Mr. B1ack
12/17/2013 2:48:00 PM
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 22:33:38 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>"Mr. B1ack" <nowhere@nada.net> wrote in message
>news:75fva9d5cgf7kgjsi2jtcss7sni03ed21e@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 22:53:37 -0700, Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:58:08 -0500, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:27:30 -0700, Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 04:41:31 -0800, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <63aee$52a5b4e9$4107e27c$24735@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
>>>>>> Bob <dalnetbob@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amid a drive by insurers to limit costs, the majority of insurance
>>>>>>> plans
>>>>>>> being sold on the new healthcare exchanges in New York, Texas, and
>>>>>>> California, for example, will not offer patients? access to Memorial
>>>>>>> Sloan Kettering in Manhattan or MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston,
>>>>>>> two top cancer centres, or Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, one of the
>>>>>>> top
>>>>>>> research and teaching hospitals in the country.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sounds to me like market forces and the pursuit of profits are driving
>>>>>>out
>>>>>>players who cannot produce enough to justify their prices. Just the way
>>>>>>the free
>>>>>>market is supposed to work. If you have faith in markets, you'll
>>>>>>believe the
>>>>>>required services become available at affordable prices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The alternative is some kind government intervention like a subsidy
>>>>>>just so some
>>>>>>people don't die from otherwise treatable cancer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not that I specifically disagree with the basic premise of market
>>>>>forces but some might argue that medical care is not the same as
>>>>>trying to produce light bulbs for the least cost per unit. In the
>>>>>light bulb biz you might determine that the least cost is to allow 10%
>>>>>of the bulbs to die an early death because cutting the light bulb
>>>>>death rate down to only 1% reduces profits. Are you comfortable with
>>>>>the same analysis being used for the gallbladder surgery you need?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's the rub ... it's just not ethical to treat human lives
>>>> the way you'd treat some commodity product. I've never
>>>> heard it argued that light-bulbs and automobiles have
>>>> "inalienable rights" ... no anti-euthanasia activists show
>>>> up at the junkyard when old cars are shredded and
>>>> turned into cubes.
>>>>
>>>> Human life is complex and subtle and has all sorts of
>>>> potential even until the bitter end (maybe afterwards if
>>>> you have yourself frozen next to Walt Disney :-) Even
>>>> stupid people "contribute" (good bad or otherwise) and
>>>> thus help shape the evolution of the social and intellectual
>>>> equation. Civilized folks don't murder or execute fellow
>>>> humans trivially, the way we'd throw out a paper cup.
>>>>
>>>> (note that at some point we'll have to add AI systems
>>>> to the list of "complex and subtle and full of potential"
>>>> even though they will - initially - be a "commodity
>>>> product". they'll also have "inalienable rights")
>>>>
>>>> It's just unethical and uncivilized to let people suffer
>>>> and die from injuries and diseases for which there
>>>> ARE treatments and cures. Rich, poor, black, white,
>>>> xian, jew or darwinist ... the assumption of moral
>>>> equality, an equality of human worth, which guides
>>>> our legal system also applies to our medical system.
>>>>
>>>> Of course the ideal world of philosophical ethics
>>>> does ultimately meet the tangible world of money
>>>> and resources when it comes to medicine. If
>>>> this is handled in a logical and efficient manner
>>>> it's not necessarily a big problem. The wealthier
>>>> and better-placed may get their treatment sooner
>>>> and with more perks, but we CAN ensure that
>>>> even the lowest rung of society gets what it
>>>> needs in an adequately timely and effective manner
>>>> WITHOUT breaking everyones bank accounts or
>>>> driving the whole country into debt.
>>>>
>>>> The REAL problem here is "politics" ... and I don't
>>>> just mean corrupted and/or ignorant career politicians
>>>> but also the Big Money people behind them. "Free
>>>> market" logic means you always seek to maximize
>>>> profit and future opportunities for profit. Because of
>>>> his, ObamaCare was pretty much written BY those
>>>> Big Money interests ... to serve THEIR myriad
>>>> interests first and foremost. It's a diverse set of
>>>> interests too ... and not all are mutually compatible.
>>>>
>>>> So ... decent idea IN --> [ politics] --> clusterfuck OUT.
>>>>
>>>> If you can think of some practical, do-able, way around
>>>> this other than a dictatorship, we'd all be interested.
>>>
>>>
>>>The way around it was what we had before insurance became a "perk"
>>>paid for by your employer and before it changed from something
>>>intended to protect you from catastrophic hospital bills into
>>>something to pay virtually every dime of your medical costs. Health
>>>insurance used to be just that INSURNACE against UNAFFORDABLE bills.
>>>It has turned into a pre-paid human body maintenance and repair plan
>>>and the payments are not something you even worry about since the
>>>insurance company pays them, not you.
>>
>> You've got a good point there ... if insurance is expected
>> to pay for every band-aid then it's gonna be much more
>> expensive - oh, and the docs WILL raise the price of
>> band-aids too so they can cash in. Higher "co-pay" or
>> thresholds can help with this.
>>
>> UNLESS you're actually poor ... then even a cheap
>> band-aid ain't cheap to YOU. You really NEED your
>> insurance to cover every little thing.
>>
>> Which introduces means-testing ... I guess everybody
>> gets a med card with a code that reflects their income
>> from the previous year. Alas incomes ain't as steady
>> as they used to be ... you can go from six figures to
>> flippin' burgers in a heartbeat nowadays - and your
>> old bills don't drop proportionally either. This makes
>> means-testing "messy", complex and a potential
>> cause of serious unrest.
>>
>> More devilish details ....
>>
>>
>>>Just imagine how high your vet
>>>bills would be if your and almost everyone else's employer paid for
>>>veterinary insurance for your and their dog.
>>
>> Um ... have you used a vet lately ? Many charge
>> as much - sometimes more - for any given procedure
>> on yer cat as yer doctor charges for the same
>> procedure for you.
>>
>>>Once you no longer cared
>>>what the bill cost, since all you paid was a $15 copay when Fido
>>>needed to be wormed, vet care costs would be thru the ceiling, just
>>>like health care costs are. It's probably too late to save health
>>>care, we are on the slippery slide to gvt taking it over and when they
>>>do service will go into the toilet just like it is in Canada. Go to
>>>wikipedia and look at the MEANSURED statistics comparing the US and
>>>Canada health care for wait times for various things, satisfaction,
>>>etc. You might get your eyes opened. All those people who tell you
>>>how great Canadian health care is are people who are HEALTHY and don't
>>>really need much in teh way of health care. The really sick ones come
>>>to the US for treatment if they can afford it or they pay for PRIVATE
>>>Canadian health insurance to avoid the state run clinics.
>>
>> Canadian health clinics are, well, "OK" for the most
>> part. This is what I hear directly from Canadians. The
>> system isn't "great" ... just "OK", generally adequate.
>> Those with more income sometimes want to spend
>> it on something a little better than "OK" ... and I think
>> money OUGHT to buy you stuff. Sometimes they
>> spend it in the US, sometimes elsewhere. Thailand
>> has been very popular ... your better-than-OK med
>> dollar goes a long way there.
>>
>> Could AMERICANS make an "OK" public health system ?
>> Well, by the time you throw in the politics and greed and
>> special-interests I think the current answer is "No". In
>> spite of the proximity, Americans aren't Canadians ...
>> or Brits or Swedes or Frenchies. Our system, our
>> history, our way of thinking, affects the outcome of
>> sociopolitical initiatives.
>>
>> For health-care, I can already see that we can't get
>> there from here ... "OK" is out of our reach. We need
>> something different from OCare, and somewhat
>> different from the current private system as well,
>> something we CAN do that gets us to "OK" by a
>> different path.
>>
>> The CHEAP AND EASY way to cover "the poor" would
>> have been to simply scale-up Medicare/MedicAid by
>> about 15% ... using the existing system and bureaucracy.
>> But NOoooooooo ...........
>>
>
>Republicans wouldn't allow it........Lots of their campaign money comes from
>insurance companies
>....Insurance companies are cut in to ACA for 20%
Ain't just "Republicans" laddie ....
Ain't really any "Democrats" or "Republicans"
anymore ... just the Big Money Party .
The (un)Affordable Care Act was pretty much
written BY the Big Money interests, FOR the
Big Money interests - and then they told our
"leaders" to sign on the line.
Hell, even the IDEA of OCare, the "uncertainty"
factor, allowed them to practically double insurance
prices every year since Obama flubbed his inaugural
oath. Big Money got a lot richer, Joe Citizen got a lot
poorer ... and our "leaders" got their bonus checks
from their masters.