Author Topic: Health Care in England Question  (Read 42920 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #300 on: September 10, 2009, 09:51:09 AM »
Very emotional comments, but no facts, Mrs. Spanner.  I've used my medical insurance, and so have hundreds of millions of Americans.  I have NEVER been denied coverage for anything I've needed.  I don't care to share my private medical history with the internet, but I can assure you that I have tested my insurance company quite soundly, and they pulled through at every step of the way, fulfilling their contractual obligations to the letter.  I never had to pay more than my co-pays and my premiums (which remained steady, despite several hundred thousand dollars in payouts).  I am very thankful that I received the excellent health care that I got.

Once again, 87% of us rank American Health care Excellent or Good, according to Gallup polls, so what's the problem here?

Hello Gentlemen,

This is Spanner's Missus, the one with the plaid bike.  I was reading some of the posts and felt  the need to add my two cents.  Like my hubby I am also Euro-trash.  I was raised in Germany and only returned to the States in the mid-nineties.  Back home in Germany when I was selling cars and motorcycles for BMW, I was required to have health insurance but my insurance company did not make a profit from selling health insurance.  My insurance company made a profit from selling me my auto, life and homeowners insurance which were separate divisions within the same company.  If I had been poor, the government provides services so I wouldn't have to worry.

Ed, you have great confidence in your health insurance contract.  Pity your insurance company doesn't feel the same way.  Their profit motive requires them to deny you benefits.  Even though you're here defending them, they will still deny you coverage and drop your policy.  I did laugh at a few of your assumptions... "people today don't want to work hard to get the things that they want"..."They want to get those things for "free"..."They expect the government to bail them out of the messes that they create."  Sounds like Wall Street to me.  "They want to live a life of excess, and they don't care about how it gets paid for"  That sounds like a headline from November 08.  Plus, I wonder what color and class you think all those selfish and lazy people are.  

Cville, where do I start?  

"I would like to ask why so many seem to think that insurance is a basic right?"  No one thinks that.

 "Boggles the mind when people start assuming businesses should run at little to no profit simply because the industry they are in is an emotionally charged one."  It does boggle the mind.  I'm not sure how to overcome this objection since you reduce our most important moral choices to an 'emotionally charged' issue.  Why do you think doctor's have taken the Hippocratic Oath since medicine started?  Do you think it's because their profession is 'emotionally charged' or because it shapes the basis of our morality?  Let me be clear for you...access to health care is a moral issue.  It is immoral to profit from the risk of illness and suffering.  That is why NO ONE else does it...not even the Swiss, God love them.  The rest of your argument doesn't make sense either.  Are you saying that bio-tech isn't profitable anymore?  And since when are insurance companies funding hospitals?

The profit motive applied to health care is immoral.   Plain and simple.  Let's make our money elsewhere, like selling Snuggies and Chia Pets or computer chips and iPhones.  Let's invest our money with them and reap the profits but we ought not to profit from insurance companies denying coverage to sick people.  There are better ways to make a buck.
SOHC4 #289
1977 CB550K - SOLD
1997 YAMAHA XJ600S - SOLD
1986 GL1200I - SOLD
2004 BMW R1150R

Jetting: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg258435#msg258435
Needles:  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg253711#msg253711

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #301 on: September 10, 2009, 09:51:51 AM »
Enslaving someone else in order to pay for your healthcare is immoral.

Quote
The profit motive applied to health care is immoral.

 I hope someone from the land of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' will address this fundamental statement. The rest of this thread is just chatter.
SOHC4 #289
1977 CB550K - SOLD
1997 YAMAHA XJ600S - SOLD
1986 GL1200I - SOLD
2004 BMW R1150R

Jetting: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg258435#msg258435
Needles:  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg253711#msg253711

mallard

  • Guest
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #302 on: September 10, 2009, 09:58:30 AM »
 That was  duck, sidestep and counterpunch.

Offline Frankenkit

  • Industrial Strength
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,525
  • 2012 CBR250R, 72 CL350, Member #4600
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #303 on: September 10, 2009, 10:18:09 AM »
Quote
The profit motive applied to health care is immoral.

 I hope someone from the land of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' will address this fundamental statement. The rest of this thread is just chatter.

I'd said a long time ago in this thread that I felt the same way.  There are a lot of ways to make a quick buck in society, but I think an adequate analogy in the situation of withholding lifesaving treatments from people who can't pay would be holding a full canteen in front of a person dying of thirst and saying

"Well, drinks are $100.  Can't give this water away for free, y'know. I have overhead costs.  Profit margins to maintain."

If I'm understanding right, and simplifying brutally enough, the NHS would offer cups of lukewarm tapwater to those who couldn't pay (the US version of Medicaid/Medicare). It's not great, but it does the job.  In many cases (RR) it does the job extraordinarily well.  Enables life to continue. Allows people to continue to be valuable, taxpaying contributors to society.

In "our" system, the gap remains where people make too much to qualify for medicaid/care but not enough to pay for food/rent/kids expenses AND insurance (and we neglect to mention how expensive dental coverage is, or go into how dental health has been linked to cardiac health)  High-deductible insurance is a laugh and a poor joke indeed. What is insurance if your medical bills are going to be prohibitively expensive anyway, just on the deductible alone?

Last but obviously not least is the upper rung of health care/"water" in this analogy, some kind of ice cold spring water.  The rich of both systems can afford it as an elective, that's great.

...but we're not, strictly speaking here, discussing how the 'rich' pay for their health care.  We're talking about how the poor and middle class can have their needs addressed without being driven into poverty and bankruptcy should their kids be diagnosed with leukemia or a spontaneous traffic accident end in massive internal damage (necessitating lifelong medical care).  We're also talking the very low-income with diabetes and other chronic aliments that don't necessarily always end in death, but very well can if they're forced to go without adequate treatment, even though they are fully able to be valuable contributors to society otherwise.

...but this is all just an emotive outpouring from someone who sees enough of this from the health care provider's POV.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 10:21:51 AM by Kit »
"Moderation in all things - especially moderation. Too much moderation is excessive. The occasional excess is all part of living the moderate life."
2012 CBR250R "Black Betty"
1980 CB650c- (sold) Delilah
1973 CL350- Lola?
Sweet, bubbly, Buddha - Say it ain't so!!!
Stuff for sale

Offline Inigo Montoya

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,855
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #304 on: September 10, 2009, 10:23:49 AM »
cville, you are trying to make it sound simple but it is not. You didnt even bother to really read what I typed did you. There are things out there NOT under a persons control. You DO have the control over whether to ride or not, but can you control the idiot running a red light? Of course not. Trying to classify things as risks is pure industry terminology that is rubbish. Now if you go skydiving, well then THAT is a risk you are willingly taking and is such not covered by average insurance. Same with racing. The average person though is just LIVING their life. If insurance companies were really concerned with bottom line, they would drop the risk garbage and fully cover preventive care and such that helps people avoid the major issues that cost real money. but since when have insurance companies cared about anything but their investors.

Offline Spanner 1

  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,092
  • CB 750 K0 ( always thought it was a K1!) + CB750K8
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #305 on: September 10, 2009, 11:19:28 AM »
Well Ed, I guess we all should have asked you first if we should reform the medical-industrial complex.  Thanks for clarifying that you are the only person that matters.  Perhaps that logical conclusion is also immoral.  You are not the only person that matters as a matter of fact.  Here's a relevant fact for you, the numbers have been revised and today the Census Bureau reports that 46.3 million Americans don't have health care.  Perhaps you should pull your head out of your very well insured butt and take a look around you. Others matter as much as you do.  That is what the term 'commonwealth' means, common interests and objectives.  Sadly for you we don't live in an "Edwealth" where you are the standard for the rest of us.  You make me laugh and I am enjoying this. 

Mrs. Spanner
If your sure it's a carb problem; it's ignition,
If your sure it's an ignition problem; it's carbs....

Offline MickeyX

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,153
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #306 on: September 10, 2009, 11:28:02 AM »
Very emotional comments, but no facts, Mrs. Spanner.  I've used my medical insurance, and so have hundreds of millions of Americans.  I have NEVER been denied coverage for anything I've needed.  I don't care to share my private medical history with the internet, but I can assure you that I have tested my insurance company quite soundly, and they pulled through at every step of the way, fulfilling their contractual obligations to the letter.  I never had to pay more than my co-pays and my premiums (which remained steady, despite several hundred thousand dollars in payouts).  I am very thankful that I received the excellent health care that I got.

Once again, 87% of us rank American Health care Excellent or Good, according to Gallup polls, so what's the problem here?


Well, for once Ed has made a valid point. Healthcare is very good in this country. As a healthcare provider, I thank you.  :) We try very hard. The fact that people live much better and longer is proof that we are doing well. All over the world, not just here. It takes people from everywhere, diversity is the key, to figure out how to accomplish some of the things we do.

Now if he can just finally figure out that healthcare and health insurance/coverage are 2 different things.

People do like the healthcare here overall, but in this country of the free and privileged, many do not have coverage or can't afford to pay their part of the equation after the insurance does their part. If their job doesn't offer insurance, or they are unemployed for what ever reason, they are screwed. It puts people in financial ruin. Many can't pay toward their medical bills at all because they are struggling to just get by daily. The hospitals have to suck up the rest because, in the end, that's all they can do. They get billed from the companies who make the products they use on the pts. Those companies want their money from them, bottom line. Those companies have got creditors too (and employees who would like to keep their jobs), like the petroleum industry where our i.v. tubing, instruments and other amenities come from, the paper industry, the wood industry, the transportation industry, the energy industry, the metals industry, the building industry, etc. So many industries will benefit which means we create more jobs, but mostly the humans who need medical help, will actually go to the doctor when its minor instead of waiting until there is no other choice. It will mean shorter stays and better outcomes. It will mean in many cases, LOWER bills.
The price of inventing something, all those man hours, all the resources, can be pretty high. Those companies have the right to recoup it back. Just like any other business does. Many of them give discounts, like on cancer drugs, or can give them for free if you allow them to follow your case and learn from it. You can say no to their product anytime you want. No one is forcing you. You can go against medical advice at any time. It's your body. It still will be after the healthcare reform passes.

You can keep being negative Ed, because of course, we all know how much help that is in any situation. Hate and fear are your weapons and for some reason, you feel you need weapons. I'm not sure who you are fighting. Mostly yourself I think. I have noticed that almost all of your posts, except for one here or there, are political ones or just negative in general. Even when you actually post in someone's bike thread, you tend to be negative. I really pity you.

Has Obama lied? No, I don't think so. WE lie to ourselves. We say we don't want/need more govt and then we blame them for not doing such and such, for not saving us, for not getting it completely right. Well, it's a good thing there are such things as amendments and the like. Our forefathers were pretty sure they were gonna mess up a bit every now and again. It's called being human. Let me ask, when was the last time you got off your lazyboy and helped someone have a better life, actually did something that had no direct benefit to you? A complete stranger that you helped out.

You keep saying it's not free. No, it isn't. I agree. Where does the money come from then? Well, if you have insurance (congrats), it comes from the premium you pay. Is that it? No. It comes from everyone else's premium in your group too. Did ya ever notice that the bigger company you work for, the cheaper the premiums? Yeah, that's because more people putting $$ in the pot means you get cheaper coverage. The pot gets bigger from the other businesses that are using the same insurance carrier too. Someone from another part of your state (or across the country) is putting into your coverage, Ed. (Maybe one of the people here who you've been brow beating. You should probably thank them for helping to pay your bills. Just sayin'.  ::)) The premise is, if one gets sick, everyone's $$ goes to help pay those bills. The more contributors, the better for you. The assumption is, not everyone is going to be sick all the time. I can't imagine what the premiums would be for business where all of their employees were cancer patients.  :o The point is, it takes a lot of people's premiums to make up for a $100k bill from someone in the group.

Your next argument will be... the costs are too high, the bill is too big. That's unfair. Well, I don't see you donating any cures. We are in a unique time in human history. We have figured out all kinds of stuff, made people's outcomes after a catastrophic event better than they would have been even 20 years ago. It comes at a price. Of all the inventors and scientists that have ever lived, 99% of them are alive right this minute. I feel very lucky to be here now. You should too, but instead, you sneer and hate. Btw, if people had coverage, your insurance and medical bills would be lower. You are helping to pay off those bills that are outstanding because hospitals have to up their prices or face closing their doors to cover the gap. I'm sure the uninsured thank you.

I think this healthcare reform is overdue. So does the AMA, American Medical Association, who backed Obama's idea to cover all those who need it. The whole system gets healthier, the patients, the hospitals, the supporting industries, if all of the bills were taken care of. It self perpetuates and gets cheaper, not more expensive. I'm just curious how much you think it costs us now to have people not be insured compared to making the coverage available? You are very short sighted, Ed.

I'm so relieved that you have no worries and no debt, Ed. I think I'll go take a few days and camping at the beach and celebrate your good fortune.

~X.

p.s. well written Mrs. Spanner.  :)
1969 CL350 Scrambler... almost done!!! Well, until something else goes wrong. :)
2006 HD 883 Sportster, stock. No use changing it, it's still gonna be a Harley.

Offline Cvillechopper

  • Is just pretending to be an
  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,184
  • If not for my failures I'd never know my limits
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #307 on: September 10, 2009, 11:49:32 AM »
cville, you are trying to make it sound simple but it is not. You didnt even bother to really read what I typed did you. There are things out there NOT under a persons control. You DO have the control over whether to ride or not, but can you control the idiot running a red light? Of course not. Trying to classify things as risks is pure industry terminology that is rubbish. Now if you go skydiving, well then THAT is a risk you are willingly taking and is such not covered by average insurance. Same with racing. The average person though is just LIVING their life. If insurance companies were really concerned with bottom line, they would drop the risk garbage and fully cover preventive care and such that helps people avoid the major issues that cost real money. but since when have insurance companies cared about anything but their investors.

I did read what you wrote but you obviously do not understand what risk is. Risk is the probability that something may happen.  Plain and simple.  Please do yourself a favor and just try to understand what is being written before retorting with quasi-coherent ramblings. 

Let me try to simplify it further.  There is a chance that my house will flood and I will have to pay large sums of money to repair the damage.  I acknowledge the chance and decide to protect myself from the RISK that this will happen by paying someone a set sum (determined by where I live and the area's history of flood) in exchange for a promise that they will pay for the repairs if my house floods.  I could just as well save the money and use it to pay if my house does flood (if I had the foresight and dedication to do so).
If I live by the ocean under sea level the probability that my house will flood is higher so I must pay more for someone to assume my RISK.  If I live in the middle of Nebraska premiums would be lower. 

Regardless of what anyone thinks, healthcare is the SAME CONCEPT (or it was when initially started).  Unfortunately most people are not driven to actually understand the contract they sign so feel that they are getting "screwed" by the insurance companies when they find that something for which they did not buy protection has occurred and the insurance company is holding them to the contract.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.  Aristotle

Offline MCRider

  • Such is the life of a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,376
  • Today's Lesson: One good turn deserves another.
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #308 on: September 10, 2009, 12:09:34 PM »
SNIP

 Here's a relevant fact for you, the numbers have been revised and today the Census Bureau reports that 46.3 million Americans don't have health care.  

SNIP
Mrs. Spanner

Is that right? Isn't it that 46.3M don't have health INSURANCE?

I know for a fact of a slew of people in my sphere that don't have health insurance. When asked why, as it is readily available to them at a low premium from their employer, it is because they have made the conscious decision to use that money for enhanced cable TV, sports activities, high priced autos (higher than mine) with the statement, "why should I pay for health insurance when I can walk into the emergency room and get covered for free? And my (fatherless) kids are covered by Medicaid."  Yes they have said just that to me.  They have plenty of health care for free.

It is this situation, which then results in cost shifting from the non-payers to the payers, which is the main problem in my mind, and is at least a  big problem in any discussion. This is a cultural issue which will not be resolved by legislation, but by changing people's minds about what is right and proper responsibility.  Only a true leader can accomplish that, and we have none.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 12:12:32 PM by MCRider »
Ride Safe:
Ron
1988 NT650 HawkGT;  1978 CB400 Hawk;  1975 CB750F -Free Bird; 1968 CB77 Super Hawk -Ticker;  Phaedrus 1972 CB750K2- Build Thread
"Sometimes the light's all shining on me, other times I can barely see, lately it appears to me, what a long, strange trip its been."

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #309 on: September 10, 2009, 12:28:36 PM »
Negative?  That's your argument?  How about a fact or something?

Yes.  I am very "negative" about Obama's health care plan.  I am very positive about the status of health care in America today, however.  We have an excellent health care system in the United States that 87% of us are happy with.  This entire "healthcare reform" issue is being driven by a very vocal minority.

In this thread, I've already posted studies de-bunking the medical-bill-bankruptcy-myth.  I won't waste my time posting them again.  You know where to find them.  When I posted them the first time, you ignored the points made, so I expect that you'll do the same anyway.  I'll bet you never even read them.

I've also posted an excellent alternative to the ObamaCare plan and asked for comments.  Only two people commented on it -- but neither of them would have supported ObamaCare anyway.  I guess that if it doesn't come from a liberal, you guys can't even bother to read it.  The "Yes we can!" and "Change you can believe in!" mantras have got you guys brainwashed into adopting your "messiah's" truth with religious zeal.

The fact is, the congress is now loaded with liberal democrats, and even they can't reach agreement on Obama's crappy health care plan.

As for my charity, you can rest assured that I donate both time and money in excess of yours.  How can you even make such a stupid statement?

Very emotional comments, but no facts, Mrs. Spanner.  I've used my medical insurance, and so have hundreds of millions of Americans.  I have NEVER been denied coverage for anything I've needed.  I don't care to share my private medical history with the internet, but I can assure you that I have tested my insurance company quite soundly, and they pulled through at every step of the way, fulfilling their contractual obligations to the letter.  I never had to pay more than my co-pays and my premiums (which remained steady, despite several hundred thousand dollars in payouts).  I am very thankful that I received the excellent health care that I got.

Once again, 87% of us rank American Health care Excellent or Good, according to Gallup polls, so what's the problem here?


Well, for once Ed has made a valid point. Healthcare is very good in this country. As a healthcare provider, I thank you.  :) We try very hard. The fact that people live much better and longer is proof that we are doing well. All over the world, not just here. It takes people from everywhere, diversity is the key, to figure out how to accomplish some of the things we do.

Now if he can just finally figure out that healthcare and health insurance/coverage are 2 different things.

People do like the healthcare here overall, but in this country of the free and privileged, many do not have coverage or can't afford to pay their part of the equation after the insurance does their part. If their job doesn't offer insurance, or they are unemployed for what ever reason, they are screwed. It puts people in financial ruin. Many can't pay toward their medical bills at all because they are struggling to just get by daily. The hospitals have to suck up the rest because, in the end, that's all they can do. They get billed from the companies who make the products they use on the pts. Those companies want their money from them, bottom line. Those companies have got creditors too (and employees who would like to keep their jobs), like the petroleum industry where our i.v. tubing, instruments and other amenities come from, the paper industry, the wood industry, the transportation industry, the energy industry, the metals industry, the building industry, etc. So many industries will benefit which means we create more jobs, but mostly the humans who need medical help, will actually go to the doctor when its minor instead of waiting until there is no other choice. It will mean shorter stays and better outcomes. It will mean in many cases, LOWER bills.
The price of inventing something, all those man hours, all the resources, can be pretty high. Those companies have the right to recoup it back. Just like any other business does. Many of them give discounts, like on cancer drugs, or can give them for free if you allow them to follow your case and learn from it. You can say no to their product anytime you want. No one is forcing you. You can go against medical advice at any time. It's your body. It still will be after the healthcare reform passes.

You can keep being negative Ed, because of course, we all know how much help that is in any situation. Hate and fear are your weapons and for some reason, you feel you need weapons. I'm not sure who you are fighting. Mostly yourself I think. I have noticed that almost all of your posts, except for one here or there, are political ones or just negative in general. Even when you actually post in someone's bike thread, you tend to be negative. I really pity you.

Has Obama lied? No, I don't think so. WE lie to ourselves. We say we don't want/need more govt and then we blame them for not doing such and such, for not saving us, for not getting it completely right. Well, it's a good thing there are such things as amendments and the like. Our forefathers were pretty sure they were gonna mess up a bit every now and again. It's called being human. Let me ask, when was the last time you got off your lazyboy and helped someone have a better life, actually did something that had no direct benefit to you? A complete stranger that you helped out.

You keep saying it's not free. No, it isn't. I agree. Where does the money come from then? Well, if you have insurance (congrats), it comes from the premium you pay. Is that it? No. It comes from everyone else's premium in your group too. Did ya ever notice that the bigger company you work for, the cheaper the premiums? Yeah, that's because more people putting $$ in the pot means you get cheaper coverage. The pot gets bigger from the other businesses that are using the same insurance carrier too. Someone from another part of your state (or across the country) is putting into your coverage, Ed. (Maybe one of the people here who you've been brow beating. You should probably thank them for helping to pay your bills. Just sayin'.  ::)) The premise is, if one gets sick, everyone's $$ goes to help pay those bills. The more contributors, the better for you. The assumption is, not everyone is going to be sick all the time. I can't imagine what the premiums would be for business where all of their employees were cancer patients.  :o The point is, it takes a lot of people's premiums to make up for a $100k bill from someone in the group.

Your next argument will be... the costs are too high, the bill is too big. That's unfair. Well, I don't see you donating any cures. We are in a unique time in human history. We have figured out all kinds of stuff, made people's outcomes after a catastrophic event better than they would have been even 20 years ago. It comes at a price. Of all the inventors and scientists that have ever lived, 99% of them are alive right this minute. I feel very lucky to be here now. You should too, but instead, you sneer and hate. Btw, if people had coverage, your insurance and medical bills would be lower. You are helping to pay off those bills that are outstanding because hospitals have to up their prices or face closing their doors to cover the gap. I'm sure the uninsured thank you.

I think this healthcare reform is overdue. So does the AMA, American Medical Association, who backed Obama's idea to cover all those who need it. The whole system gets healthier, the patients, the hospitals, the supporting industries, if all of the bills were taken care of. It self perpetuates and gets cheaper, not more expensive. I'm just curious how much you think it costs us now to have people not be insured compared to making the coverage available? You are very short sighted, Ed.

I'm so relieved that you have no worries and no debt, Ed. I think I'll go take a few days and camping at the beach and celebrate your good fortune.

~X.

p.s. well written Mrs. Spanner.  :)
SOHC4 #289
1977 CB550K - SOLD
1997 YAMAHA XJ600S - SOLD
1986 GL1200I - SOLD
2004 BMW R1150R

Jetting: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg258435#msg258435
Needles:  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg253711#msg253711

Offline ev0lve

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,930
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #310 on: September 10, 2009, 12:41:14 PM »
SNIP

 Here's a relevant fact for you, the numbers have been revised and today the Census Bureau reports that 46.3 million Americans don't have health care.  

SNIP
Mrs. Spanner

Is that right? Isn't it that 46.3M don't have health INSURANCE?

I know for a fact of a slew of people in my sphere that don't have health insurance. When asked why, as it is readily available to them at a low premium from their employer, it is because they have made the conscious decision to use that money for enhanced cable TV, sports activities, high priced autos (higher than mine) with the statement, "why should I pay for health insurance when I can walk into the emergency room and get covered for free? And my (fatherless) kids are covered by Medicaid."  Yes they have said just that to me.  They have plenty of health care for free.


Shouldn't you be in favor of mandatory coverage then - as proposed?

Quote
It is this situation, which then results in cost shifting from the non-payers to the payers, which is the main problem in my mind, and is at least a  big problem in any discussion. This is a cultural issue which will not be resolved by legislation, but by changing people's minds about what is right and proper responsibility.  Only a true leader can accomplish that, and we have none.

Not free. They will attempt to collect and when they can't that's when it gets written off. How much overhead would be saved by everyone being covered vs bean-counters and collections being paid?

Basically, make everyone payers - by law. What's wrong with that?

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #311 on: September 10, 2009, 12:46:15 PM »
Absolutely!

Having grown up poor, in the Bronx, I've seen a lot of this stuff myself.  If I hadn't gone to night school and worked hard, guess where I'd be?  If I had signed up for welfare and food stamps and Medicaid, I wouldn't be worried about my children's futures, would I?  One of my old acquaintences from the old neighborhood, an able-bodied 39 year old man, is now on welfare & food stamps and sitting in a basement studio apartment complaining about how unfair things are, and making up all kinds of excuses, like how the rich are screwing him over.

I still believe that if you teach a man to fish, he'll eat for life.  So many today keep on trying to steal fish from the fishermen and give them away.  That's not helping these people in the long run.  That's creating dependents.  Those in our government know this, and many thrive on it, politically.

I agree, too, that we need somebody with real leadership to wake the people up.  But instead, those in power get there by buying votes with entitlement programs.  I don't see any way out of it in the long term.

It has been said recently that democracy is doomed when the people discover that they can vote themselves a free ride.  I'm truly worried that the American people have reached that point.

Was it Margaret Thatcher that said, "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money".

I know for a fact of a slew of people in my sphere that don't have health insurance. When asked why, as it is readily available to them at a low premium from their employer, it is because they have made the conscious decision to use that money for enhanced cable TV, sports activities, high priced autos (higher than mine) with the statement, "why should I pay for health insurance when I can walk into the emergency room and get covered for free? And my (fatherless) kids are covered by Medicaid."  Yes they have said just that to me.  They have plenty of health care for free.

It is this situation, which then results in cost shifting from the non-payers to the payers, which is the main problem in my mind, and is at least a  big problem in any discussion. This is a cultural issue which will not be resolved by legislation, but by changing people's minds about what is right and proper responsibility.  Only a true leader can accomplish that, and we have none.
SOHC4 #289
1977 CB550K - SOLD
1997 YAMAHA XJ600S - SOLD
1986 GL1200I - SOLD
2004 BMW R1150R

Jetting: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg258435#msg258435
Needles:  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg253711#msg253711

Offline ev0lve

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,930
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #312 on: September 10, 2009, 01:00:07 PM »
Absolutely!

Having grown up poor, in the Bronx, I've seen a lot of this stuff myself.  If I hadn't gone to night school and worked hard, guess where I'd be?  If I had signed up for welfare and food stamps and Medicaid, I wouldn't be worried about my children's futures, would I?  One of my old acquaintences from the old neighborhood, an able-bodied 39 year old man, is now on welfare & food stamps and sitting in a basement studio apartment complaining about how unfair things are, and making up all kinds of excuses, like how the rich are screwing him over.

I still believe that if you teach a man to fish, he'll eat for life.  So many today keep on trying to steal fish from the fishermen and give them away.  That's not helping these people in the long run.  That's creating dependents.  Those in our government know this, and many thrive on it, politically.

I agree, too, that we need somebody with real leadership to wake the people up.  But instead, those in power get there by buying votes with entitlement programs.  I don't see any way out of it in the long term.

It has been said recently that democracy is doomed when the people discover that they can vote themselves a free ride.  I'm truly worried that the American people have reached that point.

Was it Margaret Thatcher that said, "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money".

I know for a fact of a slew of people in my sphere that don't have health insurance. When asked why, as it is readily available to them at a low premium from their employer, it is because they have made the conscious decision to use that money for enhanced cable TV, sports activities, high priced autos (higher than mine) with the statement, "why should I pay for health insurance when I can walk into the emergency room and get covered for free? And my (fatherless) kids are covered by Medicaid."  Yes they have said just that to me.  They have plenty of health care for free.

It is this situation, which then results in cost shifting from the non-payers to the payers, which is the main problem in my mind, and is at least a  big problem in any discussion. This is a cultural issue which will not be resolved by legislation, but by changing people's minds about what is right and proper responsibility.  Only a true leader can accomplish that, and we have none.

I'm not sure I see the distinction here between mandatory insurance for everyone and your upstandingness.

Do you object to mandatory car insurance laws as well? Same principle and effect.

Do you also disagree that the rising costs of health insurance are a drag on the economy? Do you dispute the CBO's projections of it's percentage of GDP in the future?

In short, other than really liking the status quo - what do you suggest?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) periodically releases its 75-year health care spending projections. Current projections forecast the following health care spending levels:

Total spending on health care would rise from 16% of GDP in 2007 to 25% in 2025, 37% in 2050 and 49% in 2082.
Federal spending on Medicare (net of beneficiaries premiums) and Medicaid would rise from 4% of GDP in 2007 to 7% in 2025, 12% in 2050 and 19% in 2082.

Offline Pinhead

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,818
  • 1979 CB652-ST
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #313 on: September 10, 2009, 01:07:16 PM »
Hippocratic Oath, huh... Tell that to the lady whose baby was denied help because she was born too early as defined by "the rules."
Doug

Click --> Cheap Regulator/Rectifier for any of Honda's 3-phase charging systems (all SOHC4's).

GM HEI Ignition Conversion

Quote from: TwoTired
By the way, I'm going for the tinfoil pants...so they can't read my private thoughts.
:D

Offline mark

  • finds nothing amusing about being an
  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,939
  • we're out here and this is where we are.
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #314 on: September 10, 2009, 01:21:05 PM »
I'll put my 2 pennies worth in - I think most people in UK are happy with the NHS system as it is simple to understand and hassle free when you need it. The standard of care is good to excellent. The cutting edge treatments take a while to filter in to the system (and you can go private if you want for those) but on the whole the service is good......
Far from regarding the NHS as an inefficient dinosaur most people think that on the whole it does a good job and paradoxically are worried by creeping privatisation and Public/Private finance initiatives for new hospitals and reliance on private health insurance......


Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby

Quote
In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.
The rules were endorsed by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and are followed by NHS hospitals.

Quote from: previously posted article
Among babies born alive at 22 weeks, fewer than 10% survived; at 23 weeks, 53% survived; at 24 weeks, 67% survived; at 25 weeks, 82% survived; at 26 weeks, 85% survived, the study shows.
AND
Quote from: previously posted article
But Parikh says parents are concerned about more than just a baby's survival. Premature infants are at very high risk of devastating disabilities, including paralysis, blindness, hearing loss and mental retardation. He says he looks forward to follow-up studies of babies when they are 2½ years old. By that time, doctors will have a better idea of whether the babies' survival came at a very high cost.

But we'll never know if we just let them die, will we?


(A <10% chance at 22 weeks and this one wasn't there yet.)


And there's the point... They got to choose instead of someone else making the decision for them like in the case of the premature birth in my previous post.
Hippocratic Oath, huh... Tell that to the lady whose baby was denied help because she was born too early as defined by "the rules."



But you see....

She made a choice.

Private insurance is not unheard of, or banned.

She made a choice not to buy it.

Lloyd's of London will insure damned near anything, probably even heroic preemie care.

The premiums might be a bit high for someone who had miscarried four times previously - might have to be royalty to afford it. That's capitalism for you.

She still made a choice not to buy it.


You want socialized medicine to cover nothing, yet feign shock when it fails to cover everything.

You can't have it both ways.

1976 CB550K, 1973 CB350G, 1964 C100

F you mark...... F you.

Offline Inigo Montoya

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,855
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #315 on: September 10, 2009, 01:28:34 PM »
Cville, I understand PERFECTLY how auto, home, ect work. Health insurance should not be about risks though. Trying to compare it to living on a flood plain is just ...., it is doesn't even come close to being the same thing. Besides that, auto rates can go down, I have never seen my health ins go down even though I have used it once in 4 years and all that was done is some 800mg ibuprofen was prescribed. I am sure it cost the ins company a years wages. ::) I have also never gotten anything back, I also have very few options to entertain. At least with home and auto and such, I have many companies to choose from so I can find the lowest rate for the coverage, I can even cherry pick they type of coverage I want.

But I guess anyone who does not want risk should just kill themselves, after all, sickness WILL happen sooner or later. I doubt there has ever been a person who has never been sick. Maybe my whole beef here is the insurance industry terminology. Maybe it should not be termed risk and maybe something more inline with just LIVING. Maybe insurance for accidents and the unforeseen, not for assuming "risk". So there you go, it is a terminology issue.
regardless, the system does not work. The CARE is fine but the INSURANCE blows more that a toothless $10 hooker.

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #316 on: September 10, 2009, 01:36:40 PM »
Here's one suggestion I made a while back that is a hell of a lot better than ObamaCare.  Please feel free to critique it.  I'm a big boy, I can take it:

PLEASE EVALUATE THIS PROPOSED SOLUTION.  PLEASE TRY TO BE OBJECTIVE AND NON-PARTISAN.  PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK -- CONSTRUCTIVELY

Once again, the solution is not to take away more control from the consumer (the patient, the taxpayer, us), and give it to some government bureaucrat.  Nor is it good to allow the insurance company bureaucrats to keep control, either!

I think the solution is to give the consumer more choice, and give them an incentive to try to reduce the costs THEMSELVES.

I think the problem of rising health care costs is primarily a result of patients not bothering to think about the costs at all because they don't think they have to.  Patients typically don't care, because they know that the insurance company is going to pay.  Patients don't ask simple questions that any normal consumer in any other market would ask like "how much will that cost?", "why is that so expensive?", "do I really need that?", and "isn't there a cheaper way?"

Let me try to illustrate this with an example:
If you walk into a supermarket and you can either buy lobster for $15/lb. or hamburger for $4/lb., how likely are you to buy lobster every night for dinner?

If, on the other hand, you knew that somebody else was paying for your groceries, you might be more inclined to buy the lobster, even though the hamburger may, in fact, have better nutritional value.  In fact, you might even be more likely to buy the lobster JUST BECAUSE you know that other people could buy it on YOUR insurance premium dollar, so "why not".  After all, it will only increase your insurance premium by a couple cents, when spread out among all the other shoppers.  Besides, those other shoppers are probably eating lobster on my insurance premiums, so why shouldn't I?

Now, let's extend that analogy to health care.  if we could incent the patients to be more efficient with their healthcare spending, we wouldn't need the bureaucrats at the insurance company or in the government to ration the care, and the cost would be much lower.  The patients would take responsibility for their own choices, and expect more from their doctors, drug companies, and diagnostic equipment, for the same money.

You might also find that people take better care of themselves because they don't want to spend more money on health issues later.

So, I'm thinking that increasing the deductibles is a major part of the solution.  First off, it will make the insurance premiums cheaper right off the bat.  Secondly, it will incent the patients to bargain with their medical providers and ask the difficult questions about necessity and price, rather than just saying, "sure, let's do it, what the hell".  Then, the costs are lower, the providers would have to compete for business (always a good thing), and the providers would strive to come up with better, and/or cheaper methods to provide the same service.

Now, remember the money saved on the insurance premiums because of the higher deductibles?  GIVE THAT MONEY TO THE EMPLOYEES in order to pay for their regular health care.  You know, the stuff that doesn't exceed the deductibles:  Regular check-ups, etc.  The only restriction should be that they can ONLY SPEND THAT MONEY ON HEALTH-RELATED EXPENSES.  If they manage to save enough, they can use it to get their teeth fixed, to get breast enhancements, whatever.  Let them accumulate the money year after year and save up for costly stuff that they want done like lap-band surgeries, whatever.

Getting the costs down will help with Medicare and Medicaid, and the VA Hospitals, too.  All the learned efficiency from trying to keep the patients happy will lead to cost reductions ACROSS THE BOARD, and will lead to doctors, drug companies, hospitals and medical device manufactures innovating more in order to generate more profit and to make the patients happier.

Sure, I haven't ironed out all the details, but this idea sounds a hell of a lot better to me than anything I'm hearing from that mess of a health care "reform" bill so far.

So, what do you think?  Does this start to meet the needs?  Does it encourage innovation?  Does it preserve our excellent health care system for everyone?  Does it make health care more accessible?  Does it make it better for EVERYBODY?
Absolutely!

Having grown up poor, in the Bronx, I've seen a lot of this stuff myself.  If I hadn't gone to night school and worked hard, guess where I'd be?  If I had signed up for welfare and food stamps and Medicaid, I wouldn't be worried about my children's futures, would I?  One of my old acquaintences from the old neighborhood, an able-bodied 39 year old man, is now on welfare & food stamps and sitting in a basement studio apartment complaining about how unfair things are, and making up all kinds of excuses, like how the rich are screwing him over.

I still believe that if you teach a man to fish, he'll eat for life.  So many today keep on trying to steal fish from the fishermen and give them away.  That's not helping these people in the long run.  That's creating dependents.  Those in our government know this, and many thrive on it, politically.

I agree, too, that we need somebody with real leadership to wake the people up.  But instead, those in power get there by buying votes with entitlement programs.  I don't see any way out of it in the long term.

It has been said recently that democracy is doomed when the people discover that they can vote themselves a free ride.  I'm truly worried that the American people have reached that point.

Was it Margaret Thatcher that said, "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money".

I know for a fact of a slew of people in my sphere that don't have health insurance. When asked why, as it is readily available to them at a low premium from their employer, it is because they have made the conscious decision to use that money for enhanced cable TV, sports activities, high priced autos (higher than mine) with the statement, "why should I pay for health insurance when I can walk into the emergency room and get covered for free? And my (fatherless) kids are covered by Medicaid."  Yes they have said just that to me.  They have plenty of health care for free.

It is this situation, which then results in cost shifting from the non-payers to the payers, which is the main problem in my mind, and is at least a  big problem in any discussion. This is a cultural issue which will not be resolved by legislation, but by changing people's minds about what is right and proper responsibility.  Only a true leader can accomplish that, and we have none.

I'm not sure I see the distinction here between mandatory insurance for everyone and your upstandingness.

Do you object to mandatory car insurance laws as well? Same principle and effect.

Do you also disagree that the rising costs of health insurance are a drag on the economy? Do you dispute the CBO's projections of it's percentage of GDP in the future?

In short, other than really liking the status quo - what do you suggest?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) periodically releases its 75-year health care spending projections. Current projections forecast the following health care spending levels:

Total spending on health care would rise from 16% of GDP in 2007 to 25% in 2025, 37% in 2050 and 49% in 2082.
Federal spending on Medicare (net of beneficiaries premiums) and Medicaid would rise from 4% of GDP in 2007 to 7% in 2025, 12% in 2050 and 19% in 2082.
SOHC4 #289
1977 CB550K - SOLD
1997 YAMAHA XJ600S - SOLD
1986 GL1200I - SOLD
2004 BMW R1150R

Jetting: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg258435#msg258435
Needles:  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg253711#msg253711

Offline MCRider

  • Such is the life of a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,376
  • Today's Lesson: One good turn deserves another.
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #317 on: September 10, 2009, 01:50:41 PM »
SNIP

 Besides that, auto rates can go down, I have never seen my health ins go down even though I have used it once in 4 years and all that was done is some 800mg ibuprofen was prescribed. snip

Addressing just this one issue: insurance premiums are based on the experience of the pool, not the individual. Its important to realize that.

Any insurance policy that appears to give credit to the individual is somehow tweaking the theory, by charging a higher premium than necessary, in the case of a "refund rider", or playing other games.

The raw theory of insurance is that a pool of participants contibutes to the pot. The risk that in a certain size pool, X number of participants will fall to the risk, (that's what actuaries figure out) but we don't know which participant will win that "lottery".  The potential cost is divided among the participants (plus a profit margin) based on the expected "lottery winners" that get to draw from the pot.  It is totally possible and expected that many participants will likely never draw from the pot, but that does not decrease the exposure of the pot to risk, nor does it entitle the participant to some sort of benefit. That participant may "win" the lottery next.

In the case of car insurance, like at State Farm, they have a contractual formula which states if the claims experience of the pool is below a certain amount, they will refund a certain amount.  This can be looked at in a few ways. The more cynical among us would say they are over charging in the first place to give themselves the cushion to provide a "feels good" premium refund.
Ride Safe:
Ron
1988 NT650 HawkGT;  1978 CB400 Hawk;  1975 CB750F -Free Bird; 1968 CB77 Super Hawk -Ticker;  Phaedrus 1972 CB750K2- Build Thread
"Sometimes the light's all shining on me, other times I can barely see, lately it appears to me, what a long, strange trip its been."

Offline Inigo Montoya

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,855
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #318 on: September 10, 2009, 02:15:09 PM »
I understand what you are saying. I still just cant accept how it is run though. Why are options so limited? We can probably thank lobbies for that on. Then the deregulation of the health insurance industry, I sometimes wonder if there ever was any, sure puts the cards in their hands.
I feel auto insurance is enough of a scam sometimes but health insurance is no better than hiway robbery.

I guess maybe I am just bitter for paying almost 5000 a year for coverage.

Offline ev0lve

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,930
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #319 on: September 10, 2009, 02:16:23 PM »
I did read that awhile ago. Here's what I thought

PLEASE EVALUATE THIS PROPOSED SOLUTION.  PLEASE TRY TO BE OBJECTIVE AND NON-PARTISAN.  PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK -- CONSTRUCTIVELY

Once again, the solution is not to take away more control from the consumer (the patient, the taxpayer, us), and give it to some government bureaucrat.  Nor is it good to allow the insurance company bureaucrats to keep control, either!

I think the solution is to give the consumer more choice, and give them an incentive to try to reduce the costs THEMSELVES.

I think the problem of rising health care costs is primarily a result of patients not bothering to think about the costs at all because they don't think they have to.  Patients typically don't care, because they know that the insurance company is going to pay.  Patients don't ask simple questions that any normal consumer in any other market would ask like "how much will that cost?", "why is that so expensive?", "do I really need that?", and "isn't there a cheaper way?"

This is fundamentally flawed for the average person for the same reasons we're not all mechanics. It requires specialized knowledge not everyone or even most have or will ever have. My grandmother would not have faired well under these conditions.

Quote
Let me try to illustrate this with an example:
If you walk into a supermarket and you can either buy lobster for $15/lb. or hamburger for $4/lb., how likely are you to buy lobster every night for dinner?

If, on the other hand, you knew that somebody else was paying for your groceries, you might be more inclined to buy the lobster, even though the hamburger may, in fact, have better nutritional value.  In fact, you might even be more likely to buy the lobster JUST BECAUSE you know that other people could buy it on YOUR insurance premium dollar, so "why not".  After all, it will only increase your insurance premium by a couple cents, when spread out among all the other shoppers.  Besides, those other shoppers are probably eating lobster on my insurance premiums, so why shouldn't I?

I think this is less personal responsibility in buying lobster coverage and more to do with with doctor's being required to cover their collective asses because they'll get sued into the ground if they don't get you that MRI. Malpractice reform is probably the better option for this.

Quote
Now, let's extend that analogy to health care.  if we could incent the patients to be more efficient with their healthcare spending, we wouldn't need the bureaucrats at the insurance company or in the government to ration the care, and the cost would be much lower.  The patients would take responsibility for their own choices, and expect more from their doctors, drug companies, and diagnostic equipment, for the same money.

You might also find that people take better care of themselves because they don't want to spend more money on health issues later.

Having some vague recollection of my thinking in my twenties and thirties and my ability to consider and actually predict  the consequences of some of my actions I think you may, for the first time I can remember, be placing a bit to much faith in folks.

Quote
So, I'm thinking that increasing the deductibles is a major part of the solution.  First off, it will make the insurance premiums cheaper right off the bat.  Secondly, it will incent the patients to bargain with their medical providers and ask the difficult questions about necessity and price, rather than just saying, "sure, let's do it, what the hell".  Then, the costs are lower, the providers would have to compete for business (always a good thing), and the providers would strive to come up with better, and/or cheaper methods to provide the same service.
Well, no. Higher deductibles are an incentive to not see the doctor. I know several folks with high deductible insurance. My take is it's counter productive to wellness overall.

Quote
Now, remember the money saved on the insurance premiums because of the higher deductibles?  GIVE THAT MONEY TO THE EMPLOYEES in order to pay for their regular health care.  You know, the stuff that doesn't exceed the deductibles:  Regular check-ups, etc.  The only restriction should be that they can ONLY SPEND THAT MONEY ON HEALTH-RELATED EXPENSES.  If they manage to save enough, they can use it to get their teeth fixed, to get breast enhancements, whatever.  Let them accumulate the money year after year and save up for costly stuff that they want done like lap-band surgeries, whatever.

That's kind of the point there in the beginning. You can get high-deductible insurance easily right now. But whoa to you if you actually want to use it. When Timmy's got a fever the misses and I will sit down and consider the cost benefit ratio of letting him see a doctor. I did this with my cat when he was dying. But he was a cat. If I had to be rational with a kid on the line I suspect I would rack those charges right up just to be safe - and then I'd deal with the aftermath of going bankrupt.

The amount of money accumulated is likely not enough to even start covering any serious surgery.

This is a non-starter idea in the real world. Pooled risk seems to me the only real way to get the cost under control.

Quote
Getting the costs down will help with Medicare and Medicaid, and the VA Hospitals, too.  All the learned efficiency from trying to keep the patients happy will lead to cost reductions ACROSS THE BOARD, and will lead to doctors, drug companies, hospitals and medical device manufactures innovating more in order to generate more profit and to make the patients happier.

Sure, I haven't ironed out all the details, but this idea sounds a hell of a lot better to me than anything I'm hearing from that mess of a health care "reform" bill so far.

So, what do you think?  Does this start to meet the needs?  Does it encourage innovation?  Does it preserve our excellent health care system for everyone?  Does it make health care more accessible?  Does it make it better for EVERYBODY?

Short answer. No.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 02:23:16 PM by Iggy »

Offline MCRider

  • Such is the life of a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,376
  • Today's Lesson: One good turn deserves another.
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #320 on: September 10, 2009, 02:35:25 PM »
I understand what you are saying. I still just cant accept how it is run though. Why are options so limited? We can probably thank lobbies for that on. Then the deregulation of the health insurance industry, I sometimes wonder if there ever was any, sure puts the cards in their hands.
I feel auto insurance is enough of a scam sometimes but health insurance is no better than hiway robbery.

I guess maybe I am just bitter for paying almost 5000 a year for coverage.
The pressure on the health insurance pools comes from the "cost shifting" which occurs when the government mandated emergency room and medicaid freebies are piled onto the invoices for those of us who are insured (and selfpay). Providers cannot do it for free, There are hard costs that must be covered and the actuaries cannot plan ahead for what is unknown.

It is a side-effect of our system where we are basically productive to excess and want to help those less fortunate. I think there are more people now who game the system than there are "less fortunates" and cleaning out the riff-raff is so unpleasant it likely won't get done.

Which is why compassion should never be federalized but should stay local. So we can call those who game the system to atone, and we likely know on a personal level who really needs help and why.
Ride Safe:
Ron
1988 NT650 HawkGT;  1978 CB400 Hawk;  1975 CB750F -Free Bird; 1968 CB77 Super Hawk -Ticker;  Phaedrus 1972 CB750K2- Build Thread
"Sometimes the light's all shining on me, other times I can barely see, lately it appears to me, what a long, strange trip its been."

Offline Ecosse

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,051
  • Member #4139
    • My 550 walk around video
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #321 on: September 10, 2009, 02:55:12 PM »
...compassion should never be federalized but should stay local. So we can call those who game the system to atone, and we likely know on a personal level who really needs help and why.

well put mc. this idea that we participate at a local level is what the founding fathers intended regarding government, because it's a bottom to top thing not other way round, and it applies to economics too. hmmm,  the leftists in these parts have a bumper sticker: think globally- act locally. seems to have an ironic air of wisdom to it.

1974 CB550K     
                 
            Help stop TORTURE and SLAUGHTER of cats, dogs, and other kept animals.                                                  www.animalsasia.org

                                  Your 1%er name

                                                A WORTHY EFFORT: http://www.honorflight.org.

Offline ev0lve

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,930
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #322 on: September 10, 2009, 03:01:03 PM »
Which is why compassion should never be federalized but should stay local. So we can call those who game the system to atone, and we likely know on a personal level who really needs help and why.

Medicare is federalized compassion. Social Security is federalized compassion. schip is federalized compassion. Do we abolish these programs and more? If not I don't understand your statement.

Offline Ecosse

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,051
  • Member #4139
    • My 550 walk around video
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #323 on: September 10, 2009, 03:18:12 PM »
Which is why compassion should never be federalized but should stay local. So we can call those who game the system to atone, and we likely know on a personal level who really needs help and why.

Medicare is federalized compassion. Social Security is federalized compassion. schip is federalized compassion. Do we abolish these programs and more? If not I don't understand your statement.

imo: the answer is no. simply because they all are so ingrained into the system it's foolish to use them as an argument for obamacare-  the fed is effing those up too so why do y'all think nationalized insurance will fare better? it's because we have these systems (ss, et al) in place that make further fed intrusion into our lives more obviously wrong-headed.

it's also simplistic to dismiss some who are against obama, and gang, stripping away what's left of our liberty as greedy conservative capitalist pigs. that insults the intelligence of all concerned. capitalism got us to the point where we have the luxury to whine about how how unfair capitalism is.


edit: i mention capitalism because this always comes back to a private vs. public sector debate.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 03:21:59 PM by Ecosse »
1974 CB550K     
                 
            Help stop TORTURE and SLAUGHTER of cats, dogs, and other kept animals.                                                  www.animalsasia.org

                                  Your 1%er name

                                                A WORTHY EFFORT: http://www.honorflight.org.

Offline MCRider

  • Such is the life of a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,376
  • Today's Lesson: One good turn deserves another.
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #324 on: September 10, 2009, 03:51:29 PM »
Which is why compassion should never be federalized but should stay local. So we can call those who game the system to atone, and we likely know on a personal level who really needs help and why.

Medicare is federalized compassion. Social Security is federalized compassion. schip is federalized compassion. Do we abolish these programs and more? If not I don't understand your statement.

In my perfect world, yes, absolutely, abolish them.  Return to reliance on the extended family and the County welfare systems.

But those programs are here, ingrained. Does not give any credibility or moral authority to the idea of piling on more such programs.

Hard to conquer more than one hill at a time. First thing is to stop more such programs. Then start whittling away at what's there.
Ride Safe:
Ron
1988 NT650 HawkGT;  1978 CB400 Hawk;  1975 CB750F -Free Bird; 1968 CB77 Super Hawk -Ticker;  Phaedrus 1972 CB750K2- Build Thread
"Sometimes the light's all shining on me, other times I can barely see, lately it appears to me, what a long, strange trip its been."