I have read, and re-read the long winded posts of self righteousness. I still fail to find any wisdom hidden within.

We will meet again in the ballot box, your mind was made up before you arrived.
You ignore those that try to tell you that socialized medicine works, you ignore the outcry from the working class that screams "this is killing us".

And you somehow think going back to private insurance is the solution. Been there, done that. Did not work.

Guy, Kong: making your posts longer while making it difficult to quote and respond does NOT make them content rich, accurate, or even interesting.

I could save it as a cure for insomnia perhaps. But just more far right winged Drivel.

---

Janice

Thank you Guy for an excellent example.

You make my point quite well for me.

---

Janice

I have read, and re-read the long winded posts of self righteousness. I still fail to find any wisdom hidden within.

We will meet again in the ballot box, your mind was made up before you arrived.
You ignore those that try to tell you that socialized medicine works, you ignore the outcry from the working class that screams "this is killing us".

And you somehow think going back to private insurance is the solution. Been there, done that. Did not work.

Guy, Kong: making your posts longer while making it difficult to quote and respond does NOT make them content rich, accurate, or even interesting.

I could save it as a cure for insomnia perhaps. But just more far right winged Drivel.

s^s:

Sigh...

As Guy tried to quote...

What we have here... Is a failure... To communicate!

-- The warden to the title character in the movie "Cool Hand Luke"...

I can't speak for Guy, but for myself, I post detailing my reasoning, using examples and giving sources where appropriate.

Just making a brief statement has no validity. If you cannot support the side you are arguing for, you may as well just remain silent. For it seems that instead of actually understanding the situation and thinking for yourself, you (and others employing the same tactic) are merely regurgitating the 'party line'.

You seem to be adverse to reading. If something requires more of an attention span than that possessed by a 2 year old child whacked out on sugar and caffeine, you seem to condemn it right out of the starting gate. You imply it is boring, and call it drivel.

You claim we ignore posts that claim that socialism works. This is because that merely saying 'socialism works' is not sufficient to establish that it does. You MUST provide reasoning, examples, sources, AND defend your position from counter-argument to establish that it works. You have done NONE of this.

You claim that we :

ignore the outcry from the working class that screams "this is killing us".

What do you think motivates me (and presumably others) to propose potential solutions to the problem? We hear the outcry. We FEEL the outcry from ourselves. If we didn't we wouldn't care and would ignore it. Things are obviously broken. Painfully so.

So, as for myself, I sat down and studied the problem. I interviewed a large number of people (both inside health care, and outside of it). I took my knowledge of history, political science, and economics, and identified the core issue of the problem. Then I formulated a solution.

You say that I

somehow think going back to private insurance is the solution.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

My thesis is that the main problem is that health care is not affordable for the average person to pay for out of their own pockets, like it used to be 45 or so years ago. Also, socialized medicine is not the answer. Things began to go wrong when medicine in this country was partially socialized. Also, private insurance is not the answer. Private insurance is part of the problem as well at about the same time and for many of the same reasons as socialism.

The solution I propose is to remove the market-distorting forces of socialism AND private insurance and then allow the market to correct price levels. Yes, there would be some short-term pain involved, but it is the only strategy that is sustainable over the long term.

I have supported these statements in previous posts, which you seem to dislike reading.

Until you (and others) support your statements in a like manner (detailed reasoning, not emotional either.. example.. sources.. and successful defense from counter argument), consider a great big

Citation Needed on your posts here in the politics forum.

I have read each of these posts Kong. And I still fail to find worthy content.
I find nothing worthy of debate. You have made your opinion clear.

Socialized medicine is working WELL in many countries. It can here too. Privatized medical insurance has been a complete failure.
Do I trust my government? Not particularly. Why? Because they are more often than not corrupted by intense lobbying from business interests. Such as oil,
coal, nuclear, insurance, financial..

If corporations are legally "people", they need to be made criminally liable for their action, up to and including conspiracy to commit murder, murder, genocide. My personal perspective is corporations do not have rights, people have rights. Abolish ALL corporate political contributions. We all might see a more responsive government. And I am willing to bet you still would not like it.

But at this point, I completely and totally support any movement towards socialized medicine. "Wait we can fix this" is much too little much too late.
We tried. They had ample opportunity to fix it. They failed.

So spread the risk and cost over the entire system. Add oversight, pay for results not number of procedures.

This is the direction we are headed. And it can not happen too soon in my book. HMO's have already slaughtered far too many people. The CEO's and decision makers should be on death row.

---

Janice

Ah, at last, some reasoning. Let's see.

I have read each of these posts Kong. And I still fail to find worthy content.
I find nothing worthy of debate. You have made your opinion clear.

your opinion.

Socialized medicine is working WELL in many countries. It can here too.

That is not a hard fact. There are signs of financial strain in, for instance, the UK NHS. Prices are going too high, it seems, for the system to cope well in tough economic times. The same as our system.

Privatized medical insurance has been a complete failure.

I totally agree.

Do I trust my government? Not particularly.

I don't trust government either. If you don't trust government, why do you want them running something as important as health care?

Why? Because they are more often than not corrupted by intense lobbying from business interests. Such as oil,
coal, nuclear, insurance, financial..

I totally agree. But then, I go a bit further. Stop ALL lobbying, be it by business, labor, other special interests, ALL of it!

If corporations are legally "people", they need to be made criminally liable for their action, up to and including conspiracy to commit murder, murder, genocide. My personal perspective is corporations do not have rights, people have rights. Abolish ALL corporate political contributions.

I totally agree. Corporations should not be considered as 'natural persons' in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Also, corporate officers should be criminally responsible for the misdeeds of their corporation. But this should also extend to other organizations such as labor unions. Let the people responsible answer for their crimes, no matter WHAT organization they belong to. People, as you say, have rights (and with those come responsibilities). And I totally agree with abolishing ALL corporate political contributions, even those from the corporations known as political parties and labor unions. ALL political contributions must come from individuals and be limited in amounts, and be totally voluntary if we are EVER to get rid of corruption.

We all might see a more responsive government. And I am willing to bet you still would not like it.

Well, I would love to see a government free of corruption. I would also love to see other things as well. While a 'more responsive government' might be nice, it should confine itself to only the proper functions of government, and not be shoving itself into all sorts of areas it doesn't belong. It appears we likely differ on our respective lists of exactly what 'proper functions of government' include. So be it, we are different individuals.

But at this point, I completely and totally support any movement towards socialized medicine. "Wait we can fix this" is much too little much too late.
We tried. They had ample opportunity to fix it. They failed.

Well, we disagree on socialization of medicine. You consider it to be the solution. I consider it part of the problem. More on this later.

So spread the risk and cost over the entire system. Add oversight, pay for results not number of procedures.

Hmm... Spreading out the risk and cost. This IS socialism.
By a strict definition of socialism, Private Insurance is just as much socialism as is, for instance, the UK's NHS.
http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=socialism&ia=ced

an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state.

As you can see, while socialism usually means 'by the government' it is not a strict requirement. A private insurance company, spreading the risk and cost over the entire community is just as 'socialist' as government doing it. Both WILL do the same things, and both distort the market. The double-barreled shotgun blast of Government programs, and the rise in popularity of private health insurance starting in the mid 1960's is what killed the affordability of medical care for the average person by a massive distortion of the market. I am sorry that you can't seem to understand this.

To give an example. Back around 1964, when I was a child, I had some throat surgery. The total cost was around $300.00. Granted that was relatively minor surgery, but for major surgery, the total cost kinda topped out at about $1000.00. The average person's income then was about $10,000.00 a year. So, major surgery would cost the average person about 10% of one year's earnings. Today, racking up a bill of $100,000.00 in the hospital is trivial, and a major surgery can easily have a cost of $300,000.00. The average person today might make around $30,000.00 a year. So the major surgery will cost the average person 10 years worth of wages.

10% of a year's wages then up to 1000% of a year's wages today. This is the market distortion that has happened due to both government programs, and private insurance. THIS is why I am against both government programs and private insurance. The market distortion in prices in health care they engendered is... ruinous.

This is the direction we are headed. And it can not happen too soon in my book. HMO's have already slaughtered far too many people. The CEO's and decision makers should be on death row.

For what it is worth HMO's are totally evil, though I might not support 'death row', I would support Life in prison, no parole, for those evil fookers.

What you may not realize is that the 'officials and decision makers' in Government Health Care do the SAME THINGS as those at HMOs. What is your concept of 'socialized medicine'? It is that EVERYONE in the nation would effectively be on 'Medicare'? Do you have ANY idea of what evils the Medicare system is currently doing to the elderly? I do. My dad is 86, and mom is 84. The amount of reduction in care over the last 2 years is astounding. I could provide you details, but that would violate their right to privacy. But take my word for it, its BAD. And you seriously want this for EVERYONE? FOREVER? Not to mention that projections are that Medicare will be totally broke by 2017. The money just isn't there to provide a reasonable amount of care.

As you mentioned, the fix isn't more of the same. Its too late, it isn't fixable. The fix is to return to the old system, which WORKED.

So, as you can see, once you provided some reasoning, we actually agree on quite a bit indeed. And what we disagree on is actually quite a small part. I would love to discuss other aspects of your post (such as corporate/government corruption) at length. On those things, we actually agree to a great extent indeed, and might be able to formulate something useful indeed by working together.

On the subject of medical care, I suspect that we will not agree at all. I further expect that the approach you advocate will at least be tried. Oh well.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-047.pdf population data from 1964. Scroll down to page 7 the median average wage was a bit lower than you thought. Of course this is an estimate since they didnt use every single household for calculating the numbers. That would have been a monumental task considering the state of computers and handheld calculators weren't invented until the 1970's

Back the point though. I agree with the ever increasing costs of health care. Lets not forget that Physicians are faced with $100-$250k in debt when they graduate. I think this is part of the medical cost dilemma. Doctors have to charge more because of malpractice insurance is outrageously expensive and increasingly expensive education costs.

Malpractice insurance was supposed to get cheaper in Texas. About a decade ago, the state passed a tort reform law that significantly reduced awards in injury/malpractice suits. The cost of penalties has gone down drastically but the insurance still costs about the same as before. The only change that happened is the Insurance companies are now paying out less and making a whole more (the magic word is) Profit.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Again, far too verbose for response.

I will give a short one on just one item.

"Hmm... Spreading out the risk and cost. This IS socialism.
"
This IS insurance.

Funny isn't it..40 years ago "burn it all down and start over" was the far left cry. Now it is that of the far right. Huh Whu?

---

Janice

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-047.pdf population data from 1964. Scroll down to page 7 the median average wage was a bit lower than you thought. Of course this is an estimate since they didnt use every single household for calculating the numbers. That would have been a monumental task considering the state of computers and handheld calculators weren't invented until the 1970's

Back the point though. I agree with the ever increasing costs of health care. Lets not forget that Physicians are faced with $100-$250k in debt when they graduate. I think this is part of the medical cost dilemma. Doctors have to charge more because of malpractice insurance is outrageously expensive and increasingly expensive education costs.

Malpractice insurance was supposed to get cheaper in Texas. About a decade ago, the state passed a tort reform law that significantly reduced awards in injury/malpractice suits. The cost of penalties has gone down drastically but the insurance still costs about the same as before. The only change that happened is the Insurance companies are now paying out less and making a whole more (the magic word is) Profit.

OK. $6,600 instead of $10,000. That changes the '64 number slightly. From 10% to 15%. Not that significant.

I was reporting the figure of $10,000 based on what I remember, personally, of my neighbors then. Of course, the figure $10,000 is given later as an average of a slightly better off class (technical and professional), which were most of my neighbors. Doctors, lawyers, etc. got a bit over $13,000 in that report.
Please forgive my generalization of my own experiences into 'everyone'. It was not an intentional error.

For my feelings on insurance see some of my previous posts in this thread, and my thoughts on student loans, a post of mine in another thread (cant offhand remember which one). And you underestimate the total debt-load figure in this case. Its actually somewhere between $500,000 and $1,000,000 when everything is considered, to put yourself through undergrad, medical school, then after internship, etc. set up a practice.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Again, far too verbose for response.

I will give a short one on just one item.

"Hmm... Spreading out the risk and cost. This IS socialism.
"
This IS insurance.

Funny isn't it..40 years ago "burn it all down and start over" was the far left cry. Now it is that of the far right. Huh Whu?

Ok... short response.

You call it insurance. But then, insurance is socialism, just not government-based.

And you imply that I am far right. Uhh... No. I don't really fit on the left/right spectrum. The right supports elitist aristocrats and the like. The left supports labor unions and the like. I support neither. Where does that put me?

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

your view of eliminate ALL medical insurance would be heavily in favor of the wealthy, potentially to critical levels. On this topic, I would consider that an extreme rightist view.

---

Janice

your view of eliminate ALL medical insurance would be heavily in favor of the wealthy, potentially to critical levels. On this topic, I would consider that an extreme rightist view.

Ahh, As I said there would be some short-term pain associated with it, but the market forces would correct prices. Over the long term, it is the only viable solution. Currently, medical care prices are increasing rapidly due to the market forces of both govt. health programs and private insurance. Very very soon, there wont be enough money available, from ANY source to pay for health care unless you are very wealthy. We need to force a market correction back to somewhat sane price levels. It might take a few years, but health care would quickly adapt its price levels back to the affordable.

I agree, it won't happen. The american people and politicians are conditioned into looking for 'solutions' painless in the short term, with no thought of long term consequences.

Sorry this is running a bit long, but its important.

You yourself admit that both the government and business have many problems. These problems are going to get in the way of both of our solutions to health care. The odds that a total switch to government run health care will happen soon are quite good. The odds that the government and business will be reformed enough so that government run health care could work for more than a few years before becoming insolvent are slim to none.

You call it insurance. But then, insurance is socialism, just not government-based.

Too funny, you linked a citation rather than a definition earlier, presumably you wanted us to see the Collins definition:

1. Compare capitalism an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels
2. any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
3. (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need

Unfortunately for you insurance does not fit this definition, note "It is characterized by production for use rather than profit", and, as I think we'd all agree, insurance companies are profit driven entities.

That aside, let's for a moment go with your notion that insurance is just as socialist as the UK's NHS. This takes us right back to the issues of what do do with rape victims that contract HIV, or babies born with congenital defects. Are you suggesting that we simply let them die if they can't raise the funds to pay for their own treatment? Nice.

Also, if health insurance is socialism, is the same true of car insurance, property insurance, indeed any insurance? Is the reason for this other people's money is used to settle an individual claim? If so are bank loans socialist? Credit cards?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Australia has a universal health care system called also called "Medicare". This is paid for by a 2% levy that is paid as part of your income tax. This entitles all Australian citizens free treatment at a public (ie government owned) hospital. It also pays around 70% of the cost of a visit to a doctors private surgery.

Emergency treatment is guaranteed in all cases. If you are injured in a motor vehicle or work place accident the financial arrangements are sorted out later (In Oz all motor vehicles have compulsory 3rd party insurance and all Employers have compulsory Worker's Compensation insurance.) Nobody is ever turned away from a hospital because they have no Health Insurance and the care is the best available in all circumstances. If you have a life threatening disease it is treated immediately. If you require support for a chronic condition such as kidney failure it is provided. All at no cost to the patient

The system is not perfect. If you require non-urgent surgery such as a hip replacement or similar that is required for a non life threatening illness you are put on a waiting list, that depending on which city or town you live in can be up to 18 months. The bigger the city the longer the waiting list.

Much publicity is given in the media to the length of the waiting lists but this is mainly a media "beat up" at election time. As with anywhere in the world, Health Care is a good election issue and the opposition (either party) always makes the situation out to be worse than it really is.

My own experiences
1) Suffering from stomach pain. Time to see GP less than 1 day, referred to specialist, time to see specialist, 3 weeks. Diagnosed with Gall Bladder problem requiring surgery and overnight hospitalisation, waiting time for surgery 2 weeks then one week later a post op check up. Cost to me for all this, approximately $250 which was all for fees at the various doctors surgeries, the hospital treatment was covered by Medicare

2) Cataract in right eye requiring a lens replacement. Time to see Opthalmologist at the local hospital one week. Scheduled for surgery, waiting time 2 weeks (the next operating day). 2 x post op visits to the Opthalmologist at the hospital eye clinic at a 2 day and 14 interval after the operation. Cost to me $0, even the original visit to the Optometrist that diagnosed the cataract was covered by Medicare

These are my personal experiences, but I could quote other cases of friends and relatives who required major surgery for cancer etc with similar outcomes. So please, don't anybody try to tell me that "Socialised Medicine" doesn't work. Every professional involved in both cases still made a reasonable return on their investment in their training and experience, I received proper care, no thieving private "Insurance" company made a cent and no non-medical desk jockey could decide my treatment wasn't "necessary".

My advice, if you want to look at a Health Care System you have to look past your political beliefs and look at what works and what is best for everybody. No system is ever perfect, there will always be someone trying to rort the system, but a few dishonest people does NOT mean an entire system is worthless.

T.A.

You know, we lock people up for stupid reasons in this country(U.S.) (pot, cocaine, heroin, other drugs) even homeless people are arrested for loitering. My city has just passed a plan to help the homeless, hopefully it will work.

people who do drugs need medical services, not jail. and the homeless need jobs, food stamps(BTW, you can't get food stamps if you don't have a address or proof of residency.) ( and jobs, please, everyone needs a job, even me.)

---

I recommend Secunia PSI: http://secunia.com/vulnerability_scanning/personal/
Go Georgia Tech.

Sarge, I can't find your reference to "Reckless Medicine" from the November 2010 issue of Discover Magazine. You have my attention and interest.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AtQKcBg6z_GppM4BZAncXy.bvZx4?p=%22reckless+medicine%22+november+discover+magazine&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22reckless%20medicine%22%20november%20discover%20magazine&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=b54c4bac999a8c85&pf=p&pdl=3000

I have sometimes been able to find direct links some articles posted online, posted by the magazine itself, but so far, no luck on this one.

Sarge, yes, bigger, more, less... can apply to other large organizations. Please allow them to fail. The biggest organization, our country--please don't allow them to fail.

I include in large organizations the following:
1) Corporations.
2) Unions.
3) Religious institutions, such as The Catholic Church.
4) Of course, government.
That is just part of a list we could build.
Which ones can be allowed to fail? Is there a "domino effect" potential?

Sarge, in reference to the "...care about U.S. politics?" This was in response to a barage of quips based on false premises and borderline insults. ... . I have asked our friend, Robert, up in Canada at least one very specific question about health care, and he has ignored it.

I generally read, but do not add to or respond to Robert's posts. I have told him before, essentially, that his style of debate is much like those he decries: toeing a party line; short; insulting; and so on. This covers both things I agree and disagree with him on.

Sarge, in reference to "Are we all Google victims?" question. You have a good point. However, I believe the victims are those who don't look at where Google points and first determine the credibility of the source of information they're trying to retrieve. Google is good in that we no longer have to rely on an outdated bookshelf full of Encyclopedia Britanicas or have to take the effort to drive to the nearest library. It's fault is that it points into a free and open society able to publish anything--true or false. Of course, (this can't be stated enough) with freedom comes responsibility.

Though such a point was implied, it wasn't my main intention. Skil asked "What is this Google you speak of?" and I was reminded of a recent statement to me from ML1 (Martin) in the "What's wrong with this picture" thread, so I copied and altered it to fit the Google question.
Google is not my first place to search.
Note in responding to your next question, about the "Reckless Medicine" article, I provided you not one link, but links both from Yahoo and Google to several websites referring to the article.
I've mentioned this before: Howard Gardner wrote a book, with Emma Laskin, called "Leading Minds" in the late 90s. There is a short bit towards the end about leadership in the information age. Unfortunately, even for its time perhaps, this bit was too short and I wonder what an update on it would be like now.

Since you do not wish to pay Brett Favre's salary, you do not have to. The free market says there's a demand for his service, since the demand is so great, the price people are willing to pay is great.

Should the demand, and salary, be that great? It's similar with other entertainers, actors and musicians. Have you ever met someone that sings at least as well as someone that won American Idol? (Do I watch it? No!) And before someone says, well, that person that won American Idol took a chance, consider the musicians that took a chance and struggled for 10 years before hitting it big and deserved to hit it big. The entertainment industry is another one of those "large" things we could mention. I believe they do not seek to push talent. They seek to push trends.

I have asked our friend, Robert, up in Canada at least one very specific question about health care, and he has ignored it.

I didn't ignore anything but I guess I missed this question.
Some of these posts are tiresomely long and there's no way I'm starting at the top again to look for it.

Please repeat the one specific question about health care and I will try to answer it

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Though such a point was implied, it wasn't my main intention. Skil asked "What is this Google you speak of?" and I was reminded of a recent statement to me from ML1 (Martin) in the "What's wrong with this picture" thread, so I copied and altered it to fit the Google question.
Google is not my first place to search.

My comment about "[t]here always google" was followed by a link to the UK TV license fee site itself, and was a response to a request for a British friend to post the current cost of the license. I'm not sure I qualify as a "British friend" any more, having been a documented US resident since March '99 and a US citizen since November '11, though I was trying to show that a Brit was not required, an internet search would suffice. Apologies for not using a product neutral term in my earlier post. Google is my first place for an internet search, though I understand there are alternatives :).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...