Roger Ebert adds to health care debate on iPhone, Mac use

[AppleInsider]

Film critic Roger Ebert gave Apple's VoiceOver technology two thumbs up in allowing him to communicate after losing his voice to cancer surgery, but said his health insurance would only offer to cover an $8,000 device that didn't work nearly as well.

Many users with disabilities are barred from choosing cheap, off the shelf technologies by Medicare or private insurance companies who insist on only covering far more expensive devices that don't work as well.

An article in the New York Times profiled Kara Lynn, a mother who lost her voice to ALS. To help her communicate, Medicare paid for an $8,000 Windows PC running speech synthesis software.

Government rules require the PC be disabled from doing anything other than speech, in the fear that Lynn might benefit from features unrelated to her disability, such as web browsing. The Times reported that Medicare's PC vendor, DynaVox, "disables the general computing tools. After the insurer pays, customers can pay $50 to DynaVox to reactivate the full functions."

Instead of using the "clunky" PC, Lynn bought herself a $300 iPhone 3G running a $150 text to speech app. Lynn said that "it worked better and let her 'wear her voice' around her neck while snuggling with her 5-year-old son, Aiden, who has Down syndrome." Medicare won't cover devices like the iPhone however.

Asked why Medicare refused to cover cheaper, better alternatives for users, Peter Ashkenaz, a spokesman for the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told the Times, "We would not cover the iPhones and netbooks with speech-generating software capabilities because they are useful in the absence of an illness or injury."

Instead, Medicare reimburses specialty companies who bill it as much as a 2,000% premium on the hardware they provide. "Prentke Romich, for example, charges $250 for a Bluetooth wireless adapter similar to those that cost $20 in stores," the Times reported.

Death Panel Technology

Responding to the article, Ebert wrote a letter to the editor noting that he was similarly offered an $8,000 solution after having lost his ability to speak.

"After trying an $8,000 custom device with little computing power and a small, dim screen, I tried the built-in speech software on my MacBook and found it much more practical," he wrote. "It will read anything aloud, including what I define on a Web page or in an e-mail message. Several voices are built into the computer, and others are downloadable at moderate prices.

"I combine talking and Web surfing — for example, sharing a news headline with my wife," he said. "It’s stupid of insurance companies to insist on an inferior device costing 10 times as much."

The Obama administration is working to enact health care reform efforts to address outdated spending rules and investigate how Medicare can use more efficient and modern technologies. Critics suggest that any cuts to the status quo of Medicare spending, which would impact a variety of connected companies like DynaVox and Prentke Romich, might instead result in a government euthanasia program that uses death panels to slaughter old people.

Others fear that Obama's plans to reform health care will result in Medicare being taken over by the government, unaware that Medicare itself is a single payer, government-run healthcare program and has been since 1965.

Cost savings involved in using low cost, modern technology available in off the shelf devices is a significant component of the Obama's health care plan, which includes a provision to "create an independent Commission, made up of doctors and medical experts, to make recommendations to Congress each year on how to promote greater efficiency and higher quality in Medicare. The Commission will not be authorized to propose or implement Medicare changes that ration care or affect benefits, eligibility or beneficiary access to care."

[crees!]

Others fear that Obama's plans to reform health care will result in Medicare being taken over by the government, unaware that Medicare itself is a single payer, government-run healthcare program and has been since 1965. What people fear is gov't running private insurers out of business. And there's plenty of audio and video out there that vaildates those fears. Medicare is in such bad shape because Gov't can't run programs effectively, period. All the mandates and regulations are what brings down the system. To quote a wise man, "Everyday Congress meets we lose a little bit more of our liberty."

[ramsey123]

Regardless of anyone's political view, it's good to hear from actual handicapped people that Apple's extra effort in this arena is ahead of the competition. It doesn't surprise me, just good to have confirmation.

[hillstones]

And you would think any insurance plan would be open to cost effective alternatives that provide the solution, rather than an $8,000 piece of junk computer. The company that offers such a computer should be shut down for ripping off the insurance companies with such an outrageous markup.

[justbobf]

Seems like revising Medicare rules would be a step in the right direction.

I have to counter "crees!" 's Republican response. Medicare is a wonderful program. My grandmother was so happy to get in in the 1960s, saying she did not want to be a financial burden to her family. For those against Medicare, think of how your parents would get along if they did not have it. If they would be okay, think of how others who are less fortunate would fare.

Now, it seems to me that if Medicare is paying out more than it takes in now, that is because that there are more older people now and fewer younger people. We all need to be taxed just a little more to counter this temporary trend, and then things can be set back once the old and young populations stabilize, again.

[enzos]

What people fear is gov't running private insurers out of business.... To quote a wise man, "Everyday Congress meets we lose a little bit more of our liberty."

On the contrary, governments can and do run health programs effectively. In most of the *civilized* world, governments guarantee essential healthcare and do so for a small fraction of the per GDP cost that the for-profit private system in the USA can manage. Moreover, it's not just a matter of cost, it's also a matter of quality: people who live under universal healthcare systems live longer than Americans do (look up the WHO tables) and it is widely recognized that life expectancy is predicated by the quality and availability of health-care.


Getting back to Mr Ebert, I do hope he gets better... the world of public entertainment is diminished without him.

[iphonedeveloperthailand]

That's a great plus for those who need these type of tools. Apple should use this in one of their Get a Mac commercials.

[justbobf]

One more thought...

While Roger Ebert may be able to use an iPhone, I'll bet many people with speaking disorders also have other problems that would prevent them from using a tiny keyboard. I'm guessing that that $8,000 "device" has software that allow quicker access to common words and even sentences, so that those people can "speak" as well as hear. They may even come with something that allows for input with a stylus.

I remember Stephen (sp?) Hawking had some sort of contraption hooked up to his wheelchair.

[JavaCowboy]

Before making broad-reaching statements, could the Americans in the forums who have convinced themselves that "the government will run health care into the ground" research health care systems in other countries before commenting further?

Thanks!

[Dr Millmoss]

And you would think any insurance plan would be open to cost effective alternatives that provide the solution, rather than an $8,000 piece of junk computer. The company that offers such a computer should be shut down for ripping off the insurance companies with such an outrageous markup.

You would think, but you'd be wrong. Anyone who's had to deal with an insurance company knows that efficiency is not the name of the game.

[Dlux]

When Siskel and Ebert first aired I thought the two critics were a bit pompous and trite. But over time I grew to respect their depth of film knowledge and often agreed with the reviews' more subtle observations. It wasn't until much later that learned of Ebert's involvement with a crazy cult film that I had enjoyed for years, "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls". I then realized that his reviewer persona was only one facet of his complex life.

Whatever you may think of his film reviews, over-priced 'medical' hardware, the US Government, or DynaVox, you owe it to yourself to read more about Ebert himself, and all he's been through:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ebert

[Ireland]

That's a great plus for those who need these type of tools. Apple should use this in one of their Get a Mac commercials.

Stay classy.

[Neruda]

Before making broad-reaching statements, could the Americans in the forums who have convinced themselves that "the government will run health care into the ground" research health care systems in other countries before commenting further?

Thanks!

You're welcome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_sy stems), BUT

Just because healthcare system X works in country A does not necessarily mean that system X will work in an entirely different country (B). Healthcare might be great in socialist countries, but if that is the price to pay for universal healthcare than I say no thanks.

The US already spends around 15% of GDP on healthcare. In my opinion, in the US the term government efficiency is an oxymoron (this article is a perfect example of that). Expect the percentage of GDP to increase if any type government run healthcare system is instituted in the US. Let's make the national deficit (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) worse by paying for healthcare with money the government doesn't have (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjIyMGEwZGM5YTdmOGU0MDEzNGU3ZDk5NjRlNzdmNzA=).

[lilgto64]

As I read that I figured that the over priced figures that Medicare charges to the tax payers would have initially been because the company that provided the service had to spend a large amount of money on research and development of the tools - meaning that a lot of the $2000 is not for the actual gear but for the overhead - however, I strongly suspect that the overhead is long gone and the cost of parts is way less than it used to be - but since the government contract was already in place no one bothered to change it.

And that may be the biggest problem with our (the US) government - and its spending habits - is that once something is established it is rarely questioned or adjusted or modernized.

I saw a program about Navy ships which talked about using off the shelf type computer components rather than custom designs which would allow for less cost - easier and quicker replacement and even more frequent upgrades in capability - of course I also heard that the first war ship to be running entirely on windows os based gear was stranded at sea and had to be towed back to harbor when the windows network crashed - of course that may not have been the fault of the windows OS necessarily.

I saw another program on illegal immigration in which a public official said they were implementing a computer based paper work system to reduce the time and effort to produce 6 or 8 documents many of which shared much of the same information - and phase 2 of the project was going to be evaluating just what in the heck we need 8 documents for to begin with and to see if any of them can be eliminated.

[Neruda]

Why is AI bringing politics into the discussion here? You know there is no way to avoid it by posting this thread.

I don't think AI is bringing politics into the discussion, but our comments are.

I hate to see comments and arguments to come- pro and con.

Why? Being able to debate the pros and cons of any issue is a good thing.

[BertP]

Too bad about the quick diversion to the politics involved. I've had an interest in the subject since I was a kid, but this is not the right forum.

Believe it or not, even in the handicapped community, there is bickering and misinformation regarding the Macintosh and Windows platforms. I'll pass on that too.

Apple's emphasis on the UI has benefitted both the general user and the handicapped community. The portion of the visually impaired community that knows about VoiceOver are often ecstatic about VoiceOver being extended to the iPhone 3GS and the new iPod Touch.

Other components of Mac OS X utilize this alternative interface. For example, if you know how to do GUI scripting in AppleScript, you'll know about System Events. That component supports both VoiceOver and GUI scripting.

It really comes down to the power of object oriented programming and the Cocoa frameworks. Why not multiple user interfaces for different audiences? Also, note the commonality between Mac OS X and iPhone OS 3.1. Powerful stuff.

[bwik]

Apple products would be the perfect solution to slaughter the old people faster and with fewer errors. Don't forget, Snow Leopard has some exciting optimized features coming out :lol:

[aaarrrgggh]

The US already spends around 15% of GDP on healthcare. In my opinion, in the US the term government efficiency is an oxymoron (this article is a perfect example of that). Expect the percentage of GDP to increase if any type government run healthcare system is instituted in the US.

Are you fucking high or just stupid?

Myself and my three partners spend $27,840 per year on medical insurance premiums (excluding vision and dental), plus $34,000 ytd out of pocket. We spend over $450k on income taxes on our pay (exclusive of any spouses). There is no way the governmant could provide the same shitty insurance at a higher cost.

This money is parasitic; healthcare is ineffective in the US, but still far too expensive. My wife and I go to Thailand for some of our care and pay less than 10% for the same procedures. Very little with the US system is going right, yet for some reason you crazy neocon lunatics think it is great.

Get your head out of your ass.

[TBell]

Not sure what you mean by Medicare being in Bad shape. If you ask most people who are on Medicare they will tell you that they prefer it over private insurance. The reality, however, is many people don't understand the government runs Medicare. The above example of not using cheaper technology just because it has other benefits if true, however, is plain outrageous. I suspect this has more to do with a certain companies lobbying efforts then anything. If true, that really is the problem: private and political greed.

I also do not see how the government can ruin the heath care system much more then it already is. In the very least, all insurance companies should be required to be made non profit. It is outrageous that CEO are raking in billions, while many people are going without insurance.

Most people can't afford private insurance nowadays. It used to be employers would pay for it. That more an more is becoming not the case as employers look there first to cut costs.


A single payer system is the way to go. People shouldn't have to worry about health care. It should be a right. Society would be much better off.


What people fear is gov't running private insurers out of business. And there's plenty of audio and video out there that vaildates those fears. Medicare is in such bad shape because Gov't can't run programs effectively, period. All the mandates and regulations are what brings down the system. To quote a wise man, "Everyday Congress meets we lose a little bit more of our liberty."

[TBell]

Yes, but you probably love all the public parks, schools, social security, medicare, roads, airports, and the list goes on of publicly subsidized programs and institutions.

You do understand that the word socialism is just a word thrown around to get zealots worked up in a knot so that programs that actually benefit the public don't get passed.


Healthcare might be great in socialist countries, but if that is the price to pay for universal healthcare than I say no thanks.

[LE Studios]

And you would think any insurance plan would be open to cost effective alternatives that provide the solution, rather than an $8,000 piece of junk computer. The company that offers such a computer should be shut down for ripping off the insurance companies with such an outrageous markup.

Yeah a iMac would have suffice. WTF? :???:

[whodathunkit]

What people fear is gov't running private insurers out of business. And there's plenty of audio and video out there that vaildates those fears. Medicare is in such bad shape because Gov't can't run programs effectively, period. All the mandates and regulations are what brings down the system. To quote a wise man, "Everyday Congress meets we lose a little bit more of our liberty."

Do you have any awareness of all that you're arguing against yourself? You say that people will abandon private insurance (run with an overhead of 30%) for a public option (Medicare operates with an overhead of 3%) and yet you state that the government can't run anything right. So, which is it? It can't be both. If the government can't run a public insurance option right, then the private insurers have nothing to fear, do they?

[isaidso]

Do you have any awareness of all that you're arguing against yourself? You say that people will abandon private insurance (run with an overhead of 30%) for a public option (Medicare operates with an overhead of 3%) and yet you state that the government can't run anything right. So, which is it? It can't be both. If the government can't run a public insurance option right, then the private insurers have nothing to fear, do they?

Don't try to talk logic to these people. You're just wasting your breath. (err, fingertips)

[charlituna]

And you would think any insurance plan would be open to cost effective alternatives that provide the solution, rather than an $8,000 piece of junk computer. The company that offers such a computer should be shut down for ripping off the insurance companies with such an outrageous markup.

yes you would. but previously the Gov't run program was all about only supporting medical solutions. Obama is trying to end that 'head up the butt' view and actually save money by being open to creative thinking. now it might mean that for something like the iphone they are only willing to pay half but that is still something (perhaps with the caveat they will pay all under particular financial conditions or only for the cost of the lowest model) but in this sitch, that's still an easy $7000 that can be used for other programs.

[anantksundaram]

Sure, the government might be stupid. But does that mean private insurers are smarter?


Is there any evidence that private insurers would allow the iPod rather than the $8000 device? If there isn't, the anti- government zealots should just move along.

[kpluck]

So, to sum up the story, it is a bad idea to have a bureaucratic government run agency managing our health care. It is far cheaper/better to leave the responsibility up to the individual.

-kpluck

[powqjfojqpof]

From the article: "Government rules require the PC be disabled from doing anything other than speech"

My question: SO, on what page of Obama's proposed plan does he specifically say he wants to change this rule?

[powqjfojqpof]

Yes, but you probably love all the public parks, schools, social security, medicare, roads, airports, and the list goes on of publicly subsidized programs and institutions.

You do understand that the word socialism is just a word thrown around to get zealots worked up in a knot so that programs that actually benefit the public don't get passed.

The government did not invent roads, parks, etc. Don't give the government credit for these things. The government exists to run the military, pave highways, and guard free speech. Not to get between me and my doctor in the last moments of my life with a "consultation" where my doctor is given financial incentives to recommend me to "hospice care." Here's a link to the dangers of socialized medicine. This baby in England was mandated to die because of government rules:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html

Quote: "Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday."

[souliisoul]

Are you fucking high or just stupid?

Myself and my three partners spend $27,840 per year on medical insurance premiums (excluding vision and dental), plus $34,000 ytd out of pocket. We spend over $450k on income taxes on our pay (exclusive of any spouses). There is no way the governmant could provide the same shitty insurance at a higher cost.

This money is parasitic; healthcare is ineffective in the US, but still far too expensive. My wife and I go to Thailand for some of our care and pay less than 10% for the same procedures. Very little with the US system is going right, yet for some reason you crazy neocon lunatics think it is great.

Get your head out of your ass.

Stop name calling and get your facts right with concern to comparing healthcare systems with US. Firstly not US citizen, but lived there for over 5 years. Secondly lived in Asia-Pacific for over 7 years off and on.
The cost of living, wages etc are completely different to US, so you going to Thailand earning a US wage and spending your US dollars, it would seem much cheaper. To average Thai person their cost of Healthcare is still high in their country.

I can say the same thing about India, with concern to healthcare, majority of physicians have been trained in USA or UK. The standard of care in private/big public hospitals is very good and the cost is much lower than western countries.

Now If I tell you that only 10-20% of the country can afford such level of healthcare that I have access to, then you understand that in population of 1,147,995,904.

So before you start comparing Thailand's healthcare with USA, just remember what you are comparing, since poor Thai people are NOT getting a good deal, but hey as long as you are happy thats great.

[rnp1]

Oh boy. A chance to speak here about what is really happening in the world!
1. The $8000 system is a part of why the USA dumps billions into wasted projects-lobbiests!
2. My Mac talked to me in 1984. Today, I follow along with it everyday, reading about how the economy is being ruined intentionally by Benny Da Bankster and his secret Bosses, Baron Rothschild and J.D. Rockefeller." It's great to have a computer that will speak to you!"
3. The Banksters are playing the left against the right, as usual. And everyone's fighting over Obama rather than Stopping The FED and truly moving forward.
4.We've got guys in $6000 suits telling us we have to makes sacrifices so that Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan don't have to! While we wear old jeans, T-shirts and eat corn laced fast food!
5. Healthcare is expensive because Doctors profit from "fee for services" and selfish bureaucrats keep jacking up insurance rates and removing people who need the coverage!
6. The quality of US healthcare is not a result of who is paying the bills! That makes no sense.
7. The last company to die a miserable death as a result of the coming deep and long depression-after the trillions in derivatives have hit the books and China demands the GOLD from the Banksters-will be Apple. Everyone needs a computer and a phone and an iPad and an iPod to be informed and entertained.
8. Microsoft will collapse way before APPLE due to incompetence in Ballmur's lack of street smarts and even a slight grasp of reality.
9. Bill and Melinda will be disgraced for selling mercury laden vaccines to Africans, who will suffer from huge outbreaks of autism, like the next generation of Americans who fall for the H1M1 manufactured panic, so Rumsfeld can expand his pharma based portfolio?
10. If a Mexican guy gets hit by a car in Arizona, will the paramedic let him die because he might be an alien? That guy Wilson yells, "You Die!"
11. If Obama and Biden are done away with, we are stuck with Nazi Pelosi!
12.√ Sorry for all you fools who think otherwise, but humans are all ONE RACE!

[souliisoul]

Are you fucking high or just stupid?

Myself and my three partners spend $27,840 per year on medical insurance premiums (excluding vision and dental), plus $34,000 ytd out of pocket. We spend over $450k on income taxes on our pay (exclusive of any spouses). There is no way the governmant could provide the same shitty insurance at a higher cost.

This money is parasitic; healthcare is ineffective in the US, but still far too expensive. My wife and I go to Thailand for some of our care and pay less than 10% for the same procedures. Very little with the US system is going right, yet for some reason you crazy neocon lunatics think it is great.

Get your head out of your ass.

Oh boy. A chance to speak here about what is really happening in the world!
1. The $8000 system is a part of why the USA dumps billions into wasted projects-lobbiests!
2. My Mac talked to me in 1984. Today, I follow along with it everyday, reading about how the economy is being ruined intentionally by Benny Da Bankster and his secret Bosses, Baron Rothschild and J.D. Rockefeller." It's great to have a computer that will speak to you!"
3. The Banksters are playing the left against the right, as usual. And everyone's fighting over Obama rather than Stopping The FED and truly moving forward.
4.We've got guys in $6000 suits telling us we have to makes sacrifices so that Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan don't have to! While we wear old jeans, T-shirts and eat corn laced fast food!
5. Healthcare is expensive because Doctors profit from "fee for services" and selfish bureaucrats keep jacking up insurance rates and removing people who need the coverage!
6. The quality of US healthcare is not a result of who is paying the bills! That makes no sense.
7. The last company to die a miserable death as a result of the coming deep and long depression-after the trillions in derivatives have hit the books and China demands the GOLD from the Banksters-will be Apple. Everyone needs a computer and a phone and an iPad and an iPod to be informed and entertained.
8. Microsoft will collapse way before APPLE due to incompetence in Ballmur's lack of street smarts and even a slight grasp of reality.
9. Bill and Melinda will be disgraced for selling mercury laden vaccines to Africans, who will suffer from huge outbreaks of autism, like the next generation of Americans who fall for the H1M1 manufactured panic, so Rumsfeld can expand his pharma based portfolio?
10. If a Mexican guy gets hit by a car in Arizona, will the paramedic let him die because he might be an alien? That guy Wilson yells, "You Die!"
11. If Obama and Biden are done away with, we are stuck with Nazi Pelosi!
12.√ Sorry for all you fools who think otherwise, but humans are all ONE RACE!

You start of by saying what is really happening in the world, but majority of your points are USA focused, am I missing something here:wow:

[rnp1]

You start of by saying what is really happening in the world, but majority of your points are USA focused, am I missing something here:wow:

1. We are on the AppleInsider site, which is speaking about Apple products, which are, as it says on the Chinese boxes, "Designed in America"!
2. Most of the evil forces that are moving at this time are directed at destroying America.
3. I live and compute from America.
4. Most of the above discussion has been about America.
5. We use the most resources.
6. We are the World, we are the children!
7. Everything in the US is made in China!
8. SIskle & Ebert were an American TV show!
8. Im sorry....what were we talking about?

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

Uh-oh... Daniel Eran Dilger has found a way to bring politics to Apple Insider. :lol:

[mr_matalino]

Are you fucking high or just stupid?

Myself and my three partners spend $27,840 per year on medical insurance premiums (excluding vision and dental), plus $34,000 ytd out of pocket. We spend over $450k on income taxes on our pay (exclusive of any spouses). There is no way the governmant could provide the same shitty insurance at a higher cost.

This money is parasitic; healthcare is ineffective in the US, but still far too expensive. My wife and I go to Thailand for some of our care and pay less than 10% for the same procedures. Very little with the US system is going right, yet for some reason you crazy neocon lunatics think it is great.

Get your head out of your ass.

LOUD NOISES!!!!

"By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."

YOU FAIL

[rnp1]

loud noises!!!!

"by agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."

you fail


guesss this means we can't post anything to do with microsoft at all!

[souliisoul]

1. We are on the AppleInsider site, which is speaking about Apple products, which are, as it says on the Chinese boxes, "Designed in America"!
2. Most of the evil forces that are moving at this time are directed at destroying America.
3. I live and compute from America.
4. Most of the above discussion has been about America.
5. We use the most resources.
6. We are the World, we are the children!
7. Everything in the US is made in China!
8. SIskle & Ebert were an American TV show!
8. Im sorry....what were we talking about?

guesss this means we can't post anything to do with microsoft at all!

:lol: try learning to count. btw we are taking about healthcare and apple products.

[souliisoul]

guesss this means we can't post anything to do with microsoft at all!

seems to me, just want to pick an argument because, the person is clearly focusing on the harsh obscene words used, which are not warranted.

[success]

He and his wife are good people.

http://l.yimg.com/eb/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/american_film_institute/afi_lifetime_achievement_award_2004_photos/roger_ebert/afi2004g.jpg

[bedouin]

Part of my job requires reading a lot of tedious information that, day after day, can really put me to sleep, not to mention strain my eyes.

I've been using the speech utility in OS X for a few months now almost every day and, despite a few mistakes here and there, it's near perfect. There are grammatical nuances that I suspect it won't get right that it usually does and the voices are pleasant enough.

[rnp1]

[QUOTE=success;1485432]He and his wife are good people.

Really the poor guy has had some pretty drastic surgery and we all wish him well! He has given us some great film advice over a long career and it was always a joy to wait for that theme music and see which way the thumbs went!

[ascii]

I'm sure if it was solely up to the health insurance company, they would give you a Mac, because it is cheaper, and they are paying. But as the article says, it is a government rule that forces them to give these locked down $8000 boxes. So isn't this an example of how government involvement is worse than pure private sector?

[8CoreWhore]

"Critics suggest that any cuts to the status quo of Medicare spending, which would impact a variety of connected companies like DynaVox and Prentke Romich, might instead result in a government euthanasia program that uses death panels to slaughter old people."

Why write, "critics"? Just name them. And it's so ridiculously false, why are journalist repeating this BS propaganda over and over again. Just don't give a voice to the village idiots and lying propagandists.

[nitewing98]

What "kills" me (pun intended) is that anyone, Dem or Rep., liberal or conservative, would believe and/or repeat anything that Sarah Palin wrote on Facebook. She posted "death panels" and everyone threw up their hands and screamed like a little girl. She's an idiot, a failure (couldn't finish 1 term as Governor), a vapid air-head who "reads everything." God, people. I don't care what side of the argument you're on, but don't quote the village idiot to prove your points.

Next

[newbee]

You're welcome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_sy stems), BUT

Just because healthcare system X works in country A does not necessarily mean that system X will work in an entirely different country (B). Healthcare might be great in socialist countries, but if that is the price to pay for universal healthcare than I say no thanks.

The US already spends around 15% of GDP on healthcare. In my opinion, in the US the term government efficiency is an oxymoron (this article is a perfect example of that). Expect the percentage of GDP to increase if any type government run healthcare system is instituted in the US. Let's make the national deficit (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) worse by paying for healthcare with money the government doesn't have (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjIyMGEwZGM5YTdmOGU0MDEzNGU3ZDk5NjRlNzdmNzA=).


You're right ... let's just keep bailing out the greedy banking, financial and insurance industries with tax $$$$ we haven't even raised yet, (some of which comes from people with health problems) and say to hell with sick people. After all, what's government for anyway? :no:

[jonnyboy]

On the contrary, governments can and do run health programs effectively. In most of the *civilized* world, governments guarantee essential healthcare and do so for a small fraction of the per GDP cost that the for-profit private system in the USA can manage. Moreover, it's not just a matter of cost, it's also a matter of quality: people who live under universal healthcare systems live longer than Americans do (look up the WHO tables) and it is widely recognized that life expectancy is predicated by the quality and availability of health-care.


indeed. EVERY developed country has realised this, but america (with its pathological obsession with the "S" word) continues to paint itself into corners, trying to fit square pegs into round holes :no:

[RoDe]

Before making broad-reaching statements, could the Americans in the forums who have convinced themselves that "the government will run health care into the ground" research health care systems in other countries before commenting further?

Thanks!

Wise words. I my self live in The Netherlands and our healthcare is one of the best in the world. It is beyond my comprehension how people can be so against government run healthcare.

In The Netherlands the health insurance is paid by the employee not the company this used to be the other way around. Now a days I pay ±130 euros a month, the medical coverage that I get is unimaginable for about 80% of all US citizens.

Every system has its flaws no system is perfect. But all I can say to the, mainly republicans, come take a look at the system we have. You'll see that the insurance companies are booming and that a system run by both the government and the insurance companies does actually work.

[Quadra 610]

What people fear is gov't running private insurers out of business. And there's plenty of audio and video out there that vaildates those fears. Medicare is in such bad shape because Gov't can't run programs effectively, period. All the mandates and regulations are what brings down the system. To quote a wise man, "Everyday Congress meets we lose a little bit more of our liberty."

Well, we have gov't subsidized healthcare up here in Canada. It isn't perfect, but we wouldn't trade it for anything. We remain in full, wholehearted support of it. You don't need to take out a second mortgage to get surgery. It isn't about losing "liberty", it's about ensuring that there's a level of equality when it comes to healthcare. It's about having government perform its rightful function. This is what government is for. It's a humanitarian principle. Adequate, universal healthcare is a right.

Reserving the best level of healthcare for those who can afford it, is absolutely wrong. It isn't a product. It's not an upper-tier gym membership. It's not a commodity. It's a basic need.

Another example - not related to heathcare:

Our airports used to be gov't subsidized, until around the mid 90's. The National Airports Policy was a program of the Government of Canada involving the privatization or private operation of nearly all of our airports. Many of us were against the idea. A controversial policy, to say the least, because of the resulting huge increases in airport fees that came from the inability of airports to meet infrastructure requirements. For example, the fees charged to carriers and general aviation by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority at Toronto Pearson International Airport are among the highest in the world. The Liberal Transport Minister who oversaw the creation of the policy later said it was the worst decision of his career and that he regretted its implementation.

[Quadra 610]

indeed. EVERY developed country has realised this, but america (with its pathological obsession with the "S" word) continues to paint itself into corners, trying to fit square pegs into round holes :no:

Ah, you brought up the "S" word. And you're right. Just to expand on it a bit . . .

Government subsidization of a particular sector of the economy is not Socialism. It's part of a mixed economy.

In Canada, for example, we have government subsidization of our health care. It's not perfect, but at least we don't need to take out a second mortgage in order to get surgery. Quite frankly, we wouldn't have it any other way. That's about it. Aside from the regular gamut of programs any other Western democracy implements, Canada is just as capitalist as any other country.

In fact:

http://innovate.typepad.com/innovati...ntreprene.html

There are socialist elements at work in many democracies and "Westernized" nations. Most of them have mixed economies.

Every country has elements of socialism and capitalism. For example the 'capitalists' in Japan have much more govt involvement in business than Canada.

There's not a single country in the world that is purely capitalist (even Hong Kong has some government intervention in its economy), just as there's not a single purely socialist country (even at the height of Communism, China had at least some private sector).

Most developed countries have a mixed economy.

[Blastdoor]

great article. This is an awesome example of why cost-effectiveness studies are incredibly important.

[Maximara]

From the article: "Government rules require the PC be disabled from doing anything other than speech"

My question: SO, on what page of Obama's proposed plan does he specifically say he wants to change this rule?

This assumes there is such a rule and this is not some bizarre interpretation.

I worked for the Forest Service back in the mid 1990s in California; our job was to prevent loggers from disturbing archeological sites per the Antiquities Act of 1906. While the Antiquities Act of 1906 itself was sound the interpretation tended to be so Bizzaro World that we jokingly said we worked for the Forest Circus.

For example, we would often survey an area the loggers had already been in and find previous covered neolithics meaning the area was an 'archeological site' and so was protected. Since our bosses names were Tom and Berry any time we had to do this piece of insanity we would jokingly say "it's time for the Tom and Berry show".

To be fair to Tom and Berry they were simply following the interpretation handed down from their superiors. There was and still is nothing in the Antiquities Act of 1906 that requires it ti be enforced in such a loopy way.

[Neruda]

Stop name calling and get your facts right with concern to comparing healthcare systems with US.

Thank you souliisoul. Personal attacks are unnecessary and are a poor substitute for well reasoned/cogent arguments.

So before you start comparing Thailand's healthcare with USA, just remember what you are comparing, since poor Thai people are NOT getting a good deal, but hey as long as you are happy thats great.

That was part of my original point. Just because a healthcare system in another country supposedly works that does not necessarily mean that this system would work in the US.

Techstud: You asked me what I thought of people that believed in this (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/obama-witchdoctor-muck.jpg).
Three points:
1. Anyone who seriously views President Obama in that way is clearly ignorant, IMO (see my comments above on personal attacks). But this is a free country and the free expression of ideas will produce some ideas that most would consider distasteful.

2. Why ask me that question? Do you automatically associate those who oppose Obama's policies with that image? Everyone who opposes Obama's healthcare policy is a racist kook?

3. I actually agree that some aspects of the healthcare system needs to be reformed, but a large % of Americans (around 80% by most estimates) are satisfied with the healthcare that they already have (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/27/AR2009072701372.html). I am in that majority and I don't want the government "fixing" what doesn't need to be fixed. Leave what works alone and fix what needs fixing.

[a_greer]

What people fear is gov't running private insurers out of business.
The company that I pay $100s pewr month just to be told that I cant get the drug I need for a rare condition? the company that made me participate iin a test experiment, telling me that if the test drug didnt work I could get what the doc ordered? the company that denied me even after I did the test drug program and got no results? thecompany that literally told me "call the drug maker and get on their charity program"?

I say fuck them, burn the place down and I will piss on the ashes...

[iGod 2.0]

What people fear is gov't running private insurers out of business. And there's plenty of audio and video out there that vaildates those fears. Medicare is in such bad shape because Gov't can't run programs effectively, period. All the mandates and regulations are what brings down the system. To quote a wise man, "Everyday Congress meets we lose a little bit more of our liberty."

Wow! Deep. Dropping some knowledge.

[iGod 2.0]

The company that I pay $100s pewr month just to be told that I cant get the drug I need for a rare condition? the company that made me participate iin a test experiment, telling me that if the test drug didnt work I could get what the doc ordered? the company that denied me even after I did the test drug program and got no results? thecompany that literally told me "call the drug maker and get on their charity program"?

I say fuck them, burn the place down and I will piss on the ashes...

Wow! They did you dirty. That's messed up

[a_greer]

indeed. EVERY developed country has realised this, but america (with its pathological obsession with the "S" word) continues to paint itself into corners, trying to fit square pegs into round holes :no:
As a conservative, former republican, the use of the S word in this debate offends me. Was it socialist when the government backed and largely financed the intercontenental railroad? how about the interstate system? and airports, sure the airlines are not government companies, but the airports are run by their respective cities, with massive support from FAA.

We have the best higher ed in the world here, and it is a mix of public and private universities, has Penn State put Harvard out of business? I dont thinkl so...Has Indiana University put Notre Dame under? nope...

also, lets stop government run tap water! having teh city manage the water and charge each user a fee equal to their use is socialism! it is anti competitive! we need Evion taps in every house. get the government out of our toilets!!

The republicans are just trying to protect their puppet masters...er uh...donars, the insurance companies.

[ascii]

It isn't about losing "liberty", it's about ensuring that there's a level of equality when it comes to healthcare. It's about having government perform its rightful function. This is what government is for. It's a humanitarian principle. Adequate, universal healthcare is a right.

I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out. How do we know equality is moral? Some people would say that taking money off someone who earned it (to create the equality) is immoral.

And how do we know what is and is not a proper function of government? It's a grey area and I don't think either side is *obviously* wrong.

[christopher126]

You're welcome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_sy stems), BUT

Just because healthcare system X works in country A does not necessarily mean that system X will work in an entirely different country (B). Healthcare might be great in socialist countries, but if that is the price to pay for universal healthcare than I say no thanks.

The US already spends around 15% of GDP on healthcare. In my opinion, in the US the term government efficiency is an oxymoron (this article is a perfect example of that). Expect the percentage of GDP to increase if any type government run healthcare system is instituted in the US. Let's make the national deficit (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) worse by paying for healthcare with money the government doesn't have (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjIyMGEwZGM5YTdmOGU0MDEzNGU3ZDk5NjRlNzdmNzA=).

On the contrary, Medicare waste, fraud and abuse is about 33% of every dollar spent, on the other hand Private insurance waste, fraud and abuse is about 50%. Also, 62% of all bankruptcies are due to medical expenses, 50% of all bankruptcies are due to medical expenses where the person HAD insurance!

Something is amiss, afoot, alas! All those bankruptcies that are 'written off' are paid by the rest of us (Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals) through higher premiums and higher costs per procedure or hospital stay.

Let's let the banks run our mortgages that went well! Home Equity down 60%

Let's let Wall Street run our 401K's that went well! 401K's down 40%-50%

Now let's have the Insurance Companies run our health insurance, er...anyone see a pattern here where insurance companies are making record profits but 50% of bankruptcies are due to medical expenses where the person HAD insurance?:???:

[ncee]

As the old saying goes (in politics any ways), "It's not who you know, but who you blow."

All you have to do, is ask your father, your brother, your mother (which ever one is a politician) - to help get funding for "This product" they sell.

Tell the politician -"It will bring jobs to the area" (even if it is only one in the end) …

To any one,and I mean ANYONE who thinks politicians aren't ALL crooked … wake the f&uck up!

Yes, they all try and make it seem real, and honest … "I'll vote for your bill, if you help me get mine past". It doesn't matter what the bills are for or about!

If you REALLY want to get pissed off at these folks, and our government (you and me), then look at what these folks make for pensions. If that doesn't piss you off, nothing will.

I think, a politician should make the same amount as the folks they represent. They should get the same pension as the folks that the represent get.

And this comes out of each and everyone of OUR pockets!

- http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp


Skip

[freeny]

This could go on forever and probably will...
On one side we have Republicans who are basing decisions on opinions, fear of the unknown and Ideology. On the other side we have democrats basing decisions on numbers, examples from around the world and reality.

No one really knows how things would turn out if we had a public option but based on the decision making process above, i will go with the latter.

Contrary to what someone posted early in this thread, there actually isnt a mass of audio and video evidence that shows a public option wont work. This is a myth started by the GOP that has never been backed up.

[MaxG5]

The republicans are just trying to protect their puppet masters...er uh...donars, the insurance companies.

Funny, the insurance companies are on board with the Obama admin and going to spend hundreds of millions this fall on campaigning for Obamacare. They don't like the public option but why support insurance reform? Easy, think of the Billions they can rake in if a mandate passes and 20 million young people and/or well off people who choose not to have insurance are mandated to buy insurance. You have to ask yourself why the insurance companies would be perfectly happy to be publicly excoriated in this whole debate yet be willing to spend millions to support it.

As to Medicare being the model to go by and all this money we can save in inefficiencies and fraud, why not do this for medicare right now? If it is so easy to gain billions just by doing some simple steps why not reform Medicare now and once the government has shown it can actually fix something in the healthcare industry then move on to "fixing" the rest of the system? The simple answer is they don't expect they can actually fix anything so they had better "fix" the whole system before it gets exposed that that can't fix anything to make it work better.

[oomu]

I'm a foreigner, so of course I'm evil and red.

Sometimes, when I'm evil, I hope you will keep your old dated medical system and all the crazy corporate schemes and cost. because, a stronger and better America would be too much awesome for my little country to absorb.

Federal regulations will not strip liberty to pay whatever you want for anything you want. It will keep stealth at bay and help to spend money MORE EFFICIENTLY (translation : to help and save more people).

Another thing, I know it's sometime unbelievable but in some foreign country, people can be happy, the state is not a malevolent entity and children are laughing. yeah. Ho! and yes, we have huge debate about politics too.


Good Luck.

[Neruda]

You're right ... let's just keep bailing out the greedy banking, financial and insurance industries with tax $$$$ we haven't even raised yet, (some of which comes from people with health problems...

Way to jump to conclusions. What makes you think that I was/was not opposed to the government bailouts (I made no mention of this)? I was against it (for similar reasons). But at least there is a better chance that government will get its money back from the TARP bailouts (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/sep/01/t1-payback-for-tarp-bailout/).

[axual]

Ebert writes "It’s stupid of insurance companies to insist on an inferior device costing 10 times as much."

Of course it is ... and the government is much worse, paying far more for inexpensive items.

On the other hand, Ebert makes enough money to afford the iPhone, so why should the insurance company pay for it in the first place? Oh, that's right ... he was paying premiums for years, like many others.

Sometimes the simple approach is the best, and Ebert has for his condition, found that solution. There are thousands of others in the same situation which makes the whole health care debate complicated.

But what is not complicated is using technology to reduce the cost of health care significantly. This is one example, and eliminating the huge administrative expense (20% I believe) would help even more.

We can fix health care without bankrupting the country (which is what Obama's plan is likely to do).

Let's fix the waste and administrative part first before we spend a trillion dollars "hoping" a plan put together by a group of people who haven't held a real job in years (politicians). Medicare and Medicaid are in bad shape? Does anyone wonder why? They are government managed programs, that's why. The government is not the solution. They can barely keep pot holes fixed, let alone manage the complexities of health care.

[Neruda]

This could go on forever and probably will...
On one side we have Republicans who are basing decisions on opinions, fear of the unknown and Ideology. On the other side we have democrats basing decisions on numbers, examples from around the world and reality.

Riiiiiiight. It really is that simple. Belittle whomever you disagree with. There are legitimate arguments on both sides of this debate, pro & con. That does not mean that one side is stupid and the other is rational (based solely on your ideological predilections). I don't agree with all of the healthcare reform proposals that are being suggested by Congress and the President, but there are things that I do agree with. It is not all black and white.

[Synotic]

One more thought...

While Roger Ebert may be able to use an iPhone, I'll bet many people with speaking disorders also have other problems that would prevent them from using a tiny keyboard. I'm guessing that that $8,000 "device" has software that allow quicker access to common words and even sentences, so that those people can "speak" as well as hear. They may even come with something that allows for input with a stylus.

I remember Stephen (sp?) Hawking had some sort of contraption hooked up to his wheelchair.Check out Apple's iPhone accessibility video (http://www.apple.com/iphone/iphone-3gs/accessibility.html#video). They've designed so that even people who are blind can use it. To use the keyboard, you drag your finger around the keyboard and it speaks the letters. You let go once you find the letter. Not as fast as using it visually, of course, but if you watch the video, it works pretty well.

[noirdesir]

Just because healthcare system X works in country A does not necessarily mean that system X will work in an entirely different country (B). Healthcare might be great in socialist countries, but if that is the price to pay for universal healthcare than I say no thanks.
Ah, I see the U.S. is such a special country, it really cannot be compared with other countries. There is the U.S. and then there are the 'socialist' countries. And what for you defines whether a country belongs to the second category?
If we look at one simple measure of state involvement in the economy, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, the U.S. comes in at 28%, the EU-15 at 40%, and the UK at 37%, 2006 data (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=SNA_TABLE1). So when does socialism start for you, at 30%? Ups, the U.S. hit that in 2000, or at 35%. Then the UK stopped being a socialist countries for a few years in the early nineties. And Switzerland never exceed 30% but everybody has health insurance there.

I would be really careful to call European countries socialist. If you had ever lived in a truly socialist country (eg, eastern Europe up to 1989), you would probably feel insulted by the notion of calling today's European nations socialist.

[Woode]

DynaVox and Prentke Romich make me sick.

It's funny that frequently the people complaining (loudly!) about government excess and waste are the same asshats that that run companies that overcharge the government for products, like $500 hammers and $8,000 PCs that suck horribly compared to modern Macs.

Way to be a part of the solution, asshats!

[nvidia2008]

May I just interject and say for this public healthcare thing, while of course you cannot just import systems directly from other countries, many countries have worked out a system where the government healthcare is to provide a baseline "safety net", while private health insurance helps as a "premium".

Both public and private health insurance can coexist well and private health insurance can still be profitable and those companies can succeed.

The core problem especially for mental health problems (eg. poor, homeless, etc.) in the US as I observe (as an outsider, admittedly) is that there is no baseline "safety net" for those who are really down and out.

Australia and Europe, etc. are not perfect systems. But Australia for example, government assistance is focused on giving you that last line in the sand before you go from poor to totally f*ed and destitute. For those with income, better jobs, fine, you can still have private health insurance for dental, paying for other medication that is not covered under government schemes.

A weird analogy, but perhaps think of it as government gives you a Macbook-level of coverage, to almost everyone, while if you decide to "top up" with private health insurance you can get a MacBook Pro 13" or 15" level of coverage. :smokey:

Now of course whether or not Obama is implementing/ communicating all this, I do not know, as I am not up to date. I do think his next term will be quite dependent on whether this healthcare reform thing goes "well" for him.

[nvidia2008]

BTW, I've heard starting outrageous wars in foreign countries on thin evidence are more likely to bankrupt a nation than trying to provide basic, "developed nation" healthcare for its citizens. 8-)

[nvidia2008]

...But what is not complicated is using technology to reduce the cost of health care significantly. This is one example, and eliminating the huge administrative expense (20% I believe) would help even more.

We can fix health care without bankrupting the country (which is what Obama's plan is likely to do).

Let's fix the waste and administrative part first before we spend a trillion dollars "hoping" a plan put together by a group of people who haven't held a real job in years (politicians). Medicare and Medicaid are in bad shape? Does anyone wonder why? They are government managed programs, that's why. The government is not the solution. They can barely keep pot holes fixed, let alone manage the complexities of health care.

If the government is not the solution, and private health insurance doesn't provide all the answers, what is the solution? Trimming administrative expenses are of course essential in any overhaul but maybe like a Windows machine you could defrag and antivirus but sometimes you just need to format-reinstall.

I still think there needs to be a simple thrust to the healthcare thing. Government provides the basic level support while private health is there for those who want more "premium" services.

A "government hospital" provides essential services. If you want something fancier, eg. a room for yourself to recover after surgery instead of sharing with 5 other people, then you can go to a "private hospital".

Again, let me know if I'm making sense or not.

[nvidia2008]

...On the other hand, Ebert makes enough money to afford the iPhone, so why should the insurance company pay for it in the first place? Oh, that's right ... he was paying premiums for years, like many others.....

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. If I have been paying premiums for years for private health insurance, and then a situation arises where I can make claims, then I should be eligible to claim for it, whether I am earning $1 a year or $1 million... Isn't that the whole purpose of "insurance", to "ensure" that you *will* be covered in any situation that meets the terms of coverage? An income test is not usually applied for private health insurance.

If the government had to pay for it then income tests should apply. Yes OMFG socialism we r punish the rich! ... For the government, healthcare should not be insurance as such (which is a kind of gamble of paying a certain amount with a view to recouping that amount at later dates) but a basic right for residents that cannot afford basic healthcare themselves.

Again, feel free to debate my points. Just laying out a few thoughts and feelings here.

That thing about society will be judged on how it treats the lesser of its members.

[nvidia2008]

Part of my job requires reading a lot of tedious information that, day after day, can really put me to sleep, not to mention strain my eyes.

I've been using the speech utility in OS X for a few months now almost every day and, despite a few mistakes here and there, it's near perfect. There are grammatical nuances that I suspect it won't get right that it usually does and the voices are pleasant enough.

I've always thought (no disrespect to the man) that Stephen Hawking's chair-voice thing was pretty lousy. Shouldn't he just cruise around now with a MacBook Pro and the chair? Surely he would be happier and more productive and more genius-like. He could do all the fancy Unix stuff (if Cocoa programming is "beneath" him) to enhance his Mac-driven Hawkingmobile.

The Leopard voice (the new one they introduced in Leopard) is one of the most pleasant and humane (sic) of any speech synthesis I know of.

[str1f3]

I find some of this debate laughable every time I hear the word socialism. If some of you are so afraid of it then you should also kill any government run program like Medicaid, Social Security, taxes, defense spending, etc. The truth is that pure democracy and pure socialism are wrong and it is the mixture of both that works.

As to a post earlier on this thread that said universal health care will bankrupt this country, this is untrue and is currently a reality already for tens of thousands of America every year who go broke from medical costs.

[physguy]

Not sure what you mean by Medicare being in Bad shape. If you ask most people who are on Medicare they will tell you that they prefer it over private insurance. The reality, however, is many people don't understand the government runs Medicare. The above example of not using cheaper technology just because it has other benefits if true, however, is plain outrageous. I suspect this has more to do with a certain companies lobbying efforts then anything. If true, that really is the problem: private and political greed.

I also do not see how the government can ruin the heath care system much more then it already is. In the very least, all insurance companies should be required to be made non profit. It is outrageous that CEO are raking in billions, while many people are going without insurance.

Most people can't afford private insurance nowadays. It used to be employers would pay for it. That more an more is becoming not the case as employers look there first to cut costs.


A single payer system is the way to go. People shouldn't have to worry about health care. It should be a right. Society would be much better off.

Its clear that you have not worked with Medicare on the provider side - I have. It is in very bad shape. On the consumer side, at the moment, it can indeed be a very good program. On the consumer side, one reason it works is that it is basically an 80/20 system which insures that the users have a reason to try and control costs. Those you love it have a co-plan (which are in danger of being eliminate in current proposals) which pick up the 20 %. Please note that most people today won't put up with an 80/20 plan from their employer, they want very small co-pays which eliminated an market control on prices and use of the system.

Getting back to the provider side, the reason Medicare seems to work is that they dictate prices on a cost+ basis (and due to gaming of the system on both sides its actually cost-). At its basic level the formula for setting the price Medicare is based on cost numbers provided to CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) by providers (hospital, physicians, etc.) CMS then takes geographic averages, multiplies by some factor around 1.0 and the says this is what the official price for this service will be. Medicare administrators, like Blue Cross, Aetna, etc. (yes Medicare at the consumer level is usually administered by private contractors) then negotiate a reduced payment (typically 80% of this number) to providers.

You might say 'Wow this should control costs' and you would be hideously wrong. If this system actually worked this way the providers would go out of business as their costs would end up being larger than their payments. What do they do - they artificially raise their costs estimates to survive, or they simply overcharge medicare and then accept a reduced payment, which is more than the official prices. Take any physician that will be honest with you and ask them how consistent their charges are to different patient groups. Usually, if you go in without insurance they will charge you significantly less - why? Because they're nice guys? Hardly, they know you will pay 100% of what they charge while insurers will only pay in part.

Now, look at the future of Medicare. President Obama himself, in the same speech in which he held up Medicare as a shining example on one hand, called Medicare the biggest stone around our neck with over $30 Trillion (yes trillion) in unfunded future liabilities. Why is this? because the 'insurance' your paying in your paycheck (which, by the way lowers your ability to get better insurance for yourself as it is funded by the Company by lowering your take home) is being used to pay for today's care for others which is unsustainable in the long run. It is, in any other venue, a ponzie scheme

As to a single payer system, even if the most extreme version of this legislation is passed, it will never exist in the US (nor does it in any other country). The wealthy, powerful, elite, politicians of any system will always (and do always) have access to private care. Congress has already provided for this as Congress' healthcare had been made basically exempt from this legislation. This private care will be even more accessible to those that can afford it once the rest of the population is taken care of by the more restrictive single payer. This now exists is Spain, where everyone one of the high net-work individuals I worked with always went to the system of private clinics when they needed care. Also consider that most of the good physicians in Spain consider it essential to work at least part time in the private system as that is where the physicians actually make money. This same duality exists in the UK as well ( at a higher level) and I suspect elsewhere as well.

Are there solutions, of course. The first is to get the right cart before the right horse. All current proposal follow this pattern - get everyone insured (by force if necessary) and lower costs will follow. The right order is - get costs lowered and the number of insured will increase. It will take longer and is therefore less politically acceptable but is will end up with a better, sustainable system.

How to lower costs - 1) Tort reform. It is agreed by all parties that this action will significantly lower costs ($65 - $200 billion/year) but congress (Both Sides) will not take on the the Tort lobby, as was admitted to by Howard Dean in one of his town hall meetings. This is simply shameful conflict of interest on the part of lawyers in congress. 2) Allow cross-state competition for health insurance. This is an artificial barrier to competition. 3) eliminate co-pays and go back to an 80/20 (or whatever percentage you want to pay for) system. In reality your costs of health care won't go up as you will have more disposable income to pay your 20% as insurance costs go down and the actually consumer of the product will have incentive to control the costs. 4) Eliminate the tax differential between employer provided and self provided insurance. Either tax it all or none of it, I wouldn't care.

Even if you support the current approach being debated (and realize that at this point the majority of American don't) you should be lobbying heavily to have the above provisions added. The current legislation has no real solutions to lower costs. Getting 'Industry' to commit to lowering costs is a red-herring unless there are specifics provided as to method, of which there are none.

[Dr Millmoss]

You couldn't get public libraries through Congress today. That's how low we've sunk.

The Medicare trust fund isn't going broke because the program is inefficient. In fact it's far more efficient than private medical insurance. It's going broke because Uncle Sugar doesn't want to raise taxes to pay for it. It's much easier for our friends in Congress to pretend that we don't actually have to pay for services rendered by the government. Nobody really wants to talk about this issue.

[souliisoul]

May I just interject and say for this public healthcare thing, while of course you cannot just import systems directly from other countries, many countries have worked out a system where the government healthcare is to provide a baseline "safety net", while private health insurance helps as a "premium".

Both public and private health insurance can coexist well and private health insurance can still be profitable and those companies can succeed.

The core problem especially for mental health problems (eg. poor, homeless, etc.) in the US as I observe (as an outsider, admittedly) is that there is no baseline "safety net" for those who are really down and out.

Australia and Europe, etc. are not perfect systems. But Australia for example, government assistance is focused on giving you that last line in the sand before you go from poor to totally f*ed and destitute. For those with income, better jobs, fine, you can still have private health insurance for dental, paying for other medication that is not covered under government schemes.

A weird analogy, but perhaps think of it as government gives you a Macbook-level of coverage, to almost everyone, while if you decide to "top up" with private health insurance you can get a MacBook Pro 13" or 15" level of coverage. :smokey:

Now of course whether or not Obama is implementing/ communicating all this, I do not know, as I am not up to date. I do think his next term will be quite dependent on whether this healthcare reform thing goes "well" for him.

Good points and especially about Australia, lived there for nearly 2 yrs, after leaving USA and I much prefer the top up system, then ever you pay for it all or get screwed (okay, you don't pay for it all, but you know what I mean).

BTW, I've heard starting outrageous wars in foreign countries on thin evidence are more likely to bankrupt a nation than trying to provide basic, "developed nation" healthcare for its citizens. 8-)

Probably more to be called a 'liar' as well.

Anyway my beloved Apple will save the day, we will provide an innovative healthcare system that uses iPod/iPhone to undertake at home diagnosis and transmit that to doctors in different location. The Apple Store will send out immediate medication to the patients in less than 20 minutes from any location.

The macbook tablet can act like CT scan, X-Ray etc and provide on the spot scans for any part of the body :smokey:

[TEAMSWITCHER]

What "kills" me (pun intended) is that anyone, Dem or Rep., liberal or conservative, would believe and/or repeat anything that Sarah Palin wrote on Facebook. She posted "death panels" and everyone threw up their hands and screamed like a little girl. She's an idiot, a failure (couldn't finish 1 term as Governor), a vapid air-head who "reads everything." God, people. I don't care what side of the argument you're on, but don't quote the village idiot to prove your points.

Next

I would like to second this notion. Sarah Palin is not what Republicans should be looking for in a leader. There is no way, no how, that she will ever be elected again to any office. She's washed up, and if my fellow Republicans think she is the future, we are all in big trouble.

[ingenious]

Thank you for the informative technology articles.... let's please leave the politics out of it.

I don't care to have your opinion regarding Obama's health care plan not-so-subtly thrust in my face when I read your otherwise very well-written and well-rounded posts. I'm sure you'd feel the same way if I were writing for this site and you disagreed with me.

[anantksundaram]

I can say the same thing about India, with concern to healthcare, majority of physicians have been trained in USA or UK.

Yikes. Where do you get your facts? For starters, do you know that India had more than 150 medical colleges? Where do you think most of the Indian doctors in the US, UK, Australia, and the Middle East got their basic medical training? Hint: Not the US or the UK.

Moreover, comparing the US (per capita income: $47,000) health care system to the Indian (per capita income: $1200) health care system is comparing apples and oranges. Valid comparisons would be between countries of (broadly) similar income levels. There, the US does not do well.

See, for instance, the ranking on health care outcomes (from WHO):
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

or, ranking of "preventable" deaths:
http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html

or, if you'd like to see what the evidence looks like item-by-item:
http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2009/en/index.html

[razorpit]

Before making broad-reaching statements, could the Americans in the forums who have convinced themselves that "the government will run health care into the ground" research health care systems in other countries before commenting further?

Thanks!

We already have by looking at everything the government is currently in charge of; social security, medicare, post office, Senate's cafeteria, department of motor vehicles, public education, the VA hospitals, tax code, etc... All failures.

I know this is probably going offend most of you with socialized healthcare but do you honestly think your program offers or invents more life saving techniques and cures than America's current system? Sorry, I lived the government system when I was in the military and I am thankful I can go to a free market system now that I'm out.

Yes, there are some changes that need to be made, i.e. open competition between insurance companies is a biggie, there is nothing that requires government to step in and take it over from the ground up. You accuse us of being closed minded, but if you think a government system addresses the patient's needs better than what we have, your the one living life with blinders on.

[souliisoul]

Yikes. Where do you get your facts? For starters, do you know that India had more than 150 medical colleges? Where do you think most of the Indian doctors in the US, UK, Australia, and the Middle East got their basic medical training? Hint: Not the US or the UK.

Moreover, comparing the US (per capita income: $47,000) health care system to the Indian (per capita income: $1200) health care system is comparing apples and oranges. Valid comparisons would be between countries of (broadly) similar income levels. There, the US does not do well.

See, for instance, the ranking on health care outcomes (from WHO):
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

or, ranking of "preventable" deaths:
http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html

or, if you'd like to see what the evidence looks like item-by-item:
http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2009/en/index.html

when you quote someone make sure you do not just take the part, YOU want and start a rant, which has nothing to do with what I was addressing,I was not comparing, you look damn silly, I was showing that you can not compare due to the standard of income. SO buddy, stop misquoting me, it not nice and actually little silly!!

My orginal post below:

Stop name calling and get your facts right with concern to comparing healthcare systems with US. Firstly not US citizen, but lived there for over 5 years. Secondly lived in Asia-Pacific for over 7 years off and on.
The cost of living, wages etc are completely different to US, so you going to Thailand earning a US wage and spending your US dollars, it would seem much cheaper. To average Thai person their cost of Healthcare is still high in their country.

I can say the same thing about India, with concern to healthcare, majority of physicians have been trained in USA or UK. The standard of care in private/big public hospitals is very good and the cost is much lower than western countries.

Now If I tell you that only 10-20% of the country can afford such level of healthcare that I have access to, then you understand that in population of 1,147,995,904.

So before you start comparing Thailand's healthcare with USA, just remember what you are comparing, since poor Thai people are NOT getting a good deal, but hey as long as you are happy thats great.


Read people's post before properly before you reply, okay!
Yes I do know that India has more than 150 medical colleges, do you know that over 85% of the consultants and senior physicians get trained in US/UK. They initial training is in India, but they complete their training in US/UK. Majority of consultants/surgeons are trained in US/UK. My statement is still correct.
Now to make your life easier, so you don't misquote people, I was stating that the standard of care in India is very good, but only 10-20% of people can actually afford the costs. To USA the costs are low, but for Indian there are high.


P.S. READ the comments from other their understood my post

[solipsism]

YO ROGER EBERT I KNOW YOU GOT THROAT CANCER
AND ALL—IMMA LET YOU FINISH—BUT AUTOTUNERS
THE BEST ELECTRONIC VOICEOVERS THIS YEAR.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Music/Pix/pictures/2009/9/15/1253006221403/Kanye-West-001.jpg

[Maximara]

As a conservative, former republican, the use of the S word in this debate offends me. Was it socialist when the government backed and largely financed the intercontenental railroad? how about the interstate system? and airports, sure the airlines are not government companies, but the airports are run by their respective cities, with massive support from FAA.

As a great nephew of one of the people who helped found the GOP and later when on to become Chief justice (Morrison Remick Waite) I would say Roosevelt (Teddy) was that last true example of the ideals Lincoln believed in. Ever since McCarthy and his Red scare the GOP has pulled out the Socialism/Communism card so many freaking times you wonder if that is the only card in their deck.

[kenaustus]

There is one factor in medical equipment that needs to be understood, and that is the costs of getting someone established on it, support in addressing problems and time to ensure they are compliant.

I have sleep apnea (OSA) and started on a cpap machine in 1998 as it is the gold standard. I was lucky in that I had no problems going onto treatment, but often the respiratory therapist has to work with the patient many times to get a "rig" that will ensure compliance.

Since that time I have purchased 2 autopaps - avoiding costly sleep studies and get all my supplies off of the web. But you need to be a compliant and an informed patient before that's a viable option.

So not all providers are "bad". They charge to cover their costs and profit margins for the product they sell. When new products come out (like my autopaps) they also have to adjust to markets - just like any other business.

[newbee]

[QUOTE=Neruda;1485528]Way to jump to conclusions. What makes you think that I was/was not opposed to the government bailouts (I made no mention of this)? I was against it (for similar reasons). But at least there is a better chance that government will get its money back from the TARP bailouts (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/sep/01/t1-payback-for-tarp-bailout/).[/QUOTE

Sure, with $$$$ that are worth a lot less (or should I just say worthless) than they are now, thanks to the relentless printing of money needed to support bailouts.

Did we get our money back from any other big bailout in history .. isn't this Chrysler's second visit to the corporate welfare line? :\

[aplnub]

great article. This is an awesome example of why cost-effectiveness studies are incredibly important.

You and me may be the only two people in this entire thread that get the original story.

:)

[Quadra 610]

YO ROGER EBERT I KNOW YOU GOT THROAT CANCER
AND ALL—IMMA LET YOU FINISH—BUT AUTOTUNERS
THE BEST ELECTRONIC VOICEOVERS THIS YEAR.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Music/Pix/pictures/2009/9/15/1253006221403/Kanye-West-001.jpg

Well done. ;)

[Idle]

Riiiiiiight. It really is that simple. Belittle whomever you disagree with. There are legitimate arguments on both sides of this debate, pro & con. That does not mean that one side is stupid and the other is rational (based solely on your ideological predilections). I don't agree with all of the healthcare reform proposals that are being suggested by Congress and the President, but there are things that I do agree with. It is not all black and white.
I think you just put people on the defensive when you started off by suggesting that functional universal healthcare requires socialism. That's a big jump that will always rub supporters the wrong way.

[libertyforall]

Yea, well, just more proof of why government doesn't work.
The solution is LESS GOVERNMENT, just ask Dr. and Congressman Ron Paul...

Check out http://campaignforliberty.com and http://lp.org

[SpamSandwich]

Yea, well, just more proof of why government doesn't work. Check out http://campaignforliberty.com and http://lp.org

Nice to see another advocate for liberty here. :)

[Dorotea]

[QUOTE=TBell;1485373
A single payer system is the way to go. People shouldn't have to worry about health care. It should be a right. Society would be much better off.[/QUOTE]

While I agree with your statement, I do think that we need to acknowledge that we need to pay for it and that may include tax money. We also need to acknowledge that we already pay for the health care of others. Costs for doctors/hospitals go up because they end up treating those with no $$$ and they pass the cost on to us through insurance companies. The costs are just hidden. I would rather that the costs be out in the open so that we understand them better.

We need a lot of change . Including incentives for behavior that improves health and disincentives for bad behaviors.

[Dr Millmoss]

The costs of treating the uninsured aren't passed along simply in the form of higher insurance premiums for the insured, they are also passed along in the form of taxes. We do pay for the uninsured, but in the most massively inefficient way possible. If you're for fixing that, then you're obviously opposed to liberty though, so I can see where that's a problem.

[anantksundaram]

Hey, buddy, I quoted exactly one unsubstantiated statement of yours -- see below;


I can say the same thing about India, with concern to healthcare, majority of physicians have been trained in USA or UK.

Now, I am compelled to call you out on another ridiculous assertion:

... do you know that over 85% of the consultants and senior physicians get trained in US/UK.

Provide a credible cite for that claim, and I'll apologize to you. Otherwise, stick to facts that you can back up.

[umijin]

Congrats on a truly relevant and topical article that steps partially outside the "Apple" sphere of things, but not too far. This is the best AI article I've seen in months, if not years.

I only hope that AI readers don't confuse this Medicare problem with what Gov't insurance *should* be. Stuff like this has to be ironed out before we can make it work right.

[brucep]

What people fear is gov't running private insurers out of business. And there's plenty of audio and video out there that vaildates those fears. Medicare is in such bad shape because Gov't can't run programs effectively, period. All the mandates and regulations are what brings down the system. To quote a wise man, "Everyday Congress meets we lose a little bit more of our liberty."
>Inventing ghost stories to scare the slow brained does no one any good at all
,everyone should be insured with a least amount of restrictions

Medicare does a very good job helping the sick and poor
but as this article shows it is not very flexible or wise.

The waste and graft in medicare is staggering.

9

[brucep]

i fixed all the holes

[bugsnw]

This is a complex issue. The first part of the article points out a huge spending flaw in Medicare. Doesn't look very well run. But then we are to fall behind and cheer a Medicare on steroids...bigger, more complex, and more expensive than any entitlement program in history.

Obama ironically tries to promote the new health care plan by pointing out that there are 100s of billions of spending abuses and wasteful practices in the existing version. If we merely realize some of those savings, we are nearly there.

Why aren't we doing this now? Why don't we do this first?

There are a lot of legitimate questions and concerns to be voiced without demonizing each side.

My favorite part of the article is when it points out that Apple, a private company that was honed via intense competition, offers a far better, less expensive solution.

Maybe the free market, competition and capitalism are on to something?

We need reform. This issue is very complex. Both sides are leaving huge holes in the debate. Both sides have interests to protect. Whatever we end up with, we should always strive to have as small as govt. as possible that performs the functions asked of it. And taxes should be as low as possible to pay for it.

[umijin]

What people fear is gov't running private insurers out of business. And there's plenty of audio and video out there that vaildates those fears. Medicare is in such bad shape because Gov't can't run programs effectively, period. All the mandates and regulations are what brings down the system. To quote a wise man, "Everyday Congress meets we lose a little bit more of our liberty."

Oh, come on!

I really doubt Americans care about the bottom lines of insurance companies. We've been gouged by them for decades, and that isn't going to stop if they can't sell their overpriced health insurance policies. Furthermore, there are plenty of other opportunities for them to make money.

The average person just wants coverage at an affordable price. We are the only developed country to fail at this, plus we are #37 in health care quality.

I would agree with you that congress is a wasteland of lobbyist-controlled flesh. But that doesn't mean that we can't have a decent public health insurance option provided by the feds.

And don't give me this "private sector can do it better" nonsense. We've seen how the unregulated financial sector pissed away investment capital. We've seen how the biggest US insurer (AIG) took their clients premiums and threw them away on bad investments.

Let's not forget that that number 1 reason health care costs are so expensive in the US is because of the huge liability issues that every doctor, hospital, clinics, and other health provider entities have to manage. The insurance companies PROFIT from all those malpractice policies, then profit again from the health insurance policies that have to pay for the inflated costs.

So, mourn not for the insurance companies. They don't care about you, they only care about the excessive profits they derive from the US health care system.

[bugsnw]

Stats are funny things. Take out car accidents and murder and we score better on longevity. If we are #37 in health care, one must wonder why Steve Jobs received his transplant right here in America. My guess is we are teh most innovative and advanced and we need to keep these qualities, whatever style of health care program we implement via reform.

[souliisoul]

Hey, buddy, I quoted exactly one unsubstantiated statement of yours -- see below;



Now, I am compelled to call you out on another ridiculous assertion:



Provide a credible cite for that claim, and I'll apologize to you. Otherwise, stick to facts that you can back up.

well I live in india, I am a very senior person in this company...www.indipharm.com and if you look at the site, my two scientific advisors both probably our top consultants in their field and provided me the information, when I initially moved to Mumbai, for our marketing campaign slides.

OH well, you did not apologize for initial quote and slicing one statement from entire quote and now you look silly and trying to redeem yourself. I do not get into childish games of calling people out. I prefer to let people put there opinion and discuss as normal person would do in face to face situation.

My point was clear You can not compare USA Healthcare system with Thailand or India.

[anantksundaram]

Stats are funny things. Take out car accidents and murder and we score better on longevity. If we are #37 in health care, one must wonder why Steve Jobs received his transplant right here in America. My guess is we are teh most innovative and advanced and we need to keep these qualities, whatever style of health care program we implement via reform.

Sure, stats can be finessed every which way, including the way you did it here. ;)

One thing is for sure: Despite being #1 in spending in both absolute dollars and as percent GDP, the US is most certainly not #1 in outcomes. And, arguably, some recognition that we may have something to learn from other advanced countries (which, in turn requires some humility) may not be such a bad thing.

[anantksundaram]

well I live in india, I am the VP& Director of this company...www.indipharm.com and if you look at the site, my two scientific advisors both probably our top consultants in their field and provided me the information, when I initially moved to Mumbai, for our marketing campaign slides.

Your top 'consultants'? Perhaps you could ask them for the cites?

(Medical 'marketing campaign slides' do have to back up their statistical claims, you know; at least they do in the US).

[souliisoul]

Congrats on a truly relevant and topical article that steps partially outside the "Apple" sphere of things, but not too far. This is the best AI article I've seen in months, if not years.

I only hope that AI readers don't confuse this Medicare problem with what Gov't insurance *should* be. Stuff like this has to be ironed out before we can make it work right.

Your top 'consultants'? Perhaps you could ask them for the cites?

(Medical 'marketing campaign slides' do have to back up their statistical claims, you know; at least they do in the US).

Not sure what is your motive, but you seem to have lost the plot, as you said you called me out on 'comparing US healthcare with India', which was very much opposite of what I was doing. Now you calling me out on another statement of mine, simply because you can not apologize for initial conduct of your reply to a 'sliced' statement that could be taken out of context.

Anyway India is one of the hot spots for 'Medical Tourism', i.e, people coming to India to obatin the same quality of treatment for about 10-12 times cheaper then US. Unfortunately this behviour does not help the average Indian person, who can not afford healthcare. I would say probably 80% of the healthcare in India is privately funded with state/federal providing probably at most 10-20%.

Anyway this will give you more accurate overview of Indian Healthcare market and what probably going to happen in future.

http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/healthcare/pdf/emerging-market-report-hc-in-india.pdf

[mdriftmeyer]

What people fear is gov't running private insurers out of business. And there's plenty of audio and video out there that vaildates those fears. Medicare is in such bad shape because Gov't can't run programs effectively, period. All the mandates and regulations are what brings down the system. To quote a wise man, "Everyday Congress meets we lose a little bit more of our liberty."

Put down the crack pipe. Private Insurance companies are snorting > $100 Billion as being the insurance backers for Medicare. The Government, under Bush 2.0, didn't budget for this last Medicare package.

[Rot'nApple]

OK- then, what do you think of those who believe in the march last weekend?

I can't wait to attend the next one... My sign read, "Hey MSNBC dolts, I'm not hatin' on a Black man. I'm luv'in on the Red, White and Blue!

The next event will be held shortly after the government goes against the polling that shows the wishes of the American people and ram through a piece of cr@p legislation regardless of what the majority wants when it comes to a health care bill... that's when the next event will start to be organized...

Personally, and there are a lot of us out there, we don't trust anything coming from the government. PERIOD. And it's not a democrat thing and it's not an Obama thing. IT'S A PAST GOVERNMENT ACTIONS THING.

And when I speak of "government", I'm talking about the House of Representative, the Senate, and the Executive Branch and both political parties...

The government has done very little to sway me that things will be different this time!

I've seen "Bridges to Nowhere" from the past administration, to the government adding 3 more than requested by the Air Force of G5 Corporate Jets for Congress to use for travels because we as taxpayers, we can afford for our "representatives" ability to just spend, spend, spend!

The government couldn't run the House Bank or the House Post Office without scandal. They couldn't run the cafeteria and had to have "professionals" take over. They recently opened a visitors center that was over budget and past due of its opening day.

We had a senator say that they should fix Social Security like they did when they fixed it ten years ago. Think about that for a second... If it was "fixed" ten years ago, then why does it need fixing now?! Probably because it was never fixed?!

We have the House Leader who likes protesters when they "agitate" George Bush at his home in Crawford concerning the Iraq war, but when others gather to "agitate" the democrats and Obama and health care, she labels us 'Un-American' and a mob! And then decries the level of rhetoric and possibility of violence, when she started the name calling! A hell of a nerve. Especially when the violence thus far has been from astro turfing Obama SEIU union goons attacking a vendor at a protest and at another protest a Pro-Obama supporter bites off the finger of an elderly man exercising his Constitutional rights.

We have Obama saying in a speech that after the August recess, anyone wishing clarification of "his plan", that he will go over it "line by line". It's on video! When several republican lawmakers sent him a letter taking him up on his offer, guess what... No return phone calls to set up a time, no letter, no e-mail, no text message from the Obama "Blackberry One"... zip, nada, nothing, the big goose egg... If he doesn't reply soon, maybe it is time to bring back the phrase, "You Lie"! Of course like so many other things, Obama will deny what one can see coming from his mouth that is video taped for all of posterity and Obama will simply say that was then, this is now, my positions have evolved... from several weeks ago???

And those that talk about the "civilized countries" that have government health insurance, I would like to know how much is their citizenry taxed for that honor and also, how much does their country spend in relation to their GDP regarding worldwide commitments when it comes to their military? Or maybe the next major tsunami that affects the peoples of 10 or 11 countries, God forbid, we'll let someone else take all the food, medicines and supplies donated and let them drop it off via military ships and air drops

I'm not in disagreement that health care needs reform but not some 1100 page babble filled with lawyer speak that like Medicare, will require the purchase of the $8000 computer or the $500 wheelchair van because it is authorized!

Glad those with problems are finding aid with the iPhone and "there's an app for that" app store.

[diamondgeeza]

Before making broad-reaching statements, could the Americans in the forums who have convinced themselves that "the government will run health care into the ground" research health care systems in other countries before commenting further?

Thanks!

Yes, perhaps starting with the other 17 rated of higher standard by the WHO (admittedly sometime ago and out of date).

[fulldecent]

>> Others fear that Obama's plans to reform health care will result in Medicare being taken over by the government, unaware that Medicare itself is a single payer, government-run healthcare program and has been since 1965.

No, others fear that the Obama's plans to reform health care will result in Medicare taking over the entire country, aware that Medicare itself is a, government-run healthcare program and has been since 1965.

[vinea]

Stop name calling and get your facts right with concern to comparing healthcare systems with US. Firstly not US citizen, but lived there for over 5 years. Secondly lived in Asia-Pacific for over 7 years off and on.
The cost of living, wages etc are completely different to US, so you going to Thailand earning a US wage and spending your US dollars, it would seem much cheaper. To average Thai person their cost of Healthcare is still high in their country.


Have you been to a Thai hospital? Damn things are like freaking hotels.

So before you start comparing Thailand's healthcare with USA, just remember what you are comparing, since poor Thai people are NOT getting a good deal, but hey as long as you are happy thats great.

The capital costs of a modern medical institution remains the same. That the doctors may make less isn't likely the deciding factor in medical costs but rather the insurance overhead. Dunno what happens in a malpractice case in Thailand.

[vinea]

Anyway India is one of the hot spots for 'Medical Tourism', i.e, people coming to India to obatin the same quality of treatment for about 10-12 times cheaper then US. Unfortunately this behviour does not help the average Indian person, who can not afford healthcare.


So what? The point is that medical care can be much less expensive. If you can't show that the primary cause of high US healthcare costs is medical staff salary then the cost of healthcare in Thailand and India are directly applicable to the assertion that health care costs are too high in the US and the costs of living in Thailand and India don't much matter in this equation.

What? Are you guys using a cheaper brand of MRI than we do? IV drip lines magically take less plastic in India?

[souliisoul]

So what? The point is that medical care can be much less expensive. If you can't show that the primary cause of high US healthcare costs is medical staff salary then the cost of healthcare in Thailand and India are directly applicable to the assertion that health care costs are too high in the US and the costs of living in Thailand and India don't much matter in this equation.

What? Are you guys using a cheaper brand of MRI than we do? IV drip lines magically take less plastic in India?

Actaully India/ Thailand use the same brand, since I visit hospitals on a weekly basis, same for medication even the brand medication is cheaper. The pharmaceuticals know there can not sell the same price in India as USA. That is known fact.

Fortunately the same MRI brand you found in USA, you will found in India. The cost of MRI will be much cheaper in India.

If I remember it was Merck or Pfizer who just launched a diabetes product in India that was about 40-50% cheaper then USA price.

If you read the PWC report, it explains all you need to know with concern to India anyway.

[souliisoul]

Have you been to a Thai hospital? Damn things are like freaking hotels.



The capital costs of a modern medical institution remains the same. That the doctors may make less isn't likely the deciding factor in medical costs but rather the insurance overhead. Dunno what happens in a malpractice case in Thailand.

I been to Thai hospital, probably many more times, then you have, since I visited Thai for business (Pharmaceuticals) for 5 yrs every 2 weeks. The cost of healthcare for USA person in Thailand is low, but average Thai person or Indian person can not found that standard of care.

Agree Healthcare can be cheaper in USA, but you can't compare Thailand with USA, since many factors make them different.

From my industry a CRA costs on average $57,000 for CRA I http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_RD14000020.html

in India a CRA costs 4-6 lakts, which is roughly USD8-12,000. Which is similar lower costs for Indian doctor's salaries.

[brucep]

I been to Thai hospital, probably many more times, then you have, since I visited Thai for business (Pharmaceuticals) for 5 yrs every 2 weeks. The cost of healthcare for USA person in Thailand is low, but average Thai person or Indian person can not found that standard of care.

Agree Healthcare can be cheaper in USA, but you can't compare Thailand with USA, since many factors make them different.

From my industry a CRA costs on average $57,000 for CRA I http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_RD14000020.html

in India a CRA costs 4-6 lakts, which is roughly USD8-12,000. Which is similar lower costs for Indian doctor's salaries.
In the morning when a country awakes it must say to itself
should a sick person afllicted with <<fill i blank >> have a united field trying to cure said sck person .
In the usa 40 % cannot get help of any kind .
Yet we spend trillions on machines of war and death .
yet in cuba 100 percent get 100 percent help
yes cuba's heath help is not so great
but it is equal
you choose
peace dudes

9

[souliisoul]

In the morning when a country awakes it must say to itself
should a sick person afllicted with <<fill i blank >> have a united field trying to cure said sck person .
In the usa 40 % cannot get help of any kind .
Yet we spend trillions on machines of war and death .
yet in cuba 100 percent get 100 percent help
yes cuba's heath help is not so great
but it is equal
you choose
peace dudes

9

well said

[brucep]

well said

cheers

i once saw a video of millions of gallons of price support milk being dumped in a river .

i cried ,

peace

9

[jocknerd]

What people fear is gov't running private insurers out of business. And there's plenty of audio and video out there that vaildates those fears. Medicare is in such bad shape because Gov't can't run programs effectively, period. All the mandates and regulations are what brings down the system. To quote a wise man, "Everyday Congress meets we lose a little bit more of our liberty."

I don't fear that at all. I look forward to it, actually.

[rnp1]

well said
Its truly a shame that discussions as intellectually supported and vigorously debated, using world facts can not take place in a "free" country when attempts are made to explore the truth in Washington. Even people like Ron Paul or Ron Widen get no press coverage or their questions are are ignored by the execs or members of various committees when these valuable, pointed questions are asked. For those of us who spend time reading and researching, it is so obvious that the common person just gets a controlled snapshot from TV. They are more interested in 2 and 1/2 men, than in Charlie Sheen's letter to Obama! Knowledge is power, yet the average America citizen chooses to remain powerless while the true beneficiaries of health insurance, the banking system and the US political system move closer to destroying America and the free world! Thus gaining selfish and limited control of a world advanced by education and a free market system of incentive and reward. The results would no doubt stagger any forward movement and end up leaving a deteriorating planet consisting of Lords and Commoners, as in the Dark Ages!

[Dr Millmoss]

Its truly a shame that discussions as intellectually supported and vigorously debated, using world facts can not take place in a "free" country when attempts are made to explore the truth in Washington. Even people like Ron Paul or Ron Widen get no press coverage or their questions are are ignored by the execs or members of various committees when these valuable, pointed questions are asked. For those of us who spend time reading and researching, it is so obvious that the common person just gets a controlled snapshot from TV. They are more interested in 2 and 1/2 men, than in Charlie Sheen's letter to Obama! Knowledge is power, yet the average America citizen chooses to remain powerless while the true beneficiaries of health insurance, the banking system and the US political system move closer to destroying America and the free world! Thus gaining selfish and limited control of a world advanced by education and a free market system of incentive and reward. The results would no doubt stagger any forward movement and end up leaving a deteriorating planet consisting of Lords and Commoners, as in the Dark Ages!

I have no idea what this means. I have to suppose that it's an effort to bury an important issue under a heap of ideological rhetoric. Sorry, but I think you are too late. It's already been done.

[souliisoul]

Its truly a shame that discussions as intellectually supported and vigorously debated, using world facts can not take place in a "free" country when attempts are made to explore the truth in Washington. Even people like Ron Paul or Ron Widen get no press coverage or their questions are are ignored by the execs or members of various committees when these valuable, pointed questions are asked. For those of us who spend time reading and researching, it is so obvious that the common person just gets a controlled snapshot from TV. They are more interested in 2 and 1/2 men, than in Charlie Sheen's letter to Obama! Knowledge is power, yet the average America citizen chooses to remain powerless while the true beneficiaries of health insurance, the banking system and the US political system move closer to destroying America and the free world! Thus gaining selfish and limited control of a world advanced by education and a free market system of incentive and reward. The results would no doubt stagger any forward movement and end up leaving a deteriorating planet consisting of Lords and Commoners, as in the Dark Ages!

what is two half and half men??

[solipsism]

what is two half and half men??

It’s an American TV show starring Charlie Sheen and Jon Cryer. It has been the highest or one of the highest rated sitcoms for several years now. It’s no Doogie Houser, MD, though.* :D • "Two & A Half Man” ("http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369179”) (IMDb)


* A show that always seems to be playing on TV on some Indian channel.

[Dr Millmoss]

It’s an American TV show starring Charlie Sheen and Jon Cryer. It has been the most or one of the highest rated sitcoms for several years now. It’s Doogie Houser, MD, though. :D • "Two & A Half Man” ("http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369179”) (IMDb)

Not only did I not know that either, I still have no idea how it's relevant.

[Maestro64]

First I have to say to the person who said how medicare was a great thing for his grandmother because it allow her not to burden her family... so it okay to burden the rest of us....

Next I know the company Dynovox and their system use to be based on macs at one time but due to some falling out, probably mostly on apple side Dynovox was forced to move to PCs. Yes their product does more than speech synthesis and support people who have other handicaps so it highly specialized products. However, it does not mean every person who has a speech problem should be force to use something that cost more than that need.

Remember people we are all paying for this, and we should not allow them to use our money this way, I do not care if it is an issuance company or the government. If they are taking money from you, whether in premiums or a tax you should have say so how that money is spent.

In this case a person is tell them the $8000 solution does not work how about the this less expensive solution, and they say no you can not have the cheaper better solution because the only approved solution is the more expensive one...

It is like those electric wheel chair commercials where the company says they will approve you and fill all the paperwork with medicare to get them reimbursed. These companies make their money off getting people very expense wheelchair which cost us all money.

[solipsism]

Not only did I not know that either, I still have no idea how it's relevant.

It’s only relevant to the comparison that Rnp1 was making. Charlie Sheen, the top billing actor on the aforementioned show, requested a meeting with Obama over his feelings that the 9/11 tragedy was somehow covered up the US government. Rnp1 was making a comment about how the US at large is more interested in a silly situation comedy show than in politics. The connection is obviously Charlie Sheen. » http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/obama-charlie-sheen-911.html

[Dr Millmoss]

It’s only relevant to the comparison that Rnp1 was making. Charlie Sheen, the top billing actor on the aforementioned show, requested a meeting with Obama over his feelings that the 9/11 tragedy was somehow covered up the US government. Rnp1 was making a comment about how the US at large is more interested in a silly situation comedy show than in politics. The connection is obviously Charlie Sheen.

Then maybe if he's worried about people who are more interested in silly situation comedy actors, he should look in a mirror. In reality, any serious debate over healthcare is being deliberately drowned out by the forces who don't want to see anything of substance happen, not I suspect by the people who think that Charlie Sheen is an intellectual.

[zoetmb]

Healthcare might be great in socialist countries, but if that is the price to pay for universal healthcare than I say no thanks.

What is a socialist country? Republicans are brilliant at taking words like liberal and socialist and green and turning them into something that everyone is supposed to be afraid of. All this talk of socialism reminds me of when Richard Nixon ran against Helen Gahagan Douglas and put out campaign literature about her on pink paper. Get it? She was a pinko!!. This is no different.

The post office is socialist
The military is socialist.
The interstate highway system is socialist.
The Federal Communications Commission is socialist.
Public libraries are socialist.
The national parks are socialist.
Medicare and Medicaid are socialist.
Social Security is socialist.

Get over it. If you eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, we become a third world country. You'll have millions of people begging in the streets.

Should we eliminate all these things and replace them with McDonald's just because you're afraid of a word?

The cost of private health care insurance is rising at more than 15% per year. All these people who are defending the status quo (which they'll probably get) will be screaming again in five years when they have to drop their health care because they can no longer possibly afford it. The New York Times ran an article the other day showing the price of private health care for a family of four. I was totally shocked -- it was far more expensive than even I though it was. IIRC, average health insurance for a family of four was over $13,000 a year. And as we all know, there's plenty that the average plan doesn't cover.

I don't necessarily agree with everything that's in the current bills, but the status quo simply doesn't work. That's burying our heads in the sand. The Republicans tried to scare people with talk of "death panels", but how do they think the current system works? If you can't afford health care, you don't get treated and if you don't get treated, you die. There's no "death panel" because one isn't necessary.

Have you ever even spent time in a so-called "socialist" country? Most have far higher standards of living than the U.S. does and their people are happier.

What the question comes down to is whether everyone has the right to affordable health care or whether you believe that only those who can afford it have the right to health care.

There are no perfect solutions. Every solution has a fault.

It's amazing to me that no one questions the price of killing (like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) which have cost us $912 billion, but try and do something to better our health and everyone freaks out.

[NoahJ]

Get over it. If you eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, we become a third world country. You'll have millions of people begging in the streets.



What? All that stands between us and Third World Status is the governments social programs?!?

I never knew that! :no:

[brucep]

I have no idea what this means. I have to suppose that it's an effort to bury an important issue under a heap of ideological rhetoric. Sorry, but I think you are too late. It's already been done.

SADLY there are still 1/3 rd of the worlds kids go to sleepy bye hungry at night . This loss of protein at young formative years dooms too many these kids to a dull minded or weak bodied life.
Or both . this happens all across the whole world except for maybe north europe cuba and west russia .

Full heath care for all citizens of the milky way and before any country build's one more land mine we make sure all children go to sleep with a full stomach and awaken with a heavy full book bag filled with the tools to grow there beautiful minds.

Is this too much too ask ??

Sadly tens of millions of children will die in central Africa in the next 36 yrs from aids and famine drought related causes.The lands center of africa cannot support so many people and global.warming will hasten this terrible future. And unless they stop having 5 babies a piece this is un stoppable /.

what issue was buried i forgot??

peace 9

[Dr Millmoss]

what issue was buried i forgot??

Of course you forgot. That was the plan.

As for social programs being the only thing standing between us and Third World status, there'd be no truth to this if wages for working class people hadn't been declining steadily over the last four decades. Maybe some are unclear on the concept of Third World countries -- you know, places with lots of poor people with little opportunity, a small group of very rich people, and almost nobody in the middle. We used to call that Brazilification. What do we call it now?

I wonder how much better off we'd be without those socialist concepts like Social Security, Medicare, and public universities. I wonder.

[bugsnw]

You won't have to wonder long. All those programs are going broke. The word Bankruptcy is crossing our national lips. We need reform, true. We'd like to have every American have a wonderful health care package from cradle to grave. I'd personally like it if every American had a nice home and an HD TV and a Mac.

We have to balance our desires and wishes with financial reality. Dissension is not a bad thing. Liberals play the race card often, but it's not about skin color. It's about Green. Obama has not been honest about how we are going to pay for his vision of health care. On Sunday, he wasn't even clear about the definition of a tax.

Not good.

[nvidia2008]

You won't have to wonder long. All those programs are going broke. The word Bankruptcy is crossing our national lips. We need reform, true. We'd like to have every American have a wonderful health care package from cradle to grave. I'd personally like it if every American had a nice home and an HD TV and a Mac.

We have to balance our desires and wishes with financial reality. Dissension is not a bad thing. Liberals play the race card often, but it's not about skin color. It's about Green. Obama has not been honest about how we are going to pay for his vision of health care. On Sunday, he wasn't even clear about the definition of a tax.

Not good.

Of course the USA needs to be realistic. That's why most "developed" countries operate on the tenet of the government providing a "safety net". If you ask them to subsidise your HDTV, most will say F* You, except for maybe Australia where they have been providing handouts to stimulate the economy... but this is an exceptional circumstance with regards to the global financial meltdown. Though countries do sometimes provide additional tax refunds in cash (eg. Bush's early this decade... which I can't remember what I spent it on when I was working in the US at that time...) so Australia is nowhere unique in providing "stimulus" funds.

I think what defines a "developed" country includes what systems and care is in place to take care, rehabilitate, and support those in the worst situations of their lives - drug/alcohol dependency, disabled, chronically ill, desperately out of a job... and not even able to pay for basic medical care.

Remove the existence of this "safety net" from a country and I would start to call it 3rd world. Big freeways, buildings and corporations does not make a 1st world country if poverty, homelessness, despair and hopelessness are rampant.

It's very interesting that you mention homes and housing. Yes, it would be nice if every American had a basic dwelling, wouldn't it? Like most other countries that provide reasonable public housing. Them first world countries.

[nvidia2008]

...Maybe some are unclear on the concept of Third World countries -- you know, places with lots of poor people with little opportunity, a small group of very rich people, and almost nobody in the middle. We used to call that Brazilification. What do we call it now?...

It's called globalisation now

[nvidia2008]

...It's amazing to me that no one questions the price of killing (like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) which have cost us $912 billion, but try and do something to better our health and everyone freaks out.

It is amazing. Isn't this stuff bankrupting the USA? And it's all going to guns, arms, private contractors, infrastructure companies, foreign companies, foreign countries...

But it is true, for the American people, the government budget and plan has to be clear. Obama was elected on hope an vision. Now to the details. :smokey: ... I'm sure withdrawing gradually from wars and involvement in military actions which do not clearly increase national security saves quite a few hundred billion dollars.

Peace is good for business and saves government spending, AFAIK. Well, good for everything except maybe the oil business. The world understands if the US needs to take care of itself and pull out of hopeless fighting grounds which lack true international support.

[Neruda]

What is a socialist country? Republicans are brilliant at taking words like liberal and socialist and green and turning them into something that everyone is supposed to be afraid of.

People of all political stripes do this. If you think Republicans are the only ones than you're clearly deluding yourself.


The post office is socialist
The military is socialist.
The interstate highway system is socialist.
The Federal Communications Commission is socialist.
Public libraries are socialist.
The national parks are socialist.
Medicare and Medicaid are socialist.
Social Security is socialist.


Taken straight out of Obama's speech last week. How original (give credit for this where credit is do). The question is not whether the government performs certain services (it has to, that is the function of government), but whether the government compels people to use these services. Is the government forcing me to use the post office, serve in the military, only use public libraries, etc. No.

It is also interesting that most of the organizations on your list are classic examples of government inefficiency.
Post office: (operates at a billion dollar loss on a yearly basis (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28897426/)).
SEC: (not on your list, but it can't regulate itself out of a paper bag, Madoff was handed to them and they did nothing (http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:sYwJRO1EyxgJ:online.wsj.com/documents/Madoff_SECdocs_20081217.pdf+madoff+whistleblower+m emo&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)).
Medicare/Medicaid: operate on deficits, going bankrupt in our lifetimes, and would rather pay for an $8000 PC rather than a $150 application.
Social security: most experts expect it to go bankrupt unless something is done (http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/03-24-03.html).

Yet you expect government run healthcare to be any different. I'm not against reform. But having the government be in the healthcare business (and forcing people to participate or finining them for failing to do so) is not a good idea. Even Obama has acknowledged this at one point or another.

[jam71]

You'll probably find that the insurance company is either owns or has a large stake in the companies that provide the over priced equipment. A bit like the pharmaceutical giants that own the very insurance companies that sell you healthcare that prescribes drugs at vastly inflated prices!

[Dr Millmoss]

It's called globalisation now

Point taken, but I think we could also call it Americanization. The dominant economic political theory in the country over the last 30 years has been trickle-down: If you encourage the rich to become very, very rich, eventually some of that wealth will trickle down to the middle class. So we grew the class of the super-rich, but the middle class has continued to be hammered. Not that the theory has changed to accommodate reality. Lots of people still believe in it. Actually that's the polite way to put it. More probably they simply do not care -- things are the way they ought to have always been.

Taken in the context of healthcare, the issue comes into sharp relief. As an example, I am a small businessperson. My insurance premiums are now 20% of my gross income. Yes, you read that right. And growing at an alarming rate. Add to that, I am uninsurable -- I only have the staggeringly expensive health insurance policy I have now because I bought it before I had my health issues. By law they can't cancel me so long as I pay, but they can raise my rates steadily so eventually I won't be able to pay. Nice system -- I wonder who thought of it?

Knowing what I know now, would I have left my government job 20 years ago to go into business? Almost certainly not. And this is good for the U.S. economy and our quality of life? Not either. But again, I see that a large segment of people will do lip-service to the realities that middle class Americans face, but by their actions, clearly indicate that in reality, they simply do not care.

[dancingbrook]

Does anyone know what the software is?

[Neruda]

I think you just put people on the defensive when you started off by suggesting that functional universal healthcare requires socialism. That's a big jump that will always rub supporters the wrong way.

You have a valid/good point. I acknowledge that. But that is still my opinion nonetheless (http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663).

[newbee]

I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out. How do we know equality is moral? Some people would say that taking money off someone who earned it (to create the equality) is immoral.

And how do we know what is and is not a proper function of government? It's a grey area and I don't think either side is *obviously* wrong.

I think it goes something like ..."of the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE .... not .... of ME for ME .... no? ;)

[pmz]

Before making broad-reaching statements, could the Americans in the forums who have convinced themselves that "the government will run health care into the ground" research health care systems in other countries before commenting further?

Thanks!

Hmm maybe they've taking a clue from the way they ran the economy into the ground? Hmm?

[Dr Millmoss]

Hark, I hear naught but the sound of crickets.

[aplnub]

Hark, I hear naught but the sound of crickets.

Sounds like you have a bad situation and that is unfortunate.

Regardless of which side anyone views the great health care debate, not everyone can or will be helped.

In the end, if everyone had to pass a drug/alcohol test to get on such healthcare/welfare/etc. programs to help people, public support would probably come around.

[Dr Millmoss]

Sounds like you have a bad situation and that is unfortunate.

Regardless of which side anyone views the great health care debate, not everyone can or will be helped.

In the end, if everyone had to pass a drug/alcohol test to get on such healthcare/welfare/etc. programs to help people, public support would probably come around.

Really. Millions of people are in this "bad situation," many millions more will become so over the next few years, and so (automatically) is anyone who might be thinking about going into business for themselves. It seems many fail to appreciate the magnitude of the problem, or they simply don't care. I can't really tell into which category you fall, but I always try to find who I am talking to in these discussions, because I've found it to be a complete waste of time to discuss this issue with people who don't actually care.

In fact I believe politically this ball could be moved down the court if the lip-service crowd who make most of the opposition noise were separated from those who see and understand the problems, and want them to be solved. Much of the opposition only pretends to want a solution, when in reality, they are not prepared to do anything -- because they really don't care.

[aplnub]

Really. Millions of people are in this "bad situation," many millions more will become so over the next few years, and so (automatically) is anyone who might be thinking about going into business for themselves. It seems many fail to appreciate the magnitude of the problem, or they simply don't care. I can't really tell into which category you fall, but I always try to find who I am talking to in these discussions, because I've found it to be a complete waste of time to discuss this issue with people who don't actually care.

In fact I believe politically this ball could be moved down the court if the lip-service crowd who make most of the opposition noise were separated from those who see and understand the problems, and want them to be solved. Much of the opposition only pretends to want a solution, when in reality, they are not prepared to do anything -- because they really don't care.

So what part of what I said are you disagreeing with??

I am simply saying that if passing a drug/alcohol screening was required for these programs, they would most likely be approved and accepted.

In the end, there is no perfect system. There will always be super rich, super poor, middle class, and yada yada yada. Will people be left out that deserve help. Of course. Will it be a travesty. Yes. Unfortunately, this is not the 23rd century where there is no money and Dr. Crusher can cure almost anything. I say that being serious.

[Dr Millmoss]

So what part of what I said are you disagreeing with?

I am simply saying that if passing a drug/alcohol screening was required for these programs, they would most likely be approved and accepted.

This statement, for one. There's absolutely no evidence to back this up, and plenty to refute it. The insurance industry simply will not accept an expansion of public coverage, no matter how it is couched, and they have plenty of allies in Congress to make certain that they won't have to face this.

In the end, there is no perfect system. There will always be super rich, super poor, middle class, and yada yada yada. Will people be left out that deserve help. Of course. Will it be a travesty. Yes. Unfortunately, this is not the 23rd century where there is no money and Dr. Crusher can cure almost anything. I say that being serious.

What is this supposed to mean? Nothing, I presume. The system as it exists is so far from "perfect" that I have to wonder why anyone would even suggest that it might be nothing more than slightly imperfect.

But as I said, I don't bother discussing this issue with people who don't understand that this a huge and growing problem for tens of millions of people and five-alarm threat to our national economic well-being. Do you understand this? I haven't seen any evidence of it. I'm not certain yet, but I think you might be one of those people who simply don't care.

[aplnub]

This statement, for one. There's absolutely no evidence to back this up, and plenty to refute it. The insurance industry simply will not accept an expansion of public coverage, no matter how it is couched, and they have plenty of allies in Congress to make certain that they won't have to face this.



What is this supposed to mean? Nothing, I presume. The system as it exists is so far from "perfect" that I have to wonder why anyone would even suggest that it might be nothing more than slightly imperfect.

But as I said, I don't bother discussing this issue with people who don't understand that this a huge and growing problem for tens of millions of people and five-alarm threat to our national economic well-being. Do you understand this? I haven't seen any evidence of it. I'm not certain yet, but I think you might be one of those people who simply don't care.

I was just stating my belief on the current situation. Just because I post up I believe if there were a drug/alcohol screening done to get these benefits does mean I was offering it up as fact. I don't evidence. It is my opinion. I did not cite it as fact. Much like how you believe that if the lip service was cut down it would pass. I am not arguing or picking. I am just stating what I believe would help the programs gain credibility and become accepted.

My views on the perfection of the system were not on the current system Re-read the post. I was stating we will never have a perfect system.

Also, you keep stating you don't bother discussing this issue with people who don't understand the big and growing problem for tens of million five-alarm threat... Take a step back. You are emotionally involved in this and it is bleeding through the screen like a water through a sponge.

Who would want to "discuss" anything with you? I care. But we have to be realistic.

[Dr Millmoss]

I was just stating my belief on the current situation. Just because I post up I believe if there were a drug/alcohol screening done to get these benefits does mean I was offering it up as fact. I don't evidence. It is my opinion. I did not cite it as fact. Much like how you believe that if the lip service was cut down it would pass. I am not arguing or picking. I am just stating what I believe would help the programs gain credibility and become accepted.

My views on the perfection of the system were not on the current system Re-read the post. I was stating we will never have a perfect system.

Also, you keep stating you don't bother discussing this issue with people who don't understand the big and growing problem for tens of million five-alarm threat... Take a step back. You are emotionally involved in this and it is bleeding through the screen like a water through a sponge.

Who would want to "discuss" anything with you? I care. But we have to be realistic.

I don't need to take any steps back. Perhaps if you understood the problem on a more first hand basis, you wouldn't be trying to discuss it in such weaselly terms as "perfection." Nobody is asking for a perfect system, so this is just an avoidance. We already have plenty of avoidance. Making patently unrealistic suggestions also doesn't help.

Either you care or you don't. Answer the question directly, please, or don't bother responding.