Welcome to Health & Health Care

[FreePressAdmin]

We are relaunching the Free Press Forums under a new structure and with a different mission. We have designed this forum to provide the community access to some select viewpoints from people who are authoritative and deliberative on a variety of subjects. In this thread, we will focus on Health & Health Care issues that affect or impact the Minnesota River Valley.

We will strive to find a cross-section of opinions that will counter each other but in a manner that will enlighten through civil discourse.

To that end we will not be offering open registration but rather participation by invitation only. If you would like to participate, please send an email to FreePressAdmin (webmaster@mankatofreepress.com) with your name, phone number and what background you bring to a particular subject. We may need to call both to verify the registration as well as learn more about your expertise.

We hope you enjoy this new offering from The Free Press.

[Dan Conner]

I think our country has arrived at a time when universal national health care is called for. Considering the wealth and advancement of our society, health care must be viewed as a human right. People should not die simply because they can not afford health care.

Currently, we are the only industrialized country that does not have national health care. All those industrialized countries that have it, pay for it and administer it through the government. The ironic thing about this, is that the cost of health care in the US is far far more expensive than health care in the next most expensive indusrialized country. This is more egregious considering the quality of health care in the US is only mediocre, when compared to other industrialized nations. Today, many US corporations are proponents of national health care because they will be able to make products cheaper, without having to pay for employee health insurance. Now, they compete with foreign countries that have little in health care costs.

Today, the US pays far more more for health care than other industrialized nations, AND about 47 million of our citizens are uninsured. The insured subsidize cost of treatment because doctors' and hospitals' recover their costs from people who can either pay for the care or who are insured. Also, there is little countervailing force to reduce the cost of health care.

National government administered health care would greatly enhance health care in the country, as well as, greatly lower the cost. The argument about the long waits for necessary surgeries in countries with national health care is false. In most cases, it has been shown the wait in those countries is about the same as the US.

Mostly, health care should be a human right in the US. We are too prosperous for it not to be available to all citizens. There is too much talk about "compassionate conservatism" and helping each other to do anything other than national health care.

[Bob Jentges]

Please stop with the government "nanny" nonsense. When everything becomes a "right" soon their will be no rights. Government has a tendency to missmanage everything it controls. It produces essentially nothing but regulates everything. This country was founded on a few basic rights and a strong emphasis on individual personal responsibility.

[Dan Conner]

Bob, I couldn't disagree more. If you feel that way, maybe you want to give back your Social Security right? I'm sure you would consider that to be a "nanny" right. What surprises me most about the "right" these days is that they spend too much time listening to the Hannitys and Limbaughs and not enough time listening to another perspective. People need to more critically evaluate ideas and rhetoric to determine logic and truth.

All industrialized countries on this planet have universal national single payer government administered health insurance, and it is working out extremely well for all of them. They wouldn't sacrifice it for anything. We have a system widely acknowledged as broken and not working for Americans. This is a sad commentary about the US. As a footnote: Most European countries are less afraid of the government than people in the US. In fact people in some of those countries say the government is afraid of the people, but in the US people are afrad of the government.

Also, I suggest you refresh yourself with the Preamble to the Constitution, which states,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You'll note the part where it says, "promote the general welfare?" That statement was stated with equal importance to justic, defense, and tranquility. Remember, taking care of our citizens does secure the BLESSINGS of liberty for all of us. I realize health care for all is a change, but it is a necessary change because too many people don't have the "general welfare" that you do.

There is too much selfishness and greed in our country today to be healthy or even prosperous. You remember the old saying that a "rising tide floats all boats?" Let's try it. I think we'll all feel better.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, had I been given a choice I think I would have preferred to invest the monies withheld from my paychecks for Social Security on my own. The savings I did set aside for retirement are paying me signifigantly more than my Social Security Retirement. But since I contributed to Social Security I have no intention of giving it back. After drawing Social Security Retirement Benifits for about 10 years I still have not reached the break even point. When/if I do I will give further thought to whether it is a "nanny" right.

Social Security is not solvent now, and my guess is if Government run Universal Health Care were to be implimented it would become insolvent in a relativly short period of time. A check of the deficit and National Debt suggests the government is already broke.

I am familiar with the Preamble, but I thought this discussion was about "rights". Maybe a review of the Declaration of Independence and/or Bill of Rights is a closer fit for the discussion.

I believe I am fairly well read on the issues from both the conservative and liberal perspectives. It's just that I place more faith in people than government.

With your respect to selfishness I can not comment on others. Although you did not ask specificially I can tell you my wife and me have made significant charitable contributions, including volunteer work, over the years and continue to do so in retirement.

[Dan Conner]

Bob--

First, I think a lot of people would disagree with you about investing on your own, but then maybe investing was your work before. However, considering that even the best investors have lost about 40% of their wealth in the last few months, they might question you assertion. That might be OK if you plan to retire in 20 years, but it can be pretty devastating when you're 62 when it happens. Recently, I talked with a person who invested for himself, as well. He's is delaying his retirement because of the considerable losses in his 401K. He seemed devastated. He was no stupid and I don't think he is alone. The great feature about Social Security is that it never goes down. It might not go up as fast as you want it to , but then you shouldn't expect high returns with little or no risk. That's why one might pick annuities over growth funds, etc. Social Security states that a typical recipient will reach the break-even point in 8-12 years. You aren't to 12 yet, but Social Security is also skewed to pay higher returns to the poor because they haven't had the opportunity to invest in other ways. It sounds to me like you are among the fortunate to have worked in good enough employment that you had the opportunity to invest. Also, many of the working poor don't have time to manage investments because they need to work far too many strenuous hours. It sounds like you were lucky to have that time.

Bob, I knew you wouldn't give your Social Security benefits back. You don't seem like the guy who would do that. You are very lucky about investing in the vehicle that pays you better than Social Security, but hopefully, you aren't invested with another "Bernie Madoff". That is not the case with most people now. Like I said, people are taking huge hits on investments. In some cases, everything they have. In fact, I was watching the news a while back where two people were interviewed. One person last $3 million dollars in the Bernie Madoff scandal and was very thankful for Social Security. Another person only had Social Security because they lost a fortune in GM stock. Another person had been receiving Social Security for quite a while, as their only income, because they had invested their 401K in Lucent, which went down to about nothing.

I have always characterized buying stocks as gambling. And funds are simply a blend of many stocks.By buying the stock you are "betting" it goes up. Someone always told me to only invest in the stock market what you can afford to lose. I think that's a pretty timeless statement.

Bob, I hate to correct you, but Social Security IS SOLVENT!! I think you better also research this issue. At present, the Social Security Trust Fund is taking in considerably more revenues, each year, than it pays out. While I don't have this year's figures it was about a $60 billion surplus a couple of years ago. I think you are confused with future projections, when the trust fund is expected to be exhausted, but that isn't until 2038, or something close. Even then Social Security will be able to pay out nearly 3/4 of what it pays now. On the side, the considerable Social Security surpluses over the last few years have made the annual Federal budget deficit look a lot better than it really was because the surplus deposits to the trust funds were incorporated into the Federal budget and lowered the deficit. In that respect, Bush deficits could have looked far worse.

Yes, the government is in dire financial straits, but that can easily be remedied. To make Social Security solvent for an indefinite period of time I suggest the FICA tax limit be removed. People should pay FICA on ALL of their wages and self-employment. It seems unfair that the rich get to stop paying tax when people under $100,000/yr don't. In that respect the tax is pretty regressive. I say pay FICA taxes on all your earnings, no matter how high those earning are. Most people do. This won't cost people earning under $100,00/yr a dime.

As far as universal health care is concerned, there should be no problem maintaining it solvent collecting no more than is paid out in insurance and benefits now. In fact, it will probably cost less. But remember, there is a crowd in Washington that doesn't want to pay taxes and they hate government. I look at government as being the only equalizer people have. If it wasn't for government...well, you might as well start singing "16 tons and whaddoya get, another day over and deeper in debt..." Certainly, you won't tell me that Citibank will watch out for our best interest?...Come on Bob.

As far as our national debt is concerned, Bush doubled it in 8 years. His brilliant plan was to spend on whatever anyone wanted, but don't raise taxes to pay for it. Expenses exploded and tax revenues declined. I think you can put the rest together. The bad thing was, Clinton left Bush a $250,000,000,000 budget surplus in the year he left office.

I'm glad you know the Constitution. Then, you will know it is the template for all law in the US. It is the foundation of our society. Also, the Bill of Rights is PART OF the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. If reinforces the few words of the preamble. Bob, I think you are making the wrong assessment of people and government. While you say you put more faith in the people, I've heard you being very critical of people. There seems to be a conflict there. Also, I think the biggest mistake you make is not trusting the Government. Our Government IS THE PEOPLE!! Can't you remember..."by, of, and for the people?" If your view is that Government is not working, then you need to become involved, to make it work. That task begins with the first person fulfilling his/her responsibility to make sure Government works for them and the rest of the American people. Did it work on 9/11? I think most would say yes. Did it work before getting into the Iraq war? I think most would say no. How well did it work during Katrina? Do you think it was OK? How about while we were torturing, or renditioning people? How about this fine economic mess?

I think you know that when your car breaks, you have to fix it. When your house needs painting, you paint it. Well, when the Government is broken, we need to fix it. And guess what, complaining and bitching won't fix anything; government, cars, or houses. There's a time when we all need to do some heavy lifting, get our hands dirty and FIX it. I remember a schoold teacher of mine that gave me an assignment that I vociferously compalined about. She let me rant for a while and then asked if I was ready to start working on it. She said complaining never does a damn thing to finish anything, except yourself.

Bob, I don't mean to impeach your giving. If I said you were selfish I didn't mean it. I think I was referring in more of a generic way. I just ask that you be more generous with your assessment of others. I never have known of a person who grew up to be a high achiever when they have been told they are worthless, lazy, poor money managers, stupid, or inconsequential. Hey man, we've got to get along and accept each other for who we are. Just think how boring this country would be if we all dressed, acted and thought the same. I look at charity as a mind-set, not an annual obligation. It's not one of those must-do things as a "pay-back" for the ugly thoughts we have about each other. It's 365 days a year. Not only will others feel better, but you will too.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, you have a fertile immagination. You read things into my writings that I did not say or even infer.

If I get to the 12 year break even point would you be gracious enough to allow me to continue collecting Social Security Retirement benifits until I have used-up the interest lost on my payments over the years, say a measly 6%. That is if Social Security is still solvent when the baby boomers begin retiring.

Investing was not my line of work. I did not have time. My typical work week was not limited to 40 hours like many government employees. I was fortunate enough to be able to have others who had expertise do it for me.

[Dan Conner]

Bob--

I don't think I imagined anything you said. I distinctly recall you using "nanny" and being critical of people who haven't saved. Also, you stated that the Government has failed in most everything it has done. Well, I beg to differ. Currently, there are almost 50 million people receiving Social Security. Of that total, almost 30% of the people over age 65 years old have it as their only income. That's a lot of people. If what you mean is that you don't want to be a "nanny" state and cut those people off Social Security, I think there will be millions of people financially devastated as a result, who will adamantly disagree with you. Do you want these beneficiaries to eat out of garbage cans? Is that your "tough love" in a "non-nanny" state? Well, I think your idea is just more destructive self-righteousness. I think we all have to care for each other on this planet, not constantly denigrate others.

I'm flattered that you think I have the authority or power to decide whether one continues to get their Social Security check after 12 years, but I have no such power. And when you talk about getting a measly 6% interest you are pretty optimistic about finding that anywhere. In fact, if you are in the market, you will be lucky if it is in positive numbers. If you want to find out what your contributions have been into the Social Security system, you can call or go into the local Social Security office and they can obtain your earning record detailing your wages over the years. You can then easily figure out your contribution and the interest you have forgone. However, I think you will be surprised at how little you contributed compared to what you get. I think you forget one important issue when it comes to Social Security. When it starts paying out more than it collects, it is showing you what a great deal you are getting. It will run in the hole paying people. I don't think brokers (as last I remember the ones in NY) will give you that deal, after their considerable commissions and advertising costs are deducted. Currently, it costs only about 1% to administer the Social Security program. That's unheard of for private investment houses. I think you are barking up the wrong tree when you claim you aren't getting your money's worth. Also, are you aware that your Social Security contribution paid for Part A Medicare? That would cost about $400/month, if you were uninsured and had to purchase it privately. Many people do that. You get that Medicare benefit each month at no cost to you. Also, are you aware that Social Security covers your survivors in the event you shoud die? Are you aware you and your family were covered for disability, had you become ill or injured and could no longer work? Social Security is NOT JUST RETIREMENT. As an addition, are you aware that almost 70% of the people over age 65 rely on Social Security for the majority of their retirement income? I think it is important that you consider the importance Social Security represents in other people's lives before you think of discarding it.

I would guess that investing was not your line of work because I think you would have more carefully assessed financial returns of Social Security before you made judgements. Also, my work and that of the people I worked with was not limited to 40 hours. I was rarely able to complete my work day in 8 hours. I worked many weekends as well. So, again, I would appreciate it if you would better investigate the facts before you denigrate me, or a class of people.

[Ben Willaert]

While it is true that we are in the minority of industrialized nations when it comes to government health care, I think we play a very important role in the world. Our health care costs more because we have more advancement in health care, or at least we cause those advancements in the rest of the world. Government sponsored health care does not allow for innovation by denying its citizens the use of expensive or new medication.

Listening to MPR a few months ago I heard stories from around the world on government health care. What I noticed was that the people understood that their lives were not worth putting everyone else in financial trouble. They accepted death instead of expensive medications that would extend their lives a few months. We would never do that in the U.S. We would demand our government spend every dollar to save every second.

[Dan Conner]

While it is true that we are in the minority of industrialized nations when it comes to government health care, I think we play a very important role in the world. Our health care costs more because we have more advancement in health care, or at least we cause those advancements in the rest of the world. Government sponsored health care does not allow for innovation by denying its citizens the use of expensive or new medication.

Listening to MPR a few months ago I heard stories from around the world on government health care. What I noticed was that the people understood that their lives were not worth putting everyone else in financial trouble. They accepted death instead of expensive medications that would extend their lives a few months. We would never do that in the U.S. We would demand our government spend every dollar to save every second.

Wow, Ben! You scarred me a little with your last paragraph. Are you trying to say that some people' lives aren't worth saving if it causes financial trouble for someone else? I sure hope not. If you do feel that way, then I think we need a referendum from people to find out who wants to sacrifice their lives for the financial well being of others. The system doesn't ask that now, but people just lose their lives for lack of care. I think we have our priorities totally muddled if money is more important than life. If it is, then an armed bank robber is a good guy. Life is all important. We have always operated that way. That's why soldiers risk their lives for their comrades. Without life, who cares about money?

I have not argued that the US doesn't play an important part in the world, but we could play an even more important part by offering health care FOR EVERYONE!! I would like to see your references saying we have the best innovations in health. Then, why are so many doctors from other countries working here? If we are so superior, why is their education as good as ours? Why have some of the most innovative medical procedures happened overseas? Heart transplants first happened overseas, is one example. I will agree with oyu about one thing. The Government did prevent the American public from buying medications from foreign countries, where we could get them greatly cheaper, but that was done because of the millions of dollars pharmaceutical companies spent on lobbyists and pressure they brought on the Government (through campaign donations) to stop Americans from buying drugs overseas. That ain't looking to make a better product for patients.

My point about health care is that it is a human right, at least in America, where we have the resources to give it to everyone. The arguements against it have only to do with money, and that's a poor substitute for life. How many times have you heard of someone say that they would trade all their wealth for being healthy? I think you have to come down in favor of human life over money.

Another assumption you make is that Government stifles innovation? Come on! Look at most of the industrialized countries we compete with. They have the same innovations we do. In many cases, they are better. Gosh, I remember going to a hospital and seeing an xray machine with the brand name Siemens. That's German, and they have national health care. You will have to go a lot further to convince me it's better to have money and watch people die. At least I'm assuming you are the one with the money? How would you feel if the opposite was true. Is our life worth a BMW?

[Dan Conner]

Wow, Ben! You scarred me a little with your last paragraph. Are you trying to say that some people' lives aren't worth saving if it causes financial trouble for someone else? I sure hope not. If you do feel that way, then I think we need a referendum from people to find out who wants to sacrifice their lives for the financial well being of others. The system doesn't ask that now, but people just lose their lives for lack of care. I think we have our priorities totally muddled if money is more important than life. If it is, then an armed bank robber is a good guy. Life is all important. We have always operated that way. That's why soldiers risk their lives for their comrades. Without life, who cares about money?

I have not argued that the US doesn't play an important part in the world, but we could play an even more important part by offering health care FOR EVERYONE!! I would like to see your references saying we have the best innovations in health. Then, why are so many doctors from other countries working here? If we are so superior, why is their education as good as ours? Why have some of the most innovative medical procedures happened overseas? Heart transplants first happened overseas, is one example. I will agree with oyu about one thing. The Government did prevent the American public from buying medications from foreign countries, where we could get them greatly cheaper, but that was done because of the millions of dollars pharmaceutical companies spent on lobbyists and pressure they brought on the Government (through campaign donations) to stop Americans from buying drugs overseas. That ain't looking to make a better product for patients.

My point about health care is that it is a human right, at least in America, where we have the resources to give it to everyone. The arguements against it have only to do with money, and that's a poor substitute for life. How many times have you heard of someone say that they would trade all their wealth for being healthy? I think you have to come down in favor of human life over money.

Another assumption you make is that Government stifles innovation? Come on! Look at most of the industrialized countries we compete with. They have the same innovations we do. In many cases, they are better. Gosh, I remember going to a hospital and seeing an xray machine with the brand name Siemens. That's German, and they have national health care. You will have to go a lot further to convince me it's better to have money and watch people die. At least I'm assuming you are the one with the money? How would you feel if the opposite was true. Is our life worth a BMW?

Hey Ben, one more thing. I think that you seem to come from the same school as Bob. It sounds like the Limbaugh school, where Government always screws up, or that it isn't proper to have a "nanny" state. If the "nanny" state means we care about and for each other, then give me that state. If it's about a state where we look to cheat, screw, or forget about our fellow citizens, then that's not right. You know, I was in the service during the Vietnam War, and I didn't fight to screw others or tell others "tough." I did it because we are one country standing by and for each other. If this was a country where we are all on our own, then I would say people are living too far in the past. That was during the caveman days when we bashed heads in with clubs and drag women into caves by their hair. It's where we existed as warring tribes. I thought we evolved to a higher state that that. There is an abundant number of sayings about the success of unity, one being: United we stand, divided we fall. I think there is a time in everyone's life that people need help. It would be a tragedy if we missed the opportunity to make someone better.

[Ben Willaert]

You don’t understand what I said. I do value every life and that is why we need to keep health care private. National health care systems place limits on the amount and types of care allowed. They are the ones that put a price cap on a life.

Countries with government health care do not have the innovations in emergency care we do. True, their citizens are healthier then ours, but that is due to a focus on preventative medicine. Our business of medicine creates the best emergency care in the world because we will pay for it. National health care will not. It should be each of our responsibility to take care of ourselves with preventative care, but as the government does more and more for us we become dependant on them to do everything for us.

Private medicine, private health insurance and self preservation are the formula for us to be the healthiest in the world, but we must take the initiative. We are already relying on the government to save us.

[Dan Conner]

You don’t understand what I said. I do value every life and that is why we need to keep health care private. National health care systems place limits on the amount and types of care allowed. They are the ones that put a price cap on a life.

Countries with government health care do not have the innovations in emergency care we do. True, their citizens are healthier then ours, but that is due to a focus on preventative medicine. Our business of medicine creates the best emergency care in the world because we will pay for it. National health care will not. It should be each of our responsibility to take care of ourselves with preventative care, but as the government does more and more for us we become dependant on them to do everything for us.

Private medicine, private health insurance and self preservation are the formula for us to be the healthiest in the world, but we must take the initiative. We are already relying on the government to save us.

Ben, I hate to say it, but you are wrong. I will interject a pun, when I say you are dead wrong. Most of the industrialized nations have better health care than our country, INCLUDING EMERGENCY CARE! Our death emergency death rates rates are higher than many of those countries, but I am certainly interested in you furnishing the evidence to show otherwise. The average life span is not as long in the US as many countries, new-born care and death rates are sub-par and so is emergency care. Besides, what are you cherry-picking a tiny part of health system and holding that up, as if that means much in the totality of health care? Our health care is more than twice as much as most of the industrialized countries and the care is less effective. I don't think I have to draw you a picture, but that's not good. It is common assessed as broken, by liberals and conservatives.

You sure have talked a lot about responsibility, and you don't want to improve our health system. How does that responsibility wash out when you want to the rest of the country to pay for your lousy system? That sounds like you are asking others to pay higher insurance rates so you can have what you want. How about a compromise...how about we implement national health care, but you can continue with what you have. In fact, that was part of the Obama plan. People can keep what they have or join the new one. Then, you'll be happy and I'll be happy.

[Ben Willaert]

I stand corrected. Doing some very limited research, you are correct; we lag behind many countries with national health care. I may be the victim of propaganda.

National health care goes against my belief that a capitalist, free market system is the best economic system in the world. Unfortunately, our free market has been getting eroded away since the great depression. Socialism is on the rise. That could somewhat explain why already, our health care isn’t the best.

I still think that without our country's free market dollars, innovation in health care would slow down. Most national health care systems heavily scrutinize how much money can be spent on what. Our private health care ensures there are many people, that will go to any expense, for the best medicine. Without those dollars, wouldn’t research and development slow down?

Since the government never seems to mind taking a loss in business, wouldn’t Obama’s plan eventually lead to everyone on the government plan since private plans would not be able to compete, without running themselves out of business?

[Bob Jentges]

Not to be too critical of Medicare but being on Medicare I have experienced a very small touch of what Dan discusses about national health care programs. Medicare will not pay for a PSA test (a screening test for prostate cancer) ordered by my doctor during my anual physical examination. It is not a sufficient expense to exceed the deductable on my private supplemental health insurance policy. It is certainly not a large out-of-pocket expense that I, or for that matter most people, can not afford to pay out-of pocket. But might my example be an indicator of more harsh things to come under national health care?

Obviously I do not know what national health care, if implemented, will and will not cover. But will some people without the financial means to pay out-of-pocket expenses forgoe reasonable more expensive diagnostic tests ordered by their doctor and not paid for under national health care eg. a PET Scan?

[Bob Jentges]

Since my last post on this topic FYI.

During my year end physical my family doctor brought up his disapproval for
government control of health care, which at that time I expect related to medicare dictating what they would cover and how much the provider would be reimbursed. I just read on the internet that the so-called "stimulus package" that just passed the Senate includes money for a National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. That could be a precursor for the attempt to implement Universal Health Care somewhere down the road. I wonder what my family doctor thinks of that development.

[Dan Conner]

Not to be too critical of Medicare but being on Medicare I have experienced a very small touch of what Dan discusses about national health care programs. Medicare will not pay for a PSA test (a screening test for prostate cancer) ordered by my doctor during my anual physical examination. It is not a sufficient expense to exceed the deductable on my private supplemental health insurance policy. It is certainly not a large out-of-pocket expense that I, or for that matter most people, can not afford to pay out-of pocket. But might my example be an indicator of more harsh things to come under national health care?

Obviously I do not know what national health care, if implemented, will and will not cover. But will some people without the financial means to pay out-of-pocket expenses forgoe reasonable more expensive diagnostic tests ordered by their doctor and not paid for under national health care eg. a PET Scan?

I think you must know the answer to that question without asking. If Medicare doesn't cover, it's because of budget considerations (Medicare trust fund is in much more dire straits than Social Security). Private insurance doesn't want to pay for it, because it would comeout of the "bottom line." However, if you are wondering, my doctor didn't think a PSA test was worth it. Most cancers there are extremely slow and a person would die naturally anyway. Alos, the cure is many times worse than the disease. It would involve impotence, incontenence, possibly needing a cateter the rest of you life, etc. If you have it, it would bge a complicated decision. Also, I read a column about the peanut butter problem. There is a criminal investigation going on about the possibility of willful distribution of salmanella by the plant. The article, and congressman, said government inspections need to be better, regulations added, and more money given to FDA to inspect. That was from a "conservative" congressman. More nannyism for you.

The whole peanut debacle is an illustration of capitalism at work. Profit over health of public. In this case, it appears they had gotten away with unsanitary conditions for so long, they thought it didn't hurt to distribute poisoned food. Isn't it amazing what money will make people do? They wreck a banking/financial system, peanit butter and too many other things to get into here. ALL FOR MONEY! In many instances capitalism creates business without a conscience.

[Dan Conner]

Since my last post on this topic FYI.

During my year end physical my family doctor brought up his disapproval for
government control of health care, which at that time I expect related to medicare dictating what they would cover and how much the provider would be reimbursed. I just read on the internet that the so-called "stimulus package" that just passed the Senate includes money for a National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. That could be a precursor for the attempt to implement Universal Health Care somewhere down the road. I wonder what my family doctor thinks of that development.

What you were reading is the government's effort to computerize all medical records and eliminated the thousands of tons of paper used. Also, computerized records could almost be instantly transferred to your new doctors, or doctors to whom you've been referred, without waiting for the costly and time consuming mailing of paper. In addition, because of the fragmented paper process, doctors treat you for a problem whithout knowing of other pre-existing problems. That's because they don't have access to your whole medical record. They would after computerizing the record. The VA records are computerized now. A huge improvement over the past. Also, the VA system helps the doctor by diarying needed treatment that is easily forgotten in the future. The computer can also assist with diagnosis.

This computerized process will help reduce cost of medicaal care, but the entry costs are big, up front. The federal stimulus money is intended to reduce up-front costs for doctors, hospitals, and clinics. I'm sure there will be a standard set, so rrecords will be compatible across the nation. Again, this nanny effort is intended to reduce future medical costs because health care now soaks up a tremendous share of our GDP.

[Dan Conner]

Since my last post on this topic FYI.

During my year end physical my family doctor brought up his disapproval for
government control of health care, which at that time I expect related to medicare dictating what they would cover and how much the provider would be reimbursed. I just read on the internet that the so-called "stimulus package" that just passed the Senate includes money for a National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. That could be a precursor for the attempt to implement Universal Health Care somewhere down the road. I wonder what my family doctor thinks of that development.

Your health care provide is greatly controlled by Medicare and private insurers now. In most cases costly medical procedures HAVE TO be pre-approved through insurance companies. Also, insurance companies now determine what they will cover. In some cases, those insurnance company decisions were not subject to appeal. Im sure you've heard of life-threatening conditions where the insurance company refused to pay for the treatment and the patient (insured) was going to die without the treatment? There was just a case a short while ago on the news. It was only because of the extraordinary public pressure caused by the media publicizing this that the insurance company relented and paid for the procedure. Capitalism at work. What about all the other people who died because they weren't lucky enough to have their case publicized?

Hey, many docotrs object to national health care because they fear what impact it might have on their income. I suggest that those doctors refresh themselves on the Hippocratic Oath they took. Their first concern should be caring for the sick, not making money - more bad capitalist influence on the system. Above all, doctors are being subjected to a bunch of control by insurance companies now, both for treatments and the costs of the treatment, but that control has nothing to do with the health of the patient. It only has to do with cost and profit. While cost will always be a concern in health care, I believe national health care will have an added degree of concern about everyone's care above money. Isn't that what our country should be for--caring for each other? If not, then why are we a country? If not, we are just a country onto ourselves.

[Dan Conner]

I stand corrected. Doing some very limited research, you are correct; we lag behind many countries with national health care. I may be the victim of propaganda.

National health care goes against my belief that a capitalist, free market system is the best economic system in the world. Unfortunately, our free market has been getting eroded away since the great depression. Socialism is on the rise. That could somewhat explain why already, our health care isn’t the best.

I still think that without our country's free market dollars, innovation in health care would slow down. Most national health care systems heavily scrutinize how much money can be spent on what. Our private health care ensures there are many people, that will go to any expense, for the best medicine. Without those dollars, wouldn’t research and development slow down?

Since the government never seems to mind taking a loss in business, wouldn’t Obama’s plan eventually lead to everyone on the government plan since private plans would not be able to compete, without running themselves out of business?

You know, I used to be inclined to believe that socialism was evil and capitalism a utopia, but I have re-examined that and looked at the two more objectively. Socialism isn't evil. We have a US Senator that's a socialist. His name is Bernie Sanders, from Vermont. I don't know of a more caring man, concerned about the rights and equity for all.

I think we have all been "brainwashed" since children. The schools have always taught us about the evils of socialism. They have even connected it to communism. They aren't the same. Plus, the two conjure up an image of the Soviet Union (Russia now) and China. Those two, and us, are the big three kids on the playground and there is definitely a big competition for power. Part of that power stuggle is to teach our people communism and socialism is bad, bad, bad, but don't worry Russia and China are teaching their people that capitalism is bad, bad, bad. Actually, don't even worry about what either side tries to teach. What is bad, is that the rich and powerful in each of the countries are trying to control the population, so they remain rich and powerful. It's less about a system of government, than small number of people in each country protecting their wealth and power, by controlling everyone else.

[Dan Conner]

You know, I used to be inclined to believe that socialism was evil and capitalism a utopia, but I have re-examined that and looked at the two more objectively. Socialism isn't evil. We have a US Senator that's a socialist. His name is Bernie Sanders, from Vermont. I don't know of a more caring man, concerned about the rights and equity for all.

I think we have all been "brainwashed" since children. The schools have always taught us about the evils of socialism. They have even connected it to communism. They aren't the same. Plus, the two conjure up an image of the Soviet Union (Russia now) and China. Those two, and us, are the big three kids on the playground and there is definitely a big competition for power. Part of that power stuggle is to teach our people communism and socialism is bad, bad, bad, but don't worry Russia and China are teaching their people that capitalism is bad, bad, bad. Actually, don't even worry about what either side tries to teach. What is bad, is that the rich and powerful in each of the countries are trying to control the population, so they remain rich and powerful. It's less about a system of government, than small number of people in each country protecting their wealth and power, by controlling everyone else.

Oh, P.S. Russia was the first country in space, not us. They have some of the most advanced fighter planes and the AK-47 is probably the best and certainly the most popular weapon in the world. There are too many great things they have done to enumerate. They are moving up the economic ladder far faster than we are.

[Ben Willaert]

I had brought up on another thread how our culture relies on drugs instead of preventative medicine. Looking at the top drug sales Lipitor is top dog. It is a statin cholesterol lowering drug. Lowering cholesterol is something where drugs should always be the last resort. Our society needs a kick in the butt to stop relying on these drugs to make up for our gluten ways. If Viagra sales are an indication of how important sex is to us, maybe that kick in the butt has arrived. Studies are showing statin drugs like Lipitor reduce the ability to have orgasms and sexual pleasure.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-03-05-statinsex_N.htm

Improving our overall health is more about changing our ways, not changing who provides our insurance.

[Dan Conner]

I had brought up on another thread how our culture relies on drugs instead of preventative medicine. Looking at the top drug sales Lipitor is top dog. It is a statin cholesterol lowering drug. Lowering cholesterol is something where drugs should always be the last resort. Our society needs a kick in the butt to stop relying on these drugs to make up for our gluten ways. If Viagra sales are an indication of how important sex is to us, maybe that kick in the butt has arrived. Studies are showing statin drugs like Lipitor reduce the ability to have orgasms and sexual pleasure.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-03-05-statinsex_N.htm

Improving our overall health is more about changing our ways, not changing who provides our insurance.

Agreed. Much is published about our medical system and how it profits from treating symptoms, rather than preventing them. A prior post by Liz alluded to that. As long as these drugs are available they will be used. It's like energy drinks and alcohol. If you have an affective method of "kicking society in the butt" let me know. I think we are greatly missing an opportunity to learn something. France is rated number 1 in the world for health care, largely because of their preventative techniques. I think people in our industry need to consult with them.

It will greatly help our country improve if we realize that other nations and people have good ideas in many areas. Then we can use the best ideas from all these peoples to improve our nation, but we will never get there if we ignorantly assert we are number 1 in everything.

[Bob Jentges]

It will greatly help our country improve if we realize that other nations and people have good ideas in many areas. Then we can use the best ideas from all these peoples to improve our nation,...

Associated Press article: "Final health bill omits some of Obama's promises", that was also published in this mornings print edition of The Free Press. What does it mean for passage and signing, if anything?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=n/a/2010/03/19/national/w131302D40.DTL&tsp=1

[Bob Jentges]

Associated Press article: "Final health bill omits some of Obama's promises", that was also published in this mornings print edition of The Free Press. What does it mean for passage and signing, if anything?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=n/a/2010/03/19/national/w131302D40.DTL&tsp=1

Not only did it omit some of Obama's promises, the gullible among us were deceived about many of Obama's promises that were not omitted. The latest is that Friday (6/11/10) the White House admitted 51% of company health care plans won't meet Obamacare guidelines. I am not saying that was not the goal all along, but to promise people could keep their current health insurance if they wanted to, in order to try to sell Obamacare before passage is in my opinion, underhanded at best.:mad:

It would be interesting to hear from some Forum members that either swallowed the deceit and promoted it, or were not ignorant of the deceit and promoted it anyway.:eek:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/White-House-Documents-51-percent-of-company-health-plans-wont-meet-Obamacare-guidelines-96189484.html

[Bob Jentges]

It would be interesting to hear from some Forum members that either swallowed the deceit and promoted it, or were not ignorant of the deceit and promoted it anyway.:eek:

Apparently no "members" swallowed the deceit and promoted it, or if they did they are ashamed of it.

Two of many articles today pointing out the costly unintended consequences of this disaster of a bill.

http://www.weekleystandard.com/articles/bad-deal-gets-worse

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704198004575310773636609374.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond

[Bob Jentges]

I considered posting this in the Unconstitutional Acts of Congress or States Rights threads, but that might have been pre-mature. I also considered a number of the health care threads and chose this one.

The lawsuits the AG's of 20+ states have joined against the government contending the individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional is moving forward. After telling us just the opposite when trying to promote passage of the bill, now the administration is argueing the individual mandate is a tax, in an attempt to bring it within the Constitution. These people seem to have no shame!:p

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/17/obama-admin-argues-in-court-th

[Bob Jentges]

The lawsuits the AG's of 20+ states have joined against the government contending the individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional is moving forward. After telling us just the opposite when trying to promote passage of the bill, now the administration is argueing the individual mandate is a tax, in an attempt to bring it within the Constitution. These people seem to have no shame!:p

It appears that before any of the lawsuits are decided and before ballot iniciatives in some states eg. AZ, etc., on August 3, 2010 the citizens of Missouri will vote to accept or reject the Missouri Health Care Freedom Act (MHCFA).

Makes me wonder how much of our tax dollars the Obama Administration will be spending in St. Louis and KC, to try to convince those people how great the passed act is so they might vote to reject MHCFA?

[Bob Jentges]

NY Times article pointing out Obama Administration is changing it's tune about whether the health care mandate is, or is not a tax. Either way they can not win i.e. broken campaign promise or ignorance. This simply further demonstrates they and the majority of Congressional Democrats are either incopetent or evil.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=ref=politics

[Bob Jentges]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/08/sebelius-time-for-reeducation-on-obama-health-care-law.html

After it was passed we educated ourselves, so do not bother to reeducate us Ms. Sebelus (Sec of HHS). But it would have been nice had you told us the truth the first time!