« How to Pose and Kill Time While the World Erupts | Main | Open Thread »

The only way for there to be less spent on health care ... especially with an aging population... is if there is less health care to be spent on. It's practically a law of physics.

Did anybody catch Glenn Beck on the radio this morning talk about how the NYT just brazenly distorted its poll on the public's views of Obamacare? How could anybody get up and go to work there every day?

We really need to keep up the drumbeat and pressure. The majority of American people don't want what they're selling, it scares us to death and we're being vocal about it. The dems know they're vulnerable here, no matter what they spin.

Less development of new drugs and techniques too.

The access will be restricted quickly, but in the long run there just won't be many new technologies because the profit motive will be removed from R&D.

Here's an experience that I had a couple of years ago that looks to be about to go the way of the dodo:

In August of 2006, I was helping my soon-to-be-fiance install a ceiling fan in her house. While raising the fan overhead to fasten it in place, I felt a stinging pain in my right shoulder. I had had surgery on this shoulder in 1994 and had had no problems since, so I was bit alarmed. As the pain lingered through the afternoon (turning into more of a throbbing one), I went back to my apt. and put ice on the shoulder, to no avail.

That was Saturday, August 19 2006. Though my salary and health care plan at the time was rather modest, here's the health care I procured in the next couple of weeks:

Tuesday, August 22: Saw Dr. Barber of Plano Orthopedic and Sports Medicine Clinic. He ordered an MRI.

Friday, August 25: Got MRI done at a local clinic.

Tuesday, August 29: Met with Dr. Barber to review MRI results, which revealed an AC joint that was out of whack due to lots of scar tissue and a weirdly curved bone in my shoulder.

Friday, September 1: Underwent arthroscopic surgery to repair shoulder. Within a couple of months, the shoulder was fully healed.

For those keeping score, that's a period of 13 days from initial "OUCH!!!" to reparative surgery. Why so quick? Because in a private medical practice, it is in the doctor's best interest to get me back to 100% as soon as possible, and it is up to me to determine if I want to go through with it and pay for it.

In a single-payer system, those concerns are reversed: the doctor's interest is not to get me back to 100% as soon as possible, but to decide if it is "cost-effective" for him to go through with it; therefore it is he, not I, that is making the decision about if and when I get back to 100%. I am left lobbying (in vain) for better and swifter care, and am at his and "the system"'s mercy.

This does not in the least sound like a system that will provide the best care to the largest number possible, does it?

Do you really believe the status quo is working? I don't have to look any further than my immediate family to know that the health care industry is taking advantage of hard working, salt of the earth Americans.

So what do you suggest is a better idea?
What the president is suggesting is funding a PUBLIC ALTERNATIVE that is self-sustaining, not tax driven. Private Health Insurance companies are scared to hell of a little competition from the public sphere, because they know the public will stand up and have a voice. We all know money talks and with the government on their side the people will be heard. They'll say "Health care for everyone, not just the healthy". The fact of the matter is insurance companies spend millions figuring out how to not give coverage to people who have paid their dues. THAT itself causes "less access" on all fronts.

Your mantra though is fundamentally flawed in that it shows no appreciation for the fact that millions of people are crippled by the price of their "access" or alternatively have "no access" or are "denied access".

So instead of just being a mouth piece for the greedy health-care industry, how about offering up a solution to helping those without access, or how to stem the rising costs that have long out paced wages, because in all sincerity - I'd like to hear it.

mike "health care industry is taking advantage of hard working, salt of the earth Americans. "

where do you think new advances in health technology come from? Do they grow on trees? Do they come from Cuba? Maybe Canada or Great Britain? And how are the people who work for the government not equally "greedy"?

The health care industry in America is the reason that the entire world enjoys cutting edge technologies.

So if your plan is to stick to the guys who profit off of developing the best health services, then you can expect a shorter average life expectancy in return.

Yes, some Americans get better care or coverage than you. Boo Hoo.

Your'e still likely to live about 70+ years.
less. So whine all you want about the "greed" that gives people incentive to extend your life expectancy but don't you complain to me when you are 70 years old and the ER is full and your life is worth less to Uncle Sam than the 2o year old next to you. So in order to keep the "greedy" people out of the health industry, the *magically* non-greedy government(ha ha) will have to RATION.

When the government spends millions figuring out to not treat you, were will you turn then? The fact is if you walk into a hospital now, they will treat you regardless of whether or not you can pay. In the UK, you only get treated if the government wants you to live.

Want to lower the price of health care? Get rid of the trial lawyers and politicians. Stop the greedy bastard democrunts from getting rich off the rest of the people.

P.S. We do not want to pay for fucking illegal aliens.

Not sure what happened to the first part of that sentence ending in "less" but:

You're great great grandparents expected to live 20-30 years less.

Stephan: P.S. We do not want to pay for fucking illegal aliens.
I agree, they should be paying us to fuck them.

I'm not saying the people in the government aren't equally greedy, but I will say they are more heavily scrutinized by the public than the private sector. And that's what is really at stake here, protecting the public sector from the private sector which is clearly taking advantage of their position.

Call me old fashion, but I'm not concerned with how long I live, I'm concerned with the QUALITY of life for ALL. So if the cost of advancing the health sciences is for a significant portion of the population to live a sub-standard life style now, then I say those advances are not worth it.
Let's slow the progress a bit, spread the wealth.

Do we really need modern science to extend our lives even longer? This is part of the drain, keeping people alive, who perhaps should not be. That's to say nothing of sciences ever incomplete understandings- allowing "cured" ailments to remain in the gene pool, further compounding our reliance on them.

And mandy, you can't say it's just the "democrunts". Being greedy is postpartisan. Also, how many illegals are signed up for social security? I doubt they'll be many provisions that will allow for them to enter a public health care system.

I'm not necessarily saying I support a public option, but we should be shooting for a system that:
A. Gives good health-care to ALL Americans that seek it (rich or poor)
B. Creates competition to incentivize the health care industry to innovate, not just in the care they provide, but also in the ways they do business.

I'd say we're about a quarter of the way there, and something needs to change.

This is part of the drain, keeping people alive, who perhaps should not be.

Thank you, Mike, for spelling out exactly what scares the hell out of me about those who advocate that the government about the "spread the wealth" types. Who the hell are you, or your beloved public sector, to determine whether a person "should" be alive? Who the hell are you, or your beloved public sector, to determine whether a person's "quality of life" meets the criteria of "worthy of being alive"? What on earth makes you think that you, or your beloved public sector, are entitled to make that decision on someone else's behalf? The monumental presumptuousness of such a statement is rather sickening.

Go to hell.

Bad editing on above post. Above first sentence should read:

Thank you, Mike, for spelling out exactly what scares the hell out of me about the "spread the wealth" types.

"So instead of just being a mouth piece for the greedy health-care industry, how about offering up a solution to helping those without access, or how to stem the rising costs that have long out paced wages, because in all sincerity - I'd like to hear it.

Posted by: mike at June 23, 2009 11:28 AM"

It'll never be perfect, but limiting awards and having loser pay all costs in malpractice suits would be a big help.

The quality will go down hill the more the government gets involved, and if we go down that road, it'll be really hard to turn it around.

Mike,
every one that wants health care can get it, hospitals don't turn any one away. (unless they are run by Michelle the Klingon warrior Obama).

The government can't run medicare, bankrupt, the post office, etc. You want the federal retards to control your access to health care? If health care gets rationed, then people will get rationed out so we can get the care that we payed for.

", but I will say they are more heavily scrutinized by the public than the private sector"

By who? Most media are in bed with Obama and will not criticize him or any other democrat. Once we are on the hook for a media bailout that journalists are adgitating for, the government will control every last word we read.

"but I'm not concerned with how long I live, "

It is refershing for a lib to admit that human life in and of itself has no value to them.

Quality of life( I assume you mean only health) can usually be controlled via not being promiscuous or obese. Something which many people are simply not going to give up even if it costs others trillion$.

"This is part of the drain, keeping people alive, who perhaps should not be. "

The government gets to decide who is worthy of life - because to liberals this can be decided by human beings. Yikes!!!!!! I'll guess that conservative Christians are the ones who perhaps shouldn't be around.

"Also, how many illegals are signed up for social security? "

Quite a few are in the public schools and on welfare. The despicable state of public vs private schools ought to be a clear indication of the quality of care us non super wealthy Americans will receive.

Yes everyone in Government is greedy, R or D, which is why they should have the smallest passible influence in our lives and pocket books.

"
A. Gives good health-care to ALL Americans that seek it (rich or poor)"

No, it gives the same health-care to all - Soviet style. Here is your sack of potatoes and stick of butter for the month - just like your neighbors! Here is your one bottle of tylenol for your family for the year, broken glasses? too bad, wait until next year, kids has strep throat again? we are out of antibiotics....

Mike said:
"So if the cost of advancing the health sciences is for a significant portion of the population to live a sub-standard life style now, then I say those advances are not worth it.
Let's slow the progress a bit, spread the wealth."

This paragraph has me completely baffled. Advancing health sciences causes sub-standard living conditions? How do the mechanics of that work exactly, Mike?

What if advanced health science finds treatments for cancer, MS, diabetes? Wouldn't that benefit all (rich and poor?) How does "slowing" that kind of work "spread the wealth?"

Those who advocate government-run healthcare should be made to spend 24 hours observing it in action. They can do it right here in the USA; just volunteer at a VA hospital...

You know, the hospital system that the Democrats have been criticizing for the last 6 or 7 years?

MIKE
You say "What the president is suggesting is funding a PUBLIC ALTERNATIVE that is self-sustaining, not tax driven." so just HOW is it going to be PAID FOR? The CURRENT system is self-sustaining because it's done on the CAPITALIST system. People like yourself expect the government to pay for "health care", but anyone who had GOOD teachers knows that the government has NO MONEY. What the government has is REVENUE from levied TAXES; that means that I, V the K, Karin and even YOU will be the ones paying for this fiasco.

The others have tried to warn you about the lack of medical development under a socialist plan; this is because there is NO INCENTIVE for inovation. Anyone who develops a new drug or techinque recives no monitary compensation, or promotion (Everyone is "equal" under socialism, so there is no possibility for promotion). This actually applies to every aspect of socialist life: why bust you butt if it doesn't better your life?

By the way, you Liberals keep saying that "the rich" will be forced to pay for the rest of us. But just WHO ARE "THE RICH"? I know for certain that it's not Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates, the Kennedys, George Soros, or any other Obama supporter.

You're all wasting your time with mike. He's the guy that approaches you on the street to score some change so he can go buy a few "nips" at the corner liquor store *AND* gets upset when you tell him "sorry no change".

And BTW..... I Saved or Created 200 Million jobs today....

The only way for there to be less spent on health care ... especially with an aging population... is if there is less health care to be spent on. It's practically a law of physics.

But government can defy the laws of physics... supplying less health care at higher cost.

FreeWhillie, yes, Mike is really just another lazy socialist barnacle looking to feed off the backs of capitalist wealth.

Pay till it hurts PAY $20:00 FOR A WEE BOTTLE OF ASPERIN all under the control of DR OBAMA JEYKL/HYDE

Oh man, I'm so disappointed I didn't get a response! I truly am flummoxed by that paragraph.

I'm also amused by anyone who goes on a conservative site and says "spread the wealth." Is that attempting to be a persuasive argument, or is it just parody?

GeronimoRumplestiltskin - do you really believe some Insurance CEO concerned with investors and increasing profit margins should be the one who decides whether you get insurance coverage? The very tools that ensure your quality of life should be in the hands of a group of Executives concerned with $$$. I'm not suggesting full public control, but full private control isn't the way either. Checks and Balances for our Health Care!

My "beloved" public sector is you and me buddy, using contemporary technologies to keep an eye on the people on the front line. I understand your ilk likes it better when the $$$ does the deciding, due to your undubitable love of $$$ over people. You do love your money, right?

Karin - The suggestion is that the consolidation of wealth is what fuels research. That if there were not any corporations with large profit margins investing in the research, the science wouldn't be done. I understand and agree with this. But it would mean having to cut into their (research) budgets to ensure wider coverage to people who would not normally get covered, or can't currently afford to.

And Plover, I believe pharmaceuticals are cheaper in countries with socialized medicine.

My point, and I know that probably no one here shares my perspective -

Pure capitalism is not the way, though nor is pure socialism. It's all about using socialist and human principles to keep our capitalism in check, especially when we're talking about health care. Let's be decent about that at least. You know, like we do with education.

What gets me is how successful the cold war era dogmatic fear mongering campaign against socialist principles has worked on all you skives.

Peace.

Yes Mike Conservatives do love their money. We love our money so much that we donate to charities at a much higher rate than moonbats.

source: "Who really Cares?" - Arthur Brooks - professor of public policy at Syracuse University.

But he's only one of many that confirms that Conservatives give more to the needy than the moonbats.

Why is that most everyone seems to think that suddenly all the doctors, hospitals and equipment will suddenly disappear and health care will suffer for everyone. 25 years ago not everyone went to a doctor or the hospital for every little ache and pain. Pharmaceutical companies didn't promise us the world, only what they could actually deliver. New drugs were being discovered, patented and sold; unlike today all they do is advertise and reformulate so they can keep their patent protection. This doesn't help anyone but the drug companies. Keep in mind also, that most Canadians are satisfied with their health care. Most receive quick and free assistance. Besides that, our health care is severely broken and can not be fixed by staying with the same system. Get the middle men, the insurance companies, out of the picture. All doctors spend roughly 1-2 hours of paperwork for each hour of patient time. This is not right. Let's try something else. Even if it is expensive, that could/should change over time.