Ladies and Gentlemen - Camille Paglia Returns

A Republican masquerading as a Democrat. Yep, that is brilliant.
 
I'll read this more full later.

I wanted to comment on this line...
"Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing."

I hear this often. This implies that a profit driven healthcare system doesn't have rationing. This concept is completely false. Today's system is profit driven and in this system we have rationing. I'd argue that profit-driven healthcare is even more prone to rationing.
 
Glaucus said:
A Republican masquerading as a Democrat. Yep, that is brilliant.
Click to expand...

I see her as a thinking Democrat. :wink:

Oh wait, do you mean that since Ms. Paglia is expressing her opinion, which may be contrary to what the party in power would have us believe, she is not "one of them"? Quick.. send her link to the White House for review! :roflmao:

Regards,
Ltstanfo
 
faethor said:
I'll read this more full later.

I wanted to comment on this line...
"Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing."

I hear this often. This implies that a profit driven healthcare system doesn't have rationing. This concept is completely false. Today's system is profit driven and in this system we have rationing. I'd argue that profit-driven healthcare is even more prone to rationing.
Click to expand...

While I certainly cannot be everywhere with regards to private health care, from my first hand experience (along with experience of my parents / sister) I have not seen the rationing you would argue. I can think of at least 3 cases in family history where having the private option (in this case Blue Cross) was the best choice, the other two (Medicare / TriCare - both Government funded and pseudo privately managed) would have allowed fewer options and shorter stay in hospital.

Other's may have different stories but from my perspective I want nothing to do with government health care.

Regards,
Ltstanfo
 
faethor said:
I hear this often. This implies that a profit driven healthcare system doesn't have rationing. This concept is completely false. Today's system is profit driven and in this system we have rationing. I'd argue that profit-driven healthcare is even more prone to rationing.
Click to expand...
Sure they ration. Rationing is just another way of saying "saving costs". And in the US that's done by not insuring high risk patients, or doing so at a stupid premium.
 
ltstanfo said:
While I certainly cannot be everywhere with regards to private health care, from my first hand experience (along with experience of my parents / sister) I have not seen the rationing you would argue. I can think of at least 3 cases in family history where having the private option (in this case Blue Cross) was the best choice, the other two (Medicare / TriCare - both Government funded and pseudo privately managed) would have allowed fewer options and shorter stay in hospital.
Click to expand...
More care isn't necessarily better care. I've heard of private hospitals performing unnecessary tests and keeping patients longer NOT for the benefit of the patient but for the benefit of the reports sent to stock holders. It's like:
- Hey, I scraped my elbow!
- Are you insured? Great, let's take some x-rays and here's some drugs. You'll see the surgeon in about an hour.

Other's may have different stories but from my perspective I want nothing to do with government health care.
Click to expand...
But that may be because "government healthcare" is a four letter word in the US and is a political hot potato. I'm sure there are powerful lobbies out there wishing to do away with it all together. In places like Canada it's the opposite although a sensitive political issue as well. Canadian governments would cut education and military before they cut health care. Even our current right wing government wouldn't dream of cutting healthcare funds, at least not on a national level (Alberta has talked about privatizing portions of it, but it's probably not gonna happen there either). Personally I think most Americans have just been brainwashed about the horrors of socialism in general but especially government healthcare.

To be honest, I'm surprised Republicans oppose it. Nationalized healthcare would destroy the insurance business, but it would also take a load of all other business. To boot, it would help poorer sick people get healthy and become more productive in the work force, which of course means a boost to the economy in general. Seems like a win-win to me.
 
ltstanfo said:
Other's may have different stories but from my perspective I want nothing to do with government health care.
Click to expand...

The beautiful thing about a public option is that it is optional.
 
Glaucus said:
[Sure they ration. Rationing is just another way of saying "saving costs". And in the US that's done by not insuring high risk patients, or doing so at a stupid premium.
Click to expand...
Not to nitpick, but rationing is simply the controlled distribution of resources. *Every* for-profit corporation and non-profit organization has to limit its spending in one way or another or it will go bankrupt.

I cannot even put into words how ridiculous it is to imply that private insurance companies do not 'ration' their resources. I suppose there is a certain irony in the fact that the same people who agitate against a supposedly anti-capitalist health care reform show such a grave lack of understanding of how capitalism works.

Personally, I get rather sad seeing how health care reform is being debated in the US. There is absolutely nothing constructive about shouting "rationing" and "socialism." I just wished the US media would spend more time on explaining different health care proposals rather than provide a forum to obvious loonies who have nothing remotely intelligent to say.
 
JoBBo said:
ltstanfo said:
Other's may have different stories but from my perspective I want nothing to do with government health care.
Click to expand...

The beautiful thing about a public option is that it is optional.
Click to expand...

Unless the "public option" leads to no choice at all. As I was discussing with a friend at lunch, there is no way to tell how the "public option" will effect health care in the long term. It may be benign and offer insurance to the (currently) uninsured. If so, then good. But if it is possible that it's market share leads private options to be unaffordable then we are stuck with what the government is willing to offer... then no choice at all. I don't think either side can say with certainty which way the outcome will be. I'd also like to mention that given the government's enormous success at making Medicare financially viable I have little faith in a "revamped" system (but that is my opinion).

Your mileage may vary.

Regards,
Ltstanfo
 
ltstanfo said:
I have not seen the rationing you would argue.
Click to expand...
I'd bet you have. Read your policy. Many have a select list of Drs and hospitals. Go to the wrong one and you pay a higher out of pocket. Now, just because you haven't been sick or happened to choose the Dr that's part of your plan simply means your life fit comfortably into the rationing. All medical plans 'work' when we don't use them.

But if it is possible that it's market share leads private options to be unaffordable then we are stuck with what the government is willing to offer... then no choice at all.
Click to expand...
Or it's every choice because then there is no question if the nearest hospital will cost you more than driving 10 miles to the next hospital.

I'd also like to mention that given the government's enormous success at making Medicare financially viable ..
Click to expand...
And here's the rub. Private industry pushs the elderly and the handicapped to Medicare. The older we get the more expensive hospitals are. The handicapped of course have very expensive needs. Private industry pushes the risks to the government. Expanding Medicare to cover the healthy inserts more profits into the system. It equalizes risk for the government. But sure likely the head of United Healthcare may have to cut his $102,000 per hour salary.

BTW all healthcare is socialism... The well to do (healthy) always pay for the sick no matter which way we slice it.
 
ltstanfo said:
Unless the "public option" leads to no choice at all. As I was discussing with a friend at lunch, there is no way to tell how the "public option" will effect health care in the long term. It may be benign and offer insurance to the (currently) uninsured. If so, then good. But if it is possible that it's market share leads private options to be unaffordable then we are stuck with what the government is willing to offer... then no choice at all. I don't think either side can say with certainty which way the outcome will be.
Click to expand...
Nothing is certain but death. I happen to live in a country with a health care system that offers public as well as private options. Any private insurer who would like to do business in this country is legally bound to offer at least one basic care plan that is comparable to public health insurance and must not cost considerably more to anyone, irregardless of pre-existing conditions.

(Of course, before this law came into effect, private insurers lobbied heavily against it. The most surprising argument was that they cannot compete with non-profit insurance companies on cost, thus being forced to offer a basic plan at a similar price without the possibility to weed out potentially expensive customers would put them at a serious disadvantage. What is so interesting about this is that the main argument for a privatized health-care system is that competition increases the overall efficiency in a way that exceeds any added costs that are created due to the need to pay out profits to private investors. The private insurers argued that this was not the case, inadvertently raising questions about the validity of their own business models. In the end, it worked out so far. The private insurers are still around and costs for their customers with premium care plans did not skyrocket either.)
 
I'd bet you have. Read your policy. Many have a select list of Drs and hospitals. Go to the wrong one and you pay a higher out of pocket. Now, just because you haven't been sick or happened to choose the Dr that's part of your plan simply means your life fit comfortably into the rationing. All medical plans 'work' when we don't use them.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the excellent suggestion. Just checked my policy online and recently had to consult with them. No limit on doctors hospitals in this state (Alabama is primarily a BCBS state - largest provider here). I've never had an issue here. Even if I want to go out of state (had to once), never had a problem. Thanks for asking. I may have to pay a higher premium (out of pocket) some day but not so far. Likewise for the family.

Or it's every choice because then there is no question if the nearest hospital will cost you more than driving 10 miles to the next hospital.
Click to expand...

Again, never had that issue.

And here's the rub. Private industry pushs the elderly and the handicapped to Medicare. The older we get the more expensive hospitals are. The handicapped of course have very expensive needs. Private industry pushes the risks to the government. Expanding Medicare to cover the healthy inserts more profits into the system. It equalizes risk for the government. But sure likely the head of United Healthcare may have to cut his $102,000 per hour salary.
Click to expand...

I know several retirees who maintain private policies (yes, they can afford it) and have no plans to take the Medicare option. I'm planning on having a private policy at retirement... how that works out of course remains to be seen. Can everyone afford to? Sadly no, but for those who can, why should they be pushed elsewhere?

healthcare is socialism... The well to do (healthy) always pay for the sick no matter which way we slice it.
Click to expand...

Which is an interesting truth, at least to a degree.

Regards,
Ltstanfo
 
JoBBo said:
Nothing is certain but death. I happen to live in a country with a health care system that offers public as well as private options. Any private insurer who would like to do business in this country is legally bound to offer at least one basic care plan that is comparable to public health insurance and must not cost considerably more to anyone, irregardless of pre-existing conditions.
Which country please? I'd like to read more on your healthcare system to better understand its working relationship between public/private health care.

Thanks,
Ltstanfo
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
ltstanfo said:
Which country please? I'd like to read more on your healthcare system to better understand its working relationship between public/private health care.
Click to expand...
Germany. Here is a reasonably informative article about the health-care system: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... man-model/

Despite not being short, the article is a bit light on details and slightly inaccurate in parts but I think it is a good starting point. A few quick notes: Germans spend 10% of GDP on health-care as opposed to 15% of GDP in the US. 85% of Germans are insured by one of the 200 available 'public' sickness funds, which compete against each other to a degree, whereas 15% chose plans offered by private for-profit insurance companies.

For the record, public sickness funds are not actually run by government officials but they are regulated more tightly than purely private insurers. Overall, there is more of a hands-on approach to health care in terms of legislation. If you do not have one single Medicare-type health plan for everyone, it is very important to focus on the standardization of administrative aspects. If you had hundreds of sickness funds who all used different unique patient forms and so on, there would be an incredible amount of overhead, which, to the best of my understanding, is one of the major reasons why administrative costs in the US health industry are unusually high.

Of course, the German model is not perfect either. But, when compared to the US, the Canadian/French and Dutch/German/Swiss models look all highly attractive, despite their differences.
 
ltstanfo said:
I've never had an issue here. Even if I want to go out of state (had to once), never had a problem. Thanks for asking. I may have to pay a higher premium (out of pocket) some day but not so far. Likewise for the family.
Click to expand...
Great...
You appear to be approaching this from a 'me' standpoint. I think the question is larger than Lstanfo but how to best run society. For an example using the same logic -- I've never had anyone I know murdered so I should support freeing all murders? Of course not.

We as a society should work at optimizing our situation. About every 6 years we lose the population of Huntsville due to lack of healthcare. 46 million Americans are without healthcare. Predominately these are under 65, due to Medicare. That's nearly 20% of the under 65 crowd. We see about 50% of bankruptcies due to medical reasons. We see companies with difficulties competing on a worldwide market, partly due to the high cost of healthcare in the US. The US as a whole has a system of healthcare which is statistically no better then the rest of the industrialized world at twice the price. Healthcare is 15% of GDP predicted to grow to 25% in the next couple of decades. The stresses, and a large one if financial to healthcare, of handicapped children means these families divorce at a much higher rate. Serious illness sometimes even requires divorce to prevent throwing the other partner out into the street due to debt.

I'd think the fiscally responsible Republicans would be behind this idea. It would stablize some families, reduce expenses on businesses, improve our world wide competitive position, and remove half of the bankruptcies. These seem to be values Republicans talk to. Why wouldn't they support these things?
 
You're correct Faethor that I am largely making my conversation based on "me", that is my experience that I can authenticate / validate. I do this because I am unsure of much of the arguing / facts presented by both sides. As an example, you cite 46 million people as uninsured (as does Obama). But, the numbers seem to vary greatly (as low as) 25 million to potentially as high as 50 million. I've seen / read various accounts where those who may be eligable for health care access don't apply (for whatever reason) and then there are the (newly) umployed who may need coverage. I choose to cover what I know for now, especially since we don't have a completed bill to really review. What I do know is that the committee bills being touted all seems to have several flaws (IMO). If we are really going to march down this health care "overhaul" route, we need to really examine it and not try to rahm (err ram) it down the country's collective throat before the end of the year and then try to "fix" it's myriad of inevitable problems later (again IMO).

Just this morning the news is reporting that the Obama administration "may" be agreeable to dropping the public option because they know public support is not there. So now they are talking about co-ops. Let's see the plan. Oh wait, they just want to ram it down out throats.

Do we need health care reform? I think so. Do we need what the various bills are currently touting (and the administration is pushing)? I'm not convinced.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

faethor said:
ltstanfo said:
I've never had an issue here. Even if I want to go out of state (had to once), never had a problem. Thanks for asking. I may have to pay a higher premium (out of pocket) some day but not so far. Likewise for the family.
Click to expand...
Great...
You appear to be approaching this from a 'me' standpoint. I think the question is larger than Lstanfo but how to best run society. For an example using the same logic -- I've never had anyone I know murdered so I should support freeing all murders? Of course not.

We as a society should work at optimizing our situation. About every 6 years we lose the population of Huntsville due to lack of healthcare. 46 million Americans are without healthcare. Predominately these are under 65, due to Medicare. That's nearly 20% of the under 65 crowd. We see about 50% of bankruptcies due to medical reasons. We see companies with difficulties competing on a worldwide market, partly due to the high cost of healthcare in the US. The US as a whole has a system of healthcare which is statistically no better then the rest of the industrialized world at twice the price. Healthcare is 15% of GDP predicted to grow to 25% in the next couple of decades. The stresses, and a large one if financial to healthcare, of handicapped children means these families divorce at a much higher rate. Serious illness sometimes even requires divorce to prevent throwing the other partner out into the street due to debt.

I'd think the fiscally responsible Republicans would be behind this idea. It would stablize some families, reduce expenses on businesses, improve our world wide competitive position, and remove half of the bankruptcies. These seem to be values Republicans talk to. Why wouldn't they support these things?
Click to expand...
 
JoBBo said:
Germany. Here is a reasonably informative article about the health-care system: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... man-model/
Click to expand...

JoBBo,

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this topic. To be honest, I had forgotten about this thread until I was posting in another thread this morning.

After doing some additional research including:

Wiki entry for German Health Care
Miller-Mccune
Examiner
Amiexpat

I find that there are several areas of the German health care system (in it complete form) that I like. The single most interesting aspect to me was how long Germany has had (some form of) national healthcare. I think that the US might be better off using the German model for reference rather than the French / Canadian models that are so often publicly reported. Were I to be in a less fortunate situation than I am now, I would certainly hope for something like the German model for my health care.

So where does this leave me? For now, I think I would like to see the administration propose something between a German / Swiss model for reformed healthcare. That would interest me enough to consider supporting such a massive change in US policy / spending. Now let's see where the politicians go. It will be interesting to see how the Obama administration approaches their revised efforts after their failure in August.

Thanks for the link!

Regards,
Ltstanfo
 
ltstanfo said:
Now let's see where the politicians go. It will be interesting to see how the Obama administration approaches their revised efforts after their failure in August.
Click to expand...

Anything that improves healthcare will cost the provider (either because it costs them more to provide or because it cuts into their profits). Therefore anything that improves healthcare will be fought against by the providers.

By "providers" here I mean the companies. Individual human beings may be motivated by altruism and professionalism (which can bring benefits in terms of prestige and gratitude), but in aggregate under the current system profit pushes out compassion and care because neither of those is itself profitable in terms of money - the measure of the corporation.

What the politicians will do is what they always do, vote according to the wishes of the people that paid for their campaigns. Ergo, there will once again be no healthcare reform. There is only one way to get it done but Obama is too pussy to do it. He needs to cram a public system down people's throats (which is actually a very popular idea) to break the current system of money influence. Once the corrupted corpses of the big providers have started to decompose into manageable sized chunks then the issue can be addressed again - but by then people will have realized they don't want the old system back.

Either Obama is pushing hard on a position he doesn't want nor anyone else wants so he can step back to his true position and watch everyone else fall over - or he's a total pussy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top