login
The new BO health care plan (Page 4)
-
No new posts
|
 2009-06-25 3:48 PM in reply to: #2243362 |
Pro  3906     St Charles, IL |  Subject: RE: The new BO health care planPennState - 2009-06-25 3:12 PM To those who think it is immoral to not have universal healthcare I would echo the recent thoughts on other universal issues: ie; which are the ones we should universally give to all citizens: 1. Food 2. Shelter 3. Safe household/ neighbourhoods 4. Education (including college)... ETA how about an excellent education, not the highly variable quality that is present in both the US and Canada depending on the socioeconomic status. 5. Medical care 6. Legal coverage (ie; an excellent attorney for someone wronly accused of a crime vs. an over-worked public defender) Should all of these be covered universally by the state? Why would it be moral to cover some of these and not all of these? It seems hypocritical to say that you are morally in the wrong not to have universal healthcare and at the same time not universally cover the rest of my list? Tell me how I'm wrong  ?Because deciding to solve nothing because we can't solve everything is silly. |
| 2009-06-25 3:51 PM in reply to: #2243359 |
Master 1641 Seattle, California | Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan Nelg - 2009-06-25 1:12 PM So you would pass on paying more out of pocket just to get yourself or a family member back on their feet quicker? http://www.waittimealliance.ca/June2009/Report-card-June2009_e.pdf Got cancer? 47 days until your first treatment, same as two pack a day Joe down the street. Depression, suicidal? Five + weeks for Psych care. Making care about the patient and not about being a cash cow for doctors, hospitals and drug companies is foremost. However equal treatment for those who destroy their bodies by choice vs. those who take care of themselves is not how a system should work. You should be rewarded for a healthy lifestyle and the ability to pay for better treatment. Both systems are flawed, one by greed and one by the fact that you are unable to walk down the street and get coverage resulting in reduced flexibility.
I would without a doubt do whatever I could for my family member if I had the means. However we design a system based around what is good for all the people rather then the individual. How one person emotionally reacts to a situation does not mean an efficient system should be designed to accommodate that reaction. It should be designed to help the greatest number of people in the greatest number of circumstances.
Females
Males
It should be noted though to be fair the incident rate is higher in the US, so of the people that seek treatment the % survival rate after 5 years is higher in the US. I would argue though that our easy access to family doctors and the impact that has on preventative care is what keeps our incident rate lower and therefore our base mortality rate per 100,000 lower. It's nice to pull out wait times and constantly point to them but if the systems create the same mortaility rates for groups of population it's hard to say that as a whole it is the deciding factor in which system provides better care. |
| 2009-06-25 3:51 PM in reply to: #2243472 |
| Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan coredump - 2009-06-25 1:48 PM PennState - 2009-06-25 3:12 PM To those who think it is immoral to not have universal healthcare I would echo the recent thoughts on other universal issues: ie; which are the ones we should universally give to all citizens: 1. Food 2. Shelter 3. Safe household/ neighbourhoods 4. Education (including college)... ETA how about an excellent education, not the highly variable quality that is present in both the US and Canada depending on the socioeconomic status. 5. Medical care 6. Legal coverage (ie; an excellent attorney for someone wronly accused of a crime vs. an over-worked public defender) Should all of these be covered universally by the state? Why would it be moral to cover some of these and not all of these? It seems hypocritical to say that you are morally in the wrong not to have universal healthcare and at the same time not universally cover the rest of my list? Tell me how I'm wrong ?Because deciding to solve nothing because we can't solve everything is silly. The federal government throwing money at it doesn't "solve" anything either. Our elected officials need to start taliing about the problems instead of covering them up by throwing money at it. |
 2009-06-25 3:54 PM in reply to: #2243472 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. Edited by PennState 2009-06-25 3:56 PM |
| 2009-06-25 3:55 PM in reply to: #2241995 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2009-06-25 4:01 PM in reply to: #2243477 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2009-06-25 4:08 PM in reply to: #2241995 |
| Pro 4578 Vancouver, BC | Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan I didn't read the last page of the thread, but I'd prefer our system, even if that makes me ignorant. My premium is $96/month for a family of 2. Both, mine & my SOs employer will pay the premium (no, we are not paying double, we just have the choice of whose employer is going to pay it). I think a lot of employers pay their employees premiums as that is our basic health insurance. Also, I think $96/month for 2 is the standard rate (there are individual & family rates too), no matter how much you make, and if you can apply for assistance for the premium. I can't comment on that. I've never had anything but excellent service from my doctor's office/clinic/hospital (though I haven't been to the hospital often). I don't know anyone dissatisfied with our system (yes, I know this my small circle). Just wanted to give you one anecdotal datapoint, since you've asked. I'll let James give you the stats. He's much more eloquent than I.
Edited by jeng 2009-06-25 4:09 PM |
| 2009-06-25 4:21 PM in reply to: #2243519 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. Edited by PennState 2009-06-25 4:23 PM |
| 2009-06-25 4:29 PM in reply to: #2241995 |
| Extreme Veteran 3177 | Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan I have held off replying on this as I come from a unique perspective due to my job. I work as a rather specialized coordinator for a cancer clinic. Health care is broken. I have no doubt about that. The costs are getting outrageous both from a provider point of view and from a patient point of view. I do not want to get into all of that due to my not having time to write that with my lunch being almost done. I do think we need to slow down. BO make a lot of promises in his campaign, some of which I think he is even working to realize. What I do not like is taking everything to fast especially in a time of financial/job turmoil. We need to stop worrying so much about the rest of the world and focus more on us first (it is hard to be a lead the free world from an unstable platform). We need to take a few years minimum to analyze our whole system and other counties systems and find a cost effective and accurate way to hybridize them. I am with a lot of others in that I do not want to pay even more in taxes at this point when so much is already taken from me for benefits I will probably never see. A point on Canada though is this. If someone in Canada is doing ok they do have the option of coming to the US for evaluation and even treatment depending on how well off they are. I work with patients from Canada who come down all the time and see our doctors and it works out well for them. Can the lazy guy smoking two packs a day who gets lung cancer in Canada do that? no he gets to wait in their equalizing system. There is a lot more I would like to say I just do not have the time to type it all out right now! |
| 2009-06-25 6:12 PM in reply to: #2243495 |
| Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan PennState - 2009-06-25 1:54 PM coredump - 2009-06-25 4:48 PM PennState - 2009-06-25 3:12 PM To those who think it is immoral to not have universal healthcare I would echo the recent thoughts on other universal issues: ie; which are the ones we should universally give to all citizens: 1. Food 2. Shelter 3. Safe household/ neighbourhoods 4. Education (including college)... ETA how about an excellent education, not the highly variable quality that is present in both the US and Canada depending on the socioeconomic status. 5. Medical care 6. Legal coverage (ie; an excellent attorney for someone wronly accused of a crime vs. an over-worked public defender) Should all of these be covered universally by the state? Why would it be moral to cover some of these and not all of these? It seems hypocritical to say that you are morally in the wrong not to have universal healthcare and at the same time not universally cover the rest of my list? Tell me how I'm wrong ?Because deciding to solve nothing because we can't solve everything is silly. So what would be your ranking then? Seriously, which ones should be 'universal' first? I would love a serious answer instead of a one-liner. If any of them should be provided or a right I think # 6 would/should be at the top of the list. |
| 2009-06-25 6:15 PM in reply to: #2243577 |
| Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan bel83 - 2009-06-25 2:29 PM I have held off replying on this as I come from a unique perspective due to my job. I work as a rather specialized coordinator for a cancer clinic. Health care is broken. I have no doubt about that. The costs are getting outrageous both from a provider point of view and from a patient point of view. I do not want to get into all of that due to my not having time to write that with my lunch being almost done. I do think we need to slow down. BO make a lot of promises in his campaign, some of which I think he is even working to realize. What I do not like is taking everything to fast especially in a time of financial/job turmoil. We need to stop worrying so much about the rest of the world and focus more on us first (it is hard to be a lead the free world from an unstable platform). We need to take a few years minimum to analyze our whole system and other counties systems and find a cost effective and accurate way to hybridize them. I am with a lot of others in that I do not want to pay even more in taxes at this point when so much is already taken from me for benefits I will probably never see. A point on Canada though is this. If someone in Canada is doing ok they do have the option of coming to the US for evaluation and even treatment depending on how well off they are. I work with patients from Canada who come down all the time and see our doctors and it works out well for them. Can the lazy guy smoking two packs a day who gets lung cancer in Canada do that? no he gets to wait in their equalizing system. There is a lot more I would like to say I just do not have the time to type it all out right now! Thanks for that input. Could you when/if you have time what you think is making our health care so expensive. Thanks |
| 2009-06-25 6:19 PM in reply to: #2243577 |
Champion 6627 Rochester Hills, Michigan Gold member | Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan bel83 - 2009-06-25 5:29 PM I do think we need to slow down. BO make a lot of promises in his campaign, some of which I think he is even working to realize. What I do not like is taking everything to fast especially in a time of financial/job turmoil. We need to stop worrying so much about the rest of the world and focus more on us first (it is hard to be a lead the free world from an unstable platform). We need to take a few years minimum to analyze our whole system and other counties systems and find a cost effective and accurate way to hybridize them. I am with a lot of others in that I do not want to pay even more in taxes at this point when so much is already taken from me for benefits I will probably never see. +1. Well put, thanks for your perspective. |
| 2009-06-25 6:44 PM in reply to: #2243558 |
| Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan PennState - 2009-06-25 3:21 PM AcesFull It could be argued that incidence rates are impacted by lifestyle decisions, which are often, in turn, impacted by regular access to quality healthcare. It could also be argued that the incidence rates are due to poor lifestyle decisions that are the result of a poor 'universal education' system too. Might be an arguement to universally improve the American education system... ie; make the poor schools on par with the upper/middle class schools? It might also be due to poor access to quality nutrition... eating poorly and subsequent obessity are certainly cancer risks... perhaps we need to have a universal 'excellent nutrition' program. ie; nutritious excellent food available to everyone and of course the education that goes with it? It could also be argued that poor living conditions (ie; living in an impoversished part of America near a chemical facility) could lead to higher cancer rates. Perhaps we need to look at universal quality living conditions? Not trying to get too off track (too late) but IMO a large reason why "poor" schools do so much worse is because of the lack of outside the classroom involvement. My wife, who is about to enter her student teaching year in school, has done some minor teaching lessons at several local schools here. She is fortunate enough that she has been placed at one of the more affluent elementary schools for her student teaching year next year and has already encountered the enormous support system that is in place due to parental involvement at the school. She has also had some lessons taught at relatively less well off schools and she has seen what the lack of parental involvement does to the overall level of teaching at the school. I don't see how you could level this playing field without getting more of the "poor" parents involved in the school, which IMO won't happen because they don't have the time to devote to their childrens schooling like the more well off families do. /hijack off |
| 2009-06-25 7:50 PM in reply to: #2243519 |
| Champion 8540 the colony texas | Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan AcesFull - 2009-06-25 4:01 PM Global - 2009-06-25 3:51 PM Nelg - 2009-06-25 1:12 PM So you would pass on paying more out of pocket just to get yourself or a family member back on their feet quicker? http://www.waittimealliance.ca/June2009/Report-card-June2009_e.pdfGot cancer? 47 days until your first treatment, same as two pack a day Joe down the street. Depression, suicidal? Five + weeks for Psych care. Making care about the patient and not about being a cash cow for doctors, hospitals and drug companies is foremost. However equal treatment for those who destroy their bodies by choice vs. those who take care of themselves is not how a system should work. You should be rewarded for a healthy lifestyle and the ability to pay for better treatment. Both systems are flawed, one by greed and one by the fact that you are unable to walk down the street and get coverage resulting in reduced flexibility.
I would without a doubt do whatever I could for my family member if I had the means. However we design a system based around what is good for all the people rather then the individual. How one person emotionally reacts to a situation does not mean an efficient system should be designed to accommodate that reaction. It should be designed to help the greatest number of people in the greatest number of circumstances.
Females
Males
It should be noted though to be fair the incident rate is higher in the US, so of the people that seek treatment the % survival rate after 5 years is higher in the US. I would argue though that our easy access to family doctors and the impact that has on preventative care is what keeps our incident rate lower and therefore our base mortality rate per 100,000 lower. It's nice to pull out wait times and constantly point to them but if the systems create the same mortaility rates for groups of population it's hard to say that as a whole it is the deciding factor in which system provides better care. It could be argued that incidence rates are impacted by lifestyle decisions, which are often, in turn, impacted by regular access to quality healthcare. Or it could be argued since it's been shown that more care doesn't equal better care.. getting a test or study without a wait does not mean you are getting better or more cost efficient care |
| 2009-06-25 10:08 PM in reply to: #2241995 |
| Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan Once you tell me how universal health care can ever be equal for all people, then I'll consider it. Once you let me know what liberal logic determines that giving person B health insurance at the labor of person A without person A placing restriction or demanding responsibility of person B makes person A equal to person B. How does the fact that person B lives make person A responsible for person B? Or when liberals talk about stepping up and taking responsibility are liberals only talking about person A to the benefit of person B? Am I my brother's keeper? If I am, how many brother's do I keep? And how long should I keep them? Edited by Jackemy 2009-06-25 10:10 PM |
| 2009-06-25 10:12 PM in reply to: #2241995 |
| Master 1895 | Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan What happened to the other universal health care thread? |
| 2009-06-25 10:19 PM in reply to: #2244168 |
| Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan Jackemy - 2009-06-25 10:08 PM Once you tell me how universal health care can ever be equal for all people, then I'll consider it. Once you let me know what liberal logic determines that giving person B health insurance at the labor of person A without person A placing restriction or demanding responsibility of person B makes person A equal to person B. How does the fact that person B lives make person A responsible for person B? Or when liberals talk about stepping up and taking responsibility are liberals only talking about person A to the benefit of person B? Am I my brother's keeper? If I am, how many brother's do I keep? And how long should I keep them? Do you resent your neighbor whose house is saved by the fire department your (collective) taxes pay for, if you yourself never have need to call upon the fire departments services? You both pay, but they have derived value, where you have not. Thus creating an unequal distribution of benefit. Or perhaps, unequal distribution of benefits is not inherently a bad thing, but a way of providing for the "common welfare"? |
| 2009-06-25 10:24 PM in reply to: #2244173 |
| Pro 3932 Irvine, California | Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan hamiltks10 - 2009-06-25 8:12 PM What happened to the other universal health care thread? I think the one that I started got pulled... hopefully it wasn't anything I said. |
| 2009-06-26 5:03 AM in reply to: #2244183 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2009-06-26 5:21 AM in reply to: #2244179 |
| Expert 810 | Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan coredump - 2009-06-25 10:19 PM Jackemy - 2009-06-25 10:08 PM Once you tell me how universal health care can ever be equal for all people, then I'll consider it. Once you let me know what liberal logic determines that giving person B health insurance at the labor of person A without person A placing restriction or demanding responsibility of person B makes person A equal to person B. How does the fact that person B lives make person A responsible for person B? Or when liberals talk about stepping up and taking responsibility are liberals only talking about person A to the benefit of person B? Am I my brother's keeper? If I am, how many brother's do I keep? And how long should I keep them? Do you resent your neighbor whose house is saved by the fire department your (collective) taxes pay for, if you yourself never have need to call upon the fire departments services? You both pay, but they have derived value, where you have not. Thus creating an unequal distribution of benefit. Or perhaps, unequal distribution of benefits is not inherently a bad thing, but a way of providing for the "common welfare"? I think some would take issue with trying to live a healthy lifestyle and paying their taxes and then having someone who lives a terrible unhealthy lifestyle BY CHOICE and lives off of the governments dollar getting the same level of care. They are already fall undeer the "common welfare" programs as there are numerous government programs to take care of them. The system that is being suggested punishes those that excel and rewards those that are middle of the road or below. Its sort of like the insurance business where you do your research, but a house in a "safe" area and you get hammered on your rates because someone builds a home in a known dangerous area ( coastal area prone to hurricane damage/known wildfire area/ known for flooding) This is a giant issue in FL right now as after our intense hurricane season a few years ago insurance went through the roof. People who have paid for 20-30 years with no claims have had their rates double and triple even though they had zero claims even after Charlie and his friends paid a visit. Not exactly the same scenario but just added that as a sort of example. Its a complicated topic with no easy solutions which is why I agree with changes being made but at a slower pace so as to get as solid a system as possible |
| 2009-06-26 6:52 AM in reply to: #2244179 |
| Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan coredump - 2009-06-25 10:19 PM Jackemy - 2009-06-25 10:08 PM Once you tell me how universal health care can ever be equal for all people, then I'll consider it. Once you let me know what liberal logic determines that giving person B health insurance at the labor of person A without person A placing restriction or demanding responsibility of person B makes person A equal to person B. How does the fact that person B lives make person A responsible for person B? Or when liberals talk about stepping up and taking responsibility are liberals only talking about person A to the benefit of person B? Am I my brother's keeper? If I am, how many brother's do I keep? And how long should I keep them? Do you resent your neighbor whose house is saved by the fire department your (collective) taxes pay for, if you yourself never have need to call upon the fire departments services? You both pay, but they have derived value, where you have not. Thus creating an unequal distribution of benefit. Or perhaps, unequal distribution of benefits is not inherently a bad thing, but a way of providing for the "common welfare"? Exactly, we both pay for fire service through property taxes. The derived value is not that my neighbors house burned down is that we both shared in the responsibility of ensuring we are equally protect by a service we both contributed to through our own labor. Also, should I be responsible to pay for my neighbors house with my labor if it burned down? What right does my neighbor have to my labor for his benefit? Edited by Jackemy 2009-06-26 6:56 AM |
| 2009-06-26 7:01 AM in reply to: #2244452 |
| Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan Jackemy - 2009-06-26 7:52 AM Also, should I be responsible to pay for my neighbors house with my labor if it burned down? What right does my neighbor have to my labor for his benefit? You don't do it with your labor, but you do it with your dollars. If you have homeowner's insurance, at least... |
| 2009-06-26 7:08 AM in reply to: #2244179 |
| Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan coredump - 2009-06-25 10:19 PM Do you resent your neighbor whose house is saved by the fire department your (collective) taxes pay for, if you yourself never have need to call upon the fire departments services? You both pay, but they have derived value, where you have not. Thus creating an unequal distribution of benefit. Or perhaps, unequal distribution of benefits is not inherently a bad thing, but a way of providing for the "common welfare"? By definition common welfare is the opposite of unequal distribution. The US government should not enslave the labor of one individual for the benefit of another individual. Say jack and jill went up the hill to get water for themselves and the government took it to give to someone who didn't go up the hill so they had to go again. The person who got the water derive 100% benefit from jack and jills labor while jack and jill receive only 50% benefit from their own labor. How is that equal? and why is Jack and Jill greedy and resentful if they complain? Edited by Jackemy 2009-06-26 7:11 AM |
| 2009-06-26 7:14 AM in reply to: #2244465 |
| Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan run4yrlif - 2009-06-26 7:01 AM Jackemy - 2009-06-26 7:52 AM Also, should I be responsible to pay for my neighbors house with my labor if it burned down? What right does my neighbor have to my labor for his benefit? You don't do it with your labor, but you do it with your dollars. If you have homeowner's insurance, at least... Last time I checked I get paid as a result of the value of my labor. Remove the disconnect of the dollar and you realize that everything you buy cost a piece of your finite time. |
| 2009-06-26 7:17 AM in reply to: #2244366 |
| Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: The new BO health care plan Imjin - 2009-06-26 6:21 AM I think some would take issue with trying to live a healthy lifestyle and paying their taxes and then having someone who lives a terrible unhealthy lifestyle BY CHOICE and lives off of the governments dollar getting the same level of care. They are already fall undeer the "common welfare" programs as there are numerous government programs to take care of them. The system that is being suggested punishes those that excel and rewards those that are middle of the road or below. Its sort of like the insurance business where you do your research, but a house in a "safe" area and you get hammered on your rates because someone builds a home in a known dangerous area ( coastal area prone to hurricane damage/known wildfire area/ known for flooding) This is a giant issue in FL right now as after our intense hurricane season a few years ago insurance went through the roof. People who have paid for 20-30 years with no claims have had their rates double and triple even though they had zero claims even after Charlie and his friends paid a visit. Not exactly the same scenario but just added that as a sort of example. Its a complicated topic with no easy solutions which is why I agree with changes being made but at a slower pace so as to get as solid a system as possible This is the exact same argument i made recently to a colleague. If someone smokes, is grossly obese etc.. they should pay more. Ideally there would be a sort of checklist in place. Overweight : -1 point Smokes -10 points Exercise daily + 2 points etc... This way everyone is one the same playing field. Want to lower you rates then change the things that deduct your points. While I understand that preexisting conditions can have a big impact on the cost of coverage there need to be a limit. I know this is a gross over simplification but I feel something like this could work. Don;t even get me going about the FL homeowners insurance industry. Got dropped by Nationwide back after the hurricanes (have never filed a claim). Now 4 years later they send me a latter asking me to come back. Ha! I wrote them a latter with two words on the page in 50 point font. You can guess what they were. Edited by TriRSquared 2009-06-26 7:18 AM |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK