Our first entry comes with full credit to Rory:

Originally posted by FAEbGBD:

"And, who exactly DOES have the right to be wealthy? Not church, not oil barons, not investment bankers, not lawyers, not insurance companies, not drug companies, not right wing talk radio guys. Nobody, apparently."

I have to get to a gig, but will weigh in when I return. Anyone is welcome to weigh in, of course...



------------------
Bill in Dayton

To me, it's a question of degree. Hard work and innovation deserves reward IMO, but I believe in giving back. It's just the right thing to do morally. I don't intend to let my family do without, but don't think it's their birthright to be millionaires through inheritance.

As much as I loved him, my father-in-law, who died in February, raised the most useless, arrogant, dependent kids possible. None has been able to support themselves and are now approaching 60, waiting for will probate and the millions each they'll get.

I feel it is my right to be rewarded for my efforts. It is my choice to live modestly (I know...300 plus guitars...modest?), educate and help "jump-start" my kids lives, but help others with the rest. In fact, I could have retired years ago, but have lots of projects (charities and causes) which need all the help they can get.

Actually, I'm considering selling most of my "toys" and donating the proceeds.

That would make me feel good. The kids will get $500,000 each, which means they'll have to actually work to support themselves, and a guitar or two, if they want them.

The rest will go to my favorite causes, which I'll work to support as long as I'm able.

Russ

"Who has the right to be wealthy?" Anyone willing to work for it! If you're not willing to work, don't look for a hand-out from anyone.

If you are unable to perform a task of any kind due to a physical impairment, which is a very tiny percentage of people, then a tiny percentage of our tax dollars should be used to provide some financial assistance.

I had the privilege to know an individual who was completely paralyzed from childhood with arthritis. He was 19 when I met him and was one of my patients at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He could barely speak because the malady has frozen all his joints, including his jaw. His jaw was replaced with a prosthesis so he could eat and talk, but other than that he was immobile. His mind still functioned well, and he set up a small business that became one of the area's first answering services. He worked every day of the week, 18-hours a day and within a year began expanding the business, hiring on more individuals with similar physical impairments. He operated the business for another three years, made huge sums of money, and sold the company when his body finally began to fail to the point where he could no longer function. When he died he donated all of his money to the Arthritis Foundation. It was well over a million dollars. He worked for it, and he had every right to do anything he wished with the proceeds. I feel the same about my income as well.

Gary

Ummmmm, is this heading towards "Obama hates rich people" and/or "the current administration (code for Obama) is turning us into a socialist state"? 'Cause it sure seems to be leaning in that direction (by inference).

Here is what is ironic to me. Most of this rhetoric is coming from the religious right. You know, the same ones who swear that every single word in the Bible is true (after all, it's the word of God.......although conveniently written and interpreted by men). Doesn't the Bible say something about it being harder for a rich man to get into the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to get through the eye of a needle. I guess in the world of wealthy right wing conservatives, needle eyes are damn big or camels are damn small.

Personally, I think everyone should have the opportunity to secure wealth. The question (for me) is what they did to become wealthy. Did they produce a product like Bill Gates or did they make 4 billion dollars in one year by simply managing a hedge fund (and producing nothing that benefited society). There is the guy in the Midwest that owns a grocery chain (starting with nothing) and has amassed a fortune of 5 Billion dollars. He has given most of it away (in educational scholarships) and either takes public transportation (a bus) to work or drives his 15yr old Volvo 240.

Does a drug smuggler deserve to be rich? I don't think so, even though it probably took considerable skills to be able to put together and successfully run a drug cartel. So yes, I think there is a moral component to this whole debate. Does the Church deserve to be rich (as many are, notably the Catholic church and several Evangelical 'empires')? I don't think so. They may do many 'good works' with the money they rake in (mainly through fear, guilt, and other forms of psychological manipulation), but should they get rich in the process? It's like the Red Cross or United Way using 20% of your donations for their stated missional goal, and the rest for 'administrative overhead'. Yeah, right.

But to the basic issue of who deserves to be wealthy? Anyone who earned it in a legal and non-exploitative way. What they do with it should be completely up to them and their own sense of morality (which is not up to us to judge, BTW). This is my take of it, of course, and not necessarily the right one.

chas

Chas said:
Ummmmm, is this heading towards "Obama hates rich people" and/or "the current administration (code for Obama) is turning us into a socialist state"? 'Cause
it sure seems to be leaning in that direction (by inference).


If it does go that way, it's you who brought up Obama and current administration, not anybody else, so remember that.

My question actually spawned from the Good vs Evil thread, and other threads I've seen about really having it in for people who have managed to build considerable wealth.

Russ said:
The kids will get $500,000 each, which means they'll have to actually work to support themselves, and a guitar or two, if
they want them.

Does this include your "adopted" kids? LOL, you don't have to answer that question. BTW, got the banjo setup and having fun with it. Eventually I think I'm going to replace the head though; I'm still getting some weird overtones out of it; I thought adjusting the tension on the head might fix it, but it hasn't really. Fun little banjo though, now I just have to find a dixieland band to get into. There's one I know of, but they already have a banjoist.

As far as your father-in-law's kids, it's unfortunate they turned out that way. But it's really not so much different than what happens on a world level. I mean, even I'm rich compared to some people born in countries in asia or Africa, just through having been born in prosperous America. I think it has more to do with how you're raised than how much money you're born into. Sure, it might be easier not to raise kids properly if they can have whatever whenever, but being born into wealth doesn't have to automatically mean you grow up to be no good.

(OT) Rory, it tickles me to death that you have that funky little banjo now. I would also like to give you one of my collectibles sometime. We'll talk about what instrument you could use. It would be great to have you play one of my instruments on a regular basis. Couldn't be in a more capable hands.


Russ

Yeah, but what else did Chas say? Stop cherry-picking my post, you sneaky little devil .

Rory, you know I'm kidding you. I really enjoy having a good discussion/debate with someone with a different point of view but is able to keep it on both a civil and intellectual level. The point is not to be right or wrong but to provide intellectual stimulation, food for thought. I think Bill might be caught up in that as we speak. At what point do you put your brain on hold and go into auto-psychobabble, 'God is good', 'all praise be to Allah', etc., etc. Okay, I can buy into the Ten Commandments provided Halle Berry isn't living next door - then I can buy into nine of them. BTW, which thread are we on? Is this the political one? Sorry, it's more fun battling the 'true believers'. BTW, that comment you made about your Dad possibly getting a big surprise on judgement day, that made me laugh......loudly.

This is O.T. but, how about posting any little ditty over on the arranger board, just to help the guys remember what a real instrument sounds like.

chas

I got the perfect little Ditty. It's called "Bibles and Rifles" from the record I produced next month. Sound good to you?

Yep. In the right hands, both can inflict a lot of damage, so I guess you could say they're a 'natural' pair.

chas

I too, think people deserve all the rewards from their work, ideas, labor, etc. This applies to churches, oil barons, investment bankers, lawyers, insurance companies, drug companies and yes, even right wing talk radio guys.

However...Not all transactions are equal. If Gary goes out and charges $150.00 for an hour of entertainment at a NH and does exactly that, its pretty neat and clean.

But what if Gary shows up without his KB and sings over MIDIs for an hour. He's still entertained his audience for an hour, right? What if he shows up and has his whole program vocals and backings pre recorded? He lip syncs for the hour. (Its happened in SW OH not that long ago, lol...) Are we now into an area where we're uncomfortable?

Churches have an extra burden because they accept monies usually under the banner of "charitable giving", so like other Charities, they are held to a different standard than a Corporation is. When compensation packages to the Church hierarchy seems extremely high, questions arise. Why do so many of the Sunday Morning preacher crowd seemed to be attired in nothing but the finest of high end suits?

Oil barons/companies make less profits percentage wise than most people think. My gripe with them isn't with how much money do they make, its the extent to which they will go via lobbying efforts to further tilt the scales in their favor. BP is widely known to have spent millions in lobbying to obtain less regulation, less accountability under the promise they'd behave themselves. Much remains to be known and understood about the Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but I've seen reports coming from BOTH Conservative and Liberal Media that in the end, a part that costs less than $500k to replace had been identified as a likely factor. That puts an awful bad taste in people's mouths.

Investment Bankers, perhaps like Bernie Maddoff, also hold people's fortunes in their hands. I feel bad for people who lose money on the stock market, but too often its poor judgment that bites them in the ass. However, when customers or lending agencies act in good faith and are subsequently harmed by a reckless disregard for their investment, then NO, investment bankers don't deserve humongous paydays just because they figured out a way to game the system.

Lawyers, I really don't have a huge issue with their compensation.

Insurance Companies also make less profit than some people think. I do wonder why they need so much for their administrative and executive level compensation packages. They are not efficient and too often look for loopholes to deny coverage. I remember my law classes and the spirit of the agreement means something. Who has the means to take on a large Health Insurance Co.? Not too many. There's a whole other discussion we could have someday about the ethics of a Corporation making money on other people getting ill. Premiums and Co-Pays go up and up, while the CEO of UHC makes Bill McGuire made $124.8 Million last year.

While we have the best Doctors, Surgeons, Nurses, Testing Equipment, etc. we have arguably, the worst health delivery system of any industrialized country. Salaries like McGuire's wouldn't seem obscene if the Companies weren't nickel and diming "regular people" at the same time.

Big Pharma. Now these cats make some serious money. But let's step back for a moment...

According to Morningstar Financial, United Healthcare had a profit margin of 4.1% in the FY ending August '09. Wellpoint had a PM of 4.0%, the other largest HI companies came in well below that. The sector ranked 87th out of 215 rated by Morningstar.

Beverages were #1, with a PM of 25.9%. Right behind that were healthcare real-estate trusts (firms that are basically the landlords for hospitals and healthcare facilities) and application-software (think Windows). The worst performer was copper, with a profit margin of minus 56.6 percent.

Exxon had a PM of roughly 9%...

Big Pharma had a pm of 16.4%, 7th highest according to MS.

Now, the part I don't like is that while we've had this big battle over healthcare in the last 16 months or so, The Obama Administration cut a deal with big Pharma early on for them to 1) Not fight them on reform 2) to agree to not raise prices and 3) to kick in 800 million towards closing the donut hole for seniors prescription meds. They agreed, and in return they got a promise from this Administration that we would forgo our right to competitively shop for prices. Who does that? The VA system doesn't? No other industrialized countries do it? Shortly thereafter, Pharma announced a re-coding of several cost accounts and a sudden expansion of their R&D costs. They just moved the money around. Obama got played like a cheap fiddle.

I haven't even mentioned the subsidies that many of the industries above get annually from our Gov't. Those subsidies come from our tax revenues.

Ok, I haven't forgotten the talk shows guys. First off they're entertainers. Anyone who gets the bulk of their info on today's issues from Fox or MSNBC or Glen Beck or Thom Hartmann is going down the wrong road.

Ex: About a month ago Fox's Sean Hannity was all upset about how fast large companies were having to write off billions of losses due to the health care thing. Fact is, this involved subsidies (from you and me) that the Gov't. pays to large Companies to provide health care for its employees. For some unknown reason, Uncle Sam would give the ABC Corp. 50 Million to help pay for health insurance. Give it to them. BUT also also them to deduct it from their taxes.

That's right. They were able to write off gifts they received. Know any other industry like that? Nope, me either. So, the companies realizing they weren't going to be able to continue to double dip had to announce some changes to their expected P&L's. Over the next ten years...

So, did the Conservative, fair and balanced voice of Patriotism applaud the Obama Administration for stopping this accounting foolery and getting a huge amount of our hard earned tax dollars back?

No, he spent 20 minutes fear mongering about how the Socialist in the White House was slowly but surely bringing down some of America's greatest corporations.

Same thing with Death Panels. Originally a Republican idea that enhanced the one on one relationship between a patient and their doctor, it was perverted into any number of hideous things its most certainly not.

lest you think I only target Conservatives, some of the talk I've heard aimed at those people in the Tea Party movement is disgusting. They're not all morons, they are very much regular Joe's who are trying to do something for the Country they love. Misguided? Yes, sometimes. Ill-informed? Yes, but some of the crap from the left media is just brutal.

To wrap this up, I think people who provide a good value, are fair and responsible should make as much money as they can. If, on the other hand, there's intentional mis-information, trickery, deception within the narrow definition of the law, then I think they should not earn unlimited sums of money.

Sorry for the length but it was all tied together in my head, you know?

------------------
Bill in Dayton

[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 05-22-2010).]

"While we have the best Doctors, Surgeons, Nurses, Testing Equipment, etc. we have arguably, the worst health delivery system of any industrialized country."

WHAT? How did you come up with this one? Having been to most industrialized countries, and lots of third-world nations, I can unequivocally say our healthcare delivery system is at the top of the list--NOT THE BOTTOM. I have relatives in the UK and Canada that come here for surgical procedures and medical care. They'll tell you first hand that the health-care delivery systems in their part of the world doesn't give a damned of you live or die--you're just another number on a very long list and you're at the end of a very long, bureaucratic line. While it has been many years since I worked in medicine, I've seen the results first hand. Until you've been there, done that and got the Tee-shirt, don't knock the U.S. health-care delivery system. Spend 15 years working in a large, inner-city hospital and you'll get to see things you won't believe.

Sure, our infant mortality rate is high, but keep in mind that we report everything--not just the good stuff. We report birth mortalities from crack-heads, heroin addicts, coke-heads, huffers, etc.., where many other nations place those deaths in different categories, which makes their infant mortality rate appear much lower than it really is. You will not find this in the liberal press--you'll only get this information by reading the actual studies, which most people will never take time to do.

Damned I hate politics, politicians, and all the SOB's currently in office. Bill, I wish you would not have posted this--even in the bar.

I need a drink,

Gary

I'm basing my comments on our health care system on several different things. There are mountains of peer reviewed research studies that have looked HC around the world and done analysis to compare what we experience in the US. Kaiser Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the National Institute of Health and the WHO, to name a few. I've also followed several different Health System researchers over the last 18-24 months, including Jonathon Gruber who got his BS in Economics from MIT and a PhD. from Harvard, also in economics. Gruber has been a "go to guy" for both Republicans and Democrats. He helped with Mitt Romney's universal coverage efforts in MASS., as well as Pr. Obama's efforts this year. Also, Dr. Aaron Carroll, who in addition to being a practicing pediatrician and professor at Indiana University, is the director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research. A former Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar. Plus I've read misc. publications from the Rand Corporation, TR Reid's "The Healing of America" and many other papers, studies, etc.

I've never worked in a Hospital, but I have a college education and have invested a lot of time to educate myself on this subject. I don't list the above to impress anyone, but I am prepared to provide links to research and studies if anyone wants them. These aren't my conclusions, they are the conclusions of many industry professionals who job it is to study health care economics and support their claims via data.

Now that that's out of the way, let me make my case.

Three basic components HC economists use to evaluate HC. Access, quality and cost. Our system costs about two to three times per person what most other countries pay. Our outcomes are not as good when compared to other industrialized Countries. We still don't have universal coverage for our citizens. We're not just bad on one of these metrics, not even just two. We perform poorly on all three when compared to the ten richest, industrialized countries in the world. They pay way less, (even in taxes), cover everybody and usually beat us in quality. Our costs alone are unsustainable, so something has to be done...and sooner rather than later.

The US spends 2-3 times more per person than any Country in the world for HC. And we're not getting the best in quality outcomes for the extra money. If we look at it as a % of GDP, we're also in bad shape. We also pay more in public monies (taxes) than any other industrialized country over the last ten years. So, no, they're NOT paying higher taxes than us. But, they get everyone covered, unlike the US.

http://mdcarroll.com/2010/01/20/some-slides-on-costs/

Speaking of quality...

We do poorly not just in infant mortality, but also maternal mortality. And % of immunized for dtp, and life expectancy at birth and preventable years years of life lost, cancer, respiratory illness, Heart attacks, etc.

Now perhaps there's an excuse why the measurements are wrong in "every" one of the above metric or maybe our system isn't that good. Certainly not for the price we pay.

http://mdcarroll.com/2010/01/20/some-slides-on-costs/

Actual OECD research: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34631_2085200_1_1_1_37407,00.html

While Gary has relatives who have come to the US for treatment, I'll refer to a peer reviewed study, published in Health Affairs:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/19#R8

In summary, first, they surveyed US border facilities in Michigan, New York, and Washington. It makes sense that Canadians crossing the border for care would favor sites close by, right? It turns out that about 80% of such facilities saw fewer than one Canadian per month. About 40% saw none in the prior year. And when looking at the reasons for visits, more than 80% were emergencies or urgent visits (ie tourists who had to go to the ER). Only about 19% of those already few visits were for elective purposes.

Next, they surveyed �America�s Best Hospitals�, because if Canadians were going to travel for care, they would be more likely to go to the most well-known and highest quality facilities, right? Only one of the surveyed hospitals saw more than 60 Canadians in one year. And, again, that included both emergencies and elective care.

Finally, they examined data from the 18,000 Canadians who participated in the National Population Health Survey. In the previous year, only 90 of those 18,000 Canadians had received care in the United States; only 20 of them had done so electively.

So there you go. Three different methodologies, all with a solid rationale behind them, all showing that the meme is a myth. (Summary by Dr. Carroll)

I'm glad Gary spoke about the value of the research. I'm not getting this info from NBC or some left wing group of crazies. It comes from the studies and research I've cited. It comes from dozens of other works I haven't mentioned. Now, if someone can tear apart each of those citations I provided, that would be something. All this peer reviewed, tested research can't all be left wing propaganda, can it? All of it? not a chance...

We're so screwed up in the Country, we can't even add a simple, straightforward provision into the HC Reform Bill that allows end of life counseling sessions to be reimbursed. Paying for a patients own physician to discuss with them their treatment and care options. The kind of stuff you'd find in a living will. Its not about a "death panel." So, while Gary will warn you about the junk from the Left, I'll make the same warning for the Right. Both sides exploit citizens to gain political ground. Its shameful on all accounts.

Anyway, that's a little bit of why I feel the research supports my earlier claim. The US has the greatest everything, except for delivery systems. Now, if you have money or good insurance, you're all set. But if you don't, good luck.

------------------
Bill in Dayton


[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 05-22-2010).]

"The US has the greatest everything"

Bill, with all respect, but such statements make me want to throw up.

Name all the greatest things that the rest of the world doesn't have. Shouldn't be hard since you only have to omit the ONE thing that isn't the greatest. But don't forget to mention all the greatest of "bad" things as well. Oops, dumb me! There's only ONE!

Ah, what do I know about freedom. Who am I to speak up since I'm still living in a hole in the ground and the only cure for a headache is to bang my head against a rock.

If you go carrying pictures of "USA HAS THE GREATEST OF EVERYTHING"
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow!

This was supposed to be an intellectual debate but statements like these flush all intellectualism down the drain.

Taike

------------------
Bo pen nyang.

[This message has been edited by Taike (edited 05-22-2010).]

To be fair to Bill that statement was made in regard to medical technology. And that is probably true in that there is most probably more money in medical technology in the USA than anywhere else. But as Bill also said when he made that statement "if you have money or good insurance, you're all set. But if you don't, good luck", so he was admitting this technology was not available to all as it should be. The reason medical costs are so high in the USA is because the private medical insurance companies profit from medical service. Those profits are built into medical costs and aren't really part of the medical service that is provided. That is what is very bad about the US delivery system.

I was very fortunate 10 years ago when I suffered a massive brain aneurysm in Los Angeles. I was in between jobs at the time and had no medical insurance ... very bad timing on my part. Because I had no insurance I was shipped off to a County hospital USC. However this actually worked in my favor surprisingly. Because the USC surgeons had dealt with many severe head gunshot wounds from gang shootings they were able to successfully deal with my brain trauma. They not only saved my life but were able to prevent serious brain damage. I actually think in this case I got better medical attention by not having insurance as I didn't have my choice of surgeon and hospital determined by a profit motivated insurance company. But I admit I was very lucky and this is not always the case with uninsured patients.



[This message has been edited by Nigel (edited 05-23-2010).]

As Nigel said, that remark was directly related to Medical and related things. As I think there may be a slight language barrier, let me clarify. And take a slight step back as well.

There are many good if not great things about the health care system in the US. Our physicians are some of the very best in the world. We also have many of the best hospitals anywhere. Our medical education and training, stacks up favorably compared to other countries. Our technology is high end and excellent.

We have a lack of general practitioners because of an over-focus on sub-specialty care. AS a result, we're probably the best at high end procedures and caring for rare and difficult illnesses. We spend a ton of money on research, which benefits everyone down the road.

I think on the whole, the US is probably the leader when it comes to the various components of a modern day health care system. Its just not put together in a rational way and the inefficiencies have led to fiscal hemorrhaging. Too many people are without access to quality and affordable healthcare and suffer questionable results in terms of quality of care. We reward Doctors for how many tests/procedures they perform, too often without enough regard to the quality of the care they provide. The system has a built-in disincentive to streamline things. Some Hospitals in the US, like the Mayo and the Cleveland Clinics have placed their Docs on Salary. Which is very interesting. They've totally removed any incentive they might have to order extra procedures/tests/etc. Other Hospitals are also looking at going this way.

Again, if you have insurance in the United States, you're probably going to be well treated. However, we shouldn't only view the US and its health care performance on the numbers of the insured. We should, IMO, view the totality of our population and be measured by that standard.

Nigel's story is spot on. Absolutely, sometimes uninsured patients receive terrific care and enjoy great outcomes. But too often they don't.

A terrific, smooth read is "The Healing of America" by TR Reid. An award winning journalist, he travels the wealthiest, industrialized Countries and sees how each would care for his bum shoulder. PBS / Frontline also produced a program based on it, which can be watched here for free:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...utm_source=grid

Its not too long, but very interesting.

Taike-I'd suggest maybe re-reading some of these posts that appear to you to say this that haven't been said. Again, I chalk this up to a language thing.


------------------
Bill in Dayton




[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 05-23-2010).]

Well, the way it's written it's open to more than one interpetration but I accept both yours and Nigel's .

My apologies

Taike



------------------
Bo pen nyang.

Bill,

In case you wish to learn more about Taiwan's NHI system:
http://www.nhi.gov.tw/english/index.asp

--------------------------------------------
Compulsory Enrollment

The National Health Insurance system is a compulsory social insurance program. By law, any Taiwanese citizen with a local ID card or foreign national living in Taiwan with an Alien Resident Certificate (ARC), regardless of age, gender, or employment status, must enroll in the program. Also, those eligible for the system must participate in the system for their entire lives, unless they lose their eligibility (by being convicted of a crime, disappearing, giving up their Taiwan citizenship, moving abroad or having their Alien Resident Certificate expire). Citizens must remain in the insurance system until they die.

Taike



------------------
Bo pen nyang.

(2008 article)
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=985

--------------------------------------------
(2004 article):

Universal Problems & Universal Healthcare:

6 COUNTRIES � 6 SYSTEMS
http://www.willamette.edu/centers/public..._healthcare.pdf

Bill,

I suggest getting some first hand experience in these matters and not placing as much reliance on biased studies and books.

Spend a couple weeks in a hospital emergency room and you'll quickly discover that only about 1/3 of those receiving medical treatment pay for it.

You'll also find that half more use the ER for their primary health care instead of visiting a local clinic where they would have to pay for health care. They show up with runny noses, broken toe nails, minor scratches, and they're immediately treated.

Now, for the above studies you posted, I could site an equal number of opposing views for each and every one of them, but it's not really worth my time and effort to go through the archives and list them.

Bill, when it comes to health care there is no substitute for practical, hands-on experience. Yes, you can obtain some basic information from books and studies, but books, studies, surveys and statistics can only go so far. That's why medical students must go through an internship, residencies and post doctoral fellowships. That's where they obtain their hands-on experience, and in some cases, wash out of medicine altogether. The demands of internship, and residency, both physically and mentally, are beyond anything anyone can possibly imagine.

If you believe that socialized medicine is the way to go, that's your prerogative, and in this nation, you have the freedom to choose what your government can and cannot do. For me, I'm still trying to find one thing the government administers that has been successful. I sure as Hell do not want a lying-assed politician in making decisions about how MY health care is administered.

It may seem like a good idea when you are relatively you and still in good health, but one day this will all change. That morning will come when you get out of bed, turn on the PC and check your email, just like every other day. Then a pain will run down your arm, not something like you've felt in the past, but nothing severe. Soon, it will be followed by shortness of breath and increasing pain, dizziness, and your heart begins to slam. The pressure inside your chest makes it feel as an 800-pound gorilla is standing on your chest. Yep--you're having a heart attack.

There's no one at home other than you, you crawl to the telephone, call 911. You're hoping that you survive until medical help arrives, which usually takes a few minutes at best. A well trained EMT breaks down the door, enters your home, connects you to an oxygen tank, while a well-trained assistant starts an IV. Within the next 10 minutes you're on your way to the nearest hospital, and instead of being immediately ushered into the exam room for an EKG by a practicing cardiologist, then off to the Operating Room for a cardiac cathederazation by a highly skilled cardiac team, stenting by a cardiovascular surgeon, and into the recovery room where a team of nurses,technicians and physicians that specialize in cardiology immediately go to work. That's the way the system works NOW!

OR, with socialized medicine, because you are NOW 70 years old when all of the above occurs you no longer meet the criteria for receiving costly stents. You're placed on a stretcher in an ER cubicle, administered some oxygen, then handed a pile of papers to fill out so you can get on the list that needs stenting.

Politics should NEVER be permitted to intrude into health care--and that's not just my opinion--it's the opinion of most every in this nation.

I'm going to work now so I can earn enough money to pay this week's taxes.

Gary

Ok, do studies matter or do they not?

Sure, we could get into a source war, I suppose, but who wants to do that? First you said studies are the only way to get the info, then when I provided those type studies, you then switched and claim they're really limited in what they tell us.

You say that we should straight to those in the trenches. While I'm not sure I agree a person trained to read a catscan is qualified to write policy, I do get your point. They absolutely MUST be in the discussion.

Here's not one, but two research studies from Physicians across a variety of specialties and their feelings on the US establishing national, universal insurance:
http://mdcarroll.com/2009/10/29/research-question-wont-american-doctors-hate-single- payer/

Looks like the data shows that more not less feel we should change systems. Let me guess, these Docs and this research doesn't mean a hill of beans. They lied, its a conspiracy, etc.

Yes, god forbid, any of us has a bad experience in a Hospital. When you had your heart attack, did you pay for everything with private insurance? Out of pocket? If you did, that's awesome...Most people in that age bracket wind up using some level of medicare along the way, which of course is Socialized medicine.

I have the utmost respect for anyone who while qualifying for Medicare refuses any and all payments, beyond which their own contributions over the years have grown to. I've yet to meet one.

Fact is Medicare for all of its imperfections and problems, is highly popular among Seniors. Why is that? Are they Socialists? Same thing with the VA system, the most Socialized health care system in our Country...again, with definite problems that have to be addressed, is very popular among our Vets.

Two examples of "socialized" flavored programs that good, upstanding, Patriotic Americans just like you and me use every day.

Even private insurance plans have a strong socialized element to them. Premium dollars are pooled and the healthiest (Youngest) policy holders wind up paying the freight for the sickest (oldest) ones.

My Dad's had several stent procedures, and in the two instances where there was really no advance warning, upon entering the local ER in a suburb of Pittsburgh, was treated swiftly and effectively. All he's got is Medicare. We shouldn't get caught up in anecdotes. In something as vast and complex
as HC in the US, there will always be horror stories. We should address them, but not base policy on them.

When I started educating myself about healthcare in the US, I didn't come at it with any ideology or pre-conceived ideas or attitudes what was best. I voted for GWB twice, and generally lean towards republican/conservative positions on things.

I'm not, however, a loyalist. I won't take a position just because a political party says I should. I disagree with much of the "Bailout" actions of the last 18 months because I think businesses that go under should face the consequences. I also have issues with some of the mortgage relief programs. When we bought a house, we educated ourselves and stayed away from the dreaded "balloon" mortgages that have killed so many. I do think the Clinton Administration went too far in forcing lenders to loan to those with questionable credit and income, but we shouldn't have to pay their way...On the other hand, I think DADT should be repealed in a sensible time frame. I don't fit into a political box and don't want to.

I started with a pretty blank slate, and formed my opinions on my research, the zillions questions I asked and common sense. I also am married to someone who's got years of hands on experience in emergency rooms, med surge units, long term care facilities who will have her Masters in advanced practice nursing in a few weeks. She agrees with most of my conclusions. She's reviewed the data, the studies, etc.

Yes, I'm going off to play today as well, and no doubt about it, some of my earnings will wind up as taxes paid to Uncle Sam. I wonder how many measures of the first tune we play it takes to pay the taxes for each of our gigs?

Have fun..

------------------
Bill in Dayton

[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 05-23-2010).]

Good articles Taike...

Yes, there is no hc system on earth that does not have big challenges ahead of it. Under funding, Doctor shortgages, etc. are issues everywhere.

To me, it seems that the best scenario is a Universal Coverage plan for everyone that provided very good, standard HC. If you want high end things, you buy them from private insurance carriers. This type system already exists in many Countries and seems to be a way that can work.

I did notice that in the 2nd article that Canada didn't allow people to purchase private insurance to add onto their national coverage. That article was from 2004. Canadians are now permitted to purchase supplemental private insurance as of a few years ago.

Great table at the bottom, btw...

Thanks!

------------------
Bill in Dayton

Yup...

But when End of life counseling was tried to be put into the HC Reform Bills, so that we could avoid a situation like happened to Tterri Schiavo, it was made a mockery of by the Right.

Which is incredibly ironic because the actual legislative language for end of life counseling came from a Georgia republican congressman.

Amazing...

------------------
Bill in Dayton

------------------------------------

Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels, according to the latest available data. That��s true whether it comes to their federal income taxes or their total federal taxes.

��Income taxes: A family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum will pay only 4.6 percent of its income in federal income taxes this year, according to a new analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. This is the second-lowest percentage in the past 50 years.
�� Overall federal taxes: Middle-income households are paying overall federal taxes �� which include income as well as payroll and excise taxes �� at or near their lowest levels in decades, according to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

------------------------------------------

Souce: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151

Just more liberal media bias, I guess.

chas

Bill,

I'm not going to argue with you about this--you have your views, and sincerely believe they are the salvation of medicine as we know it today. I have mine, which are diametrically opposed. You believe the VA healthcare system is popular--I know for a fact it is not.

Yes, I paid for my heart attack with my health insurance, which I pay for monthly. I earned the money, I shelled it out.

Today, I worked, just as I have been for most of my life. I know for a fact I didn't make enough to pay this week's taxes, let alone this month's taxes. Funny thing about the OMB claiming we all pay less taxes, the report I read only talked about income tax, which is the least amount we pay. They tend to forget about little matters such as gasoline tax, real-estate tax, personal property tax, and a massive number of other taxes that we pay on everything on the planet, all of which have increased dramatically over the past three decades.

Bottom's up guys and gals,

Gary

Hold up, Gary...

We're participating in a discussion, we're not arguing. I have not really elaborated as to how I think we should fix things other than a passing reference to a single-payer like medicare for all.

I have commented on what I understand the problems to be with our HC system and provided links, citations, etc.

You claim your thoughts on the VA are "fact." Well, maybe...maybe not. All I know is what my research tells me, not what a preconceived notion or an anecdote does.

From Wiki on the VA satisfaction:

"Patients routinely rank the veterans system above the alternatives, according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index." In 2008, the VHA got a satisfaction rating of 85 for inpatient treatment, compared with 77 for private hospitals. In the same report the VHA outpatient care scored 3 points higher than for private hospitals. [3]

"As compared with the Medicare fee-for-service program, the VA performed significantly better on all 11 similar quality indicators for the period from 1997 through 1999. In 2000, the VA outperformed Medicare on 12 of 13 indicators." [4]

A study that compared VHA with commercial managed care systems in their treatment of diabetes patients found that in all seven measures of quality, the VHA provided better care. [5]

A RAND Corporation study in 2004 concluded that the VHA outperforms all other sectors of American health care in 294 measures of quality; Patients from the VHA scored significantly higher for adjusted overall quality, chronic disease care, and preventive care, but not for acute care. [6]

A 2009 Congressional Budget Office report on the VHA found that "the care provided to VHA patients compares favorably with that provided to non-VHA patients in terms of compliance with widely recognized clinical guidelines � particularly those that VHA has emphasized in its internal performance measurement system. Such research is complicated by the fact that most users of VHA�s services receive at least part of their care from outside providers." [2]

All Leftist, Socialist BS? C'mon...Look at the data. Tell me where they're findings are erroneous. Show me where their conclusions are biased. These are the big boys in the HC Industry world and they don't screw around making up demons.

Heaven forbid that a Socialist modeled HC system outperform a private one.

Congrats on the ability to pay out of pocket for your cardiac treatment in spite of being eligible for medicare. You say you paid for it, out of pocket, via your private health insurance. Which means other people helped pay for your bill. Just like you've helped pay countless other people's bills through the years as well. You're willfully participating in a socialist system. Yet the discussion of applying such a model on a national scale seems wrong to you. Further, you apparently passed up on taking advantage of some Medicare benefits you paid for and are entitled to. That's a little inconsistent...

I think we need to stop looking at the word Socialist like its a bad word. The current, capitalistic path we're on is unsustainable. Unless somebody comes up with something totally new, never before even though of, then we're going to have to make some big changes sooner or later. The ACA signed by Obama in late March is a timid approach to what we really need. yes, there are some good things in it, but it doesn't do anything of significance on reducing HC costs. At 16-17% of our GDP, we've two choices. Lowering HC costs, which means either covering less people or spending less (rationing) which can impact quality. If we want to address access and provide HC for all, then we have to have an adult conversation on how we could pay for it. (Taxes) Anyone who says they can cover everyone, improve quality and lower costs is lying. What a mess...

Like you said, bottoms up, buddy...



------------------
Bill in Dayton

[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 05-23-2010).]