Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Robyn is blunt and yeah, probably name-drops more than is necessary but that doesn't mean she's wrong.
For those that need sugar coating, the truth hurts when it isn't all done up soft and squishy.
No Robyn, I don't think I am twisting your words. I am repeating what you have said. It is you throughout this entire forum discussion who have dissed any real discussion of how we could improve the situation and entertain ideas of how it could be made to work. I have posted web sites of all the different types of single payer health care systems all the other countries have embraced.
You do not seem to be able to open your mind up the the fact that there might be a better way. Instead you continue to fuel the anti-anything-Obama fire at every opportunity possible. Most people who probably voted for Obama who have responded on this forum in a honest objective way, have said they do not feel that the ACA went far enough, as it did not fully address the cost issue. We feel it was a good first step. Now we want to explore more cost savings measures. You on the other hand have offered nothing but blame.
Also, it is impossible after reading so many of your posts but help notice that you are a very prejudiced person. I am sick and tired of hearing about your Mayo Clinic and your upper middle class circle of friends you only associate with, and all the important people you know. I think you are a snob, and a very selfish person. You appear to have a real disdain for the underclass. I feel certain that I am not alone in these observations, and I am saying what I believe many feel.
You can be intellectual and knowledgeable and even right on some matters, and have a gift of gab and can therefore easily dissuade those who know the least. That makes you dangerous. It is for these reasons that I have countered on some of your contributions that I feel are erroneous, short sighted, prejudiced or just plain wrong. Now that I have that off my chest, we can more on.
We have to start with the basics.
In a health care system - we can have more (universal) coverage. Higher quality. Lower costs. Pick 2 out of those 3. Anyone who thinks we can get all 3 is dreaming - and that's that. And yet we seem to think we can get all 3. It's impossible.
Then there are the people who think we can get universal coverage and higher quality by shifting the higher costs of a system like that to unspecified "others". Whether they're corporations - rich people - drug companies - making doctors work for peanuts - etc. That isn't going to happen. Because - in today's world - no one can force anyone to do anything or stay anywhere. FWIW - when it comes to something like MS drugs (which are probably 4 or 5 of the most expensive non-orphan drugs in the US today) - something I know a little about - it's not like people in the US are paying $50k a year and people in the UK are paying $500/year. It's more like people in the UK are getting 10-15% off our prices (if that).
As populations age in other developed countries - and some have to deal with various immigrant groups in countries that used to be homogeneous - each has come up with its own attempted solution. None of which has worked particularly well as of today.
I absolutely do not have disdain for lower class people. I do have disdain for deadbeats - whether they're 17 year old women who pop out babies to get all their benefits and make a living that way. Or my upper middle class cousins in California who played "jingle keys" and walked away from their house after they had mortgaged it to the hilt - spent all the money - and reckoned they were better off leaving than continuing to pay their mortgage. Likewise - I have disdain for people like Donald Trump - who basically seems like a deadbeat to me.
IT IS NOT A CLASS THING. It's a responsibility thing. I totally hate people - regardless of economic class - who play the "heads I win" - "tails you lose" game. And much admire people who play by the rules that almost everyone in this country used to play by. Maybe you don't get it - maybe no one gets it. Because it seems to be such an old-fashioned POV these days. Earn best you can - pay your bills - take care of your family - stuff like that. And - if you play by the rules - and sh** happens - your community is here to help. You are as old as I am (more or less). Didn't you grow up with those notions in your mind? Robyn
P.S. Having lived in Florida for 40+ years - I have probably encountered more immigrants (legal and not) than most people. Many (most) have incredible work ethics that I'd never put down. Especially when it comes to people from Cuba (when I lived in south Florida) - and people from places like Bosnia and similar (who I've encountered in north Florida). OTOH - that doesn't have much to do with the price of onions (how to integrate them into any national health care system - note that people from Cuba have special programs that don't apply to people from other countries). I'd be willing to trade 100k citizen welfare mothers in Florida for 100k worker immigrants from Cuba or Bosnia any day. Robyn
In a health care system - we can have more (universal) coverage. Higher quality. Lower costs. Pick 2 out of those 3. Anyone who thinks we can get all 3 is dreaming - and that's that.
Few people think there will be higher quality with the ACA....there will just be more accountability by the insurance companies. In the long run, there will be lower costs, but we probably won't see those for years. So two out of three is fine, for now.
Quote:
I absolutely do not have disdain for lower class people. I do have disdain for deadbeats - whether they're 17 year old women who pop out babies to get all their benefits and make a living that way.
I agree w/ modhatter that you can be condescending. Do you know any teen parents? Poverty stricken adults? Illegal immigrants? They don't have the advantages that some of the rest of us have. Rich brain, poor brain - latimes.com
Quote:
Or my upper middle class cousins in California who played "jingle keys" and walked away from their house after they had mortgaged it to the hilt - spent all the money - and reckoned they were better off leaving than continuing to pay their mortgage.
Such a stereoptype (similar to your "what are you going to do about all the illegals in CA?" comment). Sorry you have cousins like that. This happens all over the country, unfortunately. It doesn't mean it's some sort of epidemic or that most people fall into that category.
Quote:
It's a responsibility thing. I totally hate people - regardless of economic class - who play the "heads I win" - "tails you lose" game.
Very few people do this intentionally. Yes, the world has changed a great deal in the past few decades. And at least the ACA is an attempt to level the playing field for people who have not been able to afford health insurance.
Robyn is blunt and yeah, probably name-drops more than is necessary but that doesn't mean she's wrong.
For those that need sugar coating, the truth hurts when it isn't all done up soft and squishy.
Thanks. And soft and squishy it isn't.
For example - when I lived in the City of Miami (which is distinct from Miami/Dade County) - there were many many illegal women who would get stuff like breast cancer. They didn't have any health insurance - not even Medicaid. So they would wind up with - well - I don't know how to describe it - but basically breast cancer that was eating up their breasts in a disgusting way, About once every year or two - the doctors at the public hospital - Jackson Memorial Hospital - would have an "operation-a-thon" and operate on these women for free (no doctor charges). Except the hospital wasn't free - was always losing money - and everyone who owned a house in the City of Miami (and lots of poor black people own houses in the City of Miami) would wind up paying for it through higher property taxes. I didn't mind. Perhaps poorer people in the City (and there are a ton of poor people in the City of Miami) did.
Over the years - all of the more affluent areas in Miami/Dade County (which are basically blue) have distanced themselves from these costs by incorporating - becoming their own cities - and leaving JMH to rot.
Also - a lot of big deal liberals in Florida are seniors and/or people from the north who wind up in high priced spread places like Boca Raton or Naples. They - like many liberals - "talk the talk" but no more. Many won't in fact support paying higher taxes to pay for something like better schools (which IMO shouldn't be a controversial thing at all). Robyn
In a health care system - we can have more (universal) coverage. Higher quality. Lower costs. Pick 2 out of those 3. Anyone who thinks we can get all 3 is dreaming - and that's that. And yet we seem to think we can get all 3. It's impossible.
This is a false dichotomy. I do not have to choose from only two of your suggested outcomes. Do I think we can lower cost while not only maintaining quality but improving quality? That is one you should ad. Because this is the one I would chose. We have had this discussion before. Statistics show us we do not have the best quality in health care. You continue to ignore this fact.
[I]Then there are the people who think we can get universal coverage and higher quality by shifting the higher costs of a system like that to unspecified "others". Whether they're corporations - rich people - drug companies - making doctors work for peanuts - etc. That isn't going to happen. Because - in today's world - no one can force anyone to do anything or stay anywhere. FWIW - when it comes to something like MS drugs (which are probably 4 or 5 of the most expensive non-orphan drugs in the US today) - something I know a little about - it's not like people in the US are paying $50k a year and people in the UK are paying $500/year. It's more like people in the UK are getting 10-15% off our prices (if that)
1. Actually people in the UK pay approx $6.00 for any drug. 2. As far as US drug prices, the US needs to negotiate drug prices just like all the rest of the countries do. 3. Cost shifting? A word thought by Liberals to imply the idea of everyone for themselves.. We liberals feel the need for cost sharing in order to cover everyone. You do not, and there stands a divide.
I absolutely do not have disdain for lower class people. I do have disdain for deadbeats - whether they're 17 year old women who pop out babies to get all their benefits and make a living that way. Or my upper middle class cousins in California who played "jingle keys" and walked away from their house after they had mortgaged it to the hilt - spent all the money - and reckoned they were better off leaving than continuing to pay their mortgage. Likewise - I have disdain for people like Donald Trump - who basically seems like a deadbeat to me.
Flash: I have responded to this argument all ready countless times. No one, Right, Left, Middle agree with with either of these scenarios. Most especially the "jingle keys", as these are usually adults who are more mature and should know better. The teen pregnancy, is a product of poor parenting, and adolescent foolishness. It is a problem shared by many nations. Where we do disagree, is that these foolish kids because of their mistakes do not deserve a chance, and should be denied something as basic as adequate health care.
We have lots of young couples from the same families who get married first, then start "poppin" out kids who don't have the financial means to support them adequately. Problem is, they find it out too late. Sometimes we have a very responsible kid who marries the wrong guy, and finds herself left alone to raise two kids without the benefit of a good education. Do you expect everyone to be able to afford a college education. Do you think everyone is college material? What's the answer Robyn? Do we sterilize them? Do we say, "Opps not my problem. Should have known better."
There is a difference in my mind between "slackers" and people who start off on the wrong foot, or are intellectually challenged, and hard working low income people who are trying to be responsible. It is unfortunate that we must give the freeloaders a ride along with the deserving. But is your pain and suffering by having to contribute to their health care greater than their pain and suffering in not being able to afford it. Sometimes in life, we just don't have ideal choices. Sometimes we are only left with bad and not as bad.
IT IS NOT A CLASS THING. It's a responsibility thing. I totally hate people - regardless of economic class - who play the "heads I win" - "tails you lose" game. And much admire people who play by the rules that almost everyone in this country used to play by. Maybe you don't get it - maybe no one gets it. Because it seems to be such an old-fashioned POV these days. Earn best you can - pay your bills - take care of your family - stuff like that. And - if you play by the rules - and sh** happens - your community is here to help. You are as old as I am (more or less). Didn't you grow up with those notions in your mind? Robyn
No one disagrees with this philosophy. And if it is truly not a "class thing" then stop with the derogatory names and stop lumping everyone in the same pot. You'll never be able to separate the "deserving" from the "undeserving". That is a reality. So you have to make a choice. What' more important in your mind?
Last edited by modhatter; 10-20-2013 at 06:09 PM..
Until the ability of people to even use the main portal of ACA, no one here can explain diddly.
What happened to all the money that went into building that disaster? Are the same people in charge of the automated functions of ACA also now the same ones telling everyone how great it will be?
ACA is the model of incompetence. Hundreds of millions have been spent on automation for something that will costs hundreds of millions more to fix, before step one.
For the money already spent on automating the functions of ACA, millions of people could probably have health insurance, paid for.
Until the ability of people to even use the main portal of ACA, no one here can explain diddly.
What happened to all the money that went into building that disaster? Are the same people in charge of the automated functions of ACA also now the same ones telling everyone how great it will be?
ACA is the model of incompetence. Hundreds of millions have been spent on automation for something that will costs hundreds of millions more to fix, before step one.
For the money already spent on automating the functions of ACA, millions of people could probably have health insurance, paid for.
It would be interesting to see if the software that is causing the massive screw-up is actually government developed--or, more likely, handed out to a private firm.
In the meantime, it's also interesting to note that the politicians saying Obamacare is going to ruin us are having no problem requesting funds for their districts.
Quote:
As I’ve reported, many Republican lawmakers have attempted to repeal Obamacare with one hand while asking for health reform cash with the other. Freedom of Information Act requests revealed letters from lawmakers—including Paul Ryan, Hal Rogers, and Jeff Denham, among others—asking the administration to approve ACA grants, in some cases health center funding, for their constituents.
Some have been brazen enough to use health reform funding announcements as props to gain friendly media attention. Congressman Michael Grimm has presented jumbo-sized check to announce an ACA grant in his district. Senator Jerry Moran posed at the groundbreaking ceremony for an ACA-funded clinic in his state.
This is a false dichotomy. I do not have to choose from only two of your suggested outcomes. Do I think we can lower cost while not only maintaining quality but improving quality? That is one you should ad. Because this is the one I would chose. We have had this discussion before. Statistics show us we do not have the best quality in health care. You continue to ignore this fact.
As Mircea and others have pointed out - we use different metrics than other countries to define quality. Especially in areas like infant mortality.
Moreover - studies that control for things like poverty show pretty much consistently that health care for middle-class and higher income people in this country is at least as good or better than that in most other countries. Which shouldn't be surprising. People with better educations and more money who live stable lives have better health care out-comes and better health than people who are terribly educated - have less money - and don't live in stable households. Does this surprise anyone?
FWIW - I was involved putting together studies like this back in college (and that was a long time ago). When computers first started to be popular - political scientists started to like crunching lots of data - and I worked for one of those political scientists. If you took all the poor people in this country out of the equation - our stats would look fabulous.
Also FWIW - I've traveled in France - Germany - Norway - Sweden - the UK - Spain - Italy - Belgium - Denmark - the Netherlands - and Switzerland (Vatican City too - that's a political place in Europe - it's not part of any country). Those countries do not have as many poor people as we do - immigrants (illegal or legal) either). And yet what few poor people - illegal immigrants - or even diverse legal people they have throws them into a tizzy. Not only about health care. But about stuff like banning all external signs of religion (be it a turban on a Sikh - any kind of veil on a Muslim woman - a skullcap on a Jew - or even wearing a cross). They want to ban the slaughter of animals in a religiously appropriate way - circumcision too (both important issues for Jews and Muslims - about the only issues that unite these 2 groups instead of dividing them). Some of these countries even try to ban minarets through zoning. These are not countries I care to emulate. Because they don't share my values.
Quote:
Actually people in the UK pay approx $6.00 for any drug.
You mean they may perhaps pay $6 OOP. Who pays the rest? WRT a drug like Gilenya (the first oral MS drug) - I think it costs less in the UK than it costs here. About $25-30k/year there as compared with about $40k/year here. So how is the rest of the cost paid? Note that in the UK - this drug - which many people think is vastly superior to most older MS drugs - can only be approved and paid for by the NHS if and when the older inferior drugs fail on particular patients. It can't be used as a first line drug.
Quote:
Flash: I have responded to this argument all ready countless times. No one, Right, Left, Middle agree with with either of these scenarios. Most especially the "jingle keys", as these are usually adults who are more mature and should know better. The teen pregnancy, is a product of poor parenting, and adolescent foolishness. It is a problem shared by many nations. Where we do disagree, is that these foolish kids because of their mistakes do not deserve a chance, and should be denied something as basic as adequate health care.
Foolish mistakes happen - but to 50% of the population (that's the approximate % of kids born to unwed mothers these days)? I call that ignorance on the part of a substantial part of the population - not foolish mistakes. Note that the thing that correlates most closely with poverty in our country is being born to an unwed mother.
Quote:
There is a difference in my mind between "slackers" and people who start off on the wrong foot, or are intellectually challenged, and hard working low income people who are trying to be responsible. It is unfortunate that we must give the freeloaders a ride along with the deserving. But is your pain and suffering by having to contribute to their health care greater than their pain and suffering in not being able to afford it. Sometimes in life, we just don't have ideal choices. Sometimes we are only left with bad and not as bad.
You can cut and dice it any way you want. I think any country can handle 5-10% who are merely unfortunate and perhaps stupid. Not 30-40-50%.
And I don't know why anyone here doesn't understand my implications about paying for this. I won't be paying for this. Because I pay peanuts in terms of federal income taxes - nothing in the way of FICA - and am getting great subsidies on Medicare. And I live in a state that doesn't have a state income tax. My largest tax bill is my property tax bill - which has little to do with this. IOW - I ain't got no financial dog in this fight.
Exactly who do you think will be paying for this? IMO - mostly middle-class or higher income earners who are pre-Medicare (and paying for their own health insurance for the most part) and/or paying lots of state and federal taxes.
I happen to like the middle class in this country - and think it's important.
I don't know if you caught the Obama press conference today. About the people who will benefit from this stuff. To me - for the most part - they seemed like the "worthy" uninsurable/I cost so much I can't afford to pay for it. One older woman with unidentified pre-existing conditions that made her uninsurable. A letter from a mother who basically said PTL - I only have to pay $150/month and my kid's ADD meds cost $250/month. A younger woman - a type 1 diabetic who's now pregnant. All these people will certainly cost more than they pay in. I'm not saying these are bad people - but they are expensive people in terms of health insurance. I would have thought that for a press conference - they could have found one young healthy person who didn't mind paying for the others to trot out. Guess they couldn't.
I am not unsympathetic to the goals of insuring the uninsurable - since my husband and I were in that category for 20+ years. But - if that's what the plan is designed to be - don't you think it should have been sold that way to the American public? After all - that's how you're trying to sell it to me. I think it would have been a mighty hard sell on that basis IMO. The Florida high risk pool would have been an especially hard sell to people in Florida (who paid for its losses through health care premium surcharges) - because most beneficiaries were upper middle class - and a lot of guys with AIDs.
And - if you want to insure the uninsurable - why not a national high risk health pool subsidized by all US taxpayers - instead of this monstrosity that seems to have screwed up a lot of insurable people who buy health insurance?
IMO - all of this is because no one wants to discuss the real issues - the elephants in the room as it were. But we as a country must discuss them if we hope to make any progress. Robyn
Robyn,
You are correct. Far too many woman chose (some don't chose) to have children without the benefit of marriage. Actually the statistic is about 4.6% per year or 46 of every 1000 births ea year. However the cumulative # in the US over the years is somewhere between 40 to 50% depending on whose numbers are correct have had at least one child out of wedlock.
This is not to say that these woman did not later marry the father or another at a later date, which is often the case. There is also a growing trend of living together without the benefit of marriage. But, I will agree that I suspect that the greatest majority of the illegitimate children are born to people who can least afford them, particularly with Hispanics. I have seen this first hand over the course of 35 years with my stores, and it is always disturbing to me.
As all of this relates to the discussion of ACA with it's pluses and minuses, I continue to hold that it fills a very over due inequality (primarily the pre-existing condition practice) but I still fear the cost factor and know that with what we have now (this hodge podge of all these different insurances - Medicare, Medicade, MH Advantage, Medigap, Tricare, private insurance, and now ACA) this is not the most economical way to deliver health care at the best cost. Yet leaving it as it was is not acceptable either.
That is why I feel we need to get politics out of the mix, and concentrate on the problem and how we can best make the numbers work. I don't want some political label standing between me and the rest of society when we have such an important issue to tackle and fix. Washington's childish behavior and political posturing is spilling out creating a civil war amongst us. This only feeds into their silly games and accomplishes absolutely nothing.
I do not argue with you about all the inherent problems we face as a nation. I am aware of them just like you, and as you heard me say once before: "If I were King, I would set in motion many plans to try to change them, one by one."
Notice I say King, as the Democratic method hasn't been working so good for us lately.
Also, I should take this opportunity to to publicly apologize to you also. I am very passionate about this subject (as you would have never guessed ), and I let my passion get the best of me the last couple of days when I did personally attack you. Something I know is wrong, and feel very bad about. It has no place on these forums. I hope you will be able to accept my apology.
I am sure we will continue to disagree on some matters, but definitely on a more friendly note I hope.
Last edited by modhatter; 10-21-2013 at 08:14 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
