[bstone]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

You can't really discredit someone who has no credit in the first place. Starting with his first documentary 'Roger and Me' all the way up to 'Sicko', Michael Moore has lied through his teeth, manipulated facts for teenage consumption, told half the story, been a fear monger, and taken advantage of people lesser well off or even dead for his personal glory and profit. It's all blowing up in his face now.

Take a look at the real figures as to why many haven't got health insurance and it is much less (I and others have mentioned several reasons in this thread) than the 47 million Moore tries to sell. It's less than 10 million. That's not a healthcare crisis when the population of the US is almost 300 million. That's fixable.

I know I've posted this before....

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously...go there, read it and try to digest.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by bstone 

I know I've posted this before....

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously...go there, read it and try to digest.

I didn't realize that Obi Wan is not even living in America right now. All of the stats he can pull up are interesting to analyze, but it is pretty hard to assess the culture from afar. Many of the problems we are faced with now are indeed unique to our culture, particularly the completely reactionary and illogical disdain for the mere prospects of even partially publicizing our health care system.

Like I said in another thread, I think that this has come about from the media's massive campaign in the 90s to blow apart Hillary's health care proposal, and probably in collaboration with the media companies and other big money makers. When you break it down this way, all of this just doesn't make any sense to me...

public schools - check
social security - check
public law enforcement - check
public fire protection - check
public health insurance for elderly and those eligible for Medicare/Medicaid - check
military run by and controlled the government - check
national security run by government - check
health care - OH NO!!! Huge monster red flag!! NO NO nono no no!! Can't have that! Look at me freak out! Don't even SAY those words... not happening, ever. NO! Get it through your head, we are NOT doing that. Don't even want to talk about it.

WTF?

[peeb]

WTF indeed. It might have something to do with the VAST FUD campaign run by the 'health' industry?

[Spliffdaddy]

public schools - failing miserably
social security - seriously failing. soon to be bankrupt
public law enforcement - so you thinks cops are good decent folks?
public fire protection - um, actually, most fire departments are volunteer and are funded locally
public health insurance for elderly and those eligible for Medicare/Medicaid - between this and social security each family will owe $340,000 in order to continue current benefit levels.
military run by and controlled the government - hell yeah!
national security run by government - Well, we could let the UN handle this for us

Health care - The current single-payer system seems to be in FAR better shape than any of our government programs - with the exception of our military.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Good question and the first step to getting coverage. There is an AHIRC database that provides a host of different plans specifically geared towards artists as well as the self-employed under all income brackets broken down by state and by craft such as; Architecture Design, Dance, Entertainment Industry Unions, Film/Television/Theatre, Literary Arts, Graphic arts groups, multiple arts groups, music groups, and visual arts groups.

There are also links within that same database for Low income individuals and families, information regarding HSAs, short-term insurance, insurance for the 'uninsurable' or 'high risk' occupations all including dental. There is also information on a host of discount plans and providers. There is also the National Association for the Self Employed and Graphic Artists Guild which is more specialized. I found an artist online who has a comprehensive plan costing less than $200.00 per month under Blue Cross Blue Shield.

All in less than 5 minutes online.

I found several organizations that after paying to join, you could pay for insurance at group rates...

AHIRC Resource Listings

Where were you able to find this plan that cost under $200/month?

[besson3c]

I'm sick of all of this bitching about Michael Moore.

Discredit what he is saying, rather than Michael Moore himself. I don't have two shits about Michael Moore, I really don't. We might as well be talking about Paris Hilton as far as I'm concerned. Care level: 0.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm sick of all of this bitching about Michael Moore.

Discredit what he is saying, rather than Michael Moore himself.

Go through this thread again and you'll see he isn't saying anything. He presented a series of segments and twisted facts to get a rise out of people who don't know better. He has always done things that way. The documentary which catapulted him to fame, Roger and Me, was based on the premise that General Motors CEO Roger Smith was evading all attempts by Moore for an interview. Well, it turns out Smith did give a lengthy interview and Moore dumped it on the cutting room floor. And now with Sicko, Moore capitalises on US hate by presenting a very distorted picture of the state of health care in the US and everything he has said about Canada, the UK, France and Cuba has backfired in his face. Go through this thread. Opinions, critics, facts, reviews, links, it's all there.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Go through this thread again and you'll see he isn't saying anything. He presented a series of segments and twisted facts to get a rise out of people who don't know better. He has always done things that way. The documentary which catapulted him to fame, Roger and Me, was based on the premise that General Motors CEO Roger Smith was evading all attempts by Moore for an interview. Well, it turns out Smith did give a lengthy interview and Moore dumped it on the cutting room floor. And now with Sicko, Moore capitalises on US hate by presenting a very distorted picture of the state of health care in the US and everything he has said about Canada, the UK, France and Cuba has backfired in his face. Go through this thread. Opinions, critics, facts, reviews, links, it's all there.

I think you need to reread the thread again, particularly the part where I said "care level: 0".

I really don't care about Michael Moore. I have better things to obsess over. I'll watch Sicko, digest it, and come to my own conclusions just like I do with all other information. What more is there to be said? If you want to pick apart Michael Moore, you are welcome to. I just don't care. It's about as interesting to me as picking apart Paris Hilton.

[bstone]

It's not hard for me to realize how broken the health care system is. I work in it every single day. I am in school and will be starting medical school soon. I have spent thousands and thousands of hours of my life deeply involved with the US health care system. Heck- I even built and ran a health care system in a county which was devestated after Katrina. I am a veritable expert.

My expert opinion: the US health care system is incredibly broken. We need a national health care system. The end.

[OldManMac]

It's not as broken as your 5 day old car, is it?

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'll watch Sicko

Oh ok. So how many times now have you taken part in a debate on MacNN without any experience of the topic matter? Ubuntu, Dreamweaver, Sicko. That's three times you have gone on a rant about something without even looking at it and argued with people who have better experience than you. And that's only what little I have read of you. I don't want to imagine how much more it is.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by bstone 

I even built and ran a health care system in a county which was devestated after Katrina. I am a veritable expert.

And Lord Protector of the Planet Earth Al Gore, Peace Be Upon Him, invented the internet.

How to Win Any Argument On the Internet || kuro5hin.org

2) CLAIM YOU WORK IN WHATEVER FIELD YOU'RE ARGUING ABOUT. If you find yourself discussing anime, say you're an animator who works for some Japanese company that manufactures games about nipples. If somebody begins complaining about web design, tell them you're a professional web designer who has completed projects for large conglomerates such as Coca Cola and Macromedia and the moon. If you're arguing about World War II and the political ramifications of Asia's isolation sentiment, declare you're the President of Asia. There is no subject that you, the professional, does not know about thanks to your extensive work in the field of, well, whatever you're arguing. It doesn't matter if all your firsthand knowledge of the subject derives from half an episode of "Pokemon" you overheard while cleaning your cat's litter, the magic of the Internet allows you to have gained real-life experience of any given subject in any given industry at any given time!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Oh ok. So how many times now have you taken part in a debate on MacNN without any experience of the topic matter? Ubuntu, Dreamweaver, Sicko. That's three times you have gone on a rant about something without even looking at it and argued with people who have better experience than you. And that's only what little I have read of you. I don't want to imagine how much more it is.

Do you live in the US? Have you ever? When? Do you live in Canada? Have you? When?

If you haven't lived in the US, what experience do you have in which to discuss health care in this country? If you haven't lived in Canada, what experience do you have to criticize Canada's system?

At least I have had experience in various Unix/Linux distros, in prior versions of Dreamweaver and web design in general, and with Michael Moore's movies. Can it be said that most critics of Canada's system in here have experience with it?

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you haven't lived in the US, what experience do you have in which to discuss health care in this country?

Yes I have (Boston for seven years). Moore hasn't lived in Canada, France, Cuba or the UK.

At least I have had experience in various Unix/Linux distros, in prior versions of Dreamweaver and web design in general, and with Michael Moore's movies.

When you gave someone a headache about Ubuntu without ever having used it your cred died right there. When for a whole year you were slinging it out with Dreamweaver users without any idea it was also a coding app, worked in different coding languages and synched up with MySQL databases, your credibility died right there. And your web design is ancient. It's bad. It's not good at all.

Now you're defending Sicko and attacking its critics without watching the movie. Then you say you don't care about Moore but then you go and say something as ridiculous as the above "At least I have had experience ... with Michael Moore's movies. "

So you do or don't care about Moore? Make your damn mind up, Mr. So Overqualified we don't dare speak with you

Can't believe what an ass you are. Go do something useful with your life instead of going on the net and trying to look like He-man Of All Things. Pathetic.

[goMac]

Here is the one reason that I feel health care should be nationalized:

Insurance companies are for profit organizations.

Insurance should not be for profit at all. You're kidding yourself if you think people who run insurance businesses are honest, hardworking, choir boys. The executives have fat paychecks, and the insurance companies have lobbyists. That's tons of wasted money that could go to treating people. The goal of an insurance company is to make more money, not to treat you.

The right likes to pretend that a free market will solve this all, and that some upstart company will come along and offer more competitive coverage. But no one has enough capital to start an insurance company. And look at the existing companies. They're all gigantic conglomerations, who are quickly buying up the little guys. Even if a new competitive insurance company managed to get off the ground, it wouldn't be long before it got bought out. And the existing companies are content to keep things the way they are.

The only way to create a non-profit insurance company is to create a national insurance plan that is managed by the federal government. Even if we as consumers only paid into a national system the same amount of money we pay into private insurance now, we'll still be getting far more for our money.

The way I see it, people who are against nationalized insurance want you to get less value out of money you spend on health care.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Here is the one reason that I feel health care should be nationalized:

You can't nationalise the healthcare system of a nation whose population is 300 million and rising without incurring massive growing debt and falling standards. Schwarzenegger's proposals are fine as they are and have resounding support from the people of the US's largest traditionally left-wing state.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

You can't nationalise the healthcare system of a nation whose population is 300 million and rising without incurring massive growing debt and falling standards. Schwarzenegger's proposals are fine as they are and have resounding support from the people of the US's largest traditionally left-wing state.

Where did I say it would be a free health care system? In fact, I explicitly mentioned that people would be paying in. I don't care if we have to pay for health care anyway through taxes. What is important is that it is a non profit system.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Where did I say it would be a free health care system? In fact, I explicitly mentioned that people would be paying in. I don't care if we have to pay for health care anyway through taxes. What is important is that it is a non profit system.

How do you think scientific, pharmaceutical, medical and healthcare advances will be made in a non-profit system?

Also, if you heard Bush's speech yesterday he said government wants to cut down as much red tape and bureaucracy as possible and highlighted the use of the internet to allow people to access their health records, access hospitals and doctors, and to use new technologies to be able to do self-assessments at home and over the internet. He also said the onus is on citizens to live healthier lifestyles and blamed, as man have done, the tendency for Americans to eat more than they need to eat, harm their bodies, and then go overboard with the amount of medical drugs they use. That's why insurance companies and doctors charge so much. If they didn't then the system would be completely bust by now. Annihilated by overweight people and those who think a tablet is the cure for everything from heartbreak to a rowdy child.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

How do you think scientific, pharmaceutical, medical and healthcare advances will be made in a non-profit system?

I wasn't aware that insurance executives were taking their funds and personally financing medical breakthroughs. Silly me.

The pharmaceutical and research companies will still exist. No where did I say they would be abolished. This is a free market economy after all. I'm sure private health insurance companies would continue to exist.

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Also, if you heard Bush's speech yesterday he said government wants to cut down as much red tape and bureaucracy as possible and highlighted the use of the internet to allow people to access their health records, access hospitals and doctors, and to use new technologies to be able to do self-assessments at home and over the internet.

Gee. Wouldn't it be great if there was federally managed healthcare so that the federal government themselves could make this a reality.

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

He also said the onus is on citizens to live healthier lifestyles and blamed, as man have done, the tendency for Americans to eat more than they need to eat, harm their bodies, and then go overboard with the amount of medical drugs they use.

I agree this is a problem. But that doesn't really affect the argument at hand. Even if every person in this country was in great shape, the goal of an insurance company is still to deny you coverage and make money. I'm not sure why Bush feels this is something that is being contested. Maybe he's trying to distract from the main issue.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I wasn't aware that insurance executives were taking their funds and personally financing medical breakthroughs. Silly me.

Well yes they do. Many executives, insurance companies and the banks that back them invest their money into the medical and pharmaceutical industry via the stock market. Take away profits and investment goes down. Investment goes down then advances goes down. They're all spokes of the same wheel. Profit has to be made to allow that investment to happen in the first place.

Take away profits and you will also see job cuts to prevent them running at a loss.

the goal of an insurance company is still to deny you coverage and make money

Schwarzenegger's legislation will overturn this and create a flat rate for everyone and no denial of coverage. It works out good for insurance companies, doctors, and patients. BUT at the end of the day healthcare efficiency, private or socialised, still relies on people to look after their health in the first place.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Well yes they do. Many executives, insurance companies and the banks that back them invest their money into the medical and pharmaceutical industry via the stock market.

Are medical executives the only ones allowed on the stock market these days? Something tells me that there are plenty of other people who could invest in these companies.

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Take away profits and investment goes down.

Investment in pharmaceutical companies? First, I don't really care about how people invest in those companies. If you're worried about that, you're entirely missing the point of my line of argument. Secondly, pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be seeing a loss in profits, because they'd still be selling their drugs to the same people. You'd just have different insurance in the middle paying the bills.

Where I think your argument is trying to go is that pharmaceuticals wouldn't necessarily be loosing money, but they'd finally have to compete with the rest of the industry, i.e. producers of generic drugs. I think competitiveness is something to be encouraged. Research can be funded by the federal government. After all, as you've pointed out, research projects can design new drugs that can reduce health care costs by making treatments more effective. Nationalized health care could certainly be improved by making those sorts of drugs available. Heck, if the federal government paid for such research, they could make it available to everyone, keeping the pharmaceutical market competitive. The entire health care industry has become overgrown and fat. Let's put it on a treadmill.

You keep whining about how certain people won't be making as much money, and I don't think you get that that is the point. The entire reason I want health care to be nationalized is so that the entire system is focused on the consumer, not on getting a few people rich.

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Schwarzenegger's legislation will overturn this and create a flat rate for everyone and no denial of coverage. It works out good for insurance companies, doctors, and patients. BUT at the end of the day healthcare efficiency, private or socialised, still relies on people to look after their health in the first place.

Again, this is a side point. Even if everyone was in perfect health, it would not change the situation we are in now.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I found several organizations that after paying to join, you could pay for insurance at group rates...

AHIRC Resource Listings

Where were you able to find this plan that cost under $200/month?

The individual I found was a "testimonial" from a blogger who was trying to help artists and the self-employed find insurance. I googled "health care for musicians" and clicked one of the first links that popped up. Most Choice

To get some quotes, I entered myself, my wife, and two children under 17 yrs old and found the following quotes, but the url is HTTPS (i'd rather not go there, you'll have to take my word or do some research on your own);

- Blue Cross/Blue Shield (Family) = $311.43/mo
- Family HSA 100 (Family) = $235.87

There are approximately 3 other providers and 8 other plans ranging from $183.00/mo to $580.00/mo depending upon deductibles, etc... All in less than 5 minutes. (Well, I had to complete the online form to get the quote so... about 10 minutes) It should also be noted that I didn't even shop rates. There were a number of other websites advertising health coverage specifically for musicians and others that have done the legwork for you online. Because you're also hosting a website besson, you may be able to get insurance under more general "self-employed" categories giving you access to even more choices of plans.

Again, these are family plans. If you'd like to view individual plans, you're welcome to it. You'll find a wealth of providers and various selections to choose from and I suspect most would be under $200.00/month.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Here is the one reason that I feel health care should be nationalized:

Insurance companies are for profit organizations.

Government entities are 'for profit' organizations.

Insurance should not be for profit at all. You're kidding yourself if you think people who run insurance businesses are honest, hardworking, choir boys.

The government should not enter into the health care industry. If you think your elected officials (particularly the ones stashing cash in their freezers, mistresses on their payrolls, kickbacks, etc...) are honest, hardworking, choir boys, you're equally mistaken.

The executives have fat paychecks, and the insurance companies have lobbyists. That's tons of wasted money that could go to treating people. The goal of an insurance company is to make more money, not to treat you.

The goal of the government is not to treat you. When they try, they treat you poorly, increase your tax rate arbitrarily, and deceive you with shallow rhetoric to get into office.

The right likes to pretend that a free market will solve this all, and that some upstart company will come along and offer more competitive coverage.

The left will continuously indict the Bush Administration of money laundering, (Halliburton), corporate interests, and corruption in one breath, but in the other breath advocate giving them control of our health care industry. The left feel that the government somehow has more integrity than businesses, but they've yet to offer an example of this notion.

The only way to create a non-profit insurance company is to create a national insurance plan that is managed by the federal government. Even if we as consumers only paid into a national system the same amount of money we pay into private insurance now, we'll still be getting far more for our money.

I don't know how you can say this in light of the fact that you're paying into a Social Security program that has been looted for any special interest that comes down the aisle with no promise of receiving these funds when you're eligible. Remember the "lock box"? Well, it's been picked. You think somehow the government will have more integrity with your health care fund? Absurd.

The way I see it, people who are against nationalized insurance want you to get less value out of money you spend on health care.

This makes no more sense than a right-winger claiming the left wants this provision for nothing more than to thrust a socialist agenda. These are just partisan talking points with no basis or foundation in fact intended to divert from the issue at hand. If you could only convince people that anyone who disagrees with you is greedy or evil you will have won the argument right; or is it left? We're certainly no longer talking about right or wrong here. Why on earth would anyone want you to have less value for the money you spend? That's just ridiculous. I'm not in the health care industry. I'm not in the pharmaceutical industry. I'm not in the insurance industry. I want you to get more value of the dollar you spend. I simply do not believe the Federal government is a better steward of your money than you nor are they capable of giving you more value for your dollar. They haven't yet. The federal government is not resourced to care more for you than you.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The individual I found was a "testimonial" from a blogger who was trying to help artists and the self-employed find insurance. I googled "health care for musicians" and clicked one of the first links that popped up. Most Choice

To get some quotes, I entered myself, my wife, and two children under 17 yrs old and found the following quotes, but the url is HTTPS (i'd rather not go there, you'll have to take my word or do some research on your own);

- Blue Cross/Blue Shield (Family) = $311.43/mo
- Family HSA 100 (Family) = $235.87

There are approximately 3 other providers and 8 other plans ranging from $183.00/mo to $580.00/mo depending upon deductibles, etc... All in less than 5 minutes. (Well, I had to complete the online form to get the quote so... about 10 minutes) It should also be noted that I didn't even shop rates. There were a number of other websites advertising health coverage specifically for musicians and others that have done the legwork for you online. Because you're also hosting a website besson, you may be able to get insurance under more general "self-employed" categories giving you access to even more choices of plans.

Again, these are family plans. If you'd like to view individual plans, you're welcome to it. You'll find a wealth of providers and various selections to choose from and I suspect most would be under $200.00/month.

Interesting... It's been a while since I checked out these costs, and I now see that there are more options available than I thought.

However, your point that "health insurance is available for everybody that tries"... Duh, of course it is available for everybody with the money to spend on it, isn't this obvious?

However, even at $200/month, this is $2400/year plus there are still deductibles and membership fees! If you're a musician that nets $30,000/year ($2500/month), perhaps this expense might be a little much... $200/month so that you have the opportunity to chip away at your deductible when the time comes...

Why is it that in Canada the same musician can get care for $300-900/year with no deductible? Assuming a musician would be on the lowish scale here, this annual premium would only cover a couple of months in America. Why is that?

My health insurance is apparently considered one of the better packages available, and I pay $1/month for our group rate with a $900 annual deductible. Let's just say for interest's sake that this deductible is identical to what a musician would have to pay under the plan you have quoted... This is actually $275/month. We are now approaching 1 month in America being nearly what a Canadian pays in an entire year!

Are you still unconvinced that there are some inflated costs in this country?

[besson3c]

[QUOTE=Obi Wan's Ghost;3427187]

Yes I have (Boston for seven years). Moore hasn't lived in Canada, France, Cuba or the UK.

For somebody that was willing to cry "hypocrite" at the drop of a hat, you sure seem willing to issue free passes to those in here that criticize Canada's system without experiencing it.

When you gave someone a headache about Ubuntu without ever having used it your cred died right there. When for a whole year you were slinging it out with Dreamweaver users without any idea it was also a coding app, worked in different coding languages and synched up with MySQL databases, your credibility died right there. And your web design is ancient. It's bad. It's not good at all.

I'm a web programmer and systems admin, jackass, not a graphic designer. I never claimed to be a graphic designer.

Regardless, you don't tell somebody that their work is "ancient and bad", unless you want to be thought of as a complete asshole. If you really want to criticize my programming, you can start by putting this calendar I wrote under the microscope as an example, and when you are done, I expect to be able to do the same with your work (and don't expect me to refrain from being as harsh and undiplomatic).

You see, a lot of Unix/Linux experience is transferable between distros. Xorg configuration is identical, window managers are identical, etc. I don't have to have a lot of experience with Ubuntu specifically to help people, particularly given the average level and comfort level with Unix/Linux people are at on this board.

Re: Dreamweaver, it's great that it can be used as a coding app. It's only good for ODBC connections or direct MySQL calls over port 3306 if the host permits connections outside of localhost, which most don't. If "a good coding app" is the selling point, it's a damn expensive text editor. Whoop dee doo. Why would I want to spend that kind of money on a damn text editor? That's my point. Moreover, how many Dreamweaver users use Dreamweaver this way? Is this really its main selling point?

Here I am *allowing* you to put me under the microscope for no particular reason, except to make a point. Other than the fact that you are an asshole and will likely not allow anybody to do the same to you, you are attacking my character just like you attack Michael Moore's character. For what? So that you can feel better about yourself? So that people can keep score as to who is credible and who isn't? To publicly embarrass people, or make them feel foolish for ever believing anything this person said?

Critique what is being said rather than the person saying it.

[bstone]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It's not as broken as your 5 day old car, is it?

My 5 days old car was fixed for free. That doesn't happen in the broken US health care industry. If you walk out of the ER after being worked up for belly pain, get discharged and then start puking blood your bill continues where it left off. Only now much more expensive.

[bstone]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

And Lord Protector of the Planet Earth Al Gore, Peace Be Upon Him, invented the internet.

How to Win Any Argument On the Internet || kuro5hin.org

You want proof? Here it is:
M.A.S.H. in Miss. - Roanoke.com
Lamplighter: Undergraduate Provides Medical Aid in Rural Mississippi

So yes- I am an expert at disaster medicine. I also work as an EMT for the past several years and have literally had patients who were in the throws of a critical and possibly life-threatening medical event refuse medical treatment as we would only take them to the local hospital and not the county hospital. (County was too far away and offered no special services.)

[bstone]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Here is the one reason that I feel health care should be nationalized:

Insurance companies are for profit organizations.

Insurance should not be for profit at all. You're kidding yourself if you think people who run insurance businesses are honest, hardworking, choir boys. The executives have fat paychecks, and the insurance companies have lobbyists. That's tons of wasted money that could go to treating people. The goal of an insurance company is to make more money, not to treat you.

The right likes to pretend that a free market will solve this all, and that some upstart company will come along and offer more competitive coverage. But no one has enough capital to start an insurance company. And look at the existing companies. They're all gigantic conglomerations, who are quickly buying up the little guys. Even if a new competitive insurance company managed to get off the ground, it wouldn't be long before it got bought out. And the existing companies are content to keep things the way they are.

The only way to create a non-profit insurance company is to create a national insurance plan that is managed by the federal government. Even if we as consumers only paid into a national system the same amount of money we pay into private insurance now, we'll still be getting far more for our money.

The way I see it, people who are against nationalized insurance want you to get less value out of money you spend on health care.

[bstone]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

You can't nationalise the healthcare system of a nation whose population is 300 million and rising without incurring massive growing debt and falling standards. Schwarzenegger's proposals are fine as they are and have resounding support from the people of the US's largest traditionally left-wing state.

There was a US Dept of Health & Human Services report some years ago that said if all the bueracrats at the private insurers were eliminated, their salaries would more than pay for every single uninsured American.

[bstone]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

How do you think scientific, pharmaceutical, medical and healthcare advances will be made in a non-profit system?

The super vast majority of scientific advancements are done in the University setting. The NIH/NSF gives R01 grants (sometimes millions of dollars) to labs in the University, which then research something in biology. These results are published in peer-reviewed journals (like Nature, Science, etc) so the information is freely available to whomever wants it. The pharmaceuticals then take that information and sometimes use it for a drug.

So, as you can see, all the basic biology is done in the not-for-profit setting. Trust me, it ain't for-profit. A lab tech in a University lab can expect to make $22k/yr with 5% yearly raises. This is with a BS and/or MS in biology. The "real" money doesn't come until you get a PhD. A whopping $38k about. After your post-doc you become a staff scientist...maybe $45k/yr. Woohoo!

Sincerely,
bstone
Who Is Currently Studying Biochemistry

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by bstone 

My 5 days old car was fixed for free. That doesn't happen in the broken US health care industry. If you walk out of the ER after being worked up for belly pain, get discharged and then start puking blood your bill continues where it left off. Only now much more expensive.

I''m on your side on this issue; I was just razzin' you about the car. I know all about hospital expenses and not having insurance. I had a life threatening case of cellulitis three years ago (not the first time either), and I spent 4 days lying on a hospital bed, with an IV dripping antibiotics into me. I picked up a $10,000 bill for that, which I didn't have insurance for. Luckily, the hospital worked with some grant agency, and all but $600 of the bill was paid by someone else.



Unfortunately, there are some here who keep trumpeting their call that if you don't have insurance, you're not trying, which is utter nonsense. They seem to think that working people should just write checks for several hundred dollars a month, while their wages stagnate and their benefits are being taken away, and everybody will be happy in la la land. They view everything from their own narrow perspective, and apparently actually believe that, just because they made it out of poverty, everyone else should see the light and be able to join them. They think that they can simply extrapolate their experiences out to the rest of the world and everything will be hunky dory. There is a class of people who belong to a group that has the following collective motto; I got mine (and don't worry about how I got it), now you get yours (and allow me to worry about how you get it). They aren't far sighted enough to realize that the more productive people there are in a group, the better everyone in it will be, consequently they only worry about themselves. A lot of them call themselves Christians also, although I'm sure their Christ would be abhorred at the way they conduct themselves.

End of rant. Whomever feels so inclined, flame away.

[bstone]

I will say you were rather lucky to have such a grant. Wow...

I know at my ambulance service, many EMTs go without insurance because we don't make nearly enough money in the first place, most do it as a full time job and our premiums are much higher than at a large corporation. At the end of the day after rent, food and bills are paid there just isn't enough money even for the cheapest of the cheapest insurance plans. And these are EMTs who live very frugally. Their cars are old and falling apart, apartments are too small and in the bad neighborhoods (cause it's cheaper) and buy food at the cheapo stores.

Clearly- they are to blame.

How ironic that the many of the people who are charged with delivering emergency medical care are without the care themselves.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

How do you think scientific, pharmaceutical, medical and healthcare advances will be made in a non-profit system?

Also, if you heard Bush's speech yesterday he said government wants to cut down as much red tape and bureaucracy as possible and highlighted the use of the internet to allow people to access their health records, access hospitals and doctors, and to use new technologies to be able to do self-assessments at home and over the internet. He also said the onus is on citizens to live healthier lifestyles and blamed, as man have done, the tendency for Americans to eat more than they need to eat, harm their bodies, and then go overboard with the amount of medical drugs they use. That's why insurance companies and doctors charge so much. If they didn't then the system would be completely bust by now. Annihilated by overweight people and those who think a tablet is the cure for everything from heartbreak to a rowdy child.

How do you think the vast majority of research and breakthroughs in medicine and a number of other fields has been accomplished so far? Ever heard of the NIH (the National Institutes of Health)? It's just one of many government funded agencies that carry out extensive research on health issues? Private corporations only have interest in researching drugs and techniques they can make money on; they're not interested in your case if there's no money to be made in selling you something.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by bstone 

I will say you were rather lucky to have such a grant. Wow...

I know at my ambulance service, many EMTs go without insurance because we don't make nearly enough money in the first place, most do it as a full time job and our premiums are much higher than at a large corporation. At the end of the day after rent, food and bills are paid there just isn't enough money even for the cheapest of the cheapest insurance plans. And these are EMTs who live very frugally. Their cars are old and falling apart, apartments are too small and in the bad neighborhoods (cause it's cheaper) and buy food at the cheapo stores.

Clearly- they are to blame.

How ironic that the many of the people who are charged with delivering emergency medical care are without the care themselves.

The stock answer to that, of course, is to better yourself so you're not in that position, as if we don't need ambulance workers and retail employees. The hidden message is quite clear; they're expendable, but we'd damn sure better set aside enough money for some CEO to make over 400 times what his workers get, and make sure we even set more money aside to give him another bonus when he cuts some more of his workers off the payroll. Like I said, I got mine, now you get yours (and don't worry about how I got it, but let me worry about how you get yours). It's unfortunate that someone hasn't figured out a way to outsource CEO positions.

[peeb]

That's why we have viagra, but no malaria vaccine.

[besson3c]

Maybe we should give malaria viagra so that it would chill the hell out?

[Spliffdaddy]

Leave things alone. Nothing is ever a problem until liberals institute a solution. Yes, Virginia, as bad as things are they could be worse. And in any event, it's very obvious the answer won't come from any of us at a MacNN discussion forum.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Unfortunately, there are some here who keep trumpeting their call that if you don't have insurance, you're not trying, which is utter nonsense.

This was a real chicken-**** way to address me OldManMac. Not only is it not utter nonsense, I gave examples and links when I was challenged for them. If you don't have health care coverage in the US, you're not trying. Period. I can see why you'd rather not address me directly. Pesky little things like reality, facts, and figures might get in the way. Who cares though right? As long as the entire country goes bankrupt trying to finance your foolish ideas, at least we can all be miserable together. In the interest of equality and all. We like to talk about how Americans feel about health care in the US while denying how they feel about other issues for which you disagree. They are experts when you want them to be and fools when you don't. We like to talk about how important an issue healthcare is to Americans, but what about the fact that it generally ranks #1 on Canadians' minds as well? Would that be because it's doing so well? Seeing as they are courting privatization (whether they like to call it that or not) and that health care is generally #1 on the list of important issues to Canadians, I'd say no.

They seem to think that working people should just write checks for several hundred dollars a month, while their wages stagnate and their benefits are being taken away, and everybody will be happy in la la land.

La la land is writing checks for the BMW lease, the multiple iPods, iPhones, iMacs, iHouse that's 3 times larger than you need, Sony Wii, and twice a week out at the restaurants when you know you have those silly little things to attend to like the health and wellness of your family. It's even more insane to manage your own money this poorly then turn around and bitch about how the government is not picking up your health care tab. Worse yet, while knowing how poorly your government has managed your money in Iraq, on Social Security, International trade and relations, and immigration you're willing to throw in an even larger chunk of your paycheck and your family's wellness in the hopes that somehow they'll manage to find fiscal responsibility some day. You do this while having indicted this Administration for unprecedented corruption and civil rights abuses. The irony of it all is staggering.

They view everything from their own narrow perspective, and apparently actually believe that, just because they made it out of poverty, everyone else should see the light and be able to join them. They think that they can simply extrapolate their experiences out to the rest of the world and everything will be hunky dory.

You may find this notion reprehensible OldMan, but it stems from a belief that I'm no better or smarter than they are.

There is a class of people who belong to a group that has the following collective motto; I got mine (and don't worry about how I got it), now you get yours (and allow me to worry about how you get it). They aren't far sighted enough to realize that the more productive people there are in a group, the better everyone in it will be, consequently they only worry about themselves.

Not only did I explain how I got in the unfortunate circumstance I was in, but I explained exactly how I got out of it and how I "got mine". I explained how others can get theirs. How did you get yours OldMan? Are you just smarter than all those little people that need you so?

Your idea of "productive" is no more a sign of progress and prosperity than someone passing an exam by getting the answers from the teacher. After-all, wouldn't it be more humane if we just gave students the answers? Isn't a better society one in which we're all successful in class? Talk about friggin' la-la land and nearsightedness. Brother, you take the cake.

A lot of them call themselves Christians also, although I'm sure their Christ would be abhorred at the way they conduct themselves.

You're not qualified to tell me what my Christ would or would not find abhorrent and bringing this up is getting tired. Statistically, conservatives aren't waiting for the government to begin handing out provisions. That's why they are 30% more inclined to do it themselves than liberals. Statistically, Christians give even more. I'm curious though, by what moral authority do you claim the merits of universal health care?

Either you've not put much thought into any of this at all or the bumper sticker you're getting these moronic views from wasn't large enough to explain.

[Spliffdaddy]

*high-five* ebuddy. Couldn't have said it better myself.

edited: No, wait. Your response deserves a *smackdown*. It's the highest honor available.

You were so damned good I think you may have killed him. Anybody know CPR?

edit again: shut up besson. you illegal immigrant.

I think ebuddy is tied with the stupendous guy at one million smackdowns each.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

*high-five* ebuddy. Couldn't have said it better myself.

edited: No, wait. Your response deserves a *smackdown*. It's the highest honor available.

You were so damned good I think you may have killed him. Anybody know CPR?

edit again: shut up besson. you illegal immigrant.

I think ebuddy is tied with the stupendous guy at one million smackdowns each.

You goofball!

The important thing is, when do I attain the coveted rank of junkie?

[Spliffdaddy]

Hell I dunno. I think you need 10,000 posts. But don't worry about quantity. Just keep doing whatever you're doing. It saves me hours of typing.
If OldManMac is dead I'll post bail for you.

[besson3c]

ebuddy: I just don't understand your "if you don't have health insurance, you aren't trying, period" claim. You could say the same thing about a house, car, or anything on the market. The question is, are costs accessible? You're avoiding addressing the issue of whether or not costs are artificially inflated.

[itistoday]

Is anyone in this thread saying we should leave our healthcare system the way it is?

Because if anyone is, then you are essentially saying it's OK to let people die because they can't afford health insurance. What was the statistic quoted in the movie, how many 9/11s every year anyone remember? If that's what you're arguing then just make it plain that's your position and you're sticking to it. It will make it easier for the rest of us to ignore you.

On the other hand you could be saying, "Our system sucks, but universal health care is not the answer." Please provide a better solution in that case.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're not qualified to tell me what my Christ would or would not find abhorrent and bringing this up is getting tired. Statistically, conservatives aren't waiting for the government to begin handing out provisions. That's why they are 30% more inclined to do it themselves than liberals. Statistically, Christians give even more.

Fascinating. I'm really curious, how are you, a conservative Christian, planning on helping those who suffer from serious illnesses and are without health insurance?

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

On the other hand you could be saying, "Our system sucks, but universal health care is not the answer." Please provide a better solution in that case.

Sigh. I don't think anyone is saying there is no room for improvement here. Read page one.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...o/#post3400262

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Sigh. I don't think anyone is saying there is no room for improvement here. Read page one.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...o/#post3400262

Right, I did, I was just making sure that no one was saying that after page one seeing as I haven't been following this entire thread. Forgive me for asking this, but what is the proposed solution by the anti-universal healthcare folk for a system that covers everyone? If it's already been explained could you link me to the post?

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Right, I did, I was just making sure that no one was saying that after page one seeing as I haven't been following this entire thread. Forgive me for asking this, but what is the proposed solution by the anti-universal healthcare folk for a system that covers everyone? If it's already been explained could you link me to the post?

The link I provided was to a post of mine that roughly outlined an alternative to government-controled universal insurance/care.

Reason Magazine - Mandatory Universal Health Insurance?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy: I just don't understand your "if you don't have health insurance, you aren't trying, period" claim. You could say the same thing about a house, car, or anything on the market. The question is, are costs accessible? You're avoiding addressing the issue of whether or not costs are artificially inflated.

I'm not avoiding anything. You may not appreciate the replies, but that doesn't mean I'm avoiding the issues. You've redirected somewhat to a question that begs the obvious by the way. Are costs accessible on any of the above items like the car or the house? Are the costs on all of these somehow not artificially inflated? What about the multiple iPods, iPhones, iMacs, high-speed internet, several hundred channels of cable, BMW SUV lease, 3 times the square footage of living space than the average European, and eating out twice a week? Are these costs accessible to all?

*Answer; No. This is how the middle class have decided to spend their money in America. The average cost of medical bills to be paid by one filing for bankruptcy in the US is $11,000.00 besson. The average person spends more than $5,000.00 per year just on their car loan. This means they are spending over $400.00 per month just on paying their car loan. What I'm telling you is this is absolutely unnecessary. We can pretend this is not so and demand the government pick up our health care tab, but they don't need to nor are they resourced adequately to care more for us than we do. We simply need to care as much for our health as we claim to. Most of the family plans I found for you were under $400.00 per month and those were individual plans to be paid by the self-employed. I pay approximately $86.74 per month for full health care coverage of myself, my wife, and two dependents. (which by the way is very near the difference between the US portion of 12% income tax for health care provision and 22% of Canada's portion to health care) This includes eye care, dental and life insurance on all four. I am employed by a corporation. I have no college education and I started out on WIC, Foodstamps, and Medicaid with one child at age 19. I had coverage then and I have coverage now. When you say health coverage is not accessible, you're not being honest with yourself or this forum. I know better. I know you all would rather I just shut up and buy into your notion that people who want health insurance can't get it and that we need a gigantic government bureaucracy to make it all better, but this simply is not so. To save a few people who've determined that their lifestyle was more important than their health from filing bankruptcy, you will damn the entire country to filing bankruptcy on your behalf. Bad idea.

Again, we're not talking about the poor. The poor are eligible for WIC, Foodstamps, and health care both maintenance care and emergency care w/ card. I know because I've lived it. Again, why would you insist you have a better grasp on the big picture when by your own measurement earlier, lacked vision?

Please do not avoid the following question; there are millions who meet the income requirements to attain government health care in the US yet remain unenrolled. Why?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Fascinating. I'm really curious, how are you, a conservative Christian, planning on helping those who suffer from serious illnesses and are without health insurance?

Are you familiar enough with Christian entities and the concept of tithing to even understand the answer I give you? There are a host of websites and other outlets up to and including the local church that provide provisions not only for short-term disabilities, but those in need of long-term respite care. Most churches and other outlets contribute a portion of tithe for members of the church in need and there are numerous services both local, national, and international to meet the needs of those who have not. Often times, special collections are taken up for specific member needs. This is not even taking into account, half-way houses, missions work, general philanthropy, Open Door Mission, Francis House, various food pantries, etc... This also does not include benefit concerts such as the two-day concert occurring here locally this weekend that is providing free health screening for a host of illnesses. Upon diagnosis, they are put in touch with a number of the above outlets up to and including filing for government aid on their behalf in helping them meet these needs. There are Christian outlets that also meet these needs and others such as low-income housing, child care, women's groups for various issues and men's groups for various issues. You didn't know this?

Christians like myself help in a number of various ways including performing for free, helping collect donations, helping build care packages, ringing bells at store fronts during the holidays, meeting folks at the hospitals, cleaning up after the larger events/donating time and labor, etc...

Now if you would answer a couple of questions for me;

1) By what moral authority do you claim the advantages of universal health care?
2) What are the secular humanists doing to help those who suffer from serious illnesses and are without health insurance? *hint; other than waiting on legislative changes.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

The link I provided was to a post of mine that roughly outlined an alternative to government-controled universal insurance/care.

Reason Magazine - Mandatory Universal Health Insurance?

That's interesting, but, frankly it comes from the extreme fringe of thinking ("If a national single-payer health care system is adopted, most medical progress will be stopped in its tracks" -erm - no.). Even the rabid right admit that "There's no getting around it, mandatory health insurance would essentially be a new tax", but, the problem is that it would be a tax paid straight to corporations - the government would be mandating that you pay money to someone you did not elect, there would be no democratic oversight of the spending. The real problem here is that there private insurance providers are MUCH more expensive and less efficient than Medicare / Medicaid. This is in part because they spend an ENORMOUS amount of time and (your) money trying not to give you care.

Nice try, and I would not want to eliminate private providers for those with a fetish for the expensive and ineffective, but no thanks.
Have you looked at the Singapore system?