HRC Unveils "New" Mandatory Health Program - "Free", Yea SURE Hill ...

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen.

Hillary Clinton announced a $110 billion health care reform plan

Monday that would require all Americans to have health insurance.

"Here in America people are dying" because they lack health insurance,

Sen. Hillary Clinton said Monday.

Clinton unveiled her "American Health Choices Plan," during a

high-profile speech at a hospital in the key campaign state of Iowa,

surrounded by supporters, American flags and campaign banners.

"Here in America people are dying because they couldn't get the care

they needed when they were sick.

"I'm here today because I believe it is long past time that this

nation had an answer," Clinton said. "I believe America is ready for

change.

"It's time to provide quality affordable health care for every

American," Clinton said. "And I intend to be the president who

accomplishes that goal finally for our country."

A Clinton adviser compares the plan's "individual mandate" -- which

requires everyone to have health insurance -- to current rules in most

states that require all drivers to purchase auto insurance, according

to The Associated Press

..

..

"If you liked Michael Moore's 'Sicko,' you're going to love

HillaryCare 2.0," said the Giuliani statement. "Senator Clinton's

latest health scheme includes more government mandates, expensive

federal subsidies and more big bureaucracy -- in short, a prescription

for an increase in wait times, a decrease in patient care and tax

hikes to pay for it all."

- - - - -

Don't you just love how often "liberals" use the

term "mandatory" ?

Even thus, Hills plan isn't as evil as Edwards ... he

wants to force YOU to get medical examinations whether

you want to or not. Some of those stricter anti-tech

religious groups oughtta love that one too ... rather

stick a fork in Eddies eye than get probed by doctors.

Of course maybe HRCs plan would rapidly devolve into

medical totalitarianism ... she ain't saying.

Rudy probably has it right in this case ... but I'd

have phrased it "If you loved FEMA, you'll love

HillaryCare2". FEMA showed us exactly how competent

big government endeavours can be .....

"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message

news:46efbb4b.90417484@news.east.earthlink.net...

> DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen.

> Hillary Clinton announced a $110 billion health care reform plan

> Monday that would require all Americans to have health insurance.

>

> "Here in America people are dying" because they lack health insurance,

> Sen. Hillary Clinton said Monday.

>

> Clinton unveiled her "American Health Choices Plan," during a

> high-profile speech at a hospital in the key campaign state of Iowa,

> surrounded by supporters, American flags and campaign banners.

>

> "Here in America people are dying because they couldn't get the care

> they needed when they were sick.

>

> "I'm here today because I believe it is long past time that this

> nation had an answer," Clinton said. "I believe America is ready for

> change.

>

> "It's time to provide quality affordable health care for every

> American," Clinton said. "And I intend to be the president who

> accomplishes that goal finally for our country."

>

> A Clinton adviser compares the plan's "individual mandate" -- which

> requires everyone to have health insurance -- to current rules in most

> states that require all drivers to purchase auto insurance, according

> to The Associated Press

> .

> .

> "If you liked Michael Moore's 'Sicko,' you're going to love

> HillaryCare 2.0," said the Giuliani statement. "Senator Clinton's

> latest health scheme includes more government mandates, expensive

> federal subsidies and more big bureaucracy -- in short, a prescription

> for an increase in wait times, a decrease in patient care and tax

> hikes to pay for it all."

>

> - - - - -

>

> Don't you just love how often "liberals" use the

> term "mandatory" ?

>

> Even thus, Hills plan isn't as evil as Edwards ... he

> wants to force YOU to get medical examinations whether

> you want to or not. Some of those stricter anti-tech

> religious groups oughtta love that one too ... rather

> stick a fork in Eddies eye than get probed by doctors.

>

> Of course maybe HRCs plan would rapidly devolve into

> medical totalitarianism ... she ain't saying.

>

> Rudy probably has it right in this case ... but I'd

> have phrased it "If you loved FEMA, you'll love

> HillaryCare2". FEMA showed us exactly how competent

> big government endeavours can be .....

>

It's called America Health Choices Plan but it calls for mandatory

insurance. Some choice. Welcome to 4 more years of Orwellian propoganda if

Hillary is elected.

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:07:38 -0500, "Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com>

wrote:

>

>"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message

>news:46efbb4b.90417484@news.east.earthlink.net...

>> DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen.

>> Hillary Clinton announced a $110 billion health care reform plan

>> Monday that would require all Americans to have health insurance.

>>

>> "Here in America people are dying" because they lack health insurance,

>> Sen. Hillary Clinton said Monday.

>>

>> Clinton unveiled her "American Health Choices Plan," during a

>> high-profile speech at a hospital in the key campaign state of Iowa,

>> surrounded by supporters, American flags and campaign banners.

>>

>> "Here in America people are dying because they couldn't get the care

>> they needed when they were sick.

>>

>> "I'm here today because I believe it is long past time that this

>> nation had an answer," Clinton said. "I believe America is ready for

>> change.

>>

>> "It's time to provide quality affordable health care for every

>> American," Clinton said. "And I intend to be the president who

>> accomplishes that goal finally for our country."

>>

>> A Clinton adviser compares the plan's "individual mandate" -- which

>> requires everyone to have health insurance -- to current rules in most

>> states that require all drivers to purchase auto insurance, according

>> to The Associated Press

>> .

>> .

>> "If you liked Michael Moore's 'Sicko,' you're going to love

>> HillaryCare 2.0," said the Giuliani statement. "Senator Clinton's

>> latest health scheme includes more government mandates, expensive

>> federal subsidies and more big bureaucracy -- in short, a prescription

>> for an increase in wait times, a decrease in patient care and tax

>> hikes to pay for it all."

>>

>> - - - - -

>>

>> Don't you just love how often "liberals" use the

>> term "mandatory" ?

>>

>> Even thus, Hills plan isn't as evil as Edwards ... he

>> wants to force YOU to get medical examinations whether

>> you want to or not. Some of those stricter anti-tech

>> religious groups oughtta love that one too ... rather

>> stick a fork in Eddies eye than get probed by doctors.

>>

>> Of course maybe HRCs plan would rapidly devolve into

>> medical totalitarianism ... she ain't saying.

>>

>> Rudy probably has it right in this case ... but I'd

>> have phrased it "If you loved FEMA, you'll love

>> HillaryCare2". FEMA showed us exactly how competent

>> big government endeavours can be .....

>>

>

>It's called America Health Choices Plan but it calls for mandatory

>insurance. Some choice. Welcome to 4 more years of Orwellian propoganda if

>Hillary is elected.

Yuk ... we've just had seven years of that already !

I don't think I could stand another four.

It's ethically mandatory for employers to provide

a halfway decent health plan already - always has been.

Of course, some of the smaller employers just can't ,

the insurance companies won't cut 'em a deal for five

or ten or even twenty employees.

Interesting how Hillary didn't go after the HMOs,

Big Pharma and a few of the other reasons health

care is so expensive in the first place ... just

employers. I guess the profit margins of the medical

sector are sacrosanct ...

In any event, a sort of medicare covering all of the

unemployed is acceptable even though medicare is

pretty screwed-up as is. As for employers, mandating

they enrich Big Med without taking a whittling knife

to Big Med first just plain sucks . Maybe HRC is

already getting kickbacks and campaign donations

from Big Med ?

As for employers and employees ... we can't have it all.

We can't bring home a big paycheck AND have all our meds

covered. We COULD have, in the 50's and 60s, but we've

destroyed or exported all our best moneymaking industries

since then. Even IF the CEOs earned as much as the

restroom custodian there wouldn't be enough money to

float big paychecks AND full medical in most businesses.

"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message

news:46f00a70.110678218@news.east.earthlink.net...

> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:07:38 -0500, "Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com>

> wrote:

>

>>

>>"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message

>>news:46efbb4b.90417484@news.east.earthlink.net...

>>> DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen.

>>> Hillary Clinton announced a $110 billion health care reform plan

>>> Monday that would require all Americans to have health insurance.

>>>

>>> "Here in America people are dying" because they lack health insurance,

>>> Sen. Hillary Clinton said Monday.

>>>

>>> Clinton unveiled her "American Health Choices Plan," during a

>>> high-profile speech at a hospital in the key campaign state of Iowa,

>>> surrounded by supporters, American flags and campaign banners.

>>>

>>> "Here in America people are dying because they couldn't get the care

>>> they needed when they were sick.

>>>

>>> "I'm here today because I believe it is long past time that this

>>> nation had an answer," Clinton said. "I believe America is ready for

>>> change.

>>>

>>> "It's time to provide quality affordable health care for every

>>> American," Clinton said. "And I intend to be the president who

>>> accomplishes that goal finally for our country."

>>>

>>> A Clinton adviser compares the plan's "individual mandate" -- which

>>> requires everyone to have health insurance -- to current rules in most

>>> states that require all drivers to purchase auto insurance, according

>>> to The Associated Press

>>> .

>>> .

>>> "If you liked Michael Moore's 'Sicko,' you're going to love

>>> HillaryCare 2.0," said the Giuliani statement. "Senator Clinton's

>>> latest health scheme includes more government mandates, expensive

>>> federal subsidies and more big bureaucracy -- in short, a prescription

>>> for an increase in wait times, a decrease in patient care and tax

>>> hikes to pay for it all."

>>>

>>> - - - - -

>>>

>>> Don't you just love how often "liberals" use the

>>> term "mandatory" ?

>>>

>>> Even thus, Hills plan isn't as evil as Edwards ... he

>>> wants to force YOU to get medical examinations whether

>>> you want to or not. Some of those stricter anti-tech

>>> religious groups oughtta love that one too ... rather

>>> stick a fork in Eddies eye than get probed by doctors.

>>>

>>> Of course maybe HRCs plan would rapidly devolve into

>>> medical totalitarianism ... she ain't saying.

>>>

>>> Rudy probably has it right in this case ... but I'd

>>> have phrased it "If you loved FEMA, you'll love

>>> HillaryCare2". FEMA showed us exactly how competent

>>> big government endeavours can be .....

>>>

>>

>>It's called America Health Choices Plan but it calls for mandatory

>>insurance. Some choice. Welcome to 4 more years of Orwellian propoganda

>>if

>>Hillary is elected.

>

> Yuk ... we've just had seven years of that already !

> I don't think I could stand another four.

>

> It's ethically mandatory for employers to provide

> a halfway decent health plan already - always has been.

> Of course, some of the smaller employers just can't ,

> the insurance companies won't cut 'em a deal for five

> or ten or even twenty employees.

>

> Interesting how Hillary didn't go after the HMOs,

> Big Pharma and a few of the other reasons health

> care is so expensive in the first place ... just

> employers. I guess the profit margins of the medical

> sector are sacrosanct ...

>

> In any event, a sort of medicare covering all of the

> unemployed is acceptable even though medicare is

> pretty screwed-up as is. As for employers, mandating

> they enrich Big Med without taking a whittling knife

> to Big Med first just plain sucks . Maybe HRC is

> already getting kickbacks and campaign donations

> from Big Med ?

>

> As for employers and employes ... we can't have it all.

> We can't bring home a big paycheck AND have all our meds

> covered. We COULD have, in the 50's and 60s, but we've

> destroyed or exported all our best moneymaking industries

> since then. Even IF the CEOs earned as much as the

> restroom custodian there wouldn't be enough money to

> float big paychecks AND full medical in most businesses.

>

there's nothing ethical about providing an extra benefit like healthcare.

Expanding a failed program like Medicare is bad government policy. I was

against it when Bush did it. Requiring people to buy health insurance won't

help either, and it's not a "choice" as Hillary claims.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:49:37 -0500, "Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com>

wrote:

(snip)

>there's nothing ethical about providing an extra benefit like healthcare.

>Expanding a failed program like Medicare is bad government policy. I was

>against it when Bush did it. Requiring people to buy health insurance won't

>help either, and it's not a "choice" as Hillary claims.

Medicare's a failure ?- 'splain it to me Lucy. It works on a lower

overhead than private insurers - the difference being MORE that the

profit margin. In 2002 the HMO industry made about $3 billion - this

jumped to over $11 billion in 2004 (Weiss Ratings). Seems to me that

the premium increases went right to the bottom line. The second myth

is that Medicare is more open to fraud - beep wrong. Both are just as

likely to be bilked. In fact many private insurers look at the cost to

get back fraudulent payments and forget it. Lastly what will happen to

the drug companies' mantra about loss of research and development if

their huge profits are reduced? Seems that they all spend twice as

much on marketing and advertising. Yup - let's let the private sector

continue to run healthcare. If you can afford it you live - if not,

well too damn bad.

WB Yeats

<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message

news:5uh2f31i4hirog7mq7d3eh7gdtfgttjb2a@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:49:37 -0500, "Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com>

> wrote:

>

> (snip)

>

>>there's nothing ethical about providing an extra benefit like healthcare.

>>Expanding a failed program like Medicare is bad government policy. I was

>>against it when Bush did it. Requiring people to buy health insurance

>>won't

>>help either, and it's not a "choice" as Hillary claims.

>

> Medicare's a failure ?- 'splain it to me Lucy. It works on a lower

> overhead than private insurers - the difference being MORE that the

> profit margin. In 2002 the HMO industry made about $3 billion - this

> jumped to over $11 billion in 2004 (Weiss Ratings). Seems to me that

> the premium increases went right to the bottom line. The second myth

> is that Medicare is more open to fraud - beep wrong. Both are just as

> likely to be bilked. In fact many private insurers look at the cost to

> get back fraudulent payments and forget it. Lastly what will happen to

> the drug companies' mantra about loss of research and development if

> their huge profits are reduced? Seems that they all spend twice as

> much on marketing and advertising. Yup - let's let the private sector

> continue to run healthcare. If you can afford it you live - if not,

> well too damn bad.

>

> WB Yeats

It will be insolvent in 30 years, that's the problem. At least the private

sector is solvent.

Taylor wrote:

> <wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message

> news:5uh2f31i4hirog7mq7d3eh7gdtfgttjb2a@4ax.com...

>

>>On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:49:37 -0500, "Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com>

>>wrote:

>>

>>(snip)

>>

>>

>>>there's nothing ethical about providing an extra benefit like healthcare.

>>>Expanding a failed program like Medicare is bad government policy. I was

>>>against it when Bush did it. Requiring people to buy health insurance

>>>won't

>>>help either, and it's not a "choice" as Hillary claims.

>>

>>Medicare's a failure ?- 'splain it to me Lucy. It works on a lower

>>overhead than private insurers - the difference being MORE that the

>>profit margin. In 2002 the HMO industry made about $3 billion - this

>>jumped to over $11 billion in 2004 (Weiss Ratings). Seems to me that

>>the premium increases went right to the bottom line. The second myth

>>is that Medicare is more open to fraud - beep wrong. Both are just as

>>likely to be bilked. In fact many private insurers look at the cost to

>>get back fraudulent payments and forget it. Lastly what will happen to

>>the drug companies' mantra about loss of research and development if

>>their huge profits are reduced? Seems that they all spend twice as

>>much on marketing and advertising. Yup - let's let the private sector

>>continue to run healthcare. If you can afford it you live - if not,

>>well too damn bad.

>>

>>WB Yeats

>

>

> It will be insolvent in 30 years, that's the problem. At least the private

> sector is solvent.

Ah, that old chestnut. Oddly, the UK, Canada and France's

healthcare systems just keep going and care for all

their people without ever bankrupting them, employed or

unemployed. They make our current system look like

what it is: MEDIEVAL.

--

B3

==

The very wealthy HATE Democracy.

Vote accordingly in '08.

Governments should fear their people, not vice versa.

Pelosi POWERLESS - Just another granny, not really Speaker.

Voters await 3rd party; any party will do!

Voters await any other POTUS candidate to save them from

the current selection....

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:37:11 -0500, "Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com>

wrote:

>

><wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message

>news:5uh2f31i4hirog7mq7d3eh7gdtfgttjb2a@4ax.com...

>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:49:37 -0500, "Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com>

>> wrote:

>>

>> (snip)

>>

>>>there's nothing ethical about providing an extra benefit like healthcare.

>>>Expanding a failed program like Medicare is bad government policy. I was

>>>against it when Bush did it. Requiring people to buy health insurance

>>>won't

>>>help either, and it's not a "choice" as Hillary claims.

>>

>> Medicare's a failure ?- 'splain it to me Lucy. It works on a lower

>> overhead than private insurers - the difference being MORE that the

>> profit margin. In 2002 the HMO industry made about $3 billion - this

>> jumped to over $11 billion in 2004 (Weiss Ratings). Seems to me that

>> the premium increases went right to the bottom line. The second myth

>> is that Medicare is more open to fraud - beep wrong. Both are just as

>> likely to be bilked. In fact many private insurers look at the cost to

>> get back fraudulent payments and forget it. Lastly what will happen to

>> the drug companies' mantra about loss of research and development if

>> their huge profits are reduced? Seems that they all spend twice as

>> much on marketing and advertising. Yup - let's let the private sector

>> continue to run healthcare. If you can afford it you live - if not,

>> well too damn bad.

>>

>> WB Yeats

>

>It will be insolvent in 30 years, that's the problem. At least the private

>sector is solvent.

They'll just raise taxes to keep it alive.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:10:47 GMT, bw@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:37:11 -0500, "Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com>

>wrote:

>

>>

>><wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message

>>news:5uh2f31i4hirog7mq7d3eh7gdtfgttjb2a@4ax.com...

>>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:49:37 -0500, "Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com>

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>> (snip)

>>>

>>>>there's nothing ethical about providing an extra benefit like healthcare.

>>>>Expanding a failed program like Medicare is bad government policy. I was

>>>>against it when Bush did it. Requiring people to buy health insurance

>>>>won't

>>>>help either, and it's not a "choice" as Hillary claims.

>>>

>>> Medicare's a failure ?- 'splain it to me Lucy. It works on a lower

>>> overhead than private insurers - the difference being MORE that the

>>> profit margin. In 2002 the HMO industry made about $3 billion - this

>>> jumped to over $11 billion in 2004 (Weiss Ratings). Seems to me that

>>> the premium increases went right to the bottom line. The second myth

>>> is that Medicare is more open to fraud - beep wrong. Both are just as

>>> likely to be bilked. In fact many private insurers look at the cost to

>>> get back fraudulent payments and forget it. Lastly what will happen to

>>> the drug companies' mantra about loss of research and development if

>>> their huge profits are reduced? Seems that they all spend twice as

>>> much on marketing and advertising. Yup - let's let the private sector

>>> continue to run healthcare. If you can afford it you live - if not,

>>> well too damn bad.

>>>

>>> WB Yeats

>>

>>It will be insolvent in 30 years, that's the problem. At least the private

>>sector is solvent.

>

>

> They'll just raise taxes to keep it alive.

True - but imo they won't be nearly as much as the privated insurers

raise their rates. And there's wrong with the entire country having

access to the same health plan as the thieves in Washington - by

thieves I include the vast majority on both sides of the aisle.

WB Yeats

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:37:11 -0500, "Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com>

wrote:

>

><wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message

>news:5uh2f31i4hirog7mq7d3eh7gdtfgttjb2a@4ax.com...

>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:49:37 -0500, "Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com>

>> wrote:

>>

>> (snip)

>>

>>>there's nothing ethical about providing an extra benefit like healthcare.

>>>Expanding a failed program like Medicare is bad government policy. I was

>>>against it when Bush did it. Requiring people to buy health insurance

>>>won't

>>>help either, and it's not a "choice" as Hillary claims.

>>

>> Medicare's a failure ?- 'splain it to me Lucy. It works on a lower

>> overhead than private insurers - the difference being MORE that the

>> profit margin. In 2002 the HMO industry made about $3 billion - this

>> jumped to over $11 billion in 2004 (Weiss Ratings). Seems to me that

>> the premium increases went right to the bottom line. The second myth

>> is that Medicare is more open to fraud - beep wrong. Both are just as

>> likely to be bilked. In fact many private insurers look at the cost to

>> get back fraudulent payments and forget it. Lastly what will happen to

>> the drug companies' mantra about loss of research and development if

>> their huge profits are reduced? Seems that they all spend twice as

>> much on marketing and advertising. Yup - let's let the private sector

>> continue to run healthcare. If you can afford it you live - if not,

>> well too damn bad.

>>

>> WB Yeats

>

>It will be insolvent in 30 years, that's the problem. At least the private

>sector is solvent.

You haven't looked forward to what will occur in the private sector

with all the boomers retiring. Insurance is basically a pyramid

scheme. The rates will go up so fast that Congress will then be forced

into either subsidizing the companies, subsidizing the insured, or

getting tossed out on their asses as the AARP passes the NRA and oil

with the biggest clout in D.C. The old adage you can pay me now or

later applies perfectly to this situation.

WB Yeats

I didn't agree with all of Hillary's plan almost 16 years ago but imo

we'd be better off if parts had passed, and not the current

subsidizing of the Pharm companies as a stopgap.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:25:13 -0700, wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:10:47 GMT, bw@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:

>

>>On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:37:11 -0500, "Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com>

>>wrote:

>>

>>>

>>><wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message

>>>news:5uh2f31i4hirog7mq7d3eh7gdtfgttjb2a@4ax.com...

>>>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:49:37 -0500, "Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com>

>>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>> (snip)

>>>>

>>>>>there's nothing ethical about providing an extra benefit like healthcare.

>>>>>Expanding a failed program like Medicare is bad government policy. I was

>>>>>against it when Bush did it. Requiring people to buy health insurance

>>>>>won't

>>>>>help either, and it's not a "choice" as Hillary claims.

>>>>

>>>> Medicare's a failure ?- 'splain it to me Lucy. It works on a lower

>>>> overhead than private insurers - the difference being MORE that the

>>>> profit margin. In 2002 the HMO industry made about $3 billion - this

>>>> jumped to over $11 billion in 2004 (Weiss Ratings). Seems to me that

>>>> the premium increases went right to the bottom line. The second myth

>>>> is that Medicare is more open to fraud - beep wrong. Both are just as

>>>> likely to be bilked. In fact many private insurers look at the cost to

>>>> get back fraudulent payments and forget it. Lastly what will happen to

>>>> the drug companies' mantra about loss of research and development if

>>>> their huge profits are reduced? Seems that they all spend twice as

>>>> much on marketing and advertising. Yup - let's let the private sector

>>>> continue to run healthcare. If you can afford it you live - if not,

>>>> well too damn bad.

>>>>

>>>> WB Yeats

>>>

>>>It will be insolvent in 30 years, that's the problem. At least the private

>>>sector is solvent.

>>

>>

>> They'll just raise taxes to keep it alive.

>

>True - but imo they won't be nearly as much as the privated insurers

>raise their rates. And there's wrong with the entire country having

>access to the same health plan as the thieves in Washington - by

>thieves I include the vast majority on both sides of the aisle.

Profits per-se aren't evil or immoral. However there IS

such a thing as 'profiteering', abusive, hurtful, downright

greedy profit margins on vital goods and services. A big

hurricane, for example, is no excuse to charge the hungry

survivors thirty dollars for a cheeseburger. Likewise you

don't charge the sick ten times what their treatment should

cost just because you've got 'em over a barrel. Capitalism

must be tempered with ethics if you plan to have a

"civilization" instead of a den of pirates.

Of course the exceptionally greedy often amass SO much

money that they gain exceptional control over the very

political institutions intended to keep them under control.

So long as you've got governments composed of humans then

someone will find a way of influencing them, getting around

the system.

A good example was the "negotiated cost" proposal in the

recent medicare "reform" act. Because of corporate influence

it was impossible to get the bill passed until that little

proposal was expunged. GOP or DNC ... they were all getting

money and favors from Big Med and Big Med said "Don't vote

for it unless ...". So they didn't. We could elect a whole

new congress and THEY would be influenced too.

But no, the solution isn't to make the govt sole proprietor

and operator of every industry. Not only do governments tend

to run things badly, often due to the 'Peter Principle', but

it doesn't REALLY eliminate corruption and influence - mearly

changes the sources and aims. A mega-fund like "health care"

would become a political weapon and would be manipulated to

siphon funds into places near and dear to its masters hearts.

Frankly, I prefer corporate corruption. At least you KNOW

what their goal is - just money - whereas politicians will

add ego and power-lust to the equation.

As for our health system ... we CAN have influence over our

politicians equal to that of their corporate patrons. We

just have to play it right. Appeal to that 'ego' and 'power

lust' aspect and you can counterbalance the 'greed' factor.

Is Big-Med, or its components, true 'profiteers' - or are they

making their money from sheer volume rather than rip-off prices ?

Some of the pharmas fall into that category ... they really

don't make much profit per pill, it's just that they sell a

LOT of pills. The pennies add up. Alas, if you march in and

order them to lower prices 50% they'd be operating deep in

the red. Instead of making a few pennies per pill they'd be

losing a dime per pill.

Even if the govt took over, it STILL has operating costs,

employees to pay, insurance to issue, R&D to do, wastes to

dispose of and FAR more bureaucracy and thus bureaucrats.

They'll wind up just as deeply in the red as their capitalist

predecessors and We The People won't be any better served.

And don't give me that "They do it in Sweden" crap - because

they DON'T ... the taxes for the 'free' service are just

gawdawful. A few highly-paid CEOs were replaced by hundreds

of poorly-paid bureaucrats and govt flunkies. No net gain.

Medicine is just plain expensive.

We'd do better in this country to create a medical 'safety net',

some threshold of expense beyond which the govt will pick up

the tab ... rather like the 'deductable' on your car insurance.

Let Joe Citizen pick up all the ordinary expenses out of his

own pocket but, if he gets anything REALLY nasty, he can count

the system to keep him from bankruptcy and eternal debt. Call

it "catastrophic-illness" insurance and key the 'deductable'

to income.

On Sep 20, 4:28 am, b...@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:25:13 -0700, wbye...@ireland.com wrote:

> >On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:10:47 GMT, b...@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:

>

> >>On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:37:11 -0500, "Taylor" <Tay...@nospam.com>

> >>wrote:

>

> >>><wbye...@ireland.com> wrote in message

> >>>news:5uh2f31i4hirog7mq7d3eh7gdtfgttjb2a@4ax.com...

> >>>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:49:37 -0500, "Taylor" <Tay...@nospam.com>

> >>>> wrote:

>

> >>>> (snip)

>

> >>>>>there's nothing ethical about providing an extra benefit like healthcare.

> >>>>>Expanding a failed program like Medicare is bad government policy. I was

> >>>>>against it when Bush did it. Requiring people to buy health insurance

> >>>>>won't

> >>>>>help either, and it's not a "choice" as Hillary claims.

Not for forty some million Americans.. who can't afford health

insurance.. it's not a 'choice' - a just a harsh reality.

> >>>> Medicare's a failure ?- 'splain it to me Lucy. It works on a lower

> >>>> overhead than private insurers - the difference being MORE that the

> >>>> profit margin. In 2002 the HMO industry made about $3 billion - this

> >>>> jumped to over $11 billion in 2004 (Weiss Ratings). Seems to me that

> >>>> the premium increases went right to the bottom line. The second myth

> >>>> is that Medicare is more open to fraud - beep wrong. Both are just as

> >>>> likely to be bilked. In fact many private insurers look at the cost to

> >>>> get back fraudulent payments and forget it. Lastly what will happen to

> >>>> the drug companies' mantra about loss of research and development if

> >>>> their huge profits are reduced? Seems that they all spend twice as

> >>>> much on marketing and advertising. Yup - let's let the private sector

> >>>> continue to run healthcare. If you can afford it you live - if not,

> >>>> well too damn bad.

> >>>> WB Yeats

>

> >>>It will be insolvent in 30 years, that's the problem. At least the private

> >>>sector is solvent.

>

> >> They'll just raise taxes to keep it alive.

>

> >True - but imo they won't be nearly as much as the privated insurers

> >raise their rates. And there's wrong with the entire country having

> >access to the same health plan as the thieves in Washington - by

> >thieves I include the vast majority on both sides of the aisle.

>

> Profits per-se aren't evil or immoral. However there IS

> such a thing as 'profiteering', abusive, hurtful, downright

> greedy profit margins on vital goods and services. A big

> hurricane, for example, is no excuse to charge the hungry

> survivors thirty dollars for a cheeseburger. Likewise you

> don't charge the sick ten times what their treatment should

> cost just because you've got 'em over a barrel. Capitalism

> must be tempered with ethics if you plan to have a

> "civilization" instead of a den of pirates.

>

> Of course the exceptionally greedy often amass SO much

> money that they gain exceptional control over the very

> political institutions intended to keep them under control.

> So long as you've got governments composed of humans then

> someone will find a way of influencing them, getting around

> the system.

> A good example was the "negotiated cost" proposal in the

> recent medicare "reform" act. Because of corporate influence

> it was impossible to get the bill passed until that little

> proposal was expunged. GOP or DNC ... they were all getting

> money and favors from Big Med and Big Med said "Don't vote

> for it unless ...". So they didn't. We could elect a whole

> new congress and THEY would be influenced too.

Which is why any way out of the current 'slough of despond' needs

Campaign Reform.

Unless a candidate already has old-line money to fund political

aspirations (Romney), the candidate has (typically) to have already

whored themselves previously.

> But no, the solution isn't to make the govt sole proprietor

> and operator of every industry. Not only do governments tend

> to run things badly, often due to the 'Peter Principle', but

> it doesn't REALLY eliminate corruption and influence - mearly

> changes the sources and aims. A mega-fund like "health care"

> would become a political weapon and would be manipulated to

> siphon funds into places near and dear to its masters hearts.

>

> Frankly, I prefer corporate corruption. At least you KNOW

> what their goal is - just money - whereas politicians will

> add ego and power-lust to the equation.

That still doesn't solve the uninsured problem.

> As for our health system ... we CAN have influence over our

> politicians equal to that of their corporate patrons. We

> just have to play it right. Appeal to that 'ego' and 'power

> lust' aspect and you can counterbalance the 'greed' factor.

Can only match the influence of big med-industry influence ($$$) if

enough private citizens coordinate their political opposition - like

AARP used to do.

> Is Big-Med, or its components, true 'profiteers' - or are they

> making their money from sheer volume rather than rip-off prices ?

> Some of the pharmas fall into that category ... they really

> don't make much profit per pill, it's just that they sell a

> LOT of pills. The pennies add up. Alas, if you march in and

> order them to lower prices 50% they'd be operating deep in

> the red. Instead of making a few pennies per pill they'd be

> losing a dime per pill.

Not sure about that. A comparison of prices charged for the same pill

worldwide shows that the US customer generally pays much more for the

same pharmacopia. (gouging)

> Even if the govt took over, it STILL has operating costs,

> employees to pay, insurance to issue, R&D to do, wastes to

> dispose of and FAR more bureaucracy and thus bureaucrats.

Administrative overhead is administrative overhead - whoever does the

paperwork.

> They'll wind up just as deeply in the red as their capitalist

> predecessors and We The People won't be any better served.

> And don't give me that "They do it in Sweden" crap - because

> they DON'T ... the taxes for the 'free' service are just

> gawdawful. A few highly-paid CEOs were replaced by hundreds

> of poorly-paid bureaucrats and govt flunkies. No net gain.

> Medicine is just plain expensive.

Have you ever sat down and listed all of the taxes that you are paying

now?

Fed and state income taxes, social security, property taxes, sales

tax, inheritance tax, user 'fees': automotive licensing, recreational

vehicle and park area fees, airline ticketing taxes and surcharges,

federal and state gasoline taxes, Telephone and cable taxes and

surcharges.. etc.

Put it all together.. and the average US citizen might very well be

paying at swedish taxation levels - but getting a hell of a lot less

for their their bucks.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:29:48 -0700, wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:37:11 -0500, "Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com>

>wrote:

>

>>

>><wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message

>>news:5uh2f31i4hirog7mq7d3eh7gdtfgttjb2a@4ax.com...

>>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:49:37 -0500, "Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com>

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>> (snip)

>>>

>>>>there's nothing ethical about providing an extra benefit like healthcare.

>>>>Expanding a failed program like Medicare is bad government policy. I was

>>>>against it when Bush did it. Requiring people to buy health insurance

>>>>won't

>>>>help either, and it's not a "choice" as Hillary claims.

>>>

>>> Medicare's a failure ?- 'splain it to me Lucy. It works on a lower

>>> overhead than private insurers - the difference being MORE that the

>>> profit margin. In 2002 the HMO industry made about $3 billion - this

>>> jumped to over $11 billion in 2004 (Weiss Ratings). Seems to me that

>>> the premium increases went right to the bottom line. The second myth

>>> is that Medicare is more open to fraud - beep wrong. Both are just as

>>> likely to be bilked. In fact many private insurers look at the cost to

>>> get back fraudulent payments and forget it. Lastly what will happen to

>>> the drug companies' mantra about loss of research and development if

>>> their huge profits are reduced? Seems that they all spend twice as

>>> much on marketing and advertising. Yup - let's let the private sector

>>> continue to run healthcare. If you can afford it you live - if not,

>>> well too damn bad.

>>>

>>> WB Yeats

>>

>>It will be insolvent in 30 years, that's the problem. At least the private

>>sector is solvent.

>

>You haven't looked forward to what will occur in the private sector

>with all the boomers retiring. Insurance is basically a pyramid

>scheme. The rates will go up so fast that Congress will then be forced

>into either subsidizing the companies, subsidizing the insured, or

>getting tossed out on their asses as the AARP passes the NRA and oil

>with the biggest clout in D.C. The old adage you can pay me now or

>later applies perfectly to this situation.

Of course if medicare is insolvent, and then the private

sector can't cope ... all you'll accomplish by 'socializing'

is a govt-run system that's even MORE insolvent than the

current one.

Yes, there IS some price-gouging in Big Med ... insurance

companies are probably the worst offenders. However they

are neither the ONLY offenders nor is their 'gouging' as

extreme and unethical as some suggest. They handle a LOT

of people. This means that even modest profit per-customer

eventually adds up to a 60-story office tower. Thing is,

it also means that demands for profit cuts won't have much

effect on a per-customer basis.

The ONLY sane approach is to go after ALL the reasons medical

care is so expensive at the same time. Top-notch 1st-world

medical care is people/tech intensive. That means expensive

new gadgets and people smart enough to use them with the

training to do so - which do not and should not come at

lettuce-picker prices. Cutting-edge stuff winds up being SO

expensive that they pass some percentage of the expense along

to everyone ... making even trivial treatment more expensive

too. When you pay $500 to get a boo-boo sewed up, you're

really paying for your own treatment AND somebodys heart

transplant or stroke intervention or particle-beam cancer

treatment or drug-resistant infection ordeal.

This means we need to find a way to make the most expensive

ten or twenty percent of treatments a lot cheaper. That's

where the big expense is now. Make those cheaper and you'll

get your boo-boo fixed for a LOT cheaper. How do we make

building/operating MRI machines cheaper ? How do we make

delicate surgery cheaper ? How do we make hot new drugs

cheaper - all without cheating doctors, nurses, tekkies

and manufacturers out of their deserved salaries and/or

respectable/motivational profits ?

Some of this can be done using govt "help" in certain

areas. What if the govt contracted for x-number of new

MRI machines from a manufacturer - thus guarenteeing

them sales and the ability to know how much of what

kinds of materials to buy, thus getting volume-sales

discounts. The machines would be a lot cheaper - and

the govt would then sell them at cost to hospitals

and clinics that could never afford them before.

The FDA approval process for drugs is gawdawfully slow

and EXPENSIVE. It's yet another major burden on top of

R&D money already spent. It's one of the reasons new

drugs are generally gawdawfully EXPENSIVE ... they've

got to re-coup the time and money spent before their

patents run out.

However, a relative few more FDA reviewers and an end

to the practice of making the approval process a big

cash cow and you'd see a big difference. It would add

a few years of sales before patents ran out. It would

not require nearly as much up-front money either so

drugs for more obscure illnesses could still be worth it.

Then there's the tort problem ... a "right" to essentially

unlimited compensation for even the most trivial complaint

against doctors, hospitals and manufacturers. Health insurers

essentially have to carry massive 'malpractice disaster'

insurance themselves. Drug and equipment-makers are in a

similar position. Sorry, but sane limits MUST be imposed

and the hows and whys of lawsuits need to be de-fuzzified

so everyone knows where they stand. Govt can do this.

Finally, our "leaders" need to LEAD a bit - maybe

sell the notion that greed is NOT always good, that

helping your fellow man deserves merit too.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:16:46 -0700, lorad474@cs.com wrote:

>On Sep 20, 4:28 am, b...@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:

>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:25:13 -0700, wbye...@ireland.com wrote:

>> >On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:10:47 GMT, b...@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:

>>

>> >>On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:37:11 -0500, "Taylor" <Tay...@nospam.com>

>> >>wrote:

>>

>> >>><wbye...@ireland.com> wrote in message

>> >>>news:5uh2f31i4hirog7mq7d3eh7gdtfgttjb2a@4ax.com...

>> >>>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:49:37 -0500, "Taylor" <Tay...@nospam.com>

>> >>>> wrote:

>>

>> >>>> (snip)

>>

>> >>>>>there's nothing ethical about providing an extra benefit like healthcare.

>> >>>>>Expanding a failed program like Medicare is bad government policy. I was

>> >>>>>against it when Bush did it. Requiring people to buy health insurance

>> >>>>>won't

>> >>>>>help either, and it's not a "choice" as Hillary claims.

>

>Not for forty some million Americans.. who can't afford health

>insurance.. it's not a 'choice' - a just a harsh reality.

>

>> >>>> Medicare's a failure ?- 'splain it to me Lucy. It works on a lower

>> >>>> overhead than private insurers - the difference being MORE that the

>> >>>> profit margin. In 2002 the HMO industry made about $3 billion - this

>> >>>> jumped to over $11 billion in 2004 (Weiss Ratings). Seems to me that

>> >>>> the premium increases went right to the bottom line. The second myth

>> >>>> is that Medicare is more open to fraud - beep wrong. Both are just as

>> >>>> likely to be bilked. In fact many private insurers look at the cost to

>> >>>> get back fraudulent payments and forget it. Lastly what will happen to

>> >>>> the drug companies' mantra about loss of research and development if

>> >>>> their huge profits are reduced? Seems that they all spend twice as

>> >>>> much on marketing and advertising. Yup - let's let the private sector

>> >>>> continue to run healthcare. If you can afford it you live - if not,

>> >>>> well too damn bad.

>> >>>> WB Yeats

>>

>> >>>It will be insolvent in 30 years, that's the problem. At least the private

>> >>>sector is solvent.

>>

>> >> They'll just raise taxes to keep it alive.

>>

>> >True - but imo they won't be nearly as much as the privated insurers

>> >raise their rates. And there's wrong with the entire country having

>> >access to the same health plan as the thieves in Washington - by

>> >thieves I include the vast majority on both sides of the aisle.

>>

>> Profits per-se aren't evil or immoral. However there IS

>> such a thing as 'profiteering', abusive, hurtful, downright

>> greedy profit margins on vital goods and services. A big

>> hurricane, for example, is no excuse to charge the hungry

>> survivors thirty dollars for a cheeseburger. Likewise you

>> don't charge the sick ten times what their treatment should

>> cost just because you've got 'em over a barrel. Capitalism

>> must be tempered with ethics if you plan to have a

>> "civilization" instead of a den of pirates.

>>

>> Of course the exceptionally greedy often amass SO much

>> money that they gain exceptional control over the very

>> political institutions intended to keep them under control.

>> So long as you've got governments composed of humans then

>> someone will find a way of influencing them, getting around

>> the system.

>

>> A good example was the "negotiated cost" proposal in the

>> recent medicare "reform" act. Because of corporate influence

>> it was impossible to get the bill passed until that little

>> proposal was expunged. GOP or DNC ... they were all getting

>> money and favors from Big Med and Big Med said "Don't vote

>> for it unless ...". So they didn't. We could elect a whole

>> new congress and THEY would be influenced too.

>

>Which is why any way out of the current 'slough of despond' needs

>Campaign Reform.

>

>Unless a candidate already has old-line money to fund political

>aspirations (Romney), the candidate has (typically) to have already

>whored themselves previously.

Ah ... you think you can stop the bribes .... :-)

Sorry. Won't happen. They will always find a crack.

They will always make sure there are cracks. They

make the laws, they benifit from the cash and gifts -

so do you think they're gonna cut themselves off ???

All they'll do is move to less obvious methods, ones

the press will have a harder time detecting, quantifying

and explaining.

Big-money interests also have OTHER ways of influencing

politics. They can use the courts to bring proposals to

a standstill, or their influence with their employees

and partners to smooth something along. They can afford

to hire investigators to get dirt on politicians, their

relatives and their associates. They can pay for false

testimony, or pay-off hurtful witnesses. They own

newspapers and TV networks too or have friends that own

them ... and can gently nudge certain perspectives along

or quash others - creating new 'realities' for the public,

new priorities, new "good guys" and "bad guys". They own

or support banks and insurance companies ... commanding

a LOT of money which they can giveth or taketh or move

around to encourage or terrify others. In short, they

can make things easy for cooperative pols and hell

for the others.

Get the picture ? Politics and money, the 'leaders' and

the means, are two sids of the same coin. Always have

been and I'm pretty sure always will be.

If you want something, you'll have to join their game,

play by their rules, have your own carrot and stick.

The electorate CAN serve those purposes, IF you've got

what it takes to sway them. Otherwise you're gonna have

to give in order to get ... wheelin' & dealin' ... in

short, play politics.

>

>> But no, the solution isn't to make the govt sole proprietor

>> and operator of every industry. Not only do governments tend

>> to run things badly, often due to the 'Peter Principle', but

>> it doesn't REALLY eliminate corruption and influence - mearly

>> changes the sources and aims. A mega-fund like "health care"

>> would become a political weapon and would be manipulated to

>> siphon funds into places near and dear to its masters hearts.

>>

>> Frankly, I prefer corporate corruption. At least you KNOW

>> what their goal is - just money - whereas politicians will

>> add ego and power-lust to the equation.

>

>That still doesn't solve the uninsured problem.

I'm getting to that ...

>> As for our health system ... we CAN have influence over our

>> politicians equal to that of their corporate patrons. We

>> just have to play it right. Appeal to that 'ego' and 'power

>> lust' aspect and you can counterbalance the 'greed' factor.

>

>Can only match the influence of big med-industry influence ($$$) if

>enough private citizens coordinate their political opposition - like

>AARP used to do.

NOW you're getting it ... :-)

>> Is Big-Med, or its components, true 'profiteers' - or are they

>> making their money from sheer volume rather than rip-off prices ?

>> Some of the pharmas fall into that category ... they really

>> don't make much profit per pill, it's just that they sell a

>> LOT of pills. The pennies add up. Alas, if you march in and

>> order them to lower prices 50% they'd be operating deep in

>> the red. Instead of making a few pennies per pill they'd be

>> losing a dime per pill.

>

>Not sure about that. A comparison of prices charged for the same pill

>worldwide shows that the US customer generally pays much more for the

>same pharmacopia. (gouging)

Guess who's subsidizing those low prices ? One guess, and

it begins with "Amer " ....

Also, a companies product liability may be considerably

less, or non-existent, in "other countries".

>> Even if the govt took over, it STILL has operating costs,

>> employees to pay, insurance to issue, R&D to do, wastes to

>> dispose of and FAR more bureaucracy and thus bureaucrats.

>

>Administrative overhead is administrative overhead - whoever does the

>paperwork.

Yea, but govt has to hire layers and layers of overseers,

committees, people who oversee committees, politicians

who have to meddle ... we're SO afraid of being cheated

that we spend a dollar to save a penny. Big biz has

considerably fewer layers - and ultimately a dictator

who can issue decrees. (Our) govt has no dictators, only

endless committees who are afraid to commit themselves

to anything lest it go wrong.

I was persusing Machiavellis 'Discourses' awhile back and

came across a bit explaining why Roman generals who failed

in their missions were not punished. The idea was that if

they were in constant fear of failure, of micro-managers

from above, they wouldn't dare be bold enough to win the

victories that count. American big biz uses the same

philosophy for its CEOs. Usually works well ... but

sometimes doesn't (Enron, for example).

In any event, in government, the buck keeps getting passed

until it finally stops on the desk of someone who has NO

EXPERTISE about the subject. It's the 'Peter Principle' and

explains why govt projects so often go horribly wrong.

>> They'll wind up just as deeply in the red as their capitalist

>> predecessors and We The People won't be any better served.

>> And don't give me that "They do it in Sweden" crap - because

>> they DON'T ... the taxes for the 'free' service are just

>> gawdawful. A few highly-paid CEOs were replaced by hundreds

>> of poorly-paid bureaucrats and govt flunkies. No net gain.

>> Medicine is just plain expensive.

>

>Have you ever sat down and listed all of the taxes that you are paying

>now ?

Gobs ... taxes and 'fees'. Too much.

The Founders should have put a 15% cap on cumulative

taxes way back when (war, perhaps, being the only

temporary excuse to go above the cap). It would have

given the Fed some discipline - made 'em pick and

choose only the most worthwhile projects and made 'em

find the best way to do them.

A 60/40 split between the Fed and state+county+city seems

a good set of numbers to me. The states and the Fed can

argue about their cuts, but the 15% overall cap would

make life a LOT nicer AND cut down on govt waste. Given

a hard limit, I bet govt could provide almost the same

services as we get now for half the money. They'd have

to be SMART about using the cash. As is, they're like

Joe Schmoe paying off his 27 maxxed credit cards with

his 28th .....

>Fed and state income taxes, social security, property taxes, sales

>tax, inheritance tax, user 'fees': automotive licensing, recreational

>vehicle and park area fees, airline ticketing taxes and surcharges,

>federal and state gasoline taxes, Telephone and cable taxes and

>surcharges.. etc.

>

>Put it all together.. and the average US citizen might very well be

>paying at swedish taxation levels - but getting a hell of a lot less

>for their their bucks.

Most of us pay roughly 33% of our income. Swedes pay

something like 30% out of their paychecks - but their

checks are limited because their employers have to pay

large corporate income taxes too.

http://www.isa.se/upload/english/FactSheets/Taxes_in_Sweden.pdf

All in all, say that well over 60% of all money generated

in Sweden disappears in taxes.

On Sep 20, 10:35 am, b...@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:29:48 -0700, wbye...@ireland.com wrote:

> >On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:37:11 -0500, "Taylor" <Tay...@nospam.com>

> >wrote:

>

> >><wbye...@ireland.com> wrote in message

> >>news:5uh2f31i4hirog7mq7d3eh7gdtfgttjb2a@4ax.com...

> >>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:49:37 -0500, "Taylor" <Tay...@nospam.com>

> >>> wrote:

>

> >>> (snip)

>

> >>>>there's nothing ethical about providing an extra benefit like healthcare.

> >>>>Expanding a failed program like Medicare is bad government policy. I was

> >>>>against it when Bush did it. Requiring people to buy health insurance

> >>>>won't

> >>>>help either, and it's not a "choice" as Hillary claims.

>

> >>> Medicare's a failure ?- 'splain it to me Lucy. It works on a lower

> >>> overhead than private insurers - the difference being MORE that the

> >>> profit margin. In 2002 the HMO industry made about $3 billion - this

> >>> jumped to over $11 billion in 2004 (Weiss Ratings). Seems to me that

> >>> the premium increases went right to the bottom line. The second myth

> >>> is that Medicare is more open to fraud - beep wrong. Both are just as

> >>> likely to be bilked. In fact many private insurers look at the cost to

> >>> get back fraudulent payments and forget it. Lastly what will happen to

> >>> the drug companies' mantra about loss of research and development if

> >>> their huge profits are reduced? Seems that they all spend twice as

> >>> much on marketing and advertising. Yup - let's let the private sector

> >>> continue to run healthcare. If you can afford it you live - if not,

> >>> well too damn bad.

>

> >>> WB Yeats

>

> >>It will be insolvent in 30 years, that's the problem. At least the private

> >>sector is solvent.

>

> >You haven't looked forward to what will occur in the private sector

> >with all the boomers retiring. Insurance is basically a pyramid

> >scheme. The rates will go up so fast that Congress will then be forced

> >into either subsidizing the companies, subsidizing the insured, or

> >getting tossed out on their asses as the AARP passes the NRA and oil

> >with the biggest clout in D.C. The old adage you can pay me now or

> >later applies perfectly to this situation.

>

> Of course if medicare is insolvent, and then the private

> sector can't cope ... all you'll accomplish by 'socializing'

> is a govt-run system that's even MORE insolvent than the

> current one.

>

> Yes, there IS some price-gouging in Big Med ... insurance

> companies are probably the worst offenders. However they

> are neither the ONLY offenders nor is their 'gouging' as

> extreme and unethical as some suggest. They handle a LOT

> of people. This means that even modest profit per-customer

> eventually adds up to a 60-story office tower. Thing is,

> it also means that demands for profit cuts won't have much

> effect on a per-customer basis.

>

> The ONLY sane approach is to go after ALL the reasons medical

> care is so expensive at the same time. Top-notch 1st-world

> medical care is people/tech intensive. That means expensive

> new gadgets and people smart enough to use them with the

> training to do so - which do not and should not come at

> lettuce-picker prices. Cutting-edge stuff winds up being SO

> expensive that they pass some percentage of the expense along

> to everyone ... making even trivial treatment more expensive

> too. When you pay $500 to get a boo-boo sewed up, you're

> really paying for your own treatment AND somebodys heart

> transplant or stroke intervention or particle-beam cancer

> treatment or drug-resistant infection ordeal.

>

> This means we need to find a way to make the most expensive

> ten or twenty percent of treatments a lot cheaper. That's

> where the big expense is now. Make those cheaper and you'll

> get your boo-boo fixed for a LOT cheaper. How do we make

> building/operating MRI machines cheaper ? How do we make

> delicate surgery cheaper ? How do we make hot new drugs

> cheaper - all without cheating doctors, nurses, tekkies

> and manufacturers out of their deserved salaries and/or

> respectable/motivational profits ?

>

> Some of this can be done using govt "help" in certain

> areas. What if the govt contracted for x-number of new

> MRI machines from a manufacturer - thus guarenteeing

> them sales and the ability to know how much of what

> kinds of materials to buy, thus getting volume-sales

> discounts. The machines would be a lot cheaper - and

> the govt would then sell them at cost to hospitals

> and clinics that could never afford them before.

>

> The FDA approval process for drugs is gawdawfully slow

> and EXPENSIVE. It's yet another major burden on top of

> R&D money already spent. It's one of the reasons new

> drugs are generally gawdawfully EXPENSIVE ... they've

> got to re-coup the time and money spent before their

> patents run out.

>

> However, a relative few more FDA reviewers and an end

> to the practice of making the approval process a big

> cash cow and you'd see a big difference. It would add

> a few years of sales before patents ran out. It would

> not require nearly as much up-front money either so

> drugs for more obscure illnesses could still be worth it.

>

> Then there's the tort problem ... a "right" to essentially

> unlimited compensation for even the most trivial complaint

> against doctors, hospitals and manufacturers. Health insurers

> essentially have to carry massive 'malpractice disaster'

> insurance themselves. Drug and equipment-makers are in a

> similar position. Sorry, but sane limits MUST be imposed

> and the hows and whys of lawsuits need to be de-fuzzified

> so everyone knows where they stand. Govt can do this.

>

> Finally, our "leaders" need to LEAD a bit - maybe

> sell the notion that greed is NOT always good, that

> helping your fellow man deserves merit too.

You covered quite a bit. I am equally long winded, so I will try to

respond to a couple of key points.

Profits: You mentioned Insurance. Insurance isn't the problem. If

it were, then companies like GM who do not use insurance, (They are

self insured) would have little trouble with costs.

MRI quantity assurances. Number of MRI machines is not the problem.

This country, unlike Canada, has a multitude of MRI machines. Getting

the government involved in guaranteeing a certain number of MRI

purchases would create the problem Canada has, too few of them.

BTW: You think government intervention would bring MRI costs down so

that small clinics could afford them. In Canada, a Canadian Dog can

get an MRI faster than a Canadian subject can.

There are two medical areas that are going DOWN in price. Laser

Vision Correction and Cosmetic Surgery. The reason they are going

down is because Insurance companies are not paying for these services

and the ACTUAL CUSTOMER is price concious. The CUSTOMER is asking for

prices and shopping for the most reasonable price. When was the last

time YOU asked your doctor how much the office visit was going to

cost? When was the last time YOU changed doctor based on price?

The reason we have high prices is because we do NOT have a consumer

driven capitalist system. The best way of describing our system is

that we have a socialist system run by private companies (insurance).

You pay your monthly "taxes" to the insurance company and the

insurance company pays "their" doctors. You have no involvement or

concern for the cost.

Since the insurance companies are the payers of the cost, The

insurance companies are trying to bring costs down by setting prices

that they will pay the doctors. The doctor either joins their plan or

has to find his own patients.

The solution is to stop thinking of insurance as the payer of medical

costs. Buy a high deductible, save on your premiums, and, since you

will be paying for the bills, YOU will start asking for their price

lists. YOU will be shopping for a doctor the way that you shop for a

shirt. You wouldn't buy a shirt without a price tag on it, would you?

Why do you shop for a doctor that way?

SECOND and MOST IMPORTANT. Divorce your medical care from your

employer. You don't want to lose your medical insurance at the same

time you lose your job. You can then shop for a cheaper coverage,

such as a HIGH DEDUCTIBLE.

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:58:44 GMT, bw@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:

>DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen.

>Hillary Clinton announced a $110 billion health care reform plan

>Monday that would require all Americans to have health insurance.

>

>"Here in America people are dying" because they lack health insurance,

>Sen. Hillary Clinton said Monday.

Well, it's nice that she worried about some people's medical

condition, since so many people close to the Clintons assumed room

temperature under "suspicious" circumstances. Is it true that her

official campaign song is "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor"?

>

>Clinton unveiled her "American Health Choices Plan," during a

>high-profile speech at a hospital in the key campaign state of Iowa,

>surrounded by supporters, American flags and campaign banners.

>

>"Here in America people are dying because they couldn't get the care

>they needed when they were sick.

>

>"I'm here today because I believe it is long past time that this

>nation had an answer," Clinton said. "I believe America is ready for

>change.

Whoa...! Her husband kept talking about "change" in '92 in the

run up to the federal election. I guess she's too busy dreaming of

power to do anything but recycle old campaign slogans.

>

>"It's time to provide quality affordable health care for every

>American," Clinton said. "And I intend to be the president who

>accomplishes that goal finally for our country."

>

>A Clinton adviser compares the plan's "individual mandate" -- which

>requires everyone to have health insurance -- to current rules in most

>states that require all drivers to purchase auto insurance, according

>to The Associated Press

>.

>.

>"If you liked Michael Moore's 'Sicko,' you're going to love

>HillaryCare 2.0," said the Giuliani statement. "Senator Clinton's

>latest health scheme includes more government mandates, expensive

>federal subsidies and more big bureaucracy -- in short, a prescription

>for an increase in wait times, a decrease in patient care and tax

>hikes to pay for it all."

>

>- - - - -

>

> Don't you just love how often "liberals" use the

> term "mandatory" ?

>

> Even thus, Hills plan isn't as evil as Edwards ... he

> wants to force YOU to get medical examinations whether

> you want to or not. Some of those stricter anti-tech

> religious groups oughtta love that one too ... rather

> stick a fork in Eddies eye than get probed by doctors.

>

> Of course maybe HRCs plan would rapidly devolve into

> medical totalitarianism ... she ain't saying.

>

> Rudy probably has it right in this case ... but I'd

> have phrased it "If you loved FEMA, you'll love

> HillaryCare2". FEMA showed us exactly how competent

> big government endeavours can be .....

I don't think socialized medicine is a bad thing. I just don't

think it can happen in the US without vested interests taking pretty

well everything worthwhile out of it before the idea comes to

fruition.

The big problem though will be the terminology changes.

Hillary is from Arkansas, and she'll no doubt put her old cronies in

charge of everything. So many terms thought to be common medical terms

have entirely different meanings to those people. Just a few examples

are below:

1) Bacteria - Rear entrance to the cafeteria.

2) Cauterize - Made eye contact with her.

3) Seizure - A Roman emperor.

4) Tablet - A small table.

5) Nitrates - Cheaper than day rates.

6) Laboratory - Dog barkin'.

7) Immobile - Unhomelike.

...