insane medical costs

My take is on the matter is pretty simple. Your medical well being should be the concern of two parties: The patient and the medical professional. The middle man (any middle man) looking to profit off of someone's misery has no business (ah hem) being involved.

My position on this topic was solidified just today. My son has a bad case of swimmer's ear. It seems my insurance wouldn't cover the antibiotic, since they don't manufacture a 'generic' version. I'm out $130.14 for a 10 mL bottle! Yes, I almost fell over too. What was I to say, no thanks? My son is in serious pain. Apparently, paying even a cent for 'the real thing' would have cut into their profit margin too much. People, not profits, should come first.
 
Coupefan said:
My take is on the matter is pretty simple. Your medical well being should be the concern of two parties: The patient and the medical professional. The middle man (any middle man) looking to profit off of someone's misery has no business (ah hem) being involved.

My position on this topic was solidified just today. My son has a bad case of swimmer's ear. It seems my insurance wouldn't cover the antibiotic, since they don't manufacture a 'generic' version. I'm out $130.14 for a 10 mL bottle! Yes, I almost fell over too. What was I to say, no thanks? My son is in serious pain. Apparently, paying even a cent for 'the real thing' would have cut into their profit margin too much. People, not profits, should come first.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that something like that is not something insurance should probably even cover. Swimmer's ear is a pretty mild easily treatable condition. Child birth is another example of where insurance is where it doesn't belong. My sister recently had a baby and insurance paid of $13K for natural child birth. That's like insurance paying you when you vandalize your own car. I guarantee that if insurance didn't cover these things they would be way cheaper and so would insurance. People simply would not pay that and the market would respond. I know that it's hard to imagine that there is any way to make it cheaper just because people won't pay but the free market is very effective that way. Sometimes it amazes even me. The problem is few people have faith in the market anymore because it's been so manipulated by regulations that it doesn't look any good anymore.
 
LOL

"Founding principles-my god what tripe."

Yes, and the horse you rode in on.

You have a different way of looking at things, Pat. The framers rewrote the original Articles of Confederation in 1787 after much debating over the power and reach of the new federal government and the significance of/need to preserve and ensure existing state authority. They knew they had to replace them because they hadn't enacted a feasible system of governance that allowed the state and federal governments to function side-by-side, each of them with different functions and autonomous (though sometimes interconnected) control.

The framers concluded that only in limited areas, which include the national defense, foreign relations, issuance of currency, immigration, resolution of any conflicts between the states, taxation to raise revenue required to make the federal government operational (and a few other clear and distinct situations) could the federal government have chief - though not absolute - authority.

In all remaining aspects, the states retained their authority. This is what "limited, enumerated powers" of the federal government means.

This may not hold any importance for those (e.g., you) who believe "The State"/federal government should have absolute dominion and far-reaching scope/authority, but it was the original intent and is counted among our Founding Principles.

And then there's this... to further assist you, I'll cite the Tenth Amendment, which further defines the division of authority between the state and federal governments:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I trust that helps...
 
Last edited:
MGandini said:
Other basic human and essential services are not operated for profit.
Click to expand...

Basic human needs:
Food. Grocery stores, food manufacturers, and farmers all operate for profit.
Shelter. Home builders, real estate agents, mortgage companies all operate for profit.
Clothing. Clothing stores, clothing distributors, and Fruit of the Loom all operate for profit.
Utilities. Are regulated yes, but the vast majority operate for profit.

Care to revise your statement?
 
MGandini said:
I'm sure some will see it as an extreme viewpoint, but in my view this whole states' rights movement has gotten far out of hand. I am an American. I hold a US passport, not a Washington passport.
Click to expand...

+1 on "extreme."

What's out of hand is the federal power grab. Have a look at the enumerated powers and 9th and 10th Amendments to see what we're supposed to be doing.

National/federal vs state/local has been argued since Hamilton and Jefferson.
 
No it doesn't .....

help, because I already know all of that. No point in trying to prove an argument with your original assumptions-that's called begging the question.

And leave my horse and yours tied to the rail outside and unmolested if you please.
 
Matthew said:
Nationalized health care will reduce quality, availability, innovation and may not even reduce cost. On top of that if the US goes to a nationalized health care system it will likely seriously damage the health care systems in other countries because we subsidize them by paying higher costs that offset the lower profits companies make selling to those countries. I'm not saying that's a reason not to do it but it is true that those countries are able to keep costs lower because we pay higher prices. The (relatively) free market in the US partially props up the socialized systems in other countries provides them with the innovation and cutting edge medicine while we end up paying for it. It's not really fair but if we go the way of the rest of the world that innovation is likely to go away so nobody gets it at any price.
Click to expand...

Useful compairson here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obama
 
Your basic point has some real merit....

but the problem is getting from where we are to where the market can operate as you indicate-and to very large extent I agree it probably would do so. On the other hand there needs to be some way to ensure people don't just suffer without medical care because they have come up against something too big for them to afford. You have said in the past that health insurance should be 'insurance' as we normally think of it-again agreed. But what does this look like as a pratical proposition? By what sort of mechanism does the system change to that? The money is there in one way or another, we are paying out 17% of GDP right now on health care-the issue is to flow that money differently so individuals have enough income to take care of a $13k child birth for instance or maintain a chronic condition like diabetes or high blood pressure or whatever.
 
yeah

usta in Portland said:
help, because I already know all of that. No point in trying to prove an argument with your original assumptions-that's called begging the question.

And leave my horse and yours tied to the rail outside and unmolested if you please.
Click to expand...

You know all that and yet you post opinions that don't even rise to a level necessary to qualify for the descriptive "excremental" and as if you haven't a clue.

"tripe"... in a pig's eye, horse's ass.
 
Matthew said:
I think it's unacceptable for the government to be in the health care business period. This has nothing to do with founding principles or the Constitution and everything to do with the fact that I think it's a really bad idea.
Click to expand...

This is where I will fundamentally disagree. There is the general welfare clause.

Expand that thought to the countries defense. How can you defend a country if you cannot field a healthy combat force. Think mother England in 1348-1350. Black Plague kills somewhere around 60% of the population. How do you defend a country when 60% of your population is dead?

Now take that back to healthcare vs the 1940's. not only did the US field troops in two theaters of war, but started the largest single purpose manufacturing operation (war effort production). If you do not have healty troops and a healthy workforce, you fail at the above mission.

The US has lost its manufacturing base. An economy based on manufacturing desired goods is what is needed to drag this economy outta the dumps. Without a healthy and educated workforce, we will not have resources for a healthy manufacturing base.

Access to healthcare is a fundamental need for a growing economy and a strong nation.
 
Its when you stand in the grocery store / pharmacy and have to decide to feed your kids vs. buying the medicine your doctor says you need. I have made that call, and I will tell you, you will sacrafice your own health for the well being of your children.

A middle class, 2 income family, earning a decent wage, should never be faced with such a decision.
 
I see your point.

They are more to provoke thought than generate an answer, and the general ignoring of the questions show the mind set...



Here is another situation to generate thought:
- My father is in his 70's
- he served this country in the USN during that little political unrest in the middle east between Korea and Vietnam (anyone remember that?)
- After Honerable Discharge from the Navy, he developed diabetes.
- has company retirement, lost the vast majority of his personal investments for retirement in the tech market sell off and subsequent devaluation of stocks.
- One round of prostate cancer, followed up by diagnosis with castleman's disease.
- now has Medicare with suplemental insurance (cannot qualify for his own insurance).
- A couple trips to the hospital have left him so far in debt that there is no way to financially survive.
- A man who honerably served this country, protecting the freedoms of its citizens is now in a position of financial ruination due to two 1 week trips to the hospital. There is nothing about his health issues resultant from a "risky" lifestyle. He has been turned down for VA treatment of his cancer, his diabetes, and his Castlemans, yet my uncle, gets VA treatment for his diabetes (where is the equity in that?). I have been turned down for VA treatment of my diabetes (USMC, medically discharged after a tour in the middle east (Desert Storm).
Click to expand...

I anxiously await the responses to this...
 
Dan Sarandrea (Phila) said:
Basic human needs:
Food. Grocery stores, food manufacturers, and farmers all operate for profit.
Shelter. Home builders, real estate agents, mortgage companies all operate for profit.
Clothing. Clothing stores, clothing distributors, and Fruit of the Loom all operate for profit.
Utilities. Are regulated yes, but the vast majority operate for profit.

Care to revise your statement?
Click to expand...

Lets just look at the highlighted line... food...

Imagine for a moment if all the grocery stores in your area only took 'food insurance'... to pay for groceries! When you walked up to the register you paid one price if you had a 'blue cross food insurance card' and a completely different price if you had a 'United Food Care Insurance card'. If you walked up with cash... the cashier would stare at you, then call over a equally confused customer service manager who wondered if you were on foodicaid or not... After a few moments they would decide that they simply don't know what to charge you... they really aren't set up to accept cash.

Since I'm on a HDHP plan, I can tell you when you want a cash price... many doctors offices are simply flabberghasted and cannot give you one. When I broke my arm 2 years ago and went to a sport orthopedic guy, his 'billing' gals had zero idea what to tell me. Took me almost 6 weeks to get a bill from them. When I offered cash, they seriously had a deer in the headlights look. When a system doesn't want you to pay with cash... it's broke.
 
Several recent polls

indicate that anywhere from 74% to 77% of those polled are satisfied with their current healthcare coverage. Help or subsidize those that need the help.
 
usta in Portland said:
the 'general welfare' clause stands the argument will continue until the next Jefferson and Hamilton roll around.
Click to expand...

I think that general welfare and specific welfare are two different things but that is not the source of my opposition to national health care. My opposition is part of a larger opposition to social safety nets because of the corrosive effects they have on a society.

Nations typically become wealthy when they have a vast free market and minimal government intrusion as well as a strong fear of failure that motivates people to succeed. When a society becomes wealthy there is a strong tendency to use the government to create some sort of "freedom from fear". This "freedom" socializes failure while keeping success private. It has a similar effect that TBTF has on the financial services sector but on a society as a whole. I believe this is the driving force behind the decline of western civilization. Nationalized health care is one part of this. The way people talk about the need for nationalized health care makes you wonder how we became successful without it. In reality the fact that we didn't have it is a part of why we became successful.

People like to use examples of horrible things that happen to people and then go on about how a wealthy society can allow those things to happen. As cold as it may seem on the surface the government has to stay out of protecting people from the bad things that happen to them. When the government gets involved it erodes the strength of families, community and churches in peoples lives leading to a moral and economic decline. Social safety nets are the beginning of the end of a prosperous society. In the early days of a social safety net, when a country has vast fortunes to squander, it seems like a wonderful thing but after a few years the decline becomes steady and hard to reverse. We are well into our decline as is Western Europe. At this point there is no going back. At least not in a way that won't be catastrophic and require a generation or more of reduced living standards.
 
So in your argumentative...

universe it is impossible to for two individuals to have roughly the same information and to have two different opinions.? All of this in the context of what amounts to a hermeneutical argument or discourse based on a document which is anything but unambiguous;the proof of this being that its meanings and limits have been argued before during and long after its adoption.

Escalating the encounter(if that is the right term ) by references to bestial sodomy and raw sewage isn't changing the underlying disagreement which consists of my not accepting the priveleged practical position for states rights and you contending that the Constitution provides for them. This is, in case you didn't notice, talikng past one another. As I said before, trying to persuade me of the superiority of your basic assumption by quoting your basic assumption is begging the question.
 
Point of Order

States don't have "rights". They have powers and responsibilities which are outlined in the state constitutions and the US constitution.
 
Well, I do hope....

you can maintain your sense of humor and your willingness to think in a world at such odds with your underlying positions. It will be hard, as the pretty much the entire planet settles down into a contention between highly compromised free markets and highly compromised liberal(in the original sense) democracies. Unfortunately for all concerned on both, or all, sides of the issues the free market and democracy (worth the name) are not perfect fits, if they fit at all. evidence would show that both need considerable alteration to allow them to occupy the same space and the same time. The one simply cannot tolerate, in the long run, the pure expression of the other. And so goes the struggle to square the circle:pigsfly:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top