Unbelievable...Even for them!

[medschoolfamily]

Princess Pelosi said yesterday of the healthcare bill, "...it's about diet, not diabetes." In another speech, she said, "We need to pass the bill so you can figure out what's in it."

Now how dumb do these socialist leaders think we are? I agree that we need to focus more on preventive medicine, but do we really want the government to pass a bill that will control our diet? And do they really think the people should support this bill before we actually know what is in it? These comments by Pelosi really frightens me because it shows their total disregard for the public opinion, and their ignorance of medicine. To think that taking the salt of restaurant tables and imposing a soda tax will cure diabetes is complete ignorance. What's next, deciding how much tp pay doctors based on the results of their patients, oh wait, that's in the bill too.

Is there anyone out in SDN land that actually agrees with the philosophy shown in Pelosi's speech? If so, please enlighten us.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Daedra22]

The bill contains legislation to control peoples' diets? That's news to me. I know that some people are talking about a soda tax, but to my knowledge, it isn't in the bill... all of the news about soda tax is focus sing on New York and some other city, where such a tax is being implemented. Although I hate to defend Pelosi (this as a self-identifying progressive, mind you), I believe that quote you used was her way of describing how preventative medicine is about lifestyle rather than treating disease. Could be wrong here.

"But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it's about diet, not diabetes. "

 

[medschoolfamily]

She is definitely talking about how lifestyle affects health and that a healthier diet means a healthier person and less diabetes. But this is common knowledge to everyone and I don't know a doctor who doesn't already profess this to their patients.

The only reason Pelosi is preaching this, is either the "legislation for the future...is about diet," and will explicitly state diet regulations, or because the legislation will cost too much with current eating habits of americans, in which case, government would have to control the diet to bring down costs. In either case, I don't think any freedom loving person wants to have the government tell them what to eat.

I used the New York salt example because it shows the great potential for government to make that a nation wide campaign.

 

[Master Deep]

Wow this is ridiculous now. Does the government want to regulate every aspect of our life? I can understand a soda tax if they have to. But regulating your diet for you is stupid. Plus I know 50% of America would probably go insane without fatty foods.

 

[sandra1]

this thread has degenerated into the talking points that are repeated over and over by limbaugh, hannity, beck and the denizens of well orchestrated obstructionists to those who actually care about health care reform...

 

[RG73]

Wow this is ridiculous now. Does the government want to regulate every aspect of our life? I can understand a soda tax if they have to. But regulating your diet for you is stupid. Plus I know 50% of America would probably go insane without fatty foods.

Yes, of course they want to regulate every aspect of peoples lives. Government is inevitably about more and more control and power. And being a politician is positively correlated with complete stupidity.

Check out this latest genius idea cooked up by genius pols:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/salt-ban-for-restaurants_n_493455.html

Anyone who is remotely familiar with cooking, baking or any sort of food preparation will tell you this makes about as much sense as a bill banning gravity. No matter. They will, sooner or later get around to banning the laws of physics.

 

[medschoolfamily]

this thread has degenerated into the talking points that are repeated over and over by limbaugh, hannity, beck and the denizens of well orchestrated obstructionists to those who actually care about health care reform...

No, it's not obstructionism, it's repeating what our politicians are preaching. Listen to them talk and you'll understand why I'm so concerned. When they urge voters and their representatives to pass the bill before they know what it contains you know there has to be more going on than they want us to know. I want health care REFORM, not government takeover of healthcare in a 14 month blitzkrieg strategy.

 

[RG73]

this thread has degenerated into the talking points that are repeated over and over by limbaugh, hannity, beck and the denizens of well orchestrated obstructionists to those who actually care about health care reform...

This is ironic since your post is a talking point repeated over and over again by supporters of the idiotic legislation championed by Democrats.

But, by all means, please educate us as to what reform has even been proposed by Democrats. The only thing I've seen is a big bill for more insurance regulation. If you start off by confounding health care with health insurance, you're already arguing from an illogical premise.

I mean pardon my stunning lack of intelligence if I fail to see how continuing the current system, except forcing everyone into it, is reform. Having the government spend every 75 cents of every dollar spent on health care instead of every 50 isn't reform. Nor is giving insurance companies 30 odd million more customers reform. Nor is torturing all of us in our future careers with even more paperwork reform.

But yeah, I must be blindly repeating obstructionist talking points.

 

[sandra1]

We currently spend more than every other industrialized country in the world on medical care and our outcomes on average are inferior to these same countries. Of course, if you have money then you can get the BEST health care in the U.S. but the problem is that a large chunk of Americans do not have adequate access to health care and we as a society don't let or want people to just die on the streets. The health care reform package is the first step to universal coverage which is essential to bring down health care costs and increase quality of care. No, this is not a perfect bill but it's a step in the right direction and will need to be fixed later. After all, we're still trying to deal with addressing Brown vs. the Board of Education, and if we waited for the perfect fix we would still have segregated schools. If we do nothing, we will just continue down the path of skyrocketing insurance premiums, using emergency rooms as substitutes for primary care at a huge cost, delaying or denying preventative and early intervention resulting in major health problems that may have been avoidable, and in the end passing on the costs of the uninsured who can't or won't pay their medical bills to those who actually do pay for health care by jacking up charges to insurance companies, government and ultimately the taxpayer.

 

[RG73]

We currently spend more than every other industrialized country in the world on medical care and our outcomes on average are inferior to these same countries.

Hey look, it is a Democratic talking point.

In what aspects are our outcomes inferior?

Of course, if you have money then you can get the BEST health care in the U.S.

You can get the best of everything if you have money. That is how economies work. You work so you can get things. When you work hard you get better things.

but the problem is that a large chunk of Americans do not have adequate access to health care and we as a society don't let or want people to just die on the streets.

Well adequate access to health care is an entirely different problem than what the Democratic House and Senate have been talking about. They're just talking about forcing people to buy insurance. That won't do anything for access or quality of care. Especially since they aren't doing a damn thing to help us future doctors like increasing spending on residency programs to combat physician shortages.

The health care reform package is the first step to universal coverage

Great. Universal coverage. So there is a right to health care? And so, by this logic, a right to food, shelter, sex and anything else my heart desires.

But seriously, are so naive as to think the insurance industry is going to disappear. The United States, for a very long time, has been about socializing the cost of corporate cartels and monopolies and privatizing the profits. I know progressives think they are very clever, but people who makes lots of money are much more clever. There will be no universal health care in the US.

I'd also point out that given the staggering US debt, any more government programs are totally unrealistic. You are aware that once we pass the 100% debt to GDP threshold (in a few years), the death spiral begins, right? Ask Greece.

which is essential to bring down health care costs and increase quality of care.

How on Earth does having the government in charge of anything bring down costs (please direct me to any government program that has ever controlled costs--if government could control costs we wouldn't have $13 trillion in debt, would we?)? How on Earth does having the government dictate to you, the physician, how to practice medicine improve quality of care? Again, please direct me to what government agency has good customer service.

No, this is not a perfect bill but it's a step in the right direction and will need to be fixed later.

Of course it will have to be "fixed." Politicians stay in business by creating problems and then "fixing" them. I'm also curious as to how, given the dearth of politicians with an IQ above a cucumber, that you suppose they are going to fix anything?

After all, we're still trying to deal with addressing Brown vs. the Board of Education,

Which tells you all you need to know about government "fixes."

Although I'm curious as to how we're addressing Brown vs. BOE still?

and if we waited for the perfect fix we would still have segregated schools.

This is still often the case in practice as people with money, as you point out above, will seek out the best education, leaving public school districts. You wind up having a lot of poor public schools populated by non-white students and a lot of private schools with mostly white kids.

If we do nothing, we will just continue down the path of skyrocketing insurance premiums,

We're going that way anyway. Durbin admitted this today. But it is obvious even without Durbin's admission that this plan will cause rates to skyrocket. Yeah, they'll try price controls. That worked out well for the Soviets, no?

using emergency rooms as substitutes for primary care at a huge cost, delaying or denying preventative and early intervention resulting in major health problems that may have been avoidable, and in the end passing on the costs of the uninsured who can't or won't pay their medical bills to those who actually do pay for health care by jacking up charges to insurance companies, government and ultimately the taxpayer.

Ummm, so making healthy people pay for people with pre-existing condtions (many of which are avoidable) is making people foot the bill for people who won't pay their own way.

What I'd really like to know from you is by what moral authority someone has the right to force me to purchase a product and/or pay for anything for someone else? Generally I like to avoid threats of violence and strong arm coercion to make people do things. Government mandates, are, by definition backed by the threat of violence. It is bad enough I am forced to pay for killing people in other countries that have never done a damn thing to me. Now you're telling me that I should be forced into paying and doing other things without my consent? That's not kosher.

 

[JaggerPlate]

I hate Nancy Pelosi with a passion that defies logic.

 

[RG73]

I hate Nancy Pelosi with a passion that defies logic.

I knew there was a reason I liked you.

 

[sandra1]

I can see that we are never going to agree on health care reform but i do want to clarify the point i was making about how we end up paying the health care costs for the people who can't or refuse to pay now. So for example, when a twenty something who thinks they don't need health insurance gets in an accident and is scooped off the street by those "socialist" paramedics employed by the fire department and land in the emergency room with thousands of dollars in medical bills they can't pay, the rest of us end up paying the bill. Of course, we could refuse care but it's a violation of medical oaths and I also believe it would be a violation of the laws in most states. I respect your right to disagree with me, but I believe health care is different, it's not just another consumer good like a flat screen TV. We don't have a choice, we all need health care at some point in our lives.

While I do agree with you that there is a lot of inefficiency and waste in government, I also think the same is true in the private sector (have you tried to call your insurance or cable company lately or lets not forget to mention the oil companies and Enron). Also, throwing out terms like Socialism appears to be the latest tactic to put fear into the American public. I am pleased with a lot of government services including the firemen, police, streetlights, etc. And yes, like you, I am not so happy with piling up huge government debt for wars that should have never been started based on misinformation and lies about weapons of mass destruction that have shifted alot of our money into the hands of the stockholders of Blackwater, Halliburton, etc.

 

[missDO]

i hate nancy pelosi with a passion that defies logic.

+1

 

[SAEbrodel]

out of curiosity where did you find out that pelosi said such things, you've been blathering on, and you have yet to cite proof that she said those exact things

 

[missDO]

out of curiosity where did you find out that pelosi said such things, you've been blathering on, and you have yet to cite proof that she said those exact things

"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting.

"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..."

Source: http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576

 

[sandra1]

Thanks for the link, when you read Pelosi's comments in context, they make much more sense. It's easy to make someone sound ridiculous by editing their remarks into sound bites, just ask entertainers like Jon Stewart or Rush Limbaugh...

 

[missDO]

Thanks for the link, when you read Pelosi's comments in context, they make much more sense. It's easy to make someone sound ridiculous by editing their remarks into sound bites, just ask entertainers like Jon Stewart or Rush Limbaugh...

Funny.

On the contrary, the Democrats are much better at twisting and isolating words and events to mold the public's (mis)interpretation. Just look at our media.

Edit: and FYI--"...it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." --this is the very sequence in which Pelosi made these statements, back to back like that.

 

[Norse]

The reality is that we will not have real health care reform until we change our diets and the farm bill. If congress were ever to pass something similar to universal health coverage, those who choose to eat off the dollar menu as a main form of diet and then end up in the ER with a heart attack would, in essence, be making those who choose to eat healthy pay the bill.

Have you ever thought of why there's corn in everything or why something that doesn't need to be processed, like vegetables, costs more than most things on the menu at fast food restaurants. It's all policy, and it turns out making policy is what government does well. So I say lets use policy to make the healthy foods cheaper, and the unhealthy foods more expensive and use the revenue to pay for parts of health care reform. We're already doing something similar with tobacco and alcohol taxes, why not food?

I agree that the salt thing is getting a bit ridiculous.

http://i.imgur.com/6O4Z3.jpg

 

[RG73]

I can see that we are never going to agree on health care reform

Of course not. That is the problem with majoritarian rule--you can gang up with like-minded people and make me do stuff even if I don't agree to it. Just give me an opt out and you can do whatever you want.

but i do want to clarify the point i was making about how we end up paying the health care costs for the people who can't or refuse to pay now.

That is because we have a third payer system and we're forced to cover those costs. I'd rather just pay for my own costs thank you very much.

So for example, when a twenty something who thinks they don't need health insurance gets in an accident and is scooped off the street by those "socialist" paramedics employed by the fire department and land in the emergency room with thousands of dollars in medical bills they can't pay, the rest of us end up paying the bill.

There is no reason for "us" to pay the bill. Someone who uses services ought to pay for those services. That we have a system that forces "us" to pay for "them" means that the above scenario is going to happen. If someone doesn't have insurance, has an accident and racks up a bill, service providers ought to be able to get their money from that individual. If their credit gets ruined, too bad. You shouldn't be forced to have coverage, but you shouldn't be protected from the consequences either.

On the other hand, forcing that healthy 20-something who is not using health care into the risk pool and paying pool for 70-somethings that use a lot of health care is a moral wrong.

But the plan proposed by Congress is even worse. The penalty for having no insurance isn't terribly steep, so the 20-something will probably just pay the fine for not having insurance. Then, since they can't be denied coverage when they need it, they can get coverage to cover their hospital bill. I fail to see how that is reducing the costs on "us."

Of course, we could refuse care but it's a violation of medical oaths and I also believe it would be a violation of the laws in most states.

People should not be refused care in emergency situations. But they should also have to pay bills they incur.

I respect your right to disagree with me, but I believe health care is different, it's not just another consumer good like a flat screen TV. We don't have a choice, we all need health care at some point in our lives.

We also all need housing, climate control, electricity, functional sewage, and food. How does health care differ from those things? Why are those things not rights?

Beyond that, a "right" to health care means that someone can compel you, as a physician, to give them care. They have an a priori "right" to your labor. I am going into medicine, like most of us, because I want to help people--but of my own free volition. No one has a "right" to my knowledge, to my time, my labor. If they have such rights, then I am a slave, literally, because I have no right to my own labor. I am, by definition, in servitude to "society." Please explain to me the moral grounds for such an appropriation of my rights.

While I do agree with you that there is a lot of inefficiency and waste in government, I also think the same is true in the private sector (have you tried to call your insurance or cable company lately or lets not forget to mention the oil companies and Enron).

Ummm, you do realize the reason insurance companies and cable companies are inefficient is because they have government protected cartels or monopolies, right? Those companies use government to protect themselves from competition.

As for oil companies, how are they inefficient and wasteful?

I don't see how Enron fits into any of this. They were not inefficient, nor wasteful, they simply were based on cooked books. And they went under, as bad businesses should.

Also, throwing out terms like Socialism appears to be the latest tactic to put fear into the American public.

Well technically we're a fascist-socialist-democracy. But we the US has largely been socialist since FDR. I'm not sure how spending more than any society in human history on social programs and social safety nets makes us not socialist and I'm not sure why this is news to anyone.

I am pleased with a lot of government services including the firemen, police, streetlights, etc.

I'm not at all pleased with the police. We have insufficient street lights in my city. And I'd be more than happy to pay a monthly service fee directly to a fire protection company. But hey, I'm glad you're happy with the bundle of services your local government provides.

And yes, like you, I am not so happy with piling up huge government debt for wars that should have never been started based on misinformation and lies about weapons of mass destruction that have shifted alot of our money into the hands of the stockholders of Blackwater, Halliburton, etc.

Really? You're going to go this route? You are aware that the vast majority of wars the US picks with other countries are based on lies, right? And you'll have to explain to me how the policy has changed in the last year from the previous 8 since it looks to me like a continuation of the exact same policies. I mean we're killing people in Afghanistan based on, umm, that some crazy dude with a beard who may or may not have known some crazy dudes who crashed some planes into buildings happened to hang out there for a while. And said crazy dude is probably dead now.

I'm not exactly clear how blowing up a bunch of Iraqis for maybe having nukes is worse than blowing up a bunch of people in the mountains of Afghanistan who didn't do anything at all to us (even if they are completely deplorable people who abuse women). At least Bush came up with a sort of reason to blow people up. Right now we're just straight up slaughtering people for the hell of it. Hell, the underwear bomber didn't even come from Afghanistan. Why doesn't Yemen get some bombing love?

 

[RG73]

Thanks for the link, when you read Pelosi's comments in context, they make much more sense.

No they don't. She sounds like a blathering idiot. That botox leaked into her brain.

It's easy to make someone sound ridiculous by editing their remarks into sound bites, just ask entertainers like Jon Stewart or Rush Limbaugh...

Pelosi doesn't need anyone to make her sound ridiculous. She does that on her own just fine.

What we need is free psychiatric care for people in her district because voting for her is a sign of mental illness.

 

[Dr Skeptismo]

Just give me an opt out and you can do whatever you want.

I'm sure you'll get an opt out, just as long as you pay for both. Politicians are very generous when they're playing with other peoples' $$$. I say, all in favor pay more; all opposed pay nothing.

 

[sandra1]

BTW, I do not agree with Obama's position on the war and I am not lock step with any party or ideology. But now I do have a better idea of where you are really coming from when you say , "Well technically we're a fascist-socialist-democracy." Maybe that explains your rant on foreign wars because it sounds to me like you are equating the U.S. with Nazi Germany. If so, you need to study more history.

I'm done wasting my time arguing with you...

 

[ncguy2005]

We currently spend more than every other industrialized country in the world on medical care and our outcomes on average are inferior to these same countries. Of course, if you have money then you can get the BEST health care in the U.S. but the problem is that a large chunk of Americans do not have adequate access to health care and we as a society don't let or want people to just die on the streets. The health care reform package is the first step to universal coverage which is essential to bring down health care costs and increase quality of care. No, this is not a perfect bill but it's a step in the right direction and will need to be fixed later. After all, we're still trying to deal with addressing Brown vs. the Board of Education, and if we waited for the perfect fix we would still have segregated schools. If we do nothing, we will just continue down the path of skyrocketing insurance premiums, using emergency rooms as substitutes for primary care at a huge cost, delaying or denying preventative and early intervention resulting in major health problems that may have been avoidable, and in the end passing on the costs of the uninsured who can't or won't pay their medical bills to those who actually do pay for health care by jacking up charges to insurance companies, government and ultimately the taxpayer.

I don't buy in to that argument. To argue that our healthcare system is inferior to other countries, you'd have to have a common basis of comparison. If I understand correctly, most countries report mortality rates by different definitions...

 

[RG73]

The reality is that we will not have real health care reform until we change our diets and the farm bill.

I think there is some sort of magical thinking out there that just changing diets will suddenly make people healthy. A non-trivial fraction of health care expenses are genetic. Just eating more veggies isn't going to make that stuff disappear. The largest fraction of health care expenses have to do with senescence. And yes, while there is strong evidence that caloric restriction can ****** senescence, it still happens. And when bodies break down, it is going to cost a lot to fix them. Diet may delay that, or determine the sorts of break downs that will happen, but bodies are going to decay.

If congress were ever to pass something similar to universal health coverage, those who choose to eat off the dollar menu as a main form of diet and then end up in the ER with a heart attack would, in essence, be making those who choose to eat healthy pay the bill.

I'm not sure how eating off the dollar menu is going to lead to a heart attack. It is some combination of HOW MUCH you eat of the dollar menu, how sedentary you are and genetics. Yes, someone eating 4000 calories a day of hamburgers and not moving will probably have heart problems. If you exercise regularly and hit the drive through once a month, you're probably fine.

Have you ever thought of why there's corn in everything

Because it is cheap? And easy to grow? And you can make it into a lot of stuff?

or why something that doesn't need to be processed, like vegetables, costs more than most things on the menu at fast food restaurants.

Ummm, corn is a vegetable. And you want to know why more things that aren't processed aren't on the menu at fast food restaurants? Gee, how about things that are not processed spoil easily? How are you going to run a fast food franchise if you have go to the farmer's market every morning and procure fresh veggies? How can you have a predictable menu?

It's all policy, and it turns out making policy is what government does well. So I say lets use policy to make the healthy foods cheaper, and the unhealthy foods more expensive and use the revenue to pay for parts of health care reform.

Ummm, so you're saying you want to unnaturally distort the market from demand by using central planning? Where did I last hear that idea? Oh right, the Soviets....

To make healthy food cheaper you need to alter biology, physics and chemistry. Greens spoil quickly. Can't avoid it. Fruit spoils. Most veggies and fruits do not produce as many calories per acre, nor per energy input as grains do. You can't alter those fundamentals. Yes, I am well aware corn farming gets tremendous government subsidies. I am also pretty sure you can feed more people, more cheaply with an acre of corn than an acre of swiss chard. You're basically arguing for subsidies to stuff that is less efficient at producing calories than corn. This is probably because you read too much Michael Pollan and/or watched King Corn.

We're already doing something similar with tobacco and alcohol taxes, why not food?

Because taxing tobacco and alcohol is ridiculous. Well at least the alcohol part.

 

[cliffhuxtableDO]

We currently spend more than every other industrialized country in the world on medical care and our outcomes on average are inferior to these same countries. Of course, if you have money then you can get the BEST health care in the U.S. but the problem is that a large chunk of Americans do not have adequate access to health care and we as a society don't let or want people to just die on the streets. The health care reform package is the first step to universal coverage which is essential to bring down health care costs and increase quality of care. No, this is not a perfect bill but it's a step in the right direction and will need to be fixed later. After all, we're still trying to deal with addressing Brown vs. the Board of Education, and if we waited for the perfect fix we would still have segregated schools. If we do nothing, we will just continue down the path of skyrocketing insurance premiums, using emergency rooms as substitutes for primary care at a huge cost, delaying or denying preventative and early intervention resulting in major health problems that may have been avoidable, and in the end passing on the costs of the uninsured who can't or won't pay their medical bills to those who actually do pay for health care by jacking up charges to insurance companies, government and ultimately the taxpayer.

Hello and welcome to America,

Here we are a capitalist economy where yes, if you have money you can get the best of anything. If you don't like it please forfeit all of your rights, belongings, and education and pick the socialist/communist country of your choice. Have a great day!

 

[RG73]

But now I do have a better idea of where you are really coming from when you say , "Well technically we're a fascist-socialist-democracy." Maybe that explains your rant on foreign wars because it sounds to me like you are equating the U.S. with Nazi Germany. If so, you need to study more history.

I'm done wasting my time arguing with you...

Ummm, where did I equate the US with Nazi Germany? Anyone?

Fascist governments are corporatists, correct? That is there is a strong alliance between government and certain corporate interests, and they work together to protect those corporate interests. That such a system exists in the US is undeniable. That both the Nazis and Italians practiced such a system doesn't necessarily equate us with them. Pretty much all modern governments do this. Fascists are also really big on blowing people up for no good reason. The US has been really, really into blowing people up for a long time. Except maybe Reagan. He just like to threaten to blow people up and make stuff to do it.

We spend trillions on social programs. That sounds like socialism to me. Am I wrong? Does the US, at the federal, state and local level not spend trillions on social programs? If so, how are we not socialist?

We have popular votes. Therefore we are a democracy, by definition. I'm not sure how you can argue with any of these points.

As for the Nazis, I think it is you that needs to study up on history. The Nazi party was elected by popular vote (democracy). The Nazi party spent lots of money on social programs (socialist). The Nazi party used state resources to favor certain corporate interests (fascism). That most modern governments in the last century of so have been some mix of these elements doesn't equate us with Nazis. We haven't locked anyone up in internment camps for 70 years now and I'm not really worried that it is going to happen. I'm at something of loss in understanding how structural similarities in how modern societies are organized means that I equate one society with Nazi ideology. You're not arguing with me so much as making weird leaps of illogic.

 

[Norse]

Ummm, so you're saying you want to unnaturally distort the market from demand by using central planning? Where did I last hear that idea? Oh right, the Soviets....

We already unnaturally distort the market. I think what we are subsidizing is the problem.

 

[medschoolfamily]

I hate Nancy Pelosi with a passion that defies logic.

Couldn't have said it better myself

 

[DrMom]

No matter what side of the aisle you're on it should be concerning that our legislators are being actively encouraged to pass a pricey bill without even knowing what is in it. Everyone should be outraged.

 

[Dr Skeptismo]

We already unnaturally distort the market. I think what we are subsidizing is the problem.

And you'd rather distort the market in a way that's more agreeable to you("healthier" alternatives defined by pols)? Sounds like hypocrisy.

We have popular votes. Therefore we are a democracy, by definition. I'm not sure how you can argue with any of these points.

I agree with most of what you've said, but technically we're a republic with democratic values. Electoral College anyone? We're a republic because we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights that define the limits of government, and strengthen our individual rights which you're so valiantly defending.

 

[Norse]

And you'd rather distort the market in a way that's more agreeable to you("healthier" alternatives defined by pols)? Sounds like hypocrisy.

I never said I was against "distorting" the market. So nope, no hypocrisy here.

Hopefully these "healthier" alternatives would be defined by nutritionists, although politics would unfortunately seep in.

It's pretty obvious that the way this country eats is a main part of its health care problems. I'm not saying I agree with this particular bill, but I do agree that something needs to be done. The current system is unsustainable and the current generation of elementary schoolers is going to pay the price. It's just my opinion that we should start with reanalyzing the farm bill and what we subsidize. Hopefully these "healthier" alternatives would be defined by nutritionists, although politics would unfortunately seep in.

 

[Mota]

no matter what side of the aisle you're on it should be concerning that our legislators are being actively encouraged to pass a pricey bill without even knowing what is in it. Everyone should be outraged.

+1

 

[Dr Skeptismo]

I never said I was against "distorting" the market. So nope, no hypocrisy here.

So its only okay when you agree with it? Subsidies for what you don't like=bad. Subsidies for what you like=good. Hmmmm... no hypocrisy there. I believe G.K. Chesterton said it best, "Behind every double standard lies a single hidden agenda."

 

[haberdash1]

Godwin's law invoked.

 

[Norse]

So its only okay when you agree with it? Subsidies for what you don't like=bad. Subsidies for what you like=good. Hmmmm... no hypocrisy there. I believe G.K. Chesterton said it best, "Behind every double standard lies a single hidden agenda."

Nope not at all. Based what can be observed in this country and the diet the current subsidies promote, things need to change. It has nothing to do with what I like and what I don't like. It's about what I can easily observe and the subsidies I observe are helping some corporations pocketbooks and not helping very many Americans lead a healthy lifestyle.

I guess since I want to be a doctor my "single hidden" agenda is to help people live a longer healthier life by promoting a healthy diet. There, it's not hidden anymore.

 

[J1515]

So for example, when a twenty something who thinks they don't need health insurance gets in an accident and is scooped off the street by those "socialist" paramedics employed by the fire department and land in the emergency room with thousands of dollars in medical bills they can't pay, the rest of us end up paying the bill. Of course, we could refuse care but it's a violation of medical oaths and I also believe it would be a violation of the laws in most states.

What should happen is that twenty something should take responsibility for HIS life. If he doesn't think he needs health insurance, he should be presented with the bill after getting out of the hospital. Collection agencies should hound him. His wages should be garnished. He made a decision that he didn't need health insurance and he needs to be held responsible. Now why didn't he have insurance? Did he have other things he wanted to spend the $4000/year on? Did he qualify for government assistance but never applied? There is more gov't assistance available than people realize, but it doesn't matter. The underlying problem is that nobody wants to be be responsible for their life.

Why should I work hard if I can get other people to simply share their wealth?

 

[Dr Skeptismo]

Godwin's law invoked.

and it only took one page

 

[RG73]

I agree with most of what you've said, but technically we're a republic with democratic values. Electoral College anyone? We're a republic because we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights that define the limits of government, and strengthen our individual rights which you're so valiantly defending.

The federal government long, long ago trashed the Constitution, the Bill Rights and far exceeded the limits defined in the Constitution. Using the interstate commerce clause as a defense for passing this latest health care boondoggle (despite protecting within state insurance cartels from interstate competition) is merely the most recent example.

But yes, I concur that in theory the US, on a federal level, is a republic. I just don't think the present system in practice is anything close to a pure republic, but, as I argue, has picked up elements of several other types of governance (or, at least government-corporate and government-citizen relationships).

 

[sandra1]

"What should happen is that twenty something should take responsibility for HIS life. If he doesn't think he needs health insurance, he should be presented with the bill after getting out of the hospital."

I totally agree that people need to pay their bills and take responsibility for their actions. But unfortunately that doesn't always happen. What actually happens is that they either don't have the ability to pay or they just stop paying their bills and declare bankruptcy. Some people may intend to pay their bills but when they are faced with a $50,000 hospital bill they can't even begin to figure out how to pay it back. You're right if you are low income there is Medicaid but it's the working poor and the middle class that are the people who often can't afford to pay for a medical catastrophe. So when they don't pay, then those of us with insurance and the taxpayers end up with the bill. This is a big part of why the current system does not work. And if only old and/or unhealthy people buy insurance the costs of a policy shoot up. But if we all pay in to the pool then the risks for the insurance pool go down and the premiums also go down. That's how insurance works. And, eventually all of us will need medical care and incur medical expenses. After all, most of want to be old some day.

 

[JaggerPlate]

What should happen is that twenty something should take responsibility for HIS life. If he doesn't think he needs health insurance, he should be presented with the bill after getting out of the hospital. Collection agencies should hound him. His wages should be garnished. He made a decision that he didn't need health insurance and he needs to be held responsible. Now why didn't he have insurance? Did he have other things he wanted to spend the $4000/year on? Did he qualify for government assistance but never applied? There is more gov't assistance available than people realize, but it doesn't matter. The underlying problem is that nobody wants to be be responsible for their life.

Why should I work hard if I can get other people to simply share their wealth?

I'm eventually going to disagree with you on something, someday ... it just hasn't happened yet.

aka +1

 

[Cheshyre]

Why should I work hard if I can get other people to simply share their wealth?

I'm going to ignore everything else in this thread to see if I can get out of here without being harassed by either side. Both in this thread have made good and bad points.

I assume, J, that you're referring to the notion of government-run / single payer health insurance. An interesting argument for it that I can remember from Victor Fuch's books (professor of Economics at Stanford, has been covering healthcare policy for decades) - competition. Sounds paradoxical doesn't it? His stance, if I recall correctly, is that it's difficult for there to be competition in healthcare because, well, when you get sick, you need it. People don't really have other options when they need help. Having a large single payer means that there is now leverage. There is a large consumer that all healthcare companies want a piece of. Potentially, costs are lowered.

This is my personal addendum to the idea. Most of these ideas come from "History of Public Health" by Rosen. Lowered costs lead to additional benefit. Saved and pooled resources are used to help those who cannot afford it. Why is this important outside of the realm of social justice? Public health has been found to be important since ancient Greeks were around. Preventing/treating illness in the poor prevents health issues from spreading to the rest of society. Keeping the overall population healthy results in less lost productivity since people get to do their jobs.

Now, I know that someone is going to immediately complain since, well, this is the internet. Actually read Fuchs' work or stfu. Fuchs explores the topic of universal healthcare, but it is only a single point in his work. There's much, much more he goes on to talk about. Example - he explores what might be gained by providing people with buying power, either by returning money or lowering taxes, and allowing them to invest it as they see fit.

At one point, he makes the conclusion that healthcare or insurance reform can only do so much. If there are a disproportionate amount of sick people, then things will continue to be expensive for everybody. This idea is probably the basis for Pelosi's diet proposal, which, yes, is utter insanity.

I would start with "Who Shall Live?". It's a good introduction for someone who has never studied economics seriously at the college level (this is beyond econ 101). He lays out a lot of the basic principles and factors that are being considered. Also, there are a lot of economic concepts that are explained regarding supply/demand.

Okay, I'm leaving now and never coming back. I don't even read the politics sections on CNN now because it turns my stomach. A personal opinion - if you actually want to debate an issue, it's easier to get productive discussion when you don't whine with phrases like "Princess Pelosi" or "Nazi". They serve no purpose except to increase vitriol on all sides.

 

[Dr Skeptismo]

Nope not at all. Based what can be observed in this country and the diet the current subsidies promote, things need to change. It has nothing to do with what I like and what I don't like. It's about what I can easily observe and the subsidies I observe are helping some corporations pocketbooks and not helping very many Americans lead a healthy lifestyle.

I guess since I want to be a doctor my "single hidden" agenda is to help people live a longer healthier life by promoting a healthy diet. There, it's not hidden anymore.

It's wrong for government to subsidize the products you support for the same reasons it's wrong for government to subsidize the products you don't. We don't all agree. My advice would be to do away with government policies that pick winners and losers based on what someone thinks is best for everyone else.

 

[RG73]

I totally agree that people need to pay their bills and take responsibility for their actions. But unfortunately that doesn't always happen. What actually happens is that they either don't have the ability to pay or they just stop paying their bills and declare bankruptcy. Some people may intend to pay their bills but when they are faced with a $50,000 hospital bill they can't even begin to figure out how to pay it back. You're right if you are low income there is Medicaid but it's the working poor and the middle class that are the people who often can't afford to pay for a medical catastrophe. So when they don't pay, then those of us with insurance and the taxpayers end up with the bill. This is a big part of why the current system does not work. And if only old and/or unhealthy people buy insurance the costs of a policy shoot up. But if we all pay in to the pool then the risks for the insurance pool go down and the premiums also go down. That's how insurance works. And, eventually all of us will need medical care and incur medical expenses. After all, most of want to be old some day.

So lets ignore for a moment that much of the reason the hospital bill is $50,000 in the first place is that government has distorted the health care market by being so involved in it. The first thing we need to know is what fraction of health care is ultimately not reimbursed? I don't actually know. I mean we constantly hear this is a huge problem, but I'm not sure that there is a large percentage of the population actually receiving health care and totally skipping out on the bill. But lets assume that this really is a huge problem.

You still have the problem of confounding health insurance and health care.
Not everyone wants, nor needs to insure against the same risks. So you can't just pool everyone together--that isn't how insurance works. You have risk pools. And you have pools based on how much and what sort of coverage people actually want. But this plan, best as I can tell, mandates that everyone needs to have a certain type of coverage. Your main argument seems to be that there is an epidemic of people getting care and not paying for it, and this, ultimately, winds up being paid for by everyone. Well, all you're suggesting is shifting the mechanism by which we all pay. If I am a very careful person who leads a healthy lifestyle and you pool me with someone who is reckless and unhealthy, and we both have to have the same coverage (e.g. I might only want and need catastrophic care, whereas the unhealthy person might want to insure against all manner of risks), insurers have to price the reckless person into everyone's policy. Do we actually save money distributing the cost of the reckless person over everyone versus distributing the cost of a medical bill default over everyone? That is the important calculation here.

The other problem is that the Democratic plan wants to ban differential pricing due to pre-existing conditions (I believe the Republicans actually support this as well). Here is where you confound health care and health insurance. If someone has heart disease already they don't need to be "insured" for regular visits to the cardiologist. They have the need for extra health care (plus the need to be insured against the costs of say having another heart attack). By pooling everyone, you're making everyone pay for not just the risk, but the certainty that a sick person will require more health services than other people. Now if this person with heart disease has no "insurance," has a heart attack and goes to the ER and doesn't pay the bill, yes, "we" have to pay for it. But if we're pooled together and they still go to the ER, we're still paying for it. You've simply changed the route the money is taking--but in the end we're all paying for services that someone else is using.

Again, the important calculation here is whether or not it is cheaper for "us" to deal with the costs of a bill default vs. providing money for the bill upfront.

The problem with all of this is that how to optimally deliver health care and insurance to 300+ million people is an almost infinite dimensional problem. No one is actually smart enough to "solve" the problem, either exactly or approximately. This is why allowing markets to work without heavy regulation will generally lead to better solutions (and again, by markets, I don't mean the sort of government protectionism you invoked earlier with say cable companies). Social systems and institutions are perfectly capable of self-organizing without central planners and people with the hubris to think they can solve infinite dimensional problems.

 

[RG73]

His stance, if I recall correctly, is that it's difficult for there to be competition in healthcare because, well, when you get sick, you need it.

When I get hungry, I need food. On most every night I need shelter. I need clean running water. I am just as likely to die from lack of these things as lack of access to medicine. Yet, for most of these things, competition and market forces work just fine. But hey, I'm not a PhD in economics--I come from a field where you're expected to produce actual empirical data to support or reject a hypothesis.

Granted, it is kind of hard to do experiments on entire countries. This doesn't seem to deter the pols, sadly....

 

[Dr Skeptismo]

The federal government long, long ago trashed the Constitution, the Bill Rights and far exceeded the limits defined in the Constitution. Using the interstate commerce clause as a defense for passing this latest health care boondoggle (despite protecting within state insurance cartels from interstate competition) is merely the most recent example.

But yes, I concur that in theory the US, on a federal level, is a republic. I just don't think the present system in practice is anything close to a pure republic, but, as I argue, has picked up elements of several other types of governance (or, at least government-corporate and government-citizen relationships).

The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any legal document is only as strong as the people that believe in it. If anything, I'm hopeful this fiasco has made more people aware of that fact.

 

[missDO]

No matter what side of the aisle you're on it should be concerning that our legislators are being actively encouraged to pass a pricey bill without even knowing what is in it. Everyone should be outraged.

Couldn't agree more here. That is the take-home message.

 

[Norse]

It's wrong for government to subsidize the products you support for the same reasons its wrong for government to subsidize the products you don't. We don't all agree. My advice would be to do away with government policies that pick winners and losers based on what someone thinks is best for everyone else.

I think this gets to the fundamental difference between our take on government. I believe the government is here to protect the people while trying to do their best to promote a semi-free market. Because let's be honest here, corporations are here to make money and sometimes people get in the way. They want to make money for their shareholders and I believe the government should regulate in a way that protects the people and promotes growth. I believe the government should be the peoples advocate, and sounds like you're against regulation. Good conversation, see you around the forums.

Peace

 

[ceg]

I don't buy in to that argument. To argue that our healthcare system is inferior to other countries, you'd have to have a common basis of comparison. If I understand correctly, most countries report mortality rates by different definitions...

No, it's true. Life expectancy, infant mortality, maternal mortality, etc. It's all there with standardized reporting criteria and pretty charts on both the CDC website and the WHO. We do not compare favorably with other countries in this realm.

 

[Dr Oops]

No, it's true. Life expectancy, infant mortality, maternal mortality, etc. It's all there with standardized reporting criteria and pretty charts on both the CDC website and the WHO. We do not compare favorably with other countries in this realm.

Thats because the WHO statistics include things that skew them in favor of countries with socialized medicine. For instance our infant mortality rating is worse because we try to save more long shot babies. As for life expectancy, our population has much more unhealthy habits, its really no surprise that we die sooner.