Weekend Diversion: Night Of The Ponies
Pedway, First Store Open At Block 37
Around Town
Around Town
Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
There's really nothing Chicago-related about this flowchart, but we just think it's cool. Call us jerks, if you must, for admiring two smart-ass bloggers who broke down the proposed healthcare reform. Hey, President Obama, are you paying attention?
(We know, it's a little small - check out the original at Donkeylicious, via Progress Illinois.)
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
After paying for a war for the last few years, I think it's about time to pay for something helpful and necessary.
"I don't want government-run health care!" -- some cranky old conservative fart on Medicare
"I don't want government-run health care"--the majority of Americans, including me.
The "public option" is a bad idea. The proposal for "non-profit cooperatives" is also a bad idea. Both of those options would have government fouling up the marketplace.
Government needs to set up better rules for better PRIVATE insurance competition. Government should NOT be running any kind of plan, whether it's a public option or a cooperative.
Oops. I guess the above statements make me an "old fart."
No, it just makes you good at repeating the talking points you get from the Party of No.
Ward, [citation needed].
Personally, I love the chart, but it's missing instructions on getting from where I am now (the 122 million square) to the bottom-right corner where I want to be. BCBS can die in a fire.
"Government needs to set up better rules for better PRIVATE insurance competition. Government should NOT be running any kind of plan, whether it's a public option or a cooperative."
While you're right, we've tried to do this for 60+ years, and have failed to do so. So, maybe it's time for a little push to get things moving in the right direction.
It's easy to come up with talking points when confronting the "Party of Unintended Consquences," i.e., the Democrats.
House Dems better act fast, because the trend is for more opposition to the public option. The latest poll is 47 per cent opposed and 43 per cent in favor, which is an increase in opposition, with further shifting likely.
I stopped supporting the public option when helpful right-wing commentators informed me that under the proposal, the government would kill my grandparents.
death panels.
Death panels? ooooohh. scary. but not as scary as nazi-zombies, or even dick cheney.
Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
I still don't get why, if the goverment can be entrusted to fight war to defend our nation, and can be entrusted to run the vast majority of our educational system, and seem to handle Medicare/Medicaid OK why they can't handle an expanded role in healthcare.
And to be quite honest, I'd rather have a gov't bureaucrat determining what is and is not covered than some middle manager at a for-profit insurance company. Government's first priority is serving constituants, not serving shareholders.
Right on Benjy, Right on!!!
"Government's first priority is serving constituants, not serving shareholders."
Benjiy, that sounds nice and idealistic but is rather short sighted. Consider the reality of incentives for a moment. In the private sector, there exists a profit motive driving mutually beneficial transactions. Those that maximize shareholder value, generally do so by maximizing value creating transactions (moving assets to a higher valued use - i.e. serving the customer). To think that those in the public sector have no motive other than altruism toward constituents is naive, especially when one considers those "public servants" that serve lobbyists, special interest groups, campaign donors, etc.
Have you ever lived in Chicago? Do you think "pay to play" as exemplified by Blago, et al is representative of serving the constituent first? C'mon now. There is certainly room for debate on how to reform healthcare, but to posit that government soley seeks to serve the constituent is rather Pollyana.
The beauty of the free market is that when there is a breakdown and/or those entities do not serve the consumer, said consumer can walk. The consumer is much better equipped to change private service providers than a monolithic public entity who has no true incentive to maximize value. Ever have bad service at a restaurant? Many will opt not to go back in favor of somewhere else. Ever have had bad service at the DMV? Good luck going elsewhere. There is no incentive to serve a captive audience.
All of you people against public health insurance probably have good insurance. I invite you all to bite my shiny metal ass, as I am currently six figures in debt due to the current failed system. I'm not unique, either. There are millions of uninsured and underinsured human beings just like me out there, and we do not deserve crippling debt and/or avoidance of medically necessary procedures because of the risk of incurring said debt. The free market works well in a lot of areas, but health care is obviously not one of them. Oh, I'm in med school, and I know that doctors will likely get paid less under any proposed expansion of public health insurance, and that's just fine with me and most of the classmates I've talked with about this issue. Everybody deserves the opportunity to be healthy enough to live a fulfilling life.
Taffy - My point was in regard to the veracity of the statement, "Government's first priority is serving constituants".
While I do not disagree that there is a need for reform, if the above belief is the basis of the case for a public option, then it is a denial of reality. Continued wars, jets for congressmen, some current aldermen's expenses, etc. do not serve the respective constituents. To think that those individuals who enter public life are somehow no longer affected by self-interest is delusional. We should instead strive to structure the incentive structures so we can minimize this type of conflict while serving the populace - without government coercion.
“Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter -- by peaceful or revolutionary means -- into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it..” - Frederic Bastiat
Yeah, my response wasn't supposed to be to you in particular...but I guess it showed up there. My next rant will have to do with the commenting system here...
"The beauty of the free market is that when there is a breakdown and/or those entities do not serve the consumer, said consumer can walk."
Having recently gotten over a bad case of Hodgkins lymphoma, there's really no place for me walk toward. As someone with a pre-existing condition, insurance companies deny me coverage, despite the fact that I am otherwise healthy. My only hope is either a public option or a law stating that insurance companies can't deny me coverage and that said coverage must be affordable.
Consider the reality of incentives for a moment. In the private sector, there exists a profit motive driving mutually beneficial transactions. Those that maximize shareholder value, generally do so by maximizing value creating transactions (moving assets to a higher valued use - i.e. serving the customer).
...except in the case of health insurers, in which more profit can be generated by not serving the customer (i.e. not paying claims, denying or rescinding coverage) in many, many instances.
The beauty of the free market is that when there is a breakdown and/or those entities do not serve the consumer, said consumer can walk.
Three problems: 1) In large swaths of the country a single provider holds a monopoly. There's no one to walk to. 2) If my insurance company denies a claim, any subsequent insurance company can deny coverage based on the condition for which I filed the claim. 3) If I'm unhappy with my employer-provided insurance, your advice is I quit my job? Who has that luxury?
As Krugman has said, the economics of health care are not hard. We know how to do this. There are thirty-some countries who do this better than we do, more cheaply than we do. Pick one model and copy it. Economic problem solved. Politics and culture, on the other hand, are entirely different beasts.
There's an updated chart here.
Death Panels: the best idea in Republican branding since the Death Tax.
"In the private sector, there exists a profit motive driving mutually beneficial transactions. Those that maximize shareholder value, generally do so by maximizing value creating transactions (moving assets to a higher valued use - i.e. serving the customer)"
and there's where you go wrong. if you take out the statements in bold, you have the truth. i don't see where the insurance companies do anything to serve the customer. ever call the 800 lines to see if you're covered for something so you don't go and get a procedure that you actually need, but you won't get if you know you'll have to pay for it because you don't have the money for something that costs hundreds of dollars, but really doesn't cost near as much as your doctor is billing you for it?
you go through menu after menu and sit on hold forever, wasting your time and money, and when you finally get through to someone, they may or may not (usually not) know the answer to your question, AND if you call back the next day or the next hour, you'll most likely get someone who gives you a different or completely contradictory answer. and who's telling the 'truth?' you'll never really know until you do or don't get a bill which can obliterate your credit unless you pay it and then fight the insurance company to pay what they told you they would.
and how is that serving the customer? it's not. and i'm not exaggerating that process AT ALL. not even a scooch.
"The beauty of the free market is that when there is a breakdown and/or those entities do not serve the consumer, said consumer can walk."
uhhh... i don't know about you, but i'm currently uninsured. i don't have the money for private individual insurance. but when i've had group insurance through a corporate job, how in the hell am i going to 'walk?' right out the door with my pre-existing conditions and living paycheck to paycheck to buy my own policy? i don't think so. i'm stuck. i'm stuck with the inefficiency and the breakdown and the disservice i get from BCBS or United or Cigna or whothefuckever i'm giving a good chunk of my paycheck to so i can go to a doctor and feel secure that i will be taken care of if i take ill.
instead, i end up fighting and wrangling and maneuvering through a system that feels like i've gone to law school to figure out. and let's face facts. i'm educated and intelligent. there are plenty of other people who don't have the skills to figure out how to get what they need from the system or they can't get a hold of the 'customer service representatives' during business hours or what have you. and they're even more screwed than the rest of us.
the system is broken. there's just no getting around that. bill kristol slipped up and admitted that our soliders get world class health care from the government. he didn't seem to think we all deserved that, but we either can provide the best health care or we can't, but let's stop the double talk. soliders and the elderly are already getting government healthcare. moms and babies in IL are getting government healthcare. i just want the same opportunity.
OK Smussy, I will concede that under the present system it is difficult, if not impossible for some to walk. But how is this resolved with the equivalent of the DMV on the other end of the phone? What is the course of action when there is nowhere else to turn? this line of reasoning only swaps out the players but does nothing to affect the incentive structure.
You say you are uninsured. I don't want to deny you or anyone else who desires affordable insurance, but why exactly should I pay for it?
Good points, but any insurance plan is essentially pooling risk. Theoretically by creating a bigger pool you may spread the risk out more and lower your own costs.
As long as private plans are not abolished you would still have your 'free' market options to choose from to supplement your 'basic human dignity' plan.
"why should I pay for it?"
Do you mind paying for medicare with your tax dollars? Do you mind paying for public schools with your tax dollars? Police forces? Fire Departments? Garbage pick up?
Some service are so necessary to the health, well being, and survival of a given community (on an individual and collective basis)that most people have decided that it is beneficial and necessary to fund it with tax dollars.
Making sure that everyone gets the care they need without going bankrupt really does benefit everyone. Some examples:
People getting free or subsidized health care would mean that more people would have access to preventative care; thus, they won't go to the emergency room for an earache. this saves insurance companies and hospitals and thus insured people like me and you money.
some people can no longer work because of a medical condition that has gone without treatment because of a lack of insurance, so they end up on public aid. if those people had access to health care, their medical condition, say diabetes, can be controlled and they can remain healthy enough to keep working and keep off of public aid.
If people get conditions diagnosed earlier rather than later, the treatment generally tends to be less expensive than the treatment of a condition that is in an advance stage. People who have insurance are more likely to have their conditions diagnosed earlier. Again this saves everyone money.
Public safety. Let's say there is a flu epidemic. If people without insurance (like the people who handle your food at a restaurant) aren't getting vaccinations or treatment for the flu (because they don't have insurance)and are still showing up for work (because they will lose their jobs if they don't)the flu will spread more easily and will be harder to contain. Thus even people with insurance will be affected.
Finally how about because people shouldn't suffer because they are poor or because they have a "pre-existing" condition or because health insurance is just so damned expensive that even gainfully employed people sometimes can't afford it.
So, you'd be one of those people who would never vote for a tax increase for local schools just because you don't have any kids in that school?
A healthy, well educated population benefits the community as a whole.
It's just amazing to me how all of you with health insurance are fighting so hard to make it impossible for those of us without it not to be able to get it. The lies and misinformation you believe are astounding.
Try walking a mile in the shoes of someone with no insurance. Just try. You all act like change is the end of the world. I know people who are citizens of this country, who come from other countries, but will fly back home to get medical care. I know a guy from Ireland who lost his job here and with it, lost his insurance. He recently flew back to Ireland to get dental care because the trip and expenses were way cheaper than it would have been to pay for his dental care here, out of pocket. That's insane.
Every single old person I know who gets medicare has absolutely NO complaints whatsoever, and that's government run. My grandparents are on it, neighbors have it, aunts, uncles...they all get to go to their chosen doctors, they get whatever they need and have NO problems with it.
The United States is ranked pretty low compared to other developed countries when it comes to health care. All of you who HAVE insurance and don't want any changes are selfish and ignorant of the facts. I dare any of you to live without health insurance for a year or two...get some serious illness and rack up bills that you can't pay.
In Japan or Taiwan, they don't even have a word for going bankrupt over health care bills...the concept is not even in their vocabulary or thought process.
I would rather have a health care system run by the government than by greedy insurance companies. Go ahead and ask any old person you know how they're faring with medicare...you won't find any complaints.
"I don't want to deny you or anyone else who desires affordable insurance, but why exactly should I pay for it?"
In the course of a recent illness, I ran up a bill quickly closing in on $200,000. (You'd be amazed at how easy a thing this is to do ... and I'm not quite done yet.) Now, let's say this bill doesn't get paid ... say I don't have insurance and wind up declaring bankruptcy. Northwestern then has to eat this ... which they will do by charging everybody else a little bit more. The insurance companies will then pass this cost on to their customers. So in the end, you ARE paying for it.
That scenario scares the life out of me. I am terrified of something big like that happening to me and losing everything I own because of some jerkwad underwriter denying me insurance because I saw a doctor and was on medication a few years ago.
I know a young couple who had the scare of their lives when the husband went into kidney failure and their insurance was denying his coverage. I just couldn't believe it...they both have jobs, they both work their asses off to make ends meet, they just bought their first house and they were insanely worried about losing everything because of this. In the end, their insurance company finally gave them the ok...but why would it have been ok for some asshole behind a desk, in some other state, to stamp "Denied" on their claim? It was months of unnecessary worry, stress and sleepless nights. Nobody should have had to go through what they did...there never should have been any question.
I am so looking forward to Obama getting this insurance plan through...Howard Dean thinks it's going to go through...I can only hope so!! I know so many young people who are now off of their parents' plans and I will feel so relieved for them, and for myself that will be finally be able to have health insurance.
*hope your insurance company covers that bill, Bluefairlane!!
"...why exactly should I pay for it?"
You already are -- when someone who does not have insurance goes to the ER and racks up tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills but skips out on the bill for obvious reasons, everyone's medical prices go up. Read up -- this happens every minute.
Problem: Health Care is not a real market where you can just walk away. Presumably if you walk away from you might die.
Problem: Health Care is not a real market because you can't just switch from one insurance to another because of 'pre-existing conditions'.
Problem: 'Rescission' When an insurance company cancels your coverage because you 'lied' on your application. Prominent example includes a women who was denied cancer treatment because of an acne prescription she didn't list on her application.
REAL PROBLEM: DEMOCRATS ARE F*CK*NG this up by not framing the problems properly. Get your super majority out of your tail and make some damn CHANGE.
On the subject of real problems, the problem for Democrats is that more Americans oppose a public option than support it. And we don't want those non-profit cooperatives, either.
Of course, Senator Harry Reid has referred to anti-Obamacare persons as "evil-mongers," while Nancy Pelosi calls them "un-American."
So many people oppose it because they are being lied to. You have the Sarah Palins and Glen Becks and Rush Limbaugh spreading fear, hatred and lies to a huge portion
of the population...the ignorant who have no desire whatsoever to actually read, do their own research and find out the truth.
They are being spoon fed nonsense, they believe it because it's easier for them to hate and be afraid. These are the ones who would vote against their own interests before they'll let a black man fix our seriously broken health care system.
And there you have it. Wow Ingrid, so many ad hominem attacks in such a small space. Congratulations. By your logic, there is no room for reasonable disagreement with government run healthcare, even for those who support reform. Anyone who holds a view contrary to this is ignorant, gullible and easily swayed by lies, has no intellectual curiosity, a hatemonger, a fearmonger, and a racist (for daring to disagree with the president). Forget consideration of increased cost transparency, permitting competition across state lines, reforming tax laws so as to not penalize individual payers, tort reform, etc.
Pot. kettle. black.
Oh please.
You do know what 'ad hominem' means, right? The Fox News people do nothing more than to promulgate downright lies, their divisiveness is criminal.
That clip of Barney Frank yesterday totally owning that ill-informed woman in the audience who was holding up a sign with a Hitler mustache painted on Obama's face and asking him why he was supporting Nazi policies....the Fox News people altered the clip to make his remarks look totally out of context and claimed he was 'attacking' this innocent woman.
I mean, seriously, you CANNOT have a conversation with someone and answer a serious question when she's holding a sign of the president that is defaced with a Hitler mustache and she's calling him a Nazi. There is no point to this. This is what Fox News has people believing!
This kind of stuff is what so many under educated people are believing and it's just so sad. There is a huge part of our population who are NOT going to read and investigate on their own, they're going to listen to the lies on Fox, get all fired up...believe in this 'death panel' crap and that all of their memaws are going to die.
I was incensed when, this morning, I saw MItt Romney REFUSE to repudiate Sarah Palin's "Death Panel" line and in the same breath he talks about bipartisanship, it's just mind blowing.
You know, our country does pretty good coming together during a crisis...look at 9/11.
We're in a crisis now...it's time to stop comparing Obama to Hitler and the Nazis, it's time for the Faux News people to stop worrying about their ratings and to start telling the truth.
Ok, Ward. What do you suggest that we do about the millions without health insurance? "Nothing" is not an acceptable answer.
Well, the 47 million number that Obamacare proponents love to throw around is a little misleading. About 10-12 million of those are illegal immigrants. Another 20 million of the 47 million are people who choose not to have insurance, mostly the young and healthy. So we have about 10-15 million who are not covered. A problem, definitely. A crisis though?
Should we really change the whole system so drastically and give it to the government when 85-90% of the country is covered and 70-80% of those who are covered are happy with their coverage? I doubt there is a single government program that rates that highly.
Even if your numbers are right (hint: they aren't. Many, if not most of the 20 million you purport "choose" to go without insurance simply make more money than is allowed to be covered by Medicaid or similar plans and cannot afford to buy private insurance), you fail to acknowledge what is arguably a larger problem: the underinsured. No real study has been taken by the Census Bureau to measure this population, but I'd say that many people I know fall into this category (more every month!), and we're mostly well-educated folks from middle to upper-middle class families. We're not special.
Also, I've yet to see a version of this plan that covers illegal immigrants OR one that forces you to take the government's insurance plan. It's called the public OPTION for a reason: it's optional. You can keep your lovely private insurance plan. Just don't come whining to me when they deny coverage for a medically necessary procedure.
Seriously, link me to a site that proves that 20 million people "choose" to go without health insurance (and not one of your talking point regurgitators or John Stossel) and I'll gladly shut up. Until then, might I suggest you do the same unless you stop pulling numbers out of your ass.
I don't care what it it called: public option, death panel, reform.
There are problems with the current system that must be addressed and should not be ignored. If the debate was about fixing problems instead of a public option then maybe people would understand the benefits being discussed.
Are there current laws that prevent a non for profit health insurance company (co-op) from forming now?
How come our govt cant effectively regulate this industry now? Oh because that's socialism? There is this assumption that there will be some sort of honest debate and it is obvious that stonewalling the process is the point of many opponents. Lets face the fact that any regulation is 'mucking up the marketplace'.
This is not a real marketplace and you can not act like health insurance is the same as selling consumer goods.
Never mind, I see above that you want government to set up better rules for private insurers. Why is this form of government intervention ok, but an actual government-run plan is not? Why should we trust that private insurers, still driven by profit, will even follow these rules?
I'm going to wake up tomorrow, the time on my alarm clock set by the Federal Atomic Clocks and the power for it coming from Federally regulated utilities, and hop in the shower, where clean water flows because of Federal protection and government controls on water pricing, and head out to my car. A car that meets numerous Federal safety guidelines as well as emissions standards. I'm going to drive on roads, paved and maintained by the government, to my job.
At my job, where I'm protected by OSHA and other federal safety guidelines, and then head out for lunch. I think I'll have a sandwich, the components of which have been subject to numerous FDA inspections from producer to plate. I'll eat it in the public park, which is maintained with public monies.
I'll head back to work after enjoying my mandated lunch and later I'll have a break as well, also mandated by labor laws.
At quitting time I'll get back in my safe car, drive on my very safe roads and head to a town hall so I care scream that I hate socialism at my congressman.
jess nevins, oversight and management are two totally different things. Government oversees a few things well, but most things very badly. As far as management, just about everything the government manages sucks because there is no incentive for them to perform at a high level. Look at Cash for Clunkers, for Christ's sake. They couldn't properly forecast demand and ran out of money, then they threw another $2 billion at the program and now sales have slowed to a trickle. That, and only 2% of the dealerships have received reimbursement. This is the future of our healthcare!
It sounds like you want government to run everything and protect you from harm. If government regulation of utilities is so great, why is everyone always bitching about the utility companies? Why are the roads filled with potholes? Why does the CTA suck?
Just because the government does something, doesn't mean they should be commended. There is no competing entity against which to measure performance. It amazes that people in Illinois have such faith in the government when the track record is so horrible.
jess nevins, oversight and management are two totally different things. Government oversees a few things well, but most things very badly.
You're talking in complete generalization there.
As far as management, just about everything the government manages sucks because there is no incentive for them to perform at a high level.
Yes, because the 3-4 major health companies, who are nothing short of monopolies, compete really hard for your business and perform at a high level. Managed care is a con game, a racket and it's time to bust it up.
Look at Cash for Clunkers, for Christ's sake. They couldn't properly forecast demand and ran out of money, then they threw another $2 billion at the program and now sales have slowed to a trickle.
You mean that horrible program that succeeded too much? The program that just put THOUSANDS of GM employess back to work filling orders? The pilot program, and that's what it was, that was such a bang-on success that it's been expanded to meet demand? Oh no!
That, and only 2% of the dealerships have received reimbursement. This is the future of our healthcare!
Massive success and boosts to ancillary sectors of the economy? Bring it on!
It sounds like you want government to run everything and protect you from harm.
No. But we no longer live in 1800, when the life expectancy for a man was 39 and women had about 50/50 shot of dying in childbirth. Why shouldn't health care be a basic right? The notion that your health care is tied to your job fails the logical test, since if you really get sick you lose your job. The system is badly broken and allowing a public option covering millions of Americans and providing an incentive for the health insurance companies to actually provide the service we pay for (instead of working tirelessly to deny claims and coverage) is a fine thing.
If government regulation of utilities is so great, why is everyone always bitching about the utility companies?
Because we want perfection. The CTA has plenty of problems, and the roads are bumpy and the utilities do get out of hand. But you know what, that's why we have elected officials to hold to account. We can vote out Daley, we can dump Stroger, we can get rid of Quinn. You want to give rights to corporations, I want to preserve rights for the people.
Just because the government does something, doesn't mean they should be commended.
Yeah. Screw those soldiers and cops and firemen and EMTs and postal works and road crews and sewer linemen and scientists at the CDC. Bunch a muggs.
There is no competing entity against which to measure performance.
Uh, that's what we're trying to get here.
It amazes that people in Illinois have such faith in the government when the track record is so horrible.
Faith is irrational. You have faith in this libertarian pipe-dream nonsense of laissez-fair capitalism. The principles of human rights are not a matter of mere faith, they're the foundation of a rational society. One that does not demand the sick fill out endless paperwork or that the young go into poverty for the dire crime of having a child. Or ask the elderly to spend their twilight years in desperate fear of having to choose between medication and food.
I reject your faith in an invisible hand, one that long ago gave most of humanity the finger.
jess nevins, you make very good points (no sarcasm). Government regulation, e.g., via bodies such as OSHA and FDA is good. What would be bad is if government ran a public option for health care.
In summary, government regulation of private insurance is GOOD. Government as the insurance company is BAD.
Government should foster competition and let the marketplace decide which companies succeed.
Why is government regulation ok but government management not? I'm honestly curious as to why you and many others draw the line between the two.
It's not like the history of government regulation certainly isn't without problems. The SEC and other financial bodies' toothlessness and carelessness are large contributors to our current economic problems. Many areas suffer under monopolies from everything from utility companies to cable and communications due to poor government regulation. The FDA has allowed poisons into our pet food and possibly into the regular food supply and routinely approves drugs to the marketplace that haven't been properly tested. Those who report violations to OSHA are often dismissed from their jobs, etc. I'm not convinced that government regulation of private insurance will do anything to help the problem, based on the past results of many government regulatory bodies.
Also, the government already does run an insurance company or two. They aren't perfect, but those under their umbrella do at least receive some level of care.
Why is a government-run insurance program socialism when fire departments and public schools aren't?
People get so offended over the word "socialism". Socialism has become a synonym for increased government control, its really not that difficult. People on the left get so offended when the word is used. It means that more decisions are in the hands of the government and not the people. The official definition says that the government owns the means of production, but it is a gradual thing. You don't become socialist overnight, it is incremental. And to answer your question, there is no difference. Public schools are on a social model, and they suck. Private schools are much better.
Your analogy about public schools is frightening and has made my opposition to this plan stronger. Do you really want hospitals to start showing similar results and poor quality of our public schools?
Not all public schools suck.
Check out Brighton and Pittsford schools in upstate New York, just for one example. They are two of the top performing public high schools in the country. There are many,many more but I don't haver personal experience with those.
When you have parents that are dedicated to their children's education, then you're going to have public schools that are worth going to.
And one more time, not one relative I have has any complaints about medicare. It's amazing how well they're all taken care of on that socialist program!
It is worth noting that Medicare (as well as Social Security) are nearing insolvency. It is not a sustainable model without dramatically increasing the public's tax burden.
Socialized medicine may not be the perfect solution, but I think it's ludicrous that the USA is something like #37 on the list of health care for its citizens.
One thing I think is important to start changing are costs. Why is it so expensive to see a doctor? These guys charge $125 or more, for an office visit that amounts to the 5 minute bum's rush and the waiting rooms are jam packed! Why is this pill so expensive?
Why do hospitals charge $5 for a bandaid and $3 for an aspirin?
There are a lot of ways to cut into the expense.
The business of making sick people better shouldn't be so high profit oriented. Medical schools should be free or at least not so expensive and Big Pharma should be brought down. Jesus...just the advertising alone for anti-depressants could fund the health care for half this country!
I think there are many angles to start changing costs.
The business of private health is to charge you the highest premiums possible while giving you access to the fewest services possible, it's not sustainable or civilized. Trying to apply free market fantasy bullshit to health is ridiculous. You cannot choose to deny insurance/hospitals your business/purchasing dollars if you're sick. Pay or die.
"Medical schools should be free"
If only. I'm looking at a quarter-million dollars of student loan debt when all is said and done. Med school, particularly at private schools, is ridiculously expensive.
We definitely need to lower costs. I'm all for tort reform and more state-to-state and specialty-to-specialty standardization of malpractice insurance rates. That would help a ton, provided docs and hospitals and insurers lower their own costs accordingly. Unfortunately, all of the above are a bit too driven by the profit motive at this point...
Heh...looking at music schools for my son: Oberlin is $50,000 a year. jeezus...that's INSANE!!! At least when you're a doctor you will, at some point, recoup your tuition with big earnings. You can pretty much count on that.
It's a crap shoot for classical musicians who pretty much have a choice of teaching or running their asses off playing in ensembles here and there or whenever they can get hired. And will be paying off debt forever unless it was paid by their parents or whatever.
But you have to go where your heart is, right?
That being said, I still believe that medicine shouldn't be so profit oriented. The people who work in social services get paid shit...and yet there are still people majoring in sociology and psychology taking crap jobs just because it's in their hearts to help people.
Our health industry is being run by the insurance underwriters and it makes me want to vomit to know that these drug companies pay millions of dollars to air one commercial for, for example: cymbalta, but if you actually TAKE this drug, in the future, you could be denied insurance because they won't insure 'crazy people who take anti-depressants'. It's a pre-existing condition.
What kind of country are we living in? And these gun toting freaks are worried about the government running our health care system? Please!!!
I also agree that the whole malpractice industry needs to be put in check. I personally know THREE doctors who have quit being doctors (they're in administration now) just because of that quagmire.
Marauder, I would offer that not socialism, but fascism better defines the path we are presently on.
Good point, but I think it is more of a hybrid of the two. The companies Obama is taking over are private in the sense that they sell stock and have figurehead non-government CEOs, but let's not kid ourselves. Congress is going to change the rules so GM remains in business. I expect them to pass laws that mandates everyone drive around in golf carts, and GM is already positioning themselves to manufacture these cars.
So in a way it is like fascism because the government owns companies that are ostensibly private, but its like socialism because the government is really going to be calling the shots.
You're both mistaken. You see corporate welfare, cronyism and personal enrichment as "fascism" or "socialism" which is of course utterly ridiculous.
We have a textbook plutocracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy#Modern_Political
That's a piss poor argument considering that private schools costs thousand to attend and that they *choose* who they accept and who they don't.
which would you rather have, government-managed health insurance, or health insurance-managed government?
because that's what we have now.
the insurers are orchestrating the whole "debate" on their terms, as they essentially own the united states congress (and, arguably, the white house.
you don't want to trust the government with health care decisions based on price vs. effect. well who are you trusting now? insurance companies, who pay lawmakers to mold the regulatory environment to their liking, and make health care decisions based on a scorched-earth policy of simply denying coverage to anyone who is, or is likely to get, sick.
which is worse, again?