So, How About that Debate?

[legion]

I pulled an all nighter today just to see the debate between Edwards and Cheney and I tried to make sense of it.
A bit of an illusion on my part I know but I gave it a shot anyways.

I have heard Cheney say that Kerry voted against this and that, he voted against something else but most of all he voted against. And that is about all he had to throw at Edwards. Now I am Dutch but that wouldn’t cut it over here. I think that most of you people like to know, just like I do, how they are going to solve the problems in Iraq, the economy, the loss of jobs and so on. Neither party had any examples on how to finance their plans and I seriously doubt that money magically appears in the U.S. (if it does let me know)

I heard Cheney say that Kerry’s administration will interfere more into the people lives (government control) Okay I might be a bit Dutch here again but isn’t that having a very big mouth? I mean this administration came up with the patriot act, right??? I have never, in my entire life, seen such a huge violation/infringement of your civil rights.

I have read one of our fellow Napsterite had to pay $600+ a month for medical insurance and I am sure many others will have to cough up that kind of dough with him/her/them
Now I am going to use a dirty word for ya yanks but wouldn’t it be better if you peeps start to pay attention to countries where medical insurance fees are paid COLLECTIVELY ????? I pay for a basic (no dentist, no alternative healthcare/treatment) roughly $60 a month and if I do want the whole deal I will pay about $84 (I don’t wanna be caught on a lie, so it is only fair to say that it is on the rise here too and this amounts comes on top of what my employer has to pay)

I have been told that without a job you peeps are not insured for medical treatment at all. Is this true ??? Sounds a bit dangerous to me!
We are all medically insured here, the working, the unemployed even illegal aliens won’t be without medical treatment. Don’t get me wrong here I am not saying that this country and that our system is so much better, far from it. However I like the idea that someone from a country where TB reigns supreme and when he/she makes it into this country he/she will get treated before he/she infects more and more people.

Another thing I noticed was that they went on and on about Iraq, very important, I know, however the subjects like the national deposit or the huge number of people that lost their job was dealt with in about 5 to 10 minutes. Both came with plans to cut the deposit in halve but again with hardly any backing on how to.

Like I said before I am not claiming our system is better, far from it!! And I am not taking a piss at the political system in the U.S. just trying to make heads and tails of it.

[goldie]

Originally Posted by toy boy

I have read one of our fellow Napsterite had to pay $600+ a month for medical insurance and I am sure many others will have to cough up that kind of dough with him/her/them
Now I am going to use a dirty word for ya yanks but wouldn’t it be better if you peeps start to pay attention to countries where medical insurance fees are paid COLLECTIVELY ????? I pay for a basic (no dentist, no alternative healthcare/treatment) roughly $60 a month and if I do want the whole deal I will pay about $84 (I don’t wanna be caught on a lie, so it is only fair to say that it is on the rise here too and this amounts comes on top of what my employer has to pay)

I have been told that without a job you peeps are not insured for medical treatment at all. Is this true ??? Sounds a bit dangerous to me!
We are all medically insured here, the working, the unemployed even illegal aliens won’t be without medical treatment. Don’t get me wrong here I am not saying that this country and that our system is so much better, far from it. However I like the idea that someone from a country where TB reigns supreme and when he/she makes it into this country he/she will get treated before he/she infects more and more people.

Hell Legi, i have a job and don't git no damn health insurance....not offered, not partial paid, nutting.

my (and family's) best hope of getting any sort of insurance is to sign up for medicaid (sorta welfare) but guess bloody what?! We own too much to qualify for any assistance. we'd have to live in a tent and ride a horse to work:S

there's nothing for the working poor or lower middle income folks....damn sorry for what's supposed to be one of the "richest" countries in the world, eh.

and yea, it's fucked up. totally.

[tambourine-man]

Originally Posted by toy boy

I pulled an all nighter today just to see the debate between Edwards and Cheney...

Yeah, I thought about doing that... ah well, it's the thought that counts...

Originally Posted by toyboy

...I have read one of our fellow Napsterite had to pay $600+ a month for medical insurance and I am sure many others will have to cough up that kind of dough with him/her/them.

Now I am going to use a dirty word for ya yanks but wouldn’t it be better if you peeps start to pay attention to countries where medical insurance fees are paid COLLECTIVELY ?????

Ooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh.....

Dangerously close to the 'S-word', legion. Careful mate, you'll be castrated with your hammer and sickle if you say it out loud.

[JackSpratts]

i buy health insurance for myself, and just myself...no children or other dependents. it's a great plan albeit one with a fairly high deductible; but once that's met there are no co-pays or other nickel and dime things that bleed you to death. it does not however cover eyeglasses or dentists. it will cover transplants, long term care, hospitalization etc up to $5 million total. it costs me around $250.00 a month. it has more than paid for itself. having said that i realize even 250 can be out of reach of many individuals, and those with dependents would have to pay more, while those with "pre-existing conditions" would have to pay much, much more - if they could even find an underwriter willing to cover them to begin with. i sometimes think health insurance is the worst thing that's happened to the west, that in fact it should be banned. i happen to think you can't actually have an economy in which people can't buy what you're selling. as it applies to health care, if people - all people - had to pay out of their pockets the true cost of care as it stands now they wouldn't be able to - so to my way of thinking the market would have to adjust to reality and configure itself so it was supportable by it's customers, in this case the patients. in short order we'd go from most people not being able to afford it to the opposite: most people enjoying and affording good health care with lots of marketplace choices. there will always be the poor among us, those that really can't afford anything at all, and it will always be a problem accommodating them in any area, whether it's food, housing or health care, but to have a marketplace that essentially no one can participate in is the definition of dysfunctional, and unless that basic dichotomy is addressed all the health insurance schemes in the country, whether republican (brutally stingy) or democratic (optimistically overreaching) will not fix this increasingly dangerous problem.

- js.

[albed]

Originally Posted by tambourine-man

Dangerously close to the 'S-word', legion. Careful mate, you'll be castrated with your hammer and sickle if you say it out loud.

SOCIALIZED MEDICAL CARE!!! Are you insane?

You seem to be confused about the word "paid" --and "deposit"(national debt)-- But socialism "takes". It isn't hard to figure that the people who take care of their health will be punished and the people who ruin their health will be rewarded.

The U.S. has all sorts of voluntary insurance programs for people to protect themselves from large unforseen medical expenses but the term insurance has been hijacked to mean subsidy and since someone has to pay the subsidy the premiums have gotten exorbantly large and it really ends up shifting the cost from the recipient to the premium payer(usually employers and government) until the payers rebel, the providers get shortchanged and start gouging and things degenerate into a mess.

I could really get into the economics and fairness but it simply boils down to the old maxim: if you want more of something subsidize it and if you want less of it tax it. If you want more sick people, even people pretending to be sick and scamming the system and hypochondriacs wasting money and resources, subsidize them.

[Mazer]

The VP debate was pretty much the same format as the Bush/Kerry debate, meaning they really didn't debate anything, they just produced sound bytes for an hour and a half. The presidential candidates sent out their attack dogs to say the things they couldn't afford to say themselves. It wasn't as entertaining as last week's debate.

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

i sometimes think health insurance is the worst thing that's happened to the west, that in fact it should be banned. i happen to think you can't actually have an economy in which people can't buy what you're selling. as it applies to health care, if people - all people - had to pay out of their pockets the true cost of care as it stands now they wouldn't be able to - so to my way of thinking the market would have to adjust to reality and configure itself so it was supportable by it's customers, in this case the patients. in short order we'd go from most people not being able to afford it to the opposite: most people enjoying and affording good health care with lots of marketplace choices.

I tend to feel the same way. This Frankenstein's-monster mix of government subsidized and free market health care is a beast that few other nations have to deal with. I'm certain the FTC could probably drum up a profiteering case against the insurance companies, the perscription drug companies should have to face more competetion than they do, and there's lots more that can be done. Government intervention is necessary sometimes, but in this case they're intevening in the wrong places and they just need to shift gears.

It took a cold war to get us to the moon; it would take a similar push from the government to cure cancer and AIDS. They should be pushing for more research and be less liberal with awarding patents, this would drive down the cost of perscription drugs and other medical supplies. The government should help more medical students get through school, not just cheaply but also well educated in the end, and this would lead to lower litigation insurance rates and reduce doctor's fees overall. When the building is crumbling you don't waste resources making superficial repairs, the first thing you look at is the foundation and reinforce it, and that's research and education as far as heath care is concerned. That will at least prevent things from getting worse, and reforms thence forth will have a lasting effect.

[multi]

Originally Posted by Mazer

I tend to feel the same way. This Frankenstein's-monster mix of government subsidized and free market health care is a beast that few other nations have to deal with. I'm certain the FTC could probably drum up a profiteering case against the insurance companies, the perscription drug companies should have to face more competetion than they do, and there's lots more that can be done. Government intervention is necessary sometimes, but in this case they're intevening in the wrong places and they just need to shift gears.

It took a cold war to get us to the moon; it would take a similar push from the government to cure cancer and AIDS. They should be pushing for more research and be less liberal with awarding patents, this would drive down the cost of perscription drugs and other medical supplies. The government should help more medical students get through school, not just cheaply but also well educated in the end, and this would lead to lower litigation insurance rates and reduce doctor's fees overall. When the building is crumbling you don't waste resources making superficial repairs, the first thing you look at is the foundation and reinforce it, and that's research and education as far as heath care is concerned. That will at least prevent things from getting worse, and reforms thence forth will have a lasting effect.

that makes alot of sense..


this just in..

Unintended consequences of Cheney's dot-com v dot-org debate goof
During last night's vice presidential debate, Dick Cheney advised viewers interested in his version of the facts about Halliburton to visit factcheck.com. Evidently, he meant to direct them to factcheck dot ORG, a site run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, but mis-spoke. Factcheck dot COM redirects you to GeorgeSoros.com which contains arguments on "why we must not re-elect President George Bush." Whups.
http://www.factcheck.com/
http://www.factcheck.org/

[legion]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

sometimes think health insurance is the worst thing that's happened to the west, that in fact it should be banned. i happen to think you can't actually have an economy in which people can't buy what you're selling. as it applies to health care, if people - all people - had to pay out of their pockets the true cost of care as it stands now they wouldn't be able to - so to my way of thinking the market would have to adjust to reality and configure itself so it was supportable by it's customers, in this case the patients. - js.

@ Jack spratts good point you got there, one I agree with whole heartily. Unfortunately it is the same here. When you just occupy a hospital bed it will set you back about $300 a day. Mind you, no doctor has visited you; no nurse fluffed your pillow, no drugs administered, just being there seems to be worth that kind of cash.
I spent more than one night in a Marriott hotel, valet parking, nice room, great view, good service, a swell mini bar, access to a gym and sauna, and a very nice breakfast (although vegemite isn’t my thing) but it didn’t cost me $300 a night. Damn close to it but still.

I also heard those two bitch about the lawsuits and the millions that are awarded for a medical mishap. Since my view on American society is distorted at best thanks to the media. I wander is this true or does overhead costs amount to the bulk of the money spent on health care on your side of the pond?
Here (the Netherlands) a member of the board of virtually any hospital takes home more money than our prime minister while they cannot afford to hire another nurse for those who really needs it. Therefore the level of care one receives here is in my opinion below average.

I do believe I read somewhere that you do have kid(s)( if I am wrong please do feel free to kick my ass about it.) May god forbid it will ever happen but what if one of them falls seriously ill? I take it you would have to cough up the money yourself, something that seems impossible to me. Also what happens when you run out of money? Would your kid(s) be kicked out of the hospital with all the horrible consequences that might have?
And a limit of 5 million dollars on your insurance??? is this the amount you can spend in your live time?

@ tambourine-man, SOCIALIST there I said it. Am I a brave little fucker or what?

[tambourine-man]

Originally Posted by albed

SOCIALIZED MEDICAL CARE!!! Are you insane?

No. But if I was, I'd be treated for it.

You seem to be confused about the word "paid" - and "deposit" (national debt)...

I wasn't aware I'd used either word in this thread? I mentioned 'paying' in another health-related thread, but the use of particular language and it's cultural context could take a long time to decipher.

...But socialism "takes". It isn't hard to figure that the people who take care of their health will be punished and the people who ruin their health will be rewarded.

On the one hand, you are correct. Such economic unfairness does occur. Some people - unfortunately, relatively few - will go through their lives never once requiring medical care. How unfair it must seem to have to pay for "another person's" care.

However, you seem to be labouring under a delusion regarding the social ettiquette or intelligence of illness. You seem to believe that your health is largely in your hands - which it is, and that all other factors are perhaps negligable - which they're not.

I'll tell you a little story. My beloved girlfriend is a pharmacist. In the course of her dispensary duty, she'll hand out quite a few medicinal prescriptions for cancer and, amazingly, quite a few of those who have cancer, have it through no fault of their own. Get this, some people who have lung/throat cancer have never smoked a cig in their life, some people who have skin cancer aren't sun worshippers nor have they spent half their life under a UV lamp. Some people whose liver has packed up haven't lived life with a bottle of scotch in their hand. Some people who have blood diseases didn't contract them through their own actions - they didn't 'ruin their own health'. If the equation were as simple as:

OWN ACTION = STANDARD OF HEALTH

... then I'd agree with you. I'd be right alongside you demanding that people pay their own way - after all, if I can stay healthy, then why can't others? And if others can't stay healthy, then why should I pay for them?

Unfortunately, as I suspect you're aware of, life often throws many of us a 'curl ball'... (are you impressed with my mastery of American colloquialism?)... which you comment on below...

...The U.S. has all sorts of voluntary insurance programs for people to protect themselves from large unforseen medical expenses but the term insurance has been hijacked to mean subsidy and since someone has to pay the subsidy the premiums have gotten exorbantly large and it really ends up shifting the cost from the recipient to the premium payer(usually employers and government) until the payers rebel, the providers get shortchanged and start gouging and things degenerate into a mess.

OK. At this point you appear to be saying that the premiums are subsidized by Government so that people can afford them, and that this...

I could really get into the economics and fairness but it simply boils down to the old maxim: if you want more of something subsidize it and if you want less of it tax it. If you want more sick people, even people pretending to be sick and scamming the system and hypochondriacs wasting money and resources, subsidize them.

... encourages people to be ill? Hm. Errrr, I agree with the part about 'pretending to be ill' - sure, you'll get more scammers and sick leave if the opportunity is there, however, you're missing a fundamental point regarding an increase in 'actual illness'.

If subsidisation actually leads to an increase in reported illness - what does that tell you? Putting aside the scammers for a minute, is it logical to assume that increased subsidizing actually encourages the growth of micro-organisms and causes the spread of cancer? No. However, it is perhaps logical to assume that when people can afford coverage, they'll use it. In other words, there is an underlying 'unmet need' within the healthcare system. When people have no coverage - they suffer in silence. When there is cover, they claim. It is, believe it or not, a quality of life issue - and that is the basic principle of a socialised system of healthcare, the basic philosophical difference between an insurance and socialised system. That the shared economic burdon is worth it because:

1. we are all human
2. all humans are susceptable to disease, pain and 'bad luck'
3. not everyone within a commerce-based healthcare system will be able to afford coverage
4. life's too short to be suffering physical pain due to an inherant econmic imbalance

Don't get me wrong - it aint perfect. Far from it. But there's something disctinctly inhuman about turning someone away from treatment, sending them home to suffer or die, simply because they don't earn enough for coverage or, better yet, their coverage doesn't 'cover' pre-existing illness.

Jesus... imagine that. "Sorry, you were born with AIDS. Looks like you're shit out of luck".

[tambourine-man]

Originally Posted by toy boy

@ tambourine-man, SOCIALIST there I said it. Am I a brave little fucker or what?

*shapens the sickle*

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by tambourine-man

*shapens the sickle*

Me thinks you mean sharpen that sickle.

http://www.iespell.com/

Sorry to be picky,but it lowers the tone of the neighbourhood.

[tambourine-man]

Originally Posted by malvachat

Me thinks you mean sharpen that sickle.

http://www.iespell.com/

Sorry to be picky,but it lowers the tone of the neighbourhood.

Errrrr... ummmm... actually, I meant 'shapen'.. as in "I'm going to shapen the sickle with my worker hands, from the iron that our glorious motherland has produced."

Yeah. that's what I meant.

[legion]

Originally Posted by tambourine-man

Errrrr... ummmm... actually, I meant 'shapen'.. as in "I'm going to shapen the sickle with my worker hands, from the iron that our glorious motherland has produced."

Yeah. that's what I meant.

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by tambourine-man

Errrrr... ummmm... actually, I meant 'shapen'.. as in "I'm going to shapen the sickle with my worker hands, from the iron that our glorious motherland has produced."

Yeah. that's what I meant.

Here's a template.

[daddydirt]

i'm admiring the shape of that sharp sickle, especially the curled outer edge.

[albed]

Originally Posted by tambourine-man

On the one hand, you are correct. Such economic unfairness does occur. Some people - unfortunately, relatively few - will go through their lives never once requiring medical care. How unfair it must seem to have to pay for "another person's" care.

Part of my point. But it takes some effort and discipline to stay healthy; and money: my treadmill, weight equipment, suppliments and time are already part of my health care costs and taking my money for someone who's money goes to beer, cigarettes, drugs, etc. doesn't "seem" unfair, it is unfair.

Originally Posted by tambourine-man

However, you seem to be labouring under a delusion regarding the social ettiquette or intelligence of illness. You seem to believe that your health is largely in your hands - which it is, and that all other factors are perhaps negligable - which they're not.

You're rambling into metaphysical nonsense with those silly terms, stick with health.

Almost everyone's health is in their own hands. I've seen studies indicating that 80% of US healthcare costs are a result of lifestyle choices. Give a drug addict top notch treatment for his overdose and he'll survive to need a second round later. A fat guy I worked with once commented his doctor would kill him if he saw the sausage and bacon he was eating after two bypass operations. People should face the consequences of their own choices or they'll have no reason to make better ones, and I shouldn't be billed for their choices.

Originally Posted by tambourine-man

Get this, some people who have lung/throat cancer have never smoked a cig in their life, some people who have skin cancer aren't sun worshippers nor have they spent half their life under a UV lamp. Some people whose liver has packed up haven't lived life with a bottle of scotch in their hand. Some people who have blood diseases didn't contract them through their own actions - they didn't 'ruin their own health'.

Yeah, yeah, people are sometimes unfortunate. Why should I pay for it. I'll have my own problems in my life and my savings are for those. Should I pay for a new house when someone's is hit by lightning and burned...not their fault right? People should have the sense to prepare for these things like I have.

Originally Posted by tambourine-man

OK. At this point you appear to be saying that the premiums are subsidized by Government so that people can afford them, and that this...

... encourages people to be ill?

Nope. I said you'll get more sick people. Along the border with Mexico there are a lot of illegal immigrants coming over to get the subsidized healthcare. One slightly wacky girl I know got herself listed as psychiatrically disabled and actually got disability checks. More sick people.





You get into some silly reasoning and twisted definitions: 'unmet need' I guess means 'sick people' but you don't seem able to convey your opinion in clear realistic terms which I often notice in people who don't understand and just 'feel' a certain way.

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by toy boy

@ Jack spratts good point you got there, one I agree with whole heartily. I do believe I read somewhere that you do have kid(s)( if I am wrong please do feel free to kick my ass about it.) May god forbid it will ever happen but what if one of them falls seriously ill? I take it you would have to cough up the money yourself, something that seems impossible to me. Also what happens when you run out of money? Would your kid(s) be kicked out of the hospital with all the horrible consequences that might have?
And a limit of 5 million dollars on your insurance??? is this the amount you can spend in your live time?

@ tambourine-man, SOCIALIST there I said it. Am I a brave little fucker or what?

kidless at present, so that's not an issue atm but of course my rates would follow my anatomy northwards should that status change. i would definitely insure my children, paying out of pocket for serious long-term care of any childhood disease or accident is as hard for me to imagine as it is for you.

that 5 mil then is for me alone and yeah, when it runs out i'll have to start selling assets. on the other hand something so catastrophically costly probably has such an infinitesimally low survival rate to begin with that figuring out the money angles will be the least of my worries. as for reaching 5 mil just in normal wear and tear well, i spend a few grand a year, on a bad year, for care, so it would take a very long time at that rate. in any event i usually pick up a new plan every 5 or ten tears anyway, and the money clock reverts to zero each time.

- js.

[tambourine-man]

Originally Posted by albed

Almost everyone's health is in their own hands. I've seen studies indicating that 80% of US healthcare costs are a result of lifestyle choices.

I'd love to read the same papers. If it's a COI study, you'd do well to give it a wide birth - they're notoriously inaccurate. On an aside, if I were to use the term 'lifestyle choices', there's very few costs that would fall outside of its scope. I'd have to read the paper first - if you've got a link or a library number, I'd be interested.

Give a drug addict top notch treatment for his overdose and he'll survive to need a second round later.

Agreed. Statistically speaking, placing a bet on this occurrence would be safer than placing it on a roulette wheel.

A fat guy I worked with once commented his doctor would kill him if he saw the sausage and bacon he was eating after two bypass operations. People should face the consequences of their own choices or they'll have no reason to make better ones, and I shouldn't be billed for their choices.

Agreed. It is frustrating watching someone slowly killing themselves - especially when they've been given a reprieve, only to squander it like an idiot.

You make valid points regarding the stupidity and irresponsible attitude of people and it's net effect on your premium. But as I stated earlier, you are choosing to ignore the factors that are out of your control...

Yeah, yeah, people are sometimes unfortunate. Why should I pay for it. I'll have my own problems in my life and my savings are for those.

But the fact is that people don't always have your luck/talent/finance. Yet you would condemn them? Like I also said, this is a fundamental difference in philosophy - I doubt either of us would change.

Should I pay for a new house when someone's is hit by lightning and burned...not their fault right?

If I had money to help out, I would. If I had some spare time to help build their house, I would. I suspect that most people would help in some way - collectively.

People should have the sense to prepare for these things like I have.

Famous last words, albed.

Nope. I said you'll get more sick people. Along the border with Mexico there are a lot of illegal immigrants coming over to get the subsidized healthcare. One slightly wacky girl I know got herself listed as psychiatrically disabled and actually got disability checks. More sick people.

Ah. Immigrants.

You get into some silly reasoning and twisted definitions: 'unmet need' I guess means 'sick people'...

It's a well-used healthcare phrase.

...but you don't seem able to convey your opinion in clear realistic terms which I often notice in people who don't understand and just 'feel' a certain way.

I apologise for not 'understanding'.

Thankyou for your thoughts, albed.
-------------------------------------------
PS: malva - cheers for the iespell link!
-------------------------------------------

[albed]

Originally Posted by tambourine-man

But the fact is that people don't always have your luck/talent/finance. Yet you would condemn them?

I always see this same twist of truth in so many people; like I'm doing the harm. How do I condemn people I don't even know exist. What is this philosophy you all share? Guilt by ignorance? Or am I guilty just for existing and have to redeem myself in your eyes. This perversion of the truth is what gets your ideas automatically dismissed by people who think in a normal, rational manner, but it must be the only way you can justify your ideaology.

[tambourine-man]

Originally Posted by albed

I always see this same twist of truth in so many people; like I'm doing the harm. How do I condemn people I don't even know exist.

Out of sight, out of mind?

What is this philosophy you all share?

Who is/are the 'all' you refer to?

I just don't mind looking out for others who aren't as lucky as me. No great conspiracy.

...Guilt by ignorance? Or am I guilty just for existing and have to redeem myself in your eyes.

Albed, how have you arrived at this feeling? I'm surprised you even asked the question.

This perversion of the truth is what gets your ideas automatically dismissed by people who think in a normal, rational manner, but it must be the only way you can justify your ideaology.

Is it rational to assume that I believe you are 'guilty' merely because of your existance? Probably not. Is it normal to hold such slapdash vitriol? Probably. Unfortunately.