pirana 0
Recommended Posts
pirana 0
QuoteTalk is cheap. I've asked before and I'll ask again. Does anyone have an actual plan on how to implement socialized healthcare in a capitalist economy that will provide a higher quality of healthcare than the current system?
Yes, I do. Detail to follow.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
pirana 0
QuoteQuoteTelling part of the story, just the part you know will appear to support your cause and get people's undies in a bundle, is cheating. It is certainly manipulative, insincere, and deceiving - with the intent to do so.
Watched Fox News much????
Oh thats right as long as its the right wing doing it.. its FAIR AND BALANCED
Not much worth watching on TV at all, much less the news, much much much less anything on FOX. There are exceptions to my disgust with that medium - but they are few and far between.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
QuoteQuote
Are you saying that Fox, Bill OReilly, Glenn Beck, CBS, anything owned by Sinclair, Belo, the Mormon Church, and other conservative broadcasters taking the extreme view is important because of all the bulls**t Michael Moore and the other viewpoint shovel out? Or does it only work one way?
Hmmm....that list above identifies roughly 75% of public broadcasting...and has been for a long, long time. If 75% of the media is broadcasting a particular agenda, would you say they're the initiators or initiatees?
You're right; the media should quit swinging hammers. Since it will never happen your opinion (and mine) means nothing. I wish the sky would occasionally be fuschia, and I wish that Princess Di would return as president of the USA. Since that will never happen, what I want is meaningless. Until that day comes, hammers will be swung, and the American public can choose to be hit by hammers, or they can become educated on why the hammers are being swung. Understanding both sides of the issue is probably a good place to start.
The difference is the level of bias. Absolute objectivity is a hypothetical standard. Most mainstream media outlets strive to meet that standard most of the time. Generally speaking, the networks (including Fox) do a pretty good job of reporting the news in an evenhanded manner.
On the other side of the honesty spectrum, we have people like Michael Moore, who rely of deceptions to bolster their agenda. The thing about MM is he uses hot-button deceptions to make his films emotionally charged. Without them, his films would just be run of the mill documentaries... no different than what is being offered on cable, every night. By using the hot-button deceptions, his films create a buzz and people pay to see them in the theater.
Maybe it's a good thing that he employs these techniques to push his topics to the forefront, but don't kid yourself about him being honest... or being on par with the mainstream media.
Butters 0
QuoteUnderstanding both sides of the issue is probably a good place to start.
I agree. However, I disagree that understanding the extreme of both sides of the issue is a good place to start (or finish).
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
pirana 0
QuoteQuote
And based on my definition, he does cheat with his information. Telling part of the story, just the part you know will appear to support your cause and get people's undies in a bundle, is cheating. It is certainly manipulative, insincere, and deceiving - with the intent to do so. I've only seen a couple exceprts, but it doesappear he is at his manipulative best. In just the couple minutes I saw, he threw out 3 or 4 items that were at the least intentionally deceptive, at worst lies.
So then we can agree that Fox, Bill OReilly, Glenn Beck, CBS, anything owned by Sinclair, Belo, the Mormon Church, and other conservative broadcasters are yellow journalism, deceptive, and at worst, lies?"
I could agree with that. You swing a 10lb hammer my way, I'm likely gonna swing a 10 or 12 lb hammer back. Moore does take the extreme view, but it's important, because of all the bullshit the other viewpoint shovels out. They've been shoveling bullshit for years, so why are they so damned afraid of a 90 minute response?
I've heard of Bill's name but don't know what he does, and have no idea who Glenn or Belo are. I'm only assessing what Moore is saying about a specific topic of which I am particularly expert. Whether or not others, leaning left or right, practice yellow journalism is a different issue. Deception is deception, I don't care who is doing it or for what reason.
Why the talk of swinging hammers? As if I've somehow become your enemy because we might disagree. I'm in no way looking for a fight. I've noticed in the dirty politics of trying to resolve the very crisis we are addressing that most of the parties react in a similar manner. They see this as a fight, and one they must win by defeating other people. Their language betrays their approach to solving problems.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
KJM 0
I found the 2% medicare numbers at the heritage foundation website, if you google health care administration costs, you will find numerous sites stating the one third of every dollar goes to administration costs. If your company is only 10% thats great, but they are most certainly on the lowest end of the spectrum. Where do all your stats come from?
DSE 3
QuoteQuoteInsurance companies coupled with dishonest doctors and patients are responsible for high costs, toss ambulance chasers in there and it skyrockets.
Look at the situation in Utah last week; inmate goes for his THIRD MRI because "his back hurts." He shoots/kills a guard, and gets away for a few hours. His medical records were released as part of the "investigation." Turns out the state has spent nearly 90K on just him alone over the past 3 years. My insurance provider would/could drop me in a heartbeat if I needed that kind of cash.
If nothing else (and this is where I think Moore's value liest), this film has people talking, aware, and pissed off.
Not at all supported by facts. Even if you eliminated insurance companies overnight, and found some entity to administer everything for free, the actual cost of the care is rising much faaster than the overal cost of living (by 4 to 10 times).
.
WTF are you talking about? The State of Utah is lying when they say that the inmate has received 90k in medical treatment throughout his various incarcerations? The Corrections Departmentis lying when they say they've had this guy in for 3 MRI's this year alone? Or is it a lie that Algier shot/killed a prison guard when he escaped? Which isn't a fact? All of em' are. Public knowledge, unless of course, everyone is lying. Given an apparent right wing proclivity, it would make sense that it's difficult to discern facts from lies.
pirana 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteInsurance companies coupled with dishonest doctors and patients are responsible for high costs, toss ambulance chasers in there and it skyrockets.
Look at the situation in Utah last week; inmate goes for his THIRD MRI because "his back hurts." He shoots/kills a guard, and gets away for a few hours. His medical records were released as part of the "investigation." Turns out the state has spent nearly 90K on just him alone over the past 3 years. My insurance provider would/could drop me in a heartbeat if I needed that kind of cash.
If nothing else (and this is where I think Moore's value liest), this film has people talking, aware, and pissed off.
Not at all supported by facts. Even if you eliminated insurance companies overnight, and found some entity to administer everything for free, the actual cost of the care is rising much faaster than the overal cost of living (by 4 to 10 times).
.
WTF are you talking about? The State of Utah is lying when they say that the inmate has received 90k in medical treatment throughout his various incarcerations? The Corrections Departmentis lying when they say they've had this guy in for 3 MRI's this year alone? Or is it a lie that Algier shot/killed a prison guard when he escaped? Which isn't a fact? All of em' are. Public knowledge, unless of course, everyone is lying. Given an apparent right wing proclivity, it would make sense that it's difficult to discern facts from lies.
I was talking about the blanket statement that insurance companies along with dishonest doctors and patients are responsible for high costs. Certainly there is some fraud in the system, but the bulk of the rising costs are attributable to things I mentioned earlier.
I'm not addressing the anecdote about the prisoner in Utah.
No proclivity here to either right or left. That polarization is one of the challenges to finding reasonable solutions.
Does putting WTF in front of a post give it more credibility? I'll have to try that.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
DSE 3
Quote
I was talking about the blanket statement that insurance companies along with dishonest doctors and patients are responsible for high costs. Certainly there is some fraud in the system, but the bulk of the rising costs are attributable to things I mentioned earlier.
Ahhh....so you and Michael Moore's predominant position are in complete agreement.
pirana 0
QuoteI found the 2% medicare numbers at the heritage foundation website, if you google health care administration costs, you will find numerous sites stating the one third of every dollar goes to administration costs. If your company is only 10% thats great, but they are most certainly on the lowest end of the spectrum. Where do all your stats come from?
Here's a link to A New England JOM study indicating cost of administration for US private insurers is 11.7%. The 31% number cited earlier in the same abstract includes the administrative costs of the entire system - the providers, carriers, government, and anybody else involved. My guess is that is the most common way of stating it. Granted, not a pretty number, but only about a third of it is from the administrative costs of the insurance companies.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768
The numbers for our company are straight from the source, and pretty easy to determine. Claims paid as a percent of term charges (aka premiums) equals loss ratio. Loss ratios are increasingly becoming a mandated thing nowadays; set by each state as they see fit. 80% is the common low limit, mid to low teens being more the norm. At least in MN, any carrier running a loss ratio as low as 70% would very quickly find themselves under a very serious investigation. The last carrier our AG took to task was forced to place regulators on their BOD and several years later is still under the microscope.
(Of course the loopholes created by and for big companies exempt them from much regulation - including mandated minimum loss ratios).
Which seques into dirty secret #2: Most regulation of health care financing is at the state level. It makes administration far more costly than necessary, because a carrier has to comply with widely varying degrees and types of regulation in each state in which they operate. One of the fixes to the system in general would be to level the playing field, at the federal level. Eliminate all the loopholes (many of which were originally put in place to help a single carrier or a single large employer). A standard menu of products with consistent eligibility & pricing. Reimbursement rates based on quality outcomes. Provider report cards for common procedures.
Employers fight like hell on the closing of loopholes. Providers do the same regarding outcomes studies and linking it to reimbursement. At least in this state, the only parties in the fray that ARE operating with their books wide open are the insurance companies.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
pirana 0
QuoteQuote
I was talking about the blanket statement that insurance companies along with dishonest doctors and patients are responsible for high costs. Certainly there is some fraud in the system, but the bulk of the rising costs are attributable to things I mentioned earlier.
Ahhh....so you and Michael Moore's predominant position are in complete agreement.
WTF!? Told you I'd get that in.
Not real sure what his predominant position is yet. I know from the clips I saw he seems out to bash the insurance companies. Like I said, some people might need a little bashing; but thinking it is all the fault of one party wreaks of Conspiracy Theory.
I guess at some fundamental level I'd agree the system has flaws. Mostly those flaws are not created by insurance companies, and are barely within the traditional insurance companies scope of operations to correct. Thankfully, price pressures are starting to create a willingness to change, to do things differently.
When utilization (the frequency with which people seek care) is going up 5 to 10% annually, an insurance company really has little choice but to pass that on or go out of business. The price pressure created by that utilization (as well as the cost of drugs, the cost of technology, and an aging population) are finally causing people to open up to the idea that how care is delivered and paid for has got to change.
I guess my opinion diverges dramatically from Mr Moore in that I do not think government run programs are the answer. Incentives for performance must be preserved (I love market forces) and I think the government is the last place to look for efficiency in operations. Let them overhaul the rules to make it fair and competitive, but do not put them in charge of the shop.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
sundevil777 93
QuoteOne improvement I think would help (I can't remember where I first heard this): Remove the expectation for employers to provide health care (and have workers get that money as wages instead), and have people buy it themselves through group policies managed by associations such as USPA, bowling association, pilots association, labor union, automobile association, kennel club association, or whatever large, private group that people are members of by choice. There would no longer be the problem of losing health insurance due to losing/changing your job. It is the power of the large numbers of a group that allows large companies to provide good health insurance, that large group is also available to the huge numbers of people that are members of the American Bowling Association, so it should work, and you'd have a choice of such groups to pick from to buy your coverage.
Some have lamented how there are a lot of complaints, but no suggestions for solutions.
How about some of you commenting on this earlier post? What do you think?
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
KJM 0
instead of pooling insurance through small orginations like uspa and some bowling league why not an insurance pool of 300,000,000 people by having "The People" create an insurance pool? The larger the pool the cheaper it can be, right?
Butters 0
QuoteThe larger the pool the cheaper it can be, right?
Wrong. A small pool consisting of individuals considered at less risk would be cheaper than a large pool consisting of individuals considered at more risk.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
KJM 0
You are advocating insurance that disriminates against those with existing conditions, that doesnt adress the problem in any way whatsoever. By creating a large pool, everyone can be insured and costs are absorbed by so many more that premiums could still stay reasonable, I thought thats what this thread was discussing
mikkey 0
I have lived under socialized health care systems in both Europe (several countries) and here in Australia.
From my point of view it works quite OK. The biggest problem in the system is that it leads to waiting times for elective surgery.
In regard to cost, well yes it has to be paid via taxes, but then again health insurance in the US is expensive - so I am not sure how the $ side of it works out for the average consumer.
I quite like the system here in Australia. There is a public medicare system that ensures that most basic health care is covered. You might have to pay a little (about US$30 for a visit to a doctor of your choice etc. and most of your cost for dental, glasses etc.) but most things are for free and most importantly prescription medicine is subsidized so nobody has to pay more then $30 per purchase (free for pensioners).
Then you have the choice to "top-up" with private health insurance. This covers use of private hospitals to avoid waiting time for elective surgery and covers "extras" like chiro, glasses, dental etc.
This health insurance is made affordable by government subsidies - so most families take it. I pay about $200 a month to cover my family.
The system is far from perfect, but works quite well.
From my point of view it works quite OK. The biggest problem in the system is that it leads to waiting times for elective surgery.
In regard to cost, well yes it has to be paid via taxes, but then again health insurance in the US is expensive - so I am not sure how the $ side of it works out for the average consumer.
I quite like the system here in Australia. There is a public medicare system that ensures that most basic health care is covered. You might have to pay a little (about US$30 for a visit to a doctor of your choice etc. and most of your cost for dental, glasses etc.) but most things are for free and most importantly prescription medicine is subsidized so nobody has to pay more then $30 per purchase (free for pensioners).
Then you have the choice to "top-up" with private health insurance. This covers use of private hospitals to avoid waiting time for elective surgery and covers "extras" like chiro, glasses, dental etc.
This health insurance is made affordable by government subsidies - so most families take it. I pay about $200 a month to cover my family.
The system is far from perfect, but works quite well.
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
mnealtx 0
What about rationing of services and wait for services?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mikkey 0
QuoteWhat about rationing of services and wait for services?
Well, I have not seen "rationing" but "wait" - yes as described abobe. But it is normally contained to elective surgery. And as I said - in some places like here in OZ you have the choice to take additional insurance to avoid this. As said, its far from perfect - and well, it is not in the States either. I think the key problem is that the main problem for people without or limited insurance is not waiting time for elective surgery...
All I can say is, that in all western countries outside the US people think that universal health cover in one form or the other is the right thing. But you yanks like to be different
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
Amazon 7
Dont you know.. this is the land of I got Mine and the hell with the rest of THOSE people.
UNTIL someone that thinks that way loses their job AND their medical insurance.. and needs it.... and then has to go without.
UNTIL someone that thinks that way loses their job AND their medical insurance.. and needs it.... and then has to go without.
KJM 0
thanks for your input, I was wondering how people from countries with universal health feel about it. It sounds similar to the HMO Im enrolled in, but alot less expensive.
mikkey 0
Just a general point about health care.
There is a global problem that health costs are spiralling out of control and problems with lack of capacity in regard to beds and treatments etc.
We are simply getting older and in the industrialised
world the demographics are changing dramatically.
This means that we are getting more sick (e.g. cancer, heart, stroke etc. etc.) because there are so many more older people. For example the cancer rate per capita in India is only a fraction of the rate in the western countries. Why? Simply because average life expectation is so much lower - so people dont get old enough to get cancer.
So with people getting more sick and new more expensive treatments and drugs arriving - the cost are out of control and this leads to that in countries with universal public health care cant cope with demand (leading to waiting lists etc.) and in the States it leads to more expensive health insurance or HMO's that try to avoid paying for treatment.
I think the debate needs to take this into account. I do however think that there is an advantage in a government owned universal health care system, which is that you easier can implement integrated health policies, e.g. in regard to fighting obesity or the treatment of the elderly in regard to ensure a balance between what we call nursing homes and public hospitals so that fragile seniors dont end up in hospital (which is expensive) but in nursing homes.
Just some food for thought.
There is a global problem that health costs are spiralling out of control and problems with lack of capacity in regard to beds and treatments etc.
We are simply getting older and in the industrialised
world the demographics are changing dramatically.
This means that we are getting more sick (e.g. cancer, heart, stroke etc. etc.) because there are so many more older people. For example the cancer rate per capita in India is only a fraction of the rate in the western countries. Why? Simply because average life expectation is so much lower - so people dont get old enough to get cancer.
So with people getting more sick and new more expensive treatments and drugs arriving - the cost are out of control and this leads to that in countries with universal public health care cant cope with demand (leading to waiting lists etc.) and in the States it leads to more expensive health insurance or HMO's that try to avoid paying for treatment.
I think the debate needs to take this into account. I do however think that there is an advantage in a government owned universal health care system, which is that you easier can implement integrated health policies, e.g. in regard to fighting obesity or the treatment of the elderly in regard to ensure a balance between what we call nursing homes and public hospitals so that fragile seniors dont end up in hospital (which is expensive) but in nursing homes.
Just some food for thought.
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
Not at all supported by facts. Even if you eliminated insurance companies overnight, and found some entity to administer everything for free, the actual cost of the care is rising much faaster than the overal cost of living (by 4 to 10 times).
First level factors are the exhorbitantly high cost of drugs, the constantly rising utilization rates (the frequency with which people use health care, the increased development and deployment of technology (often in dramatic overkill fashion), and an aging population.
Administration and cost per incident at the professional and institutional level are very under control. That of course would not sell well to his audience, so I doubt Mr Moore talks much about it. I really doubt he takes a serious look at health care financing at all.
Too bad he doesn't educate people while he is inciting them.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites