Rationing Medicare: Update
by Dr. C.L. GrayMy last article, Medicare is Already Rationing Care, focused on one small aspect of a much larger story, a story every American needs to know. The battle over the meaning of medicine began 2,500 years ago, not last spring.
In the late 1990’s I gave a lecture entitled “Post-Hippocratic Medicine in the Shadow of Nietzsche” in response to Peter Singer, the chair of bioethics at Princeton University. Singer had proposed we not consider humans “fully human” until they reached five weeks of age (after birth). During the first four weeks, he argued, we should allow the overt killing of infants with disabilities. This was “cost-effective.” It served the “greater good” by controlling the skyrocketing cost of healthcare.
For a decade I studied the question ”How did America reach a place in her history where we could seriously consider resurrecting the ancient practice of infanticide?” What I discovered changed my life.
For the past 2,500 years physicians served only one of two roles in Western culture. They either followed Hippocrates and served the wellbeing of their patients, or they followed Plato and served the greater welfare of the State. The philosophy of Peter Singer is not new—it has been with us for millennia. We once again stand at these same fated crossroads of Plato and Hippocrates as we debate the future of American healthcare.
Based on my study of history, philosophy, and current events, I feared we were rapidly returning to the world of Plato; a world where physicians worked at the behest of government, not solely for the patient. To help Americans understand what was about to transpire, I launched Physicians for Reform in 2006.
The challenges facing American healthcare are real. The cost of healthcare is rising at twice the rate of inflation. Driven by the high cost of care, 28% of the patients visiting the emergency room where I work do not have coverage. Change will come; the only uncertainty is where that change will lead. Will the patient remain at the center of American healthcare? Or will the needs of the State reign supreme?
During the spring of 2008, the Barbara Wagner story confirmed my fears. After two years in remission, Barbara’s lung cancer returned. Her oncologist recommended treatment with Tarceva, a new chemotherapy. However, Barbara was a patient under the state-run Oregon Health Plan. Based of the “greater good” the State, Oregon denied her chemotherapy, instead offering to pay for physician-assisted suicide.
When asked about denying Barbara’s treatment, Dr. Walter Shaffer, a spokesman for Oregon’s Division of Medical Assistance Programs, explained the State’s policy this way, “We can’t cover everything for everyone. Taxpayer dollars are limited for publicly funded programs. We try to come up with policies that provide the most good for the most people.” (Learn details of the story here.)
In this context, Medicare is Already Rationing Care takes on an entirely new perspective. The fundamental issue is not physician reimbursement. The issue paramount for every American is access to care. Mayo just closed the doors of one of its clinics to new Medicare patients. Others will certainly follow if we continue down the road Washington is hell-bent to travel.
We must find fiscally responsible, patient-centered solutions to the challenges facing American healthcare. If we do not, financial pressures will drive us once again into the arms of Plato. Physicians for Reform is dedicated to finding these solutions so physicians can tread once again the ancient path of Hippocrates.
Visit Physicians For Reform to learn more about the history of Western medicine and the efforts of this grassroots movement. Only by working together will the patient remain at the center of American healthcare.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
178 Comments
At least in Sparta, they killed imperfect infants, so that the community would remain strong. Today, will kill the unborn, the elderly, and perhaps soon the recently born, to remain decadent.
In other words, deathcare is the new medical care.
"Based of the “greater good” the State, Oregon denied her chemotherapy, instead offering to pay for physician-assisted suicide."…If this doesn't fall under the heading of 'Death Panel' I don't know what else you can call it!! A Revolt is coming! The American people will NOT stand for this kind of government mandated suicide!!!
1) Redwhite&jew–careful your phrase-ology lest someone think you Platonist.
2) Anytime Singer’s name is mentioned my blood runs cold. How quickly & far the great institution of Princeton has fallen. Further proof that as soon as liberalism is embraced by anyone/group we soon find them embracing, then espousing, the greatest evils. First, maybe abortion isn’t so bad, next, maybe it would be better just to help old/sick people die, now, why not intentionally murder newborns?
Thank you for pointing out that the Platonic view is nothing new. I have known many in the medical field for years with this view and, yes, for those wondering, they do carry this view as far as their own family members, even their newborns.
rationing is a symptom of a socialist economy, they govt. dosent look at shortages as an opportunity to make money and satisfy consumers. Socialists turn to rationing as a solution. No business tells its consumers to use less …its always more more more and thats how I like it!
1) You mean regarding Sparta? The point I was trying to make, probably not well, is the as abhorrent as the conduct of Sparta was, WRT to the treatment of the imperfect, ours is even worse.
Careful, though. When you couple socialism-induced shortages with the capitalism-"more more more" mentality, government and the intelligentsia have the perfect opportunity to enact abominations such as what Singer advocates. I'll say it again. Everyone should read or re-read Brave New World when they get the chance. For some, it's a masterwork of dystopian fiction. For others, it's a recipe.
Everything in our country is rationed by gov simply making it difficult or not profitable to produce. From energy to food to housing. Why would one believe healthcare to be different?
What's really sad to me, is that so many people
don't believe healthcare will be rationed. (I
guess it's like the thread below this one, too
many don't have any common sense.)How can they
think you can add millions of people to the rolls,
and there won't be rationing? You reap what you
sow, and I think this healthcare plan will come
back to bite the supporters right in the a–.
I read that book 2 times and some of huxleys essays, was he a socialist? communication of conservative principles is an ideological battle. Because capitalism is a superior economic system by serving the People more efficiently than socialism, capitalism is morally superior because it provides medicines and food more effectively. I'm not worried about any socialist rhetoric, capitalism is a superior system and will ultimately prevail.
Einstein was a socialist
More than adding "people to the rolls," is the problem of separating consumer from cost, and government prescribing faux costs for services. The former will increase demand, and the later will decrease supply, so that the only result is a shortage.
Or rationing, which is just a shortage…at the barrel of a gun.
Not only will this lead to rationing of care, it will in a natural progression of logic lead to death camps. The bureaucratic monolith will measure people by the value they can theoretically measured value to the "collective" (Or to use progressive/socialist term, "community") So, naturally there will be a population that are not valuable to the collective, people with disabilities, mental and physical, "criminal elements", and vagrant proles (homeless). The cost measurement will naturally conclude that it would be more cost efficient, and somehow spinned as beneficial to this "defective" people, and they will be "humanly" put to death. We have seen it before, eugenics in the USA (not to mention the acceptance of the death of fetus's), the Nazi health plan (notice how they also had great medicine for the "fit" population), and the Communist solution (kill or deport the sickest ones, whether they are sick or not, till they dead and try to get some collectivist value before they keel over). Scary stuff is coming if the current Congress and Administration succeeds in implementation of their ideological agenda.
Taxpayer dollars are limited for publicly funded programs. We try to come up with policies that provide the most good for the most people.
No self-respecting dictator or tyrant will neglect to use this fake concern for public well-being in order to justify atrocity.
The politics of authors, and the lessons of their works, often make strange bedfellows. George Orwell considered himself a socialist, too.
Maybe it is a matter of what the words actually mean at the time, and what they mean to the individuals in question. Most of the posters here are liberals, as the word was used during the founding of the USA. Interestingly, this usage persists in Australia. Their "liberals" would be our nominal "conservative." I'd have little to argue about with turn of the century feminists, I image. Today? Well, let me just say that Rush's use of the term 'feminazi' is more than a little justified, IMHO.
Einstein may have been a socialist. I don't know. But here is a link to a thread you might find interesting:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/sright/2010/01/...
"Peter Singer, the chair of bioethics at Princeton University. Singer had proposed we not consider humans “fully human” until they reached five weeks of age (after birth)."
Have you noticed how people who's profession are things like bioethics or ethicist, have none.
Well, 'amoral ghoul' lacks gravitas.
Red you are right-on!!…I remember as a kid, my Mom taking us to
the Doctor's office (Way before Medicare, Medicaid and Insurance).
We would get our examinations, maybe a shot, and for the 2 of us
she would pay 10 or 15 dollars each….Since she was a divorcee'
and was on her own, (Never depended on a hand-out), she would
make payments to the Doctors office if it was more then she was
counting on. or pay cash if she had the money on hand.
I remember a time when families and charities would take care of the elderly,
or those needing help…Not the government!!…..The government now
gets into every nook and cranny of our lives, and anyone with a sense of
pride doesn't like it……
Everyone calling out 'Death Panels here is being disingenous at best. If Barbara wasn't covered by Oregon State Health, she probably wouldn't have been DIAGNOSED at all until it was too late to treat. And many of the latest cancer drugs prolong life often only a few weeks to a few months AT BEST.
PRIVATE Healthcare in the US is currently rationed to those who can pay. If you have no means at all or inadequate means, you have to wait until you're on death's door to be seen an treated. Just because you come in to an ER that's required to stabilize you so you don't die on their shift does NOT equal free bypass surgery, so don't claim the poor have access to care through ERs.
How is state run health care going to be worse than having the freedom to die at home in agony from a late diagnosed poorly treated condition, because you couldn't afford treatment AND can't afford death with dignity…
Have you ever read a company ethics handbook? All of the ones I've seen talk exclusively about what the employee owes the company and the customer. There is never a word about what either the company or the customer owes the employee. Why do you think that is? Because the handbook is written by a company ethicist who is paid by the company. they are worse than Balaam son of Beor. Ethicists don't care about what is really right or wrong because they don't have anything to tell them what is right or wrong other than what they want. And it's amazing how much you can start wanting something when someone starts paying you.
Hope the Biblical reference didn't offend anyone (thought I'm going to keep in anyway so I guess I'm not that sorry.)
So, if I get the gist of what your saying, "It can't be any worse….". That's comforting. I'm sure Barbara was thrilled to know that she was going to die and more importantly that the state of Oregon was willing to pay for her to kill herself than try and treat the disease. It's also nice to know that "many of the latest cancer drugs prolong life often only a few weeks to a few months AT BEST." I'm sure that would be your personal argument should you be faced with the same choice for yourself. As to your statement of state run health care at least being better than to "die at home in agony from a late diagnosed poorly treated condition, because you couldn't afford treatment AND can't afford death with dignity…" That you find dignity in being put down like a house pet by the state is kind of pathetic. Personally, I side with Patrick Henry, give me liberty or give me death. Spare me the misguided "compassion" of the state.
I think it was George Washington who said that without God anything is permissible. He meant the Judeo-Christian God. But any diety with authority above and beyond us will do for this. Once absolutes are gone, it's amazing how easy it is to get people to accept atrocity.
"…she probably…"
Imagination is a wonderful thing.
"…currently rationed to those who can pay."
Disingenuous straw man leftist talking point. The free market is not rationed. But we don't have a free market, do we? We have a heavily regulated health care market, which suffers the same ills any heavily regulated industry suffers: upward spiraling costs, shortages, corruption, etc.
"…death with dignity…"
Not only "death with dignity," but Death Panel approved "death with dignity!"
Heard of Milgram's Experiment?
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/01/milgram-revisi...
OUR LIVES WILL BE INFINITELY BETTER IF AND WHEN THE GOVERNMENT GETS THE HELL OUT OF IT!
You ask, ”How did America reach a place in her history where we could seriously consider resurrecting the ancient practice of infanticide?”
The answer is, through the normalization of psychopathic thinking.
Psychopaths have no conscience. Current research into how people make moral decisions shows that it's our visceral emotional response to moral problems (i.e., that conscience that psychopaths are missing) that make us reject, out of disgust, the sort of utilitarian arguments that would have us kill people out of cost effectiveness. Further, psychopaths illustrate the folly of moral rationalism (the idea that good morality can be based on reason or rationality alone). That last paper also illustrates the flaws in the conventional philosophical view that in order to be evil or to do evil, a person must understand that what they are doing is evil. Yet when malicious psychopaths are explained to people, people have no problem readily identifying them as evil even though they lack the ability to grasp evil the same way that normal people do.
Putting all of that together, when we abstract and intellectualize problems (as academics and politicians are wont to do) and tell people to ignore their emotional "hang ups" that make them feel things are wrong, what we are doing is telling people to ignore their conscience and to, in effect, telling them to think like a psychopath. Once they do that, they'll readily come to all sorts of psychopathically cold conclusions such as abortion, infanticide, eugenics, euthanasia, and a whole host of other ideas that treat human beings a objects or tools rather than people. By teaching people to intellectualize everything and to look at all moral problems from an aloof and impersonal distance, we're teaching them to think like psychopaths. And because we have the example of real psychopath to illustrate where that sort of thinking leads, we know it doesn't end well. Thinking like a psychopath leads to Hell rather than Heaven.
Emotionally distancing people from other humans is an important trait because it would be impossible to care for every stranger with the intensity that we care about family and friends but it becomes a problem when thoughts move from what we will or won't do to help them to what we will or won't do to hurt them, especially when they are standing right in front of us. That's why the dehumanization of the enemy is such a common component of atrocities like genocide and politically motivated slaughters.
That's also what makes the academic and intellectual left so dangerous. When they intellectualize the world in order to fix it, they wind up abstracting and distancing people into faceless groups and numbers on a spreadsheet. And once they've abstracted away the humanity of others and think about problems rationally but without a conscience, it's no mistake that they reach inhumane utilitarian conclusions because they are thinking about the problem like a psychopath and wind up advocating behaving like one.
There also doesn't seem to be a clear line between a narcissist and a psychopath (psychopaths are sometimes called "malignant narcissists"). I suspect that where a psychopath has no conscience, a narcissist has a deficient or weak conscience.
I saw the film from the experiment when I was in college. It's burned in my brain. Just watching that film was one of the best ethics/morality lessons I ever had.
Please see my reply about psychopaths a few replies down from yours.
If you don't believe that your insurance companies ration health care, wait until you actually get sick and have to use it. If you are unlucky enough to live past the lifetime limits of your coverage (and they all have them) you will have to take your chances with Medicaid.
Insurance companies hire thousands of people whose job it is to deny your coverage. They even get bonuses based on who it the top "earner".
Q, you should hang out a shingle and rake in some coin for all this insight into human the human mind. Probably shouldn't treat any libs though. They would not appreciate being called "psychopaths" for holding political positions that offend you. Now you gowidgod.
I saw that. The experiment where good Christians believe they are shocking other people after being directed by authority figures. An interesting insight into human behavior, but I don't see how that makes a case for good Christians.
After all, who is more susceptible to figures of authority. Those of us who believe without question, or those of us who question beliefs?
Fortunately for your independent mother who never accepted handouts, none of you kids ever got really sick and needed extended treatment. She might have been forced to compromise her values, or failing that, watch one of her children die.
Health care is being rationed today as we speak… by health care insurance companies.
This is a very simplistic view. Government does not ration consumer demand, and that is what determines supply.
Apologizing for something you believe to be true, is what we now call 'political correctness'…one of the most vile phrases in the English language! Quit worrying about who you are going to offend…the coffers are a bottomless pit!!
Oh stop it… physicians make treatment decisions every day based on the patient's chance of responding. If they decide the patient would not benefit from further treatment the state should not have to pay for it. It is time to move on to the next stage and that usually includes hospice options, and in Oregon I guess suicide options. But the key word here is not suicide… it is option.
You are of course correct. The gov can't stop me from wanting or needing. It can and does however limit production. Case in point oil.
Time to turn off Glenn Beck and take the kids out for snow cones. You are beginning to believe your own propaganda.
I blame Woodrow Wilson and Eugenics
Be that as it may, at least with a private insurance company, you can leave if they can't meet your needs and find one that will. Under Gov. care, you don't get that option. Gov care is for life and they control the lenght of that life, not you.
Guest, you are totally WRONG!
You are right of course, but I think you are too quick to assign devious motives to which are in reality attempts to even out market imbalances.
Take corn for example. Before the days of ethanol, over production often led to a plunge in prices to a point to where it cost more to grow it than a farmer could sell it for. So he stops planting. And since this crop is vital to the survival of people and livestock, future shortages from farmers refusing to grow corn for nothing were unacceptable. So we developed a complex network of farm and price supports to ensure supply = demand. We all wish we didn't have to do it, but we like our tostitos.
I think everyone is missing the point here. I will try and explain. I'm going on 3 score and 11years. I was born and raised in San Francisco. My father was a doctor. (a physician and surgeon he was called in those days) His office was in the middle of the Italian part of town. And why not? He was Italian, the youngest of 11 children. His parents were imigrants. He worked his way through Stanford University. (How long has it been since that was possible?)
As a child I would go with him on Saturdays in the DeSoto as he visited patients. (Remember those days of house calls?) During the week, his schedule was the hospital in the morning, if he had anyone there, or on "calls" and the office and then lunch at The Greasy Spoon up the street and then the office or another "call" or two before coming home for supper at 5pm. At 6:30 it was back to the office for those patients who worked or he'd go on "calls" to those who couldn't get to him or he hadn't seen is too long a time. He's get home around 10:30 to 11 pm. I only saw him at supper and on weekends. This was the way it was. I never questioned any of this.
….to be continued
…….continued
People paid either in money, commodities or labor depending on their personal financial situation. (One old lady paid him with her canary. She insisted! Dicky Bird lived with us for years by the window in the laundry) His patients were "real people". Blue collar people. Working people. He set bones, lanced boils, took out your gall bladder or appendix, took your X-rays in his office and "souped" them, while you dressed. Medical attention wasn't ever cheap. But, it was never too expensive either. There was the county hospital if you couldn't afford a private hospital. Your doctor treated you at that county hospital. The county hospital would call doctors around the city to treat patients that just arrived, (without referral). County hospital work was usually "Pro Bono" as the lawyers say.
…to be continued.
I don't think all liberals are psychopaths, nor do I think that all people who hold moral opinions I disagree with are psychopaths. But a detached intellectual approach to morality or emotional distancing can produce psychopathic thinking regardless of a person's psychopaths, which is why I've also seen hard-cover Objectivists and Libertarians talking like psychopaths and have tangled with people on the right online advocating, among other things, genocide against a billion Muslims so they could feel safe. Stop thinking about people as real human beings and there is no limit to what's on the table. But Objectivists and Libertarians don't control the public schools and colleges, nor do genocidal right-wingers. People like Peter Singer do.
…continued….
The point I am trying to make is that this all worked. Everyone got taken care of and in a manner they could afford. When did this begin to change? In the early 60's. And it's gotten worse every year since. My Dad and I talked on occasion about me going "into the business" and takeing over his practice. He said he could pay my way through Stanford or any other good medical school should I decide. But, we went on to say, he didn't recommend I do so. He said that I would never be able to take care of my patients as I saw he did. The lawyers, insurance companies and politicians would never allow me to do what I thought was best. His phrase was, "It's not going to be a good business". From what I have seen, he was right.
..to be continued.
..continued. (for the last phuckinng time I hope)
Just as the role of a union is to put it's "business" out of business, the role of Government run healthcare is to put private medicine out of business. Just as a union raises costs and make its business uncompetitive, the Government does the same. Death Panels and rationing? The least of our problem. I have no idea what to do about it but "pucker-up" to about a 10 and hope it doesn't hurt too much.
Political Correctness, Multicultureism, Afirmative Action, Social Justice and the "redistribution" talk all lead to mediocrity. (That movie Idiocracy? It wasn't a comedy. It was document!)
What-the-hell. Good luck to us all……
Do you have any specific examples of this? Why are the examples always hypothetical and abstract like this?
I mean, if the insurance situation is really as dire as people pretend and given the narrative being pushed by the mainstream media, you would think there would be no shortage of clear examples of people unjustly denied coverage, yet the best the advocates of "healthcare reform" could find to use as examples were mild, misleading, or actually false. Why is that, exactly? If this is such a huge problem, why is it so hard to find good examples of the problem?
You have just explained National Socialism to a tee.
I have for years thought it amusing, in a sick sort of way, that the Progressives always called Capitalists Facists or Nazis when Progressives themselves are National Socialists. I always chalked up up to stupidity and like stupid things, fade away. I guess I was wrong…… about the "fading away" part.
Well bless your little conspiratorial heart. If you believe the libs control schools in my little slice of Texas heaven, come on down and I'll give you the tour.
It's a blog Q… we all generalize to keep from having to type long posts that no one will read. But here you go:
For an example of what Americans face from health care companies, how about the woman in Colorado last summer who birthed a fat baby. Perfectly healthy, but he was off the CDC growth chart (and he was a big boy!). Now most of us have babies and the are automatically covered by our family policy, but this company sent the family a letter to declare they would not insure the child. Nothing personal against fat babies, but just a matter of policy.
Now sadly for the insurance company, the boy's Dad owned a radio station and had a platform to take the issue public. So after being savaged in the media, the company announced they would insure the child (I forget what became of the company growth chart policy). Most of us do not have access to the airwaves and would end up fighting that company until that fat little boy grew up to take his rightful place in our overweight society.
Don't like that one? How about the lady in Florida who was raped and prescribed and at the ER the doc prescribed a 30 prophylactic treatment of HIV inhibitors. She completed the treatment and did not contract the disease, but was dropped by her insurance company who has a policy of not insuring anyone who has ever been treated with HIV drug, regardless of whether or not they are HIV positive.
Perhaps you don't have anecdotal stories of sick or injured friends or relatives falling though coverage gaps, but most of us have several. Like I can tell you about my friend Heidi who was 42 and showed up at the ER on New Years eve with stomach pains and and no health insurance. She was told she needed gall bladder surgery and would have to be transferred to the Lubbock Medical center because the the surgeon would not accept Medicaid. She was sent home with pain meds where she died the next day when her gall bladder ruptured. We buried her last Tuesday. http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/jan/02/heid...
My wife works for a small construction company that installs granite counter tops. Last summer they canceled their health insurance and left 25 people and their families without any affordable insurance options. If didn't affect the owner of the company who is married to a nurse and got his insurance through her. He told his people to be thankful they still have a job.
I will run out of day before I run out of examples.
Well said Milo. In my limited experience as a doctor I've seen patient visit rates skyrocket as a result of government mandated regulation within not only the insurance industry, but micromanagement within the healing arts directly. The 'Midas' effect of 'Atlas Shrugged' is rapidly decimating the health care industry as senior doctors are resigning and retiring in disgust, and younger doctors are returning to cash-only practices.
Will the American people eventually wake up an leap from the pot, or will they sucumb to the slow boil of socializm? I fear for my children and for an America I once believed in.
If worse came to worse, there was Cook County Hospital in Chicago for
people who couldn't afford healthcare. I think your implication that
my mother would have been heartless and watch one of us die is out of
line…Why does that bother you that I gave my mother that complement?
What I was saying was, she never looked for a handout….Back then
you paid the physician and hospital on your own, you could set-up
an account and make payments..I'm sure she would have asked for
help if there was that need, but she also would have tried to contribute
what she could.
I know you liberals try to twist the debate with inuendos, and emotion
but I'm not biting..Like I said in my post to Red, families helped each other
back then..Now the government gets into everything….I believe with my heart
that government has torn our families apart with their intervention ..You believe
what you want to believe, and I'll believe what I want….
If our Insurance Company rationed us when my husband had an11 day stay,
in the hospital, we were'nt aware of it…And, NO we didn't have Medicare or
Medicaid!!
I've got to leave, now. I want to check Glenn Becks' ARGUING WITH IDIOTS
to see if he mentioned you.
I don't want to deny you your fond childhood memories. But you want to use them as examples for why we don't need to reform health care policy.
You said she never depended on a handout. So I pointed out the obvious… she was fortunate that she never had too. Like the rest of us, she would have done whatever was necessary to protect her children.
I grew up in the 50s and 60s and am aware how health care was financed. But times have changed.
I'll do more than believe what I want. I'll work to ensure my beliefs are converted into health care reform
Tell Glenn that mika said YO.
Odds are good you will someday enroll in Medicare and even Medicaid if you live long enough. Like your Mom you should swallow your right wing pride and accept the "government handout" that you have worked to support your entire life.
They were people off the street participating for a small amount money, if I remember right. Their religious affiliation was unknown and wasn't an issue in the study.
GREAT, GREAT ARTICLE!!!
Unfortunately, America, thanks to Roman Tradition, follows the GREEK THINKING model! For Instance, in 1520 the Pope asked the Spanish Priest in the "Vatican," Petrus Galavinus, to invent a "NAME" for the JEWISH MESSIAH that gave "HONOR" to the HIGHEST GREEK DEITY (That's how "Rome" did things), THUS CAME "JESUS" and the REST IS HISTORY! PS: THIS BREAKS THE 3rd COMMANDMENT BIG TIME! Again, it would help if "mik" is right, wouldn't it!!!
Milo, thanks for telling the story of your father and medical care of old.
My Dad, too, was an old-fashioned doc and obgyn til he passed in 1971. He was born in Sicily, smuggled in as a babe, and the only one of his 7 brothers and sisters to attend college. We led the same kind of life you described so well. We used to get a lot of home-grown tomatos, home-made wine, and out-grown clothes as payment.
I still miss him alot. Thanks again, Old Lady from New Jersey
They were Americans, which gives them about an 80 percent chance of being Christian.
It's been a long time since the William Shatner rendition on TV, but even more awful than the experiment, was Milgram's discovery that he was part of his own experiment. The testee shocks the actor on the other side of the glass. When the testee hesitates or refuses, the testor, (Milgram), insists, er, brow beats the testee into complying. People left in tears. Totally broken by what they did. Not many just refused and walked out. Perhaps I remember wrong. Scared me to death tho. I've tried to be a round peg ever since.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend Heidi. That is tragic. However, what I'm not reading on these blogs are any sense of "personal responsibility".
I will agree that there are definitely issues with the private insurance companies but like any other product or goods, you should be aware of what you pay for and apply critical thinking skills when purchasing an insurance plan.
The scenario with the lady in Florida who was raped and treated with HIV inhibitors, the insurance company should not be held accountable if in fact their policy stated they do not cover this type of treatment. Albeit, there's tons of policies with so many varied fine print restrictions (there in lies part of the problem) and I would venture to say given the state of mind of that poor woman who was raped can't be expected to think rationally at the time treatment decisions were being made, she still had some responsibility to raise the question with her Dr. to assure this was covered. If not, is there an alternative? Dr. offices, ER's etc… have staff set in place to investigate/confirm level of coverage and Doctors are often prepared to suggest alternatives. More often than not, people buy an insurance policy and then make a very bad and false assumption that insurance will just take care of it. Again, I go back to "personal responsibility". Know what you're paying for. You don't like it? Find one you do like. You can opt out of a company provided plan and venture off and get your own if you so choose. I've worked in healthcare for over 20 years and I can tell you the medicare/medicaid model is certainly not any rosier. Quite frankly I think medicare/medicaid was WAY worse simply because of all the bureaucratic BS baggage attached. Unrealistic timelines for ridiculously bloated paperwork requirements )probably just to secure jobs for lazy paper-pushing bureaucrats with a misguided sense of power and control. Regulations up the wazoo. Just trying to navigate and understand the bureaucratic paperwork from hell is enough to put someone in a "rubber room" for their own safety. Then they change the rules mid stream then they come back and haunt your facility 3 years later with an "oh, by the way, you owe medicare 7 million dollars because you performed procedures medicare did not approve". Oh, and by the way, that money is due in 45 days"! So does government know best? Can government do a better job than the private industry? I think not. They're too busy still trying to find their own ass and "connect the dots". Big Government=bureaucratic BS=More corruption and waste. I now work for a healthcare facility that DOES NOT take medicare/medicaid and as a healthcare provider, I couldn't be happier. We're way more focused, outcome oriented and way more efficient because we actually get to provide the services we were trained to do and not waste our time with nonsense paperwork! The patient is happy, the insurance is happy and the facility is happy. So where's the happy medium where all get coverage but NOT all are expected to be under the thumb of government. I absolutely do not want government in my life YET again! Enough is enough!
Well said Milo! Thank you for such a candid review.
Milo, thank you for posting this. You said it so well.
That was a really thoughtful reply. Hey, if you disagree with someone's statement, maybe a thoughtful argument against it might be useful instead of insults. Oh wait. Never mind. You're a liberal. What was I thinking?
A classical Liberal had an ideology based on individualism, freedom, private property rights and free market capitalism. Todays liberal is a statist, big govt. socialist. Thomas Jefferson communicated with laserlike percision the issue that are still baffles our nation with his aphorism "the smaller the govt. the more freedom and the larger the govt. the less freedom."
The point I think Rush is making by using the term feminazi, is that if diversity is such a great thin and we all have to be tolerant of others opinions, how come people of the alternative lifestyle community dont have to be tolerant of those who have the opinion that their alt. lifestyles are wrong. Its seems that they are not tolerant of the beliefs of people that dont agree with them.
Einstein was a socialist I have read his essays where he argues the superiority of the socialist economic system. It just goes to show you that being a genious in psysics dosent make you a genius in economics. Capitalism is a superior, more efficient system than socialism. Currently one has to only look at Venizuela and their president chavez just devalued their currency by 50 %, the govt. has stolen 50% of everything the People have, socialist theif!
But isn't suicide the only option they gave her?
Laughable. If a family cannot afford steak for dinner every night, and the choice is made to have steak once a week, that is not rationing, its budgeting. If the government says you can have steak only once a week, that is rationing.
Unfortunately, the nature of the contract between insurance companies and the consumer is frequently dictated by government, so in there is any rationing done, its being done by the only authority that can impose rationing.
Mine passed in 1973. I miss him every day.
No thanks. Due to anthropogenic global warming we've had our fill of snow. Get back with us when you have something substantive to say.
Sure reads that way, and the rationing criteria will keep get dumbed down because of increasing cost-insensitive demand and decreasing supply.
Market equilibrium will take care of such issues. Ethanol is a make-work excuse for more government intrusion into the marketplace.
Few are saying that the health care system does not need reform. Going to a freer market-based approach will benefit everyone.
That's called circular logic, and it's a FAIL.
Sort of like talking about dirty Jew Hollywood execs.
Good post freedom… you articulate your position skillfully… well said.
This comment got what it deserved… mocking.
I've never known suicide to be the only option ever… so let's just say I'm skeptical.
Perhaps. Markets are not perfect and there is not a lot of room for interruptions in our food supply. And remember, when our markets give us a runny nose, people in the third world get phenomena .
So it is not always practical to maintain ideological purity when lives are in immediate danger.
Been tried… that is why we are having this discussion. Had it worked to provide affordable health care to all Americans we would be as happy with it as we are our computer manufacturing industry.
But the industry has managed to create regional monopolies that have prevented any kind of meaningful competition. That is going to change. Our current cost trajectory is unsustainable.
While it is true that Insurance companies have actuaries and people conducting cost effective analysis, they have to base their decisions on governmental regulations and base their payments based on the government generated RBVS. RBVS stands for the relative based value system, which produces a base payment for a medical procedure that is in-turn assigned a CPT code. Instead, of letting the free market decide on what the cost of reimbursement for a physician, the government sets the rates. And since the CPT (current procedure term) is termed in certain regulated acts, the government forces the insurance companies to regulate services to comply with federal restrictions. If the government would just remove itself completely, the cost of healthcare would go down.
I was responding to a silly argument. It would be like me saying that since my car started up for me this morning it will always start. Anecdotal stories can be fine to illustrate a point, but they fail as the basis for policy decisions.
We were discussing a famous behavioral experiment. Not sure what people in Hollywood have to do with it.
NOBODY refused to give the first shock.
I was talking about cheap shots taken at those of indeterminate faith, in order to score a (negative) political point.
And you were, too.
You are arguing from facts not in your favor. The regional monopolies arose specifically because of government interference. Why else would congressional leftists use the threat of eliminating anti-trust protections from the insurance industry, if it didn't toe the line?
Hardly a compelling counter argument. Essentially: Nyaah nyaah!
When we deal with the Russians or North Koreans or Iran we have to "trust, but verify". Same is true for corporate citizens in this country.
What you're doing is throwing irrelevant brickbats, then pretending that the comment to which you are responding to is as vacuous as your own comments.
It's a dishonest and childish rhetorical trick.
Like I said, FAIL.
Now you're just talking to hear yourself talk.
And it's ad hominem, even if you don't use four letter words, BTW.
Protecting us from enemies (yes, foreign and domestic) is a legitimate function of the federal government.
You probably won't get it until you stop think of insurance companies as the enemy. The mentality seems pretty well ingrained, though.
Awkward, but point taken.
Socialized medicine is rationed everywhere it’s practiced, and the quality of care has gone down as well, these facts are irrefutable.
Just as Global Warming, both are thinly disguised ploys to redistribute the wealth.
There is plenty of blame to go around. The problem now is what to do. Only one party is even interested in health care reform so we will go with them. There are structural problems that arise we can fix them later.
They are not the enemy. But their objectives are not the same as mine. They are dedicated to make a profit, not affordable health care delivery.
I stand by my post.
I do love me some mikatollah.
Here is the situation, as I see it: The Progressives, Marxists, Fascists, Socialists, or Communists are all under the general category of Statists. To them the State is everything and the individual expendable, for the good of the state. Only members of the "party" are enlightened enough to belong to the ruling Mind, or government.
They view the masses as one body that is strictly for the purpose of fulfilling the states physical needs. There is no inherent value in any one individual, other than as a willing cell in the political body. There is no merit to any individual life dreams, or purpose, unless it is in lock step with the Party's dictates.
As we do with our bodies, the Statists feel entirely justified removing what they deem politically diseased organs and limbs. We could call this operation, henceforth, humanectomies. Or we could call it "very late term abortions".
Rather than overtly killing the undesirables, they can use Denied Care, rationalized by Death Panels to put the Human Mass on the Holdren-Malthusian crash diet. Many of us are then sacrified for the good of the state.
to be continued
You could say Singer proposes allowing abortion in the 4th trimester.
You are willfully ignoring the fact that insurance companies do not drive the cost of health care. Doctors, hospitals, deadbeat patients and lawyers do that.
continued
The selfishness of evil has to be defeated by altruism, and self sacrifice. We, as the individual cells of this body called the United States, have got to have the courage, commitment, and resolve to defeat the Progressives, and their rapacious lust for political power.
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" John 15:13
Agree with your position on eugenics/euthanasia. My colleagues and myself did not sign up for the 'Platonic' approach. Perhaps it is regional. I have spoken to several docs/colleagues who assert that if forced to unnecessarily take the life of a patient by government mandate, they would refuse/retire. I am one of them. Note that the most likely to retire are the ones with the largest practices due to their seniority. This alone will create an access crisis nearly immediately.
For-profit insurance drains 200 to 300 billion in profits out of the delivery system each year.
Health care delivery is no different than police or fire protection. And just like we don't try to squeeze profits out of those agencies, we should not expect to divert huge chunks of health care dollars to pay for shareholder profits.
Health care was largely a non profit enterprise prior to the Nixon administration. We were told then that if we make it for profit it would increase competition and drive costs down. So parts of Blue Cross Blue shield switched and a bunch of regional insurance companies jumped on the gravy train.
Then in the 80s we were sold on economies of scale in the form of HMOs by the same people. That one even made sense to me. But by 1994 it was clear that any savings was not going into health care delivery.
So I would like to see us go back to a combination system of health care delivery of non profit corporations and the entire thing regulated like a public utility. If that fails, the only thing left is reducing the eligible age for Medicare to zero (part "E").
Brother, you must have struck a nerve. I gave you your thumbs back!
True this. To assure the food supply we have nationalized, to a certain degree, agriculture. What bugs me about corn ethanol is that driving my car on ethanol can deny starving folks food by the increase in price. Hope we can get ethanol from kelp soon.
Everything in this post is wrong. I would love to refute it all immediately, but it is getting late. I will have to continue your education tomorrow. Perhaps in the interim you could provide some supporting data for these wild claims. I'm not expecting it though, because I already know it doesn't exist.
Market-based health insurance reform has been proposed. It has not been tried. The industry has been tied down by regional regulations and has been vilified by its failure to perform. The Republican proposal has NOT been tried, and is based on market principles. Only the private sector portion of the health insurance market has trimmed costs in the most recently measured year. Medicare has soared. To think that government (non)oversight and top-down management is the answer to increasing costs is to ignore all existing real world evidence. No government managed program has failed to grow incessantly. Some have grown large enough to threaten the global economy…Saalie Mae and Freddie Mac. No good will come of this.
Sorry, I don't have time to educate you either. You'll just have to look it up for yourself.
It is not only rationing of care that concerns me. Soon, our high school grads will be forced (if they require government loans for school – you do know the government took over school loans, right?) into medical careers for which they have no aptitude – no calling – to fill a quota for health care "workers". Thus, the medical field becomes a 9 to 5 job full of clock-watchers and thumb-twiddlers who can't wait to exit the building. You get sick on a Sunday morning? Good luck. Think of the DMV. Not to mention Furlough Fridays to conserve costs. No medical care on Fridays!!!
Remember the doctor in the UK who allowed a premature infant to die without treatment because he was born ONE DAY before the guidelines of care timeframe given though the government?
Your right wing concern for your children is touching Tom. Perhaps you could save some of that for the children of others. I understand that you've got health insurance now and don't feel any compulsion to see that others have that same access, but try and remember it is not the fault of the kids when their parents lose their jobs.
Health care delivery should be treated like a public utility and regulated accordingly.
My mother, may she rest in peace, said she would never have given the first shock. She was a committed Christian. I believed her.
Insurance companies hire thousands of people whose job it is to deny your coverage. They even get bonuses based on who it the top "earner".
===================
So Mik, how do you respond to the fact that Medicare has the _highest_ rejection rate of coverage denial (even more than any of those "evil" insurance companies?
From the American Medical Association…
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/re...
So you're happy going from a private insurer, who is LESS likely to reject you, to go to a government plan that is _More_ likely to reject you?
Nothing like blind faith.
Belief in government?
My interpretation of your argument is this:
At least the government is up front about death panels except for the fact that they don't want them labeled death panels.
Why am I not surprised.
In other words, my mind is made up, don't bother me with facts.
After viewing some of your other posts, I'm not convinced.
It has less to do with ideology than reality. Let not perfection be the enemy of the merely good.
"…people in the third world get phenomena. [emphasis mine]"
Um, yeah.
If Republicans were in control of congress and the presidency we could try it their way. When they had the power they did nothing and now have refused to participate if they don't get their way. So, that brings us to 2010. Now we get a reform bill that Republicans don't like.
They should have thought of that in 2005 when they could have done something about it.
I much more sensible approach to obtaining fuel from agricultural products, or any other organic feedstock for that matter, is thermal depolymerization. It can use waste, leaving the corn, or other fermentable grains, to better use.
(Of course, fermentation for direct human consumption is one of those better uses)
Another standard issue leftist talking point. 20/20 priority hindsight once the dems can dictate what the priorities are.
Thing is, once the full details of the atrocity become known, and the SCOTUS finally declares it an unconstitutional mess, the dems will own it.
That you would stand by a post both dishonest and childish is of little surprise.
"Health care delivery should be treated like a public utility and regulated accordingly. "
No, it shouldn't. Public utilities, when they are monopolistic, are such because of practical expediency. If you had hundreds of competing electric companies, all running their supply lines separately, every street would look like a badly crocheted trivet.
Medical care, on the other hand, is supplied primarily through thousands of mobile, and nominally independent service providers. They may contract with less mobile contractors for access to equipment such as MRIs and surgical theaters, but even those resources are not subject to the realities of roads, water, and electricity.
More mindless ad hominem drivel.
As a physician, I can relate to the sense of duty to the profession elegantly summarized by Milo. That you see it as no different than the public servant at the DMV says more than you know about you. I'll leave the psychoanalysis to others (I've read your other posts — there is a lot of psychoanalysis that's possible here), but suffice it to say that you are not qualified to participate in this conversation.
And no, mikatollah, that's not right wing hatred speaking — it's just a simple statement of fact. I'm not the same as the guy at the DMV. Neither was Milo's dad. If you can't see that, then at least have the dignity to remain silent.
You are always welcome to try and change my minds. I'm putting myself out here and letting everyone take a shot at it. But I'm not going to do the work for you.
Good luck with that… you'll need it.
Now you are getting boorish red… and predictable. You and I probably aren't going to get much more accomplished on this list. But thanks for playing.
Hmmm… I learned about you the other day. Too bad these posts and threads don't stay open long enough for me to get back to you on this. I am curious though: Would I have to change your "minds" one at a time or is it a group package? LOL. Have a good evening!
With the "minds" thing and the mismatched pronouns, I'm not sure what his last post was supposed to mean.
Heh. I see you got the little "blue bubble" also.
I don't know about altruism as a tool to defeat evil. I think one has to withdraw from supporting evil or that which supports evil. (They always make it hard) You need a sense of responisbility and to only do what you know to be right and that which has to be done.
Wasn't there someone who asked, "If not me, who? If not now, when?" Kinda like that I think. But you gotta be on the lookout for those "slick talkers" trying to get you do wrong for the greater good. (You can generally recognize them by the threats they utter) Like I've said, I haven't a clue as what to do about our situation. Buy guns, ammo and MREs? Unless this get turned around I think it'll come to that.
Just another meaningless through away post? Need what?
You seem to believe your profession gives you some kind of unique insight to the health care debate Tom. It doesn't. You are just one more right wing opinion and no different from others on this list. You're bias against any government solution makes you part of the problem.
I get pretty good service at the DMV. You should try and be at least that responsive to customer needs.
Ah. I'm being boorish. Pot, meet kettle.
Probably not. My "minds" are made up…
Who's cherry picking?
I used your choice of words, MIkatollah…
"Insurance companies hire thousands of people whose job it is to deny your coverage"
You wrote that… not me. So we're using _Denied_ claims/percentage.
Metric 12
Percentages of claim lines denied
According to the socialists, "Nobody will be denied under a govt plan"… so why is it that Medicare is the WORST of the lot? (Yes, Aetna is right behind them… but they're the _only_ insurance company that is close…. but hey, the govt can say "we're only a little bit worse than Aetna?")
In fact, let's point out that Medicare had 95 listed reasons for denying a claim. 95. Aetna – 31.
But hey, you go on believing that you're getting a better choice/option from Medicare. (Note, I'm no fan of Medicare either… so no hypocrisy for me here..)
So again, you want to again answer why you're happy going to a govt plan when private insurers are more likely to accept your claim?
This is far from an area I would consider myself an expert on, but I think you are failing to take into account two key factors: First, medical technology has exploded in terms of advanced treatments. This is directly attributable to the "profit motive" as many intelligent people saw an opportunity to apply their intelligence in a way that solved real problems for real people, while allowing them to "do well" for having "done good". Second, I am a bit younger than you (based on prior exchanges), but I am keenly aware of an advance of the "entitlement mentality" in our society. People seem to believe that they are owed something for paying health insurance premiums instead of viewing it as a form of protection against catastrophic loss. Not true of our auto or homeowner's policies. I had to pay for my leaky roof a few years ago, why wasn't it "covered"?
As for "health care" being a largely non-profit enterprise prior to Nixon, this is a confusion of terms and concepts. "Health care", as with all businesses, has always been a for profit enterprise. It was "health insurance" that was non-profit in the sense that it was provided through "mutual insurance" companies in which the policy holders were also the "owners" of the company administering the benefits. Under this arrangement, policy holders earned "dividends" if the premiums paid in exceeded the claims paid out. If the claims exceeded the premium and expenses, rates went up. None of these "mutual" policies covered all of the things covered in modern policies. Also, they were not subject to pressure groups and government coercion as to what the coverage afforded by the policy was to be. Way different environment!
HMO's were a crap concept from the get go. This was centralized command and control corporate for-profit "medicine" from the word go. A very bad idea!
As for Police and Fire? Revisit the concept of "mutual insurance".
Have a blessed evening!
You seem to think you have some unique insight, but your constant recourse to dem talking points, responding to posts with childish barbs then attempting to justify your comments reciprocal, and use of hackneyed leftist phraseology ("…part of the problem…") says otherwise.
I'll pass on the DMV grade medical care, thanks. I've seen exposes on the DMV grade care in Canada. It's scary as hell. (I know, I know…right wing propaganda…part of the problem…blah blah blah…)
Ok. I'll try. Now go take a number and get back in line.
Long post. Why don't you register so you can do it all at once? I think where it all went wrong for folks like your father was when then lawyers and the pressure groups got their paws in on the action. Took all the honor and humanity out of the system. Used to be barter and trade amongst the highly trained physician and his community, people he actually "cared" not just for, but about? Sad.
Because I think that if you were right and I was wrong, health care would be a management problem and not a political problem.
Seriously, you think that doctors have no particular insights of value in the healthcare dialogue?
I think you have glaringly illustrated the point that it is generally "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt".
Now you're just talking to hear yourself talk.
Now he's just talking to hear himself talk?!
I think those of you who are interested in looking for solutions and not get hung up on ideology can be a great help. All of you see the problems, but not all of you are willing to embrace change.
Silent? I am hardly silent about my views on health care delivery reform. They are out there for anyone who cares to read them. You aren't going to like them and that is not surprising. We see the world differently.
Insurance does cover "that". No equipment or supplies will be "delivered" unless someone pays for them. No one will seek to improve on what we have unless there is a financial reward in it for them. People will seek to cut each other out if there is a financial incentive involved (HMO's?). Sorry, just that it's a rule of human nature. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained"? How about "Nothing to gain? No reason to venture". You might be one of the nicest guys in the world and have a sincere desire to help your fellow man. All that means is that far more people are not nearly as nice as you and are more interested in securing their own well being. Not selfish, just normal. I go to work because I get paid, not because I love my customers. Any good feeling toward them follows instead of preceding my own sense of well-being. I deal with enough parasites to know the difference.
The money used to cover the cost of treatment is not going to change. What needs to change is the amount of money the middleman cuts out of the process in profits. Insurance companies charge us over 20 percent of our health care dollars just in profits. Insurance profits, not hospital profits or medical service profits.
Medicare delivers the same service for less than 3 percent. The reason insurance companies are spending 7 million dollars a day to fight reform in congress is not to protect the quality of health care for consumers. It is to protect their privileged positions and fat profits. It the senate version passes as it is currently written it is going to eliminate Medicare part A which is nothing but a giveaway of Medicare funds to the insurance industry with guaranteed profits. Republicans always complain we never kill a government program, but we are going to kill this one.
We are beyond reconciliation on this one. We will simply have to agree that I am right and you are wrong. Not acceptable? Well, then may we have a productive debate on another topic at a later date. Enjoy your posts, hope you feel the same…
Mik is a good guy, just a little misguided on some issues. Debate him with logic, reason and facts and he is a lot of fun. You might not persuade him, but you will probably have fun in the process. He seems honest to me. I fact check him and it tends to reinforce for me that I am usually correct in fact and opinion. Better than the absolute nuts sometimes found in these postings. Wouldn't mind having a cold one with him sometime…
Oh, by the way, LOVE the moniker! Red, White and Jew! Awesome! For the record, I am not religious. I think Ayn Rand rocks, and I am certain that freedom of conscience is #1 with 2nd amendment rights being .00001 percent (actually less) behind. It's not really yours if you can't defend it!
Never heard of the Shriners' hospitals, have you?
They don't charge for the care give, which is excellent.
Do you always type one handed, as you read your own prose?
Medicare doesn't cover the true expenses of what is delivered to the patient and should Obama Care be pushed through, 1/2 a trillion dollars will be taken away from it.
Health insurance isn't a right.
Health care isn't a charity.
And you don't know nor understand one singled thing about this topic.
Should there be some reforms? Yes; just not the socalled "reforms" that the Dems are passing opff as "reform", but in truth, are the ruination of what Americans are used to getting.
If, as you state, Medicare part A will be done away with, it won't mean a damned thing to insurance firms.
It is patently obvious, Mik, that you know little to nothing about Medicare; nor much else.
I think screening for rationed care for medicare patients began last year. A questioner given to patients receiving yearly physicals asks pertinent as well as intrusive questions about medical history, personal habits and life styles. Death panels may not be so far fetched. After all, if I admit to not wearing a seat belt will they decide not to treat me after a traffic accident?
Not my best effort… we agree.
Not surprising that when you start with a false premise, you end with an erroneous conclusion.
Just a the computer industry you mentioned in another thread, is interested in profits. Just as any industry, operating in relatively free markets is interested in profits.
The word profit is becoming the new "reactionary."
Ah, yes. I see your point.
Thank you, QA_NJ. I read it with great interest. It all rings true.
I looked at your link for the 2008 report card. It contained 14 separate metrics and you cherry-picked the only one that makes your point. When you look at the whole picture, Medicare compared to the others very favorably.
And they don't cancel you if you get sick.
You zinged me Red… another good one.
Ok Tom THAT was a good one… you got me.
We were talking about health care delivery. Nothing will change in the medical equipment and supply industry. Insurance doesn't cover that.
You haven't impressed me yet either red.
Let's just say that I'm right and you think you're right…
See ya.
Thank you for the examples. I think specific examples better highlight the problem than hypothetical or idealized examples because they highlight specific problems with the system.
Really? My last visit to the DMV took 4 hours and there were other people who had been there all day.
A lot to think about here rover.
Unregulated markets are not free. Without oversight we risk losing public trust in our financial system and without that trust the system grinds to a halt. No one will intentionally puts money where it can be stolen.
The government has a very legitimate function in our economy. It acts as the ref at a basketball game. Like games, markets need rules to function, and without someone to enforce the rules they are meaningless.
We spent 10 years deregulating markets and underfunding oversight. The Fed is charged with oversight of member banks and under Alan Greenspan they have used a more handsoff approach since before the Great Depression. When banking liquidity dried up in 2008 Greenspan was asked how this happened and why didn't we see it coming. He said he misjudged the market's ability to regulate itself. He believed that rational actors working in their best interest would steer the market away from inappropriate investments and risk.
Lots of rational people support health care reform. Let's not get into one of those circular arguments where, "no rational people support reform and if you support reform you are not rational.
It's really not that hard to figure out. Just take a look at socialized medicine around the world and you start to get an idea about what will happen in America. Of course in this country our govt takes bureaucracy to the extreme and typically spends as much money maintaining that bureaucracy as it does on the program itself.
It was a joke mellie… Neither my, nor your anecdotal experiences getting our DLs will have any affect on health care reform.
Regarding Princeton, it truly has fallen far since its first president, Presbyterian minister Samuel Davies! The analogy with Sparta likewise echoes well – we focus on decadence rather than strength.
Nobody, NOBODY but you, are impressed by your posts; precious. Yet many like what I post.
Frankly, I'm not here to "impress" anyone", but perhaps you are here for validation. .
Years ago doctors did a "history" of any new patient, (customer). The doctor would update this history from time to time, ie, everytime he saw you. This was very important both to the doctor and the patient as over the years things can get forgotten or confused. Anyway, this first history was done in a conversational manner in the doctor's office and usually took quite some time. Details were really important so s lot of times relatives were consulted, like mothers, for example, who always seem to remember exactly how old you were and exactly what childhood diseases you had and what was done and by who. A "questionare" was out of the question. This information was held in confidence by the doctor. The information in it could save your life.
I realize that we are living in a new world now. More's the shame.
Don't be too troubled, mellie1. Mikatollah's posts are almost always jokes, whether intended, or not.
Some kind of rationing is inevitable whether our health coverage is public or private. No entity, especially the US government (which is slipping further and further toward bankruptcy) has the resources to keep everyone alive indefinitely, though medical technology keeps advancing toward that goal. As we're forced to say "no" to more people, thoughts of infanticide or euthanasia as a means of cost containment start to sound less unthinkable. This doesn't bother me; the thought of rotting away in some hell hole or becoming a ruinous burden on resentful family members scares me a lot more. But we should preserve a supplemental private health insurance system so those who don't want to live with the restrictions set by their primary insurer (be it Medicare, VA, Cigna, Blue Cross, etc.) can escape them, though they had better arrive with plenty of cash.
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
Hi there! Wonderful concept, but could this genuinely perform?
OMA