[Wino]

Originally Posted by Stoner

No...I won't be free as long as I'm financially bound to a system that won't provide for me the medical treatments that I need.
I become a slave to the 'needs of the many'.

Under Bush, while my allergy treatments were illegal, at least I wasn't required to fund the health of others.....other than medicare and medicaid , that is.

I guess taxing is different in Ohio. Here we have to pay real estate taxes to support the city.county medical centers in addition to SS/Medicare. I still pay the latter as well as real estate taxes. It ain't free, that's for sure.

As for your personal treatment re allergies, I haven't a clue why it would be illegal. Guess I can have a little empathy since I use an illegal substance for pain control.

In any case, not sure how I or you can speculate on what is going to be when it isn't even near being enacted. If universal health care is any where near that of Medicare and properly financed, it should work well for most all. Some will fall thru the cracks, same as some do to day.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by Wino

I guess taxing is different in Ohio. Here we have to pay real estate taxes to support the city.county medical centers in addition to SS/Medicare. I still pay the latter as well as real estate taxes. It ain't free, that's for sure.

As for your personal treatment re allergies, I haven't a clue why it would be illegal. Guess I can have a little empathy since I use an illegal substance for pain control.

In any case, not sure how I or you can speculate on what is going to be when it isn't even near being enacted. If universal health care is any where near that of Medicare and properly financed, it should work well for most all. Some will fall thru the cracks, same as some do to day.

If universal health care is any where near that of Medicare and properly financed,..............

Well.....Medicare and Medicaid have not been 'properly' financed and their trust funds are failing. Too many expenditures and not enough in-come. The government does not run these programs well at all.

As for your personal treatment re allergies, I haven't a clue why it would be illegal.

I have a clue........lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry against a therapy ( EPD ) that makes antihistamines obsolete there by protecting a large prescription and otc market.

Some will fall thru the cracks, same as some do to day.

Well.....I certainly don't like the state of medical care today.
But I fail to see how government control of that industry will make the situation better.

[wacor]

Jack do you go to Canada then for treatment with EPD?

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by wacor

Jack do you go to Canada then for treatment with EPD?

I thought about it as it's legal there.
But, no. From others that go to the same clinic locally and tried out the recommended Canadian clinic....it was a waste of money with no benefit from the shots.
The clinic there enforced no protocols, discussed no protocols involved with the treatment.
Rather than the one shot most of us were used to, there seemed to be a series of 3 to 4 shots and several people reported the EPD product was not being refrigerated......one of the important issues with the EPD product as it was biological.


After the US was first shut down, the US lead investigator in trying to get the FDA to approve EPD, Shrader, set up a clinic in Mexico with the idea that he'd be able to keep costs down in that setting.
I knew 2 people that went and got good results from the shots......but while Bush was visiting Fox, the Mexican customs mysteriously set in to play new rules that the EPD product was not to be allowed to sit in refrigeration. ( edit...EPD is an English product )
That ended the Mexican clinic and Shrader referred all past EPD patients to a Canadian clinic, but I don't think he had anything to do with it beyond the recommendation.


A similar therapy called LDA has been developed in Colorado but the results are no where near as effective and did me no good. At $250 a shot, I decided to quit LDA.
I got enough out of 3 years of EPD to make my allergies endurable.

[Fyzbo]

Originally Posted by TooBad

If you would like a common sense article on medical costs, please read Dr. Thomas Sowell's article today.

http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...&comments=true

A small snippet.

"Politicians may talk about "bringing down the cost of medical care," but they seldom even attempt to bring down the costs. What they bring down is the price-- which is to say, they refuse to pay the costs.
Anybody can refuse to pay any cost. But don't be surprised if you get less when you pay less. None of this is rocket science. But it does require us to stop and think before jumping on a bandwagon."

I personally can not wait for my Kia health care. I know people say when it comes to health no price is too high, well I'm the opposite. Let's get some bargain doctors, and discount surgeries. Heck, I say don't bother sterilizing the equipment if it can save a buck. Just look at how little the pay for health care in third world countries, it's amazing.

I actually see it going the other way, government run health care is going to end up costing much more, but the cost will be hidden. They will tax us the majority of the cost to make their program appear cheaper, even though in the end we will all be paying more.

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by wacor

Sorry if the logic escapes you James.

Have a nice day

Morning Jack

The only person "logic" is "escaping" here, is you,... since your "arguments" have none, which is what I pointed out (logically)!!!...

I'm NOT arguing in favor of anything here, cause I've not see a presentation of a new healthcare system to support, analize, or even criticize. But I'm not going to sit here while people piss on my boots and tell me how hard it's raining!!!

I'm all for close scrutiny of any healthcare proposal, and for NOT supporting something that will not work, but I'm NOT buying a LOAD OF BULL!!! ...and you should be ashamed of yourself for being satisfied with sell one.

Don't be satisfied with this kind of stuff, demand better (from yourself if you have to).

It simply is not enough to "hate everything" the administration does, and use that as reason enough to grab any criticism offered, even when it's worthless.

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by Stoner

If the Feds can't be trusted with the bailout monies, why trust them with your health


Hi James

Who said that I do?... I'm just not willing to gie any weight to speculation, hypotheticals, and gotcha journalism.

If it's really this bad, then earnest criticisms should be enough to kill it. Shouldn't they?

Hi Jack!

[wacor]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

The only person "logic" is "escaping" here, is you,... since your "arguments" have none, which is what I pointed out (logically)!!!...

I'm NOT arguing in favor of anything here, cause I've not see a presentation of a new healthcare system to support, analize, or even criticize. But I'm not going to sit here while people piss on my boots and tell me how hard it's raining!!!

I'm all for close scrutiny of any healthcare proposal, and for NOT supporting something that will not work, but I'm NOT buying a LOAD OF BULL!!! ...and you should be ashamed of yourself for being satisfied with sell one.

Don't be satisfied with this kind of stuff, demand better (from yourself if you have to).

It simply is not enough to "hate everything" the administration does, and use that as reason enough to grab any criticism offered, even when it's worthless.

Tell me which conclusions I have made that are not logical. Sure they are speculation but IMO based on some common sense. Not a matter of hating what the admin is proposing. One should be able to disagree with what they find problems with and it not being reduced to just hate.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by wacor

Tell me which conclusions I have made that are not logical.

well....since gb isn't around

Tell me which conclusions I have made that are not logical.

uh.....
posting?



hi, Bill

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

Who said that I do?... I'm just not willing to gie any weight to speculation, hypotheticals, and gotcha journalism.

If it's really this bad, then earnest criticisms should be enough to kill it. Shouldn't they?

Hi Jack!

If it's really this bad, then earnest criticisms should be enough to kill it.

The inability of the Feds to manage the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid trusts is , alone, enough to convince me they are not worthy to regulate universal medical coverage.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by Stoner

The inability of the Feds to manage the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid trusts is , alone, enough to convince me they are not worthy to regulate universal medical coverage.

Why that escapes people boggles the mind. A national health care program would dwarf SS and Medicare. But hey we just approved 11 trillion of debt to be saddled on the youth that accumulates over the next 10 years. Lets not let any reality get in the way

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by Stoner

The inability of the Feds to manage the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid trusts is , alone, enough to convince me they are not worthy to regulate universal medical coverage.

Because companies like GM and AIG have also done such a GREAT JOB!!!... I'll grant that your criticisms of Fed programs (though not specified, and some arguable), but the claims that the private sector will "save us", just don't hold water any more; they never did. When it comes to public goods, the private sector can't save us!!! A free-market will never be able to solve this problem without regulation and intervention, it is the Achilles-Heal of Capitalism.

I don't know what they have in mind, but I do know I've heard of no plan yet that I believe in, at least, not fully -- and those were only "ideas" of a plan; not actual plans.

Just because gov't fails at something doesn't mean we give up, nor does it mean we act stupidly. Is NASA a failure? I'd say no. But have they made some severe mistakes? Absolutely. You fix them and refine the system and move on, until you find the next systemic error,... that would be a great approach to fixing gov't,... if we could do it.

Healthcare is something that needs to be fixed, and universally provided... it is a challenge, and it's a hard one, but the "hard, is what makes it great". (movie)

I'm for criticism, and doing smart things, but I want to hear smart criticism and not speculation and hyperbole about how the sky is falling. I want to "work the problem, and not make it worse by guessing" (G. Cranz)

[wacor]

JMO please tell me where you draw the line between criticism and smart criticism? In most cases it probably boils down to which side of the argument one is siding with. Sure there is much to speculate about with a single payer public national health care system. But clearly concerns about it being mismanaged like the VA system and SS and medicare should be reasonable. Those have a track record of either poor treatment or mismanagement of funding.

One argument which proponents make is that such a national health care plan will actually be cheaper for the country. That flies in the face of common sense. How can there be an honest discussion when this is used as a selling point? I say that because the main crux of the argument is the millions that are uninsured. If they suddenly get health care that is so called free do we expect them to only use it when they are severely ill like currently when they would go to a hospital? Or will they not also be going to the doctor for every sneeze? Now I realize that some will probably not be too keen on going to a doctor. Heck I try to avoid them but in reality it seems there should be a large influx of new patients. Does it not make sense that more patients means either there will be longer waits or more doctors needed? If more doctors are needed then normally supply and demand would keep the doctors fees at a certain level but if the govt is paying the bills it seems folly to assume the govt won't control doctors fees. And with that control it seems logical that some will find another profession such as law where they can sue doctors and hospitals since Obama has no interest in controlling malpractice which is another area where costs must be controlled in some fashion.

Have a rip my friend.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

Because companies like GM and AIG have also done such a GREAT JOB!!!... I'll grant that your criticisms of Fed programs (though not specified, and some arguable), but the claims that the private sector will "save us", just don't hold water any more; they never did. When it comes to public goods, the private sector can't save us!!! A free-market will never be able to solve this problem without regulation and intervention, it is the Achilles-Heal of Capitalism.

I don't know what they have in mind, but I do know I've heard of no plan yet that I believe in, at least, not fully -- and those were only "ideas" of a plan; not actual plans.

Just because gov't fails at something doesn't mean we give up, nor does it mean we act stupidly. Is NASA a failure? I'd say no. But have they made some severe mistakes? Absolutely. You fix them and refine the system and move on, until you find the next systemic error,... that would be a great approach to fixing gov't,... if we could do it.

Healthcare is something that needs to be fixed, and universally provided... it is a challenge, and it's a hard one, but the "hard, is what makes it great". (movie)

I'm for criticism, and doing smart things, but I want to hear smart criticism and not speculation and hyperbole about how the sky is falling. I want to "work the problem, and not make it worse by guessing" (G. Cranz)

Because companies like GM and AIG have also done such a GREAT JOB!!!...

GM and AIG aren't in the health business.

I'll grant that your criticisms of Fed programs............

No....I didn't make criticisms of the Federal programs, but I could have. I pointed out that the Federal Government did not manage the financial aspects of running those programs, properly.

but the claims that the private sector will "save us"

I didn't claim that either.

When it comes to public goods, the private sector can't save us!!!

I had to look up the meaning of 'public goods' in the economic sense.
Wikipedia was my source.
( edit: link--------> LINK )
Paul Samuelson:

which all enjoy in common in the sense that each individual's consumption of such a good leads to no subtractions from any other individual's consumption of that good...

All medical concerns , from pharmaceutical supplies to hospital space to the time a medical practicionor spends in treatment......all seem rivaled and excludable.
From the Wiki article:

In economics, a public good is a good that is non-rivaled and non-excludable. This means, respectively, that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good.

I don't understand how you can claim that health care is a 'public good'.
Are you arguing that it should be a 'public good' by socializing the health industry?
If so, how do you intend to keep costs down as there would be little competitiveness to the concept?.......To the contrary.......health care would then become non competitive and like the night light example at Wikipedia.......excesses become the norm so that there is no intrusion by the individual. More is generated than needed ( by theory ) and waste/unused results.

A free-market will never be able to solve this problem without regulation and intervention, it is the Achilles-Heal of Capitalism.

The argument isn't about regulations imposed upon the functioning of the health industry....it's about socializing it.

Just because gov't fails at something doesn't mean we give up, nor does it mean we act stupidly.

Who's giving up, James?
Who is acting stupidly?

Is NASA a failure? I'd say no.

NASA could be considered a public goods I suppose and no other business entity has the ability to compete in their realm....but when they do experience a failure....it's a biggie.

But have they made some severe mistakes? Absolutely. You fix them and refine the system and move on, until you find the next systemic error

The analogy with NASA is that those 'mistakes' were extremes of 'crash and burn' involving a handful of people put at risk. An experiment with socialized medicine presents new economic and health risks involving a whole nation.

Healthcare is something that needs to be fixed..........

No argument there.........abusive malpractice law suits, the insurance industry and the HMO concepts have had considerable negative influences, imo.

........and universally provided.

I haven't yet seen anyone successfully make the argument that the US would be better off with socialized medicine, James.
Looks to me like a shift of attention to those that couldn't afford ....with the detraction of the quality of service for everyone while the funding aspects are controlled by an entity ( The Feds ) known to be careless in all things of a financial nature.


I've supported the concept of welfare for the indigent ....the support for those unable to provide for themselves, support to bring people back into society as self sufficient.
But the financial system has been under duress, and not just the last year or so and I think it's become apparent that there are some things that are not affordable at present.....especially with the grand plans of reconstruction in place.
SS, Medicare and Medicaid are coming to an end, with out intervention. It's a practical situation......the funds are running out and the means to stabilize them seem mathematically and politically non doable.
When was the last time you saw much in the news about Congress addressing them?
I remember Bush addressing SS. Obama? Maybe I missed it with everything else that's going on.
Now the arguments fly for an even grander plan of universal health care.
At a time of a deep recession that has incredible financial obligations spanning a decade at minimum.....if....IF.....everything works out. Bush made the same claims and look where we are. Deeper in debt and creating even more debt at a greater rate as if it's a race to see just how far that credit rating stretches.

There is only so much money in existence......the rest is credit and debt.....
I saw not too long ago that the incurred debt the Feds have bound us to, is somewhere on the order of $550,000 per household. Not considered was the fact that not all households make enough to pay taxes of any consequence, so that leaves a greater commitment to those that participate in our economy successfully.
Now...it's being asked of these people to fund an experiment in an even more costly social experiment.

IMO......I think we're starting to see a society feed upon itself to the point it no longer retains a reason for being other than existing to feed upon itself.

[Fyzbo]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

Because companies like GM and AIG have also done such a GREAT JOB!!!... I'll grant that your criticisms of Fed programs (though not specified, and some arguable), but the claims that the private sector will "save us", just don't hold water any more; they never did. When it comes to public goods, the private sector can't save us!!! A free-market will never be able to solve this problem without regulation and intervention, it is the Achilles-Heal of Capitalism.

GM might have done poorly, but it doesn't matter. Capitalism allows for multiple companies and competition. The car industry as a whole has not done poorly, unfortunately all companies that have done well are not based in Detroit. AIG did have regulation and intervention, it was governments involvement that caused so many problems. Neither of these however relate to health care, so why are we talking about them?

Originally Posted by jmosmith

I don't know what they have in mind, but I do know I've heard of no plan yet that I believe in, at least, not fully -- and those were only "ideas" of a plan; not actual plans.

Just because gov't fails at something doesn't mean we give up, nor does it mean we act stupidly. Is NASA a failure? I'd say no. But have they made some severe mistakes? Absolutely. You fix them and refine the system and move on, until you find the next systemic error,... that would be a great approach to fixing gov't,... if we could do it.

Healthcare is something that needs to be fixed, and universally provided... it is a challenge, and it's a hard one, but the "hard, is what makes it great". (movie)

I'm for criticism, and doing smart things, but I want to hear smart criticism and not speculation and hyperbole about how the sky is falling. I want to "work the problem, and not make it worse by guessing" (G. Cranz)

Why does healthcare need to be "fixed"? It seems most people feel the system is broken as a whole, but are very satisfied with their personal coverage (http://www.gallup.com/poll/112813/am...fferently.aspx). If every individual is happy with health care, how can it be broken as a whole? Seems like people constantly saying it's broken and that it needs to be fixed have convince the public that true, now matter how good their doctors are.