Secrets of the City

this is in regards to the Blue Laws thread form yesterday…

Wine With Dinner

from the ad, “…ask Michelle Bachman to think again…” If Michelle applied reason the first time she voted she would have supported the children’s health care plan. Asking Michelle to think is like asking snakes to type. I think her past antics with GWB is indicative of how her votes will go on any bill she’s presented.

It’s no surprise Michelle Bitchmann has KSTP doing her bidding. They are always willing to shill for fellow Republicans.

Just more proof that the term Liberal Media is a MYTH.

The ad is an outrageous lie. Any media outlet that would run it has zero integrity. The bill defines “poor” as people making up to $82,000 and “children” as people up to age 25. It’s a blatant attempt to hijack the program designed to provide health insurance to poor kids and turn it into a federal health insurance program for anybody who wants to use it.

That’s not only socialized medicine which is not the role of government, but it’s DISHONEST for not telling the truth to the rubes who only get their information regarding this issue from places like SeeBS and political ads.

Does she think any stations would actually pull ads because she doesn’t like them? Michelle, they’re paying for the ads. TV stations would run ads featuring me taking a crap if I paid the standard rate.

Maz – That $82,000 number was applied when talking about a family with 4 children living in NYC. If you’re familiar with the rents in that city you know that an $82,000 income with 4 kids – particularly if one or more children has serious health issues – ain’t cuttin’ it.

I’m sure the “children up to age 25″ applies to children who are still students at that age. This same measure is applied in homes where parents get insurance through work. If your child is between 18 and 25 but attending school full time you can still include them on your health insurance policy as a child.

It’s a blatant attempt to hijack the program designed to provide health insurance to poor kids and turn it into a federal health insurance program for anybody who wants to use

Oh, but it is about the kids maz, if you link anything to a kid, tax payers should just sign the check. I am sick of the left using children as an excuse for every program out their. If it is about the “children” then I propose all welfare programs be eliminated and the saving go directly to schools to provide for every need for every kid, that would be for the children. This is about politics not the children.

The ad is a stretch, but I’d have signed off on it. I agree with maz that the bill as vetoed is terrible and supporters are grossly misrepresenting the stakes but the ad script is defensible from a factual and rhetorical perspective.

And by the way, our state laws are already similar to the vetoed bill.

s-chip isn’t FOR “poor kids”. Poor kids are covered under medicaid. s-chip is for working families that can’t afford private insurance.

Correct. Government-funded insurance is a better term than s-chip. Funny, though, how all the kids they trot out to defend their bill already get s-chip. Funny, too, how that never gets mentioned. Throw out a 24-year-old college student with a cellphone in his pocket and parents making 80K and the reaction might be much different.

I would like to see Maz respond to icarrie’s reasonable explanation of the $82K and 25 years old provisions.

The real question I have for Kevin, Mazaspazza et. al is:

“Why do you hate poor sick children?”

I don’t think carrai’s explanations are that reasonable. A family of four making 82K with four kids should be able to get by no matter where they live. It’s also pretty hard to get 82 grand without having a job that pays at least some sort of benefits.

As for a 25 yo, it’s one thing to be covered by your parents’ policy. It’s quite another to ask taxpayers to fund it. We want to preserve at least some kind of reward for folks who can provide for themselves. The welfare stigma is gone for most people today, so we can’t just subsidize the good life and expect people to eventually earn it themselves.

I have two answers, the first one is: poor kids…

I would also like to see Raindog put a cork in it since she never adds anything useful to the conversation.

Tara your personal attacks are not welcomed here. Put a cork in your tight ass.

Asking Michelle to think is like asking snakes to type

Hee.

…and a ball gag in your mouth!

Finally, this site is getting interesting.

A family of four making 82K with four kids should be able to get by no matter where they live.

The average monthly rent in NYC is $2400; $1750 for a 3BR in Queens (not large enough for a family of six). Now factor in all the expenses a six-person household has over the course of a month. Adjust for COL comparisons. Transportation — even of the mass-transit variety, let alone a private vehicle — is also relatively more expensive in NYC than elsewhere, so even if you commute from, say, Newark or western CT, it’s going to cost you more bucks.

Oh, and my answer to raindog would be that I hate all children, sick or healthy; rich or poor. Talk about a group not paying its fair share.

Kevin, valid point that any family that makes $82K probably has a job with some sort of benefits. And I see where you’re coming from thinking it’s bogus for tax payers to fund medical care for a 25 year old under legislation geared at poor children.

Thanks for responding.

aw shucks. *hugs

Kevin, about children….

They also can rarely hold articulate conversations, can’t drink, don’t read decent literature, and as a class are mostly culturally devoid. Oh, and they often have runny noses and dirty fingernails. What are they good for anyway?

“Why do you hate poor sick children?”
They breakdown on the factory production line and need to be replaced every six months.

Hey Now. Kids are good for telling the truth at the most inappropriate times, tell the best knock-knock jokes ever; get sponge-bob and will earnestly explain why spoonge-bob is relevant in today’s world, love to express themselves through interpretive dance and are never good at keeping your sister’s secret. How are these traits not good?

And Dr. Seuss isn’t decent literature?

*stomps off to throw self on ground*

I was at Ikea the otherday when I overheard a mother point to a display and say, “Oh, look at the new tunnel.”

If I ever say that, I want shot in the face. On the spot.

Which is not to say I don’t have a sensitive side.

I was just reminded of the entry for Suri Cruise in a Top 50 Most Loathsome People list that I came across a while back. It made me laugh until I cried:

27. Suri Cruise

Charges: Terrible motor control. Deficient, tiny neck can’t even support the weight of her own head. Unable to fathom the causal nature of the universe, or any other remedial concepts for that matter, beyond vague urges of biology. Doesn’t speak English, as her brain is physically incapable of constructing the compound ideas that are prerequisite to language. Can’t even manage her own bowel movements. Relies on Scientologists to handle nearly all of her affairs. Snubbed Katie Holmes’ pert nipples, preferring L. Ron Hubbard’s newborn barely formula and the subsequent risk of botulism. Not what we’d have donefor health reasons, of course. Airbrushed to look like human Yoda on the cover of Vanity Fair. Inexplicably “spits up” without warning or apology. But don’t be fooled: it’s not “spit;” it’s actually puke.

Exhibit A: That smell!

Sentence: Raised by a latent homosexual and a brain-washed starlet, infant botulism, eaten alive on Pay-Per-View by Michael Musto.

Let’s also keep in mind that this program has an income based premium. That means if the family making $82,000 does qualify, they will have a huge premium. It isn’t free health care, it is paid for by the recepients.

Also, let’s say that 24 year old does get it. It is much cheaper to pay for the preventative health insurance than for a non-covered trip to the emergency room. Would you rather pay $100 a month to keep the kid covered (appx. the cost of capitation to the health plan he would be on) so he can get antibiotics when sick, or $150,000 for the week long hospital stay for pnemonia?

The federal government doesn’t belong in the health insurance business where they can keep premiums artificially low (thanks to your “contributions”) and hurting the private players in the marketplace.

Subsidizing poor people is defensible. Marketing health insurance for the purpose of hurting an existing private industry is not.

If we’re seriously speaking of providing government welfare subsidies to families making $82k per year, whether they be in NYC or Bearpath or Little Haiti, we’re already reached a point of redistributive sillyness that makes talk of housing costs and bus fares superfluous and irrelevant.

Once again, we’ve seen a push to enact something that’s so patently dumb that it has to be hidden from the public. Just like the end-the-war effort quietly fizzed away once the papers had to describe what was being done, just as the push to condemn Turkey for a 1915 genocide committed by people who are now all dead just started to falter yesterday once the public started to hear WHY the dems suddenly were so concerned that we’d never passed a resolution, just as the immigration fiasco died once people saw the hidden “Borders? We doan’ need no steenking borders . . .” parts, this is dead until the pols figure out that most Americans don’t accept that anyone making $82k should be taking money out of anyone else’s paycheck. Lots and lots of people with families live in NYC and make under $82k. Just stay out of Manhattan.

I get Spongebob. I even met him once. Does that mean I’m still a kid?

Maz, do us a favor and don’t try to help us. We have enough problems….

Kevin, about children….

They also can rarely hold articulate conversations, can’t drink, don’t read decent literature, and as a class are mostly culturally devoid. Oh, and they often have runny noses and dirty fingernails. What are they good for anyway?

I thought for sure she was talking about Kevin.

Hey. I’m philosophically opposed to insurance of any kind. I think it’s no different than the mob’s protection racket. I only get exercised about it when I have to pay for it out of my “immorally collected tax on my labor.”

Wait, you’re opposed to socialized medicine AND insurance? What is your solution to medical care? That we hope we have enough in savings to cover the bills?

Insurance to Maz is just one step closer to Communism I’m guessing.

Just showing his misanthropy.

Lots and lots of people with families live in NYC and make under $82k.

Do they all have adequate health insurance? Can they take their sick kid to urgent care without worrying how to pay for it? If not, that’s a problem that needs to be fixed.

Death to the insurance industry! They are just as Maz describes a protection racket. Health insurance is the biggest joke of all. The origin of many of the big players, at least the non-profit ones, was to spread risk around for their members who were usually from a group of workers in the same industry, or they were prepayment groups. These companies have lost that link to their roots and original purpose and now only exist to propagate themselves. When a member is actually sick they boot ‘em.

And tying insurance to employment is even more insane. I am now leashed to a job especially if one of my family develops a chronic illness. Lovely pre-existing condition racket. What a bunch of thieves. Between what consumers pay and what their employers pay in premiums someone has to be skimming some cream here.

Kevin, about children….

I thought for sure she was talking about Kevin.

She did describe me pretty well.

Wait, you’re opposed to socialized medicine AND insurance? What is your solution to medical care? That we hope we have enough in savings to cover the bills?

Fee for service. Perform this little economics 101 exercise:

If all the health insurance went away tomorrow, what would happen to the cost of health care?

Interesting how the conservative robots keep pounding the $82K talking point. That’s not part of this bipartisan bill, but keep repeating that falshood long enough and it becomes conventional wisdom.

This is not about poor kids. “Poor” kids, by the definition of the feds, get Medicaid. This is for working-class families who cannot afford health insurance. There are a lot of those out there, and their numbers are growing, and will continue to grow. What do you suggest we do about that? SCHIP is one solution, and it has the support of the physicians, the insurance industry, and plenty of Republicans such as our current governor.

The number of kids without health insurance will grow faster if this SCHIP bill is not passed. That’s the bottom line.

That doesn’t bother Maz, apparently. By the way, Maz, do you have health insurance, or just pay for everything cash?

If we’re going to give people making $82,000 a year government-subsidized health insurance, then there’s no argument that you could make to stop them when they try to give everyone government-subsidized food.

It would go down, but what do you propose we do for people who break a bone or get cancer and have zero dollars in savings to pay for any of it? For many people, whether something costs $200 or $200K, they still can’t afford it.

Lois Quamm (DFL activist) is a multimillionaire based on stock options she holds from an allegedly non-profit health care company.

I just re-read my comments and sound a little to caffeinated. Sorry.

1. Fees for services are nice if the services provided were comparable, is one doctor’s appendectomy better than another, and are the prices different. I have a feeling price fixing would be a real risk, but watch out that would be regulating the market.

2. The other big flaw is that this sort of consumer based approach works best in edeavors which are not time-sensitive and optional.

It would go down, but what do you propose we do for people who break a bone or get cancer and have zero dollars in savings to pay for any of it? For many people, whether something costs $200 or $200K, they still can’t afford it

Let them pay for it on time … just like you would if your furnace went out in the middle of winter but didn’t have enough cash to buy a new one.

I had 2 major surgeries (both emergent) and spent almost a month in the hospital last year. I shudder to think how long it would take me to pay off the over $200K in medical bills I accrued. Say what you want about insurance, but last year I was pretty damn glad I spent 7 years of paying premiums even though I wasn’t sick at the time.

So under your plan, doctors would still have to treat you even if you didn’t have the money to pay up front? And what would we do about people who payed a bit each month but never made enough money to pay off large medical bills? Who would pay the doctor/hospital in that case?

Let them pay for it on time … just like you would if your furnace went out in the middle of winter but didn’t have enough cash to buy a new one.

When this happens the power company will let you push out the payments, if they do the work, or you can finance with a state subsidized loan. None are as nice as appliance replacement insurance.

Take yourwhiney arguments and apply them to any other aspect of your life. Your bills are so high, allie, because someone else is paying for them.

Whether the subject is food stamps, or families unable to provide insurance for their children, there never seems to be a cut-off that can be agreed upon. If the income limit were a million dollars, there would still be people pleading for exceptions for “poor children” (in the literal and metaphoric senses) somewhere.

Bobby B made the best points I’ve seen so far. I’d take it a step further, no matter how much you earn, don’t have more kids than you can afford, and that includes insurance.

And before cries of “hate monger” ensue, if there are cases where unforeseen circumstances arose causing someone to plummet from stability to poverty, let the program cover them. But for Pete’s sake, let’s not “boiling frog” our way to universal coverage. All these laudable goals are going to bankrupt the country, and then we’re all screwed.

So under your plan, doctors would still have to treat you even if you didn’t have the money to pay up front?

If not, another doctor would, and get your business instead. It’s how the free market can be applied to medicine. If doctor A charges $1,500 and doctor B $2,000, doctor A will get most of the business and doctor B will either lower his price or go out of business due to lack of customers.

Look at lasik surgery as an example because it isn’t covered by insurance. When it first came out it was about $5,000 per eye. Now it’s a few hundred per eye. Why? market forces that were allowed to work because insurance (3rd party payer) wasn’t involved.

And s-chip does what exactly to bring down the cost of health care?

btw – It’s never been mentioned as such, but I’m guessing that one of the reasons’ Tony Snow stepped down was because he was paying for his cancer treatments in cash.

Maz is a robot, he does not have insurance, loved ones or a furnace.

Maz, that response to Alie really didn’t make any sense. She paid into the system for seven years and in return, the system paid for her surgery. How is that whiney or having someone else pay her bills?

Maz, I missed where Alie whined about anything. She simply described a situation that happened to her and expressed gratitude for having insurance to cover her bills.

This is not about poor kids. “Poor” kids, by the definition of the feds, get Medicaid. This is for working-class families who cannot afford health insurance. There are a lot of those out there, and their numbers are growing, and will continue to grow. What do you suggest we do about that? SCHIP is one solution, and it has the support of the physicians, the insurance industry, and plenty of Republicans such as our current governor.

That is the problem it is not about poor kids but the democrats use “poor kids” as a tool. To your point, what are we going to do about health care in this country. First off, start by having rational debate, with a drive towards a solution. Second, be honest with the American people about the cost. Third, accept that some form of rationing is going to take place and every ace and pain will not be covered.

Dems do NOT get media. Repubs stick to talking points like freaking machines, and it is great for their message. Dems want to get to nuance.

Exhibit A: What does the DFL do when they go over to India with Pawlenty? Well, Satveer Chaudhry goes on MPR and replies to an outsourcing question yesterday by saying basically, “Well trade can cause a loss in jobs! It’s just the way it is! it’s been that way since the 19th century!” What total crap. The DFL should CONSTANTLY be driving home how India can help MN (how they built a factory here), how we can diminish the impact of outsourcing (education and job production not just in the service sector) and how the Repubs have not done much to help the downsides of outsourcing (because it’s making business rich at the expense of low-wage workers)

Instead, the DFL’s sound bite on MPR yesterday was basically, “It is how it is! It’s the free market, so deal with it.” Good lord … how freaking pathetic.

SCHIP is one solution, and it has the support of the physicians, the insurance industry, and plenty of Republicans such as our current governor.

It would have the support of doctors, since it provides them with more patients, and insurance companies, since it means more customers, and plenty of politicians, because they’re too gutless to fight it. But it’ll be tough to implement in Mn because most people are already covered by one system or another. In fact, they’d have to get waivers and figure out creative ways to use all that extra money since we don’t need the program here.

Maz, I agree with you that it would reduce prices. But I also think there are some people who would never be able to pay the bills if they developed some serious cancer or another disease that cause long hospitalization times, surgeries, etc. In that case, I don’t know why any doctor would treat such a person knowing they would never be paid for their services. Some might do it out of the goodness of their heart from time to time, but if they made a policy of it, that doctor would find himself in the poor house right along with his patients.

Um…where was I whinning? I merely stated that I was glad I had insurance. If you’re so fabulously wealthy that you can pay out of pocket for two abdominal surgeries, congratulations to you.

I’d take it a step further, no matter how much you earn, don’t have more kids than you can afford, and that includes insurance.

I couldn’t agree more. If we could figure out a way to keep people who can’t afford it from having kids, kids, and more kids, a lot of these problems would go away.

Maz, you didn’t answer my question, but then I didn’t expect you to.

You are absolutely right that there are incentives for various stakeholders to support SCHIP. Including families, who have the best motivation of all, their children’s health.

You know, when people start up with this, “if you can’t afford kids, don’t have them,” I really question their common sense.

Does anyone sit down and budget for every cost that a child could incur? Practically speaking, how could you?

Kevin brings up a good point: SCHIP is not designed to bring down health care costs. However, it stands to reason that reducing the number of kids taken to the emergency room (because they couldn’t afford earlier care) will have a significant amount of cost savings for the system overall.

Reducing health care costs is a whole different issue than covering kids of families desperate for health insurance coverage.

And if your furnace goes out in the middle of winter you can go to the welfare office and apply for emergency assistance. They may help pay, FYI.

The biggest problem I see with Medicaid and S-Chip and other programs is that they are so complicated the normal person cannot understand the rules. So when we say the income is up to $82,000 people think it is outrageous, but it is partially because people don’t understand the rules.

I remember watching some terrible movie where a guy takes the hospital hostage because his son couldn’t get a transplant covered by his insurance. I just kept thinking, “this wouldn’t happen. The hospital would have the kid apply for Medical Assistance.” But the movie could get away with fearmongering because people don’t know or understand the rules.

Instead, the DFL’s sound bite on MPR yesterday was basically, “It is how it is! It’s the free market, so deal with it.”

I can’t believe he said that. That’s be an honest answer.

And frankly, how cheap do you think medical care would go? Because a month in the hospital is going to be expensive, no matter what.

I couldn’t agree more. If we could figure out a way to keep people who can’t afford it from having kids, kids, and more kids, a lot of these problems would go away.
Great, now only rich people can breed. Seriously though, people make life plans based on their situation at the time. I have a good job now, we want kids, so we have them. Then the economy adjustst, should I downsize jr.?

Repubs stick to talking points like freaking machines.

It’s easy. Just stick to the truth.

Repubs stick to talking points like freaking machines.

Well yeah, they run their party on patronage. You advance based upon how disciplined and loyal to the party line you were. Look at Hagel and the old McCain, not that new version. Man did they fix his wagon.

I apologize to allie for the whining comment. It’s not what I meant and i’m sorry.

Wow, Lunch. Great way to completely (and intentionally) misconstrue the point.

Nothing in the original comment remotely insinuates “rich.” The word used was “afford.” Countless intact, low-income families exist…happily and healthily so. They may not have three SUVs, they may not have the largest house, they may not have a Play Station for every kid, but they have what’s important.

But if you prefer, we can adopt Hillary’s “Baby Bond” idea. Give every family five grand…hell ten grand…a hundred grand…let’s add “babies” to the Bill of Rights, not just the right to have ‘em, but to have ‘em paid for.

Lunch! I think Tom clearly stated that some people’s situations change and he wasn’t talking about them. Maybe read an entire comment before responding. He (and I) were talking about people already subsisting on government services purposely having more children that they know full well they can’t afford.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So you don’t think the government should be attempting to promote the general welfare of the citizens of the United States?

Then the economy adjustst, should I downsize jr.?
I believe the new term is outsource.

I believe the new term is outsource.

I heard foreign kids were twice as productive with half the sass.

Do you honestly believe for one moment that the Founders would have considered free health care as promoting the general welfare in a nation of 300 million people, or would they construe general welfare as a significant number of those 300 million people promoting their own welfare?

Methinks they were wise enough to recognize when the bank was about to break. But golly, we’ll all sure feel good when it happens.

promote the general welfare does not equal provide the general welfare.

I don’t think the Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of 300 million people, or chemotherapy, or automatic weapons.

There’s a lot they couldn’t forsee, and possibly they assumed that we would deal with our problems in a sensible way. Maybe they weren’t so wise after all.

I remember watching some terrible movie where a guy takes the hospital hostage because his son couldn’t get a transplant covered by his insurance. I just kept thinking, “this wouldn’t happen. The hospital would have the kid apply for Medical Assistance.” But the movie could get away with fearmongering because people don’t know or understand the rules.

That movie was written by the same people who wrote the ad attacking Michele Bachmann. And for the same reason.

KC, the movie was John Q, and yeah, I thought it was pretty preposterous too. Plus it’s illegal to refuse care based on the patient’s ability to pay.

Seriously though, people make life plans based on their situation at the time.

Ya, like buying a house with an ARM in 2006. Hell, even in 2005. Or 2004. Not looking to the future is a really great idea. I’m cashing out my retirement RIGHT NOW!

(singing)
Bright light city gonna set my soul…

That movie was written by the same people who wrote the ad attacking Michele Bachmann. And for the same reason.

Because it could practically write itself?

I apologize to allie for the whining comment. It’s not what I meant and i’m sorry.

No sweat, Maz.

Because it could practically write itself?

No, because they knew the rubes would believe it.

I’ve trimmed the conversation down a little to weed out some of the personal attacks and a major derail that was underway. This discussion is not about WMDs.

“Do you honestly believe for one moment that the Founders would have considered free health care …”

Ah yes, the divine founding fathers. Could they have seen the air force (standing army) or the 14th Amendment (applying Bill of Rights to the states) or the current Senate (not based on population) or current constitutional standards equality (applying different standards for different groups of people, based on race/sex/etc), or the Internet (interstate commerce or no?) or …

The founders were bright people. Would they want their understanding of the world to dictate how we run health care? No. Similarly, our “understanding” of the Constitution has changed (for better or worse).

HOWEVER: Health care is a policy issue. Should the US provide the same level of care as is available in other countries? My answer would be yes, based on the nature of the thing (it has a business incentive NOT to pay right now — that is bad).

The policy should be debated, not the preamble of the Constitution — which no Con law issue is based on anyway. (unfortunately)

Guilty as charged, but if generalizations are going to be thrown, I’m going to call them out.

“Ya, like buying a house with an ARM in 2006. Hell, even in 2005. Or 2004.”

Considering that Alan Greenspan was encouraging people to use ARMs, you’ll have to forgive some people for following the advice of the man people were calling “The Maestro.”

Well, to Maz’s credit, he did apologize after the absurdity of his statement was pointed out to him.

In other news, the Earth stopped rotating on its axis for a brief period earlier this afternoon.

i meant a Senate not structured like the House.

I don’t care what The Maestro said. If you didn’t look at an adjustable rate loan in 2004 and say, “Um, what if they go up?” you’re an idiot. I had people trying to sell me on them in 2005 and I thought they were loony.

Besides, it was Greenspan’s moves to keep interest rates so low that helped lead into all this nonsense lending and borrowing because he was so afraid of inflation.

Well, they designed the Senate to be not based on population as the House is.

What has changed, that they might not have foreseen is the direct election of Senators by the population. Originally, Senators were elected by the state’s legislature.

But I agree, the world and society are so different from the late 18th century, it’s pretty ridiculous to try and tie us to their understanding of the world, no matter how smart they were.

Another important distinction is that we have gone from an agrarian society, to industrial, to post-industrial.

It seems lately that many Americans are suffering from this odd affliction that leads them to think that they are living in a unique period of time with issues that have never occurred before. I think we are just too ignorant of the past to truly see how similar things are to historical events.

If it wasn’t for socialized medicine, George Washington wouldn’t have had to deal with health care rationing and would’ve been first in line for real dentures.

I still don’t understand why people have a problem with socialized medicine. The U.S. spends more than any other industrialized county on health care – and those other countries cover the health costs of all citizens.

The number one reason people file bankruptcy is because they were financially wiped out by a medical catastrophe. Universal health care would stop that (and banks, etc. would no longer get stuck covering those bills)

If employers no longer had to cover health insurance, wouldn’t that be like a big tax break for them? (which conservatives say is a great way to help the economy)

Bureaucracy in health care accounts for 1/3 of the costs. In countries with Universal health care its about 10%. Could that savings be applied to the cost of running our own Universal health care?

In terms of quality, Universal health care in other countries is superior to ours in many ways – except emergency care. If you get shot, you want it to be in this country. (the result of NRA lobbying?)

I’ve had family members who experienced health care in two European countries. It was excellent – yet affordable.

If care is good and costs are low, what’s the down side? Is seems the increase in taxes would be offset by the loss of premium costs that people pay now. My sister’s family pays $1000 a month on a family of 4 (that’s with insurance coverage through her employer). I’m sure she’d happily trade free health coverage for a $400 tax increase.

“There are a lot of those out there, and their numbers are growing, and will continue to grow. What do you suggest we do about that? SCHIP is one solution, and it has the support of the physicians . . .“

No doubt.

We don’t have an insurance crisis. We don’t have a health care crisis. What we have is a failure to even discuss, as a society, what we all expect in terms of health care.

The main reason people can’t buy insurance as cheaply as in the past is that the total cost of all of the health care performed has multiplied astronomically in a short period of time.

The reason that cost has multiplied astronomically is that the progress in the field of medical science has been . . . huge. Wonderous. Awe-inspiring. We can fix things we never hoped to fix ten years ago. We can keep old people alive for decades beyond the limits ten years ago. We can do these things because of new drugs, new treatments, new machinery . . . all of which are incredibly complex, and thus incredibly expensive. (If they were simple, we would have already had them years ago.)

So now, we as a society spend staggering amounts of money keeping a preemie alive, when that preemie would have died ten years ago. We spend staggering amounts of money keeping oldsters alive, in beds, on tubes and bedsores, who would have died much earlier without all the incredibly expensive care.

But we’ve never rationally discussed whether we should be doing this. Should we spend two million bucks keeping a 23-week-old preemie alive, or use that money to educate 200 kids, or build homes for . . . . We just shy away from that conversation completely.

But we have to decide that issue. Until we do, the total expenditure for health care makes high insurance costs for everyone the norm. And, as long as “catastrophic care” costs are so staggering, no one conceives of paying medical bills out of savings, or taking out an “operation loan” – the prices are just too high for an individual to ever pay off. And, as long as people think that way, they stay away from personal medical savings accounts – what’s the point, really? (Which is dumb, because combining them with high-deductible insurance is the way to go.)

And as long as they happens, no one ever – EVER – shops for medical care by price, and so no medical provider ever has to think twice about pricing, and thus we pay lots more than we should for care.

“It seems lately that many Americans are suffering from this odd affliction that leads them to think that they are living in a unique period of time with issues that have never occurred before. I think we are just too ignorant of the past to truly see how similar things are to historical events.”

But many of the solutions that would have made sense in the past, wouldn’t necessarily make sense today.

For example, in a sparsely populated agrarian society, with lots of room for expansion, self sufficiency by living off the land was relatively simple (if not hard work). Not harvesting enough? Pack up and move to the frontier and claim a larger, more productive plot. Not exactly easy or practical to do in an urban, industrial society.

Or, would the 2nd amendment have been written so expansively if the authors had to deal with an dense, urban society with cheap high powered automatic rifles rather than a sparse agrarian society with front loaded muzzles or massive cannons?

Ahh, remember the good old days before HMO’s when you could get your tooth pulled by your barber, buy morphine and cocaine at the general store, and birth your baby in the family bed and going out to work the fields the next day? Those were some good times…

That’s what health care was like in Windom just 20 years ago.

Carrie, I don’t knwo where to start except to say that in England, people are doing exactly what alie joked about.

I still don’t understand why people have a problem with socialized medicine.

Exhibit A: a veterans hospital
Exhibit B: a rez hospital

The VA is one of the most cost-efficient health care systems in the nation, maz. Been to the Minneapolis VA Hospital? It’s as good or better than any other hospital in the Twin Cities.

Never been on a reservation health care facility, so I can’t speak for the care/facilities there.

For example, in a sparsely populated agrarian society, with lots of room for expansion, self sufficiency by living off the land was relatively simple (if not hard work). Not harvesting enough? Pack up and move to the frontier and claim a larger, more productive plot. Not exactly easy or practical to do in an urban, industrial society.

What’s that got to do with the constitution?

The purpose of the Constitution is to identify the limited powers of the federal government.

Kev, in olden times, a barber was also “trained” as a dentist, which, at that time, I’m sure consisted little more than how to do extractions. Maybe people in England should start training their barbers to do dental work.

Carrie, I don’t knwo where to start except to say that in England, people are doing exactly what alie joked about.

I don’t know that socialized medicine is the answer, but I do know that the current system does work to terribly well. Among the G7 countries, which are, for the most part, living Western lifestyles, life expectancy in the U.S. is dead last.

Which is kinda sad given how often we’ve heard that our health care is the best in the world.

The VA is one of the most cost-efficient health care systems in the nation, maz. Been to the Minneapolis VA Hospital?

My father-in-law suffered a stroke and was sent there because he was a veteran. After a week, we brought him home to live with us. Because we wouldn’t have left a family pet in that place.

When does an anecdote allow one to make broad generalizations?

“Lois Quamm (DFL activist) is a multimillionaire based on stock options she holds from an allegedly non-profit health care company.”

False. United Heath Group is a for-profit company. They’re even traded on the NYSE.
(You’ll also notice that United doesn’t sell any health insurance in Minnesota. That’s because Minnesota law requires health insurance to be sold by non-profits.

“The number one reason people file bankruptcy is because they were financially wiped out by a medical catastrophe.“

No.

Just . . . no. I’ll leave it at that, and limit myself to pointing to one spot (among many) where the study’s data was reviewed, at this link.

I couldn’t disagree with you more. The moral imperative of all health care is to do good for a patient, ie. keep them alive.

There’s no reason for that to be up for discussion. Sh*t, if we have to discuss that, I’m outta here.

Bobby_B, that was the best and most thoughtful post of the day.

Bobby’s right. 40 years ago, my dad’s appendectomy cost $2000 (that covered the hospital stay as well). My appendectomy last year cost over $50K, and I was in the hospital half as long (not including the time I spent in the hospital for complications). But 40 years ago they didn’t have half the gadgets they do now…

I think the way to go is not socialized medicine. A government run HMO or a nationwide non-profit health insurance company is more to my thinking. The health insurance would cover basic services including some emergency care. If you could afford your own provider, you can use that. If companies wanted to give more coverage, they could use another provider. And the like. With everyone covered, people could and possibly would go to the doctor when they needed to, rather than wait until it was an emergency. There isn’t any reason to take over all hospitals and doctors, just how these people are paid and a streamlined paperwork system would also be a benefit to everyone.

Among the G7 countries, which are, for the most part, living Western lifestyles, life expectancy in the U.S. is dead last.

Let’s compare populations. The african-asian-central-american populations tend to have health issues thet bring with them when they come here. A more accurate measure is the number of americans who go to other countries for treatment versus how many foreigners come here. Go down to the Mayo clinic sometime. It’s like the bleeping united nations. When I was there, the sultan of some gulf state was there. And he obviously could afford to go anywhere.

mnblrmkr is correct.

Hippocratic oath and all that? Ring a bell? For once I agree with Kevin — triage should only be performed on a battlefield.

And the complexity of health care is not an excuse for rising costs. The system we have now is set up such that any advantage to the free market is swallowed by the rising costs of administration, the crushing weight of the complex system itself where hospitals and doctors need to maintain a staff devoted to navigating payment systems and the simple fact that people will NEVER go looking for the best price when they’re hurting. All this has created a situation where you can go in to get a sprained ankle looked at and end up paying more than $700 for the experience.

And try being a independent business owner (you know, the backbone of the economy many legislators are ever so concerned about) and try to get insurance. Especially an independent business owner with a preexisting condition.

“When does an anecdote allow one to make broad generalizations?“

When the broads are out of the room?

The moral imperative of all health care is to do good for a patient, ie. keep them alive.

While 99% of the time, yes, that is the best thing, there’s quality of life issues that have to be discussed too, especially when it comes to those who are critically and incurably ill. Is the prolonging of a life that will be spent in a coma, or in serious pain, or undergoing procedure after procedure with no real gains worthwhile? Especially if you’ve already lived a long and good life? But that’s clearly a personal decision, and not one to be mandated or legislated.

A government run HMO or a nationwide non-profit health insurance company is more to my thinking.

Really? When you took your high school lovely to the prom, where did you go … a nice privately-owned resteraunt or a government cafeteria?

I can’t really say whether I’m truly for or against socialized medicine, but I’ve seen state funded nursing homes (had relatives there) and it scared the bejezus out of me.

…a personal decision meaning that the patient and/or the family makes that decision, not the doctor or medical staff. A doctor is of course obligated to do all he or she can to save lives, except when the patient clearly states otherwise, which is why a DNR or some instructions for your family as to what you want if you’re in a vegetative state, etc. is important to have.

Really? When you took your high school lovely to the prom, where did you go … a nice privately-owned resteraunt or a government cafeteria?

Since I could afford a nice privately-owned restaurant, I went there, but if I couldn’t a government cafeteria would be an option.

At some point, a single payer system WILL happen. It is in US Companies best interest to not be in the health care providing business. That is, if they could unload the benefit of providing health care, it would reduce their costs. Thus, making them more profitable in a global market. If GM or Ford could unload providing health care for their workers, they could save a lot of money.

What we should be thinking about and discussing is what would make a workable system? How do we pay insurance for 300,000,000 people? One way is to strip out all of the profit taking – cut down on paperwork – etc. What entity is large enough to handle this? Can we allow different people to have different levels of coverage? It needs to not be – this can’t be done by the government so we shouldn’t try. It’s going to happen, and the best most flexible system will need to be designed.

All nursing homes scare the bejesus out of me. I know staffers try really hard, but there’s just an air of awfulness over it all.

Assisted living, especially the new ones, seems kinda nifty, though. My grammy lived in one for the last year of her life, and she enjoyed it, especially the part where they did her laundry. She gushed about it constantly – “I put it in the hall Tuesday night and they bring it back Wednesday morning at 7am! They put it away! They fold it! They iron!”

Yup.

No question, Josie. But like you said — that’s a personal decision. I want the damn doctor obligated to bust his ass to fix me until someone (me, a relative, what have you) tells him to pull the plug. Doctors shouldn’t have the option to triage, and even under a socialized system, the government shouldn’t be able to legislate situations where the plug should be pulled.

If all people went to the same government run medical facilities (instead of just veterans and the elderly to select ones) I promise that the quality would go up.

I don’t know was medical care in England is like, but France and Switzerland are quite good.

Haven’t had time to read Bobby’s link on the bankruptcy thing, but taking that out of the mix, I think there are still compelling reasons to look at Universal health care.

The what-are-we-willing-to-pay-for question Bobby brings up is a good one. Although currently I think one’s medical coverage already dictates some of that so its not an entirely new question. If my doctor wants me to have an experimental last ditch effort treatment but my insurance says no, I can fight it but I might never get it paid for. But if I can pay for it out of pocket…

Medical science has caused the price of things to rise as there are advancements and better procedures etc. on the flip side some things are expensive because the lobbyist for the treatments (mostly drugs) are able to strong arm the FDA into disallowing the less costly competitors into the U.S. marketplace even when they’ve been safely used in other countries for years.

And Maz — a far better measure of the quality of care people get is what happens when they live in the country. I won’t argue that the available care for those who can pay for it is spectacular and likely the best in the world. But access to that best in class care is limited to the filthy rich, in many case.

For example — I grew up in an upper middle class home and played a lot of sports. Along the way I dislocated my kneecap. I was in Cleveland at the time and went to the Cleveland Clinic for treatment. But they did the operation, gave me some rehab exercises and sent me home. Were my family incredibly rich and could pay out of pocket for physical therapy (or were a professional athlete) I would’ve received hours of therapy a day, ultrasonic muscle treatments — the works. And it probably wouldn’t have taken nearly as long to figure out there were bits of cartilage floating around in the joint in the first place. As it was, it took me nearly a year until I could play sports again, and I still have trouble with the knee — unlike those who can afford the full boat.

the government shouldn’t be able to legislate situations where the plug should be pulled.

But with budget pressures, what would a government-run health care system feel pressured to do?

Think about it.

HillaryCare = Soylent Green

“”The number one reason people file bankruptcy is because they were financially wiped out by a medical catastrophe.”

Just . . . no. I’ll leave it at that, and limit myself to pointing to one spot (among many) where the study’s data was reviewed, at this link. “

Couple of things:

1. The claim that the link challenges is that over 50% of bankruptcies are a result of medical expenses. They claim it’s only 17%. That 17% could still rank as the most prevalent cause of bankruptcies. The link doesn’t seem to really discuss the RANKING of medical debt as a cause.

I don’t think you can conclusively say “No” to the claim based on that link. There’s controversy over the analysis of the data.
The original authors still stand by their analysis.
Of course, we can’t conclusively make the original claim about medical bankruptcies either.

If GM or Ford could unload providing health care for their workers, they could save a lot of money.

That’s not the taxpayers’ responsibility dammit.

Soylent Green is people! IT’S PEOPLE!!!

If anyone pulls my plug, I am so haunting their ass from beyond the grave.

Thanks, Tara.

” – I couldn’t disagree with you more. The moral imperative of all health care is to do good for a patient, ie. keep them alive.

– There’s no reason for that to be up for discussion. Sh*t, if we have to discuss that, I’m outta here.”

Kevin, phrase it thusly: I can spend two million dollars keeping grandpa tucker alive for four more years even though he has no arms, legs, teeth, bladder control, or reasoning ability, but, sadly, that’s two million less I’ll have to feed the starving people of _________.

You can’t simply answer that we’ll get more money and do both. If that were a workable answer, no one would be starving anywhere, and some are.

It’s not simply “be good, or be evil.” It’s “fight death as much as we can.”

But we’ve never rationally discussed whether we should be doing this.

Bobby f’n nailed it. Well spoken, sir.

The moral imperative of all health care is to do good for a patient, ie. keep them alive.

Meanwhile, Kevin wrongly assumes that the best thing for a patient is to keep them alive at all costs, regardless of the quality of life they might expect to live in the future.

Is Bachman literally insane or what? Or is she stupid? It’s becoming hysterically funny to me how bizarre this woman is.

Simple equation:

IRAQ vs. US Children

Bobby_B, all of your reasonable talk might confuse MNspeak and make it blow a gasket or something. When it breaks and we all have to actually do work again, it’s on your head!

I strongly believe it’s Grandpa Tucker’s responsibility to say at some point in his life, hey, guys, this is what I want in case I can’t make my own decisions. And it’s his family’s responsibility to fulfill those wishes, or to make those decisions for him if he didn’t in a thoughtful manner.

It should never be the doctor’s responsibility to say “we are stopping Grandpa Tucker’s care right now.” A doctor should recommend the best course of treatment, and if the best treatment is truly no treatment, then he or she should recommend that. But ultimately the choices for what care you do and do not accept is in your hands, or in the hands of those responsible for you, and that responsibility absolutely should not be given to the doctor.

Irony of ironies, Indian companies are already setting up shops in the US to outsource the outsourcing!

Indian tech outfit outsources to US

If all people went to the same government run medical facilities (instead of just veterans and the elderly to select ones) I promise that the quality would go up.

Hahaha. You do, huh? The population of the u.s. is 300 million and growing and its diverse ethinicities and national origins present a myriad of medical issues.

What’s the population of switzerland and their ethnic mix?

But ultimately the choices for what care you do and do not accept is in your hands, or in the hands of those responsible for you, and that responsibility absolutely should not be given to the doctor.

If health care is paid for by the taxpayers, they will ultimately decide what they’re going to pay for through the federal budget that they allow. And I say “allow” because when tax increases are necessary to pay for it all, what happens when the people say no? Then you’re looking at rationed care and decisions of life and death being made by a government bureaucrat.

The choice can only safely be yours when you are paying the bill. When you let someone else pay the bill, you’re in danger of letting them also call the shots medically. And if you let a policitian running for office tell you otherwise, you’re a fool.

Since this veered into health care stuff, this post today from The New Republic is pretty good. (via)

As it was, it took me nearly a year until I could play sports again, and I still have trouble with the knee — unlike those who can afford the full boat.

Hey rich. I bet I drive a nicer car than you do. Do you wanna make the government make up the difference?

Since this veered into health care stuff, this post today from The New Republic is pretty good.

Predictions about how much universal health care would cost are meaningless.

When your senator Hubert Humphrey argued on the senate floor for the passage of medicare, he said in response to those who said it would bankrupt the country, that “if the program ever cost more than 100 million dollars,” he’d “eat the paper the bill was written on.”

Last year’s Medicare expenditure was $144 billion.

“Then you’re looking at rationed care and decisions of life and death being made by a government bureaucrat.”

We already have rationed healthcare and life and death decisions being made by corporate bureaucrats.

At least the Government bureaucrat is accountable to you through your ability to vote. The corporate bureaucrat is more accountable to the corporate stockholder, not you.

“Hey rich. I bet I drive a nicer car than you do. Do you wanna make the government make up the difference?”

Nice red herring.

Yes, mnblrmkr, but the govt. bureaucrat won’t pull down a billion a year in compensation, like the head of UHG did. So that’s no good.

So what government monopoly should we base this health care system after?

At least the Government bureaucrat is accountable to you through your ability to vote.

You don’t get to vote for the bureaucrats.

But you vote for the politicians that set the rules that the bureaucrats are hired under.

You also vote for the politicians that set the policies that the bureaucrats operate under.

“So what government monopoly should we base this health care system after?”

How about Medicare. It operates far more efficiently than private insurance, with it’s 3% administrative overhead.

Even modeling it after the Federal employee health plan would be an improvement.

That’s like saying that since you’re a stockholder in UHC, you can set the rules they use.

If you pay the bill, you call the shots. Other than that, you’re at the mercy of someone else’s budget and rules.

“If you pay the bill, you call the shots.”

Most people can’t pay the bills when it comes to healthcare.

So what government monopoly should we base this health care system after?

Department of Homeland Security.

How about Medicare. It operates far more efficiently than private insurance, with it’s 3% administrative overhead

Ironically, most of private insurance administrative overhead is mandated by the government.

Here’s what you do, boilermaker:

You allow people to buy catastrophic insurance that covers expenses due to hospitalization for illness or accident.

Then you pay all your other medical expenses out of pocket. Just like your auto insurance. You have auto insurance to get your car repaired if its in an accident. You don’t use auto insurance to get the brakes replaced, or an oil change or a tune up. If you did, the insurance would be much more expensive because those expenses are expected to happen to most people.

Same with health insurance. Most people will get sick with colds and flu and such and if they didn’t go to the doctor for such minor ailments, costs to the insurance company would be much lower. If they only had to pay for unusual situations (like getting hospitalized with a major disease or injury is as unusual as getting into an auto accident), the health insurance premiums likewise could be much lower.

But you know what? Selling catastrophic health insurance is ILLEGAL in the state of minnesota! Why is that? Make that product legal and the halth care costs would crop dramatically.

In England, as well as in Canada (I believe) “heroic care” for serious, usually-fatal illness means you get the cute hospice nurse. As societies, they’ve had the necessary discussions, and, like their solution or not, they’ve controlled the massive, “heroic” costs by simpling saying, “we’ll try these normal and affordable treatments, but no more, because we all die eventually.

So, Grandpa Tucker gets the mastectomy, and maybe a little chemo, but then they officially label him “hospice” and send him home.

Kevin, do you have the right to demand eternal life, if docs could keep you from dying of old age, at a cost that would support 30 families for a decade?

Actually, it’s more cost effective for people to go to the doctor for smaller things. Why do you think most insurance doesn’t require a co-pay for an annual physical? It’s cheaper to pay for that and catch and treat things when they’re small, rather than wait until it’s become a much bigger problem.

In fact, in 2000, John Kerry proposed that the Federal Government take over catastrophic care coverage. Would have saved the private insurers a ton, and not cost the Government that much more.

If people are only covered for catastrophic care, they’re not going to take their infant in for a check up when she comes down with a fever or an ear infection. What happens then? The kid’s likely going to end up deaf.

Or, they’re not going to have their blood sugar level tested as part of a physical, then, instead of knowing that they need to make dietary changes, they’re going to end up losing a limb or their eyesight to diabetes.

Same thing goes for heart disease. Someone who only has catastrophic care isn’t going to have regular care to realize that their cholesterol or BP are too high until they have their heart attack. It’s cheaper to treat those early than paying for angioplasty, bypass, or pacemaker/ICD surgery. Not to mention, that these treatments keep the patient healthier and more productive.

The problem with that model is that “societies” may have discussions, but individuals have to live by the laws. In a free society, I would be able to hire my own doctor and tell him what sort of treatment I am willing to pay for. My fear is that your “society” will decide that since all people can’t afford that option, no one will.

That’s not a free society. That’s a managed society. I intend to live in the former.

Here’s the problem with paying out of pocket for routine or non routine care. Someone who has a chronic condition, such as diabetes, HIV/AIDS, Hep C, chronic bowel disease, asthma, arthritis, etc. would be nickeled and dimed to death. Even paying a $30 copay for these problems, not to mention prescriptions is difficult for people even if they have good insurance. Chronic disease often times isn’t life threatening unless it goes untreated and, even though you may be covered under major medical, when your diabetes results in blindness or kidney failure, why should that person have to wait till things get that bad?

I didn’t mean not go to the doctor for small things. I mispoke. I meant you pay for those trips to the doctor at the going rate for those services … out of pocket … the way you pay for an oil change in your car. You don’t stop getting oil changes or brake replacements just because your insurance doesn’t cover it. You expect to pay out of pocket. Same with non-catastrophic medical problems.

People just need to be educated about going to the doctor for those things and expect to pay for them in return for much lower insurance premiums. The auto repair shops are pretty busy with non-insurance related work.

Chronic disease would be covered under catastrophic.

Good god people, sleep. Go home. Get a date. You can’t debate health care all day without soon needing some yourself.

“I didn’t mean not go to the doctor for small things. I mispoke. I meant you pay for those trips to the doctor at the going rate for those services … out of pocket … the way you pay for an oil change in your car. You don’t stop getting oil changes or brake replacements just because your insurance doesn’t cover it. You expect to pay out of pocket. Same with non-catastrophic medical problems.”

People aren’t going to do that though if they’re paying out of pocket. Especially the people that need it the most. If someone is in the position of only being able to afford catastrophic care, they’re likely going to think twice or even three times before taking their kid in for a $100 office visit for a fever, or for routine blood sugar tests.

And you would be surprised at the number of people that don’t pay for routine maintenance on their cars.. Sure, they may pay for it down the road, but you can always buy a new beater. You can’t go out and buy a new body. Or, alternatively, they can change the oil themselves, like I do. But again, it’s pretty hard for someone to do their own colonoscopy.

I’ll also just toss in that there are still plenty of routine expenses for chronic conditions that you have to pay out of pocket: Prescription lenses aren’t usually covered, glucose strips for diabetics aren’t usually covered. hearing aids aren’t covered.(I haven’t updated mine in 15 years, because of that. New ones would cost starting at $1,000 each, upwards of $5,000, with no guarantee that they would be an improvement.)

“Good god people, sleep. Go home. Get a date. You can’t debate health care all day without soon needing some yourself. “

A what?

Seriously, if you don’t stop I’m going to beat you up.

btw – It’s never been mentioned as such, but I’m guessing that one of the reasons’ Tony Snow stepped down was because he was paying for his cancer treatments in cash.

Bullshit. And you know better, Kevin.

Ha. You couldn’t even beat up ol’ Grandpa Tucker, and he’s got no arms, legs, teeth, or bladder control.

Course, that bladder control thing just might help him in this scenario, I suppose . . .

“The problem with that model is that “societies” may have discussions, but individuals have to live by the laws.“

True, which is why I said “like their solution or not.” For me, it’s “not.”

(Apparently, for the well-off in Canada, it’s “not”, also, if we can judge by the numbers who are slinking over our borders to buy our docs’ services – which they’re forbidden to do in Canada, because poorer people can’t afford to do the same.)

But at least they’ve had that talk, and, as an added bonus, once the talk has explicitly clued the masses in about why “health care” costs so much, they can get past that whole “it’s the evil [docs/insurers/pols/WalMart pharmacists/Trotskyites] and at least know that the reason they can’t get a free pass to $40 million worth of doctors’ workdays is because society actually has to buy the Christmas presents it wants to give away, and it can’t afford to get you something that nice this year.

It sounds like Maz is trying to invent a HSA.

Extremely low premiums (mine are $20 a month), pay as you go, ~$3000 maximum pay out per year. You can save up to your max pay out tax free every year.

Have you people not heard of these?

The Rat had one at one time. He thanks God he never had to use it.

If you can afford to set aside $3,000/yr, never get sick, or never seek preventive care, it might work great for you.

But a lot of people don’t have $3,000 they can set aside each year. Or, they’ve got kids, or a a pre-existing condition, they’ll never see any accumulation.

They also can create an adverse selection, as the young and healthy leave traditional insurance. Driving costs for everyone else even higher, as those remaining are older and sicker.

stop…please…no…more…healthcare…

I don’t see those as much of an answer. Just as much of a runaround. They want to get you shopping for doctors and making medical decisions that you’re probably not qualified to do.

People start weighing doctor visits against shoes for the kids or a new boat or something.

… “if the program ever cost more than 100 million dollars,” he’d “eat the paper the bill was written on.”

Last year’s Medicare expenditure was $144 billion.

To be entirely fair to the Happy Warrior, you would have to make direct comparisons between what the program covered in 1965 with the exact same things in 2007.

Inflation alone means that $100,000,000 in 1965 dollars equaled almost $1 billion in 2006 … just as that $0.28 gallon of gas in 1965 would cost $1.76/gallon in 2006 even with no increase in the price of a barrel of oil.

How much has Medicare coverage expanded in the past 40 years? Social Security used to only cover retirees; now it covers that PLUS children, disable adults, and more.

I see Rat has been sufficiently conditioned. All that propoganda has worked nicely.

But that’s my point noodleman. When politicians try to sell you a government solution and predict how nuch it will cost, don’t pay any attention to them.

The current fight over the so-called “childrens health care” bill only makes both of our points. It was originally sold to provide health insurance to families with kids who couldn’t afford it. Most people would think “poor kids.” But it has exploded into a program that would make most people in this country eligible because some politicians want to use the issue to get votes. And we all pay for their dishonesty.

I see Rat has been sufficiently conditioned. All that propoganda has worked nicely.

I lived it, Maz. Thank God I don’t have to go back to that.

There’s all kinds of freedoms Maz. Not just your gauzy John Wayne Hollywood versions.

In other news, United Health earnings rose 15% in the 3rd quarter.

Interesting paragraph:

UnitedHealth said its medical care ratio, or the percentage of each premium dollar it pays out for health care, was 79.5 percent for the quarter, down by 1.6 percentage points from a year ago.

Premiums continue to rise, even as the insurance companies pay for less coverage.

“But it has exploded into a program that would make most people in this country eligible because some politicians want to use the issue to get votes. And we all pay for their dishonesty.”

They also want to keep the kids healthy. It will cost the country a lot less to keep them healthy now, rather than paying for serious and/or chronic conditions later in life.

In direct healthcare costs, associated disability costs, and worker productivity.

But that’s my point noodleman. When politicians try to sell you a government solution and predict how nuch it will cost, don’t pay any attention to them.

I agree. I have a great distrust of salespeople for the same reason! And stock analysts!

It will cost the country a lot less to keep them healthy now, rather than paying for serious and/or chronic conditions later in life.

I agree. But that doesn’t mean the taxpayers should have to pay for it. Contrary to popular belief, this country isn’t a collective.

(thud)

The HSA is perfect for me. I rarely see the doctor and my premiums used to be about $35 a paycheck to cover just me.

I don’t put aside $3000 a year but the money rolls over from year to year so if you can save $1500 for two years and not have any major illnesses you have enough to cover a year of massive bills. Also once you reach a certain value in your HSA you can start investing the money like a 401K. If I had had this years ago I would have a nice nest egg built up. Since I just started this about 2 years ago I have very little.

It won’t work well for older people but for younger people if you save a lot and use it a little when you are healthy you can save enough over the years to cover years of maximum outpayment.

I really don’t see why I should have to subsidize people having children and all the various issues they have.

Don’t pay any attention maz or Kevin to mnblrmkr’s comment.

Seriously though, the premiums people are paying United are going up at an unsustainable rate, they are actually paying out less of the money they take in for actual health care, and their profits rose 15%. And we can’t figure out what’s wrong with the health care system? Seriously? It’s staring us right in the face and we don’t want to look at it because someone might utter those terrifying words “socialized medicine!”.

“I agree. But that doesn’t mean the taxpayers should have to pay for it. Contrary to popular belief, this country isn’t a collective.”

Actually, any society is a collective. It’s just a question of to what extent.

As I said, we’ll pay for it one way or another. Either in more expensive and/or lifelong treatment for something that might have been prevented with cheaper, earlier care, or in reduced economic productivity.

Personally, I prefer to pay for it in a manner and time that is more cost effective, and helps keep our country in a stronger economic position.

How much has Medicare coverage expanded in the past 40 years? Social Security used to only cover retirees; now it covers that PLUS children, disable adults, and more.

I could bore you to death with what Medicare will and will not cover and how much their policy drives what HMO’s decide what and how much it will pay for.

Maz, the reason that SCHIP has “exploded” is because the number of people without health insurance has exploded. And some of us think its unfair that their children should suffer because they can’t find affordable insurance.

This is a real problem for our society, and it’s not going to go away by throwing around words like “freedom” or “socialized medicine.”

Seriously though, the premiums people are paying United are going up at an unsustainable rate, they are actually paying out less of the money they take in for actual health care, and their profits rose 15%.

My doctor drives a brand new beemer. I wonder what his profit margin is. My friend is a nurse and makes more money than god. I wonder what her profit margin is.

Missing the point on purpose Maz? Doctors and Nurses should be well paid, but why should a shareholder receive a 15% profit on healthcare not delivered? The profit motive is a good thing in general, but it seems a little out of control in healthcare when we in the US are paying more and getting less than other western nations.

I guess I could also bore you all to death at the reasons why Medicare is so efficiently run, but I won’t, cuz I’m sick and I don’t wanna…

Nonsense. This state will have to find a way to spend that money because anybody in this state who needs insurance, gets it through one of several means. Even the illegal aliens get covered.

I guess I could also bore you all to death at the reasons why Medicare is so efficiently run, but I won’t, cuz I’m sick and I don’t wanna…

Thank you.

And there you have it. There are no gays in Iran; there are no uninsured people in Minnesota.

Thank you and good night!

“nonsense” and “illegal aliens!” are certainly powerful arguments.

anybody in this state who needs insurance, gets it through one of several means.

Yeah, um, not likely, speaking as a formerly uninsured person. It’s certainly attainable if you have money – COBRA was something like $300 a month, and private insurance in MN isn’t cheap to get – but since my uninsured period coincided with an unemployment period, that wasn’t happening. And I imagine most of the uninsured are aren’t sitting on an extra $300 a month for health insurance.

Typos, typos, typos. Sigh.

A family of four making 82K with four kids should be able to get by no matter where they live.

Kevin has obviously never lived in a city any bigger than Minneapolis.

also:

I do know that if I lived in California, I wouldn’t be able to by an individual policy at any price.

I’m afraid I have to agree with Kevin here, Wayne.
If you are needing more than 82,000 dollars to support and insure a family, perhaps you should move out of Midtown and over to Wiliamsburg. And if you find that you can’t support 4 children, you should have had only 2!

So, what, retroactive abortion for the last two born? Maybe you have the kids draw straws?

Shucks, back in Iowa 82k would make you a millionaire no matter how many kids the lord sees fit to give you.

Well, that’s a surefire way to settle the endless debate of who Mom and Dad like best.

Maybe that can be the next season of Survivor

F*ckballs, just click here.

So, what, retroactive abortion for the last two born? Maybe you have the kids draw straws?

Or move somewhere where you can effectively support your family?.

Not always possible.

Don’t forget too, that in many of these cases, it’s people that can’t get insurance at ANY price.

Someone in the family gets cancer? You’ll never get an individual policy.