Health Care Schmealth Care

[soaring crane]

[Marblehead]

All I will say is that we should not jump to conclusion at this early stage. Afterall, this is only the first step in the process of the US to adapt 'universal' health care and what has to this point been authorized has not even been tried and tested yet.

 

Let's wait to see what we do have now actually helps additional people.

 

What we have now can always be built upon and modified in order to make it more efficient and more 'universal'.

 

Peace & Love!

[soaring crane]

What we have now can always be built upon and modified in order to make it more efficient and more 'universal'.

 

Peace & Love!

 

lol, MB - I'm going to take a risk and suggest that you didn't read the article I posted. It's about being healthy, which has nothing to do with insurance or even medicine in most cases...

[joeblast]

hahaha - marble, all one needs to do is look at downstream effects of what the legislation will mean. its one big joke, it does exceedingly little to provide additional care or contain costs! in fact, the costs are going to explode, mostly because of the dishonestly optimistic ways in which the bill was crafted.

 

look up the laffer curve and what kept the country out of a depression in the very early 20s - the last thing the country needs is accelerated spending, regardless of how its justified. if anything, government spending needs to be cut drastically. I'm a firm believer that if someone ties your shoes for you every single time, someone will be shocked at the seven year old that cant tie his shoes! (true story of someone I know.) Kids need to be taught self sufficiency!

 

SC - I took that similarly to how marble did - yes, there's the "you need to be responsible for your own health" bit in there, but overall it seemed to have a significant compliment of how the "bill" is going to affect the country. I honestly dont see how social security on steroids can be a good thing, crafted in secret with most voting on it having little clue of how the effects of the decision will be felt, much less what the actual text was that was in it.

Edited March 29, 2010 by joeblast

[Marblehead]

lol, MB - I'm going to take a risk and suggest that you didn't read the article I posted. It's about being healthy, which has nothing to do with insurance or even medicine in most cases...

 

Okay, I confess. I read only the first couple sentences. My impression was that it was going to be a cutting down of what has been done to this point.

 

Okay, yeah. Live and eat healthy. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

hahaha - marble,

 

Well, at least I gave you two the opportunity for a laugh. That's good.

 

Peace & Love!

[soaring crane]

SC - I took that similarly to how marble did - yes, there's the "you need to be responsible for your own health" bit in there,

 

Joe - That's not a "bit", that's the whole point. That's what Maffetone's been writing about for 30 years. He accurately labels the entire argument about "Health Care" a big lie that benefits people who profit from making sure as many of us remain as unhealthy as possible. He might be somewhat diplomatic in this particular article, and he's not a foaming-at-the-mouth-zealot in any case, but I'm familiar with his work and I know his views on this and other topics. And I think they're quite accurate.

 

The man knows a lot about training for a marathon, too

[joeblast]

I find the focus on "making people sick so they can make more money" schtick a bit flimsy - the natural progression is toward disease and death, therefore the individual is tasked with his own preservation and that logically leads to there being the niche of things that preserve or enhance one's health. Who's out there discouraging you from eating healthy and working out?? There's a ton money to be made regardless which way you approach it, and if one is concerned with preserving his resources, then he will preserve health as well as wealth, build upon such, using the tools accordingly

[Marblehead]

Okay. So I went and read the entire article. I am in basic agreement with the author.

 

So what do we do? Have a war on junk food? Like the war on drugs? What a laugh.

 

As long as people want to buy drugs or junk food there will be someone willing to provide.

 

I think the author put too much blame on government, the health care profession and big business.

 

Freedom allows for choices. Yes, we can choose to go to McDonalds and buy a burger and fries or buy a nice salad. Our choice.

 

So should government have more control and start telling us what we can and cannot do? Not during my lifetime they won't!

 

I do agree with the author that it is the individual's responsibility to manitain their body (and mind) in a healthy condition. The problem is that many are totally ignorant as to the effects on their body over time by eating unhealthily.

 

So, in my opinion, along with universal health care there should be free (well, you know what I mean) counsel for people to get knowledge for eating healthy, including diet information for those who want to begin eating healthy or to loose weight.

 

Yes, the medical profession in most of the Western world is directed toward fixing something after it breaks. There are few efforts in guiding people how to perform regular maintenance of their body so things don't break in the first place.

 

There is a story I like to tell that probably isn't true but I tell it anyway. It is said the in ancient China doctors and other health care providers were paid according to how healthy their patients remained. The healthier the patients (the village) the better the compensation the doctor received. Exactly the opposite in most of the West.

 

Peace & Love!

[joeblast]

The ironic bit is, more taxes are pretty much necessary at this point anyway because of all the unfunded liabilities the country has - and then to go forth and create new entitlements on the very same scale as the current ponzi schemes that are basically $100+trillion in government giveaway...well...its like screw me, why is my team running the football towards the other end zone at this stage of the game?! The lynch pin being hugely rosy assumptions on numbers that are used to justify all the additional spending, but the money isnt going to be there. I read a funny analogy - its like going on vacation to Tahiti next month for two weeks, all inclusive - and justifying it by saying you're just going to simply cut out the lattes you have every afternoon as a means to 'pay' for it - voila, "deficit neutral!"

 

(wait for a hankerin for lattes in the afternoon, now...)

 

California spent themselves into oblivion, and the feds are pretty much making sure the country follows.

 

Too bad Ron Paul hasnt gained more traction - his Putting the Constitution Back into the Oval Office essay had some pretty good ideas.

 

And it doesnt include more handouts.

[Apech]

As a dweller in a land of state medicine can anyone explain to me what the issue is with Obama's reforms? It seems obvious and necessary to me. Old people, poor people and children can't always look out for themselves - don't they need help?

[Marblehead]

Old people, poor people and children can't always look out for themselves - don't they need help?

 

Yes. And that is why I support it even though it has flaws. Hey, this is our first step. Maybe our politicians well make it better over time. I sure hope so anyhow.

 

Peace & Love!

[joeblast]

Well, the two basic tenets or justifications used were that it was going to help bend the cost curve down and cover the rest of the uninsured. Neither of which these "reforms" achieve. The CBO numbers they were waving around were sculpted very carefully to give the appearance that the price tag was going to come in under a trillion - but what the CBO gets, it must score - nevermind what is left out of what needs to be scored to give an accurate representation, apparently its not their place to say so?

 

Who was that in X files movie that said "my god, this is not colonization, this is spontaneous repopulation!!!" That's exactly what this bill is - spontaneous repopulation of the current healthcare insurance landscape, and it left out probably the top four or five ways to actually save money. Of course the transformation wont happen overnight, but the conditions this is going to set up will destroy the private market, simply because 1) the government's willing (at the moment) to fully pick up the tab and 2) tax something too hard and investment disappears.

 

Plainly, a lot of the reason costs have ballooned is because the end user is so far removed from the actual prices of what goes on. It most certainly wouldnt have happened not for FDR's price and wage controls that led this this hugely dominant employer based market.

 

vjH4QBSwWlg

gah, youtube tag not working?

Edited March 31, 2010 by joeblast

[soaring crane]

As a dweller in a land of state medicine can anyone explain to me what the issue is with Obama's reforms?

 

The package turned into a dysfunctional web of red tape and loopholes that won't benefit nearly as many people as it could have if it had just stuck to the basics. The problem is that the US has a de facto parliament made up of thousands of private interest groups with no oversight and no accountability. Even the two parties that rule the country are self-regulated, there being no mention of parties or the rules they need to follow in the Constitution.

 

Regardless, the gist of Dr Maffetone's writing on the subject is that "Health" Care and Insurance is a red herring tossed out to the U.S. public as a way of keeping them sated and distracted (again, de facto, not necessarily consciously or intentional). There should be cries of indignation when Pepsico and Kraft Foods barter contracts to peddle their poison in the public schools, but, no, that doesn't happen. You see, the "Health Industry" has medications available for kids who develop diabetes, so no worries mate.

 

There are few things in life that are more unappetizing for me than a stroll down the aisles in an American grocery store. And that's specifcially because virtually every item on the shelves screams out at me with some bogus health claim.

 

Related question: what are deductibles and co-pays like in the US now?

[Apech]

OK thanks everyone for replies.

 

BUT is the objection to this particular scheme - or are those against, against the very idea? I ask because I instinctively feel that education and health are key for young people - no matter what socio-economic group they belong to and if there is a one valid role for government it is to protect and nurture the children and give everyone opportunity ... or at least a chance for a better life. I don't understand what is supposed to happen to poor people (often through no fault of their own) if they get seriously ill in the richest country in the world - what's the alternative to what Obama is doing?

[joeblast]

Its how its being done, and its the way its being done. Devil's always in the details!

 

Here's a very good discussion on the constitutionality of the bill, Judge Napolitano filling in for Beck, got the Florida AG who's bringing a lawsuit basically saying that this bill is an overstepping of federal bounds and they dont have the authority to do a bunch of what's in this bill. ~15 minutes.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4131967/constitutionality-of-health-care-law

 

 

sorry SC, veering the thread a bit...or does this tie in at all, in your opinion?

Edited April 1, 2010 by joeblast

[Apech]

Its how its being done, and its the way its being done. Devil's always in the details!

 

Here's a very good discussion on the constitutionality of the bill, Judge Napolitano filling in for Beck, got the Florida AG who's bringing a lawsuit basically saying that this bill is an overstepping of federal bounds and they dont have the authority to do a bunch of what's in this bill. ~15 minutes.

http://video.foxnews...health-care-law

 

 

sorry SC, veering the thread a bit...or does this tie in at all, in your opinion?

 

So what's the alternative?

[joeblast]

Pretty much every alternative that wasnt considered in making this healthcare bill.

 

Companies need to be able to sell countrywide and not just statewide - I can imagine how much better of a deal I'd find looking through a couple hundred companies as opposed to...three?

 

Tort reform will get rid of the cover-your-ass medicine currently practiced.

 

Increased use of tax free healthcare accounts - bring the costs closer to the end user - people will be more likely to shop around and ultimately spend less when they see actual costs in their face instead of this large amorphous lump sum taken out of their check. That'd be like getting a bill labeled "groceries" for $200 every week, how much do you think you're going to get in food that you actually like and will eat? How much of that will you toss?

 

Any single one of those 3 would save a ton more than what this current plan purports that it will save. Keep in mind, the CBO scores what they're given - so GIGO, if they get fantasy numbers, they'll give a prediction on fantasy.