Topic: Health Care in England Question

[edbikerii]

Insults?  Me?  I have never resorted to that, unlike yourself.  Look back at your post and count 'em.  I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm above hurling useless insults at people when there are important issues on the table.  Furthermore, I believe that that kind of behavior reflects negatively on the nature of the person making the insult much more than the target.

Furthermore, if you actually have something meaningful to add to the conversation, let's hear it.  Otherwise, why post?

Well ed, here is the issue. YOU see what you post as facts. Problem is, they are only facts as the writer puts them in his opinion. What you see as an attack is what others see as being fact.

So why is what you post the only "facts" and what everyone else posts, attacks and garbage? Because you don't believe it? That does not automatically makes something untrue. Yet you do exactly what you yell at others for doing, you perform attacks blatantly and then you wonder why no one believes you.

I know you feel like the only person that sees all the obama and democrat evil but most see you as a loony who would blindly follow the extreme right straight into the sun.
I will not argue political junk with you as after seeing a couple recent political posts, I know you will never change your mind even if you were given evidence by God himself that you were wrong, so there is no point in it.
I am merely pointing out an observation. A little less wing flapping and sabre rattling on your part followed by less blatantly biased sources would probably help you.

I am waiting for your insults, as I KNOW they will come in some form. You are if nothing else, reliable on that.

[HavocTurbo]

I'm pretty sure you called me a drug user...

Which would be name calling, and insulting to me.

I seem to recall something about rolling papers?

[Bob Wessner]

Last warning. Stop addressing one another and keep to the topic. Otherwise, this topic will be locked.

[HavocTurbo]

Sorry Bob...

Despite what each side thinks, our system is broken.

Regardless of who thinks who/what caused the system to break, it's past that, it's actually broken. For real this time.

I'm not against insurance completely, I just wish we could have more control over what our money is used for.

[edbikerii]

Here's a short 20/20 segment on the proposed system:

[edbikerii]

Yes, you are right. I did.  Oddly, it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, as I have purchased my fair share of rolling-papers over the years, too.  Believe it or not, it wasn't meant as an insult, but a joke.

Regardless, you have clearly taken offense.  I apologize for offending you.

I'm pretty sure you called me a drug user...

Which would be name calling, and insulting to me.

I seem to recall something about rolling papers?

[edbikerii]

HT, THAT is exactly what I'm pushing for.  Please, watch the video all the way to the end.  Stossel explores some of the private initiatives that give the consumer absolute choice.  There is no doubt that the current system is flawed, and Stossel discusses some of the problems and potential solutions in this video.

http://www.guba.com/watch/3000089057

I'm not against insurance completely, I just wish we could have more control over what our money is used for.

[HavocTurbo]

I'm interested to know what you think can be done for medicare and medicaid to fix it.

I mean no system is perfect but I have yet to see some concrete ideas to fix what we ahve instead of just trashingit for a new system.

I'm still watching the vid... I'm at work and my comp is slow.

[edbikerii]

I suggested earlier that we could have a telephone-based service where people could call and ask a qualified medical professional (Nurse Practitioner or a Registered Nurse) for advice rather than running off to the doctor or emergency room.  If they could fax or even email a prescription to your pharmacy, this would save a fortune, and allow more people access to care.  Why not at least make this mandatory for Medicaid beneficiaries before they clog up emergency rooms?

I'd love to see some accountability for the ridiculous overspending that Medicaid is notorious for.  We've all heard the stories of the $1200 wheelchair RENTAL when the same wheelchair, from the same supplier, could be purchased for $400.  Or the band-aids and aspirin that cost hundreds of dollars because nobody in Medicaid analyzes their purchasing.

I'd love to see some of the nonsense benefits like free car-service rides to the hospital for Medicaid patients stop.

I'd love to see just one Medicaid employee (OK, all of them really) take responsibility for the screw-ups in Medicaid, Medicare and VA Hospitals instead of blaming excessive costs on "not having an open bidding system".  Why don't they just call the vendors and get the best prices?  Of course there are no vendors falling over each other to submit lower bids when Medicaid is over-paying so much today.

I could also see asking the Medicaid beneficiaries to take more responsibility for their own health.  How about making them quit smoking, drinking, using drugs, etc. at least as long as they participate in Medicaid?  No, I don't like the government controlling people, but I'd rather see the government place limits on someone who is USING the taxpayer's dollars instead of the government forcing the taxpayer to work harder, longer hours just to make up for the the higher taxes to pay for their self=destructive behaviors.

I don't know, off the top of my head, I think those are a pretty good start.  I'm open to more ideas.  Anybody got some more?  Maybe we should come up with a list and send it to congress.

Stossel talks about a lot of private ways to cut health-care costs, including private clinics offering discounted health care service to uninsured people for cash.  There's a company that has Nurse Practitioners who work at small clinics in malls who can provide advice on simple stuff like infections.  NP's can even prescribe medicine, including antibiotics, etc.

He also talked about some insurance policies with very high deductibles (therefore cheaper premiums), but accompanied by Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA's) where the employer deposits the difference.  Then the patient can choose how to spend the money.  The patient gets to keep the remainder.  This would motivate patients to KEEP THEIR OWN HEALTHCARE COSTS DOWN, as well as STRIVING TO STAY HEALTHY.  Then patients would start asking questions of their doctors about why they need this treatment or that.  What will the benefit be, and is it worth the cost.  These systems are just starting to become popular, and according to one of the big early adopters, Whole Foods, their employees actually prefer the system because they have more choice.  It is also much cheaper to operate.


Are these unreasonable suggestions?  I haven't thought each and everyone of them out, so perhaps some suggestions to improve them would be worthwhile.

I'm interested to know what you think can be done for medicare and medicaid to fix it.

I mean no system is perfect but I have yet to see some concrete ideas to fix what we ahve instead of just trashingit for a new system.

I'm still watching the vid... I'm at work and my comp is slow.

[DammitDan]

(I think Ed has me on his ignore list...)   

[ev0lve]

I could also see asking the Medicaid beneficiaries to take more responsibility for their own health.  How about making them quit smoking, drinking, using drugs, etc. at least as long as they participate in Medicaid?  No, I don't like the government controlling people, but I'd rather see the government place limits on someone who is USING the taxpayer's dollars instead of the government forcing the taxpayer to work harder, longer hours just to make up for the the higher taxes to pay for their self=destructive behaviors.

Once again, that's the point. Folks will do these things for any number of irrational reasons and the cost will be there one way or another. You just end up with more dead/dying people who cost more at the end of their lives.

If having the moral high-ground is important in these kinds of cases and in the overall instead of dealing with it there's really no argument I can make that will ever make sense.

[Inigo Montoya]

ed, where did I insult you? You are just doing your best to be the victim, thats all. So you WANT to see insults where none exist. It is funny though how you always come up with some way to make it look like you didnt insult someone and then cry fowl when some one does exactly the same thing to you. This is all tongue in cheek though.

Kinda like every other neo-con out there who broke our system in the first place and now do not want to fix it. Or should I say they have it fixed for themselves. They make all the money from it. So of course these people do not want to "fix" it. That would mean losing money and becoming richer while the rest of america goes bankrupt.

[BeSeeingYou]

Well, here we go again.  I present you with facts, you resort to name calling and personal attacks.

Now you sink so low as to try to compare standing up for the American taxpayer with the Nazi party.  You guys are a joke.

For the record, the Nazi party's official name was "National Socialist German Worker's Party".

Hmmmm.... Let's see......  anybody here believe I'm a socialist?

No, ed I was not calling you a Nazi.  That's why my post was in two separate paragraphs.  Two separate subjects.

This whole idea that the angry mob mentality at health care meetings is "standing up for the American taxpayer" is a bit of a stretch.  This is a democracy with majority rule.  You don't get to undo what you lost at the ballot box with angry mobs or worst case at the point of a gun.  That is tyranny, is that what you advocate?  The Democrats won and part of the platform was to reform the health care system.  You don't like it, tough, elections have consequences.

The Socialist in the Nazi party's name has nothing to do with Socialism or Communism.  The battle between Russia and Germany in WWII was between two incompatible social structures, Fascism and Communism.  In fact American industrialist help finance Hitler's rise to power as they admired his union busting tactics. 

So there you go ed, neither a Nazi nor a Socialist.

 

[edbikerii]

OK, srust, vinman, eldar, whatever.  Can we stick to the issues?  Thanks for the argument, but I'll pass.

[GroovieGhoulie]

This is a democracy with majority rule.  You don't get to undo what you lost at the ballot box with angry mobs or worst case at the point of a gun. 

Well, the lines of freedom were sold to us Americans as the "Soap Box, Ballot Box, Jury Box and Cartridge Box", in that order, so YES, I see the "point of a gun" as a valid political engine.

If you don't, I ask you, "I've got a Main Battle Rifle (MBR).  Who's gonna tell me what to do, if I don't, (on some level), agree with it?"

The MBR, (AND THE WILLINGNESS OF THE MAN CARRYING IT),  is the final arbiter of truth.

[BeSeeingYou]

This is a democracy with majority rule.  You don't get to undo what you lost at the ballot box with angry mobs or worst case at the point of a gun. 

Well, the lines of freedom were sold to us Americans as the "Soap Box, Ballot Box, Jury Box and Cartridge Box", in that order, so YES, I see the "point of a gun" as a valid political engine.

If you don't, I ask you, "I've got a Main Battle Rifle (MBR).  Who's gonna tell me what to do, if I don't, (on some level), agree with it?"

The MBR, (AND THE WILLINGNESS OF THE MAN CARRYING IT),  is the final arbiter of truth.

Well, I take it that this is somewhat tongue in cheek so ha ha that's funny.   If you are serious I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and go try and use your gun as a "valid political engine".  See where that gets you.  In jail or dead on the street would be my guess.

[GroovieGhoulie]

I removed my original message.

No one cares, and it would be counter-productive to the atmosphere on this board.

And I also remembered why I stopped posting here.  Too many lily-livered people that had never "Been There, Done That".

I won't make that mistake again.

[BeSeeingYou]

I removed my original message.

No one cares, and it would be counter-productive to the atmosphere on this board.

And I also remembered why I stopped posting here.  Too many lily-livered people that had never "Been There, Done That".

I won't make that mistake again.

Yeah, advocating armed rebellion could bring DHS down on you.  It would be a bad thing.

[edbikerii]

Yes, Iggy, having the moral high-ground is important.  It is important for government, for healthcare, and for dealing with people fairly.  Anything less, and there's gonna be a whole lot of unhappy, disenfranchised people who know that their government doesn't represent their interests, especially if those are the people whose hard work pays for the system in the first place.

But hey, that is just one of many suggestions that I put forth that would improve Medicaid, Medicare and VA Hospitals, and allow us to cover many millions of the uninsured.

Maybe you don't like that suggestion, but have better ones.  Certainly, it would be easier to correct some of the problems in the system rather than turn the entire health system upside down for at least 270 Million Americans for whom it works relatively well.

I could also see asking the Medicaid beneficiaries to take more responsibility for their own health.  How about making them quit smoking, drinking, using drugs, etc. at least as long as they participate in Medicaid?  No, I don't like the government controlling people, but I'd rather see the government place limits on someone who is USING the taxpayer's dollars instead of the government forcing the taxpayer to work harder, longer hours just to make up for the the higher taxes to pay for their self=destructive behaviors.

Once again, that's the point. Folks will do these things for any number of irrational reasons and the cost will be there one way or another. You just end up with more dead/dying people who cost more at the end of their lives.

If having the moral high-ground is important in these kinds of cases and in the overall instead of dealing with it there's really no argument I can make that will ever make sense.

[ev0lve]

I already posted about liking the way the Netherlands does it. Everyone gets covered. Private systems stay private. Profit motive intact if curbed a little. Reason to not insure folks removed.

It looks very much like a win/win/win to me.

And I still think getting your health insurance from your employer is a dumb way to do it. Better to pay me more and mandate I'll buy insurance at the VERY least than to burden the employer with it (or let them slip through the under 32 hour a month week (more coffee please) loophole depending on how you want to look at it).

As disclosure I'm one of the folks this particular system is not working relatively well for at the moment. I'm just lucky it's not a critical moment or I might be pissed - like 11 million uninsured and who knows how many underinsured folks out there.

[edbikerii]

What is your direct experience with the system in the Netherlands?  I've heard nothing about their system, and don't know how satisfied the participants are, so I cannot comment.  I have to wonder if their solutions will apply to our problems, however.  First off, they have only 16 million citizens.  Over 80% of their population are ethnic Dutch, which implies to me that they have similar morality, work ethic, etc. to each other.  With the kind of diversity that we have in the United States, we will always have significant disagreement over work habits, fairness, morality, drug use, risk tolerance, etc.

However, I'm sure there are some aspects of their system that might be superior.  It is certainly worthwhile to consider, but I know nothing about it.

I absolutely agree that we should have more choice about healthcare rather than relying upon our employers, too.  Of course I expect that if my employer doesn't have benefits that they must pay me more than one who does.  Then I choose which employer I'd rather work for.  I've done the independent contractor thing, too, and simply requested more money to offset my insurance costs.  INDIVIDUALS should be permitted a tax deduction as well as their employers, if they choose to purchase it.  

Also, the limitation on tax deductions for medical costs are ridiculous in our current tax code.  Why should you have to exceed a percentage of your income in medical costs before they become tax deductions?  That makes no sense at all.  How does that benefit anyone?

I already posted about liking the way the Netherlands does it. Everyone gets covered. Private systems stay private. Profit motive intact if curbed a little. Reason to not insure folks removed.

It looks very much like a win/win/win to me.

And I still think getting your health insurance from your employer is a dumb way to do it. Better to pay me more and mandate I'll buy insurance at the VERY least than to burden the employer with it (or let them slip through the under 32 hour a month week (more coffee please) loophole depending on how you want to look at it).

As disclosure I'm one of the folks this particular system is not working relatively well for at the moment. I'm just lucky it's not a critical moment or I might be pissed - like 11 million uninsured and who knows how many underinsured folks out there.

[HavocTurbo]

We are already there. And have been for a while now. The only problem is that most of our citizens are afraid of their government, instead of the government being afraid of us.

Something I am an advocate for changing.

Yes, Iggy, having the moral high-ground is important.  It is important for government, for healthcare, and for dealing with people fairly.  Anything less, and there's gonna be a whole lot of unhappy, disenfranchised people who know that their government doesn't represent their interests, especially if those are the people whose hard work pays for the system in the first place.

[Inigo Montoya]

The only problem is that most of our citizens are afraid of their government, instead of the government being afraid of us.

the reason I wish people would dump the dems and repubs and go third party. Just my thoughts.

[HavocTurbo]

You want to change the system? Or fix it? What can you do?

Write letters?
Make phone calls?
Stop in for visits?

None of these have proven to work on our "modern" form of politician. All they see is green.

Change requires money. Something the founding fathers didn't intend. These people represent US. They work FOR us. They are supposed to do what WE say a a group. Majority rule.

As it stands right now we are the only free country that doesn't stand up to it's government and DEMAND what we want. Or suffer our wrath.

Instead we cower in the corner like little puppies that have had their noses rubbed in our own excrement.

You want to fix medicare and medicaid Ed? Start organizing rallies. Start getting people together to fix our broken systems. I'd be there with you. Screaming my heart out.

I'm sick of this crap that we don't know what we need. That we need someone or a panel of someones to tell us what is good and bad for us in terms of a whole.

Let the black helicopters circle... I think we need to fire em all and start over.

[shacolaid]

You want to change the system? Or fix it? What can you do?

Write letters?
Make phone calls?
Stop in for visits?

None of these have proven to work on our "modern" form of politician. All they see is green.

Change requires money. Something the founding fathers didn't intend. These people represent US. They work FOR us. They are supposed to do what WE say a a group. Majority rule.

As it stands right now we are the only free country that doesn't stand up to it's government and DEMAND what we want. Or suffer our wrath.

Instead we cower in the corner like little puppies that have had their noses rubbed in our own excrement.

You want to fix medicare and medicaid Ed? Start organizing rallies. Start getting people together to fix our broken systems. I'd be there with you. Screaming my heart out.

I'm sick of this crap that we don't know what we need. That we need someone or a panel of someones to tell us what is good and bad for us in terms of a whole.

Let the black helicopters circle... I think we need to fire em all and start over.

One way to fix the system is make term limits. THere is no reason that there should ever be a career politician. It is disgusting that there are senators on their 4 and 5 term. That's 30 years! in office. The president is already limited to 2 terms of 4 years. Why are the senators and reps not held to the same limits?

I believe that politics should not be a career and that those who do enter politics should have some working experience. Heck, how many interviews have you gone to and they ask, what experience do you have? Politicians are so far removed from who they serve that they have no idea what is really going on. The founding fathers never envisioned politics as a career. They had all gone back to their farms or businesses at some point.