Teddy...

Posted by Erik Sjoen 
Erik Sjoen (Admin)
RIP oh bloated one.. I know we have a huge Mass constituency here, right? Where's the love?
Sanjeev (Admin)
Well, I never had any ill will towards the guy, personally or professionally...however I never appreciated the nepotistic attitudes surrounding him and his family. Seriously--some local media commentators had publicly pushed for him to be elected "for life"...so much for fucking democracy. And now that he's dead, a lot of the local news agencies are posting questions like, "which Kennedy will replace Ted?". Ummm...what the fuck?

Anyway, what really sucks is that he was a VERY strong (local and national) advocate for gay rights and national healthcare...and now he's dead. That's a serious blow to both movements.

So, uh, RIP, Ted.
Comments from Joe Haldeman, whose father worked with Ted and Bobby:

[joe-haldeman.livejournal.com]
If you think healthcare is expensive, wait until it is nationalized......

Ted Kennedy killed a woman and got away with it. ALthough it is never a happy thing when someone dies, I have no grief for the man.
cae
here we go ...

---------------------------------
hassenpfeffer
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you think healthcare is expensive, wait until
> it is nationalized......
>
Given the percentage of people who can't afford or can't qualify for it, it's not a matter of expense. It's just doesn't exist for a big segment of the population.

For those of us who do have it, it's probably not expensive generally speaking, since our employers cover the bulk of the cost.

But yeah, once Obama's death panels start hunting people down, it'll get really bad.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2009 05:21PM by gingaio.
> Ted Kennedy killed a woman and got away with it.
> ALthough it is never a happy thing when someone
> dies, I have no grief for the man.

The only reasons that would convince me that the man isn't worth mourning are:

1) You had a friend visiting from another country who tried to get his autograph at a comic book convention, and Kennedy was being a dick to him; or,

2) Kennedy once starred in a schlocky 70s TV martial arts epic.
Both of those things are true.

And get it right, gingaio, it isn't "death panels," it's "death squads."
Roger Wrote:
> it isn't "death panels," it's "death squads."

What?

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
Ah, we Canadians have eliminated the deathsquads up here entirely. Now its cheaper than ever!




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2009 10:45PM by RainBot.
Attachments:
open | download - logan.jpg (4.6 KB)
asterphage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Roger Wrote:
> > it isn't "death panels," it's "death squads."
>
> What?

Yes! Get with it, Paul. The new health care bill enacts things like these new "death squads," forces mandatory abortions for everyone, and it also has provisions for new "health care camps" where people will be rounded up, loaded into trains, and brought to these camps where they will be doing hard labor as exercise for the sake of improved cardiovascular health.

I heard this all from someone who had signs in front of the Chatham post office. I'm sure they were very knowledgeable, because they had a sign of the President with a Hitler mustache that said, "His health care policy is NUTSY!"
cae
My daughter and I were in Seattle last weekend and it was there that I first saw this Obama person depicted with a Hitler mustache on a placard carried by a thoughtful young woman who was sadly afflicted with spittle-shout.

Seeing the obvious resemblance to Hitler this Obama person had with just the addition of his mustache (and the young, hoarse woman's rhetoric), I quietly informed my daughter that 2012 couldn't be the end of the world if the Nazi's were accepting people of color for the post of supreme leader.

It's apocalypse now.

---------------------------------
hassenpfeffer
I can't wait for the FEMA "health camps" we're all supposed to be going into when the "swine flu" takes over. I'll bring the marshmallows!

---------------------------------
[pgaijin.blogspot.com]
cohiba Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you think healthcare is expensive, wait until
> it is nationalized......

Yeah because all the money you pay now is really effective when they deny you coverage when you REALLY need it.

Much less not being able to get coverage in the first place when you're perfectly healthy, you know...just because.
Well, in a way we already have socialized medicine for those who are in financial straits. The problem is, those of us who are working and making a living and don't fall within those limits still are having a hard time affording health care. I can't add my wife to mine, for example, without paying about $500 a month more than I do now. Buying pretty crappy insurance on her own she's still spending $250 or so, but it's a darn sight better than $500! Still, she gets no coverage for a lot of things, and we still have to pay out of pocket for them. The health-care insurance industry as it exists today doesn't work, period. It needs to change and change dramatically. Is national healthcare a better option? I don't know, but if you ask a lot of people who live in countries where it is, the answer is yes for most of them from my understanding. I have heard that in such countries it's far more likely for patients to go visit their doctors regularly even when not sick just because they can. My understanding is that these patients are getting more regular preventative care and therefore aren't getting sick as often. As usual, our medical industry in the US is geared towards dealing with health issues once you HAVE an issue, not so much in preventing them in the first place.

More serious than thou
I've lived in two countries that had single-provider systems in place. Not once did I ever have a medical bill that was more expensive than one month's premium in the States.

On a related note, I'm still getting mail delivery on Saturdays. It's pissing me off. We need to put a stop to that shit.
We all know that good health and well-being is a luxury that is only for the rich. Much like food is only for the rich....

Socialized health care is great if you don't mind waiting all day for a doctor to tell you that you have a cold. If your problem is easy then socialized healthcare is great.

If you have a real problem, a real problem that requires a specialist, then you are fucked unless you have coin. In a socialized system, a specialist is going to be impossible to get qa hold of unless you have contacts and money, a lot of money, much like it is now.

I think socialized healthcare should be treated like the legal system. Everyone has a right to counsel, and everyone should have a right to medical attention, in an emergency. But if you want the best it can't be free, because everyone would want the best. At some point there has to be a law of supply and demand. It could be that the government forces some pro bono work for these specialists but you can'T force these people not to make a living.

If you want to reduce the costs of medical care, then you have to start by reducing the costs os medical school, make it like the army- government subsidized so force the doctors to do public service in return for tuition.

If you want to reduce the cost of medical care, then get rid of malpractice insurance. Close to 50% of costs go to malpractice. If it becomes much more difficult to get money from doctors for fucking up, then insurance costs go dowen, but the patient has to deal with a doctor potentially fucking up. Americna citizens want to get something for nothing and that causes these deadweight costs. The market is efficient and the costs of morons who sue for nothing are showing up in the market as deadweight costs to everyone else.

Even in a socialized healthcare country like Japan, you need to know people to get access to the best and the best healthcare costs money, a significant amount of coin. Otherwise, you are stuck with the University of Guatemala docs who say that everything is a cold.

Socialism is not necessarily the solution. I actually like the idea of making the healthcare system like the legal system. Everyone is entitled to it, but if you want better than the government issue, you have to pay up.
cohiba Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We all know that good health and well-being is a
> luxury that is only for the rich. Much like food
> is only for the rich....
>
Maybe you know this, playa...
>
> Socialized health care is great if you don't mind
> waiting all day for a doctor to tell you that you
> have a cold. If your problem is easy then
> socialized healthcare is great.
>
I imagine that most people who don't have healthcare (can't afford or
can't qualify) wouldn't mind waiting to get treated as opposed to
not getting treated for that big ol' tumor in their liver.
>
> If you have a real problem, a real problem that
> requires a specialist, then you are fucked unless
> you have coin. In a socialized system, a
> specialist is going to be impossible to get qa
> hold of unless you have contacts and money, a lot
> of money, much like it is now.
>
The term "socialized" itself is a bit of false reactionary rhetoric. Even in a country like Canada, the system isn't technical socialized--the doctors aren't
government employees ("socialized"), they simply deal with one insurer instead
of a lot of private competing ones. The big picture goal for the more liberal
Democrats is to extend Medicare--which we already have and which tends to work-- for all (and most of the town hall shenanigans are by old folks who are already using Medicare, which is in their view "socialized," so go figure).
>
> I think socialized healthcare should be treated
> like the legal system. Everyone has a right to
> counsel, and everyone should have a right to
> medical attention, in an emergency.
>
Uh...everyone already has a right to be treated in an emergency. ERs can't
turn away patients in cases of emergency.

And that's why things are a problem...wait until a minor health problem becomes a major emergency one (because it's been untreated) and then treat it when it becomes much more expensive and chronic. This type of strategy you're calling for actually costs more money in the long run than doing preventative care.
>
> But if you want the best it can't be free, because everyone
> would want the best. At some point there has to
> be a law of supply and demand. It could be that
> the government forces some pro bono work for these
> specialists but you can'T force these people not
> to make a living.
>
This idea of specialists suddenly being impossible to reach--this is a persistent myth and it really boils down to this argument: As healthcare becomes affordable and accessible, more people are going to use it (just for the sake of using it), and so the few specialists available are going to be impossible to reach.

Well, the conclusion is illogical, and is also used to justify the "we're all going to be waiting for days to see a doctor" argument.

Simply put, healthcare isn't a box of candy or beer. Just because enemas and colonoscopies and other more invasive/specialized procedures become more available doesn't mean that 20- and 30-somethings are going to start lining up around the block to get their anuses checked.

Sure, there might be more waiting, but not on the catastrophic level that's been predicted by single-payer opposition.
>
> If you want to reduce the costs of medical care,
> then you have to start by reducing the costs os
> medical school, make it like the army- government
> subsidized so force the doctors to do public
> service in return for tuition.
>
???

So the high cost of healthcare is related to cost of medical training, rather than HMOs gouging us? Wow.

Most of my friends from high school, along with my sister-in-law, went to medical school and are now doctors. Most of them paid off their school loans and then some within a few years of finishing up their residencies. Yes, med school is expensive, but that's not really a main component of why healthcare has skyrocketed as much as it has. If it were, healthcare cost increases would be proportional to increases in med school tuition. And I don't think that's the case.

As far as forcing doctors to do public service, that already exists thanks to Canadian medical icon Dr. William Osler: Medical Residency, with a salary of roughly $33 grand a year, which for a doctor is tantamount to slave wages. 3 years of service. Our VA and research and other hospitals are staffed by these medical rookies.
>
> If you want to reduce the cost of medical care,
> then get rid of malpractice insurance. Close to
> 50% of costs go to malpractice. If it becomes
>
50%? Really? If this figure were true, I'd buy the argument.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, it's about 2%, and
according to Tom Baker, a UPenn Law Professor who actually wrote a
book on the subject, it's 1.5% (though admittedly, his book
is called The Medical Malpractice Myth). Still there's quite a
gulf between the numbers I'm seeing and the one you're citing.
>
> much more difficult to get money from doctors for
> fucking up, then insurance costs go dowen, but the
> patient has to deal with a doctor potentially
> fucking up. Americna citizens want to get
> something for nothing and that causes these
> deadweight costs. The market is efficient and the
> costs of morons who sue for nothing are showing up
> in the market as deadweight costs to everyone
> else.
>
Wait, so we should protect doctors from being sued? In all situations?
If you've heard half the stories I've heard (from actual
doctors) about the sorts of malpractice that never even get
reported, I think you'd be a bit less flippant here. I'm not
talking about doctors writing the wrong prescription, but
about doctors who through sheer negligence actually do
something that kills a patient.

And who are the "morons who sue for nothing"? Do they constitute
a large majority of the people who file malpractice suits? What are you
basing this on?

According to Tom Baker: "Most undeserving claims disappear before trial; most trials end in a verdict for the doctor; doctors almost never pay claims out of their own pockets; and hospitals and insurance companies refuse to pay claims unless there is good evidence of malpractice."
>
> Even in a socialized healthcare country like
> Japan, you need to know people to get access to
> the best and the best healthcare costs money, a
> significant amount of coin. Otherwise, you are
> stuck with the University of Guatemala docs who
> say that everything is a cold.
>
> Socialism is not necessarily the solution. I
>
Nor was socialism proposed as a solution. Even in its most
radical form, Obama's "public option" is not socialism. Not
even close.

Ultimately, this healthcare debate, as with all public policy issues, is a moral one. For those of us who are already taken care of, are we willing to risk some potential (stress on potential) discomfort to make sure that more people have access to medical care? Are we willing to see the ability to survive and not be killed off by disease as a basic right rather than a privilege?

And even if you don't give a shit about poor people, why champion a system that only really benefits private insurers and which allows them to gouge the hell out of us? It's not like most of us insured get anything out of the status quo, and it's not like doctors are suddenly going to become retards just because they're contracting with the government instead of with Kaiser and Blue Cross. I mean, shit, medical school is ridiculously hard, even in Guatemala.

Oh well, whatever.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2009 05:27AM by gingaio.
cohiba Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Socialized health care is great if you don't mind
> waiting all day for a doctor to tell you that you
> have a cold.

I think these statements come from people that have no first-hand experience living in single-provider countries. For example, of the two nations in which I lived that had such systems, this never occurred. Not once. Walk-ins over there had a less than 15 minute average wait. In the States I typically need to wait in the lobby 45 minutes or more even with an appointment. Facilities for treatment in those other countries were always available and nothing was ever "rationed".


> If you have a real problem, a real problem that
> requires a specialist, then you are fucked unless
> you have coin. In a socialized system, a
> specialist is going to be impossible to get qa
> hold of unless you have contacts and money, a lot
> of money, much like it is now.

In any system the best doctors will be the highest in demand. I've known people in both the States and abroad that needed to wait months to see specialists who were at the top of their game. Having said that, I also knew people abroad that needed major surgery or care and they never deteriorated or died for lack thereof. They always had the choice of, "get treated now, or wait for the most popular doctor," which is really no different than the States. That's an issue of differences in abilities/facilities in medicine that isn't related to the presence or absence of universal health care.


> I think socialized healthcare should be treated
> like the legal system. Everyone has a right to
> counsel, and everyone should have a right to
> medical attention, in an emergency. But if you
> want the best it can't be free, because everyone
> would want the best. At some point there has to
> be a law of supply and demand.

Again, even if you want the best in the States you still need to either: a) wait, or b) pay up big bucks. How is that different than in a single-provider system?


> If you want to reduce the costs of medical care,
> then you have to start by reducing the costs os
> medical school, make it like the army- government
> subsidized so force the doctors to do public
> service in return for tuition.

Or you could cut out the middle-man costs of insurance companies which are, by definition, entities primarily driven by profit and economic growth as opposed to client care.


> Even in a socialized healthcare country like
> Japan, you need to know people to get access to
> the best and the best healthcare costs money, a
> significant amount of coin.

How is this different than in the States? There are two major hospitals in the town where I live now. Each one is a little better in different areas, though they can both still provide the same care. I can't just stroll into one of them and demand to see, "the best doctor there is!" because, "that other guy across town is crap." It isn't my type of insurance that dictates if I get to see Dr. Expert or not. The issue is decided by that person's schedule. They only have so many hours in the day. Why do people conflate doctor/facility availability with the type of health care available to people?


> Socialism is not necessarily the solution.

Gingaio is correct, the proposal for universal health care isn't about socialism. How does that term even enter into the discussion?
Gcrush Wrote:
> > Socialism is not necessarily the solution.
>
> Gingaio is correct, the proposal for universal
> health care isn't about socialism. How does that
> term even enter into the discussion?

It's something from the election and Obama's statement that he intended to "spread the wealth". From there it was all go on the opposition side...

[www.politifact.com]

Also, Cohiba, you may really want to inform yourself and read this article..

5 Myths About Health Care Around the World
[www.washingtonpost.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2009 07:42AM by Kwesi K..
Kwesi, thanks for the links!

Now, anyone know when will Zombie Kennedy rise from the grave to reclaim his senate seat?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

footer