Former Health Care Executive: Michael Moore was Right (Sicko)

[Chevycola]

Originally Posted by billms

please elaborate - who is now receiving the wealth?

and why would anybody set "redistributing wealth", in the abstract, as a goal? i don't see the rational appeal - i've never met anybody who woke up and said "what we need to do to make things better is redistribute wealth".

I can only speak for myself, but redistribution of wealth isn't *the goal*, it's the means by which many use to get to their specific ends. Nobody going on vacation gets up with the family in the morning and says "Great - now we get to drive in rush hour traffic and wait in the airport for 3 hours to take our 3 hour flight!!" They get up and say "We're going to DISNEYLAND!!!!". The transportation is their means. Disneyland is the end. Now if you make the means more appealing, say a limo ride and a private jet, the means now become just as fun as the end, to some.

The Democratic philosophy is truly becoming that of bigger government. We thought Bush was a spendaholic - but he's nothing compared to Obama and this Democratic Congress. I've never seen our wealth - defined as our tax dollars - spent more wildy and quickly as this bunch has - and they are nowhere near done. They are addicted to it. They have reversed the "Means and End" flow. They are like an addicted shopper - who stays up late at nighth watching "The Shopping Network". For that person, it's no longer about what they are buying or shopping for - it's just about spending the money. Perhaps that is what Edman is referring to. Obama and Congress's Democratic philosophy is to take the tax dollars, and you find more amongst the richer so tax them even more, and distribute it by spending it on those who don't have as much. Does the program matter? Not to these guys. Health Care is just the latest stop on the wealth redistribution merry go round for these guys.

[billms]

So your belief is that democrats want to spend money as an end to itself. I've heard that before. Frankly I think its as nutty as the wealth redistribution canard.

[Chevycola]

Originally Posted by billms

So your belief is that democrats want to spend money as an end to itself. I've heard that before. Frankly I think its as nutty as the wealth redistribution canard.

I'm just saying. Frankly I think it's all politicians that want to spend money as an end to itself. If they aren't spending money, especially money that benefits their constituents, or that they believe benefits them, they don't have a job. It's pretty easy to spend other people's money. You really don't think they spend it as an end to itself?

Here's a list for you. Tell me they aren't spending just to spend. Because no operation that has true accountablility would ever spend money like this (my favorites are bolded - I especially love the consumer seafood study - couldn't Red Lobster have done that themselves?)

$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud.
$84,000 to find out why people fall in love.
$1 million to study why people don't ride bikes to work.
$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.
$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.
Funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys.
$219,000 to teach college students how to watch television.
$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe.
$20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges.
$160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest.
$800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley.
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft.
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument.
$1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument.
$6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce.
$10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull's potency.
$100,000 to research soybean-based ink.
$1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center.
$57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two.

http://www.areddy.net/mscott/porkabs.html

[billms]

I think there is a clear distinction between spending money to buy support from the voters and spending money to just spend money. I was specifically referring to the second.

I also think it is easy to look at titles and brief descriptions of projects and see how ridiculous they are. And be wrong. Proxmeyer did that with cow methane and eventually admitted he was wrong. For example, I can easily see how the pigeon study could be a waste or a sound investment of dollars - impossible to tell with that description.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by billms

I think there is a clear distinction between spending money to buy support from the voters and spending money to just spend money. I was specifically referring to the second.

I also think it is easy to look at titles and brief descriptions of projects and see how ridiculous they are. And be wrong. Proxmeyer did that with cow methane and eventually admitted he was wrong. For example, I can easily see how the pigeon study could be a waste or a sound investment of dollars - impossible to tell with that description.

Studying volcanic activity in Alaska is a waste of money too...

[billms]

[Sparks4Ever]

CBO is not playing ball with the democrats. Says their bill will not reduce health care costs as its supporters claim.

CBO: Health reform bills moving the wrong way - Jul. 16, 2009

I don't see how the Democrats can get this through before recess, if at all.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by billms

apt comparison, and funny show.

[Who is the Drizzle?]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

If we are going to UHC (and I think we are), I'd like to see a plan where people have to pay for anything under a couple of hundred dollars, or maybe pay a $50 fee every time they see a doctor (maybe give them 2-3 free visits a year per person). Those who are at the poverty line or below could get a special exemption/more free visits, and you could cap what anyone pays at $1500 a person or $3000 a family (maybe even exempt kids from it). I'm just throwing numbers out there, but I know my insurance is much cheaper because I have co-pays.

I know when I worked with the homeless, one of my jobs was to keep them from going to the ER because they would have something trivial wrong with them (a cough, a runny nose, an aching joint, etc). Under UHC, I would hate to see a large chunk of people swamping the ER or Urgent Care, because it is free. If you put a minimum fee on it, I think it would deter that behavior.

Yeah my biggest concern with this is people will treat it as a free hand out, see the doc more and more, and send costs soaring even more. It's human nature, when my employer was providing this kick-awesome plan, I went to the doc for a checkup or two just so I wouldn't feel like I was wasting the perks. Now that I buy my own, where I buy the cheapest policy possible and basically have to pay to see a doc, I haven't even thought about going for many years. But I'd really hate a system that drives taxes up so unhealthy, stupid, smoking people can suck up all the resources. Of course, I'm doing that already with private insurance. It's pretty much a money sink by definition for young/healthy people.

At any rate, for a gov't plan, I'd have guidelines that are even stricter than yours. 1 free scheduled check up a year/every other year per adult, and have clinics set up for aches and pains and colds and whatever else. Obviously, if you have symptoms that seem to be more serious, that's a different story.

[Chevycola]

Originally Posted by billms

I also think it is easy to look at titles and brief descriptions of projects and see how ridiculous they are. And be wrong. Proxmeyer did that with cow methane and eventually admitted he was wrong. For example, I can easily see how the pigeon study could be a waste or a sound investment of dollars - impossible to tell with that description.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think this paragraph was a 63 word backhanded way of calling me stupid.

[billms]

Glad you know better because its not.

[Chevycola]

I should hope not. My avatar with the NO symbol is already occupied.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by billms

I also think it is easy to look at titles and brief descriptions of projects and see how ridiculous they are. And be wrong. Proxmeyer did that with cow methane and eventually admitted he was wrong. For example, I can easily see how the pigeon study could be a waste or a sound investment of dollars - impossible to tell with that description.

I think there were plenty of projects, that may have some merit to them, but didn't belong anywhere near a stimulus package that was produced recently. The Dems share the blunt of the criticism for this, but the GOP is no angel in this process either. Both have produced several ridiculous things, just to get a piece of a giant pie for selfish reasons.

[chasfh]

We spend way, way more per capita on health care in this country than any other country on Earth, yet we live sicker and die younger than the citizens of any other industrialized country.

I mean, really -- who's in favor of preserving that system?

[Edman85]

Originally Posted by chasfh

We spend way, way more per capita on health care in this country than any other country on Earth, yet we live sicker and die younger than the citizens of any other industrialized country.

I mean, really -- who's in favor of preserving that system?

Correlation/causation... We live sicker and die younger because of our eating habits.

[chasfh]

Originally Posted by Edman85

Correlation/causation... We live sicker and die younger because of our eating habits.

Are you sure that's the entire reason? And what evidence do you have that our eating habits are substantially different from that of other industrialized nations?

[Edman85]

Originally Posted by chasfh

Are you sure that's the entire reason? And what evidence do you have that our eating habits are substantially different from that of other industrialized nations?

Burden of proof isn't on my end. You're the one who claimed that the system was to blame for America's life expectancy without citing the life expectancy data and separating other possible causes.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Edman85

Correlation/causation... We live sicker and die younger because of our eating habits.

we also hate our system more than most and get measurable worse quality of care - GSM

[billms]

Originally Posted by Edman85

Burden of proof isn't on my end. You're the one who claimed that the system was to blame for America's life expectancy without citing the life expectancy data and separating other possible causes.

No, he didn't make any such claim. He made factual statements. But you seemed to imply that the issue of causation is not settled. So isn't the burden on you?

[chasfh]

Originally Posted by Edman85

Burden of proof isn't on my end. You're the one who claimed that the system was to blame for America's life expectancy without citing the life expectancy data and separating other possible causes.

You established the positive claim that the reason we live sicker and die younger is because of our diet. It's up to you to deliver proof that's the reason, and that our eating habits are substantially different from that of other industrialized nations, leading to these outcomes.

All I did was ask who would want to preserve our current health care system that produces those outcomes.

[JohnJMS]

How about everyone just back up their own positions?

[Oblong]

The Detroit Tigers had the highest payroll in the AL Central in 2008 yet finished in last place. Who would want to preserve that system?

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by billms

No, he didn't make any such claim. He made factual statements. But you seemed to imply that the issue of causation is not settled. So isn't the burden on you?

He made two statements that may be factual but provided no evidence that hey are related to each other. That's a lazy argument.

[Edman85]

Originally Posted by billms

No, he didn't make any such claim. He made factual statements. But you seemed to imply that the issue of causation is not settled. So isn't the burden on you?

********.

We spend way, way more per capita on health care in this country than any other country on Earth, yet we live sicker and die younger than the citizens of any other industrialized country.

I mean, really -- who's in favor of preserving that system?

That's a blatant correlation/causation fallacy and I pointed it out.

[chasfh]

Originally Posted by Oblong

He made two statements that may be factual but provided no evidence that hey are related to each other. That's a lazy argument.

Yours is a lazy analogy.

[chasfh]

Originally Posted by Edman85

********.



That's a blatant correlation/causation fallacy and I pointed it out.

What evidence do you have that people liver sicker and die younger only because they have poor diets, and that US diets are worse that those of other industrialized countries?

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by chasfh

What evidence do you have that people liver sicker and die younger only because they have poor diets, and that US diets are worse that those of other industrialized countries?

He didn't say "only". Nice try.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by chasfh

Yours is a lazy analogy.

Not really. there's people who think the economic situation in baseball needs fixing. I provided a lazy argument in favor of that that used the same logic you did for health care.

[sub rosa]

Originally Posted by Edman85

Correlation/causation... We live sicker and die younger because of our eating habits.

actually, edman accepted chas's factual assertion - that is, we live sicker and die younger - he simply disagreed on the cause. no reason for chas to cite a source for facts upon which they already agree.

[Edman85]

While I didn't word it that way (I was tired)... I was pointing out another possible cause to support the fact that there was a correlation/causation fallacy.

[sinister porpoise]

BREAKING: AMA Endorses House Bill. - The Treatment

Via Health Care for America Now: The American Medical Association just sent a letter to House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, endorsing the health reform proposal put forward by three House committees.

This is unexpected. Or, at least, I wasn't expecting it. Recent signals from the AMA suggested they were reluctant to embrace reform, in no small part because they believed a public insurance option would underpay them. But the AMA letter contains no caveats. It is a straightforward endorsement.

And that makes it a pretty big deal. No, the AMA is not as powerful, nor as representative of the medical community, as it once was. But an unqualified endorsement for the most liberal plan out there has large symbolic value, given the role AMA played in killing health care reform for most of the 20th Century.

http://blog.healthcareforamericanow....a-endorsed.pdf

Dear Chairman Rangel:
On behalf of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association, I am writing to express our appreciation and support for H.R. 3200, the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.” This legislation includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective, comprehensive health system reform. We urge members of the House Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means Committees to favorably report H.R. 3200 for consideration by the full House.

In particular, we are pleased that the bill:
• Promises to extend coverage to all Americans through health insurance market reforms;
• Provides consumers with a choice of plans through a health insurance exchange;
• Includes essential health insurance reforms such as eliminating coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions;
• Recognizes that fundamental Medicare reforms, including repeal of the sustainable growth rate formula, are essential to the success of broader health system reforms;
• Encourages chronic disease management and care coordination through additional funding for primary care services, without imposing offsetting payment reductions on specialty care;
• Addresses growing physician workforce concerns;
• Strengthens the Medicaid program;
• Requires individuals to have health insurance, and provides premium assistance to those who cannot afford it;
• Includes prevention and wellness initiatives designed to keep Americans healthy;
• Makes needed improvements to the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative that will enable greater participation by physicians; and
• Initiates significant payment and delivery reforms by encouraging participation in new models such as accountable care organizations and the patient-centered medical home.

[billms]

as good a sign as possible that the bill is flawed

[The Captain]

To me, it's all about limiting the insurance companies power and make out-of-pocket payment more common. This does multiple things.

-It forces doctors to lower their costs as they can no longer charge as much as they want because they know the insurance companies will just pay for it.
-Less paperwork and complication.
-Most people would no longer HAVE to buy basic health insurance. They still could if they wanted to but by lowering the cost of routine visits and treatments they could pay out-of-pocket and not have to pay expensive monthly premiums for a big health care plan and rather just buy the catastrophic health insurance which isn't too insanely priced (a catastrophic health care plan from blue cross costs around $29 a month).

This can be obtained in a few ways. I'm a fan of health tax credits. It's no secret I want taxes lowered by a lot. Why not lower them in the form of credits for your health? These credits would be dollar-for-dollar. What you spend on your health costs come back to you in a rebate of sorts.

Say you make $20,000 a year. Normally you would be paying $3,000 a year in federal income taxes. If you receive dollar-for-dollar tax credits for out of pocket health costs, that's $3,000 you have to spend. Now that doctors are lowering their costs because you're paying out of pocket instead of having a third payer paying for it, that $3,000 is a pretty good blanket for your routine medical costs (doctor visits, drug prescriptions, etc).

If you for some unfortunate reason are hospitalized for a long period of time/have a costly surgery/etc, that's what the catastrophic coverage is for.

Now you may be saying, "that's not fair to those in the lower income tax brackets because they would have less to spend". I agree. I'd propose a sort of a negative income tax for those in the lower tax brackets. If the rebate does not cover your out-of-pocket expenses in that year, you would get the rest of it covered by a check from the government. Kind of a health care welfare type thing. So if you make $8,000 a year and you ended up spending more out-of-pocket than you pay for your income tax then you would get money sent to you by the government so you are fully reimbursed.

Under this plan, people would essentially only have to spend roughly $348 a year on health bills for the catastrophic coverage. That's certainly a reasonable amount to spend, even for the poorest of poor.

I dunno, it's just something I've thought up as an alternative to full universal health care and what we have now. This is a way to ensure that Americans are able to afford their health care, all while letting the free market control health care and keeping the quality of care high. It avoids the feared long waits that people have in other countries that have universal health care.

Of course this would only be feasible if the government didn't spend nearly as much as we do now because government revenue would drop significantly.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by billms

as good a sign as possible that the bill is flawed

lol