DaretothREdux (45.12)

70 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 04, 2009 at 8:14 AM, DaretothREdux (45.12) wrote:

1 in 8 Americans Go Hungry

Left out that link...

Dare

Report this comment

#2) On November 04, 2009 at 8:41 AM, DaretothREdux (45.12) wrote:

Anyone else ever notice that my "standard" disclaimer isn't really standard?

Standard Disclaimer: Comments, questions, reflections, rebuttle, and RECS are all greatly appreciated. This blog is satirical...if you didn't get it, then keep reading my blogs until you understand. If you didn't laugh then I personally think you have no soul.

Dare

Report this comment

#3) On November 04, 2009 at 8:54 AM, russiangambit (29.90) wrote:

In the so-called socialist countries there are still plenty of doctors even though they are paid nowhere near what US docotors are paid. It is because these people want to be doctors, and it is still a prestigious and stable professions. US doctors are overpaid due to lack of competition.Of course they don't want a pay cut, it is like asking our wall street folks to accept a pay cut because they are overpaid. See how well it is working out.

I don't know about you, but my interpretation of the consitution's right to life is that if somebody's life is in danger, that person has a right to life-saving medical services ands these are to be paid by federal government.

I don't know why people in the US are so scared of humane treatment of people. Somehow they think it is right to treat people as disposable and easily replacable resources for a corporate machine. I'll never get used to that.

There was an article yesterday in the houston chronicle about Congress proposing a week of paid sick leave for people with H1N1 so that they don't feel forced to come to work. You should've seen the venom in the blogging section, 99.9% of bloggers were opposed to that measure. I simply can't understand that.

Report this comment

#4) On November 04, 2009 at 9:01 AM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

Why a week worth of paid leave?  Why not 6 months?  Oh wait, they only need a week and if they don't get better in a week?

Dare, I feel for you.  You want to know who I want to go after?  Dentists!  I think teeth quality is important to my happiness.  Once we fix the medical field the dentists are next. 

Report this comment

#5) On November 04, 2009 at 9:16 AM, arboretum (28.83) wrote:

I agree with the statement you made (but suspect you don't actually agree with) that if someone is critically ill, and the resources exist to make them better, they should have the right to that treatment even if they cannot afford to pay for it.

In fact, I cannot see why anyone would try to satirize this. 

Do you also believe that insurance companies have the right to deny critical treatment to dying people because it hurts their profits? This does happen, and has happened to relatives of mine in the past.

If the $500k /yr doctors are not public spirited enough to do a little bit of pro bono work, then they should not be surprised if the Government starts to regulate their salaries and working practices. I am right with my Russian friend here. Doctors in countries like India earn little and are so good that many Americans go there for cheaper treatment.

Report this comment

#6) On November 04, 2009 at 9:39 AM, DaretothREdux (45.12) wrote:

russiangambit,

I don't know about you, but my interpretation of the consitution's right to life is that if somebody's life is in danger, that person has a right to life-saving medical services ands these are to be paid by federal government.

No. That's definitely not my interpretation of the right to life. The right to life means that you have the right to your life (and labor), and no person has the right to take it from you. This does not apply to illness or freak accidents or death by natural causes.

Your right to life can not extend to the right to other's lives (their labor or property the product of their lives). Rights end when they come in conflict of other rights.

Now that being said, I am not advocating that we let people die in the streets. And to my knowledge no one can be turned away from a hospital if they need emergency life saving treatment, regardless of lack of insurance or ability to pay. I am not suggesting we start turning people away.

I am suggesting that if you didn't buy health insurance and you smoked for 50 years and got cancer, that you are not allowed cancer treatment if you can't afford it. You gambled with your health and lost. Others should not be forced to pay for your stupidity unless they do it out of charity.

I disagree that most people in the US see people as disposable. I think you would be shocked at the charity and pro bono work that would occur (more efficently) if the gov't were less involved. After all, somehow people got healthcare in this country for years when the hospitals were run by churches and medicare and medicade did not exist.

Dare

Since the institution of Capitalism life expectancy has nearly doubled (in America) in the last 100 years. USSR life expectancy decline from 71 in 1964 to 68 in 1983. Which system is more humane?

Report this comment

#7) On November 04, 2009 at 9:52 AM, leohaas (92.47) wrote:

"I have a right to life, liberty, and HAPPINESS!"

No, you don't. You have the "unalienable" right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no guarantee here on happiness, just the pursuit.

Using this, you can argue that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. After all, this ban blocks a specific form of the pursuit of happiness to a whole class of people. But sick people can still pursue happiness. Granted, they may be less successful than healthy people, but they can still keep on trying!

Report this comment

#8) On November 04, 2009 at 9:58 AM, DaretothREdux (45.12) wrote:

leohaas,

LOL. I am fully aware that its the "pursuit" but I was writing as someone else. Hence, satire.

Dare

Report this comment

#9) On November 04, 2009 at 9:59 AM, bhexray (< 20) wrote:

russiangambit...

Most doctors in America also went into medicine b/c they wanted to be doctors.  But, it is easy to get cynical once you get out and see how the system really works.  Certainly my friends who were at the top of the class with me, but were working 'real jobs' in business in their 20's instead of accruing more educational debt are financially still waaayyy ahead of me...although there is more job stability in medicine.  If I had wanted to be a government employee, I could have been well on my way to retirement, pension and a second career before I ever even finished medical training...and if you counted hours worked, I probably would have already completed a government employees' total career of hours worked by then, at almost 40K hours. 

Alot of the greedy, grossly overpaid doctors in my community have been having a hard time keeping their practices open, and many are selling out to the hospitals.  Yes, some are living in big houses and driving fancy cars, but most of those guys I know are mortgaged to the hilt.

 As for me and mine, we are sticking with our old cars, modest house, and will be debt free in 18 months.  Then I will be free to practice medicine for the tremendous satisfaction it provides....or move on and let the grossly underpaid trial lawyers, insurance execs., or politicians save your loved one's life when God forbid some terrible occasion comes along.

The proposed reform legislation as it is now discussed is an absurdity based in politics, and not in the reality of what really needs to change to improve our system.  A massive income redistribution scheme will do nothing to fix our health care woes, and as an 'insider' it is frustrating to see this historic debate take place with such little real focus on solving the underlying problems in our system.  But, hopefully our system will work and reason will prevail.

 I still love being a doctor, even if cynicism is hard to keep at bay, and I am even more proud to be an American!

Report this comment

#10) On November 04, 2009 at 10:10 AM, outoffocus (24.44) wrote:

The proposed reform legislation as it is now discussed is an absurdity based in politics, and not in the reality of what really needs to change to improve our system.  A massive income redistribution scheme will do nothing to fix our health care woes, and as an 'insider' it is frustrating to see this historic debate take place with such little real focus on solving the underlying problems in our system.  But, hopefully our system will work and reason will prevail.

I'm an outsider and I'm frustrated with what I'm seeing.  The public option is not bad in and of itself.  But with all the inefficiencies in our current system (and a government that is borderline insolvent) a public option does nothing but treat a cancer patient with advil.  Yea the pain may go away a little, but the cancer is still growing inside and killing the patient slowly.

Report this comment

#11) On November 04, 2009 at 10:18 AM, chk999 (99.98) wrote:

You gotta fight!

For your right!

To healthcare!

(Apologies to the Beastie Boys.)

Report this comment

#12) On November 04, 2009 at 10:23 AM, kaskoosek (97.84) wrote:

I disagree with all of the comments here except russian's. He seems to be the only sensible person.

 

 

Report this comment

#13) On November 04, 2009 at 10:37 AM, bhexray (< 20) wrote:

It is great to live in a country where we can disagree without getting pulled into the street and shot, or sent to a work camp in Siberia!

Report this comment

#14) On November 04, 2009 at 10:40 AM, ChrisGraley (31.54) wrote:

I wonder what country the best doctors will move to?

Report this comment

#15) On November 04, 2009 at 10:43 AM, angusthermopylae (41.42) wrote:

And to my knowledge no one can be turned away from a hospital if they need emergency life saving treatment, regardless of lack of insurance or ability to pay. I am not suggesting we start turning people away.

I don't personally know of any recent examples, but I personally know a woman who's husband died just that way.  This was in the 50s.

Husband was a WWII vet, judge, owned lots of land, an all-around good guy.  After working on the farm one day, he was hit by a car and taken to the hospital.

Because he smelled and had no ID, the hospital dumped him out on the bench across the road, thinking he was a vagrant.  He laid there and died because of his injuries.

I'm not familiar enough with the various laws and requirements across the country to be an expert.  However, what laws do exist are there because of situations just like that one.

It might not happen now, but that's only because it did happen...a lot.  And, with my innate trust and love of the common decency of my fellow man, I just can't imagine that ever happening again!  (psst...that was sarcasm...)

(Just to finish out the story:  The wife of the dead judge dedicated her life to destroying that hospital.  She succeeded, and, along the way, became one of the most powerful political figures in Ohio over the last 50 years.  Not an upfront one, just very, very influential.)

Report this comment

#16) On November 04, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Bamafan68 (96.28) wrote:

I hate to burst some bubbles, but very few specialties pull in 500K a year: invasive cardiology, neurosurgery, cardiovascular surgery, plastic surgery, orthopedic surgery and opthalmology jump to mind.  Some general surgeons and gastroenterologists will make 500K. Your average pediatrician, family practioner, or internist makes 120-200K.  Does that change anyone's tune about the "greedy, overpaid" doctor?  Keep in mind that while their college classmates were actually making money, doctors were paying for 4 years of additional education.  Doctors finally start earning a paycheck during their residencies which last anywhere from 3-7 years.  That paycheck is less than the nurses take home.  How greedy are the doctors looking now?

Report this comment

#17) On November 04, 2009 at 10:58 AM, russiangambit (29.90) wrote:

> It is great to live in a country where we can disagree without getting pulled into the street and shot, or sent to a work camp in Siberia!

Have you ever disagreed publicly with anybody powerful and had enough power yourself to do anything about that disagreement?

In Russia, if you are a nobody, you can disagree all you want and discuss it with other russians. It is only when you become a threat to existing power you get sent to Siberia. And believe me, US is not that much different. Granted, it doesn't have Siberia.

Report this comment

#18) On November 04, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Imperial1964 (97.87) wrote:

I'm all for charity, including healthcare.  I'm a humanitarian.  If you want an example, see my blog from last year when I gave a casual acquaintence of mine a roll of hundreds to help pay for his treatment.

Matters of life and death and the underground economy: Healthcare, corruption, generosity, and being raided by the DEA. The story of my friend Mike

The conclusion to Mike's story: The duality of man: Update on "Life and death and the underground economy...":

 

But I also value freedom and individual responsibility.  I agree with Dare in his point that we lose some of our freedom if we force others to pay for someone's healthcare.  (Just as we are now that the government is using tax money to prop up mismanaged corporations)

I've done the math and I can retire ten years earlier if health care is socialized, so I'm not saying this out of self-interest.

I'm sure nobody is advocating letting people die in the streets because they can't afford treatment.  We're just arguing over where to draw the line.

Report this comment

#19) On November 04, 2009 at 11:07 AM, russiangambit (29.90) wrote:

> In Russia, if you are a nobody, you can disagree all you want and discuss it with other russians. It is only when you become a threat to existing power you get sent to Siberia. And believe me, US is not that much different. Granted, it doesn't have Siberia.

OK, let me backtrack a bit on this. There is a huge difference between US and Russia when it comes to the rule of law. What I was trying to say is that existing powers in both countries have equally unshakable hold on the power and will do anything to keep it and to destroy the opponents. But the methods are different.

Report this comment

#20) On November 04, 2009 at 11:09 AM, russiangambit (29.90) wrote:

Imperial, my issue is that it seems to be all-or-nothing proposition in the halthcare debate.

It is either - no healthcare or free for all. In real life everybody should have basic healthcare, and then extras for additional costs. But this gets lost in all the political retoric.

Report this comment

#21) On November 04, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Schmacko (93.52) wrote:

Dare,

Your very black and white blog and responses seem to be completely ignoring the fact that there are literally millions of americans who want healthcare, but can't afford it and/or don't have the option to purchase it all.  You seem to be of the impression (even if it is a psuedo-satirical way) that everyone is out for free healthcare and this will lead to the downfall of capitalism, which is completely asinine. 

Here's a blog post about health care that I think is very relevant that might give you a different perspective:

http://www.atomic-robo.com/2009/09/14/obama-on-my-mind/

There are tax-paying, hard working americans out there that want health care but don't have it because it's just not affordable.  They may be work for hire, self employed, part-time employees or whatever.... it doesn't matter they are contributing members to society and they want health care but can't get it.  If you honestly don't believe that they don't deserve health care because they don't have the right job or whatever, please do the world a favor and choke yourself.

Here's a bloomberg article about the Veteran's Health Administration, which is basically a working model of what a good public option would look like, if our politician's weren't all corrupt jackasses in the pockets of big bidness and actually cared about their constituents:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aLIc5ABThjBk

The doctors like the system because they actually get to help patients and aren't bogged down by all the red-tape thrown up by insurance companies, the VHA hospitals also run smoother since they only have to interact with one provider.  The patients are generally very pleased with the service and their only real tradeoff is that they are severly limited in being able to sue for malpractice... and that's something that needs to be reigned in across the board anyway to drive down healthcare costs.   

Report this comment

#22) On November 04, 2009 at 11:16 AM, outoffocus (24.44) wrote:

It is either - no healthcare or free for all. In real life everybody should have basic healthcare, and then extras for additional costs. But this gets lost in all the political retoric.

Now we agree on something. I didnt understand Kakoosek's comment because it seems to have completely disregarded what I and a previous commenter said.  The "public obtion" is not the same as "healthcare reform" and added to the system on its own will only put a bandaid on an infected puncture wound.  You cannot have true healthcare reform unless you work to clean out the inefficiencies in the system.  And it seems as if neither side is interested (or they are just too lazy) in identifying those inefficiencies and developing solutions for them. Until we identify and remove these inefficencies (or the proposed public option addresses these inefficiencies) I will continue to not support a public option.

Report this comment

#23) On November 04, 2009 at 11:41 AM, anticitrade (99.58) wrote:

I can accept the socialist agenda with one small stipulation.  ANYONE who receives government aid also recieves a small FREE operation that prevents them from ever having children again.  I think this should apply to domestic as well as foreign policy. 

(obviously this is extreme and I think its an interesting idea more than the right idea)

Report this comment

#24) On November 04, 2009 at 11:49 AM, georgeodjungle (< 20) wrote:

1 in 8 Americans need to get off the couch. goin hungry is self inflicted.

Report this comment

#25) On November 04, 2009 at 11:57 AM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

Dare,

Nice parody of pure idiocy in power in pursuit of the fruits of our labors (or labours as the case may be).

One point you bring out is that people interpret the Constitution for their own needs, regardless of the words on the page. The "Pursuit of Happiness" clause has always been a sea of ambiguity for me. Although I do not fashion myself to be a writer on the caliber of the founders, I believe the proposed "life, liberty, and property" to be a much better composition - as confiscation of property has become the calling card of the overbearing state in our times.

Perhaps "Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness" could have been better. Additional guarantees that property was inviolable could have prevented such radical notions as eminent domain, drug forfeiture and seizures, and the teeth of the IRS - but to wish for that is to ignore the same people who read into the document what they want to see as opposed to what is there.

While I'm at it, the loosely worded "general welfare" clause also plays into the parody by providing enough wiggle room for liberals, socialists, and communists alike to argue that universal health care and all other social welfare programs are for the general welfare of the people. Problem is they are not. When taxation is uneven (only around 50% of wage earners pay taxes anymore, and the top 5% pay 50% of the total dollars) and the distribution of welfare programs goes to specific individuals (i.e. food stamps only go to some, unemployment only to others, medicare discriminates to only seniors, medicaid to fewer yet -- and universal health care would redistribute health services unevenly -- the sick will get more than the healthy!) then it is not for the general welfare.

Contrast this with the military -- which provides for the common defense. The overwhelmingly vast majority (i.e. general) of Americans benefit from the common defense -- albeit landowners more so.

So "Give me health care or give me death!" has a certain ring to it - when you read it the right way, between the words, and make the false claim it is universal.

From the fruit of your labors (or labours) to my intravenous bag - confiscation, redistribution, slavery. Welcome to communism.

Known by my pediatrician as patient # nzsvz9

 

Report this comment

#26) On November 04, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Deepfryer (28.20) wrote:

"Since the institution of Capitalism life expectancy has nearly doubled (in America) in the last 100 years. USSR life expectancy decline from 71 in 1964 to 68 in 1983. Which system is more humane?"

I can't tell if this is a serious comment, or more comedy. You're comparing the change over a 100 year period to a change over a 19 year period? I'm not defending the USSR's healthcare system or anything... but this MUST have been a joke, right?

Report this comment

#27) On November 04, 2009 at 12:25 PM, russiangambit (29.90) wrote:

Here is a good piece on whether paid sick leave should be provided or not. You already know my opnion.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/171166-capitalism-vs-the-flu

 

 

Report this comment

#28) On November 04, 2009 at 12:29 PM, DaretothREdux (45.12) wrote:

Deepfryer,

Russia's 2009 life expectancy: 66 or 131st in the world (below Iraq)

USA 2009 life expectancy: 78

Shall I bring up more numbers showing the decline in life expectancy the more socialism is introduced into healthcare? How many years is an accurate sampling for you. I was listing that 19 year period because that's how long the USSR existed!

No. That was not comedy. Unless its dark comedy.

Dare

Report this comment

#29) On November 04, 2009 at 12:30 PM, booyahh (< 20) wrote:

#6) On November 04, 2009 at 9:39 AM, DaretothREdux (99.43) wrote:  

Since the institution of Capitalism life expectancy has nearly doubled (in America) in the last 100 years. USSR life expectancy decline from 71 in 1964 to 68 in 1983. Which system is more humane?

Ah, but life expectancy is higher in Japan, Canada and Australia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

So, by your logic, Japan and Canada have more humane systems. Oh by the way, they happen to have universal coverage.

Report this comment

#30) On November 04, 2009 at 12:32 PM, DaretothREdux (45.12) wrote:

Everyone,

I will try to respond to all your comments and concerns (I am not ignoring any of your arguments...if you made an arguement), I am just currently pressed for time, and trying to comment between doing "real" work.

Dare

Report this comment

#31) On November 04, 2009 at 12:33 PM, russiangambit (29.90) wrote:

> Since the institution of Capitalism life expectancy has nearly doubled (in America) in the last 100 years. USSR life expectancy decline from 71 in 1964 to 68 in 1983. Which system is more humane?

Should be intresting to see life expectancy in USSR in 30-40s during Stalin's repressions and WWII, it was probably only 40 years. USSR was never a humane society. Sadly, I think life expectancy dropped even further in Russia with transition to capitalism because it was so much of a shock and the social safety net was almost completely destroyed.

Report this comment

#32) On November 04, 2009 at 12:53 PM, dargus (86.13) wrote:

I agree with deepfryer that the statistic you used has massive flaws. For example, are people who died young in gulags or "vanished" also included in these calculations? How about deaths from starvation or illness that was made worse by poor nutrition? Your simple numbers most likely include a lot of variables beyond the healthcare system.

Report this comment

#33) On November 04, 2009 at 2:15 PM, matthewbanis (54.63) wrote:

YEAH, LET'S JUST KEEP BANKRUPTING FUTURE AND, OH WAIT - CURRENT GENERATIONS FOR DECADES TO COME...AND FINALLY, I AS JFK STATED "ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU BUT WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY"  PRETTY SMART FOR A DEM.   AND I ASK:

 How can you not afford health care in the richest country on the planet?

When Liberals and Democrats want something they think everyone else should provide it for them.

 When Republicans and Conservatives want something, they go about their business and get it.

Grow up you panzies.  

And if you have a comment for me, don't call me a name and continue being a child, be an adult tell me how I'm wrong, and speak intelligently. 

Thanks.   

 

  

 

Report this comment

#34) On November 04, 2009 at 2:39 PM, ETFsRule (99.90) wrote:

"Ah, but life expectancy is higher in Japan, Canada and Australia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

So, by your logic, Japan and Canada have more humane systems. Oh by the way, they happen to have universal coverage."

And that's to say nothing of the other 46 countries with a higher life expectancy than the US. It looks like Dare needs to go back to the drawing board with his idea that more socialism results in a lower life expectancy.

Ireland, Switzerland, Portugal, Germany, Belgium, Greece, Spain, all of the Scandanavian countries.... heck, even Bosnia and Herzegovina is ahead of us!

Look at the list of countries by any other indicator, such as the "Human Development Index", and you will always see the same trends: The U.S. always lags behind the more socialist countries such as Canada, Australia, Japan, and most of Europe.

It's time for the US to catch up with the rest of the world!

Report this comment

#35) On November 04, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Gemini846 (88.73) wrote:

Life expectancy numbers are aweful ways to number. Dare I would have rather you not bring those up because as dargus has pointed out they are a flawed statistic that has been used more often to argue for universal care than against it.

Japan, Canada, and Australia don't have massive imigration, a social discrimination system based on skin color, or as much access to processed foods which are high in sugar and fat.

Some people like infant mortality numbers, but even those are doctored. In scandinavian countries they don't count live births before 7 months. Thousands of premature babies are saved in the US by costly medical technology.

The questions arise on how society spends money this way. The consumer is largely out of the equasion when it comes to healthcare. Eventually someone has to pay for it. Right now we've got the government trying to hand out Cadillacs at Corolla prices and most people are getting Corollas at Cadillac prices.

In countries with socialist medicine rationing is a fact of life. People who want a public option w/out rationing are fooling themselves. If the system were truely sustainable and free of regulations then there would be no need for a self sustaining public option. It would already exist as a private insurance company or mutual insurance company like a credit union. The same thing exists for an insurance exchange. If it were free of regulation then it would already exist online BuyHealthInsurance.com or something like that.

It is a fact that people who want coverage can't get it, but thats largely because of government regulation as much as anything else.

Report this comment

#36) On November 04, 2009 at 3:27 PM, blake303 (29.87) wrote:

Gemini846  - In countries with socialist medicine rationing is a fact of life.

Rationing is a fact of life in the US too. The difference being some people are rationed out of the US health care system entirely because insuring them is not profitable. Rationing in other countries allows their systems to provide care for the entire population and the care is high quality. In these countries rationing is utilized most frequently for elective procedures. Non-life threatening procedures can be paid for out of pocket or through private insurance.

Most countries offering universal coverage assess the cost vs. benefit of a medical procedure. In many cases an older, relatively cheap procedure has the same if not better outcome than recent, more costly innovations. The US does not, which is incentive to use the more expensive  procedure regardless of outcome.

Also, your use of the term socialist medicine is off base because the countries you mention have private health care facilities and providers. I won't touch immigration or your reference to a "social discrimination system" because the conversation will likely devolve from there. 

Report this comment

#37) On November 04, 2009 at 3:31 PM, ozzfan1317 (81.20) wrote:

What about the Cigna case? So you don't have a right to fair treatment and lowered costs from insurance companies? I disagree with the assumption of wanting a public option as wanting free medical care or socialism. I am a veteran but when I marry my girl I am totally willing to help pay for her medical care. However using my grandparents as an example does it really need to cost 14,000 dollars a year?

Report this comment

#38) On November 04, 2009 at 3:51 PM, texjammer (< 20) wrote:

I must say I'm disappointed in most of the comments posted about "Universal Healthcare".  I believe a couple of you get it, but it has surpassed most of you.  The problem is in current State and Federal regulation and the LOBBYISTS that control those entities.  True healthcare reform must include tort reform and interstate insurance coverage.

As far as people dying for lack of insurance, it is illegal for anyone needing life-saving emergency care to be turned away from any Emergency Room in the United States.  Having worked in the local hospital for several years, I have personally witnessed many people that have had their ER and hospital bills covered by the taxpayers, since they couldn't pay themselves.  In fact, the county passed a $0.01 sales tax to keep the hospital from going bankrupt from the unpaid bills.

As far as the life expectancy statistics, the majority of the countries rated higher than the US have indigent populations with little to no immigration.  Comparing them to the US is like comparing apples to a Waldorf Salad. 

This whole debate boils down to those with the power want more power and we don't want them to have it.  If we want to stop this, we must demand term limits for Congress.  I think 12 years total for both Houses is a good start!

By the way - DARE, some of us appreciate good satire!

Report this comment

#39) On November 04, 2009 at 4:00 PM, scoobamang (< 20) wrote:

Where exactly do I stand in the grand scheme? I am a 22 year old juvenile diabetic who's had the disease for 14 years. Because my mother's a public school teacher and my father's a county prosecutor, I am covered at least for another year, but after that my options are fairly limited. I have the choice of paying around $5000 a year to Horizon Blue Cross so that they will cover HALF of my medical expenses.

Well that's just great guys. With insulin at $120 a bottle, which I'll use one of every 2 weeks, test strips at $15 a canister, which I will also use one of every 2 weeks, and my insulin pump (which is basically a small electric motor that turns a screw very slowly) costing $6500 and being subject to all the breaking hazards as your average cell phone, I'm looking at an $8000 a year bill, and $11,000 if my pump does crap out one of these days.

Oh sure, I deserve this! To have to dedicate 1/3 of the average American's yearly after-tax income to my pre-existing condition that showed up through no fault of my own. 

Thank goodness my parents are in the positions that they are and have been able to cover me at least until now. I dread to think what would have happened if they were your average Atlantic City worker, i.e. a casino dealer living off of tips or a taxi driver. Which is the situation that probably 99% of other juvenile diabetics in my area are stuck with. Screw 'em! Healthcare is NOT A RIGHT. If you can't afford to not have a pancreas then why should society have to pay for it? 

So wish me luck guys! I just graduated with a degree in journalism that cost me $60,000, and we all know that the newspaper industry is just restructuring itself and there will be plenty of journalism jobs in the future! This $8000 a year should be nooooo problem whatsoever. 

Report this comment

#40) On November 04, 2009 at 4:20 PM, anticitrade (99.58) wrote:

scoobamang,

During highschool whenever anyone would offer me shot of insulin at a party or after football practice, I just said no.  Even though "everyone else was doing it" I found the courage to say no, and leave my "friends" under the bleachers with their syringes full of performance enhancing insulin.  Now that those guys are paying exhorbant prices for small electric motors that turn screws very slowly, they often call me up and tell how lucky I am that I made the decisions when I was a child to just say NO to diabetes. 

Report this comment

#41) On November 04, 2009 at 4:59 PM, scoobamang (< 20) wrote:

You're right citrade, I wish somebody would have told me sooner that diabetes may SEEM cool, but you're giving yourself over to a life of needles and overpriced drugs and most of your friends are actually having a good time without it.

Report this comment

#42) On November 04, 2009 at 5:02 PM, DaretothREdux (45.12) wrote:

scoobamang,

Dude. That sucks. I feel bad for you, I really do. I have a number of diabetic (from birth) friends. 

So...let me get your argument straight...

Since you were born with diabetes we should all have to pay for it?

Does this apply to people injured in car accidents or on the job? How about people injured playing football or skydiving? Should I pay for them as well?

Dare

Report this comment

#43) On November 04, 2009 at 5:40 PM, blake303 (29.87) wrote:

anticitrade - Are you willing to be the test subject for your proposed sterilization program? You are a perfect candidate. No need for tax payer funding. For that kind of peace of mind, I am willing to pony up the funds myself. 

scoobamang - Would it be possible for you to obtain insurance coverage similar to what your parents had if you took another career path like teaching journalism or writing for the public schools?

Report this comment

#44) On November 04, 2009 at 6:01 PM, anticitrade (99.58) wrote:

Dear blake303,

I appreciate that someone read my comment.  My worry with providing aid to those in need is that in some cases we merely sustain a lifestyle that is unsustainable.  In some cases these social problems are passed from generation to generation.  I agree that we should help people in need, but I think it is irresponsible to support a situation that consistantly brings children into severe poverty.

I guess I would gladly support those in need as long as we are actually solving the problem instead of contributing to it.

This suggestion applies more to those who are consistently unable to support themselves rather than those who have a particularly expensive medical condition.

I probably should have clarified my comment.

Report this comment

#45) On November 04, 2009 at 6:02 PM, blesto (31.08) wrote:

A right to healthcare?

That is a tricky question. I recently heard a stat (I can't confirm or verify, so please tell me it's wrong) that approx 50% of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills, even those with insurance.

Can that be justified?

Report this comment

#46) On November 04, 2009 at 8:13 PM, DaretothREdux (45.12) wrote:

blesto,

I think it's probably about that high. Let me be clear though. I am not saying that we have a "free market" healthcare system in America. We actually have a combonation of facism (HMO) and socialism (Medicare/Medicade/VA).

There are definitely things that could be done to lower costs i.e. competition across state lines.

The point of this blog though is to show how ridiculous an idea it is to think that you have a right to healthcare. You never have a "right" to another person's goods and services. If you extend that right to healthcare services, then why not all goods and services?

Dare

Report this comment

#47) On November 04, 2009 at 8:21 PM, DaretothREdux (45.12) wrote:

dbjella,

Everyone has a right to a perfect smile, righ? I mean, it's not some people's fault they were born with bad teeth and others were born with nice straight shiny teeth. Universal Dental coverage for all!

Dare

Report this comment

#48) On November 04, 2009 at 10:08 PM, DaretothREdux (45.12) wrote:

arboretum,

$500,000/year? You can be serious, right?

Here's a little enlightenment. The median salary for a doctor with 20 years or more experience is less than $180,000.

Malpractice can cost nearly 1/3 of that income depending on what area of medicine you work.

Don't forget how many more years of school are required and how much debt most people take on to become doctors. Most are probably lucky to actually make money about their 8 year of working in medicine.

I have no doubt that pro bono work still occurs even so, but I would also wager that more pro bono work occured before Medicare and HMOs.

Dare

 

Report this comment

#49) On November 04, 2009 at 10:09 PM, DaretothREdux (45.12) wrote:

arboretum,

Should have read "You can't be serious...."

Dare

Report this comment

#50) On November 04, 2009 at 10:17 PM, ozzfan1317 (81.20) wrote:

I agree that no one is entitled to a free ride but I do believe  that a public option could be a viable alternative. If not that tighter regulations on insurance companies. They dont create innovation all they do is ration care and over charge patients.

Report this comment

#51) On November 04, 2009 at 10:42 PM, starbucks4ever (99.52) wrote:

"USSR life expectancy decline from 71 in 1964 to 68 in 1983"

A fish rots from the head down. Being a totalitarian party with no opposition and no replacement mechanism for the ruling elite, the Communist party began to rot starting around 1964, and by 1983 its Politburo was already a stinking corpse that was certain to fail any assignment it was given, be it agriculture, or price stability, or ideology, or healthcare. A political problem, not the problem of an economic model. 

Report this comment

#52) On November 04, 2009 at 10:45 PM, thongpatrol (< 20) wrote:

Dare,

you are losing your edge.  where is the satire in your comments?  you sound like a typical average IQ conservative.   i know you are much brighter than that.  what is your solution to the health care issue?  i think everyone should have the right for health care.  it is the right thing to do as advanced society as we are.  here is my smarta$$ response:  what would Jesus do?    service to others regardless of costs. 

Report this comment

#53) On November 04, 2009 at 10:50 PM, brewman1947 (< 20) wrote:

Tired of right wing loonies , want healthcare and realize it can be a reality at reasonable cost. 

Support your legislators that support Obama health care program. It will save us all. 

Report this comment

#54) On November 04, 2009 at 10:51 PM, DaretothREdux (45.12) wrote:

thongpatrol,

You're right we should hold our gov't to the same standard as Jesus....

well, I guess that means they will have to stop collecting taxes (stealing), and threatening to jail anyone who doesn't pay up (coercion)!

After all...those aren't very Jesus-like.

Or maybe I'm forgetting the story in the Bible where Jesus went into the city, stole from the rich and gave it to the poor? Was he wearing green tights in that story?

Dare

Report this comment

#55) On November 04, 2009 at 10:55 PM, DaretothREdux (45.12) wrote:

brewman1947,

Yes. I am a right-wing nut job! That's all you had to say. You win the argument. Just ignore the fact that I have been in opposition to BOTH wars from the beginning and very active on my blog (even the last week) voicing my opposition to them....

oops...I guess I don't fit in your little boxed up world-view....

want healthcare and realize it can be a reality at reasonable cost

Costs are always reasonable when you can force others to pay for you. Why don't you come steal my money yourself like a real man/woman instead of having the gov't do your dirty work?

Note: The last two comments were to show thongpatrol that I can still comment satirically.

Dare

Report this comment

#56) On November 04, 2009 at 10:59 PM, janis1023 (< 20) wrote:

My mom explained the difference between republicans and democrats:  If you need a ladder to get what you need, a republican will climb up the ladder and pull it up with him so you can't have it, a democrat will climb up he ladder and leave it for others to use. 

 Are you people not aware of the thousands of people who had jobs and insurance but through no fault of their own lost it all?  You act like anyone that's willing to get off the couch can get a job.  It used to be like that before George Bush tried to bankrupt the country with his lying buddies that took us to Iraq and let the credit card companies (which are now exempt from bankruptcy laws), the insurance companies and doctors (that you can no longer sue, only arbitrate), and the bankers (who wrote loans for anyone that could sign on the dotted line and crashed the economy) write their own laws.

You can demonize universal health care by calling it socialist when it's actual just the humane thing to do under the current circumstances.  That's what republicans do best is mislabel and lie using scare tactics.  If I were to be fair I would say republicans are sheep and follow the party line because they are stupid, selfish, and delusional.  If I were to be honest I would say republicans are mean spirited demons representing satan's agenda on earth.  That is the only explaination I can come up with for their turning a blind eye to sick and hungry children that are attached to those adults they dismiss so easily and even look down on.

Jesus said (not verbatum) the way you treat the lowest of men is the way you treat me.  Yet you all wave that God flag and turn your nose up at the poor.

I can just imagine how upsetting it must be to have lost the presidency not only to a democrat but to a black democrat.  Horrors of all horrors.  Makes me LMAO!!!!!!

 Eat that!   HaHaHa.

 

 

Report this comment

#57) On November 04, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Imperial1964 (97.87) wrote:

Has anyone ever read Thidwick the Big Hearted Moose?

As I said before it's all where we draw the line.  I don't have a problem with paying for someone who has a life-threatening need for healthcare, but I would rather see it done by private charity than government.

What I have a problem with is like a friend of mine.  He lives in government housing.  He doesn't have health insurance.  Instead he has an iPhone, cable TV, a bigger TV than mine, and he and his wife have newer cars than I do.  His wife doesn't work even though the kids are grown.  He is self-employed and only works 3 days per week because that is all he feels like.  He doesn't work in the winter either.

I'm not saying I would trade what I have for what he has, but I don't think I should have to pay for his healthcare (though we all already do) because he doesn't want to work enough to pay for it himself or deny himself things like iPhones and cable TV.

The thing is, our government can't pay for what they are spending now.  I don't think we should burden our children with such debt to provide healthcare for people who could afford it if they had to.

Oh well.  I don't think they will ever completely "socialize" healthcare, but if they do I can just retire and I won't have to pay for it.  All my stuff is paid for, so I can live comfortably at the poverty level, mostly off dividends and capital gains.  I won't pay much in taxes and y'all can pay for my medical care.  

Report this comment

#58) On November 04, 2009 at 11:23 PM, starbucks4ever (99.52) wrote:

"My mom explained the difference between republicans and democrats:  If you need a ladder to get what you need, a republican will climb up the ladder and pull it up with him so you can't have it, a democrat will climb up he ladder and leave it for others to use."

Here is the right way to tell that parable.  A republican will climb up the ladder, pull it up with him so you can't have it, and piss on you from the rooftop. A democrat will climb up the ladder, pull it up with him so you can't have it, give you a friendly smile and prompt you to climb on top after him. 

 

Report this comment

#59) On November 05, 2009 at 1:01 AM, uclayoda87 (29.86) wrote:

The following are the approved fee changes for cardiology in 2010:

With the exception of evaluation and management services, nearly all services that cardiologists perform will see cuts ranging from 10 percent to more than 40 percent for individual services phased in over 4 years. A few key examples for 2010 alone:

• SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (78452) -- 36 percent cut
• Transthoracic echo with spectral and color flow Doppler (93306) --10 percent cut
• Coronary Stent (92980) -4 percent cut
• EKG (93000)-- 5 percent cut
• Level 4 established patient office visit (99214)-- 7 percent increase

To compensate for these changes, we have frozen hiring and pay increases.  We will limit available slots for patient visits to achieve a lower intensity of practice and accept a lower income.  This will allow us to work for more years without risking burnout.  Our lease expires in 2014, at which time we will down-size and limit our practice even further as about 50% of our physicians will be fully retired at that time.  If a single payer system is in place with Medicare rates, then we will opt out of the government insurance.  If the new health care rules do not allow for fee for service medical care, then we will close the practice.

Our cardiology group is the largest and most financial sound group in town.  Many groups have already sold their practices to the local hospitals, but the hospitals are not interested in buying any more.  Their financial losses have mounted from these purchases.

While the debate continues over the right to health care we will likely see the population of health care providers fall as demand rises.  Our ability to recruit good foreign physicians will likely be more difficult in the current financial environment.

Cost saving will eventually be achieved due to a lack of available care.

I wrote about this in my original Health care blog:

Universal Health Care – The Final Solution to the Social Security and Medicare Problems April 29, 2009

 

Report this comment

#60) On November 05, 2009 at 1:43 AM, benthalus (< 20) wrote:

Dare,

 Do you think that the current health care system should remain in place indefinitely? If not, what changes do you propose?

Do you think that other currently socialized services such as police and fire/rescue should be wholly privatized?

Do you consider it acceptable for private insurance companies to deny services to a policyholder, and profit from their suffering?

Report this comment

#61) On November 05, 2009 at 1:47 AM, angusthermopylae (41.42) wrote:

Here's another difference between Republicans and Democrats:

A Republican believes that all people are basically evil, but if you leave them alone, things will work out.  (Corollary:  "Therefore, no one will mind if I just have a little....")

Democrats believe that all people are basically good, but have to be told what to do to keep them out of trouble.

Report this comment

#62) On November 05, 2009 at 5:14 AM, whereaminow (61.20) wrote:

Very courageous post Dare! 

David in Qatar

Report this comment

#63) On November 05, 2009 at 7:54 AM, DaretothREdux (45.12) wrote:

zloj,

The only reason that I have not changed my registration to Libertarian is so I can vote for this guy: http://www.randpaul2010.com/

Who is running for senate in my state. And also beating the "party establishment canidate" in the latest poll!

Dare

Report this comment

#64) On November 05, 2009 at 12:14 PM, thongpatrol (< 20) wrote:

Dare,

pay your taxes and get over it.  do you expect state and local governments to make better decisions than the federal government with your money?  not.  all three make poor choices.  plenty of examples of mismanagement and criminal behavior with public monies on every level.  how do you pay for basic government services if there were no taxes?  i don't get your politics on taxes.  sure the code isn't fair.  adjust it and make it fair.  rich folks seem to fight this.  why?  because they pay less than most and want to thrwart any attempt to change their habits.   btw, what will Rand Paul do to change these habits?  probably squat.  you should run for office for possibly real change.  not some inexperienced eye doctor.  

Report this comment

#65) On November 05, 2009 at 4:03 PM, DaretothREdux (45.12) wrote:

thongpatrol,

I may some day run for office, but you could say that I have no experience either...

What will Rand do? Only what he promised:

1. Never Vote for an Unbalance Budget no matter which party proposes it.

2. Amend any appropriations bill by the amount we are over budget. Meaning if we are 20% over budget for the year he will put in an amendment to reduce the spending by 20%

Those two things alone will lower waste, spending, and by proxy taxes.

Those are a good start.

Dare

Report this comment

#66) On November 05, 2009 at 6:39 PM, thongpatrol (< 20) wrote:

Dare,

those sound like promises only a politician can make.  he has never done anything to indicate he would vote that way.  i'm sure there are caveats to many issues that he is willing to change.  such as riders to the legislation.  those alway make politicians look like they lie.  history will show he will likely be like every other politician--corporate sponsors will fund his election.  i wish him the best.  

Report this comment

#67) On November 06, 2009 at 8:11 AM, DaretothREdux (45.12) wrote:

benthalus,

If you are still following this post (or even if you aren't) I will try to address your questions soon. I do have a "free market" approach to fixing healthcare. There are four things specifically that could be done to lower cost. One I already mentioned: insurance companies competition across state lines.

Dare

Report this comment

#68) On November 06, 2009 at 7:02 PM, benthalus (< 20) wrote:

Yes, I am following, and would like to hear your ideas. I think insurance company competition between states would help, but only if the plans comply with each states own rules regarding policies. When the people of a state elect officials who then choose to require all plans within that state to cover something like mental health, it would not be fair for a business to go out of state for a plan that is cheaper simply because it doesn't cover that mandated aspect. Otherwise, I think that sort of competition would be helpful in addressing costs.

Of course, I also think the federal government should be allowed to join that competition, and if the private companies can't keep up, well then that would give credence to a single payor system. I don't think that would happen, and I recommend you look into the system Costa Rica has in place, with a baseline required government plan and optional second-tier private care that does very well. Everyone gets covered, and if you want to pay more for faster, better care, you can.

Report this comment

#69) On November 06, 2009 at 7:22 PM, wuff3t (97.33) wrote:

Hey, it all seems a little simpler than this. Ask yourself this question, if there was a world war declared tomorrow - would your country expect you to lay down your life and die?

The answer is Yes. Isn't it?

Then shouldn't your government do you the courtesy of keeeping you healthy in the meantime? I mean, given that we are - still, apparently, a democracy...

Report this comment

#70) On November 09, 2009 at 8:00 AM, DaretothREdux (45.12) wrote:

wuff3t,

if there was a world war declared tomorrow - would your country expect you to lay down your life and die?

My country might expect it, but they do not have a "right" to my life any more than you do. Just because they are the state doesn't mean they own me. That's an old dated way of thinking. Even our country has admitted this by eliminating the draft.

Then shouldn't your government do you the courtesy of keeeping you healthy in the meantime? I mean, given that we are - still, apparently, a democracy...

We are not a democracy. We are a republic. There is a difference.

"Democracy is where two wolves and lamb vote on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."     -Ben Franklin

Dare

Report this comment

Blog Archive

2012

May (1) April (1)

2011

December (1) October (5) May (1)

2010

August (1) June (1) May (2) February (1)

2009

December (1) November (6) October (6) September (1) August (3) July (10) June (1) May (6) April (4) March (6) February (6) January (17)

2008

December (6)