. There's even a pretty nice semi-outdoor banya place on the north bank of Onega near Povenets (east of Medvezhegorsk) that I would very much recommend, if you're there.

Really, if you're going to be a whole month, you totally should make the day trip down to Velikiy Novgorod (if you haven't already). It's about 1.5-2 hours south of SPb; the old (like, 1,100-plus years) capitol of the Rus from back before "Russia" was really a thing. Walls built because at the time the Mongol Horde was a genuine nearby threat. Plus, there's a good restaurant up in one of the armories inside the fortress wall there.

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

If doctors really cared about their patients, they wouldn't have such big houses.

-Non sequitur.

Has anyone bothered to point out that the IRS will be an enforcement arm of Obamacare?

EDIT:
Ah. It doesn't get any better. A quick off-the cuff search, and what do I find?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...care-official/

Despite her congressional testimony, the Internal Revenue Service today denied that the former commissioner of tax exempt and government entities – now running the agency’s health care office – was in charge of the unit’s day-to-day operations after Dec. 2010.

Sarah Hall Ingram retained the title of commissioner, with oversight over tax-exempt groups, but the IRS says she moved to the agency’s Affordable Care Act office full time by the end of 2010, six months after the tax agency began selectively scrutinizing conservative groups...

Originally Posted by Galen

Now it will be so much better to do the same thing because his god, the government, is doing it now. I suppose this is appropriate since governments have historically been very good at racking up body counts.

No. Corporate control of government -- or at least its economic decisions -- is fascism, an ideology infamous for racking up huge body counts.

As we head to trusts and cartels as the norm for big business, business less serves customers and employees and better serves owners and bosses. If profit comes from pricing people into the grave, then that happens.

Medicare for All is the most economical means of meeting at the least basic medical needs. For most people, the majority of spending on their medical care comes in the last years of their lives -- and that as it is is a huge chunk of Medicare. Medicare for All would be little more expensive than Medicare itself. Perfect? Hardly. Some people will want more.

We have the world's highest medical costs in part because we have a for-profit bureaucracy operating on a cost-plus basis.

Don't shed tears for the insurance companies. Let them sell life insurance, one of the more reasonable investments for most people because it is low-risk and long-term.

*sigh*

That's not really what the corporatism of fascism means. Yellow card.

More in regards to doctor owned hospitals.

Doctor owned hospitals: Are the rich getting richer?

When doctors own the hospitals, they stand to directly share in profits. If you’re a doctor-owner, and the hospital you both run and own is functioning at a high level, you think, “This is what America is all about. Free enterprise. Why shouldn’t I make more money if my hospital runs well?”

As a taxpayer, do I want government incentives going to hospitals that are privately owned and known for cherry-picking insured patients?

Moreover, what does it say about public hospitals, or academic centers, that often see the sickest, poorest, most vulnerable patients? Yes, their quality is measurably lower, according to this data. But now, in spite of staying true to their core missions (serving the public) they’re being further penalized.

Is this just another case of the rich simply getting richer?

Maybe Obamacare’s got it wrong. Maybe we should build upon the model of doctor-ownership and turn over public hospitals to their workers. All of them. Let the nurses buy in. And the food handlers. And the “environmental services” folks (i.e. custodial crews). Let’s really let the workers own the means of production. Then we can see where incentives get us.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/05/...ampaign=Buffer

Originally Posted by Deb C

More in regards to doctor owned hospitals.

Doctor owned hospitals: Are the rich getting richer?





http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/05/...ampaign=Buffer

Physicians owning hospitals? Isn't that a conflict of interest? Wouldn't that be like labor unions owning stock in the companies in which they negotiate? Or being the director of public works yet owning a share in a construction contractor?

How is employee ownership of business a conflict of interest?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

How is employee ownership of business a conflict of interest?

I guess maybe if the union big-wigs had ownership but the rank-and-file didn't? IMO, employee-owned businesses are just a better quality and value than investor-owned businesses... but I'm sure that, given a sufficient chance, someone would learn how to corrupt and exploit that as well.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Then there's Denmark. And it's not a utopian dream, it's a reality.

"Health care in Denmark is universal, free of charge and high quality. Everybody is covered as a right of citizenship. The Danish health care system is popular with patient satisfaction much higher than in the United States. In Denmark, every citizen can choose a doctor in their area. Prescription drugs are inexpensive. They’re free for those under 18 years of age. Interestingly, despite their universal coverage, the Danish health care system is far more cost-effective than ours. They spend about 11 percent of their GDP on health care. We spend almost 18 percent." .. Bernie Sanders

I agree with Bernie, we spend to much money on healthcare for the welfare state. What would his reaction be to a 7% cut in healthcare related programs for the welfare state? How does Demarks healthcare compare to the State of Massachusettes? Do the heads of Denmark consistantly claim to know nothing about anything important or relevant that happens when asked for straight answers than the socially percieved (blue) idiots who are supposed to be in charge of running things today?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

*sigh*

That's not really what the corporatism of fascism means. Yellow card.

Tell me about it!


Prince

PS: The poster on that thread named "independent" is someone I refer to as Indy(aka John Mc82).
Although he's a bit left-of-center for my taste, he's a straight-shooter, IMO/IME. IOW, he's alright.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Heh. Love this comment at the bottom:

I see profits for doctors, by exclusion, not anymore of a solution than our health in the hands of the insurance industry. What I do support are community owned hospitals.

Also from the article:

Maybe Obamacare’s got it wrong. Maybe we should build upon the model of doctor-ownership and turn over public hospitals to their workers. All of them. Let the nurses buy in. And the food handlers. And the “environmental services” folks (i.e. custodial crews). Let’s really let the workers own the means of production. Then we can see where incentives get us.

Besides, it's the support services that actually make a hospital, or any business for that matter, run more smoothly and efficiently.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I see profits for doctors, by exclusion, not anymore of a solution than our health in the hands of the insurance industry. What I do support are community owned hospitals.

Also from the article:



Besides, it's the support services that actually make a hospital, or any business for that matter, run more smoothly and efficiently.

Worker's cooperatives!!

Originally Posted by The Rani

What would be even better is overcoming our ingrained assumption that "health care" necessarily means "hospitals."
For example, here's what's going on in my community right now, sponsored by a local co-op:

Why make it either/or? Personal responsibility and agency all around!

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Why make it either/or? Personal responsibility and agency all around!

Yes, it can be a both/and proposition.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Some people can't separate heath care from politics.
Public option? Legislating against doctors? Is Obama the Messiah? Who cares. Getting involved in your own community is "a tad more worthwhile" than arguing about any of those things.

Health care is a political issue. Arguing may not be worthwhile, but medicare is. Naive libertarian approaches are not worthwhile, even though "Getting involved in your own community" is.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Why make it either/or? Personal responsibility and agency all around!

Good response.